The Concept: It seems like terran has all the aggressive options: Early marine/scv/bunker pressure, hellion pressure, banshees. The big question for a lot of zergs is “Can I pressure terran early on without being all in?” Many zerg players think if they take the initiative and attack a terran wall, they're all-in and destined to fail. What I decided to do for this guide was take the Roach/Ling timing attack and determine whether it's an all-in build or whether there are macro-related benefits to opening with this style of aggression. I will make the argument that zerg CAN execute this style of attack and transition into a regular game if it doesn't work, and I look forward to active and constructive feedback from my fellow Terran and Zerg players!
Recap: In this game, I open with the roach/ling attack and make zerglings up to 60 supply. The terran goes for a super-fast 3rd command center and holds off the pressure losing literally nothing. However, due to the map control I gain, I'm able to delay his mining at his expansions while I take a 3rd base and a macro hatch. I then transition into "Stephano-like ZvT" with lots of bases, zerglings, upgrades, infestors, and eventually ultralisks. Even though he gets his 3rd base running very early, I'm able to match his economy and eventually take the game.
Roaches come out in time for when hellion count gets scary:
Roach/Ling Push arrives at front (7:30):
Meanwhile, a 3rd and a macro hatch:
Lings, Upgrades, Infestors:
Split up your lings to flank any mid-game attack (Or defend expansions from drops)
Huge Ling Count in the Mid/Late Game (Meet the terran moving out, don't let tanks siege)
Start massing your infestor/Ling army while creeping (Hopefully better than I do!)
When your Hive finishes, get Ultras and Upgrades asap
When terran finally goes for their maxed out push, you'll have ultras lings and infestors with full upgrades:
Ultras, Infestors, and Lings Attack
Example Replay 2: Roach/Ling with transition into Roach/Ling/Baneling Timing Attacks + Show Spoiler +
Recap: I decided to play a slightly more economic roach/ling opening this game, only making roaches to 52 supply then transitioning into drones. While my first push didn't do much direct damage, I was able to thwart any possible hellion pressure while I teched to upgraded roaches/lings/banelings. My huge timing attack won the game, but even if it didn't, I had a 3rd base on the way.
Defend Bunker Pressure with Drones:
Don't make more lings if you don't have to:
Drones to 28, Roach warren:
Roach/Ling Attack (Drone behind it!):
Too much terran defense? Just retreat:
Get Lair/2 gas/Evo Chamber/Bane Nest/Drones:
Mass upgrades (Roach/Bane speed, +1) Build roaches then lings
Move Out with your army (Roaches in front)
Morph in banelings somewhere close
Speed Roach/Bane/Ling BUST!
Go for the kill
Example Replay 3: Roach/Ling All-In Counter-Attack after Reaper Pressure + Show Spoiler +
Recap: In this game, the players opens super-fast reaper pressure with a bunker. Using only drones, I'm lucky enough to kill the SCV building the bunker. A lot of players will panic and make a lot of lings, but you really only need your 2 queens to hold reaper pressure. By keeping all my steps the same, I was able to execute the roach/ling attack on time and end the game outright.
Don't let a bunker finish, use your drones to defend:
Run Expansion Drones Away, use your 4 Lings to ensure no drones die:
Don't panic! Keep the steps the same and don't produce zerglings(Drones to 28):
2Queens will hold the reapers no problem, start your warren:
Execute the Roach Ling Attack:
Example Replay 4: Roach/Ling All-In against Greedy Hellion Expand + Show Spoiler +
Recap: In this game, my opponent went for an extremely greedy hellion expand. By the time my roaches got to his base, his expansion was up and running but his defenses were sorely lacking. Using roaches to break the depot and lings to flood in, there was really nothing he could do against the timing attack.
The usual...28-44 Roaches
Rally right to expansion
Regroup/Engage the defenses with Roach/Ling
Try to break into the main with roaches and lings
Surround and GG
Discussion Questions:
1) What other transitions are viable after the first roach/ling push?
2) How can terran players optimally respond for this? (Abuse banshees/drops?)
3) Are there other zerg openings that pressure terran similarly? Is there a style that would force hellions to be on the defensive while you drone/Expand?
4) What do you think of alternating between opening with 4 roaches and 8 lings instead of 8 roaches n 16 lings? You can take map control with the 4roach/ling and force a response, but really just use the time to expand and spread creep.
Thank you all for reading, I hope this helps zerg players deal with early hellion harass. Don't be afraid to experiment with attacks and take control of your matchups. Macro-zerg is strong, but it's not the only way to play.
Edit: I experimented with doing recaps of a few example games, with lots of pictures to show key points. Let me know if this analysis was helpful of whether there are too many pics. Thanks!
Very nice I've been doing literally the exact same build in almost all my ZvT's haha. Only difference is I go 15/15 or 15/16 depending on the map and I get 17gas/17ov.
As for your discussion questions:
1) Your transition totally depends on what you scout. Many times if the terran senses this coming they will respond with hellions and marauders. If I scout this I immediately take all 4 of my gases and place a spine down. They will probably kill my push so this spine allows me to drone and tech up quickly. I then transition into standard muta/ling/bling with heavier emphasis on early mutas (and a quick 3rd if possible). But if you feel like you can kill the terran following up with more lings and just all-inning isn't bad either
2) In my opinion the best response to this timing attack is producing marauders and hellions and pushing out immediately after you defeat their push (not always, but most of the time you can force units, game sense..). When I do this push if I scout early gases or a lack of units I immediately drop down an evo and queue a 3rd queen. Banshees/drops are still a viable "response" to this attack because they can prevent a 3rd and keep you pinned while the terran sets up for their own 3rd.
800 point masters btw
Oh, and thanks for the minimal self promotion Tang! MUCH better
On January 06 2012 08:19 Bart331 wrote: it doesnt have to be all-in, its just you HAVE to do damage or you will be set behind. And thats is often a spot which i am not comfortable with
My question is whether the map control, the ability to expand, having a mobile army to pressure/deny harassment are worth delaying the early creation of drones.
On January 06 2012 08:19 Bart331 wrote: it doesnt have to be all-in, its just you HAVE to do damage or you will be set behind. And thats is often a spot which i am not comfortable with
My question is whether the map control, the ability to expand, having a mobile army to pressure/deny harassment are worth delaying the early creation of drones.
I have to agree with Bart, if you don't do ANY damage with this build you are definitely behind. Early drones are always better then later drones if you can get away with it. But even so, you don't really have to do THAT much damage with this build to stay even with the terran; because like you said, you gain map control and the terran will be afraid to push out for a while (while in the meantime you are droning like crazy)
On January 06 2012 08:19 Bart331 wrote: it doesnt have to be all-in, its just you HAVE to do damage or you will be set behind. And thats is often a spot which i am not comfortable with
My question is whether the map control, the ability to expand, having a mobile army to pressure/deny harassment are worth delaying the early creation of drones.
I have to agree with Bart, if you don't do ANY damage with this build you are definitely behind. Early drones are always better then later drones if you can get away with it. But even so, you don't really have to do THAT much damage with this build to stay even with the terran; because like you said, you gain map control and the terran will be afraid to push out for a while (while in the meantime you are droning like crazy)
I see what you mean. It'll come down to your execution and timings, obviously it'll have to be planned and executed well for the greatest chance of success BUT 8 roaches and 16+ lings at the 7:15 mark is pretty hard to stop without losing something.
I think that it's great to be able to get out of your base and spread creep without hellions ruining your day, It's also great to not to have to kill the hellions with pure ling, as it's very inefficient. This build is actually more efficient than the standard option when you can't creep spread, kill the helliions cost-effectivly with lings, or take a third.
I do not think drops are a viable option for Terran. A few roaches back will ward off the drop and allow you to take an expand. I think that as long as you scout for the banshee you should be fine by the time he pushes. It would be too much of a tech switch to actually respond with banshees, as opposed to the Terran planning it from the beginning. If you really need I feel you could drop down a sporecrawler, but the queens should do just fine. Overall it looks like a good build to me, I kind of feel if he goes hellion you would better off tech first. My theory behind this is on a more spread out map it will be hard to move around the roaches to repel attacks on your third. You would be stuck trying to defend your third, limiting your offensive possibilities allowed by the fast lings.
On January 06 2012 08:21 TangSC wrote: My question is whether the map control, the ability to expand, having a mobile army to pressure/deny harassment are worth delaying the early creation of drones.
I do not really agree on this, if he does have map control would it give him an uncontested third base. In the long run I think that would allow for faster expansions and a better economy. The terran on the other hand would be stuck with an army of wasted minerals and/or gas.
Leenock has a build like this that he used at MLG Providence a couple times. Check out game one of his series versus Drewbie.
Leenock's version:
15 hatch 17 extracter 16 pool 17 overlord x2 queens speed @ 100, remove 2 drones from gas 1 pair lings 28 overlord 28 spine 28 roach warren (@~5:15), put two drones back on gas 29 overlord 33 overlord
then 7 roaches when the warren pops and spam lings up to 52 supply.
In the game versus Drewbie he ended up not breaking through and just camped his natural for a bit until siege mode was done. With regards to Tang's #4, I think you need the higher amount of roaches to effectively hold the contain. If you can't hold him back for a bit, it's not worth the investment.
Personally, I tried this for a few weeks and found that I too often couldn't do enough damage with it to justify the massive investment. But I'm a scrub, so take that for what's it worth.
On January 06 2012 08:57 OldManZerg wrote: Leenock has a build like this that he used at MLG Providence a couple times. Check out game one of his series versus Drewbie.
With regards to Tang's #4, I think you need the higher amount of roaches to effectively hold the contain. If you can't hold him back for a bit, it's not worth the investment.
Personally, I tried this for a few weeks and found that I too often couldn't do enough damage with it to justify the massive investment. But I'm a scrub, so take that for what's it worth.
I'd love to see those games if you can find the link :O About your response to #4: It's not to contain, it's just to push hellions back in the early stages. What think you?
On January 06 2012 08:57 OldManZerg wrote: Leenock has a build like this that he used at MLG Providence a couple times. Check out game one of his series versus Drewbie.
Leenock's version:
15 hatch 17 extracter 16 pool 17 overlord x2 queens speed @ 100, remove 2 drones from gas 1 pair lings 28 overlord 28 spine 28 roach warren (@~5:15), put two drones back on gas 29 overlord 33 overlord
then 7 roaches when the warren pops and spam lings up to 52 supply.
In the game versus Drewbie he ended up not breaking through and just camped his natural for a bit until siege mode was done. With regards to Tang's #4, I think you need the higher amount of roaches to effectively hold the contain. If you can't hold him back for a bit, it's not worth the investment.
Personally, I tried this for a few weeks and found that I too often couldn't do enough damage with it to justify the massive investment. But I'm a scrub, so take that for what's it worth.
I'd love to see those games if you can find the link :O About your response to #4: It's not to contain, it's just to push hellions back in the early stages. What think you?
I think if you can't get at least a short contain going on, it's not worth the hit to the economy. I felt like I was behind if I didn't push him back to one base or just break through completely. Honestly, I think this is situational and it's not clear to me when it's appropriate to use. I'm not good enough. :-)
The MLG game was round 3 of the open bracket--there's a link to the replay pack somewhere on the forum here. . .
I really appreciate players who are trying to be aggressive as Zerg. I feel the race has been completely overhauled since BW and it really doesn't suit "Zerg" to sit back and macro like a whore for 10 minutes, praying they'll have "just enough" when the enemy decides to attack.
"Zerg" is a verb - I like people who try to apply it.
Gonna be honest, just like all of your guides this one makes me uneasy. I feel as if you're looking at the game differently from me. I'll explain:
StarCraft II consists of games and sets of games; that is, you can think within the context of a single game, or within the context of your overall win-loss ratio. To me, it seems that you're more concerned with the latter than the former, and that truly bothers me. A good player should be able to, with rather strong consistency, beat someone significantly worse than himself (if only by one league or so.) For instance, a solid platinum player should almost always win against a solid gold player because the platinum player is simply more refined and all-together better at the game. But, your guides seem to be focused on builds for which this is not true. Let me discuss this specific guide in that way:
You suggest that you should have "8 roaches and 16+ lings at the 7:15 mark" when executing this build. Lets look at the cost of that, assuming the minimum number of zerglings.
4 gas = 5 minerals (based on value of one resource return)
200 gas = 250 minerals
Total = 1250 minerals, 24 supply and 16 larvae
That's 16 drones with 800 minerals (not including what those extra drones mine) and 8 supply left over (the exact value of one overlord, so 100 minerals worth)
So, what you are suggesting is that we sacrifice 16 drones worth of mining and 900 minerals for this attack. In order for it to pay for itself relative to simply droning up, as is safe to do with rather minimal defense, we'd have to kill:
More than 12 supply depots, 25 marines, or 25 SCV's
or some combination thereof. Note that these numbers STILL don't include the huge count of minerals that the extra 16 drones mine up to this point.
I think you're crazy if you think you can deal that much damage reliably. Therefore, the only way this build is any good when compared to a macro zerg style is if it wins, right then and there. "Significant damage" won't cut it because there's simply no way that you could deal enough damage for this to pay for itself and not win outright.
The reason this works for you is because you beat some players with it, and that percentage is high enough to keep you at your admittedly impressive ladder ranking. However, you are just as likely to lose to a platinum player with the correct counter in hand (even a blind counter) as you are to beat a master player who was just a little too greedy.
I don't like that.
TL;DR: There's no way this can pay for itself without the opponent dying outright, which is simply not reliable or in my opinion a solid way to play.
EDIT: Added a point about lost mining from lack of drones
Umi I'm not saying do this build EVERY single game, I do macro-styles like Idra/Ret's ling/bane/muta and stephanos infestor/ling. I just prefer aggression out of personal preference. I think the more you practice a style, the more you can make it work no matter what your level. The majority of my games, though, I don't win with that first roach/ling push (If it were that easy, I'd do it every game!) I suppose I just don't like the belief that zerg players MUST macro, I like to think anybody can play their game and have success - and I think the macro styles we see today may well be replaced completely in the months/years to come. Your analysis of the investment cost will actually help me in planning transitions though :D Thanks
On January 06 2012 09:21 TangSC wrote: Umi I'm not saying do this build EVERY single game, I do macro-styles like Idra/Ret's ling/bane/muta and stephanos infestor/ling. I just prefer aggression out of personal preference. I think the more you practice a style, the more you can make it work no matter what your level. The majority of my games, though, I don't win with that first roach/ling push (If it were that easy, I'd do it every game!) I suppose I just don't like the belief that zerg players MUST macro, I like to think anybody can play their game and have success - and I think the macro styles we see today may well be replaced completely in the months/years to come. Your analysis of the investment cost will actually help me in planning transitions though :D Thanks
On January 06 2012 09:17 UmiNotsuki wrote: Gonna be honest, just like all of your guides this one makes me uneasy. I feel as if you're looking at the game differently from me. I'll explain:
StarCraft II consists of games and sets of games; that is, you can think within the context of a single game, or within the context of your overall win-loss ratio. To me, it seems that you're more concerned with the latter than the former, and that truly bothers me. A good player should be able to, with rather strong consistency, beat someone significantly worse than himself (if only by one league or so.) For instance, a solid platinum player should almost always win against a solid gold player because the platinum player is simply more refined and all-together better at the game. But, your guides seem to be focused on builds for which this is not true. Let me discuss this specific guide in that way:
You suggest that you should have "8 roaches and 16+ lings at the 7:15 mark" when executing this build. Lets look at the cost of that, assuming the minimum number of zerglings.
4 gas = 5 minerals (based on value of one resource return)
200 gas = 250 minerals
Total = 1250 minerals, 24 supply and 16 larvae
That's 16 drones with 800 minerals (not including what those extra drones mine) and 8 supply left over (the exact value of one overlord, so 100 minerals worth)
So, what you are suggesting is that we sacrifice 16 drones worth of mining and 900 minerals for this attack. In order for it to pay for itself relative to simply droning up, as is safe to do with rather minimal defense, we'd have to kill:
More than 12 supply depots, 25 marines, or 25 SCV's
or some combination thereof. Note that these numbers STILL don't include the huge count of minerals that the extra 16 drones mine up to this point.
I think you're crazy if you think you can deal that much damage reliably. Therefore, the only way this build is any good when compared to a macro zerg style is if it wins, right then and there. "Significant damage" won't cut it because there's simply no way that you could deal enough damage for this to pay for itself and not win outright.
The reason this works for you is because you beat some players with it, and that percentage is high enough to keep you at your admittedly impressive ladder ranking. However, you are just as likely to lose to a platinum player with the correct counter in hand (even a blind counter) as you are to beat a master player who was just a little too greedy.
I don't like that.
TL;DR: There's no way this can pay for itself without the opponent dying outright, which is simply not reliable or in my opinion a solid way to play.
EDIT: Added a point about lost mining from lack of drones
Couldn't have said it better myself.
As DarkForce said recently, it's really hard to be aggressive as Zerg in SC2 without being semi all in or all in.
On January 06 2012 09:17 UmiNotsuki wrote: Gonna be honest, just like all of your guides this one makes me uneasy. I feel as if you're looking at the game differently from me. I'll explain:
StarCraft II consists of games and sets of games; that is, you can think within the context of a single game, or within the context of your overall win-loss ratio. To me, it seems that you're more concerned with the latter than the former, and that truly bothers me. A good player should be able to, with rather strong consistency, beat someone significantly worse than himself (if only by one league or so.) For instance, a solid platinum player should almost always win against a solid gold player because the platinum player is simply more refined and all-together better at the game. But, your guides seem to be focused on builds for which this is not true. Let me discuss this specific guide in that way:
You suggest that you should have "8 roaches and 16+ lings at the 7:15 mark" when executing this build. Lets look at the cost of that, assuming the minimum number of zerglings.
4 gas = 5 minerals (based on value of one resource return)
200 gas = 250 minerals
Total = 1250 minerals, 24 supply and 16 larvae
That's 16 drones with 800 minerals (not including what those extra drones mine) and 8 supply left over (the exact value of one overlord, so 100 minerals worth)
So, what you are suggesting is that we sacrifice 16 drones worth of mining and 900 minerals for this attack. In order for it to pay for itself relative to simply droning up, as is safe to do with rather minimal defense, we'd have to kill:
More than 12 supply depots, 25 marines, or 25 SCV's
or some combination thereof. Note that these numbers STILL don't include the huge count of minerals that the extra 16 drones mine up to this point.
I think you're crazy if you think you can deal that much damage reliably. Therefore, the only way this build is any good when compared to a macro zerg style is if it wins, right then and there. "Significant damage" won't cut it because there's simply no way that you could deal enough damage for this to pay for itself and not win outright.
The reason this works for you is because you beat some players with it, and that percentage is high enough to keep you at your admittedly impressive ladder ranking. However, you are just as likely to lose to a platinum player with the correct counter in hand (even a blind counter) as you are to beat a master player who was just a little too greedy.
I don't like that.
TL;DR: There's no way this can pay for itself without the opponent dying outright, which is simply not reliable or in my opinion a solid way to play.
EDIT: Added a point about lost mining from lack of drones
As DarkForce said recently, it's really hard to be aggressive as Zerg in SC2 without being semi all in or all in.
I don't want to disagree with DarkForce, because he's sick lol. But to say there aren't ways to be aggressive as Zerg isn't true. Even top players like Leenock, Nestea, JulyZerg, IdrA, and Nerchio execute aggressive timing attacks.
On January 06 2012 09:17 UmiNotsuki wrote: Gonna be honest, just like all of your guides this one makes me uneasy. I feel as if you're looking at the game differently from me. I'll explain:
~~~Calculations~~~~
TL;DR: There's no way this can pay for itself without the opponent dying outright, which is simply not reliable or in my opinion a solid way to play.
EDIT: Added a point about lost mining from lack of drones
At first, these calculations made sense, but if you look closely, its not nearly as bad as you say it is, and you do not have to do as much damage as you say Why?
FIRST OF ALL: Most zergs already opt for the 100 gas upgrade, so that is 125 minerals off already
Lets say instead of doing the roach-ling all-in, i made the 16 drones. Tang cuts drones at around 24, so that means Tang would be at 40 drones vs Terran's ~30 scvs. That's being ahead in 10 workers! (although not uncommon in a zvt).
But making only workers at that stage of the game is too hopeful/coin flip. You failed to include the fact that zerg would either already make lings or spines, which would cut into drone production anyways! This attack also stops any drones that would die to some light hellion harass, and the units created actually give map control! (Very important "resource" that normally making a few lings to defend does not provide).
When you reach the terran's base, you also get scouting information! (important), and most likely delay his expo. If he does not have alot of defences, you are bound to do some damage. If Terran has a lot of defenses, it means you already have the units to defend his counter push . You dont need to kill 25 scvs because you will be making the drones anyways, and remember the larva mechanic allows zerg to make quadrillion at a time.
FINNALY : When attacking, you give yourself, the opportunity to drone up. So those 16 drones will be made EVENTUALLY, meaning its really only the mining time that you are loosing in the first place. That means you're not "sacrificing" those drones, because they will be made later on. Of course, earlier drones is better in terms of mining time, but the advantages of this push in my opinion outweigh the minerals that would have been gained.
tldr; - making those 16 drones "sacrificed" actually puts you ahead - normally zerg already forced to make units to defend hellion pressure anyways. - push gives map control, free to drone up - droning up remakes those 16 drones lost, just alittle later, so some mining time is lost, no need to kill 25 supply depots! Larva mechanic allows remaking those drones much faster too
On January 06 2012 09:17 UmiNotsuki wrote: Gonna be honest, just like all of your guides this one makes me uneasy. I feel as if you're looking at the game differently from me. I'll explain:
~~~Calculations~~~~
TL;DR: There's no way this can pay for itself without the opponent dying outright, which is simply not reliable or in my opinion a solid way to play.
EDIT: Added a point about lost mining from lack of drones
At first, these calculations made sense, but if you look closely, its not nearly as bad as you say it is, and you do not have to do as much damage as you say Why?
FIRST OF ALL: Most zergs already opt for the 100 gas upgrade, so that is 125 minerals off already
Lets say instead of doing the roach-ling all-in, i made the 16 drones. Tang cuts drones at around 24, so that means Tang would be at 40 drones vs Terran's ~30 scvs. That's being ahead in 10 workers! (although not uncommon in a zvt).
But making only workers at that stage of the game is too hopeful/coin flip. You failed to include the fact that zerg would either already make lings or spines, which would cut into drone production anyways! This attack also stops any drones that would die to some light hellion harass, and the units created actually give map control! (Very important "resource" that normally making a few lings to defend does not provide).
When you reach the terran's base, you also get scouting information! (important), and most likely delay his expo. If he does not have alot of defences, you are bound to do some damage. If Terran has a lot of defenses, it means you already have the units to defend his counter push . You dont need to kill 25 scvs because you will be making the drones anyways, and remember the larva mechanic allows zerg to make quadrillion at a time.
FINNALY : When attacking, you give yourself, the opportunity to drone up. So those 16 drones will be made EVENTUALLY, meaning its really only the mining time that you are loosing in the first place. That means you're not "sacrificing" those drones, because they will be made later on. Of course, earlier drones is better in terms of mining time, but the advantages of this push in my opinion outweigh the minerals that would have been gained.
tldr; - making those 16 drones "sacrificed" actually puts you ahead - normally zerg already forced to make units to defend hellion pressure anyways. - push gives map control, free to drone up - droning up remakes those 16 drones lost, just a little later, so some mining time is lost, no need to kill 25 supply depots! Larva mechanic allows remaking those drones much faster too
I agree. Calculations guy was looking at it far too literally. (Literally isn't the right word, but like, there's more going on in a game than hard numbers that can be calculated.) I think Tang has it right here. And he's not trying to say that you will necessarily be way ahead after this, but that you can execute it and almost always come out not at a big disadvantage, which to me seems to hold true. While you may have been more ahead if you had made greedy drones and then luckily held off aggression, you would have also taken a greater risk. This build is safer at home, with a chance to do damage and you won't end up super behind if it fails.
I use this build on occasion but a bunker behind the helions completely negates it. Ling speed is a necessity if you want to do a ton of damage as the reinforcing lings won't make it before the rewall. These type of builds work well against banshee builds as well.
On January 06 2012 09:17 UmiNotsuki wrote: Gonna be honest, just like all of your guides this one makes me uneasy. I feel as if you're looking at the game differently from me. I'll explain:
~~~Calculations~~~~
TL;DR: There's no way this can pay for itself without the opponent dying outright, which is simply not reliable or in my opinion a solid way to play.
EDIT: Added a point about lost mining from lack of drones
At first, these calculations made sense, but if you look closely, its not nearly as bad as you say it is, and you do not have to do as much damage as you say Why?
FIRST OF ALL: Most zergs already opt for the 100 gas upgrade, so that is 125 minerals off already
Lets say instead of doing the roach-ling all-in, i made the 16 drones. Tang cuts drones at around 24, so that means Tang would be at 40 drones vs Terran's ~30 scvs. That's being ahead in 10 workers! (although not uncommon in a zvt).
But making only workers at that stage of the game is too hopeful/coin flip. You failed to include the fact that zerg would either already make lings or spines, which would cut into drone production anyways! This attack also stops any drones that would die to some light hellion harass, and the units created actually give map control! (Very important "resource" that normally making a few lings to defend does not provide).
When you reach the terran's base, you also get scouting information! (important), and most likely delay his expo. If he does not have alot of defences, you are bound to do some damage. If Terran has a lot of defenses, it means you already have the units to defend his counter push . You dont need to kill 25 scvs because you will be making the drones anyways, and remember the larva mechanic allows zerg to make quadrillion at a time.
FINNALY : When attacking, you give yourself, the opportunity to drone up. So those 16 drones will be made EVENTUALLY, meaning its really only the mining time that you are loosing in the first place. That means you're not "sacrificing" those drones, because they will be made later on. Of course, earlier drones is better in terms of mining time, but the advantages of this push in my opinion outweigh the minerals that would have been gained.
tldr; - making those 16 drones "sacrificed" actually puts you ahead - normally zerg already forced to make units to defend hellion pressure anyways. - push gives map control, free to drone up - droning up remakes those 16 drones lost, just alittle later, so some mining time is lost, no need to kill 25 supply depots! Larva mechanic allows remaking those drones much faster too
Okay, no offense meant by this, but your first couple points there really were a FindMuck; they are utterly wrong.
1. The "100 gas upgrade" you're referring to is surely metabolic boost, no? I did NOT include the cost of metabolic boost in my calculations, as I did in fact assume you'd be getting it anyway (which is indeed not always true.) 100% of the gas costs in my calculations were from roaches.
On January 06 2012 13:19 FindMuck wrote: Lets say instead of doing the roach-ling all-in, i made the 16 drones. Tang cuts drones at around 24, so that means Tang would be at 40 drones vs Terran's ~30 scvs.
2. What? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here and assuming that you made a mistake by writing this paragraph, rather than simply not understanding basic logic. If Tang cuts drones at around 24, that means Tang would be at 24 drones vs. Terran's ~30 SCV's (Not sure where you got that number, 30, but it may be correct.) That puts Tang at a severe economic disadvantage, strongly exacerbated by the existence of MULE's. This necessitates a LOT of damage to be dealt by Tang to come out even with his opponent, as like you said a solid 10 drone lead or so is quite common in ZvT, and it happens to be considered quite even at this point in the game.
3. You ARE correct that my calculations did not account for defensively built units. However, it is my experience at the master level (and it is confirmed in pro-level play) that very minimal defenses are usually adequate up to the point in the game Tang's push, and thus my calculations, are performed at. I would argue that two queens (which you do have anyway,) one spine (100 minerals and a single drone,) and no more than six zerglings (150 minerals) can hold off even the most dedicated of non-all-in or semi-all-in TvZ aggression plays up to this point, when the defense is executed well.
That shaves 250 minerals off of my calculations. You're right, it may not be 12.5 supply depots (and it was 12.5, not the 25 you state in your post); only 10. Whoop-dee-doo.
On January 06 2012 13:19 FindMuck wrote: the units created actually give map control! (Very important "resource" that normally making a few lings to defend does not provide).
4. Map control is a nigh-valueless resource in early game ZvT. Because Terran is sealed inside his base before he is ready to either attack or expand, lest he be overrun by Zerg's flexible production should he come out too early, the only "map control" of real value is a single zergling outside of your opponent's base, to scout for his expansion or attack as soon as it comes out. Cautious players may even wish to take the Xel'Naga tower(s) as well, but they are hardly a necessity if early game scouting is good. Erring on the side of caution, that means just two zerglings must be out on the map to be completely aware of your opponent's movements at this stage of ZvT. Hardly something 8 roaches and 16 zerglings do much better.
On January 06 2012 13:19 FindMuck wrote: When you reach the terran's base, you also get scouting information! (important),
5. When you arrive at Terran's base, dear lord, please tell me you've already scouted him! There are innumerable hard counters to this build that I only let slide because they can be scouted early enough to cancel the aggression. If your opponent goes for fast marauders or siege tanks and you still commit to this attack, you are most likely screwed and will surely deal very little damage. If he goes 2 port banshee, you are most likely screwed and will surely deal very little damage. If he has a bunker or two up, or simply good sim-city such that he may be safe from a baneling bust, you are most likely screwed and will surely deal very little damage. The only scouting information of value I can possibly imagine you getting by the time your push is at his base is whether or not it's going to work. If it won't, too bad you've already committed to it.
6. You DO need to deal the amount of damage concluded by my calculations, in fact, because those lost resource and drone numbers were based on what you had ALREADY sacrificed in order to make the push, and nowhere do I assume that you never make drones again. Remember, just because your economy can be increasing while you're attacking your opponent doesn't mean his can't too: Terran production doesn't require a decision between units and workers to be made, as Zerg's does. Also, because of the innate income Terran players get from simply having extra orbitals lying about (in the form of both increased worker production and increase MULE's,) delaying a Terran expansion is hardly valuable in the long run. It will slightly decrease their income by forcing them to over-saturate their main, but at 7:30 many Terrans who are planning on expanding already may not have full one base saturation quite yet. Not to mention the fact that MULE's don't contribute to saturation, meaning a "fully saturated" mining base with three workers per patch could still support eight MULE's at full mining capacity.
7. This point may tie in with the one above it, but I also want to note that I did NOT include the resources that those drones that were never built in order to make the push occur would've mined. I simply haven't preformed the calculations as they'd be too lengthy and variable for me to care much for. Needless to say, it's several hundred minerals at least. Yes, these drones that you propose making once you've already started pushing out at your opponent will start to mine, but the amount of money that the earlier drones would've mined before these new drones would catch up to them is very large and should technically be added to the opportunity cost of making the push. If I had to make my best educated guess at the matter I'd say the opportunity cost is closer to 2250 minerals or so, up from the 1250 I had stated before. Make it 45 marines or SCV's, or over 22 supply depots.
On January 06 2012 09:17 UmiNotsuki wrote: Gonna be honest, just like all of your guides this one makes me uneasy. I feel as if you're looking at the game differently from me. I'll explain:
~~~Calculations~~~~
TL;DR: There's no way this can pay for itself without the opponent dying outright, which is simply not reliable or in my opinion a solid way to play.
EDIT: Added a point about lost mining from lack of drones
At first, these calculations made sense, but if you look closely, its not nearly as bad as you say it is, and you do not have to do as much damage as you say Why?
FIRST OF ALL: Most zergs already opt for the 100 gas upgrade, so that is 125 minerals off already
Lets say instead of doing the roach-ling all-in, i made the 16 drones. Tang cuts drones at around 24, so that means Tang would be at 40 drones vs Terran's ~30 scvs. That's being ahead in 10 workers! (although not uncommon in a zvt).
But making only workers at that stage of the game is too hopeful/coin flip. You failed to include the fact that zerg would either already make lings or spines, which would cut into drone production anyways! This attack also stops any drones that would die to some light hellion harass, and the units created actually give map control! (Very important "resource" that normally making a few lings to defend does not provide).
When you reach the terran's base, you also get scouting information! (important), and most likely delay his expo. If he does not have alot of defences, you are bound to do some damage. If Terran has a lot of defenses, it means you already have the units to defend his counter push . You dont need to kill 25 scvs because you will be making the drones anyways, and remember the larva mechanic allows zerg to make quadrillion at a time.
FINNALY : When attacking, you give yourself, the opportunity to drone up. So those 16 drones will be made EVENTUALLY, meaning its really only the mining time that you are loosing in the first place. That means you're not "sacrificing" those drones, because they will be made later on. Of course, earlier drones is better in terms of mining time, but the advantages of this push in my opinion outweigh the minerals that would have been gained.
tldr; - making those 16 drones "sacrificed" actually puts you ahead - normally zerg already forced to make units to defend hellion pressure anyways. - push gives map control, free to drone up - droning up remakes those 16 drones lost, just a little later, so some mining time is lost, no need to kill 25 supply depots! Larva mechanic allows remaking those drones much faster too
I agree. Calculations guy was looking at it far too literally. (Literally isn't the right word, but like, there's more going on in a game than hard numbers that can be calculated.) I think Tang has it right here. And he's not trying to say that you will necessarily be way ahead after this, but that you can execute it and almost always come out not at a big disadvantage, which to me seems to hold true. While you may have been more ahead if you had made greedy drones and then luckily held off aggression, you would have also taken a greater risk. This build is safer at home, with a chance to do damage and you won't end up super behind if it fails.
8. Building more units is always "safer" in the short run, no matter what. However, StarCraft II is NOT about being as safe as possible at all points, its about being as ahead as possible at all points. Tang's build attempts to get ahead by dealing damage; it is unreliable and, for all the reasons I've stated in these last two posts, very bad in my opinion. My approach is to instead take advantage of the freedom to drone in relative safety and to simply gain as much of an advantage as I can through the use of the larvae mechanic to increase my economy as quickly as possible when I can be relatively sure that I am already safe, and to only build units as needed. When executed correctly, both builds put us ahead in the long run (Terran almost always attempts to take advantage of the small army associated with my style in some timing window to make the game more even; games are often won or lost on holding off that aggression with minimal losses,) but mine does so based on MY skill and ability to play, and does NOT rely on my opponent's inability to counter my frankly poorly thought out aggression, as does Tang's.
I daresay this has been the longest post I've ever written... I wonder if anyone will actually read and internalize the entire thing.
"How do you like 'dem apples?"
EDIT: Revising some simple typos and mistakes I made in the editing process. EDIT2: Added quotes for some paragraphs where before it may have been unclear what I was responding to.
On January 06 2012 09:17 UmiNotsuki wrote: Gonna be honest, just like all of your guides this one makes me uneasy. I feel as if you're looking at the game differently from me. I'll explain:
StarCraft II consists of games and sets of games; that is, you can think within the context of a single game, or within the context of your overall win-loss ratio. To me, it seems that you're more concerned with the latter than the former, and that truly bothers me. A good player should be able to, with rather strong consistency, beat someone significantly worse than himself (if only by one league or so.) For instance, a solid platinum player should almost always win against a solid gold player because the platinum player is simply more refined and all-together better at the game. But, your guides seem to be focused on builds for which this is not true. Let me discuss this specific guide in that way:
You suggest that you should have "8 roaches and 16+ lings at the 7:15 mark" when executing this build. Lets look at the cost of that, assuming the minimum number of zerglings.
4 gas = 5 minerals (based on value of one resource return)
200 gas = 250 minerals
Total = 1250 minerals, 24 supply and 16 larvae
That's 16 drones with 800 minerals (not including what those extra drones mine) and 8 supply left over (the exact value of one overlord, so 100 minerals worth)
So, what you are suggesting is that we sacrifice 16 drones worth of mining and 900 minerals for this attack. In order for it to pay for itself relative to simply droning up, as is safe to do with rather minimal defense, we'd have to kill:
More than 12 supply depots, 25 marines, or 25 SCV's
or some combination thereof. Note that these numbers STILL don't include the huge count of minerals that the extra 16 drones mine up to this point.
I think you're crazy if you think you can deal that much damage reliably. Therefore, the only way this build is any good when compared to a macro zerg style is if it wins, right then and there. "Significant damage" won't cut it because there's simply no way that you could deal enough damage for this to pay for itself and not win outright.
The reason this works for you is because you beat some players with it, and that percentage is high enough to keep you at your admittedly impressive ladder ranking. However, you are just as likely to lose to a platinum player with the correct counter in hand (even a blind counter) as you are to beat a master player who was just a little too greedy.
I don't like that.
TL;DR: There's no way this can pay for itself without the opponent dying outright, which is simply not reliable or in my opinion a solid way to play.
EDIT: Added a point about lost mining from lack of drones
These posts are the ones that makem me angry. You have to understand that doing theorycrafting isn't something anybody can do. It is not so simple. You simply do not take into account a lot of important data. For example, you have this example where you say that instead of attacking he could make X drones, but you never talk about map control, you never talk about the damage you do to your opponent's ecomomy. You never talk about the fact that you can't ACTUALLY go pure drone against hellions but you need spines, queens and lots of lings (and you didn't take their cost into account), and you didn't take into account the mind part, where someone could say that an early attack can throw someone off of his game, as it is known that pressure makes the opponent make more mistakes. You didn't take into account that the zerg can get a fast third if they do this attack, and get an optimal creep spread because no hellions will kill your tumors, you didn't take into account that it might force your opponent into a tech that he doesn't really wan (marauders). And i'm sure i missed a lot more data which i can't think about right now. Show me a game where you can make 16 drones instead of this timing and still survive the same build by your opponent, and then you may have a point, but even if you do, you still might not be right.
TL;DL I think that you didn't take into account enough data for your post, and i hope nobody takes it to seriously because it doesn't respect the whole truth
This looks like a good all in, how long will it be delayed if you were to bring some banelings? They complicate the defense a metric f*ckton. When your going all in anyways, I think roach, ling, bane is the worst to deal with.
On January 06 2012 18:46 Asolmanx wrote: These posts are the ones that makem me angry. You have to understand that doing theorycrafting isn't something anybody can do. It is not so simple. You simply do not take into account a lot of important data. For example, you have this example where you say that instead of attacking he could make X drones, but you never talk about map control, you never talk about the damage you do to your opponent's ecomomy. You never talk about the fact that you can't ACTUALLY go pure drone against hellions but you need spines, queens and lots of lings (and you didn't take their cost into account), and you didn't take into account the mind part, where someone could say that an early attack can throw someone off of his game, as it is known that pressure makes the opponent make more mistakes. You didn't take into account that the zerg can get a fast third if they do this attack, and get an optimal creep spread because no hellions will kill your tumors, you didn't take into account that it might force your opponent into a tech that he doesn't really wan (marauders). And i'm sure i missed a lot more data which i can't think about right now. Show me a game where you can make 16 drones instead of this timing and still survive the same build by your opponent, and then you may have a point, but even if you do, you still might not be right.
TL;DL I think that you didn't take into account enough data for your post, and i hope nobody takes it to seriously because it doesn't respect the whole truth
That doesn't make his point any less valid, though. Those 16 drones would be a solid investment, and you could the proceed to produce units in a more reactionary way. You will most definitely be behind, should you not do sufficient damage to make your economical sacrifice worthwhile. It's a semi-blind build and if it gets countered then you're worse off than you would be if you just spent those minerals droning.
Ofcourse there are benefits as you mention, but it seems irrelevant if you're discussing whether these types of aggressive builds are solid or not - which is what he is arguing that it isn't.
I think you're overestimating 1 spine, 2 queens and 6 lings against 6+ hellions, especially on some maps (TDA springs to mind, maybe xfire and metal too)
About 2port banshee, it's not always scouted - the T can hide tech, you can scout him last on a big map and not see 2 gas go up and you can get unlucky with your overlord path over his base. If you do an attack of this kind, either his banshees have to turn round or stay at home if they havent left yet (thus buying you time to queen and spore up) or you get into his base and kill most of his scvs and maybe the starports too because he simply wont be able to defend at home without all the money he put into his banshees being there.
Reactor hellion play delays your third whether you're going for an aggresive Tang push or macro game. If you do a roach/ling push you can take a 3rd the moment it leaves your base. If you don't do a push of this kind then yes you have more drones, but you're gonna have to make something at some point to deal with those hellions and then take your third.
What I'm trying to say is that the difference between standard macro and a roach/ling push is: 2 bases saturated but later 3rd - 2 bases not quite saturated but earlier 3rd + creep spread
That's ignoring the possibility of damage, delaying T's natural and the fact that any units you kill now are better than units killed later (as T gets more cost-efficient with more units in army while z gets relatively less)
I'm not saying you should roach/ling a terran every single game, but it's not a bad build to have up your sleeve.
That doesn't make his point any less valid, though. Those 16 drones would be a solid investment, and you could the proceed to produce units in a more reactionary way. You will most definitely be behind, should you not do sufficient damage to make your economical sacrifice worthwhile. It's a semi-blind build and if it gets countered then you're worse off than you would be if you just spent those minerals droning.
Ofcourse there are benefits as you mention, but it seems irrelevant if you're discussing whether these types of aggressive builds are solid or not - which is what he is arguing that it isn't.
Pretty sure we've all seen players like DRG, Leenock, and NesTea frequently use similar aggressive styles (DRG vs. MMA from Providence is the first game that comes to mind). The argument for 16 drones was made completely in an unrealistic manner by claiming you will constantly make drones without spines or slings to defend against early pushes, or even hellions. This build temporarily sacrifices resources for aggression that can either A.) outright win the game, B.) damage your opponent significantly, C.) throw them off their game, etc.
I personally dislike the mentality that Z has to sit back and defend onslaught after onslaught until you can get a good "end game" going. The early game is as much a part of the game as the late game, and for those that call this "cheesy" you are just plain ignorant. If you switch up between being passive and aggressive it makes you that much more of a threat...
I think doing a good old bling bust is stronger than roach pushes.
reasons: * roaches are slow, during the time they need to travel to the opponents base, they are a 'dead' investment. In general: the longer your army is on transport, the easier a push is to hold (longer preparation and you fight with your army of T-60 seconds against his T+0 seconds army) * speedlings are much faster, so the initial punch can be stronger, since it results from your T-30 seconds economy. * banelings can be morphed directly at the opponents base in case, this has somewhat the effect of a proxy pylon, since you can directly strengthen your army without having a traveling time (however banes need time to morph). * you dont't lose a drone+resources to a roach warren (=200 mins = 8 slings) * in case he has a strong defense, just don't morph banes (flexibility) * in case he has not expanded, just block his nat, no need to bust (flexibility)
The only advantage of roaches is larvae efficiency, which might be the major reason why roach pushes are preferred in some scenarios.
On January 06 2012 09:17 UmiNotsuki wrote: Gonna be honest, just like all of your guides this one makes me uneasy. I feel as if you're looking at the game differently from me. I'll explain:
StarCraft II consists of games and sets of games; that is, you can think within the context of a single game, or within the context of your overall win-loss ratio. To me, it seems that you're more concerned with the latter than the former, and that truly bothers me. A good player should be able to, with rather strong consistency, beat someone significantly worse than himself (if only by one league or so.) For instance, a solid platinum player should almost always win against a solid gold player because the platinum player is simply more refined and all-together better at the game. But, your guides seem to be focused on builds for which this is not true. Let me discuss this specific guide in that way:
You suggest that you should have "8 roaches and 16+ lings at the 7:15 mark" when executing this build. Lets look at the cost of that, assuming the minimum number of zerglings.
4 gas = 5 minerals (based on value of one resource return)
200 gas = 250 minerals
Total = 1250 minerals, 24 supply and 16 larvae
That's 16 drones with 800 minerals (not including what those extra drones mine) and 8 supply left over (the exact value of one overlord, so 100 minerals worth)
So, what you are suggesting is that we sacrifice 16 drones worth of mining and 900 minerals for this attack. In order for it to pay for itself relative to simply droning up, as is safe to do with rather minimal defense, we'd have to kill:
More than 12 supply depots, 25 marines, or 25 SCV's
or some combination thereof. Note that these numbers STILL don't include the huge count of minerals that the extra 16 drones mine up to this point.
I think you're crazy if you think you can deal that much damage reliably. Therefore, the only way this build is any good when compared to a macro zerg style is if it wins, right then and there. "Significant damage" won't cut it because there's simply no way that you could deal enough damage for this to pay for itself and not win outright.
The reason this works for you is because you beat some players with it, and that percentage is high enough to keep you at your admittedly impressive ladder ranking. However, you are just as likely to lose to a platinum player with the correct counter in hand (even a blind counter) as you are to beat a master player who was just a little too greedy.
I don't like that.
TL;DR: There's no way this can pay for itself without the opponent dying outright, which is simply not reliable or in my opinion a solid way to play.
EDIT: Added a point about lost mining from lack of drones
As DarkForce said recently, it's really hard to be aggressive as Zerg in SC2 without being semi all in or all in.
I don't want to disagree with DarkForce, because he's sick lol. But to say there aren't ways to be aggressive as Zerg isn't true. Even top players like Leenock, Nestea, JulyZerg, IdrA, and Nerchio execute aggressive timing attacks.
On January 06 2012 20:57 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: I think doing a good old bling bust is stronger than roach pushes.
reasons: * roaches are slow, during the time they need to travel to the opponents base, they are a 'dead' investment. In general: the longer your army is on transport, the easier a push is to hold (longer preparation and you fight with your army of T-60 seconds against his T+0 seconds army) * speedlings are much faster, so the initial punch can be stronger, since it results from your T-30 seconds economy. * banelings can be morphed directly at the opponents base in case, this has somewhat the effect of a proxy pylon, since you can directly strengthen your army without having a traveling time (however banes need time to morph). * you dont't lose a drone+resources to a roach warren (=200 mins = 8 slings) * in case he has a strong defense, just don't morph banes (flexibility) * in case he has not expanded, just block his nat, no need to bust (flexibility)
The only advantage of roaches is larvae efficiency, which might be the major reason why roach pushes are preferred in some scenarios.
banelings die after impact while roaches can still attack after 1 shot. Plus, they got 145 health and 1 armor making them survive more to make you drone or send reinforcements.
I have seen this quite a bit in s3. Used to have quite some trouble against it with greedy builds but: rea-hellion x4 -> tl rax -> stim + add 2 rax -> starport -> use factory to build addon for sp (so banshee is a option, sp is underway when push comes, more common double medvac so terran has stim + medvac about a minute after rush hits) + a bunker when hellions scout first sign of roaches seems to always break even (with terribad micro) or come out ahead against it. Core to if the terran expo gets delayed (assuming no blind bunkering) is the rush distance as you have to hit with enough force to break the terrans front before bunkers complete. 8 roaches + 16 lings > 4 rines 1 rauder 4 hellions (plausible terran forces when rush hits (with this opening), marauder as reponse to roaches pushing out), but not when a bunker + scvs come into play.
(build stolen from mvp :>)
It feels like the tech advantage the terran ends up with if he holds allows for forced cost effective trading (especially if the zerg took a 3rd) making it really hard to hold a 2-3 base followup push.
However, I've always felt that a roach warren on that timing and then deciding how many roaches to make based on scouting is pretty strong; they're great units early game.
On January 06 2012 09:17 UmiNotsuki wrote: Gonna be honest, just like all of your guides this one makes me uneasy. I feel as if you're looking at the game differently from me. I'll explain:
StarCraft II consists of games and sets of games; that is, you can think within the context of a single game, or within the context of your overall win-loss ratio. To me, it seems that you're more concerned with the latter than the former, and that truly bothers me. A good player should be able to, with rather strong consistency, beat someone significantly worse than himself (if only by one league or so.) For instance, a solid platinum player should almost always win against a solid gold player because the platinum player is simply more refined and all-together better at the game. But, your guides seem to be focused on builds for which this is not true. Let me discuss this specific guide in that way:
You suggest that you should have "8 roaches and 16+ lings at the 7:15 mark" when executing this build. Lets look at the cost of that, assuming the minimum number of zerglings.
4 gas = 5 minerals (based on value of one resource return)
200 gas = 250 minerals
Total = 1250 minerals, 24 supply and 16 larvae
That's 16 drones with 800 minerals (not including what those extra drones mine) and 8 supply left over (the exact value of one overlord, so 100 minerals worth)
So, what you are suggesting is that we sacrifice 16 drones worth of mining and 900 minerals for this attack. In order for it to pay for itself relative to simply droning up, as is safe to do with rather minimal defense, we'd have to kill:
More than 12 supply depots, 25 marines, or 25 SCV's
or some combination thereof. Note that these numbers STILL don't include the huge count of minerals that the extra 16 drones mine up to this point.
I think you're crazy if you think you can deal that much damage reliably. Therefore, the only way this build is any good when compared to a macro zerg style is if it wins, right then and there. "Significant damage" won't cut it because there's simply no way that you could deal enough damage for this to pay for itself and not win outright.
The reason this works for you is because you beat some players with it, and that percentage is high enough to keep you at your admittedly impressive ladder ranking. However, you are just as likely to lose to a platinum player with the correct counter in hand (even a blind counter) as you are to beat a master player who was just a little too greedy.
I don't like that.
TL;DR: There's no way this can pay for itself without the opponent dying outright, which is simply not reliable or in my opinion a solid way to play.
EDIT: Added a point about lost mining from lack of drones
These posts are the ones that makem me angry. You have to understand that doing theorycrafting isn't something anybody can do. It is not so simple. You simply do not take into account a lot of important data. For example, you have this example where you say that instead of attacking he could make X drones, but you never talk about map control, you never talk about the damage you do to your opponent's ecomomy. You never talk about the fact that you can't ACTUALLY go pure drone against hellions but you need spines, queens and lots of lings (and you didn't take their cost into account), and you didn't take into account the mind part, where someone could say that an early attack can throw someone off of his game, as it is known that pressure makes the opponent make more mistakes. You didn't take into account that the zerg can get a fast third if they do this attack, and get an optimal creep spread because no hellions will kill your tumors, you didn't take into account that it might force your opponent into a tech that he doesn't really wan (marauders). And i'm sure i missed a lot more data which i can't think about right now. Show me a game where you can make 16 drones instead of this timing and still survive the same build by your opponent, and then you may have a point, but even if you do, you still might not be right.
TL;DL I think that you didn't take into account enough data for your post, and i hope nobody takes it to seriously because it doesn't respect the whole truth
posts like that make me more angry if anything, he responded to alot of those points in a post right above yours... he mentioned the map control and including calculations of defense against hellions
On January 06 2012 09:17 UmiNotsuki wrote: Gonna be honest, just like all of your guides this one makes me uneasy. I feel as if you're looking at the game differently from me. I'll explain:
~~~Calculations~~~~
TL;DR: There's no way this can pay for itself without the opponent dying outright, which is simply not reliable or in my opinion a solid way to play.
EDIT: Added a point about lost mining from lack of drones
At first, these calculations made sense, but if you look closely, its not nearly as bad as you say it is, and you do not have to do as much damage as you say Why?
FIRST OF ALL: Most zergs already opt for the 100 gas upgrade, so that is 125 minerals off already
Lets say instead of doing the roach-ling all-in, i made the 16 drones. Tang cuts drones at around 24, so that means Tang would be at 40 drones vs Terran's ~30 scvs. That's being ahead in 10 workers! (although not uncommon in a zvt).
But making only workers at that stage of the game is too hopeful/coin flip. You failed to include the fact that zerg would either already make lings or spines, which would cut into drone production anyways! This attack also stops any drones that would die to some light hellion harass, and the units created actually give map control! (Very important "resource" that normally making a few lings to defend does not provide).
When you reach the terran's base, you also get scouting information! (important), and most likely delay his expo. If he does not have alot of defences, you are bound to do some damage. If Terran has a lot of defenses, it means you already have the units to defend his counter push . You dont need to kill 25 scvs because you will be making the drones anyways, and remember the larva mechanic allows zerg to make quadrillion at a time.
FINNALY : When attacking, you give yourself, the opportunity to drone up. So those 16 drones will be made EVENTUALLY, meaning its really only the mining time that you are loosing in the first place. That means you're not "sacrificing" those drones, because they will be made later on. Of course, earlier drones is better in terms of mining time, but the advantages of this push in my opinion outweigh the minerals that would have been gained.
tldr; - making those 16 drones "sacrificed" actually puts you ahead - normally zerg already forced to make units to defend hellion pressure anyways. - push gives map control, free to drone up - droning up remakes those 16 drones lost, just a little later, so some mining time is lost, no need to kill 25 supply depots! Larva mechanic allows remaking those drones much faster too
I agree. Calculations guy was looking at it far too literally. (Literally isn't the right word, but like, there's more going on in a game than hard numbers that can be calculated.) I think Tang has it right here. And he's not trying to say that you will necessarily be way ahead after this, but that you can execute it and almost always come out not at a big disadvantage, which to me seems to hold true. While you may have been more ahead if you had made greedy drones and then luckily held off aggression, you would have also taken a greater risk. This build is safer at home, with a chance to do damage and you won't end up super behind if it fails.
So you think holding hellions early game is about luck? Then how about hatch first vs 2 rax? thats even harder to hold off. Still, good players will always go for hatch first instead of 11 overpool or 6pool.
Seriously, just make 3 queens. Ret holds everything with 3 queens and literally rushes to muta. Sometimes, it's about the players skill and not about the build they perform. Hell, you can even make 4 queens and spread the creep to his 3rd by 15 minutes on shakuras.
On January 06 2012 09:17 UmiNotsuki wrote: Gonna be honest, just like all of your guides this one makes me uneasy. I feel as if you're looking at the game differently from me. I'll explain:
~~~Calculations~~~~
TL;DR: There's no way this can pay for itself without the opponent dying outright, which is simply not reliable or in my opinion a solid way to play.
EDIT: Added a point about lost mining from lack of drones
At first, these calculations made sense, but if you look closely, its not nearly as bad as you say it is, and you do not have to do as much damage as you say Why?
FIRST OF ALL: Most zergs already opt for the 100 gas upgrade, so that is 125 minerals off already
Lets say instead of doing the roach-ling all-in, i made the 16 drones. Tang cuts drones at around 24, so that means Tang would be at 40 drones vs Terran's ~30 scvs. That's being ahead in 10 workers! (although not uncommon in a zvt).
But making only workers at that stage of the game is too hopeful/coin flip. You failed to include the fact that zerg would either already make lings or spines, which would cut into drone production anyways! This attack also stops any drones that would die to some light hellion harass, and the units created actually give map control! (Very important "resource" that normally making a few lings to defend does not provide).
When you reach the terran's base, you also get scouting information! (important), and most likely delay his expo. If he does not have alot of defences, you are bound to do some damage. If Terran has a lot of defenses, it means you already have the units to defend his counter push . You dont need to kill 25 scvs because you will be making the drones anyways, and remember the larva mechanic allows zerg to make quadrillion at a time.
FINNALY : When attacking, you give yourself, the opportunity to drone up. So those 16 drones will be made EVENTUALLY, meaning its really only the mining time that you are loosing in the first place. That means you're not "sacrificing" those drones, because they will be made later on. Of course, earlier drones is better in terms of mining time, but the advantages of this push in my opinion outweigh the minerals that would have been gained.
tldr; - making those 16 drones "sacrificed" actually puts you ahead - normally zerg already forced to make units to defend hellion pressure anyways. - push gives map control, free to drone up - droning up remakes those 16 drones lost, just alittle later, so some mining time is lost, no need to kill 25 supply depots! Larva mechanic allows remaking those drones much faster too
Okay, no offense meant by this, but your first couple points there really were a FindMuck; they are utterly wrong.
1. The "100 gas upgrade" you're referring to is surely metabolic boost, no? I did NOT include the cost of metabolic boost in my calculations, as I did in fact assume you'd be getting it anyway (which is indeed not always true.) 100% of the gas costs in my calculations were from roaches.
On January 06 2012 13:19 FindMuck wrote: Lets say instead of doing the roach-ling all-in, i made the 16 drones. Tang cuts drones at around 24, so that means Tang would be at 40 drones vs Terran's ~30 scvs.
2. What? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here and assuming that you made a mistake by writing this paragraph, rather than simply not understanding basic logic. If Tang cuts drones at around 24, that means Tang would be at 24 drones vs. Terran's ~30 SCV's (Not sure where you got that number, 30, but it may be correct.) That puts Tang at a severe economic disadvantage, strongly exacerbated by the existence of MULE's. This necessitates a LOT of damage to be dealt by Tang to come out even with his opponent, as like you said a solid 10 drone lead or so is quite common in ZvT, and it happens to be considered quite even at this point in the game.
3. You ARE correct that my calculations did not account for defensively built units. However, it is my experience at the master level (and it is confirmed in pro-level play) that very minimal defenses are usually adequate up to the point in the game Tang's push, and thus my calculations, are performed at. I would argue that two queens (which you do have anyway,) one spine (100 minerals and a single drone,) and no more than six zerglings (150 minerals) can hold off even the most dedicated of non-all-in or semi-all-in TvZ aggression plays up to this point, when the defense is executed well.
That shaves 250 minerals off of my calculations. You're right, it may not be 12.5 supply depots (and it was 12.5, not the 25 you state in your post); only 10. Whoop-dee-doo.
On January 06 2012 13:19 FindMuck wrote: the units created actually give map control! (Very important "resource" that normally making a few lings to defend does not provide).
4. Map control is a nigh-valueless resource in early game ZvT. Because Terran is sealed inside his base before he is ready to either attack or expand, lest he be overrun by Zerg's flexible production should he come out too early, the only "map control" of real value is a single zergling outside of your opponent's base, to scout for his expansion or attack as soon as it comes out. Cautious players may even wish to take the Xel'Naga tower(s) as well, but they are hardly a necessity if early game scouting is good. Erring on the side of caution, that means just two zerglings must be out on the map to be completely aware of your opponent's movements at this stage of ZvT. Hardly something 8 roaches and 16 zerglings do much better.
On January 06 2012 13:19 FindMuck wrote: When you reach the terran's base, you also get scouting information! (important),
5. When you arrive at Terran's base, dear lord, please tell me you've already scouted him! There are innumerable hard counters to this build that I only let slide because they can be scouted early enough to cancel the aggression. If your opponent goes for fast marauders or siege tanks and you still commit to this attack, you are most likely screwed and will surely deal very little damage. If he goes 2 port banshee, you are most likely screwed and will surely deal very little damage. If he has a bunker or two up, or simply good sim-city such that he may be safe from a baneling bust, you are most likely screwed and will surely deal very little damage. The only scouting information of value I can possibly imagine you getting by the time your push is at his base is whether or not it's going to work. If it won't, too bad you've already committed to it.
6. You DO need to deal the amount of damage concluded by my calculations, in fact, because those lost resource and drone numbers were based on what you had ALREADY sacrificed in order to make the push, and nowhere do I assume that you never make drones again. Remember, just because your economy can be increasing while you're attacking your opponent doesn't mean his can't too: Terran production doesn't require a decision between units and workers to be made, as Zerg's does. Also, because of the innate income Terran players get from simply having extra orbitals lying about (in the form of both increased worker production and increase MULE's,) delaying a Terran expansion is hardly valuable in the long run. It will slightly decrease their income by forcing them to over-saturate their main, but at 7:30 many Terrans who are planning on expanding already may not have full one base saturation quite yet. Not to mention the fact that MULE's don't contribute to saturation, meaning a "fully saturated" mining base with three workers per patch could still support eight MULE's at full mining capacity.
7. This point may tie in with the one above it, but I also want to note that I did NOT include the resources that those drones that were never built in order to make the push occur would've mined. I simply haven't preformed the calculations as they'd be too lengthy and variable for me to care much for. Needless to say, it's several hundred minerals at least. Yes, these drones that you propose making once you've already started pushing out at your opponent will start to mine, but the amount of money that the earlier drones would've mined before these new drones would catch up to them is very large and should technically be added to the opportunity cost of making the push. If I had to make my best educated guess at the matter I'd say the opportunity cost is closer to 2250 minerals or so, up from the 1250 I had stated before. Make it 45 marines or SCV's, or over 22 supply depots.
On January 06 2012 09:17 UmiNotsuki wrote: Gonna be honest, just like all of your guides this one makes me uneasy. I feel as if you're looking at the game differently from me. I'll explain:
~~~Calculations~~~~
TL;DR: There's no way this can pay for itself without the opponent dying outright, which is simply not reliable or in my opinion a solid way to play.
EDIT: Added a point about lost mining from lack of drones
At first, these calculations made sense, but if you look closely, its not nearly as bad as you say it is, and you do not have to do as much damage as you say Why?
FIRST OF ALL: Most zergs already opt for the 100 gas upgrade, so that is 125 minerals off already
Lets say instead of doing the roach-ling all-in, i made the 16 drones. Tang cuts drones at around 24, so that means Tang would be at 40 drones vs Terran's ~30 scvs. That's being ahead in 10 workers! (although not uncommon in a zvt).
But making only workers at that stage of the game is too hopeful/coin flip. You failed to include the fact that zerg would either already make lings or spines, which would cut into drone production anyways! This attack also stops any drones that would die to some light hellion harass, and the units created actually give map control! (Very important "resource" that normally making a few lings to defend does not provide).
When you reach the terran's base, you also get scouting information! (important), and most likely delay his expo. If he does not have alot of defences, you are bound to do some damage. If Terran has a lot of defenses, it means you already have the units to defend his counter push . You dont need to kill 25 scvs because you will be making the drones anyways, and remember the larva mechanic allows zerg to make quadrillion at a time.
FINNALY : When attacking, you give yourself, the opportunity to drone up. So those 16 drones will be made EVENTUALLY, meaning its really only the mining time that you are loosing in the first place. That means you're not "sacrificing" those drones, because they will be made later on. Of course, earlier drones is better in terms of mining time, but the advantages of this push in my opinion outweigh the minerals that would have been gained.
tldr; - making those 16 drones "sacrificed" actually puts you ahead - normally zerg already forced to make units to defend hellion pressure anyways. - push gives map control, free to drone up - droning up remakes those 16 drones lost, just a little later, so some mining time is lost, no need to kill 25 supply depots! Larva mechanic allows remaking those drones much faster too
I agree. Calculations guy was looking at it far too literally. (Literally isn't the right word, but like, there's more going on in a game than hard numbers that can be calculated.) I think Tang has it right here. And he's not trying to say that you will necessarily be way ahead after this, but that you can execute it and almost always come out not at a big disadvantage, which to me seems to hold true. While you may have been more ahead if you had made greedy drones and then luckily held off aggression, you would have also taken a greater risk. This build is safer at home, with a chance to do damage and you won't end up super behind if it fails.
8. Building more units is always "safer" in the short run, no matter what. However, StarCraft II is NOT about being as safe as possible at all points, its about being as ahead as possible at all points. Tang's build attempts to get ahead by dealing damage; it is unreliable and, for all the reasons I've stated in these last two posts, very bad in my opinion. My approach is to instead take advantage of the freedom to drone in relative safety and to simply gain as much of an advantage as I can through the use of the larvae mechanic to increase my economy as quickly as possible when I can be relatively sure that I am already safe, and to only build units as needed. When executed correctly, both builds put us ahead in the long run (Terran almost always attempts to take advantage of the small army associated with my style in some timing window to make the game more even; games are often won or lost on holding off that aggression with minimal losses,) but mine does so based on MY skill and ability to play, and does NOT rely on my opponent's inability to counter my frankly poorly thought out aggression, as does Tang's.
I daresay this has been the longest post I've ever written... I wonder if anyone will actually read and internalize the entire thing.
"How do you like 'dem apples?"
EDIT: Revising some simple typos and mistakes I made in the editing process. EDIT2: Added quotes for some paragraphs where before it may have been unclear what I was responding to.
This guy definately knows what he's talking about.
NB: a drone mines 45 minerals every minute if it's mining 100% efficient. I think that by delaying the drones he delays a good 300 minerals+ (someone mentioned 16 drones, 2 cycles of larva inject to produce lings and roaches. In the end its gonna be like 2 minute delay of those drones.)
It's not necessarily all in depending on how you define it, but it's extremely risky and coinflippy. If they did certain things that you could not possibly know they were doing, you will automatically lose. For example, some terrans get a banshee or two to delay the third base. If they do that, you're in a horrible spot while going for roach ling aggression. Such is the nature of almost all early zerg aggression, which is why I consider it "abusive" and risky, and I generally stay away from it.
as soon as terran sees that you didnt get a spinecrawler he should build 2 bunkers (1 main 1 down the ramp or so) and he should be fine. if he went for a greedy build he just retreats up the ramp behind the wallin and waits for siegemode to finish. that should not set him far behind if at all, as zerg sacrifices alot of economy.
overall this kind of build surely works well on lower levels, but against good players i think its crap.
personally i think the roach ling baneling push that you see in GSL sometimes is way better.
On January 06 2012 20:57 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: I think doing a good old bling bust is stronger than roach pushes.
reasons: * roaches are slow, during the time they need to travel to the opponents base, they are a 'dead' investment. In general: the longer your army is on transport, the easier a push is to hold (longer preparation and you fight with your army of T-60 seconds against his T+0 seconds army) * speedlings are much faster, so the initial punch can be stronger, since it results from your T-30 seconds economy. * banelings can be morphed directly at the opponents base in case, this has somewhat the effect of a proxy pylon, since you can directly strengthen your army without having a traveling time (however banes need time to morph). * you dont't lose a drone+resources to a roach warren (=200 mins = 8 slings) * in case he has a strong defense, just don't morph banes (flexibility) * in case he has not expanded, just block his nat, no need to bust (flexibility)
The only advantage of roaches is larvae efficiency, which might be the major reason why roach pushes are preferred in some scenarios.
I prefer roach/ling due to the amount of players that open with hellion expand. Roaches are much stronger against hellions, and also you can use roaches defensively if they counter attack later.
Bring overlord to the 7:30 attack to spot high ground and snipe supply depots with low ground roaches. This allows your lings to run up the ramp and into his mineral line while roaches walk right in. Nice guide focusing on the transition! GLHF
overall this kind of build surely works well on lower levels, but against good players i think its crap.
personally i think the roach ling baneling push that you see in GSL sometimes is way better.
I think the roach/ling/bane push is great too, but it's an over-generalization to say it is "crap" against good players. It might not work against Kas or immvp, but it will work to very high level master and even GM. Also, if you play someone 5 games in a row, it's helpful to alternate between this timing attack (or a comparable roach/ling/baneling timing attack) and standard macro play.
overall this kind of build surely works well on lower levels, but against good players i think its crap.
personally i think the roach ling baneling push that you see in GSL sometimes is way better.
I think the roach/ling/bane push is great too, but it's an over-generalization to say it is "crap" against good players. It might not work against Kas or immvp, but it will work to very high level master and even GM. Also, if you play someone 5 games in a row, it's helpful to alternate between this timing attack (or a comparable roach/ling/baneling timing attack) and standard macro play.
i guess we have different standards what we call a "good" player.
overall this kind of build surely works well on lower levels, but against good players i think its crap.
personally i think the roach ling baneling push that you see in GSL sometimes is way better.
I think the roach/ling/bane push is great too, but it's an over-generalization to say it is "crap" against good players. It might not work against Kas or immvp, but it will work to very high level master and even GM. Also, if you play someone 5 games in a row, it's helpful to alternate between this timing attack (or a comparable roach/ling/baneling timing attack) and standard macro play.
i guess we have different standards what we call a "good" player.
May i ask why you think the GSL push with 12ish roaches and 18ish banes + lings is better? On my level (mid/high master) i almost feel like the roach + ling is better.. with the GSL push it comes around 9 mins and tanks with seige or banshees can stop it quite hard it feels like?
overall this kind of build surely works well on lower levels, but against good players i think its crap.
personally i think the roach ling baneling push that you see in GSL sometimes is way better.
I think the roach/ling/bane push is great too, but it's an over-generalization to say it is "crap" against good players. It might not work against Kas or immvp, but it will work to very high level master and even GM. Also, if you play someone 5 games in a row, it's helpful to alternate between this timing attack (or a comparable roach/ling/baneling timing attack) and standard macro play.
i guess we have different standards what we call a "good" player.
Fair enough At the pinnacle of SC2 skill, this build will likely put you behind. It may not be a build you can go pro with but it is a build that low-level players can use to improve their skills and win-rate, and it can be a viable for mid/high master players or for anyone trying to "mix it up".
overall this kind of build surely works well on lower levels, but against good players i think its crap.
personally i think the roach ling baneling push that you see in GSL sometimes is way better.
I think the roach/ling/bane push is great too, but it's an over-generalization to say it is "crap" against good players. It might not work against Kas or immvp, but it will work to very high level master and even GM. Also, if you play someone 5 games in a row, it's helpful to alternate between this timing attack (or a comparable roach/ling/baneling timing attack) and standard macro play.
i guess we have different standards what we call a "good" player.
Fair enough At the pinnacle of SC2 skill, this build will likely put you behind. It may not be a build you can go pro with but it is a build that low-level players can use to improve their skills and win-rate, and it can be a viable for mid/high master players or for anyone trying to "mix it up".
Yes, all-ins work and thats great, but DarKFoRcEs point is that when you win with this build its not because of the build - its because your opponent screwed up and nearly any other all-in would have worked as well - and if you play one then you should pick the best one available ^^
I've been bouncing back and forth between this build and my typical ling build with macro hatch and the only problem I have with NOT doing this build, is there is such a window where terran can abuse the crap out of you with sharp timings attacks like:
1.) hellion, marader all in (with or without scvs) 2.) hellion, marine, medivac drop 3.) hellion greedy expand (If you don't do the roach ling pressure there econ is the same as your or higher in most cases which means the death push comes sooner then normal) 4.) Hidden BF hellions (2-4 at endge of creep to prevent creep spread while another 4-8 are on the way to roll in and do as much econ damage as possible, with a transition into mech or banshee's
This early aggression for the most part shuts down most of these early timing attacks.
The only real good counter i've seen to this is when the terran scouts it or suspects it when he see's the roaches push out at which time they B-line for a banshee or just go marine maruder hellion all in with SCV's to crush you when they KNOW you will be droning as you HALF to drone behind it if you plan to go into any kind of a mid-late game
However with that all said, I have tested this vs many master level terrans, and typically even with little to no damage being done if you power drone from 52 supply to 64-72 supply in drones, you are still 10+ drones ahead of the terran and have both bases fully saturated. Leaving you with the ability to transition into whatever you feel liek doing.
Leenock does this, doesn't do any damage, and when he's done he's still 10 drones ahead of the terran. He delays their expansion, secures an early third, and eliminates all threat of harassment.
And your attack doesn't have to cover the costs of drones you would have made otherwise. Those drones didn't die, they're only delayed. You'd only have to cover the cost of those 14 or so drones mining up until the point where you would have needed to make units anyway.
On January 06 2012 09:17 UmiNotsuki wrote: Gonna be honest, just like all of your guides this one makes me uneasy. I feel as if you're looking at the game differently from me. I'll explain:
~~~Calculations~~~~
TL;DR: There's no way this can pay for itself without the opponent dying outright, which is simply not reliable or in my opinion a solid way to play.
EDIT: Added a point about lost mining from lack of drones
At first, these calculations made sense, but if you look closely, its not nearly as bad as you say it is, and you do not have to do as much damage as you say Why?
FIRST OF ALL: Most zergs already opt for the 100 gas upgrade, so that is 125 minerals off already
Lets say instead of doing the roach-ling all-in, i made the 16 drones. Tang cuts drones at around 24, so that means Tang would be at 40 drones vs Terran's ~30 scvs. That's being ahead in 10 workers! (although not uncommon in a zvt).
But making only workers at that stage of the game is too hopeful/coin flip. You failed to include the fact that zerg would either already make lings or spines, which would cut into drone production anyways! This attack also stops any drones that would die to some light hellion harass, and the units created actually give map control! (Very important "resource" that normally making a few lings to defend does not provide).
When you reach the terran's base, you also get scouting information! (important), and most likely delay his expo. If he does not have alot of defences, you are bound to do some damage. If Terran has a lot of defenses, it means you already have the units to defend his counter push . You dont need to kill 25 scvs because you will be making the drones anyways, and remember the larva mechanic allows zerg to make quadrillion at a time.
FINNALY : When attacking, you give yourself, the opportunity to drone up. So those 16 drones will be made EVENTUALLY, meaning its really only the mining time that you are loosing in the first place. That means you're not "sacrificing" those drones, because they will be made later on. Of course, earlier drones is better in terms of mining time, but the advantages of this push in my opinion outweigh the minerals that would have been gained.
tldr; - making those 16 drones "sacrificed" actually puts you ahead - normally zerg already forced to make units to defend hellion pressure anyways. - push gives map control, free to drone up - droning up remakes those 16 drones lost, just alittle later, so some mining time is lost, no need to kill 25 supply depots! Larva mechanic allows remaking those drones much faster too
Okay, no offense meant by this, but your first couple points there really were a FindMuck; they are utterly wrong.
1. The "100 gas upgrade" you're referring to is surely metabolic boost, no? I did NOT include the cost of metabolic boost in my calculations, as I did in fact assume you'd be getting it anyway (which is indeed not always true.) 100% of the gas costs in my calculations were from roaches.
On January 06 2012 13:19 FindMuck wrote: Lets say instead of doing the roach-ling all-in, i made the 16 drones. Tang cuts drones at around 24, so that means Tang would be at 40 drones vs Terran's ~30 scvs.
2. What? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here and assuming that you made a mistake by writing this paragraph, rather than simply not understanding basic logic. If Tang cuts drones at around 24, that means Tang would be at 24 drones vs. Terran's ~30 SCV's (Not sure where you got that number, 30, but it may be correct.) That puts Tang at a severe economic disadvantage, strongly exacerbated by the existence of MULE's. This necessitates a LOT of damage to be dealt by Tang to come out even with his opponent, as like you said a solid 10 drone lead or so is quite common in ZvT, and it happens to be considered quite even at this point in the game.
3. You ARE correct that my calculations did not account for defensively built units. However, it is my experience at the master level (and it is confirmed in pro-level play) that very minimal defenses are usually adequate up to the point in the game Tang's push, and thus my calculations, are performed at. I would argue that two queens (which you do have anyway,) one spine (100 minerals and a single drone,) and no more than six zerglings (150 minerals) can hold off even the most dedicated of non-all-in or semi-all-in TvZ aggression plays up to this point, when the defense is executed well.
That shaves 250 minerals off of my calculations. You're right, it may not be 12.5 supply depots (and it was 12.5, not the 25 you state in your post); only 10. Whoop-dee-doo.
On January 06 2012 13:19 FindMuck wrote: the units created actually give map control! (Very important "resource" that normally making a few lings to defend does not provide).
4. Map control is a nigh-valueless resource in early game ZvT. Because Terran is sealed inside his base before he is ready to either attack or expand, lest he be overrun by Zerg's flexible production should he come out too early, the only "map control" of real value is a single zergling outside of your opponent's base, to scout for his expansion or attack as soon as it comes out. Cautious players may even wish to take the Xel'Naga tower(s) as well, but they are hardly a necessity if early game scouting is good. Erring on the side of caution, that means just two zerglings must be out on the map to be completely aware of your opponent's movements at this stage of ZvT. Hardly something 8 roaches and 16 zerglings do much better.
On January 06 2012 13:19 FindMuck wrote: When you reach the terran's base, you also get scouting information! (important),
5. When you arrive at Terran's base, dear lord, please tell me you've already scouted him! There are innumerable hard counters to this build that I only let slide because they can be scouted early enough to cancel the aggression. If your opponent goes for fast marauders or siege tanks and you still commit to this attack, you are most likely screwed and will surely deal very little damage. If he goes 2 port banshee, you are most likely screwed and will surely deal very little damage. If he has a bunker or two up, or simply good sim-city such that he may be safe from a baneling bust, you are most likely screwed and will surely deal very little damage. The only scouting information of value I can possibly imagine you getting by the time your push is at his base is whether or not it's going to work. If it won't, too bad you've already committed to it.
6. You DO need to deal the amount of damage concluded by my calculations, in fact, because those lost resource and drone numbers were based on what you had ALREADY sacrificed in order to make the push, and nowhere do I assume that you never make drones again. Remember, just because your economy can be increasing while you're attacking your opponent doesn't mean his can't too: Terran production doesn't require a decision between units and workers to be made, as Zerg's does. Also, because of the innate income Terran players get from simply having extra orbitals lying about (in the form of both increased worker production and increase MULE's,) delaying a Terran expansion is hardly valuable in the long run. It will slightly decrease their income by forcing them to over-saturate their main, but at 7:30 many Terrans who are planning on expanding already may not have full one base saturation quite yet. Not to mention the fact that MULE's don't contribute to saturation, meaning a "fully saturated" mining base with three workers per patch could still support eight MULE's at full mining capacity.
7. This point may tie in with the one above it, but I also want to note that I did NOT include the resources that those drones that were never built in order to make the push occur would've mined. I simply haven't preformed the calculations as they'd be too lengthy and variable for me to care much for. Needless to say, it's several hundred minerals at least. Yes, these drones that you propose making once you've already started pushing out at your opponent will start to mine, but the amount of money that the earlier drones would've mined before these new drones would catch up to them is very large and should technically be added to the opportunity cost of making the push. If I had to make my best educated guess at the matter I'd say the opportunity cost is closer to 2250 minerals or so, up from the 1250 I had stated before. Make it 45 marines or SCV's, or over 22 supply depots.
On January 06 2012 09:17 UmiNotsuki wrote: Gonna be honest, just like all of your guides this one makes me uneasy. I feel as if you're looking at the game differently from me. I'll explain:
~~~Calculations~~~~
TL;DR: There's no way this can pay for itself without the opponent dying outright, which is simply not reliable or in my opinion a solid way to play.
EDIT: Added a point about lost mining from lack of drones
At first, these calculations made sense, but if you look closely, its not nearly as bad as you say it is, and you do not have to do as much damage as you say Why?
FIRST OF ALL: Most zergs already opt for the 100 gas upgrade, so that is 125 minerals off already
Lets say instead of doing the roach-ling all-in, i made the 16 drones. Tang cuts drones at around 24, so that means Tang would be at 40 drones vs Terran's ~30 scvs. That's being ahead in 10 workers! (although not uncommon in a zvt).
But making only workers at that stage of the game is too hopeful/coin flip. You failed to include the fact that zerg would either already make lings or spines, which would cut into drone production anyways! This attack also stops any drones that would die to some light hellion harass, and the units created actually give map control! (Very important "resource" that normally making a few lings to defend does not provide).
When you reach the terran's base, you also get scouting information! (important), and most likely delay his expo. If he does not have alot of defences, you are bound to do some damage. If Terran has a lot of defenses, it means you already have the units to defend his counter push . You dont need to kill 25 scvs because you will be making the drones anyways, and remember the larva mechanic allows zerg to make quadrillion at a time.
FINNALY : When attacking, you give yourself, the opportunity to drone up. So those 16 drones will be made EVENTUALLY, meaning its really only the mining time that you are loosing in the first place. That means you're not "sacrificing" those drones, because they will be made later on. Of course, earlier drones is better in terms of mining time, but the advantages of this push in my opinion outweigh the minerals that would have been gained.
tldr; - making those 16 drones "sacrificed" actually puts you ahead - normally zerg already forced to make units to defend hellion pressure anyways. - push gives map control, free to drone up - droning up remakes those 16 drones lost, just a little later, so some mining time is lost, no need to kill 25 supply depots! Larva mechanic allows remaking those drones much faster too
I agree. Calculations guy was looking at it far too literally. (Literally isn't the right word, but like, there's more going on in a game than hard numbers that can be calculated.) I think Tang has it right here. And he's not trying to say that you will necessarily be way ahead after this, but that you can execute it and almost always come out not at a big disadvantage, which to me seems to hold true. While you may have been more ahead if you had made greedy drones and then luckily held off aggression, you would have also taken a greater risk. This build is safer at home, with a chance to do damage and you won't end up super behind if it fails.
8. Building more units is always "safer" in the short run, no matter what. However, StarCraft II is NOT about being as safe as possible at all points, its about being as ahead as possible at all points. Tang's build attempts to get ahead by dealing damage; it is unreliable and, for all the reasons I've stated in these last two posts, very bad in my opinion. My approach is to instead take advantage of the freedom to drone in relative safety and to simply gain as much of an advantage as I can through the use of the larvae mechanic to increase my economy as quickly as possible when I can be relatively sure that I am already safe, and to only build units as needed. When executed correctly, both builds put us ahead in the long run (Terran almost always attempts to take advantage of the small army associated with my style in some timing window to make the game more even; games are often won or lost on holding off that aggression with minimal losses,) but mine does so based on MY skill and ability to play, and does NOT rely on my opponent's inability to counter my frankly poorly thought out aggression, as does Tang's.
I daresay this has been the longest post I've ever written... I wonder if anyone will actually read and internalize the entire thing.
"How do you like 'dem apples?"
EDIT: Revising some simple typos and mistakes I made in the editing process. EDIT2: Added quotes for some paragraphs where before it may have been unclear what I was responding to.
I cant even hope to make my post as pretty as you did, but I will just respond to the paragraphs that you so kindly numbered
1. Sorry about that :S
2. I got the number 30 scvs from tang's first replay, the big picture that shows his 23 drones to the Terran's 30. In your argument, you said that Tang would be sacrificing 16 drones to create this army. What I meant was that if he had actually made those drones, it would become a 40 --> 30 drone advantage for Tang. So, making those drones actually puts him ahead of the terran, not even, which was what I was trying to get at. However, it is true that this is considered even early game zvt due to mules, but it doesnt change the fact that making drones instead of those units would put Tang at a worker advantage. How much damage does Tang have to do? 16 scvs worth of damage before Tang drones up, and some mining time. However, Larva mechanic allows zerg to catch up in workers much faster than terran would be able to recover from economic damage this push does
3 + 4 + 5. Its true that 6 zerglings, 2-4 queens and a spine can hold off hellion pressure. If that is the case, why does terran even make hellions in the first place, if 4 hellions (400 minerals) can be dealt with using only 250 minerals (300 to replace the drone). Because those hellions not only give the chance to roast some drones (although zergs are dealing with this much better now), but give terran map control. I think you underestimate the advantage of having 2 zerglings at the watchtower and one in front of the base. When terran has map control with hellions, its very hard to know what he is going to transition into. Marines at the perimeter of the base and just good building placement stop any hopes of a slow overlord scout, and until you kill those hellions, he could be either 2 port banshee, expand, or going for a hellion marauder allin. Thatès why its not uncommon that zergs will just make a round of lings to catch those hellions off guard, although it may not be as much as an investment as this push is.
Map control is very important for both races in the early game, it dictates what you can, and what you cannot do. If terran realizes that you will be making drones, but have a solid defence, he can play a much more greedy build, and same goes for zerg.
As for scouting information, when you get to his base, you see the bansheess. You see the mauarders. You see the expand. Without map control, you can't actually see these things until it gets to your base (your playing in the dark with just 6 lings, 2 queens, 1 spine, and 40 drones)
6+7. I think you misunderstood my point. What I was saying was that as you push out, you make those 16 drones that would have been made had you decided not to do this push. Except now, you are free to drone past that 16, because of the pressure you have put on terran. All this push does in terms of your economy is a reverse of the order you create your units. Push: units ----> drones 10:30 (around rine tank push out) = 1 drone, 1 units Stanard: drones ----> units. 10:30 (around rine tank push out) = 1 drone, 1 units
You probably have the math behind this to prove that it is not as simple as I put it, but that was what I was trying to get at is the only damage you have to do, is the mining time lost of the drones you failed to make, but are making now. This is the same with almost every zerg all in because zerg has the choice of making either drones or units (and most all ins make units instead of drones)
8. Your point is correct. In order for this to work, Tang must do damage, of course. I was just trying to argue that he doenst have to do nearly as much damage, and the scouting information + map control make up for any economic disadvantage he has, if the push hadn't TOTALLY failed.
tldr; (dont read this if you planning to respond) Map control is not valuless, it gives you the ability to scout (doenst happen if you are playing defensively and in the dark. This push is just making the units you would have to make to defend a standard marine tank push first, and making the drones that you would have made in a standard opening behind this push.
But after reading your posts, I must agree that this push probably wont work at much higher levels (I'm only sitting around mid-high master, and I feel it has some potential)
EDIT:
PS , I wish I could include some pun using your username in my arguments ;(
2. I got the number 30 scvs from tang's first replay, the big picture that shows his 23 drones to the Terran's 30. In your argument, you said that Tang would be sacrificing 16 drones to create this army. What I meant was that if he had actually made those drones, it would become a 40 --> 30 drone advantage for Tang. So, making those drones actually puts him ahead of the terran, not even, which was what I was trying to get at.
Not necessarily. Zerg is supposed to be ahead of Terrans in workers in an even game. Zerg uses larvae injections to create more drones than the Terran can create SCVs, but terran stays even because of mules. If you look at replays and open the income tab, you will often see that the income is equal for both players despite the Zerg being ahead 10 - 15 drones.
On January 06 2012 09:17 UmiNotsuki wrote: Gonna be honest, just like all of your guides this one makes me uneasy. I feel as if you're looking at the game differently from me. I'll explain:
StarCraft II consists of games and sets of games; that is, you can think within the context of a single game, or within the context of your overall win-loss ratio. To me, it seems that you're more concerned with the latter than the former, and that truly bothers me. A good player should be able to, with rather strong consistency, beat someone significantly worse than himself (if only by one league or so.) For instance, a solid platinum player should almost always win against a solid gold player because the platinum player is simply more refined and all-together better at the game. But, your guides seem to be focused on builds for which this is not true. Let me discuss this specific guide in that way:
You suggest that you should have "8 roaches and 16+ lings at the 7:15 mark" when executing this build. Lets look at the cost of that, assuming the minimum number of zerglings.
4 gas = 5 minerals (based on value of one resource return)
200 gas = 250 minerals
Total = 1250 minerals, 24 supply and 16 larvae
That's 16 drones with 800 minerals (not including what those extra drones mine) and 8 supply left over (the exact value of one overlord, so 100 minerals worth)
So, what you are suggesting is that we sacrifice 16 drones worth of mining and 900 minerals for this attack. In order for it to pay for itself relative to simply droning up, as is safe to do with rather minimal defense, we'd have to kill:
More than 12 supply depots, 25 marines, or 25 SCV's
or some combination thereof. Note that these numbers STILL don't include the huge count of minerals that the extra 16 drones mine up to this point.
I think you're crazy if you think you can deal that much damage reliably. Therefore, the only way this build is any good when compared to a macro zerg style is if it wins, right then and there. "Significant damage" won't cut it because there's simply no way that you could deal enough damage for this to pay for itself and not win outright.
The reason this works for you is because you beat some players with it, and that percentage is high enough to keep you at your admittedly impressive ladder ranking. However, you are just as likely to lose to a platinum player with the correct counter in hand (even a blind counter) as you are to beat a master player who was just a little too greedy.
I don't like that.
TL;DR: There's no way this can pay for itself without the opponent dying outright, which is simply not reliable or in my opinion a solid way to play.
EDIT: Added a point about lost mining from lack of drones
i think the point you make that generally if this does "significant damage" you most likely win. i too have never had a roach push do damage but not win and be worth it. generally speaking if your roach push fails they now retain some helions/marines and you have to make a few more roaches to not die and by then double orbitals have put him far far ahead of me. its really a nice change to the metagame and i have had exp beating many terrans who have gotten used to only making 1 bunker at an expo and not worrying about aggressive zergs but its not that reliable when compared to the fact that you can get ahead by an expo and 10 drones early game which is pretty big
i think in GM and top masters (some top masters...) i find the players i fight think "oh he did this how can i macro just a bit harder then him" when everyone else things "oh he did that? how do i kill him RIGHT NOW" and then your push starts to have low win/success rates
On January 06 2012 09:17 UmiNotsuki wrote: Gonna be honest, just like all of your guides this one makes me uneasy. I feel as if you're looking at the game differently from me. I'll explain:
StarCraft II consists of games and sets of games; that is, you can think within the context of a single game, or within the context of your overall win-loss ratio. To me, it seems that you're more concerned with the latter than the former, and that truly bothers me. A good player should be able to, with rather strong consistency, beat someone significantly worse than himself (if only by one league or so.) For instance, a solid platinum player should almost always win against a solid gold player because the platinum player is simply more refined and all-together better at the game. But, your guides seem to be focused on builds for which this is not true. Let me discuss this specific guide in that way:
You suggest that you should have "8 roaches and 16+ lings at the 7:15 mark" when executing this build. Lets look at the cost of that, assuming the minimum number of zerglings.
4 gas = 5 minerals (based on value of one resource return)
200 gas = 250 minerals
Total = 1250 minerals, 24 supply and 16 larvae
That's 16 drones with 800 minerals (not including what those extra drones mine) and 8 supply left over (the exact value of one overlord, so 100 minerals worth)
So, what you are suggesting is that we sacrifice 16 drones worth of mining and 900 minerals for this attack. In order for it to pay for itself relative to simply droning up, as is safe to do with rather minimal defense, we'd have to kill:
More than 12 supply depots, 25 marines, or 25 SCV's
or some combination thereof. Note that these numbers STILL don't include the huge count of minerals that the extra 16 drones mine up to this point.
I think you're crazy if you think you can deal that much damage reliably. Therefore, the only way this build is any good when compared to a macro zerg style is if it wins, right then and there. "Significant damage" won't cut it because there's simply no way that you could deal enough damage for this to pay for itself and not win outright.
The reason this works for you is because you beat some players with it, and that percentage is high enough to keep you at your admittedly impressive ladder ranking. However, you are just as likely to lose to a platinum player with the correct counter in hand (even a blind counter) as you are to beat a master player who was just a little too greedy.
I don't like that.
TL;DR: There's no way this can pay for itself without the opponent dying outright, which is simply not reliable or in my opinion a solid way to play.
EDIT: Added a point about lost mining from lack of drones
i think the point you make that generally if this does "significant damage" you most likely win. i too have never had a roach push do damage but not win and be worth it. generally speaking if your roach push fails they now retain some helions/marines and you have to make a few more roaches to not die and by then double orbitals have put him far far ahead of me. its really a nice change to the metagame and i have had exp beating many terrans who have gotten used to only making 1 bunker at an expo and not worrying about aggressive zergs but its not that reliable when compared to the fact that you can get ahead by an expo and 10 drones early game which is pretty big
i think in GM and top masters (some top masters...) i find the players i fight think "oh he did this how can i macro just a bit harder then him" when everyone else things "oh he did that? how do i kill him RIGHT NOW" and then your push starts to have low win/success rates
Yeah, basically if you do manage to break his wall and get in, you're going to be able to do massive damage to the SCVs with your zerglings and it's essentially over as long as you micro well. The only times you have a chance to lose right after breaking in is if they're doing a cheesy 2port banshee off 1 base, and in this situation you haven't teched lair so you can double-produce queens and spore up like crazy (literally make like 10 spores) and just drones because you know he can't attack you with a ground force.
In reply to FindMuck again; not bothering to quote because this is just a general reply.
First, I again disagree with your assessment of the value of map control (frankly, speedlings are faster than hellions, even off creep, so you can always scout what you need to scout) but I'm not gonna argue that point much; it's dependent on play style and all that and I don't trust my own game knowledge enough to be more stalwart in telling you that I think you're wrong.
Second, your point about reversing the order in which drones or units are made caught my attention, and it's an interesting way of thinking about it, but I still think it's not true. You see, if it truly was an equal reversal (as in, in my games I make 16 drones and then go into units, but in Tang's style he goes for units and then makes up the drones) then you would be almost right in saying that the push only needs to pay for the loss in mining from delaying your drones. However, you're not quite right for two reasons:
1. The push ALSO needs to pay for the value of any units you lose in order to be cost effective. Since you are behind economically when making this push, you do not have the normal excuse for not being cost effective of "my economy is bigger so I can be more wasteful and still come out on top." In fact, in this case each of your units need to pay for not only their costs but the cost of not using those resources on drones, as well.
2. I do NOT stop making drones after I build those 16. Because macro-Zerg style is always concerned with squeezing out as many drones as possible, I'm liable to make many more of them even after those 16 simply because I'm not worried about any pressure at that time (or at least one that would be dealt with with zerglings; banshees hit at around this timing but I can and do make drones while being attacked by banshees.) That means that macro styles will continue to have larger incomes than the style Tang presents even into the mid and late games, simply due to that early advantage, though I admit the difference as a percentage of total income is liable to grow smaller as the game progresses.
In my standard ZvT games I only start worrying about many units once I've got upwards of 50 drones in most cases. As someone who still clings to the time-tested two base mutalisk style, I expect scary pushes to only start to form at around the 10:30 mark, at the earliest, and I can oversaturate two bases and still hold those off with relative ease.
On January 06 2012 09:17 UmiNotsuki wrote: Gonna be honest, just like all of your guides this one makes me uneasy. I feel as if you're looking at the game differently from me. I'll explain:
StarCraft II consists of games and sets of games; that is, you can think within the context of a single game, or within the context of your overall win-loss ratio. To me, it seems that you're more concerned with the latter than the former, and that truly bothers me. A good player should be able to, with rather strong consistency, beat someone significantly worse than himself (if only by one league or so.) For instance, a solid platinum player should almost always win against a solid gold player because the platinum player is simply more refined and all-together better at the game. But, your guides seem to be focused on builds for which this is not true. Let me discuss this specific guide in that way:
You suggest that you should have "8 roaches and 16+ lings at the 7:15 mark" when executing this build. Lets look at the cost of that, assuming the minimum number of zerglings.
4 gas = 5 minerals (based on value of one resource return)
200 gas = 250 minerals
Total = 1250 minerals, 24 supply and 16 larvae
That's 16 drones with 800 minerals (not including what those extra drones mine) and 8 supply left over (the exact value of one overlord, so 100 minerals worth)
So, what you are suggesting is that we sacrifice 16 drones worth of mining and 900 minerals for this attack. In order for it to pay for itself relative to simply droning up, as is safe to do with rather minimal defense, we'd have to kill:
More than 12 supply depots, 25 marines, or 25 SCV's
or some combination thereof. Note that these numbers STILL don't include the huge count of minerals that the extra 16 drones mine up to this point.
I think you're crazy if you think you can deal that much damage reliably. Therefore, the only way this build is any good when compared to a macro zerg style is if it wins, right then and there. "Significant damage" won't cut it because there's simply no way that you could deal enough damage for this to pay for itself and not win outright.
The reason this works for you is because you beat some players with it, and that percentage is high enough to keep you at your admittedly impressive ladder ranking. However, you are just as likely to lose to a platinum player with the correct counter in hand (even a blind counter) as you are to beat a master player who was just a little too greedy.
I don't like that.
TL;DR: There's no way this can pay for itself without the opponent dying outright, which is simply not reliable or in my opinion a solid way to play.
EDIT: Added a point about lost mining from lack of drones
i think the point you make that generally if this does "significant damage" you most likely win. i too have never had a roach push do damage but not win and be worth it. generally speaking if your roach push fails they now retain some helions/marines and you have to make a few more roaches to not die and by then double orbitals have put him far far ahead of me. its really a nice change to the metagame and i have had exp beating many terrans who have gotten used to only making 1 bunker at an expo and not worrying about aggressive zergs but its not that reliable when compared to the fact that you can get ahead by an expo and 10 drones early game which is pretty big
i think in GM and top masters (some top masters...) i find the players i fight think "oh he did this how can i macro just a bit harder then him" when everyone else things "oh he did that? how do i kill him RIGHT NOW" and then your push starts to have low win/success rates
I couldn't agree more. Roach pushes win or they don't, I too have never done an early roach push, cutting huge numbers of drones, have it not pretty much win the game right there and thought to myself "well that's okay, we're still even." No. I would be hugely behind and playing the rest of the game from a disadvantage in almost all cases.
This is no longer in reply to anyone in specific, just a general note:
I think the reason we see progamers preform all-ins regularly is because progamers play in BOX situations in tournaments. They have to beat the same opponent multiple times in order to win, so a single game is less valuable to them than to a ladder player who meets random players each game. I want to make it clear that I actually very much support this build as an all-in. It looks like a good push with a lot of potential to win some games. But it is just that: an all-in. It should only be used to catch your opponent off guard and to win a game by taking advantage of a BOX situation, NOT as a standard "this is what I do in ZvT games" strategy.
I tried this build a few times. First couple games it was successful, but than I started running into some trouble. My biggest problem area was in my second game I played, the guy opened with a few Marines, with Banshee's behind it. I don't think I would have enough damage against his front to make the attack worth it, so I ended up pulling back and being behind because I didn't drone. He saw that I had some spores up, so he didn't really use the Banshee's to attack - just to contain my ground army and deny my third.
The second game was lost to me due to drops. I used the Barrel Bust build and was at the second Barrel timing when the drops hit, and I lost at least 20 drones and it basically forced me All-In. Not good.
I think if the Terran doesn't go some form of air, or you put a few spines ect. ect. at you're Hatches, I think the idea behind the build could work very successfully. Thoughts?
On January 07 2012 05:46 Jitsu wrote: To contribute to the discussion:
I tried this build a few times. First couple games it was successful, but than I started running into some trouble. My biggest problem area was in my second game I played, the guy opened with a few Marines, with Banshee's behind it. I don't think I would have enough damage against his front to make the attack worth it, so I ended up pulling back and being behind because I didn't drone. He saw that I had some spores up, so he didn't really use the Banshee's to attack - just to contain my ground army and deny my third.
The second game was lost to me due to drops. I used the Barrel Bust build and was at the second Barrel timing when the drops hit, and I lost at least 20 drones and it basically forced me All-In. Not good.
I think if the Terran doesn't go some form of air, or you put a few spines ect. ect. at you're Hatches, I think the idea behind the build could work very successfully. Thoughts?
Oh, I agree. The problem is when Terran goes air. Or fast tanks or fast marauders or fast bunkers. Other than that you're golden, but that's not good enough for me to use it outisde of a BOX situation.
Even then I still think I'd be a tad more liable to do an eco baneling bust or something along those lines if I wanted to be aggressive around this timing...
overall this kind of build surely works well on lower levels, but against good players i think its crap.
personally i think the roach ling baneling push that you see in GSL sometimes is way better.
I think the roach/ling/bane push is great too, but it's an over-generalization to say it is "crap" against good players. It might not work against Kas or immvp, but it will work to very high level master and even GM. Also, if you play someone 5 games in a row, it's helpful to alternate between this timing attack (or a comparable roach/ling/baneling timing attack) and standard macro play.
i guess we have different standards what we call a "good" player.
@tang: roach ling bling is what DRG does whenever he wants to all in. beating inferior players with roach ling shouldnt be your goal.
The strongest point of the build is that its not always going to make you leaps and bounds ahead but it shuts down so many options for terran which they could otherweise exploit. For the most part it shuts down all early pushes, reapers, hellions, muarder hellion push, ect and puts you in decet shape to transition into a different build.
Think of it this way how many times have you see a Terran open with hellions into bfh, into mech, then as you think he is meching he is throwing down 4-5 rax and transitions into a bio ball. So his first push is a good mix but its the transition or flow of his build. So for this terran he contains the zerg, has a HIGH threat of doing damage, the zerg finds out that BF hellions are on the field so all ling builds have pretty well gone out the window so the zerg is now forced to play how the terran wants, and then even if the first push doesn't kill the zerg he has easily transitioned into bio.
This build allows for the same transitional concepts to apply. You start with Roach which takes away map control and allows for an easy 3rd unless banshee's show up, however if they do show up this can be stopped with more queens. You can then transition into heavy ling infestor, or into ling muta if you like or whichever direction you feel. On top of this you now have the terran reacting to what you are doing and not vice versa which gives you more control. This also in most cases shuts down the mech option as well.
Its not to say this build doesn't have a weeknesses, but I belive its strength is more on what it shuts down / gives you then what you loose in comparison. Plus the odd time you can just end the game with that first push if the terran is really greedy.
If you prefer more drones, just make 4-6 roach and drone with the rest and just park 4 roach close to his base to push the hellions back in and leave 2 roach behind incase he tries a run by you now have the same effect to the terran has hellions do when they part on the edge of your creep for the first little bit
On January 07 2012 06:11 rustypipe wrote: The strongest point of the build is that its not always going to make you leaps and bounds ahead but it shuts down so many options for terran which they could otherweise exploit. For the most part it shuts down all early pushes, reapers, hellions, muarder hellion push, ect and puts you in decet shape to transition into a different build.
Think of it this way how many times have you see a Terran open with hellions into bfh, into mech, then as you think he is meching he is throwing down 4-5 rax and transitions into a bio ball. So his first push is a good mix but its the transition or flow of his build. So for this terran he contains the zerg, has a HIGH threat of doing damage, the zerg finds out that BF hellions are on the field so all ling builds have pretty well gone out the window so the zerg is now forced to play how the terran wants, and then even if the first push doesn't kill the zerg he has easily transitioned into bio.
This build allows for the same transitional concepts to apply. You start with Roach which takes away map control and allows for an easy 3rd unless banshee's show up, however if they do show up this can be stopped with more queens. You can then transition into heavy ling infestor, or into ling muta if you like or whichever direction you feel. On top of this you now have the terran reacting to what you are doing and not vice versa which gives you more control. This also in most cases shuts down the mech option as well.
Its not to say this build doesn't have a weekends, but I belive its strength is more on what it shuts down / gives you then what you loose in comparison. Plus the odd time you can just end the game with that first push if the terran is really greedy.
I think you know that almost all of the points you made for this build can be done without such a dramatic investment into units as Tang suggests. Good scouting and simply good game play will allow you to survive, adapt to, and beat anything from Terran, without going all-in at 7:30.
Tell me another way you will push back 4-6 hellions without a large investment in larva. You forget its not the cost of roaches that is so high that early in the game but the larva cost. Those larva could of been drones instead. With lings it would take double the amount of larva to kill those hellions which is even more of a loss. But yes you can go a ling build with a macro hatch and accomplish the same thing. To each there own I guess, however some marine, hellion medivac early pushes are really hard to deal with just with lings. You see more and more of those gimicky early pushes trying to cripple the zerg from korea more and more on ladder now.
On January 07 2012 06:18 rustypipe wrote: Tell me another way you will push back 4-6 hellions without a large investment in larva. You forget its not the cost of roaches that is so high that early in the game but the larva cost. Those larva could of been drones instead. With lings it would take double the amount of larva to kill those hellions which is even more of a loss. But yes you can go a ling build with a macro hatch and accomplish the same thing. To each there own I guess, however some marine, hellion medivac early pushes are really hard to deal with just with lings. You see more and more of those gimicky early pushes trying to cripple the zerg from korea more and more on ladder now.
In my previous posts I've already expounded on holding off hellion harassment without investing nearly as much into aggresison. Go back and read those if you're interested.
Personally I've been having absolutely zero trouble with the types of pressure you point out but I understand that some may. It's my philosophy that the best way to improve in the long run is to find ways that aren't all-in to solve your problems, if they exist.
On January 06 2012 08:19 Bart331 wrote: it doesnt have to be all-in, its just you HAVE to do damage or you will be set behind. And thats is often a spot which i am not comfortable with
My question is whether the map control, the ability to expand, having a mobile army to pressure/deny harassment are worth delaying the early creation of drones.
I have to agree with Bart, if you don't do ANY damage with this build you are definitely behind. Early drones are always better then later drones if you can get away with it. But even so, you don't really have to do THAT much damage with this build to stay even with the terran; because like you said, you gain map control and the terran will be afraid to push out for a while (while in the meantime you are droning like crazy)
The point is terrans don't build maraudeurs anymore against zerg. So it's a really good build against a hellion expand when there is only marines/hellions to defend it.
overall this kind of build surely works well on lower levels, but against good players i think its crap.
personally i think the roach ling baneling push that you see in GSL sometimes is way better.
I think the roach/ling/bane push is great too, but it's an over-generalization to say it is "crap" against good players. It might not work against Kas or immvp, but it will work to very high level master and even GM. Also, if you play someone 5 games in a row, it's helpful to alternate between this timing attack (or a comparable roach/ling/baneling timing attack) and standard macro play.
i guess we have different standards what we call a "good" player.
@tang: roach ling bling is what DRG does whenever he wants to all in. beating inferior players with roach ling shouldnt be your goal.
What I'm trying to argue is this particular push isn't really all-in, you can transition into a standard macro game or another big timing attack. Even if you end up slightly behind, you have to take into the account the benefits of executing the early attack: 1) You almost always do SOME form of damage. Whether you break in and kill half his SCVs or just force him to pull workers off the line to repair, you're going to do something. 2)You're basically guaranteed a 3rd base, which isn't always the case if you play defensively. 3) You gain map control and, essentially, immunity from hellion harass. 4) You can spread creep unhindered. 5) You may throw a player off his regular build, while you have planned followthroughs/transitions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Show nested quote +
On January 07 2012 00:02 DarKFoRcE wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On January 07 2012 00:00 TangSC wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On January 06 2012 23:42 DarKFoRcE wrote:
overall this kind of build surely works well on lower levels, but against good players i think its crap.
personally i think the roach ling baneling push that you see in GSL sometimes is way better. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the roach/ling/bane push is great too, but it's an over-generalization to say it is "crap" against good players. It might not work against Kas or immvp, but it will work to very high level master and even GM. Also, if you play someone 5 games in a row, it's helpful to alternate between this timing attack (or a comparable roach/ling/baneling timing attack) and standard macro play. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i guess we have different standards what we call a "good" player.
@tang: roach ling bling is what DRG does whenever he wants to all in. beating inferior players with roach ling shouldnt be your goal. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I'm trying to argue is this particular push isn't really all-in, you can transition into a standard macro game or another big timing attack. Even if you end up slightly behind, you have to take into the account the benefits of executing the early attack: 1) You almost always do SOME form of damage. Whether you break in and kill half his SCVs or just force him to pull workers off the line to repair, you're going to do something. 2)You're basically guaranteed a 3rd base, which isn't always the case if you play defensively. 3) You gain map control and, essentially, immunity from hellion harass. 4) You can spread creep unhindered. 5) You may throw a player off his regular build, while you have planned followthroughs/transitions
I agree with TangSC on this one in that there are certain maps and positions where you can be very confident in a reactor hellion opening that this type of build can counter well and not put you behind. Rather than try to outright kill your opponent and stream in lings you build your roaches send...1 cycle of lings send... and drone your ass off behind it. It will do damage against a hellion opening and frankly most terrans aren't accustom to dealing with zerg agression. Sure it may not work every time against some of the best players but it's affective...not really all in...and a viable way for zergs to turn the tables every now and then when we're otherwise pretty limited in our ability to be agressive.
I do a variation of this occassionally simply because it feels damn good to be agressive, and it pays off the majority of the time. A decent scout will give you enough info that you can abort this build if necessary with little negative impact. Also for the 99% of us who aren't at DarkForce's level it's just fine...not every build needs to be measured against only the top tier of play.
I almost think that there should be a seperate thread for builds that are appropriate at different levels of play. Builds that work for GM and pro and up require too much control/mechanics for masters/diamonds etc... I think it's ok for people who are at lower levels of play to discuss builds that are appropriate for their skill level. Some of us know that we'll never have time to get better than say diamond or low masters. I still want to have fun with builds I can pull off. I don't care if it will lose against Thorzaine or MKP cause I'll never play against them.
overall this kind of build surely works well on lower levels, but against good players i think its crap.
personally i think the roach ling baneling push that you see in GSL sometimes is way better.
I think the roach/ling/bane push is great too, but it's an over-generalization to say it is "crap" against good players. It might not work against Kas or immvp, but it will work to very high level master and even GM. Also, if you play someone 5 games in a row, it's helpful to alternate between this timing attack (or a comparable roach/ling/baneling timing attack) and standard macro play.
i guess we have different standards what we call a "good" player.
@tang: roach ling bling is what DRG does whenever he wants to all in. beating inferior players with roach ling shouldnt be your goal.
What I'm trying to argue is this particular push isn't really all-in, you can transition into a standard macro game or another big timing attack. Even if you end up slightly behind, you have to take into the account the benefits of executing the early attack: 1) You almost always do SOME form of damage. Whether you break in and kill half his SCVs or just force him to pull workers off the line to repair, you're going to do something. 2)You're basically guaranteed a 3rd base, which isn't always the case if you play defensively. 3) You gain map control and, essentially, immunity from hellion harass. 4) You can spread creep unhindered. 5) You may throw a player off his regular build, while you have planned followthroughs/transitions.
While these points may be true, I would argue that the cons still strongly outweigh the pros when compared to macro from the start, with the exact same math I've used above.
I think I have to agree that it's not "all-in" all-in, as in, if the push fails you're gonna lose. But it's certainly inferior to other, more standard plays in the long run if you don't deal absurd damage and most likely kill your opponent outright.
What about doing this build without the Speedlings at first? Only to reinforce with Speedlings when you are about to break the wall? I think 6-8 Roaches give as much map control as 8 Roaches and 16 Speedlings. Because, obviously, the Speedlings are only there for when you break the wall, because they are irrelevant in dealing damage to the wall.
You can just as well camp his expo with 8 Roaches unitl Siege is up or he has a medium amount of marines up, but even then his midgame push will be hugely delayed and he will not know exactly how many marines are needed to safely take out 8 Roaches... and maybe I'm reinforcing with Speedlings?
On January 07 2012 06:18 rustypipe wrote: Tell me another way you will push back 4-6 hellions without a large investment in larva. You forget its not the cost of roaches that is so high that early in the game but the larva cost. Those larva could of been drones instead. With lings it would take double the amount of larva to kill those hellions which is even more of a loss. But yes you can go a ling build with a macro hatch and accomplish the same thing. To each there own I guess, however some marine, hellion medivac early pushes are really hard to deal with just with lings. You see more and more of those gimicky early pushes trying to cripple the zerg from korea more and more on ladder now.
Well there is the DRG style or 7-8 roaches from 28-44 without getting speed or making lings, saw him do it against Thorzain and I talk about it in my second lecture.
On January 07 2012 09:04 Morghaine wrote: What about doing this build without the Speedlings at first? Only to reinforce with Speedlings when you are about to break the wall? I think 6-8 Roaches give as much map control as 8 Roaches and 16 Speedlings. Because, obviously, the Speedlings are only there for when you break the wall, because they are irrelevant in dealing damage to the wall.
You can just as well camp his expo with 8 Roaches unitl Siege is up or he has a medium amount of marines up, but even then his midgame push will be hugely delayed and he will not know exactly how many marines are needed to safely take out 8 Roaches... and maybe I'm reinforcing with Speedlings?
Off Topic: How useful is this against a FFE?
I haven't tried it exactly, but in my experience roach pressure at 7-8 minutes against an FFE isn't gonna work out so well. If you're pressuring an FFE you're gonna wanna do it earlier than that, or side step his wall with drops or a nydus.
On January 07 2012 06:18 rustypipe wrote: Tell me another way you will push back 4-6 hellions without a large investment in larva. You forget its not the cost of roaches that is so high that early in the game but the larva cost. Those larva could of been drones instead. With lings it would take double the amount of larva to kill those hellions which is even more of a loss. But yes you can go a ling build with a macro hatch and accomplish the same thing. To each there own I guess, however some marine, hellion medivac early pushes are really hard to deal with just with lings. You see more and more of those gimicky early pushes trying to cripple the zerg from korea more and more on ladder now.
Well there is the DRG style or 7-8 roaches from 28-44 without getting speed or making lings, saw him do it against Thorzain and I talk about it in my second lecture.
Was this a reply to the same post I just replied to? Else, I don't catch your meaning.
He asked another way to push back hellions without a large investment of larva, I was just pointing out that DRG does that roach-only push off 2hatch while taking a 3rd but that's the only example I can think of.
On January 07 2012 09:53 TangSC wrote: He asked another way to push back hellions without a large investment of larva, I was just pointing out that DRG does that roach-only push off 2hatch while taking a 3rd but that's the only example I can think of.
I see. You don't think spines, queens and good building placement are sufficiently powerful enough a defense to keep the larvae requirements low?
overall this kind of build surely works well on lower levels, but against good players i think its crap.
personally i think the roach ling baneling push that you see in GSL sometimes is way better.
I think the roach/ling/bane push is great too, but it's an over-generalization to say it is "crap" against good players. It might not work against Kas or immvp, but it will work to very high level master and even GM. Also, if you play someone 5 games in a row, it's helpful to alternate between this timing attack (or a comparable roach/ling/baneling timing attack) and standard macro play.
i guess we have different standards what we call a "good" player.
@tang: roach ling bling is what DRG does whenever he wants to all in. beating inferior players with roach ling shouldnt be your goal.
What I'm trying to argue is this particular push isn't really all-in, you can transition into a standard macro game or another big timing attack. Even if you end up slightly behind, you have to take into the account the benefits of executing the early attack: 1) You almost always do SOME form of damage. Whether you break in and kill half his SCVs or just force him to pull workers off the line to repair, you're going to do something. 2)You're basically guaranteed a 3rd base, which isn't always the case if you play defensively. 3) You gain map control and, essentially, immunity from hellion harass. 4) You can spread creep unhindered. 5) You may throw a player off his regular build, while you have planned followthroughs/transitions.
While these points may be true, I would argue that the cons still strongly outweigh the pros when compared to macro from the start, with the exact same math I've used above.
I think I have to agree that it's not "all-in" all-in, as in, if the push fails you're gonna lose. But it's certainly inferior to other, more standard plays in the long run if you don't deal absurd damage and most likely kill your opponent outright.
i re-read tangs OP and its just a problem with semantics. so what if people don't call it in allin? its not like it matters what you tag it as.
either way, its pointless to do these kinds of attacks. you won't get better practicing this build in the long run, and even if you want to "whip it out in a BoX", its not exactly difficult to execute. its best to just stick standard and macro until you're good at starcraft.
if you want to play with this aggression then open with 4-6 roaches to deny helions and take your third that way. you'll still be able to secure it without hurting your econ too much.
On January 07 2012 09:53 TangSC wrote: He asked another way to push back hellions without a large investment of larva, I was just pointing out that DRG does that roach-only push off 2hatch while taking a 3rd but that's the only example I can think of.
I see. You don't think spines, queens and good building placement are sufficiently powerful enough a defense to keep the larvae requirements low?
Actually one of my favorite styles is using spine/2 extra queens and a macro hatch to semi-wall in your natural. You can drone up very quickly that way, because your defenses are so larva-cheap. If they go heavy hellions, you use your evolution chambers to wall in even more with one extra spine until you've fully saturated 2base economy. From there, do whatever you want and time your lair accordingly (Taking all your gas, teching to infestors, and start massing zerglings so that you can take your 3rd soon is a good option).
On January 07 2012 09:53 TangSC wrote: He asked another way to push back hellions without a large investment of larva, I was just pointing out that DRG does that roach-only push off 2hatch while taking a 3rd but that's the only example I can think of.
I see. You don't think spines, queens and good building placement are sufficiently powerful enough a defense to keep the larvae requirements low?
Actually one of my favorite styles is using spine/2 extra queens and a macro hatch to semi-wall in your natural. You can drone up very quickly that way, because your defenses are so larva-cheap. If they go heavy hellions, you use your evolution chambers to wall in even more with one extra spine until you've fully saturated 2base economy. From there, do whatever you want and time your lair accordingly (Taking all your gas, teching to infestors, and start massing zerglings so that you can take your 3rd soon is a good option).
Haha, precisely. I know you didn't advertise it as such, but this very post shows that even the creator of the build admits to a lot of units not being the only good reply to hellions.
overall this kind of build surely works well on lower levels, but against good players i think its crap.
personally i think the roach ling baneling push that you see in GSL sometimes is way better.
I think the roach/ling/bane push is great too, but it's an over-generalization to say it is "crap" against good players. It might not work against Kas or immvp, but it will work to very high level master and even GM. Also, if you play someone 5 games in a row, it's helpful to alternate between this timing attack (or a comparable roach/ling/baneling timing attack) and standard macro play.
i guess we have different standards what we call a "good" player.
@tang: roach ling bling is what DRG does whenever he wants to all in. beating inferior players with roach ling shouldnt be your goal.
What I'm trying to argue is this particular push isn't really all-in, you can transition into a standard macro game or another big timing attack. Even if you end up slightly behind, you have to take into the account the benefits of executing the early attack: 1) You almost always do SOME form of damage. Whether you break in and kill half his SCVs or just force him to pull workers off the line to repair, you're going to do something. 2)You're basically guaranteed a 3rd base, which isn't always the case if you play defensively. 3) You gain map control and, essentially, immunity from hellion harass. 4) You can spread creep unhindered. 5) You may throw a player off his regular build, while you have planned followthroughs/transitions.
While these points may be true, I would argue that the cons still strongly outweigh the pros when compared to macro from the start, with the exact same math I've used above.
I think I have to agree that it's not "all-in" all-in, as in, if the push fails you're gonna lose. But it's certainly inferior to other, more standard plays in the long run if you don't deal absurd damage and most likely kill your opponent outright.
i re-read tangs OP and its just a problem with semantics. so what if people don't call it in allin? its not like it matters what you tag it as.
either way, its pointless to do these kinds of attacks. you won't get better practicing this build in the long run, and even if you want to "whip it out in a BoX", its not exactly difficult to execute. its best to just stick standard and macro until you're good at starcraft.
if you want to play with this aggression then open with 4-6 roaches to deny helions and take your third that way. you'll still be able to secure it without hurting your econ too much.
True enough. I think it's worth practicing if you're a higher level player (high master at least) before using it in any real competition, but for those of us who aren't quite there yet... better to stick to the basics.
Admittedly, Tang IS at that level, at least in terms of results if not "macro game skill." If he chooses to play BOX tournaments by simply drawing an appropriate all-in out of his hat and preforming it, then that's what he chooses, and it will surely bring him some solid results.
Not so for the rest of us.
EDIT:
On January 07 2012 10:29 discobaas wrote: Yes it is. Sir UmiNotsuki has explained it nicely.
The irony of the content of this post and the content of our two signatures gave me a good chuckle
I agree that this build is not optimal. Still, probably works pretty well vs mid-master and lower level terrans given what's popular nowadays.
Just wanted to add from my experience that this kind of play is very weak to 1/1/1 expand. 4 marine+1 hellion poke timing will make it pretty obvious that it's a roach opening and you'll likely take damage as more hellions and a banshee stream in rushing the roach warren that fast. Although the roaches will pop out in time to push everything back, Terran will lose nothing compared to the amount of units produced and will hold as a 2nd banshee pops out, while putting down a 3rd, and then roach warren won't help with the map control when being contained by 4-6 hellions and 2-3 banshees.
This is awesome stuff. As someone evolving their game play from Turtle Toss EZ mode into aggressive Zerg, I've been focusing on the Roach/Ling all in versus Toss as the standard build that I'm using to establish the fundamentals of Zerg mechanics and such. Having a hatch-first variation to throw at Terran (or even against Toss on larger maps) is just perfect for my newbie Zerg needs at this point in time.
Also, it seems like this is essentially the first barrel of the three barrel burst? However, instead of transitioning into a specific set of timing attacks to follow up with, there are now options to choose based on what your initial attack and scouting have revealed. This is also highly beneficial for my needs as I want to learn the 3 barrel burst build and mastering this initial "barrel" will make the lesson and learning the other 2 barrels go much smoother.
I would recommend for anyone considering playing Zerg that you check out this guide in conjunction with the 14/14 variation designed for Protoss. Actually, be SURE to check out the 14/14 guide, it is perhaps Tang's finest work and if just filled with useful info for newbies and even those with experience playing Zerg.
Of course, you don't want to simply all in every single game you ever play. However, when just starting out I'm a big believer in focusing on mastering a single build first (and everything that goes along with that like handling harass, defending cheese, etc) as a means to providing yourself an arena for your mechanics and other skills to be tested and improved. Not to mention the fact that the whole point of this guide is to ask ourselves, when is one truly ALL in? If you do a bunch of damage but don't end the game outright there are still plenty of options available to keep you in the game and hopefully, enable you to finish the job.
I've been favouring this style recently against hellion openers (except as a transition from the more standard 16hatch 17pool 18gas that DRG and such have been favouring) and I really don't know how you can come out behind if done right. Even if they do the 'safe' cc > 4hellion > start siege tank production opener, you can deny their nat long enough to get full saturation + your macro hatch down before they can get their nat.
While you can use the attack to take a third, depending on the map I find it much safer and solid to just get the macro hatch. You can then transition really strongly into double upgrade ling/festor or muta/ling/bane.
Figuring out when you can slip in drones is the most interesting thing for me. I tend to get a third queen and drone to 34 supply (ie. 28 drones, ~4 more than Tang's build) with the warren on 28, and then make a wave of drones after my 5-8 roaches. Making lings immediately after the roaches gets them to the opponents base faster than the roaches (unnecessary) and this way you can get more mining ^_^
What I like most is that the terran normally just plays super safe/standard in response. Even if you're attack doesn't kill a thing, if you pull back at the right timing it feels like a really solid advantage if you don't overmake lings (ie. 1 wave only if they don't try to hold their nat). Strategically it's really similar to the ZvP timings in which you deny/delay their third, and I'm really liking the playstyle for now. With my transition it's like the Idra variant of the icefisher build, except you get to scout with your attack/pressure. Almost feels safer.
I think the most important aspect to bring up is not the exact amount of larva you "waste", the exact amount of minerals you lose and other forms of math to discuss how all-in it is. What we should do is just compare it to terran and toss timing attacks, because all we want is the ability to do non-allin timing attacks like T and P. So this build basically leaves TangSC at around 28 drones on 2 base. This is quite low, a terran 3rax push will definitely be cheaper for the terran. However, it's important to note that because of the way zerg injection mechanics work, zergs can jump up again. You build those 16 lings, attack, and then do full droning and you should catch up to the terran since he can't expand. When he finally gets his expand down, you should already have full saturation on your two bases and a third one on the way. Which means that even if you didn't actually get inside his base, you evened it out, which is more or less the case when a terran does a 3rax which does little damage. He forced the zerg to build units and is allowed to catch up economically.
Seems like this is really bad if your opponent is bio heavy. Why not roach/baneling all-in instead? What is this good against that roach/baneling is not better against?
On January 07 2012 21:20 oOOoOphidian wrote: Seems like this is really bad if your opponent is bio heavy. Why not roach/baneling all-in instead? What is this good against that roach/baneling is not better against?
It's not all-in, and bio heavy play would lose as it would have no marauders at the timing you would hit. I haven't seen someone opening bio hold their nat against the 8 roach variant, and bio is slower at retaking the nat than standard play is.
Edit: I don't recommend this build at all against reaper openings though. Against reaper openers a ling/baneling attack (similar drone counts and attack timings, little faster) is much, much stronger.
On January 07 2012 13:52 sonnyb wrote: I agree that this build is not optimal. Still, probably works pretty well vs mid-master and lower level terrans given what's popular nowadays.
Just wanted to add from my experience that this kind of play is very weak to 1/1/1 expand. 4 marine+1 hellion poke timing will make it pretty obvious that it's a roach opening and you'll likely take damage as more hellions and a banshee stream in rushing the roach warren that fast. Although the roaches will pop out in time to push everything back, Terran will lose nothing compared to the amount of units produced and will hold as a 2nd banshee pops out, while putting down a 3rd, and then roach warren won't help with the map control when being contained by 4-6 hellions and 2-3 banshees.
I've actually found I outright kill most 1/1/1 or banshee openings, it's usually tank builds that hold the first push best and if the gas is going into banshees, breaking that depot-wall is the only problem.
On January 07 2012 13:52 sonnyb wrote: I agree that this build is not optimal. Still, probably works pretty well vs mid-master and lower level terrans given what's popular nowadays.
Just wanted to add from my experience that this kind of play is very weak to 1/1/1 expand. 4 marine+1 hellion poke timing will make it pretty obvious that it's a roach opening and you'll likely take damage as more hellions and a banshee stream in rushing the roach warren that fast. Although the roaches will pop out in time to push everything back, Terran will lose nothing compared to the amount of units produced and will hold as a 2nd banshee pops out, while putting down a 3rd, and then roach warren won't help with the map control when being contained by 4-6 hellions and 2-3 banshees.
I've actually found I outright kill most 1/1/1 or banshee openings, it's usually tank builds that hold the first push best and if the gas is going into banshees, breaking that depot-wall is the only problem.
Yes true I've died to this too plenty of times, perhaps it comes down to who executes better, as other times I've pretty much stopped it cold with additional simcity at wall + repair + hellions running around trying to snipe off lings (or drones.) Depends on how many scvs are killed by the time push is cleaned up (can be 0 to all,) but I still think if Terran plays perfect it can hold the "all-in?" while coming out significantly ahead in econ.
On January 07 2012 13:52 sonnyb wrote: I agree that this build is not optimal. Still, probably works pretty well vs mid-master and lower level terrans given what's popular nowadays.
Just wanted to add from my experience that this kind of play is very weak to 1/1/1 expand. 4 marine+1 hellion poke timing will make it pretty obvious that it's a roach opening and you'll likely take damage as more hellions and a banshee stream in rushing the roach warren that fast. Although the roaches will pop out in time to push everything back, Terran will lose nothing compared to the amount of units produced and will hold as a 2nd banshee pops out, while putting down a 3rd, and then roach warren won't help with the map control when being contained by 4-6 hellions and 2-3 banshees.
I've actually found I outright kill most 1/1/1 or banshee openings, it's usually tank builds that hold the first push best and if the gas is going into banshees, breaking that depot-wall is the only problem.
Yes true I've died to this too plenty of times, perhaps it comes down to who executes better, as other times I've pretty much stopped it cold with additional simcity at wall + repair + hellions running around trying to snipe off lings (or drones.) Depends on how many scvs are killed by the time push is cleaned up (can be 0 to all,) but I still think if Terran plays perfect it can hold the "all-in?" while coming out significantly ahead in econ.
Perhaps, but then again if zerg executes it perfectly they can be a base ahead with full map control and comparable mineral saturation! EDIT: Basically if zerg executes the attack and transitions perfectly, and terran defends the attack and transitions perfectly, I don't think the terran is in a vastly superior position. The game certainly isn't over, the zerg player will have options.
On January 07 2012 13:52 sonnyb wrote: I agree that this build is not optimal. Still, probably works pretty well vs mid-master and lower level terrans given what's popular nowadays.
Just wanted to add from my experience that this kind of play is very weak to 1/1/1 expand. 4 marine+1 hellion poke timing will make it pretty obvious that it's a roach opening and you'll likely take damage as more hellions and a banshee stream in rushing the roach warren that fast. Although the roaches will pop out in time to push everything back, Terran will lose nothing compared to the amount of units produced and will hold as a 2nd banshee pops out, while putting down a 3rd, and then roach warren won't help with the map control when being contained by 4-6 hellions and 2-3 banshees.
I've actually found I outright kill most 1/1/1 or banshee openings, it's usually tank builds that hold the first push best and if the gas is going into banshees, breaking that depot-wall is the only problem.
Yes true I've died to this too plenty of times, perhaps it comes down to who executes better, as other times I've pretty much stopped it cold with additional simcity at wall + repair + hellions running around trying to snipe off lings (or drones.) Depends on how many scvs are killed by the time push is cleaned up (can be 0 to all,) but I still think if Terran plays perfect it can hold the "all-in?" while coming out significantly ahead in econ.
Perhaps, but then again if zerg executes it perfectly they can be a base ahead with full map control and comparable mineral saturation! EDIT: Basically if zerg executes the attack and transitions perfectly, and terran defends the attack and transitions perfectly, I don't think the terran is in a vastly superior position. The game certainly isn't over, the zerg player will have options.
Perhaps... but zerg will have no map control vs hellion/banshee. This game will likely transition into terran 3 Orbitals vs zerg 2 base + macro hatch as it normally would with standard zerg play vs hellion/banshee, and it comes down to how much damage zerg was able to do. I feel that a zerg playing perfect will not be able to do enough damage to a terran playing a perfect 1/1/1. Perfect defense (though it's hard for me to judge timing of the attack from just reading the BO) would be CC placed at wall to expand/wall + bunker + lifting off factory to simcity as well.
On January 06 2012 20:57 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: I think doing a good old bling bust is stronger than roach pushes.
reasons: * roaches are slow, during the time they need to travel to the opponents base, they are a 'dead' investment. In general: the longer your army is on transport, the easier a push is to hold (longer preparation and you fight with your army of T-60 seconds against his T+0 seconds army) * speedlings are much faster, so the initial punch can be stronger, since it results from your T-30 seconds economy. * banelings can be morphed directly at the opponents base in case, this has somewhat the effect of a proxy pylon, since you can directly strengthen your army without having a traveling time (however banes need time to morph). * you dont't lose a drone+resources to a roach warren (=200 mins = 8 slings) * in case he has a strong defense, just don't morph banes (flexibility) * in case he has not expanded, just block his nat, no need to bust (flexibility)
The only advantage of roaches is larvae efficiency, which might be the major reason why roach pushes are preferred in some scenarios.
I prefer roach/ling due to the amount of players that open with hellion expand. Roaches are much stronger against hellions, and also you can use roaches defensively if they counter attack later.
You would think this build is good against hellion expand, while it actually does terrible against it.
He will have a techlab on his barracks, while his 4 hellions will camp in front of your natural. Once you move out with your roaches he will see it immediately. Because of how slow roaches are, you will face a bunker with marauders and the 4 hellions in position to roast your lings when you arrive. This minimal defense holds this semi-allin (he can even salvage the bunker), and put you really behind.
I do the little similar sheth roach opening. (@diamond level)
15hatch 15pool 17gas 17overlord 2 queens (double creeptumor) 24 roachwarren 4 to 7 roaches then speed
and then i drone hard + add macrohatch/upgrades ...
on easy defendable naturals i only build 4 to be safe against hellions on the other maps i am aggressive and delay their expansion.
- you get to know what he is up to (without roaches i feel complete blind and you have to get lucky with overlords to see tech) - and i feel a lot safer (i think thats my most important for me)
I still think the main benefit of this build is the fact how long you can actually delay his expo, AND delay the midgame push as he eventually moves out and has to trade with your units.
Usually, I'm very very hesitant to get my third up. However, trying this build, I can get up a saturated third AND a macro hatch in no time (except when he goes air).
To be ultra safe, you should get an evo up by around 5:30 because if he did go air, you will delay his attack by ahving gone roaches and have extra queens and spores up by the time he actually reaches your base.
I still think the main benefit of this build is the fact how long you can actually delay his expo, AND delay the midgame push as he eventually moves out and has to trade with your units.
And of course the chance to win the game right then and there added bonus.
I wanted to tell you that as another master zerg (usually my smurf or main is in your devision). I have been opening zvt in a similar fashion with great success. I Feel like the roaches force the terran to show you what he is doing. Additionally, it counters helion/reaper/greed/6 rax all in openings.
I wanted you to comment on my version your/sheth/DRG opening.
16H,17P (if not two player map) 18G (only two on gas, not 3 drones) two queens, (2 pair of lings, to scout and let me know if its an early cc or reapers/helions) warren 28. (3 ol) (add 3rd drone back into gas after the group of roaches)
6-8 roaches, (2 for defense my 4 lings saw reapers or helions)
My rational for the 2 drones on gas and the 3 ol is this. It gives me just enough gas for 6-7roaches, and it allows me enough money to really start pumping mass drone while I micro the roaches. Usually I can fully saturate 2 bases during the roach engagment if you dont supply block youself.
I know I'm late to the party, but I can't resist finding fault with the "must kill 25 SCVs to break even" calculation. Suppose, for instance, that terran only has 30 SCVs at the time zerg attacks. Does zerg really need to kill 25 SCVs to break even?
There are two good ways of thinking about it. One is, "How many drones and production facilities COULD I have now? What percent of ideal am I at?" Suppose this roach ling aggression sacrafices 40% of zerg's potential economy. Then maybe zerg needs to kill 12 SCV's and an addon to break even.
The other way of thinking about it is "I want to max out at X minutes." This could literally mean 200/200 supply, or it could mean getting broodlords, or getting all the drones you want for the rest of the game. The point is, pick a goal, figure out how fast you could reach that goal, and how much this aggression delayed you. Suppose the roach production set you back two minutes. How much damage to you need to do to delay the terran push by two minutes?
(I'm not the first person to recognize the faulty calculation, but multiple posts made faulty attempts at invalidating his calculation. Nobody in this thread seems to understand math.)
What about reinforing only with speedlings when you are actually through the wall? Then you're only sacrificing some mining time, 8 larvae and not too much money as roaches are ridiculously cheap money wise, only expensive supply wise, but you're bound to get that anyway. I was always of the opinion that the 2 supply of the roach really counts when maxed because being maxed on roches is usually really bad because the roach just doesn't cut it supply wise.
Btw, in most replays you provide you ARE actually allin because you are NOT building drones behind this. Even before you can know you will get through the wall.
What about reinforing only with speedlings when you are actually through the wall?
I usually always make lings at least to 52 (sometimes to 60). The problem with waiting is if the roaches break in, that's a critical time where you NEED some speedlings to kill marines/scvs while roaches target hellions/marines/marauders. The lings can also prevent SCV surrounds on the bunkers.
On January 06 2012 09:17 UmiNotsuki wrote: Gonna be honest, just like all of your guides this one makes me uneasy. I feel as if you're looking at the game differently from me. I'll explain:
StarCraft II consists of games and sets of games; that is, you can think within the context of a single game, or within the context of your overall win-loss ratio. To me, it seems that you're more concerned with the latter than the former, and that truly bothers me. A good player should be able to, with rather strong consistency, beat someone significantly worse than himself (if only by one league or so.) For instance, a solid platinum player should almost always win against a solid gold player because the platinum player is simply more refined and all-together better at the game. But, your guides seem to be focused on builds for which this is not true. Let me discuss this specific guide in that way:
You suggest that you should have "8 roaches and 16+ lings at the 7:15 mark" when executing this build. Lets look at the cost of that, assuming the minimum number of zerglings.
4 gas = 5 minerals (based on value of one resource return)
200 gas = 250 minerals
Total = 1250 minerals, 24 supply and 16 larvae
That's 16 drones with 800 minerals (not including what those extra drones mine) and 8 supply left over (the exact value of one overlord, so 100 minerals worth)
So, what you are suggesting is that we sacrifice 16 drones worth of mining and 900 minerals for this attack. In order for it to pay for itself relative to simply droning up, as is safe to do with rather minimal defense, we'd have to kill:
More than 12 supply depots, 25 marines, or 25 SCV's
or some combination thereof. Note that these numbers STILL don't include the huge count of minerals that the extra 16 drones mine up to this point.
I think you're crazy if you think you can deal that much damage reliably. Therefore, the only way this build is any good when compared to a macro zerg style is if it wins, right then and there. "Significant damage" won't cut it because there's simply no way that you could deal enough damage for this to pay for itself and not win outright.
The reason this works for you is because you beat some players with it, and that percentage is high enough to keep you at your admittedly impressive ladder ranking. However, you are just as likely to lose to a platinum player with the correct counter in hand (even a blind counter) as you are to beat a master player who was just a little too greedy.
I don't like that.
TL;DR: There's no way this can pay for itself without the opponent dying outright, which is simply not reliable or in my opinion a solid way to play.
EDIT: Added a point about lost mining from lack of drones
EDIT: I started this out as an argument against the above poster, but it's not really only that. I'm below arguing for why I think a zerg should produce units over trying to build as many drones as possible and just defend, in nearly all scenarios.
As a high masters terran player I strongly disagree with this.
Let's put it this way, there are two scenarios that can happen when you come to the terran base. In scenario one you do enough damage/kill him outright to pay for the attack, in that scenario it has by definiton of the scenario been a good move to do the roach ling allin/aggression. So the more interesting scenario is scenario two, where the terran player has put up enough defense so that the zerg wont do enough damage to justify the attack.
In scenario two your thoughs imply that you think the only option for the zerg is to attack anyway, to sacrifice the units for less damage than they are worth. This is not correct, the zerg in this scenario should obviously pull his forces back. Pulling your forces back also means that you don't actually "lose drones" with your aggresive build, but instead what you lose is mining time. Why? Well, you will still build those drones afterwards, so only if you would only build drones the entire game and your goal was to rush 200 drones could you say you actually lost something building armies without letting them die. Otherwise you delayed drones, instead of delaying army which is the standard, and you didn't lose anything.
(Also as a side note: what you should obviously the compare scenario two with is a scenario where the zerg player makes only adequate units to just defend himself meanwhile droning hardcore. Which means that saying that you've lost 16 drones and 900 minerals is unrealistic, without making these roaches and zerglings you'd most likely still have a bunch of zerglings and one or two spinecrawlers by the time the attack would have stricken.)
Now, let's make this clear, when you've got to scenario two you will be in a suboptimal scenario from if you played standard, everything will be slightly delayed as you've lost mining time. But what I'd argue for is that you a) now have external resources that helps you play more optimal later in the game, b) also having units greatly increases your chance of surviving pushes than if you try to play the style where you have as high dronecount as possible, c) reduces the chance that the terran will play optimal.
a) With the push you are garuanteed to gain information about what your opponent is doing, greatly increasing the chances of you holding any aggresive builds of his, and increasing your possibility to play optimal against his build of choice even if he doesn't play aggresive. Also if you choose to pullback which should be the case (as we are talking about scenario two, where it wont be worth it pushing on), you'll have mapcontrol earlier than you'd normally would which helps you deal with all kind of stuff the terran can throw at you.
b) If we say that a terran push comes at the 10 minute mark that you need exactly 60 zerglings to defeat, then playing optimally you'd drone and expand just until the moment when you'd have to start your first zergling to get 60 in time of his push. Though, if you try do this, the chances of you actually succeding seems small unless you are maphacking. Instead you might try having 4 lings only, and use them to see when his push is moving out, but even doing so can be risky, because maybe you just used all your popped larva to make drones, then you might only get 40 zerglings until he reaches you. Therefore having a buffer of units greatly increases your chance to survive any pushes, as none can play optimally, none can know every game that the terran will push in 2 minutes if he haven't even moved out yet.
c) as you do the aggression a terran is very likely to overreact, fact is that in many cases you'll end up just fine economically after pulling back doing no direct damage (if you don't sacrifice the units) as the terran will act as if you are continuing your allin. This is also something that the terran is basically forced to do, as he has no way of knowing if you are producing drones or units when you have enough units that he cannot beat you without his base defence. You can also use your army to greatly delay his expansion, as he'll have to wait till he has enough forces to beat yours before he can try to move out.
A good example is the game where I think it was Darkforce that won against Sound in HSC on shattered temple, at an early stage Darkforce had LOADS of lings but only the same count of drones as Sound, and Sound had two orbitals, but because of the lings Sound was forced to build bunkers as well wait longer until he could fly out his CC. If Darkforce hadn't sacrificed a lot of lings bringing a bunker to red but not even killing it, Sounds cc would have been delayed even more, as it wasn't before that Sound knew he could fly out. And still doing so Darkforce got an really solid economical lead, taking out the gold rocks with the zerglings aswell as droning madly meanwhile Sound had to play really carefully.
As a conclusion, with all these three reasons for having units, and not even including the fact that you'd get a bunch of freewins vs people without adequate defense, (ie scenario one). I'd say that aggresive builds might not only be viable, but better. I think Stephano is the best proof of that, with builds where he nearly constantly has a big pack of zerglings, he can easily deal with pushes and often because of his bigger army than other zergs, trade more costefficently so that he'll turn up with both more army and drones that another zerg meeting the same build. The only build that would always be strong against such builds is if the terran decides to play just as greedy as he can get away with, but that is hard, and even so I'm doubtful if a terran doing so is better off than the terran playing aggressive against a zerg trying to drone as hard as possible.
tl:dr as long as you don't sacrifice the units in cases you wont be able to do enough damage to make them worth it, you are not going to be very far behind, unless you did a build which was completely all in.
I don't know if it has already been posted, but this is a game of spanishiwa using this king of style, where he goes for roach ling aggression vs hellions, and where he macros behind it: at the end of the game spanishiwa has 80 workers to the 50 of his 2 base opponent.
Oh that spanishiwa replay is awesome. I love his decision to get +1 armor, I do it a lot when I'm going roach/ling/bane because your lings don't die in one hit to tanks.
I just found by skipping the second queen and getting two more drones instead, you will have the money to produce ALL 8 Roaches at once and not be down on larvae because you won't have the money to produce more related to your income. On the contrary, usually you have excess drones without your hatches producing larvae of their own.
You have to park the queen from your expo at the ramp, though, because the first two hellions will be in you nat slightly before the roaches pop.
You will be down on creep spread, though, obviously.
Apart from that, it might be a good idea to first show only two roaches and scare the hellions away, not showing your other roaches, because if he sees like 4-8 roaches, he will know something is up and build defenses, if he doesn't see the remaining 6 roaches, you might catch him even more offguard. Just because it takes an aeon for the roaches to actually get to the other base.
On January 09 2012 03:09 Morghaine wrote: I just found by skipping the second queen and getting two more drones instead, you will have the money to produce ALL 8 Roaches at once and not be down on larvae because you won't have the money to produce more related to your income. On the contrary, usually you have excess drones without your hatches producing larvae of their own.
You have to park the queen from your expo at the ramp, though, because the first two hellions will be in you nat slightly before the roaches pop.
You will be down on creep spread, though, obviously.
I have a new, VERY detailed TL post coming out soon on the macro-mechanics behind the roach/ling.
What would also be interesting is spotting when to retreat and when to push, because it's not as obvious, especially for the lower leagues. Like: If you see a bunker with a marauder shooting out of it and at least X Marines, retreat and camp expo, otherwise push.
A good example is the game where I think it was Darkforce that won against Sound in HSC on shattered temple, at an early stage Darkforce had LOADS of lings but only the same count of drones as Sound, and Sound had two orbitals, but because of the lings Sound was forced to build bunkers as well wait longer until he could fly out his CC. If Darkforce hadn't sacrificed a lot of lings bringing a bunker to red but not even killing it, Sounds cc would have been delayed even more, as it wasn't before that Sound knew he could fly out. And still doing so Darkforce got an really solid economical lead, taking out the gold rocks with the zerglings aswell as droning madly meanwhile Sound had to play really carefully.
As a conclusion, with all these three reasons for having units, and not even including the fact that you'd get a bunch of freewins vs people without adequate defense, (ie scenario one). I'd say that aggresive builds might not only be viable, but better. I think Stephano is the best proof of that, with builds where he nearly constantly has a big pack of zerglings, he can easily deal with pushes and often because of his bigger army than other zergs, trade more costefficently so that he'll turn up with both more army and drones that another zerg meeting the same build. The only build that would always be strong against such builds is if the terran decides to play just as greedy as he can get away with, but that is hard, and even so I'm doubtful if a terran doing so is better off than the terran playing aggressive against a zerg trying to drone as hard as possible.
tl:dr as long as you don't sacrifice the units in cases you wont be able to do enough damage to make them worth it, you are not going to be very far behind, unless you did a build which was completely all in.
it tilts me that you take this game as an example. the situation is super different. i killed 2 or 3 reapers, 2 or 3 scvs with those lings and i had to build those lings because of the bunker rush. and then the reaction time is generally alot less against lings, and they are more useful later on (you cant counter his natural with slow roaches when he moves out). also he didnt have hellions, which is why he had to move out so late.
god now i know again why i stopped posting in strategy.
What would also be interesting is spotting when to retreat and when to push, because it's not as obvious, especially for the lower leagues. Like: If you see a bunker with a marauder shooting out of it and at least X Marines, retreat and camp expo, otherwise push.
The only problem with that is it's hard to just say "this amount of units means you should retreat". It's really a trial and error thing, or "Game Sense." The reason is while someone new to this style might push up the ramp see a bunker with marines/hellions and pull back, a more experienced player may know that since the terran has no marauders you can probably break in with the roaches and surround the SCVs or bunker itself. As your skill in executing this style improves, so too does your decision-making when decided whether to engage and "go for the jugular" or simply pressure/contain.
A good example is the game where I think it was Darkforce that won against Sound in HSC on shattered temple, at an early stage Darkforce had LOADS of lings but only the same count of drones as Sound, and Sound had two orbitals, but because of the lings Sound was forced to build bunkers as well wait longer until he could fly out his CC. If Darkforce hadn't sacrificed a lot of lings bringing a bunker to red but not even killing it, Sounds cc would have been delayed even more, as it wasn't before that Sound knew he could fly out. And still doing so Darkforce got an really solid economical lead, taking out the gold rocks with the zerglings aswell as droning madly meanwhile Sound had to play really carefully.
As a conclusion, with all these three reasons for having units, and not even including the fact that you'd get a bunch of freewins vs people without adequate defense, (ie scenario one). I'd say that aggresive builds might not only be viable, but better. I think Stephano is the best proof of that, with builds where he nearly constantly has a big pack of zerglings, he can easily deal with pushes and often because of his bigger army than other zergs, trade more costefficently so that he'll turn up with both more army and drones that another zerg meeting the same build. The only build that would always be strong against such builds is if the terran decides to play just as greedy as he can get away with, but that is hard, and even so I'm doubtful if a terran doing so is better off than the terran playing aggressive against a zerg trying to drone as hard as possible.
tl:dr as long as you don't sacrifice the units in cases you wont be able to do enough damage to make them worth it, you are not going to be very far behind, unless you did a build which was completely all in.
it tilts me that you take this game as an example. the situation is super different. i killed 2 or 3 reapers, 2 or 3 scvs with those lings and i had to build those lings because of the bunker rush. and then the reaction time is generally alot less against lings, and they are more useful later on (you cant counter his natural with slow roaches when he moves out). also he didnt have hellions, which is why he had to move out so late.
god now i know again why i stopped posting in strategy.
Really starting to agree. I'm losing faith in TL's population's ability to provide good, intelligent and thought out posts in Strategy. Too much baseless arguing.
On January 06 2012 20:57 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: I think doing a good old bling bust is stronger than roach pushes.
reasons: * roaches are slow, during the time they need to travel to the opponents base, they are a 'dead' investment. In general: the longer your army is on transport, the easier a push is to hold (longer preparation and you fight with your army of T-60 seconds against his T+0 seconds army) * speedlings are much faster, so the initial punch can be stronger, since it results from your T-30 seconds economy. * banelings can be morphed directly at the opponents base in case, this has somewhat the effect of a proxy pylon, since you can directly strengthen your army without having a traveling time (however banes need time to morph). * you dont't lose a drone+resources to a roach warren (=200 mins = 8 slings) * in case he has a strong defense, just don't morph banes (flexibility) * in case he has not expanded, just block his nat, no need to bust (flexibility)
The only advantage of roaches is larvae efficiency, which might be the major reason why roach pushes are preferred in some scenarios.
I prefer roach/ling due to the amount of players that open with hellion expand. Roaches are much stronger against hellions, and also you can use roaches defensively if they counter attack later.
You would think this build is good against hellion expand, while it actually does terrible against it.
He will have a techlab on his barracks, while his 4 hellions will camp in front of your natural. Once you move out with your roaches he will see it immediately. Because of how slow roaches are, you will face a bunker with marauders and the 4 hellions in position to roast your lings when you arrive. This minimal defense holds this semi-allin (he can even salvage the bunker), and put you really behind.
What if the Zerg doesn't do the all in? As a Terran you don't actually know for certain. There could be a ton of roaches and lings or there could be a spire coming or a fast third.
You would think this build is good against hellion expand, while it actually does terrible against it.
He will have a techlab on his barracks, while his 4 hellions will camp in front of your natural. Once you move out with your roaches he will see it immediately. Because of how slow roaches are, you will face a bunker with marauders and the 4 hellions in position to roast your lings when you arrive. This minimal defense holds this semi-allin (he can even salvage the bunker), and put you really behind.
He won't be able to hold his expansion. That's the point of a reactor expand: getting an expansion with safety. Even if you cant bust the ramp, you can camp the natural, and deny his expansion. You also mess up his timings. Busting the ramp is just a bonus, it's not the goal.
Darkforce's reply is exactly why players should not these cheesy "pressure" builds.
Tang's builds are based on blind aggression. As Darkforce explains, he used early aggression as a reactionary response. He didn't hop into the game thinking "I'm going to use this great mass zergling opener vs the terran to pressure his expo and gain an advantage!"
Top-tier players decision-making is logical and changes based on what they see, including the tiniest details. Tang's builds are based on build orders that assume his opponent is going to make a mistake. There are times when Code A+ players will execute these builds, but at least consider that they have a lot more information at the start of the game (who their opponent is and their history)
On January 12 2012 01:55 blinkblue wrote: Darkforce's reply is why players should be learning from the best and not these cheesy "pressure" builds.
Tang's builds are based on blind aggression. As Darkforce explains, he uses early aggression as a reactionary response.
Top-tier players decision-making is logical and changes based on what they see, including the tiniest details. Tang's builds are based on build orders that assume his opponent is going to make a mistake.
Darkforce's reply is an opinion, no more valid than others'. He has biases like anyone else. Opening with early aggression with planned transitions is not "blind." I don't understand how you expect newer players to have "top-tier decision-making to the point they can change based on what they see, including the tiniest details." A new player needs a gameplan/goal, and then structure. If their game plan is to execute an early attack to gain map control, scouting, and safety to drone - that's a completely viable option, and in my experience, more solid than telling them to drone blindly.
On January 12 2012 01:55 blinkblue wrote: Darkforce's reply is why players should be learning from the best and not these cheesy "pressure" builds.
Tang's builds are based on blind aggression. As Darkforce explains, he uses early aggression as a reactionary response.
Top-tier players decision-making is logical and changes based on what they see, including the tiniest details. Tang's builds are based on build orders that assume his opponent is going to make a mistake.
Darkforce's reply is an opinion, no more valid than others'. He has bias's like anyone else. Opening with early aggression with planned transitions is not "blind".
His reply regarding his reactionary response is not his opinion, it's fact.
Edit: I meant my post to be regarding darkforce's response to the comment about a game where he made a lot of early zerglings. Someone else brought up the game, not you.
Regardless, seeing his thought-process and decision making is the point I'm trying to make. He opens very standard, and then based on certain events, starts producing to counter his opponent. That sort of reactionary play is clearly what makes such a significant difference between the best players and your idea of "good" players.
On January 12 2012 01:55 blinkblue wrote: Darkforce's reply is why players should be learning from the best and not these cheesy "pressure" builds.
Tang's builds are based on blind aggression. As Darkforce explains, he uses early aggression as a reactionary response.
Top-tier players decision-making is logical and changes based on what they see, including the tiniest details. Tang's builds are based on build orders that assume his opponent is going to make a mistake.
Darkforce's reply is an opinion, no more valid than others'. He has bias's like anyone else. Opening with early aggression with planned transitions is not "blind".
His reply regarding his reactionary response is not his opinion, it's fact. You brought up a game as an example of darkforce using a ling aggression build as if he has blindly chosen to use it at the start of the match while excluding all of the obvious early-game events.
I never used DarkForce as a reference, I've only seen one or two of his games. I don't know where you're getting this concept of blind aggression, that's not at all what I'm suggesting. My argument is that having an aggressive opening in response to Terran expansion builds can be very safe/solid play if executed properly with planned transitions.
LOL i love how only zerg can do "2b all in" and be absolutely fine. because they have larva to remake and plus they can just take 3rd + 4th and make 20-30 drones while pushing and yes i do know what im talking about im high masters terran and no im not claiming imbalance im just stating a fact take it however you want but no other race can do a HUGE PUSH and be fine afterwards aslong as the zerg doesnt suck that is.
On January 12 2012 01:55 blinkblue wrote: Darkforce's reply is why players should be learning from the best and not these cheesy "pressure" builds.
Tang's builds are based on blind aggression. As Darkforce explains, he uses early aggression as a reactionary response.
Top-tier players decision-making is logical and changes based on what they see, including the tiniest details. Tang's builds are based on build orders that assume his opponent is going to make a mistake.
Darkforce's reply is an opinion, no more valid than others'.
Darkforce didn't just give an opinion, he gave you an argument, and some arguments are better than others.
On January 12 2012 01:55 blinkblue wrote: Darkforce's reply is why players should be learning from the best and not these cheesy "pressure" builds.
Tang's builds are based on blind aggression. As Darkforce explains, he uses early aggression as a reactionary response.
Top-tier players decision-making is logical and changes based on what they see, including the tiniest details. Tang's builds are based on build orders that assume his opponent is going to make a mistake.
Darkforce's reply is an opinion, no more valid than others'.
Darkforce didn't just give an opinion, he gave you an argument, and some arguments are better than others.
True, he did suggest a good alternative in the ling/bane/roach all-in.
this is a very good build to put pressure on terrans who like to do very fast 1rax FE, CC first, or 3 CC (extra in-base CC). Especially if they do not BLINDLY (yes, terran would be blind in this situation) go for tanks before hellions. Given that you have two to four zerglings out early on (18-20 supply) that you can scout with (and an overlord in position you might get information with)... you can decide *not* to make the roaches and zerglings if scouting information really tells you not to.
This opening build is not sacrificing any economy other than mined gas until 28 supply. As zerg I have used this strategy with 100% winrate thus far vs early expanding terrans in high masters / grandmasters. No I do not BLINDLY build the roaches and zerglings, I have scouting information telling me that pressuring them using roaches and speedlings is good. How is this different from any standard build?
Thank you Tang for this guide, it gives me yet another build in my arsenal for tournament play when I decide to enter tournaments again
On January 12 2012 01:55 blinkblue wrote: Darkforce's reply is why players should be learning from the best and not these cheesy "pressure" builds.
Tang's builds are based on blind aggression. As Darkforce explains, he uses early aggression as a reactionary response.
Top-tier players decision-making is logical and changes based on what they see, including the tiniest details. Tang's builds are based on build orders that assume his opponent is going to make a mistake.
Darkforce's reply is an opinion, no more valid than others'. He has bias's like anyone else. Opening with early aggression with planned transitions is not "blind".
His reply regarding his reactionary response is not his opinion, it's fact. You brought up a game as an example of darkforce using a ling aggression build as if he has blindly chosen to use it at the start of the match while excluding all of the obvious early-game events.
I never used DarkForce as a reference, I've only seen one or two of his games. I don't know where you're getting this concept of blind aggression, that's not at all what I'm suggesting. My argument is that having an aggressive opening in response to Terran expansion builds can be very safe/solid play if executed properly with planned transitions.
Your build is not really a reaction to an expansion though, its just a blind 2 base allin.
On January 12 2012 01:55 blinkblue wrote: Darkforce's reply is why players should be learning from the best and not these cheesy "pressure" builds.
Tang's builds are based on blind aggression. As Darkforce explains, he uses early aggression as a reactionary response.
Top-tier players decision-making is logical and changes based on what they see, including the tiniest details. Tang's builds are based on build orders that assume his opponent is going to make a mistake.
Darkforce's reply is an opinion, no more valid than others'. He has bias's like anyone else. Opening with early aggression with planned transitions is not "blind".
His reply regarding his reactionary response is not his opinion, it's fact. You brought up a game as an example of darkforce using a ling aggression build as if he has blindly chosen to use it at the start of the match while excluding all of the obvious early-game events.
I never used DarkForce as a reference, I've only seen one or two of his games. I don't know where you're getting this concept of blind aggression, that's not at all what I'm suggesting. My argument is that having an aggressive opening in response to Terran expansion builds can be very safe/solid play if executed properly with planned transitions.
Your build is not really a reaction to an expansion though, its just a blind 2 base allin.
For someone inexperienced in executing this push, it could be considered all-in. But if you've taken the time to refine transitions and execution, it's just an opening that doesn't necessarily put you in a worse spot than general macro. I just don't think it puts you that behind, in the absolute WORST case scenario you do no damage but you delay an expo and you have a 3rd building with map control and a considerable defense.
So what do you do if your opponent goes reactor hellion -> banshee (maybe even with cloak) -> CC? If you aim for the later i allin i suggested you have more time to find out what your opponent is doing, and also success rate against builds where it actualyl works is probably higher.
If you have an EU acc im willing to play T vs your build, altho my T sucks. Just to see whether its as easy to counter as i think it is.
edit: By the way you put it, almost nothing is really an allin, because if you do enough damage etc. you almost always have a transition followup bla bla bla
On January 12 2012 04:56 DarKFoRcE wrote: So what do you do if your opponent goes reactor hellion -> banshee (maybe even with cloak) -> CC? If you aim for the later i allin i suggested you have more time to find out what your opponent is doing, and also success rate against builds where it actualyl works is probably higher.
If you have an EU acc im willing to play T vs your build, altho my T sucks. Just to see whether its as easy to counter as i think it is.
edit: By the way you put it, almost nothing is really an allin, because if you do enough damage etc. you almost always have a transition followup bla bla bla
That build is one of the strongest, but usually you can still break in. I've had games that were really close against reactor hellion/banshee expands and it's been win some / lose some. Usually depends on how much damage I do, how fast I respond to their banshees, etc. I'm definitely up for practicing on EU, though I can't today. Message me your EU info and we'll experiment soon.
You make 8 roaches, a ton of lings and go and attack. You see a third orbital at the natural. Perfect! My blind build order might get a build order win! I swarm the front with my forces... and he holds it losing basically nothing. Hellions roast the lings. 1 marauder and 1 tank with marines in a repaired bunker clean up the roaches. When an all in cant beat a triple orbital opening if the Terran gets bunkers, then the all in relies on huge mistakes by the Terran.
On January 12 2012 04:56 DarKFoRcE wrote: So what do you do if your opponent goes reactor hellion -> banshee (maybe even with cloak) -> CC? If you aim for the later i allin i suggested you have more time to find out what your opponent is doing, and also success rate against builds where it actualyl works is probably higher.
If you have an EU acc im willing to play T vs your build, altho my T sucks. Just to see whether its as easy to counter as i think it is.
edit: By the way you put it, almost nothing is really an allin, because if you do enough damage etc. you almost always have a transition followup bla bla bla
That build is one of the strongest, but usually you can still break in. I've had games that were really close against reactor hellion/banshee expands and it's been win some / lose some. Usually depends on how much damage I do, how fast I respond to their banshees, etc. I'm definitely up for practicing on EU, though I can't today. Message me your EU info and we'll experiment soon.
I dont see how you will ever do damage if terran has a wallin + a bunker behind that and SCVs repairing.
On January 12 2012 05:06 Micket wrote: You make 8 roaches, a ton of lings and go and attack. You see a third orbital at the natural. Perfect! My blind build order might get a build order win! I swarm the front with my forces... and he holds it losing basically nothing. Hellions roast the lings. 1 marauder and 1 tank with marines in a repaired bunker clean up the roaches. When an all in cant beat a triple orbital opening if the Terran gets bunkers, then the all in relies on huge mistakes by the Terran.
It depends on positioning and micro. I've beaten terrans with 2 bunkers using it. As long as your roaches beat the hellions and your lings can surround the bunkers, you're fine. It's not an all-in and can without a doubt be defended, so you have to pick your fight. If the terran has a wall with bunkers and SCVs repairing, you should notice quickly that you're not going to break it, so just back off. You've taken a third and he can't move out, so just drone.
I'm surprised a terran could have hellions, marines in a bunker, a marauder, a tank and SCVs repairing while going 3 orbital by the 7 minute mark though.
On January 12 2012 01:55 blinkblue wrote: Darkforce's reply is why players should be learning from the best and not these cheesy "pressure" builds.
Tang's builds are based on blind aggression. As Darkforce explains, he uses early aggression as a reactionary response.
Top-tier players decision-making is logical and changes based on what they see, including the tiniest details. Tang's builds are based on build orders that assume his opponent is going to make a mistake.
Darkforce's reply is an opinion, no more valid than others'. He has bias's like anyone else. Opening with early aggression with planned transitions is not "blind".
His reply regarding his reactionary response is not his opinion, it's fact. You brought up a game as an example of darkforce using a ling aggression build as if he has blindly chosen to use it at the start of the match while excluding all of the obvious early-game events.
I never used DarkForce as a reference, I've only seen one or two of his games. I don't know where you're getting this concept of blind aggression, that's not at all what I'm suggesting. My argument is that having an aggressive opening in response to Terran expansion builds can be very safe/solid play if executed properly with planned transitions.
Your build is not really a reaction to an expansion though, its just a blind 2 base allin.
That's not a fair judge. There is enough early scouting to skip the attack in case. If you go muta-bling you also play your build accordingly and transition to e.g. infestor dependent on your scouting. Nobody calls a 10-minute 10 muta build 'all-in' because of that.
On January 12 2012 04:56 DarKFoRcE wrote: So what do you do if your opponent goes reactor hellion -> banshee (maybe even with cloak) -> CC? If you aim for the later i allin i suggested you have more time to find out what your opponent is doing, and also success rate against builds where it actualyl works is probably higher.
If you have an EU acc im willing to play T vs your build, altho my T sucks. Just to see whether its as easy to counter as i think it is.
edit: By the way you put it, almost nothing is really an allin, because if you do enough damage etc. you almost always have a transition followup bla bla bla
That build is one of the strongest, but usually you can still break in. I've had games that were really close against reactor hellion/banshee expands and it's been win some / lose some. Usually depends on how much damage I do, how fast I respond to their banshees, etc. I'm definitely up for practicing on EU, though I can't today. Message me your EU info and we'll experiment soon.
I dont see how you will ever do damage if terran has a wallin + a bunker behind that and SCVs repairing.
If the Terran spent money getting a bunker and marines, he either doesn't have hellions, doesn't have a banshee, or cut SCVs to do so. There is a proper course of action for every possibility. Declairing a build "blind all-in" because Zerg is attacking before the 15 minute mark is unfair and closed-minded.
Mutas are a blind all-in. What if he just makes a bunch of marines and turrets? Guess you just lost right?
2 rax is a blind all-in. If Zerg didn't go 15 hatch its GG right?
I don't do Tangs exact build, I just do the naked 7 roaches, no lings. But all the same principles apply. Its a build that works and doesn't have to do damage to be worth it.
TL has a horrible attitude toward new builds these days.
I was going to make a similar guide last week but decided not to because I knew I would get this same shitty response, if not worse.
Thanks Tang for putting the effort in to writing a guide and shbaring some knowledge.
Fuck everybody else for preferring to stay in the dark.
Attacking Terran before Broodlords is auto-lose. Don't bother.
On January 12 2012 01:55 blinkblue wrote: Darkforce's reply is why players should be learning from the best and not these cheesy "pressure" builds.
Tang's builds are based on blind aggression. As Darkforce explains, he uses early aggression as a reactionary response.
Top-tier players decision-making is logical and changes based on what they see, including the tiniest details. Tang's builds are based on build orders that assume his opponent is going to make a mistake.
Darkforce's reply is an opinion, no more valid than others'. He has bias's like anyone else. Opening with early aggression with planned transitions is not "blind".
His reply regarding his reactionary response is not his opinion, it's fact. You brought up a game as an example of darkforce using a ling aggression build as if he has blindly chosen to use it at the start of the match while excluding all of the obvious early-game events.
I never used DarkForce as a reference, I've only seen one or two of his games. I don't know where you're getting this concept of blind aggression, that's not at all what I'm suggesting. My argument is that having an aggressive opening in response to Terran expansion builds can be very safe/solid play if executed properly with planned transitions.
Your build is not really a reaction to an expansion though, its just a blind 2 base allin.
That's not a fair judge. There is enough early scouting to skip the attack in case. If you go muta-bling you also play your build accordingly and transition to e.g. infestor dependent on your scouting. Nobody calls a 10-minute 10 muta build 'all-in' because of that.
Thats because a 10 minute muta build isn't all in... Mutas defend almost anything terran can throw at you. Just some marine tank timing pushes are hard to stop, but even those can be cleaned up pretty easily.
On January 12 2012 04:56 DarKFoRcE wrote: So what do you do if your opponent goes reactor hellion -> banshee (maybe even with cloak) -> CC? If you aim for the later i allin i suggested you have more time to find out what your opponent is doing, and also success rate against builds where it actualyl works is probably higher.
If you have an EU acc im willing to play T vs your build, altho my T sucks. Just to see whether its as easy to counter as i think it is.
edit: By the way you put it, almost nothing is really an allin, because if you do enough damage etc. you almost always have a transition followup bla bla bla
That build is one of the strongest, but usually you can still break in. I've had games that were really close against reactor hellion/banshee expands and it's been win some / lose some. Usually depends on how much damage I do, how fast I respond to their banshees, etc. I'm definitely up for practicing on EU, though I can't today. Message me your EU info and we'll experiment soon.
I dont see how you will ever do damage if terran has a wallin + a bunker behind that and SCVs repairing.
If the Terran spent money getting a bunker and marines, he either doesn't have hellions, doesn't have a banshee, or cut SCVs to do so. There is a proper course of action for every possibility. Declairing a build "blind all-in" because Zerg is attacking before the 15 minute mark is unfair and closed-minded.
Mutas are a blind all-in. What if he just makes a bunch of marines and turrets? Guess you just lost right?
2 rax is a blind all-in. If Zerg didn't go 15 hatch its GG right?
I don't do Tangs exact build, I just do the naked 7 roaches, no lings. But all the same principles apply. Its a build that works and doesn't have to do damage to be worth it.
TL has a horrible attitude toward new builds these days.
I was going to make a similar guide last week but decided not to because I knew I would get this same shitty response, if not worse.
Thanks Tang for putting the effort in to writing a guide and shbaring some knowledge.
Fuck everybody else for preferring to stay in the dark.
Attacking Terran before Broodlords is auto-lose. Don't bother.
are you saying fast 2 base muta is all in? Ret goes fast 2base muta. It's a nice build that holds almost anything and has a good macro potential.
And I can't believe you are trying to argue with DarkForce. I think I'll go with darkforce since I know for sure he's better.
On January 12 2012 04:56 DarKFoRcE wrote: So what do you do if your opponent goes reactor hellion -> banshee (maybe even with cloak) -> CC? If you aim for the later i allin i suggested you have more time to find out what your opponent is doing, and also success rate against builds where it actualyl works is probably higher.
If you have an EU acc im willing to play T vs your build, altho my T sucks. Just to see whether its as easy to counter as i think it is.
edit: By the way you put it, almost nothing is really an allin, because if you do enough damage etc. you almost always have a transition followup bla bla bla
That build is one of the strongest, but usually you can still break in. I've had games that were really close against reactor hellion/banshee expands and it's been win some / lose some. Usually depends on how much damage I do, how fast I respond to their banshees, etc. I'm definitely up for practicing on EU, though I can't today. Message me your EU info and we'll experiment soon.
I dont see how you will ever do damage if terran has a wallin + a bunker behind that and SCVs repairing.
If the Terran spent money getting a bunker and marines, he either doesn't have hellions, doesn't have a banshee, or cut SCVs to do so. There is a proper course of action for every possibility. Declairing a build "blind all-in" because Zerg is attacking before the 15 minute mark is unfair and closed-minded.
Mutas are a blind all-in. What if he just makes a bunch of marines and turrets? Guess you just lost right?
2 rax is a blind all-in. If Zerg didn't go 15 hatch its GG right?
I don't do Tangs exact build, I just do the naked 7 roaches, no lings. But all the same principles apply. Its a build that works and doesn't have to do damage to be worth it.
TL has a horrible attitude toward new builds these days.
I was going to make a similar guide last week but decided not to because I knew I would get this same shitty response, if not worse.
Thanks Tang for putting the effort in to writing a guide and shbaring some knowledge.
Fuck everybody else for preferring to stay in the dark.
Attacking Terran before Broodlords is auto-lose. Don't bother.
I dont even know how to argue with someone like you. You seem to think its a good thing to build 7 roaches and walk over the map? what the fuck? How will you defend your natural against hellions? And what kind of damage do you think your roaches will do? 1 Bunker with some SCVs repairing easily defends the roaches, probably even if its built at the natural, doesnt even have to be in the main.
Its not Darkforce I have a problem with, its all of TL.
If you read TL, Zerg either cannot attack, or should not attack before the 15 minute mark in any MU.
While the principles of this thought process make perfect sense, the mantra of "NR 20 Zerg" is entirely too excessive in the entire scene.
Roach based aggression is a great way to hold back Terran inearly game ZvT through forcing T into a defensive posture, thereby allowing one the freedom to drone up harass free.
This is the same thing as hellion harass, just on the opposite side. Why does everybody hate on it so hard?
On January 12 2012 07:05 Jermstuddog wrote: Its not Darkforce I have a problem with, its all of TL.
If you read TL, Zerg either cannot attack, or should not attack before the 15 minute mark in any MU.
While the principles of this thought process make perfect sense, the mantra of "NR 20 Zerg" is entirely too excessive in the entire scene.
Roach based aggression is a great way to hold back Terran inearly game ZvT through forcing T into a defensive posture, thereby allowing one the freedom to drone up harass free.
This is the same thing as hellion harass, just on the opposite side. Why does everybody hate on it so hard?
Im not saying you cant be aggressive with Zerg, im just saying the allin suggested here is bad.
You havent answered any of my question. I assume you dont have any good arguments and just throw your "NR 20 Zerg bla bla bla" bullshit around to hide that.
so when your 7 roaches move out you ALSO have a macrohatch/evo building and a spine + third queen done? what :D? please tell me, at what supply are you starting to build your hatch/evo and when is that mysterious roachattack coming?
On January 12 2012 07:14 DarKFoRcE wrote: so when your 7 roaches move out you ALSO have a macrohatch/evo building and a spine + third queen done? what :D? please tell me, at what supply are you starting to build your hatch/evo and when is that mysterious roachattack coming?
Yes actually.
My build is: 26 RW 28 OVx2 7 roaches @ warren pop Drone to 44 Hatch Evo Spine Queen OVx2 Mass drone.
7 roaches is enough to 1-shot a hellion if it gets close and enough fire power to be a nuissance in Ts nat. If T didn't expand that's fine, just camp his ramp until he gets siege mode (its gonna be a while).
The roaches move out at the same time you buld your wall.
You haven't answeared Darkforce question. What time or supply do you build the hatch and evo chamber? I'm guessing after the 44 drones but thats pretty late to defend vs hellions.
On January 12 2012 07:14 DarKFoRcE wrote: so when your 7 roaches move out you ALSO have a macrohatch/evo building and a spine + third queen done? what :D? please tell me, at what supply are you starting to build your hatch/evo and when is that mysterious roachattack coming?
just watch leenock, drg .. (however i admit they often just want to get rid of their roaches built exclusively for hellion defense). Anyway DRG regularly does 8+ roach pushes pretty early (7..9 minute). Leenock is somewhat more all-innish.
You don't have to all in, its an option in case you scout greedy play. I personally dislike slow roaches as they are just dead money during their ~1 minute walk to the opponent. Slings with an optional bling morph near the opponent are more flexible to punish greedy expands IMO.
And yes, western zergs are playing much more macro oriented compared to korean zergs. Somehow Korean Zergs are more successful .. hm
he builds it at 44/43 i assume. so you'll have like 22ish drones when you are building your macrohatch. i dont know man, to me that sounds like you'll be far behind in eco unless you do alt of damage.
i just looked at some of the screens of the replays in the guide and to me it seems like you win more despite having a bad build, and not because of your build .
good example is shakuras. you build a third base with 22 drones while terran is already at 30 scvs, next screenshot terran has 3 base secured and is 20 supply ahead. i mean, good job on still winning that kind of game, but maybe it would be a bit easier if you would play a better BO
On January 12 2012 07:26 Jermstuddog wrote: Roaches flat out stop any fast expo and can't be touched by hellions... what's the problem?
Roaches don't stop a fast expo and are very expensive to make early game. You might scream LARVAEEEEEE but that's not a good argument to go for roaches. You lose a drone, 150 minerals and delay the macro hatch+queen which means more LARVAEEEE. Using roaches just to defend is not a good option and they don't do much damage if the terran has good enough micro. 7 roaches don't contain the terran for long. Make 2 marauders and it's over with the contain. Even if he makes 1 tanks and does some micro it's enough.
On January 12 2012 07:28 Jermstuddog wrote: The thing about the roach aggression is you are forcing T to stick on one base until he can deal with the roaches.
That simple fact adversely affects pretty much everything about early macro for the Terran player.
i doubt you need to stay in your main to defend against 7 roaches. maybe against a hardcore roach ling allin with no eco behind, terran should go up their ramp, but not against 7 naked roaches.
i usually go 15 hatch 16 pool 18 gas 21 1 x lings 28 roach warren 2 overlords 7 roach pull out all but 1 drone from gas 2 overlords +1 queen drones
then you go harass the terran and you should be able to get 45ish drones and when you get 100 gas for speed you take all gases and and get lair + 1 armor all of this kicks in perfectly and you will have 3-4 hatches depending on the map with 4 queens and 55ish drones while being super safe
also when you go with your roaches, at 50 supply when you hit his front you should see what tech he's going since he has to reveal it
also you can hold any 8-9 min push with some micro and a few lings
I really have problems against helions, especially when combined with rauder or allin. It's so hard to be prepared for that and banshees etc.
I do want to learn the game properly though and while this may have sucess I do believe Darkforce if he's saying that the build can be countered and that you are behind.
I would love to know though if you (Darkforce) have an alternative for agressive Zerg play against Helions. I like to play the aggressive part and this guide here was the best to find. Is it possible at all to be agressive in your opinion? And if yes, how?
Yeah Darkforce I admit in that game you mention, my terran opponent was definitely ahead after the first roach/ling push but that was a worst-case scenario where my opening did terribly and I didn't break in and kill SCVs (Which is actually because of a micro-error where I attack one of my own lings instead of the depot but shh don't tell anyone).
The fact is people underestimate zerg ability to transition out of something like roach pressure and roach/ling pressure. A lot of people see zerg as an "either or" scenario with no area in between. People think either you're all-in or you're massing drones. I personally believe there are pressure builds that allow zerg to attack and macro, and there are circumstances that make it more or less likely to be successful. And this style of play gives you a *chance* to win the game outright against an overly greedy player and gives you some distinct advantages like forcing hellions not to harass your expansion.
On January 12 2012 07:39 CallmeMuppet wrote: I really have problems against helions, especially when combined with rauder or allin. It's so hard to be prepared for that and banshees etc.
I do want to learn the game properly though and while this may have sucess I do believe Darkforce if he's saying that the build can be countered and that you are behind.
I would love to know though if you (Darkforce) have an alternative for agressive Zerg play against Helions. I like to play the aggressive part and this guide here was the best to find. Is it possible at all to be agressive in your opinion? And if yes, how?
well you can go for the roach ling baneling push that i recommended earlier, watch DRG vs MMA at MLG for example (there is a replay of this), DRG does it twice there.
If you scout your opponent going for CC -> gas -> rax -> reactor hellions, then you can play the build that is recommended here, except for that i would just build like 7-9 roaches, pull drones off gas and then go drone behind it and not get lings. in that case your opponent will see the roaches way later than with reactor hellion (because the hellions are later) and you can actually do a good amount of damage.
The same is true for 1 rax -> CC -> reactor hellion builds, altho here its a bigger gamble, because if you scout 1 rax CC your opponent could just follow it up with 3 rax for example and then the roachpush does nothing.
I have actually played around a bit with this kind of early roach pressure a bit against ryung at i44 in england, and really the only time it worked was when he went CC first into reactor hellion, the rest of the time it didnt do enough damage.
edit: in general though, i'd recommend to just learn solid 2 base muta play. for example the build leenock does: get +1 armor before lair, macrohatch at ~50 and then react to whatever your opponent is doing. if he is super greedy with a fast third you can try go to for a muta ling baneling attack.
On January 12 2012 07:39 CallmeMuppet wrote: I really have problems against helions, especially when combined with rauder or allin. It's so hard to be prepared for that and banshees etc.
I do want to learn the game properly though and while this may have sucess I do believe Darkforce if he's saying that the build can be countered and that you are behind.
I would love to know though if you (Darkforce) have an alternative for agressive Zerg play against Helions. I like to play the aggressive part and this guide here was the best to find. Is it possible at all to be agressive in your opinion? And if yes, how?
well you can go for the roach ling baneling push that i recommended earlier, watch DRG vs MMA at MLG for example (there is a replay of this), DRG does it twice there.
If you scout your opponent going for CC -> gas -> rax -> reactor hellions, then you can play the build that is recommended here, except for that i would just build like 7-9 roaches, pull drones off gas and then go drone behind it and not get lings. in that case your opponent will see the roaches way later than with reactor hellion (because the hellions are later) and you can actually do a good amount of damage.
The same is true for 1 rax -> CC -> reactor hellion builds, altho here its a bigger gamble, because if you scout 1 rax CC your opponent could just follow it up with 3 rax for example and then the roachpush does nothing.
I have actually played around a bit with this kind of early roach pressure a bit against ryung at i44 in england, and really the only time it worked was when he went CC first into reactor hellion, the rest of the time it didnt do enough damage.
edit: in general though, i'd recommend to just learn solid 2 base muta play. for example the build leenock does: get +1 armor before lair, macrohatch at ~50 and then react to whatever your opponent is doing. if he is super greedy with a fast third you can try go to for a muta ling baneling attack.
Darkforce, I know, you've been multiple GM or have attended in multiple lans with good results, but could you, please, try it at least 1 day before saying that this build is a blind allin ? From the look of it, it seems that you simply didn't even try that build. It's 8 roaches and 24+ (at least) zerglings coming at the entrance @ 7:15 7:30 ! I don't know about you, but I hardly see any terran with a bunk or 2 and an expansion and whatever you can think of cauz it's quite early...
If not, there's an alternative i've brought up with experience but it has only 4-5 roaches and 24+/- zerglings at 8 min but you have way more drones and can easily defend against any hellions openings (which is like what 99% of the terrans in EU ?). This build has already saturated both bases and is taking a 3rd. You can easily transition for 3 gas and go for mutas. However, as darkforce suggested, i'm not sure if that build far well against banshees. I guess I could build an evo chamber in between, sadly i've not faced a lot of banshees followup lately.
I would like to point out a few things about the replay:
1) obviously, Proxima is a much better player than I. 2) My roaches do the dumbest thing possible and attack the bunker, like i specifically say not to do. (Notably, he has 4 marines and a Marauder to defend his entire base with... not exactly what I would call a sizeable defending army) 3) I still end up with a 20 worker lead until the 14 minute mark.
This was a horrible game by me with terrible decision-making when it comes to my roaches, yet I still manage to kill off 6 SCVs and secure a sizeable economic advantage for the next several minutes of play...
edit: also note, even if I hadn't killed those SCVs, I would have still been up by 10 workers.
Here's another one where my Roaches are equally useless. Make sure you note his army at the time of my attack, 3 Marines and 4 Hellions with 2 more on the way. I manage to kill off a reactor, a tech lab, stupidly attack a factory? for like 30 seconds, then still manage to kill off 2 SCVs, 1 hellion, and 2 marines before my roaches go down. By the time it's all said and done, I have a 24 worker lead at the high point, he has to rebuild his addons, is afraid to take his nat, and I am completely safe the whole time behind a complete wall (with queen blocking of course). Had I spent my roaches doing anything decent, like killing depots, or harassing his mineral line, my lead would have been much more significant.
I then proceed to play terribly and throw away units for the next 20 minutes, still winning anyway because the lead is too great to overcome.
Mind you, Tang's attack hits at roughly the same time as mine and comes along with 30+ lings as he sees fit. I prefer a safer, more economic style, but I am sure he wins MANY games simply due to the huge army discepancies he comes across. Holding off ANY roach-based pressure around the 7-8 minute mark is a tall order for Terran because they have most likely been working off of 1 rax and 1 factory (and probably spent over a minute building add-ons) up until that point in the game.
People are arguing semantics. Some people will think it's all-in, some will not. There is not a definitive line.
Cloaked banshees have to do a good amount of damage to pay for themselves. They're not considered all-in because they have such an extremely high potential to do damage and more than pay for themselves. Even if they don't immediately, they are still very useful in harassing your opponent later and forcing resources spent into detection.
This roach rush has to do a good amount of damage to pay for themselves as well. However, according to Darkforce, who I agree with and would trust a lot more than Tang, the ability for it to do damage is significantly smaller vs a competent opponent doing anything other than a greedy expo+reactor hellion build. Yes, it's possible to have a build-order win, but in too many cases it will not do enough damage, put you significantly behind in economy, and leave you susceptible to a marine/tank 2-base push or all-in.
On January 12 2012 07:39 CallmeMuppet wrote: I really have problems against helions, especially when combined with rauder or allin. It's so hard to be prepared for that and banshees etc.
I do want to learn the game properly though and while this may have sucess I do believe Darkforce if he's saying that the build can be countered and that you are behind.
I would love to know though if you (Darkforce) have an alternative for agressive Zerg play against Helions. I like to play the aggressive part and this guide here was the best to find. Is it possible at all to be agressive in your opinion? And if yes, how?
well you can go for the roach ling baneling push that i recommended earlier, watch DRG vs MMA at MLG for example (there is a replay of this), DRG does it twice there.
If you scout your opponent going for CC -> gas -> rax -> reactor hellions, then you can play the build that is recommended here, except for that i would just build like 7-9 roaches, pull drones off gas and then go drone behind it and not get lings. in that case your opponent will see the roaches way later than with reactor hellion (because the hellions are later) and you can actually do a good amount of damage.
The same is true for 1 rax -> CC -> reactor hellion builds, altho here its a bigger gamble, because if you scout 1 rax CC your opponent could just follow it up with 3 rax for example and then the roachpush does nothing.
I have actually played around a bit with this kind of early roach pressure a bit against ryung at i44 in england, and really the only time it worked was when he went CC first into reactor hellion, the rest of the time it didnt do enough damage.
edit: in general though, i'd recommend to just learn solid 2 base muta play. for example the build leenock does: get +1 armor before lair, macrohatch at ~50 and then react to whatever your opponent is doing. if he is super greedy with a fast third you can try go to for a muta ling baneling attack.
Darkforce, I know, you've been multiple GM or have attended in multiple lans with good results, but could you, please, try it at least 1 day before saying that this build is a blind allin ? From the look of it, it seems that you simply didn't even try that build. It's 8 roaches and 24+ (at least) zerglings coming at the entrance @ 7:15 7:30 ! I don't know about you, but I hardly see any terran with a bunk or 2 and an expansion and whatever you can think of cauz it's quite early...
If not, there's an alternative i've brought up with experience but it has only 4-5 roaches and 24+/- zerglings at 8 min but you have way more drones and can easily defend against any hellions openings (which is like what 99% of the terrans in EU ?). This build has already saturated both bases and is taking a 3rd. You can easily transition for 3 gas and go for mutas. However, as darkforce suggested, i'm not sure if that build far well against banshees. I guess I could build an evo chamber in between, sadly i've not faced a lot of banshees followup lately.
If i really have to try every build that i argue against here in the strategy forum i would probably not be doing much useful practise. Im sorry if this sounds arrogant, but im here to help by providing my opinion, not to waste my time on builds i think suck. In this case i have even tried builds that are almost the same like the one described here, as i pointed out before.
overall this kind of build surely works well on lower levels, but against good players i think its crap.
personally i think the roach ling baneling push that you see in GSL sometimes is way better.
I think the roach/ling/bane push is great too, but it's an over-generalization to say it is "crap" against good players. It might not work against Kas or immvp, but it will work to very high level master and even GM. Also, if you play someone 5 games in a row, it's helpful to alternate between this timing attack (or a comparable roach/ling/baneling timing attack) and standard macro play.
i guess we have different standards what we call a "good" player.
Question is though, how many people using this forum feels that builds they use have to work against MVP?
Don't get me wrong, it's amazing to have insanely good players and pros like you who can give their opinion on builds and strategies, and I make sure to always value opinions of a pro highly, but don't you agree that if a build is good enough to do well in high master/low GM, without being cheesy allin like a 6pool pulling all drones, it does deserve merit? Remember, most people reading this forum will never ever play against a GM player, regardless if they follow Tangs advice or yours.
Seems to me that while your critique of this build gives a TON of insight, it makes little sense to recommend players not to use it because it doesn't work against good players, when your definition of a good player is a top 50 GM korean.
Just my opinion though, it feels like people are too harsh against Tangs builds for the wrong reasons. Better to have a clear guide how to do roach/ling pressure without losing the game outright if it's defended, than to have all the low league players go 100% allin roach/ling pushes which are not only weaker, but also have no way to transition out of.
Don't you guys think that getting a third and being able to spread creep against a terran going reactored hellions isn't enough of a benefit to make this build worth it? If your opponent defends, his push will be delayed because he made a deviation from his build, and you will have enough time to drone enough and still be able to defend when the push comes. Going aggressive is a style, and it's different from standard 2 base muta where you are defensive and get a good early eco. Still, if you go 2 hatch muta, and he has turrents and marines in place, you won't be able to harass. If you made 7 mutas, that's 700 700 that don't pay for themselves. This fact doesn't make 2 hatch muta not viable, actually it's a great build. Mutas gives you map control and all that good jazz, and the 700 700 is not WASTED, it just doesn't pay for itself right away. Try to think about this build in a similar fashion, it may be viable, it might not be viable I don't know and i can't tell to be honest, but it's not an all in win or loose push, because at some point you stop making units and start droning, trying to transition out of it. If you can, after doing this build, hold a standard marine tank push, that's enough to make it not suck This build isn't just a push. The push gives you a lot of options to do things that 2 hatch muta can't do, like getting that fast third against hellions. There should be more enphasis about these things you get to do
You don't have to be a top player to hold this off and then be ahead as terran. The terran who is facing against this build will be a lot worse than MVP, but so is the zerg who is executing it. We can assume that they are on the same skill level, and then it comes down to which build is better I think. I don't think people are being harsh I think that they point out the weaknesses and strengths which is the point in posting to strategy forums isn't it ?
On January 12 2012 23:29 djtopa wrote: You don't have to be a top player to hold this off and then be ahead as terran. The terran who is facing against this build will be a lot worse than MVP, but so is the zerg who is executing it. We can assume that they are on the same skill level, and then it comes down to which build is better I think. I don't think people are being harsh I think that they point out the weaknesses and strengths which is the point in posting to strategy forums isn't it ?
Yeah honestly I enjoy hearing both sides of the argument and think it's reasonable to look at it either way. There are strengths and weaknesses to any build, I just think an aggressive style will improve certain fundamentals faster than macro play.
Me and tang have had a few conversations about aggressive roach openings, he has asked me to post a few replays for general discussion. Here is a replay of a very similar style to tang's.
The previous debate(s) 1. You are in danger to cloaked banshee follow ups: http://drop.sc/89777
This Terran opens up with a proxy 2 rax, I continue with my usual build with drone micro, The reason for roaches here is to aggressively scout the terran, to force him to show me what he is doing, The roaches are "sacked," while attempted to kill harvesters/buying time, meanwhile I am droning, and queening, and spore crawler making.
This game I go roach because I see that the terran is getting 1 gas. This means that he is likely two reaper/helion expand, or do some kind of 1 base all in. I have no idea which, so I am making roaches to force the terran to show me what he is doing, and to counter reaper/helion expand.
Here you can clearly see that I get a mega drone/base advantage, know exactly what the terran is doing, and have the best surround/win ever.
On January 12 2012 23:29 djtopa wrote: You don't have to be a top player to hold this off and then be ahead as terran. The terran who is facing against this build will be a lot worse than MVP, but so is the zerg who is executing it. We can assume that they are on the same skill level, and then it comes down to which build is better I think. I don't think people are being harsh I think that they point out the weaknesses and strengths which is the point in posting to strategy forums isn't it ?
DarkForce has pretty much said the build sucks. Tang responded that it has worked well for him against good players in high master. DarkForce responded that those aren't good players. I'd say that's pretty harsh.
As for a terrans holding this off because the user isn't much better? I don't know about that. Pulling this build off is very easy, like most early aggression, like 3 rax. I'm just a platinum player and I get more or less the same timings as Tang who is high master, 1-2 roaches come a bit later because of my lack of splits and drone micro in the opening, but that's it. It's however very hard for a terran to defend, especially now that the metagame heavily favors early hellions. I completely obliterate my platinum opponents with this, no need to even worry about the transition since they just die to the attack. The terran has to scout it coming and has to react properly. Putting down a haphazard bunker is far from enough to stop it, and tons of platinum terrans actually build more than 4 hellions because they expect bad zergs to let them into their main, which just makes this build even stronger.
So I think it's fine to discuss strengths and weaknesses, but one should definitely not expect it to be a bad build just because an insanely good terran will be able to stop it every time, the vast majority of terrans on the ladder will not be able to stop it every time.
On January 12 2012 23:29 djtopa wrote: You don't have to be a top player to hold this off and then be ahead as terran. The terran who is facing against this build will be a lot worse than MVP, but so is the zerg who is executing it. We can assume that they are on the same skill level, and then it comes down to which build is better I think. I don't think people are being harsh I think that they point out the weaknesses and strengths which is the point in posting to strategy forums isn't it ?
DarkForce has pretty much said the build sucks. Tang responded that it has worked well for him against good players in high master. DarkForce responded that those aren't good players. I'd say that's pretty harsh.
So I think it's fine to discuss strengths and weaknesses, but one should definitely not expect it to be a bad build just because an insanely good terran will be able to stop it every time, the vast majority of terrans on the ladder will not be able to stop it every time.
Darkforce has his own opinions about what is and isn't a good strategy, and that's based on his experience at the higher levels. I think even though he said he doesn't like the build, he'll acknowledge that it isn't a bad first step for players looking to improve their aggression/multitasking as zerg. I think it's fine for him to share his views, but his advice may not be the most solid for those looking to improve as he specializes in pro-level thinking, not helping newer players improve.
I still don't get what's wrong with the build at a pro level.
I arrived at my variation based on the facts that: 1) Hellions CANNOT fight 7 roaches in a cost-efficient manner. 2) Terran CANNOT apply pressure to me, expand, and adequately root out my roaches from his natural without taking significant losses all at the same time 3) As long as I keep the hellions from getting inside my main, I don't care what they do.
All of these are based on the limitations of the game. When I play poorly and my opponent does well, I still break even. I don't see how a pro is going to micro his way out of the fact that he only has 4 marines, a marauder, and a bunker to defend at that point of the game.
There is no room for micro to be the game-changer.
On January 13 2012 00:37 Jermstuddog wrote: I still don't get what's wrong with the build at a pro level.
I arrived at my variation based on the facts that: 1) Hellions CANNOT fight 7 roaches in a cost-efficient manner. 2) Terran CANNOT apply pressure to me, expand, and adequately root out my roaches from his natural without taking significant losses all at the same time 3) As long as I keep the hellions from getting inside my main, I don't care what they do.
All of these are based on the limitations of the game. When I play poorly and my opponent does well, I still break even. I don't see how a pro is going to micro his way out of the fact that he only has 4 marines, a marauder, and a bunker to defend at that point of the game.
There is no room for micro to be the game-changer.
Why would Hellions fight Roaches? All they have to do is try to intercept your Lings or stand behind the Bunker (if it's on the low ground), preventing Lings from attacking the bunker while your 8 Roaches will never kill a Bunker being repaired. 8 Roaches = 60 dps on a 350-hps Bunker. Even if you snipe some SCVs, his economy will be better than yours. You don't even know if he went CC35 (i. e. double expand). If it's the case, 3 MULEs will simply laugh at your 24 drones economy (yes, I know you drone after, but you're still on 24 drones for quite some time), regardless of how many SCVs you killed at his natural. If Reactor Hellion => dual expand can hold this while still retaining an advantage, push-oriented follow-ups will have no problem neither. As DarKFoRcE stated, this build is only worth it if your opponent went 1 rax FE / CC first => Reactor Hellion, but most of the time you won't even be able to know if he's going this follow-up anyway.
Sure, this build may work even in Master League, but only because people don't know how to properly react. I mean, I once saw Beastyqt open with a BC rush against a Master League Zerg and still win anyway; what does this prove about the build's viability? Nothing. A good Terran will hold this with minimal defence (really, one Bunker, one Marauder and some SCVs repairing is all you need) while still building SCVs and thus having the advantage. Whether you win or not the game after this is irrelevant; he had the advantage after the opening. Who would purposefully play openings in which you're at a disadvantage if your opponent plays correctly? You shouldn't play with the “Let's hope he messes up his defence” mindset, right? Regardless of the macro transition, this opening is sadly this. For those who play chess, it's like moving your Queen in the first moves hoping for a Scholar's mate against your opponent. Yes, if your opponent plays incorrectly, you may win or get an advantage here, but against someone who knows his openings you will end up with a disadvantage, which means your opening was questionable at best.
On January 13 2012 00:37 Jermstuddog wrote: I still don't get what's wrong with the build at a pro level.
I arrived at my variation based on the facts that: 1) Hellions CANNOT fight 7 roaches in a cost-efficient manner. 2) Terran CANNOT apply pressure to me, expand, and adequately root out my roaches from his natural without taking significant losses all at the same time 3) As long as I keep the hellions from getting inside my main, I don't care what they do.
All of these are based on the limitations of the game. When I play poorly and my opponent does well, I still break even. I don't see how a pro is going to micro his way out of the fact that he only has 4 marines, a marauder, and a bunker to defend at that point of the game.
There is no room for micro to be the game-changer.
Why would Hellions fight Roaches? All they have to do is try to intercept your Lings or stand behind the Bunker (if it's on the low ground), preventing Lings from attacking the bunker while your 8 Roaches will never kill a Bunker being repaired. 8 Roaches = 60 dps on a 350-hps Bunker. Even if you snipe some SCVs, his economy will be better than yours. You don't even know if he went CC35 (i. e. double expand). If it's the case, 3 MULEs will simply laugh at your 24 drones economy (yes, I know you drone after, but you're still on 24 drones for quite some time), regardless of how many SCVs you killed at his natural. If Reactor Hellion => dual expand can hold this while still retaining an advantage, push-oriented follow-ups will have no problem neither. As DarKFoRcE stated, this build is only worth it if your opponent went 1 rax FE / CC first => Reactor Hellion, but most of the time you won't even be able to know if he's going this follow-up anyway.
Sure, this build may work even in Master League, but only because people don't know how to properly react. I mean, I once saw Beastyqt open with a BC rush against a Master League Zerg and still win anyway; what does this prove about the build's viability? Nothing. A good Terran will hold this with minimal defence (really, one Bunker, one Marauder and some SCVs repairing is all you need) while still building SCVs and thus having the advantage. Whether you win or not the game after this is irrelevant; he had the advantage after the opening. Who would purposefully play openings in which you're at a disadvantage if your opponent plays correctly? You shouldn't play with the “Let's hope he messes up his defence” mindset, right? Regardless of the macro transition, this opening is sadly this. For those who play chess, it's like moving your Queen in the first moves hoping for a Scholar's mate against your opponent. Yes, if your opponent plays incorrectly, you may win or get an advantage here, but against someone who knows his openings you will end up with a disadvantage, which means your opening was questionable at best.
There is literally no chance in the history of forever that 1 marauder, a bunker and SCVs hold this push. It's completely beyond the realm of posibilities, no matter how good the positioning is. It takes one marauder ages to kill 8 roaches, while 8 roaches kill 50 SCVs in no-time, good luck repairing that bunker against the roaches while they just constantly snipe the SCVs, it's a free race for the zerg to get impossibly ahead. And that's not even including 30 lings running by, surrounding the bunker etc.
On January 13 2012 00:37 Jermstuddog wrote: I still don't get what's wrong with the build at a pro level.
I arrived at my variation based on the facts that: 1) Hellions CANNOT fight 7 roaches in a cost-efficient manner. 2) Terran CANNOT apply pressure to me, expand, and adequately root out my roaches from his natural without taking significant losses all at the same time 3) As long as I keep the hellions from getting inside my main, I don't care what they do.
All of these are based on the limitations of the game. When I play poorly and my opponent does well, I still break even. I don't see how a pro is going to micro his way out of the fact that he only has 4 marines, a marauder, and a bunker to defend at that point of the game.
There is no room for micro to be the game-changer.
Why would Hellions fight Roaches? All they have to do is try to intercept your Lings or stand behind the Bunker (if it's on the low ground), preventing Lings from attacking the bunker while your 8 Roaches will never kill a Bunker being repaired. 8 Roaches = 60 dps on a 350-hps Bunker. Even if you snipe some SCVs, his economy will be better than yours. You don't even know if he went CC35 (i. e. double expand). If it's the case, 3 MULEs will simply laugh at your 24 drones economy (yes, I know you drone after, but you're still on 24 drones for quite some time), regardless of how many SCVs you killed at his natural. If Reactor Hellion => dual expand can hold this while still retaining an advantage, push-oriented follow-ups will have no problem neither. As DarKFoRcE stated, this build is only worth it if your opponent went 1 rax FE / CC first => Reactor Hellion, but most of the time you won't even be able to know if he's going this follow-up anyway.
Sure, this build may work even in Master League, but only because people don't know how to properly react. I mean, I once saw Beastyqt open with a BC rush against a Master League Zerg and still win anyway; what does this prove about the build's viability? Nothing. A good Terran will hold this with minimal defence (really, one Bunker, one Marauder and some SCVs repairing is all you need) while still building SCVs and thus having the advantage. Whether you win or not the game after this is irrelevant; he had the advantage after the opening. Who would purposefully play openings in which you're at a disadvantage if your opponent plays correctly? You shouldn't play with the “Let's hope he messes up his defence” mindset, right? Regardless of the macro transition, this opening is sadly this. For those who play chess, it's like moving your Queen in the first moves hoping for a Scholar's mate against your opponent. Yes, if your opponent plays incorrectly, you may win or get an advantage here, but against someone who knows his openings you will end up with a disadvantage, which means your opening was questionable at best.
There is literally no chance in the history of forever that 1 marauder, a bunker and SCVs hold this push. It's completely beyond the realm of posibilities, no matter how good the positioning is. It takes one marauder ages to kill 8 roaches, while 8 roaches kill 50 SCVs in no-time, good luck repairing that bunker against the roaches while they just constantly snipe the SCVs, it's a free race for the zerg to get impossibly ahead. And that's not even including 30 lings running by, surrounding the bunker etc.
The push is defendable, let's not go to extremes.
There is 2 Marines too in the bunker, you know? And your Lings won't go anywhere against 6 Hellions in a tight area, sorry. Besides, I fail to see what's preventing the Terran to back SCVs a bit if the Roaches move forward to focus them.
On January 13 2012 00:37 Jermstuddog wrote: I still don't get what's wrong with the build at a pro level.
I arrived at my variation based on the facts that: 1) Hellions CANNOT fight 7 roaches in a cost-efficient manner. 2) Terran CANNOT apply pressure to me, expand, and adequately root out my roaches from his natural without taking significant losses all at the same time 3) As long as I keep the hellions from getting inside my main, I don't care what they do.
All of these are based on the limitations of the game. When I play poorly and my opponent does well, I still break even. I don't see how a pro is going to micro his way out of the fact that he only has 4 marines, a marauder, and a bunker to defend at that point of the game.
There is no room for micro to be the game-changer.
Why would Hellions fight Roaches? All they have to do is try to intercept your Lings or stand behind the Bunker (if it's on the low ground), preventing Lings from attacking the bunker while your 8 Roaches will never kill a Bunker being repaired. 8 Roaches = 60 dps on a 350-hps Bunker. Even if you snipe some SCVs, his economy will be better than yours. You don't even know if he went CC35 (i. e. double expand). If it's the case, 3 MULEs will simply laugh at your 24 drones economy (yes, I know you drone after, but you're still on 24 drones for quite some time), regardless of how many SCVs you killed at his natural. If Reactor Hellion => dual expand can hold this while still retaining an advantage, push-oriented follow-ups will have no problem neither. As DarKFoRcE stated, this build is only worth it if your opponent went 1 rax FE / CC first => Reactor Hellion, but most of the time you won't even be able to know if he's going this follow-up anyway.
Sure, this build may work even in Master League, but only because people don't know how to properly react. I mean, I once saw Beastyqt open with a BC rush against a Master League Zerg and still win anyway; what does this prove about the build's viability? Nothing. A good Terran will hold this with minimal defence (really, one Bunker, one Marauder and some SCVs repairing is all you need) while still building SCVs and thus having the advantage. Whether you win or not the game after this is irrelevant; he had the advantage after the opening. Who would purposefully play openings in which you're at a disadvantage if your opponent plays correctly? You shouldn't play with the “Let's hope he messes up his defence” mindset, right? Regardless of the macro transition, this opening is sadly this. For those who play chess, it's like moving your Queen in the first moves hoping for a Scholar's mate against your opponent. Yes, if your opponent plays incorrectly, you may win or get an advantage here, but against someone who knows his openings you will end up with a disadvantage, which means your opening was questionable at best.
There is literally no chance in the history of forever that 1 marauder, a bunker and SCVs hold this push. It's completely beyond the realm of posibilities, no matter how good the positioning is. It takes one marauder ages to kill 8 roaches, while 8 roaches kill 50 SCVs in no-time, good luck repairing that bunker against the roaches while they just constantly snipe the SCVs, it's a free race for the zerg to get impossibly ahead. And that's not even including 30 lings running by, surrounding the bunker etc.
The push is defendable, let's not go to extremes.
There is 2 Marines too in the bunker, you know? And your Lings won't go anywhere against 6 Hellions in a tight area, sorry. Besides, I fail to see what's preventing the Terran to back SCVs a bit if the Roaches move forward to focus them.
You said "really all you need is a marader, a bunker and SCVs" which is what I was refering to. Regardless, why would you run lings into the hellions when you have 8 roaches? You'd either kill the hellions with the roaches, or the hellions are forced to back off. So you can just go past the bunker with the roaches to force the hellions back, then come with the lings afterwards. If the hellions try to come in and hit the lings, they get killed by the roaches. The only way to stop this from happening would be to have a wall, but there's few maps where you can wall in front of the natural that fast. So regardless, it stops the third from going up.
On January 13 2012 01:20 Tobberoth wrote: You said "really all you need is a marader, a bunker and SCVs" which is what I was refering to.
Yes, because you have already 2 Marines from your opening anyway... The Marauder and the Bunker are additional measures to defend this. Otherwise, you wouldn't get them, hence “all you need, etc.”
On January 13 2012 01:20 Tobberoth wrote: Regardless, why would you run lings into the hellions when you have 8 roaches? You'd either kill the hellions with the roaches or the hellions are forced to back off. So you can just go past the bunker with the roaches to force the hellions back, then come with the lings afterwards. If the hellions try to come in and hit the lings, they get killed by the roaches. The only way to stop this from happening would be to have a wall, but there's few maps where you can wall in front of the natural that fast.
You don't seem to understand how tight the area can be for your Roaches/Lings. Tell me how you break this? Note how my second Marauder is nearly completed. Lings are totally shut down by Hellions behind the Bunker. You can't get “past” the Bunker with your Roaches because there is no room with the CC-supply wall. If you go around the CC, you still can't do much: Terran lifts his CC if you attack it, the second Marauder is soon out, Hellions can retreat on the ramp if you try to kill them with Roaches, etc. All you can do is kill some repairing SCVs, but my third CC is nearly completed and 3 MULEs + SCV production on 3 OCs will be more than enough to retain the economic advantage. And the Terran player has all the time he needs to prepare this, because no spine when Hellions arrive at the natural + gas being mined after 2400 on SCV scout if all you need to know the Roach rush is coming.
If the natural is too opened to defend efficiently, you stay on the high ground and laugh at Roaches with your Marauder in the Bunker.
On January 13 2012 01:20 Tobberoth wrote: So regardless, it stops the third from going up.
I read this on page one of this post: As DarkForce said recently, it's really hard to be aggressive as Zerg in SC2 without being semi all in or all in.[/QUOTE]
This is my biggest petpeeve when reading forums. "the pros said this...." or "the pros said that..." Guess what 99% of us who play this game are not pros. When we play, our macro slips and we do not take full advantage of our resources as a pro player does. at the pro level, yeah an all-in timing can be considered that but as casual player we need to stop listening to what casters or pros define as all-ins. sure the roach-ling timing, if failed at the pro level most likely means a loss but at the levels below masters we all make mistakes.
What my point is, is that the average player makes mistakes, and a lot of them, allowing for tons of leeway in your timings and transitions. i have transitioned out of roach ling or bane bust timings just fine because while you are attacking your macro slips and while the terran or toss defend their macro slips. You can easily drop a third and drone up and be fine because the average player is not going to react like a pro player. Your opponent might be ahead but he is not a pro and might engage in a bad spot and you can crush him.
Most of us who play are not masters level so transitioning out of timings is very doable as zerg. The zerg failed all-in does not mean you are dead. lets put this myth to rest. IT ONLY APPLIES TO HIGH LEVEL PLAY (top diamond+)!!!!
On January 13 2012 01:40 DarKFoRcE wrote: msg me on EU: atndarkforce.423 im always up to play some TvZ as its a really funy matchup, maybe that can produce some replays to show the problems.
Is this only to Tang or can I also join the party?
On January 13 2012 01:20 Tobberoth wrote: You said "really all you need is a marader, a bunker and SCVs" which is what I was refering to.
Yes, because you have already 2 Marines from your opening anyway... The Marauder and the Bunker are additional measures to defend this. Otherwise, you wouldn't get them, hence “all you need, etc.”
On January 13 2012 01:20 Tobberoth wrote: Regardless, why would you run lings into the hellions when you have 8 roaches? You'd either kill the hellions with the roaches or the hellions are forced to back off. So you can just go past the bunker with the roaches to force the hellions back, then come with the lings afterwards. If the hellions try to come in and hit the lings, they get killed by the roaches. The only way to stop this from happening would be to have a wall, but there's few maps where you can wall in front of the natural that fast.
You don't seem to understand how tight the area can be for your Roaches/Lings. Tell me how you break this? Note how my second Marauder is nearly completed. Lings are totally shut down by Hellions behind the Bunker. You can't get “past” the Bunker with your Roaches because there is no room with the CC-supply wall. If you go around the CC, you still can't do much: Terran lifts his CC if you attack it, the second Marauder is soon out, Hellions can retreat on the ramp if you try to kill them with Roaches, etc. All you can do is kill some repairing SCVs, but my third CC is nearly completed and 3 MULEs + SCV production on 3 OCs will be more than enough to retain the economic advantage. And the Terran player has all the time he needs to prepare this, because no spine when Hellions arrive at the natural + gas being mined after 2400 on SCV scout if all you need to know the Roach rush is coming.
If the natural is too opened to defend efficiently, you stay on the high ground and laugh at Roaches with your Marauder in the Bunker.
On January 13 2012 01:20 Tobberoth wrote: So regardless, it stops the third from going up.
Not at all, the third CC is built in base anyway.
That's a good wall and you're correct that it can't be broken. Like you said however, if the roaches and lings move up the side of the CC, terran has to lift it off and move all the SCVs away, and you'll probably kill a few of the SCVs as they run... then you just stand there. Sure, your third OC is going up in your main, but you're still on one base, which is already oversaturated. Even with 3 orbitals spitting mules, your economy is limited and you're mining out your main extremely fast. Eventually you'll get enough marauders and you can force the lings and roaches to leave, but how fast? Two marauders aren't enough, and during this whole period, the zerg has started his third and done nothing but drone, the zerg will probably have close to 2 base saturation before you can place that nat OC safely again, which means the zerg is ahead economically.
There's just no way to get an expansion up and deny this push from doing damage, the push only needs to contain the terran and stop them from mining from their nat.
the replays dont really show alot tho, as i failed pretty hard in the first two :[. only the last was okay, but your zerg is better than my terran. i still think you win despite your inferior BO.
I think the replays do show a lot and that you played as well as most terrans in mid/high masters. You played strong defense with bunkers, nice building placement and good timings/micro. I agree that I've had more experience playing Zerg than you playing Terran, because it's your offrace, but I think the games at least show the style is versatile and strong, even if your opponent knows you're doing it. Imagine if gold/platinum/diamond players master that timing attack and use it in their leagues, it would be devastating.
It just showed that if you dont know what to do against and game 1: dont wall game 2: be too greedy/dont check for banes morphing game 3: suck at terran
you lose. sure its good against bad players, because they dont have the experience to defend it good. but once people learn that, the build becomes inefficient as it doesnt do enough damage. and at some point it wont only be "good" players who are able to exploit this. but yea w/e if you really think that this proves that your strategy is good, im out of here, good luck.
This timing attack is the same as all other timing attacks that protoss did or do. The reason why 6gate attacks went out of fashion is because zergs know when it comes and how to crush it. Same will happen once everyone starts to use this timing attack.
I never said it "proves" the strategy is good, I already know the strategy is good - that's why I wrote the guide lol. I don't understand why you asked me to play games if you were going to say the strategy is bad after, regardless of the results?
because i wanted to see how it is to play against it and in case we are similar with T and Z it would show problems with it. had i crushed you because my terran is better than your zerg, you would still think its a good strategy and simply say that im a better player, right?
On January 13 2012 03:22 DarKFoRcE wrote: because i wanted to see how it is to play against it and in case we are similar with T and Z it would show problems with it. had i crushed you because my terran is better than your zerg, you would still think its a good strategy and simply say that im a better player, right?
I knew that wasn't a possibility, my ZvT is strong and it's your offrace.
On January 13 2012 03:08 TangSC wrote: I think the replays do show a lot and that you played as well as most terrans in mid/high masters. You played strong defense with bunkers, nice building placement and good timings/micro. I agree that I've had more experience playing Zerg than you playing Terran, because it's your offrace, but I think the games at least show the style is versatile and strong, even if your opponent knows you're doing it. Imagine if gold/platinum/diamond players master that timing attack and use it in their leagues, it would be devastating.
Sorry, but for instance at 10'00 in the second replay (the 24'09 length Shakuras game) DarKFoRcE is already missing more than 10 SCVs and basically 30-40 supply, so it's 63 drones to 37 SCVs with no threat instead of 63 drones to ~50 SCVs and a possible quite big (~40-50 army supply with Stim) push incoming, which would probably kill you since you won't have speed banes, you won't have speed roaches and here you don't even have speed ling (though it may be a mistake?). You can't prove anything with someone offracing, even if he's GM with his main race, and I don't mean to be disrespectful towards DarKFoRcE saying this. Besides, you skipped Speed for lings and made drones straight after your Roaches instead of Lings, which is quite another build order (of course economically better than droning after 52 or 60 supply).
On January 13 2012 03:08 TangSC wrote: I think the replays do show a lot and that you played as well as most terrans in mid/high masters. You played strong defense with bunkers, nice building placement and good timings/micro. I agree that I've had more experience playing Zerg than you playing Terran, because it's your offrace, but I think the games at least show the style is versatile and strong, even if your opponent knows you're doing it. Imagine if gold/platinum/diamond players master that timing attack and use it in their leagues, it would be devastating.
Sorry, but for instance at 10'00 in the second replay (the 24'09 length Shakuras game) DarKFoRcE is already missing more than 10 SCVs and basically 30-40 supply, so it's 63 drones to 37 SCVs with no threat instead of 63 drones to ~50 SCVs and a possible quite big (~40-50 army supply with Stim) push incoming, which would probably kill you since you won't have speed banes, you won't have speed roaches and here you don't even have speed ling (though it may be a mistake?). You can't prove anything with someone offracing, even if he's GM with his main race, and I don't mean to be disrespectful towards DarKFoRcE saying this. Besides, you skipped Speed for lings and made drones straight after your Roaches instead of Lings, which is quite another build order (of course economically better than droning after 52 or 60 supply).
I'm not saying my games against Darkforce "prove" that this style of ZvT is without faults. But they do showcase how powerful an aggressive opening against terran can be - and also how even if you don't win the game outright, you can transition out of it into a number of options. Obviously it was Darkforce's offrace, and I'm not trying to compare skill or anything. The point is Darkforce is a very skilled player and he knew roach aggression was coming. There is nothing innately wrong with opening with this style of aggression in ZvT, it's a different approach but it has pros/cons like any strategy and shouldn't be immediately shut down without considerable practice / open-minded discussion.
On January 13 2012 01:20 Tobberoth wrote: You said "really all you need is a marader, a bunker and SCVs" which is what I was refering to.
Yes, because you have already 2 Marines from your opening anyway... The Marauder and the Bunker are additional measures to defend this. Otherwise, you wouldn't get them, hence “all you need, etc.”
On January 13 2012 01:20 Tobberoth wrote: Regardless, why would you run lings into the hellions when you have 8 roaches? You'd either kill the hellions with the roaches or the hellions are forced to back off. So you can just go past the bunker with the roaches to force the hellions back, then come with the lings afterwards. If the hellions try to come in and hit the lings, they get killed by the roaches. The only way to stop this from happening would be to have a wall, but there's few maps where you can wall in front of the natural that fast.
You don't seem to understand how tight the area can be for your Roaches/Lings. Tell me how you break this? Note how my second Marauder is nearly completed. Lings are totally shut down by Hellions behind the Bunker. You can't get “past” the Bunker with your Roaches because there is no room with the CC-supply wall. If you go around the CC, you still can't do much: Terran lifts his CC if you attack it, the second Marauder is soon out, Hellions can retreat on the ramp if you try to kill them with Roaches, etc. All you can do is kill some repairing SCVs, but my third CC is nearly completed and 3 MULEs + SCV production on 3 OCs will be more than enough to retain the economic advantage. And the Terran player has all the time he needs to prepare this, because no spine when Hellions arrive at the natural + gas being mined after 2400 on SCV scout if all you need to know the Roach rush is coming.
If the natural is too opened to defend efficiently, you stay on the high ground and laugh at Roaches with your Marauder in the Bunker.
On January 13 2012 01:20 Tobberoth wrote: So regardless, it stops the third from going up.
Not at all, the third CC is built in base anyway.
That's a good wall and you're correct that it can't be broken. Like you said however, if the roaches and lings move up the side of the CC, terran has to lift it off and move all the SCVs away, and you'll probably kill a few of the SCVs as they run... then you just stand there. Sure, your third OC is going up in your main, but you're still on one base, which is already oversaturated. Even with 3 orbitals spitting mules, your economy is limited and you're mining out your main extremely fast. Eventually you'll get enough marauders and you can force the lings and roaches to leave, but how fast? Two marauders aren't enough, and during this whole period, the zerg has started his third and done nothing but drone, the zerg will probably have close to 2 base saturation before you can place that nat OC safely again, which means the zerg is ahead economically.
There's just no way to get an expansion up and deny this push from doing damage, the push only needs to contain the terran and stop them from mining from their nat.
Your main is nowhere close to oversaturation, I had only 12 SCVs on mineral whine running this test; 3 are on gas, and others are on the natural. You will transfer back some of them, but as you need to stay near the bunker with some of them, you won't be oversatured. Besides, MULEs ignore SCV saturation. As for the contain, the Zerg player will be in quite an uncomfortable position, because both Hellions and Marauders outrange Roaches, so you can harass them (and some of them will likely be wounded); if he doesn't hold position, he has to keep them back all the time, and if he does then Marauders can get free hits on them while Hellions keep them safe from Zergling surrounding. It won't take that long to break the contain, and then you can land your third on your third if the Zerg player fully droned behind this push (which is not necessarily safe, since he cannot know for sure what was your intended follow-up), split SCVs accordingly if you're afraid of your main being mined out too early, while retaining some map control with Hellions.
1) What other transitions are viable after the first roach/ling push?
- not going to comment in detail because I don't play much zerg, but the suggestions to run for Infestors seems solid to me (looking for Infestor/Broodlord)
2) How can terran players optimally respond for this? (Abuse banshees/drops?)
- I actually think that in addition to banshee play, the best option as a Terran is to hunker down and max out with full upgrades. Bomber does this very well, where he grabs three OC really quickly, spams siege tanks and turrets for defense, and then smashes face when he gets a really fast 2-1 attack upgrade for the marines. There are certain things that work against that very well, but if the Zerg even tries to meet you in the field without extremely advantageous positioning and a healthy Infestor count, he's dead.
3) Are there other zerg openings that pressure terran similarly? Is there a style that would force hellions to be on the defensive while you drone/Expand?
- I'm only Gold, but I don't think so (not without being semi-all-in, a la baneling bust). Hellions are going to be useful against anything except roaches that comes out that early (especially with hydralisks being so unwieldy). This roach push forces the transition to siege tanks/marauders.
4) What do you think of alternating between opening with 4 roaches and 8 lings instead of 8 roaches n 16 lings? You can take map control with the 4roach/ling and force a response, but really just use the time to expand and spread creep.
- I think it depends on the game. Your average lower league Zerg who tries this will probably scare a comparable Terran into passivity and the tech transition, however, I think there's the potential for the higher level players to simply shrug, realize they can hold a mere 4 roaches + 8 lings, and try to outmacro you.
I wonder how much people will demand before they accept that it's a valid build. Tang used it against a pro offracing and did good... what more can one ask for? Do we need to call MVP and ask him to play against Tang?
I don't get it, this is team liquids strategy forum, most people here are probably not even higher than gold, this guide is amazing for the audience. It grinds my gears that there are probably silver terrans coming into the topic, seeing that darkforce was critical and just jump on the bandwaggon of criticizing tangs aggressive builds, like they do in every guide he creates.
Anyway, thanks for playing out some games DarkForce, really cool that you engage with the community this much. I will look into Rets 2 base muta play you mentioned earlier since I would love to get better at using muta, though i've personally failed pretty hard when I've tried to use 2 base muta when I'm hellion contained... just seem like terrans get Thors out too early to do much damage with the mutas (because I'm slow, obviously), and then you're in a crappy situation where you need to get a third up and the terran has had a lot of time to build up.
On January 13 2012 01:20 Tobberoth wrote: You said "really all you need is a marader, a bunker and SCVs" which is what I was refering to.
Yes, because you have already 2 Marines from your opening anyway... The Marauder and the Bunker are additional measures to defend this. Otherwise, you wouldn't get them, hence “all you need, etc.”
On January 13 2012 01:20 Tobberoth wrote: Regardless, why would you run lings into the hellions when you have 8 roaches? You'd either kill the hellions with the roaches or the hellions are forced to back off. So you can just go past the bunker with the roaches to force the hellions back, then come with the lings afterwards. If the hellions try to come in and hit the lings, they get killed by the roaches. The only way to stop this from happening would be to have a wall, but there's few maps where you can wall in front of the natural that fast.
You don't seem to understand how tight the area can be for your Roaches/Lings. Tell me how you break this? Note how my second Marauder is nearly completed. Lings are totally shut down by Hellions behind the Bunker. You can't get “past” the Bunker with your Roaches because there is no room with the CC-supply wall. If you go around the CC, you still can't do much: Terran lifts his CC if you attack it, the second Marauder is soon out, Hellions can retreat on the ramp if you try to kill them with Roaches, etc. All you can do is kill some repairing SCVs, but my third CC is nearly completed and 3 MULEs + SCV production on 3 OCs will be more than enough to retain the economic advantage. And the Terran player has all the time he needs to prepare this, because no spine when Hellions arrive at the natural + gas being mined after 2400 on SCV scout if all you need to know the Roach rush is coming.
If the natural is too opened to defend efficiently, you stay on the high ground and laugh at Roaches with your Marauder in the Bunker.
On January 13 2012 01:20 Tobberoth wrote: So regardless, it stops the third from going up.
Not at all, the third CC is built in base anyway.
That's a good wall and you're correct that it can't be broken. Like you said however, if the roaches and lings move up the side of the CC, terran has to lift it off and move all the SCVs away, and you'll probably kill a few of the SCVs as they run... then you just stand there. Sure, your third OC is going up in your main, but you're still on one base, which is already oversaturated. Even with 3 orbitals spitting mules, your economy is limited and you're mining out your main extremely fast. Eventually you'll get enough marauders and you can force the lings and roaches to leave, but how fast? Two marauders aren't enough, and during this whole period, the zerg has started his third and done nothing but drone, the zerg will probably have close to 2 base saturation before you can place that nat OC safely again, which means the zerg is ahead economically.
There's just no way to get an expansion up and deny this push from doing damage, the push only needs to contain the terran and stop them from mining from their nat.
Your main is nowhere close to oversaturation, I had only 12 SCVs on mineral whine running this test; 3 are on gas, and others are on the natural. You will transfer back some of them, but as you need to stay near the bunker with some of them, you won't be oversatured. Besides, MULEs ignore SCV saturation. As for the contain, the Zerg player will be in quite an uncomfortable position, because both Hellions and Marauders outrange Roaches, so you can harass them (and some of them will likely be wounded); if he doesn't hold position, he has to keep them back all the time, and if he does then Marauders can get free hits on them while Hellions keep them safe from Zergling surrounding. It won't take that long to break the contain, and then you can land your third on your third if the Zerg player fully droned behind this push (which is not necessarily safe, since he cannot know for sure what was your intended follow-up), split SCVs accordingly if you're afraid of your main being mined out too early, while retaining some map control with Hellions.
No friend, you need to move all the SCVs back to your main. Your OC is in the air, you can't return minerals to it. That means you will be oversaturated since even the zerg has enough workers to be oversaturated on one base, and zerg cut drones to get the push going. Mules ignore SCV pathing, which was my point: You're mining your main out much faster. Until you can get rid of the push, your nat can't land.
It's true that roaches are outranged my hellions and marauders, you can't just leave your army on hold position.. then again, all you're really doing in your base atm is droning, and you actually don't need all that long to catch up drone wise, so I don't think it would be any issue to spend most of your APM on your army. I wouldn't be surprised if the nat has to be in the air for at least 20 seconds, by that time you should have started what, 14 drones? And this is in a more or less worst case scenario where the terran has a good defense.
Less theorycraft, more replays. That's how you are gonna prove your points. Theorycrafting doesn't mean anything, because this game is played by humans and not by perfect computers that make no mistakes
On January 13 2012 03:34 TangSC wrote: I'm not saying my games against Darkforce "prove" that this style of ZvT is without faults. But they do showcase how powerful an aggressive opening against terran can be - and also how even if you don't win the game outright, you can transition out of it into a number of options. Obviously it was Darkforce's offrace, and I'm not trying to compare skill or anything. The point is Darkforce is a very skilled player and he knew roach aggression was coming. There is nothing innately wrong with opening with this style of aggression in ZvT, it's a different approach but it has pros/cons like any strategy and shouldn't be immediately shut down without considerable practice / open-minded discussion.
Actually games 1 or 2 speak against your build. And DarKFoRcE knowing about your Roach style does not matter, because Hellions will see your Roaches anyway. Gas being mined after 2400 and no Spine is clear enough to tell the Terran player that agression is coming; all he has to see is if it's a Baneling bust or a Roach rush.
Game 1 shows that against adequate play, your opening, far from being powerful, is actually quite a disaster. Since you have no Spine to protect your drones, the two first Hellions are free to roast some Drones, netting 6 kills and scouting your Roach Warren (but that was not even needed). The 4 next Hellions can then lurk somewhere, waiting for your Roaches to leave to come back and kill Lings on their way or remaining Drones, while Bunker(s) / wall keep the Terran player safe from your Roaches at his natural or main. Just imagine what would have happened if DarKFoRcE had walled his natural and microed his remaining Hellions on your Drones. There were already 30 SCVs to 18 drones at this time, so you were at a severe disadvantage here. Only the lack of walling off allowed you to come back in the game, i. e. a mistake from your opponent. Without this mistake, you would have lost, because to compensate this severe economic disadvantage you will have to overdrone afterwards, which means you won't have enough larvae left for whatever push the Terran player decides to use to kill you after his opening advantage.
Game 2 is quite the same actually, you went mass drones but would simply have no tech to deal with any Terran follow-up near the 10' mark. With good macro, the Terran player would have around 50 SCVs (since you killed none) and 50 army supply at this point, and you would have only tier1 to deal with that (since fast third = later Lair), i. e. speedlings, slowroaches and slowbanes. Not the greatest choice against stimmed Marines (and some Marauders), whether they're supported by Tanks or Medivacs.
On January 13 2012 03:43 Tobberoth wrote: I wonder how much people will demand before they accept that it's a valid build. Tang used it against a pro offracing and did good...
Underlined the key word here. No Terran will tell you that DarKFoRcE's build order and macro in game 2 (the 24'09 Shakuras) were optimal. And again, this is normal because he's offracing. The thing is, Tang would have been in a very delicate position with a stronger macro and build order from his opponent.
On January 13 2012 03:49 Tobberoth wrote: No friend, you need to move all the SCVs back to your main. Your OC is in the air, you can't return minerals to it.
No. As I stated, you still need some near your Bunker, so you will only move back some of them.
On January 13 2012 03:49 Tobberoth wrote: That means you will be oversaturated since even the zerg has enough workers to be oversaturated on one base, and zerg cut drones to get the push going.
24 drones do not oversaturate one base. More than 30 do, or more than 27 if you're only on one gas. As for this dual expand opening, there is some SCV cut to get the third faster, and some SCVs are on the low ground near the Bunker in case the Zerg decides to commit, which is why there won't be oversaturation on the main before some time. .
On January 13 2012 03:49 Tobberoth wrote: Mules ignore SCV pathing, which was my point: You're mining your main out much faster.
So? The Terran gets minerals anyway, and nothing prevents him from splitting SCVs adequately after he breaks the contain.
Thanks, that's certainly an interesting interpretation/opinion of the events of those games and I appreciate your feedback. However, You say "you would have lost if" and those arguments take a bit of credibility away from what you're trying to say, that's just speculation.
I think DarkForce did some smart things like the hellions hanging back to roast reinforcing zerglings, but you say it doesn't matter that he knew before each game that an attack was coming and that's just absurd lol it makes all the difference in the world. I can tell you from experience the vast majority of terran players get 1 bunker at their natural, he got two in every game. His defenses were all planned and well executed.
this build works really well in masters anywhere below the top 8 because its just a cheese-fest down there. however its till quite good top 8 as well if you know when to stop making lings. any build that's been worked out to this much detail can be really good.
You're still oversaturated when over 24 drones since it's suboptimal. You're still gaining from it, because it's more like 2½ workers per mineral patch than 2, but it's still less of a gain than if they were in your nat. Saying that you're not oversaturated because you need SCVs by your bunker isn't helping the point, they aren't even mining, so it's worse than being in a oversaturated mineral line. My point is that as long as the terran is forced to stay on one mining base, their economy is limited. It's still stronger than the zerg economy during the push because of mules and oversaturation still giving slight gains, I'm not contesting that, but you're doing damage in the sense that you're limiting the eco of the terran, AND you're droning behind it.
You're not going to get ahead of the terran just by denying his nat while your push is there, but you might very well deny it long enough that when the terran can finally place his nat, you have just as good of a saturation on two base, and your third is popping. This, by any standard, should prove that this isn't an all-in. I feel that in the majority of cases, you will not be behind by much if you play it well, and in some cases, you might very well do more damage or even win if the terran is too greedy. This makes it more less exactly like a toss or terran timing push, perfectly defended, it leaves the opponent behind, that doesn't make it an all-in.
On January 13 2012 05:04 TangSC wrote: Thanks, that's certainly an interesting interpretation/opinion of the events of those games and I appreciate your feedback. However, You say "you would have lost if" and those arguments take a bit of credibility away from what you're trying to say, that's just speculation.
Zergs don't really have any advantage in standard Reactor Hellion games in which they're up 45 workers to 30 around the 7'30 mark with Lair begun, doesn't take a genius to know what happens if you're down 18 to 30 by this time with no Lair perspective. Your only chance from here is the opponent throwing away the game with some major blunder; it would take your credibility away to deny this.
On January 13 2012 05:04 TangSC wrote: I think DarkForce did some smart things like the hellions hanging back to roast reinforcing zerglings, but you say it doesn't matter that he knew before each game that an attack was coming and that's just absurd lol it makes all the difference in the world. I can tell you from experience the vast majority of terran players get 1 bunker at their natural, he got two in every game. His defenses were all planned and well executed.
On January 13 2012 05:04 TangSC wrote: Thanks, that's certainly an interesting interpretation/opinion of the events of those games and I appreciate your feedback. However, You say "you would have lost if" and those arguments take a bit of credibility away from what you're trying to say, that's just speculation.
Zergs don't really have any advantage in standard Reactor Hellion games in which they're up 45 workers to 30 around the 7'30 mark with Lair begun, doesn't take a genius to know what happens if you're down 18 to 30 by this time with no Lair perspective. Your only chance from here is the opponent throwing away the game with some major blunder; it would take your credibility away to deny this.
On January 13 2012 05:04 TangSC wrote: I think DarkForce did some smart things like the hellions hanging back to roast reinforcing zerglings, but you say it doesn't matter that he knew before each game that an attack was coming and that's just absurd lol it makes all the difference in the world. I can tell you from experience the vast majority of terran players get 1 bunker at their natural, he got two in every game. His defenses were all planned and well executed.
Because one Bunker is actually enough...
Maybe you should be playing Tang then since you have the answer to his build.
On January 13 2012 05:04 TangSC wrote: Thanks, that's certainly an interesting interpretation/opinion of the events of those games and I appreciate your feedback. However, You say "you would have lost if" and those arguments take a bit of credibility away from what you're trying to say, that's just speculation.
Zergs don't really have any advantage in standard Reactor Hellion games in which they're up 45 workers to 30 around the 7'30 mark with Lair begun, doesn't take a genius to know what happens if you're down 18 to 30 by this time with no Lair perspective. Your only chance from here is the opponent throwing away the game with some major blunder; it would take your credibility away to deny this.
On January 13 2012 05:04 TangSC wrote: I think DarkForce did some smart things like the hellions hanging back to roast reinforcing zerglings, but you say it doesn't matter that he knew before each game that an attack was coming and that's just absurd lol it makes all the difference in the world. I can tell you from experience the vast majority of terran players get 1 bunker at their natural, he got two in every game. His defenses were all planned and well executed.
Because one Bunker is actually enough...
Maybe you should be playing Tang then since you have the answer to his build.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
If you rush for mutalisk and don't do any sort of aggression then the amount of time he can abuse drops is shortened by a lot. That's one of the reasons I prefer going for mutas, they give a better map control than roach ling ever will do against terran. Plus, if you spread overlords before mutas come out, you can lose them to 1 random viking. I don't like losing stuff for free.
On January 13 2012 20:13 agahamsorr0w wrote: If you rush for mutalisk and don't do any sort of aggression then the amount of time he can abuse drops is shortened by a lot. That's one of the reasons I prefer going for mutas, they give a better map control than roach ling ever will do against terran. Plus, if you spread overlords before mutas come out, you can lose them to 1 random viking. I don't like losing stuff for free.
That's a stylistic choice you make, both Stephano and Destiny never go early mutas in ZvT and they deal with drops just fine. It's not anything negative with this build itself.
On January 13 2012 20:13 agahamsorr0w wrote: If you rush for mutalisk and don't do any sort of aggression then the amount of time he can abuse drops is shortened by a lot. That's one of the reasons I prefer going for mutas, they give a better map control than roach ling ever will do against terran. Plus, if you spread overlords before mutas come out, you can lose them to 1 random viking. I don't like losing stuff for free.
After pushing you CAN scout for tech and see if there might be dropships incoming. You can also not scout it. Same thing happens when you do any other build, you can send an overlord/overseer to get this info. You can also just spread the overlords and watch the minimap. Your post doesn't belong to this thread imo
On January 13 2012 16:57 FireOfDarklight wrote: 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
It's not something I do very often, because I send a late scout (after hatchery) and typically they'll either have a full wall or 2 marines waiting. I prefer to keep the drone alive by scouting up the ramp, then using him to spot for marines/scvs coming to pressure (either out front of terran base or at xel naga in between our bases)
On January 13 2012 20:13 agahamsorr0w wrote: If you rush for mutalisk and don't do any sort of aggression then the amount of time he can abuse drops is shortened by a lot. That's one of the reasons I prefer going for mutas, they give a better map control than roach ling ever will do against terran. Plus, if you spread overlords before mutas come out, you can lose them to 1 random viking. I don't like losing stuff for free.
I usually get overlord speed at lair to deal with that. It is true that drops are possible but like others have mentioned, if you have a large enough roach/ling army and response well when you see medivacs in minimap, you can deal with drop pressure without mutas.
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.
A four gate puts you behind because you are cutting a nexus as well as probes. If you only do some damage, you are really far behind. It's is in no way comparable to this build which is just cutting drones for an attack.
Iv'e tried this build with the 14 Hatch 14 Gas 14 Pool Tang suggested compared to Nestea's 15 Hatch 16 Pool 17 Gas opener, and I found out Nestea's version is smoother and it gets the Roaches about 10-15 seconds earlier and the gas is just enough for the Roaches in time. Maybe it's more vulnerable to 2rax but it seems alot smoother.
I´m Terran and in my opinion this build isn´t viable because with a normal reactor hellion expand (4-6 Hellions) you can normally get a bunker before he arrives with the roaches.The only thing you force is a bunker and that´s it.Investing in Lings, when he did a reactor hellion expo is really useless because there is no way you can pressure defensive hellions with lings. Against other builds than reactor hellion expo i don´t think it´ll do any damage either.When he does some other builds he will have a bunker, a banshee or enough units to defend the pressure anyways.
On January 13 2012 23:04 GornWood wrote: I´m Terran and in my opinion this build isn´t viable because with a normal reactor hellion expand (4-6 Hellions) you can normally get a bunker before he arrives with the roaches.The only thing you force is a bunker and that´s it.Investing in Lings, when he did a reactor hellion expo is really useless because there is no way you can pressure defensive hellions with lings. Against other builds than reactor hellion expo i don´t think it´ll do any damage either.When he does some other builds he will have a bunker, a banshee or enough units to defend the pressure anyways.
That's nice.
See the last 12 pages of this thread. People better than you have said the same thing. They've been proven wrong.
On January 13 2012 22:55 ApocAlypsE007 wrote: Iv'e tried this build with the 14 Hatch 14 Gas 14 Pool Tang suggested compared to Nestea's 15 Hatch 16 Pool 17 Gas opener, and I found out Nestea's version is smoother and it gets the Roaches about 10-15 seconds earlier and the gas is just enough for the Roaches in time. Maybe it's more vulnerable to 2rax but it seems alot smoother.
It isn't as safe, that's why I recommend the 14/14/14. In ladder, I usually 16/16/16
On January 13 2012 20:13 agahamsorr0w wrote: If you rush for mutalisk and don't do any sort of aggression then the amount of time he can abuse drops is shortened by a lot. That's one of the reasons I prefer going for mutas, they give a better map control than roach ling ever will do against terran. Plus, if you spread overlords before mutas come out, you can lose them to 1 random viking. I don't like losing stuff for free.
After pushing you CAN scout for tech and see if there might be dropships incoming. You can also not scout it. Same thing happens when you do any other build, you can send an overlord/overseer to get this info. You can also just spread the overlords and watch the minimap. Your post doesn't belong to this thread imo
You mean you can scout the dropship during the push. Scouting after the push would be incredibly hard without lair tech. We are trying to discuss the long term viability of this build and yea, I do think my post is appropriate.
On January 13 2012 22:55 ApocAlypsE007 wrote: Iv'e tried this build with the 14 Hatch 14 Gas 14 Pool Tang suggested compared to Nestea's 15 Hatch 16 Pool 17 Gas opener, and I found out Nestea's version is smoother and it gets the Roaches about 10-15 seconds earlier and the gas is just enough for the Roaches in time. Maybe it's more vulnerable to 2rax but it seems alot smoother.
It isn't as safe, that's why I recommend the 14/14/14. In ladder, I usually 16/16/16
14/14/14 isn't particularly safe, either.
It's the equivalent of a 14h/15(delayed)pool, which due to the earlier hatch is actually slower than a normal 15h/15p would be in the first place. You don't make any use of your early gas, so there's no reason to be taking it so early. Something like the above-mentioned 15h/16p/17g (which gets the pool up BARELY slower than your 14/(late)15 equivalent) is smoother, and lowers the damage threshold needed to "break even" with this build because it establishes a somewhat stronger early game economy.
I think arguing specifics on hatch/pool timings is outside the scope of this thread.
Hatch/pool timings are there to deal with potential 2 rax pressure.
Tangs build assumes 2 rax did not occur.
Its all related of course, but the difference between 14/14 and 15/16 are somewhat minimal on Tang's push.
Yes, there are seconds of difference, which can be huge in SC2, but moving hatch/pool timings is something that can not be definitively answered here IMO.
On January 13 2012 20:13 agahamsorr0w wrote: If you rush for mutalisk and don't do any sort of aggression then the amount of time he can abuse drops is shortened by a lot. That's one of the reasons I prefer going for mutas, they give a better map control than roach ling ever will do against terran. Plus, if you spread overlords before mutas come out, you can lose them to 1 random viking. I don't like losing stuff for free.
2 base 9min fast muta will get you crushed if the terran does any LARGE number of early timing attacks. Such as
Fast medivac marine hellion drop Hellion Maruader push Mass marine marauder 8+ hellions into marine tank or into mech
among many others,
However if none of these things happen and the terran plays very standard with the typical marine tank timing attack 9min muta is very effective at map control, however to often i've been either damaged behond repair by early timing attacks or the game can even end there sometimes as your workin stupid hard on droneing to get the econ you need to ling muta bane by the 9 min mark.
I think an important aspect of Zerg agressive/timing push play is the fact, that for lower level players (AKA non-pros) it turns the odds of winning/losing into your favour compared to pure-macro-minimal-army play. Even if you execute this "blind", there are a lot of popular builds you will straight out win or do significant damage against. You are not that dependent on map awareness and proper scouting (plus decision making).
Think of pure macro play risks: * you fail to scout a timing push => lose * you die to some fast tech => lose * you overreact to a fake push => behind
So playing agressively will probably yield a overall better winrate on ladder (at least up to mid master). I am not sure if this also applies to pro level, however it seems to me that pros throwing in some all-ins/push builds are more successful.
@Jermstuddog Who you think is better than me in the Pages before? I´m going to look up myself who posted here but pls say me... Edit: Ok i saw Darkforce but he played Terran.I really like Darkforce but his Terran really sucks as he said too.So don´t tell me my Terran skills are below the one of Darkforce.That´s riduculous.I bet you are some "Masters" Zerg at NA Server.Give me some good Zerg at EU or KR Server so I´ll play him against your crap build ok? I´d like to play Darkforce just because we have the same point of view to this build...
If this build wasnt viable it couldnt beat korean terrans and many zergs on EU wouldnt use something similar so it definitely is. Plus not that hard to execute and quick wins means its nice for lower level ladder play thats for sure.
On January 14 2012 05:24 GornWood wrote: @Jermstuddog Who you think is better than me in the Pages before? I´m going to look up myself who posted here but pls say me... Edit: Ok i saw Darkforce but he played Terran.I really like Darkforce but his Terran really sucks as he said too.So don´t tell me my Terran skills are below the one of Darkforce.That´s riduculous.I bet you are some "Masters" Zerg at NA Server.Give me some good Zerg at EU or KR Server so I´ll play him against your crap build ok? I´d like to play Darkforce just because we have the same point of view to this build...
Perhaps you can add some replays where you completely murder roach ling timings. Right. Now the only repays part of the discussion are of the build working. If you message Tang I'm sure he will oblige you with a couple games.
On January 14 2012 05:40 secretary bird wrote: If this build wasnt viable it couldnt beat korean terrans and many zergs on EU wouldnt use something similar so it definitely is. Plus not that hard to execute and quick wins means its nice for lower level ladder play thats for sure.
The 5 Roach Rush of old relied on the same concept: an all-in build, that hits with a lot of forces early, with a followup that you can't really execute without just hoping your opponent decides not to attack you while you macro up afterwards. Lots of wins at the lower level, with a progressively worse success rate as you move up the rankings. The main reason why this is viable right now at "higher" ladder levels is because the 2-hatch opening makes your everyday ladder Terran less likely to suspect a heavy attack.
like I've said, it's a good all-in build, but it's not a "good build." Which isn't a knock against the build's ladder effectiveness or anything like that. It just means that it's a build that will almost certainly guarantee a loss against an opponent that knows how to deal with it.
I've done this style allot, and it will only work vs hellion style opening anything with bio based I've not had the drone lead to expo ahead of the terran.
I think this helps a ton with any kind of aggressive style. The only pro I remember doing this is actually Stephano as mentioned, that's why his pushes or reinforcements are so incredibly strong. I tend to state that he wins a LOT of games JUST because of the egg management.
As already said in the thread, it is NOT advised you do this all the time (and like NEVER with mutas), but it's very nice when you're aggressive with melee units.
On January 13 2012 20:13 agahamsorr0w wrote: If you rush for mutalisk and don't do any sort of aggression then the amount of time he can abuse drops is shortened by a lot. That's one of the reasons I prefer going for mutas, they give a better map control than roach ling ever will do against terran. Plus, if you spread overlords before mutas come out, you can lose them to 1 random viking. I don't like losing stuff for free.
After pushing you CAN scout for tech and see if there might be dropships incoming. You can also not scout it. Same thing happens when you do any other build, you can send an overlord/overseer to get this info. You can also just spread the overlords and watch the minimap. Your post doesn't belong to this thread imo
You mean you can scout the dropship during the push. Scouting after the push would be incredibly hard without lair tech. We are trying to discuss the long term viability of this build and yea, I do think my post is appropriate.
Why would it be any harder to scout it after the push with this build compared to any other? The difference is drone to army ratio, it's not like you will have mutas out by 7 minutes anyway.
On January 14 2012 05:40 secretary bird wrote: If this build wasnt viable it couldnt beat korean terrans
Nestea won one game against MVP at the Blizzcon using a Queen-less Roach all-in, what does it say about the build's viability?...
You're talking about one game I'm talking about many, I dont see your point.
Even if you know its coming its not an automatic win against this build, that is more than can be said about many popular builds and just saying its viable doesnt mean its the best build ever and cant lose.
Why would it be any harder to scout it after the push with this build compared to any other? The difference is drone to army ratio, it's not like you will have mutas out by 7 minutes anyway.
It's hard to scout before lair tech. Unless you have 2 overlords already in place ofcourse. Most maps nowadays are 4 player maps and sending an overlord near the base of terran is usually not a good idea, especially cross spawn. Overlords are slow so they can be killed before scouting key information.
Why would it be any harder to scout it after the push with this build compared to any other? The difference is drone to army ratio, it's not like you will have mutas out by 7 minutes anyway.
It's hard to scout before lair tech. Unless you have 2 overlords already in place ofcourse. Most maps nowadays are 4 player maps and sending an overlord near the base of terran is usually not a good idea, especially cross spawn. Overlords are slow so they can be killed before scouting key information.
I agree. It has nothing to do with this build though. There are a billion builds which don't even apply pressure which go for late lair. With this build, you can definitely start lair at 8 minutes, which isn't overly late.
So in the past 24 hours, I have taken... at least my version of this build to the next level and I must say, I'm pretty happy with it.
I start out with my 7 roaches and hatch/evo/spine crawler wall.
As soon as the evo is done, I research +1 melee, ling speed, and take my 2nd gas.
Drone up until the Roaches go down, that should get you to about 40-50 drones.
From there, I make 7 more roaches and start massing lings, put down a bling nest after the roaches are made.
The ideal army to move out with is the 7 roaches and ~40 lings. You want your bling nest to finish while your army moves across the map.
Morph 15-20 blings and attack for round 2. Ling speed and +1 melee should be finished before this attack goes off.
Now the beautiful part.
Get a lair, +1 carapace, double expand, make 2 more queens, and drone your ass off.
You can afford to do all this because you just traded armies with your Terran opponent and he shouldn't have a decent army to attack with for another minute or two.
At this point, you have 5 hatches, 4 bases, about 70 drones, and 1/1 lings... Do whatever the hell you want, the game should be over already.
Playing with Tangs version of the attack is what inspired this, so I figured I'd share.
The point of this whole strategy is to be trading armies at Ts base instead of Zs base. It is really odd at first, but after I settled into it, I really started liking it.
All bets are off if T uses siege mode siege tanks to root out the initial roaches though. Which is still OK because that typically takes longer than a bio-based army.
Not an example of the build working out perfectly, I was kinda scared of the army he pushed down the ramp with so I made some panic lings and spines, but that might make it a better replay in general. Shows the build still pulling through when things don't go so well.
On January 13 2012 06:04 Let it Raine wrote: i think aggressive zergs work like this
the more you attack in lower leagues the more wins you get
the more you attack at the highest level the more losses you get
Pretty much
Terrans doing reactor hellion can scout this coming a mile away (see early roach coming), make marauder and a bunker and wait until tanks with their 2nd CC making scvs at home. While you cut drones so early to make roaches and lings.. which do nothing (not busting the ramp to win outright and merely "containing" a terran who has 2CC in 1base with this early roachling sets you so behind)
On January 14 2012 05:40 secretary bird wrote: If this build wasnt viable it couldnt beat korean terrans and many zergs on EU wouldnt use something similar so it definitely is. Plus not that hard to execute and quick wins means its nice for lower level ladder play thats for sure.
The 5 Roach Rush of old relied on the same concept: an all-in build, that hits with a lot of forces early, with a followup that you can't really execute without just hoping your opponent decides not to attack you while you macro up afterwards. Lots of wins at the lower level, with a progressively worse success rate as you move up the rankings. The main reason why this is viable right now at "higher" ladder levels is because the 2-hatch opening makes your everyday ladder Terran less likely to suspect a heavy attack.
like I've said, it's a good all-in build, but it's not a "good build." Which isn't a knock against the build's ladder effectiveness or anything like that. It just means that it's a build that will almost certainly guarantee a loss against an opponent that knows how to deal with it.
Well said, this is just another allin guide made by Tang (good for low leagues though, no disputing that)
@ "this is just another allin guide made by Tang (good for low leagues though, no disputing that)"
It is definitely good for low levels, but it's debatable whether this is "all-in", considering there are several transitions open to the zerg after the attack.
this is definitely not an all in. is it difficult to pull of at masters league? Some what. your timings have to be pretty precise and you have to disguise your push and if possible delay revealing the roaches as long as possible while getting to his base. I've used this build several times and I can say it's a very well thought out build by Tang. It has many follow ups as this build is bound to do damage. If it doesn't you just back off and drone up as you know you are safe from the enemy's aggression. Many times the initial push doesn't end the game for me, but I do win the game afterwards because the push forces the terran to reveal all his tech paths therefore, I build the right counter with the follow up while droning. If you haven't tried it, don't bash it.
This timing attack dominates many standard reactor expands from master league players. If you can deny scouting for long enough, and its a short map with a big nat choke (shattered temple), the roaches almost always do damage. If it wasnt for those destructible rocks on shattered, the build would be fucking standard as it would allow a Zerg to take a fast third + do damage, something unheard of.
It is also incredibly strong vs Bomber style TvZ (1 rax, gas, no marines, no depot, CC, depot, factory, CC), which I've been doing. Tang, you are the reason I am wayyyyy better in customs vs Zerg than on ladder. </3 zergs who are allergic to drones.
On January 20 2012 03:16 ODKStevez wrote: This would be really powerful with so many terrans going Hellion expand. Trouble is banshees completely shut this down.
It's true that 1/1/1 all-ins can be tough to deal with, but it's pretty rare that Terran go banshees with no expansion. And if they're spending that 550 Minerals on an orbital, that cuts into their defense a lot. Often, I end up breaking into the main and killing all their SCVs even if they have 1-2 banshees. Keep in mind, too, that if your roach/ling push denies their expansion and you have one, you're ahead - you just need to hold their bnashee play and since you already have 2 queens and the ability to double-produce queens, you can probably get 4-6 queens out before they even get to your base. Throughout this time, too, you can be droning because you know he's not going to hit you with ground forces for a long time.
On January 20 2012 02:53 Pulimuli wrote: viOLet goes roach/ling/baneling "allin" off 2 bases in 90% of his ZvT's and it works surprisingly well vs high level terrans.
He did get raped by MarineKing but thats because of the skill difference
No, it was because that was the worst game in the world and it was obvious viOLet didn't care about it. MarineKing should have died.
On January 20 2012 02:53 Pulimuli wrote: viOLet goes roach/ling/baneling "allin" off 2 bases in 90% of his ZvT's and it works surprisingly well vs high level terrans.
He did get raped by MarineKing but thats because of the skill difference
No, it was because that was the worst game in the world and it was obvious viOLet didn't care about it. MarineKing should have died.
I don't think viOLet would "not care" about a game against MarineKing, does anyone have a replay link? I'd like to see some examples of viOLet's build.
Tang, it really is an all-in when if you don't do enough damage. Delaying their expo is not good enough reason to cut that many drones so early. However it does do a lot of damage when the terran over extends himself. And this build has been around for a while, nothing new, but thanks for making a guide about it I spose. A lot of terrans at the high masters/gm level I have been playing have been doing the quick expo marauder/hellion push, which this build completely dies to. So i suggest doing this build when the situation seems right, when he terran is being too greedy.
On January 25 2012 00:49 Terrifyer wrote: Tang, it really is an all-in when if you don't do enough damage. Delaying their expo is not good enough reason to cut that many drones so early. However it does do a lot of damage when the terran over extends himself. And this build has been around for a while, nothing new, but thanks for making a guide about it I spose. A lot of terrans at the high masters/gm level I have been playing have been doing the quick expo marauder/hellion push, which this build completely dies to. So i suggest doing this build when the situation seems right, when he terran is being too greedy.
If he's doing a marauder hellion push and you die, I think it's more a problem in your execution because this build is VERY safe to any terran ground pressure - and if he's all-in, you can just spam 2hatch worth of lings until you hold and then you're far ahead. And if he pulls his marauder/hellion back to defend his expansion, you can often counterattack immediately.
I just want to say that, regardless of whether it's viable at high levels of play, this build has helped to solve a huge problem for me.
Ever since release, TvZ has always looked and felt (to me) like, frankly, bullying. That's not to say the matchup isn't statistically balanced, or that I personally don't have a reasonable win-rate. It's just that from a... I want to say a narrative perspective, Terrans fit the profile of 'villain'. It's always seemed as though they get to sit there, all nice and safe, with no nasty tech surprises or hard build-counters for them to worry about, and essentially do their level best to abuse the innate vulnerabilities of an opponent who's obliged to be no threat to them whatsoever for the first ten to fifteen minutes.
I'm absolutely not saying Terran is 'easy-mode'. It's nothing to do with how easy or hard it is to play the races or ultimately win the match - the challenges for each player are very different and can't be directly compared. I'm saying that if your typical TvZ were a blockbuster 'hero' movie, it would be showing on Zerg cinemas, not Terran ones.
The problem is, I've been taking that narrative with me into my ladder games. I'm the good guy; he's the bad guy. When he picks his moment to attack and I hold it off, narrative imperative tells me that ought to be the end of the story, because in a story that's when the good guy wins. But in reality he might be gearing up to attack again just as I make a round of drones, or I might misjudge a counterattack, or miss a drop, and end up losing despite being at four bases to his almost-mined-out two. That's when I start having unhelpful thoughts along the lines of "Jesus, how many times do I have to win in a TvZ to end the game? And he just has to win once. That's such bullshit. Blah blah blah."
Since adopting this build (at least in outline), I've been enjoying myself a lot more - win or lose - because I've broken out of that 'being bullied' mind-set. I'm planning to be aggressive, or at least considering it. And I'm not trying to pull some sneaky tricky bad-guy 6/7 pool; I'm facing him as an equal. If I decide to go for a thin defence and lots of economy instead, that's now my choice. It's my choice to try and fend off his attacks while building up an unassailable lead, and that makes all the difference in the world to the narrative. When I fend off three attacks, get five bases and then fuck up my counter-aggression, I can see it for what it is: me fucking up my chosen strategy, either by not actually getting ahead as much as I'd planned, or by simply mishandling my army. I no longer feel robbed of a win to which I was entitled.
Concerning the build itself, what I've been doing is using it as a baseline or springboard, rarely actually committing to the full 60 food push.
I drone-scout at 9 and steal a gas (yes, I'm sure this is bad but it's a corner I can cut later when I'm better at reading other tells).
If I scout a gas and anticipate hellions I'll carry on right up to the warren at 28 and then take another look.
If I don't think a push would pan out I'll make fewer roaches for defence and rock-busting, use the gas I've already mined to get an upgrade or a lair, and turn the 44-60 food of lings into drones instead. I build a macro hatch for production and sim-city, a spine to hold the front so I can keep my roaches handy vs drops in the main, and when I'm ready to take my third the roaches can again keep it clear of hellions. There are other opportunistic decisions I can make too, like delaying his natural or putting together a big 2-base bane/roach bust. I just feel a lot more flexible and prepared. I know it's nothing super-refined, but it's a plan, which is something I've never had before in ZvT.
So, thanks very much for this; it's completely changed my outlook on the matchup.
Glad it's helped add some structure to your play, Umpteen - and like you mention, it's not always about sticking exactly to the build, it's just nice to plan to put on some aggression and see how the game develops from there.
Thanks so much for putting time into this thread. Its very very useful and I because you explained it so thoroughly I actually understand it instead of just copying what you do and not knowing why i'm doing it.
On January 25 2012 00:49 Terrifyer wrote: Tang, it really is an all-in when if you don't do enough damage. Delaying their expo is not good enough reason to cut that many drones so early. However it does do a lot of damage when the terran over extends himself. And this build has been around for a while, nothing new, but thanks for making a guide about it I spose. A lot of terrans at the high masters/gm level I have been playing have been doing the quick expo marauder/hellion push, which this build completely dies to. So i suggest doing this build when the situation seems right, when he terran is being too greedy.
I think it depends on the opponent's build. Think about it: Some terran players open with 4-8 hellions - that's 400-800 minerals! If you're doing this roach/ling push, you're going to kill those hellions or at the very least make them useful for a while. The ability to shut down any terran pressure early - and even potentially threaten to win the game with just roach/ling - makes the opening viable imo. You definitely don't "completely die" to hellion marauder, I actually think ling/roach holds that type of early push extremely well and your counter attack can devastate him if he doesn't have 2-3 bunkers well positioned with scvs ready.
So, pages 8 to 10 I was giving my opinion about this build. Now, I have a replay to back this opinion. I just met the build you're advocating here. I did not know my opponent, so I did not know beforehand that he would use this build.
My opponent seems to use this build as an answer to my expansion being built on the low ground. Upon scouting this, he cancels his Spine and gets a Roach Warren. This delays a bit his Roach Warren, but he's still in front of my natural by the 7'30 mark, as seen in your examples in the first post, so apparently he's not late.
Since my first Hellions scouted some Speedlings and a Roach Warren, I know he was likely doing this build. He could have built his Roach Warren in base, but having that many Speedlings as early means agressive play anyway, so I would have built a Bunker as well. Shortly before he comes at my natural, my Hellions confirm Roach play. My bunker is complete and my second Marauder is coming soon.
So, he made 8 Roaches and 29 Zerglings, after which he started droning again. But see the damage he did? I lost some mining time and he killed 4 SCVs. That's all. The only thing he forced was a bunker (I get Marauders anyway with this build) and two more Hellions. Definitely not worth it.
True, he should not have committed with his units, and his macro slipped while he was microing Roaches. But still, why would you use more than 20 larvae in the early game to do that little damage? As I was saying before, all it takes is one bunker, one or two Marauders, and the Zerg cannot do much. Marauders outrange Roaches, and Speedlings cannot be used with Hellions near/behind the bunkers, so one Bunker with good building positioning means you will do very little damage.
Now, another blatant weakness of the build—since the Terran was building SCVs during the push, you have to “overdrone” to catch up in your transition part. This means timings in which you're vulnerable, because you will lack larvae to deal with pushes. You can see this too in the replay (yes, his macro/multitask sure could have been better, but still). Any decent Terran will not let you drone freely after your push failed to deal sufficient damage. You will have to deal with drops, you will have to make units again to deal with whatever push the Terran uses, which means that each time you will catch up workers-wise, you will lack larvae to deal with the next push. Your tech will be delayed, which means you will have to use slowbanes for a while, and your Mutalisks (or Infestors) won't be out before a long time, while the Terran tech was not delayed at all if he used this simple defence. Basically, it is very likely that the Terran will have the edge both in economy and technology, and more importantly he will have the initiative. Wasn't it one of your arguments, that for once you want to be the one who sets the pace in the game? Well, with proper defence, unfortunately it's quite the contrary that will likely happen.
So, pages 8 to 10 I was giving my opinion about this build. Now, I have a replay to back this opinion. I just met the build you're advocating here. I did not know my opponent, so I did not know beforehand that he would use this build.
Well that wasn't exactly the build I'm suggesting. He got is gas and his warren late, so he didn't have the 8 roaches by 7:15. He also built a bunch of lings before his roaches delaying them further. Also, his transition wasn't very refined.
On January 06 2012 09:17 UmiNotsuki wrote: Gonna be honest, just like all of your guides this one makes me uneasy. I feel as if you're looking at the game differently from me. I'll explain:
StarCraft II consists of games and sets of games; that is, you can think within the context of a single game, or within the context of your overall win-loss ratio. To me, it seems that you're more concerned with the latter than the former, and that truly bothers me. A good player should be able to, with rather strong consistency, beat someone significantly worse than himself (if only by one league or so.) For instance, a solid platinum player should almost always win against a solid gold player because the platinum player is simply more refined and all-together better at the game. But, your guides seem to be focused on builds for which this is not true. Let me discuss this specific guide in that way:
You suggest that you should have "8 roaches and 16+ lings at the 7:15 mark" when executing this build. Lets look at the cost of that, assuming the minimum number of zerglings.
4 gas = 5 minerals (based on value of one resource return)
200 gas = 250 minerals
Total = 1250 minerals, 24 supply and 16 larvae
That's 16 drones with 800 minerals (not including what those extra drones mine) and 8 supply left over (the exact value of one overlord, so 100 minerals worth)
So, what you are suggesting is that we sacrifice 16 drones worth of mining and 900 minerals for this attack. In order for it to pay for itself relative to simply droning up, as is safe to do with rather minimal defense, we'd have to kill:
More than 12 supply depots, 25 marines, or 25 SCV's
or some combination thereof. Note that these numbers STILL don't include the huge count of minerals that the extra 16 drones mine up to this point.
I think you're crazy if you think you can deal that much damage reliably. Therefore, the only way this build is any good when compared to a macro zerg style is if it wins, right then and there. "Significant damage" won't cut it because there's simply no way that you could deal enough damage for this to pay for itself and not win outright.
The reason this works for you is because you beat some players with it, and that percentage is high enough to keep you at your admittedly impressive ladder ranking. However, you are just as likely to lose to a platinum player with the correct counter in hand (even a blind counter) as you are to beat a master player who was just a little too greedy.
I don't like that.
TL;DR: There's no way this can pay for itself without the opponent dying outright, which is simply not reliable or in my opinion a solid way to play.
EDIT: Added a point about lost mining from lack of drones
unless you kill his natural or his production and a lot of scv's, or just flat out force the gg from him. You will be behind... "But i did this build and didn't do damage and i still won"... congrats! you outplayed him badly. I tottaly agree with you here
So, pages 8 to 10 I was giving my opinion about this build. Now, I have a replay to back this opinion. I just met the build you're advocating here. I did not know my opponent, so I did not know beforehand that he would use this build.
Well that wasn't exactly the build I'm suggesting. He got is gas and his warren late, so he didn't have the 8 roaches by 7:15. He also built a bunch of lings before his roaches delaying them further. Also, his transition wasn't very refined.
I think his point is that you do something stupid like make a bunch of lings and roaches in hope that your opponent isn't playing safe, you should expect to get behind. The reason that this might work, is that your opponent is then playing from a slightly weird situation, where their opponent did something unusual (and stupid), so they might not know what to do with their advantage, and you might be really familiar with the position you're in (cuz you do it a lot), and then make good decisions (or take more risks) and manage to be in fine shape.
Theres no reason (to me) to, should you be going allin against a terran with roaches and lings, not include banelings, and delay the timing a little bit. 4 banes makes a HUGE difference against bunkers, etc; Similarly, I don't agree with the overbuilding of units-you need more of that larvae for drones, as its not going to be a build that any decent player will lose to, and then they will follow up with an easy win.
i've been playing this build very often on the ladder and had alot of success with it. Especially on the KR ladder when you can expect the terran to do some sort of 1 base aggression. (To the people who say this is cheese when it fails.... what isn't cheese if it fails? If terran fails to do damage with his/her 1 base cloak banshee it's GG for him as well. And those plays happen very often).
If you are hesitant about doing this build because it seems all-in to you, I suggest you do the build and focus on doing the stephano style macro by taking your 3rd hatch when you are moving out 52/52 supply. If you execute the build properly you either 1) win out right if terran build 6+ hellions, 2) do damage to be even or ahead 3) see he is fully prepared and just back off. You might think, if you back off you wasted all the larvae/resource for this attack for nothing. Wrong! You backed off because the terran put alot of his resources into defending in which you decided not to engage. Now that you have your 3rd you are free to drone and safe from any terran push for a while. So you just tech and drone. Now you might think your units are useless late game but they're not because you were uprgading melee/carapace the whole time. You will max out alot sooner and if terran tries to move out to take third you should attack him with your ling/roach/infestor.
22-23 drones is not much more than 21 drones. The build order says drone to 28 with 2 queens and 2-4 lings 28 supply = 28 drones (possible) -4 supply for queens -1-2 supply for lings ------------------------------------- 22-23 Drones
From the roach/ling/bane attack: same story in terms of drones differences: -100 minerals and -50 gas for bane nest + cost of banes
Overall difference? To me, the primary difference is in the drone count, and the drone count determines the viability to transition and move successfully into the mid to late game.
On March 17 2012 11:12 Hossinaut wrote: 22-23 drones is not much more than 21 drones. The build order says drone to 28 with 2 queens and 2-4 lings 28 supply = 28 drones (possible) -4 supply for queens -1-2 supply for lings ------------------------------------- 22-23 Drones
From the roach/ling/bane attack: same story in terms of drones differences: -100 minerals and -50 gas for bane nest + cost of banes
Overall difference? To me, the primary difference is in the drone count, and the drone count determines the viability to transition and move successfully into the mid to late game.
The drone count is similar in the two builds, but the roach/ling comes 1 minute before the roach/ling/baneling timing. This means you can transition earlier, and since you're already at about 24 drones, it only takes 8 drones to reach full 2 base mineral saturation (without mining any gas or building additional structures).
On March 17 2012 11:12 Hossinaut wrote: 22-23 drones is not much more than 21 drones. The build order says drone to 28 with 2 queens and 2-4 lings 28 supply = 28 drones (possible) -4 supply for queens -1-2 supply for lings ------------------------------------- 22-23 Drones
From the roach/ling/bane attack: same story in terms of drones differences: -100 minerals and -50 gas for bane nest + cost of banes
Overall difference? To me, the primary difference is in the drone count, and the drone count determines the viability to transition and move successfully into the mid to late game.
The drone count is similar in the two builds, but the roach/ling comes 1 minute before the roach/ling/baneling timing. This means you can transition earlier, and since you're already at about 24 drones, it only takes 8 drones to reach full 2 base mineral saturation (without mining any gas or building additional structures).
If it gets defended there's no way you can transition from 20 drones at 8 min, maybe in bronze league
Definitely all-in, don't know why there's a "(or is it?)" in the title
On March 17 2012 11:12 Hossinaut wrote: 22-23 drones is not much more than 21 drones. The build order says drone to 28 with 2 queens and 2-4 lings 28 supply = 28 drones (possible) -4 supply for queens -1-2 supply for lings ------------------------------------- 22-23 Drones
From the roach/ling/bane attack: same story in terms of drones differences: -100 minerals and -50 gas for bane nest + cost of banes
Overall difference? To me, the primary difference is in the drone count, and the drone count determines the viability to transition and move successfully into the mid to late game.
The drone count is similar in the two builds, but the roach/ling comes 1 minute before the roach/ling/baneling timing. This means you can transition earlier, and since you're already at about 24 drones, it only takes 8 drones to reach full 2 base mineral saturation (without mining any gas or building additional structures).
If it gets defended there's no way you can transition from 20 drones at 8 min, maybe in bronze league
Definitely all-in, don't know why there's a "(or is it?)" in the title
It's not that black and white - this is the most aggressive of Roach/Ling timings with lings from 44 to 60 supply. Keep in mind you don't have to make lings to 60, you could cut it at 52 or 56 to begin droning. Depending on how you do it, it's 22-30 drones at 7:15. That means by 8min, you can be between 35 and 40 drones with a 3rd base halfway done, allowing you to max out infestor/ling/ultra with great upgrades by 15:30. The build requires you to do some damage to remain even, but the question is how much damage do you have to do?
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nLKBq.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zdoSN.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jlLt1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/BuAP4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VCSFI.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vZFvc.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/buU90.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/08Qbl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/E6Vz7.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7dh7p.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LWmQA.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8rsFx.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Aw8KE.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dg6nU.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eMdB5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vopTp.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/DmFgs.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4soOA.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/q0huk.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3N8CG.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Prc8Z.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/U5YcF.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kZcWl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OkMhe.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5jJti.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KCxAb.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/x5dYl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AnyS3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zmUTm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sXNZ2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yf6hL.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/laOig.jpg)
added bonus.
