|
On February 19 2012 02:55 NostalgiaTag wrote:
Tang you may want to put zergling speed in the "opening build order" section. Its kinda imporant, probibly left out on accident
I'm assuming that you wanted to make speed @100 gas then pull drones off gass till roaches?
Yeah, pull at 100 gas, start speed after 18 ovie, before 6 lings.
|
On February 19 2012 02:51 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2012 02:04 TangSC wrote:On February 19 2012 01:20 RampancyTW wrote:
Nobody is saying zerg can only play macro. But there's a big difference between solid, aggressive play and most of the builds you've posted. My issue with most of these guides is that they're not reactive builds designed to exploit scouted weaknesses (which is where aggressive play kicks in). They essentially amount to pre-determined cheeses with a stunted economy, which is where you get most of your complaints from. You'll get a ton of BO-win ladder points with builds like these if opponents don't scout and respond correctly, or are playing too greedy, but unless you inflict significant damage there is zero benefit to doing a build like this. "Map control" is entirely arbitrary unless you're specifically controlling for/against THINGS.
I would love and fully support a guide from you about, for example, establishing a quick third with a decent economy and then turning on a goddamn Zerg killswitch of fury when you spot weaknesses in your opponents' defenses. That would be an AWESOME, comprehensive guide for aggressive Zerg play, and most importantly it would establish all of the basic economic and tech pieces that a Zerg would need to transition afterwards. THAT is solid play. Guides like these are gimmicky. They may be good gimmicks, bad gimmicks, whatever-- the important thing is that they're gimmicks. The words "gimmick, allin, cheese" etc are, in my opinion, useless words. Everyone has a different opinion of what the definitions are. The point is, it's not always what which style you choose, it's about doing the style perfectly. There's a vast skill gap between a master using the builds I've outlined and a silver player using them. I could just as easily argue that my builds are "solid" because they put your opponent on the back foot while you drone/respond to the information your attack gives you, and that playing defensive "macro" style with roaches is not particularly helpful because you're not multitasking and your units are too slow to scout. In short, I really don't think there should be so many unwritten rules about which strategy is correct to employ or any negative associations with builds that deviate from what some people have come to accept as "standard". I don't frown upon cheese or all-ins in regards to them being cheese or all-ins. I dislike your builds because they stunt so much tech and economy for army early on, which FORCES you to do significant damage with them to even have a chance of winning. "Solid" styles have a pretty universally accepted definition: Builds/styles that will work even if your opponent knows they are coming, because their effectiveness is determined almost entirely by the execution of the user relative to the execution of the opponent. Your builds sacrifice the tools needed to enter the midgame in a good position if you don't do enormous damage. THAT does not come down to arbitrary labeling. That does not come down to anything other than the fact that you blindly cut economy and tech in favor of a big fat army that may or may not do damage. Tech will ALWAYS help you. Economy will ALWAYS help you. A big army now, if it sacrifices the other two, does not help you at ALL if you can't do heavy damage with it. The issue is NOT that you don't play a macro style. The issue is that you play a GIMMICKY style (that you do not acknowledge as gimmicky), as opposed to a solid aggressive style.
You can know this build is coming and still lose, we can play a BO5 anytime you like and I'll use this opening each game.
|
On February 19 2012 04:20 TangSC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2012 02:51 RampancyTW wrote:On February 19 2012 02:04 TangSC wrote:On February 19 2012 01:20 RampancyTW wrote:
Nobody is saying zerg can only play macro. But there's a big difference between solid, aggressive play and most of the builds you've posted. My issue with most of these guides is that they're not reactive builds designed to exploit scouted weaknesses (which is where aggressive play kicks in). They essentially amount to pre-determined cheeses with a stunted economy, which is where you get most of your complaints from. You'll get a ton of BO-win ladder points with builds like these if opponents don't scout and respond correctly, or are playing too greedy, but unless you inflict significant damage there is zero benefit to doing a build like this. "Map control" is entirely arbitrary unless you're specifically controlling for/against THINGS.
I would love and fully support a guide from you about, for example, establishing a quick third with a decent economy and then turning on a goddamn Zerg killswitch of fury when you spot weaknesses in your opponents' defenses. That would be an AWESOME, comprehensive guide for aggressive Zerg play, and most importantly it would establish all of the basic economic and tech pieces that a Zerg would need to transition afterwards. THAT is solid play. Guides like these are gimmicky. They may be good gimmicks, bad gimmicks, whatever-- the important thing is that they're gimmicks. The words "gimmick, allin, cheese" etc are, in my opinion, useless words. Everyone has a different opinion of what the definitions are. The point is, it's not always what which style you choose, it's about doing the style perfectly. There's a vast skill gap between a master using the builds I've outlined and a silver player using them. I could just as easily argue that my builds are "solid" because they put your opponent on the back foot while you drone/respond to the information your attack gives you, and that playing defensive "macro" style with roaches is not particularly helpful because you're not multitasking and your units are too slow to scout. In short, I really don't think there should be so many unwritten rules about which strategy is correct to employ or any negative associations with builds that deviate from what some people have come to accept as "standard". I don't frown upon cheese or all-ins in regards to them being cheese or all-ins. I dislike your builds because they stunt so much tech and economy for army early on, which FORCES you to do significant damage with them to even have a chance of winning. "Solid" styles have a pretty universally accepted definition: Builds/styles that will work even if your opponent knows they are coming, because their effectiveness is determined almost entirely by the execution of the user relative to the execution of the opponent. Your builds sacrifice the tools needed to enter the midgame in a good position if you don't do enormous damage. THAT does not come down to arbitrary labeling. That does not come down to anything other than the fact that you blindly cut economy and tech in favor of a big fat army that may or may not do damage. Tech will ALWAYS help you. Economy will ALWAYS help you. A big army now, if it sacrifices the other two, does not help you at ALL if you can't do heavy damage with it. The issue is NOT that you don't play a macro style. The issue is that you play a GIMMICKY style (that you do not acknowledge as gimmicky), as opposed to a solid aggressive style. You can know this build is coming and still lose, we can play a BO5 anytime you like and I'll use this opening each game.
Lol, time to whip out the dicks and see whose is biggest.
|
On February 19 2012 05:23 llKenZyll wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2012 04:20 TangSC wrote:On February 19 2012 02:51 RampancyTW wrote:On February 19 2012 02:04 TangSC wrote:On February 19 2012 01:20 RampancyTW wrote:
Nobody is saying zerg can only play macro. But there's a big difference between solid, aggressive play and most of the builds you've posted. My issue with most of these guides is that they're not reactive builds designed to exploit scouted weaknesses (which is where aggressive play kicks in). They essentially amount to pre-determined cheeses with a stunted economy, which is where you get most of your complaints from. You'll get a ton of BO-win ladder points with builds like these if opponents don't scout and respond correctly, or are playing too greedy, but unless you inflict significant damage there is zero benefit to doing a build like this. "Map control" is entirely arbitrary unless you're specifically controlling for/against THINGS.
I would love and fully support a guide from you about, for example, establishing a quick third with a decent economy and then turning on a goddamn Zerg killswitch of fury when you spot weaknesses in your opponents' defenses. That would be an AWESOME, comprehensive guide for aggressive Zerg play, and most importantly it would establish all of the basic economic and tech pieces that a Zerg would need to transition afterwards. THAT is solid play. Guides like these are gimmicky. They may be good gimmicks, bad gimmicks, whatever-- the important thing is that they're gimmicks. The words "gimmick, allin, cheese" etc are, in my opinion, useless words. Everyone has a different opinion of what the definitions are. The point is, it's not always what which style you choose, it's about doing the style perfectly. There's a vast skill gap between a master using the builds I've outlined and a silver player using them. I could just as easily argue that my builds are "solid" because they put your opponent on the back foot while you drone/respond to the information your attack gives you, and that playing defensive "macro" style with roaches is not particularly helpful because you're not multitasking and your units are too slow to scout. In short, I really don't think there should be so many unwritten rules about which strategy is correct to employ or any negative associations with builds that deviate from what some people have come to accept as "standard". I don't frown upon cheese or all-ins in regards to them being cheese or all-ins. I dislike your builds because they stunt so much tech and economy for army early on, which FORCES you to do significant damage with them to even have a chance of winning. "Solid" styles have a pretty universally accepted definition: Builds/styles that will work even if your opponent knows they are coming, because their effectiveness is determined almost entirely by the execution of the user relative to the execution of the opponent. Your builds sacrifice the tools needed to enter the midgame in a good position if you don't do enormous damage. THAT does not come down to arbitrary labeling. That does not come down to anything other than the fact that you blindly cut economy and tech in favor of a big fat army that may or may not do damage. Tech will ALWAYS help you. Economy will ALWAYS help you. A big army now, if it sacrifices the other two, does not help you at ALL if you can't do heavy damage with it. The issue is NOT that you don't play a macro style. The issue is that you play a GIMMICKY style (that you do not acknowledge as gimmicky), as opposed to a solid aggressive style. You can know this build is coming and still lose, we can play a BO5 anytime you like and I'll use this opening each game. Lol, time to whip out the dicks and see whose is biggest.
I'm just making a point.
|
On February 19 2012 05:28 TangSC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2012 05:23 llKenZyll wrote:On February 19 2012 04:20 TangSC wrote:On February 19 2012 02:51 RampancyTW wrote:On February 19 2012 02:04 TangSC wrote:On February 19 2012 01:20 RampancyTW wrote:
Nobody is saying zerg can only play macro. But there's a big difference between solid, aggressive play and most of the builds you've posted. My issue with most of these guides is that they're not reactive builds designed to exploit scouted weaknesses (which is where aggressive play kicks in). They essentially amount to pre-determined cheeses with a stunted economy, which is where you get most of your complaints from. You'll get a ton of BO-win ladder points with builds like these if opponents don't scout and respond correctly, or are playing too greedy, but unless you inflict significant damage there is zero benefit to doing a build like this. "Map control" is entirely arbitrary unless you're specifically controlling for/against THINGS.
I would love and fully support a guide from you about, for example, establishing a quick third with a decent economy and then turning on a goddamn Zerg killswitch of fury when you spot weaknesses in your opponents' defenses. That would be an AWESOME, comprehensive guide for aggressive Zerg play, and most importantly it would establish all of the basic economic and tech pieces that a Zerg would need to transition afterwards. THAT is solid play. Guides like these are gimmicky. They may be good gimmicks, bad gimmicks, whatever-- the important thing is that they're gimmicks. The words "gimmick, allin, cheese" etc are, in my opinion, useless words. Everyone has a different opinion of what the definitions are. The point is, it's not always what which style you choose, it's about doing the style perfectly. There's a vast skill gap between a master using the builds I've outlined and a silver player using them. I could just as easily argue that my builds are "solid" because they put your opponent on the back foot while you drone/respond to the information your attack gives you, and that playing defensive "macro" style with roaches is not particularly helpful because you're not multitasking and your units are too slow to scout. In short, I really don't think there should be so many unwritten rules about which strategy is correct to employ or any negative associations with builds that deviate from what some people have come to accept as "standard". I don't frown upon cheese or all-ins in regards to them being cheese or all-ins. I dislike your builds because they stunt so much tech and economy for army early on, which FORCES you to do significant damage with them to even have a chance of winning. "Solid" styles have a pretty universally accepted definition: Builds/styles that will work even if your opponent knows they are coming, because their effectiveness is determined almost entirely by the execution of the user relative to the execution of the opponent. Your builds sacrifice the tools needed to enter the midgame in a good position if you don't do enormous damage. THAT does not come down to arbitrary labeling. That does not come down to anything other than the fact that you blindly cut economy and tech in favor of a big fat army that may or may not do damage. Tech will ALWAYS help you. Economy will ALWAYS help you. A big army now, if it sacrifices the other two, does not help you at ALL if you can't do heavy damage with it. The issue is NOT that you don't play a macro style. The issue is that you play a GIMMICKY style (that you do not acknowledge as gimmicky), as opposed to a solid aggressive style. You can know this build is coming and still lose, we can play a BO5 anytime you like and I'll use this opening each game. Lol, time to whip out the dicks and see whose is biggest. I'm just making a point. Also Kenzy, I would really prefer you kept those types of remarks to yourself, judging from the comments from your reddit account (and the fact that you were banned twice), I really don't think you have anything constructive to contribute: http://www.reddit.com/user/llKENZYll
Relevance.
|
This seems to have a really late gas :/ I doubt this would work well against a 10 pool baneling all in. That's all I'm going to say, judging from the length of the thread there has no doubt been more than enough discussion about the actual build.
|
On February 19 2012 05:33 Chaosvuistje wrote:
This seems to have a really late gas :/ I doubt this would work well against a 10 pool baneling all in. That's all I'm going to say, judging from the length of the thread there has no doubt been more than enough discussion about the actual build.
The only way I have trouble with any kind of early pool is when my overlord doesnt spot the lings incoming, since the build is pretty tight, you need to spend your two free food on lings instead of a queen (16-18).
I'm not sure if it's ok relying on overlord scout patterns, but it seems from the way tang plays that his first two ovies are spread in a way to see the lings coming, even if that means he won't see hatch first untill his ling arrives. (which I think is fine since spines finish in time if you scout no expo).
My question still stand though Tang: When my pool finishes I tend to be around 80-100 minerals (cant build a queen straight away) even with drone stacking, is this normal or am I missing something?
|
On February 19 2012 05:37 Clarity_nl wrote:
My question still stand though Tang: When my pool finishes I tend to be around 80-100 minerals (cant build a queen straight away) even with drone stacking, is this normal or am I missing something?
That's normal clarity - should have to wait about 5 seconds. If it bothers you, you can skip one drone and go to 16 instead of 17 before expo.
|
On February 19 2012 06:01 TangSC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2012 05:37 Clarity_nl wrote:
My question still stand though Tang: When my pool finishes I tend to be around 80-100 minerals (cant build a queen straight away) even with drone stacking, is this normal or am I missing something? That's normal clarity - should have to wait about 5 seconds. If it bothers you, you can skip one drone and go to 16 instead of 17 before expo.
But when you crunch the numbers, the 16th drone beats the faster inject? I guess it all comes down to the first queen being able to inject the natural once it finishes.
It just bothers me because it doesn't feel smooth, but right after that moment it's baby-skin levels.
edit: I haven't encountered it yet but how do you deal with baneling expands? From theorycrafting it feels like you cant force alot more units, nor can you catch up in drones.... I think.
|
On February 19 2012 06:05 Clarity_nl wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2012 06:01 TangSC wrote:On February 19 2012 05:37 Clarity_nl wrote:
My question still stand though Tang: When my pool finishes I tend to be around 80-100 minerals (cant build a queen straight away) even with drone stacking, is this normal or am I missing something? That's normal clarity - should have to wait about 5 seconds. If it bothers you, you can skip one drone and go to 16 instead of 17 before expo. But when you crunch the numbers, the 16th drone beats the faster inject? I guess it all comes down to the first queen being able to inject the natural once it finishes. It just bothers me because it doesn't feel smooth, but right after that moment it's baby-skin levels.
It'd be nice if you could get to 150 minerals right when pool finishes, but you do have exactly 16 drones mining 2 per patch so the slight delay doesn't hurt you.
|
God i love this build.
I used to play random, but eventually grew away from zerg due to my absolute hatred of ZvZ. Now i can comfortably say that ZvZ is my favorite and best zerg matchup. Whilst i am now full-time Terran (terran for life <3) Thanks for one hell of a build i can use when i offrace <3
|
We need more people like you on the AM servers Tang, amazing guides, great playing style
|
Hi Tang,
I played around a bit with this build and to be honest the 15 pool opening is pretty suboptimal for the purpose of a 16 drone sling rush. You can get 30-34 lings out ~20..30 in game seconds earlier (while still having an expansion).
critics:
* 16 drones cannot support 2 injected hatches ling production. You actually need only one queen. your build requires 2 queens since you stockpile ressources due to the late pool.
* since you stop droning at 16, there is no need to get the expansion super early (no oversaturation anyway). It is sufficient to put it down ~3'30.
Your 15 pool queen spawns at 4'20. With an 11 pool before ovie at this time you will already have the first spawn larvae finished (2cnd one halfway done).
Better build order (regarding early ling production):
10 extractor trick
11 pool (1'22 ^^)
10 ovie, then another extractor trick to 11
14 extractor (when pool is 70..80% complete)
13 queen
15 a pair of lings, scout opponent with them (~2'40), 3 drones on gas
17 ovie (delays exp, but safe against an early rush, you also may drone to 18 put exe then 17 ovie)
17 put expansion + first inject. take drones from gas, start speed.
16 build 3 more drones (you now have 16)
22 lings + ovies
at 5'40 speed finishes, this build gets 18 lings + 14 underway. at 6'00 you can have 30-34 lings (in your replays 15 pool reaches this ~6'30 to 6'40).
1 queen + 2 hatches can support the income of 16 drones if you inject properly (in case energy stockpiles, just shift inject bothe hatches).
Basically the build trades more larvae against less early income, but that is what you need if you are going for a ling heavy style. Additionally it is pretty cheese proof, your early lings frequently can kill a drone scout and can be used to scout themselfes (2 lings = 2 scouts for the price of one).
One can play around with the scnd ovie/exp timing, i haven't tested what is optimal until now.
note: maybe a regular ovie before 11 pool is even better, i did not test that cause i love my 1'22 pool with early pair of lings
|
I'd really like to hear Tang's comment on the above post, as I, too, feel the build too unstable against early pools (despite having seen your guides).
Your first lings are very very late and the supply block is just too unsafe and long (although it doesn't hurt you economically, but that's not the point). An 11 pool feels safer and if you can get the same results and timings, you should go for that. I will try the above BO, too.
|
This is a very different style than normal Zerg, the replays are good but it still feels really strange not droning as much to me.
|
On February 20 2012 00:14 Mahtasooma wrote:
I'd really like to hear Tang's comment on the above post, as I, too, feel the build too unstable against early pools (despite having seen your guides).
You're better off doing a 14g/14p speedling expand or 13pool 14gas if you have trouble with early pools
|
On February 20 2012 01:39 TangSC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 00:14 Mahtasooma wrote:
I'd really like to hear Tang's comment on the above post, as I, too, feel the build too unstable against early pools (despite having seen your guides).
You're better off doing a 14g/14p speedling expand or 13pool 14gas if you have trouble with early pools
srry, regarding ling count @ time this is not true. The gas timing in the build i listed is identical to yours. 14g14p is ok as a general purpose opening, but not for an optimzed 16 drones sling rush build. its about maxing on larvae, not income. I'll provide a replay later.
edit: http://drop.sc/115491
speed done ~5'40
22 slings @ 5'40
34 slings @ 6'00
|
On February 20 2012 01:46 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 01:39 TangSC wrote:On February 20 2012 00:14 Mahtasooma wrote:
I'd really like to hear Tang's comment on the above post, as I, too, feel the build too unstable against early pools (despite having seen your guides).
You're better off doing a 14g/14p speedling expand or 13pool 14gas if you have trouble with early pools srry, regarding ling count @ time this is not true. The gas timing in the build i listed is identical to yours. 14g14p is ok as a general purpose opening, but not for an optimzed 16 drones sling rush build. its about maxing on larvae, not income. I'll provide a replay later. edit: http://drop.sc/115491speed done ~5'40 22 slings @ 5'40 34 slings @ 6'00
I still think the income of the 15/15/17 is better, 42 ling at 6min
|
On February 19 2012 04:20 TangSC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2012 02:51 RampancyTW wrote:On February 19 2012 02:04 TangSC wrote:On February 19 2012 01:20 RampancyTW wrote:
Nobody is saying zerg can only play macro. But there's a big difference between solid, aggressive play and most of the builds you've posted. My issue with most of these guides is that they're not reactive builds designed to exploit scouted weaknesses (which is where aggressive play kicks in). They essentially amount to pre-determined cheeses with a stunted economy, which is where you get most of your complaints from. You'll get a ton of BO-win ladder points with builds like these if opponents don't scout and respond correctly, or are playing too greedy, but unless you inflict significant damage there is zero benefit to doing a build like this. "Map control" is entirely arbitrary unless you're specifically controlling for/against THINGS.
I would love and fully support a guide from you about, for example, establishing a quick third with a decent economy and then turning on a goddamn Zerg killswitch of fury when you spot weaknesses in your opponents' defenses. That would be an AWESOME, comprehensive guide for aggressive Zerg play, and most importantly it would establish all of the basic economic and tech pieces that a Zerg would need to transition afterwards. THAT is solid play. Guides like these are gimmicky. They may be good gimmicks, bad gimmicks, whatever-- the important thing is that they're gimmicks. The words "gimmick, allin, cheese" etc are, in my opinion, useless words. Everyone has a different opinion of what the definitions are. The point is, it's not always what which style you choose, it's about doing the style perfectly. There's a vast skill gap between a master using the builds I've outlined and a silver player using them. I could just as easily argue that my builds are "solid" because they put your opponent on the back foot while you drone/respond to the information your attack gives you, and that playing defensive "macro" style with roaches is not particularly helpful because you're not multitasking and your units are too slow to scout. In short, I really don't think there should be so many unwritten rules about which strategy is correct to employ or any negative associations with builds that deviate from what some people have come to accept as "standard". I don't frown upon cheese or all-ins in regards to them being cheese or all-ins. I dislike your builds because they stunt so much tech and economy for army early on, which FORCES you to do significant damage with them to even have a chance of winning. "Solid" styles have a pretty universally accepted definition: Builds/styles that will work even if your opponent knows they are coming, because their effectiveness is determined almost entirely by the execution of the user relative to the execution of the opponent. Your builds sacrifice the tools needed to enter the midgame in a good position if you don't do enormous damage. THAT does not come down to arbitrary labeling. That does not come down to anything other than the fact that you blindly cut economy and tech in favor of a big fat army that may or may not do damage. Tech will ALWAYS help you. Economy will ALWAYS help you. A big army now, if it sacrifices the other two, does not help you at ALL if you can't do heavy damage with it. The issue is NOT that you don't play a macro style. The issue is that you play a GIMMICKY style (that you do not acknowledge as gimmicky), as opposed to a solid aggressive style. You can know this build is coming and still lose, we can play a BO5 anytime you like and I'll use this opening each game.
im up for it.
|
On February 20 2012 03:18 TangSC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 01:46 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:On February 20 2012 01:39 TangSC wrote:On February 20 2012 00:14 Mahtasooma wrote:
I'd really like to hear Tang's comment on the above post, as I, too, feel the build too unstable against early pools (despite having seen your guides).
You're better off doing a 14g/14p speedling expand or 13pool 14gas if you have trouble with early pools srry, regarding ling count @ time this is not true. The gas timing in the build i listed is identical to yours. 14g14p is ok as a general purpose opening, but not for an optimzed 16 drones sling rush build. its about maxing on larvae, not income. I'll provide a replay later. edit: http://drop.sc/115491speed done ~5'40 22 slings @ 5'40 34 slings @ 6'00 I still think the income of the 15/15/17 is better, 42 ling at 6min
Checked 4 first replays you provided, you are at 28-32 lings at 6'00 (the 32 one you were supply blocked, if you would have built an ovie, you'd have 2 less). I accounted for lings lost.
It's not that a big deal, however the earlier pool builds will give you an edge in ling count.
In practice the extra queen ofc has a strategic value, however 4..6 lings more can make a difference too.
Its true, the initial income is better (i did not doubt this), but this does not help as you float minerals for some time due to the lack of larvae up to 6'00.
Your build would peak (mathematically) at a slightly later push time with a 22-25 drones economy, so you actually can spend the larvae from 2 injected bases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
