|
i really like this!
managed to get 71-73 supply at 8:00 several times now while testing it. i found the best thing to do is to build NO lings (unless he cannon rushes you obv) and at 34 supply you get 4 lings (so you will be able to kill potential pylon at 3rd in time) BUT NO overlord and lay a creep tumor with your 2nd queen after she injected once.
if you do so you will have 4 less larvae at 5:50-6:00 --> minerals for your 3rd + creep to 3rd. 3rd base at 44/5:50, overlord + double gas, 3 drones to 44, overlord
your 2nd queen will inject after tumor and you are able to build a 3rd queen at 30/40 of this inject cycle. 2nd queen injects once more and runs to 3rd base. 3rd queen pops as your larvae finishes (--> you dont miss injects and have a queen at 3rd vs stargate).
cant say yet if it is better than 14/15 pool builds but it is definetly a nice find AND gives you the opportunity to go for a 2 base all in AND the late 3rd could force extra cannons and/or sentry first (which is nice since you can drone harder since no zealot stalker pressure will be incoming).
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
I don't mind cannon rushing you to show you why this build is bad.
|
On May 28 2012 19:40 T.O.P. wrote:
I don't mind cannon rushing you to show you why this build is bad.
Also think of it this way- If you screw up scouting the cannon rush, you have more of a chance of the hatch finishing. Why don't you just overpool to make sure cannons don't kill you/you don't sac all your eco.
I don't understand this build tbh 
|
On May 28 2012 18:24 Macpo wrote:
I am always a bit surprised by reactions : why do some people absolutely want to shut down any unorthodox or even false idea? I am not saying here that the idea is good. I want to suggest that, before deciding whether some statement is true or not, maybe we should first appreciate its content in a friendly manner. Instead of destroying directly the idea, as if we were defending against an enemy.
This does not prevent us from criticizing it, it's rather a state of mind that takes into account that even something false may still provide us with some valuable information. Be it negative information on what we should not do. I personnally had never considered 12 hatch 11 pool, I didn't know how many drones I could have at the 6 minut mark with that, and now I have some information to make up my mind. This makes us more competent, which we should be grateful for, not angry at.
We all want a better build, of course. But this guy offers no evidence why his build is better, and just goes by "well I do it on low masters". It's kind of insulting - I know I've spent countless hours trying to test out better builds, but the thousands of pro games, and the millions of players, have somehow figured out what's best already. That isn't to say they are wrong on certain things, but this build is COMPLETELY different than anything else. If he were to say something like "13pool 14 hatch" or just one off or something, sure, with good evidence, replays, he could prove it.
So he brought up discussion, because others had to spend hours testing something because he failed to test it on his own, and look, we've proved that it's wrong. Not just myself, but multiple people have tested something that he couldn't do on his own. Not to mention a search would have answered it, by a thread someone else made a long time ago.
It's fine to create a discussion thread, or bring up the many ones that have already been created and created good stuff. But he's basically saying "hey, all of you guys, hey stephano, hey nestea, your wrong for doing what you did. You know those countless hours of testing you did? It's wrong, and stupid, because I've found a better way to do things, with a superior method of testing, laddering on NA".
Furthermore, a lot of the stuff he says is completely wrong, and could have been figured out with a simple search. IE that your opener somehow has any bearing on handling timing attack 6 minutes later, that you can put on aggression with a pool timing that is later than the standard pool timing, that you can prevent cannon rushes (how many times have I had to post saying 11 pool and later will autolose to a ramp block or cannon rush unless you deny the ramp block or pull drones just the same as if you did any other sort of opener). He could have read that really awesome zvp guide and known what was wrong here, and posted in it saying "what about this build?"
|
Belial, your attitude often does not live up to your game understanding. Without doubt you know a lot of stuff, but more than once you make somewhat half-true statements. Some humility would make your posts more valuable  .
An Extractor Trick is done to avoid larvae idle time, not to increase income. So your comments regarding extractor tricks and income do not hit the point. Some times extractor tricks help to delay an Overlord and get a building down earlier without losing larvae.
Frequently i see people comparing minerals mined, when comparing builds. However a much more important number is the number of drones built, so a significant drone lead will be better on income in the long run regardless of current minerals mined.
regarding the 12/11 build:
The hatch first variations have been discussed in the past extensively here (actually i played 12 hatch 11 pool for some time). It is not that bad, but it is slightly behind at 6'20. Note that idling larvae to get a hatch earlier is not that bad, because for each 15 seconds you get the hatch down earlier, you gain an extra larvae. So if you get the hatch down 15 seconds earlier but have to idle larvae for 7 seconds, you gained 0.5 larvae (same rule applies to pool/queen, but with 10s instead of 15s).
You still can get pylon blocked, however the probability is pretty low. The main reason i abandonned the build is the fact that you still might lose to a cannon rush (though earlier creep and lings help) and it seems like any hatch first just provokes a cannon rush.
The main point against it is, that an 11 pool is just ~on par (or slightly better) compared to a 12 hatch first, so there is no reward for risking hatch first anymore :-). I even started going 11 pool - ovie in order to remove pylon blocks quicker (earlier lings than 11 overpool).
Effects of pylon block exp delay:
- for each 15 seconds the hatch is delayed, you lose 1 larvae. if you factor in a later inject (cause hatch finishes later), this sums up to 2,5 larvae per 15 seconds delay. So if your exp is delayed for 30 seconds, you lose 5 larvae in the future. Additionally you lose money when mining with >16 drones at the main.
E.g. in case of 30 second nat delay you need to mine from the main with 4 'oversaturation drones' for 30 seconds
=> roughly 40 minerals lost.
If you take your "third" first when nat is blocked, you'll lose mining time because new drones have a longer way to reach the 3rd. If they take extra 15 seconds to reach that base, this sums up to a loss of 16*15s lost minimng time = 160 minerals lost until full (16 drones) saturation. Additionally you queen will have a longer walk, so you will additionally lose larvae due to later inject.
So it is pretty obvious, that sacrificing early income/larvae in order to get down your nat early may well pay off.
|
Alot of potential. But doing this I feel you fall behind in economy. So while powerdroning you can be punished by a zealot push. Or even semi-fast stalkers
|
On May 28 2012 19:40 T.O.P. wrote:
I don't mind cannon rushing you to show you why this build is bad.
well...the pool with this build finishes some seconds after 14 pool. you have to pull drones in both ways but here you have the advantage of having creep, 2 queens + a spine if needed.
|
On May 28 2012 19:52 Belial88 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2012 18:24 Macpo wrote:
I am always a bit surprised by reactions : why do some people absolutely want to shut down any unorthodox or even false idea? I am not saying here that the idea is good. I want to suggest that, before deciding whether some statement is true or not, maybe we should first appreciate its content in a friendly manner. Instead of destroying directly the idea, as if we were defending against an enemy.
This does not prevent us from criticizing it, it's rather a state of mind that takes into account that even something false may still provide us with some valuable information. Be it negative information on what we should not do. I personnally had never considered 12 hatch 11 pool, I didn't know how many drones I could have at the 6 minut mark with that, and now I have some information to make up my mind. This makes us more competent, which we should be grateful for, not angry at.
We all want a better build, of course. But this guy offers no evidence why his build is better, and just goes by "well I do it on low masters". It's kind of insulting - I know I've spent countless hours trying to test out better builds, but the thousands of pro games, and the millions of players, have somehow figured out what's best already. That isn't to say they are wrong on certain things, but this build is COMPLETELY different than anything else. If he were to say something like "13pool 14 hatch" or just one off or something, sure, with good evidence, replays, he could prove it. So he brought up discussion, because others had to spend hours testing something because he failed to test it on his own, and look, we've proved that it's wrong. Not just myself, but multiple people have tested something that he couldn't do on his own. Not to mention a search would have answered it, by a thread someone else made a long time ago. It's fine to create a discussion thread, or bring up the many ones that have already been created and created good stuff. But he's basically saying "hey, all of you guys, hey stephano, hey nestea, your wrong for doing what you did. You know those countless hours of testing you did? It's wrong, and stupid, because I've found a better way to do things, with a superior method of testing, laddering on NA". Furthermore, a lot of the stuff he says is completely wrong, and could have been figured out with a simple search. IE that your opener somehow has any bearing on handling timing attack 6 minutes later, that you can put on aggression with a pool timing that is later than the standard pool timing, that you can prevent cannon rushes (how many times have I had to post saying 11 pool and later will autolose to a ramp block or cannon rush unless you deny the ramp block or pull drones just the same as if you did any other sort of opener). He could have read that really awesome zvp guide and known what was wrong here, and posted in it saying "what about this build?"
Well, it's precisely what I want to underline: why would you consider making ungrounded assumptions, mistakes, doing a "so-so" guide, etc. insulting? More precisely, to defend your point, you claim that it's "like" insulting everyone and saying that Stephano and Nestea are wrong and stupid.This is quite strange: what do you mean by it's "like": is he insulting or not insulting?
Go read the OP: actually, the guy didn't came with an arrogant posture where he claimed to be better than everyone else, he just said that "it worked for him", and he wanted to share his ideas. What's wrong with that? The worst thing that can happen is that he is actually wrong, in which case you or anyone else can demonstrate it. I don't see where you can find insults in there.
You are just assuming way too much about OP, and such deformation of reality is in itself quite problematic, especially when you claim to know the truth. (But i guess this is the great lesson of how the one who always claims to know the truth ends up lying, as he cannot accept critique).
|
anybody got some benchmarks for the 8:00 timing while going stephano build (6:00 double gas etc.) of 14/15 pool --> pylon block natural:
- 4 lings + queen and take natural, then 3rd
- take 3rd instead
would be interesting to see which supply stephano etc. can reach with 3 queen, 4 lings and pure drones. i think the 75+ supply the top zergs reach is always after 14p 16h where P didnt block.
|
On May 28 2012 20:24 Macpo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2012 19:52 Belial88 wrote:On May 28 2012 18:24 Macpo wrote:
I am always a bit surprised by reactions : why do some people absolutely want to shut down any unorthodox or even false idea? I am not saying here that the idea is good. I want to suggest that, before deciding whether some statement is true or not, maybe we should first appreciate its content in a friendly manner. Instead of destroying directly the idea, as if we were defending against an enemy.
This does not prevent us from criticizing it, it's rather a state of mind that takes into account that even something false may still provide us with some valuable information. Be it negative information on what we should not do. I personnally had never considered 12 hatch 11 pool, I didn't know how many drones I could have at the 6 minut mark with that, and now I have some information to make up my mind. This makes us more competent, which we should be grateful for, not angry at.
We all want a better build, of course. But this guy offers no evidence why his build is better, and just goes by "well I do it on low masters". It's kind of insulting - I know I've spent countless hours trying to test out better builds, but the thousands of pro games, and the millions of players, have somehow figured out what's best already. That isn't to say they are wrong on certain things, but this build is COMPLETELY different than anything else. If he were to say something like "13pool 14 hatch" or just one off or something, sure, with good evidence, replays, he could prove it. So he brought up discussion, because others had to spend hours testing something because he failed to test it on his own, and look, we've proved that it's wrong. Not just myself, but multiple people have tested something that he couldn't do on his own. Not to mention a search would have answered it, by a thread someone else made a long time ago. It's fine to create a discussion thread, or bring up the many ones that have already been created and created good stuff. But he's basically saying "hey, all of you guys, hey stephano, hey nestea, your wrong for doing what you did. You know those countless hours of testing you did? It's wrong, and stupid, because I've found a better way to do things, with a superior method of testing, laddering on NA". Furthermore, a lot of the stuff he says is completely wrong, and could have been figured out with a simple search. IE that your opener somehow has any bearing on handling timing attack 6 minutes later, that you can put on aggression with a pool timing that is later than the standard pool timing, that you can prevent cannon rushes (how many times have I had to post saying 11 pool and later will autolose to a ramp block or cannon rush unless you deny the ramp block or pull drones just the same as if you did any other sort of opener). He could have read that really awesome zvp guide and known what was wrong here, and posted in it saying "what about this build?" Well, it's precisely what I want to underline: why would you consider making ungrounded assumptions, mistakes, doing a "so-so" guide, etc. insulting? More precisely, to defend your point, you claim that it's "like" insulting everyone and saying that Stephano and Nestea are wrong and stupid.This is quite strange: what do you mean by it's "like": is he insulting or not insulting? Go read the OP: actually, the guy didn't came with an arrogant posture where he claimed to be better than everyone else, he just said that "it worked for him", and he wanted to share his ideas. What's wrong with that? The worst thing that can happen is that he is actually wrong, in which case you or anyone else can demonstrate it. I don't see where you can find insults in there. You are just assuming way too much about OP, and such deformation of reality is in itself quite problematic, especially when you claim to know the truth. (But i guess this is the great lesson of how the one who always claims to know the truth ends up lying, as he cannot accept critique).
The question is what kind of standards we want to support for an OP in the Strategy forum. If we want people who say "check out this crazy new thing I do that works in Diamond! I have no idea how it compares to real pro builds!" then there is no problem with the OP. However, it looks like Belial is someone who wants to stand up for higher standards. While he might be somewhat abrasive, it makes sense to me that someone who puts a lot of work into a quality Strategy forum would be dismayed by an OP like this one.
|
On May 28 2012 20:16 Decendos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2012 19:40 T.O.P. wrote:
I don't mind cannon rushing you to show you why this build is bad. well...the pool with this build finishes some seconds after 14 pool. you have to pull drones in both ways but here you have the advantage of having creep, 2 queens + a spine if needed.
This guys Top 40 GM...
Just because he doesn't give a justification doesn't mean he doesn't know what hes talking about.
|
Heh, I love your title man, banana build. I am so gonna do this build for 3 days just for the name. Ignore the haters btw, they can theory craft all they want, but props to you for trying something orthodox. I will give it a go, continue creating orthodox builds! 
Edit: One suggestion dude, you really should come up with the optimal time for a 3rd.. I could see this build being a fake pressure build..but it would be nice to have some variety to stream out after starting the build.
|
On May 28 2012 21:02 Decendos wrote:
anybody got some benchmarks for the 8:00 timing while going stephano build (6:00 double gas etc.) of 14/15 pool --> pylon block natural:
- 4 lings + queen and take natural, then 3rd
- take 3rd instead
would be interesting to see which supply stephano etc. can reach with 3 queen, 4 lings and pure drones. i think the 75+ supply the top zergs reach is always after 14p 16h where P didnt block.
62 drones, 3 queens, one macro hatch, 2 lings,roach warren and evo, ling speed or lair. 8 min, that's the supposed bench mark.
|
On May 28 2012 21:16 zerglingrodeo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2012 20:24 Macpo wrote:On May 28 2012 19:52 Belial88 wrote:On May 28 2012 18:24 Macpo wrote:
I am always a bit surprised by reactions : why do some people absolutely want to shut down any unorthodox or even false idea? I am not saying here that the idea is good. I want to suggest that, before deciding whether some statement is true or not, maybe we should first appreciate its content in a friendly manner. Instead of destroying directly the idea, as if we were defending against an enemy.
This does not prevent us from criticizing it, it's rather a state of mind that takes into account that even something false may still provide us with some valuable information. Be it negative information on what we should not do. I personnally had never considered 12 hatch 11 pool, I didn't know how many drones I could have at the 6 minut mark with that, and now I have some information to make up my mind. This makes us more competent, which we should be grateful for, not angry at.
We all want a better build, of course. But this guy offers no evidence why his build is better, and just goes by "well I do it on low masters". It's kind of insulting - I know I've spent countless hours trying to test out better builds, but the thousands of pro games, and the millions of players, have somehow figured out what's best already. That isn't to say they are wrong on certain things, but this build is COMPLETELY different than anything else. If he were to say something like "13pool 14 hatch" or just one off or something, sure, with good evidence, replays, he could prove it. So he brought up discussion, because others had to spend hours testing something because he failed to test it on his own, and look, we've proved that it's wrong. Not just myself, but multiple people have tested something that he couldn't do on his own. Not to mention a search would have answered it, by a thread someone else made a long time ago. It's fine to create a discussion thread, or bring up the many ones that have already been created and created good stuff. But he's basically saying "hey, all of you guys, hey stephano, hey nestea, your wrong for doing what you did. You know those countless hours of testing you did? It's wrong, and stupid, because I've found a better way to do things, with a superior method of testing, laddering on NA". Furthermore, a lot of the stuff he says is completely wrong, and could have been figured out with a simple search. IE that your opener somehow has any bearing on handling timing attack 6 minutes later, that you can put on aggression with a pool timing that is later than the standard pool timing, that you can prevent cannon rushes (how many times have I had to post saying 11 pool and later will autolose to a ramp block or cannon rush unless you deny the ramp block or pull drones just the same as if you did any other sort of opener). He could have read that really awesome zvp guide and known what was wrong here, and posted in it saying "what about this build?" Well, it's precisely what I want to underline: why would you consider making ungrounded assumptions, mistakes, doing a "so-so" guide, etc. insulting? More precisely, to defend your point, you claim that it's "like" insulting everyone and saying that Stephano and Nestea are wrong and stupid.This is quite strange: what do you mean by it's "like": is he insulting or not insulting? Go read the OP: actually, the guy didn't came with an arrogant posture where he claimed to be better than everyone else, he just said that "it worked for him", and he wanted to share his ideas. What's wrong with that? The worst thing that can happen is that he is actually wrong, in which case you or anyone else can demonstrate it. I don't see where you can find insults in there. You are just assuming way too much about OP, and such deformation of reality is in itself quite problematic, especially when you claim to know the truth. (But i guess this is the great lesson of how the one who always claims to know the truth ends up lying, as he cannot accept critique). The question is what kind of standards we want to support for an OP in the Strategy forum. If we want people who say "check out this crazy new thing I do that works in Diamond! I have no idea how it compares to real pro builds!" then there is no problem with the OP. However, it looks like Belial is someone who wants to stand up for higher standards. While he might be somewhat abrasive, it makes sense to me that someone who puts a lot of work into a quality Strategy forum would be dismayed by an OP like this one.
Well... I completely agree about the high standard expectations, as this is precisely why I criticize certain interventions which in my opinion lower the actual Strategy forum quality standards by replacing rational argumentation by overstatements and aggressive postures. Having said that, Belial's objection was different: he considered the OP "kind of insulting". Low standard and being insulting are two distinct things, as far as I am concerned. This is what I was adressing in my previous post.
|
On May 28 2012 21:21 Jombozeus wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2012 20:16 Decendos wrote:On May 28 2012 19:40 T.O.P. wrote:
I don't mind cannon rushing you to show you why this build is bad. well...the pool with this build finishes some seconds after 14 pool. you have to pull drones in both ways but here you have the advantage of having creep, 2 queens + a spine if needed. This guys Top 40 GM... Just because he doesn't give a justification doesn't mean he doesn't know what hes talking about.
well but since this is a discussion there shouldnt be a problem to say why he is able to win more times with cannon rush vs this build than vs 14 pool.
|
On May 28 2012 14:54 Belial88 wrote:
^ What testing are you doing? It's not exactly 'stephano style' if you aren't taking a third. Are you maxing off 2 base at 11:15? Are you getting lair, speed before or after lair? Evo chamber?
Sorry for being vague, my testing was rushing to 200 supply roach ling on three base with macro hatch and first double gas @6:00, roach warren + evo @7:00.
Lair with first 100 gas, then take 2 more gas, next 100 gas speed, then +1 ranged attack, and lastly roach speed.
I made no lings with OP:s build however, pumped out roaches immediately after warren is done. 4 lings with 14/21 to take down pylon.
3rd base timings were about 35 with 12/11 and 24 with 14/21 (minerals stack up when you can't expand before taking down pylon)
|
On May 28 2012 20:24 Macpo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2012 19:52 Belial88 wrote:On May 28 2012 18:24 Macpo wrote:
I am always a bit surprised by reactions : why do some people absolutely want to shut down any unorthodox or even false idea? I am not saying here that the idea is good. I want to suggest that, before deciding whether some statement is true or not, maybe we should first appreciate its content in a friendly manner. Instead of destroying directly the idea, as if we were defending against an enemy.
This does not prevent us from criticizing it, it's rather a state of mind that takes into account that even something false may still provide us with some valuable information. Be it negative information on what we should not do. I personnally had never considered 12 hatch 11 pool, I didn't know how many drones I could have at the 6 minut mark with that, and now I have some information to make up my mind. This makes us more competent, which we should be grateful for, not angry at.
We all want a better build, of course. But this guy offers no evidence why his build is better, and just goes by "well I do it on low masters". It's kind of insulting - I know I've spent countless hours trying to test out better builds, but the thousands of pro games, and the millions of players, have somehow figured out what's best already. That isn't to say they are wrong on certain things, but this build is COMPLETELY different than anything else. If he were to say something like "13pool 14 hatch" or just one off or something, sure, with good evidence, replays, he could prove it. So he brought up discussion, because others had to spend hours testing something because he failed to test it on his own, and look, we've proved that it's wrong. Not just myself, but multiple people have tested something that he couldn't do on his own. Not to mention a search would have answered it, by a thread someone else made a long time ago. It's fine to create a discussion thread, or bring up the many ones that have already been created and created good stuff. But he's basically saying "hey, all of you guys, hey stephano, hey nestea, your wrong for doing what you did. You know those countless hours of testing you did? It's wrong, and stupid, because I've found a better way to do things, with a superior method of testing, laddering on NA". Furthermore, a lot of the stuff he says is completely wrong, and could have been figured out with a simple search. IE that your opener somehow has any bearing on handling timing attack 6 minutes later, that you can put on aggression with a pool timing that is later than the standard pool timing, that you can prevent cannon rushes (how many times have I had to post saying 11 pool and later will autolose to a ramp block or cannon rush unless you deny the ramp block or pull drones just the same as if you did any other sort of opener). He could have read that really awesome zvp guide and known what was wrong here, and posted in it saying "what about this build?" Well, it's precisely what I want to underline: why would you consider making ungrounded assumptions, mistakes, doing a "so-so" guide, etc. insulting? More precisely, to defend your point, you claim that it's "like" insulting everyone and saying that Stephano and Nestea are wrong and stupid.This is quite strange: what do you mean by it's "like": is he insulting or not insulting? Go read the OP: actually, the guy didn't came with an arrogant posture where he claimed to be better than everyone else, he just said that "it worked for him", and he wanted to share his ideas. What's wrong with that? The worst thing that can happen is that he is actually wrong, in which case you or anyone else can demonstrate it. I don't see where you can find insults in there. You are just assuming way too much about OP, and such deformation of reality is in itself quite problematic, especially when you claim to know the truth. (But i guess this is the great lesson of how the one who always claims to know the truth ends up lying, as he cannot accept critique).
You are correct in that the OP does not use insulting tone or language. However, it is pretty obvious (or so it seems to me) that Belial's objection is to the implied statement in the OP: "All the professionals and serious amateurs who spent hours, days, or months testing openers failed, and here is a better version I made up after a few wacky ladder games." The lack of clear evidence accompanying this claim only adds to the frustration with this sort of approach. This is what was meant by "like insulting" - the insult is implied.
Edit: Also, though I don't read a lot of zerg threads nowadays, from what I remember Belial is someone who devotes a good amount of time to thorough and systematic testing of this sort of thing, and it must be irritating to have someone not even bother to read up the extant threads before writing all of that off as wasted effort.
|
The opening poster haven't given out a replay that will verify your drone counts, which is what some people are focusing on, nor is it "safer" that a 14pool.
Here is a replay of a ladder game.
http://drop.sc/158539
Assuming that your counts are real (you haven't placed any replay as of yet verifying your drone count), here is what Snute has at 6mins when opening with Pool first, without making pure drones.
2 Lings, 36 Drones, 3 Hatches completed, and 3 Queens completed.
This is in stark contrast to 40 drones (probably because you didn't make any lings) and one less hatchery, and being far less safer vs cannons.
The two main points of the opening post which he has highlighted in bold is demonstratable false. It is certainly less safe than pool first. 2 Drones more at 6mins (including the lost lings as drone) isn't much more considering that the third hatch would be kicking in by the 7th minute. Compared to pool first 3 hatch, as opposed to the hatch built just under 6 mins, it is very lacking in drones and unsafe.
|
On May 29 2012 00:15 Dangermousecatdog wrote:The opening poster haven't given out a replay that will verify your drone counts, which is what some people are focusing on, nor is it "safer" that a 14pool. Here is a replay of a ladder game. http://drop.sc/158539Assuming that your counts are real (you haven't placed any replay as of yet verifying your drone count), here is what Snute has at 6mins when opening with Pool first, without making pure drones. 2 Lings, 36 Drones, 3 Hatches completed, and 3 Queens completed. This is in stark contrast to 40 drones (probably because you didn't make any lings) and one less hatchery, and being far less safer vs cannons. The two main points of the opening post which he has highlighted in bold is demonstratable false. It is certainly less safe than pool first. 2 Drones more at 6mins (including the lost lings as drone) isn't much more considering that the third hatch would be kicking in by the 7th minute. Compared to pool first 3 hatch, as opposed to the hatch built just under 6 mins, it is very lacking in drones and unsafe.
The OP already said that the build is safer against a pylon block at the bottom ramp. And he clarified that this build is more of a 2 base build because the third base is significantly later than 14p16h
|
On May 28 2012 21:31 Macpo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2012 21:16 zerglingrodeo wrote:On May 28 2012 20:24 Macpo wrote:On May 28 2012 19:52 Belial88 wrote:On May 28 2012 18:24 Macpo wrote:
I am always a bit surprised by reactions : why do some people absolutely want to shut down any unorthodox or even false idea? I am not saying here that the idea is good. I want to suggest that, before deciding whether some statement is true or not, maybe we should first appreciate its content in a friendly manner. Instead of destroying directly the idea, as if we were defending against an enemy.
This does not prevent us from criticizing it, it's rather a state of mind that takes into account that even something false may still provide us with some valuable information. Be it negative information on what we should not do. I personnally had never considered 12 hatch 11 pool, I didn't know how many drones I could have at the 6 minut mark with that, and now I have some information to make up my mind. This makes us more competent, which we should be grateful for, not angry at.
We all want a better build, of course. But this guy offers no evidence why his build is better, and just goes by "well I do it on low masters". It's kind of insulting - I know I've spent countless hours trying to test out better builds, but the thousands of pro games, and the millions of players, have somehow figured out what's best already. That isn't to say they are wrong on certain things, but this build is COMPLETELY different than anything else. If he were to say something like "13pool 14 hatch" or just one off or something, sure, with good evidence, replays, he could prove it. So he brought up discussion, because others had to spend hours testing something because he failed to test it on his own, and look, we've proved that it's wrong. Not just myself, but multiple people have tested something that he couldn't do on his own. Not to mention a search would have answered it, by a thread someone else made a long time ago. It's fine to create a discussion thread, or bring up the many ones that have already been created and created good stuff. But he's basically saying "hey, all of you guys, hey stephano, hey nestea, your wrong for doing what you did. You know those countless hours of testing you did? It's wrong, and stupid, because I've found a better way to do things, with a superior method of testing, laddering on NA". Furthermore, a lot of the stuff he says is completely wrong, and could have been figured out with a simple search. IE that your opener somehow has any bearing on handling timing attack 6 minutes later, that you can put on aggression with a pool timing that is later than the standard pool timing, that you can prevent cannon rushes (how many times have I had to post saying 11 pool and later will autolose to a ramp block or cannon rush unless you deny the ramp block or pull drones just the same as if you did any other sort of opener). He could have read that really awesome zvp guide and known what was wrong here, and posted in it saying "what about this build?" Well, it's precisely what I want to underline: why would you consider making ungrounded assumptions, mistakes, doing a "so-so" guide, etc. insulting? More precisely, to defend your point, you claim that it's "like" insulting everyone and saying that Stephano and Nestea are wrong and stupid.This is quite strange: what do you mean by it's "like": is he insulting or not insulting? Go read the OP: actually, the guy didn't came with an arrogant posture where he claimed to be better than everyone else, he just said that "it worked for him", and he wanted to share his ideas. What's wrong with that? The worst thing that can happen is that he is actually wrong, in which case you or anyone else can demonstrate it. I don't see where you can find insults in there. You are just assuming way too much about OP, and such deformation of reality is in itself quite problematic, especially when you claim to know the truth. (But i guess this is the great lesson of how the one who always claims to know the truth ends up lying, as he cannot accept critique). The question is what kind of standards we want to support for an OP in the Strategy forum. If we want people who say "check out this crazy new thing I do that works in Diamond! I have no idea how it compares to real pro builds!" then there is no problem with the OP. However, it looks like Belial is someone who wants to stand up for higher standards. While he might be somewhat abrasive, it makes sense to me that someone who puts a lot of work into a quality Strategy forum would be dismayed by an OP like this one. Well... I completely agree about the high standard expectations, as this is precisely why I criticize certain interventions which in my opinion lower the actual Strategy forum quality standards by replacing rational argumentation by overstatements and aggressive postures. Having said that, Belial's objection was different: he considered the OP "kind of insulting". Low standard and being insulting are two distinct things, as far as I am concerned. This is what I was adressing in my previous post.
I think I can understand his feeling insulted. If someone blatantly ignores past work and doesn't live up to standards, then someone who DOES the work in question might feel insulted.
For example, say that someone turns in a paper at University claiming to have made some sort of discovery in some field. If the paper does not reference any other past work in that field, and the paper does a poor job backing up its claims to boot, then I think the professor is justified in feeling somewhat insulted. In fact, I might be somewhat abrasive in writing comments on such a paper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
