|
On September 21 2012 00:40 Belial88 wrote:Pros don't do it. You take one game a lesser-known pro has done, once, completely out of context. Here's a link on zergs going 14-15 pool ZvP: everyrecentstarcraft2tournament.com
You know, it's one thing to give your uneducated opinion on a topic. You have that right. It's another thing to ignore an essay worth of evidence on the topic you're addressing. That's also your right. But do not presume to correct me after I've spent 4 hours thoroughly testing this problem and arriving at an exact conclusion, and you've spent zero time examining that evidence, thinking critically, or doing any testing yourself; and to do so arrogantly.
You act like Pros are of a higher God mind. Let's examine that.
Idra didnt use infestors until Mr. Bitter pointed out, while receiving coaching from Idra, that hey - infestors may work to hold off these tanks cliffing you on shakuras better than Mutas. Next thing you know Idra is experimenting with infestors, and replays are getting shown of it. Then the whole community starts using infestors, where before no one would use them. Then the pro scene catches on to the community trends, and everyone is using infestors instead of mutas. All of it began because Mr. Bitter stated the obvious solution to tanks cliffing the main on shakuras which I had realized months prior along with many others. But who of us who realized this solution had the courage to try it, and contradict the pros current way of playing? Not nearly as many who thought it.
In WC3 pro UD players neglected using banshees possession for 8 years in UD vs Orc. And for 8 years Orc was dominant over UD. The game evolved to a high degree of strategic complexity, but banshees were ignored and assumed to suck ass. The pro scene was competitive. It was alot like this game. Then finally, after the game had almost been abandoned by the general public, the matchup gets turned upside down as one well known UD pro decides to go banshees vs Orc. UD Vs Orc switches from Orc > UD to UD >>> Orc. Every pro then starts using banshees and fiends... It took them 8 years to finally try doing it and realize it worked and it worked WELL. So UD had been struggling against Orc for 8 years while the solution was staring them in the face.
Could it be anymore clear? This idolization of insight we've granted to the pros is a myth. They are good players and sure they have insight, but do not let that be an excuse to stop using your brain.
On September 21 2012 00:40 Belial88 wrote:
Btw, overpool is overlord before 11 pool.
I know?
On September 21 2012 00:40 Belial88 wrote:and yea, kind of. There are a ton of pros out there, hundreds, if not thousands, and they know better than me and you. They do what they do because they test it out, at a very high level, with a very detailed look at what is better than what. Everyone wants new strategies, but there's a reason pros don't open 11 pool as a macro opener every game. If you want to recommend it as an aggressive opener that's fine, but it's going to be behind 14-15 pool economically.
lol, if there are thousands of pros out there then I qualify as pro. Nice assumption on my skill level though.
All evidence has proven 11 pool ends up ahead economically in the majority of circumstances.
On September 21 2012 00:40 Belial88 wrote:No, in every game he takes his 4 lings and runs them in to toss' base. His third is also significantly delayed.
Discussing zerg openers is fine, but this topic has already been discussed and hashed out... like 2 years ago. There's a reason none of the pros do anything besides 6/7/8 pool and 14/15 pool in zvp. Go into a YABOT and test it out.
Stop alluding to vague reasons which you cannot articulate. There is more concrete evidence from testing in this thread which you didnt respond to then you yourself have probably ever conducted.
You are trying to read the pro players mind, but you don't know what he was thinking. You can insist that you know, but you don't. Fact is your story doesn't make sense. 12 pool is not a terrible macro opening, but it is a terrible aggressive build. Against any decent player the aggression stands little to no chance of inflicting damage. If aggression is the point of the build, then the build is a complete failure.
On September 21 2012 00:40 Belial88 wrote:Show nested quote +TLDR: 2.5 probe delay is indeed the goal, and the current analysis shows this is achieved; infact exceeded even against a nexus first, IF the opponent full walls (which he should, and you should make sure he does). The build looks extremely promising to me now but a more thorough analysis is still needed. You are down a lot more than 2.5 drones for doing this vs 15 pool, and I wouldn't say that's an accurate way to put it, since toss is just delaying workers to get something the need later on anyways. Whereas when you do 11 pool you aren't doing that, you are hurting yourself economically for time. Toss is just spending the same money, somewhere else.
You are down what averages to 2.5 workers over 5 minutes by doing the build (that is a simple summary - for more thorough summary read previous posts); a deficiency which is made up for by the pressure applied. The earlier queen is what allows for this irregularity. What the Protoss gets earlier is a gateway - 30 seconds earlier - already thoroughly addressed in the analysis. A core - potentially 30 seconds earlier - also already addressed. Everything you mentioned; every aspect of the protoss response has already been thoroughly addressed in the analysis.
|
On September 21 2012 07:20 usethis2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 16:16 Vermiiifuuge wrote:On September 20 2012 16:07 usethis2 wrote:
I happened to run into this thread (I don't play Z) but I know Z players are very calculated in early economy management, and I've had this question for a long time. It's not exactly on point to the thread topic, but it's somewhat related so if someone can answer it I'd appreciate it.
The question is simple: Assuming NR10, is there difference between hatch-first and pool-first? Let's say you're going for 2 base saturation and only ling speed by 10 minute mark. Again, no attack or any army production for that period. Doesnt really make sense to look at it this way. Everything is always relative to what your opponent does, and the timing of your third would also be an important aspect to take into consideration. Well I'm just theorycrafting. yes, it won't happen in real world. But there isn't much harm in theoricrafting for the sake of curiosity. So, if I may reiterate the question, Assuming there will be no attack or army production whatsoever (except getting ling speed), and assuming there is no 3rd base involved (you're just working off the main and the natural), which one gives you better economy at ~ 10 minute mark? Pool-first or Hatch-first?
Hatch first by about 100 or 150 more minerals.
|
So 12 pool in these sample games loses one minute of hatchery-based larva production, which equals 4. Queens, though, are much earlier, 1:13 in total, which equals an approximate plus of 6-7 larvae. Then there is a small loss through the fact that the second queen has to travel to the natural and that there are brief larva blocks in the main after putting down the third, but that isn't more than 2-3 larvae. Once your natural kicks in, you can make all your larvae into drones.
Counting potential larva is not an accurate way to gauge a build.... at all... theoretically you could just go 6 pool 10 hatch and have more larva. Comparing a pro game against a pro opponent, and your replay, doesn't seem to accurate either.
omg, the research has been done several times.
I think 11 pool is viable and PROS DO PLAY 11 POOL. E.g. Stephano does it sometimes, Lowely opens 11 pool frequently. 11 pool is an excellent allround ladder opening. If your opponent is likely to play greedy, 11 pool may be a slight waste, as you cannot do any real pressure, but this is by no means game deciding.
They all do is as an aggressive opening. What is being discussed here is using it as a macro opening, totally different.
If you plan to 3 base at 4'10, an 11 pool might not the right opening. However a lot of zerg players tend to go for a 36..40 supply 3rd which is fine with an 11 pool. In this case an 11 pool is slightly ahead over 14+ pools in drone production.
That doesn't make much sense. And short term gain in drones because you take a later third doesn't make the build better when in the long term it's worse. You could just run off 1 base and have alot more drones than any other opening for a certain amount of time (somewhere around 4-5 minute i believe; 11 pool is the better build if you are playing 1 base though).
There's a reason most pros take a third at ~20. If taking it at 36-40 resulted in better economy in the long term, everyone would just go 14 pool 40 third. It doesn't make much sense to say "well 11 pool is a better build because you take your hatch later". like what?
You want to take your third around 20ish (you should have 16 drones at main and nat when it finishes, roughly, so you are getting a benefit from an additional set of patches).
Just makes no sense to say "11 pool is ahead in production of 14 pool because you take a late third". I'm pretty sure all the pros go 14-15 pool 16h 21h because that results in the best economy 7-9:00+.
There are plenty of things that pros don't do that are good, and there are plenty of things that pros do that are BAD. For example:
IdrA always puts 20 drones on any expansion before rallying to different minerals. It has been proved that 16 drones and then rallying your hatch is the way to get the most minerals.
I don't know exactly what you mean. I was the person who 'proved' that rallying>maynarding (i didnt really prove it either, I claimed it after lots of testing, i didn't provide evidence, i just said it and pointed out thats what the best macro benchmark zergs have done). It's very context dependent, and that's just 1 pro. Some pros do things that are 'bad', but most pros do things correctly. There have been certain things, like for example korean pros going extractor trick for a year after WOL was released (and here and there some still do it), but for the most part they know what they are doing.
Pros make the gasses at 6:30 in their main/nat which means that they have to get at least 22 drones on their main before rallying. This means that the rally is late and therefore they are not mining efficiently in the time that they have 22 drones on their main and are waiting for the gasses to finish. Making 2 at the third and one at the natural sounds most optimal to me because units sometimes target buildings instead of units which makes your army last longer and an easier defense.
They are probably taking gases, where they take it, for more than that reason, like denial of scouting, or to screw with the Toss' head (ie taking all 4 gases at third and nat so toss can't tell if zerg is on 4 gas for mass roach/ling, or 6 gas for mutas, and maybe want to convince toss they are on 6 gas when they are only on 4, so maybe they mass cannons or macro hard against an impending roach max).
Also, taking gases in the main before X number of drones can be done for balancing worker count purposes. The main might be below 22 or whatever workers, but every base is probably down a certain number of workers. By subtracting 8 or 4 or whatever workers from a certain base, it may balance out mineral mining drones better, especially if they don't plan to get 6 gases anytime soon (as is the case when going fast third vs FFE). I don't think it's a clear "oh that's wrong".
There's also a million other factors pro's are doing what they do that I don't think the viewer would understand, as well. They are way more knowledgeable about the game. Granted, you might know a thing or two they don't know that's very niche, but that's kind of rare, and on something like this I'm pretty sure pros have a good reason for taking gases as they do.
Assuming there will be no attack or army production whatsoever (except getting ling speed), and assuming there is no 3rd base involved (you're just working off the main and the natural), which one gives you better economy at ~ 10 minute mark? Pool-first or Hatch-first?
Hatch first, definitely.
This has all been figured out already.
|
Anyone interested in the 11 pool opening, read the evidence and decide for yourself/
|
On September 21 2012 07:50 osiris17 wrote:
Anyone interested in the 11 pool opening, read the evidence and decide for yourself/
I'm with you Osiris, I linked your analysis in the OP.
I also asked a GM about this topic, and he said he follows the probe to prevent 3-pylon block, and in case it happens he just leaves because it doesn't happen in tourney play anyway. He opens 14pool/16hatch, but recommends 11pool/19hatch to be completely safe (how to react to 3-pylon block has been covered in this and other threads when opening 11pool/19hatch). From his input, it seems like it's a very good opening for ladder, at least.
|
On September 21 2012 07:48 Belial88 wrote:Show nested quote +So 12 pool in these sample games loses one minute of hatchery-based larva production, which equals 4. Queens, though, are much earlier, 1:13 in total, which equals an approximate plus of 6-7 larvae. Then there is a small loss through the fact that the second queen has to travel to the natural and that there are brief larva blocks in the main after putting down the third, but that isn't more than 2-3 larvae. Once your natural kicks in, you can make all your larvae into drones. Counting potential larva is not an accurate way to gauge a build.... at all... theoretically you could just go 6 pool 10 hatch and have more larva.
No, you couldn't because a 6 pooling player sits on 3 larvae for an eternity and can't even afford a queen and a hatchery in a reasonable time, resulting in way smaller larva count. Theoretically and practically. So, not even your tongue-in-cheek argumentation is right in any way.
I think the strategy forum dilemma is striking here: too many people making random, unbased claims leads to you not being able to post frequently and take deviating opinions seriously at the same time, which leads to you ridiculing yourself in the rare case when someone makes a valid point. But it's okay if you disagree, I still like you, for the guides and the detailed advice you give. Still couldn't make it through your last post though, sorry!
|
You know, it's one thing to give your uneducated opinion on a topic. You have that right. It's another thing to ignore an essay worth of evidence on the topic you're addressing. That's also your right. But do not presume to correct me after I've spent 4 hours thoroughly testing this problem and arriving at an exact conclusion, and you've spent zero time examining that evidence, thinking critically, or doing any testing yourself; and to do so arrogantly.
I have tested this, as well as many hours, for a lot more than 4 hours, about 2 years ago. Your testing method of comparing your replay to a pro replay, dissimilar third timings, and not even counting total minerals mined (total drone value + overlord value + queen value + mineral bank) or drone counts at 6,7,8 and 9 minutes is weird.
dra didnt use infestors until Mr. Bitter pointed out, while receiving coaching from Idra, that hey - infestors may work to hold off these tanks cliffing you on shakuras better than Mutas. Next thing you know Idra is experimenting with infestors, and replays are getting shown of it. Then the whole community starts using infestors, where before no one would use them. Then the pro scene catches on to the community trends, and everyone is using infestors instead of mutas. All of it began because Mr. Bitter stated the obvious solution to tanks cliffing the main on shakuras which I had realized months prior along with many others. But who of us who realized this solution had the courage to try it, and contradict the pros current way of playing? Not nearly as many who thought it.
Are you serious? It was not like this at all... The community used lots of infestors during 9 range NP while the pros started moving away from infestor play and into muta and mass roach/ling play. It was not because mr bitter said infestors are good lol. Shakuras was not in the map pool in tournament by that time either.
I seriously doubt metagame trends came out because mr bitter (no offense) or low level players started using infestors before the pros did.
lol, if there are thousands of pros out there then I qualify as pro. Nice assumption on my skill level though.
All evidence has proven 11 pool ends up ahead economically in the majority of circumstances.
Quite the contrary...
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fc6j0.png)
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=202464
14 pool is way more money. 11 pool is only better by drone count and only by 1 basing.
No, you couldn't because a 6 pooling player sits on 3 larvae for an eternity and can't even afford a queen and a hatchery in a reasonable time, resulting in way smaller larva count. Theoretically and practically. So, not even your tongue-in-cheek argumentation is right in any way.
I think the strategy forum dilemma is striking here: too many people making random, unbased claims leads to you not being able to post frequently and take deviating opinions seriously at the same time, which leads to you ridiculing yourself in the rare case when someone makes a valid point. But it's okay if you disagree, I still like you, for the guides and the detailed advice you give. Still couldn't make it through your last post though, sorry!
6 pooling sits on 3 larva because you are pooling them, you dont have to pool them. It was an exaggeration, but the basic idea of just get queen asap and omg more larva = better econ is ridiculous.
The strategy forum is full of people who don't use the search engine, and then they think they've come up with some great build and omg why are all the pros so stupid and bad for doing a worse build, then they get pissy when someone shows them evidence from 2 years ago showing why the community has long since moved on past this issue.
I've done a shitton of testing on 11 pool, I went 11 pool as my opener in all 3 match-ups for almost a year. The reason I'm so adamant about how shitty a build it is, is because I used it for so long.
His point is that 11 pool is better economically than 14 pool... and that's just wrong. He even states that the reason 11 pool is better than 14-15 pool is because you take a third at 40 supply and that's somehow better economically lol. Like wow, 14-15 pool with a 40 third must be a REALLY good build then.
|
Belial is right, this was both tested and proven.
And unless you go 10pool before overlord you can't deny a pylon block like that. There's no reason to go 11 pool because of a 3 pylon block because you have to do the exact same thing to beat it in both scenarios, it does very little (read: almost nothing) to stop it. 11 pool isn't completely bad... As an aggressive opener. As a standard macro opening it is just inferior to a 14p from every test I've ever seen and from my experiences using the two.
|
I feel like the 11 pool build is a very strong 2 base opener, I think that is where it really shines as a build. However if used in a fast 3 hatch build I think it is outclassed in the third being so much later. I think this is remedied with the 12 pool 19 hatch build which i find to be a much cleaner build.
I think the biggest trade off between the standard play is that (generally) a 15 pool player will get their third at least half a minute quicker (assuming you spend your larva) but the 12 pool build will secure the natural quicker by removing the pylon block. Pro player remedy this weakness in the 14/15 pool by taking the third instead when the natural can't be taken, assuming protoss not double pylon block; this makes the 15 pool a more desirable option as the strengthes of the earlier pool are nullified.
However some players almost never take the third first and most of the time AND don't attempt to take the 15/16 hatch (after pool). Nerchio, for example, will open 14 pool 15 overlord and then 19 hatch if he can. Why? It's safer, you don't require your 2nd overlord to be watching your third and if he has opened gateway first your in a great position to make a gas and play from there. This play also makes a much more consistent early game with the hatch going down in the same place every time.
This is definitely a playstyle preference, however, you might wonder why not just open 12 pool over 14 pool if you want to play this way. Sure your natural will be faster but your third will be slower which nullifies that advantage in my eyes. With it already being a slightly less economic build then without that added utility I don't think you should open wiht it. I personally think that the only circumstances where I would want to be 12 pooling over 14/15 pooling is against a greedy nexus first (if you get lings in you're in a great spot) or if protoss really commits to denying both your third and natural. If you know a player will deny both bases with pylons and you dislike playing with such a late natural then 12 pool might be a good bet for you. Otherwise I'd recommend 15 pool and taking your third as a natural if pylon blocked or 14 pool 19-20 hatch if you want to play a little less risky. 11/12 pool builds are strong but I think they died out with the introduction of FFE every game where the requirement of such a fast third really hurt those builds.
Basically 14 pool instead of 12 pool if you want to play safe and 15 pool if you arern't worried about taking your third as your natural.
|
This is a troll thread, seriously.
EDIT #2: From the discussion so far, it seems that some pros still do 11 or 12 pool openers, even at the highest levels of play. Furthermore these openers are safer than 14pool/16hatch vs any cannon aggression, so it's a good ladder opening. 14pool/16hatch is easier to execute in tourney play due to the supply depot at the ramp. Last, the eco hit taken by this opening is slight and can be made up for by pressuring the toss player with the first 4 lings after securing the expo.
It's EXTREMELY rare, not many ever do it, they did it years ago, not recently, and when they do it, it's an aggressive opener, not a macro build.
They are NOT safer against cannon aggression. If you fail to pull drones against a cannon rush or ramp block when going 11 pool you lose the game. A 3 pylon ramp block will still occur before an 11 pool even starts it's lings, and 2 lings by 2 (or even if you pool 3 larva, 6 lings) will NOT break a 3 pylon ramp block or 2 pylon block behind minerals before the cannon kills all the lings.
14 pool is NOT done because there is a neutral depot on the low ground. It's done because it's way better economically, and 11 pool has absolutely zero advantage over 14 pool when it comes to ramp blocks or cannon rushes.
The economic hit taken going 11 pool is LARGE and is NOT made up even if you pressure a high level Toss with 4 lings in his base since a good toss won't have to pull probes against 4 lings except only a few at the start, since a zealot will be out very soon.
This has all been covered in: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=202464 and there's a reason pros go 14-15 pool the overwhelming majority of the time.
It's just 3 new posters who haven't seen previous threads on this subject (the many, many threads on it...) who get angry at me telling them that, gasp, there's a reason why every single pro does 14-15 pool, instead of the much cooler "oh yea pros are stupid and they just are stuck in their ways man, i know what's up"
You are trying to read the pro players mind, but you don't know what he was thinking. You can insist that you know, but you don't. Fact is your story doesn't make sense. 12 pool is not a terrible macro opening, but it is a terrible aggressive build. Against any decent player the aggression stands little to no chance of inflicting damage. If aggression is the point of the build, then the build is a complete failure.
no... it's pretty straightforward. There is no reason you'd open anything other than 14-15 pool unless you wanted to do damage early on. That's because the economic hit you take wouldn't be justified unless you did damage. I guess theoretically, someone could open 6 pool and just drone up, but you are just going to be so far behind than if you simply went 14 pool. That's why it's pretty clear why anyone would go 11 or 12 pool, because they want to be aggressive. That, or they are clueless, but pros aren't going to be clueless.
I started to test this to prove you guys wrong, and it was immediately apparent 11 pool is wayyy behind economically than 14-15 pool. But to test it to the ~9-10 minute mark, and do that for 15 pool too, just is a monumental waste of time to prove something taht's already been proven and done by other people, and something that literally every single other person knows.
Here's what you do to empirically test this though, not your weird way you tried to test it:
- Go into "YABOT" (any map is fine as long as you stick with same map for every build)
- Freestyle build
- Do a 2 base 11 pool vs 2 base 14 or 15 pool up to 8 minutes
- (Drone count x 50) + (overlord count x 100) + (queen count x 150) = total mineral value, compare.
Taking a third throws too much of a wrench into the formula (I'd argue lings do too but 4 lings is very standard and part of why you insist 11 pool is better), as would things like gas etc, so you can test taking a third if you want, just only mine minerals and make only 4 lings when pool pops. Make queens and third in a consistent manner.
This thread reminds me a lot of this gem, where a guy argued that going 10 hatchery 10 pool is the best opener economically:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=340594
|
It is so obvious you didnt read this thread, belial.
On September 21 2012 08:39 Belial88 wrote:Show nested quote +You know, it's one thing to give your uneducated opinion on a topic. You have that right. It's another thing to ignore an essay worth of evidence on the topic you're addressing. That's also your right. But do not presume to correct me after I've spent 4 hours thoroughly testing this problem and arriving at an exact conclusion, and you've spent zero time examining that evidence, thinking critically, or doing any testing yourself; and to do so arrogantly. I have tested this, as well as many hours, for a lot more than 4 hours, about 2 years ago. Your testing method of comparing your replay to a pro replay, dissimilar third timings, and not even counting total minerals mined (total drone value + overlord value + queen value + mineral bank) or drone counts at 6,7,8 and 9 minutes is weird.
Oh I did count total resources mined. That is the first thing I point out, and is the basis for my entire analysis. So this right here tells me you didnt read, and do not understand the evidence.
By 10 minutes, a 14 pool has mined 500 total more resources than an 11 overpool. This is true, and anyone can confirm it for themselves. This I tested in Yabot multiple times for both builds, using ideal build orders for both variations with close to perfect execution, and placing the 2nd hatchery for a 14 pool @ the 3rd as is realistic. Test was done on metalopolis.
The statistic of total resources mined at the 10 minute mark accounts for all variables you mentioned: the third timing, drone counts from 6, 7, 8, and 9 minutes. Drone production stops at 60, and this occurs before 10 minutes. This is the standard build. All throughout my posts in this thread, I mention the 10 minute mark as the benchmark for our comparisons. Did you read anything I said?
Comparing my replay to a pro replay? I never did that. What???
On September 21 2012 08:39 Belial88 wrote:Show nested quote +dra didnt use infestors until Mr. Bitter pointed out, while receiving coaching from Idra, that hey - infestors may work to hold off these tanks cliffing you on shakuras better than Mutas. Next thing you know Idra is experimenting with infestors, and replays are getting shown of it. Then the whole community starts using infestors, where before no one would use them. Then the pro scene catches on to the community trends, and everyone is using infestors instead of mutas. All of it began because Mr. Bitter stated the obvious solution to tanks cliffing the main on shakuras which I had realized months prior along with many others. But who of us who realized this solution had the courage to try it, and contradict the pros current way of playing? Not nearly as many who thought it.
Are you serious? It was not like this at all... The community used lots of infestors during 9 range NP while the pros started moving away from infestor play and into muta and mass roach/ling play. It was not because mr bitter said infestors are good lol. Shakuras was not in the map pool in tournament by that time either. I seriously doubt metagame trends came out because mr bitter (no offense) or low level players started using infestors before the pros did.
Oh yes I'm serious. I'm not talking about 9 range NP. I'm also not saying zergs didnt use infestors at all before this time. Because they did use infestors after mutas, and throughout the game. I'm talking about the timing right when lair tech completes, and you choose to either open infestors, or open mutas. It's a defining point in the game. Zergs opening infestors at the completion of lair tech was never considered a standard opening until this time. No one did it. There were people experimenting with it of course but these experiments were never accepted as a standard, as part of the metagame.
What happened was at the time community was learning the game, and for a variety of reasons; since GomTV promoted Idra as this economic genius, among others; Idra was considered by the community as the go-to authority on zerg macro. Every AM zerg clone watched Idra for learning macro. He was among 20 or so zergs who we'd get replays of. He was one of the most macro centered zergs and his replays would get DEVOURED.
The mister bitter thread was extremely popular; so popular Mr. bitter started a casting career as a result. I think every AM zerg above masters had to have seen it / known about it. That thread and those videos got a TON of views, and the people tuning in were all the aspiring zerg players on AM server.. Zergs devour information from pros like wildfire, they are the most information based race. Alot of them are alot like you in temperament, actually. Looking up to their pros, copying their every move. But if you only watched 1 person, at that time it was most likely Idra just because of how standard he played. You at least needed to know the standards.
Idra started doing it because Mr. Bitter suggested it to him, because LZGamer had advised MrBitter to try it. It happened exactly like this, and it's hilarious. The community followed his lead and infestors at lair completion became popular within a week time period. About a month and a half later a patch came out buffing infestors because before everyone thought they were too weak before this time, and were complaining about them! But before the patch they were just getting popular ; D
On September 21 2012 08:39 Belial88 wrote:Show nested quote +lol, if there are thousands of pros out there then I qualify as pro. Nice assumption on my skill level though.
All evidence has proven 11 pool ends up ahead economically in the majority of circumstances. Quite the contrary... http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=20246414 pool is way more money. 11 pool is only better by drone count and only by 1 basing.
Dude, the chart you posted only shows the two builds compared to one another.
The whole point is pressuring protoss puts him more behind than it puts you behind.
The chart also only goes up to 6 minutes and my analysis goes up to 10 minutes, after the drone cap at 60 and all 3rds / tech are down, and you are maxing on roaches / lings.
Let me make it simple for you. You lose X minerals by doing 11 pool instead of 14 pool. Protoss loses Y minerals by reacting to your 11 pool. X - Y = ???
Lol
|
The whole point is pressuring protoss puts him more behind than it puts you behind.
Yes, that's the whole point of 11 pool. That you must do damage in order to get ahead with it. It's not a macro opener, it's an aggressive opener.
But if a Toss reacts properly, it's not going to put him more behind than it puts you. The logic doesn't make much sense. If that were the case, why not just 6 pool every game and macro behind it? Because if toss reacts properly, he'll be ahead. That doesn't mean people don't do it, or that it isn't viable, you can very much catch toss with their pants down. But on the maps these days, Toss can go nexus first and be fine against an 11 pool.
It also sounds like you are overestimating the damage 4 lings can do in Toss' base. Even if you get 4 lings in, they won't be able to do much. Toss will go a greedy nexus first, so you get 4 lings in, but toss build is about 30 seconds ahead for going nexus first. He'll have to pull maybe 6 probes a few times against the 4 lings, but the zealot will be out shortly and toss can pretty much ignore the lings from that point on, as long as he keeps in check basic micro (doesnt stray the zealot too far from probe line and get surrounded by full hp 4 lings and doesnt micro the zealot on top of that, doesnt let you drag the zealot far away and then you run in and kill probes with him not pulling away targeted probes real quick or just kill the lings with probes if they try that).
It just doesnt make sense for you to say "Yea go 11 pool and do damage end up ahead". The reason the game is pretty well balanced is because you can't do some sort of attack and if the opponent prepares for it, still end up ahead of them. You might force a gateway cancel wall against a nexus first but toss is pretty far ahead with the nexus first and the pylon block if you run lings past the pylon toward the toss base.
its like saying oh just 6 pool because toss will just lose so much more if he tries to respond correctly. he won't.
Let me make it simple for you. You lose X minerals by doing 11 pool instead of 14 pool. Protoss loses Y minerals by reacting to your 11 pool. With X>Y, X - Y =???
Lol
FTFY.
LOL
|
I don't know how I could be any more clear. I really don't fucking know. Can God or someone tell me, am I just surrounded by idiots? Is that really the fucking problem? ...I am done with you.
|
6 pooling sits on 3 larva because you are pooling them, you dont have to pool them. It was an exaggeration, but the basic idea of just get queen asap and omg more larva = better econ is ridiculous.
??? 6 pooling sits on 3 larva from the moment the game starts until the moment your 6, then 5 drones can mine 200 minerals in total. I like your guides and effort here on the site but you're cutting your argument off at the ankles if you don't acknowledge larva as one of the limiting factors to economic growth or continue to claim 6 pool doesn't waste larva.
|
^ right it was an exaggeration, i get that. i was saying that comparing builds based solely on larva is goofy. larva can be a factor for economy but it's not the only one. And I don't think measuring larva is any way to base if a build is a better economic opener or not.
|
On September 21 2012 09:53 Belial88 wrote:Show nested quote +The whole point is pressuring protoss puts him more behind than it puts you behind. Yes, that's the whole point of 11 pool. That you must do damage in order to get ahead with it.
WRONG.
On September 21 2012 09:53 Belial88 wrote:
But if a Toss reacts properly, it's not going to put him more behind than it puts you.
WRONG.
On September 21 2012 09:53 Belial88 wrote:
It also sounds like you are overestimating the damage 4 lings can do in Toss' base. Even if you get 4 lings in, they won't be able to do much. Toss will go a greedy nexus first, so you get 4 lings in, but toss build is about 30 seconds ahead for going nexus first. He'll have to pull maybe 6 probes a few times against the 4 lings, but the zealot will be out shortly and toss can pretty much ignore the lings from that point on, as long as he keeps in check basic micro (doesnt stray the zealot too far from probe line and get surrounded by full hp 4 lings and doesnt micro the zealot on top of that, doesnt let you drag the zealot far away and then you run in and kill probes with him not pulling away targeted probes real quick or just kill the lings with probes if they try that).
LINGS ARE NOT IN THE BASE. THE WORKERS 'GAINED' ON THE OPPONENT ARE VIA HIS NEXUS HALTING PRODUCTION IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A WALL.
User was banned for this post.
|
On September 21 2012 10:19 osiris17 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 09:53 Belial88 wrote:The whole point is pressuring protoss puts him more behind than it puts you behind. Yes, that's the whole point of 11 pool. That you must do damage in order to get ahead with it. WRONG.Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 09:53 Belial88 wrote:
But if a Toss reacts properly, it's not going to put him more behind than it puts you.
WRONG.Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 09:53 Belial88 wrote:
It also sounds like you are overestimating the damage 4 lings can do in Toss' base. Even if you get 4 lings in, they won't be able to do much. Toss will go a greedy nexus first, so you get 4 lings in, but toss build is about 30 seconds ahead for going nexus first. He'll have to pull maybe 6 probes a few times against the 4 lings, but the zealot will be out shortly and toss can pretty much ignore the lings from that point on, as long as he keeps in check basic micro (doesnt stray the zealot too far from probe line and get surrounded by full hp 4 lings and doesnt micro the zealot on top of that, doesnt let you drag the zealot far away and then you run in and kill probes with him not pulling away targeted probes real quick or just kill the lings with probes if they try that).
LINGS ARE NOT IN THE BASE. THE WORKERS 'GAINED' ON THE OPPONENT ARE VIA HIS NEXUS HALTING PRODUCTION IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A WALL.
I'm not sure why the protoss would make a wall if he sees that there's not a single zergling coming ? You can easily build the wall on the last seconds or something, or even scout ahead on some maps (i'm precisely thinking about daybreak) and react accordingly...
In every way, you're late with 11pool. Unless i'm still missing something. Then i'm sorry.
|
The zerglings are coming................
The zerglings arrive at the protoss base at 4:00 - 4:10 depending on map size, like I already said. The wall is completed @ 4:00 - 4:10, just in time to block the zerglings.... 4:10 for daybreak.
|
Now, for my amusement, learn the hindu legend of the invincible star-
The legend of the birth of Ganesha carries within itself all the tragedy, valour, divinity, esotericism, enforced sacrifice, renewal and regeneration inherent in Uttarashada. In short the story goes like this:-
"Parvati created a mind borne son and instructed him to stand as a guard and not to let anyone in while she was bathing. Her husband Shiva, returning home, was barred entry by Parvati's son. Shiva had not seen this boy before and did not know who he was, and the boy in turn did not recognize Shiva. Harsh words were exchanged and a battle erupted. Shiva could not defeat this boy and had to retreat. He feit humiliated after being defeated by a mere child and sought the help of Vfsftnu and other Gods to defeat the child.
In the battle that ensued, all of the Gods together were unable to defeat him. Vishnu finally came up with a plan that someone should fight with the boy from the front, while he flew from behind to stealthily take the mace out of the boy's hand. Vishnu's theory was that the boy couldn't be defeated until the mace was taken out of his hand. The plan worked, as Shiva was able to cut the boy's head with his trident as soon as Vishnu's vehicle Garuefa (celestial eagle) snatched the mace.
Since he was Parvati's mind borne son she immediately came to know of his death and the whole story flashed before her mind's eye. She became enraged and summoned all the Shaktis (feminine forces) of the universe to create havoc on Vishnu, Shiva and the rest of the Gods. The whole creation went completely haywire and all the Gods were scared out of their wits. Vishnu realized that the whole universe would collapse if Parvati was not appeased quickly. This could only be done if the boy was brought back to life.
Vishnu instrueted the Gods to descend on earth and bring back the head of the first thing they saw. They saw an elephant and swiftly retumed with its head. Vishnu and Shiva attached the elephant's head to the trunk of the boy's body, which resurrected him. Finally Parvati's anger subsided and order was restored in the universe. The boy was named 'Ganesha', which translates into "the leader of all tribes', and was given the boon to be worshipped first before any other Gods.
|
I've already made my case. Many others have made it much clearer. You already have other, respected posters saying you are flat out wrong. I don't need to repeat myself.
Geez, troll on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
