|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SeTWKU4.png)
Introduction:
+ Show Spoiler +Good day ladies and gentlemen of Team Liquid! Welcome to a Zerg vs Terran guide featuring an aggressive Roach timing attack that Shine used against TaeJa in Game 1 of 2013 WCS Korea (S1 Code-S). The most appealing aspect of early Roach aggression is the opportunity to safely apply pressure while building economy. Since Wings of Liberty, Zergs have taken advantage of Roach openings to set the pace in a match-up where Terran is normally the first aggressor. Zergs opened with 5-6 Roaches to push back Hellions and apply light pressure while they droned and teched. I favoured heavier aggression with 8+ Roaches and Speedlings in WoL; unfortunately, the meta-game shifted when Heart of the Swarm was released, and these Roach openings are no longer stable/reliable openings for a couple reasons: - Reaper openings make it easy for the Terran to scout the Warren or that the Zerg has mined 100+ gas (indicating that an early attack is probably coming).
- Terrans who open with a Factory/Reactor used to only be able to make Hellions (AKA Roach Food); however, now they can build Widow Mines for stronger early defence.
- Tanks come prepared with siege mode, making it possible for Terrans to have tanks sieged in position before the Roaches even arrive.
Still, there is a time and place for every aggressive build, and my mind was blown when I watched Shine's brilliant response to TaeJa's gasless expand (CC-first). Here is what the attack looks like: _______________________________________________________________________ Shine's 12 Roach Rush (Push out 6:30, Arrive 7:00):![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gZA28Oe.jpg) Initially, you might look at the screen shot above and wonder what is so special about this attack - it is not unusual for Roaches to arrive around 7:00 - and the answer is the deceptive gas timing. Most Roach builds open with a Hatchery-first and then a gas geyser around 2:30-3:00 just before/after the Spawning Pool. When a Terran SCV scouts around 3:00-4:00, they'll look at the gas timing to get a read on Zerg. Against almost any Roach build, the early gas is a warning signal for Terran; but when Terran scouts no gas from Zerg, they'll assume a standard game where Zerg tries to take a third base around 6:30. Shine intelligently delays the gas until 4:20, then when his 4 Zerglings pop and he is certain that he can deny scouting, he double-gases: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3wHbyWd.jpg) This gas timing is subtle yet incredibly important. Without Reapers or a super-early scan, there is no way for Terrans to scout Zerg's gas after lings/Queens pop, and that's why the Roach rush works so well against CC first. Good Terrans will catch on around 6:30 when they see no third hatchery, but even then you're pushing out with Roaches, giving Terran maximum of only 30 seconds to respond: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7oPI1LG.jpg) In short, Shine's 12-Roach attack is a large commitment that relies on some deception and meta-gaming to be effective. It is a low-economy opening (only 23 Drones until 6:45), but can transition into a wide range of mid-game styles assuming you deal enough economic damage. It is a powerful addition to your repertoire, not as a blind all-in, but as a situational response to CC-First or similar gas-less expands. Some people will call such builds gimmicky, I prefer to call them brilliant.
References:
+ Show Spoiler +
Opening Build Order:
+ Show Spoiler +Note: This build is primarily a response to a gasless expand. The unmarked gains in supply are Drones.Build Walkthrough - Shine's 12 Roach Rush9 Overlord 15 Hatch 16 Pool 17 Overlord 19-23 Queenx2 23-25 Zerglings @4:20 Double Gas Main (once lings are out to deny SCV scouting) 28 Roach Warren 28 Overlordx2 28-44 Roachesx8 44 Overlordx2 (Creep tumour x2 instead of 2nd inject) 44-52 Roachesx4 Economy for the first attack: 23 Drone economy, restart droning at 6:45~
Follow-up Transition:
+ Show Spoiler +Note: In the game against TaeJa, Shine follows the initial attack with a 2-base Speed Roach attack. Other transitions are likely viable under different circumstances.
52+ Drones
54 Lair (~7:00)
60 third gas (~7:30)
Roach Speed when Lair finishes
Aim for about 40 Drones (Fully saturate 2 Mineral Fields with 3 Gas) before Roach Production.
Push around 100 Supply with an Overseer, take a third behind it.
All-In (Or is it?)
+ Show Spoiler +One of my biggest goals is advocating aggressive styles, because I believe that the stigma surrounding all-ins is counter-productive from a learning perspective. The truth is that all styles - from the greediest hatch-first to the most committed 6-pool - have a place in the learning process. We limit ourselves if we learn only to all-in; but we limit ourselves if we learn only to macro. In order to be the best possible players that we can, we need to be well-rounded - and that includes all-ins.
I'd like to welcome you all to engage in a positive discussion on the value and limitations of all-ins. Please be extra-respectful of others' opinions; you cannot hope to convince someone if you insult them first.
|
nice build. This sort of deceptiveness and trickyness is only useful at the higher levels though, anything below midmasters it's pointless to be tricky at the expense of having a less efficient build basically.
I love shine's wackyness though, got to think the guy only thinks of how to deceive in yet another way every time he is preparing.
|
I love these builds, specially vs terran. Maybe next time do a TLO build ^_^
|
On June 27 2013 07:49 Myaura wrote:
I love these builds, specially vs terran. Maybe next time do a TLO build ^_^
Ooooh I'd love that...will keep my eyes open for the right TLO build =)
|
Day9 defined all-in as a build with 'no next step'. This is a good working definition.
Shine's style can have a heap of next steps, it doesn't leave you in an awkward position tech-wise. Does it have to deal damage? Yes. But so do all serious aggressions. If you aren't doing it blind HOPING it will do damage, but instead are responding to a scout or trigger from your opponent that makes it highly probable that you will be dealing damage, then I for one don't call aggression that leaves you in a reasonable position an 'all-in'.
eg 4-gate = all-in. You are left without a second base, low probe count AND no tech. You have no next step if your opponent isn't dead -> you are all-in.
eg hell-bat drop before CC -> you have no 2nd CC and a low unit count to defend and cannot apply pressure -> you are all-in.
eg attacking with all your units when you have 50% of your drones wiped out from a drop instead of remaking -> all-in
eg 2-base 1/1 roach-bane push on 60 drones. You have tech, drones and bases and upgrades, you can go in any direction as long as you do enough damage your opponent cannot take a 3rd before you - NOT all-in.
eg 12 roach aggression on 2 base in response to gasless expand. You have 2x gas geysers, letting you get to lair in 20 seconds, 2 base and 2 queens. As long as damage is dealt to opponent's natural, who you KNOW is low tech, you are NOT all-in.
|
It's only all in if it doesnt do enough damage.
|
I like the sneaky gas timing. seems like you could use it against gas openings if you build enough extra lings to ward off reapers, maybe a total of 6? they can react with widow mines pretty easily though.
|
I don't see it as a great response to CC first/1 rax CC. Even if you fake metabolic boost vs a scout or otherwise trick them like with 2 delayed gas, as long as they see your roaches walk across the map either with an scv or a hellion, they can easily hold. The main keys to holding this build are to have a bunker at the front of your wall, particularly with a full wall off, and scvs pulled. I've even seen people hold it with 3cc. I used to have some success with the build, but better players react to it and shut it down hard. I would say that the 4 lings getting into the main is the primary reason Taeja died to that build.
It's essentially unrecoverable if you don't kill 15+ workers, especially against 3cc. Opponents who can hold and go into hellbat/marauder style builds will be particularly hard to defeat from such a deficit.
|
On June 27 2013 09:31 DaemonX wrote:
Day9 defined all-in as a build with 'no next step'. This is a good working definition.
Shine's style can have a heap of next steps, it doesn't leave you in an awkward position tech-wise. Does it have to deal damage? Yes. But so do all serious aggressions. If you aren't doing it blind HOPING it will do damage, but instead are responding to a scout or trigger from your opponent that makes it highly probable that you will be dealing damage, then I for one don't call aggression that leaves you in a reasonable position an 'all-in'.
eg 4-gate = all-in. You are left without a second base, low probe count AND no tech. You have no next step if your opponent isn't dead -> you are all-in.
eg hell-bat drop before CC -> you have no 2nd CC and a low unit count to defend and cannot apply pressure -> you are all-in.
eg attacking with all your units when you have 50% of your drones wiped out from a drop instead of remaking -> all-in
eg 2-base 1/1 roach-bane push on 60 drones. You have tech, drones and bases and upgrades, you can go in any direction as long as you do enough damage your opponent cannot take a 3rd before you - NOT all-in.
eg 12 roach aggression on 2 base in response to gasless expand. You have 2x gas geysers, letting you get to lair in 20 seconds, 2 base and 2 queens. As long as damage is dealt to opponent's natural, who you KNOW is low tech, you are NOT all-in.
this discussion is so pointless.. Tons of games continue after 4 gate, 6 pool, quick hellbat drops etc. There is no hard line between timing attack and all-in. Basically any big attack that isn't harass is 'all-in' to some extent because you are are behind if you don't do good damage. Going into semantics and discussing if this build is all-in or not is so silly. The day9 definition is a bit stupid as basically all builds have a next step, it's easier to see it as an attack that has to do a lot of damage which this definately is..
|
United States4883 Posts
On June 27 2013 10:29 Markwerf wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 09:31 DaemonX wrote:
Day9 defined all-in as a build with 'no next step'. This is a good working definition.
Shine's style can have a heap of next steps, it doesn't leave you in an awkward position tech-wise. Does it have to deal damage? Yes. But so do all serious aggressions. If you aren't doing it blind HOPING it will do damage, but instead are responding to a scout or trigger from your opponent that makes it highly probable that you will be dealing damage, then I for one don't call aggression that leaves you in a reasonable position an 'all-in'.
eg 4-gate = all-in. You are left without a second base, low probe count AND no tech. You have no next step if your opponent isn't dead -> you are all-in.
eg hell-bat drop before CC -> you have no 2nd CC and a low unit count to defend and cannot apply pressure -> you are all-in.
eg attacking with all your units when you have 50% of your drones wiped out from a drop instead of remaking -> all-in
eg 2-base 1/1 roach-bane push on 60 drones. You have tech, drones and bases and upgrades, you can go in any direction as long as you do enough damage your opponent cannot take a 3rd before you - NOT all-in.
eg 12 roach aggression on 2 base in response to gasless expand. You have 2x gas geysers, letting you get to lair in 20 seconds, 2 base and 2 queens. As long as damage is dealt to opponent's natural, who you KNOW is low tech, you are NOT all-in.
this discussion is so pointless.. Tons of games continue after 4 gate, 6 pool, quick hellbat drops etc. There is no hard line between timing attack and all-in. Basically any big attack that isn't harass is 'all-in' to some extent because you are are behind if you don't do good damage. Going into semantics and discussing if this build is all-in or not is so silly. The day9 definition is a bit stupid as basically all builds have a next step, it's easier to see it as an attack that has to do a lot of damage which this definately is..
I agree, but I think that in defense of Day9's definition, even "all-in" standards such as 6-pool, 4-gate, etc., can have perfectly clear follow-up transitions depending on the situation they're used in. A 6-pool against FFE is perfectly acceptable as long as you only make 4 zerglings and continue building drones; in this case, you already have a macro follow-up and you're only goal is TO STOP A FFE. Closely related, I can remember a few games where MC killed off a scouting SCV and followed up with a 4-gate that nearly didn't break the bunker; MC just followed up by sniping ~10 reparing SCVs while simultaneously getting a nexus up and tech. There's a clear line of reasoning that takes it through to the next step, even at the expense of a big risk.
...that being said, I like this series and all of your guides SCTang, even though this one is REALLY short lol. Keep up the good work!
|
This looks a lot like hyuns 12 roach build, difference being Hyuns 12 roaches hit at 6:30 instead of 7. Much faster, and better economy because you dont make the 2 sets of zerglings from 23-25 supply?
|
Love this kind of early roach plays :D
|
if the terran sits there with a tank and bunker I would call this a massive all-in
|
On June 27 2013 14:46 ImperialFist wrote:
if the terran sits there with a tank and bunker I would call this a massive all-in
No terran is going to have a tank out at this time.
|
If you would ever drone scout at 10, you arrive at the enemy base at 15 and still can decide whether to go into the 3 barrel bust (seeing gas) or this (seeing no gas).
|
United Kingdom12027 Posts
Interesting build. It's things like this that make me glad I open tanks into mech since I don't have to worry about these sorts of builds. :p
|
Isn't this build like.. super old? I've seen it a lot of times from different zergs. I mean 28 roach warren then 12 roaches. Very nice and informative nonetheless.
edit: yes, I gave too few importance to the gas timing.
|
This is almost identical to DRGs 11roach timing from waaaaaaaaay back WoL. Only difference is that he takes 1gas sooner (the roach timing is the same). Wich in my eyes makes it less allin as you have more drones on minerals and can transition faster.
Nevertheless its strong build and I love to use it. In WoL it had really strong transition into ling infestor nowadays the muta transition isnt as strong. Id maybe recommend 3base roach speed bane bust.
|
Why does your walk-through video have a cam of the closet behind you? Do you use it to keep an eye on the monster?
|
On June 27 2013 10:29 Markwerf wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 09:31 DaemonX wrote:
Day9 defined all-in as a build with 'no next step'. This is a good working definition.
Shine's style can have a heap of next steps, it doesn't leave you in an awkward position tech-wise. Does it have to deal damage? Yes. But so do all serious aggressions. If you aren't doing it blind HOPING it will do damage, but instead are responding to a scout or trigger from your opponent that makes it highly probable that you will be dealing damage, then I for one don't call aggression that leaves you in a reasonable position an 'all-in'.
eg 4-gate = all-in. You are left without a second base, low probe count AND no tech. You have no next step if your opponent isn't dead -> you are all-in.
eg hell-bat drop before CC -> you have no 2nd CC and a low unit count to defend and cannot apply pressure -> you are all-in.
eg attacking with all your units when you have 50% of your drones wiped out from a drop instead of remaking -> all-in
eg 2-base 1/1 roach-bane push on 60 drones. You have tech, drones and bases and upgrades, you can go in any direction as long as you do enough damage your opponent cannot take a 3rd before you - NOT all-in.
eg 12 roach aggression on 2 base in response to gasless expand. You have 2x gas geysers, letting you get to lair in 20 seconds, 2 base and 2 queens. As long as damage is dealt to opponent's natural, who you KNOW is low tech, you are NOT all-in.
Basically any big attack that isn't harass is 'all-in' to some extent because you are are behind if you don't do good damage. Going into semantics and discussing if this build is all-in or not is so silly. The day9 definition is a bit stupid as basically all builds have a next step, it's easier to see it as an attack that has to do a lot of damage which this definately is..
You make a good point, the whole notion of an all-in is arbitrary because most builds have a next step/follow-through (though I'd argue that DaemonX is right that a 4gate in PvZ or early pools/proxy rax with worker pulls are blind all-ins). It is a worthwhile discussion though. All-ins and borderline all-ins are slowly becoming less taboo on the North American and European servers, but there's still a lot of people who completely reject the benefits of learning/incorporating aggressive styles.
|
On June 27 2013 21:44 Spec wrote:
Why does your walk-through video have a cam of the closet behind you? Do you use it to keep an eye on the monster?
Yes, the other night I saw the new Monsters Inc. movie in theatre...scary stuff.
|
Imo, if people still made Banshees like in WoL Hellion/Banshee style 
|
awesome bo, good to pull once in a best of
|
On June 27 2013 22:40 TangSC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:29 Markwerf wrote:On June 27 2013 09:31 DaemonX wrote:
Day9 defined all-in as a build with 'no next step'. This is a good working definition.
Shine's style can have a heap of next steps, it doesn't leave you in an awkward position tech-wise. Does it have to deal damage? Yes. But so do all serious aggressions. If you aren't doing it blind HOPING it will do damage, but instead are responding to a scout or trigger from your opponent that makes it highly probable that you will be dealing damage, then I for one don't call aggression that leaves you in a reasonable position an 'all-in'.
eg 4-gate = all-in. You are left without a second base, low probe count AND no tech. You have no next step if your opponent isn't dead -> you are all-in.
eg hell-bat drop before CC -> you have no 2nd CC and a low unit count to defend and cannot apply pressure -> you are all-in.
eg attacking with all your units when you have 50% of your drones wiped out from a drop instead of remaking -> all-in
eg 2-base 1/1 roach-bane push on 60 drones. You have tech, drones and bases and upgrades, you can go in any direction as long as you do enough damage your opponent cannot take a 3rd before you - NOT all-in.
eg 12 roach aggression on 2 base in response to gasless expand. You have 2x gas geysers, letting you get to lair in 20 seconds, 2 base and 2 queens. As long as damage is dealt to opponent's natural, who you KNOW is low tech, you are NOT all-in.
Basically any big attack that isn't harass is 'all-in' to some extent because you are are behind if you don't do good damage. Going into semantics and discussing if this build is all-in or not is so silly. The day9 definition is a bit stupid as basically all builds have a next step, it's easier to see it as an attack that has to do a lot of damage which this definately is.. You make a good point, the whole notion of an all-in is arbitrary because most builds have a next step/follow-through (though I'd argue that DaemonX is right that a 4gate in PvZ or early pools/proxy rax with worker pulls are blind all-ins). It is a worthwhile discussion though. All-ins and borderline all-ins are slowly becoming less taboo on the North American and European servers, but there's still a lot of people who completely reject the benefits of learning/incorporating aggressive styles.
I think the semantics matter - because these terms are used disparagingly and those styles and players are stigmatised, but also because the terms do mean something.
If I'm saying "well he's all-in", what I mean is "hold this with no damage and I auto-win". Ie when toss does a 4-gate, I scout it, he turns up to 8 roaches 3 spines 3 queens in a tiny choke in front of 2 base saturation, he sadly goes home to die - he was "all in". It's not all-in if I've 8-pooled and he KNOWS I cannot hold a 4gate with zero damage.
All-in is a legitimate descriptor that has been abused by every player who got attacked when it wasn't terribly convenient in their current game plan/style/build to be attacked and wanted someone or something to blame.
I don't think your builds are - by and large - all-ins. As long as they're not done blind. Except the 'second barrel'. That shit is whack in all cases, do it blind as a bat
|
On June 28 2013 09:07 DaemonX wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 22:40 TangSC wrote:On June 27 2013 10:29 Markwerf wrote:On June 27 2013 09:31 DaemonX wrote:
Day9 defined all-in as a build with 'no next step'. This is a good working definition.
Shine's style can have a heap of next steps, it doesn't leave you in an awkward position tech-wise. Does it have to deal damage? Yes. But so do all serious aggressions. If you aren't doing it blind HOPING it will do damage, but instead are responding to a scout or trigger from your opponent that makes it highly probable that you will be dealing damage, then I for one don't call aggression that leaves you in a reasonable position an 'all-in'.
eg 4-gate = all-in. You are left without a second base, low probe count AND no tech. You have no next step if your opponent isn't dead -> you are all-in.
eg hell-bat drop before CC -> you have no 2nd CC and a low unit count to defend and cannot apply pressure -> you are all-in.
eg attacking with all your units when you have 50% of your drones wiped out from a drop instead of remaking -> all-in
eg 2-base 1/1 roach-bane push on 60 drones. You have tech, drones and bases and upgrades, you can go in any direction as long as you do enough damage your opponent cannot take a 3rd before you - NOT all-in.
eg 12 roach aggression on 2 base in response to gasless expand. You have 2x gas geysers, letting you get to lair in 20 seconds, 2 base and 2 queens. As long as damage is dealt to opponent's natural, who you KNOW is low tech, you are NOT all-in.
Basically any big attack that isn't harass is 'all-in' to some extent because you are are behind if you don't do good damage. Going into semantics and discussing if this build is all-in or not is so silly. The day9 definition is a bit stupid as basically all builds have a next step, it's easier to see it as an attack that has to do a lot of damage which this definately is.. You make a good point, the whole notion of an all-in is arbitrary because most builds have a next step/follow-through (though I'd argue that DaemonX is right that a 4gate in PvZ or early pools/proxy rax with worker pulls are blind all-ins). It is a worthwhile discussion though. All-ins and borderline all-ins are slowly becoming less taboo on the North American and European servers, but there's still a lot of people who completely reject the benefits of learning/incorporating aggressive styles. I don't think your builds are - by and large - all-ins. As long as they're not done blind. Except the 'second barrel'. That shit is whack in all cases, do it blind as a bat
Well it would be a stretch to say some of my builds aren't all-ins lol, but it's interesting that you say the 'second barrel' from the triple barrel bust is all-in because it's blind. This is a bit off-topic for this thread, but you have the option of Overseer scouting the Terran as soon as the Lair is done to decide whether to attack. Honestly though, doing that particular build blindly works well because the only thing that the attack MUST accomplish is resetting Terran's army count so that Zerg can saturate their third behind the attack.
|
Love the builds Tang! I always find myself trying to play more macro-oriented, but 100% agree with you that learning a few very powerful aggressive builds like this makes you a more well rounded player (and they're fun!). Keep 'em coming sir! Much appreciated.
|
I love these guides, although to be (perhaps) overly critical, I don't think this one is that special. People have been doing like this since early Wings. But props, and I hope to look at and learn from more of your guides.
|
On June 29 2013 03:40 BlackPride wrote:
I love these guides, although to be (perhaps) overly critical, I don't think this one is that special. People have been doing like this since early Wings. But props, and I hope to look at and learn from more of your guides.
It's not overly critical to say this one isn't that special  but it's at least "nifty". I'll take nifty.
|
On June 27 2013 22:43 TangSC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 21:44 Spec wrote:
Why does your walk-through video have a cam of the closet behind you? Do you use it to keep an eye on the monster? Yes, the other night I saw the new Monsters Inc. movie in theatre...scary stuff.
And you never know if Shine may have hidden a hydralisk roach in there.
|
After looking over my last 30 TvZs I'm becoming more and more convinced that to avoid getting hit by weird builds like these (and Ive seen all sorts of weird allins on ladder) it's better to simply delay stim and get a Siege tank out first before the Hellions. Ive had a game when a 6 pooler shut down all scouting, forced me to turtle for a good 4 minutes, until I realized he double expanded and droned. Lost that game. Not really the same acenario but similar. Might as well sacrifice some economy for that extra layer of safety.
|
On June 28 2013 21:53 TangSC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 09:07 DaemonX wrote:On June 27 2013 22:40 TangSC wrote:On June 27 2013 10:29 Markwerf wrote:On June 27 2013 09:31 DaemonX wrote:
Day9 defined all-in as a build with 'no next step'. This is a good working definition.
Shine's style can have a heap of next steps, it doesn't leave you in an awkward position tech-wise. Does it have to deal damage? Yes. But so do all serious aggressions. If you aren't doing it blind HOPING it will do damage, but instead are responding to a scout or trigger from your opponent that makes it highly probable that you will be dealing damage, then I for one don't call aggression that leaves you in a reasonable position an 'all-in'.
eg 4-gate = all-in. You are left without a second base, low probe count AND no tech. You have no next step if your opponent isn't dead -> you are all-in.
eg hell-bat drop before CC -> you have no 2nd CC and a low unit count to defend and cannot apply pressure -> you are all-in.
eg attacking with all your units when you have 50% of your drones wiped out from a drop instead of remaking -> all-in
eg 2-base 1/1 roach-bane push on 60 drones. You have tech, drones and bases and upgrades, you can go in any direction as long as you do enough damage your opponent cannot take a 3rd before you - NOT all-in.
eg 12 roach aggression on 2 base in response to gasless expand. You have 2x gas geysers, letting you get to lair in 20 seconds, 2 base and 2 queens. As long as damage is dealt to opponent's natural, who you KNOW is low tech, you are NOT all-in.
Basically any big attack that isn't harass is 'all-in' to some extent because you are are behind if you don't do good damage. Going into semantics and discussing if this build is all-in or not is so silly. The day9 definition is a bit stupid as basically all builds have a next step, it's easier to see it as an attack that has to do a lot of damage which this definately is.. You make a good point, the whole notion of an all-in is arbitrary because most builds have a next step/follow-through (though I'd argue that DaemonX is right that a 4gate in PvZ or early pools/proxy rax with worker pulls are blind all-ins). It is a worthwhile discussion though. All-ins and borderline all-ins are slowly becoming less taboo on the North American and European servers, but there's still a lot of people who completely reject the benefits of learning/incorporating aggressive styles. I don't think your builds are - by and large - all-ins. As long as they're not done blind. Except the 'second barrel'. That shit is whack in all cases, do it blind as a bat Well it would be a stretch to say some of my builds aren't all-ins lol, but it's interesting that you say the 'second barrel' from the triple barrel bust is all-in because it's blind. This is a bit off-topic for this thread, but you have the option of Overseer scouting the Terran as soon as the Lair is done to decide whether to attack. Honestly though, doing that particular build blindly works well because the only thing that the attack MUST accomplish is resetting Terran's army count so that Zerg can saturate their third behind the attack.
I think you misread me.
I said the second barrel was an exception in that it's not really all-in EVEN IF blind because it's guaranteed damage in the current metagame. The only way it isn't is if they're into tanks or heavy mech.
|
On July 01 2013 16:58 DaemonX wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 21:53 TangSC wrote:On June 28 2013 09:07 DaemonX wrote:On June 27 2013 22:40 TangSC wrote:On June 27 2013 10:29 Markwerf wrote:On June 27 2013 09:31 DaemonX wrote:
Day9 defined all-in as a build with 'no next step'. This is a good working definition.
Shine's style can have a heap of next steps, it doesn't leave you in an awkward position tech-wise. Does it have to deal damage? Yes. But so do all serious aggressions. If you aren't doing it blind HOPING it will do damage, but instead are responding to a scout or trigger from your opponent that makes it highly probable that you will be dealing damage, then I for one don't call aggression that leaves you in a reasonable position an 'all-in'.
eg 4-gate = all-in. You are left without a second base, low probe count AND no tech. You have no next step if your opponent isn't dead -> you are all-in.
eg hell-bat drop before CC -> you have no 2nd CC and a low unit count to defend and cannot apply pressure -> you are all-in.
eg attacking with all your units when you have 50% of your drones wiped out from a drop instead of remaking -> all-in
eg 2-base 1/1 roach-bane push on 60 drones. You have tech, drones and bases and upgrades, you can go in any direction as long as you do enough damage your opponent cannot take a 3rd before you - NOT all-in.
eg 12 roach aggression on 2 base in response to gasless expand. You have 2x gas geysers, letting you get to lair in 20 seconds, 2 base and 2 queens. As long as damage is dealt to opponent's natural, who you KNOW is low tech, you are NOT all-in.
Basically any big attack that isn't harass is 'all-in' to some extent because you are are behind if you don't do good damage. Going into semantics and discussing if this build is all-in or not is so silly. The day9 definition is a bit stupid as basically all builds have a next step, it's easier to see it as an attack that has to do a lot of damage which this definately is.. You make a good point, the whole notion of an all-in is arbitrary because most builds have a next step/follow-through (though I'd argue that DaemonX is right that a 4gate in PvZ or early pools/proxy rax with worker pulls are blind all-ins). It is a worthwhile discussion though. All-ins and borderline all-ins are slowly becoming less taboo on the North American and European servers, but there's still a lot of people who completely reject the benefits of learning/incorporating aggressive styles. I don't think your builds are - by and large - all-ins. As long as they're not done blind. Except the 'second barrel'. That shit is whack in all cases, do it blind as a bat Well it would be a stretch to say some of my builds aren't all-ins lol, but it's interesting that you say the 'second barrel' from the triple barrel bust is all-in because it's blind. This is a bit off-topic for this thread, but you have the option of Overseer scouting the Terran as soon as the Lair is done to decide whether to attack. Honestly though, doing that particular build blindly works well because the only thing that the attack MUST accomplish is resetting Terran's army count so that Zerg can saturate their third behind the attack. I think you misread me. I said the second barrel was an exception in that it's not really all-in EVEN IF blind because it's guaranteed damage in the current metagame. The only way it isn't is if they're into tanks or heavy mech.
OH :p sorry, yes I agree =)
|
What's terran response to this? Early tanks? One base?
From zerg perspective, can we scout Terran's build early enough to say this 12 roach push will not do well? Is there enough time for a zergling or overlord to scount terran's main and adjust the build?
Or is it an early meta game such that you are blindly hoping the terran doesn't have a good counter?
|
On July 03 2013 16:13 BigRedDog wrote:
What's terran response to this? Early tanks? One base?
From zerg perspective, can we scout Terran's build early enough to say this 12 roach push will not do well? Is there enough time for a zergling or overlord to scount terran's main and adjust the build?
Or is it an early meta game such that you are blindly hoping the terran doesn't have a good counter?
Well this 12-Roach push is something you would only do after scouting a CC first or 1rax expand. If Terran goes gas before expansion, they can get tanks out and it's bad news. You can do it as an early meta game build, but it's not nearly as effective against builds with gas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
