On December 15 2010 22:48 DarKFoRcE wrote:
Just because OP acts like a pretty big douche here and there doesnt make his BO better.
Just because OP acts like a pretty big douche here and there doesnt make his BO better.
You stay classy darkforce.
Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On December 15 2010 22:48 DarKFoRcE wrote: Just because OP acts like a pretty big douche here and there doesnt make his BO better. You stay classy darkforce. | ||
jacobman
217 Posts
On December 16 2010 02:28 MorroW wrote: Show nested quote + On December 16 2010 02:23 jacobman wrote: On December 16 2010 02:17 MorroW wrote: anyhow how can i draw and conclusions out of simple graphs or statistics out of a random picked time stamp like 6:20 sc2 doesnt work that way u have to test things against other builds and how timings work to me it just doesnt make sense to me a how a 11overpool 18hatch can be a strong build in economy is 13pool 15hatch even a build? ive never heard of it. to my experience theres been alot of low level players who make statistics and make up bos and so on to think they are better when in real game its not the case. no offense but i think the korean zerg progamers figure out the better bos in this game than some mediocre gamers who make statistics like this usually i go test bos myself when they seem to make sense in theory to me but this doesnt interest me at all. ill start doing this when the progamers in gsl are :p the 13P15H was just my response to this threads claim that the 11P18H was the best pool first build. That's all. Also my tests are just meant to look at economic potential. I'm not claiming any of the builds are THE build that every zerg should be using. It's just data man. so is this entire thread just to show that 11overpool 18hatch is the most economic pool no gas=>expo build? i thought we were talking about if it was most economical zerg build in the game just reading the title here "The new Zerg standard for all match-ups?" makes it sound like u wanna compete with a hatchfirst build in econ Are you talking to me or jdglass? My econ thread is separate from this 11P18H thread. This thread is trying to show that the economy is good enough that the early pool makes up for the difference. They're doing lots of real game testing. My thread, the one I linked you to, is simple economic potential analysis, and it puts hatch first builds as the creme of the crop economically. I think you might be confusing my econ thread as something that is trying to vouch for the 11P, which it is not. | ||
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On December 16 2010 02:46 jdseemoreglass wrote: Darkforce is one of the top zerg in Europe. He is known for his deep strategical understanding. He is also known for his general kind behaviour. If he talks the way he did, he has a reason.You stay classy darkforce. But I still support the idea that 11-Overpool, 16-Queen, 18-Hatch is a versatile and strong opening. Obviously not the best for all match-ups, but guys like me rather practice a single BO to be good at that one, instead of using many different BOs but execute them poorly. I also support the idea of a tranistion out of 11-Overpool in your new thread. The more I think about it, the more I think that 11-Overpool is in many way the best general start. I am glad (this is no irony) that you have the energy to discuss the 11-Overpool in a community which widely believes that a good eco requires a very late pool. Even if eventually it turnes out that 11-Overpool is an inferiour eco build, we should not judge on believes or a consent of a community. Let the cold facts count PS. We zerg need to stay together! For the swarm! | ||
hydirl
7 Posts
| ||
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
A lurker for many years, he finally sees reason to create an account once SC2 came out. He reads the threads and sees countless posts theorycrafting and making outlandish claims without solid evidence or data to back it up. For days and days the forum is filled with post after post of people arguing points that could be solved by something as simple as a test or replay. But no one seems to follow through. Eventually each thread devolves into an egotistical flame war of people attacking eachother and accomplishing nothing for anyone. So he decides to make a thread. This thread will have a solid approach, being as scientific as possible. Each criticism and complaint will not be simply debated with meaningless theory and argument: actual data and evidence that no reasonable person could reject would be provided to finally put an end to the debate and firmly establish a foundation for further discussion. The purpose of the thread was to conclude with empirical evidence which zerg build was the most economical. He tried his best to strictly define the criteria and also preempt the inevitable criticisms that the most economical build was "irrelevant" to anything in the actual game. The thread opened. At first there was a degree of optimism. People liked the idea of finally having some data instead of just taking someone's word for something. They seemed willing to help, to offer suggestions, to reach conclusions, and to limit the damage of passing trolls. Unfortunately, as time went on, the thread became more and more about theorycraft and less about actual data. Some of the arguments and criticisms were reasonable. Some were clearly not. Jdseemoreglass and a few others did their best to answer each criticism. Unfortunately, it soon became clear that nothing could answer these claims except actual evidence. So the OP set to work again. They said testing each build twice was not enough, so he tested multiple times. They said testing one time wasn't enough, so he tested in 30 second intervals. They said 6 minutes wasn't a long enough frame, so he extended the testing time. They said they wanted graphs to visualize the differences, so he put the data in an excel sheet and created graphs and posted them to the thread with replays as evidence. Did this help things? Not at all... The builds weren't viable in a real game. The builds didn't include gas. The builds didn't include scouting. Gas and scouting will hurt one build more than another... Was there evidence to backup these claims? No, but there didn't need to be. Any claim that could come into the mind was posted. So jdseemoreglass had learned his lesson. He knew he could not combat baseless claims forever, and they would go on forever if he tried. He decided the next thread he created, he would make a change. He would demand that any claim or criticism had to have actual evidence to back it up. Theorycraft alone was not allowed. And you should have seen the anger that arose. The OP is a jackass. The OP is a moron. The OP is a giant douche. The OP is a single-minded fanatic who refuses to listen to criticism! The OP is an ego-driven close-minded fool who ruins the thread with his unwillingness to be proven wrong with theory and claims. Did anyone actually provide data to back up their claims? Yes. One person. jacobman created a thread to come up with data that was superior to the OP's, and he posted it. Once jdseemoreglass saw that this person had legitimate data and evidence and that his argument was reasonable, he stated so, and went back and changed the information in his OP to reflect the new results. Did this change anyone's opinion? No. They already had fomented their irrational anger. Post after post continued to attack him. More people began joining the thread in order to post their own theorycraft. The build loses to zealots. The build loses to stalkers. The build loses to 2rax. The build is ruined if you try to get vespene gas. None of the pros have used the build. The build is worthless because it isn't the most economical possible. So the OP went and opened notepad, and calmly wrote down his thoughts in order to prevent himself from snapping on the forum and getting himself temp-banned for insulting multiple people, pros included. And he decided to post it to the thread just for kicks. He knew the attacks would come, and they would pick apart each sentence and tear into the post like dogs on a carcass. But he knew he could sit and read the posts, and have a laugh for a change... | ||
Markwerf
Netherlands3728 Posts
the build is less economic then other builds but it can make up for parts by having the versatility of an early pool. As such it is a decent PvZ build order in these 2 scenario's: - small 2 player maps. By going a quick pool and a few quick lings you can remove the pylon or probe that is blocking your hatchery the quickest. The quick lings also force the P into making at least a zealot (so they can't do quick double stalker harass ala NexGenius) and means you don't have to scout (between your overlords and quick lings you are able to adapt to anything in time). These advantages outweigh the small economic setback you have compared to a 14 pool imo and 14 hatch is very unlikely to work on 2 player maps. Speedlings will be slightly later then a 14 gas 13 pool build but because you can delay their stalker production (by forcing a zealot) you will have more time to get speed up. As such it's a good PvZ build for steppes, blistering sands and xel naga imo. - there is a very high chance your opponent will do a forge FE. By going with this 11 p 18 hatch build they will be forced to do a much less economical build then if you were to 14 pool (+ gas). For example if you go with a 14 pool build the protoss player can get away with 17 nexus, 17 forge, 18 pylon and be quite safe (see for example FD vs Hongun @ scrap GSL 3). If however the zerg goes a slightly earlier pool, the P is forced to go with a forge and often even a cannon before putting down the nexus. Severely delaying the protoss build order more then makes up for doing a slightly less economical build in this case (see LeenockFou vs Guineapig GSL 3). Also the quick access to a pair of lings means you can kill their scout a lot faster which makes it much easier to do some form of roach aggresion on their forge expo, for example getting 1 pair of lings when the pool finishes and then putting down a roach warren while the queen is 60% done (so the first inject coincides with the warren completing). Quick roaches are an incredibly easy win against a P who doesn't scout well afterall (FD vs Hongun @ shakuras GSL 3). Finally if the P did NOT forge FE you are still in a decent position as this 11 pool build doesn't cut that much. As such it's a good PvZ build on maps like LT, shakuras and jungle basin against a protoss who likes to FE (which are most koreans pro's on those maps at the moment) Allinall 11 pool like this is the best combination between a fast pool and a economy build imo. It is good in the same scenario's fast pool builds were already being used before but is so efficient that you are not that far behind in economy compared to a normal build. It is at least much better then 9 pool or 10 overpool for example which also sacrifice some economy for (fake) early pressure. I still think Z should do 14 hatch almost all the time though only to switch it up occasionally with 14 gas/13 pool and this build to throw the opponent off guard. | ||
ChickenLips
2912 Posts
Jdseemoreglass and a few others did their best to answer each criticism. HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA You called people trolls from page 8. That's 40 pages ago. Guys, please try to just ignore the trolls. Debating them just gives them the attention they need to hijack the entire thread into oblivion. But I guess nothing will change your worldview. You're just the poor scientist surrounded by theorycrafting trolls that would copy the pros mindlessly even if they went 4pool as the new Zerg standard for all match-ups (yes that's the one where you kill 2 drones). Oh yeah, and basically every half-way literate poster in this thread and others has a problem with your attitude. So maybe, ... JUST MAYBE, you're part of the problem. Have you ever considered that? | ||
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On December 16 2010 03:51 ChickenLips wrote: You know that you could've saved yourself all the time, anger and frustration by just not assuming your approach of figuring out the game at such an early stage was by far the best one. HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA You called people trolls from page 8. That's 40 pages ago. Show nested quote + Guys, please try to just ignore the trolls. Debating them just gives them the attention they need to hijack the entire thread into oblivion. But I guess nothing will change your worldview. You're just the poor scientist surrounded by theorycrafting trolls that would copy the pros mindlessly even if they went 4pool as the new Zerg standard for all match-ups (yes that's the one where you kill 2 drones). Oh yeah, and basically every half-way literate poster in this thread and others has a problem with your attitude. So maybe, ... JUST MAYBE, you're part of the problem. Have you ever considered that? lol... | ||
jacobman
217 Posts
On December 16 2010 03:33 jdseemoreglass wrote: + Show Spoiler + A history of jdseemoreglass A lurker for many years, he finally sees reason to create an account once SC2 came out. He reads the threads and sees countless posts theorycrafting and making outlandish claims without solid evidence or data to back it up. For days and days the forum is filled with post after post of people arguing points that could be solved by something as simple as a test or replay. But no one seems to follow through. Eventually each thread devolves into an egotistical flame war of people attacking eachother and accomplishing nothing for anyone. So he decides to make a thread. This thread will have a solid approach, being as scientific as possible. Each criticism and complaint will not be simply debated with meaningless theory and argument: actual data and evidence that no reasonable person could reject would be provided to finally put an end to the debate and firmly establish a foundation for further discussion. The purpose of the thread was to conclude with empirical evidence which zerg build was the most economical. He tried his best to strictly define the criteria and also preempt the inevitable criticisms that the most economical build was "irrelevant" to anything in the actual game. The thread opened. At first there was a degree of optimism. People liked the idea of finally having some data instead of just taking someone's word for something. They seemed willing to help, to offer suggestions, to reach conclusions, and to limit the damage of passing trolls. Unfortunately, as time went on, the thread became more and more about theorycraft and less about actual data. Some of the arguments and criticisms were reasonable. Some were clearly not. Jdseemoreglass and a few others did their best to answer each criticism. Unfortunately, it soon became clear that nothing could answer these claims except actual evidence. So the OP set to work again. They said testing each build twice was not enough, so he tested multiple times. They said testing one time wasn't enough, so he tested in 30 second intervals. They said 6 minutes wasn't a long enough frame, so he extended the testing time. They said they wanted graphs to visualize the differences, so he put the data in an excel sheet and created graphs and posted them to the thread with replays as evidence. Did this help things? Not at all... The builds weren't viable in a real game. The builds didn't include gas. The builds didn't include scouting. Gas and scouting will hurt one build more than another... Was there evidence to backup these claims? No, but there didn't need to be. Any claim that could come into the mind was posted. So jdseemoreglass had learned his lesson. He knew he could not combat baseless claims forever, and they would go on forever if he tried. He decided the next thread he created, he would make a change. He would demand that any claim or criticism had to have actual evidence to back it up. Theorycraft alone was not allowed. And you should have seen the anger that arose. The OP is a jackass. The OP is a moron. The OP is a giant douche. The OP is a single-minded fanatic who refuses to listen to criticism! The OP is an ego-driven close-minded fool who ruins the thread with his unwillingness to be proven wrong with theory and claims. Did anyone actually provide data to back up their claims? Yes. One person. jacobman created a thread to come up with data that was superior to the OP's, and he posted it. Once jdseemoreglass saw that this person had legitimate data and evidence and that his argument was reasonable, he stated so, and went back and changed the information in his OP to reflect the new results. Did this change anyone's opinion? No. They already had fomented their irrational anger. Post after post continued to attack him. More people began joining the thread in order to post their own theorycraft. The build loses to zealots. The build loses to stalkers. The build loses to 2rax. The build is ruined if you try to get vespene gas. None of the pros have used the build. The build is worthless because it isn't the most economical possible. So the OP went and opened notepad, and calmly wrote down his thoughts in order to prevent himself from snapping on the forum and getting himself temp-banned for insulting multiple people, pros included. And he decided to post it to the thread just for kicks. He knew the attacks would come, and they would pick apart each sentence and tear into the post like dogs on a carcass. But he knew he could sit and read the posts, and have a laugh for a change... Epic comment. BTW, I thought you presented your most recent post on the 11P great. Whatever happened to that one? | ||
Markwerf
Netherlands3728 Posts
there has been tons of people posting evidence that adding gas or scouting hurts the 11 pool 18 hatch build MORE then other builds. Just to recap so we can stop this stupid argument: - the 11 pool build is slightly behind in minerals (about 50) compared to other 'standard' builds. The build also produces more larvae early on then basically any build. - the build slightly cuts drones early on and also has difficulty building non stop later on (for example getting the 2nd queen ASAP after the first is really hard with this build). As a result it is easy to see that deviating from the build (scouting, gas etc) hurts this build MORE then others. For example if you scout before 11 you will have more idle time on your hatchery. Not so with other builds... For example if you get early gas and lings you will have a delay on your 2nd hatchery. Not so with hatch first builds... For example if you get early gas and/or too many lings you will have trouble making your 2nd queen directly after your first, again much less so with a 14 pool build... In other words deviating from the build DOES hurt this more then other builds and this has been proven tons of times already and I just did so again. Basically any build that sacrifices some early minerals to get more larvae will have a harder time actually spending all those larvae, zerg has a ton of options to effectively spend minerals on when you don't have alot of larvae (queens, hatcheries, lings gas, scouting) but can't use larvae when you dont have minerals. That makes this build less adaptable then other builds (adapting goes at the cost of efficiency more so then with other builds). | ||
fleeze
Germany895 Posts
On December 16 2010 02:17 MorroW wrote: anyhow how can i draw and conclusions out of simple graphs or statistics out of a random picked time stamp like 6:20 sc2 doesnt work that way u have to test things against other builds and how timings work to me it just doesnt make sense to me a how a 11overpool 18hatch can be a strong build in economy is 13pool 15hatch even a build? ive never heard of it. to my experience theres been alot of low level players who make statistics and make up bos and so on to think they are better when in real game its not the case. no offense but i think the korean zerg progamers figure out the better bos in this game than some mediocre gamers who make statistics like this usually i go test bos myself when they seem to make sense in theory to me but this doesnt interest me at all. ill start doing this when the progamers in gsl are :p this is what's wrong with this thread. it's relying on false data and an ignorant op. also it's pretty pointless to argue with the op since he is just calling everyone a troll that doesn't think this build will become the new standard (in any matchup on any map rofl). he disqualified himself (and his statistics) totally when he said his build is superior in economy to a 14 pool build before the first larvae pops when he actually wastes larvae due to waiting for an 11 overlord and pool. he got proven wrong (even with statistics) and it took him just 40 pages to even admit that an 11 pool is behind initially. the builds it is compared to also don't make sense at all. to the ops history: there were really valid concerns showing that your data must be flawed! do you think the people will sit down and test everything just to prove you wrong??? pretty naive thinking here. how about some self-critics? maybe some critics (myself included) where a bit harsh but what the hell do you expect. you claimed you found the BEST possible zerg opening on ANY map in ANY matchup. just ONE valid concern against a standard build of the other races proves this statement wrong... if you make it THAT easy for people to prove you wrong maybe it is your own fault? also your statistics were just wrong in favor to your build. On December 16 2010 03:47 Markwerf wrote:Allinall 11 pool like this is the best combination between a fast pool and a economy build imo. It is good in the same scenario's fast pool builds were already being used before but is so efficient that you are not that far behind in economy compared to a normal build. It is at least much better then 9 pool or 10 overpool for example which also sacrifice some economy for (fake) early pressure. I still think Z should do 14 hatch almost all the time though only to switch it up occasionally with 14 gas/13 pool and this build to throw the opponent off guard. i would say it has timing issues compared to an 9 pool against P. the lings come in too late to the front to do any damage as the protoss is already walled in. you just can't have both an early aggressive opening and a solid economy. against zerg it's debattable as it is versatile. but you don't need this kind of versatility normally. if you expect your opponent to fast exp you can make a 6 pool, if you want economy and feel safe go 14 hatch and if you want to be safe just 14 gas 14 pool. it is a niche build for players that like to "feel" safe and don't commit to one style in the beginning. | ||
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On December 16 2010 03:59 Markwerf wrote: @ jdseemoreglass there has been tons of people posting evidence that adding gas or scouting hurts the 11 pool 18 hatch build MORE then other builds. EVIDENCE!?!? omg... Where, WHERE!?!? There is a god!? - the 11 pool build is slightly behind in minerals (about 50) compared to other 'standard' builds. The build also produces more larvae early on then basically any build. - the build slightly cuts drones early on and also has difficulty building non stop later on (for example getting the 2nd queen ASAP after the first is really hard with this build). As a result it is easy to see that deviating from the build (scouting, gas etc) hurts this build MORE then others. oh... damn... | ||
Markwerf
Netherlands3728 Posts
On December 16 2010 04:08 jdseemoreglass wrote: Show nested quote + On December 16 2010 03:59 Markwerf wrote: @ jdseemoreglass there has been tons of people posting evidence that adding gas or scouting hurts the 11 pool 18 hatch build MORE then other builds. EVIDENCE!?!? omg... Where, WHERE!?!? There is a god!? Show nested quote + - the 11 pool build is slightly behind in minerals (about 50) compared to other 'standard' builds. The build also produces more larvae early on then basically any build. - the build slightly cuts drones early on and also has difficulty building non stop later on (for example getting the 2nd queen ASAP after the first is really hard with this build). As a result it is easy to see that deviating from the build (scouting, gas etc) hurts this build MORE then others. oh... damn... This post is a perfect example why you are a complete ass. I just recapped the evidence and yet you answer in a cynical way not answering at all. Stop being a complete dick or provide good evidence why this build is not effected more then other builds by early deviations. Just posting oh.. damn.. and rediculizing testing results by me and others (which were done in a more logical way then your own testing) is exactly what makes you such a incredible jackass. Stop trying to be a martyr claiming that every post or whatever just ends in a flamewar regardless of evidence or content etc. There are plenty of threads without much flaming (like the kcdc 1 gate FE thread for example) because the creator of those threads are reasonable persons who 1. accept the limitations and shortcomings of their build 2. actually discuss evidence without just saying testing by others is crap while posting crappy test results themselves (low level / meaningless games and meaningless graphs). | ||
jacobman
217 Posts
On December 16 2010 04:27 Markwerf wrote: Show nested quote + On December 16 2010 04:08 jdseemoreglass wrote: On December 16 2010 03:59 Markwerf wrote: @ jdseemoreglass there has been tons of people posting evidence that adding gas or scouting hurts the 11 pool 18 hatch build MORE then other builds. EVIDENCE!?!? omg... Where, WHERE!?!? There is a god!? - the 11 pool build is slightly behind in minerals (about 50) compared to other 'standard' builds. The build also produces more larvae early on then basically any build. - the build slightly cuts drones early on and also has difficulty building non stop later on (for example getting the 2nd queen ASAP after the first is really hard with this build). As a result it is easy to see that deviating from the build (scouting, gas etc) hurts this build MORE then others. oh... damn... This post is a perfect example why you are a complete ass. I just recapped the evidence and yet you answer in a cynical way not answering at all. Stop being a complete dick or provide good evidence why this build is not effected more then other builds by early deviations. Just posting oh.. damn.. and rediculizing testing results by me and others (which were done in a more logical way then your own testing) is exactly what makes you such a incredible jackass. Stop trying to be a martyr claiming that every post or whatever just ends in a flamewar regardless of evidence or content etc. There are plenty of threads without much flaming (like the kcdc 1 gate FE thread for example) because the creator of those threads are reasonable persons who 1. accept the limitations and shortcomings of their build 2. actually discuss evidence without just saying testing by others is crap while posting crappy test results themselves (low level / meaningless games and meaningless graphs). Alright, I have to be honest. I haven't seen any data that tests the different impacts that adding gas/scouting ect has on different builds. Could you link me to it? while posting crappy test results themselves (low level / meaningless games and meaningless graphs). Also, whose the one belittling other peoples results now? | ||
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On December 16 2010 04:27 Markwerf wrote: testing results by me and others (which were done in a more logical way then your own testing) is exactly what makes you such a incredible jackass. TESTING!?! omg WHERE!?! On December 16 2010 03:59 Markwerf wrote: @ jdseemoreglass there has been tons of people posting evidence that adding gas or scouting hurts the 11 pool 18 hatch build MORE then other builds. Just to recap so we can stop this stupid argument: - the 11 pool build is slightly behind in minerals (about 50) compared to other 'standard' builds. The build also produces more larvae early on then basically any build. - the build slightly cuts drones early on and also has difficulty building non stop later on (for example getting the 2nd queen ASAP after the first is really hard with this build). As a result it is easy to see that deviating from the build (scouting, gas etc) hurts this build MORE then others. For example if you scout before 11 you will have more idle time on your hatchery. Not so with other builds... For example if you get early gas and lings you will have a delay on your 2nd hatchery. Not so with hatch first builds... For example if you get early gas and/or too many lings you will have trouble making your 2nd queen directly after your first, again much less so with a 14 pool build... In other words deviating from the build DOES hurt this more then other builds and this has been proven tons of times already and I just did so again. Basically any build that sacrifices some early minerals to get more larvae will have a harder time actually spending all those larvae, zerg has a ton of options to effectively spend minerals on when you don't have alot of larvae (queens, hatcheries, lings gas, scouting) but can't use larvae when you dont have minerals. That makes this build less adaptable then other builds (adapting goes at the cost of efficiency more so then with other builds). Here wait, let's try an experiment... I'm gonna respond to your theorycraft with theorycraft of my own... This will be good practice for me. "Actually, given the data and graphs previously posted, we have assessed we can fairly conclude that the criteria of "total minerals mined" is fairly similar over an extended period of time for each build. Therefore, given that each build has close to the same amount of money at each point in time, it is irrational to assume that one build will have a significantly more difficult time in getting the same number of units and buildings as the other." There, see now you respond with your own theorycraft counter argument and we can go back and forth all day. Am I doing this right guys? | ||
ZerG~LegenD
Sweden1179 Posts
On December 14 2010 20:42 ZerG~LegenD wrote: Here's the data from a more detailed test where I minded the execution more. 11 Pool 14 Gas @ 7:00
14 Gas 14 Pool @ 7:01
Replay Replay Notes: I went for 4 Zerglings with the 14 Gas build and 6 with the 11 Pool, I resumed mining gas at 5:10 with both builds. I made a Spine Crawler when the expansion was at 50% with both builds. 14 Gas also gives you earlier Zergling Speed, against Hellions it won't matter, but against Stalkers it would. Also, in a real game I'd probably need 2 Spine Crawlers, more Zerglings and a third Queen and a second Extractor when starting Lair. However, 11 Pool wouldn't be able to spend all its early Larva if I got all of that. The only situation where an 11 Pool would be better than a 14 Pool would be against a 2 Rax all-in where all SCVs are pulled. However, we still don't know whether it can hold such a rush or not. | ||
fleeze
Germany895 Posts
On December 16 2010 04:35 jacobman wrote: Show nested quote + On December 16 2010 04:27 Markwerf wrote: On December 16 2010 04:08 jdseemoreglass wrote: On December 16 2010 03:59 Markwerf wrote: @ jdseemoreglass there has been tons of people posting evidence that adding gas or scouting hurts the 11 pool 18 hatch build MORE then other builds. EVIDENCE!?!? omg... Where, WHERE!?!? There is a god!? - the 11 pool build is slightly behind in minerals (about 50) compared to other 'standard' builds. The build also produces more larvae early on then basically any build. - the build slightly cuts drones early on and also has difficulty building non stop later on (for example getting the 2nd queen ASAP after the first is really hard with this build). As a result it is easy to see that deviating from the build (scouting, gas etc) hurts this build MORE then others. oh... damn... This post is a perfect example why you are a complete ass. I just recapped the evidence and yet you answer in a cynical way not answering at all. Stop being a complete dick or provide good evidence why this build is not effected more then other builds by early deviations. Just posting oh.. damn.. and rediculizing testing results by me and others (which were done in a more logical way then your own testing) is exactly what makes you such a incredible jackass. Stop trying to be a martyr claiming that every post or whatever just ends in a flamewar regardless of evidence or content etc. There are plenty of threads without much flaming (like the kcdc 1 gate FE thread for example) because the creator of those threads are reasonable persons who 1. accept the limitations and shortcomings of their build 2. actually discuss evidence without just saying testing by others is crap while posting crappy test results themselves (low level / meaningless games and meaningless graphs). Alright, I have to be honest. I haven't seen any data that tests the different impacts that adding gas/scouting ect has on different builds. Could you link me to it? JUST USE YOUR BRAIN. goddamn. he provides valid data in his statements only ignorant people that want everything in detail with graphs and timings cannot see. just as everybody should be able to see why a 14 pool that wastes no larvae is ahead against an 11 pool that wastes larvae and has opportunity costs before the first queen spawn larvae arrives... yet there was a 40pages discussion because people like you or the op just want RAW DATA when it is actually a lot easier to think for a moment. "Actually, given the data and graphs previously posted, we have assessed we can fairly conclude that the criteria of "total minerals mined" is fairly similar over an extended period of time for each build. Therefore, given that each build has close to the same amount of money at each point in time, it is irrational to assume that one build will have a significantly more difficult time in getting the same number of units and buildings as the other." There, see now you respond with your own theorycraft counter argument and we can go back and forth all day. Am I doing this right guys? you should learn to use your brain in a correct way instead of just making a fool of yourself. logic is not your strength (as is reading comprehension). PS: YOUR DATA IS WRONG! proven by actual logic of many not mindless people in here. | ||
ChickenLips
2912 Posts
On December 16 2010 03:54 jdseemoreglass wrote: Show nested quote + On December 16 2010 03:51 ChickenLips wrote: You know that you could've saved yourself all the time, anger and frustration by just not assuming your approach of figuring out the game at such an early stage was by far the best one. Jdseemoreglass and a few others did their best to answer each criticism. HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA You called people trolls from page 8. That's 40 pages ago. Guys, please try to just ignore the trolls. Debating them just gives them the attention they need to hijack the entire thread into oblivion. But I guess nothing will change your worldview. You're just the poor scientist surrounded by theorycrafting trolls that would copy the pros mindlessly even if they went 4pool as the new Zerg standard for all match-ups (yes that's the one where you kill 2 drones). Oh yeah, and basically every half-way literate poster in this thread and others has a problem with your attitude. So maybe, ... JUST MAYBE, you're part of the problem. Have you ever considered that? lol... You know what gives me satisfaction? That someone like you, that will argue and discuss seemingly until his last breath, is completely unable to refute my arguments not only once but twice now. It gives me the knowledge that there is absolutely no substance behind what you stand for and that I am one of the lucky ones that hasn't wasted a bucketton of time in this weird thread that you so desperately try to make about youself. Good day. | ||
Natt
France253 Posts
On topic, i was wondering if there was a thread discussing the "best" build on playXP. It would be interesting to see if they've come to the same "debate" (i believe there was one, before the flaming war kicked in). | ||
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On December 16 2010 04:40 fleeze wrote: Show nested quote + On December 16 2010 04:35 jacobman wrote: On December 16 2010 04:27 Markwerf wrote: On December 16 2010 04:08 jdseemoreglass wrote: On December 16 2010 03:59 Markwerf wrote: @ jdseemoreglass there has been tons of people posting evidence that adding gas or scouting hurts the 11 pool 18 hatch build MORE then other builds. EVIDENCE!?!? omg... Where, WHERE!?!? There is a god!? - the 11 pool build is slightly behind in minerals (about 50) compared to other 'standard' builds. The build also produces more larvae early on then basically any build. - the build slightly cuts drones early on and also has difficulty building non stop later on (for example getting the 2nd queen ASAP after the first is really hard with this build). As a result it is easy to see that deviating from the build (scouting, gas etc) hurts this build MORE then others. oh... damn... This post is a perfect example why you are a complete ass. I just recapped the evidence and yet you answer in a cynical way not answering at all. Stop being a complete dick or provide good evidence why this build is not effected more then other builds by early deviations. Just posting oh.. damn.. and rediculizing testing results by me and others (which were done in a more logical way then your own testing) is exactly what makes you such a incredible jackass. Stop trying to be a martyr claiming that every post or whatever just ends in a flamewar regardless of evidence or content etc. There are plenty of threads without much flaming (like the kcdc 1 gate FE thread for example) because the creator of those threads are reasonable persons who 1. accept the limitations and shortcomings of their build 2. actually discuss evidence without just saying testing by others is crap while posting crappy test results themselves (low level / meaningless games and meaningless graphs). Alright, I have to be honest. I haven't seen any data that tests the different impacts that adding gas/scouting ect has on different builds. Could you link me to it? JUST USE YOUR BRAIN. goddamn. he provides valid data in his statements only ignorant people that want everything in detail with graphs and timings cannot see. just as everybody should be able to see why a 14 pool that wastes no larvae is ahead against an 11 pool that wastes larvae and has opportunity costs before the first queen spawn larvae arrives... Here, wait... I am practicing my theorycrafting... Let me try this one, using "logic" and my "brain." "You state that the 11Pool wastes larvae compared to a 14 pool due to there being a few seconds of delay in larvae generation at 11 supply. However, I contend that this delay in larvae waste is more than compensated by getting an earlier queen injection than the 14 Pool. Therefore, I could argue that the 14 Pool wastes queen injection time compared to 11Pool, and is behind economically for that reason. It would certainly be a more reasonable assessment, since queen injections have a higher larvae/second ratio generation rate than a hatchery." Wow, this IS fun... using my brain as a substitute for data... | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Free 1394 Dota 2SilentControl 404 hero 233 zelot 199 Dewaltoss 170 Sharp 83 Light 66 sorry 60 Shine 51 NaDa 47 [ Show more ] Counter-Strike Other Games summit1g5176 ceh9743 Happy582 Harstem356 shoxiejesuss299 crisheroes287 StateSC2200 DeMusliM121 Trikslyr32 Organizations
StarCraft 2 • AfreecaTV YouTube StarCraft: Brood War• intothetv • Kozan • IndyKCrew • LaughNgamezSOOP • Laughngamez YouTube • Migwel Dota 2 League of Legends |
Big Brain Bouts
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
BSL: ProLeague
SOOP Global
Harstem vs Wayne
Babymarine vs Astrea
PassionCraft
CSO Cup
OSC
Sparkling Tuna Cup
BSL 2v2 ProLeague
[ Show More ] Online Event
BSL: Continent Battles
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
SOOP StarCraft League
Snow vs Soulkey
SOOP StarCraft League
WardiTV Invitational
WardiTV Invitational
The PondCast
|
|