|
On December 16 2010 05:55 IronInko wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 05:48 jdseemoreglass wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Hey guys, I decided to do a little testing to get some data, and here are the results I came up with... Hopefully we can reach some good conclusions with these results and do more testing in the future. Unfortunately, there is no adequate measure for the fall of man. However, even though we have no unit of measurement, that won't discourage me, I'll still give everything I've got to this project. If we're to graph pages compared to quality, we have to do it right. You see, the dependent variable is supposed to be the Y. The way you've got the graph drawn would mean that all long topics are inherently the absolute worst topics. That's obviously quite false. Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 05:43 jacobman wrote:On December 16 2010 05:37 IronInko wrote:Wow, I was actually paying attention to this whole thing from the start and this is not at all how I expected it to turn out. That first thread where the logic seemed sort of like "Game sense doesn't matter, let's push the limits of zerg economics and see if our discoveries can rewrite game sense" is a pretty far cry from the place we are now, a place I'm kinda' appalled to be in.
I mean, I understand the idea of getting flustered if you get a lot of people yelling at you with theorycraft, I really do, but that isn't what this is anymore. You have people who play this game thoroughly ridiculous amounts explaining perceived weaknesses in the build to you. Now, if you have a way to defend the build, wouldn't it be rational to counter their points? If you were teaching, say, kindergarten math and a student asked you why 2 + 3 didn't equal 4, you would be able to explain that numbers didn't add up like that. I'm not trying to be belittling with that comparison, I'm just pointing out that a valid argument can be explained.
You're original post seemed like it wanted to test Zerg economics in an effort to gain understanding and potentially overhaul the metagame. That's admirable. Realistically, understanding of Zerg economy was gained, I won't argue with that. Unfortunately, as everyone (you included) knows, raw economy is a relatively simple thing when compared to Starcraft 2 as a whole. When you tried to convey that knowledge of economy over to the actual game, I think you lost track of what you were doing.
Originally your posts seemed focused on results. On working with people to get something usable, something relevant, and potentially create some form of metagame progress. When this topic was created, I noticed something. The title is exceedingly more arrogant than the previous ones. The tone has changed. You don't seem like you are trying to work with other people to get results, you seem like you are absolutely certain that you have a result. The thing is, that isn't how builds work. Starcraft 2 doesn't have builds that just work, everything is situational and builds, even established ones, are debated endlessly. If you were allowed to stand up and question the standard 15 Hatch opening that pros use, then surely you recognize that everyone else is just as allowed to question the theoretical build of someone unknown, right? It's in the nature of a strategy game to constantly debate all routes, standard or otherwise, and dodging that debate makes it seem like you have nothing to say, like you have no defense at all.
I'm not even going to raise the question of the effectiveness of your build. I legitimately don't give a shit about that, for all I know you do have counterpoints to these accusations about your build and you're just too busy being an ass to make them. You come off as someone who is too busy with his ego trip to bother defending his build. If you were more willing to discuss things with people who pose basic questions about the build, you might come off as respectable and, more importantly, your build might come off as effective. If you've actually got some horrible problem with answering the same question twice, or if you honestly think the people questioning are either trolls or stupid, then wouldn't a copy/paste of a correct answer not only take less effort than typing out witty criticisms of them, but also have the added benefit of not making you look like a complete ass? You no longer come across to me as someone who wants to learn something or push the envelope, instead you come off as someone who refuses to acknowledge that there may be any fault in his build and instead of defending it and shaping it into something respectable is ignoring all criticism and not just making a fool of himself, but making a fool of his creation.
I'd feel bad for typing something so long winded and pointless, but after your epic autobiography explaining how great you are and how everyone else didn't have valid questions, I'm perfectly fine with it. Anyway, congratulations, you've managed to completely flip my original view of you.
P.S. For clarification, my original view of you was "Damn, this guy has a cool idea. I'll actually bother to create a TL account to defend him from these trolls." My current view is "You do know that you aren't helping your case, right?" I was actually pretty mad when I first started typing this post because of how horribly something I was interested in got mangled, but now I'm just confused. The only sensible conclusion I can come up with is that this entire 3rd post is a massive troll, but I'd really like that to be wrong. Is this really the 3rd post? Err, meaning? The only way I can think to interpret that is "Is this really my 3rd post," which seems more bizarre than anything.
The only sensible conclusion I can come up with is that this entire 3rd post is a massive troll, but I'd really like that to be wrong.
|
On December 16 2010 05:48 jdseemoreglass wrote:Hey guys, I decided to do a little testing to get some data, and here are the results I came up with... Hopefully we can reach some good conclusions with these results and do more testing in the future.
ROFL
|
On December 16 2010 05:48 jdseemoreglass wrote:Hey guys, I decided to do a little testing to get some data, and here are the results I came up with... Hopefully we can reach some good conclusions with these results and do more testing in the future.
By god, this is genius. It's quite obvious from this data that the most economical way to discuss a topic is to start a new thread right before the most recent thread on the topic reaches two pages of comments. Even better, if I don't start a thread at all, I will have zero pages! I don't think anything can beat that.
I've been doing it wrong all along!
|
On December 16 2010 06:00 jacobman wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 05:55 IronInko wrote:On December 16 2010 05:48 jdseemoreglass wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Hey guys, I decided to do a little testing to get some data, and here are the results I came up with... Hopefully we can reach some good conclusions with these results and do more testing in the future. Unfortunately, there is no adequate measure for the fall of man. However, even though we have no unit of measurement, that won't discourage me, I'll still give everything I've got to this project. If we're to graph pages compared to quality, we have to do it right. You see, the dependent variable is supposed to be the Y. The way you've got the graph drawn would mean that all long topics are inherently the absolute worst topics. That's obviously quite false. On December 16 2010 05:43 jacobman wrote:On December 16 2010 05:37 IronInko wrote:Wow, I was actually paying attention to this whole thing from the start and this is not at all how I expected it to turn out. That first thread where the logic seemed sort of like "Game sense doesn't matter, let's push the limits of zerg economics and see if our discoveries can rewrite game sense" is a pretty far cry from the place we are now, a place I'm kinda' appalled to be in.
I mean, I understand the idea of getting flustered if you get a lot of people yelling at you with theorycraft, I really do, but that isn't what this is anymore. You have people who play this game thoroughly ridiculous amounts explaining perceived weaknesses in the build to you. Now, if you have a way to defend the build, wouldn't it be rational to counter their points? If you were teaching, say, kindergarten math and a student asked you why 2 + 3 didn't equal 4, you would be able to explain that numbers didn't add up like that. I'm not trying to be belittling with that comparison, I'm just pointing out that a valid argument can be explained.
You're original post seemed like it wanted to test Zerg economics in an effort to gain understanding and potentially overhaul the metagame. That's admirable. Realistically, understanding of Zerg economy was gained, I won't argue with that. Unfortunately, as everyone (you included) knows, raw economy is a relatively simple thing when compared to Starcraft 2 as a whole. When you tried to convey that knowledge of economy over to the actual game, I think you lost track of what you were doing.
Originally your posts seemed focused on results. On working with people to get something usable, something relevant, and potentially create some form of metagame progress. When this topic was created, I noticed something. The title is exceedingly more arrogant than the previous ones. The tone has changed. You don't seem like you are trying to work with other people to get results, you seem like you are absolutely certain that you have a result. The thing is, that isn't how builds work. Starcraft 2 doesn't have builds that just work, everything is situational and builds, even established ones, are debated endlessly. If you were allowed to stand up and question the standard 15 Hatch opening that pros use, then surely you recognize that everyone else is just as allowed to question the theoretical build of someone unknown, right? It's in the nature of a strategy game to constantly debate all routes, standard or otherwise, and dodging that debate makes it seem like you have nothing to say, like you have no defense at all.
I'm not even going to raise the question of the effectiveness of your build. I legitimately don't give a shit about that, for all I know you do have counterpoints to these accusations about your build and you're just too busy being an ass to make them. You come off as someone who is too busy with his ego trip to bother defending his build. If you were more willing to discuss things with people who pose basic questions about the build, you might come off as respectable and, more importantly, your build might come off as effective. If you've actually got some horrible problem with answering the same question twice, or if you honestly think the people questioning are either trolls or stupid, then wouldn't a copy/paste of a correct answer not only take less effort than typing out witty criticisms of them, but also have the added benefit of not making you look like a complete ass? You no longer come across to me as someone who wants to learn something or push the envelope, instead you come off as someone who refuses to acknowledge that there may be any fault in his build and instead of defending it and shaping it into something respectable is ignoring all criticism and not just making a fool of himself, but making a fool of his creation.
I'd feel bad for typing something so long winded and pointless, but after your epic autobiography explaining how great you are and how everyone else didn't have valid questions, I'm perfectly fine with it. Anyway, congratulations, you've managed to completely flip my original view of you.
P.S. For clarification, my original view of you was "Damn, this guy has a cool idea. I'll actually bother to create a TL account to defend him from these trolls." My current view is "You do know that you aren't helping your case, right?" I was actually pretty mad when I first started typing this post because of how horribly something I was interested in got mangled, but now I'm just confused. The only sensible conclusion I can come up with is that this entire 3rd post is a massive troll, but I'd really like that to be wrong. Is this really the 3rd post? Err, meaning? The only way I can think to interpret that is "Is this really my 3rd post," which seems more bizarre than anything. Show nested quote +The only sensible conclusion I can come up with is that this entire 3rd post is a massive troll, but I'd really like that to be wrong. Ah, I'm pretty out of it right now so I didn't even think about that. Alright, I meant thread. I remember the original thread, a 2nd one that attempted to avoid trolling, and then this one. I might be getting this wrong somewhere along the line, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like a trivial detail. Although, upon retrospect, it's not like there was an important part of my post to begin with.
|
On December 16 2010 06:09 IronInko wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 06:00 jacobman wrote:On December 16 2010 05:55 IronInko wrote:On December 16 2010 05:48 jdseemoreglass wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Hey guys, I decided to do a little testing to get some data, and here are the results I came up with... Hopefully we can reach some good conclusions with these results and do more testing in the future. Unfortunately, there is no adequate measure for the fall of man. However, even though we have no unit of measurement, that won't discourage me, I'll still give everything I've got to this project. If we're to graph pages compared to quality, we have to do it right. You see, the dependent variable is supposed to be the Y. The way you've got the graph drawn would mean that all long topics are inherently the absolute worst topics. That's obviously quite false. On December 16 2010 05:43 jacobman wrote:On December 16 2010 05:37 IronInko wrote:Wow, I was actually paying attention to this whole thing from the start and this is not at all how I expected it to turn out. That first thread where the logic seemed sort of like "Game sense doesn't matter, let's push the limits of zerg economics and see if our discoveries can rewrite game sense" is a pretty far cry from the place we are now, a place I'm kinda' appalled to be in.
I mean, I understand the idea of getting flustered if you get a lot of people yelling at you with theorycraft, I really do, but that isn't what this is anymore. You have people who play this game thoroughly ridiculous amounts explaining perceived weaknesses in the build to you. Now, if you have a way to defend the build, wouldn't it be rational to counter their points? If you were teaching, say, kindergarten math and a student asked you why 2 + 3 didn't equal 4, you would be able to explain that numbers didn't add up like that. I'm not trying to be belittling with that comparison, I'm just pointing out that a valid argument can be explained.
You're original post seemed like it wanted to test Zerg economics in an effort to gain understanding and potentially overhaul the metagame. That's admirable. Realistically, understanding of Zerg economy was gained, I won't argue with that. Unfortunately, as everyone (you included) knows, raw economy is a relatively simple thing when compared to Starcraft 2 as a whole. When you tried to convey that knowledge of economy over to the actual game, I think you lost track of what you were doing.
Originally your posts seemed focused on results. On working with people to get something usable, something relevant, and potentially create some form of metagame progress. When this topic was created, I noticed something. The title is exceedingly more arrogant than the previous ones. The tone has changed. You don't seem like you are trying to work with other people to get results, you seem like you are absolutely certain that you have a result. The thing is, that isn't how builds work. Starcraft 2 doesn't have builds that just work, everything is situational and builds, even established ones, are debated endlessly. If you were allowed to stand up and question the standard 15 Hatch opening that pros use, then surely you recognize that everyone else is just as allowed to question the theoretical build of someone unknown, right? It's in the nature of a strategy game to constantly debate all routes, standard or otherwise, and dodging that debate makes it seem like you have nothing to say, like you have no defense at all.
I'm not even going to raise the question of the effectiveness of your build. I legitimately don't give a shit about that, for all I know you do have counterpoints to these accusations about your build and you're just too busy being an ass to make them. You come off as someone who is too busy with his ego trip to bother defending his build. If you were more willing to discuss things with people who pose basic questions about the build, you might come off as respectable and, more importantly, your build might come off as effective. If you've actually got some horrible problem with answering the same question twice, or if you honestly think the people questioning are either trolls or stupid, then wouldn't a copy/paste of a correct answer not only take less effort than typing out witty criticisms of them, but also have the added benefit of not making you look like a complete ass? You no longer come across to me as someone who wants to learn something or push the envelope, instead you come off as someone who refuses to acknowledge that there may be any fault in his build and instead of defending it and shaping it into something respectable is ignoring all criticism and not just making a fool of himself, but making a fool of his creation.
I'd feel bad for typing something so long winded and pointless, but after your epic autobiography explaining how great you are and how everyone else didn't have valid questions, I'm perfectly fine with it. Anyway, congratulations, you've managed to completely flip my original view of you.
P.S. For clarification, my original view of you was "Damn, this guy has a cool idea. I'll actually bother to create a TL account to defend him from these trolls." My current view is "You do know that you aren't helping your case, right?" I was actually pretty mad when I first started typing this post because of how horribly something I was interested in got mangled, but now I'm just confused. The only sensible conclusion I can come up with is that this entire 3rd post is a massive troll, but I'd really like that to be wrong. Is this really the 3rd post? Err, meaning? The only way I can think to interpret that is "Is this really my 3rd post," which seems more bizarre than anything. The only sensible conclusion I can come up with is that this entire 3rd post is a massive troll, but I'd really like that to be wrong. Ah, I'm pretty out of it right now so I didn't even think about that. Alright, I meant thread. I remember the original thread, a 2nd one that attempted to avoid trolling, and then this one. I might be getting this wrong somewhere along the line, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like a trivial detail. Although, upon retrospect, it's not like there was an important part of my post to begin with.
Yeah, it's not important. I was just wondering because I thought there was only one thread before this one. I thought maybe I missed some cool information.
|
On December 16 2010 03:47 Markwerf wrote: @ morrow,
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. big tnx for this post was exactly what i was looking for :p in general i really dont understand anything thats going on in this thread. ill just move along and pretend i never heard of this build i guess, sorry^^
|
These last 36 posts are going to be a lot harder to get. Here, have a post.
|
On December 16 2010 06:19 MorroW wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 03:47 Markwerf wrote: @ morrow,
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. big tnx for this post was exactly what i was looking for :p
The fact that you had to go all the way back to pre-thread-apocalypse time to retrieve this comment got me thinkings. TL needs to adopt a reddit like system of comments. This way the more useful discussion can actually find it's way to the forefront, and people can make comments directly on other peoples comments instead of having conversations between people on one topic that span across pages of other topics.
|
I just made an epic new thread, but I don't know if I should actually post it lol...
It is regarding countering the OP troll composition.
|
On December 16 2010 06:35 jdseemoreglass wrote: I just made an epic new thread, but I don't know if I should actually post it lol...
It is regarding countering the OP troll composition.
lol, you could amend it to this OP with your letter This thread already has a nuclear blast site feeling to it, so it couldn't hurt.
|
Nah, I'm going for it.
Check the strategy forum and hope I don't get nuked
User was warned for this post
|
STK, I would suggest at least trying it yourself once before you write it off. I definitely don't think this is the best build for all matchups, but after using it, it does feel quite good. I think on of the main things is your opponent will freak a little seeing the early pool, but instead of early aggression, you continue to drone. However, you also have the option of early aggression if you desire.
It's certainly a good build when used correctly, but it's still a long way from the standard.
EDIT: And this was the third thread... and great, now we get a fourth garbage thread -_-
|
Thanks for the post! I'm going to give this a shot tonight. I either fall way behind in economy or I can't spend my money fast enough. maybe this will help.
|
On December 16 2010 02:17 MorroW wrote: 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.
I had never heard of it either, but based the economic testing we've been doing, 13p/15h appears to be the most economic pool-first fast expand build, with just the right tradeoffs between queen production and hatchery placement.
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
No offense to korean zerg progamers, but I still see a lot of them doing a 10OL start, which is provably worse than just about every alternative. My guess is they have way better things to do with their time than figuring out minute details that only matter to freaks like me, and focus on things that make large differences rather than spending tons of time trying to figure out things that only make very small differences.
|
On December 16 2010 04:54 fleeze wrote: - larvae waste - opportunity cost How bad is hatch larvae waste compared to the earlier queen injection?
|
On December 16 2010 18:36 [F_]aths wrote:How bad is hatch larvae waste compared to the earlier queen injection?
according to tests done in a recent thread, doing 11h11pool or 10 hatch 13 pool (which waste ~3 larvae) are behind 200 to 300 minerals at 6'20 compared to 14h15pool. Regarding larvae they are same or slightly better (earlier inject). 10 hatch 13 pool gets hatch very early, so it is hard to block by a dock or pylon.
|
|
Well I thought this build was pretty cool. I do like the OP's approach where he uses a fair amount of statistics. You guys should give him more credit, I didn't see anything wrong with his methodology.
|
I think the question should be is 11pool-18hatch better than 14pool-hatch after you kill the pylon or engineering bay blocking your expo build, not is the 11pool-18hatch better than 14hatch-14pool build. Because lets be really honest that is what the 14hatch-14pool turns into if there is any delay in the hatch going down. Granted so does the 11p18h but you will see 2 lings a lot sooner to clear the natural expansion if there is something blocking it.
|
On December 19 2010 02:45 hydirl wrote: I think the question should be is 11pool-18hatch better than 14pool-hatch after you kill the pylon or engineering bay blocking your expo build, not is the 11pool-18hatch better than 14hatch-14pool build. Because lets be really honest that is what the 14hatch-14pool turns into if there is any delay in the hatch going down. Granted so does the 11p18h but you will see 2 lings a lot sooner to clear the natural expansion if there is something blocking it.
Shouldn't your first reaction to a blocked natural in many situations be to expand to the next closest available expansion location? Obviously, this is a bad idea in certain situations, but I thought that that was still a common response.
|
|
|
|