|
On December 03 2010 02:50 fleeze wrote:Show nested quote + The more I look at it, the more reason I think this should be the new standard build for Zerg. I see no obvious reason why you would choose a different build, on any map, against any opponent.
total fail of op along with the thread title. this isn't marketing where you have to use superlatives to make it seem like it's the only best choice. also where are the pro replays to back up your statement? or do you think your thought process is superior to all GSL players that DO NOT USE THIS BUILD EVER? a build that wastes SO many larva early on, can't be optimal. period.
Uh. It does waste some larva spawn time early on (not much, but clearly some), but ends up *ahead* on larvae. That's the power of the early queen, and the whole point of the post to begin with, that a very counter-intuitive build can actually turn out to compete very closely economically with builds that are generally believed to be much more economic builds, while allowing much more flexibility and early safety.
As far as trusting the behaviors of GSL players as gospel goes...
you do realize that some of the best players in the gsl still 10OL, which is provably the worst of all the alternatives? 9OL, 11OL off an extractor trick, and 12OL off a double trick are all superior to 10OL in every possible way, yet we still see players in the GSL going 10OL. Why do you suppose that is?
|
Ugh thought people could figure builds out themselves a bit... The assumption that making lings instead of drones has the same impact on a 11 pool build as a 14 pool build is quite stupid. A 11 pool is economically worse then a regular 14 pool because you cut drones to get the pool faster.. This however is made up LATER by the fact that you are able to get a queen faster and thus catch up in the drone race. However you are only able to catch up in drones IF you have the minerals to continously drone after putting down that pool, in other scenario's 14 pool is just better. Thus a 11 pool being forced to make lings instead of drones later WILL be behind compared to a 11 pool especially if you had to scout as well. Just test this out for your self... You can't pump lings + use larvae non-stop + expo at the same time if you 11-pooled because you've cut too many drones at first and you have too much larvae, that only works with no scouting and no lings... Because the OP excluded scouting and early lings in his build he is led to believe that a 11 pool can drone up normally and thus catch up with a 14 pool. In a REAL game however you need to scout and need to make lings and you will NOT be able to catch up to a 14 pool.
SO in a normal game 14 pool > 11 pool. Sure the OP or anyone in this thread can claim that 11 pool is economically better but unless you live in fairyland where defense and scouting isn't neccesary this is simply not true... Note that I don't think 11 pool is bad, I actually think it's quite good in ZvP on 2 player maps (or if you expect the P to FE) because it can put off the timings P has. Saying it's economically better then 14 pool is just bullshit though...
Each replay of the OP using 11 pool and 'adjusting' just led him to a inferior build compared to 14 pool.
THIS!
Dude, seriously, what the fuck are you talking about?
At 11 supply, ONCE YOU HIT 100 MINERALS, YOU BUILD AN OVERLORD.
Got it? Once more: YOU BUILD AN OVERLORD
That takes 1 larva. You are never sitting on 3 larva in this build. You have not watched a single replay in this thread, and you have never tried the build yourself.
Until you're willing to actually have a look at this build, please shut the fuck up.
I used this build against my toss practice partner 3 times last night and I must say it's pretty awesome.
ok mister i fail at reading comprehension. i already that it's meant as 300 minerals NOT BUILDING DRONES. and yes you will lose larvae... as in i just did the build. the amount of larva time wasted is between 5-10 seconds MAX (maybe less if u are more prompt, i am a mere human), quickly made up when your first spawn larva pops. if you actually tried it you would see for yourself.
5-10 seconds that you carry through the whole game! your 18 supply is 5-10 seconds LATER then a regular builds 18 supply. is that so hard to understand?
This statement would carry more weight if there weren't so many GSL games decided at the beginning of the match - specifically, the point where a hatchery-first Zerg is rushed and permanently crippled for the remainder of the (7-10 minute) game.
ok, i'd also take any MLG game. this statement doesn't care about a league it's really easy: there are no pros using this build! and to explain further: don't you think any progamers be it in their houses in korea or ROOT/EG voiceserver would have found out WAY before the op IF this build was superior to any build used at the moment?
it's really pointless arguing in here with that low reading comprehension skills and no common sense at all. seriously i don't think my points are THAT hard to understand yet nearly noone got them. basing your opinion on a WRONG build tester is surely better than using common sense which reveals the flaws if you just think about it for a moment.
|
On December 03 2010 03:13 Dominator1370 wrote: I'm going to say again: results from Haploid's build order calculator appear to be inconsistent with data collected from players collecting actual results in-game. Using results gathered in-game:
Yes. It is absolutely inconsistent. Because the calculator takes shortcuts, and doesn't model what actually happens in the game.
Which is why it really pisses me off when people take results from an optimizer or a build order calculator and try to use them to debunk results from actual games. You can't simply take the results from a calculator without doing the comparisons in-game.
|
On December 03 2010 03:58 Markwerf wrote: ...you are only able to catch up in drones IF you have the minerals to continously drone after putting down that pool, in other scenario's 14 pool is just better [economically]...
...the OP excluded scouting and early lings in his build ... led to believe that a 11 pool can drone up normally and thus catch up with a 14 pool. In a REAL game however you need to scout and .. make lings ... you will NOT be able to catch up to a 14 pool.
...the OP or anyone in this thread can claim that 11 pool is economically better but unless you live in fairyland where defense and scouting isn't neccesary this is simply not true...
It does appear that the 11 Overpool is sacrificing a little economic strength for Safety. Of the builds analyzed so far, 11 Overpool appears to give the most flexibility at the least cost, which is why this thread was suggested. I'm not certain if it will/should become the 'standard', but there's something worth exploring here.
If we're worried about scout timing, let's make some assumptions and test it. Let's assume that we're going to lose a drone entirely to the scouting process, and do some tests where we peel off the drone at different supply values. Or, we could pop a single pair of 'lings immediately after the pool is up, use them to scout, and assume they both die in the process. We can check the impact of various extractor timings and gas collector counts on the pure build, and then again on the 'scouting' build.
These are concrete things we can test, with results that are meaningful. Let's do that instead of arguing about the 'what ifs'.
|
On December 03 2010 04:17 Skrag wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2010 02:50 fleeze wrote: The more I look at it, the more reason I think this should be the new standard build for Zerg. I see no obvious reason why you would choose a different build, on any map, against any opponent.
total fail of op along with the thread title. this isn't marketing where you have to use superlatives to make it seem like it's the only best choice. also where are the pro replays to back up your statement? or do you think your thought process is superior to all GSL players that DO NOT USE THIS BUILD EVER? a build that wastes SO many larva early on, can't be optimal. period. Uh. It does waste some larva spawn time early on (not much, but clearly some), but ends up *ahead* on larvae. That's the power of the early queen, and the whole point of the post to begin with, that a very counter-intuitive build can actually turn out to compete very closely economically with builds that are generally believed to be much more economic builds, while allowing much more flexibility and early safety. exactly my point. and if you "tricked" your opponent in thinking you will use early aggression due to early pool resulting in him building more units you won't be able to use your first spawn larvae cycle on drones which you need to catch up. thus you are behind.
As far as trusting the behaviors of GSL players as gospel goes...
you do realize that some of the best players in the gsl still 10OL, which is provably the worst of all the alternatives? 9OL, 11OL off an extractor trick, and 12OL off a double trick are all superior to 10OL in every possible way, yet we still see players in the GSL going 10OL. Why do you suppose that is?
this is also a mystery for me
|
@people bashing on BOs in general(which I would say BTW is rather off-topic): go check some of gosucoaching training out there. pros like Machine have a predetermined rough-order-of-magnitude BO up to like 50 supply.
Do they use the exact same shit up to 50 supply every game? Obviously not, but they know what they're shooting for, and what are the pros and the cons of shooting for it.
The OP's opening stops at 18 supply. The general idea is to get a 11overpool+16queen+18hatch then go from there. He's not like he was trying to show you the fastest way to ultralisks. Can shit hit the fan before 18 supply? Certainly. If this happen, would you rather have a 50% completed pool or a 100% one?
@people bashing on this specific BO because it was made with Evo chamber: did you even read the thread where it was originated? This build was tested in-game on slow speed on same map position against several other builds, and the only build who could beat it slightly at the 6min benchmark was a hatch first.
I can't believe how people are so close-minded fanboys. "If it doesn't come from GSL it's crap and this thread should be deleted and there's no way I'm gonna waste 5min of my life to try it out."... come on.
|
haha right.. i'm a troll because i said adding in extractor timing to an early pool build reduces it's economic effectiveness (since the only economic benefit from early pool is early queen, for faster larvae injections, and throwing 4 drones to extractor/gas before 20-30 supply reduces your ability to use all that early larvae) when compared to 14p/15h openers (backed up with a source)... yes i'm completely nonsensical and logic escapes me /eyeroll
edit: and yet people applaud those saying stuff like "I played FOUR games with this and won 3(or4) of them so this build MUST BE GOOD!"... right because opponent quality, how you actually played out the rest of the game and the MASSIVE sample size sure provide conclusive evidence.
|
I've got to agree with the nay-sayers. This build isn't economically what it's cracked up to be in the OP. It allows for an early queen and a lot of larvae, but because it cuts drones early, you're shorter on minerals with which to spend those larvae. The 6 minute test the OP refered to shows that it's possible to get a lot of drones with this build order because you have a lot of larvae, but the total minerals mined is behind the standard builds. In a real game, you have expenses not accounted for in that 6 minute test (zerglings, crawlers, extractor, zergling speed). Since you're short on early drones and can't drone freely to catch up, you don't have the economy to support production out of your 2 hatcheries + queens.
It's a reasonable opening in ZvZ because it's a decent economy build that counters both hatch first and 7 pool. It's slightly behind 14-pool and roughly even with gas before pool.
|
On December 03 2010 03:58 Markwerf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2010 23:50 Sirion wrote:On December 02 2010 22:34 Markwerf wrote: It's fairly obvious a earlier pool build would be more economical in the scenario where you don't get gas or lings at all for the early game. That however is quite unrealistic and thus this build is far from as efficient as it looks.. Sure getting the queen asap provides more drones but if you are getting lings as well you can't use all drones anyway... This build is much less efficient early on but makes up for it later on because the first inject is earlier, however assuming you can just drone up completely is unrealistic.
11 pool builds are crap in ZvT imo where you can't drone like this anyway and just set your own economy back needlessly. In ZvP it's a different case as fast pools automatically deny some builds (like nexus first) and also provide a anti-scout very early, however this build doesn't include an early pair of lings so once again is useless as such, if you try a fast pool build like this at least include an early pair of lings..
Builds that don't include units and don't include scouting should just be banned from the forum really, its just useless in practice anyways. Add lings & scouting to this build and you will notice you will have a mineral shortage somewhere, ie. you can't drone as hard as you like. As a result this build is less efficient economy wise as 14 pool or 14 hatch. Not saying the build is useless but it will in no way be mainstream. I am sorry if I sound aggressive, but this post really bothers me. Firstly, it is not obvious at all that such an early pool can compete with a 14 hatch 14/15 pool build. In fact that fact is amazing. Second, for obvious reasons building lings reduces the number of drones you build. However, unless you provide some argument, I will assume that the impact on the economy is very similar both for this build and for 14 hatch 14 pool. The only exception is when you build a lot of lings before the pool for 14 hatch 14 pool finishes, then there is no comparison possible. But loosing 6 lings in defense of an extremely early rush is better than loosing 6 drones, so this build is better of economically. As a third, the OP does not include a scout or fighting units on purpose. Instead he assumes that you have a brain to scout when you think it is needed instead of when some magic list on the internet told you to do so. Same with fighting units. This is no 3 roach rush, the aim is to have the option to have an extremely strong economy with an early pool. As a final comment, your overzealous wish to ban one of the few truly constructive and innovative threads is so misguided it just baffles me. This thread contains a valid buildorder, a lot of testing and data on how it performs in a purely economic setting, a lot of replays you probably did not watch and many positive responses by zerg players who have tried it out. Ugh thought people could figure builds out themselves a bit... The assumption that making lings instead of drones has the same impact on a 11 pool build as a 14 pool build is quite stupid. A 11 pool is economically worse then a regular 14 pool because you cut drones to get the pool faster.. This however is made up LATER by the fact that you are able to get a queen faster and thus catch up in the drone race. However you are only able to catch up in drones IF you have the minerals to continously drone after putting down that pool, in other scenario's 14 pool is just better. Thus a 11 pool being forced to make lings instead of drones later WILL be behind compared to a 11 pool especially if you had to scout as well. Just test this out for your self... You can't pump lings + use larvae non-stop + expo at the same time if you 11-pooled because you've cut too many drones at first and you have too much larvae, that only works with no scouting and no lings... Because the OP excluded scouting and early lings in his build he is led to believe that a 11 pool can drone up normally and thus catch up with a 14 pool. In a REAL game however you need to scout and need to make lings and you will NOT be able to catch up to a 14 pool. SO in a normal game 14 pool > 11 pool. Sure the OP or anyone in this thread can claim that 11 pool is economically better but unless you live in fairyland where defense and scouting isn't neccesary this is simply not true... Note that I don't think 11 pool is bad, I actually think it's quite good in ZvP on 2 player maps (or if you expect the P to FE) because it can put off the timings P has. Saying it's economically better then 14 pool is just bullshit though... Each replay of the OP using 11 pool and 'adjusting' just led him to a inferior build compared to 14 pool.
This is a good point; if you were forced to make lings early on to defend, you likely could've defended it with a 14 pool anyway. In this situation, where you're not able to pump drones as you'd like to, even with an early queen for spawn larvae, would you be able to catch up to a 14 pool? I have a feeling you wouldn't be able to, but will need to test.
So then we say, well in a best case scenario an 11 pool/18 hatch comes out ahead, because you can catch up in drone count because of an early queen... but in a best case scenario you may as well of 14 hatch/15 pooled.
|
Fleeze, if you want to feel better about it, you can double extractor trick overpool and not lose any larva. It is actually comparable but behind. Double Ex Trick eco opening -- It is behind because the double extractor trick delays the queen further.
I seriously doubt you have played the build, because you would realize that you get the queen as fast as reasonably possible. It lines up perfectly to get the queen at 16 when the spawning pool pops. And once you have her, then you make up for the oh, maybe half a larva (seriously, you sit at 3 larva for maybe 7-10 seconds) with a queen worth of larva at an earlier time.
Something I have hated, and apparently Artosis hates too is that I can't count the number of games I have seen Zerg lose in the GSL to early pressure because they hatched before pool. Terran standard builds against zerg include early pressure. 4 marine pressure. 5 marine+one tank pressure. Double hellion pressure. Banshee pressure. And guess what? In most hatch first cases, the terran does damage with those if not outright wins.
And what does hatch before pool get you? -- Exactly that. A few more minerals, if you don't outright die.
Pro gamers are not immune to making mistakes. Especially rampantly popular mistakes. This is why. Hatch first builds always seem like they should be better, because either A) you get more minerals with workers split evenly over two bases earlier, which is wrong unless you have > 16 drones, and even then only really true at 24+ drones... Or B) You get more larva to make more workers, but this is wrong because you are delaying the queens to get a hatch up earlier, and a queen is at least equivalent to a hatchery when it comes to larva production, assuming you keep up.
In short, hatch first gets you damn near nothing except creep and 2 more supply, and in trade you mostly just die.
We spent 17 pages of thread and collectively over a hundred games against the very easy computer making sure this assumption from an economic standpoint was true.
If you want to argue effectively, provide evidence. This is done in the form of data. Provide replays. Do the work to prove us wrong. Because we have done the work that proves us right.
Like the guy who mentioned an 18 gas in both builds puts you behind to a 14 pool 15 hatch. That is legitimate. I think there is a correct answer to that, maybe gas way before hatch at 15, or gas after the hatch starts at 19, because a gas at 18 conflicts directly with the mineral gathering for the second hatch.
I don't mind this. But please, please, please stop making unfounded arguments because you happened to be born with an opinion.
|
On December 03 2010 04:31 kcdc wrote: I've got to agree with the nay-sayers. This build isn't economically what it's cracked up to be in the OP. It allows for an early queen and a lot of larvae, but because it cuts drones early, you're shorter on minerals with which to spend those larvae. The 6 minute test the OP refered to shows that it's possible to get a lot of drones with this build order because you have a lot of larvae, but the total minerals mined is behind the standard builds. In a real game, you have expenses not accounted for in that 6 minute test (zerglings, crawlers, extractor, zergling speed). Since you're short on early drones and can't drone freely to catch up, you don't have the economy to support production out of your 2 hatcheries + queens.
It's a reasonable opening in ZvZ because it's a decent economy build that counters both hatch first and 7 pool. It's slightly behind 14-pool and roughly even with gas before pool.
So tell me, how short are you on drones? And at what points in time? Do you know? Have you even tested it or compared it to any other build? Have you even looked at the graph I posted in the OP link, and seen that 11Pool leads every other build tested in total drones at the earliest point tested?
And do you realize this build leads every other pool-first build in minerals mined? Have you tried going hatch-first recently against terran, zerg, or protoss?
Everyone who is making comments about the economics of this build, PLEASE, go click on the link I provided in the OP where we provide in detail the economics of this and many other builds at many times. That is also the place to discuss the notion of maximizing economy.
|
dude lomilar just admitted that when gas is taken into account other builds beat it, so maybe it's time to go back to the drawing board to include that before you call something standard
|
On December 03 2010 04:36 Lomilar wrote:Fleeze, if you want to feel better about it, you can double extractor trick overpool and not lose any larva. It is actually comparable but behind. Double Ex Trick eco opening -- It is behind because the double extractor trick delays the queen further. I seriously doubt you have played the build, because you would realize that you get the queen as fast as reasonably possible. It lines up perfectly to get the queen at 16 when the spawning pool pops. And once you have her, then you make up for the oh, maybe half a larva (seriously, you sit at 3 larva for maybe 7-10 seconds) with an queen worth of larva at an earlier time. Something I have hated, and apparently Artosis hates too is that I can't count the number of games I have seen Zerg lose in the GSL to early pressure because they hatched before pool. Terran standard builds against zerg include early pressure. 4 marine pressure. 5 marine+one tank pressure. Double hellion pressure. Banshee pressure. And guess what? In most hatch first cases, the terran does damage with those if not outright wins. And what does hatch before pool get you? -- Exactly that. A few more minerals, if you don't outright die. Pro gamers are not immune to making mistakes. Especially rampantly popular mistakes. This is why. Hatch first builds always seem like they should be better, because either A) you get more minerals with workers split evenly over two bases earlier, which is wrong unless you have > 16 drones, and even then only really true at 24+ drones... Or B) You get more larva to make more workers, but this is wrong because you are delaying the queens to get a hatch up earlier, and a queen is at least equivalent to a hatchery when it comes to larva production, assuming you keep up. In short, hatch first gets you damn near nothing except creep and 2 more supply, and in trade you mostly just die. We spent 17 pages of thread and collectively over a hundred games against the very easy computer making sure this assumption from an economic standpoint was true. If you want to argue effectively, provide evidence. This is done in the form of data. Provide replays. Do the work to prove us wrong. Because we have done the work that proves us right.Like the guy who mentioned an 18 gas in both builds puts you behind to a 14 pool 15 hatch. That is legitimate. I think there is a correct answer to that, maybe gas way before hatch at 15, or gas after the hatch starts at 19, because a gas at 18 conflicts directly with the mineral gathering for the second hatch. I don't mind this. But please, please, please stop making unfounded arguments because you happened to be born with an opinion. And for he did not suggest doing this "Double Ex Trick eco opening"? it is a thread about a BO posted in the op which i'm answering to.... not another opening that may be more economical. and i do not have to provide DATA i have to provide an argument or prove an argument wrong. i just did this. my arguments are: - this build wastes larvae (and mining time early on which is valuable against any early pressure) - you are behind if pressured early (which the op says is a plus of this build, but you won't be able to 18 hatch if pressured and will have less drones as any regular build) - no pro uses it (yes this IS an argument)
your call?
picking one point at a time sucks btw... especially if it is the weakest in a chain of arguments and this is exactly what the op is doing. dodging the obvious flaws in his build.
edit: the thread title and op say it is the BEST build for zerg on ANY map for ANY matchup if you forgot. maybe just standard american overhyping but it is clearly NOT. one build can never be like this.
|
On December 03 2010 03:39 fleeze wrote: it is exactly 30 seconds (2x15 second larva spawn time) and this is A LOT. also read my post again. your 18 supply timings are not at the same time as a regular builds 18 supply timings since you wasted larvae and your 18 supply is that much later as the time you stayed on 3 larvae at your hatch. so it's even more then 30 seconds.
Wtf are you even talking about? Have you tried it, or watched the replays? You waste exactly 7 seconds of larvae spawn time, not 30.
|
On December 03 2010 04:42 jdseemoreglass wrote: Everyone who is making comments about the economics of this build, PLEASE, go click on the link I provided in the OP where we provide in detail the economics of this and many other builds at many times. That is also the place to discuss the notion of maximizing economy. Looks like you'll need to ask people from the original thread to come up with gas BOs.
|
On December 03 2010 04:56 Skrag wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2010 03:39 fleeze wrote: it is exactly 30 seconds (2x15 second larva spawn time) and this is A LOT. also read my post again. your 18 supply timings are not at the same time as a regular builds 18 supply timings since you wasted larvae and your 18 supply is that much later as the time you stayed on 3 larvae at your hatch. so it's even more then 30 seconds.
Wtf are you even talking about? Have you tried it, or watched the replays? You waste exactly 7 seconds of larvae spawn time, not 30. this was about hatch timing... 16 hatch vs 18 hatch.
|
On December 03 2010 04:31 kcdc wrote: I've got to agree with the nay-sayers. This build isn't economically what it's cracked up to be in the OP. It allows for an early queen and a lot of larvae, but because it cuts drones early
Gonna cut you off right there.
It cuts exactly half of a drone early, and slightly delays a few. Both of those things are easily made up for by the earlier queen. It also gets drones 10 and 11 faster than more standard openings, which helps make up for the early delays.
It *is* economically what it's cracked up to be, I just don't think you understand what it's "cracked up to be".
It's an opening that gives you a ton of flexibility, and that *can* compete economically with 14/15/16 hatch first if you choose to.
|
On December 03 2010 04:42 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2010 04:31 kcdc wrote: I've got to agree with the nay-sayers. This build isn't economically what it's cracked up to be in the OP. It allows for an early queen and a lot of larvae, but because it cuts drones early, you're shorter on minerals with which to spend those larvae. The 6 minute test the OP refered to shows that it's possible to get a lot of drones with this build order because you have a lot of larvae, but the total minerals mined is behind the standard builds. In a real game, you have expenses not accounted for in that 6 minute test (zerglings, crawlers, extractor, zergling speed). Since you're short on early drones and can't drone freely to catch up, you don't have the economy to support production out of your 2 hatcheries + queens.
It's a reasonable opening in ZvZ because it's a decent economy build that counters both hatch first and 7 pool. It's slightly behind 14-pool and roughly even with gas before pool. So tell me, how short are you on drones? And at what points in time? Do you know? Have you even tested it or compared it to any other build? Have you even looked at the graph I posted in the OP link, and seen that 11Pool leads every other build tested in total drones at the earliest point tested? And do you realize this build leads every other pool-first build in minerals mined? Have you tried going hatch-first recently against terran, zerg, or protoss? Everyone who is making comments about the economics of this build, PLEASE, go click on the link I provided in the OP where we provide in detail the economics of this and many other builds at many times. That is also the place to discuss the notion of maximizing economy.
Yes, I've used 11 pool a fair bit, and yes, I've considered your thread on econ openings and your graphs. The problem is that your test conditions don't reflect reality. In reality, you need to use a drone to scout, you need to make a pair of early zerglings to clear ground for your hatch and for scouting and/or defense, you need to make a spine crawler and an extractor, you need to research zergling speed or get a roach warren, you need to make more zerglings/roaches in the 20-30 food range, and you really should spend some queen energy on creep tumors.
I don't think 11 pool -> 18 hatch is a bad build. Its strength is that it allows for better early pressure than a 14 pool, but I believe it is economically behind a 14 pool. I'm willing to be persuaded if you can show me a graph of mining rates up to 35 food with more realistic constraints (send a scouting drone, build a pair of lings at completion of pool, build an extractor after your hatch, commit 3 drones to gas and research speed, build a spine crawler and 8 more zerglings for a total of 10).
|
On December 03 2010 04:58 fleeze wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2010 04:56 Skrag wrote:On December 03 2010 03:39 fleeze wrote: it is exactly 30 seconds (2x15 second larva spawn time) and this is A LOT. also read my post again. your 18 supply timings are not at the same time as a regular builds 18 supply timings since you wasted larvae and your 18 supply is that much later as the time you stayed on 3 larvae at your hatch. so it's even more then 30 seconds.
Wtf are you even talking about? Have you tried it, or watched the replays? You waste exactly 7 seconds of larvae spawn time, not 30. this was about hatch timing... 16 hatch vs 18 hatch. Ahshit, my bad.
Gogogogo reading comprehension.
The earlier queen *more* than makes up for any 30 second delay on the hatch though.
|
On December 03 2010 05:01 Skrag wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2010 04:31 kcdc wrote: I've got to agree with the nay-sayers. This build isn't economically what it's cracked up to be in the OP. It allows for an early queen and a lot of larvae, but because it cuts drones early Gonna cut you off right there. It cuts exactly half of a drone early, and slightly delays a few. Both of those things are easily made up for by the earlier queen. It also gets drones 10 and 11 faster than more standard openings, which helps make up for the early delays. It *is* economically what it's cracked up to be, I just don't think you understand what it's "cracked up to be". It's an opening that gives you a ton of flexibility, and that *can* compete economically with 14/15/16 hatch first if you choose to. NO. the whole point is you CAN'T IF your opponent puts pressure on you. against 2 rax you will be behind! way behind because 1. you won't hold your 18 hatch and 2. you can't produce the necessary drones... so it doesn't depend on if "you choose to" but if your opponent ALLOWS IT (and doesn't scout on pro level). i'm saying this since my first post btw... reading comprehension...
edit:
The earlier queen *more* than makes up for any 30 second delay on the hatch though. sorry this is also only true if you are not under pressure. putting your hatch down 30 (37 with larvae waste included) seconds later is a huge difference when facing a 2 rax or any other cheese or even standard helion openings (no crawler at ramp).
|
|
|
|