|
On December 07 2010 07:56 Angelbelow wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 07:48 dabom88 wrote:
I'm in this group of people. I recognize the skill of pro Zerg players. And I can see the reasoning behind the argument of "14 Hatch is safest/best against 2-Rax". I see how it COULD be true. But until I see more non-14 Hatch builds vs. 2-Rax and see how they compare in viability, I don't think it's hard to see why I would be more convinced of the argument that 14 Hatch ISN'T the best opener against 2-Rax. Youre trying to be objective. That is a good thing, but in this situation I dont think youre being objective. Do you not think its possible that Idra and Ret practiced with pool first? They cant be that stupid can they? For them to proclaim that "strategy X" is the best way we found, do you assume that thats the only thing they tried? I'm willing to bet that they tried a bunch of variations before coming to a conclusion. As far as seeing a different opener vs a 2-rax, maybe we don't see it because all the zergs feel as if hatch first truly is better.
I would say I am being quite objective. Just try to show where my reasoning is wrong:
I'm judging things from the results I'm seeing. Evidence for an argument. The results are showing me that 14 Hatch does not seem viable 2 Rax. That is the only conclusion I can really draw from the results.
If I could see Zergs using builds other than 14 Hatch against 2-Rax, I would be able to see how viable they are compared with 14 Hatch build. But I can't compare them since all I see is 14 Hatch losing to 2 Rax.
If someone says "14 Hatch is best against 2-Rax" I can say "Look at Foxer's games. Look at Rain's games. Those are examples of why I believe you are wrong". The counterargument SHOULD something like "Well look at so-and-so's games where he used Pool first against 2 Rax and failed. And look at this other player's game where he used another non-14 Hatch build against 2-Rax and failed, and tell me what they could have done otherwise". Presenting examples as evidence as part of the argument.
The only real thing the Pro-14 Hatchers have to go on are verbal reasoning and testimony from Idra and Ret.
Notice: Right now what I am saying is not whether or not 14 Hatch is the best build to use against 2-Rax. Although I don't think it is, I recognize that this is a highly debatable issue and the reasoning could be true and that Ret and Idra's testimony should be considered.
What I AM saying is that it's not hard to see why people think 14 Hatch is bad against 2-Rax. They can see the results from several examples of Zergs losing to 2-Rax with 14 Hatch. Because this evidence is more convincing, the argument seems stronger for those in favor of this viewpoint. And saying "They're only going 14-Hatch because other openings aren't as good" isn't as convincing of an argument because results and high-level games you can watch are more convincing evidence than reasoning and testimony. And there aren't as many examples you can reference to support this argument because there aren't as many games you can present as evidence. For an example, it is why people pay more attention to a thread in the Strategy forum if it has Replays in it.
If someone favors the testimony of Ret and Idra over games you can actually see, I believe that HE is the one being more subjective than objective.
|
Calgary25940 Posts
On December 07 2010 08:29 Apolo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 03:14 Chill wrote: As soon as you "want to see amazing games", you set up some WWE system where it's not people trying to win, but trying to put on a show.
I want people doing anything in their power to win. I want people playing the dirtiest games you've ever seen in your life because it's their best chance to win. And, as a side effect of this, when people do show amazing, drawn-out games, they will be that much more special because of the rarity. No. The difference between that and what people are saying is that WWE is just show, just acting. No one said they wanted that. And since when will they be rare? All ins is the most common thing in the world these days, let alone special. You're just bumbling out wonderful words in the hopes to associate them with the argument you're trying to make and make it seem better than it actually is. Reapers were boring to watch. Always the same thing, hard to defend has zerg, not in a million years someone would wow to them. Okay, let's go through this one by one:
I said "Some WWE sytem" implying the show is more important than the competition. I didn't imply it was the WWE. If you want to infer that, go ahead, but it's not my intention.
All-ins are very common, which is why I didn't say they were special. I said amazing, drawn-out games are made special because of the amount of all-ins we often see. If people play for show then the show as a whole becomes less amazing.
I can't even understand what your "bumbling out wonderful words" sentence means so please rewrite it. And your Reaper example doesn't build your argument or contrast mine so it's completely out of place.
|
Seriously, SCV's and marines are far from broken. It's not the unit itself that is the problem, it's the strategy as a whole that is difficult to deal with.
But as a Zerg this rly isnt much of a problem. It might force pool first but that's ok since the economic difference is hardly noticible compared to hatch first.
Besides, I've handled these all-ins quite well with drones and some lings. If he brings 8 scv's, bring 10+ droens and focus fire down the marines with all your units, a sunken or two while u do this is good too.I think Zergs are afraid to use their drones. obviously if u hold off teh attack you're fine since he's sacrificing scv's whioch are harder to replace than drones. You should also have a queen at your nat as well anyway. just keep a ling outside the terran base and don't be too greedy.
|
On December 07 2010 08:28 billyX333 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 07 2010 08:18 Severedevil wrote:So... possible Zerg alternatives to 14 hatch nat --> lose to 2 rax. - 11 Overpool. Fast queen --> very high larva count, early pool --> early opportunity to make lings. Make a couple, check your opponent out, and go from there. Your inject will be quick enough to combat a rush if he performs one, so you don't need to go all-out zergling from the get-go. - Zergling presence + runby If Terran moves out with everything, you can move in with 4 Zerglings --> no mining (even with 'OP' mules) and no more unit production until he comes back home. Now that Terran's all-in, you just have to defend. (Hell, you don't even need to protect your natural, because it's not worthwhile for Terran to march all his SCVs across the map just to kill one hatchery and go home.) - Don't plant your hatchery on the path between the Terran and Zerg bases He attacks your main? You have Zerglings streaming from your second hatch to counter or flank. He attack your other base? You have Zerglings streaming from your main hatch to counter or flank. You can force the Terran out of position relative to one of your two hatcheries if he wants to move out. Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 07:56 Angelbelow wrote:On December 07 2010 07:48 dabom88 wrote:
I'm in this group of people. I recognize the skill of pro Zerg players. And I can see the reasoning behind the argument of "14 Hatch is safest/best against 2-Rax". I see how it COULD be true. But until I see more non-14 Hatch builds vs. 2-Rax and see how they compare in viability, I don't think it's hard to see why I would be more convinced of the argument that 14 Hatch ISN'T the best opener against 2-Rax. Youre trying to be objective. That is a good thing, but in this situation I dont think youre being objective. Do you not think its possible that Idra and Ret practiced with pool first? They cant be that stupid can they? For them to proclaim that "strategy X" is the best way we found, do you assume that thats the only thing they tried? I'm willing to bet that they tried a bunch of variations before coming to a conclusion. As far as seeing a different opener vs a 2-rax, maybe we don't see it because all the zergs feel as if hatch first truly is better. No, I do not believe that Idra/Ret have adequately practiced pool-first openers such as 11 overpool. In fact, from Ret's assertion that the first injection arrives too late to fight the first push, I'm led to believe he's doing 14+ pool builds, which exchange later injection and lings for more cash to invest in a faster second hatchery or gas. If Idra, Ret, or other pro zergs that complain of 2-Rax openings have practiced at least a few dozen matches of 11 overpool vs. 2 rax, I entreat them to share. Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 07:47 Airfan wrote: I don't mind cheese at all. 6pool here, proxy gates there, it keeps players on their toes, makes them scout early and enables them to play mind games. But seriously, if 2 rax is going to become/stay as the new standard like 5 rax reaper was some time ago, there is something obviously broken in the matchup. Why? 2 Rax OC is a reasonable balance of aggression and economy. You get a solid early unit count without over-committing, at the expense of delaying tech/expansion by a minute or so. Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 07:41 Lokian wrote:On December 07 2010 07:38 Disastorm wrote:On December 07 2010 07:34 Ympulse wrote:On December 07 2010 07:27 Shana wrote: Cheese or not, a win is a win. This is all that needs to be said. When thousands of dollars are on the line, you either play to win or go home a loser. People aren't complaining that he cheesed, they are complaining that the cheese is too strong. Basically blizzard nerfed the reaper cheese and also nerfed the previous scv marine all in by reducing scv hp. Well its still too strong and needs more nerfing. bring back drone range :p Please do! And for probes. The way workers fight nowadays makes me a sad panda. terrans scout and adjust. a profound concept, i know if they see 11pool and lings being pumped non stop bunker + CC = GG what are you going to do with 12+ slow lings and a terribly late expo when you opponent is mining faster than what he can produce out of 2 rax
But if he sees your 11 pool and doesn't drop a second rax and goes bunker expo, and you see that, then you don't pump the lings...
|
Terrans don't tend to be aggressive against pool first zerg's because it's not clear if they're going to be going for a one-base all-in. Having troops out on the field would be a way to lose a game.
Once the hatch starts to go down, then you will see some aggression. It won't be two rax, but it will be a a lot harder to defend because of the lack of creep, crawlers and economy.
That's why you aren't seeing pool first builds hold off a 2-rax. The same reason you aren't seeing a 1 rax FE lose to a six pool. The timings don't work out that way.
|
On December 07 2010 08:18 Severedevil wrote:So... possible Zerg alternatives to 14 hatch nat --> lose to 2 rax. - 11 Overpool. Fast queen --> very high larva count, early pool --> early opportunity to make lings. Make a couple, check your opponent out, and go from there. Your inject will be quick enough to combat a rush if he performs one, so you don't need to go all-out zergling from the get-go. - Zergling presence + runby If Terran moves out with everything, you can move in with 4 Zerglings --> no mining (even with 'OP' mules) and no more unit production until he comes back home. Now that Terran's all-in, you just have to defend. (Hell, you don't even need to protect your natural, because it's not worthwhile for Terran to march all his SCVs across the map just to kill one hatchery and go home.) - Don't plant your hatchery on the path between the Terran and Zerg bases He attacks your main? You have Zerglings streaming from your second hatch to counter or flank. He attack your other base? You have Zerglings streaming from your main hatch to counter or flank. You can force the Terran out of position relative to one of your two hatcheries if he wants to move out. Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 07:56 Angelbelow wrote:On December 07 2010 07:48 dabom88 wrote:
I'm in this group of people. I recognize the skill of pro Zerg players. And I can see the reasoning behind the argument of "14 Hatch is safest/best against 2-Rax". I see how it COULD be true. But until I see more non-14 Hatch builds vs. 2-Rax and see how they compare in viability, I don't think it's hard to see why I would be more convinced of the argument that 14 Hatch ISN'T the best opener against 2-Rax. Youre trying to be objective. That is a good thing, but in this situation I dont think youre being objective. Do you not think its possible that Idra and Ret practiced with pool first? They cant be that stupid can they? For them to proclaim that "strategy X" is the best way we found, do you assume that thats the only thing they tried? I'm willing to bet that they tried a bunch of variations before coming to a conclusion. As far as seeing a different opener vs a 2-rax, maybe we don't see it because all the zergs feel as if hatch first truly is better. No, I do not believe that Idra/Ret have adequately practiced pool-first openers such as 11 overpool. In fact, from Ret's assertion that the first injection arrives too late to fight the first push, I'm led to believe he's doing 14+ pool builds, which exchange later injection and lings for more cash to invest in a faster second hatchery or gas. If Idra, Ret, or other pro zergs that complain of 2-Rax openings have practiced at least a few dozen matches of 11 overpool vs. 2 rax, I entreat them to share.
Pro gamers goal is not to stop one strategy. its to encompass all possibilities and attempt to find a stable build against 2 rax and beyond. Hatch first not only provides more larvae but it doesn't cripple you economically. Most terrans are going for that CC after 2 rax anyways, so if you dont expand, make build lings they still have marines that can pressure while they have an expo and you dont.
If you pool first and only make 4 lings youre gonna get rolled anyways. if you go pool first you can really only make enough lings for about 4, if you go hatch first you can get about 6 right away incase theres a 2rax rush. If there no rax rush youre left in the most ideal situation for zerg. Its really a win win. And the fact that you dont believe Idra/Ret have practiced a bunch of variations is extremely laughable on your part. I dont see why they would even need to respond to your post at this point.
|
On December 07 2010 08:28 billyX333 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 08:18 Severedevil wrote:So... possible Zerg alternatives to 14 hatch nat --> lose to 2 rax. - 11 Overpool. Fast queen --> very high larva count, early pool --> early opportunity to make lings. Make a couple, check your opponent out, and go from there. Your inject will be quick enough to combat a rush if he performs one, so you don't need to go all-out zergling from the get-go. - Zergling presence + runby If Terran moves out with everything, you can move in with 4 Zerglings --> no mining (even with 'OP' mules) and no more unit production until he comes back home. Now that Terran's all-in, you just have to defend. (Hell, you don't even need to protect your natural, because it's not worthwhile for Terran to march all his SCVs across the map just to kill one hatchery and go home.) - Don't plant your hatchery on the path between the Terran and Zerg bases He attacks your main? You have Zerglings streaming from your second hatch to counter or flank. He attack your other base? You have Zerglings streaming from your main hatch to counter or flank. You can force the Terran out of position relative to one of your two hatcheries if he wants to move out. On December 07 2010 07:56 Angelbelow wrote:On December 07 2010 07:48 dabom88 wrote:
I'm in this group of people. I recognize the skill of pro Zerg players. And I can see the reasoning behind the argument of "14 Hatch is safest/best against 2-Rax". I see how it COULD be true. But until I see more non-14 Hatch builds vs. 2-Rax and see how they compare in viability, I don't think it's hard to see why I would be more convinced of the argument that 14 Hatch ISN'T the best opener against 2-Rax. Youre trying to be objective. That is a good thing, but in this situation I dont think youre being objective. Do you not think its possible that Idra and Ret practiced with pool first? They cant be that stupid can they? For them to proclaim that "strategy X" is the best way we found, do you assume that thats the only thing they tried? I'm willing to bet that they tried a bunch of variations before coming to a conclusion. As far as seeing a different opener vs a 2-rax, maybe we don't see it because all the zergs feel as if hatch first truly is better. No, I do not believe that Idra/Ret have adequately practiced pool-first openers such as 11 overpool. In fact, from Ret's assertion that the first injection arrives too late to fight the first push, I'm led to believe he's doing 14+ pool builds, which exchange later injection and lings for more cash to invest in a faster second hatchery or gas. If Idra, Ret, or other pro zergs that complain of 2-Rax openings have practiced at least a few dozen matches of 11 overpool vs. 2 rax, I entreat them to share. On December 07 2010 07:47 Airfan wrote: I don't mind cheese at all. 6pool here, proxy gates there, it keeps players on their toes, makes them scout early and enables them to play mind games. But seriously, if 2 rax is going to become/stay as the new standard like 5 rax reaper was some time ago, there is something obviously broken in the matchup. Why? 2 Rax OC is a reasonable balance of aggression and economy. You get a solid early unit count without over-committing, at the expense of delaying tech/expansion by a minute or so. On December 07 2010 07:41 Lokian wrote:On December 07 2010 07:38 Disastorm wrote:On December 07 2010 07:34 Ympulse wrote:On December 07 2010 07:27 Shana wrote: Cheese or not, a win is a win. This is all that needs to be said. When thousands of dollars are on the line, you either play to win or go home a loser. People aren't complaining that he cheesed, they are complaining that the cheese is too strong. Basically blizzard nerfed the reaper cheese and also nerfed the previous scv marine all in by reducing scv hp. Well its still too strong and needs more nerfing. bring back drone range :p Please do! And for probes. The way workers fight nowadays makes me a sad panda. terrans scout and adjust. a profound concept, i know if they see 11pool and lings being pumped non stopbunker + CC = GG Excellent point! Zerg cannot afford to pump lings nonstop against a 2-Rax Terran who doesn't move out.
I recommend Zerg solve this problem by not pumping lings nonstop against a 2-Rax Terran who doesn't move out.
Zergs scout and adjust. A profound concept, I know.
what are you going to do with 12+ slow lings and a terribly late expo when you opponent is mining faster than what he can produce out of 2 rax The build that jdseemoreglass floated goes 11 overlord pool 16 queen 18 hatchery. You can plant your hatch at a reasonable time.
|
I agree with everyone who thinks the game should be won in every legitimate way possible: Mindgames, all in cheese, insane gambles, abuse of imbalances and "over powered" units. You are there first and foremost to win a tournament.
Let Blizzard and maybe eventually map makers work on imbalances and keeping game possibilities interesting. As a player, you are there to win. You can always add extra entertainment with a FBH dance afterwards. And if the game is as good as people say it is, "quality matches" will become more and more frequent with time.
|
On December 07 2010 08:39 Lonyo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 08:28 billyX333 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 07 2010 08:18 Severedevil wrote:So... possible Zerg alternatives to 14 hatch nat --> lose to 2 rax. - 11 Overpool. Fast queen --> very high larva count, early pool --> early opportunity to make lings. Make a couple, check your opponent out, and go from there. Your inject will be quick enough to combat a rush if he performs one, so you don't need to go all-out zergling from the get-go. - Zergling presence + runby If Terran moves out with everything, you can move in with 4 Zerglings --> no mining (even with 'OP' mules) and no more unit production until he comes back home. Now that Terran's all-in, you just have to defend. (Hell, you don't even need to protect your natural, because it's not worthwhile for Terran to march all his SCVs across the map just to kill one hatchery and go home.) - Don't plant your hatchery on the path between the Terran and Zerg bases He attacks your main? You have Zerglings streaming from your second hatch to counter or flank. He attack your other base? You have Zerglings streaming from your main hatch to counter or flank. You can force the Terran out of position relative to one of your two hatcheries if he wants to move out. Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 07:56 Angelbelow wrote:On December 07 2010 07:48 dabom88 wrote:
I'm in this group of people. I recognize the skill of pro Zerg players. And I can see the reasoning behind the argument of "14 Hatch is safest/best against 2-Rax". I see how it COULD be true. But until I see more non-14 Hatch builds vs. 2-Rax and see how they compare in viability, I don't think it's hard to see why I would be more convinced of the argument that 14 Hatch ISN'T the best opener against 2-Rax. Youre trying to be objective. That is a good thing, but in this situation I dont think youre being objective. Do you not think its possible that Idra and Ret practiced with pool first? They cant be that stupid can they? For them to proclaim that "strategy X" is the best way we found, do you assume that thats the only thing they tried? I'm willing to bet that they tried a bunch of variations before coming to a conclusion. As far as seeing a different opener vs a 2-rax, maybe we don't see it because all the zergs feel as if hatch first truly is better. No, I do not believe that Idra/Ret have adequately practiced pool-first openers such as 11 overpool. In fact, from Ret's assertion that the first injection arrives too late to fight the first push, I'm led to believe he's doing 14+ pool builds, which exchange later injection and lings for more cash to invest in a faster second hatchery or gas. If Idra, Ret, or other pro zergs that complain of 2-Rax openings have practiced at least a few dozen matches of 11 overpool vs. 2 rax, I entreat them to share. Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 07:47 Airfan wrote: I don't mind cheese at all. 6pool here, proxy gates there, it keeps players on their toes, makes them scout early and enables them to play mind games. But seriously, if 2 rax is going to become/stay as the new standard like 5 rax reaper was some time ago, there is something obviously broken in the matchup. Why? 2 Rax OC is a reasonable balance of aggression and economy. You get a solid early unit count without over-committing, at the expense of delaying tech/expansion by a minute or so. Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 07:41 Lokian wrote:On December 07 2010 07:38 Disastorm wrote:On December 07 2010 07:34 Ympulse wrote:On December 07 2010 07:27 Shana wrote: Cheese or not, a win is a win. This is all that needs to be said. When thousands of dollars are on the line, you either play to win or go home a loser. People aren't complaining that he cheesed, they are complaining that the cheese is too strong. Basically blizzard nerfed the reaper cheese and also nerfed the previous scv marine all in by reducing scv hp. Well its still too strong and needs more nerfing. bring back drone range :p Please do! And for probes. The way workers fight nowadays makes me a sad panda. terrans scout and adjust. a profound concept, i know if they see 11pool and lings being pumped non stop bunker + CC = GG what are you going to do with 12+ slow lings and a terribly late expo when you opponent is mining faster than what he can produce out of 2 rax But if he sees your 11 pool and doesn't drop a second rax and goes bunker expo, and you see that, then you don't pump the lings... 2rax expo. its far more flexible and threatening. im not talking about 1rax expo
|
On December 07 2010 08:14 ParasitJonte wrote:Show nested quote +Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results That's actually a very bad definition. Then again, Einstein wasn't particularly keen on quantum mechanics. It doesn't really apply to SC2 where a strategy isn't the only variable
|
On December 07 2010 08:33 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 08:26 bokeevboke wrote:On December 07 2010 08:19 itsMAHVELbaybee wrote: "build more shit than the zerg." Sadly its true SC2 is all about building more stuff. No more strategic placement of mines, tanks, lurkers and recall. All you need, build more shit than your opponent. You must have been watching SC2 with your eyes closed.
Yeah he must have been cause, 1a'ing broodlords and mashing the Z and U keys probably all sound the same.
|
I don't see the problem with Rain beating NesTea. He clearly outplayed him. NesTea was unable to adapt to early pressure in any of the games he lost, and game 3 Rain was not even close to all in, he was getting his third CC when the game ended. NesTea made bad decisions with bad micro, period. I'm so tired of everyone crying NERF the second there's a strategy that is difficult to win against.
|
On December 07 2010 08:38 ThE_ShiZ wrote: But as a Zerg this rly isnt much of a problem. It might force pool first but that's ok since the economic difference is hardly noticible compared to hatch first. No, there will be a huge economic difference because if you pool first, it's just giving the Terran a free ticket to bunker wall-in and then expand his entire heart out while you're struggling to break his wall-in.
Why doesn't anyone realize this
|
On December 07 2010 08:42 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 08:28 billyX333 wrote:On December 07 2010 08:18 Severedevil wrote:So... possible Zerg alternatives to 14 hatch nat --> lose to 2 rax. - 11 Overpool. Fast queen --> very high larva count, early pool --> early opportunity to make lings. Make a couple, check your opponent out, and go from there. Your inject will be quick enough to combat a rush if he performs one, so you don't need to go all-out zergling from the get-go. - Zergling presence + runby If Terran moves out with everything, you can move in with 4 Zerglings --> no mining (even with 'OP' mules) and no more unit production until he comes back home. Now that Terran's all-in, you just have to defend. (Hell, you don't even need to protect your natural, because it's not worthwhile for Terran to march all his SCVs across the map just to kill one hatchery and go home.) - Don't plant your hatchery on the path between the Terran and Zerg bases He attacks your main? You have Zerglings streaming from your second hatch to counter or flank. He attack your other base? You have Zerglings streaming from your main hatch to counter or flank. You can force the Terran out of position relative to one of your two hatcheries if he wants to move out. On December 07 2010 07:56 Angelbelow wrote:On December 07 2010 07:48 dabom88 wrote:
I'm in this group of people. I recognize the skill of pro Zerg players. And I can see the reasoning behind the argument of "14 Hatch is safest/best against 2-Rax". I see how it COULD be true. But until I see more non-14 Hatch builds vs. 2-Rax and see how they compare in viability, I don't think it's hard to see why I would be more convinced of the argument that 14 Hatch ISN'T the best opener against 2-Rax. Youre trying to be objective. That is a good thing, but in this situation I dont think youre being objective. Do you not think its possible that Idra and Ret practiced with pool first? They cant be that stupid can they? For them to proclaim that "strategy X" is the best way we found, do you assume that thats the only thing they tried? I'm willing to bet that they tried a bunch of variations before coming to a conclusion. As far as seeing a different opener vs a 2-rax, maybe we don't see it because all the zergs feel as if hatch first truly is better. No, I do not believe that Idra/Ret have adequately practiced pool-first openers such as 11 overpool. In fact, from Ret's assertion that the first injection arrives too late to fight the first push, I'm led to believe he's doing 14+ pool builds, which exchange later injection and lings for more cash to invest in a faster second hatchery or gas. If Idra, Ret, or other pro zergs that complain of 2-Rax openings have practiced at least a few dozen matches of 11 overpool vs. 2 rax, I entreat them to share. On December 07 2010 07:47 Airfan wrote: I don't mind cheese at all. 6pool here, proxy gates there, it keeps players on their toes, makes them scout early and enables them to play mind games. But seriously, if 2 rax is going to become/stay as the new standard like 5 rax reaper was some time ago, there is something obviously broken in the matchup. Why? 2 Rax OC is a reasonable balance of aggression and economy. You get a solid early unit count without over-committing, at the expense of delaying tech/expansion by a minute or so. On December 07 2010 07:41 Lokian wrote:On December 07 2010 07:38 Disastorm wrote:On December 07 2010 07:34 Ympulse wrote:On December 07 2010 07:27 Shana wrote: Cheese or not, a win is a win. This is all that needs to be said. When thousands of dollars are on the line, you either play to win or go home a loser. People aren't complaining that he cheesed, they are complaining that the cheese is too strong. Basically blizzard nerfed the reaper cheese and also nerfed the previous scv marine all in by reducing scv hp. Well its still too strong and needs more nerfing. bring back drone range :p Please do! And for probes. The way workers fight nowadays makes me a sad panda. terrans scout and adjust. a profound concept, i know if they see 11pool and lings being pumped non stopbunker + CC = GG Excellent point! Zerg cannot afford to pump lings nonstop against a 2-Rax Terran who doesn't move out. I recommend Zerg solve this problem by not pumping lings nonstop against a 2-Rax Terran who doesn't move out. Zergs scout and adjust. A profound concept, I know. Show nested quote +what are you going to do with 12+ slow lings and a terribly late expo when you opponent is mining faster than what he can produce out of 2 rax The build that jdseemoreglass floated goes 11 overlord pool 16 queen 18 hatchery. You can plant your hatch at a reasonable time. we're getting into theory crafting territory but what makes 2rax stronger than what you seem to acknowledge is the fact that its unscoutable in a sense that you can not distinguish between 4rax all in timing from a 2 rax scv all in timing from a 2 rax light pressure into expo
|
On December 07 2010 08:36 dabom88 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 07:56 Angelbelow wrote:On December 07 2010 07:48 dabom88 wrote:
I'm in this group of people. I recognize the skill of pro Zerg players. And I can see the reasoning behind the argument of "14 Hatch is safest/best against 2-Rax". I see how it COULD be true. But until I see more non-14 Hatch builds vs. 2-Rax and see how they compare in viability, I don't think it's hard to see why I would be more convinced of the argument that 14 Hatch ISN'T the best opener against 2-Rax. Youre trying to be objective. That is a good thing, but in this situation I dont think youre being objective. Do you not think its possible that Idra and Ret practiced with pool first? They cant be that stupid can they? For them to proclaim that "strategy X" is the best way we found, do you assume that thats the only thing they tried? I'm willing to bet that they tried a bunch of variations before coming to a conclusion. As far as seeing a different opener vs a 2-rax, maybe we don't see it because all the zergs feel as if hatch first truly is better. I would say I am being quite objective. Just try to show where my reasoning is wrong: I'm judging things from the results I'm seeing. Evidence for an argument. The results are showing me that 14 Hatch does not seem viable 2 Rax. That is the only conclusion I can really draw from the results. If I could see Zergs using builds other than 14 Hatch against 2-Rax, I would be able to see how viable they are compared with 14 Hatch build. But I can't compare them since all I see is 14 Hatch losing to 2 Rax. If someone says "14 Hatch is best against 2-Rax" I can say "Look at Foxer's games. Look at Rain's games. Those are examples of why I believe you are wrong". The counterargument SHOULD something like "Well look at so-and-so's games where he used another build against 2 Rax and failed. And look at this other player's games where he did another build and failed". Presenting examples as evidence as part of the argument. The only real thing the Pro-14 Hatchers have to go on are verbal reasoning and testimony from Idra and Ret. Notice: Right now what I am saying is not whether or not 14 Hatch is the best build to use against 2-Rax. Although I don't think it is, I recognize that this is a highly debatable issue and the reasoning could be true and that Ret and Idra's testimony should be considered. What I AM saying is that it's not hard to see why people think 14 Hatch is bad against 2-Rax. They can see the results from several examples of Zergs losing to 2-Rax with 14 Hatch. Because this evidence is more convincing, the argument seems stronger for those in favor of this viewpoint. And saying "They're only going 14-Hatch because other openings aren't as good" isn't as convincing of an argument because results and high-level games you can watch are more convincing evidence than reasoning and testimony. And there aren't as many examples you can reference to support this argument because there aren't as many games you can present as evidence. For an example, it is why people pay more attention to a thread in the Strategy forum if it has Replays in it.If someone favors the testimony of Ret and Idra over games you can actually see, I believe that HE is the one being more subjective than objective.
The counter argument is that there are plenty of games where the zerg 14 hatches and still manages to hold. Its not just verbal reasoning. FD and Nestea went hatch first literally everygame against terran so far and those 2 are the champions. The Foxer games vs Leenock this season went into macro games, leenock was able to hold his 2 rack pressure after going hatch first.
I agree, its easy to think hatch first is inferior, I too thought this until Ret explained it. As a zerg player that makes a lot of sense and its not easy for me to see why its ideal, not only to stop early pressure but to put you in an ideal situation as the game progresses.
No doubt that Im being partially subjective/biased. But I dont think im saying anything unreasonable.
|
On December 07 2010 08:02 Kvz wrote: Heh, I figured when blizzard said at blizzcon that marines are overtuned in the early game that people would begin to start using them en masse. It's not really surprising.
As a 2500 Z (I stopped laddering 2 weeks ago) its really frustrating when people keep saying 'just go one base' or "learn to prepare for it" because in all honesty even if you see it coming, the terran can choose not to attack and just CC and expand behind a bunker. What do you do with the 24 lings you made now lol?
Btw I have been experimenting with my practice partners going 14gas/14pool and the problem with this is that they terran can actually do a slow bunker push as you lack the zerglings early to really defend against it. I"m talking about a bunker to the far side of your natural to deny a natural and then continuously pushing to your ramp with it while blocking off their own base.
exactly. like i said somewhere in other thread, you will either need insane skill to hold off the all-in or you mh to see the first 5mins if he is gonna do that cheese or not. either way i believe is caused by the design flaw by blizzard.
marines's attack animation maybe is quicker than BW or something. and the marauder, we all know this unit is messed up. even if marauder is fine but when Marine+marauder go together, we can all see there is something wrong with the combo. (how the heck do a ranged non-AOE firebat version with slow orb effect unit that allow to use Stim get passed the alpha testing???)
about the 2xhatchery, the larva mechanic need a small fix or the reactor need a revision by blizzard.
|
Calgary25940 Posts
On December 07 2010 08:44 itsMAHVELbaybee wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 08:33 Chill wrote:On December 07 2010 08:26 bokeevboke wrote:On December 07 2010 08:19 itsMAHVELbaybee wrote: "build more shit than the zerg." Sadly its true SC2 is all about building more stuff. No more strategic placement of mines, tanks, lurkers and recall. All you need, build more shit than your opponent. You must have been watching SC2 with your eyes closed. Yeah he must have been cause, 1a'ing broodlords and mashing the Z and U keys probably all sound the same. There's no need to exagerate, it's not going to get us anywhere. I've seen some amazing micro in SC2 especially with void rays and banshees.
|
Terran needs a late game buff so they don't feel like they have to all in early ever game to win.
I think that coupled with some tweaks in Zerg early game would be great. I think that Spinecrawler build and burrow times receiving a reduction might be all that's needed.
|
United Kingdom12011 Posts
I don't see why Rain should get blamed. He didn't get much practice time and to be fair, there's a hell of a lot of money on the line.
|
I think it's just frustrating staying up until 2:00 am and watching these kind of games. Nestea won both the games that lasted longer than 6minutes. But Rain did what he should do: He tried his hardest and did anything to win. I think I would have been cheated out of 20 dollars even more if Rain didn't try his hardest to win. I don't want a player playing below his full potential by trying to play a game that he knows he can't win from the beginning.
Zerg macro is insane, so Rain shouldn't apologize for not letting a zerg do what a zerg wants to do.
|
|
|
|