|
On December 07 2010 09:04 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 09:02 chokke wrote: Why do none of these people throw up one, maybe 2 spinecrawlers at their main when their opponent is all-in? Instead of just throwing lings on the SCVs. Well, that means you're sacrificing your natural hatchery. If you're saying they don't have it yet, then the zerg player is investing 300 minerals in static defense without an expansion to show for it, meaning the terran gets a free expansion and an easy win 5 minutes down the road. Pulling all workers to the opponent's base to kill his stuff is not free.
In BW, a 12 Nex'ing Protoss would be fine if Terran decided to bunker rush and pull many SCVs to kill the natural nexus, because the cost of killing it was actually higher than the cost of planting it...
On December 07 2010 08:54 ShadowWolf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 08:42 Severedevil wrote: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. 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 think 11 pool 18 hatch is undoubtedly something Ret & IdrA have probably not explored, but if those bunkers can go down before you can get enough lings out to prevent a bunker block it's probably worse than 14 pool. You might be able to get that hatch down at 16 plus have more lings earlier. With 11 Overpool, your Zerglings should spawn at the same time as Terran's marines. I doubt he can reasonably bunker you in.
|
On December 07 2010 09:43 MahatmaSC2 wrote: I don't get why Zergs can't go 11 pool like somebody else said. Sure, that's 4(?) less drones, but you can make those up later! I don't play Zerg so can someone explain why this build wouldn't work.
A) If you rush lings + ling speed your income is miles behind there and they simple don't push instead opting to take an expand thus leaving you behind and with a pile of useless lings (aka you need to bane bust which is a very risky move)
B) You have half the larva which means you can't make as many lings*
C) You dont have the creep spread by your ramp to help contest wall ins / contains.
|
I find it disheartening that they blame the player for all ins, when its a result of balancing issue. (either marine + scv all in are too strong, or the zerg mid-late game is to strong forcing the terran to all in or lose in a 30 min battle).
Im not suggesting that I know how to balance the game or even offer insight in which strategy is strong or not, but I feel like the pros are playing the way they are playing for a reason. Its not just because he likes to be a dirty all in player. Balance affects strategy.
At least thats my perspective
|
On December 07 2010 09:51 TheButtonmen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 09:43 MahatmaSC2 wrote: I don't get why Zergs can't go 11 pool like somebody else said. Sure, that's 4(?) less drones, but you can make those up later! I don't play Zerg so can someone explain why this build wouldn't work. A) If you rush lings + ling speed your income is miles behind there and they simple don't push instead opting to take an expand thus leaving you behind and with a pile of useless lings (aka you need to bane bust which is a very risky move) B) You have half the larva which means you can't make as many lings. C) You dont have the creep spread by your ramp to help contest wall ins / contains.
You have an earlier queen than with a hatch first build, so you don't have half the larvae unless you put down a tumour first, and your lings should be out early enough to deal with an SCV trying to bunker.
|
Didnt Jinro show us that terrans can actually macro against zergs.
I get the feeling that every terran is all-ining these days because its a fad. I think soon enough its effectiveness will wear down, and we'l see other strats coming
|
why dont you go 11 pool and see if you can win I mean terran can scout that and if he does he will play economically if larvae production increased i think zerg can play 1 base though it will be op late game -.-
|
On December 07 2010 09:55 Tha_Docta wrote: Didnt Jinro show us that terrans can actually macro against zergs.
I get the feeling that every terran is all-ining these days because its a fad. I think soon enough its effectiveness will wear down, and we'l see other strats coming As much as I love Jinro, you can't argue the fact that he hasn't played any good Zergs in the GSL. Moon was playing like 1700 Diamond against him.
|
On December 07 2010 09:55 Tha_Docta wrote: Didnt Jinro show us that terrans can actually macro against zergs.
I get the feeling that every terran is all-ining these days because its a fad. I think soon enough its effectiveness will wear down, and we'l see other strats coming
He showed that a war3 legend's macro/decision making in SC is pretty bad. I wouldn't get your hopes up, Terrans are going to keep playing this way.
|
On December 07 2010 09:38 dabom88 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 08:46 Angelbelow wrote:On December 07 2010 08:36 dabom88 wrote: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. That isn't really a counter-argument though. The argument isn't really "should Zergs EVER 14 Hatch" or "is 14 Hatch auto-lose or not vs. 2-Rax". The argument is "SHOULD Zergs go 14 Hatch vs. 2-Rax". People that say "no" say Zergs lose too often against 2-Rax with 14 Hatch, and point to the various games that support this argument. They feel Zergs could try other builds than continue doing a strategy that consistently makes them lose. People that say "yes" say it's the BEST response to 2-Rax and point to verbal reasoning and Idra/Ret testimony. People in this group feel that 2-Rax is so strong that they HAVE to go 14 Hatch, what they feel is "The best response to 2-Rax" just to keep up with it. Pointing to games where Zergs win against 2-Rax just supports an argument that Zergs shouldn't complain about 2-Rax because it's possible to win against it. Those games would belong in a "Can 14 Hatch beat 2-Rax" argument. The argument in this topic already assumes that 14 Hatch can win against it, but it s still really hard to pull off. The anti-14 Hatchers say "Zergs should stop 14 Hatching against 2-Rax because they lose too much against it and should do something different" and the pro-14 Hatchers say "14 Hatch is the only viable response to 2-Rax because 2-Rax beats every other build. However, 2-Rax is still very hard to hold off with 14 Hatch", leading several in this group to believe this shows imbalance because the "best strat" against 2-Rax isn't completely consistent (though, of course, imbalance isn't the core of this argument). If the argument DIDN'T assume 2-Rax was really strong against 14 Hatch, then the pro-14 Hatchers wouldn't be complaining about how hard 2-Rax is to hold off, and the anti-14 Hatchers wouldn't exist.
Here are a few things I agree with, Zergs shouldn't complain about the 2 rax. Its actually a really smart move by the terran, forces Lings, and since they don have speed they can safely retreat. If i was a terran player I'd probably do that everytime if I went up against a zerg, whether or not he went for a 14 hatch. its just a smart build, especially because most terrans expand behind it. No real arguments there.
I think the issue that most people are upset with is the scv all in where you bring 15 scvs with you. that aspect of the game appears to be the most difficult.
So heres what ive seen from games, 14 hatch vs 2 rax marine pressure = a micro battle and whoever comes out on top is in firm control of the game. 14 hatch vs 2 rax + scv all in = boring and stupid.
Btw, Im not aware of many anti-14 hatchers that are actually pros or aspiring pro gamers in this thread. Most of the anti-14 hatch people dont post with any substances. Kvz, a 2500 diamond just posted a pretty good take on 14 hatch vs no 14 hatch vs the 2 rax.
Here is one for reference, but please look for Kvz post as well.
On December 07 2010 09:29 TheButtonmen wrote: 2k Diamond Zerg here figured I'd toss in my 2 cents.
14 hatch vs not 14 hatch builds: You need to 14 hatch if you want to stand a chance because of the creep spread; any build where you don't get the creep spreed from the 14 hatch at the natural it's impossible to stop them from containing you with bunkers, secondly due to the fact that marines have no attack delay unlike zerglings you need to fight them on creep when using slow zerglings to stop the shoot n scoot from making your lings completely cost ineffective, you also need the creep spread to build forward spines so that you can survive a all in.
Rain's play: He's a progamer he's payed to win not put on a show.
Balance issues: No numerical nerfs / buffs are needed (though the -5 seconds for bunkers on the PTR makes me leery) instead either add an attack delay to the marines or remove the attack delay from zerglings would go a long way towards solving this issue.
Is 14 Hatch economic cheese: No as I previously mentioned 14 hatch is the safest zerg build possible.
Btw, just out of curiousity, what race do you play and how often do you go up against 2rax pressure as zerg? Im only a 700 diamond, so ive had great success holding off 2rax since I started 14 hatch, but at my level, im not claiming my experience is worth much.
|
I'm really not getting this Pool-first = Bunker contain argument. I'd like to see a game to see this idea in action and when the timing actually is, because there are probably things that could have been done to prevent Bunkers from getting up. i.e. The most common response is just good scouting and micro.
|
On December 07 2010 09:55 Lonyo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 09:51 TheButtonmen wrote:On December 07 2010 09:43 MahatmaSC2 wrote: I don't get why Zergs can't go 11 pool like somebody else said. Sure, that's 4(?) less drones, but you can make those up later! I don't play Zerg so can someone explain why this build wouldn't work. A) If you rush lings + ling speed your income is miles behind there and they simple don't push instead opting to take an expand thus leaving you behind and with a pile of useless lings (aka you need to bane bust which is a very risky move) B) You have half the larva which means you can't make as many lings. C) You dont have the creep spread by your ramp to help contest wall ins / contains. You have an earlier queen than with a hatch first build, so you don't have half the larvae unless you put down a tumour first, and your lings should be out early enough to deal with an SCV trying to bunker.
If your late expanding you need* to creep tumor first rather then inject larva, having the creep is much more important then having 4-6 more lings.
*I'd love to hear some pros discussion regarding the merits of creep spread and the trade off in larva production betwen 2 hatch + creep tumor (14 Hatch) and 1 hatch** + inject (11 Pool) at stopping the early bunker pressure.
**The 2nd hatchery isn't active in time / spread enough creep to help with the inital push.
|
On December 07 2010 09:14 DooMDash wrote: As a Terran I can tell you that the match up is screwed up after mid-game in Zergs favor. Needs to be adjusted and the all-ins will go away. It has something to do with sling/bane/muta as a combo. I think T needs a more mobile way to deal with muta.
(2000 diamond for reference.)
not that i necessarily disagree with you but i really don't believe much is imbalanced at 2000 diamond. out of 95% games there is always a clear reason why i lost (always my mistake or my opponent out playing me in some aspect, whether that be macro, micro, etc.).
just my opinion of course!
|
On December 07 2010 09:56 DarkRise wrote: why dont you go 11 pool and see if you can win
I have repeatdly tried non14 hatch builds all of them though either A) put me too far behind in income or B) leave me very vulnerable to contains.
|
On December 07 2010 09:59 TheButtonmen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 09:55 Lonyo wrote:On December 07 2010 09:51 TheButtonmen wrote:On December 07 2010 09:43 MahatmaSC2 wrote: I don't get why Zergs can't go 11 pool like somebody else said. Sure, that's 4(?) less drones, but you can make those up later! I don't play Zerg so can someone explain why this build wouldn't work. A) If you rush lings + ling speed your income is miles behind there and they simple don't push instead opting to take an expand thus leaving you behind and with a pile of useless lings (aka you need to bane bust which is a very risky move) B) You have half the larva which means you can't make as many lings. C) You dont have the creep spread by your ramp to help contest wall ins / contains. You have an earlier queen than with a hatch first build, so you don't have half the larvae unless you put down a tumour first, and your lings should be out early enough to deal with an SCV trying to bunker. If your late expanding you need* to creep tumor first rather then inject larva, having the creep is much more important then having 4-6 more lings. *I'd love to hear some pros discussion regarding the merits of creep spread and the trade off in larva production betwen 2 hatch + creep tumor (14 Hatch) and 1 hatch** + inject (11 Pool) at stopping the early bunker pressure. **The 2nd hatchery isn't active in time / spread enough creep to help with the inital push.
In a recent tutorial video from IdrA, he mentioned that he uses the initial energy on both queens to spread creep both at the natural and the space inbetween his main and his natural. Not sure if thats fast enough to stop bunker pressure talking about though.
|
On December 07 2010 09:58 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 09:55 Tha_Docta wrote: Didnt Jinro show us that terrans can actually macro against zergs.
I get the feeling that every terran is all-ining these days because its a fad. I think soon enough its effectiveness will wear down, and we'l see other strats coming He showed that a war3 legend's macro/decision making in SC is pretty bad. I wouldn't get your hopes up, Terrans are going to keep playing this way. Wow people are so fucking biased against zerg. Based on what exactly do you all think you can just dismiss moon?
|
Zergs need to stop their economic "Hatchery First" cheese, the expectation that you get to make more than 15 drones before getting allined is completely ludicrous in an economy based RTS.
heheheh
|
On December 07 2010 10:06 Sfydjklm wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 09:58 avilo wrote:On December 07 2010 09:55 Tha_Docta wrote: Didnt Jinro show us that terrans can actually macro against zergs.
I get the feeling that every terran is all-ining these days because its a fad. I think soon enough its effectiveness will wear down, and we'l see other strats coming He showed that a war3 legend's macro/decision making in SC is pretty bad. I wouldn't get your hopes up, Terrans are going to keep playing this way. Wow people are so fucking biased against zerg. Based on what exactly do you all think you can just dismiss moon?
Based on how he performed in the GSL.
|
On December 07 2010 10:07 kaboombaby wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 10:06 Sfydjklm wrote:On December 07 2010 09:58 avilo wrote:On December 07 2010 09:55 Tha_Docta wrote: Didnt Jinro show us that terrans can actually macro against zergs.
I get the feeling that every terran is all-ining these days because its a fad. I think soon enough its effectiveness will wear down, and we'l see other strats coming He showed that a war3 legend's macro/decision making in SC is pretty bad. I wouldn't get your hopes up, Terrans are going to keep playing this way. Wow people are so fucking biased against zerg. Based on what exactly do you all think you can just dismiss moon? Based on how he performed in the GSL. u mean beat a 2700 korean ladder rated terran and then lost in a close series to the guy who's now top4?
|
my thoughts:
Rain didn't deserve to win. He really didn't. That said, it's not his fault.
Blizz has said they want cheeses to be as easy to defend as they are to do, and in the games Nestea play how he needed to(For the most part, he shoulda gotten more spines imo) to beat it. You can't realistically say "Oh, he should have pooled first!" or "Rain had to try harder in those builds!", since neither is true. Nestea undoubtedly played harder, and Hatch first is actually better against this kind of pressure.
It comes down to Blizz. Idk how they can fix this, but they need to.
|
On December 07 2010 10:09 Sfydjklm wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 10:07 kaboombaby wrote:On December 07 2010 10:06 Sfydjklm wrote:On December 07 2010 09:58 avilo wrote:On December 07 2010 09:55 Tha_Docta wrote: Didnt Jinro show us that terrans can actually macro against zergs.
I get the feeling that every terran is all-ining these days because its a fad. I think soon enough its effectiveness will wear down, and we'l see other strats coming He showed that a war3 legend's macro/decision making in SC is pretty bad. I wouldn't get your hopes up, Terrans are going to keep playing this way. Wow people are so fucking biased against zerg. Based on what exactly do you all think you can just dismiss moon? Based on how he performed in the GSL. u mean beat a 2700 korean ladder rated terran and then lost in a close series to the guy who's now top4? The fact that Korean ladder has been nothing but cheese versus Zergs (Watch Sen's or IdrA's streams) could have something to do with it. Moon has had almost no practice versus a Terran who plays straight up.
|
|
|
|