4-pool[]
I've rarely seen a 4-pool in high level play 2v2. Could you put references on that, or should we move it to rare?
I hadn't put that up, and have no references for that. I just know I hear about "4pool" all the time. Kimera 757 (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
lol. I think it might fall under our discussion of needing a separate space training help. I don't think I've ever seen a 4-pool in ZvT, although you see 6/7-rax occasionally. (Even on Blue Storm or other 2-player maps). It's too risky once the defender has trained for it. I could well imagine it in 2v2 though, since you know where your opponents are, but I've never seen it. If we could get 1-2 pro games that'd be awesome. Love to be proven wrong. Klomer 01:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe that should just go under 1v1 then? Kimera 757 (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Where's 1v1? Do we split the strategy pages out from that? I would figure the Matchup/Orders of Battle pages are all 1v1, since the strategies are totally different in 2v2. We should probably make a note of that somewhere. Klomer 02:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Not clear how Firebats will help against a 4-pool. Academy is WAY too slow, you're luck if you can get 2-3 marines out. Good thinking, but probably should go under general zergling counters. Unless I hear otherwise I'll move it there. Klomer 20:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the 4/5/6-pool explicitly DOESN'T build the overlord before the lings - there's not enough cash. You would in a 7-pool, for instance. See http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=73314, for example, can't remember the july_zerg game where he did it recently, but I'm pretty sure about this. Any example vids? Klomer 04:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Layout[]
Now that we've filled it out a bit, I've modified the layout to make the ToC easier to use and give counters a better space. Let me know what you think, and then I'll port results over to the other 8. Klomer 01:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The layout looks pretty cool. Kimera 757 (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Psi, is there a better way to do the Strategy/Counter layout rather then 1.1.1 and 1.1.1.1? It's unlikely I'd think that there'd be any sub-headings under either. Maybe 1.1.1 Strategy and then Countering, similar to how I did Common Strategies? Klomer 02:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
You don't have to make counters their own sub-heading. If you wanted to, you could just put the word "counter" in bold. (Since counter is the name for so many sub-headings, it's not so useful for visitors to click on counter in the ToC anyway.) In other words, just the way you did common strategies. Kimera 757 (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, agreed. I think this page is out of date, updating. Need to do a full pass on all 9 and update them. It's embarrassing - strategywiki has a fuller section (if a bit out of date) that I found.
7-pool[]
Awesome insight Clarinet Hawk, can we cite a source with that too? I'd love to read it. Klomer 19:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
You're probably better off using his talk page or sending him a PM. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)