|
The growth of Brood War (before sc2) has been such a double-edged sword for me while I've witnessed the generations of newcomers come and the oldschools go. This game has become competitive to the point it can become a respectable profession in korea and as such, it's attracted many mindless pawns of progamer wannabe's.
One thing I've noticed about the newer generations of Starcraft players is that they seem to blindly copy what they see in vods and replays. This is generally referring to the people that picked up serious interest in the competitive world of Brood War worldwide. While copying progamer build orders is not necessarily a bad thing, I do not think it's a good idea to use them without understanding how that build works, where that build is designed to lead you, and the holes that that build order has.
For example, the 14cc build is designed for the terran to take an extremely powerful macro lead, and is generally used against players you know, or a build you've strategically adapted in a series. You would use it safely after figuring out information about your opponent, the way you adapt to another player's style in poker. Using it randomly just because Flash did it on TV a few days ago shouldn't be a reason you use that build to open in ICCUP of all places:
How a D Beat a B-
The other day, I observed a 1on1 zvp on python in a ums public game. The zerg played against a protoss that opened with dual gates against the zerg's 12hatch FE. The zerg responded with lings and 2 sunkens at his nat, which is a good way to defend against a 2 gate build. However, what happened next baffled me. The zerg took gas, made a quick lair, but then proceeded to build a 3rd hatch, then made a hydra den, then proceeded to make normal hydras, with speed (no range) researched about 5-6 minutes later. Meanwhile, the protoss is taking his natural with about 4 zealots, not making any cannons, while taking three different techs (weapons upgrade, citadel, and a robotics?) while trying to build his economy. This was a game projected to be at D+/C- and sure enough, both players' previous seasons records reflected their claims. The zerg player asked me afterwards what went wrong, and despite my suggestion that I'm pretty sure 2 hatch lair is a build meant for a quick tech such as fast lurker or fast muta, the zerg player stubbornly insisted that there was nothing wrong with the way he played "because he saw it used by good players before".
Having played this game since '04, I feel that the game is becoming more watered down as creativity such as that in the boxer era is less rewarded, and mechanic perfection is the way to go. While you cannot win games with a dropship and a tank with 3k in the bank anymore, I want to get across to these players that this game is as much of a mind game as it is mechanics. It is so much more interesting to know that the protoss you're playing on the other end has certain holes in his play that you can exploit, rather than looking at it as "another vsP matchup". For example, I have played a small 5 game series against a very skilled korean protoss on Iccup before that was just that, a player who exceeded me in mechanics. However, I noticed that he always opened core into dragoon without a zealot. I was able to shake his perfect play simply because I used a 10/12 gate opening that caught him off guard and countered his perfect play. If I kept stubbornly opening gate goon to play him straight up, he would've definitely beaten me every time (he actually did for the most part, 4-1  ).
My point is to take this game and make it your own. Develop a build or two that you feel comfortable with, but understand. Develop those builds to branch into something that you can use to play your strengths. For example, if you love to use reavers in pvt, try the gate robo into speedshuttle opening. It allows you great flexibility to move around and harass the terran, while allowing you to safely guard against vult harass at your own expos if terran puts up too many missile turrets. If you love early aggression zvt, adapt a 2 hatch muta build that, if you can use effectively, will secure you a relatively safe third, a 3 hatch lurker/ling or hydra transition. Take those for face value; I'm only suggesting that you adopt something that you feel can "flow" with your style. Style Will Set You Free
Disclaimer: Yes, if you're aiming for the highest level in Starcraft, you will not have as much flexibility and true, you will have to work on perfecting your mechanics, but even then, as long as you are engaging in a game against another player, you will have to know that the other guy has certain habits, certain weaknesses, and always, a certain method of playing. For me, this is what makes the world of competitive RTS gaming so interesting; that is the reason why I always come back and continue to play this game.
|
Personally, I see nothing wrong with using build orders, as long as you understand them and learn to adapt. Especially at the lower levels. I think it helps to serve as a learning experience for your other play. It's better than just doing random stuff into a 4 DT drop, for example, when you have no rush defense and no follow-up. You're supposed to learn from people that are better than you. If you blindly copy them it won't work as well, but using what they established is completely viable and acceptable.
Even if you do a build, let's say in PvP an FE build, and you see a 2 gate rush, you probably should realize that you'd be better off abandoning the build for another gateway to defend. But It's fine to follow the FE build if it's still viable.
|
On June 22 2010 02:22 Lightwip wrote:
Personally, I see nothing wrong with using build orders, as long as you understand them and learn to adapt. Especially at the lower levels. I think it helps to serve as a learning experience for your other play. It's better than just doing random stuff into a 4 DT drop, for example, when you have no rush defense and no follow-up. You're supposed to learn from people that are better than you. If you blindly copy them it won't work as well, but using what they established is completely viable and acceptable.
Build orders themself are great, but like you said blindly copying them is why most bad players lose alot of games then get discouraged wondering "why did this work for him and not me i did the same thing.."
|
I love your take on playstyles and strategy in BW. It just makes the game seem so fresh to me when I play with this stuff in mind. I agree with everything 100%
|
United States24753 Posts
This is why it's hard to find good teachers.... they want you to copy stuff and half the time they are only decent because they copy stuff themselves.
|
On June 22 2010 02:22 Lightwip wrote:
Personally, I see nothing wrong with using build orders, as long as you understand them and learn to adapt. Especially at the lower levels. I think it helps to serve as a learning experience for your other play. It's better than just doing random stuff into a 4 DT drop, for example, when you have no rush defense and no follow-up. You're supposed to learn from people that are better than you. If you blindly copy them it won't work as well, but using what they established is completely viable and acceptable.
Even if you do a build, let's say in PvP an FE build, and you see a 2 gate rush, you probably should realize that you'd be better off abandoning the build for another gateway to defend. But It's fine to follow the FE build if it's still viable.
Oh definitely, what you're saying is right. I do agree that it's possible to adapt and become better at this game by working hard at mechanics and learning what you did wrong. However, I just wanted to introduce a different take on the beauty I see in this game personally, and how I saw so many different eras of styles, mechanics, and yes, personality in this game throughout the years. I actually do think it's good to take established builds and adapt them into your arsenal of play, but my pet peeve is that players use 14cc and lose in the first 5 minutes to a 9 pool.
|
I'm actually teaching a friend who was previously a Fastest player how to play nonmoney now and I'm referring him to build orders so that he can get started. Reading this, I definitely understand where you're coming from. Every person has their own unique style, how they develop it should be their own intuition, not a progamer's.
|
On June 22 2010 02:29 ilovezil wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2010 02:22 Lightwip wrote:
Personally, I see nothing wrong with using build orders, as long as you understand them and learn to adapt. Especially at the lower levels. I think it helps to serve as a learning experience for your other play. It's better than just doing random stuff into a 4 DT drop, for example, when you have no rush defense and no follow-up. You're supposed to learn from people that are better than you. If you blindly copy them it won't work as well, but using what they established is completely viable and acceptable.
Even if you do a build, let's say in PvP an FE build, and you see a 2 gate rush, you probably should realize that you'd be better off abandoning the build for another gateway to defend. But It's fine to follow the FE build if it's still viable. Oh definitely, what you're saying is right. I do agree that it's possible to adapt and become better at this game by working hard at mechanics and learning what you did wrong. However, I just wanted to introduce a different take on the beauty I see in this game personally, and how I saw so many different eras of styles, mechanics, and yes, personality in this game throughout the years. I actually do think it's good to take established builds and adapt them into your arsenal of play, but my pet peeve is that players use 14cc and lose in the first 5 minutes to a 9 pool.
When you go greedy, especially vs a Zerg, you have the possibility of getting horribly punished for it. Unless you just suck at the game horribly, in which case watching a few VOD's, perhaps with English commentary, would help, you should understand that greedy=risky. I always realize that I could be screwed over by a bunker rush when I 12 nex. Frankly, you won't be good at build-making right off the bat(as Day[9] put it, you have a 'trick' ), so you have to try to learn the game.
Making your own builds is fine, but you have to understand if/why it is viable and have mechanics to use it.
|
Yea, as long as you understand the ins and outs of the builds and cover for their weaknesses, there's no problem. I hope I wasn't wording myself wrong in the OP, but I'm not discouraging people from using standard build orders; in fact, I encourage you to pursue what's set and safe. The only other factor I'm including is that I want players to use them to THEIR strengths so they can develop a flare in their games. Thanks for your input.
|
Um, I'm not particularly adept at Starcraft or RTS (just the execution haha), but it's my understanding that the reason build orders are good is because of two things: efficiency and focus.
Build orders are there because making that pylon at X food and the gateway at X food ensures that you don't have an excess of resources remaining, and that you don't get supply blocked. By playing based on a build order, you make sure that you create everything in a specific time frame, and you don't waste time or resources; it's as efficient as possible.
Also, by "focus" (super-vague  ) I mean that build orders let you focus your production on a specific type of unit or strategy. When you go for a certain build, you know you're getting out your a certain army composition that fits the strategy of the build order, and you also account for things such as upgrades, scouting, and detection (obs) at certain points of time that fit with whatever the plan is.
You don't have to rigidly adhere to sair-DT when you're playing PvZ or something like that and go blindly the whole way, but build orders give your play efficiency and focus. ^^ Just my two cents!
EDIT: Ah, seems I was late to the party... Yeah, I agree with you too, OP!
|
I think it's necessary to copy to learn in the beginning. The only problem is that people often copy without understanding why they are doing what they are doing. Like that Zerg that went 2hatch lair then proceeded to not use the lair tech... he's not understanding why he teched to lair off of two hatcheries. Copying is fine if you understand the reasons.
|
Yeah, I also don't agree with following build orders blindly. But they are there to aid you in knowing what you should basically be doing. Quite simply, they're there to help, but they won't win you the game.
+ Show Spoiler +Unless it's 4 pool vs 14 cc
|
Or unless you're midas. (at least back in the days)
|
It's what baffles me about Morrow. He got good after a year of Brood War and as far as I know, he copied a lot of styles to get himself to that level, or that could be as far as I know.
|
Belgium9950 Posts
On June 22 2010 02:39 koreasilver wrote:
I think it's necessary to copy to learn in the beginning. The only problem is that people often copy without understanding why they are doing what they are doing. Like that Zerg that went 2hatch lair then proceeded to not use the lair tech... he's not understanding why he teched to lair off of two hatcheries. Copying is fine if you understand the reasons.
I partly disagree, it's not necessary to copy to learn in the beginning. Sure, if you're new to the game and want to see a very quick improvement in results, you just learn some build orders and basic counters. It'll get you ranked up pretty high.
However, the problem with a game that has so many variables like StarCraft is that if you don't understand the reason behind every decision, it's almost impossible to improve your decision making. The experience you get from grinding games without really understanding the specific goals of parts of a build order becomes a lot harder to evaluate and your errors harder to correct.
That's why I believe it's better to try your own thing in the beginning and learn for yourself how the game works. If the game becomes a lot more transparant, you'll see what makes a build order good and be way more efficient in the use and adaption of it
In general it's a trade-off though. If you just start off with a copy style you'll get to higher ranks faster so you the quality of the games you get is immediately higher and your mistakes punished harder, making them more obvious.
If you try to understand the game from the start it'll require more time analyzing etc.. but in the long run it'll pay off more.
Of course the ideal situation is still being able to play against better players without having to copy a build order you don't really understand and getting immediate feedback, through the other players as well as through the mistakes he punishes. These days this type of 'coaching' seems rather rare though, unless you're willing to pay for it.
Edit: in retrospect, it's kind of unclear in what regards I seem to disagree with you. By 'understanding the reason behind every decision' I not only mean easy conclusions like going 2hatch lair has no purpose unless you use the faster lair, but really understanding the underlying dynamics in the game, whether it be a crude mathematical approximization of the growth of a an economy in SC, or general strategy and how to corner your opponent in a for-him-non-optimal branch of the game decision tree or anything else on that regard.
|
Yeah this is definitely a problem. After playing sc2 for a while it made me realize just how little i actually think when I play BW. In brood war i never experimented with units or build orders. I never had that time to really learn how units interact with each other and things like that.
While its not the end of the world, I find myself constantly realizing I have some major flaw that i've just been doing over and over and learned through repitition and never thought to change it. Or what changing it would do for the rest of my gameplay.
But now I see sc2 as a new start. I feel im much better at that game, or at least I have much more potential to do better at that game. I have all the same game senses and things I learned from sc;bw, but now I have to learn about the units myself and make my own build orders which is a fun thing to do.
|
Great article! I came back to BW about 6 months ago in preparation for sc2. It took me while after copying pro builds to understand them. I do however, think it sped up the process for me. In sc2 I had to do create my own way of playing. I must admit as I played through the leagues and made constant adjustments over 200 games. It was very satisfying to have my own build, that I invented and works around my play style. It draws power from my strengths and covers my weaknesses. Many times in BW when I do copy a build I make adjustments. I expo a little later, I make more gateways, I often cue 2 units at each gateway and 2 probes at a time. Which anyone will tell are bad things but when your multitask is as terrible as mine and your mechanics are weak, these things compensate for it and allow me to stay in the game and sometimes win vs much better opponents than myself.
|
People definitely put too much stock in regarding "standard" play as the absolute optimal way of playing. The game has evolved every year, and standard play can be looked at as more of a trend than anything. Even if standard play was optimal, people would be so accustomed to playing against it, that you would be better off with a slightly less optimal strategy if it were unorthodox -- unless you have perfect mechanics and etc.
Not everyone has the same strengths, so playing towards your strengths and making sure you understand what and why you are doing something is crucial. Being versed in standard play and creating your own strategies can only help your understanding of the game and will give you the best chance to end up playing a style of play that will yield the best results for you, whether that be standard or not.
|
On June 22 2010 02:52 RaGe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2010 02:39 koreasilver wrote:
I think it's necessary to copy to learn in the beginning. The only problem is that people often copy without understanding why they are doing what they are doing. Like that Zerg that went 2hatch lair then proceeded to not use the lair tech... he's not understanding why he teched to lair off of two hatcheries. Copying is fine if you understand the reasons. I partly disagree, it's not necessary to copy to learn in the beginning. Sure, if you're new to the game and want to see a very quick improvement in results, you just learn some build orders and basic counters. It'll get you ranked up pretty high. However, the problem with a game that has so many variables like StarCraft is that if you don't understand the reason behind every decision, it's almost impossible to improve your decision making. The experience you get from grinding games without really understanding the specific goals of parts of a build order becomes a lot harder to evaluate and your errors harder to correct. That's why I believe it's better to try your own thing in the beginning and learn for yourself how the game works. If the game becomes a lot more transparant, you'll see what makes a build order good and be way more efficient in the use and adaption of it In general it's a trade-off though. If you just start off with a copy style you'll get to higher ranks faster so you the quality of the games you get is immediately higher and your mistakes punished harder, making them more obvious. If you try to understand the game from the start it'll require more time analyzing etc.. but in the long run it'll pay off more. Of course the ideal situation is still being able to play against better players without having to copy a build order you don't really understand and getting immediate feedback, through the other players as well as through the mistakes he punishes. These days this type of 'coaching' seems rather rare though, unless you're willing to pay for it. Edit: in retrospect, it's kind of unclear in what regards I seem to disagree with you. By 'understanding the reason behind every decision' I not only mean easy conclusions like going 2hatch lair has no purpose unless you use the faster lair, but really understanding the underlying dynamics in the game, whether it be a crude mathematical approximization of the growth of a an economy in SC, or general strategy and how to corner your opponent in a for-him-non-optimal branch of the game decision tree or anything else on that regard.
I think it's hard to learn to be efficient without learning some of the basic build order concepts. By learning build orders you learn things that you may not have learned before, and by these realizations you are able to understand the fundamentals more clearly. Doing your own thing is valuable too in how it teaches you as well, particularly in why some things just don't work. Experimentation is required in order to understand, and even when you practice standard openings once the game progresses beyond the early midgame it all boils down to your experiences and understanding, and so even if you learn and practice openings devised by others, the aspect of learning through experimentation and experience will always be there. The most important thing is that you review your own replays meaningfully and continuously try to fix things. I don't think learning openings is thoughtless as there are rational reasons why these builds have been devised the way they are and so they are a method of teaching. I also think it's important to be aware of the history and tradition of builds and how they changed over time as these changes also teach you pretty deep insights into how the game works.
I don't think we really disagree in the end, just of the merits of learning standardized openings. It the end it all boils down to how much you understand, how much experimentation you have done yourself, and your experiences.
|
And on the topic of "standard play", I think alot of public figures like IdrA and Artosis give newer players some really bad mindsets calling every non-standard build all-in. While it might be joking newer players aren't able to tell the difference between a well devised strategy and a brainless mass ling w/ no scouting build and they limit themselves strategy wise. These players get it in their heads that the only "honourable" way to win is by doing it with standard play. They only look at the standard side of broodwar and never dive very far into the strategic side.
And im not saying "every noob that listens to artosis and idra will do this", im just saying it happens. I've even experienced it. For a while when I was just learning I actually cut dt builds out of my play, thinking "I dont want to cheese my opponents, I want to win with honour!". Yeah that was my own stupidity but jesus christ, dt builds are such an integral part of protoss and to cut them out because of what some higher level players said is just rediculous. But noobs dont know any better. Not to mention the BM that players started to come up with when they lose to builds they think are cheese or all-in. DT opening? "cheesy fucking protoss noob, why dont you learn a real build?", etc
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
