Ebb and Flow

The beauty of new games is in the discovery of the subtleties, the evolution of the ~~meta…~~ community as standard play progresses, and the excitement surrounding the unknown potential of something new. Not so long ago there was a lot of discussion regarding the new way high ground plays out in SC2, primarily tied to the concept of defensive advantage. Given the more recent successes such as Terran mech and the declining win-rate of 1 base play, it is clear that changes to the game and our understanding have overcome our defensive advantage concerns.

A few days ago as I skimmed Artosis’s recent PvZ replays I noticed a recent trend in the development of SC2. I considered it, shrugged, and went on my way. When Day9 did daily #140 covering a couple of these same games last night, I put some more thought into the trend I had noticed and thought I'd share my little bit of perspective.

[image loading]

We all know Artosis as a macro zerg, but in some of his games I felt his passive style seemingly taunting me. So naturally the response is figure out exactly what I'd do if I was playing against him. Like most Zerg he requires early pressure unless his opponent wants to play from behind the Zerg’s economic boom. Early pressure comes, sometimes it’s a just a few zealots, other times a much more committed attempt, and ultimately the Protoss feels safe to expand. Nothing spectacular, standard play for a while now right?

The advantage of this pressure is well known by many who frequent teamliquid. Sure if the Zerg has been too greedy the pressure can cause irreparable damage and win the game outright; but that is a dying concept which only existed thanks to a temporary lack of refinement in builds, a refinement well known at the top which was spreading down during those closing days of Beta. The slightly more subtle concept behind the early pressure is the strain put on Zerg larvae. Larvae spent on zerglings, resources spent on roaches, drones spent on spine crawlers; by biting into the limited resource of larvae the Protoss pressure allows for probe production to catch up in hopes that when the Nexus does finish Zerg and Protoss are even in saturation.

How many larvae must be spent on these defenses in order for the Protoss to be even with the Zerg is a difficult but interesting question, specific to each different type of build and attack, too complicated to quantify in a general equation here. In an attempt to model it anyway, I noticed a much more intuitive, obvious point. If Zergs weren't winning with this fast expand, it wouldn't have become so standard. (That or there are simply a ridiculous number of incredibly stubborn BW players who don’t mind losing.) If two equally skilled opponents played PvZ, and the Zerg only won 50% of the time with the fast expansion, they would have no reason to maintain that style of play instead of any other style. So this means the pressure is on the Protoss to refine their early game pressure. While it is easy for one player to decide to improve their early pressure, it is something much more significant when that statement applies to the general community. One base super aggressive play thrived for a while as would be expected, it was straight forward and offered 50+% win rates. The difference between then and now is the the defensive play by Zerg is at minimum justifying the decision more often than not. Somewhere along the way the average competitive player learned how to defend.

So given this improved defensive aptitude let me return to Artosis’s play. He does not stop with the increasingly standard early Protoss pressure to catch up to the Zerg’s fast expand, he doesn’t attempt a timing push or mutalisk harassment to widen the lead. Instead he continues to play passively, using the sense of judgment only found in the great SC2 players he continues to boom, tech, and grow, only making units when necessary. Thanks to the ability for Zerg to power drones, pressure is back on the Protoss to create a situation which allows the Protoss to keep up. Artosis’s passivity is not an offer of equal contentedness to macro, it is an attempt to lull opponents as he slowly but surely pushes an economic dagger into his opponents back. By using the still evolving defensive advantage Artosis challenges opponents to come and break him, or they will be overwhelmed by the steadily growing economic advantage.

Imagine Artosis simultaneously staring you down and stabbing you in the back...

The concept itself is far from new, in fact the timing attack Artosis finally does make with well upgraded hydra/roach/ultra sounds like the type of push a brand new player would make. However the steps along the way and how he deals with attacks demonstrate very clearly what we have learned since beta began. Players have been attempting to develop the macro side of SC2 since day one of Beta. The theory is a fundamental one to every macro based RTS, and Artosis’s clean execution of control over the game and any advantage he earns can be summed up beautifully in an article Day9 wrote a while back regarding competitive games and depth. ( Link ) Artosis accumulates little advantages through the game which he invests into macro, which ultimately will give a massive return when he does attack.

I didn't feel taunted by a passive macro style zerg, what got to me was watching protoss players attack much the way I would, but only ever digging their graves deeper. Defensive play has established itself, built up from a marginal economic advantage, better defensive army positioning, kiting, better use of creep, and a handful of other very small things all coming together to create an X factor, the defensive advantage.

Defensive siege tanks are also an example of improved defensive play. By nature of their extreme range and damage, they can provide unequaled map control given defensive positioning and vision. On the surface, siege tanks offer considerable amounts of control through their protection, deflecting strategies which hinge on dealing significant early-middle game damage with a ground army. As the game progresses tanks retain their influence on strategy in a somewhat forceful, unique way. Any head-on attack into a tank held defensive front will struggle, and as the Terran army accumulates it claim expansions, moves out, and creep across the map, able to be wipe out almost any army of equal size. Rather than an economic dagger, Terrans wield a cannon and forcibly claim the military dominance necessary to protect what is theirs and crush their opponents in a straight up fight. Tanks alone do not win a game very often; but they do offer a distinct advantage through defensive play.

In the Zerg example the improved defensive understanding abstractly equates to knowing how many units of what type to make when, how few spine crawlers you can get away with, and how to control them. Good execution of this abstract concept provides a very simple economic advantage which, when spent efficiently, directly improves your army’s strength. Conversely, siege tanks provide strong defense against ground armies initially, but given time your opponent will find ways to crack your defenses. In order to keep up, Terran players must take the time siege tanks provide and turn it into an advantage. Until your opponent effectively exploits the weaknesses of tanks, Terran players have the defensive strength to continue teching, to expand, or to accumulate troops. How you spend this time depends on your strategy, but it is often vital for success.

By fearing it you only make it stronger...

A strategy combining the advantages of siege tanks and a defensive, passive play style was the hot topic when Beta ended. This post is not about balance, I have full faith scrubs will be complaining about a new strategy soon, but I do want to point out the stark, beautiful contrast this is compared to the high ground concerns of three months ago. The scale has been tipped, the hastily constructed timing pushes of March are consistently failing to more ironed out macro play (although there are still plenty of wrinkles). This is important because it marks a fundamental shift in the strategy of SC2, the completion of a cycle. Good execution of defensive macro will continue to thrive, just as aggressive play did for a while. More importantly however, this shift changes the style of innovation in the widespread community. As we all learn and improve our standard defensive macro styles, the new exciting strategies will now be more refined timing pushes able to overcome today’s macro game. It’s not simple black and white, individual players develop their aggressive and defensive play independently, so there will always be new developments in both directions. However, the overall community, by starting to succeed with a defensive style, is collectively raising the skill bar of competitive SC2.

Although the highest level play is ultimately the product of the Pros, the community at large is responsible for the progression of a game. Top players are defined by their ability to beat the average player, but as the average players adopt and develop those best strategies they saw at tournaments, the top players too are pushed to develop further to maintain their distinction. The transition from hyper aggressive play to defensive play is a testament to the depth and balance of the game as well as the progression of the community, and should remove any last remaining doubts about the potential in SC2. As the tide comes in it is good to see multi-base play, tanks, and the late game, the things skeptics thought could never be. Before long the tide will head out again with precise timing attacks, nydus worms, drops and hallucination. As long as we keep chasing the best, the tide will continue to ebb and flow, and with each pass Starcraft II will become smoother, better refined, possibly transcend videogame-dom just as its predecessor did.

[image loading]

Never stop chasing the tide

Ebb and Flow

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming