|
|
|
Isn't standard the safest play by definition?
>__>
|
Nice article.
We can only imagine how scary a player IdrA would be if he allined more ever.
|
On November 19 2010 09:25 paper wrote:
Isn't standard the safest play by definition?
>__>
Standard means standard, safe means safe. They're different things.
|
I think what the writer missed is the (perceived) difference in difficulty between 1 base play and 'macro' style play.
In a longer (macro) style game a player has more opportunities to demonstrate superior mechanical skills and decision making. People don't argue that 1 basing isn't strong in SC2, but it could be argued that making a certain combination of units and attacking off 1 base is easier to learn and execute, especially in SC2 with the limited scouting options.
|
standard is the most commonly used build orders at the current time
safe is refers to a build order that is probably more defensive and you could not expect to lose early on if you executed that build order
|
Standard play is always the safest when you're laddering and playing Bo1 against randoms. In series play it's vital to mix it up or else you will get tooled.
|
On November 19 2010 09:26 JohannesH wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2010 09:25 paper wrote:
Isn't standard the safest play by definition?
>__> Standard means standard, safe means safe. They're different things.
Well normally I would assume the more standard play would be the safer if not the safest play.
|
On November 19 2010 09:31 Nfi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2010 09:26 JohannesH wrote:On November 19 2010 09:25 paper wrote:
Isn't standard the safest play by definition?
>__> Standard means standard, safe means safe. They're different things. Well normally I would assume the more standard play would be the safer if not the safest play.
Nowadays, standard play prioritises strong economy over safeness. There are safer PvT openings than 12 nex and safer TvZ openings than 1 rax expand. They are both adequately safe, but definitely not the safest.
|
Cheese/all in players are chastised because the game certainly isn't at a point where two players both know how to play "standard" or safe well (there hardly even are any standard plays).
Longer matches with mid & late game have therefore seldom those really "tense" parts like in BW where you certainly can't point out a clear "leader" before and after big battles and good or failed harass.
So safe plays don't produce that tension and excitement very often compared to cheesy/aggressive games.
We've already haved those safer / more macro oriented BW like matched though.
Just look for the most awesome games so far.
So a player like IdrA really can't produce those epic games yet. Look at his games, they are mostly games where he gets ahead with his safe play and rides it to victory or dies to some cheesy/weird/clutch/imba play. That's not very exciting.
Everyone who knows anything about RTS however does recognize what an awesome super baller of a progamer he is.
|
On November 19 2010 09:36 Wohmfg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2010 09:31 Nfi wrote:On November 19 2010 09:26 JohannesH wrote:On November 19 2010 09:25 paper wrote:
Isn't standard the safest play by definition?
>__> Standard means standard, safe means safe. They're different things. Well normally I would assume the more standard play would be the safer if not the safest play. Nowadays, standard play prioritises strong economy over safeness. There are safer PvT openings than 12 nex and safer TvZ openings than 1 rax expand. They are both adequately safe, but definitely not the safest.
seconded.
Safer play means scouting early, sacrificing econ to defend any possible rush. Cheesy play is dependent on the opponent's build order, which makes it inconsistent. Standard is right in between.
|
"Standard play" is the riskiest (econ, techwise) play that you can normally get away with (i.e. "safe"), and is generally not hard-countered by anything.
Well, that's usually how I think of it.
|
I think the theory behind "standard" or "safe" play is that you lower the variance of the outcome. You lower the randomness of the game. A lower variance will allow a stronger player to win a higher percentage of games against a weaker player. If you know you are the underdog, your strategy in a tournament setting should be to increase randomness as it will give you a closer to 50% chance of winning.
By the same logic, playing cheesy against a weaker player will cause you to lose more than playing safe because of randomness playing a bigger part. We can therefore naturally think that a cheesy player is weaker because a weaker player would more naturally choose to use cheese to win games.
However if players are equally matched, the strength of one style is not superior to the other.
|
I think the map size has a lot to do with how successful 1 base "allin" plays are relative to standard play. If the map could be made bigger and more differently such that:
- distance from the opposing naturals are increased
- the inclusion of a sinlge "choke" on most maps at the natural entrance which can facilitate defense
in the same manner as most professional bw maps, then "standard play" should, on average, be superior to 1 base builds. This is not to say that 1 base allins would not work, just that you would probably lose more games than you win with them.
|
I think that it's way too early in the game for there to be a safe standard play. Most wins seems to be on poor scouting/optimization of build order/mechanics, not on in-game decision making or anything that can really be called safe strategy.
|
Playing standard means that your only weakness is that you have no strengths.
|
On November 19 2010 10:42 Chairman Ray wrote:
Playing standard means that your only weakness is that you have no strengths.
That's a nice quote but can you explain what that means?
|
On November 19 2010 09:26 JohannesH wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2010 09:25 paper wrote:
Isn't standard the safest play by definition?
>__> Standard means standard, safe means safe. They're different things.
But typically the builds we designate as standard are the ones that are safe and give you a solid economy with lots of viable transitions. If a build was really risky or really vulnerable to certain builds of the opponent it wouldn't be considered standard.
|
On November 19 2010 09:36 Wohmfg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2010 09:31 Nfi wrote:On November 19 2010 09:26 JohannesH wrote:On November 19 2010 09:25 paper wrote:
Isn't standard the safest play by definition?
>__> Standard means standard, safe means safe. They're different things. Well normally I would assume the more standard play would be the safer if not the safest play. Nowadays, standard play prioritises strong economy over safeness. There are safer PvT openings than 12 nex and safer TvZ openings than 1 rax expand. They are both adequately safe, but definitely not the safest.
?
12 Nex isn't a standard opening by any means and 1 rax expand is extremely safe if you know what to scout for
|
I believe that standard play can be safe or it could be risky cheese or it could be risky eco build. It just depends on the time and the strategies used during that time. The strats used in that set time period is what is considered standard. 2-gate opening vs zerg might be the standard play or a 14nexus might be the standard play. Standard play is play you know will work and has a good chance of earning you your victory as proved by replays, your own games, and games you've watched. Standard play might be what build is popular. That is how standard play will change overtime.
Also, standard play might fluctuate between low eco -> fast win to high eco -> late/mid game win and vice versa between the two. From here, you will see the best players learning how to abuse players playing "standard" because standard play is play that you expect and the pro's will be able to easily hard counter standard play. From here you will see how players counter the counter to standard play and change their standard play to create what the best strategy is. This process repeats over and over and thats why we see new builds always appearing and new strategies appearing. Thats why BW has still not been mastered even after 10+ years.
|
The whole standard is safe vs cheesy risky play comes from BW. It doesn't apply to SC2 yet, but the perception is still there.
|
On November 19 2010 10:52 SubtleArt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2010 09:36 Wohmfg wrote:On November 19 2010 09:31 Nfi wrote:On November 19 2010 09:26 JohannesH wrote:On November 19 2010 09:25 paper wrote:
Isn't standard the safest play by definition?
>__> Standard means standard, safe means safe. They're different things. Well normally I would assume the more standard play would be the safer if not the safest play. Nowadays, standard play prioritises strong economy over safeness. There are safer PvT openings than 12 nex and safer TvZ openings than 1 rax expand. They are both adequately safe, but definitely not the safest. ? 12 Nex isn't a standard opening by any means and 1 rax expand is extremely safe if you know what to scout for
It's very standard. I dunno, anyone want to back one of us up here?
|
It seems that people will eventually find standard builds that safely beat most all-ins. This will take a lot of time. Then all-ins and cheese will only be effective using the element of surprise.
Currently, all-ins are effective because all of the game's timings aren't explored. Once they are, I'm sure this game will evolve to have longer games.
|
United States313 Posts
I think this all in style is quite important for the progression of the game, same as those who hold steadfast to a macro oriented approach. The simple fact is that no one is good enough yet to be confident on what is truly safe. We make predictions, have practice, etc, but because the game is so new small variations from the all in player can truly disrupt what a macro player believed to be safe, thus the all in wins.
No one will argue that having more income than your opponent is a bad thing, and that it will ultimately go a long way towards beating your opponent. To maintain that fine line of economy and army is the beauty of highest level brood war, but it took millions of games to help bring that fine line into focus. Thats where we are now, and will be for a while; chipping away bit by bit at this game, developing builds that both stretch our econ as far as possible while being safe given a certain level of micro.
If the all in players stopped, it'd become some hectic macro fest where players were unreasonably greedy and we would actually be getting further away from optimal play. Likewise if everyone was one-basing the game would stop developing. Fortunately players looking to get an edge always push against the crowd, the Ebb and Flow leading steadily towards optimal play.
|
On November 19 2010 11:41 Wohmfg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2010 10:52 SubtleArt wrote:On November 19 2010 09:36 Wohmfg wrote:On November 19 2010 09:31 Nfi wrote:On November 19 2010 09:26 JohannesH wrote:On November 19 2010 09:25 paper wrote:
Isn't standard the safest play by definition?
>__> Standard means standard, safe means safe. They're different things. Well normally I would assume the more standard play would be the safer if not the safest play. Nowadays, standard play prioritises strong economy over safeness. There are safer PvT openings than 12 nex and safer TvZ openings than 1 rax expand. They are both adequately safe, but definitely not the safest. ? 12 Nex isn't a standard opening by any means and 1 rax expand is extremely safe if you know what to scout for It's very standard. I dunno, anyone want to back one of us up here?
I believe whether or not 11/12 nex is standard is wholly dependant on map.
|
Nice article, i dont think anything is safe right now. The game is too fresh and most games are due to bo loses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
