|
When I first started to play starcraft, I learned from Day9 one very valuable lesson: When your ahead, don't try to kill him, expand. This, albeit it only applies to one specific situation, really has meaning to the whole game. Macro and solid play will always beat all in's/gimmicks. Right now though, look at any TvZ nowadays and it seems it's just marine scv all in to destroy that cursed 14 hatch.
And this bothers me. Furthormore, just looking at the state of protoss, and it seems they're just doing a whole bunch of all in's as well. What partly attracted me to Zerg was the macro oriented play, just defend, and you can win.
Thor drops, 5 warpgate all in, even cannon rushing has become a semi-standard play for PvZ, and it just seems to me like something horrible has happened in the SC2 community.
We're forgetting to adapt. Right now, of course, since SC2 is still in it's infantile years, all in's will be very powerful. And yes, I do have hope, I believe, that one day we will achieve greatness and balance akin to the holy game that is SCBW.
It just seems to me that instead of trying to actually balance the game with new strats, terran and even protoss to a lesser extent are just taking the attitude of "I can't win, zerg is op" and without even really trying just cheese every game, whether with marine and scvs to double starport banshee. And yes, sometimes that isn't cheese, just a well thought out reaction to a greedy zerg player. But sometimes it's just being lazy.
From what I hear in BW, they too, had this attitude of "Just gotta survive until the next patch, then I won't all in." But then one day, Blizzard just gave up on patches.
And you know what happened? SCBW became the most balanced game on earth as players actually STRIVED to make the game balanced.
Why doesn't terran get an early expo, heck, even make it a planatery fortress. I played a guy who mass expoed with planatery fortresses, and I couldn't kill it, because obviously I would've needed tier three and it was nowhere near that stage of the game.
Why not try more use of ravens, and not just mass ravens like one guy did. Just like two, and then push out?
Obviously not all of these will be effective. But the point is I don't see people trying. And that bothers me. I'm zerg, and back in the "dark ages" of zerg when people cried TERRAN OP, I didn't really believe it was really imbalanced. I believe it took more skill to play zerg, but that was it.
You know what happened? We adapted. We found new builds. We found 14 gas 14 pool, which adequedtly dealt with nearly any build the terran could throw at us early on.
What is terran doing? All in's. That's the main point I'm trying to make here. The way to win is through solid play, not cheeses/all in's. Which is why I hated seeing foxer cheese nearly every game in the GSL finals, which is why I hated seeing nearly every terran cheese. And some didn't, and they won. But when you have to resort to a 4 rax all in with scvs, I lose respect for those players. And I'm happy they lost(*cough* Rainbow *cough*).
I never did those "cheap" zerg builds. I don't baneling bust(unless for giggles), I don't 5RR, I don't speedling nydus all in. I play for a macro game.
To me, it really feels like the reason why zerg is doing better is because when zerg was "underpowered", or so it felt to some, we didn't resort to all in's, we found new builds. And that I believe led to more zergs becoming more solid at the fundamentals, which is why people cry "zerg OP" when really terran just has to adapt, and become more macro focused. Or at least find times to push out, without it being a marine/scv all in.
The way to win is through solid play, not through the use of "push and pray it works", the basis of all in's. And I admit some things are not all in's, like a simple 2 rax(not 4 rax) pressure onto 14 hatch, or even just a banshee(although if you build two and get cloak it certainly starts to become a cheese.) I'm just posting this because I've been thinking about this for a while, and wanted to see how other TLer's thought. So, if you're still reading, thanks.
 
|
when the game selects for those that all in players will all in. not sure how it can be more simple than that.
|
Calgary25986 Posts
I disagree with basically everything you wrote.
Macro and solid play will always beat all in's/gimmicks.
I'm not sure what you're basing this on or how you're going to prove it. Obviously you can imagine a game where solid play is an all-in. Who's to say SC2 isn't that game?
I'm also curious about the timeline you're addressing here. If, across the whole server, a macro-oriented player beats an all-in player 55% of the time, don't you think it's a little simplistic to dilute the discussion to "You should always play solid"? You've discounted mindgames, preparation, and a myriad of other important effects on a BoX series.
It just seems to me that instead of trying to actually balance the game with new strats, terran and even protoss to a lesser extent are just taking the attitude of "I can't win, zerg is op" and without even really trying just cheese every game, whether with marine and scvs to double starport banshee.
I wasn't aware it was my job to balance the game. I'm going to use whichever tools I have right now to give myself the best chance to win this game. I don't care about how my actions affect game balance and the designer's decisions 5 years from now.
From what I hear in BW, they too, had this attitude of "Just gotta survive until the next patch, then I won't all in." But then one day, Blizzard just gave up on patches.
Baseless and actually just completely incorrect.
Why doesn't terran get an early expo, heck, even make it a planatery fortress.
I'm assuming this is a rhetorical question, but the answer is that a planetary fortress that early is both unnecessary and let's your opponent play a much more expansive game, putting you behind in the midgame.
To me, it really feels like the reason why zerg is doing better is because when zerg was "underpowered", or so it felt to some, we didn't resort to all in's, we found new builds. And that I believe led to more zergs becoming more solid at the fundamentals, which is why people cry "zerg OP" when really terran just has to adapt, and become more macro focused. Or at least find times to push out, without it being a marine/scv all in.
I appreciate your sentiment, but do you really think you're qualified to make comments on high-level balance?
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Thanks Chill for writing out what I couldn't be bothered doing.
|
Did you ever play or follow Brood War? The attitude that you commented on didn't exist at all before the release of StarCraft 2.
And what is a "standard" game and what is an "all-in" to you? Seems that people are confusing "standard game" to "let Zerg sit on his base and macro up 15 ultras."
|
Here's a bit of logic for you.
You say zerg adapted when "T was OP".
Why was the game patched then?
You are okay if we revert back to what it was?
If zerg already adapted to the Terran early pressure and then Terran was nerfed, doesn't that mean they are underpowered kinda?
I think we should just shut up and listen if the top zergs say it's overpowered.
|
Pretty much what Chill said.
Though I am interested in a TvZ Ebay FE w/ Planetary might try that out some time :p
|
Katowice25012 Posts
|
I don't really understand what the point of this post was...
Are you telling people who are all-inning to play standard?
A completely standard game is probably one the most boring ones to watch.
Even in the OSL or MSL, with the "most balanced game on Earth", all-ins will happen.
And, guess what?
The reaction in the crowd when Jaedong 4 pooled Flash TWICE was amazing.
All-ins are part of the games, and play a huge role in metagame and entertainment value.
Are mothership rushes "standard" or solid play? No, but that won't stop HuK from doing it.
It seems like you're trying to deter people from a certain aspect of a game, that is there for a reason.
|
The way to win is not through "solid play," whatever that means, but doing what needs to be done to win. If cheese/all-ins work, then it's a way to win.
That probably sounded redundant, but that's the truth.
You don't adapt because you want to, you adapt because you need to. Biologically, adaptation increases fitness. If someone's cheeses/all-ins are working, why would that person switch to something else? Yes, perhaps when you're playing with friends, you don't want to use the cheap builds. But in a tournament for money, where winning is the first priority, what's wrong with utilizing what Blizzard has put in the game however you want?
You're saying people are waiting for the "next patch," or something equivalent to that, to stop doing these kinds of builds. I think you are the one waiting, waiting for people to change when they have no reason not to. If people are going to adapt, it's going to be because these builds no longer work. For that to happen, one has to accept that these builds are here today and try to develop strategies to beat them.
|
Cheesing at high levels, like what Foxer did, is boring to watch. Aside from really great marine micro, from the finals, it appears that he was not capable of anything else. For spectators a long macro game is much more fun and actually explores the depth of strategies that SC2 is capable of.
Cheese is also not great for learning the game. When you cheese and fail, it's hard to distinguish if you failed because of micro, the exact timing, or because of the units or type of cheese you went for. In a longer game, you can obviously point to the times you were supply blocked, when you didn't scout, etc.
Chill's "I don't give a shit, I'm going to win attitude" is what I see a lot on ladder. I guess people have different objectives when playing the game but I always try to get better at the macro mechanics of this game because there is a learning limit to cheese (you can perfect your micro and timing with practice) but almost no upper limit to learning in a macro-orientated game.
|
not enough yumyuming in this blog for a pandain blog imo
|
Forgive me if my BW history is inaccurate, I must've incorrectly remembered that then. Albeit it is true that Jaedong can't be like "Man, they better patch terran!" Because they can't RELY on patches anymore.
As for macro/solid play beating all in's,, that is a fundamental belief I have. When I say solid, I don't mean what works(because all in's certainly work) I mean focus on macro, just good decision making, just...solid. Not a "better attack and win or else I lose" I mean, "pushing out now, but its okay because I have an expo to fall back on." Again, I never said you should never all in, I'm saying that right now Terran is hardly ever playing for even the mid game.
And yes, it is partly the player's responsibility to make the game balanced. It's their responsibility to make new strats, figure out what works.
When I say all in, I'm mainly reffereing to the SCV/marine all in. And yes, that can work, and heck if zerg is that greedy they probably should try to put pressure via some raxes.
@Hwanjae Terran, that patch was actually a bit late. Even Idra said that really they're addressing issues that were a problem a weak beforehand, but not so much anymore. And yes, I would be okay if it was reverted back then. Heck, I didn't even think terran was really OP back then.
|
FoxeR played the game he's strongest at in the early stages relying on his unit control, avoiding long drawn out games against NesTea's mid-late game decision and macro style. He was playing to win. Just like SlayerS`BoxeR in the BW. Relying on heavy micro play in the early stages knowing his late game macro is not up to par.
I love how you say "macro and solid play" even though "solid play" is not defined. Solid play? What should that be? Scouting? Not dying to early pressure? Good decision making to not get greedy and get yourself killed?
Zerg late game is incredibly strong, why is there no more Terran mech only builds - racing to 3rd and 4th expansions to support it? Cause regardless the zerg will have 60% of the map anyway, T3 units, and enough to trade armies or kill the Terran. Then its a mashing production keys because of larva inject overload and the games over anyway.
|
On November 24 2010 06:30 Pandain wrote:
right now Terran is hardly ever playing for even the mid game.
Have you ever considered that this is simply because it isn't an option to consistently win vs Zerg?
|
Calgary25986 Posts
So can you summarize your point in a single paragraph? Further, can you back it up with hypothetical situations proving it?
So far I see: Play this way because it's the right way to play.
I also see: If you play this way, the game might be better for everyone in the future.
|
I'd kill for a way to play a macro game against Zerg. I seriously like gauging how many defenses I need to survive and I like the Terran race and their mechanics. In the current state though I just can't win by superior economy against a good macro Zerg.
Every participant in GSL will do whatever gives them the best chance of winning, and in the current TvZ state, all-inning the Zerg FE is the name of that game. You can't seriously believe that all Terrans in SC2 are lazy all-inning noobs that just want to win easy rather than playing a style that gives them the best chance of winning.
|
I haven't been following the GSL that closely, so I can't use exact details. Instead, I will provide two scenarios. (Underlined is quoting you)
1. Cheese/All-in Works
In this case, the person who cheeses does not need to make new strats or figure out what works, because what he's doing is already working.
You seem to be suggesting that it's the players' responsibility to balance the game by constricting their options in-game. Whenever we are talking about winning as the first priority, this is simply an absurd statement. You may bring up honor, respect, fairness...but remember: when winning is no.1, everything else comes later. If a person wins three back to back GSLs cheesing, he's gonna be reaping a lot more rewards than a person who plays "solid" and doesn't get to the finals.
You say that macro and solid play will always beat all in's/gimmicks. Then, in this scenario, why isn't it? Either your statement is false, meaning SC2 is a game of cheesing/all-ins and there's nothing you can do about it, or, the people who aim to play "solidly" just aren't good enough yet. Don't you think it becomes their responsibility to improve what you believe is "fundamentally" stronger and possible? How can it be the cheeser's responsibility to lower their game?
2. Cheese/All-in Does Not Work
If this were the case, you're essentially complaining about people who can't win. It's a funny thing, thinking about a person getting mad at Bronze level players who fail all the time....but wait. This is the GSL, with people in the top 64. If they are cheesing and making it in, clearly this scenario is not true.
3. Cheese/All-in Sometimes Works
If it works some of the time, then it, like any other strategy, becomes kind of standard. There are risks to the build (it's not overly cheap), but it has good benefits too. There's nothing really to worry about. Cheeses would be a good arsenal for players, but people who rely on it probably won't get anywhere.
My main point is this:
Cheese can work, getting people through tournaments. In such a case, it is ridiculous to ask people not to cheese. Non-cheesers need to adapt by 1) finding a way to beat the cheese or 2) cheesing themselves.
Once solid play has improved to the point that cheese will no longer work, people won't cheese anymore. More specifically, the people who cheese will no longer be progressing in tournaments, and then their all-ins become irrelevant, like how you don't care about bronze level play. THIS is when the people who cheese should be adapting, not right now.
|
ouch pandain lol...smackdown...
I don't think I have any ability to talk about balance, but I do know that the best terrans and tosses are playing all-in or semi all-in against zerg to win because once late game comes it's almost impossible to win. All the arguments I always see are so short sighted:
1) "Terrans complaining they can't turtle, how lame"
- All zerg does IS turtle. In my opinion keeping someone in their base with a pin is pretty much a form of turtling.
2) "Terrans in general are just bad players and haven't responded to macro play"
-Really? You think the top players DON'T want to play a standard stable play and would rather all-in/semi all-in cause it's powerful? There comes a point where people will be able to defend all-ins after experiencing it enough and so all-ins as a longterm viable strategy is flawed. Obviously people want stable play.
3) "The game is young, wait for the balance."
-Yes the game is young, but the amount of time longed in worldwide to play this game makes it way more "older" than SC was when it was only 5 months old. Added in all the experiences people have had with SC and other RTS and you have a base that makes it so that the game is already decently developed
I think there are problems and just dismissing terran/toss players as "unable to play the game as well as zerg players" is short sighted to say the least.
|
On November 24 2010 06:29 denzelz wrote:
(you can perfect your micro and timing with practice)
actually its macro that can theoretically be perfected, micro cannot be as it is a human v human interaction instead of pumping units and building buildings at the right time.
|
There is a reason most people do stuff like 4gate every PvP, its because its reliable. i think "all-in" is a misnomer, some really aggressive "all ins" are just reliable. In PvP people have the idea that a 4gate is all in, but it's completely possible to expand when your pressure is no longer effective. On top of that your safe from DTs and robo builds because you can shut them down with your aggression. Maybe PvZ and TvZ in SC2 just revolves around really heavy aggression because its reliable as a way to win. Maybe in SC2 aggression is just a very strong way to play overall.
|
Cheese, all in, early aggression, whatever you want to call it, it will always continue to be in the game, even at the highest levels. If you always 'play a solid macro game' you become predictable. Your opponents will be confident that they know what you are doing, since you do it all the time, and will therefore be able to get away with things they normally wouldn't. Its kind of like in poker where, if you only bet when you have a strong hand, everyone will catch on extremely quickly. You have to mix it up every now and then :D
I don't really see where you get the dichotomy of cheese and solid play. If your opponent is playing a greedy/economic build, you can punish him with early aggression. Likewise, if your opponent is doing an early aggression build, you want to defend with minimal investment and get as much economy as possible.
If anything early aggression makes the game even more exciting. To me, the most exciting part of Starcraft is information control and brinksmanship. Seeing an overlord barely miss scouting the second refinery, or a scan just missing the spire/tech building are incredibly exciting. Good players plan their builds to suit their opponent's playstyle and the map. Watching the mindgames in a BoX series also greatly helps the entertainment value, and watching practice partners, or long time rivals meet up in the tournament is priceless.
|
I pretty much agree with everything that everyone wrote as a refutation/ response to the OP.
After reading through the entire thread, the contribution I want to make (as opposed to just saying "This" to every reply) is in direct response to the two bold statements you made in your OP, Pandain:
"We're forgetting to adapt."
No, we're really not.
Sure, you may hear whining about losses and complaining that Race X or Unit Y is imbalanced or overpowered, but for the most part, we're facing strategies and attempting to counter them with our own builds. We're trying new things.
Furthermore, if the adaptation is to attack faster or try a hidden tech route, then this is exactly the all-in or cheese strategy that counters a standard, effective build. The adaptation therefore IS all-in or cheese.
"The way to win is through solid play, not cheeses/all in's."
To say that all-in or cheese builds are worse off than standard builds is silly. What basis are you going by? It depends on skill level and risk. Guess what? I love to go standard 4-gate as Protoss. And guess what the most common thing I lose to is? Dark templar cheese. Cheese > standard in this scenario. Not in every case, but certainly in some cases. Mainly when you recognize that you're outmatched if you both go the same builds.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that cheese and all-in strategies are what revolutionize gameplay. These are the builds that are incredibly creative (hence "non-standard") and call for revamping of the system.
Boxer's bunker rushes.
Bisu's corsair + dark templar success.
These made fans go wild, were insansely creative, and used a heck of a lot of skill in their own right.
Oh yeah, and they were pretty successful too.
Standard builds may be safe, but cheese and all-in strategies have the potential to break the mold (not to mention toy with your opponent psychologically, another bonus for you).
You seem to assume that all-in and cheese strategies have no skill behind them, and are all luck based. In fact, you use the phrase "push and pray it works". That's NOT a smart player's mindset going into an all-in attack. I may recognize that I need some workers to tank damage, just a few more meat shields for my main attackers... and that if I use my workers, I'll win the game outright rather than break even with my opponent. If sacrificing your workers ends up winning you the game, it's not a stupid, luck-driven move. Sometimes it's quite calculated.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
On November 24 2010 06:02 Chill wrote:I disagree with basically everything you wrote. I'm not sure what you're basing this on or how you're going to prove it. Obviously you can imagine a game where solid play is an all-in. Who's to say SC2 isn't that game?
You seem to have made a lot of different points, so forgive me if you see this as simply taking something out of the context of your argument.
But in regards to that last sentence; I think this is completely the wrong way to approach Sc2. Undoubtedly the way Sc2 evolves will be different than how BW did, and it may be that Sc2 games naturally ought to be shorter and more all-in oriented than its counterpart. But surely this isn't entertaining.
In writing recaps for the GSL last season, I was constantly struck by how every single game was 10-15 minutes long, with a few outliers a little longer, and a few outliers a little shorter. That doesn't strike me as healthy. The two final series of last night's games (RainbOw-NewDawn and BitByBit-HayprO) were pretty awful games from pretty much any standard. They weren't close, there weren't a ton of dramatic moments, there wasn't a good deal of top level skill on display (You might reasonably object to that, I certainly couldn't win those games, yet these players are probably capable of a good deal more.) and there wasn't a lot of big flashy battles. These are things that get people into the seats to watch. And right now, a lot of Sc2 isn't delivering that.
I'm not sure if Pandain is correct in advocating that the solution come from the players, and I think further patching is inevitable and should be welcomed. But the idea that Sc2 can exist as an esport if it's confined to a whole lot of all-ins and cheesy play seems suspect to me.
|
I would like to bring another point to the discussion. A lot of people are calling out a Terran for being cheesy if he counters a 14 hatch with the double barracks and scv all-in but in my opinion the Zerg is actually the one cheesing.
Yeah, I'm calling it, 14 hatch is cheese. I don't see a Nexus or CC before any defense (Forge or a production facility) is build and that as well is cheese for me. I understand that a Zerg functions different but as long as I have a good chance of defeating this with early aggression I would go for it instead of taking the guaranteed economic disadvantage.
It's like a ZvZ where one is 6 pooling and after scouting the other player responds with 8 pool or whatever. Would you say that the 8 pooler is cheesing?
|
I really wouldn't call 14 hatch cheese, but I agree on the point "of course you should counter it with early 2 rax play", that's just good decision making. Isn't that what OP asked for? 
|
On November 24 2010 19:38 Copenap wrote:
I would like to bring another point to the discussion. A lot of people are calling out a Terran for being cheesy if he counters a 14 hatch with the double barracks and scv all-in but in my opinion the Zerg is actually the one cheesing.
Yeah, I'm calling it, 14 hatch is cheese. I don't see a Nexus or CC before any defense (Forge or a production facility) is build and that as well is cheese for me. I understand that a Zerg functions different but as long as I have a good chance of defeating this with early aggression I would go for it instead of taking the guaranteed economic disadvantage.
It's like a ZvZ where one is 6 pooling and after scouting the other player responds with 8 pool or whatever. Would you say that the 8 pooler is cheesing?
I don't think cheese is the right word, but I agree. Your regular cheeser is trying to 1) sacrifice economy 2) build an early army 3) hopefully succeed in an attack that justifies the sacrifice of economy. Someone who expands early is going to 1) sacrifice an early army 2) build a better economy 3) hope that he can get away with the expansion, and not regret his decision to not build an army.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
