|
I'm going to preface this by saying that i've never played broodwar on iccup or anything like this, but when i got into the sc2 scene a week after retail launch, i started occasionally watching some BW streams if it was late and i had nothing else i wanted to do
But it seems to me that in both SC2 and BW, especially in mirror matchups, there are just some situations where you win purely by BO, and i do wonder if that's always a part of the game, for example i just watched a game where both players in a pvp went 1gate expand, one player then went robo into 2 more gates, while the other player went 3 more gates, and completely rolled the robo player,
from that point of view i just have to wonder if such things are an inevitable and constant part of rts games where if you don't open a specific way against a specific build, you auto die, or if there is some way to force that out of the game
ladder trends aside, it just seems like certain maps in sc2 always lead to a specific style of play, for example, pvp on scrap station is pretty much guaranteed to be 4gate vs 4gate due to the large ramp making sentries a rather useless unit
Now given the warpgate mechanic in sc2, it seems like such rush advantages never go away unless there is a small choke enough that 1 sentry can seal it for the 15 in game seconds, this worries me a little bit as it seems to me that the matchup may not evolve as much as tvt and zvz seems like it will over time, bigger maps make baneling and roach early play less and less likely over time, so idk
it's depressing for me as a protoss player, but in the long run i guess we'll just have to wait and see
looking for some perspectives on this one, are they unavoidable, is it just a trendy thing, what's your views?
 
|
The way I understand it is, one player picks a build that hard counters one specific build his opponent could do. Then if his opponent picks the specific build that is hard countered, it's auto-loss. Kinda like rolling two of the same number in dice. It doesn't happen often in comparison to non-build order wins.
|
On January 16 2011 14:53 hp.Shell wrote:
The way I understand it is, one player picks a build that hard counters one specific build his opponent could do. Then if his opponent picks the specific build that is hard countered, it's auto-loss. Kinda like rolling two of the same number in dice. It doesn't happen often in comparison to non-build order wins.
i understand how it works, my thoughts are more is there a way to avoid it, as i was watching proleague matchs and even at that level in a game as fleshed out as BW is, it seems that it happens, so i was curious if there is a solution, cause it seems like especially in mirror matchups, it could get quite tiring
|
Well, if you count cheese vs. a very fast expansion as a build-order loss, then I don't think build-order losses are completely unavoidable, unless you have gosu micro and happen to be in a position where it is possible for your units to take no damage against the opposing type of unit. For example one dragoon vs 3 zealots, it's not impossible to kill all 3 but for most people it could be considered an auto-loss.
|
I haven't played SC2 in months so I won't comment on the current state of its mirrors, but in modern BW mirrors the times you get a 'pure build order win' are when you tried something either very aggressively or economically risky.
In ZvZ the 'advantage' cycle of the standard openings is 5pool<9pool<overpool<12pool<12hatch. You get an economic advantage if your pool later than your opponent. The catch is that a 5/9 pool vs 12 hatch results in something close to a b.o. win for the fast pool, but the rest of the situations are not auto losses. So as long as one plays the medium risk/reward builds (overpool, 12pool), you don't get 'hard countered' but may get disadvantaged economically. It's quite possible through good control to make up for this econ disadvantage, and some players can exhibit zergling / drone control that defies the odds (Calm beating Kwanro's 5 pool with a 12 hatch in MSL finals for instance).
|
Netherlands4516 Posts
only read topic title, but yes they are unavoidable
|
i suppose it depends a bit on what situations you consider a "build order win/loss" since they are by definition unavoidable.
|
if they were completely unavoidable the game would be bland as fuck too. it would mean differences between BOs are so small that they are basically negligible, which is a stupid thing to want in a game anyway
|
There are safe builds and with the proper scouting you can basically avoid build order wins.
|
On January 16 2011 16:01 tryummm wrote:
There are safe builds and with the proper scouting you can basically avoid build order wins.
I guess my general state of depression about this comes from the bizarre balance that is 4gate 2 gas stalker play vs 3gate robo 2 gas play, it's very hard to tell the diference, and while building a few sentries can help if you are 3gate roboing it is a very tricky balance, as then you have to keep them down your ramp at all costs, hopefully later in sc2 that gets ironed out more, it seems like it can be very tricky none the less, especially given the quality of warpgates being what they are
On January 16 2011 15:13 Liquid`Ret wrote:
only read topic title, but yes they are unavoidable
thank you for the frank words, i figured as much but hearing it from a pro all but confirms it
|
It depends on game design. The more variety there is in openings, the greater the chances of potential build order wins. BW and SC2 have a ton of potential openings, so there is a high potential for BO wins. Warcraft 3, for example, has very little variation in build orders, and build order wins are nonexistent. The closest thing to a build order loss in WC3 probably opening fiends first as Undead against DH first Night Elf, but even that isn't a true build order loss.
|
Unless you massively outmicro your opponent (see Jaedong's ZvZ wins in early 2009) they are unavoidable in a game with imperfect information.
|
Yeah they are hard to avoid, but that's part of the game. If you choose to use a risky build rather than a safe one, you can pay the price with a BO loss if you don't scout properly. 1gate expand is a very very unsafe build order in PvP, but if you can get away with it you often have an insurmountable advantage. That's just the way it is. Starcraft is about dynamically responding to your opponent.
|
unless you can play at JvZ level... yeah they are unavoidable
|
I'm not sure if the game your example is SC2 or BW, but I believe that while yes, BO wins definitely happen, like 4pool or even 9pool vs 14cc or anything, with extremely good micro, you can overcome large BO disadvantages.
I can't remember any ZvZ BO disadvantage wins off the top of my head, but this recent PvP really shows how such micro can overcome a huge army disadvantage. In this game, Bisu goes with 3 gates, while Kal goes with 2 gates and a robo, much like your example. However, with some ridiculous looking micro including a shuttle, he holds off until his reaver tech advantage kicks in and is able to take both a tech and economic advantage, after which Bisu is forced to gg.
http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/games/49812_Bisu_vs_Kal
In addition, I think there is less opportunity for such micro showcases in SC2, as the units behave basically "too well". It is hard to overcome any army disadvantage through micro, as the units basically are always "perfectly" microed, and it is significantly more difficult, bordering on impossible to overcome an army disadvantage. This is the reason why aggressive builds focused on getting out as many units as possible as soon as possible seem to be so strong.
|
On January 16 2011 21:02 rainei wrote:I'm not sure if the game your example is SC2 or BW, but I believe that while yes, BO wins definitely happen, like 4pool or even 9pool vs 14cc or anything, with extremely good micro, you can overcome large BO disadvantages. I can't remember any ZvZ BO disadvantage wins off the top of my head, but this recent PvP really shows how such micro can overcome a huge army disadvantage. In this game, Bisu goes with 3 gates, while Kal goes with 2 gates and a robo, much like your example. However, with some ridiculous looking micro including a shuttle, he holds off until his reaver tech advantage kicks in and is able to take both a tech and economic advantage, after which Bisu is forced to gg. http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/games/49812_Bisu_vs_KalIn addition, I think there is less opportunity for such micro showcases in SC2, as the units behave basically "too well". It is hard to overcome any army disadvantage through micro, as the units basically are always "perfectly" microed, and it is significantly more difficult, bordering on impossible to overcome an army disadvantage. This is the reason why aggressive builds focused on getting out as many units as possible as soon as possible seem to be so strong.
My 3gate robo vs 4gate was a BW example, yet it was after both players 1gate expanded, although it does sound like something right out of sc2
I understand your point about micro being somewhat nullified due to the fact that dragoons, now stalkers don't act like brainless garbage anymore, I am hoping with time that someone will show us the way to increase micro and do more interesting things, or that the expansions bring in some units that really flesh out the depth of the game
|
I think they're pretty much unavoidable except for micro or adapting to scout data. Some builds can be adapted to a different unit mix and some others rely on attack timing. I would call it a proper BO loss if the losing player never could have moved in and killed off the winning build, throughout the entire game and I'm not sure things can go this way between players of equal skill.
|
This is why its essential in strategy games that you have methods to scout.
Scout and adapt should always be your game plan.
That is why people complain so hard about ZvZ, because its hard to scout early on before you find out its too late (Don't quote me on it i dont play Z). When you can't scout, games become coins flip about who guessed to build the right unit composition / timing on expos etc.
|
At the extreme, include maphack in an rts game and you won't have bo wins there. It might not make for a bad game necessarily either, just look at all the classic tb strategygames with full information. Very different from traditional rts though.
But bo wins (or as someone might say - purely strategical wins) are only reallyproblematic when considering starting bo's I think. There's definitely less extreme ways to make them rarer than the maphack. The less costly scouting is, the easier it is to play in a manner that never gives you big disadvantage - but it's a corner that people will still sometimes cut. And just lessening the different sensible builds makes the game more predictable, and heavy micro emphasis naturally makes it easier for a superior player to reach back from a disadvantage.
But definitely some element of risk helps a lot to make a game more interesting to both play and watch.
|
If one player goes 14CC and the other goes 4pool, yes, it's gonna be pretty impossible for the Terran to win against a competent Zerg. That doesn't mean there weren't legitimate mind games played. It also doesn't mean that both players don't have options to play builds which while they might be at a slight disadvantage, given them a chance to win the game if they are good enough (ie JvZ, BeSt's PvP streak... etc).
|
Well, I think he's talking about mirror match ups such as ZvZ you have to go 9 pool. If one is up faster than the other the person with the faster one is obviously going to win. ZvZ is the most fastest game in SC:BW you have to go 9 pool in to lair then spire. The one w/ more mutas wins!
|
They are unavoidable sometimes, but then again there was a long time where people though broodwar ZvZ went.
6 pool>12 hatch>12 pool
then someone (was it Jaedong or Savior maybe) went and just started owning up ZvZs regardless of how they opened.
PvP also had luck involved, you could forgo observers and expand faster if you just prayed your opponent wasn't going dt but that is going to lose you the occasional game off the bat at the risk of gaining an advantage. Still, the top players found a way to do far better than a coin flip.
|
What division/league are you in? This is how RTS's work in general and one can find correlations in anything. Two players are given tools to win, how they use those tools (a specific build) and how they manipulate them determines the winner.
|
My take on BO wins:
I think a game is more fun when it becomes a post BO game which is a game that leaves the early game. That's why I play zerg and like big maps!
In the lower levels people are trying BO wins to learn the game.The next skill level to perfect the build. Then comes a level where you use a BO to win. At the highest level BO wins are disguised, faked and delayed to deceive your opponent.
I feel that BO wins comes in these categories:
A: the economic opening vs army opening
1 An easy win since regardless of your composition you have a much bigger army
B: the army opening vs the army opening
1 A similar army opening results in a win due to tactics, formation and unit control
2 Two different army openings results in a victory due to better unit composition
C: the tech opening vs economic opening
1 A successful tech opening (often harrass) leaves the opponents economy behind
D: tech opening vs tech opening
1 A similar tech opening results in a win due to tactics, formation and unit control
2 Two different tech openings results in a victory due to better unit composition
E: tech opening vs army opening:
1 Two different army openings results in a victory due to better unit composition
F: economic vs economic opening:
1 Eventually a BO that brances out to any of the previous mentioned scenarios.
Note 1: There is a possibility that all of these scenarios can cancel each out out and in the worst case scenario that you will fall behind. This depends on execution and timing.
Note 2: Victories come can either come quick if the opponent leaves immediately or later if your opponent is fights to the last building.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
