A Glimpse of my SC2 thoughts: Safeness and Builds

While personally I have a high win rate against 14 pools when I use 10 pools thanks to the early queen larva and the more "forced" decision making of 14 pools, this is neither the place nor time to discuss that.

What I do want to do is clarify a bit on part of the OP and the responses. While it is true "safe" builds are ...in that "safe" they are not optimal. This can be clasically represented by looking at LiquidTyler's builds which are always safe, but also always seem to fall behind against stronger opponents. He however does always beat lesser opponents. What does this mean? Safe builds are safe. They allow your SKILL to dictate the game, however one shouldn't rely only on their IN GAME skill. One should look to push whatever advantage they can, including the out of game preperations. ANother instance of "safeness" can be seen in thorzain's game against Guineapig in the gsl. No one can doubt thorzain's play was safe, but was it really necessary?

Further to clarify, the responses are not completely out of the water. It is legitimate to say that a 14/14 puts one ahead on tech while a 15 hatch allows another to be ahead on economy but behind in tech. We must think and speak then in terms of relative advantages.

The 14/14 "tech" (lingspeed) has the strength of mobility. It allows one to be offensive but always able to retreat. This however doesn't pose a problem for the 15 hatch because the 15 hatch is defensive in nature. (until it reaches its own tech). The question is simply, is the 14/14 tech edge greater than the production capability edge of the 15 hatch. For the most part no. Properly controlled I find the 15 hatch, from personal experience and from professional games (and amateurs although less creditable) to be capable if not "more than capable" of deflecting 14/14 timings whehter they be mass ling or of the baneling variety. (I find roach timings too late to consider as they usually occur after the 15 hatch has established its own tech.)

So here we fall into preference. Is it better or worse to go for a 15 hatch depends on preference as to whether one want to go for an economic opening followed by tech or a tech opening followed by an economic expand. One might say the tech opening has a slight edge in that it allows one the option to get further ahead on tech than the 15 hatch player. However this is counterbalanced by the production edge of the 15 hatch player. So all in all, it is preference, with respect to the player's strategy and on a grander scale to the map. However, even though this is to preference, does that mean the thought processes and ideas behind the in-game decision making processes should be ignored or denied value? Of course not. And that's what I think the OP was getting at. That if we want to 15 hatch, or to find some edge that we want to capitalize on, then we should examine the ways in which we can account for our weaknesses and push that edge. In the case of the 15 hatch, shoring up our weaknesses by scouting and if one wanted to look further, scouting for our opponents tech path to decide whether we wanted to try a mass ling timing (offensive) or a roach tech (generally defensive).

Also, my main motivation with this post is in response to the claims that "safeness" is good. Safeness is not good. I don't think safeness exists. I think it's a misconstrued combination of high probability that becomes reificated from the game to exhibit a feeling of confidence that actually stems from practice. If one understands the underlying flow of the game, I assume egotistically ( i know), that there are no true "safe" openings, but rather openings that have larger or smaller margins of error with regard to the gameplay at hand. Safe openings have large margins of error, but safe (as i take the word to mean unbreakable) also has a cost asigned to it. The margin of errors are with respect to different things. Safe openings are safe with respect to timing attacks (10 pool vs 7 pool). Other openings are safe against falling behind economically (Also 14/14 against 11 overpool). But just because something is safe, doesnt mean that it is optimal (maximizes potential with regard to timing, resource efficiency, units, tech, scouting (which I consider the ability to create more potential ability), etc...) The cost I refer to is in exchange for these benefits. Safe openings have LESS potential for creating and maintaining a lead against an opponent with respect to most fields. This is the trade-off. Taking a larger margin of error against a broad spectrum of plays in exchange for less potential in any given play.

The OP here discusses scouting in zvz to allow a 15 hatch. This is NOT a safe play, but rather a tactic to shore up a play that has a lower margin of error. So yeah. If you're not confidant and don't think you'll ever improve your skill enough to reach a high masters level. Or if you don't yet have the mechanics in the other aspects of your game (read: outside of build) then play "safe" buids, but don't aquaint "safeness" with "correct."

Sorry for the slightly off tangent rant. But I feel that these ideas are at interplay in our discussion and benefit from being cleared or discusses upon rather than assumed differently by each party. Of course these views, most of them at least, are merely my take upon the situation and of course can be argued against. Even then though, I think it beneficial to bring them to light so that they MAY be discussed.