|
If you don't want to read a blog that deals only in the realm of Starcraft, I'll save you some time and tell you to go to a different one.
Why am I plateauing in Starcraft? If someone asked me that a few weeks ago, I would have said 'I don't know, I should play more.' However, today after some losses I realized something. My style completely revolves around me stating 'Here is my timing attack, I will execute it at a higher skill level than you and you will die.'
Now, what is the issue with that? The answer should be to continuously hone and refine that singular build until you ALWAYS do better than your opponent. However, I have come to the conclusion that doing this kind of strategy essentially puts you all-in, every game. Be it 1 base, or 3 base, if my build is revolving around one strategic timing attack based on no interaction with the opponent, just my build, then it is flawed. The reasoning behind this statement, is that your opponents will start to get on to the same, if not better mechanical skill level than you. They can hold off your all-in, and you lose the game.
By relearning the game completely, I want to move away from all-ins entirely. Remember, my concept of an all-in encompasses a much larger scope than something like a 3 rax SCV pull. Things like the Thorzain mass marine timing on 2 base, a standard multitank push in TvZ, my own timing attack in TvP. Those are all-ins, because you are forced to not attack, and die. The issue arises when you built up a fairly attack oriented timing attack, and you are absorbed by an economically focused counter-timing. For example, Stephano makes a few dozen lings just before the timing of popular Terran attacks, and drones behind it. His focus is completely economical, and he countertimes your build. The Terran moves out, is inevitably CRUSHED, and loses the game because of the non-ability to expand.
The alternatives that I want to learn are Polt's brilliant TvZ with the hellion, medivacs, and marines. For TvT I want to start opening with banshees. The reason I am picking these two builds is that they are not designed to kill the enemy player. They can maintain map control, and if the opportunity arises do damage to the enemy. The 3 tank timing is widely known to put you slightly behind on workers in TvZ, so to make up for this you attack to even the worker count up. The reason a banshee or a hellion is great, is that you never have to commit them. Do damage when you can, not because you have to. Then, based on the effect of your opening on your opponent you can choose to try a timing attack, expand, or harass.
+ Show Spoiler + My TvP revolves around a timing, but with absolutely no modification to the actual build I can still play it in a flowing way. Also, I don't want to lose my free win button against everyone who doesn't go 1-1 collosus on 2 base. Which that build itself is actually a flowing reaction to my own build, so let their water run and mine will run a different course in that case.
Now you might ask. Hey, the marine hellion medivac attack is actually a timing with the double medivacs... My simple rebuttal is that you aren't actually forced to use them offensively to get back in the game. I will say however that at the bare minimum you need to fight for constant map control, to open opportunities to attack. The effect of maintaining map control on your opponent will force him to either try to seize it from you, which allows you to drop, or he will let you have it which will let you expand.
I feel rather stupid trying to attempt this now, I really should be in masters league on KR soon. However I am just not satisfied with the way I am playing. I don't get excited when I win with a timing attack. I do actually get excited and even achieve flow in a game where I am playing more organically. However, I will proceed onward with this as an attempt to exercise a lesson in investment in loss.
+ Show Spoiler +Read "The Art of Learning" by Josh Waitzkin
Essentially this concept revolves on getting knocked down to be able to get back up. My rank will probably tank. I will lose even the slimmest opportunity to get onto a team/practise group and I will suffer more solitude and silence on the ladder. However, here's to hoping that I will come back with a greater understanding of the game, be able to play more organically, and have way more fun.
Edit: Here I want to talk about why MC, the 2 base timing attack Protoss is so smart, and does not actually go against what I am saying here.
He does a fairly neutral opening (I'm talking PvT). 1 Gate expand. He does a great job of scouting what the Terran is doing and immediately based on that he can go all-in on 2 base and win the game. His opening gets him map control with a stalker, and his early game scouting is quite good, so based on these things he opens himself many opportunities. He can expand safely, he can do a timing attack if he sees fit, and he can harass a bit with the stalker.
+ Show Spoiler +Another edit, I could not fall asleep. I don't know what possessed me to do it, but for some reason I googled 'Taoist Philosophy' and stumbled upon something that embodies what I am trying to get across in this post:
Stiff and unbending is the principle of death.
Gentle and yielding is the principle of life.
Thus an Army without flexibility never wins a battle.
A tree that is unbending is easily broken.
The hard and strong will fall.
The soft and weak will overcome.
 
|
I love Josh Waitzkin's book. One of my favourite reads as far as game theory and sports psychology goes, and it's not even that a scientific read.
Although unfortunately I disagree with your thoughts on timing attacks. Timings are an extremely strong and valid way to play, and the hallmark of a good timing is that it's designed to strike at a point where the opponent is weak. The organic "flow" of the game comes from two players jousting back and forth with their own ideas - say one person double expands before pool. He's saying "i believe that the timing of your pressures is relatively on line with my timing to defense my expo," and the opponent is out to prove him wrong if he attacks. Or he might accept that timing idea and move to expand himself, throwing another debated timing into the mix. It's like chess, not all the moves are thought out because your opponents get to play too.
|
@HyperionDreamer
Your game description is that of an opening. The players know nothing of each other, and are blindly doing something. The zerg player is saying that he can hold any early game attacks with his double expansion opening, and then he will react from there. Great, the Terran player will scout this with a presumably more neutral build and will be presented with the choice of aggression or defence. That is the opening, designed to get the game going. However, if Terran did a timing attack. The type of which I describe, where you literally say 'this is my build, hold or die`he will be figured out and lose. If he builds up a threatening, yet non-committal force while not falling behind on economy. He can then search for opportunities to attack, or expand himself. If he plans a committed timing attack, he is behind and long gone for this world.
Perhaps I should take up chess to gain a different perspective. As it stands, the way I feel about a timing attack is that it might surprise them the first time, but will be figured out and you will be put behind. If you play organically you can endure, otherwise you must invent the new timing every few days.
Once I was told that a build in the Korean pro-scene is considered 'old' after a week or two.
|
The problem is not that you have been learning timing attacks, its that you have only been learning one.
You should have a bunch of perfected timing attacks in your repertoire that you can use in any given situation. That's a timing attack style, you can play all sorts of styles, one that you mentioned was a map control or harass style which forces the enemy to defend rather than attack allowing you to macro hard without defense.
Flash almost solely plays a timing attack style, almost all his games are finished with one decisive attack and if the opponent smashes it to pieces he often loses, and hes considered one of the most solid players.
Anyway gl hf.
|
Some big thread in the general forum why timing attacks, all ins are so powerful in SC2
The way you gather resources makes it sick good, and that's why you see people like MC revolve their game around them.
|
That was a good book.
I like the IDEA of not playing based around timings but practically speaking it seems that a Timing Style (as has been talked about above) is the strongest way to play right now. To play without building around Timings you will need to be significantly better then those you play with which takes serious investment in loss.
Though, if you could become ultra familiar with timings and learn how to always be able to defend them you'll probably win about 95% of your games.
|
On March 22 2012 22:59 IVFearless wrote:
That was a good book.
I like the IDEA of not playing based around timings but practically speaking it seems that a Timing Style (as has been talked about above) is the strongest way to play right now. To play without building around Timings you will need to be significantly better then those you play with which takes serious investment in loss.
Though, if you could become ultra familiar with timings and learn how to always be able to defend them you'll probably win about 95% of your games.
This is pretty much what I've been trying to do recently, and I'm getting so much better as a result of it. Instead of saying "I will attack at 12 minutes with XYZ units," I am currently saying to myself "I cannot end the game until I have 5 bases and hive tech of some sort," which has forced me to play every game macro style, gaining a much better knowledge of each stage.
And you are correct I have definitely had to invest in quite a bit of loss to allins and such, but I think it's a better overall approach than just "I'm going to do the 10 minute 3 tank stim push against zerg and win with it".
|
@ Can't really decide who, so all of you.
When Bomber streamed during the christmas holidays I would often go to sleep watching him. He only had a few hundred viewers and as a result if you asked a question in chat there was a fair chance you would be answered. One of the questions I had often were 'How did you know he would die?' He would NEVER answer with something along the lines of 'It was a build order.' his answers would be more like 'I killed many probes with my 4 rax harassment, and I followed up with a stim and upgrade timing.' or 'I saw that he was teching to X and I had denied his 3rd base so I did Y.'
This kind of play interests me. His opening gives him opportunity to seize control of the game, yet he does not necessarily have to commit to anything. The 4 rax is great at defending, and only slightly puts you behind on tech from the 3 rax.
This way of playing where you harass, scout, then CHOOSE between expand, defend, and attack interests me the most because you don't enter the game and say 'I will hellion harass him, and regardless of my damage or what his reaction is I will follow up with a 3 tank timing to end the game.' I prefer 'I will hellion harass him, and based upon my damage and his reaction I will do option X, Y, or Z.'
+ Show Spoiler +
Some more taoist stuff that I saw on the interwebz last night as I could not sleep.
Push the boat with the current.
Early Taoist philosophy was profoundly influenced by observations of nature. Taoist philosophers determined that everything has its complementary opposite. More than this, they saw that everything can only be understood by comparing it to its opposite.
This second one is interesting because, the way I interpret it, to understand why I can attack I need to understand why it would be bad to expand. A soft piece of clothing is only considered soft when compared to a hard piece of clothing. A timing attack is only considered good when compared to an expand. Thus I must expand to understand the timing attack.
|
On March 23 2012 05:06 Thaniri wrote:@ Can't really decide who, so all of you. When Bomber streamed during the christmas holidays I would often go to sleep watching him. He only had a few hundred viewers and as a result if you asked a question in chat there was a fair chance you would be answered. One of the questions I had often were 'How did you know he would die?' He would NEVER answer with something along the lines of 'It was a build order.' his answers would be more like 'I killed many probes with my 4 rax harassment, and I followed up with a stim and upgrade timing.' or 'I saw that he was teching to X and I had denied his 3rd base so I did Y.' This kind of play interests me. His opening gives him opportunity to seize control of the game, yet he does not necessarily have to commit to anything. The 4 rax is great at defending, and only slightly puts you behind on tech from the 3 rax. This way of playing where you harass, scout, then CHOOSE between expand, defend, and attack interests me the most because you don't enter the game and say 'I will hellion harass him, and regardless of my damage or what his reaction is I will follow up with a 3 tank timing to end the game.' I prefer 'I will hellion harass him, and based upon my damage and his reaction I will do option X, Y, or Z.' + Show Spoiler +
Some more taoist stuff that I saw on the interwebz last night as I could not sleep.
Push the boat with the current.
Early Taoist philosophy was profoundly influenced by observations of nature. Taoist philosophers determined that everything has its complementary opposite. More than this, they saw that everything can only be understood by comparing it to its opposite.
This second one is interesting because, the way I interpret it, to understand why I can attack I need to understand why it would be bad to expand. A soft piece of clothing is only considered soft when compared to a hard piece of clothing. A timing attack is only considered good when compared to an expand. Thus I must expand to understand the timing attack.
I find the hallmark of good play to be adaptability - using bomber as an example, his 4 rax timing attack pushes him down a certain path that can play well against many protoss openings from expand to tech. But at the heart of it all is an understanding of timings and when things happen. If you kill probes then a timing attack hits harder than it would before. If your harass gets shut down and you lose units, then your timing is likely going to be delayed or have less units, turning it into more of a poke.
Also I remember waitzkin mentioning that in his book, the philosophy where you can learn X from Y, or in his case, Kasparov from Karpov (chess players with extremely different styles). It's very cool to consider.
|
@HyperionDreamer
I recall that he was talking about how some grandmaster chess players willing give up center control. This is widely considered a mistake, but they have such a strong understanding of how the center works that they can choose to work around it and the opponents will fall into the trap of wanting to seize the middle too fast.
Continuing to use Bomber's 4 rax as an example. He always opens up with a harassment when he 4 rax. The marines can either do absolutely nothing due to 3 stalker kiting, or kill several probes. If it fails he is then faced with a decision to either continue on with a now weakened timing attack, or play more defensively. Making the game more reactive from the get-go.
Back to the thing I am originally trying to avoid. Entering a game, saying you will do timing attack X and attempt to kill him at that time is an all-in and non-mental decision. Entering the game, building up potential to do damage and to scout (i.e. Bomber 4 rax), then based on scouting information attempting to do damage or defend, then decisions begin to keep branching off from this initial build order that gives you 2 decisions. A pre-determined timing attack funnels you into 1 decision, attack.
|
On March 23 2012 11:22 Thaniri wrote:
@HyperionDreamer
I recall that he was talking about how some grandmaster chess players willing give up center control. This is widely considered a mistake, but they have such a strong understanding of how the center works that they can choose to work around it and the opponents will fall into the trap of wanting to seize the middle too fast.
Continuing to use Bomber's 4 rax as an example. He always opens up with a harassment when he 4 rax. The marines can either do absolutely nothing due to 3 stalker kiting, or kill several probes. If it fails he is then faced with a decision to either continue on with a now weakened timing attack, or play more defensively. Making the game more reactive from the get-go.
Back to the thing I am originally trying to avoid. Entering a game, saying you will do timing attack X and attempt to kill him at that time is an all-in and non-mental decision. Entering the game, building up potential to do damage and to scout (i.e. Bomber 4 rax), then based on scouting information attempting to do damage or defend, then decisions begin to keep branching off from this initial build order that gives you 2 decisions. A pre-determined timing attack funnels you into 1 decision, attack.
Yeah, I read that section of the book super intently, especially because I find hypermodern chess systems and methodologies extremely interesting. (If you don't play chess, hypermodern systems are ones where you control the centre indirectly, and if your opponent compromises his structure at all to play classically and keep his pawns in the middle, then his pawns may become weaknesses to attack.)
I'm actually agreeing with you in the sense that adaptability and staying in a state where you are constantly attempting to improve your position is the "correct" way to play. But I think there is something to be said for such a deep understanding of timings that you can almost create your own on the go. Flash seems like he does this almost every game, where he's attacking with a different set of units at a different time, and he is considered one of the top (if not one of the best ever) bw players.
|
You have a much more expansive exposure to strategy game concepts than me. This really is my first strategy game. I don't even come to close to knowing how Flash plays, and I barely understand chess.
As our points are starting to reach a singularity I do actually agree that timings have a place. Yet you don't go deep enough into how Flash goes about creating a timing attack. The way I am trying to get at, is do a timing when you have created the opportunity to execute one. Not to begin a game with one.
Edit: Maybe Flash does this, I look at a BW game and have absolutely no idea what goes on beyond my knowledge of the minimap.
|
On March 23 2012 12:45 Thaniri wrote:
You have a much more expansive exposure to strategy game concepts than me. This really is my first strategy game. I don't even come to close to knowing how Flash plays, and I barely understand chess.
As our points are starting to reach a singularity I do actually agree that timings have a place. Yet you don't go deep enough into how Flash goes about creating a timing attack. The way I am trying to get at, is do a timing when you have created the opportunity to execute one. Not to begin a game with one.
Edit: Maybe Flash does this, I look at a BW game and have absolutely no idea what goes on beyond my knowledge of the minimap.
I wouldn't say that I have a good enough understanding of brood war to fully understand how Flash actually creates his timing attacks other than through epic macro (seriously, his macro is unreal). I was C+/B- on my absolute best seasons, which compared to these professionals is chobo as all hell. But I would say that in scbw, maps play a lot more of a role in creating timing attacks. Like if you watched tvz back in the savior days of 2007 on maps like longinus 2 and reverse temple, all terrans did the same vessel/biomech attack timing and just CRUSHED most zergs with it. (Except savior, he was so bonjwa at that point that he found a way to go about 80% on those ridiculously terran favoured maps). Sc2 units feel more homogenous in the sense that units like stalkers and colossus feel good on pretty much all maps, same with brood lords.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
