EPTZerg player opens with a 12-hatch.
Terran player opens with 9-supply 10-rax.
Terran responds to Zerg player with fast cc.
Zerg player builds 3rd hatch, also starts Extractor.
It's like both players respond to each other turn by turn. The approximation is not completely accurate by any means. Neither player has to wait for the other player before making his turn. Also, a player is not limited to performing one act per turn.
However, with this perspective, I found the game to be more about psychology and strategy than micro and mechanics. It's nothing novel or groundbreaking. It's just a change in perspective.
But it's allowed me to finally break the C+ barrier and enter into the B- world.
I used to focus mainly on my micro. I made custom maps so I could practice muta micro. Three Terran bases on Python with turrets all over. I'd have to destroy all of them with only mutas before they built enough to run me over. I focused on ling micro and getting my timings exactly right. Soon, I had mastered the 3-hatch spire build. I would blindly go 12-hatch 11-pool 14-hatch and tech to lair. I'd build drones until 27 and build a couple sunks or lings. My final goal was to get Hive and then use my economic advantage to seal the game with Ultralisks and Defilers.
It was so formulaic and repetitive that I could play without thinking. 12-hatch 11-pool 14-hatch. Micro mutas. Go to Hive. Get Defilers. Get Ultras. Expand. Defilers. Expand. Ultras.
My average APM soon broke 250 and I was regularly hitting 270 in ZvT. But I was still losing games. I'd do 3-hatch mutas but they'd have wildly varying returns. Through D+, C-, and C, I'd easily win with my formulaic muta->lurker->hive. But by C+, I would lose some games and I couldn't find out why I was losing. I thought, 'I'll just have to work on my micro a bit more.'
And I did. My muta micro improved by a significant factor and I could end many games at C+ before Lurkers. The beauty of Starcraft is how important mechanics are. But I still kept losing. I finally realized that I needed to actually THINK during games. Yes. Starcraft isn't just a formula. It's like chess and go. I had to THINK about different strategic options instead of just blindly following the 3-hatch build.
That's where the turn-based perspective helped. I looked at it as a tennis match. I had to react the best way I could depending on the other person's discrete moves. He opened 8-supply? Well, then his barracks will be early so I'll go 12-hatch 11-pool. He opened 9-supply? Well, I will go 12-hatch 13-pool. I soon developed a sense to know exactly if he 8-supply'ed or 9-supply'ed. I found that when my drone scout found the barracks being built and it was only half done when my 12-hatch was about to begin, then it was a 9-supply. I'd take advantage of this to the fullest, often without the opponent even knowing that this happened.
I started thinking a lot more in these terms, in terms of responses to the other player's strategies instead of obstinately following my own. It was about taking turns and whoever fails to respond properly loses the game.
I remember a long time ago when I opened my typical muta opening and got run over immediately by a sunk bust. I remember thinking, 'I needed better muta micro.' How naive. It was my lack of a proper response that lost me the game, not my micro.
More recently, I scouted a 4 barrack build by the time my spire was done. I immediately canceled my expo hatchery and started a few sunks at my nat. My lurkers would never had made it in time to defend my expo against his marine medic mass. However, I also knew that there was a weakness to his early 4 barrack move. Upgrades, tanks, and vessels would be slightly late. Therefore, my late expo wasn't as big of a disadvantage so I didn't have to resort to an all-in and just play safe from there.
These are the kind of strategic thoughts that I have, thinking about the game as a turn-based game. Because I worked so much on mechanics up until now, the execution of my response comes second nature to me. It's just the responses themselves I have to improve. I'm glad that I started with mechanics and am now working on improving strategy, although I can see someone working it the other way around.
There's definitely something to be said about strategic masterminds like Boxer and Savior. It's something that's not evident because it's not flashy. Two marines killing a lurker; two tanks with a dropship killing 4 dragoons. A real game is rarely won solely by these flashy tricks. These tricks only confirm the strategic advantage already gained by the player doing them.
Now I actually think in my games. Strategic responses to the other player's moves. No two games I play are the same anymore. I slide in an extra drone before my pool if I can get away with it. Even a 12-hatch 14-pool is possible. Little variations due to what I perceive to be a correct response to the other player's move.
Jaedong seems to be especially good at countering someone's style. His game flows like water; against Fantasy's mech build, he kept going 2-hatch. Against a marine+med strategy, he goes 3-hatch mutas. Against Zergs... well, we know how Jaedong does against Zerg. He once said that he doesn't really practice specific openings vs. Zerg, that he just kind of wings it depending on the opponent. I believe that is the biggest difference between him and other Zergs. Other Zergs prepare specific builds while he goes into the game and counters the strategy on the fly. His APM and mechanics make his executions perfect.
EDIT: Some sample build orders you can play around with depending on the opponent's card.
I realized my old, "by the book" 9 mutas hatched at 7:15. After some tweaking, I got 6:55. After my change in perspective and realization that there are many things I can take advantage of, I can hit 6:40. The seconds matter because 20 seconds is the difference between 10marine2medic and 15marine4medic. You want to get mutas before they can attack your sunks. If your mutas are late, you're forced to build sunks.
12-hatch 11-pool with extractor started when third hatchery = 6:40
(very unsafe econ though, if terran pulls some gimmick your eco will be terrible due to extra sunks) --- a safe opening against everything
12-hatch 13-pool 14-hatch with extractor started with third hatch = 6:40
(pretty safe econ, basically a richer version of above) --- a safe opening against 9-supply 1rax, or a terran you KNOW to be un-aggressive and won't bunker rush you
12-hatch 11-pool 14-hatch 16-gas = 6:55
(safe econ, but slower than above. basically a slower version of above. the "textbook" opening I learned a long time ago) --- safe opening against everything
12-hatch 13-hatch 15-pool with extractor started with pool = 6:40
(monstrous econ, but obviously dangerous in the beginning due to pool after 3 hatch) --- dangerous against anything other than 14cc
As you can see there are advantages and disadvantages to each build. Depending on the card that the terran plays, I can utilize what I want. I think it's important to know the strengths and weaknesses of the opening you use. For the ones that have super rich econ, I often build a fourth hatchery in my main before spire finishes (because I know I'll have 1200 minerals by the time I have mutas). For the ones that have weak econ, I know that every sunk delays my timing by a huge factor. So I use the card that I believe is the best for me.
