While most strategy guides focus on build orders and specific scenarios, this one shall instead cover the fundamentals:
=>How to make a game plan =>What to do when unexpected things happen
The focus is on how to think instead of what to do. It presupposes only shallow understanding of the game, yet I write it such that it can also benefit high-ranked players. Tips are accompanied by progamer-class examples.
Edit: The article has been somewhat improved to address misunderstandings. Also, a couple inaccuracies were fixed; thanks to those who pointed them out.
Macro does matter
This is so important that I shall mention it first.
The most commonly given advice on the Strategy forum by far is: "Improve your macro." While not always the cause of defeat, it is always pertinent, therefore I state it here, surely to the satisfaction of many that are tired of repeating it. Really, don't waste too much time improving your strategy if your macro is deficient; improve your macro first. Strategy rarely makes the difference if one cannot cope. Sad but true.
"No you don't!!!"
Suppose we're roleplaying. You're a fighter facing a mage about to cast a fireball. What do you do?
a) Charge and strike the mage down b) Run for cover and brace yourself
The good answer is obviously a), yet in Starcraft we tend to instead choose b), especially facing fearsome builds like 3-hatch mutas. Here's a notable example:
2008/02/14 GomTV MSL S4 Ro8 Group C Jaedong vs Flash Set 2 on Blue Storm
Flash braces himself preparing for the inevitable while Jaedong takes the whole map. Result: one-sided massacre.
So what is the best counter to that build? When these two meet again, Flash has the answer: the firebat push. Some will object that firebats don't fare well against mutalisks, but that's irrelevant, as the following game shows:
2008/02/15 Bacchus OSL 2008 Ro8 Week 1 Group A Jaedong vs Flash Set 1 on Troy
Flash has every reason to expect that Jaedong would once again pick his favourite build, and that he would have become complacent enough to neglect his defense. He just rushes with marines and medics, then pumps out several firebats. Some mutalisks come out but too little too late. gg.
This is why nowadays Zerg players build up to 7-8 sunken colonies at their natural, whenever they feel some pressure, instead of just 2-3.
Similarly, what is the best counter to the Bisu build? You guessed it, the hydralisk push:
2008/01/23 Bacchus OSL 2008 Ro16 Week 2-1 Group C Bisu vs July on Blue Storm
This is indeed the infamous game that July wins by decision because Bisu's connection dropped. Still, July had clearly won.
The weakness of any tech build, especially two-bases ones, is that they are very vulnerable to early game pushes. If you expect your opponent to go that way, consider charging instead of defending!
Unfortunately, this doesn't always work; the map, for example, may not allow it. Here's a well-known example ending in spectacular failure:
2008/06/01 Razer TSL 2008 Finals Draco vs JianFei Set 5
Don't try forcing your way up a ramp that way. It doesn't work.
so you have to use your judgement in those matters. Yet bracing yourself for enemy harrass remains only second-best; offense is the best defense.
That won't work? Switch tech
Few would argue nowadays that mechanics don't make the difference in Starcraft. To rise among the best, players have to train themselves for thousands of hours until they become macro machines. They can become so strong that even if one outsmarts them, they outmacro their opponent and win nonetheless.
Yet this comes at an expense: the more one practices mechanics, the more difficult it becomes to deviate from practiced scenarios. That may lead even progamers to persist in situations when it is clear that they should change their game plan, as these two games illustrate:
2008/10/17 Incruit OSL 2008 Ro4 Group A GGPlay vs Fantasy Set 1 on Plasma
GGPlay opens 2-hatch mutas, planning to go for the kill quickly, but Fantasy wisely makes plenty of goliaths and turrets to counter these. He should then save his mutalisks for harrass and scouting, and instead defend, expand, tech to lurkers and cracklings. You don't send mutalisks to attack goliaths, right? Wait, he does, and obviously that fails; the mutalisks melt. gg.
2008/10/17 Incruit OSL 2008 Ro4 Group A GGPlay vs Fantasy Set 2 on Medusa
While this game is famous for the praise that Fantasy received for his play [!?], I shall instead focus on GGPlay's. He opens with hydralisks, then proceeds to add mutalisks, planning once again to end the game quickly. But then he sees the valkyries. And the goliaths, again. He sure knows that sending mutalisks against the best anti-air that the Terran arsenal has to offer isn't effective; the outcome will be the same as in the previous game. He also knows that Fantasy's valkyries were hunting down his overlords, that he won't break his opponent with hydralisks alone, that his strategy will fall short. The situation commands to relent, switch to lurkers, cracklings, defilers. But he stubbornly chooses simplification anyway, against the odds, and loses. Again.
The above underlines the virtues of patience and adapting to the opponent's play. In those situation, one has to take a deep breath and change plans. You might think that it's no longer possible, but that's irrelevant; you have to try, otherwise you're dead anyway. Don't suicide your units by going all out against the odds.
Build orders: keep it simple
As I stated before, this guide isn't about providing build orders. Yet we shall briefly discuss what makes a build order viable.
These builds have something in common: they name the very thing that they aim to produce. The key to devising at least half-decent builds is to focus on something simple but worthwhile and make it happen as soon as possible. In other words, build only:
=>The absolutely required tech buildings =>The bare minimum defense to hold until the goal is achieved
Everything else is pork! Low-ranked players often lose trying to produce everything at once without clear focus, and lose to even a late push while hardly having any units. Really, forget about researching three techs and four upgrades at once, forget about making a third base (or even a second, if you don't need it) thinking it would otherwise hurt your economy later on, forget about pumping out units you don't need or static defenses beyond the strict minimum. Do whatever you can to get your shit out ASAP!!!!
For example, some think that one-base tech is usually not viable. But in many cases delaying the expansion to get the tech sooner makes all the difference:
2008/11/06 ClubDay Online MSL 2008 Ro8 Group D Bisu vs FireBatHero Set 1 on Medusa
Bisu goes 1-base reavers+shuttle and races to drops before his opponent builds enough turrets. FBH gets 0wN3d. gg. If Bisu had delayed his tech to instead expand, worrying about his economy, it wouldn't have worked nearly as well.
Should you want more examples, just watch games from help threads [H] in the Strategy forum. Haphazard, inefficient builds are arguably the prime cause of defeat for D-rank players.
Doomed to failure? Try something new
Remember Katrina? I'm sure veteran Terran players remember that map all too well, because it was considered imbalanced in favor of Protoss in TvP; the Protoss would just go carriers 100% of the time and exploit the map's cliffs to decimate goliaths with gosu micro.
Just as against 2/3-hatch mutas or the Bisu build (see above), players long chose the conservative, lose-slowly-but-surely approach of making tons of goliaths and lasting as long as they could to save face. Then one progamer notably attempted something different:
2008/02/12 GomTV MSL S4 Ro8 Group B JangBi vs UpMagic Set 2 on Katrina
[spoiler]UpMagic makes cloaked wraiths instead of going pure goliaths. Jangbi gets caught his pants down moving his carriers around the map with no observers!
In the end, UpMagic loses; it is difficult to capitalize on your gains with wraiths. But at least give him credit for having tried something instead of opting for the sure loss.[/spoiler]
Whenever a build is too successful for too long, players executing it become complacent and neglect crucial things. Try to exploit these weaknesses.
Your attempt may fail, but that doesn't diminish your merit. Some might find inspiration into Grand Admiral Thrawn's word from the Star Wars novel The Last Command by Timothy Zahn: [spoiler]Luke Skywalker has just escaped Imperial capture, eluding Star Destroyer's Chimaera tractor beam by flying his X-Wing out of a detonating freighter. Grand Admiral Thrawn, who had the previous tractor beam operator summarily executed for his ineptitude, once again walks to the starboard seeking an explanation for his successor's failure.
Thrawn led the way to the aft stairway and descended to the starboard crew pit. He walked past the crewers at their consoles, past the officers standing stiffly behind them, and came to a halt at the control station for the starboard tractor beam. "Your name," he said quietly to the young man standing at rigid attention there.
"Ensign Mithel," the other said, his face pale but composed. The expression of a man facing his death.
"Tell me what happened, Ensign."
Mithel swallowed. "Sir, I had just established a positive lock on the freighter when it broke up into a cluster of trac-reflecting particles. The targeting system tried to lock on all of them at once and went into a loop snarl."
"And what did you do?"
"I--sir, I knew that if I waited for the particles to dissipate normally, the target starfighter would be out of range. So I tried to dissipate them myself by shifting the tractor beam into sheer-plane mode."
"It didn't work."
A quiet sigh slipped through Mithel's lips. "No, sir. The target-lock system couldn't handle it. It froze up completely."
"Yes." Thrawn cocked his head slightly. "You've had a few moments now to consider your actions, Ensign. Can you think of anything you should have done instead?"
The young man's lips twitched. "No, sir. I'm sorry, but I can't. I don't remember anything in the manual that covers this kind of situation."
Thrawn nodded. "Correct," he agreed. "There isn't anything. Several methods have been suggested over the past few decades for counteracting the covert shroud gambit, none of which has ever been made practical. Yours was one of the most innovative attempts, particularly given how little time you had to come up with it. The fact that it failed does not in any way diminish that."
A look of cautious disbelief was starting to edge into Mithel's face. "Sir?"
"The Empire needs quick and creative minds," Thrawn said. "You're hereby promoted to Lieutenant... and your first assignment is to find a way to break a covert shroud. After their success here, the Rebellion may try the gambit again."
"Yes, sir," Mithel breathed, the color starting to come back into his face. "I--thank you sir."
"Congratulations, Lieutenant Mithel." Thrawn nodded to him, then turned to Pellaeon. "The bridge is yours, Captain. Resume your scheduled flight. I'll be in the command room if you need me."[/spoiler]
Don't give up just yet!
To word it differently: Don't leave the game while you still have units. Really. At the very least, consider making one last push; you never know, it might work.
Another option is to defend and cope with the opponent's attacks. Buy time. You might just be able to turn the game around.
Here's a short list of famous comebacks:
2007/06/24 GomTV MSL S2 Ro8 Group B Savior vs FirebatHero Set 1 on Python
[spoiler]After a protracted fight, Savior succeeds in breaking into FBH's main. You'd think this is over, but not FBH; he instead relocates his buildings to an expansion and entrenches there, microing like a god. He doesn't stand a chance, does he? He's just making the game last longer... Wait, is that possible? Savior runs out of mineral!!! FBH secures the very last mineral spot on the map!!! FBH WINS!!!!!
Tell me with a straight face that you saw it coming the first time you watched this game.[/spoiler]
2003/08/15 MyCube OSL 2003 Ro16 Group C Game 3 Boxer vs Joyo on Paradoxxx
[spoiler]Boxer drops into Joyo's base but loses all his goliaths to psionic storms, then carriers with dragoons and arbiters wreak havok to his base. Expect him to resign any moment now... Wait, it seems he wants to play to the end, after all. He persists at fighting a losing game until... Joyo runs out of mineral!!! Boxer denies him the last mineral spot that he could secure!!! Unbelieveable, BOXER WINS!!!!![/spoiler]
2008.08.17 WCG Korea 2008 3rd Place Match Much vs Luxury Set 1 on Andromeda
[spoiler]By midgame Luxury had secured map dominance, which in PvZ spells doom on the Protoss player. But Much doesn't concede. Watch him sweat like a pig desperately struggling to turn the game around, withstanding endless waves of Zerg units, until...
... he loses. Admit it, I had you big time.
Still, who would have thought that Much could even last that long? It's the kind of games that makes us push back our limits even when we lose them, so they're worth playing to the end.[/spoiler]
Conceding too early is the lamest way to lose. Even if you think this is over, try something desperate. Whether it works or not, it's worth it.
Conclusion
My goal was to convince you that, between players with comparable mechanics, strategy and innovation can make a huge difference; in fact, it may even overcome a moderate deficit in mechanics. If I succeeded in that, I didn't waste my time.
If you're looking for more games and advice, I recommend watching the games from the Spirit Tournament, commented by Artosis and ex-coach Dan. To repeat the latter's recurrent advice:
=>"Master the Basics!" =>"Read Sun-Tzu's Art of War!" =>"Know Yourself and Know your Enemy!" =>"Be Like a Ninja!"
one thing i wish i could do better (and hope progamers do) is to stay one step ahead of the enemy. As cliche as it is, it could be very useful.
as an example/demonstration: In a recent PvT Help thread, I suggest (jokingly, before anyone comments on my noobishness ) corsair/ht mixed with the usual protoss ground force to combat the terran push. The reasoning behind that was the stargate and fleet beacon would tip off the terran that you were going carriers, so he would mass goliaths. Then you build high templars to counter the inevitable mass goliaths, and corsairs with disruption web to help against the tanks. The point is to get him to waste money massing goliaths instead of more tanks. Also, if he doesn't scout it or doesn't switch to goliaths, you can easily tech switch to carriers since you already have the tech required for them. Arbiters are just a tribunal away as well.
The point of this is that by thinking ahead, you can force your opponent to play into your hands by countering his counter to what he thinks you're going to do. Anticipating your opponent's response and preparing for it.
On December 06 2008 05:54 vAltyR wrote: as an example/demonstration: In a recent PvT Help thread, I suggest (jokingly, before anyone comments on my noobishness ) corsair/ht mixed with the usual protoss ground force to combat the terran push. The reasoning behind that was the stargate and fleet beacon would tip off the terran that you were going carriers, so he would mass goliaths. Then you build high templars to counter the inevitable mass goliaths, and corsairs with disruption web to help against the tanks. The point is to get him to waste money massing goliaths instead of more tanks. Also, if he doesn't scout it or doesn't switch to goliaths, you can easily tech switch to carriers since you already have the tech required for them. Arbiters are just a tribunal away as well.
If it does work, that's resources well spent.
The risk however is that the Terran realizes soon enough that he's being conned.
intresting that you said "be like a ninja" my mentor with something completely unrelated to starcraft told me the same thing. That applies to life in general. Very good post, and great read.
On December 06 2008 06:48 Archaic wrote: Great post, and great read. Hopefully you were sarcastic about most zergs building 7-8 sunkens at their natural though.
2008/06/13 EVER OSL 2008 Ro8 Week 1 Group A Flash vs Luxury Set 1 on Troy
Sorry but I can't ignore the 7-8 sunken thing so I'm going to talk about sunkens now.
Zerg don't just go 7-8 sunks because they're scared. It's in response to what they see terran doing. When you go 2 hatch you really can't afford sunkens, and terran moves out at that early timing so that zerg is forced to build sunkens. It's zerg's job to try to get away with as few sunkens as possible, which in jaedong's situation appeared to be 2 or 3 sunks + his lings, however if he had seen the firebats earlier he would have built a 3rd and maybe 4th sunken earlier, but obviously flash planned for the bats to surprise him. Firebat rushing is not a direct counter to 2 hatch muta. There aren't really direct counters in starcraft. If zerg goes 2 hatch and builds 7-8 sunkens (in the first 6-7 minutes of the game) he's going to lose.
With 3 hatch builds against terran it's different. You can get 7-8 sunkens if you want but less is always better, so for example zerg gets 1 sunken early on to be safe from random marine attacks and it also kills scouting scv's, and then another 2 colonies if he moves out with a small mnm force at around the time when spire is morphing, and then you add more depending on how big his army is and how well timed his attack is when he moves out before lurkers are morphed. But really every sunken makes a difference. 1 sunken means you can get your 3rd gas expo while spire is morphing because you will have enough minerals to get your expo hatch and 11 mutas, which means mid game zerg will have gas for like 20+ lurkers. 3 sunkens means your 3rd will be a little slower because now you have only enough minerals to make 11 mutas so you need to waita bit, and so you will have less lurkers. 5,6,7 sunkens means they probably did a 1 base build so you need mutas to make him go back home, and you will have less lurkers again because you need 200 minerals for lurker tech before you can get the hatchery. If zerg gets 7-8 for no reason then zerg will lose.
In that Flash vs Luxury game, I jumped to 11 minutes and saw he had a million sunkens and was morphing guardians, which means the sunkens were only there to delay his army because he was getting guards. Zerg sometimes has to get a million sunkens like that to stall terran when zerg's hive tech isn't ready because either (a) he fucked up and his army died, or (b) he tried to tech to hive really quickly without lurkers, or tried to tech to ultras or guardians without defilers, and terran knows about it and wants to exploit the timing.
and while I'm at it, turrets are the same. If terran gets 20 turrets, zerg will save his mutas and attack with muta lurker ling and win.
protoss is different though. It doesn't matter if you get a few too many cannons (to a certain degree. If you get 10 cannons to defend against nothing then obviously the game will turn out like Chill's game in the sc2gg showmatch.)
On December 06 2008 09:54 hide.X wrote: Sorry but I can't ignore the 7-8 sunken thing so I'm going to talk about sunkens now.
Zerg don't just go 7-8 sunks because they're scared. It's in response to what they see terran doing. When you go 2 hatch you really can't afford sunkens, and terran moves out at that early timing so that zerg is forced to build sunkens. It's zerg's job to try to get away with as few sunkens as possible, which in jaedong's situation appeared to be 2 or 3 sunks + his lings, however if he had seen the firebats earlier he would have built a 3rd and maybe 4th sunken earlier, but obviously flash planned for the bats to surprise him. Firebat rushing is not a direct counter to 2 hatch muta. There aren't really direct counters in starcraft. If zerg goes 2 hatch and builds 7-8 sunkens (in the first 6-7 minutes of the game) he's going to lose.
In Flash vs Jaedong, Flash knew in advance how Jaedong would play. He had every reason to expect that there would be too few sunkens and that they would be late.
True enough, if you build more sunkens than necessary, you're toast. Yet it has become standard for the Terran player to pressure and contain the Zerg in his base with marines and medics, hence the high sunken count.
With 3 hatch builds against terran it's different. You can get 7-8 sunkens if you want but less is always better, so for example zerg gets 1 sunken early on to be safe from random marine attacks and it also kills scouting scv's, and then another 2 colonies if he moves out with a small mnm force at around the time when spire is morphing, and then you add more depending on how big his army is and how well timed his attack is when he moves out before lurkers are morphed. But really every sunken makes a difference. 1 sunken means you can get your 3rd gas expo while spire is morphing because you will have enough minerals to get your expo hatch and 11 mutas, which means mid game zerg will have gas for like 20+ lurkers. 3 sunkens means your 3rd will be a little slower because now you have only enough minerals to make 11 mutas so you need to waita bit, and so you will have less lurkers. 5,6,7 sunkens means they probably did a 1 base build so you need mutas to make him go back home, and you will have less lurkers again because you need 200 minerals for lurker tech before you can get the hatchery. If zerg gets 7-8 for no reason then zerg will lose.
True enough. Don't build them for no reason. If the Terran does not pressure, stick to three.
In that Flash vs Luxury game, I jumped to 11 minutes and saw he had a million sunkens and was morphing guardians, which means the sunkens were only there to delay his army because he was getting guards. Zerg sometimes has to get a million sunkens like that to stall terran when zerg's hive tech isn't ready because either (a) he fucked up and his army died, or (b) he tried to tech to hive really quickly without lurkers, or tried to tech to ultras or guardians without defilers, and terran knows about it and wants to exploit the timing.
Luxury doesn't stop building sunkens, even after the first three; he builds his fourth and fifth at around 7:00, long before Flash shows up. He knows his opponent, he knows in advance that Flash is planning some sort of push. That's why there are so many up when Flash arrives. I suggest you watch the game from the beginning instead of forwarding at 11:00.
and while I'm at it, turrets are the same. If terran gets 20 turrets, zerg will save his mutas and attack with muta lurker ling and win.
protoss is different though. It doesn't matter if you get a few too many cannons (to a certain degree. If you get 10 cannons to defend against nothing then obviously the game will turn out like Chill's game in the sc2gg showmatch.)
Cannons are less expensive but the same logic applies: build barely enough to keep your opponent at bay.
cool post but i saw something and i had to point it out. when your talking about the fantasy vs ggplay game where ggplay continues to make mutalisks vs the tech, its not a failure to adapt, muta are actaully more effective vs terran metal then lurkers or are. Mutaling is actually the best counter against terran metal
On December 06 2008 10:22 daz wrote: cool post but i saw something and i had to point it out. when your talking about the fantasy vs ggplay game where ggplay continues to make mutalisks vs the tech, its not a failure to adapt, muta are actaully more effective vs terran metal then lurkers or are. Mutaling is actually the best counter against terran metal
Except there were hardly any zerglings in either game. Mutalisks don't do well against equal numbers of goliaths. And lurkers would have fared better than hydralisks, especially for the drops.
On December 06 2008 06:48 Archaic wrote: Great post, and great read. Hopefully you were sarcastic about most zergs building 7-8 sunkens at their natural though.
If you're trying to show that 7-8 sunks is typical, you need more and better examples than that. That was an atypical game in which Luxury was reviving a build that hadn't seen much, if any, use in a few years.
I thought you may be trolling when you advocated one base carriers. But you weren't. You've put a lot of effort into this but some of what you're saying is plain wrong. Sorry.
On December 06 2008 10:39 Kwark wrote: I thought you may be trolling when you advocated one base carriers. But you weren't. You've put a lot of effort into this but some of what you're saying is plain wrong. Sorry.
2008/09/12 Incruit OSL 2008 Ro16 Group A Bisu vs Much
One-base carriers is popular on Plasma. It also used to be on island maps.
On December 06 2008 10:36 Mindcrime wrote: If you're trying to show that 7-8 sunks is typical, you need more and better examples than that. That was an atypical game in which Luxury was reviving a build that hadn't seen much, if any, use in a few years.
I'm afraid there's only so much even I can recall. Besides, the number of games required to show that it is typical, or even common, would be tremendous. I'm looking on what I still have on my hard drive but... I don't put my hopes too high.
Edit 1: I found this one:
2008/02/17 GomTV Star Invitational 2008 Ro16 Group A Game 4 Savior vs Mind
The sunken count rises to 6 before 9:00. Later he adds lurkers.
Edit 2: I also found this one:
2008/02/25 GomTV Star Invitational 2008 Ro8 Group A Flash vs Jaedong Set 3
This game's sunken count reaches 7 before the mutalisks come out.
Edit 3: That's it for tonight, I'm almost sleeping on my chair. [Zzz]
After watching several more 2-3 hatch mutas games, I'd say the typical number of sunkens is around 4-5 by default, instantly rising if the Terran player applies some pressure. As I have shown, a significant portion of these games feature 6 and above. I've rarely seen below 4 if marines had the slightest chance of knocking at the door.
I've fixed the language in the article, though, as to no longer sound like it is systematic; that wasn't my intention anyway. The wording is now: "... up to 7-8, whenever they feel some pressure, ..." which is more accurate.
On December 06 2008 10:22 daz wrote: cool post but i saw something and i had to point it out. when your talking about the fantasy vs ggplay game where ggplay continues to make mutalisks vs the tech, its not a failure to adapt, muta are actaully more effective vs terran metal then lurkers or are. Mutaling is actually the best counter against terran metal
Except there were hardly any zerglings in either game. Mutalisks don't do well against equal numbers of goliaths. And lurkers would have fared better than hydralisks, especially for the drops.
yeah i have no idea why he didnt make zerglings but im just trying to say mutalisks are definetly the better choice against metal over lurkers or hydras
Aside from the exaggeration about the 7+ sunkens this was actually quite a good post. Onepost had several good points and followed through with relevant games to illustrate. Like I said some of his examples were a bit extreme but that's no reason to discredit the whole guide. If nothing else this brought up several great games.
Lol @ the "better" players . Yes, yes, god forbid someone who isn't NEARLY as knowledgeable make an effort on an informative post. Yes, shame on them for some misleading examples that make the whole write-up completely worthless to someone your level.
On December 06 2008 13:11 roadrunner_sc wrote: Aside from the exaggeration about the 7+ sunkens this was actually quite a good post. Onepost had several good points and followed through with relevant games to illustrate. Like I said some of his examples were a bit extreme but that's no reason to discredit the whole guide. If nothing else this brought up several great games.
Lol @ the "better" players . Yes, yes, god forbid someone who isn't NEARLY as knowledgeable make an effort on an informative post. Yes, shame on them for some misleading examples that make the whole write-up completely worthless to someone your level.
Agreed. If OP is so incredibly wrong, why not suggest some changes and educate not only him, but the people even worse than him that were hoping to learn something from him. If one base carriers is so ridiculous, then tell us that its 2- or 3- or 4-base carriers (I have no idea which it is... which is why I'm reading).
On December 06 2008 10:22 daz wrote: cool post but i saw something and i had to point it out. when your talking about the fantasy vs ggplay game where ggplay continues to make mutalisks vs the tech, its not a failure to adapt, muta are actaully more effective vs terran metal then lurkers or are. Mutaling is actually the best counter against terran metal
Except there were hardly any zerglings in either game. Mutalisks don't do well against equal numbers of goliaths. And lurkers would have fared better than hydralisks, especially for the drops.
yeah i have no idea why he didnt make zerglings but im just trying to say mutalisks are definetly the better choice against metal over lurkers or hydras
From my few experiences against mech terran, mutalisks become less and less effective as the game goes on. In smaller numbers mutalisks beat the goliaths, but once the armies become larger, goliaths usually beat the mutalisks due to their larger range, which allows more goliaths to hit the mutalisks at the same time. Goliaths are also rather effective against zerglings for some godforbidden reason, and so I feel the need to get hydralisks out to deal with mass goliaths.
Lurkers seem to be absolutely useless except to delay the terran until they gets scans.
On December 06 2008 10:39 Kwark wrote: I thought you may be trolling when you advocated one base carriers. But you weren't. You've put a lot of effort into this but some of what you're saying is plain wrong. Sorry.
I know im gonna be a bitch here but i disagree with most of op. He was supposed to cover the fundamentals: =>How to make a game plan =>What to do when unexpected things happen Instead I just see links to special BOs and counters from progamers. Obviously those BOs are based on gameplans but here I expected more an analisis on general gameplan and gamestyle than a description of what do progamers do. Sorry to be so critic but theres a lot more on gameplans and strategy that can be more valuable to the improving player. On a side note you could consider puting the vods on spoilers to make your post more readable.
On December 06 2008 13:11 roadrunner_sc wrote: Aside from the exaggeration about the 7+ sunkens this was actually quite a good post. Onepost had several good points and followed through with relevant games to illustrate. Like I said some of his examples were a bit extreme but that's no reason to discredit the whole guide. If nothing else this brought up several great games.
Lol @ the "better" players . Yes, yes, god forbid someone who isn't NEARLY as knowledgeable make an effort on an informative post. Yes, shame on them for some misleading examples that make the whole write-up completely worthless to someone your level.
Agreed. If OP is so incredibly wrong, why not suggest some changes and educate not only him, but the people even worse than him that were hoping to learn something from him. If one base carriers is so ridiculous, then tell us that its 2- or 3- or 4-base carriers (I have no idea which it is... which is why I'm reading).
2-bases carriers is far more common. You usually go on 2-bases carriers on maps which have a natural in the back, like Katrina, because it's easier to defend.
1-base carriers is an anomaly. I included it on purpose, to provoke reactions.
On December 06 2008 21:39 malongo wrote: I know im gonna be a bitch here but i disagree with most of op. He was supposed to cover the fundamentals: =>How to make a game plan =>What to do when unexpected things happen Instead I just see links to special BOs and counters from progamers. Obviously those BOs are based on gameplans but here I expected more an analisis on general gameplan and gamestyle than a description of what do progamers do. Sorry to be so critic but theres a lot more on gameplans and strategy that can be more valuable to the improving player. On a side note you could consider puting the vods on spoilers to make your post more readable.
Actually, I delivered exactly what I said I would. The accent of this guide isn't what to do but how to think. As I mentioned first thing in the article, there's already a lot of the former type, and this guide does not dispense from reading them.
How to make a game plan ??? Flash vs jeadong in Troy was a 3 hatch instead of a 2 hatch mutalisk build. you put up bad example as evidence to support your claim.
To answer your question, I am quoting Coach Daniel Lee in one of his commentaries "players like Upmagic come up with an innovated build that has back up plans once what it aimed for have failed, the build accounts for different scenarios based on what the other player can do to adapt to that innovated build"
Look, it is not as simple as you made it seem. in "keep it simple section" The fact is that the Vods or Replays we watch only demonstrate one scenario the entire game plan prepared by the players.
These strategies aim for different things, like the ones that you mention are all in timing attack builds if it fails the game is lost. Other strategies aimed for giving a player an econ advantage, or force an error, or make the other player play in their uncomfortable zone (example:making oversky play poor zerg to avoid his strong macro. or put boxer into a macro base game by limiting all other options) Therefore, to prepare a game has to take in account of who you are playing, and what your own strength lies, "know your enemy and know yourself, you will win 100% of the battles" - Sun-Tzu
What to do when unexpected things happen??? Theory is different from practice, like Coach Daniel Lee said in one of his commentaries that "progamers can practice and prepare a building order for a given match over a week, but once the match starts, and the other guy does something totally unexpected, an entire week of work went to waste and he has to adapt on the spot or lose"
I do not agree you have answered the question "what to do when unexpected things happen" completely. your answers are the following "Switch tech", "try something new", "don't give up", Out of these three answers, "switch tech", "don't give up" are addressing the question. "try something new" only partly address the question, because it is done on the next game instead of the game when the unexpected thing is happening.
And finally I want to add another dimension in your answers. "Map Hack" this doesn't directly address to your question "what to do when unexpected things happen?" instead it addresses "how do you prevent unexpected things from happening?" which is relevant to your question.
My answer is turn your "map hack" on, if you are able to see and know everything the other guy is doing, then nothing will be unexpected. This is easy to say and hard to do. One must take the map and the player into consideration. For example, if the opponent is boxer, everybody knows boxer likes cheese with all in, so people study the maps for cheese proxy spots, and scout early, and scout all those spots, make everything boxer do transparent by scarifying minding time early. Of course boxer also knows what you are thinking in the same time, and he will make it hard for you to catch him.
I do agree with your first claim, without mechanic(macro, multitasking) strategy alone will not matter.
^keep bo simple was part of coming up with a game plan i think, not dealing with unexpected. Looks like you raise some valid points though. Bellow are my impressions.
Looks like a nice effort, but I got nothing from it. But I suppose I'm hardly the intended audience, as I already know a lot about the game. I can see where malongo is coming from, in that a guide that rather showed the specifics of how to come up with a good game plan and how to deal with the unexpected would be more valuable to the improving player. Also the 'goal' of the guide was tacked on at the end -- to convince that strategy and innovation made a huge difference between players with similar mechanics and that it may overcome mechanical deficits. Don't think anyone will argue with that despite the vague 'huge'. Overall some good commonsense advice but mostly presented so simply as to not be helpful, e.g., 'offense is the best defense'.
On December 06 2008 21:39 malongo wrote: I know im gonna be a bitch here but i disagree with most of op. He was supposed to cover the fundamentals: =>How to make a game plan =>What to do when unexpected things happen Instead I just see links to special BOs and counters from progamers. Obviously those BOs are based on gameplans but here I expected more an analisis on general gameplan and gamestyle than a description of what do progamers do. Sorry to be so critic but theres a lot more on gameplans and strategy that can be more valuable to the improving player. On a side note you could consider puting the vods on spoilers to make your post more readable.
Actually, I delivered exactly what I said I would. The accent of this guide isn't what to do but how to think. As I mentioned first thing in the article, there's already a lot of the former type, and this guide does not dispense from reading them.
You should have re-phase your questions to
"how to think while developing a game plan" "how to think while unexpected things happened in a game"
But your answers is based on your own opinion, you are really answering the question "What I think while developing a game plan"
In your "No you don't!!!" section. You are describing how to counter 2 hatch mutaslisk and how to counter Bisu build with Vods as example. your goal is to validate your point "a) Charge and strike the mage down" is a better choice than "b) Run for cover and brace yourself"
my counter to you: This is merely your opinion, this is not how others should think.
my reason for the above statement: each player has their strength and weakness, they should play to their strength, and explore the other player's weakness.
My evidence for my reasoning: Savior vs Flash GomTv season 1, Blue strom, savior 2 hatched muta --> gaurdian, killed flash expo and Flash's strong defend came out on top at the end, hence, effectively demonstrated "b) Run for cover and brace yourself" works as well as "a)charge and strike the mage down" http://www.gomtv.net/videos/27
P.S. I am not aiming to put you down, I am trying to have a meaningful debate here as evidence on my efforts in my posts
On December 07 2008 05:18 rei wrote: How to make a game plan ??? Flash vs jeadong in Troy was a 3 hatch instead of a 2 hatch mutalisk build. you put up bad example as evidence to support your claim.
Does the third hatchery count if it's not built at a mineral spot? My understanding of the 3-hatch mutalisk build is that you build a third base, which gives you the volumes and economical advantage later on.
According to Idra:
3rd hatch should always be at another gas expo the speedlings are optional, although there is some risk of a mmf rush breaking you before mutas are out if you dont get them guardians are the best followup, lurker transitions generally blow unless your mutas do a ton of damage, in which case hive would win just as well.
dont overdo it early on, if his turrets arent up when you get there knock yourself out, but dont force. it its more important to keep mutas alive. 99% of terrans forget they need to keep adding turrets, once you accumulate 11+ mutas you can just go around laughing as his 4 turrets try to kill a muta before they all die.
if you have minerals building up, take more expos or make more lings. taking more expos is better unless you think hes gonna be able to attack before guardians (most wont, best way to respond is to turtle till you have irad).
it seems obvious but the most important thing is to actually have good muta micro. there are no foreigners who can fight with muta vs mm competently. practice hold position micro and how to dance around a pack of mm (in the open, no cliffs) and pick off strays. if you cant do that, learn how or dont go 2 hat.
To answer your question, I am quoting Coach Daniel Lee in one of his commentaries "players like Upmagic come up with an innovated build that has back up plans once what it aimed for have failed, the build accounts for different scenarios based on what the other player can do to adapt to that innovated build"
Look, it is not as simple as you made it seem. in "keep it simple section" The fact is that the Vods or Replays we watch only demonstrate one scenario the entire game plan prepared by the players.
I wrote a short guide, not an encyclopedia. I won't deal with endless possible variations in a "keep it simple" guide.
Besides, even programers sometimes dispense with a fallback strategy. 4-pool is a good example of that; it works or it doesn't and gg.
These strategies aim for different things, like the ones that you mention are all in timing attack builds if it fails the game is lost. Other strategies aimed for giving a player an econ advantage, or force an error, or make the other player play in their uncomfortable zone (example:making oversky play poor zerg to avoid his strong macro. or put boxer into a macro base game by limiting all other options) Therefore, to prepare a game has to take in account of who you are playing, and what your own strength lies, "know your enemy and know yourself, you will win 100% of the battles" - Sun-Tzu
This sort of things is already amply covered by other strategy guides.
Besides, my guide does cover the "know your enemy" part, only not as explicitly or in depth.
What to do when unexpected things happen??? Theory is different from practice, like Coach Daniel Lee said in one of his commentaries that "progamers can practice and prepare a building order for a given match over a week, but once the match starts, and the other guy does something totally unexpected, an entire week of work went to waste and he has to adapt on the spot or lose"
I do not agree you have answered the question "what to do when unexpected things happen" completely. your answers are the following "Switch tech", "try something new", "don't give up", Out of these three answers, "switch tech", "don't give up" are addressing the question. "try something new" only partly address the question, because it is done on the next game instead of the game when the unexpected thing is happening.
That question cannot be answered completely. Usually, when things go unexpected, you go on the defensive and buy time to come up with something else. Improvise. There isn't much else that can be said about it, because the unexpected is always... unexpected.
The "try something new" part rather addressed a recurrent pattern of losing slowly but surely that I observed in players of every rank, and that had already be introduced in the "No you don't!" section. It does not deal with the unexpected, quite the contrary; it's about countering something that you expect beforehand.
And finally I want to add another dimension in your answers. "Map Hack" this doesn't directly address to your question "what to do when unexpected things happen?" instead it addresses "how do you prevent unexpected things from happening?" which is relevant to your question.
My answer is turn your "map hack" on, if you are able to see and know everything the other guy is doing, then nothing will be unexpected. This is easy to say and hard to do. One must take the map and the player into consideration. For example, if the opponent is boxer, everybody knows boxer likes cheese with all in, so people study the maps for cheese proxy spots, and scout early, and scout all those spots, make everything boxer do transparent by scarifying minding time early. Of course boxer also knows what you are thinking in the same time, and he will make it hard for you to catch him.
I understand the accent you wish I had put. I'm saving it for the next guide.
I do agree with your first claim, without mechanic(macro, multitasking) strategy alone will not matter.
@rei: That it is an opinion piece is implied, no matter how authoritative. However, you're unlikely to convince anyone if you tone your own advice down as you suggest; it would sound as if you're not genuinely convinced of what you're talking about.
Does the third hatchery count if it's not built at a mineral spot? My understanding of the 3-hatch mutalisk build is that you build a third base, which gives you the volumes and economical advantage later on.
3 hatch = you get 3 hatcheries then gas and lair and your next hatchery is your 3rd base (4th hatchery). 2 hatch = you get 2 hatcheries then gas and lair and your next hatchery is your 3rd base (3rd hatchery).
On the topic of 'keeping it simple', the sorts of builds you suggest are micro intensive, multitask intensive, and unless a build like 2 hatch muta or 1 base carrier completely rapes your opponent and you win, then you need game knowledge to be able to follow through and not lose your advantage, and even worse if the strat just plain fails because they were ready for it, you need to be able to play catch-up. These strats aren't keepign it simple at all. Although it does 'keep iccup simple', because if you fail you can gg and try again and mass cheese your way to C-.
Keeping it simple would be playing standard, and having a game plan that minimises the ammount of multitasking required. mutalisk scourge into mass hydra zvp with lots of maneuvering around the map and flanking means lots of multitasking. Lurker ling contain means less multitasking, all the action happening in one area, etc. Keeping it simple is turtling to 200/200 terran, or going +1 speedlot rush with protoss.
Does the third hatchery count if it's not built at a mineral spot? My understanding of the 3-hatch mutalisk build is that you build a third base, which gives you the volumes and economical advantage later on.
3 hatch = you get 3 hatcheries then gas and lair and your next hatchery is your 3rd base (4th hatchery). 2 hatch = you get 2 hatcheries then gas and lair and your next hatchery is your 3rd base (3rd hatchery).
Thanks for the distinction. I'm no Zerg player (I play Protoss, some Terran) so I don't know their build orders very well.
On the topic of 'keeping it simple', the sorts of builds you suggest are micro intensive, multitask intensive, and unless a build like 2 hatch muta or 1 base carrier completely rapes your opponent and you win, then you need game knowledge to be able to follow through and not lose your advantage, and even worse if the strat just plain fails because they were ready for it, you need to be able to play catch-up. These strats aren't keepign it simple at all. Although it does 'keep iccup simple', because if you fail you can gg and try again and mass cheese your way to C-.
On that I beg to differ. I play Go, and strong Go players tend to say what you say, that playing safe and standard is better than risking to completely collapse early on. But my way of playing Go is to start a big fight that spreads all over the board until either side does collapse. To hell with territory. Because in the end, winning is winning and losing is losing, whether by one point or one hundred points. In other words, all or nothing strategies are playable.
As for catching up, I already sort of addressed it: if your inital plan won't work, defend and switch tech instead of committing suicide.
Keeping it simple would be playing standard, and having a game plan that minimises the ammount of multitasking required. mutalisk scourge into mass hydra zvp with lots of maneuvering around the map and flanking means lots of multitasking. Lurker ling contain means less multitasking, all the action happening in one area, etc. Keeping it simple is turtling to 200/200 terran, or going +1 speedlot rush with protoss.
Interesting view, at least if your mechanics are somewhat deficient compared to your opponent.
You suggest going +1 speedlot rushing. That goes along the lines of what I wrote in "No you don't!" because that build is perfect against FE or tech builds with insufficient defense. But then again, this is all or nothing as well, so you're arguing a bit against yourself, I believe.
Your "counter" games are just horrible. I can only speak for the games including a zerg as my knowledge of p and t is lacking at best. Hydrarush isn't a counter to the bisu build just as a firebat push isnt a counter to the 2 hatch/3hatch muta. Not knowing the difference between those makes me wonder if you have...
..ok I actually read through more of the OP and realized you have to be trolling, don't quite get all the thankful people. Is this some sort of inside joke?
On December 07 2008 12:03 Supah wrote: Your "counter" games are just horrible. I can only speak for the games including a zerg as my knowledge of p and t is lacking at best. Hydrarush isn't a counter to the bisu build just as a firebat push isnt a counter to the 2 hatch/3hatch muta. Not knowing the difference between those makes me wonder if you have...
Did you watch the games? These are proof that it worked at least once.
Besides, my guide isn't about build X countering build Y; it's about thinking outside the box.
..ok I actually read through more of the OP and realized you have to be trolling, don't quite get all the thankful people. Is this some sort of inside joke?
I've watched them and remembered them well enough to recognize the game from the still picture of the youtube link. ;P I still think you're trolling, but if no mod closes this in a day or so I guess I will take the bait.
I agree with supah after reading the thread, op answers are just so poor. If your not trolling then please take a time to reevaluate your work and read some better guides. I expect chill to close this in one day, theres nothing coming from this thread.
I'm not absolutely sure it's a troll, but the strategies and the fact they were done on maps like Plasma, Troy, and Katrina really don't offer too much insight into standard play.
On December 06 2008 05:54 vAltyR wrote: as an example/demonstration: In a recent PvT Help thread, I suggest (jokingly, before anyone comments on my noobishness ) corsair/ht mixed with the usual protoss ground force to combat the terran push. The reasoning behind that was the stargate and fleet beacon would tip off the terran that you were going carriers, so he would mass goliaths. Then you build high templars to counter the inevitable mass goliaths, and corsairs with disruption web to help against the tanks. The point is to get him to waste money massing goliaths instead of more tanks. Also, if he doesn't scout it or doesn't switch to goliaths, you can easily tech switch to carriers since you already have the tech required for them. Arbiters are just a tribunal away as well.
If it does work, that's resources well spent.
The risk however is that the Terran realizes soon enough that he's being conned.
I think you could tell that they werent going carriers after a few drops or scans though.. plus you would probably see the sairs and be like wtf? Which might work..
I did not learn anything from it, rather I had a good time rewatching a few vods and hearing a perspective how certain things in starcraft can play out. I spent more time in my own thoughts then trying to digest the ops main points ...
I thought this was well-thought out and entertaining. 5/5. Keep it up. Some of the things you say are .... crazy and or dramatic and or wrong, but I didn't read this to reach A-, I read it because it was a good way to spend a couple minutes.
I also agree that though there wasn't much to learn from the OP, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of things that were discussed that most people think is common sense but end up failing to realize that they also have these problems too.
Nonetheless, this is also a good source of related VODs
Plus a good read too, not too deep or serious either.
On December 07 2008 15:46 malongo wrote: I expect chill to close this in one day, theres nothing coming from this thread.
There's a bunch of nit-picking little gosus popping up to refute every little trivial detail. But HEY! That's better than a misleading op, at least THEY'RE contributing, riiiiiiiight?
Now stupidity increases people start arguing about what the other says/thinks and the flamewar goes on. Nice end of thread, good job troll.
People are just mean for flaming the OP, if you don't have anything constructive to say, don't say shit at all. and if you guys have actually read the conversations between us and the OP, you would not have say "nothing coming from this thread". and No Chill is not going to close this, but he might ban you guys for flaming.
I wasn't actually trying to make onepost look bad, and I didn't.
Nit-picking on little trivial strategical details in a strategy forum. Holy shit, what assholes. They weren't even little or trivial points either, and even if they were, it doesn't matter because onepost's guide isn't going to be ruined.
Furthermore, "at least THEY'RE contributing, riiiiiight?" - Yes. If people didn't nit-pick on major details, then there'd be random unchallenged guides to using bisu build pvt and chumps everywhere memorising the build orders because everyone was too polite to go 'hey the build is good and all and your bisu build guide is great but you dont use it versus terran you asshole', and then everyone wins because you get to learn bisu build and also learn not to use it against terran and hence the magic of teamliquid and community discussion and strategy forums blah blah I intentionally made my point long-winded when I could have been concise because I want to waste your time, roadrunner_sc.
On December 07 2008 17:29 hide.X wrote: I wasn't actually trying to make onepost look bad, and I didn't.
Nit-picking on little trivial strategical details in a strategy forum. Holy shit, what assholes. They weren't even little or trivial points either, and even if they were, it doesn't matter because onepost's guide isn't going to be ruined.
Furthermore, "at least THEY'RE contributing, riiiiiight?" - Yes. If people didn't nit-pick on major details, then there'd be random unchallenged guides to using bisu build pvt and chumps everywhere memorising the build orders because everyone was too polite to go 'hey the build is good and all and your bisu build guide is great but you dont use it versus terran you asshole', and then everyone wins because you get to learn bisu build and also learn not to use it against terran and hence the magic of teamliquid and community discussion and strategy forums blah blah I intentionally made my point long-winded when I could have been concise because I want to waste your time, roadrunner_sc.
You are a shitty poster and you analogies are garbage.
EPT
) corsair/ht mixed with the usual protoss ground force to combat the terran push. The reasoning behind that was the stargate and fleet beacon would tip off the terran that you were going carriers, so he would mass goliaths. Then you build high templars to counter the inevitable mass goliaths, and corsairs with disruption web to help against the tanks. The point is to get him to waste money massing goliaths instead of more tanks. Also, if he doesn't scout it or doesn't switch to goliaths, you can easily tech switch to carriers since you already have the tech required for them. Arbiters are just a tribunal away as well.
