EPT! Day[9] Podcasts E14: TvZ on Heartbreak Ridge - Page 25
| Forum Index > Brood War Strategy |
|
kaleidoscope
Singapore2887 Posts
| ||
|
ReCharge
Philippines505 Posts
Elements of the Build: 3/5 goons + range DT attack before turrets get up ^^ | ||
|
Strayline
United States330 Posts
Overall, I thought it was great but you assert many times that it is better to re-arrange your build order than to change your game plan. But I noticed you never really said why... ...at least not explicitly (or I missed it.) I mean obviously in some cases it's better to stick with your plan like if you have to abandon some tech you've invested in or something but I will usually change my gameplan if I see something nonstandard early in the game. For example, (and for the record: I'm D/D+ so this may not be the greatest idea) I like to be as annoying as I can with lurkers against protoss who are 1 base teching in the hopes that it will be really hard for them to get obs off that one gas. I'm really hoping I can make him GG in the midgame at this point or at least cripple him really badly. Tell me why I should stick with a less aggressive contain/deny third->drop->hive at that point. I took the bottom line of the point you were making as "never deviate unless your opponent does something that your current plan really cannot deal with." And in the situation above, I have no reason to think that it would be impossible for me to win (or I would be seriously disadvantaged) by modifying the expansion timings, unit to drone ratios at various times, etc if the protoss 1 gate techs instead of fast expands I just don't see what that is automatically a better choice. Again, forgive me if above example is really bad strategically, but even if it is the case that fast lurkers is a bad response to 1 gate tech, that doesn't necessarily imply that my original gameplan was automatically the best of all possible choices I could make at that point does it? You make a good case that it's usually more possible to stick with a plan than most people think and the ideas about how to think about build orders seem right to me, but I'm not sure you've convinced me that I should stick with my original plan. Why will that help me... you know... win. I mean I can think of some reasons (it's mentally jarring to change horses midstream for example) but I would like to hear why you are so sure about it you treated it as an axiom in that cast  Thanks, Strayline | ||
|
Hammy
France828 Posts
However, I think that the shorter, more to the point, casts were generally better. This cast seemed to repeat itself a lot and would give sooo much detail, especially when talking about examples. I'm sure some people think these points are what make this cast good, but in my own opinion, anyone who's actually listening to the theory wouldn't need so many details in the examples; and anyone who is only half listening wouldn't catch all those details anyways. Thanks again though, it was still really good : ) | ||
|
goswser
United States3519 Posts
| ||
|
HooHa!
United States688 Posts
I never could explain it this way either. But I imagine guide making may be a little more differently now. Or actually I would like to see a written BO guide in the style of this new way to think of it. | ||
|
threepool
United States150 Posts
On May 28 2009 03:06 Strayline wrote:Why will that help me... you know... win. I can't speak for Day[9] and I'm not the most fantastic Starcraft player, (also D/D+) but I do know a few things about strategy in general and these are my thoughts. I think the basic idea is: why bother coming up with 20 good strategies when you only need one? And why give up a very strong build that you know inside and out just because you're forced to put buildings down in a different order? There's nothing inherently bad or weak about changing your strategy in a game, but being able to control the game and force the other player to adapt to your style of play is a much more powerful approach. I'm very familiar with this in the game of Go. When I play tournament games, I can really feel the power of my personal style. I'm always driving the game in the direction that makes me the most comfortable, and if I can really get it to that place, I feel confident that I can win even if I'm objectively behind. If I'm forced to, I can play in a style that makes me less comfortable, but it's less fun, and wins me fewer games. I developed this approach to the game in a very similar way to what Day[9] described in his cast. I considered what kind of midgame I enjoyed playing the most--a strong position and the initiative to attack my opponent--and started experimenting with guiding the flow of the opening in that direction. Soon I found that I could easily beat many opponents who did not take my preparations seriously, and even those that did often had a tough time. Anyway, the point is that you don't just want to play a game and take it... somewhere. You always want to be looking ahead to when and how you're going to win, and taking steps in that direction. Then if your opponent doesn't stop you, you win, but you don't necessarily lose even if he does stop you. Somebody else can answer your specific build question in detail, but I have a feeling the answer is: it's fine, as long as you have clear midgame goals that are consistent with your play. | ||
|
R3condite
Korea (South)1541 Posts
keep it uppp | ||
|
jonnyp
United States415 Posts
| ||
|
zomgzergrush
United States923 Posts
| ||
|
stroggos
New Zealand1543 Posts
I challenge you to do an in depth podcast on 'how to exploit the enemies army control as a zerg player' Because this is something Pros have started taking to a new level these days to win their games. A good example would be these two games | ||
|
prOxi.Beater
Denmark626 Posts
Unit tactics would be a cool subject to dive into in your next podcast. Let's show that Sun Tzu (Wu?) guy who the true boss of tactics is! | ||
|
FieryBalrog
United States1381 Posts
One question I had- the only times you mentioned to deviate are situations which your build order simply can't handle. However, are there situations where it is a bigger net payoff to deviate from your current strategy to a new strategy based on what the opponent is doing, even if you could theoretically hold him off by rearranging your build and continue doing what you're doing? The reason I'm asking is that there seems to be more build order diversity among the pros than one would expect given this podcast, if most major builds could simply re-arrange to accommodate other builds, then what would be the point of opening with unorthodox or niche builds? | ||
|
Knickknack
United States1187 Posts
You suggest the alternative of talking about build orders as "an optimization of an idea". Further, "A build orders is how you arrange these key components leading up the execution of your idea. The most important aspect of this notion of build orders is that you can rearrange these key components, and you will still will end up accomplishing the same big idea you had in mind." Even quite early you admit there are good bits of truth in first sort of definition of build order. And in the end, the la st step in the process of build creation would be to come up with "an instruction set based upon food." The reason for this confused oppositional attitude...and my take? A build order is simply the order in which you get things. A build order can be quite general in that it just notes "key components". Or a build order can be exact food counts...for instance, 8pylon, 10gate, 12assim, 14core, 15pylon, 17goon, 20range, etc. This is because "build order" is somewhat ambiguous, and different forms of build order have advantages and disadvantages. The idea of optimization has nothing to do with the idea of a build order in itself though. The idea of optimization is implicit in a good build order however. That is the important thing to take from parts 1-2 in my mind, that good build orders have to do with optimization (what I have called efficiency). After part 2 I zoned out when rambling about game examples, but it seems you were talking more about optimization, if never getting into exact food counts. ----- To bellow: You don't really hit on any of my points, and I guess you don't follow. He presented one way of thinking about build orders, and then another way as a new look at build orders. Mind you, I am not making a big deal about this. I think this was largely for the purpose of set-up, setting a stage as it were. In the end after all he does return to food based instructions, as well as say there is much truth in the first definition, even after associating it with being quite bad. I suppose the main point is that this opposition blurred the lines between simply "a build order" and "a good build order", which I make sure are distinct. | ||
|
Zozma
United States1626 Posts
Still, your idea is not mutually exclusive with his: There is indeed an order in which you build things, but why do you build them in that order? To accomplish your goal, or "big idea". | ||
|
peanutter
Australia165 Posts
| ||
|
DarkYoDA
United States1347 Posts
| ||
|
Hundredth
United Kingdom142 Posts
D/D+/even C- players should probably be focusing on standard builds and improving their mechanics from what I've seen, and you're constantly telling people to 'find their own styles and builds' Would you really advise these ways of thinking for low level players? I'm not saying it's wrong but it seems like a much slower way for a low level player to improve. | ||
|
Bebop Berserker
United States246 Posts
On May 31 2009 21:42 Hundredth wrote: I really think you should cover who these advanced topics at aimed at. D/D+/even C- players should probably be focusing on standard builds rather than focusing on mechanics from what I've seen, and you're constantly telling people to 'find their own styles and builds' Would you really advise these ways of thinking for low level players? I'm not saying it's wrong but it seems like a much slower way for a low level player to improve. I think you are VERY wrong. Theory: Learn ONE standard Build order Like te back of your hand.TYour skill and rank jump. A month later. Your D + and finding it hard to jump.So you learn a different build order (some odd days later) Okay Now you begin jumping in ranks and skill or falling back to low D.Now you evaluate the build order and how you messed it up or used it right. Then you now know one of your strengths or weaknesses. Applied: I find that Micro intensive build orders are REALLY hit or miss for me. It is almost 100% in correlation with my APM that game. When I play macro games I have a much lower win loss ration except T v Z. Therefore I use Macro and Micro builds T v Z and some more micro intensive builds t v t and T v P. These allow me to learn to learn to micro and macro faster and playing on my strength(micro). Example: I'm simply not as good at Late game t v p unless Ive harassed them. So I open dropship tvp often. This gets me more wins and allows me to play off my strengths rather than someone elses build order designed for their strengths. It took me a while in D+ to realize I needed to switch away from standard and try to develop something my opponents haven't seen or didn't expect.(while maintaining my strengths ofc) | ||
|
Hundredth
United Kingdom142 Posts
Anyway, what I said is learning 1 build order seems more efficient. You got to D+ then found it hard then dropped it? That's what it sounds like to me.. and of course you'll find things hard but overcoming them is improvement. | ||
| ||
