|
Zurich15325 Posts
old guidelines
+ Show Spoiler +SC2 Strategy Forum Guidelines Release is upon us! For now the rules from the beta are still in effect. Rule No 1 Everything you say must be supported by evidence This game is still fairly new and evolving all the time. No one has a definite answer for every strategy related question for SC2. Thus it is extremely important that you back up everything with sound reasoning, a replay, a VOD, anything that supports the point you are making. Your word is not enough - you know just as little about the game as everybody else. That said, there are already people much more qualified to talk about strategy than others. You will see their posts in this forum highlighted with a darkish blue background. Statements by these individuals will be weighted differently than had they be posted by complete unknowns. Thus, the less reputation you have the more you need to back up your claims as described further up (Note however that this does not excuse outrageous claims by a good player – in the end everything will need proof). Also keep in mind: - This is no place for balance discussion. - B.net league placements aren't that relevant. Your diamond top spot doesn't mean anything. Categorization Always put the right tag ([H][D][G][Q]) in your thread title Tagging your threads is very important. The difference between [D] Bisu Build and [G] Bisu Build is worlds apart. Please use thread categorization correctly as described below. Not only will the expectation to your thread depend on it but of course you will get feedback faster also. Categorizing thread makes it easy to find threads later using the search. You can search for “[H] Bisu Build ” and there you are. [L] Low Level You know you aren't a star player and you need help with fundamentals Use the [L] tag if you are still learning the basics of the game and if you have fundamental problems / questions. There is no clear cut line where "Low Level" starts - it's up to you. Do you feel you need input from a top tier player, or are you still working on mechanics? Judge your own skill. Please note that making a [L] thread does not exclude you from obeying the rest of these guidelines or allows you to ask stupid questions. [H] Help threads. Post a replay, give your own analysis, get help! The classic “Why did I lose this game?”. For these threads it is absolutely required that you post a replay. No exceptions. Nobody is going to be able to help you if you won’t post a replay. Additionally, first put some thought into what happened in the game, and include your own analysis into the thread. It might be wrong, but try your best. It doesn’t have to be long, a few point form lines is enough to give people a starting point to give you advice. Your thread won’t last if you won’t put any effort in it. If you have specific questions, ask them along with your analysis. It’s always easier to reply if we know what exactly you need help with. [Q] Question threads Ask for help with or against a specific strategy In a [Q] thread you may ask about a specific, situational strategy, whether that is executing it yourself of playing against it. It is very important that you keep these threads specific. A general "How to FE against Zerg?" is not acceptable. This is the most important distinction from the [H] threads. As with [H] thread you must post one or several replays. Post some analysis of the problem, and what you have tried so far. This not only avoids redundant advice but also shows people you have put some effort into this yourself. As with the [H] threads, it makes it a lot easier to help you if you ask a couple of specific questions regarding the strategy you are unsure about. Feedback on [H] and [Q] threads Be respectful and accept the advice you get Be respectful of the opinions people give you – you came here looking for help. If you disagree with a reply, cite examples or give some sort of analysis supporting why you disagree. Experienced players should be direct and give advice that is generally accepted as standard. Their advice should be as specific as possible, as open-ended advice (“play faster”) isn’t very helpful. Only reply to a help thread if you are an experienced SC2 player, and if you have watched the replay. Otherwise, these threads are simply no place for you to post. [D] Discussion threads Be clear about the topic and the feedback your are hoping for This is the most open form of thread. Use a Discussion thread if you are not certain about some game mechanic and you want to get the feedback from other players. This can be about strategy and tactics, the role and viability of certain units, rock paper scissor counters, etc. The building blocks of what becomes sound SC2 strategy. While the thread is less formal, please be clear and concise on the topic you want to discuss about, and open with your own opinion. Don’t make the topic too broad. This is the perfect way to post a strategy you came up with that is not quite ready to be turned into a guide (See below). Post your strategy and point out the areas where you are not sure about it’s validity and ask for feedback. Feedback on discussion threads Be respectful and remember Rule No 1 You wanted to generate discussion, so please don’t brush off suggestions you don’t agree with. Post your counter argument and back it up (Rule No 1). The same goes for people replying to such threads. Threads like these are a welcome place for people less experienced to ask for opinions, make suggestions and engage in discussion. [G] Guides Know what you are talking about Guides are complete, detailed, and comprehensive advice for a specific strategy or tactic that can be generally executed and is not situational. Guides are held up against the highest standards of quality in this forum. They are the most valuable resource for the average player. Writing a good guide may yield you wide appreciation and e-fame, but comes with a lot of work and responsibility. Naturally, do not write a guide about something you are not experienced with. If you have come up with a new build and you just won 6 games in a row with it, do not start writing a guide. Play your build more, tweak it, find out it’s weaknesses and follow-ups and branches. A good rule of thumb is to play a strategy until you lose a couple of times with it against different counters, then modify it until you win most games again, then start to think about writing a guide. A good guide does not necessarily have to be written about a build in a specific matchup, although that is most common. If you have found a new, incredibly effective way to micro Helions you can write a generic Helion micro guide. Most of the time guides will introduce builds in specific matchups though. Look through our legacy Strategy forum to get an idea on how to write good matchup build guides. There is no perfect recipe, but a few things to take care of: State the goal of the build, strengths, weaknesses, possible follow-up, and adaptations to what the opponent does. Dedicate a chapter to scouting and how to react to what you see within your build. To give you an idea of the quality we are eventually aiming for have a look at this incredible SC:BW guide: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=89265Feedback on Guides Be respectful and remember Rule No 1 A guide is always evolving as the game is being more and more understood and as people find counter strategies. As the author it is your job to keep the guide up to date. If other players find weaknesses or suggest changes to the build, it is your job to alter it accordingly. If you disagree, fall back to Rule No 1: Post a replay or some other form of proof that the criticism isn’t valid. If you think you found a hole in a posted guide, describe your findings and why you think the guide is weak there. It makes your point incredibly more believable if you post a replay along. Also don't be lazy: Make a suggestion on how to adapt the guide to address your criticism. This is how the best guides that stand the test of time are created. Contribute Contribute to this forum! Give good and meaningful advice when you can. Write good introductory OPs to spawn discussion. Even when your thread does not follow these rules here at all, if it's still a well written OP it will stay. We will always reward effort put into our forums. This site has been the number one resource for Starcraft strategy for one reason: Because it's base of enthusiastic players put an indescribable amount of combined effort into it. Be a part of the best source for Starcraft2 Strategy from the beginning!
|
|
|
just take my life as i shall not be tortured anymore in my being of not invited
|
On February 24 2010 01:07 Teejing wrote:
just take my life as i shall not be tortured anymore in my being of not invited
K, any chance I can have your battlenet account since you won't be needing it?
|
is there going to be an sc2 liquipedia?
|
That said, there are already people much more qualified to talk about strategy than others. This includes ladder top spots, Blizzard employees, good BW players that have logged a decent number of games in SC2, and people who have shown they got what it takes through streaming a lot of high level gaming. Naturally, statements by these individuals will be weighted differently than had they be posted by complete unknowns. Thus, the less reputation you have the more you need to back up your claims as described further up (Note however that this does not excuse outrageous claims by a good player – in the end everything will need proof).
That depends.
Some "pros" are good at SC only because they play it a lot.
That doesn't make them any bit more knowledgable about Starcraft 2 than any other gamer who maybe didn't play original SC as hardcore, but is a competitive RTS player in general.
I get what you're saying, but this elitism sometimes really does piss me off personally..
|
Rule No 2
- Nothing is imba (yet). If you found something imba, it's most likely not. Find a counter.
I like this a lot. I've seen a lot of threads claiming something is imba, and every time I get the feeling that they're overreacting. (But unfortunately, due to rule 1 , I can't call them out on it.  (I'm both a nobody, and I don't have beta))
|
I really need to stop reading some of these SC2 forum posts.. they're just packed with speculations, assumptions and people speaking as if they "know" what they're talking about.
Nice with new rules though.. hopefully we can get less BS on the boards.
|
I think its wrong to claim that nothing is imba. Of course we shouldn't scream imba with no reason and before something can be declared imba it needs a lot of testing. Also something might seem imba when its actually something else affecting it that is imba (Like mutalisks might seem imba because there are no good counters to it in some races. Then the units that are supposed to counter it might need a boost rather than nerfing the muta).
However this is a beta and the purpose of the beta is to find out what is imba and to balance the game. If we don't call things imba when they are imba then how will the game ever be balanced and what is the point of even having a beta?
|
|
|
Zurich15325 Posts
On February 27 2010 03:10 3FFA wrote:
Why change Q/I to D?
I will probably introduce a distinction into Questions and pure THeorycrafting as the beta progresses. The reason this isn't there now is that pretty much ALL threads so far have been unsubstantiated theorycrafting anyway. As people get more familiar with the game more serious Q threads are possible.
|
On February 27 2010 03:10 3FFA wrote:
Why change Q/I to D?
I would say it's because there are no "answers" yet - a ton of things are still new ideas, and "questions" rarely have a definite answer at this stage.
|
Zurich15325 Posts
On February 27 2010 00:56 MidKnight wrote:Show nested quote +That said, there are already people much more qualified to talk about strategy than others. This includes ladder top spots, Blizzard employees, good BW players that have logged a decent number of games in SC2, and people who have shown they got what it takes through streaming a lot of high level gaming. Naturally, statements by these individuals will be weighted differently than had they be posted by complete unknowns. Thus, the less reputation you have the more you need to back up your claims as described further up (Note however that this does not excuse outrageous claims by a good player – in the end everything will need proof). That depends. Some "pros" are good at SC only because they play it a lot. That doesn't make them any bit more knowledgable about Starcraft 2 than any other gamer who maybe didn't play original SC as hardcore, but is a competitive RTS player in general. I get what you're saying, but this elitism sometimes really does piss me off personally..
This has nothing to do with BW elitism. Yes obviously other top RTS gamers that play SC2 a lot will be just as good as BW gamers. However, they are largely unknown on these forums and thus can not bank on their reputation.
|
Zurich15325 Posts
On February 27 2010 03:10 3FFA wrote:
Why change Q/I to D?
Update: Added Q.
|
thx zatic and pokebunny for your answers.
Zatic: How come I never really heard of you until this forum was made? I've seen a ton of people(Liquid'Drone, Chill, Cgrinker(sorry if thats misspelled) ,Frozen Arbiter, thedeadhaji, etc. But I've only seen you in this forum and a bit in the SCII forum for Gameplay vods.
|
Zurich15325 Posts
Probably because you joined TL 2 weeks ago. There are a lot of people you have never really heard about let me tell you.
True though that I am usually not as visible on the forums as others may be.
|
Well, I've been lurking for the past 2--3 years here. Only in late January did my parents say that they would let me become a member here.
|
On March 04 2010 03:21 3FFA wrote:
Well, I've been lurking for the past 2--3 years here. Only in late January did my parents say that they would let me become a member here.
^ lol
|
On March 04 2010 03:21 3FFA wrote:
Well, I've been lurking for the past 2--3 years here. Only in late January did my parents say that they would let me become a member here.
cool story, bro!
User was temp-banned for this post
|
Sorry, I don't understand the distinction between H and Q.
Please clarify! >_<
Are [H] threads restricted to replay analysis and warrants the OP's own input?
Is [H] > [Q], whilst [Q] providing more specificity and focus on particular questions/queries?
Thanks!
|
Zurich15325 Posts
On April 28 2010 08:39 taruts wrote:
[Q] providing more specificity and focus on particular questions/queries?
Yes.
|
|
|
I have seen [R] threads popping up, I never followed Brood War is this just a carry over from that or am I missing something obvious?
Thanks,
|
Zurich15325 Posts
On May 26 2010 03:16 rastaban wrote:
I have seen [R] threads popping up, I never followed Brood War is this just a carry over from that or am I missing something obvious?
Thanks,
I have no idea why people make those or what they think it means. I have seen [R]equests and [R]eplays, but there is really no way of telling what people try to say when they tag [R]. So, no you aren't missing anything.
|
Thanks Zatic. Today when I was making my first topic, I finally found out where it was coming from. The below appears when posting a new topic:
Note: If you're requesting information or asking a question, please remember to put a [R] tag or at least a "?" in the topic title. Also, always search before making a new thread to see if your question has already been answered
|
wish i had read this before my first post, how embarrassing lol.
read and understood
|
|
|
What about [M] for maps?
Just wondering because I have seen a few threads that start with that.
|
On June 29 2010 09:43 Antares777 wrote:
What about [M] for maps?
Just wondering because I have seen a few threads that start with that.
Those will go in the SC2 general forum, not the strategy forum.
|
basically people have started to make up tags, lol.
|
|
|
Might want to update the Forum guidelines "This is still in Beta".
Just a suggestion.
|
Good set of guidelines, helped me out a bit understanding what the meaning of the tags were. Also good to know TL has standards the same level as my own, lol.
|
Is there an absolute noob guide anywhere?
|
I wait for a week and let the players be familiarized with the game and formulated a strategy. I had a few here in my mind but not yet supported with concrete details. Well I was hoping to find new here..
SC2 is a lot different when it comes to strategies compare to other game and ALOT of different units have been added as well as some removed from the previous one (SC1). That’s what I love most and I may say all the sacrifices that made by not buying warcraft gold for a month just to have the SC2 copy are all worth it.
|
This needs an update -> you talk about beta
|
![[image loading]](http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff148/Quatsch1/1246421322949.jpg)
I dunno.
User was warned for this post
|
On July 26 2010 02:27 TheKing. wrote:
Might want to update the Forum guidelines "This is still in Beta".
Just a suggestion.
yea this
On June 29 2010 10:02 Mastermind wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2010 09:43 Antares777 wrote:
What about [M] for maps?
Just wondering because I have seen a few threads that start with that. Those will go in the SC2 general forum, not the strategy forum.
and there is actually a map forum now
|
|
|
Read.
Very well written.
gg
|
edit: whoops responded to wrong thread
|
Is it possible to amend the guidelines for [H] threads? I'm wondering if we can require that players post their league and rating in addition to a replay. League and rating are useful because it makes it much easier to target advice.
|
"Even when your thread does not follow these rules here at all, if it's still a well written OP it will stay. We will always reward effort put into our forums."
So if i write an OP about how terran is imba that can be seen to have alot of effort put into it, does that mean it will stay?
|
Zurich15325 Posts
No. This is a strategy forum, any balance discussion has no place here. Common sense please.
|
back to topic:
I use hallucinated units (doesn't matter as long as they damage ground) to hid the actions of DTs. Keeps the opponent guessing longer so they don't scan / get detectors.
|
I think it should be a requirement as of 1.2 that everyone who claims to be in masters league links their bnet profile
|
Zurich15325 Posts
We'll see what happens. If Master will just be the new Diamond then there is no point in identifying master league posters.
|
Would it be possible to add [L] to the list of thread topic identifiers?
[L] - Low-level. Include this if your topic focuses on lower level play.
It would of course be self-regulated but could be loosely defined as anything below mid-diamond or possibly just plat and below.
I think it's great to help lower-level players when they post (and I myself am no pro), but it's frustrating to open seven or eight topics in a row some days and read about some build/guide/help for a silver player when I'm looking for higher level discussions. (And I don't mean that in any elitist way. It's just for the sake of assisting in time management.)
Or perhaps [A]? - advanced. for discussions of higher-level play.
Just some thoughts. It gets a bit dichotomous in this forum sometimes.
|
Zurich15325 Posts
This is actually a good idea. I will include this for now, thanks for the suggestion!
|
Hello guys im atm 2200 Terran player and can't win versus Protoss.
I've been strugling for a while now, well not just stuggling, ive been losing 95% of my TvP matches recently.
Feels like i have been trying mostly every build, but whatever i do it seems to be a huge weakness to it. And if Protoss plays standard i anyways lose in mid or lategame.
I've been adding some replays of my usual game style which clearly not working atm.
(u need to copy whole line dnu why it is wierd.)
1. Is Stepps which i made 3rax expand while pushing, Biglose with scouting..
http://data.fuskbugg.se/dipdip/TvP DT + BIG ARMY WTF.SC2Replay
2. Losing on delta
http://data.fuskbugg.se/dipdip/_Delta Quadrant.SC2Replay
3. Losing LT
http://data.fuskbugg.se/dipdip/___Lost Temple (2).SC2Replay
4. Winnig 4 once. with banshee opening, soo if protoss didnt fast expand id prob lose anyway lol.
http://data.fuskbugg.se/dipdip/Metalopolis (4).SC2Replay
There is some replays of my standard games and its clearly not working, i would really appriciate some advice and guideness soo i can evolve in my builds, macro and micro.
What is your standard build TvP and how do they work out (What do they lose to etc..)
Kind Reggards Veasel
|
I am new here and read the 'this is our house' section first. I had no idea of the meaning of [H], [D], etc. thank you for this. I recommend as the second read when you first join.
|
Might you consider renaming this thread to emphasize the importance of reading it before posting anything? I believe there also is a vbulletin mod that exists where you can force someone who hasn't posted in a section before to read/agree that they have read a certain thread first.
Some days it seems like the guidelines are batting about 40%
|
Zurich15325 Posts
When you are making a thread in SC2 Strategy you are reminded of these guidelines and you have to confirm you read them, so that is already in place.
What name would you suggest for the thread?
|
On March 15 2011 17:22 zatic wrote:
When you are making a thread in SC2 Strategy you are reminded of these guidelines and you have to confirm you read them, so that is already in place.
What name would you suggest for the thread?
Ah, I thought so but couldn't remember. I guess it needs more humungous bold and red letters.
Maybe like "PLEASE READ THIS" or "READ BEFORE POSTING" or something equally annoying?
|
There are an awful lot of threads with titles like "PvT: I just can't do it". Maybe make it a rule that that's too vague of a topic to have a thread on. If you're going to post a thread you should really have some issue you want people to focus on, and that issue should be in the title. Otherwise you should probably just go read some guides.
|
Attaching replay should just become completely mandatory or instant closed thread. Slap on the wrist as necessary.
|
Zurich15325 Posts
On March 26 2011 02:02 Resistentialism wrote:
There are an awful lot of threads with titles like "PvT: I just can't do it". Maybe make it a rule that that's too vague of a topic to have a thread on. If you're going to post a thread you should really have some issue you want people to focus on, and that issue should be in the title. Otherwise you should probably just go read some guides.
Please report the thread (PM a moderator) when you see them. They have indeed no place here.
|
whats a [L] tag im new to this forums
|
On April 10 2011 12:52 GetToDaChoppa wrote:
whats a [L] tag im new to this forums
Answer
+ Show Spoiler +[L] Low Level
You know you aren't a star player and you need help with fundamentals
Use the [L] tag if you are still learning the basics of the game and if you have fundamental problems / questions. There is no clear cut line where "Low Level" starts - it's up to you. Do you feel you need input from a top tier player, or are you still working on mechanics? Judge your own skill.
Please note that making a [L] thread does not exclude you from obeying the rest of these guidelines or allows you to ask stupid questions.
And the answer can also be found in the OP of this very thread.
|
|
|
I created a new build/strategy (may be already created) ONLY AGAINST TOSS
1. 12 pool (no gas)
2. 14 hatch (in opponents base)- should be hidden
3. Ping the map and tell your opponent you have a proxy hatch
4. The first zealot of the toss and some probes are likely to attack hatchery (The toss would of walled off)
5. While this was happening, you should of been pumping zerglings. Stop drone production when you get the hatchery.
6. When the wall off zealot or units is not there, flood in with your zerglings
7. i primarily try to snipe the pylon, but you could do something else
8. The game should be yours if he had only 1 zealot out. ( Dance with the probes while more come)
Well thats my build/strategy....
It could definitely improve...
You should get a queen when your pool finishes... if you have enough minerals
Please comment below to criticize my build. Practiced this against gold players.... there might be difficulty pulling this off :D glhf
|
|
|
On May 09 2011 07:52 sokPIZZAZZ wrote:
I created a new build/strategy (may be already created) ONLY AGAINST TOSS
1. 12 pool (no gas)
2. 14 hatch (in opponents base)- should be hidden
3. Ping the map and tell your opponent you have a proxy hatch
4. The first zealot of the toss and some probes are likely to attack hatchery (The toss would of walled off)
5. While this was happening, you should of been pumping zerglings. Stop drone production when you get the hatchery.
6. When the wall off zealot or units is not there, flood in with your zerglings
7. i primarily try to snipe the pylon, but you could do something else
8. The game should be yours if he had only 1 zealot out. ( Dance with the probes while more come)
Well thats my build/strategy....
It could definitely improve...
You should get a queen when your pool finishes... if you have enough minerals
Please comment below to criticize my build. Practiced this against gold players.... there might be difficulty pulling this off :D glhf
This is like the third post i've seen you write this in. Please stop posting this nonsense.
|
glad to of gotten some clarification on what all these bracketed letters mean, was beginning to get confused. Also, what is the requirement for evidence in discussion threads? Am I at risk of being banned if do not always have strong evidence to back my opinions?
|
On May 28 2011 17:21 .Mthex- wrote:
glad to of gotten some clarification on what all these bracketed letters mean, was beginning to get confused. Also, what is the requirement for evidence in discussion threads? Am I at risk of being banned if do not always have strong evidence to back my opinions?
Lets imagine there is a discussion about an all in build. You can say "its easy to hold off with 2 bunkers", but without a VOD, screenshot, replay or what ever, this is rather useless. If you do not have evidence it means you did not see or play this, so its just guessing. However, if you are just guessing, you could as well join a game try it out and then post the replay and say "you can/can't hold this with 2 bunkers".
|
[L/H]
Dear all: I can't make a new topic yet. But I have a big problem: I'm starting out SCII and am playing online since two days and I realize that I need to automate a build to get better. Problem: Which build to use? I've seen the recommended threads, but there's no real video with the first two tvx builds (and I don't want to do a 6rack, it takes the fun out of the game).
My question: Is there a nice overall build I can start learning and practicing as a Terran player. Because I'm hopeless now and have NOTHING to fall back on, I'm really insecure :S. I don't even know good pro players who's build I could study  I'm the freshest noob you can imagine.
|
is it true that we cant discuss balance on teamliquid?
im sorry im very new to all of this and i want to follow the rules so im trying my best :/
|
Here's how a balance discussion invariably ends
Just don't even bother unless it's something so painfully obvious even the race in question generally agrees with your sentiment. Also theory crafting isn't a good way to fit in. Welcome to team liquid!
+ Show Spoiler [zatic] +
|
|
|
Dear Admins,
In the near future I am planning to post on Zerg strategy through an analysis of IdrA's play. I am not sure which tag to use for my post. I'm not even certain that my post is strategy forum worthy. I was hoping to get some feedback on these two points.
The premise:
For the past week I have, for my own personal benefit, been intensely studying IdrA's ladder play through the recorded VODs on his stream. My analysis:
(1)The (video) time at the start of each ladder match. The matchup. The map.
eg: 1:25:13 ZvP Tal'Darim
1:34:18 ZvZ Tal'Darim
1:44:50 ZvP Shakuras
1:57:16 ZvZ Shakuras
(2)The opening IdrA uses in each specific match.
eg: 1:25:13 ZvZ Tal'Darim
15 Hatch. 15 Pool. 17 Gas.
(3)Anything notable in his decision making. So a full match description would look like this:
1:34:18 ZvZ Tal'Darim
15 Hatch. 15 Pool. 17 Gas. @100% Instant Roach Warren. Scouts opponent is 1-base. 1 Queen at natural. Opponent is aggressive with sling/bling. Pure lings to defend until Roach Warren finish. Pure roaches to defend. Delay lingspeed until safe w/ roaches. Roach/ling all-in after seeing little followup aggression from opponent. (Assumed opponent took his natural).
So far my analysis covers two streaming sessions - August 3rd 6PM and August 7th 6PM. There's a LOT more data to go!
I am a mid-masters Zerg player. This analysis has been EXTREMELY useful to me, and I think it would be nice to share it with the TL community to help out fellow Zergs and encourage them to do the same.
I realize each game is situational. That's why I have gone through many games. Through this I have identified patterns in IdrA's play, and I have adopted these patterns into my own play.
1) I have identified patterns in his mechanics - the little subtleties and shortcuts that make IdrA a mechanical/macro beast. In general, I have found his mechanical style is very different from other top Zergs. Very calm, relatively low APM and low spam. His mouse accuracy, I feel, is his greatest mechanical attribute. But there are also subtleties that increase his efficiency. For example, while executing his opening he camps his mouse on the position of his next egg rally and spams until the larva pops out and the rally is set. Little things like this give him free time to think, to spot and prepare for cheese, etc.
2) I have identified patterns in his openings. ZvZ is always 15 Hatch 15 Pool 17 Gas. (except Tal'Darim, which is sometimes 15 Hatch 16 Gas 15 Pool.) I have a feeling he sometimes alters his openings according to his opponent's style. ZvP is 15 Hatch 15 Pool 17 Gas, (unless a probescout comes before his hatch timing, then he will 14 Pool, no gas, and attempt to kill the probescout with 2 drones for a 16 hatch). ZvT is 15 Hatch 15 Pool 17-18 Gas. I know Zerg openings aren't a huge huge deal, and every pro does them a little bit differently, but knowing and memorizing IdrA's openings for each matchup/map has made me a LOT more confident going into games. I don't have to worry about things like "Shit, I forget if I should go extractor before pool"
3)Finally, and most valuable, I have identified patterns in his decision making. From my analysis I know exactly the build order and decision-making steps he will take when reacting to a 1-base zerg in ZvZ. a 2-rax in ZvT. A forge FE in ZvP, etc.
The practice of marking each game with video time + matchup + map has also been helpful to me. For example, If I am unsure of where to send my overlords in Xel'Naga ZvT, I can quickly check through my records of IdrA to find a ZvT Xel'Naga game and see where he sends them.
So there you go. These are just some examples I could think off the top of my head at work, but I have a LOT more stuff written down on my word document at home. Would a post like this be worthy for a strategy forum? If so, what tag should it be, [G][D]? Any advice or additional things to include? Thanks.
-Nairul
|
Good Job Nairul!
Many of your listed things seem really "true", because I recognized it, too.
|
Hello, the post I submitted just got closed for "baseless theorycrafting without evidence." I'd like to point out that knowing what's *not* a viable strategy sometimes is as important as knowing what is. The people arguing the point of the strategy not being viable in that thread provided evidence--mathematical even, however the topic was still close for lack of evidence?
Please explain. Post made by moxie on Macro Nexus.
|
Zurich15325 Posts
Well you know now that it is no viable, the question has thus been answered and the thread was closed. I don't see the problem.
|
Hi
I was wondering how you should use a macro hatch. I have seen people like LiquidRet use them to spread creep, and I have seen them placed close by for defense. I personally use them to spread creep as that is a part of my game that needs improving.
Thanks
VoNova
Sorry if this is put together badly I am writing this from an iPod.
|
On August 27 2011 09:06 Coler5ta wrote:
Hi
I was wondering how you should use a macro hatch. I have seen people like LiquidRet use them to spread creep, and I have seen them placed close by for defense. I personally use them to spread creep as that is a part of my game that needs improving.
Thanks
VoNova
Sorry if this is put together badly I am writing this from an iPod. .
Edit:
Aargh please ignore this I got confused by the interface and cant find out how i delete it
|
I asked this in the simple questions and answers thread but perhaps this is not quite that simple nor quick to read xD
On October 09 2011 12:09 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Hey guys I would like an opinion ^0^ it would be great if you can help me.
I'm planning on making the following guides:
1. [G]TvZ Hellion/Banshee Expo <---- Opener
Description: Reactor Hellion Expand into hellions and a couple banshees; contain/delay the zerg from taking his third, while you are ready to take your third (before his!) at 9:10.
27 characters, 2 over the limit, though you would still see "Exp..." at the end...
2. [G] TvZ Thor/Hellion/Ghost <---- General guide
3. [G] TvZ Mech Air <---- General guide
4. [G] TvZ Raven/Marine <---- General guide
5. [G] TvP 2Port PF Expo->Air <---- Opener + General guide
Description: Gas first 1-1-1 banshee opener into 2 Port, into PF Expand, into mass air units. Title is 25 characters (preview limit is 26 I believe).
6. [G] TvT BF Drop Thor Poke
Alternate names?
[G] TvT BF Drop + Thor Poke into Mech
[G] TvT Rainbow's Mech Opener
etc.?
Guides #3 and #4 use #1 as an opener. However, I plan on making #3 and #4 to be full, in depth guides. Would it be reasonable to keep them as separate threads, and just link them in Guide #1 under "transitions"? As an opener, Guide #1 won't be that long, but it'll still cover the basics like Scouting, Build Order, Replays, Mindset, Adaptation, Timings, etc. If I put #3 and #4 into it it would be very very long, but I'm not planning on including more than 1 opener for #3 and #4 other than the opener in Guide #1, and I don't want to make in-depth descriptions of all possible follow ups (it is a opener after all). I think I would like to keep them separate but I'm not sure what TL mods would prefer. On one hand, it's more organized to separate them into threads (like on Liquipedia), but on the other, it can be in 1 thread and be a very "complete" thread. My Guide #5 is just 1 opener and 1 follow-up so I'll keep it as one thread.
Also, can anyone give general feedback to the names of these potential threads? I want them to fit in the preview, if you think that is important.
Additional info: There is already a TvZ Marine/Raven guide, but, along with my TvZ Mech Air guide, they will be about a specific strategy starting with the Hellion/Banshee Expo opener, rather than talking about all possible openers, all possible ways to play them, etc. Would it be more appropriate to title them "TvZ Gumiho's Mech/Air" and "TvZ Yoshi's Raven/Marine," to signify that they are about specific plans rather than exploring every single aspect surrounding a Mech Air or a Raven Marine composition?
|
Go for it. Just get good reps so you can wave rank 1000 masters around without being hubris about it.
|
I would very much like the community's attention to be drawn to Plexa's recent [H] thread (link) as an example of what a Strategy Forum thread should look like.
Points:
- OP is well formed, contains a small selection of pertinent replays and describes both the overarching theme of the question at hand and game-specific details that flesh out each specific instance of the question.
- Jackasses who respond instantly with meaningless advice are immediately shut down by OP/Admin (same person in this case), preventing an immediate derailing into a meaningless debate on an unrelated issue.
- A large number of posts containing actual constructive criticism.
- OP responds to constructive criticism in a positive manner and with followup questions.
- The result: a useful conversation with a high signal to noise ratio from which players with similar problems can learn without having to wade through pages and pages of bad posts to find the nuggets of useful information.
I feel like the thread should be highlighted or otherwise somehow flagged so that more people look at it. If every thread in the Strat forum looked like that I'd spend a lot more time reading and contributing to it.
|
On October 31 2011 21:04 AmericanUmlaut wrote:I would very much like the community's attention to be drawn to Plexa's recent [H] thread ( link) as an example of what a Strategy Forum thread should look like. Points: - OP is well formed, contains a small selection of pertinent replays and describes both the overarching theme of the question at hand and game-specific details that flesh out each specific instance of the question. - Jackasses who respond instantly with meaningless advice are immediately shut down by OP/Admin (same person in this case), preventing an immediate derailing into a meaningless debate on an unrelated issue. - A large number of posts containing actual constructive criticism. - OP responds to constructive criticism in a positive manner and with followup questions. - The result: a useful conversation with a high signal to noise ratio from which players with similar problems can learn without having to wade through pages and pages of bad posts to find the nuggets of useful information. I feel like the thread should be highlighted or otherwise somehow flagged so that more people look at it. If every thread in the Strat forum looked like that I'd spend a lot more time reading and contributing to it.
yup it is a great OP!
Just wanted to share something. After making my first guide and replying to the responses, I have only just realized how frustrating it must be as people who make guides simply because most of the responses have not either finished the guide nor watched a single replay. They just come in and theorycraft (and they do it poorly, too) and do not give any replays as evidence; and some are even disrespectful/rude. From reading the strategy guidelines, so many of these posts are violating the rules
|
|
|
On January 04 2012 06:42 FluidKMC wrote:
I have been playing terran since release. However I am discovering that I enjoy a very passive style of play. In my experience Terran always has to be aggressive. So I am curious as to what TL thinks is the race that would fit a very defensive passive play style.
sigh... I spent all this time writing you a response in your thread and it got closed, anyways here is my advice
There is no right or wrong answer and that's because every race has the ability to turtle or play aggressively, neither race does either better in my eyes. Protoss, Terran and Zerg can all turtle but easily loses to a player who plays very greedy. A zerg might be preparing for an all-in by turtling but the terran/toss could actually just be expanding aggressively and using units as a feint.
Think of it like this: Mass Expansions > Turtling > Aggression > Mass Expansions
It's quite simple, the greedy player beats the safe player. The aggressive player beats the greedy player and the safe player beats the aggressive player. This is why you CANNOT simply play one style or you will lose when your opponent reads it. If all you do is play passive and your opponent reads that, they will just expand like crazy and contain you.
So my advice is not to pick a race based on how easy it is to defend, but rather how good you feel about playing the race both defensively and offensively when needed. At some point in the game you have to attack or you will just lose and you can't expect to win off your opponents mistakes because eventually you'll reach a skill level where the mistakes are fewer and fewer, don't train yourself into bad habits. Basically don't just play defensive just because it's easier, but scout and react to your opponent, once you start doing this you will become better as player.
|
|
|
Hello guys I'm new to the forum feel free to semi-flame. I was wondering if it was possible to post an SC2 Z v T video to get help on my strategic ability to fend off early Terran aggression. Also how to deal with the nerviness that follows with random drops and all that other good stuff with other things.
ZmZZ,
|
Never mind found it all out<3
|
|
|
[L]
Im a low level zerg player who could use some advice  my ptoblem seem to be that i cant get units fast enough to last in early game.But everytime i try to cut drones to get more units i cant hold lategame :/. any suggestions i could try out?
|
lol we should be practice partners <3
|
when did this L thing come into existence?
|
Zurich15325 Posts
Like two years ago?
Well maybe one. But a while ago.
|
On March 04 2012 06:34 QuickLaunch wrote:[L] Im a low level zerg player who could use some advice my ptoblem seem to be that i cant get units fast enough to last in early game.But everytime i try to cut drones to get more units i cant hold lategame :/. any suggestions i could try out?
The key is to make as many Drones as possible for the attack. If you cut Drones early, your economy will be shit compares to your opponent. You should also practice the Larva Injects with your Queens, which will increase your Larva Count and so your ability to make a lot of units, when it´s needed. For this scouting becomes really important for Zerg players. You want to identify when you opponent is going to attack you and right when he moves out, you want to build as much units as possible. Before that you want to produce as much Drones as possible. Perhaps you could post a replay, so that i can give you specific advise. In what league are you? A typical mistake for Zergs in Bronze and Silber League for example is that they don´t expand early enough so they just have the Larva for 1 Hatchery for a long time.
|
Thanks Zatic. I will comply :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
