|
Hello TL, remember that guy in college who would spend 6 hours writing the opening two paragraphs of a paper and then suddenly burn through the rest with ease? I was that guy, so i must ask you to forgive the familiarity of this opening, as proper introductions are not usually the forte of biograds.
The topic i would like to discuss is regarding the current status of low to midlevel amateur play on the public ladder in regards to zerg openings and the typical responses to those openings undertaken by protoss and terran players.
this is a meta level topic, but i would like to ask haters of theorycraft to give me a chance as i will attempt my best to reframe from some of the common silliness associated with the topic.
Now since we cant have a good discussion without airing bias, here is a short telling of my motivations towards approaching this topic. its skippable so feel free to ignore it.
My interest in this topic recently piqued several days ago in preparation for a tourney matchup that i am to be involved in. my opponent, a random player, has a history of defeating me rather handily and I was curious as to why. I spent a day or so browsing the replays i had on hand and those that some friends had provided me of their own zerg attempts and i soon figured out why i was losing; i was a macro zerg being outmacro'd by every race this random player could conceivably spawn. this didn't make much sense to me as i did not consider him to be leaps and bounds ahead of me in fundamentals and in the games of his i have obsed, i have frequently spotted obvious flaws. yet i was still being beaten, repeatedly.
This led me to reconsider the play-style within my group of friends versus that of the public ladder, and this is when the first obvious differences emerged. the people i played with regularly, had a heavier macro bend to them, presumably because of their experience with me and my play-style. this, i believe, is the reason i was losing. i was playing as if i was on the ladder, and this random player was playing against my personal style. he would power drones/scv/probes to extreme lengths because he knew that given the chance, i would be doing the same. yet my ladder bend was forcing my into a midling macro style, where i would attempt to macro but also spend my attention putting myself in a position where i could always counter an unseen threat. because i was being defensive, i had to spend more time and effort jumping at shadows, while my opponents who understood what i was going to do, could then freely set the tone of the game. they'd take a third or tech to extremes, then take a third and fourth and just sit there knowing that i had choked myself out of the late game because of my extreme defensive posture.
Now, believing all of that, I've made damn sure every game my opponent sees of me has and will be my typical macro play-style, so when i meet him in the tourney i can allin him and punish those assumptions, that's my plan anyway, and that's the train of thought that then turned my attention to the ladder.
btw i am one of those many 2.2kish~ diamonds trying to tear at the heels of masters league, so if you spot any majour imperfections of theory, please point them out.
---
now as good little ladder zergs, there are two openers that seem to be by far the most common, 14 hatch and 14gas/14pool. lets ignore openers like pool/hatch, 10pool into bane, 7pools, etc for now and focus on those two builds.
It is my belief that the commonality of these two builds, in particular 14 hatch, has led to an unhealthy set of assumptions within the ladder pool. im sure most zergs can attest to a situation where they as zergs 14 hatched and lost to a 4gate or to a 2rax marine or some other allin and upon losing [read: complaining] had the protoss and terran player claim that we had lost 'because zergs are sooo greedy', referring to the early expand. now the debate as to if a 14 expand is necessary or greedy in a healthy metagame is a topic for another thread, so lets leave that assumption as it is.
Perhaps terrans and protoss are right to say that the 14 hatch build is 'greedy', but is is my belief that the popularity of the 14 hatch has led to the formation of alot of 'greedy' builds on the terran and protoss side of the fence. hellion openers, double stalker, etc. When i view replays of my own ladder games, win or lose, i find that protoss and terran players as a group have adopted a play-style against zerg where they expect a zerg to get an expansion as soon as possible, most likely these builds have been derived from the wealth of pro level content in which players successfully pressure zergs and defend from counter attacks. However, it is my belief that as a group, many players have adopted these pressure builds without the proper experiences or fundamental skills to defend in scenarios where things go wrong. situations where zergs do not behave like so called 'greedy zergs'.
i'll expand on this momentarily, but i think we should also touch on popular zerg mentality on the ladder first, so that we can hope to have an understanding of how players on both sides approach zerg games. i feel that this part of my argument is most likely the weakest as i am likely to imprint my own tendencies and those of the people i play with onto my fellow zerg players. as a zerg, i don't get to see other zergs fight other terrans and protoss regularly and i only have access to content uploaded online. so forgive my assumptions in this case.
as a group, it is my belief that zergs are heavily macro focused! [gasp], this is a belief formed from my own experiences and a hypothesis derived from the assumption that many zerg players will attempt to mirror 'pro' zerg players and their typically macro playstyle.
alright, i think that should be sufficient for framing the environment of the discussion as i see it, if you're a TL;DR type, the above puts forward the following assumptions for the purpose of the debate.
1). your typical low-mid level amateur player will attempt to mirror builds he or she sees within the professional community.
2). that communities metagame regarding zerg play typically revolves around the zerg player attempting the macro game and terrans/protoss pressuring.
3). many ladder players undertake assumptions drawn from personal experience and from observing these pro level games and attempt to emulate the play-styles seen within.
4). as a result of the above; many players do not have the experience or know how to spot and respond to situations above and beyond the norm observed.
Now, on to the actual title and greedy play. I believe that as a result of zerg players experiences on the ladder and what they have seen in professional circles, that many zergs allow the assumption that zergs must always be on the defensive early on because they believe that they are the greedy player by taking the early expansion. likewise in the other camp, protoss and terran players who upon seeing a zerg fast expand believe themselves to be safe from attack and the aggressor, this leads to builds that are by their very nature, incredibly greedy, if not more so than the early expand, given the level of play involved.
when we see a protoss preparing to go double stalker and harass, irregardless of our own tech, most low-mid level amateur zergs think about defense first. we groan and bemoan our delay to zergling speed because we wanted to sneak out that extra drone before gas, we consider setting spinecrawlers for lack of knowledge of the protoss follow through, etc.
now this is important, so ill bold here, i believe that many zergs are disregarding their own offensive capabilities because of a persistent mindset that they are supposed to be the defender when they early expand irregardless of the techpath they are currently on. this is why the topic refers primarily to low level players who may not yet properly understand why builds are the way they are.
for example, and the protoss can back me up on this, you dont ever open double stalker after pylon blocking a zergs fast expand. you never do it. ever. because in doing the pylon block, you heavily bias the zerg towards builds that punish early stalkers out in the wild because zergs find themselves with the money, time and excuse they need to have zergling speed when your stalkers would arrive. mid-high level amateurs and professional players understand this as obviously true, which is why we see opening like double stalker that look so cool and powerful also look so successful.
these builds are successful not because they are extremely powerful, but because of the sharp player behind it. so we see pylon block into double stalker fail and then have the zerg turtle for another 10minutes on the ladder, because the key factor behind many of these builds is an understanding of what they do and what limitations they have, the units themselves are fragile, the builds often dangerously so, after all what is more greedy than a build that pressures off of the first two units [which are countered by the first zerg combat units] and often leaves little to no defense behind it? that is greedy play taken to the extreme but good players understand when why and how to set up a situation where those builds are just right.
now you're all thinking duh, we're on teamliquid, we're not scrubs. and you're probably not, hell many of you guys make money on the ladder by punishing players lacking in understanding. so i understand where you, as a teamliquid theorycrafter, may not apply to this case. however, it is my assumption that the vast majourity of ladders, even so called 'good' diamonds and even the odd masters, got to where they are by being good at clicking buttons and by watching and copying pro replays and vods. and pro replays and vods do not often teach you the motivations behind play-styles.
given the above, i think that this is an unfortunate side effect of the emergence of e-sports, dont get me wrong this is a microscopic speck of dirt compared to all the good behind the e-sports movement. Still, the emergence and popularity of televised and videod tournaments and analysis and replays upon replays upon replays have given the new generation of rts gamers a whole metric ton of builds and tricks and styles that they can copy, often to good results, in their own games, however the reliance on copying playstyles is one that i think will hobble the emergence of new truly 'good' players as players focus more on waiting for a counter to a popular build of the month and hoping they dont get blind build order losses.
I think we can see some evidence of this already, as the nature of the copy system frustrates people with an otherwise deep player focused game, hence the bizarre fascination with cheese and imba on places like the battle.net forums. perhaps the best way to truly grow in this climate would be to foster the idea that it is good to be wrong for the right reasons, its good to scout and respond safely and intelligently and take a silly loss because that is how someone will advance their understanding of how the game is played.
anyway, that's my take on the ladder from my zerg perspective, naturally i do not consider this to be exclusively a zerg issue, but i don't play pvt so i cant really speak about that. maybe pvt is the promise land of intelligent strategy, who knows.
-
Do you as players feel that the ladder may be too heavily focused on advancing players for having solid build orders that respond to perceived stereotyped race rolls in matchups? or do you think I'm over thinking things while waiting for the ladder to find my next opponent?
as an aside: to test the theory, I've been doing alot of zergling allins lately, i don't aim for efficiency in either macro or offense, but ill just open fast hatch and then spam lings, its shocking how many players are caught and punished by the sudden surge of units that 'should be drones'. its fun to say, 'blue flame hellion expand with only 3 marines guarding it? how greedy' for once though! For obvious reasons, it is not a strategy i can reccommend because blind countering an 'expected' style of play is the problem I'm perceiving in the first place! it sure is fun though.
|
You said a lot there without really saying too much.
I think the true gems of this game aren't palying on the ladder. They're in their lab with a pen and a pad, and a mouse and a keyboard. Obviously the new play styles and builds will be innovations, that's what they are by definition.
People are always going to take from the pros. It's working at an extremely high level against other extremely efficient builds so it's obviously a good thing.
The metagame of each division, and even within the low to mid to high diamond/masters seems to be dramatically differant and this is an important thing us noobs need to understand when implementing these strategies. Certain openers are good if you do them perfectly if your'e a few seconds behind on your supply or your workers you completely miss the window. Graciously other low level players allow these windows to be much larger by also lacking in their flow of macro.
You're abosolutely right though, zerg should learn to be much much more flexible. I had a game versus a zerg where I randomed Terran. Even though I missed some scv's early and got down a late barracks, I was still able to bunker contain his expansion, and even though he knew he couldn't retake he never really put more pressure on. I basically let him retake wasting 300 minerals, and then killed it right away again, the point is. Zergs have to be able to adapt, and you're absolutely right if terran is going to leave their base as vulnerable as they have to for some all ins, well zerg needs to exploit that. Although soemtimes its' very hard to survive yourself AND be able to counter.
|
you need to learn the 14 hatch 20 drones speedling all ins that work well against 4gate and various other early marine/marauder timings.
|
On January 20 2011 09:27 thurst0n wrote:
Zergs have to be able to adapt, and you're absolutely right if terran is going to leave their base as vulnerable as they have to for some all ins, well zerg needs to exploit that. Although soemtimes its' very hard to survive yourself AND be able to counter.
Actually, its just hard to counter someone with a wall off since there isn't enough surface area to out DPS repairing workers.
One thing I've not liked as Zerg is the only way to put on early pressure of any kind involves cheese (<10 pool); Protoss/Terran effective early aggression hits much earlier. The only thing I can think of to get in their wall-in is a baneling bust.
|
Your primary point seems to be that zerg users tend to be over-greedy, too macro based, and not agressive enough. I disagree. Most early attacks by zerg can be blocked very easily by an even slightly aware enemy.
A good opening is one where the opponent knows its coming, but cant do anything about it, otherwise your just hoping to get lucky and not have it get spotted. Baneling busts, early roach attacks, and all other early attacks by zerg are EASILY stopped by proper building placement, and use of force fields. So given this FACT, it makes sense that zerg users would expand first and put pressure on thier opponent in a diffrent way.
Now this doesnt mean you shouldnt be agressive if you see an opening. A quick 15 nexus by toss, and you can pump a lot of zerglings and do a very agressive build that isnt bad at all. And once your opponent has at least 2 bases (and not a tiny little choke that your zerglings need to go through 1 by 1), you can totaly be agressive.
Overall you need to as zerg decide when you want to attack, and with how many units. Untill you want to attack, build all drones (other then what you need to survive an enemy attack), then units to kill him, its that simple. To do otherwise is to not be as successful.
|
You said a lot there without really saying too much.
I'm going to have to agree with him. Your analysis is very verbose! Try to be concise; it will help you more than any SC skill you could ever learn. Also on your "motivations approaching this topic," why do you discount your opponents macro? It seems like you were looking for flaws in his macro when it was in yours.
One thing I've not liked as Zerg is the only way to put on early pressure of any kind involves cheese (<10 pool); Protoss/Terran effective early aggression hits much earlier. The only thing I can think of to get in their wall-in is a baneling bust.
I think this is true, but most of Terran and Protoss aggression are cheesy in nature too. If they are going for a normal poke and not all in, then speedlings can handily stop most of them. Which leads me to believe that Zerg trades aggression for early map control, able to deny expos but fail at poking the main.
|
On January 20 2011 10:19 Spoof wrote:I'm going to have to agree with him. Your analysis is very verbose! Try to be concise; it will help you more than any SC skill you could ever learn. Also on your "motivations approaching this topic," why do you discount your opponents macro? It seems like you were looking for flaws in his macro when it was in yours. Show nested quote +One thing I've not liked as Zerg is the only way to put on early pressure of any kind involves cheese (<10 pool); Protoss/Terran effective early aggression hits much earlier. The only thing I can think of to get in their wall-in is a baneling bust. I think this is true, but most of Terran and Protoss aggression are cheesy in nature too. If they are going for a normal poke and not all in, then speedlings can handily stop most of them. Which leads me to believe that Zerg trades aggression for early map control, able to deny expos but fail at poking the main.
Take this and reverse it.
If I go poke with speedlings at a protoss/terran, I cannot really do much. While I make about 6~8 splings, just 1 stalker or 1 marine can sit there and hold the line all day.
|
On January 20 2011 10:06 obsid wrote:
Your primary point seems to be that zerg users tend to be over-greedy, too macro based, and not agressive enough. I disagree. Most early attacks by zerg can be blocked very easily by an even slightly aware enemy.
A good opening is one where the opponent knows its coming, but cant do anything about it, otherwise your just hoping to get lucky and not have it get spotted. Baneling busts, early roach attacks, and all other early attacks by zerg are EASILY stopped by proper building placement, and use of force fields. So given this FACT, it makes sense that zerg users would expand first and put pressure on thier opponent in a diffrent way.
Now this doesnt mean you shouldnt be agressive if you see an opening. A quick 15 nexus by toss, and you can pump a lot of zerglings and do a very agressive build that isnt bad at all. And once your opponent has at least 2 bases (and not a tiny little choke that your zerglings need to go through 1 by 1), you can totaly be agressive.
Overall you need to as zerg decide when you want to attack, and with how many units. Untill you want to attack, build all drones (other then what you need to survive an enemy attack), then units to kill him, its that simple. To do otherwise is to not be as successful.
i should clarify, im not arguing that zerg builds should be changed or that im having difficulty with anything, taking a build order out of my post pretty much circumvents the entire topic. i dont think zergs are greedy at all, i think it is a popular belief that zergs are greedy and must play defensively and that that belief influences how people play on the ladder.
I am well aware that good solid protoss and terran can pressure safely, will pressure safely or wouldn't have pressured at all. the topic is more about people who look to these good players and try to emulate what they see without an understanding of why and in what specific circumstances aggression builds are safe. i fully agree that there is a time and place for zerg aggression in the early game and that diving down a good players throat will get a zerg crisped, but i don't think aggression builds like your 15 nexus example are very popular, i think the trend is more towards the zerg turtling harder into a fast third because of how most zergs are conditioned to play. i think zergs fear getting crisped even in situations where aggression would be overwhelmingly in their favour.
On January 20 2011 09:36 PrideNeverDie wrote:
you need to learn the 14 hatch 20 drones speedling all ins that work well against 4gate and various other early marine/marauder timings.
will do, should come in handy.
still to clarify: this is not a 'what build order should i go' thread. its more of a, why DON'T people commonly go 14 hatch 20 drone speedling allin when a t or p fast expands. I believe the answer is that players condition themselves to emulate games beyond their level and that their understanding of the game might suffer because of this.
|
To me it seems like an indicator of something that has been super-prevalent with the popularity of casting in general and youtube and the like.
Back in the days of BW, and to a lesser extent WC3, we didn't have as easy of an access to soooo many pro replays. Now it seems that almost every single pro game is either cast or streamed (to be cast later of course, haha) and so every single player watches these games and copies these styles to their own.
In the days of old you'd be beaten by a strat and that's how you learnt it. We're all studying the same textbook now and so it makes for a tired game of practiced, old techniques. This isn't necessarily a bad thing but in a way it's killed creativity and it takes something as drastic as a funday monday to bring out the best in us.
So the FE build isn't necessarily "greedy", nor is the response to it. It's simply that the only strats we know to counter them are the ones we've seen pros counter them with, and as a result, we either can't execute them properly, lose, and proclaim IMBA, or we haven't seen the pros do the strat we need to counter it.
Macro-zerg is so popular these days because, like you said, it's all we've seen that has a proven track record. However, it could be tomorrow that some brilliant replay comes out and shows us the way of minimalist zerg play.
It'd be beneficial for youtube to crash for a week. Imagine the metagame then!
|
On January 20 2011 10:19 Spoof wrote:I'm going to have to agree with him. Your analysis is very verbose! Try to be concise; it will help you more than any SC skill you could ever learn.
thank you, i will try.
Also on your "motivations approaching this topic," why do you discount your opponents macro? It seems like you were looking for flaws in his macro when it was in yours.
frankly, i don't think i can beat him in the macro game just yet.
i expect alot of hardcore macro out of him, but matching that would require me to ignore alot of the built in cheese alarms I've set up from all my play, i think it'd be easier to crush out some well timed allins then to relearn how to manage my larvae for this one case.
its easy to say 'well i wont make units', but when i get to 7ish minutes and don't see an attack coming, i get.. fidgety. the longer it takes for an attack to show up, the more options i need to consider and the more tempted i am towards building 'oh just a few units here and there', which might make my macro suffer.
I'm looking for flaws in his macro because i don't believe my macro would be better when we play. i fear my zerg macro play might still be too flowcharty and he could take advantage of that.
|
On January 20 2011 10:27 Signum wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2011 10:06 obsid wrote:
Your primary point seems to be that zerg users tend to be over-greedy, too macro based, and not agressive enough. I disagree. Most early attacks by zerg can be blocked very easily by an even slightly aware enemy.
A good opening is one where the opponent knows its coming, but cant do anything about it, otherwise your just hoping to get lucky and not have it get spotted. Baneling busts, early roach attacks, and all other early attacks by zerg are EASILY stopped by proper building placement, and use of force fields. So given this FACT, it makes sense that zerg users would expand first and put pressure on thier opponent in a diffrent way.
Now this doesnt mean you shouldnt be agressive if you see an opening. A quick 15 nexus by toss, and you can pump a lot of zerglings and do a very agressive build that isnt bad at all. And once your opponent has at least 2 bases (and not a tiny little choke that your zerglings need to go through 1 by 1), you can totaly be agressive.
Overall you need to as zerg decide when you want to attack, and with how many units. Untill you want to attack, build all drones (other then what you need to survive an enemy attack), then units to kill him, its that simple. To do otherwise is to not be as successful. i should clarify, im not arguing that zerg builds should be changed or that im having difficulty with anything, taking a build order out of my post pretty much circumvents the entire topic. i dont think zergs are greedy at all, i think it is a popular belief that zergs are greedy and must play defensively and that that belief influences how people play on the ladder. I am well aware that good solid protoss and terran can pressure safely, will pressure safely or wouldn't have pressured at all. the topic is more about people who look to these good players and try to emulate what they see without an understanding of why and in what specific circumstances aggression builds are safe. i fully agree that there is a time and place for zerg aggression in the early game and that diving down a good players throat will get a zerg crisped, but i don't think aggression builds like your 15 nexus example are very popular, i think the trend is more towards the zerg turtling harder into a fast third because of how most zergs are conditioned to play. i think zergs fear getting crisped even in situations where aggression would be overwhelmingly in their favour. Show nested quote +On January 20 2011 09:36 PrideNeverDie wrote:
you need to learn the 14 hatch 20 drones speedling all ins that work well against 4gate and various other early marine/marauder timings. will do, should come in handy. still to clarify: this is not a 'what build order should i go' thread. its more of a, why DON'T people commonly go 14 hatch 20 drone speedling allin when a t or p fast expands. I believe the answer is that players condition themselves to emulate games beyond their level and that their understanding of the game might suffer because of this.
I don't know for me personally i try to play a macro game everytime just so i can keep frequently getting to the late game and actually playing it out.. that experince is key for me
I don't see why you need to go all in and leave the game to a coinflip or to end the game prematurly.. sure do this once learn it.. but then after why bother? its obvious that a great player will probly hold it off as they probly wudnt do it if they didnt think they could hold vs almost anything/anything
|
to answer the greedy thing you said earlier, if you hatch before pool and i cannon gateway rush you, and you lose to it; clearly you're playing too greedy as with a normal BO that isn't made to increase ur economy faster wouldn't have you losing to a forge/gw rush XD
|
I don't think that you're giving Macro Zerg style enough credit.
As a Protoss player I always have a passive fear of moving out, because you might have a stockpile of speedlings. Even as I pressure you into making units for defense, I fear that you'll go on a all out offensive and marginalize my protoss ball... because it's a leaden ball.
Good Macro Zerg give out pressure at all times, forcing Protoss players to act in fear of the exponential Zerg power boost. To be absolutely honest every time I move out and try to make a Zerg make defenses I wonder to myself, is this zerg calling my bluff? It only gets worse with observer snipes and Xel'naga Tower denial....
If you want real pressure get a spawning pool first and quick speed, it doesn't make you economically pathetic, it simply puts you on par and gives you great map control! Never fear a 4 Warpgate rush, EVER again.
|
This really reminds me of social construct theories.
Anyway, I think the metagame is what it is for a reason. Players expect zerg to be defensive, because they are accually at their best while being defensive.
Then a player comes along like kyrix and banelingsbusts everyone. It works for a while, because people aren't used to it. But not long after people react to it and start making sure it doesn't happen to them. In the end, I don't think zerg has many effective options for being aggressive early game, except banelings, and this would contribute to the macro-mode.
This being said, if zerglings were totally awesome, T and P would have to be the "defensive race" instead, and macro is a natural transition from that. Zerg in midgame doesn't have to keep droning I think, but I can't think of anything better to do in the early game.
Now as for T and P expecting Z to be macro on ladder.. totally true. I've been doing some baneling aggression lately and it seems to work out. Also I have this idea vs T to "kill all his early marines and then my mutas will be even better", but I haven't really worked that out yet. On a pro level I think banelings can only get you to a certain point however, but it never hurts to suprise. Noone would expect idra to do kyrix style..
|
Good lord half the Zergs I play on the ladder are so aggressive. It completely throws me off, since the 'standard' idea is that Zerg wants to get drones while the other race wants to pressure. I have lost many a game because of this, but that is fine because I would rather be in the right mindset for the 'standard' situations for when I fight an opponent that will actually play properly rather than people like the OP who think "Well Zergs seem to only be able to defend and macro, I will make lots of units instead of drones and attack OLOLOLOL I'm original!".
This is a horrible way to play the game if you want to be improve because as time passes people will actually realize that economy is the way to go. The only reason Zerg allins and aggression work is because people are unprepared, not because it is actually a good strategic move. I have lost because my opponent makes nothing but lings right after his hatch finishes, and I was not playing up to par so my sentry was a few seconds late, didn't have the reactions to pull probes quick enough, etc. and obviously it was my fault I lost. But that's the problem. With a playstyle like that, the outcome is between your opponent and your hope that he is not playing/scouting well enough, or that the shift in playstyle is enough from the 'standard' that your opponent will lose 1 too many units in any 'standard' "greedy" (as you call it) pressure build as he did not react/play/scout well enough, and afterwards be able to move in for the kill because he lost unnecessary units. A 6 pool on steppes is probably the easiest thing to hold off simply because you scout it so easily and quickly, throw up a forge, wall off and win. When you are 6 pooling you are essentially hoping your opponent will not be able to react in time or with the proper response, since it requires something other than 'standard' "greedy" play. It is the same situation for any other all in, except there are so many different variables and responses that can happen at a later stage of the game, so that it requires more experience to be able to deal with it. A great example of this are the Kyrix style 2 base baneling busts that were (are?) so popular. They worked super well and were awesome but after a while people realized you just need siege mode tanks to hold it off (A lot more to it to this strat than I am mentioning, I know, but I am neither a Zerg nor a Terran player so I can't really comment).
The reason you see how the 'standard' metagame effectively says Zerg should try to drone to the maximum is because that is how you are supposed to play. That is how Terran and Protoss will respectively play in the future because that is and will be the most effective way to play. The only reason you see that Zerg has been the first race to hop onto the macro bandwagon is because of their unique macro mechanic, their ability to take their natural before building any real structures (debatable on some maps ofc) and the fact that they have less options overall than Toss and Terran, so there are less distractions for people to say "Hey, if I make a thor/void ray/collosus/marauder/etc I can attack and win a bunch of games!" and a bigger incentive to learn how to both stop these attacks and get an economy going to win games that way. The roach rush came into existence far after the void ray rush.
|
On January 20 2011 10:46 ShatterZer0 wrote:
If you want real pressure get a spawning pool first and quick speed, it doesn't make you economically pathetic, it simply puts you on par and gives you great map control! Never fear a 4 Warpgate rush, EVER again.
Most zergs already go pool/speed first in ZvP because of pylon blocks/cannon wall-ins and cannon rushes. And you also need a 2nd hatchery to defend a 4gate because you need the extra larva, might aswell put it at your expo even if you dont have time to saturate it your drones will mine more efficiently if you have 8+8 on 2 bases as opposed to 16 on 1 base.
From my own ~2500 diamond experience its easier to hold a 4gate with your FE hatchery up, even if i knew someone would 4gate all in me before the game started i wold probably chose to get a hatch at my natural around 20 food. Im sure better players feel the same way
|
remember back in brood war when there were builds like 5hatch hydra that started with a 12 hatch and every detail was mapped out all the way to 3 bases i think it was like 48 drones then hydra production or something '
and NOW you ask a zerg what builds he knows and hes like derp a derp!!!!! i know 14 pool and 14 hatch. LOL =D WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THOSE ARE NOT BUILDS.
|
On January 20 2011 11:46 explicit wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2011 10:46 ShatterZer0 wrote:
If you want real pressure get a spawning pool first and quick speed, it doesn't make you economically pathetic, it simply puts you on par and gives you great map control! Never fear a 4 Warpgate rush, EVER again. Most zergs already go pool/speed first in ZvP because of pylon blocks/cannon wall-ins and cannon rushes. And you also need a 2nd hatchery to defend a 4gate because you need the extra larva, might aswell put it at your expo even if you dont have time to saturate it your drones will mine more efficiently if you have 8+8 on 2 bases as opposed to 16 on 1 base. From my own ~2500 diamond experience its easier to hold a 4gate with your FE hatchery up, even if i knew someone would 4gate all in me before the game started i wold probably chose to get a hatch at my natural around 20 food. Im sure better players feel the same way
fuck yes holding off a 4 gate is nearly impossible without an extra hatch at your nat. + you have plenty of time and resources to get one + if you hold off the 4 gate without it you have no follow through economy to win the game, you are simply even.
im about the same level as you 2500 zerg and i always go 15 pool 16 hatch 15 zergling pair 16 queen 18 ovie. you can skip the zergling pair for like 1 whole minute if he isnt fucking with you via probe. from there you can do pretty much anything you want.
|
I've been experiementing in ZvP with making around 16-24 lings when my FE goes up. And then droning up behind those lings and their aggression. If the toss is doing a fast nexus, he is often caught off guard and forced to cancel the nexus. Also I feel much more comfortable that way.
What I've found out though is that if the opponent is going 1 base timing push before an attack. Its better to drone harder and then make units, so maybe i should make a few less lings, more like 6-10?
In the case of FE I have the option of fully committing to lings if i see i can break through the protoss wall.
Also, I've been wondering if I should get a fast +1 melee or not. +1lings are awesome, but is it worth delaying my lair for? Or if I get my lair first. My +1ranged attack or burrow or roach speed?
Well, just some thoughts to try and get some early pressure for zerg.
|
You can all-in, as zerg, and counter players who do early aggression badly, and dont react appropriately.
A lot of the terrans I meet would simply roll over and die to a bling bust, no questions there, they dont expect it, and they are not well prepared to deal with it.
But the thing is, if you keep doing that, eventually you will meet players who no longer die to your easily preventable and scoutable all-in.
Then what?
Oh, then you have to practice macro, and how to defend.
You can also just practice macro, and how to defend, and not go for the all-in wins in the first place. Practicing your macro and defense even against someone who would die to an all-in, will eventually make you better at that, than taking the easy all-in win. You have a worse win-loss ratio, sure, but you also get to improve faster.
There are still lots of zerg out there who only cheese, because as you mention, it works really well against players who try to imitate pros badly. The reason everyone does it, is simply because some players like to work on their build.
How do you win by baneling busting? Learn the build. Practice it a bit to get all the timings right.
Then just do it. Exact same thing, every single game. Make 7 banelings, some speedlings, blow up the depot and a few marines, move in with the speedlings, win. Terrible opponent? Do that. Medium? do that. decent? do that. Good player? Suddenly, hes walling in with 2 big buildings, and you hit a wall. (litteraly). Now your build doesnt win, and theres nothing you can do better to change that.
macro game? How do you win there? outplay your opponent. every step of the way. A lot harder at the start, you dont get free wins from everyone who doesnt know how to make big building walls. Still very hard all the way through. but if you hit a wall, you can improve, do it even better, and still win. You dont get that option with the all in. If all you know is how to baneling bust, then thats it, thats all you know.
|
(Warning! Non-laddering but much-practicing rubbish player posting!)
When it comes to the repetition of approaches to match-ups on the ladder, I'm very much of the opinion that the cause of this is the ladder system itself. The best way to illustrate this is to do a quick "compare and contrast" with the approach taken in other situatons.
"Expanding Search".... "Player Found".... up pops a screen with our own heroic, beloved name on one side, and that of some other bugger we've never seen before (or if we have, we've probably forgotten them) on the other accompanied by their race. So what do we know at this point? Apart from their race, and maybe their favourite anime character, not an awful lot. We've then got about a minute* or so to decide on the approach to take. We've got one minute to decide "how do I handle a protoss?".
So how is that decision made? In my case, it's pretty simple. To pick on Protoss again, I know he'll either 4gate or NgateNStargate about 90% of the time. Consequently, I'd be mad to decide on an approach that I didn't know to be potentially effective against those two (14 hatch, yada yada). So, yep, it's a boring approach from me to a boring approach from him, not because we're both intrinsically boring, but because we're facing opponents who're anonymous in all but race.
Now compare that situation to a match, or series of matches, against a known opponent. Unless your opponent is known, for definite, to always do the same thing, you're obliged to mix it up a bit. In series of matches there's enough time and background information to base decision making on more factors, so the answer to "What am I going to do?" goes from "He's protoss, what do I do against protoss?" to "He pressured me early with zealots last time, then followed up with DTs and was late getting his natural... will I see that again, will I get something totally different, I know he likes to put a lot of early pressure on, so what do I do to mess with it? Am I behind, is this a must-win, did I mess the last one up by just arsing it up or was that just an approach he's comfortable in dealing with?". All these extra factors give our brains so much extra to work with when it comes to planning the next game, thereby reducing the need to go for the safe gamble, and increasing the chances of us being able to play on a percieved weakness.
In short, repeated games against a single opponent** force creativity through the Gift of Extra Knowledge on the part of both players, whereas anonymous BO1s strongly encourage safe, repetitive play in the same way that a daily weather forecast of "90% chance of rain" means you always take a jacket to work.
(Note : I'm completely biased against anonymous BO1s as I think they take the fun part out of the game - working out your oppponent. Clearly this colours my reasoning.)
* Assuming we're not going for some sort of outright cheese that involves a start other than start mining, make worker, set up the hotkeys, make another worker etc.
** I'm assuming opponents of roughly equal ability here. Clearly, if you're roflstomping someone utterly despite them adoping a reasonable approach against you then the need to change approach for the next match is radically reduced and, clearly, vice versa.
|
Okay interresting post. It is true that we can all notice a behaviour of players copying the latest gsl matches and other pro replays. Personally this often works to my favour as my opponents will be very predictable.
That being said, there is nothing wrong with doing a fastexpand with zerg. It is the same thing as if all the pros were onebasing, and the metagame revolved around that, there would be players doing that for the sole reason of becoming good, and they would learn different skills from that too.
There is popularity which influences trends in everyone's play. It dosen't matter if it's good or bad, but for the individual player, it is always always better to actually have imagination. Experiment on your own, I can't stress how many games I won on simply doing something unorthodox.
Many people focus too much on the metagame and dismiss strategies and tactics that are extremely valid not only at this level, but if trained could be extremely useful if that imaginative player became pro.
Use your own imagination and compile a style that fits you, and you will get alot better now and even better in the future. Actually, even avoid doing popular strategies and buildorders since they will only give you an insight into how another player would do things.
|
There is a reason why Zergs open with FE all the time: Wall-in.
Every single offensive build gets destroyed by ability of Toss/Terra to block with their buildings. Yes, when the guy expands he is vulnerable. When he one-bases for a while he is not.
Macro openings are the way to go. By all means, if you see the terran walling with 2 depots go banelings bust him and kill him. But unless he's stupid he won't do that anymore.
Go learn your defend and macro. You learn multitasking, you get more experience, you see the state of the game after the 8th minute, you simply get better at the game. I'm all for questioning the builds pros do, but every single zerg opted for the fast expand. Through Reapers, 2-Rax-Marine, Marine-Hellion, Marine-Marauder-Stim pushes, FE is what you do and how you open your game as Zerg unless you 6 pool. It's not greed, it's simply the most reasonable build for Zerg. I've had 15-0 against Ts for a while on ladder, simply because i knew how to defend their all-ins and then beat them by simply outmassing them. Feels way more satisfiying than a baneling bust.
And@OP: You write WAY too much for way to little information. Cut down the elaborations and side-notes and get straight to the point.
|
And@OP: You write WAY too much for way to little information. Cut down the elaborations and side-notes and get straight to the point.
It's actually nice to see someone being thorough. It's verbose, sure, and I might not want to read through 10 pages of posts like that, but as a vessel for creating meaningful and directed discussion on a given topic, I don't think it's particularly out of place.
Moving on...
Hatch first builds are as popular as they are because Zerg's ability to put pressure on their opponent isn't just the Zerg's decision: if a Terran or Protoss player (and increasingly, a Zerg player) plays competently and along certain paths, there's no standard or otherwise "solid" way of being aggressive that I'm currently aware of.
On the other side, I'm also not currently aware of any kind of aggression that a properly executed hatch-first build isn't capable of dealing with. Playing hatch-first in the typical "greedy" Zerg style is playing in a style that can't possibly be ineffective if you do it correctly, while the effectiveness of Zerg's currently popular aggressive builds depends largely on matters out of your control. The only particularly compelling reason I can think of to avoid a hatch-first build is susceptibility to pylon-blocking, and even then, your primary motivation would be to switch to something more stable in the first few minutes to get you that fast expansion with fewer bumps.
|
Imo, the 3 race are separated like that : Terran have to harrass, protoss have to tech, zerg have to macro.
As a protoss, i'm fine on 1 or 2 base while teching until i get my top unit (Colossi, templars etc etc)
As a terran, i'm fine on 1 base doing early push and try to take the win in the early stage of the game (or at least take the edge on my opponent), or i try to expand (but late) and then do drops to catch up economically.
As a zerg, i'm fine when i'm 1 base or 2 ahead of my opponents and trying to outmacro him. Sitting on my defense and droning as much as i can until he moves out.
That's why as a zerg, i (almost) always FE.
|
wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong
when i watch pro replays
and compare their builds with mine
its me learning why my build is bad
not just copying theirs
besides if copying theirs makes me better, why wouldn't i do it?
|
I agree with you on some points but I think the thing you are overlooking here is the 'indirect' pressure Zerg put back on T or P. When your FE goes up, it puts pressure on the T or P to respond because if they don't they will be crushed. They can either macro up themselves or try to punish u with early aggro before your economy kicks in. You may not be putting direct pressure on them with units but there is definetley pressure on them (I am a Zerg play btw).
With good scouting though u should b able to prevent/answer back either answer they throw at you. If their response is to FE right back and macro, what is stopping you from taking a 3rd? How will they stop you while focusing on their own economy. Remember they are reacting to you so you can always stay 1 step ahead with proper intel. Zerg is also the fastest race to macro up with which you should keep in mind. Again always be scouting and stay one step ahead. Of course you can cut drones and pump a ton of lings off 2 base when you see them FE, but this is always the riskier play (it is def smart to mix this in to your playstyle however, so that you keep players on their toes, hurting their macro just because they know in the past you are willing to go all in). If you scout early aggression then you prepare some light static defense and cut most drones for units and you should be fine.
Reacting to super early pressure is all a matter of practice controling drones and keeping your cool/knowing how to respond. Also maps dictate which BOs are safe, don't 14 hatch on steppes or on metalopolis if your Ovie doesn't scout them close air (as they may be close distance, so why risk it?). In my opinion Zerg is the most reactionary race and thus intel is the most important for us. It can be difficult to scout but if you learn all the trick you should be fine most games (ex: many P will move their zealot out to hit my speedlings if I attack the core, so I run by). If you for some reason cannot, make an educated guess based on your experiance, it's the best you can do in that scenario (eventually even on a player by player basis if you play enough). I hope this helps some.
|
sorry for the inactivity people, i had those tourney games today so i was prepping for those.
will be reading all your posts now.
ps: i won!
|
As a player that's stayed in Bronze for almost 600 matches now, with > 90% as zerg, I see the OP's point and agree with him.
First off -- I'm in Bronze still because my philosophy is to learn the race I chose to play, and not worry about winning every game... to the point which ZvZ games annoy me, and I'll normally quit in 5 seconds (giving a win to my opponent) if my w/l ratio is > 60%.
Over the my last 3 months of playing, I've seen a consistent "flavor of the month" play style in the lower leagues, and my best guess is that the average person comes into SC2 ladder play with a quick evolution of thought towards playing.. which goes like this....
1.) WTF i just loss how do i win as X race?
2.) let's Google!
3.) copypasta what the pro's do without understanding the dynamics of why they do it.
"Who is the form, following the function of what, and what I am is a man in a mask." - V
The above quote is relevant - just replace who with how, and what with why. My experience against Bronze/Silver players, has been against people always asking and looking at the "who/how" of SC2, without much thought of the "what/why" of said strats. As of right now, the common knowledge strats when going against zerg are: FE and >10 pool. Most players know that if they put pressure on their Z opponent early enough, they'll win the match. Even though most of the community looks down on BM, i don't, and will call a player out on their lack of understanding, creativity, and blindly following a posted BO/rush strat. Normally these folks couldn't win a game that goes beyond 10 minutes -- unless they spam X unit into an army large enough, that as a Z player, we can't react to that army.
Over and over, i've proven the 10 minute statement by getting players a 2nd time and stomping them after the 10 minute mark because I'm aware of their charge strat and can counter it with ease then toy with them the rest of the match -- i have some 90% map control replays from some of these matches.
I suspect these strats, and army compositions, are not common in the higher leagues, but i see them >50% of the time in bronze, and feel like it's directly attributed to players who have a goal of "zomg imma get to diamonds, lulz. wat?" without even looking at, or knowing, anything about the mechanics behind the scenes.
|
the perception of a zerg being greedy because of early hatches is ridiculous. Among allot of the best zergs on the planet, they agree that against a 2 rax opening, you NEED to be opening hatch first else you get overrun. It's just how you have to play ZvT at the current point in time. It's simply the most effective way of dealing with the 2 rax which is so popular in the matchup. This is equal parts terrans responding to economically focused zergs and zergs responding to aggressive Terrans.
That being said, there is alot to be said for an agressive zerg playstyle. In Brood War, who was to say Jaedong's or July's in your face style was any better than Savior's more defensive style? It's a preference issue. Allot of the current zerg style was derived from 3 players, oGsCool(fruitdealer) and Artosis/IdrA. All three prefer the management style of play, so the whole scene got developed around that. Eventually, I'll wager to say there'll be a zerg superhero who favors the aggressive style of play, but he hasn't emerged yet. Until then, the current trends will continue, and if you want to be aggressive, don't let anyone tell you you're wrong.
|
On January 20 2011 10:27 Signum wrote:
still to clarify: this is not a 'what build order should i go' thread. its more of a, why DON'T people commonly go 14 hatch 20 drone speedling allin when a t or p fast expands. I believe the answer is that players condition themselves to emulate games beyond their level and that their understanding of the game might suffer because of this.
I believe this is the kind of reaction that simply comes with experience. I used to play a macro game against a fast expanding toss on most maps and at one point I realized I could very well punish him instead. I won't use speedlings though, roaches are more to my liking.
The best example I can give you is on scrap station where the overlord scouts the opponent's ramp at 15 supply and at that moment, if I see he's walling off for 2 base play, I'll go roach all in through the center rocks(very important for quick reinforcement even though the first roaches get there later than they would otherwise). If the opponent goes for a one base wall off, I 15 hatch and go from there. My results against toss have gone up really quick. Against terran I will sometimes do a speedling build but I feel it's not as strong.
The big problem I have with your topic is the way you limit it to Zergs. Every races at the 2000 diamond level will make the same mistakes. I'm a 2700 zerg and started playing toss on my new account(didnt have a clue) and I'm simply roflstomping 2000-2600 protoss in PvP after 15 games because they don't have a clue, they do their thing and most of them have no idea why they scout. I went 3 gateways before gas/cyber on steppes at my natural, the opponent scouted it and still went for a 4 gate build. I'll let you guess how it went... (hint: a stalker will kite a zealot all day, but the others were rallied to his mineral line or pylons). So yeah, it's not just Zerg mimicking what they see better players do and being stuck in a single way of doing things, it's pretty much every diamond player below 2500.
|
On January 21 2011 17:02 Arisen wrote:
That being said, there is alot to be said for an agressive zerg playstyle. In Brood War, who was to say Jaedong's or July's in your face style was any better than Savior's more defensive style? It's a preference issue. Allot of the current zerg style was derived from 3 players, oGsCool(fruitdealer) and Artosis/IdrA. All three prefer the management style of play, so the whole scene got developed around that. Eventually, I'll wager to say there'll be a zerg superhero who favors the aggressive style of play, but he hasn't emerged yet. Until then, the current trends will continue, and if you want to be aggressive, don't let anyone tell you you're wrong.
You have RootCatZ and KyrixZenith.
Catz has some funny builds with inbase hatches against (mostly) FE protoss, and agressive openings on shorter maps where he does 11pool-> hatch cancel into evo chamber on their ramp so they cant wall in. From what i gather, his build is fairly easily countered by either not making a wall in and/or going 2 gate or blocking the hatchery with a probe - if the build caught on most people would probably just block with a probe like zergs have to do with cannon wall ins.
Kyrix used to do 2 base baneling agression in ZvT with some success in the GSL, but as the metagame has progressed it seems like the strategy has had some diminishing returns - afaik terrans started making their wallins with rax/factory because of such baneling play.
So theres certainly people TRYING to do the in-your-face builds as zerg
|
The thing is, going for early aggression against terran is a semi all in situation with bad luck. I've experienced with proxy hatch for spinecrawlers to take down walls, banelings, roaches, etc - and thing is, if scouted, you do near zero damage. A good wall with bunkers and later tanks, is proof against both roaches and banelings.
Against protoss, I've had a fair amount of success with early speedlings and just powering through the 1 or 2 zealots wall most protoss have before they get warpgate tech. Thing is, it's easily countered by cannons - and then you are dead.
Terran and Protoss can go for early aggression, while building economy. They lose some, but not that much - and don't really sacrifice safety for it, because if they fail, they can wall in. A zerg have to sacrifice so much economy for early aggression, and is so cheaply stopped safely - at least by terran.
Good Terrans can build in their base, scout me going one base, lift and drop their production buildings near their ramp and be safe. Most protoss that are decent use the pylon - gateway + cybernetics + zealot (with room for another gateway or forge if block is needed) style. Going early all in against them is just a big failure.
|
Sorry about my english. I want to say that is very good idea to copy,use and learn from the pro replays.
Information is very important to be a better player, if idra and ret tested 14 hs a day what is the best build order to stop a 2 rax early preassure preparing for high level competition, and you just play 2hs a day in the ladder it s pretty obvius they will find a better awnser to that problem. Of curse you can test it yourself but your opponents are not perfect so you have to understand that your strategy work in your level of play but migth not work in a high level.
I'm not saying "don t use your builds" but if you really want to improve fast, its better to use and practice a better strategy than an average one. When you face better players you will be more confortable, even if you loose you are quite sure you made mistakes.
If you choose to use your own strategy, you have to test it and get confortable. When you climb on the ladder and start loosing then you have to test a build that you already tested, thus wasting time. And if you loose your are not sure if is a strategic problem or you made mistakes, thus -again- wasting more time.
Information is power: if we could't see the pro replays then i think we all use our own super-secret-build order whit nuclear misiles and carriers, but ladder have that problem, you just play one game, so maybe you are worse but win the game.
So watch a lot of replay, learn from the pro and then make your own builds.
On January 20 2011 23:45 osten wrote:
There is popularity which influences trends in everyone's play. It dosen't matter if it's good or bad, but for the individual player, it is always always better to actually have imagination. Experiment on your own, I can't stress how many games I won on simply doing something unorthodox.
The problem is that winning do not mean getting better!
|
The argument would be that if you are one of those zergs that roach or ling allins upon seeing a fe then it is you who does not understand the matchup. Well at least that is what players like odra and artosis would say. This is because those allins assume that the other player does not know the appropriate response to your allin. If he does then you are screwed. However because the game is so young its likely they wont. The poster previously makes a great point with his 3gate no core pressure build. Its complete garbage but a protoss who doesnt know the correct response, a 2gate core with wall, or matching the 3 gate, will get killed even if he is a high diamond.
I was watching morrows stream a few weeks ago where he kept encountering a forge expand build zvp. In the friendly banter during the game he said that it was no good cos a roach allin would bust it. He tried. His roaches failed. The toss had found some placement or possibly a timing where it could be defended. This shows that even allin builds that play to the metagame get solved themselves.
Anyways its a pointless discussion ladder and even allin buiilds need to be practiced and tweaked before the correct time to use them has been found. Ggs
|
On January 21 2011 19:29 explicit wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2011 17:02 Arisen wrote:
That being said, there is alot to be said for an agressive zerg playstyle. In Brood War, who was to say Jaedong's or July's in your face style was any better than Savior's more defensive style? It's a preference issue. Allot of the current zerg style was derived from 3 players, oGsCool(fruitdealer) and Artosis/IdrA. All three prefer the management style of play, so the whole scene got developed around that. Eventually, I'll wager to say there'll be a zerg superhero who favors the aggressive style of play, but he hasn't emerged yet. Until then, the current trends will continue, and if you want to be aggressive, don't let anyone tell you you're wrong. You have RootCatZ and KyrixZenith. Catz has some funny builds with inbase hatches against (mostly) FE protoss, and agressive openings on shorter maps where he does 11pool-> hatch cancel into evo chamber on their ramp so they cant wall in. From what i gather, his build is fairly easily countered by either not making a wall in and/or going 2 gate or blocking the hatchery with a probe - if the build caught on most people would probably just block with a probe like zergs have to do with cannon wall ins. Kyrix used to do 2 base baneling agression in ZvT with some success in the GSL, but as the metagame has progressed it seems like the strategy has had some diminishing returns - afaik terrans started making their wallins with rax/factory because of such baneling play. So theres certainly people TRYING to do the in-your-face builds as zerg
The key word is trying, though. Yes, CatZ and Kyrix are both good players, but not the zerg icons. If you look at a list of zergs who are currently really considerer a threat to any tourney they enter
-IdrA
-Ret
-Nestea
-Fruitdealer
-Morrow
-Sen
-Dimaga
None of these players play this agressive style. Eventually there will be a zerg player who is going to be very agressive and turn into one of these icons, and IMO you'll see a shift in the metagame where zerg will become much more aggro for a good period of time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
