|
As a fellow noob my interpretation is this:
I have a different build per race matchup simply because it makes good sense.
This build started off very simple, but as I have learnt what to look for it has developed branches - in other words my one focussed build diversifies over time into what i would of called many build orders when i started. Now however it is reacting in a hopefully pre-thought out and calculated way.
This means that I have a target template ... initially 2gate robo. However because i am scouting at 9 depending on what i see this can change into 3 gate expand, 4 gate even 1 gate starport (well probably not in pvt  ) ... but all those variations which are technically different builds come from the one build i was working on and slot into it .... because I have a target initially (in pvt its because i want obs for banshee) and change direction based on information I will end up with what i wanted eventually when the time is right. So if i see 1 rax walloff then i am sticking to 2 gate robo, but if i see tech labs I may adapt and expect a bio ball - however i will still want the scout info as the banshee could still come - and so may go 3 gate robo or consider a forge for detection (and +1) and get more gates.
The point is the different directions are a result of doing the origional intended build and doing it well. You also need to balance fun with mechanical ritual. I then get owned by some strat a few times whilst i am reviewing how to beat it and came up with small changes to achieve specific goals .... this means that whilst someone may say 'well you are doing different builds' it means i have not learnt several builds in isolation but rather have a single build tree with decision points, timings and expectations and am constantly twaking them.
The point is you can usually anticipate what will happen and so your main build is generally good - the branches are decisions based on information you get from your opponent.
so pvt - you are countering bioball whilst watching for bansee
in pvz - you are expecting some kind of roach play into hydra whilst watching rate of expansion
Well thats what im thinking anyway - I am sure many will disagree about initial expectations but my builds expect that kind of start and branch from there.
I actually use a program called freemind to map all this stuff out. when you start deliberately doign something like this youd be suprised at how much meshes together (and how easy it is to get timings right). when i started doing this I had no idea that a 6 pool would arrive at around 3:40 (xel naaga) which is when your first zealot comes out - the noobs i played were always late and so my zealot always was out in time. Anyway, problem solved now within the context of my original build - same with 7rr (at my level).
|
The one build approach is a decent way to learn the game but you might want to have a different build for different maps.
For example 2 gate robo is a very solid all around build in PvT but it is horrible at big maps like shakuras. 3 gate sentry FE is also fairly crap at shakuras for PvZ as a forge FE is much better there.
Overall having a preset plan for each matchup + map is pretty good but you do have to know how to deviate from it. The 'standard' game is used much at the toplevel because non-standard strats get punished by pro's. At the ladder for a casual player you'll face alot more different strats then the pro's do actually because you meet strange (and ineffective) strats more often, if you respond with standard play you can sometimes be doing the wrong stuff though.
|
As terran, I do have serveral safe builds I like to use (master terran here).
TvT - 1/1/1 - either banshee into tank or tank into viking... they are pretty safe.. .make sure o bunker up against rax pressure
TvP - here I use both...:
- i'm working on my 1 rax FE into MMM... this build is slightly countered by one base colossi, so if you scout a robo, skimp on rax and tech to vikings asap
- i also like to 2/1/1, being rax - fact (no second gas) - rax - and starport.... that way you can get a good hellion drop and since you're not getting double gas, you have minerals for eng bay + turrets (for DT) or to expand while the hellion drop comes
TvZ - i used to go 2 rax all the way, but on those huge maps 2 rax pressure is next to impossible... now i'm doing standard 13 gas 15 cc into 2 naked factories (transfer gas scvs to mineral after starting the 2nd factory) for a good hellion marine pressure while expanding... this build holds its own against early roach pressure if you scout (just bunker up)
|
I'm still very new to the game too (3 weeks) but I've worked my way into gold purely off of practicing 3 build orders (1 for each race) here they are.
PvP: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/4_Warpgate_Rush
PvT: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=206596
PvZ: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/3_Gate_Sentry_Expand
The main things I've noted doing these builds are that 1) The double forge open doesn't work against heavy mech or 1 base play — just because you hit the 2/2 upgrade window doesn't mean you MUST attack, and often means you're suiciding if you're bunching up at his ramp while he has 10 sieged tanks and thors behind it destroying your army. And 2) none of these builds except PvP are 100% effective all of the time. By this I mean you have to transition or deviate based on what you feel is happening in the game, and that just takes experience (something I'm still working on).
Hope this helped.
|
I too was wondering about these things concerning picking one build and practicing it till you master it. What I eventually discovered was that builds like that give you a great sense of the game in general, it is like an introduction to strategy, so to speak.
I think that once you master a build, it will be easier to learn new builds as well. It is as if you are riding a becycle, and try to learn to ride a motorcycle, your previous experience on becycle will make it easier, right?
If my experience is of any help: as zerg I at first practiced a simple 15 hatchery macro build, as I was tought that macro is the most important part to learn during early stages. Later I chose a build for each match-up, and after trying a few I went with a variety selection: a very fast rush against zerg that requires me to do some micro, an aggressive mid-game plan against protoss which requires me to be precise with my timing in regards to the in-game clock, and a macro build against terran which requires me to at first passively react, and fight it off in the late game.
|
The way I used to practice when I first took the time to learn and really refine builds was to play just one build for several days, no matter what the match-up was.
You'll obviously have more difficulty winning the "wrong" match-ups for the build you practice, but I found that getting a build really refined is much easier when you don't break your learning "flow" by doing something different depending on the match-up you get. I've also found that it's easier to go back to the build I learned this way after I haven't done it in a while and still be able to do it near-perfect. Your mind can't learn 3 or 5 things at the same time as efficiently if you keep switching between them every game or two.
If you can take the extra losses, I'd recommend trying it this way. Alternatively, it would be even better if you had a few practice partners of an adequate level to grind games against, but that seems to be a luxury most players don't have.
|
Stick to 1 build.
The reason you stick to one build is because it really isn't 1 build.
The normal pace of the game has 4 stages, and rarely is the 4rth stage ever reached.
The Opening
The Midgame Transition
The Lategame Transition
Resource Exhaustion
A good opening simply sets you up for a good midgame. The reason something akin to a 2GateRobo is good against Terran is not because you will kill him with it, but it provides you good scouting and a good tech base to transition into something that responds very well against what the Terran opponent is doing.
When you get to the midgame you can switch to whatever tech tree you want.
For example. You open 3GateFE vs Zerg. You see that he's going for an early Lair and you suspect Muta play. So you drop a forge and a Twilight Council and start going BlinkStalkers with +1 to counter what you suspect your opponent is doing. The next game against Zerg you still go 3GateFE--but you notice that he's doing a 7rr. So you cancel your plan to drop a nexus and you plop down a 4rth Gate instead and decide to do a delayed 4gate instead.
In both games you sit down and open with 3gateFE, but in one game you win by going BlinkStalker and the other game you win by way of 4Gate. A good standard build is simply an opening that allows you the ability to transition to a more tailored strategy as your scouting reveals more information.
Builds are generally understood as cheesy or all-in-ish when the opening is so restrictive in the possible transitions it offers that they are predictable and abusive. 6Pool, for example, *has* to attack with 6 lings. You can't scout something and then go "Oh, 6pool won't work better drop a Warren and transition into Roach/Hydra!"
Cruncher is a good example of a protoss player who seems really boring to watch because he plays so standard. Here's his general strategy.
"Expand, Get a third, Max out on Collosus/Voidray/Gateway, push out"
He does that almost every game especially against Zerg. His Zerg opponents know that this is something he will do. He doesn't trick them, or surprise them, he doesn't get cute. He simply focuses on strong mechanics and has a great understanding on the strengths and weaknesses of his build. He knows when he can afford to build cannons, and when to simply keep stalkers at home. He knows that at x minutes into the game, his army is this much weaker or stronger than his opponents and uses those timings to destroy them.
If his zerg opponents became more aggressive, he will adapt his play, but until he has to, the strength of going standard is that the better player will almost always win when it is standard vs standard. Cheesy builds are cheesy because you're essentially hoping that your opponent will mess up more so than you are hoping to win. You don't learn from your opponents making mistakes, you learn by outplaying them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
