|
I think teching, for example to banshees or dts, against a FE player isnt optimal. There are responses to those units that dont require high tech. For example, a forge FE toss can easily put cannons to stop cloaked banshees or dts, a FE zerg can put up spores and use queens.
The weakness of the tech path is that it relies too much on the surprise factor, but i as zerg will be sure to sac and overlord to see what tech pat you are going for at the 5 min mark or so.
A truly solid response is one that, even if the opponent scouts it, would still be strong against him.
By the way, how is a zerg supposed to deal with a 5 or 6 gate? If you try to tech you will be crushed and if you try to get an eco lead you make a great risk, thus the only response is to make army, which is the tosses strength.
|
This is an excellent post! Thanks for that mate 
|
I like your general ideas and mode of thought, but you say some things that are straight wrong. For example in your banshee scenario killing the drones is the absolute correct choice. If you only kill those tech structures, zerg will be too big for you to deal with, it doesn't matter if he is low tech for a while, you have essentially allowed him to pull so far ahead in economy that nothing you do matters.
Additionally teching against a fast expand is situational. Sometimes it is better to just expand yourself and concede a small advantage. This depends on the point at which you scout things and how builds line up. The game is too complex for blanket statements like "tech against a faster expand" to be correct.
|
I liked the read but I think you're oversimplifying matters way too much:
For instance, teching against fast expanding players is rarely the "right response". DT rushing a 1 Rax FE Terran is still praying to god he doesn't have detection up in time. Marine rushes kill Zergs all the time whereas hellions are only a economical danger.
This: "2 rax pressure might not win many TvZs, but fast hellions will" is just plain wrong.
You say that a Zerg loses the match when he loses his main, this is equally true for Terran's main losing it's production facilites and it would be much more expensive for a Terran to rebuild his infrastructure.than it would be for a Zerg.
Terran's army is also far from the weakest, Zerg has the weakest 200 food army. Economy is not Protoss' weakness too, saying that Protoss is supposed to have the lowest income is just wrong.
|
The best Zerg response to a Terran FE is a fast spire.
Is it really? Sure, using muta against terran is strong and standard, but will it help when the terran is ahead in economy? There's one thing a fast expanding terran will be able to get fast: marines. And marines slaughter mutalisks. I would assume you'd be risking sitting with early mutalisks against a terran with a far better economy than you, with enough marines to make your mutalisks useless. When you get enough banelings to be aggressive, their FE will have stabilized long ago and their tanks will already be set up.
In my, though hardly extensive, experience, a fast spire against an FE terran doesn't sound like an optimal response.
|
This post might be good if there was not the option "just f*cking kill him"....
Seriously, do you really want to tech when a zerg takes 2 mores bases and you see it ?
Economy is not a pilar, it's the building.
You want to tech to be able to secure an expand (or kill him).
You want an army to secure your expand (or kill him).
|
Great read!
Some of the examples were a little odd. But it is still a really good thread. It made me think of some things i didn't do before
|
If you love that kind of reflection you should read The Art of War - Sun Tzu, you'll learn a lot of things like that.
|
However Zerg only creates one building per tech. While Terrans sacrifice Barracks without batting an eye, losing a Spawning Pool, Hive or Spire will devastate a Zerg. This is why a Zerg who loses their main has lost the game, regardless of how many expansions they have.
I don't see why people don't build backup pools/tech buildings in expansions in the late game if the inevitable mainsnipes are coming. I never seen it done in BW, and haven't seen it here... makes a lot of sense though no?
|
excuse my two posts.
It was an amusing read but most of your ideas are generalizations that aren't true. The one that made me lol is targeting a spawning pool, banelings nest, and evolution chamber over drones. Yes, the zerg will be delayed in army, but zerg mechanics revolve around larva production. By killing 20 something drones instead, you take away 20 something larva as well as the resources required to rebuild his econ + lost mining time. No larva/larva being dedicated to droning = less army.This would delay his army much more than killing a 200 mineral pool, 100/50 nest, and a 75 mineral evo chamber.
Also, one base fast spire vs FE terran is asking to get stomped. Expanding in response will put you slightly behind your opponent, but by teching/massing an army off of one base, you will have to do damage, and by damage, i don't just mean kill his army, you have to do enough economic damage to put him back down to your economic level(one-base.) A failed attempt will put you farther behind than a slightly later expansion ever would. Good scouting on your opponents half will tell him whether he needs to produce an army or he can start saturating his expansion, and relying on bad play by your opponent is never reliable.
Ex. You scout a 15hatch and decide to "tech" to pre-igniter hellion instead of expand yourself. Your opponent scouts the factory and tech lab, spine crawlers up, and is well prepared for your harass. At that point unless your micro is 100% better than his/he messes up and loses 20 drones, you've already put yourself in a very bad situation. A common terran response is go from hellion harass into banshees off of one base. Should the banshees fail as well, you would be better off leaving the game.
I'm not saying teching isn't the proper answer, but taking your own expansion isn't the horrible economy shattering idea you make it seem to be.
Amusing read though.
|
I think a lot of lower-level players will read this and be misguided. Your examples are all wrong in my opinion and you fail to take important concepts such as scouting or Macromanagment into acccount.
But let's see:
But let’s say the Terran opts instead to respond with 2-port cloaked Banshees, and they get to the Zerg base with enough time to either: kill 20 drones, kill 2 Queens, the Spine Crawler and half the standing army (say 16 lings and 4 banelings), kill the Lair, or kill the Spawning Pool, Baneling Nest and Evolution Chamber? Spore Crawlers are quickly being built (ignoring the possibility of simply attacking those), so time is of the essence. Remembering the concept of the three pillars that supports every build, which should the Banshees target?
Hopefully it’s obvious that, even though they would be cheapest to replace, the Banshees should target the 3 Tech Structures. There’s no point in killing drones, against 2 hatcheries that would be like spitting into the wind. It would be like punching your enemy’s arm instead of kneeing their groin. Don’t hit your enemy where they are strongest.
Killing the army also will not yield an advantage because, not only are lings and Queens quickly reproduced, but 2-port Banshee leaves the Terran army weak as well. Attempting advantages in two categories results in a weak lead that is quickly eaten up by the opponent’s much stronger advantage in just one category.
Killing the Lair is a possibility, but that target is divided between being a tech and economic building, and as a tech target it’s not a strong one. The natural can always be turned into a Lair as well. Really, the Banshees need to pull the rug right out from under and take out the Spawning Pool, Baneling Nest and Evolution Chamber.
Should that happen the Terran would have the game won, maybe not instantly, but the lead would be cemented. The Banshees (still being produced) would have full map control, preventing further expansions while the Terran could take any base they wanted. Zerg dares not move out before the Pool and Chamber are replaced and the Spire completed, because every ling they lose is lost forever and Terran still poses the threat of killing the irreplaceable Spore Crawlers/Queens with overwhelming Banshees.
OK so let me understand this. A terran going 2port banshee (one of the most all-in things you can do) should kill tech structures rather than drones? That's just ridiculous, A baneling nest and a spawning pool have buildtimes of 60seconds so after you got repelled you still are 1base vs 2 with about half his harvesters and no useful tech. Hell The Z could go hydralisks from there and kill you.
You say the T gets mapcontrol with his banshees and can expand, but that's is completely wrong. What army is the T supposed to defend his expansions with against a much bigger zerg force when he doesnt have good responses to standard units like banelings and zerglings?
And generally, what if your 2port banshee got scouted? You are already dead then, using the route advised by you (1base tech).
I just picked that example because it shows the most glaring misunderstanding, but I can't find anything else I agree with in your post except maybe obvious things such as expanding when you have mapcontrol and killing creep tumors after you killed queens.
But making 6 vikings after killing the spire? Good luck with an investment that becomes useless once mutas get out again.
|
I think the main, glaring idea missing in your post is your ability to affect your opponents' "pillars."
For instance, Zerg goes 14 hatch. You went 2 rax. Great! In theory, you have a clear army advantage and your zerg enemy has the economic advantage. But in an actual game, this isn't always the way it ends up.
Now, you push with 2/3 scvs to try and get some bunkers down and 5 marines. The zerg is forced to make lings(read: Not drones) and you maybe snipe a queen. During this time you got a bunker down to threaten the hatch and take your own command center. You have just harmed your opponents economy while matching it. There is nothing wrong with taking an expansion after your opponent. To say that the proper response to seeing a 14 hatch is to go two port banshees is simply ridiculous. If he throws down 2 spores and has 4 queens all of a sudden your tech is useless and you're STILL down a base.
The pillar image is a nice thought but it's not what you're describing. If a house has 1 strong pillar but 2 very weak ones, the house will still collapse. You are suggesting that army, tech, eco are three different pathways that can all get you to the finish line. In your words, if your opponent has one strong pillar, his economy, and you take out 20 drones, he has NO strong pillars left. He is beating you in economy but not in tech and not in army. If you take out 20 drones, he is beating you in nothing. You just tore down his one strong pillar.
|
You also seriously fail to realize that it doesn't take higher tech to beat higher tech. You can tech quickly to thors if you want but a 15/16 hatch zerg will simply have the economy and therefore the lings to beat your high tech. It seems that you think higher tech = stronger army when that is simply not true. Banshees are great and all, but tier one queens and evo chamber tech to spore crawlers will beat your higher tech.
|
You might want to target the tech buildings AFTER you kill
1. the queens if you can
2. as many drones before spores finish
3. now if there aren't any drones u can kill without getting attacked hit the pool then bling then evo.
This is what pros do and I'm pretty sure GSL champs know all about the 3 pillars
|
Generally I will say that you can do 2 out of the three choices of tech/expand/army, and that a one dimensional play like that you're suggesting (either teching, building army OR expanding) is extraordinarily risky.
|
This is one of the best reads I've read in TL. However, I would like to add on to what OP wrote. The 3 pillars he mentioned are what I call empirical factors. They are what wins the game if you view matches in spectator mode. But in real matches between most players also includes two more factors imho. Two arbitrary factors. These factors decide the actual deployment of the 3 empirical factors in the OP. They are: Intelligence and Player Input.
Intelligence is simply how much each player knows about each other's 3 empirical factors. It also includes counter intelligence, in which you deny enemy intelligence or give false intelligence. The reason this is so important is due to powerful unit countering in SC2. Pure marauder can pwn pure roach even when severely outnumbered. Mass pheonix completely rape mutas even if the mutas add up to way more mineral & gas cost. So with Intelligence properly used, a player with a seemingly smaller Army can easily defeat someone with a larger, but relatively more vulnerable Army. With a smaller Army size, the need for a larger Economy also drops since less units are need. Thus the player can go on to use the rest of his economy on tech,and continue exaggerating the difference in advantage.
Player Input is a variety of factors given by the player. It includes microing units, making guesses(when you need to), creativity and overall game sense. Microing is needless to say. With it, You can effectively overwhelm enemies with superior Intelligence or Army in certain situations(e.g. insane marine split micro against banelings, counters the fact that the eney used a unit which is supposed to counter yours). Making guesses is when you only have limited Intelligence of the enemy due to good enemy counter-intelligence. It is usually used in very high level games because usually counter-intelligence is difficult to constantly pull off. This is more based on luck or experience. Creativity is what gives SC2 its psychological factor. By using units in an unorthodox way(some may call it a gimmick), it is possible to surprise or scare your opponent, giving you a large window of time to exploit the enemy's panic state(e.g. Baneling drops, multi-nydus attack, Siege tanks on high ground next to enemy mineral line, EMPing your own banshees so that HTs can't feedback). Overall game sense refers to the player's reaction time to all the info given to him through the screen. How fast he reacts to drops, how long he needs to think whether to FE while the enemy is doing a 1-1-1 build. Decision-making time. The shorter you take, the faster the next course of action will kick into motion, and the faster your 3 empirical factors(Army, Economy, Tech) can respond to enemy decisions. Player Input doesn't necessarily demand that you must be a top-tier player. Misleading banter, making map-specific decisions, proxy buildings and using burrow when the enemy least expects it are all aspects of Player Input.
There is still a loophole in this theory though, I hope someone can somehow fit it in. How do you classify defensive structures like, photon cannons, missile turrets or spore crawlers? They can attack but are mostly immobile, thus unable to damage the enemy's Tech/Economy, so they can't be in the factor of Army(Cannon rushes and similar strats can be considered as a creative use of defensive structures, thus under Player Input). They don't make money or provide tech options so they are not Economy or Tech either. What if a player turtles with an all-round defense of photon cannons? The 3 pillars don't fit in most of his income since he has at most a tiny Army, a really powerful Economy and possibly lots of tech. In this case the 3 pillars seem lopsided since without the cannons there is no way to support and defend so much tech buildings and workers with only a few measly units.
TL;DR
In addition to Army, Economy and Tech, Intelligence and Player Input also proides concerted importance in winning an SC2 match.
*Qn: Where do photon cannons & spine/spore crawlers stand in the 3 pillar theory?
Tks for reading.
|
People are arguing specific situations and specific instances where these concepts don't apply. How about in situations where they do apply? These concepts can apply in most situations, thus these considerations are worth reading/taking into consideration as a player who uses actual strategy in the real sense of the word, instead of strategy in terms of simply unit composition, unit control and macro.
Generalisations are the best we can do with such a complex a game and due to the almost infinite amount of variables of player skill, player styles, common trends at the time, constant rebalancing/patching, it is IMPOSSIBLE to completely map out a game like this, thus the best we can do is only use generalisations.
|
On April 27 2011 22:27 ryan1894 wrote:
People are arguing specific situations and specific instances where these concepts don't apply. How about in situations where they do apply? These concepts can apply in most situations, thus these considerations are worth reading/taking into consideration as a player who uses actual strategy in the real sense of the word, instead of strategy in terms of simply unit composition, unit control and macro.
Generalisations are the best we can do with such a complex a game and due to the almost infinite amount of variables of player skill, player styles, common trends at the time, constant rebalancing/patching, it is IMPOSSIBLE to completely map out a game like this, thus the best we can do is only use generalisations.
I guess most people just don't want to generalize an idea when it was presented with nothing but faulty examples. The general idea was that when the opponent focuses on economy, you should focus on tech, but in none of the examples this was actually true, so the question is if it's even true at all.
I find that tech is in general not a very good counter to defensive play, and someone generally follows up a fast-expand with defensive play to keep the economic advantage. This would be why it's more common to either fast-expand yourself to keep up in the economic race, or mass an army and try to punish the greedy player. Going tech might backfire, especially if your opponent scouts it, and leave you in a great economic disadvantage with an "advantage" in tech you can't use.
|
I think my additional pillars for the OP in my previous post(2 posts above this one) can clear up lots of counter-OP posts above mine. Situations posted by lazyo and cutie can be easily explained by my pillars of Intelligence and Player Input which includes micro. The spinecrawler response to hellions is a combination of the unaccounted Intelligence factor and the loophole of defensive structures. The pillar theory is NOT wrong or misleading if you understand it from this POV. Tech to mutas against 2 rax may be stupid if he is massing marines, but if you suicide a few roaches during his expand while teching to mutas, you can effectively trick him into getting mass marauder with double techlab. See, this is using Intelligence. You can also abuse muta speed and map control to force stims and deny further expos. That is superior Player Input.
|
Some very bad advice in there. Cloaked Banshee is a terrible response to Protoss FE since the build (if executed right but that should be a given) will get an obs or cannons in time, wasting your cloak research and giving you little to nothing to fall back on. Likewise the best Z response to a fast expanding Terran is most definitely not fast Spire since the Terran will have lots of Marines, it's taking a fast 3rd with possibly a hidden 4th or a high econ baneling bust (depending on map).
Also lol at Protoss having the weakest economy. Because of Chronoboost and saturation mechanics that's simply not true.
Honestly the more I read through that it just seems like bad theorycraft. Try playing the game some more. No offense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
