|
I have a hard time accepting that tech should be one of the pillars. Hear me out:
-- Army and economy are obviously exclusive. No question there.
-- Economy and tech and obviously exclusive. No question there.
-- Tech and army are NOT exclusive. In fact, I would say that tech is a sub-set of army. It's basically a question of quantity over quality, but in all cases, the decision to tech does not detract from army.
I think you have your simplified rock/paper/scissors relationship mixed up because of this fact. In ZvZ, a fast-expanding Zerg has sacrificed his army for later economic benefit. In this situation, aggression is the "correct" response. Just because you anecdotally tried a 14gas/14pool against a 15 hatch Zerg and lost, that doesn't mean aggression was the wrong response -- it means your response was late or not strong enough. A 10 pool probably would have won you that game (or at least forced the cancel), for example.
Responding by getting banelings (tech) isn't a bad response either because it's still aggression. It's only delayed. Instead of striking now with the zerglings you have, you're betting he won't be able to get roaches or banelings of his own by the time you get yours -- you put resources into army when he didn't.
Furthemore, light harassment while expanding yourself is also a decent response.
You'd be better served by looking at choices in game as investment of resources rather than these vague "pillars." You example with hellion aggression being superior to marine aggression, for example, could simply be explained away by the current metagame trends. Zergs have largely solved 2-rax and have come to expect it but haven't necessarily solved hellions appropriately (most Zergs are reluctant to get roaches in response to hellions because they can't predict how committed T will be to hellion production). However, from the T's perspective, both responses are "correct" -- the Zerg has sacrificed army for an economic lead, so attacking him (now or soon) is the best way to capitalize on that weakness.
I'm very interested in this topic since I believe that understanding the dynamics of resource investment is key to truly gaining an understanding of correct droning as Zerg. As a Zerg myself, I feel like the 3 pillars (as you describe them) are too constricting and draw distinctions where, in practice, there really aren't any.
EDIT: As another example, you state that mutalisks should be the correct Zerg response to a FE Terran. I completely disagree that mutalisks are the "best" response. For example, a high-economy baneling/roach bust would be much better. In fact, getting mutalisks would be a terrible response. Mutalisks are ineffective in small numbers in stand-up fights but are great at hurting economy (which is attacking the "strength" of a FE Terran -- he expo'ed early).
The correct response to a FE Terran is either building an army and busting him before the economy boost really kicks in (with or without "tech") or using his lack of investment in army to boost your own economy.
|
I kinda agree with the point the Op is making however I think he makes it seem like if you tech when they fast expand you auto win when in reality it takes a bit of "luck" after you make the correct choice to tech or expand or push. When I say luck I mean you will probably need to engage your opponent multiple times and come out ahead via micro each time before you have won the game. The going with tech in response to a fe might put you in the lead but it is only by a small margin that will require other small gains to make it a win.
|
Here are some examples:
Here’s another: Your opponent made a risky fast expand and you scout it just as it completes. Do you: fast expand yourself, mass a quick army and push or tech up?
You tech.
Think of Starcraft mechanics as three pillars supporting one edifice: army, tech and economy. The winner is determined by gaining the greatest advantage in one, not all, of those 3 categories, since each relies on the other two to prosper. Army means nothing without an economy to replenish it. Economy means nothing without army because it cannot be defended. Tech will trump army and economy, but good luck completing a tech build without having either.
A fast expansion sacrifices tech. So the best Terran response to a Protoss FE is cloaked Banshee. The best Zerg response to a Terran FE is a fast spire. The best Protoss response to a high econ Zerg is to move quickly to tier 3.
This oversimplifies things considerably, and is flat-out incorrect in many cases. Why? Because you don't seem to understand what "tech" actually does for you. It's not some magical property that automatically nullifies their army and nets you a larger economy in the long run. You can't just consider the "techer," either. The defender often has many low tech options to defend against high tech that require much less of an investment. (This goes for army as well - the entire premise of both FE and tech builds is forgoing an immediate army and relying on the inherent defenders advantage - walls, rush distance, static defense, etc. - to keep yourself safe, and then capitalizing on economy.). The reason you rush tech is to capitalize on either economy (if you're planning on playing the macro game) or army (if you're going for a timing attack). In response, if the opponent successfully scouts this, he can respond to nullify the tech and compound his advantage. Believe it or not, it's pretty easy to FE while building an engineering bay to nullify DTs and mutalisks.
For the banshee example, you absolutely do not want to kill the spawning pool. This does nothing for you. If he doesn't have the proper defense (i.e. didn't scout it in time), then you want to prioritize his "defense tech" (e.g. evolution chamber/spore crawlers/queens/spire) to lengthen the harass. Then, you want to prioritize drones (production). Why? Because you're sacrificing army and economy to a certain extent. But he can't attack you because you have a nice wall (nullifying his army advantage). So you need to maximize your economy advantage by killing his workers.
Basically, you need to consider responses to various situations. All tech-based harass (mutalisks, banshees, DTs, hellion drops) can be defended with minimal investment. It's what makes Starcraft so dynamic. Moreover, this is only in the simplest cases. You also need to consider timings and production capabilities. For example, 2port banshees come out at ~7:00, and depending on the build, cloak finishes at ~8:00. Factoring in travel distance, that's more than enough time to have 3 queens with lair starting to have enough queens to defend while having an overseer in time while making pure drones and an evo + spores if needed.
I'm not saying this thread itself is bad - it outlines a way of thinking that should be implicit to all Starcraft players. But it's such a rich and complex topic, and with all the misinformation in the OP, I don't feel it does it justice.
|
I'm not opposed to your attempt to generalize the thought process involved in reacting to you opponent's decisions, but your support of this argument lends itself rather to say: There is no hard and fast rule of when to tech, muster an attack, or seize an economical advantage
|
I think spawning pool was a bad example and if he had said spire it might have made a bit more sense and possibly even been correct.
I do think this type of stuff is something every player should think about before hand. Like knowing that if your in a protoss's main that ganking his cyber is a higher target then say a forge or gateway. Small stuff like this can help improve your game play. A 2nd example would be like in tvt tank viking it's very important to not lose vikings because of poor micro.
|
I think the point he's trying to get across is that if your opponent makes an economy play his army will be less powerful, thus any attack by him will most likely be weak. So teching is a good choice, sense you're safe to do so. Tech (or higher quality units) allows additional aggressive abuses.
If you're opponent makes a huge economic play like taking an expansion, a correct move, is to tech AND expand yourself (two moves actually), sense you'll have an army advantage coupled with defenders advantage. This double play actually allows the opponent to then make another expo or tech themselves.
So when _Search_ says, to tech and attack, that's correct under the assumption that your tech will allow you to overcome the opponent's defensive advantage. And even though his examples might not be the correct tech path, that's pretty moot. Hmm...
---
Expo > Move to gain economic advantage.
Cut Worker Production > Move to gain army advantage.
Tech > Move to gain army advantage.
Haras > Move to gain economic advantage.
Attack > Move to gain army advantage.
Defend > Move to gain economic advantage.
As to his racial comments...
Protoss: Army strength
* Chrono good for quick saturation of mineral lines which leads to -Cut Worker Production-
AKA Move to gain army advantage.
Zerg: Economny strength
* Expanding is cheap > easy to make move which leads to economic advantage.
Terran: Tech strength
* It is easy for terran to tech. Which leads to an army advantage.
Usually an opening move that doesn't revolve around a races strength is a risky gambit. Thus we see, Zerg (FE), Toss (4gate), Terran(111), is fairly standard.
|
I think the problem the OP doesn't see when he says that attacking tech buildings over economy is that he believes that tech buildings cannot be rebuilt fast enough to give them a miraculous comeback but actually, they can be rebuilt faster than the economy can. You bring up the example of taking out tech structures then going into the mid-game with the advantage... That is plain wrong. What zerg isn't going to rebuild those tech structures immediately (and still have the income to do it because you never took out any of his workers?) You delayed him at most a minute or two where he can't make certain units or structures but does this really hurt him in the long run? The answer is no because nothing is permanent in this game. Just like he can rebuild 20 drones in a few game minutes he can also rebuild 3 tech structures that cost less than those 20 drones and ESPECIALLY with larva mechanics, he either HAS to build those drones or HAS to build army so either way, you can either get ahead economically or army wise and it is still MUCH better than taking out a couple of tech structures.
I want to see a game where taking out the tech with a harass decided it compared to taking out the workers. I'm almost positive that there are very few examples compared to the HUNDREDS of examples there are showing the latter is superior.
As many people have said, there are just some flat out wrong things stated in this OP backed up with absolutely no evidence and I think it is going to guide people in the wrong direction.
|
On April 28 2011 09:15 xJaCEx wrote:
I think spawning pool was a bad example and if he had said spire it might have made a bit more sense and possibly even been correct.
I do think this type of stuff is something every player should think about before hand. Like knowing that if your in a protoss's main that ganking his cyber is a higher target then say a forge or gateway. Small stuff like this can help improve your game play. A 2nd example would be like in tvt tank viking it's very important to not lose vikings because of poor micro.
So you're saying if he actually used a different example instead of his blatantly incorrect one, he would've been right? Of course that's true. But the fact is, he didn't, which shows the actual extent of his Starcraft knowledge. It's true that what he's talking about is important. But it's hard to take a thread like this seriously when it's written with the examples he used.
|
This is just not true. In which league do you play to prove your points OP? And no, you can't say
"It doesn't matter which league I am in, because I prove my points with arguments."
Because your arguments are just wrong. Claiming that killing (or more trying to kill) Tech Structures is better then hurting the enemy's Eco significantly, shows that you don't understand the game Starcraft 2 at all and just theorycraft around. I hope I don't have to say again that Teching against an enemy's Expansion isn't the best response by any means.
This wouldn't be so tragic without the beginners that read this Topic, get driven away by your (clever) language and start to fail at harassing because they believe in your wrong points.
Seriously there is a reason why so many people tell you you are wrong. It's not like Team Liquid is the "Forever Bronze" Forum.
No hard feelings.
Edit: Oh and more specific, I think you are very afraid of Queens. Claiming that 20 dead Drones aren't important because Zerg can reproduce them easy with a few injects is ridiculous. Queens just spawn Larva, not Minerals (and you dont get many Minerals with 20 dead Drones buddy).
|
I tried to read this all the way threw, but frankly some of the analysis in the OP is just plain wrong.
Most of the statements about which race has the strongest/weakest economy/army/tech are silly. Protoss has the weakest economy? Terran has the best tech? Come on.
The fundamental idea here is good: Focus on maintaining your lead in specific areas. But the examples are trash.
|
|
|
On April 28 2011 09:04 Saracen wrote:I'm not saying this thread itself is bad - it outlines a way of thinking that should be implicit to all Starcraft players. But it's such a rich and complex topic, and with all the misinformation in the OP, I don't feel it does it justice.
I agree, and on that note, here is a resource that does do the topic justice:
Day9's Starcraft Podcast
for anyone not familiar these are essentially the Day9 Daily beta, auido-only podcasts where day9 reflects on some of the most core concepts to broodwar and RTS games in general.
in fact they are so core that they still translate perfectly to SC2 except for the in-game examples. including an excellent dissection of abusing weaknesses and the concept of "sidestepping".
i can highly reccomend listening to all of them, more than once if possible as they are very complex ideas that take a while to sink in.
|
Brilliant write up. Very articulate.
|
I'm not sure if someone's mentioned this so far but this idea of economy vs army size vs tech was brought up in a day9 daily a few months ago (not in a lot of detail though, I believe it was in the context of a PvZ where protoss had lost his main on jungle basin, but already had a stargate and made void rays or something and managed to hold on because the zerg was spending all their resources on army and/or economy or something, day9 said something like "if protoss tried to catch up in army size or economy, he'd obviously lose because he just lost his army and his main base, BUT he already had a starport, so tech was his strength, and his only hope at getting back in the game"). If the OP got this idea from that daily it explains why his specific examples don't sound like they're coming from a lot of experience? But the basic idea comes from a source I'm sure most people are happy to accept lol
I'm a mere platinum player, but my opinion is that yes, there's value to viewing economy, army size, and tech somewhat independently of each other (and I'm gonna think of 'tech' as just tech structures and upgrades, things that just tend to make your army better, ignoring anything specific at all), because they ARE entirely independent in terms of if you invest money in one of them at a SPECIFIC point in time, that's less money you can invest in the other. There's a clear tradeoff in the short-term between the three, but beyond that, I think that they interact with each other so much, that thinking in terms of "oh man, he's focusing on economy, I better get tech to counter!!!" is wrong (regardless of whether tech would actually counter in that situation lol)
|
I think you take it a bit too far when you try to assign strengths and weaknesses to each race, that kind of thing is far too variant (which makes this game so dynamic) because of different playstyles.
EX: A zerg 6 pools, sacrifices eco and tech for army vs. fast hatch which sacrifices army/tech for economy.
Also tech and army are kind of vague. From a protoss point of view, because our warpgate units lose effectiveness rather quickly, we require tech to have any kind of army value.
The general idea of trying to hit your opponent where he is weak is good, but the OP takes takes it too far in trying to oversimplify.
One thing I will add to this though is that in some cases, the three pillars should be: map control, tech/army, economy.
In PvZ as an example, Protoss fast expands and gives zerg /complete/ map control, and gains some economy and either army/tech. (5-6 gate vs. Vr//colo etc.)
At this point zerg's strength is in map control, and has to use that advantage to deal with the army/tech that the protoss will have later on. (spreading creep, expanding to far reaches, abuse scouting info)
At least that's how I've looked at PvZ lately, its seems like the battle is more over map control vs. who has the better army or economy. Or maybe map control is something beyond the OP's suggested three pillars? -stops before he continues thinking outloud-
|
this has solved all my questions of why i have lost in the last week, ILY
|
I enjoyed reading your post, OP. It opened my eyes to the finer points of SC2 mechanics and I just want to say thanks.
P.S.
Can anyone tell me how to subscribe to this thread so that I can be updated on any new posts that will be made?
|
On April 27 2011 23:22 Cheerio wrote:Basic strategy concepts are well... basic. Applying them to such a complicated game as sc2 is very difficult as they dont account for numerous nuances of the game, which results in numerous incorrect conclusions.
This sums up my opinion of the OP quite well. The basic strategy is sound, but extrapolating it so extensively in such a complex environment is disastrous.
A well written and an interesting read for sure, though. 
|
Nice and interresting points, but why do you say the game has luck? It has no luck I'm sure we can all agree. (Some might get in to semantics at this point, but in that case sure, your entire life is based on luck all the time so why use the word at all.)
Also I feel a new player might not get good things from your race divider concept. Sure, it might feel as if zerg has better "economy", but they don't. Protoss can, for instance make probes faster, and gain more income faster, and it's not "harder" or going against their race at all, it works exactly as good. That being said that is not how the metagame is right now. Right now Terrans tech, right now zerg goes for economy. It flows back and fourth, and cornering the races right here and now within three concepts are just wrong to do, if a new player reads this and choses race based on it, it might go wrong when he realizes that it was just anchored to how the metagame plays out right now here in 2011.
I'm just saying, you have done a real good thing here, but not thought every single point through. There are depths within what you talk about and as you skim the surface, you proclaim laws without really encompassing the metagame as it can be in the future. Since it is a low level concept to work with, it requires you to see the entire spectrum when you talk about basic gross concepts. It is hard, so good job, but my tip would be focus more on a specific thing before you summarize and move on, there are always further depths when you talk about general objective strategy like this, so it sounds wierd when you suddenly reach a conclution and move on.
|
A few posts back someone said something which I would like to elaborate on.
There is no evidence in the OP.
You make broad sweeping claims of '3 pillars' and exponential growth etc which may sound good but it is not even theorycrafting. It is trying to define basic strategy from nothing and applying that in broad strokes to SC2.
Premise - exacerbating a deficit in your opponent is the best.
example - 2 port banshee vs zerg FE
decision - kill all tech because he went FE
conclusion - that is the best because now he cannot tech or fight back
There is a lack of logic and evidence in that process. I could have easily come out with the same conclusion using this path
my decision - kill all drones
my conclusion - no income to produce queens or mutalisks (or anything else for that matter)
It's also true, but it's also meaningless because for one thing we don't know how much time it takes to kill all drones/tech.
Another point I'd like to touch on - How does building an army or tech lead to exponential growth? The only activity in SC2 that leads to near exponential growth is the economy. Having 2 marines will not give you 2 more marines, then 4 more... Sure having a large army allows you to obtain an economy that is able to grow quickly but the economy still does not scale exponentially with the army.
The most fundamental problem with simplifying the game into 3 abstract pillars and then attempting
to use them concretely is that you run into contradictions -
Think of Starcraft mechanics as three pillars supporting one edifice: army, tech and economy. The winner is determined by gaining the greatest advantage in one, not all, of those 3 categories, since each relies on the other two to prosper. Army means nothing without an economy to replenish it. Economy means nothing without army because it cannot be defended. Tech will trump army and economy, but good luck completing a tech build without having either.
If you meant that you require greatest advantage in one category (as you wrote but contradicted right after) then how does having no army and no tech but a raging economy make me the winner? It just means I will eventually be able to build a larger army than my opponent or he will kill me before I get there which is a complex interaction which the pillars do not take into account.
On the other hand, if you meant the winner is determined by having advantages in all categories - then yes, that's self evident, but it's also not very helpful.
I do not expect evidence in the discussion of basic strategy, but the OP is neither self-evident nor logical (I just mean that you have not shown sufficient steps to reach the conclusions from your premises).
A more useful account of the 2 port banshee vs Z FE example is -
Zerg takes the economy advantage early. Terran takes a tech route which will take advantage of the zerg's future inability to fight back (possible lack of anti-air). A confrontation occurs where if the terran is able to either - hurt the tech, economy AND/OR army sufficiently, he will eventually win.
The best decision to take at the end is the one which deals the most damage in the least amount of time while taking as few losses as possible (amongst other things), which is no trivial thing to determine by theory alone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
