|
Make sure you read the OP before asking a question. Asking a question already addressed in the OP will result in moderation action. |
On October 06 2012 11:23 Clarity_nl wrote:
In PvT, when would it be appropriate to go templar/archon instead of colossus? Or if the choice is stylistic, what are the differences?
For simplicity let's say T 1 rax FE and P 1 gate FE, no aggression from either.
Entirely stylistic. Both are equally able to open against Terran -- though eventually as you move to 3 and 4 base you will want both. There aren't really many differences to speak of between either opening as it's just re-appropriating your gas elsewhere. The difference really is in how your opponent responds to each opening, but this is somewhat expected. Templar tech armies will run way more gateways on 2/3 bases than colossi will, but you're eventually going to have to add the opposing tech's infrastructure for a well rounded late game anyways, so that's not necessarily a difference.
|
Italy12248 Posts
On October 06 2012 11:23 Clarity_nl wrote:
In PvT, when would it be appropriate to go templar/archon instead of colossus? Or if the choice is stylistic, what are the differences?
For simplicity let's say T 1 rax FE and P 1 gate FE, no aggression from either.
If both sides fast expand it's a stylistic choice. A couple of good templar builds are http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=319339 and http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=364130.
If he's opening gas it's harder to open templar because while you can get colossi in time vs some one base allins, in some situations, it's basically impossible to tech to templar in that spot, and by the time you can confirm expand or allin (around 9 minutes or so if you go for a safe 3 gate into robo) it's too late to choose what kind of midgame composition you want to go for.
|
Sorry if this is in the wrong thread. I've just gotten back into sc2 and I was wondering what the most (widely accepted) safest opening there are as Protoss.
For example, I know a while ago it was (and possibly still is) 3gate into blink-robo for PvP. Also, what are some key things that hint an all-in that I should be looking for when I scout. I really don't know what I'm looking at anymore!
Again, sorry if I posted this in the wrong spot. I'm fairly sure this doesn't warrant it's own thread.
User was warned for this post
/Edit: Oh, wow! Sorry, I really don't know how I missed that. (It's even the very first part of the op) Terribly sorry, Thanks for the quick replies though.
|
On October 07 2012 09:54 Bjox wrote:
Sorry if this is in the wrong thread. I've just gotten back into sc2 and I was wondering what the most (widely accepted) safest opening there are as Protoss.
For example, I know a while ago it was (and possibly still is) 3gate into blink-robo for PvP. Also, what are some key things that hint an all-in that I should be looking for when I scout. I really don't know what I'm looking at anymore!
Again, sorry if I posted this in the wrong spot. I'm fairly sure this doesn't warrant it's own thread.
Read the first post in the thread and then come back if you have a more specific problem.
|
On October 07 2012 09:54 Bjox wrote:
Sorry if this is in the wrong thread. I've just gotten back into sc2 and I was wondering what the most (widely accepted) safest opening there are as Protoss.
For example, I know a while ago it was (and possibly still is) 3gate into blink-robo for PvP. Also, what are some key things that hint an all-in that I should be looking for when I scout. I really don't know what I'm looking at anymore!
Again, sorry if I posted this in the wrong spot. I'm fairly sure this doesn't warrant it's own thread.
User was warned for this post
Without refering you to the first page. I hear 2gate robo is probably the "safest build" but I either prefer a 3 gate expand, in which I expand behind agression and add my robo after nexus, or If i don't feel safe Ie, he's going to one base/all in me Ill add the second gas and robo sooner and just start making units until i feel it is safe to expand. This is coming from a high gold players perspective.
|
What's a good, general build order for a quick 1 base blink-obs all-in for PvT? Alternatively, does anyone know of any VODs/replays showing such a build? I'm assuming it will be more greedy than a blink/obs PvP build, but I'm not sure how exactly to go about it.
|
Italy12248 Posts
MC vs MKP on Antiga Shipyard from one or two seasons ago.
Essentially in PvT you co zealot/stlaker/stalker and then cut units entirely and strat adding then and then infrastructure, going up to 26 ish probes before cutting.
Against a gas opening you may want a few more units but i don't know the build and timings well enough to tell.
|
On October 07 2012 17:04 Chandra wrote:
What's a good, general build order for a quick 1 base blink-obs all-in for PvT? Alternatively, does anyone know of any VODs/replays showing such a build? I'm assuming it will be more greedy than a blink/obs PvP build, but I'm not sure how exactly to go about it.
MLG (a few months ago), MC vs Heart, first game on Shakuras comes to mind.
|
|
|
I'll say it again, but simply put you should never go for all-in builds. Going all-in because you see that your opponent is about to ace you is one thing, but creating builds to go all-in is never a great idea in the long term. It doesn't really improve your Macro all that much and it isn't productive for teaching you to react as well. I mean, All-In builds are great if you want to learn timing, how long it takes to produce buildings/units in perspective to the clock, and the problems that are associated with going a strictly all-in build. However, I discourage it because it's about as unsportsmanlike as cheesing and doesn't demonstrate who is actually better at the game. In fact, I might be as bold as saying that builds which intentionally go for an All-In of any kind can be considered cheese and unsportsmanlike.
|
Italy12248 Posts
All-ins and cheese are part of the game, deal with it. In any RTS, aggression>greedy>safety>aggression. All-ins are just heavy aggression. Sure most of them are coinflippy, but so is playing overly safe or overly greedy.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On October 08 2012 04:35 Jasiwel wrote:
I'll say it again, but simply put you should never go for all-in builds. Going all-in because you see that your opponent is about to ace you is one thing, but creating builds to go all-in is never a great idea in the long term. It doesn't really improve your Macro all that much and it isn't productive for teaching you to react as well. I mean, All-In builds are great if you want to learn timing, how long it takes to produce buildings/units in perspective to the clock, and the problems that are associated with going a strictly all-in build. However, I discourage it because it's about as unsportsmanlike as cheesing and doesn't demonstrate who is actually better at the game. In fact, I might be as bold as saying that builds which intentionally go for an All-In of any kind can be considered cheese and unsportsmanlike.
Sure, you can learn that stuff in a macro game as well, however it's also more forgiving if you make 1 wrong decision in a macro game, or if you mismicro some units, or stop microing to macro. When you allin vs a good player you don't have the luxury of being "fine" if you make a single wrong decision or if you mismicro something.
In a Best of "X" allins are not only good, but necessary, that's why players like MVP are willing to 2 rax allin 1 game, and 15 CC another. It makes you predictable otherwise. On ladder it's not quite as necessary from that perspective, but it's still good practice of a different style than just pure macro, and it can be fun/help relieve stress.
And to say that allins are unsportsmanlike is easily one of the most stupid things I've seen written on this forum. That's like saying that going allin on an Ace 3 hand in poker as a bluff is unsportsmanlike. Just because you can't handle the strat, doesn't mean it's not valid. I'd argue it's unsportsmanlike to hold such an opinion towards a valid branch of strategy, infact. =p
|
^I said after a point. If you're a Masters player and all you do is All-In/Cheese, then you're missing a lot of skill. I also stated All-In builds were unsportsmanlike. Going All-In because it's the proper decision when given information is an entirely different story. And I feel saying that not going for All-Ins making your predictable is a very stupid statement. That just makes it sound like you have no understanding of how a longer game works. When I say Macro games, I mean games that proceed to the late game and not ones that end at the mid game or early. A Macro game contains all kinds of encounters, from pressure to harassment to containing and finally to a great falling action to a conclusion. You should never AIM to go All-In, it should be a last resort.
On a technicality, you have only been here one year (I've been here less too), so you wouldn't know what the stupidest post on these forums would be. Technically speaking though, not that it matters.
On October 08 2012 04:58 Teoita wrote:
All-ins and cheese are part of the game, deal with it. In any RTS, aggression>greedy>safety>aggression. All-ins are just heavy aggression. Sure most of them are coinflippy, but so is playing overly safe or overly greedy.
That's a tough mentality. The problem with that is that it doesn't answer the main point of becoming any better at the game by going all-in after a certain point. Once someone holds the all-in, the game is over. I'm good at holding all-ins, in fact it's half of my wins. But I want to defer that going All-In is not the same as heavy aggression. That's just choosing to harass more than defend, which is basically Muta play. You are taking a risk by it, but the game is made of risks. Going for All-In builds to me is creating a build specifically for an encounter that may secure a win straight up at a certain time between the early and midgame. Your builds (I hate that term to be honest) should have an opening followed by flexibility based off of what you have scouted off of your opponent and how to handle your opponent based off of that information. Going All-In anytime before the lategame is just quantitative rather than qualitative. You are not becoming any better for going Sentry/Immortal every Zerg game.
But you are absolutely right about aggression>greedy>safety>aggression. However, a good player is able to switch those three mindsets given his situation. The point I was trying to make is that a good player doesn't just go all-in. A good player can do that, Macro, and more. However, I do feel that All-In builds are still detrimental for being a better player after Platinum, especially for Protoss. I just find it really grimy that there are builds (as in build orders from the beginning of a game) specifically set up to go All-In.
I understand that going All-In is part of the game, because it simply is a legitimate strategy, but encouraging it is like encouraging someone to cheese. They won't learn the game that way and it's a narrow way to tackle anything. Timings accomplish the same thing without going for an All-In build and can be successful enough without meaning you lose if you fail. Go for timings rather than All-In builds. That said, I think it would be incredibly stupid to say that you shouldn't learn how to defend against all-in builds because their sheepish. I hope you understand now.
|
Italy12248 Posts
^I said after a point. If your a Masters player and all you do is All-In/Cheese, then you're missing a lot of skill. I also stated All-In builds were unsportsmanlike. Going All-In because it's the proper decision when given information is an entirely different story.
The situations in which that can happen, ie you have a safe macro build that can all of a sudden deviate into an all-in, are extremely rare.
That's a tough mentality. The problem with that is that it doesn't answer the main point of becoming any better at the game by going all-in after a certain point. Once someone holds the all-in, the game is over. I'm good at holding all-ins, in fact it's half of my wins. But I want to defer that going All-In is not the same as heavy aggression. That's just choosing to harass more than defend, which is basically Muta play. You are taking a risk by it, but the game is made of risks. Going for All-In builds to me is creating a build specifically for an encounter that may secure a win straight up at a certain time between the early and midgame. Your builds (I hate that term to be honest) should have an opening followed by flexibility based off of what you have scouted off of your opponent and how to handle your opponent based off of that information. Going All-In anytime before the lategame is just quantitative rather than qualitative. You are not becoming any better for going Sentry/Immortal every Zerg game.
But you are absolutely right about aggression>greedy>safety>aggression. However, a good player is able to switch those three mindsets given his situation. The point I was trying to make is that a good player doesn't just go all-in. A good player can do that, Macro, and more. However, I do feel that All-In builds are still detrimental after Platinum.
There is no perfect build in starcraft 2, in bw, or in any rts for that matter. If i do my safe 2base templar pvt opening, i'm saying "shit i hope he doesn't go 3cc". If he goes 3cc, he's saying "shit i hope he doesn't 6gate". If i 6gate, i'm saying "shit i hope he doesnt open fast tanks", and so on. No matter what build you do, you will ALWAYS be behind vs something ahead vs something else, and even vs a other things.
As far as getting a better player goes, it's a philosophical thing more than anything. If you ask a bronzie to macro off 3bases, his macro WILL go to shit and he will lose because of that. Lately i had a gold student go on a 30 game pvt win streak or something ridicolous like that simply because i taught him when to add extra production facilites. With that in mind, all-ins do prepare you to know when to add production and why, maximize the number of units at a certain point, and most especially micro his units rather than amoving. I'm not saying all-inning every game is good (it isn't), but simple builds like all-ins are as good a place to start as any.
|
On October 08 2012 05:47 Jasiwel wrote:^I said after a point. If you're a Masters player and all you do is All-In/Cheese, then you're missing a lot of skill. I also stated All-In builds were unsportsmanlike. Going All-In because it's the proper decision when given information is an entirely different story. And I feel saying that not going for All-Ins making your predictable is a very stupid statement. That just makes it sound like you have no understanding of how a longer game works. When I say Macro games, I mean games that proceed to the late game and not ones that end at the mid game or early. A Macro game contains all kinds of encounters, from pressure to harassment to containing and finally to a great falling action to a conclusion. You should never AIM to go All-In, it should be a last resort. On a technicality, you have only been here one year (I've been here less too), so you wouldn't know what the stupidest post on these forums would be. Technically speaking though, not that it matters. Show nested quote +On October 08 2012 04:58 Teoita wrote:
All-ins and cheese are part of the game, deal with it. In any RTS, aggression>greedy>safety>aggression. All-ins are just heavy aggression. Sure most of them are coinflippy, but so is playing overly safe or overly greedy. That's a tough mentality. The problem with that is that it doesn't answer the main point of becoming any better at the game by going all-in after a certain point. Once someone holds the all-in, the game is over. I'm good at holding all-ins, in fact it's half of my wins. But I want to defer that going All-In is not the same as heavy aggression. That's just choosing to harass more than defend, which is basically Muta play. You are taking a risk by it, but the game is made of risks. Going for All-In builds to me is creating a build specifically for an encounter that may secure a win straight up at a certain time between the early and midgame. Your builds (I hate that term to be honest) should have an opening followed by flexibility based off of what you have scouted off of your opponent and how to handle your opponent based off of that information. Going All-In anytime before the lategame is just quantitative rather than qualitative. You are not becoming any better for going Sentry/Immortal every Zerg game. But you are absolutely right about aggression>greedy>safety>aggression. However, a good player is able to switch those three mindsets given his situation. The point I was trying to make is that a good player doesn't just go all-in. A good player can do that, Macro, and more. However, I do feel that All-In builds are still detrimental for being a better player after Platinum, especially for Protoss. I just find it really grimy that there are builds (as in build orders from the beginning of a game) specifically set up to go All-In.
If you believe All-in's have no place after Platinum, I'm sorry to say this, but you have a long way to go before becoming a player of any "quality" caliber. Your understanding of the game is not quite there because there's still so much to learn. Sure you understand the concept of an All-In but even in Platinum-Diamond you still have a lot of room for perfection. All-in's are deadly, but you have to be precise as fuck when executing, ESPECIALLY PAST PLATINUM. So, you're quite delusional in your assessment of all-ins.
I've been Diamond for every season, 8 straight, which is weird because most people progress rapidly and get into Masters after a few, but I suck naturally at this game so I had to eek out every little refinement I could out of all-ins. I just barely hit Masters a week ago, and I still think my all-ins are sloppy. I have tons of room to improve my all-in builds, there's just so much to work on in terms of micro, macro, and timings. PERFECTION is key for all-ins as I said before, and I'm still far from that.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On October 08 2012 05:47 Jasiwel wrote:^I said after a point. If your a Masters player and all you do is All-In/Cheese, then you're missing a lot of skill. I also stated All-In builds were unsportsmanlike. Going All-In because it's the proper decision when given information is an entirely different story. And I feel saying that not going for All-Ins making your predictable is a very stupid statement. That just makes it sound like you have no understanding of how a longer game works. When I say Macro games, I mean games that proceed to the late game and not ones that end at the mid game or early. A Macro game contains all kinds of encounters, from pressure to harassment to containing and finally to a great falling action to a conclusion. Show nested quote +On October 08 2012 04:58 Teoita wrote:
All-ins and cheese are part of the game, deal with it. In any RTS, aggression>greedy>safety>aggression. All-ins are just heavy aggression. Sure most of them are coinflippy, but so is playing overly safe or overly greedy. That's a tough mentality. The problem with that is that it doesn't answer the main point of becoming any better at the game by going all-in after a certain point. Once someone holds the all-in, the game is over. I'm good at holding all-ins, in fact it's half of my wins. But I want to defer that going All-In is not the same as heavy aggression. That's just choosing to harass more than defend, which is basically Muta play. You are taking a risk by it, but the game is made of risks. Going for All-In builds to me is creating a build specifically for an encounter that may secure a win straight up at a certain time between the early and midgame. Your builds (I hate that term to be honest) should have an opening followed by flexibility based off of what you have scouted off of your opponent and how to handle your opponent based off of that information. Going All-In anytime before the lategame is just quantitative rather than qualitative. You are not becoming any better for going Sentry/Immortal every Zerg game. But you are absolutely right about aggression>greedy>safety>aggression. However, a good player is able to switch those three mindsets given his situation. The point I was trying to make is that a good player doesn't just go all-in. A good player can do that, Macro, and more. However, I do feel that All-In builds are still detrimental for being a better player after Platinum, especially for Protoss.
Also, It's completely incorrect to state something like "Going All-In anytime before the lategame is just quantitative rather than qualitative." Especially when talking about a sentry/immortal allin like you did for your example. That particular build, at least in masters+ where I play, Relies almost entirely on properly hitting perfect forcefields. At lower levels I'm sure that's not "as" important but it's still the strong point of that allin, it's also one of the best ways to practice better forcefield control, good warpin timings under pressure and skills like that. Just like a blink stalker allin (like the poster you were berating above was requesting) is the best way to practice blink micro and keeping up macro while doing so.
You're also wrong about the game being "over" once someone holds an allin. Many builds(6 pool in pvz for example) are "allin" but can, and often do, transition into a strong macro game. 6 pool is a great example actually because people use that often to pop 6 initial lings and macro behind it hard, forcing toss to 3 gate expo after defending. Even then it's completely allin however because if a toss holds it completely perfectly, zerg dies. Often though that's not the case, even in pro games. I've seen(and played) many games where zerg 6 pools, protoss sacs forge, pylon cannons in the main etc and defends it "relatively" well, then dies at 40 minutes to broods. There are a lot of builds like that(6 pool, 2 rax, 90% of pvp builds, 3 gate blink in pvt, etc).
Also, while ladder(below top masters) very rarely has you facing the same player twice allins are as a whole still quite important. They're what keep the "metagame + Show Spoiler + from becoming too greedy, they're what keep players honest.
Finally, you stated again that you find it "unsportsmanlike" to allin. Great, why don't you tell us why instead of ignoring both Teoita's and my own rebuttal pointing out that it's infact not only part of the game, but not at all unsportsmanlike?
That's no different from a little kid whining "wah, did something I don't like, it's not fair."
|
+ Show Spoiler +On October 08 2012 06:04 Teoita wrote:Show nested quote +^I said after a point. If your a Masters player and all you do is All-In/Cheese, then you're missing a lot of skill. I also stated All-In builds were unsportsmanlike. Going All-In because it's the proper decision when given information is an entirely different story. The situations in which that can happen, ie you have a safe macro build that can all of a sudden deviate into an all-in, are extremely rare. Show nested quote +That's a tough mentality. The problem with that is that it doesn't answer the main point of becoming any better at the game by going all-in after a certain point. Once someone holds the all-in, the game is over. I'm good at holding all-ins, in fact it's half of my wins. But I want to defer that going All-In is not the same as heavy aggression. That's just choosing to harass more than defend, which is basically Muta play. You are taking a risk by it, but the game is made of risks. Going for All-In builds to me is creating a build specifically for an encounter that may secure a win straight up at a certain time between the early and midgame. Your builds (I hate that term to be honest) should have an opening followed by flexibility based off of what you have scouted off of your opponent and how to handle your opponent based off of that information. Going All-In anytime before the lategame is just quantitative rather than qualitative. You are not becoming any better for going Sentry/Immortal every Zerg game.
But you are absolutely right about aggression>greedy>safety>aggression. However, a good player is able to switch those three mindsets given his situation. The point I was trying to make is that a good player doesn't just go all-in. A good player can do that, Macro, and more. However, I do feel that All-In builds are still detrimental after Platinum. There is no perfect build in starcraft 2, in bw, or in any rts for that matter. If i do my safe 2base templar pvt opening, i'm saying "shit i hope he doesn't go 3cc". If he goes 3cc, he's saying "shit i hope he doesn't 6gate". If i 6gate, i'm saying "shit i hope he doesnt open fast tanks", and so on. No matter what build you do, you will ALWAYS be behind vs something ahead vs something else, and even vs a other things. As far as getting a better player goes, it's a philosophical thing more than anything. If you ask a bronzie to macro off 3bases, his macro WILL go to shit and he will lose because of that. Lately i had a gold student go on a 30 game pvt win streak or something ridicolous like that simply because i taught him when to add extra production facilites. With that in mind, all-ins do prepare you to know when to add production and why, maximize the number of units at a certain point, and most especially micro his units rather than amoving. I'm not saying all-inning every game is good (it isn't), but simple builds like all-ins are as good a place to start as any.
I'll agree with you greatly here and I agree that All-In builds are great to start with, but only to start with. However, I do want you to note that by all-inning in the late game, I mean a situation where you realize it's "now or never," not switching into an All-In build.
On October 08 2012 06:04 deadmau wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2012 05:47 Jasiwel wrote:^I said after a point. If you're a Masters player and all you do is All-In/Cheese, then you're missing a lot of skill. I also stated All-In builds were unsportsmanlike. Going All-In because it's the proper decision when given information is an entirely different story. And I feel saying that not going for All-Ins making your predictable is a very stupid statement. That just makes it sound like you have no understanding of how a longer game works. When I say Macro games, I mean games that proceed to the late game and not ones that end at the mid game or early. A Macro game contains all kinds of encounters, from pressure to harassment to containing and finally to a great falling action to a conclusion. You should never AIM to go All-In, it should be a last resort. On a technicality, you have only been here one year (I've been here less too), so you wouldn't know what the stupidest post on these forums would be. Technically speaking though, not that it matters. On October 08 2012 04:58 Teoita wrote:
All-ins and cheese are part of the game, deal with it. In any RTS, aggression>greedy>safety>aggression. All-ins are just heavy aggression. Sure most of them are coinflippy, but so is playing overly safe or overly greedy. That's a tough mentality. The problem with that is that it doesn't answer the main point of becoming any better at the game by going all-in after a certain point. Once someone holds the all-in, the game is over. I'm good at holding all-ins, in fact it's half of my wins. But I want to defer that going All-In is not the same as heavy aggression. That's just choosing to harass more than defend, which is basically Muta play. You are taking a risk by it, but the game is made of risks. Going for All-In builds to me is creating a build specifically for an encounter that may secure a win straight up at a certain time between the early and midgame. Your builds (I hate that term to be honest) should have an opening followed by flexibility based off of what you have scouted off of your opponent and how to handle your opponent based off of that information. Going All-In anytime before the lategame is just quantitative rather than qualitative. You are not becoming any better for going Sentry/Immortal every Zerg game. But you are absolutely right about aggression>greedy>safety>aggression. However, a good player is able to switch those three mindsets given his situation. The point I was trying to make is that a good player doesn't just go all-in. A good player can do that, Macro, and more. However, I do feel that All-In builds are still detrimental for being a better player after Platinum, especially for Protoss. I just find it really grimy that there are builds (as in build orders from the beginning of a game) specifically set up to go All-In. If you believe All-in's have no place after Platinum, I'm sorry to say this, but you have a long way to go before becoming a player of any "quality" caliber. Your understanding of the game is not quite there because there's still so much to learn. Sure you understand the concept of an All-In but even in Platinum-Diamond you still have a lot of room for perfection. All-in's are deadly, but you have to be precise as fuck when executing, ESPECIALLY PAST PLATINUM. So, you're quite delusional in your assessment of all-ins. I've been Diamond for every season, 8 straight, which is weird because most people progress rapidly and get into Masters after a few, but I suck naturally at this game so I had to eek out every little refinement I could out of all-ins. I just barely hit Masters a week ago, and I still think my all-ins are sloppy. I have tons of room to improve my all-in builds, there's just so much to work on in terms of micro, macro, and timings. PERFECTION is key for all-ins as I said before, and I'm still far from that.
It was an approximation of when you need to begin leaning off All-In builds as a mainstay to your strategies. Go for timings instead of All-Ins because then you are still in the game, even if it fails. Of course, maybe it's just my perception of what Platinum league realistically is, considering Bronze/Silver/Gold have little deviation in player skill from my experiences. So maybe Diamond would be a better time to begin weaning off of All-Ins to improve the intensive micro and shorter macro skills it offers. I do also want to say that if it requires perfection to win a game, something that it pointlessly strenuous in comparison to Macro-Timing builds, then why go for it? My point here is that I'd rather not rely on a complete and total gamble for a build than have some wiggle-room with a build that gives me more decision making.
On October 08 2012 06:23 Chylith wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 08 2012 05:47 Jasiwel wrote:^I said after a point. If your a Masters player and all you do is All-In/Cheese, then you're missing a lot of skill. I also stated All-In builds were unsportsmanlike. Going All-In because it's the proper decision when given information is an entirely different story. And I feel saying that not going for All-Ins making your predictable is a very stupid statement. That just makes it sound like you have no understanding of how a longer game works. When I say Macro games, I mean games that proceed to the late game and not ones that end at the mid game or early. A Macro game contains all kinds of encounters, from pressure to harassment to containing and finally to a great falling action to a conclusion. Show nested quote +On October 08 2012 04:58 Teoita wrote:
All-ins and cheese are part of the game, deal with it. In any RTS, aggression>greedy>safety>aggression. All-ins are just heavy aggression. Sure most of them are coinflippy, but so is playing overly safe or overly greedy. That's a tough mentality. The problem with that is that it doesn't answer the main point of becoming any better at the game by going all-in after a certain point. Once someone holds the all-in, the game is over. I'm good at holding all-ins, in fact it's half of my wins. But I want to defer that going All-In is not the same as heavy aggression. That's just choosing to harass more than defend, which is basically Muta play. You are taking a risk by it, but the game is made of risks. Going for All-In builds to me is creating a build specifically for an encounter that may secure a win straight up at a certain time between the early and midgame. Your builds (I hate that term to be honest) should have an opening followed by flexibility based off of what you have scouted off of your opponent and how to handle your opponent based off of that information. Going All-In anytime before the lategame is just quantitative rather than qualitative. You are not becoming any better for going Sentry/Immortal every Zerg game. But you are absolutely right about aggression>greedy>safety>aggression. However, a good player is able to switch those three mindsets given his situation. The point I was trying to make is that a good player doesn't just go all-in. A good player can do that, Macro, and more. However, I do feel that All-In builds are still detrimental for being a better player after Platinum, especially for Protoss. My point about predictability was with regards to pro games; hence I used IMMvp as an example there. Although it's also true on ladder at higher levels. Also, It's completely incorrect to state something like "Going All-In anytime before the lategame is just quantitative rather than qualitative." Especially when talking about a sentry/immortal allin like you did for your example. That particular build, at least in masters+ where I play, Relies almost entirely on properly hitting perfect forcefields. At lower levels I'm sure that's not "as" important but it's still the strong point of that allin, it's also one of the best ways to practice better forcefield control, good warpin timings under pressure and skills like that. Just like a blink stalker allin (like the poster you were berating above was requesting) is the best way to practice blink micro and keeping up macro while doing so. You're also wrong about the game being "over" once someone holds an allin. Many builds(6 pool in pvz for example) are "allin" but can, and often do, transition into a strong macro game. 6 pool is a great example actually because people use that often to pop 6 initial lings and macro behind it hard, forcing toss to 3 gate expo after defending. Even then it's completely allin however because if a toss holds it completely perfectly, zerg dies. Often though that's not the case, even in pro games. I've seen(and played) many games where zerg 6 pools, protoss sacs forge, pylon cannons in the main etc and defends it "relatively" well, then dies at 40 minutes to broods. There are a lot of builds like that(6 pool, 2 rax, 90% of pvp builds, 3 gate blink in pvt, etc). Also, while ladder(below top masters) very rarely has you facing the same player twice allins are as a whole still quite important. They're what keep the "metagame + Show Spoiler + from becoming too greedy, they're what keep players honest. Finally, you stated again that you find it "unsportsmanlike" to allin. Great, why don't you tell us why instead of ignoring both Teoita's and my own rebuttal pointing out that it's infact not only part of the game, but not at all unsportsmanlike? That's no different from a little kid whining "wah, did something I don't like, it's not fair."
As true as this is, it doesn't change that fact there are better, safer ways to accomplish victory. I remember watching Squirtle/MVP's GSL final this past summer. That last game is exactly the case. However, I feel there are better ways to take your opponent by surprise then to go for an All-In Build.
I actually don't consider a 6 Pool to be an All-In build anymore, mainly as a result of the Metagame (which I hate that term too so I feel ya there) shift. And by "All-In build" I mean this:
completely allin however because if a toss holds it completely perfectly, zerg dies
No player should go for builds like this. However, if you do go All-In and transition out of it while still winning, then it shows you're a better player. Regardless, I hope you know what I mean now. Players should never aim to go purely All-In. That was my qualm. Also, I wasn't berating him and I'm kind of worried you thought so. I didn't mean to come off as aggressive if I somehow did. I was simply stating, as I thought I was, that one should never aim for All-In builds because other build types like Macro and Timing builds are a lot more fruitful. You can learn a lot about Micro by going for Timing builds as well. I just see a lot more positive coming out of Timings rather than All-Ins.
And I realize saying it's unsportsmanlike is a really offhand. I didn't ignore Teoita though and I ended up agreeing with him. And I feel All-In builds are unsportsmanlike not because you did something I didn't like. You're trying to go for a quick win, which for me feels like a slap in the face, whether I won or lost. It irks me, especially in the professional sector where people expect intricate levels of strategy.
|
People are going to use planned all-ins if they want, and nothing is going to stop that. I wouldn't waste any time discussing it.
|
On October 08 2012 05:40 Chylith wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 08 2012 04:35 Jasiwel wrote:
I'll say it again, but simply put you should never go for all-in builds. Going all-in because you see that your opponent is about to ace you is one thing, but creating builds to go all-in is never a great idea in the long term. It doesn't really improve your Macro all that much and it isn't productive for teaching you to react as well. I mean, All-In builds are great if you want to learn timing, how long it takes to produce buildings/units in perspective to the clock, and the problems that are associated with going a strictly all-in build. However, I discourage it because it's about as unsportsmanlike as cheesing and doesn't demonstrate who is actually better at the game. In fact, I might be as bold as saying that builds which intentionally go for an All-In of any kind can be considered cheese and unsportsmanlike. This is terrible advice and just about everything in this sentence is wrong. All-ins can actually be great to learn things like multitasking and split second decision-making with. Sure, you can learn that stuff in a macro game as well, however it's also more forgiving if you make 1 wrong decision in a macro game, or if you mismicro some units, or stop microing to macro. When you allin vs a good player you don't have the luxury of being "fine" if you make a single wrong decision or if you mismicro something. In a Best of "X" allins are not only good, but necessary, that's why players like MVP are willing to 2 rax allin 1 game, and 15 CC another. It makes you predictable otherwise. On ladder it's not quite as necessary from that perspective, but it's still good practice of a different style than just pure macro, and it can be fun/help relieve stress. And to say that allins are unsportsmanlike is easily one of the most stupid things I've seen written on this forum. That's like saying that going allin on an Ace 3 hand in poker as a bluff is unsportsmanlike. Just because you can't handle the strat, doesn't mean it's not valid. I'd argue it's unsportsmanlike to hold such an opinion towards a valid branch of strategy, infact. =p
No, they really aren't. You can learn all of those aspects of play and more playing completely standard. All-inning just gimps your experience and narrows your perspective of what you COULD be working on. Fortunately for you, you aren't fighting MVP's opponents, nor will you be for a very, very long time.
On October 08 2012 07:05 ineversmile wrote:
People are going to use planned all-ins if they want, and nothing is going to stop that. I wouldn't waste any time discussing it.
Theres a fairly large difference between arguing against any all-inning whatsoever, and advocating it's use as a method to learn.
|
Italy12248 Posts
You still don't understand all-ins, their meaning, and how they fit in overall gameplay.
First off, all-ining will much more easily result in a victory if your opponent is doing something greedy/unsafe, while it will be harder to break someone playing safely. Also there are degrees to that. I might not be able to bust a terran going 3cc with 3gate pressure, but im damn well going to kill him with a 7gate.
Second, all-ins require execution to be succesfull. You don't just kind of make 7gates and attack because fuck yes above a certain level. You need to mask your intentions, clear the path to his base with a few units, hide and secure proxy pylons, and micro your units during the attack. It's a different skill set than macroing off 3/4 bases while turtling and defending, but in starcraft it's just as important, at all levels of play, assuming you want to be a complete player.
Starcraft is a game of risks, and an all-in is just a kind of risk a player might take. And just like with every other build, it comes down to execution from both sides.
From a spectator's point of view, it can suck to just have the game end in one big attack, but even then there's degrees to it. Watching Heart 111 every goddamn game sucks, but we can all agree that watching MC micro his blink stalkers to victory is ridicolously fucking impressive even if he is all-in.
@poster above me: yes and not. When i went from bronze to platinum i never microed a single battle, ever. I would just pop guardian shield, amove and go back to macroing, and to this day that has left huge gaping holes in my play. My early game gateway micro is pretty horrible, i easily lose track of my army and can't beat a 2raxing terran to save my life.
And with that i'm out of this discussion since it's been talked about a million times on these forums.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
