EPT[G] Hyper-Aggressive ZvT: Countering the 2Rax (GM) - Page 7
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
aquanda
United States477 Posts
| ||
|
TangSC
Canada1866 Posts
On October 11 2011 19:11 aquanda wrote: Hey - GSL Season 1 called, they want their build order back. It's not about the build order, it's about using it as a response to the 2rax pressure. | ||
|
CapnAmerica
United States508 Posts
On October 12 2011 00:23 TangSC wrote: It's not about the build order, it's about using it as a response to the 2rax pressure. You're behind if you 14/14 against a 2Rax that you scout unless they sacrifice their marines to your early Zerglings freely, a smart Terran would just pull back (and they'd have this opportunity because their scouting SCV would see your lack of expansion). Any Zerg 1 base play = Build Bunkers and win after you hold the all-in. You can't deny scouting of your natural efficiently enough against a player actually playing well. This isn't a good response. It makes more sense to do as a build against a banshee build, as well. Proper 2 rax management means they have the units and resources to defend against it handily. | ||
|
TheLastGoose
Canada44 Posts
On October 12 2011 00:38 CapnAmerica wrote: You're behind if you 14/14 against a 2Rax that you scout unless they sacrifice their marines to your early Zerglings freely, a smart Terran would just pull back (and they'd have this opportunity because their scouting SCV would see your lack of expansion). Any Zerg 1 base play = Build Bunkers and win after you hold the all-in. You can't deny scouting of your natural efficiently enough against a player actually playing well. This isn't a good response. It makes more sense to do as a build against a banshee build, as well. Proper 2 rax management means they have the units and resources to defend against it handily. talk about a lack of game sense. the whole point of this thread is that if your oppoenent delays your expansion for such a long time with their cheesey bunker + 2 rax play then you shouldn't try and expand when you're already going to be so far behind... | ||
|
DuncanIdaho
United States465 Posts
On October 11 2011 10:07 T.O.P. wrote: This is like me lecturing you about statistics. You'll probably think, this undergrad student is totally wrong and he doesn't even know he's wrong. Moral of the story? Respect the people who are on the top of their fields. Anyways this build doesn't even counter 2 rax. 2 rax is one of the best builds you can do vs a baneling bust. I respect people at the top, however I don't let them spout off bullshit, just because they're at the top. Remember, top DOES NOT EQUAL perfect. I was rather attacking their logical fallacies, not their game sense. True, they may be right that this is "easily countered", at least at their level, but their supporting arguments and immature reasoning is questionable, keep in mind these 2 guys are teenagers, so I can understand the mistakes, but don't think you need to worship the shit in their toilets just because they're in the pro-scene. Many people at the tops of their fields have made mistakes, and if you don't agree, and rather think they're always right, then you need to open your eyes and pay attention. E.g., Is Earth the center of the universe? Well the "infallible" experts at the top of their field once thought so... Okay, if a student tried to tell me I made a mistake, given, I will be very skeptical. However, I don't generally take an idea they have, say it's completely rediculous, and then make some logical fallacy. In the past, I have actually had students say, "Oh, but what about so and so?" To which I reply, "You know, I didn't think of it that way, here's what I was thinking, blah blah blah, but what you propose could be true under the following circumstances, blah blah blah, which I wasn't considering earlier." However, yes, many times they are wrong, but that's another fallacy to assume I'm thus always right. For a nice list of common logical fallacies, click here. To me, the fallacy made was the Red Herring, in which Tang proposes baneling burst as a response to the 2rax, not as a blind build (although speedling expand as a blind build is questionable, though not completely unreasonable, I'll admit). To which KawaiiRice discounts the whole thing with: On October 10 2011 00:38 KawaiiRice wrote: I'm impressed you wrote so much on a 1 base baneling bust but... Who loses to that with 2rax lol maybe if they don't scout if you exp or not... And the title is so misleading I was simply arguing, that despite his pro-gamer standing (or semi-pro if you have rediculously strict standards for what defines, "pro"), he's discounting this as, Oh that's just a b-burst, and we all know b-bursts suck hardcore. Given, they do, when executed blindly, but I fail to see how KR's point implies there is never a good time to do a b-burst. If there is no 2 rax wall off, in fact a b-burst-able walloff (e.g., depots) and of course, you scouted this before deciding to blindly b-burst, it seems inadequate to discount this, especially using a Red Herring argument. This, is a better argument: On October 10 2011 01:40 KawaiiRice wrote: So basically you're praying your opponent is really bad for this to work... This is in no way a solid build and the fact.that two bunkers means you auto loss means this build is just a coinflip allin and not a 2rax counter. Hatch first or speedling expand are way better than this. However, KR, is still making a fallacy, one which I'll refer to as improper allocation of his Bayesian priors. For more on Bayesian priors... (It would take several years of study to fully understand Bayesian priors, but in leyman's terms, their essentially the prior probabilities of events, before a decision is made. E.g, say you think if you go to Israel that it's more likely to die from a terrorist attack while there than a car accident. You are wrong, the probabilty of death from terrorist attacks are much lower than the common car wreck, but due to the inproportionate media coverage, we generally ascribe a higher probability to the terrorist attack death than it is due.) Given, they can make bunkers and make life difficult, given the map (and knowledge of which ramps allow for this and proper sim-city layout is important, something I do not, admittedly, fully grasp). However, to assume that this is a "coin-flip" implies 50% of the games you play, they will do this. I think the point Tang was making is that low-level players in fact, do not do this consistently (much less 50%), and thus this can be exploited until one reaches the point at which in the ladder, such strategies are no longer effective. Perhaps at his level the bunker response is 99% of the time, but that doesn't mean low-level players will have low success. Again, a similar good point, but with the same fallacy of improper allocation of Bayesian priors: On October 10 2011 01:49 Pokebunny wrote: ... This. If I see a zerg go gas/pool, I hide an SCV on the map and check natural after a minute or two... this would really never work against anyone with a brain. This guide is basically "how to allin and pray your opponent sucks". Key point Pokebunny: You said you would do this. Well, SC2 is not, who can beat Pokebunny, but more of a game of can you climb higher on the ladder than the "less than Pokebunny" players out there. Basically, this is my point: Although this strategy may not work at the pro-level, it obviously seems to work for Tang's past (he is GM, albeit approximately rank 200 or so...), and thus we might as well do it until the meta-game shifts at all levels in which Terrans, across leagues, begin to wise up. And, pro-level players need to be a little less arrogant, and realize yes, we value their insights, but please do not assume that what doesn't work at your level, can never work at ours. Perhaps we can use these strategies to climb up the ladder, and once they stop working, we'll have to adjust, as with all things. | ||
|
CapnAmerica
United States508 Posts
On October 12 2011 00:50 TheLastGoose wrote: talk about a lack of game sense. the whole point of this thread is that if your oppoenent delays your expansion for such a long time with their cheesey bunker + 2 rax play then you shouldn't try and expand when you're already going to be so far behind... I'm not sure what you're talking about, really. By the time my hatchery pops with a 15 hatch I've usually deflected the 2Rax Bunker rush. If they commit beyond that point then they lose more stuff and then proceed to lose the game to my followup. 14/14 results in a really late expansion, 15 hatch is the 'best' expansion build we've got right now, and 11Overpool/18Hatch gasless works for defending a 2 rax before scouting comes into play while preserving a nearly equal economic advantage. I don't see why I'd waste gas on early tech that can only be used for a weak and easily defended all-in. EDIT: Again, a similar good point, but with the same fallacy of improper allocation of Bayesian priors: Key point Pokebunny: You said you would do this. Well, SC2 is not, who can beat pokebunny, but more of a game of can you climb higher on the ladder than the "less than Pokebunny" players out there. Basically, this is my point: Although this strategy may not work at the pro-level, it obviously seems to work for Tang's past (he is GM, albeit approximately rank 200 or so...), and thus we might as well do it until the meta-game shifts at all levels in which Terrans, across leagues, begin to wise up. And, pro-level players need to be a little less arrogant, and realize yes, we value their insights, but please do not assume that what doesn't work at your level, can never work at ours. Perhaps we can use these strategies to climb up the ladder, and once they stop working, we'll have to adjust, as with all things. Most specifically: Key point Pokebunny: You said you would do this. Well, SC2 is not, who can beat pokebunny, but more of a game of can you climb higher on the ladder than the "less than Pokebunny" players out there. ANYBODY CAN DO THIS. Basic scouting is a requirement for progressing in SC2, seeing if your opponent has or has not expanded is critical to progressing. We don't write strategy threads for gold league or lower viable strategies, we write threads for strategies that can work reasonably at any level of play, especially when information can be actively denied to strengthen the build. 14/14 is a weak build in ZvT, and that's all that it is. It also really sucks in ZvP, in my opinion. I watched TypePhoeNix the other day and his 14/14/21 put him in dire straits against a close air Protoss who opted for 3 Gate Pressure. Zergling Speed before Hatch just doesn't work out that well in most cases for ZvP or ZvT. | ||
|
Tunzi
United States14 Posts
1. NA GM apparently has a lot of terrible players who can only cheese or can't properly scout and defend against cheese. 2. When you are making a thread in the teamliquid Strategy forum you can shamelessly promote yourself and provide terrible strategy advice. 3. People will defend you and your terrible advice as long as you use a polite and positive tone. Conversely, people will dismiss the feedback of experienced players if their tone is less than polite. 4. Some people have a lot of time to waste. For example, TangSC for making this guide, and myself for reading and responding to his post. | ||
|
TheLastGoose
Canada44 Posts
On October 12 2011 01:06 Tunzi wrote: I'm a masters level zerg and here are some things I've learned after reading this thread: 1. NA GM apparently has a lot of terrible players who can only cheese or can't properly scout and defend against cheese. 2. When you are making a thread in the teamliquid Strategy forum you can shamelessly promote yourself and provide terrible strategy advice. 3. People will defend you and your terrible advice as long as you use a polite and positive tone. Conversely, people will dismiss the feedback of experienced players if their tone is less than polite. 4. Some people have a lot of time to waste. For example, TangSC for making this guide, and myself for reading and responding to his post. so what was the point of the last.... point? are you blaming some people for not having to work/choosing not to? are you that bitter? are you the all powerful who decides who is wasting their time? shouldn't it be up to the individual to decide whether or not their time is being wasted? if #4 is correct, this website, is, and always has been a giant waste of time...after all, it's a website solely dedicated to a game... | ||
|
statikg
Canada930 Posts
On October 11 2011 06:58 sick_transit wrote: Ad hominem: last refuge of the ignorant. There's a reason I don't read many threads on this forum any more. Lol I love people who try to sound smart and then make a super ironic post like this. | ||
|
aquanda
United States477 Posts
On October 12 2011 00:23 TangSC wrote: It's not about the build order, it's about using it as a response to the 2rax pressure. How is it a response? The pressure is over by the time you commit to an all in baneling bust. The reason you go gas/pool is to get enough zerglings and the early speed to defend the scv/marine pressure. Once speed finishes if he hasn't run home you're at a huge advantage already so why would you throw it away by going all in? I won't even touch on the fact that unless you scout on 8 or 9, you can't know if he's going 2 rax by the time you need to start your gas/pool. And even if you (for some retarded reason) do scout that early, you'll only see it in time if it's a 2 player map or you are lucky enough to scout him first. | ||
|
DuncanIdaho
United States465 Posts
Taken from the website I linked, here's an example of ad hominem: 1Person A makes claim X. 2Person B makes an attack on person A. 3Therefore A's claim is false. Basically, this is illogical. It may very well be that Person A is wrong, but saying he's stupid and thus wrong is illogical. Dumb people are sometimes right, perhaps not for the right reasons, though, but it doesn't support your side to make an ad hominem attack. True, attacking one's credibility on a topic is bad news for the other person, but it doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong. And worse, when an attack is baseless, such as, well I think you're stupid, thus you're wrong. Regardless though, I think this thread has sadly degenreated....  Perhaps the main thing people learned is to not always accept things someone says, by their authority, but don't necessarily reject it either. Personally, I think that although there was a great oppurtunity to discuss and theorycraft why or why not Tang's strategy is viable, unfortunately we're not, as a community, intellectually capable of such a discussion since we don't even have the capacity to debate without resorting to being illogical and calling each other names...Does b-burst wrok in response to a 2rax? I don't know, and this thread has not demonstrated a reasonable answer, other than uncertainty. | ||
|
Ballistixz
United States1269 Posts
On October 12 2011 00:23 TangSC wrote: It's not about the build order, it's about using it as a response to the 2rax pressure. im sorry but its a bad build. its basically a 1 base all in coin flip build just as kawaii already mentioned. its no diffrent from a toss pure cannon rushing a dark corner of ur base..... if terran doesnt scout he MIGHT loose. if terran does scout it he will win 100% this build shouldnt be reccomended to anyone. ive done this build myself in beta and during the first few months of SC2 release to know how bad it is. infact the reason it became outdated was because terrans started to wall off with both there racks and a factory or just put a bunch of buildings near there ramp to prevent this. as a result the zerg just stopped doing this because it became easier and easier to stop. the reason GMs like u are winning games with this build is because of its cheese factor. no one expects it. like i said, no diffrent from a pure cannon rush or a 2 gate proxy in ur main. | ||
|
zmansman17
United States2567 Posts
On October 10 2011 00:38 KawaiiRice wrote: I'm impressed you wrote so much on a 1 base baneling bust but... Who loses to that with 2rax lol maybe if they don't scout if you exp or not... And the title is so misleading ya this is silly. Nam just erred | ||
|
Sated
England4983 Posts
| ||
|
Arisen
United States2382 Posts
But seriously though, unless you're playing against someone who you know is going to 2 rax, I think opening up with speedling isn't great. Sure, if he does 2 rax you're in good position, but that's just completely ignoring the fact that he could go reactor hellion and then you're pretty behind. | ||
|
Crosswind
United States279 Posts
His elaborate dissection of the 14/14 BO in ZvT is fantastic, though, and worth reading for everybody. So let's let calmer heads prevail, and take this for what it is: a very dangerous all-in that can punish a 2-rax if the defender screws up. However, I really have to weigh in on... On October 10 2011 09:40 DuncanIdaho wrote: I'm a very intelligent, Mensa society member and a graduate student studying statistics with a master's working on my PhD. ... However, KR, is still making a fallacy, one which I'll refer to as improper allocation of his Bayesian priors. For more on Bayesian priors... (It would take several years of study to fully understand Bayesian priors, but in leyman's terms, their essentially the prior probabilities of events, before a decision is made. E.g, say you think if you go to Israel that it's more likely to die from a terrorist attack while there than a car accident. You are wrong, the probabilty of death from terrorist attacks are much lower than the common car wreck, but due to the inproportionate media coverage, we generally ascribe a higher probability to the terrorist attack death than it is due.) Here's a life tip, in the spirit of the life-hack thread: It take a pretty bright person to get a degree in statistics. But a genuinely intelligent person knows where and when to bring it up. You're taking the long, long road to make yourself sound smart. Which, on the internet, probably ends up not being worth it - instead, make a good, open-minded argument that's accessible. Your entire point regarding Kawaii's second point could have been phrased: It's not necessarily accurate to assume that your opponent is going to be good enough to choose the correct response. While at a certain level this may be a fair assumption, for a lot of readers of the strat forum, this isn't true. Just a tip, from a guy who used to sound similar! -Cross | ||
|
Ballistixz
United States1269 Posts
On October 12 2011 03:35 Sated wrote: You commit a proxy 2gate or a pure cannon rush at the very start of the game. This "build" is a response to something the opponent does. Therefore, this is definitely different to a pure cannon rush or a proxy 2gate. (I'm not saying this "build" is good.) a 2 gate proxy can be in response to a hatch first or gasless expand. so i dont see ur point. also u have to commit to this 1 base baneling build. iff it doesnt do significant damage with the first set of banelings then u auto loose. u cant expect to go this build, do minimum damage, and then easily transition out of it. it doesnt work that way. U HAVE to do significant damage or loose the g ame. | ||
|
warblob004
United States198 Posts
Overall I find this to be really interesting, as an somewhat assured all-in kill can be much more beneficial than trying to recover from a damaging bunker rush but I have one question - Under what circumstances would you take your nat before busting and under what circumstances would you just all-in off 1 base? | ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
| ||
|
TangSC
Canada1866 Posts
On October 12 2011 04:31 Numy wrote: I'm confused, this is just a basic 1 base baneling all in. It's been around since beta when dimaga won a whole tournament just doing this. I don't really see how an all in is an effective counter to a standard terran opening. I think there doesn't exist hard counters to standard builds. What I meant was dealing with 2rax by counter attacking, not that the build is a guaranteed 100% counter to the 2rax that'll win every time. The thread title has letter limits. | ||
| ||
