EPT[G] GrandMaster SC2 Lecture: Aggressive Zerg Play - Page 10
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
Carwash
United States60 Posts
| ||
|
avilo
United States4100 Posts
On November 02 2011 10:03 Trusty wrote: Why? If you are a good enough player, you can defend it and take ladder points. If you can't defend it, then you can learn how to look out for it, and how to defend it, then play him again and collect ladder points. People spamming the same all-in builds are great for your ladder sessions. I love it when zerg roach/lings me @ 7:00, free ladder points, barring horrendous miss-controls. It's not good to only play against all-in builds because you don't get to actually practice optimal openings that are good against good players. Yes, you'll get a free win and "ladder points" against some all-in noob on ladder, but you basically learn nothing from it because to defend it you just overdefend or simply build bunkers and you win the game. Whereas, when you actually are playing good players, if you build 2-3 bunkers because of being all-ined all day on the ladder, you don't actually have a good build order that's optimized because the better players will simply continue to expand and pump out economy. It's not about being able to defend it. You asked "why?" I meant it's a huge crutch for the player that only all-ins because they won't really improve their mechanics or macro game or standard play much because they're relying on playing bad players or doing damage with their all-in to drone behind. That's why it's a crutch...because you're doing a build meant to kill your opponent, or they just flat out defend it and you're dead a minute later or won't be able to recover economically... Obviously ladder is really good for learning to defend all-ins because a huge percentage of ladder games is a cheesefest. | ||
|
Conquerer67
United States605 Posts
| ||
|
Schnullerbacke13
Germany1199 Posts
- reach a certain balance of gas/mineral income, - mass produce some unit composition, - preferably reach opponents base as some upgrade(s) finish. - repeat (with different/extended tech+economy) Early agressive pushes are the ultimate scouting method, as you force the opponent to show what he got. I've seen top level zergs like nerchio or DRG doing fast roach pushes (4..8) blindly (without prior having scouted). The push is the scout. The follow up pushes simply keep the opponent honest, currently everybody seems to macro like crazy. 95% of P go FFE, Zergs go fast 3rd and even more and more terrans play a pretty passive macro-oriented style .. so timing pushes get a pretty decent winrate. | ||
|
sanddbox_sc2
United States173 Posts
On November 02 2011 10:33 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: to the haters: this not really an all-in, as long it does damage. TL is full of recipes of timing pushes for T and P, so what ? Actually his builds teach the characteristics of timing pushes as e.g. July performs them often: - reach a certain balance of gas/mineral income, - mass produce some unit composition, - preferably reach opponents base as some upgrade(s) finish. - repeat (with different/extended tech+economy) Early agressive pushes are the ultimate scouting method, as you force the opponent to show what he got. I've seen top level zergs like nerchio or DRG doing fast roach pushes (4..8) blindly (without prior having scouted). The push is the scout. The follow up pushes simply keep the opponent honest, currently everybody seems to macro like crazy. 95% of P go FFE, Zergs go fast 3rd and even more and more terrans play a pretty passive macro-oriented style .. so timing pushes get a pretty decent winrate. The very definition of an allin is an attack where you need to damage. Of course it's "not allin as long as it does damage"...an allin is successful if it does damage! This is quite a basic concept. More importantly, an allin is different than a timing push. A timing push can be an allin, but it doesn't have to be. July does 2base timings very often, for example. Blind roach pushes vs Terran are deflected by tanks or banshees; they exist solely as a metagame exploitation move to try to punish ultra-greedy terrans. If the roach attack fails, you're behind; DRG simply relies on being a better player to come back into the game. Just because a pro executes a strategy doesn't mean that strategy is necessarily optimal or not an allin. Getting a "decent winrate" is irrelevant, because if you win it's because your enemy made a mistake. Getting good at this game isn't about having a decent winrate; it's about making decisions that are both safe and work to your advantage. This is why the very best players play a macro style - because they know that they'll win through being a better player. Tang's guide is worthless; everyone defending him as resorted to illogical arguments or ad hominem attacks. As Avilo has said, his play is counterable simply by playing safe and scouting. One final note: the grandmasters thing is irrelevant, but I will say that it's likely Tang only got into grandmasters because of the NA ladder glitch that has promoted a lot of people that shouldn't have been promoted. | ||
|
MaV_gGSC
Canada1345 Posts
| ||
|
sanddbox_sc2
United States173 Posts
On November 02 2011 11:59 MaverickSC wrote: wow sc2 in school. I've seen it all What? | ||
|
Eloquious
18 Posts
On November 02 2011 11:57 sanddbox_sc2 wrote: The very definition of an allin is an attack where you need to damage. Of course it's "not allin as long as it does damage"...an allin is successful if it does damage! This is quite a basic concept. More importantly, an allin is different than a timing push. A timing push can be an allin, but it doesn't have to be. July does 2base timings very often, for example. Blind roach pushes vs Terran are deflected by tanks or banshees; they exist solely as a metagame exploitation move to try to punish ultra-greedy terrans. If the roach attack fails, you're behind; DRG simply relies on being a better player to come back into the game. Just because a pro executes a strategy doesn't mean that strategy is necessarily optimal or not an allin. Getting a "decent winrate" is irrelevant, because if you win it's because your enemy made a mistake. Getting good at this game isn't about having a decent winrate; it's about making decisions that are both safe and work to your advantage. This is why the very best players play a macro style - because they know that they'll win through being a better player. Tang's guide is worthless; everyone defending him as resorted to illogical arguments or ad hominem attacks. As Avilo has said, his play is counterable simply by playing safe and scouting. One final note: the grandmasters thing is irrelevant, but I will say that it's likely Tang only got into grandmasters because of the NA ladder glitch that has promoted a lot of people that shouldn't have been promoted. For someone who busted into this thread with guns blazing, whining about ad hominem attacks, you seem to be really set on hating on Tang's guide just because you hate Tang. The people defending Tang aren't resorting to illogical arguments, you're completely missing the point. As far as I'm aware, they're defending Tang because they're sick of crusaders like yourself trying to purge anything that isn't passive macro play on the forums, with crude insults while repeating the same weakness of aggressive-play over and over again. First thing you should realize, is that not everyone here wants to become a professional player and adapt a playstyle that will most likely evolve into what we might call a 'perfect game'. Yes, people seeking help on guides are looking to improve, but not everyone is looking for what you're looking for. That, and you sound like a little kid walking around, calling shit useless because you can't seem to find a use for it. What if sc2 openings develop into a rock-paper-scissors type of game? (i.e., aggro > greedy > safe > aggro). Also, Tang was GM in the previous season before he fell out due to inactivity - we're all in the process of writing exams here at UW. In fact, I'm pretty sure he only started giving lessons after he made GM, though I could be wrong. | ||
|
Rhythm.102
United States56 Posts
On November 02 2011 16:30 Eloquious wrote: For someone who busted into this thread with guns blazing, whining about ad hominem attacks, you seem to be really set on hating on Tang's guide just because you hate Tang. The people defending Tang aren't resorting to illogical arguments, you're completely missing the point. As far as I'm aware, they're defending Tang because they're sick of crusaders like yourself trying to purge anything that isn't passive macro play on the forums, with crude insults while repeating the same weakness of aggressive-play over and over again. First thing you should realize, is that not everyone here wants to become a professional player and adapt a playstyle that will most likely evolve into what we might call a 'perfect game'. Yes, people seeking help on guides are looking to improve, but not everyone is looking for what you're looking for. That, and you sound like a little kid walking around, calling shit useless because you can't seem to find a use for it. What if sc2 openings develop into a rock-paper-scissors type of game? (i.e., aggro > greedy > safe > aggro). Also, Tang was GM in the previous season before he fell out due to inactivity - we're all in the process of writing exams here at UW. In fact, I'm pretty sure he only started giving lessons after he made GM, though I could be wrong. I don't know, I got a different vibe. I'm going to have to side with the other guy on this. To clarify, I agree with the definition of the all-in vs timing attacks, agree with exploitation of specific openings through metagaming, and I agree with the relation to skill and winratio. I am not seeing any directed hate like you said 'because you hate Tang', I have yet to see anyone 'defending Tang because they're sick of crusaders like yourself trying to purge anything that isn't passive macro'. I think that said crusaders are just sick of seeing the same threads being posted over and over with little variation or stray from orthodox play. We could almost see another thread started titled 'Grandmaster Sc2 Lecture, run by lings in ZvP' :/ It may seem like build aggression and safeness have developed into a rock-paper-scissors game, but there is more to it then simply over committing. Example July's early pool aggression in ZvZ, back in broodwar the early pool is a sign that you cut probes and were thus declared behind economically. In Sc2 however, the sooner the pool, the sooner the queen, and now only do you open up the earlier aggression to punish more economic builds, but you also effectively increase your larvae through injects much sooner then normal. | ||
|
Schnullerbacke13
Germany1199 Posts
On November 02 2011 11:57 sanddbox_sc2 wrote: The very definition of an allin is an attack where you need to damage. Of course it's "not allin as long as it does damage"...an allin is successful if it does damage! This is quite a basic concept. More importantly, an allin is different than a timing push. A timing push can be an allin, but it doesn't have to be. July does 2base timings very often, for example. Blind roach pushes vs Terran are deflected by tanks or banshees; they exist solely as a metagame exploitation move to try to punish ultra-greedy terrans. If the roach attack fails, you're behind; DRG simply relies on being a better player to come back into the game. Just because a pro executes a strategy doesn't mean that strategy is necessarily optimal or not an allin. Getting a "decent winrate" is irrelevant, because if you win it's because your enemy made a mistake. Getting good at this game isn't about having a decent winrate; it's about making decisions that are both safe and work to your advantage. This is why the very best players play a macro style - because they know that they'll win through being a better player. Tang's guide is worthless; everyone defending him as resorted to illogical arguments or ad hominem attacks. As Avilo has said, his play is counterable simply by playing safe and scouting. One final note: the grandmasters thing is irrelevant, but I will say that it's likely Tang only got into grandmasters because of the NA ladder glitch that has promoted a lot of people that shouldn't have been promoted. 1) according to your all-in definition, building any army is all-in, because the only reason you build army is to do damage. Building army always harms your economic growth. 2) the borderline between timing push and all-in is fluent. The more and the earlier you cut economy, the more "all-innish" it gets. However as said in (1): any timing push harms your own economic development and needs to do damage. 3) you always win because of mistakes of your opponent. If both players always play perfect, it should end in a draw, else the game would be flawed. 4) Any build can be countered if scouted correctly, else the game would be flawed. Safe play with incomplete information likely will make you lose often, as you have to prepare for several possibilities (e.g. air/ground) while the timing pusher invests into one specific variant. So investing in scouting is much cheaper than "safe play", even if you sacrifice some units. That's why early pokes/pushes/harrass are that successful (scouting+a small probability to win). | ||
|
Eloquious
18 Posts
On November 02 2011 16:55 Rhythm.102 wrote: I don't know, I got a different vibe. I'm going to have to side with the other guy on this. To clarify, I agree with the definition of the all-in vs timing attacks, agree with exploitation of specific openings through metagaming, and I agree with the relation to skill and winratio. I am not seeing any directed hate like you said 'because you hate Tang', I have yet to see anyone 'defending Tang because they're sick of crusaders like yourself trying to purge anything that isn't passive macro'. I think that said crusaders are just sick of seeing the same threads being posted over and over with little variation or stray from orthodox play. We could almost see another thread started titled 'Grandmaster Sc2 Lecture, run by lings in ZvP' :/ It may seem like build aggression and safeness have developed into a rock-paper-scissors game, but there is more to it then simply over committing. Example July's early pool aggression in ZvZ, back in broodwar the early pool is a sign that you cut probes and were thus declared behind economically. In Sc2 however, the sooner the pool, the sooner the queen, and now only do you open up the earlier aggression to punish more economic builds, but you also effectively increase your larvae through injects much sooner then normal. Huh? I've just had several people reply to me telling me they are hating on Tang because he has not shown an appreciative attitude towards them. sanddbox also seems to me to be a bit too adamant about trying to convince people that "Tang has nothing of value to add to the community as a whole". He admits that all-ins are strong, but somehow fails to recognize any value in this guide towards the game or the community, nevermind the fact he is referring to Tang the person, and not the actual guide. Whether a 1-base bling bust is the "correct" way to play or not is completely besides the point of this guide. Tang compiles a few build orders while giving minimal attention to details and specifics, and all the while, emphasizes the pros of an aggressive playstyle. What he's doing is creating a good starting point for lower and mid level players and setting them up with the correct mentality that comes with playing aggressive zerg. Obviously any one build, or big all-in has it's limitations and anyone using them will soon find its limitations even on ladder - but this all comes with the process of learning. Maybe someone following this guide will get to a level where these builds don't work anymore, and will be able to recognize the flaws and then improve them into more macro-based plays as they transition closer towards 2-base timings.. etc. One complaint I almost always get when I tell my lower-league friends to scout is that it's completely pointless to them because they have no idea what they're seeing when they do scout. Well, Tang has compiled some builds with the goal in mind that it will direct players to improve their game and I don't see how that can possibly not have value. If you're tired of seeing the same thread over and over again, then you can point the thread starter to another thread which has already addressed this issue, instead of making a huge fuss about how worthless he is. I agree there is more to build aggression and safeness than just a simple game of luck, but the idea is that sc2 is not as developed as something like BW, and that this underlying theme of chance will exist - until we sort out a perfect build order. As it stands, we really have no idea who is going to come out on top (although we can guess). | ||
|
TangSC
Canada1866 Posts
| ||
|
Mjolnir
912 Posts
I like the idea of aggressive Zerg play but my problem is... How? My question was always, how do I make this happen? Even at mid-master level I feel that if I go for aggressive play and it is held off thanks to walls, bunkers, cannons, etc. Then I am in very, very serious trouble come mid-game. That's not to say I disagree with this guy... but it's just so frustratingly difficult to be "safely" aggressive with Zerg; and I know "safely aggressive" seems like an oxymoron - but the other races can do it. When I offrace as Terran I feel like I'm playing how Zerg should play. As soon as that first unit hits the ground, it's go-time. If things sour, I pull back, use my wall for defence and all is well. So, I am going to go hit the ladder and try this out. I may lose a tonne of games but so help me, I will play Zerg the way I wish it played! | ||
|
Pasquarette
United States3 Posts
| ||
|
xlava
United States676 Posts
On November 02 2011 09:59 avilo wrote: yeah, that's true. It is really nice to know some all-ins for a bo3/bo5 series or something. But doing them every game...huge crutch imo. Its not just your opinion  Lots of people share it including me. All inning/cheesing as a standard style is incredibly risky and doesn't make you a better player. That's why I almost never do it. But if you can do it well and you're playing for money, I don't see a reason not to do it really... | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9341 Posts
On November 03 2011 00:11 TangSC wrote: Well what I really hope people take from this is that there isn't a set way to play SC2 and it's arrogant to think the style you advocate is the only way to play. There's a lot of diversity in this game and we should be more accepting of other zerg styles that aren't the "standard" macro into tier3. Protoss and terran execute 1-2base timing attacks all the time, there's no reason zerg can't do the same, we don't need to have broodlords and ultralisks to end the game - in case you haven't noticed, roaches/lings/banes are strong! If your goal is to get "easy" wins with a coinflippy style noone has ever disagreed with you. But the solid macro approach is the only style that will work long-termish. Most people know that, and your really bringing nothing new to the table. | ||
|
stk01001
United States786 Posts
On November 03 2011 00:55 Hider wrote: If your goal is to get "easy" wins with a coinflippy style noone has ever disagreed with you. But the solid macro approach is the only style that will work long-termish. Most people know that, and your really bringing nothing new to the table. the builds he gave aren't neccessarily coin flip all ins... you can transition out of them into a normal macro game a lot of the time. Just because you open with an early/mid game roach/ling attack doesn't mean you won't be able to transition into 3-4 base with tier 3 units etc. I think the main point is it's nice to mix it up every once in a while as oppose to going for the "standard" pure macro style opening every single game. It's not neccessarily going for "easy" coin flip wins, but if you scout certain openings a lot of the time it's worth taking a chance and possibly taking an early/mid game win. Pretty much all good progamers mix up their strats once in a while otherwise you become way too predictable. While I agree standard macro play is the best thing for long term results, it's dumb not to mix up your play once in a while.. Also - if these builds are soooo easily counterable with just safe play and scouting... how come we see strategies like this being used quite regularly in NASL and GSL with decent success rate... you'd think no one would ever risk doing early/mid game attacks since is SOOO easily counterable but players like Julyzerg and many others do it all the time with good success. I mean there are methods to deny scouting, even the best progamers sometimes don't scout properly ... it's not like "oh if I just scout and play safe I can counter this everytime" it's a dumb attitude. | ||
|
DanceSC
United States751 Posts
On November 02 2011 17:59 Eloquious wrote: Huh? I've just had several people reply to me telling me they are hating on Tang because he has not shown an appreciative attitude towards them. sanddbox also seems to me to be a bit too adamant about trying to convince people that "Tang has nothing of value to add to the community as a whole". He admits that all-ins are strong, but somehow fails to recognize any value in this guide towards the game or the community, nevermind the fact he is referring to Tang the person, and not the actual guide. Whether a 1-base bling bust is the "correct" way to play or not is completely besides the point of this guide. Tang compiles a few build orders while giving minimal attention to details and specifics, and all the while, emphasizes the pros of an aggressive playstyle. What he's doing is creating a good starting point for lower and mid level players and setting them up with the correct mentality that comes with playing aggressive zerg. Obviously any one build, or big all-in has it's limitations and anyone using them will soon find its limitations even on ladder - but this all comes with the process of learning. Maybe someone following this guide will get to a level where these builds don't work anymore, and will be able to recognize the flaws and then improve them into more macro-based plays as they transition closer towards 2-base timings.. etc. One complaint I almost always get when I tell my lower-league friends to scout is that it's completely pointless to them because they have no idea what they're seeing when they do scout. Well, Tang has compiled some builds with the goal in mind that it will direct players to improve their game and I don't see how that can possibly not have value. If you're tired of seeing the same thread over and over again, then you can point the thread starter to another thread which has already addressed this issue, instead of making a huge fuss about how worthless he is. I agree there is more to build aggression and safeness than just a simple game of luck, but the idea is that sc2 is not as developed as something like BW, and that this underlying theme of chance will exist - until we sort out a perfect build order. As it stands, we really have no idea who is going to come out on top (although we can guess). I think that if anyone came 'busted into this thread with guns blazing' It was you. It is one thing to support someones ideas and concepts, that much is fine, but cutting down on other people who see it differently? If someone pisses on your 1 base all-in play and challenges you to a grudge-match for your HONOUR AND PRIDE. Would it be more humiliating to kill them with the exact build they were just crapping on, or just do some other random thing? I'm not going to lie Legion, but you sound like someone who's butt-hurt because he lost to an all-in or something from Tang and got called 'ez' Or maybe you're just a premiere example of a premiere asshole. maybe you should do something to help develop sc2 strategy and phase out this style of play, instead of farting out the side of your mouth. If I didn't take notice to your number of posts (8 atm) I would say you were trolling. Judging by your excessive praise for Tang and the whole "I've just had several people reply to me telling me they are hating on Tang" I would say you are Tang, just a smurf account used to give himself praise. Not to mention you seem to speak for him in all of your posts... "Tang has compiled some builds with the goal in mind... ", " Tang compiles a few build orders while giving minimal attention to details and specifics...", etc I've gone over this entire thread twice and i still can't see the "I've just had several people reply to me telling me they are hating on Tang because he has not shown an appreciative attitude towards them."... like 60% of this entire thread is appreciation for his work, and the rest is questioning why so many threads and excessive posting. sanddbox also seems to me to be a bit too adamant about trying to convince people that "Tang has nothing of value to add to the community as a whole". He admits that all-ins are strong, but somehow fails to recognize any value in this guide towards the game or the community, nevermind the fact he is referring to Tang the person, and not the actual guide. Personally I find this so orthodox that the value of the write-up has been taken away, regardless it is still a nice write-up and good effort put into it. Once again you are cutting down on others because they do not share your point of view... | ||
|
TangSC
Canada1866 Posts
On November 03 2011 00:55 Hider wrote: If your goal is to get "easy" wins with a coinflippy style noone has ever disagreed with you. But the solid macro approach is the only style that will work long-termish. Most people know that, and your really bringing nothing new to the table. Well that's the thing aggressive zerg is not just coin-flippy all-ins. It's a part of it, just like in PvZ if you're sure your opponent is macroing really hard and going mutas you may hit an all-in gateway +1 timing and it's theoretically sound play. There are certainly ways of being aggressive and hitting timing attacks or even containing your opponent while macroing. For example, in ZvP you get 3bases going and mass roaches with speed and upgrades. You can be extremely aggressive with the roaches in denying the protoss player's 3rd base, but you still add on some drones, tech, and add on another base. With roach/ling attacks, you can make your 12 sets of lings and then move right into droning, evolution chamber, lair, etc. There are so many ways to play "aggressive macro" as zerg, and I don't think the majority of viable possibilities have been explored because of the mindset that zerg HAS to play straight-up macro. PS: I have one TL account, this one. | ||
|
Shado.
United States187 Posts
| ||
| ||
