|
On November 03 2011 01:20 TangSC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 00:55 Hider wrote: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. 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.
Most timing attacks are coinflippy. Obivosuly the more "macro-based" they are the less coinflippy they are (e.g. a well structured 3 base timing attack isn't very allinish, but its still risky, and in a perfect world you would lose if you only do timings attacks). But obv. since you advocate a lot of 2 base (low drone count attacks) they are pretty allinish, and even though they can be well timed, you will still get behind if your opponent plays correctly.
It seems to me that you think that you can attack as zerg and then drone up and in this way you can play aggressive while playing safe. THis isn't true. If your attack does little damage (yes some times your attack will do little damage if your opponent is playing a very safe game), you cant drone up behind it, if your opponent counter attacks.
|
Ok I find the "I was GM but lost it on the last day because I thought it locked" thing a little too convenient and I don't think you should be claiming and advertising GM unless you can prove it with a link to SC2ranks or something. I'll let that go though.
In the video you say your games are typically between 6-10 minutes.
If' you are making enough units to end the game that early I can't understand how the loss of drones in place of those units doesn't make these kind of plays completely all in. If your attack fails and you don't do enough damage I cannot see how you can win at that point.
I mean no offense but while I wouldn't call what you do cheese I see your "hyper aggressive style" as just going all in and getting away with it when your opponent is greedy. You can say its calculated and you attack when you see an opening but, again, since you are trading drones for units so early it makes the attack an all in gamble. If it doesn't work you lose unless you opponent royally screws up after holding it off.
|
On November 03 2011 01:55 Azerbaijan wrote:
Ok I find the "I was GM but lost it on the last day because I thought it locked" thing a little too convenient and I don't think you should be claiming and advertising GM unless you can prove it with a link to SC2ranks or something. I'll let that go though.
I doubt you've read every post in this thread but if you had you'd know that it does show him in GM on sc2ranks for seasons 1 and 2 at least.
|
On November 03 2011 01:57 CP` wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 01:55 Azerbaijan wrote:
Ok I find the "I was GM but lost it on the last day because I thought it locked" thing a little too convenient and I don't think you should be claiming and advertising GM unless you can prove it with a link to SC2ranks or something. I'll let that go though.
I doubt you've read every post in this thread but if you had you'd know that it does show him in GM on sc2ranks for seasons 1 and 2 at least.
I looked him up for season 1 and 2 and I wasn't able to find any history of him being in grandmasters, maybe that is because he never ended in grandmasters. But as of today he made it into GM, congrats! But still dont see how that is related at all to this thread o.O
|
On November 03 2011 02:07 Rhythm.102 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 01:57 CP` wrote:On November 03 2011 01:55 Azerbaijan wrote:
Ok I find the "I was GM but lost it on the last day because I thought it locked" thing a little too convenient and I don't think you should be claiming and advertising GM unless you can prove it with a link to SC2ranks or something. I'll let that go though.
I doubt you've read every post in this thread but if you had you'd know that it does show him in GM on sc2ranks for seasons 1 and 2 at least. I looked him up for season 1 and 2 and I wasn't able to find any history of him being in grandmasters, maybe that is because he never ended in grandmasters. But as of today he made it into GM, congrats! But still dont see how that is related at all to this thread o.O
He got into GM because NA is bugged?
|
|
|
You know what, if you're going to criticize his rank as a fundamental reason why his strategy is flawed, post your own ranking as well. With links and evidence and etc etc.
|
Did you even read this thread? You obviously didn't... The thread is about not all-inning lol
|
I did actually. Watched the "lecture" too.
|
Losira popularized this style of play and it is incredibly powerful against 1gate or 3gate expansions because you either win the game outright, deny his expansion, or at the very least kill valuable sentries and probes while securing map control and taking the economic advantage. For build orders, check out Losira games or visit several of the TL threads on this subject: Oh please modify this. It sounds like roach ling rushes are totally OP and there is nothing that can go wrong for zerg if they do it right.
|
TL.....just lol. Advocating any style other than 6 base macro style is apparently considered counter-productive, all-in, and will make you terrible at the game. If the guy has made high master/GM with his style, then it is obviously very effective, and you can't destroy it by just "playing safe", like all you people are claiming. The wonderful think about leagues is that for the most part, they are very accurate. If he has gotten to GM using a hyper-aggressive zerg style, then apparently it's a viable strategy for 99% of SC2 players.
Seriously, people, right now the only "accepted metagame" for you is apparently no armies touching until 15 minutes or 4 bases. If the standard metagame opens up timings that hyper-agressive zergs can exploit, then by all means exploit those timings until people start fixing their builds or scouting better. It won't make you bad at the game, and isn't an "artificial rank", because they got there by beating people of equal or better skill more times than they were beat themselves. That means it's a winning strategy, and therefore 100% legit.
|
On November 03 2011 01:55 Azerbaijan wrote:
Ok I find the "I was GM but lost it on the last day because I thought it locked" thing a little too convenient and I don't think you should be claiming and advertising GM unless you can prove it with a link to SC2ranks or something. I'll let that go though.
Call it "convenient" if you want, but it's verifiable if you go look on SC2ranks. Also, I'm currently GM season 4.
|
On November 03 2011 02:56 Sm3agol wrote:
TL.....just lol. Advocating any style other than 6 base macro style is apparently considered counter-productive, all-in, and will make you terrible at the game. If the guy has made high master/GM with his style, then it is obviously very effective, and you can't destroy it by just "playing safe", like all you people are claiming. The wonderful think about leagues is that for the most part, they are very accurate. If he has gotten to GM using a hyper-aggressive zerg style, then apparently it's a viable strategy for 99% of SC2 players.
Well narrow-mindedness is not something I would blame on TL or the SC2 community, because for the most part I've received a very positive response to my threads and a lot of people have messaged me saying how much they've improved and have fun when playing aggressively. Neither the macro-oriented nor the hyper-aggressive side needs to resort to name calling and negativity, because it doesn't help those trying to learn and improve. Besides it's like arguing apples and oranges: neither side is definitively "correct."
There will always be people who believe one thing and people who believe the other, the only thing we can do is try to explain the reasoning behind why we believe what we do while keeping an open mind to other people's thoughts on the issue. That's why I say, if you disagree with the views expressed in my threads or in the comments, by all means engage in a constructive argument and lay out your beliefs as to why aspiring SC2 players should employ or avoid a more aggressive play style, but do so with respect.
When there are people who are interested solely in being negative or hostile, I think it's more effective to respond to their points calmly and use logic to argue your points rather than get involved in a heated and spiteful argument where the core issue gets overlooked. Honestly, I think ALL of us can get along better and drop the petty arguments and focus instead on the big picture.
|
On November 02 2011 03:30 Eloquious wrote: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'. He's actually quite a nice guy in real life... from my experience anyway. Maybe instead of putting up a facade, he's actually trying to be nice? Or maybe you're just a premiere example of a premiere asshole. Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 03:16 TheSubtleArt wrote:On November 01 2011 17:53 laLAlA[uC] wrote:On November 01 2011 15:40 .kv wrote:
after watching soda's rep, very questionable why you would open speedlings in ZvT on Shakuras. You also kept drones in gas which allowed him to know you are going with some heavy 1-base/all-in and blindly at that. That was pretty blind all-in and then you transition into another all-in with roaches. There's a difference between aggressive play and all-ins. So a guy is not allowed to cheese on ladder? Is cheese suddenly a crime? You've never seen any grand master player do a blind cheese? Cheesing every game is fine, to each his own. Cheesing every game, pretending theres merit to it, and writing guides to the extent tang does is just obnoxious. Keep in mind Starcraft is just a game, it's not like Tang is running around parading that the end of the world is nigh and you have to all convert to communism otherwise you're a faggot who needs to be purged at the stake. Tang found a playstyle that can get you into grandmaster, and he's letting people know. If you're upset and feel that this playstyle is obnoxious, 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.
I'm saying Tang pretending there's this much merit to his style is obnoxious, not the style itself. Also, why would I bother writing a guide on simple scouting? There are many out there.
|
On November 03 2011 01:39 Shado. wrote:
I don't understand the resentment towards tang. Pro players do stupid risky shit all the time... while it may not be the "correct" play in every situation, you can't argue that an aggressive play style is wrong. If you don't like it, don't use it. Not everyone wants to enter a 20minute macro war.
Because he's marketing this is a guide to improve your play. It isn't. It's a guide on getting easy ladder wins vs players who make mistakes. At the same time, he uses false information (such as being in Grandmasters) to try to get people to purchase his coaching.
His style of play might be aggressive, but it's not the right kind of aggression. If CombatEx made a guide on cannon-rushing and advertised his placement in grandmasters league to try to get people to buy his coaching, they'd flame him out of here, but somehow Tang's cheese is unique and a new, unknown style of Zerg.
(It's also kind of funny how similar Tang and CombatEx are: they're both grandmasters or ex-grandmasters who are extremely bad mannered and get easy wins by abusing cheese and allins vs people on ladder. At least CombatEx's videos are somewhat decent...)
|
On November 03 2011 09:04 sanddbox_sc2 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 01:39 Shado. wrote:
I don't understand the resentment towards tang. Pro players do stupid risky shit all the time... while it may not be the "correct" play in every situation, you can't argue that an aggressive play style is wrong. If you don't like it, don't use it. Not everyone wants to enter a 20minute macro war. Because he's marketing this is a guide to improve your play. It isn't. It's a guide on getting easy ladder wins vs players who make mistakes. At the same time, he uses false information (such as being in Grandmasters) to try to get people to purchase his coaching. His style of play might be aggressive, but it's not the right kind of aggression. If CombatEx made a guide on cannon-rushing and advertised his placement in grandmasters league to try to get people to buy his coaching, they'd flame him out of here, but somehow Tang's cheese is unique and a new, unknown style of Zerg. (It's also kind of funny how similar Tang and CombatEx are: they're both grandmasters or ex-grandmasters who are extremely bad mannered and get easy wins by abusing cheese and allins vs people on ladder. At least CombatEx's videos are somewhat decent...)
I'd say combatex and I are very different people, but I do appreciate his skill and his cheesy builds. If you get to a division, whether it's diamond or grand master, you deserve it. If you'd take the time to watch a decent amount of my games or of combatex's games, you'd see finesse in the mid-late game like any other GM player.
|
On November 03 2011 09:12 TangSC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 09:04 sanddbox_sc2 wrote:On November 03 2011 01:39 Shado. wrote:
I don't understand the resentment towards tang. Pro players do stupid risky shit all the time... while it may not be the "correct" play in every situation, you can't argue that an aggressive play style is wrong. If you don't like it, don't use it. Not everyone wants to enter a 20minute macro war. Because he's marketing this is a guide to improve your play. It isn't. It's a guide on getting easy ladder wins vs players who make mistakes. At the same time, he uses false information (such as being in Grandmasters) to try to get people to purchase his coaching. His style of play might be aggressive, but it's not the right kind of aggression. If CombatEx made a guide on cannon-rushing and advertised his placement in grandmasters league to try to get people to buy his coaching, they'd flame him out of here, but somehow Tang's cheese is unique and a new, unknown style of Zerg. (It's also kind of funny how similar Tang and CombatEx are: they're both grandmasters or ex-grandmasters who are extremely bad mannered and get easy wins by abusing cheese and allins vs people on ladder. At least CombatEx's videos are somewhat decent...) I'd say combatex and I are very different people, but I do appreciate his skill and his cheesy builds. If you get to a division, whether it's diamond or grand master, you deserve it. If you'd take the time to watch a decent amount of my games or of combatex's games, you'd see finesse in the mid-late game like any other GM player.
Really? I have 2 replays of me crushing CombatEx while he floated like a complete noob; and as to "deserving" it, it's trivial to get to grandmasters by marine scv allinning every game, but that doesn't necessarily mean you deserve it. That fact that you "appreciate his cheesy builds" is pretty reflective of your playstyle though.
|
On November 03 2011 09:57 sanddbox_sc2 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2011 09:12 TangSC wrote:On November 03 2011 09:04 sanddbox_sc2 wrote:On November 03 2011 01:39 Shado. wrote:
I don't understand the resentment towards tang. Pro players do stupid risky shit all the time... while it may not be the "correct" play in every situation, you can't argue that an aggressive play style is wrong. If you don't like it, don't use it. Not everyone wants to enter a 20minute macro war. Because he's marketing this is a guide to improve your play. It isn't. It's a guide on getting easy ladder wins vs players who make mistakes. At the same time, he uses false information (such as being in Grandmasters) to try to get people to purchase his coaching. His style of play might be aggressive, but it's not the right kind of aggression. If CombatEx made a guide on cannon-rushing and advertised his placement in grandmasters league to try to get people to buy his coaching, they'd flame him out of here, but somehow Tang's cheese is unique and a new, unknown style of Zerg. (It's also kind of funny how similar Tang and CombatEx are: they're both grandmasters or ex-grandmasters who are extremely bad mannered and get easy wins by abusing cheese and allins vs people on ladder. At least CombatEx's videos are somewhat decent...) I'd say combatex and I are very different people, but I do appreciate his skill and his cheesy builds. If you get to a division, whether it's diamond or grand master, you deserve it. If you'd take the time to watch a decent amount of my games or of combatex's games, you'd see finesse in the mid-late game like any other GM player. Really? I have 2 replays of me crushing CombatEx while he floated like a complete noob; and as to "deserving" it, it's trivial to get to grandmasters by marine scv allinning every game, but that doesn't necessarily mean you deserve it. That fact that you "appreciate his cheesy builds" is pretty reflective of your playstyle though.
I don't really take offense to that, if you could simply all-in your way to grand master without skill, like you're implying, everyone would do it. I appreciate builds that win games, be they long or short term. If you want to play SC2 well, you should be well-versed in cheesy/all-in builds, even the best of pros don't macro every single game. And honestly I think aggressive timing attacks are one of the best ways to practice fundamental mechanics.
|
I think it's great to see some aggressive zerg openings instead of the macro all ins that the Tang haters seem to think is the only way to play.
Yes, I said "macro all in". Much like a "timing all in" you are committing to a certain course in an attempt to achieve a certain outcome.
When you a do a timing all in are trying to do enough damage to make up for the fact that you haven't been building as many drones. If you don't do this damage you are behind.
When you macro all in you are trying to take as little damage as possible while building drones. If an attack does sufficient damage you will be behind.
There is little real difference between these options and both are valid. That is why both Tang and pros have success with early aggression. If macro play really was always the smart, safe option then we would never see pros do early all ins.
(A non all in might be using half your larva on drones and half on lings. However we all know that this will not get you as many wins as either extreme macro or aggressiveness.)
|
If nothing else, I am impressed that Tang is still so mannered in this discussion despite half of the replies doubting or flat out flaming him. 
Can I just say, you don't have to like this style, but it's a viable alternative to being pressured/dropped/roasted/sieged/DT'ed all day, sacrificing some economy for control of the game's rhythm. Given that he's much better than me, I can't really comment on whether his aggression is "blind" or based on scouting, but it's not a stretch to assume that his experience on the ladder has taught him to read telltale signs of what the opponent is doing and apply an effective strategy. As a Terran, I've lost quite a bit to early Roaches, since most current builds focus on early FE, while using Marines or Hellions for early army composition, and it's easy to lapse and fail to Roach attacks if you don't scout diligently.
Also, neat guide, and kudos on giving an SC2 lecture!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
