Hello everyone and thank you for checking out the University of Waterloo CSL Lecture Series. I was invited by the Waterloo CSL Coordinator, SCMonk (Steve Xian) to give a lecture / presentation on aggressive zerg play. Here is the link to the lecture(Apologies for language, it is University students afterall):
While I'm known as a cheesy/aggressive player, it doesn't mean I just blindly open with an all-in build, attack-move my units, and cross my fingers. There's more to it than that, there are subtle bits of information I use to determine whether to attack or macro, and there's more finesse to the execution than just mashing 1 a-move. That's why I'd like to make a distinction between a Blind Cheese and an Aggressive Response.
Putting all your eggs in one basket: A Blind Cheese is a predetermined strategy or build that requires no scouting information to execute. It requires no in-depth strategical thinking and typically has zero economic follow-through.” Putting some of your eggs in one basket but leaving a few behind to make drones: An Aggressive Response is a decision to commit to a large-scale attack after holding off pressure or as a result of scouting information. Example: A player opens 2rax pressure, I scout it and I go for a ling/bane 1 base attack (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=273534)
Here is a ZvP game casted by BudhaZerg where I show that, despite being insanely aggressive/all-in early on, there's always a way to macro-up behind it (Assuming your aggressive response was correct and you do some damage):
You might ask...Why is Zerg a good race to be aggressive with?
Since zerg is known primarily as a macro race, people are cutting more and more corners to ensure strong early game economy. You see more and more players opening forge fast expand, 1gate expand, 1racks expand, hatch first, etc. Even a lot of the units that players use to pressure zerg early on will overextend themselves with slow units like marines, banelings, and zealots – since zerg units are pretty fast, you can take the advantage by counter attacking.
Zerg requires the production of one building to tech switch. While obviously you don't want to spend all your resources producing one of every building, you can still tech switch very quickly if your opponent “hard counters” you. Example: You open speedlings, he goes hellions, you build a warren and go for roaches.
You need scouting information anyway, so why not be aggressive and do some damage while acquiring the information you need? Macro players will sacrifice overlords, speedlings, upgrade overlord speed, etc. These are all investments that take out of your abilities to be aggressive, so instead I recommend little timing pushes that will give you two types of information: Direct information and Indirect information Direct Scouting Information: Tells you exactly what your opponent is doing. Things like how many bases your opponent has, what tech structures he's building, and his unit choice are direct scouting information. Example: In ZvZ you scout he's on one base while you took a fast natural. Also, he only has 1 gas. There is enough direct scouting info to determine he's going to all-in you. Indirect Scouting Information: Gives you bits and pieces of information that lets me make educated guesses on what your opponent is going to do. Using ZvZ to illustrate this concept, imagine two scenarios. In scenario “A”, you open with my mass-ling style ZvZ (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=274426) and you notice your opponent is using spinecrawlers and minimal amounts of zerglings/banelings to defend. Since he's playing so defensive, you can infer that he's probably not looking to counterattack you. In scenario “B”, your opponent is building ONLY lings and banelings (or lings and roaches) to defend your attacks. Alarm bells should go off in your head, and you should be aware that he has the capability to counterattack/all-in you soon.
There's the obvious element of surprise in that your opponent isn't prepared for your attack and dies, but even if they're able to hold your attack they'll be thrown off their game. TheLittleOne says that he performs best in frantic situations where both sides don't really know whats going on. Emotions and momentum play such an important role in SC2 and by throwing your opponent off, he may be unsure of what to do next while you have all the scenarios planned out.
By attacking, you have complete map control. If they're pressured on the back foot, they're going to be scared to move out and expand when they usually would or scared to move out and attack you. This gives you time to drone up and take additional based back at home. Example Video (Apologies: The audio is off-sync) (http://www.youtube.com/user/budhazerg#p/u/4/H3YxQ1VIJxY )
9Overlord 15Hatch 15Pool 18Gas 17Overlord 17 Double Queen / 4xZergling 23-28 Drones 28 Roach Warren 27 Drone 28 2x Overlords 28-42 Roaches 42+ MACRO! Drones, Overlords 52 Start 3rd hatch Goals: Do damage, secure mapcontrol, and throw your terran opponent off his game while taking a 3rd and macroing. Here is a replay of DongRaeGu executing this build vs ThorZain:
16Hatch 16Gas 16Pool 18Overlord Double Queen / 4xLings Drones to 28 28 Roach Warren (Replace the drone to 28) 28 Zergling Speed 28 2x Overlords 28 Roaches all the way to 44/44 44 2x Overlords 44+ Speedlings (Rallied onto the roaches) Lead with the roaches to get up into the terran main, if he has a bunker try to surround it before he can repair. Continue reinforcing with lings if you think you can win outright. If not, drone behind your attack and do what damage you can. Here is an example game using this style as an All-In (Again, the audio is out of sync - Sorry!)
Here is another example of the roach/ling attack off of a gas/pool opening:
Please try to keep the replies to this thread as constructive and positive as possible, even if you disagree with the concepts presented. It's much more helpful to provide constructive feedback than it is to be disrespectful of others' ideas. Our goal is to improve and help each other out, not start flame wars. If there is a situation you'd like to be more aggressive in, please reply to this post with your thoughts and problems. I will produce additional aggressive zerg guides and answer as many questions as time allows.
Too many people stuck with the mindset that zerg has to br the turtley, reactive race. This guide is a great way to change up the playstyle a little. Cool stuff!
Good guide, every zerg should learn to see opportunities to be aggressive, if you just know as passive macro games your opponents will gona use it against you and cut corners as much as he wants. Good player is the one with diffrent styles and you never know what he might do.
Is Jecho's Roach/ling/bling bust guide appropriate to mention? I don't know if it still works or not... but I don't see why not...and it certainly fits the style of aggressive zerg.
------------
Edit: I noticed you only had the roach/ling push vs 1/3 gate expo in zvp. A lot of pro Z's, when they scout 1 gate FE, will mass ling for 1 minute @ 6 minutes then make a huge attack @ 7 minutes while droning behind it. If the toss doesn't have superb forcefields, lings can take out sentries, deny the expansion, but even win the game right there ((high unlikely). This ling attack only works vs 1 gate expo...3 gate has too many forcefields available, leaving a larger margin of error for the toss and his forcefields.
That first Protoss player on Taldarim was playing so weird lol. He must not be used to having to make sentries and having his zealot pressure do no damage.
this style was really a hot topic when the game came out. Should you 'cheese' to win or should you 'macro' to win?
the cheese side of the argument is saying: i scouted X information and i think Y is an appropriate counter to it so i will use Y
the macro side will start arguing: but that is relying on your enemy to make a mistake but to improve your own skill
tbh, i think its each of his own. Clearly right now the 'macro heavy' zerg are doing much better of in major tournament (nestea idra losira) but it doesnt mean cheesy zerg are not winning (moon won EU tournament, July runner up, Cocoa consistent in Code S) and beside, there are people who use both style well such as DRG or sheth.
Edit: I noticed you only had the roach/ling push vs 1/3 gate expo in zvp. A lot of pro Z's, when they scout 1 gate FE, will mass ling for 1 minute @ 6 minutes then make a huge attack @ 7 minutes while droning behind it. If the toss doesn't have superb forcefields, lings can take out sentries, deny the expansion, but even win the game right there ((high unlikely). This ling attack only works vs 1 gate expo...3 gate has too many forcefields available, leaving a larger margin of error for the toss and his forcefields.
Yeah I've seen Sheth do this quite a lot, it's very strong.
No offense to this guy, but I really get the idea you're putting out all these guides just for bragging, your previous guides were both about old builds that everyone knew already and that you decided would make a good excuse to make a thread, and this 'guide'. What does it say besides that zerg should be aggressive ( which has been a seconday style for a long time too, and on which alot of guides have been reading such as Axa's start the aggression guide ), that you're a grandmasters player and a few aggressive builds that are already pretty known and some of which are used by pro's ( like your roach ling attack vs terran, sen just did that a few times at blizzcon vs MVP and select, people could just load up some replays from sen and learn them themselves).
On October 23 2011 07:14 solidbebe wrote: like your roach ling attack vs terran, sen just did that a few times at blizzcon vs MVP and select, people could just load up some replays from sen and learn them themselves).
Sen is awesome, everyone should watch sen/nestea/julyzerg/losira/DRG games if they want to play aggressive zerg.
On October 23 2011 07:14 solidbebe wrote: like your roach ling attack vs terran, sen just did that a few times at blizzcon vs MVP and select, people could just load up some replays from sen and learn them themselves).
Sen is awesome, everyone should watch sen/nestea/julyzerg/losira/DRG games if they want to play aggressive zerg.
On October 23 2011 07:14 solidbebe wrote: like your roach ling attack vs terran, sen just did that a few times at blizzcon vs MVP and select, people could just load up some replays from sen and learn them themselves).
Sen is awesome, everyone should watch sen/nestea/julyzerg/losira/DRG games if they want to play aggressive zerg.
Nice to ignore everything else I said.
The point of a guide is so that people have a way to figure out precise BO's and tiny things that they might not glean from a sen replay. There's nothing wrong with extra help.
On October 23 2011 07:14 solidbebe wrote: No offense to this guy, but I really get the idea you're putting out all these guides just for bragging, your previous guides were both about old builds that everyone knew already and that you decided would make a good excuse to make a thread, and this 'guide'. What does it say besides that zerg should be aggressive ( which has been a seconday style for a long time too, and on which alot of guides have been reading such as Axa's start the aggression guide ), that you're a grandmasters player and a few aggressive builds that are already pretty known and some of which are used by pro's ( like your roach ling attack vs terran, sen just did that a few times at blizzcon vs MVP and select, people could just load up some replays from sen and learn them themselves).
What's the point of this criticism? No one's saying that you can't watch replays and get builds from professional players.
Have you ever been to a class before? Almost all the shit that you learn could be found elsewhere. You could look it up yourself. The stuff that you're learning probably is not the original creation or invention of the professor. That doesn't mean it won't be useful to you, especially if you don't already know it. If you do already know it, then that doesn't mean it isn't useful to other people.
On October 23 2011 01:57 Vogin wrote: Finally someone trying to popularize actually playing the game instead of the boring macro wars.
I wouldn't say macro games are boring, they are very fun to watch. Its cool to see how players respond and max and control. However I am a huge fan of aggression and I would like to see it so much more. It forces you to build units and play and respond and control and micro all while getting in a few workers and trying to expand to get to midgame. Its cool and I dont see it as a bad thing at all. In the first part of the lecture he mentions how he does the roach ling push, I am pretty sure lots of people exploit that as well, I know Nestea just did it to MVP in the finals to get to the grand finals. None the less pretty cool point of view and very interesting. Kind of makes me want to try and play a little zerg.
Have always played a very greedy macro style but finding early agression is working out better for me the better I get....clip looks like it will help with this. Thanks.
On October 23 2011 01:50 TangSC wrote: Blind Cheese versus Aggressive Response + Show Spoiler +
While I'm known as a cheesy/aggressive player, it doesn't mean I just blindly open with an all-in build, attack-move my units, and cross my fingers. There's more to it than that, there are subtle bits of information I use to determine whether to attack or macro, and there's more finesse to the execution than just mashing 1 a-move. That's why I'd like to make a distinction between a Blind Cheese and an Aggressive Response.
Putting all your eggs in one basket: A Blind Cheese is a predetermined strategy or build that requires no scouting information to execute. It requires no in-depth strategical thinking and typically has zero economic follow-through.” Putting some of your eggs in one basket but leaving a few behind to make drones: An Aggressive Response is a decision to commit to a large-scale attack after holding off pressure or as a result of scouting information. Example: A player opens 2rax pressure, I scout it and I go for a ling/bane 1 base attack (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=273534)
Here is a ZvP game casted by BudhaZerg where I show that, despite being insanely aggressive/all-in early on, there's always a way to macro-up behind it (Assuming your aggressive response was correct and you do some damage): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLJTMCFZ4MA&feature=channel_video_title
You might ask...Why is Zerg a good race to be aggressive with?
Look man, stop posting horrible, awful shit and claiming it as some grandmaster guide. I like that you have the mental capacity to distinguish between blind cheese and "aggressive response." This is a key still that all good players should have, but come on...
After a four minute advertisement by the caster to start this game talking about how you're a professional player but are "just keeping it local" (what the fuck?), you blindly put 3 back on gas before scouting your opponent or starting your second queen. This is a telltale sign that it's just the "tang special" ling bling or roach ling allin.
I've trolled you a lot asking you to finally write some guides on how to execute the only rigid, set builds you know how to do. Instead, you post these lengthy, spam-filled guides disguising them as some kind of higher order thinking.
That baneling bust you do would never have worked unless you hadn't intended on going for it in the opening 3 minutes of the game. As soon as you leave a drone on gas, off 14/14, you're being greedy because you delay your 2nd queen. As soon as you put 3 back on gas, you almost abandon your 2nd queen without having even scouted your opponent.
And what do you followup your all-in with but another all-in, followed by a third. It isn't because you're good, or being clever, but it's because this is all you know how to do. Even your friend comments on how he doesn't understand why you keep committing to it.
So, you went all-in blindly with a rigid build order, followed by a second all-in, and a third. Only after a lengthy stall are you able to finally almost break somewhat even with the protoss and then transition into what looks like a normal game 10 minutes later.
But what happens? Are you abusing a timing? Are you playing smart? No, you just don't know what to do because you can't play a macro game, so you cut drones and decide to mass roach and attack again hoping he'll die. Lucky for you your opponent makes a decision based on what a macro player might be doing (not cutting drones for pure roach production 3 minutes prior to his attack,) so you're able to crush what should have been a very aggressive blind stalker push.
I don't know man. I hate bashing people, but you wouldn't know it by this post. One thing I absolutely loathe in life is someone like you who makes himself by taking advantage of people who don't know any better. You lie and deceive people, but you do it so consistently and adamantly that enough low level players believe you, take what you say to heart, and try to imitate you and/or pay for lessons.
When it all comes down to it though, you're still and have always been merely advocating the lowest form of play, which is blind cheese. You can try to package it any way you like, but you're never going to be a good player when you let koreans play your account to GM, and then post blind all-in guides calling them "GM aggressive play."
On October 23 2011 01:50 TangSC wrote: Blind Cheese versus Aggressive Response + Show Spoiler +
While I'm known as a cheesy/aggressive player, it doesn't mean I just blindly open with an all-in build, attack-move my units, and cross my fingers. There's more to it than that, there are subtle bits of information I use to determine whether to attack or macro, and there's more finesse to the execution than just mashing 1 a-move. That's why I'd like to make a distinction between a Blind Cheese and an Aggressive Response.
Putting all your eggs in one basket: A Blind Cheese is a predetermined strategy or build that requires no scouting information to execute. It requires no in-depth strategical thinking and typically has zero economic follow-through.” Putting some of your eggs in one basket but leaving a few behind to make drones: An Aggressive Response is a decision to commit to a large-scale attack after holding off pressure or as a result of scouting information. Example: A player opens 2rax pressure, I scout it and I go for a ling/bane 1 base attack (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=273534)
Here is a ZvP game casted by BudhaZerg where I show that, despite being insanely aggressive/all-in early on, there's always a way to macro-up behind it (Assuming your aggressive response was correct and you do some damage): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLJTMCFZ4MA&feature=channel_video_title
You might ask...Why is Zerg a good race to be aggressive with?
Look man, stop posting horrible, awful shit and claiming it as some grandmaster guide. I like that you have the mental capacity to distinguish between blind cheese and "aggressive response." This is a key still that all good players should have, but come on...
After a four minute advertisement by the caster to start this game talking about how you're a professional player but are "just keeping it local" (what the fuck?), you blindly put 3 back on gas before scouting your opponent or starting your second queen. This is a telltale sign that it's just the "tang special" ling bling or roach ling allin.
I've trolled you a lot asking you to finally write some guides on how to execute the only rigid, set builds you know how to do. Instead, you post these lengthy, spam-filled guides disguising them as some kind of higher order thinking.
That baneling bust you do would never have worked unless you hadn't intended on going for it in the opening 3 minutes of the game. As soon as you leave a drone on gas, off 14/14, you're being greedy because you delay your 2nd queen. As soon as you put 3 back on gas, you almost abandon your 2nd queen without having even scouted your opponent.
And what do you followup your all-in with but another all-in, followed by a third. It isn't because you're good, or being clever, but it's because this is all you know how to do. Even your friend comments on how he doesn't understand why you keep committing to it.
So, you went all-in blindly with a rigid build order, followed by a second all-in, and a third. Only after a lengthy stall are you able to finally almost break somewhat even with the protoss and then transition into what looks like a normal game 10 minutes later.
But what happens? Are you abusing a timing? Are you playing smart? No, you just don't know what to do because you can't play a macro game, so you cut drones and decide to mass roach and attack again hoping he'll die. Lucky for you your opponent makes a decision based on what a macro player might be doing (not cutting drones for pure roach production 3 minutes prior to his attack,) so you're able to crush what should have been a very aggressive blind stalker push.
I don't know man. I hate bashing people, but you wouldn't know it by this post. One thing I absolutely loathe in life is someone like you who makes himself by taking advantage of people who don't know any better. You lie and deceive people, but you do it so consistently and adamantly that enough low level players believe you, take what you say to heart, and try to imitate you and/or pay for lessons.
When it all comes down to it though, you're still and have always been merely advocating the lowest form of play, which is blind cheese. You can try to package it any way you like, but you're never going to be a good player when you let koreans play your account to GM, and then post blind all-in guides calling them "GM aggressive play."
While I generally appreciate constructive feedback, Michael, your response seems based more on anger than reason. You start off your argument by blankly stating I'm "shit" and "bad", but you provide inaccurate analysis of my games as reasoning. Furthermore, I would personally not resort to name-calling when trying to argue a point.
An example of why my play style is an aggressive response and not blind cheese can be seen in the game where I go for three consecutive baneling busts. You called it a "rigid, all-in build order", however I had actually started an expansion hatchery and cancelled it. I then opted to build a baneling nest when I scouted the 2gates (Response). It's probably a game that showcases the exact opposite of a rigid, all-in build order, as I periodically switch between mining gas and taking them out. I even double expand at the 13 minute mark after three separate attacks which is far from standard. Also, I started producing roaches at what I assumed (correctly) was an appropriate time to prepare for an attack. The protoss player hadn't taken a 3rd base and I needed an army if I was going to a) Defend a 2base timing attack or b) Deny his 3rd base.
I find it offensive that you think I paid a Korean to play on my accounts, and while I've done a lot of promoting and some would call that shameless, I would never be dishonest to my friends and supporters. I play aggressive SC2 and I've had success and a lot of fun along the way, and I don't see whats wrong with sharing that with others.
Pretty cool. I think having a basic sense of timings and knowning the drone-unit ratio is needed to do this sort of stuff. I do think that zerg is a race that should be played agressively more, especially once you have 2 hatches up with queens able to inject larva.
On October 23 2011 14:31 oOOoOphidian wrote: All-inning people who don't expect an all-in is about the summary of this "guide."
Yes, some openers are greedy or metagame an economic zerg, but a proper response and good scouting of your all-in will result in failure every time.
Why do these threads keep getting spammed all over the forum? It is really obnoxious to see huff and puff about absolutely no content.
Everyone seems to think that if Zerg is on the offensive it's an all-in build, and this is the type of misconception about aggressive zerg that I'm trying to argue against. It's not all-in, as long as you have planned followups in the situations where you just do damage but don't end the game. Example: you go for roach ling in ZvT and they get fast tanks and bunker their main. Well, you now can drone behind it and take a 3rd while they take a 2nd, maybe even delay their natural expand with the units you had intended to attack with. It is theoretically true that if you execute an early timing attack and it does no damage, you will be behind in the macro game. But you have to take into account that your attacks will almost always do some measure of damage, and if you can exploit map control and information that aggressive play gives you, you can move into macro games with several advantages.
I think anyone can agree there are pros and cons to aggressive and defensive play styles, and if you choose aggression then that's a viable stylistic choice that shouldn't be labeled so negatively.
I've been GM two seaons in a row, in both cases top 75. I played this game enough at a decent level to know VPTangs builds and strategies are gimmicky and akin to 3 rax marine scv all ining and his subsequent "thought" processes as to why he does a certain build never are really truly thought out. For example, he'll go 14/14 vs a terran, throw down a blind roach warren and then find out 30 seconds later that the terran open reactored hellion, and then he'll justify his blind roach warren choice by saying he expected that opening from the terran. Then he'll make a guide on how to do this, citing the 3 out of 12 times it worked. If anyone truly wants to do well in this game and get better and have solid BOs, please never listen to VPTang. He's a self-obsessed mediocre player who thinks hes the next coming of Day9.
edit: Also VPTang is not grandmaster, so he's lying about credentials as well.
On October 23 2011 14:31 oOOoOphidian wrote: All-inning people who don't expect an all-in is about the summary of this "guide."
Yes, some openers are greedy or metagame an economic zerg, but a proper response and good scouting of your all-in will result in failure every time.
Why do these threads keep getting spammed all over the forum? It is really obnoxious to see huff and puff about absolutely no content.
Everyone seems to think that if Zerg is on the offensive it's an all-in build, and this is the type of misconception about aggressive zerg that I'm trying to argue against. It's not all-in, as long as you have planned followups in the situations where you just do damage but don't end the game. Example: you go for roach ling in ZvT and they get fast tanks and bunker their main. Well, you now can drone behind it and take a 3rd while they take a 2nd, maybe even delay their natural expand with the units you had intended to attack with. It is theoretically true that if you execute an early timing attack and it does no damage, you will be behind in the macro game. But you have to take into account that your attacks will almost always do some measure of damage, and if you can exploit map control and information that aggressive play gives you, you can move into macro games with several advantages.
I think anyone can agree there are pros and cons to aggressive and defensive play styles, and if you choose aggression then that's a viable stylistic choice that shouldn't be labeled so negatively.
After watching Sen vs MVP and MVP vs Nestea, it seems like any failed attack resulted in certain doom for the Zerg. You say drone up behind it and take a third, which is what Sen and Nestea did. What did MVP do? Push! And killed them in 1 attack.
It seems like 'aggressive Zerg' relies too much on the opponent being scared and turtling whilst you use the presence of your initial force to take control of the map. You essentially said this, but the map control and army presence doesn't actually exist unless you continue building units, which puts you further behind. I have to say though, most people don't have timings as tight as MVP and most would be scared to push right after they held off an early attack.
On October 23 2011 22:26 GTLAllDayEveryDay wrote: I've been GM two seaons in a row, in both cases top 75. I played this game enough at a decent level to know VPTangs builds and strategies are gimmicky and akin to 3 rax marine scv all ining and his subsequent "thought" processes as to why he does a certain build never are really truly thought out. For example, he'll go 14/14 vs a terran, throw down a blind roach warren and then find out 30 seconds later that the terran open reactored hellion, and then he'll justify his blind roach warren choice by saying he expected that opening from the terran. Then he'll make a guide on how to do this, citing the 3 out of 12 times it worked. If anyone truly wants to do well in this game and get better and have solid BOs, please never listen to VPTang. He's a self-obsessed mediocre player who thinks hes the next coming of Day9.
edit: Also VPTang is not grandmaster, so he's lying about credentials as well.
If you don't like my style, GTL, that's fine, but your comments are never constructive and it seems like you just look for reasons to insult people. As for 14/14 against a terran and getting a "blind roach warren", if a terran player isn't opening 2rax marines he's very likely going hellions, making roaches a reasonable decision for offense or defense. If you think zerg should be played another way, why don't you make a guide on it and actually help people with your skills and knowledge rather than attempting to discredit the work of others?
On October 23 2011 14:31 oOOoOphidian wrote: All-inning people who don't expect an all-in is about the summary of this "guide."
Yes, some openers are greedy or metagame an economic zerg, but a proper response and good scouting of your all-in will result in failure every time.
Why do these threads keep getting spammed all over the forum? It is really obnoxious to see huff and puff about absolutely no content.
Everyone seems to think that if Zerg is on the offensive it's an all-in build, and this is the type of misconception about aggressive zerg that I'm trying to argue against. It's not all-in, as long as you have planned followups in the situations where you just do damage but don't end the game. Example: you go for roach ling in ZvT and they get fast tanks and bunker their main. Well, you now can drone behind it and take a 3rd while they take a 2nd, maybe even delay their natural expand with the units you had intended to attack with. It is theoretically true that if you execute an early timing attack and it does no damage, you will be behind in the macro game. But you have to take into account that your attacks will almost always do some measure of damage, and if you can exploit map control and information that aggressive play gives you, you can move into macro games with several advantages.
I think anyone can agree there are pros and cons to aggressive and defensive play styles, and if you choose aggression then that's a viable stylistic choice that shouldn't be labeled so negatively.
After watching Sen vs MVP and MVP vs Nestea, it seems like any failed attack resulted in certain doom for the Zerg. You say drone up behind it and take a third, which is what Sen and Nestea did. What did MVP do? Push! And killed them in 1 attack.
It seems like 'aggressive Zerg' relies too much on the opponent being scared and turtling whilst you use the presence of your initial force to take control of the map. You essentially said this, but the map control and army presence doesn't actually exist unless you continue building units, which puts you further behind. I have to say though, most people don't have timings as tight as MVP and most would be scared to push right after they held off an early attack.
The fact that Sen and Nestea, two of the best zerg players in SC2, are using aggressive timing attacks in top tournaments only proves that aggressive zerg is a viable and effective style. And I don't think anyone reading this thread is going to play a tournament against MVP, and even if they were, I'd recommend knowing how to put the pressure on.
On October 23 2011 14:31 oOOoOphidian wrote: All-inning people who don't expect an all-in is about the summary of this "guide."
Yes, some openers are greedy or metagame an economic zerg, but a proper response and good scouting of your all-in will result in failure every time.
Why do these threads keep getting spammed all over the forum? It is really obnoxious to see huff and puff about absolutely no content.
Everyone seems to think that if Zerg is on the offensive it's an all-in build, and this is the type of misconception about aggressive zerg that I'm trying to argue against. It's not all-in, as long as you have planned followups in the situations where you just do damage but don't end the game. Example: you go for roach ling in ZvT and they get fast tanks and bunker their main. Well, you now can drone behind it and take a 3rd while they take a 2nd, maybe even delay their natural expand with the units you had intended to attack with. It is theoretically true that if you execute an early timing attack and it does no damage, you will be behind in the macro game. But you have to take into account that your attacks will almost always do some measure of damage, and if you can exploit map control and information that aggressive play gives you, you can move into macro games with several advantages.
I think anyone can agree there are pros and cons to aggressive and defensive play styles, and if you choose aggression then that's a viable stylistic choice that shouldn't be labeled so negatively.
After watching Sen vs MVP and MVP vs Nestea, it seems like any failed attack resulted in certain doom for the Zerg. You say drone up behind it and take a third, which is what Sen and Nestea did. What did MVP do? Push! And killed them in 1 attack.
It seems like 'aggressive Zerg' relies too much on the opponent being scared and turtling whilst you use the presence of your initial force to take control of the map. You essentially said this, but the map control and army presence doesn't actually exist unless you continue building units, which puts you further behind. I have to say though, most people don't have timings as tight as MVP and most would be scared to push right after they held off an early attack.
The fact that Sen and Nestea, two of the best zerg players in SC2, are using aggressive timing attacks in top tournaments only proves that aggressive zerg is a viable and effective style. And I don't think anyone reading this thread is going to play a tournament against MVP, and even if they were, I'd recommend knowing how to put the pressure on.
Do you think this playstyle is at all viable outside of exploiting the metagame? There are some builds like 2 rax and reactor hellion that can be done every game if the map allows, which put pressure on, and clearly not being all in. From what I saw from the ZvT games where Zerg was aggressive, if Zerg attacked with a fair amount of units, did 0 damage and took 0 damage, Zerg was in a rough spot (debatable but there is evidence). Clearly the same is not true with hellions and 2 rax. If hellions run into the natural, see 2 queens and a spine, and retreats, Terran has lost nothing. I feel Zerg simply loses so much by making roaches or banelings for an aggressive purpose.
On October 23 2011 14:31 oOOoOphidian wrote: All-inning people who don't expect an all-in is about the summary of this "guide."
Yes, some openers are greedy or metagame an economic zerg, but a proper response and good scouting of your all-in will result in failure every time.
Why do these threads keep getting spammed all over the forum? It is really obnoxious to see huff and puff about absolutely no content.
Everyone seems to think that if Zerg is on the offensive it's an all-in build, and this is the type of misconception about aggressive zerg that I'm trying to argue against. It's not all-in, as long as you have planned followups in the situations where you just do damage but don't end the game. Example: you go for roach ling in ZvT and they get fast tanks and bunker their main. Well, you now can drone behind it and take a 3rd while they take a 2nd, maybe even delay their natural expand with the units you had intended to attack with. It is theoretically true that if you execute an early timing attack and it does no damage, you will be behind in the macro game. But you have to take into account that your attacks will almost always do some measure of damage, and if you can exploit map control and information that aggressive play gives you, you can move into macro games with several advantages.
I think anyone can agree there are pros and cons to aggressive and defensive play styles, and if you choose aggression then that's a viable stylistic choice that shouldn't be labeled so negatively.
After watching Sen vs MVP and MVP vs Nestea, it seems like any failed attack resulted in certain doom for the Zerg. You say drone up behind it and take a third, which is what Sen and Nestea did. What did MVP do? Push! And killed them in 1 attack.
It seems like 'aggressive Zerg' relies too much on the opponent being scared and turtling whilst you use the presence of your initial force to take control of the map. You essentially said this, but the map control and army presence doesn't actually exist unless you continue building units, which puts you further behind. I have to say though, most people don't have timings as tight as MVP and most would be scared to push right after they held off an early attack.
The fact that Sen and Nestea, two of the best zerg players in SC2, are using aggressive timing attacks in top tournaments only proves that aggressive zerg is a viable and effective style. And I don't think anyone reading this thread is going to play a tournament against MVP, and even if they were, I'd recommend knowing how to put the pressure on.
Do you think this playstyle is at all viable outside of exploiting the metagame? There are some builds like 2 rax and reactor hellion that can be done every game if the map allows, which put pressure on, and clearly not being all in. From what I saw from the ZvT games where Zerg was aggressive, if Zerg attacked with a fair amount of units, did 0 damage and took 0 damage, Zerg was in a rough spot (debatable but there is evidence). Clearly the same is not true with hellions and 2 rax. If hellions run into the natural, see 2 queens and a spine, and retreats, Terran has lost nothing. I feel Zerg simply loses so much by making roaches or banelings for an aggressive purpose.
You should watch more games of DRG, sen, nestea, and losira ^^
Awesome stuff. This should bring more attention to aggressive zerg style :D I have a quick question: is this a real class which provides a real college credit ?
.... Everyone seems to think that if Zerg is on the offensive it's an all-in build, and this is the type of misconception about aggressive zerg that I'm trying to argue against. It's not all-in, as long as you have planned followups in the situations where you just do damage but don't end the game. ...
Using this logic no build is an all-in build for Zerg. As a personal friend of ActionJesus himself, I know how he 6 pools and I know most of the tricks he has and almost all of his followups. He always jokes about how 7 pool is his macro opening against Protoss and 6 pool is standard play. And oh yes, he still 6 pools. He can force the game his way with a 6 pool, but it relies so insanely much on punishing the protoss in the early game and maintain that control through out the game. While he might win at the 14 minute mark with a roach push from 2 bases. Then it's still all-in.
But to give feedback on your guide. I think it's a good thing to teach bad players how to execute a proper all-in as one of the first things you do. It gives a new player a good idea of how a build order works and what happens if you change something. Keeps it nice and simple and illustrate the concept of timings beautifully. But you gotta sell it as what it is. All-in designed to hit with a specific timing and punishing specific builds.
.... Everyone seems to think that if Zerg is on the offensive it's an all-in build, and this is the type of misconception about aggressive zerg that I'm trying to argue against. It's not all-in, as long as you have planned followups in the situations where you just do damage but don't end the game. ...
Using this logic no build is an all-in build for Zerg. As a personal friend of ActionJesus himself, I know how he 6 pools and I know most of the tricks he has and almost all of his followups. He always jokes about how 7 pool is his macro opening against Protoss and 6 pool is standard play. And oh yes, he still 6 pools. He can force the game his way with a 6 pool, but it relies so insanely much on punishing the protoss in the early game and maintain that control through out the game. While he might win at the 14 minute mark with a roach push from 2 bases. Then it's still all-in.
But to give feedback on your guide. I think it's a good thing to teach bad players how to execute a proper all-in as one of the first things you do. It gives a new player a good idea of how a build order works and what happens if you change something. Keeps it nice and simple and illustrate the concept of timings beautifully. But you gotta sell it as what it is. All-in designed to hit with a specific timing and punishing specific builds.
It's funny you mention that, I have a friend who opens 7pool macro against toss almost every game. Not my personal preference but if you can make it work, who's to say it's a bad strategy?
For those of you who are trolling, calling people attention whores, Tang has posted a lot of grest tutorials and guide on TL. As long as he maintains this high, I don't see what there is to complain about.
On October 24 2011 04:43 ff7legend wrote: Is this mindset applicable to Terran.. or is it exclusive to zerg?
I think there are always opportunities to put pressure on and be aggressive, but it's a little different with terran and protoss. For zerg you usually have "switch points" where you stop producing drones and start making only units, and then you do a timing attack and either reinforce with units or "switch" again into drones. For toss and terran, it's not ideal to cut workers in MOST situations, as constant worker production is pretty key to economy. However, there are ways to be aggressive while maintaining constant production with Terran.
Sure, the play in the videos is arguably a little gimmicky but who is to say that there isn't useful stuff to learn in these guides? If anything, it only shows that one man's "cheese" is another's "aggressive play", and honestly, it seems like a lot of people are getting their backs up and taking offense and for the life of me I can't really understand why.
I get what you are trying to do with your videos and lessons but coming into chat channels and spamming your content won't make people more likely to watch it. It gets people annoyed with you even before they check out your stuff. Also, you're not GM and idk why you keep saying that you are.
I think the only problem with what you're doing is that if you do zero damage (please don't argue by saying you will never do zero damage because that can't be true as with any pressure), you are automatically behind. The other races have the ability to constantly produce workers but with zerg as soon as you build a ton of units, you gave up a ton of drones. If you can ENSURE significant damage, I would consider your play reasonable, but there is no way to, so I must condemn it to simple, though potent, cheese.
On October 24 2011 11:09 rancidmeat wrote: I think the only problem with what you're doing is that if you do zero damage (please don't argue by saying you will never do zero damage because that can't be true as with any pressure), you are automatically behind. The other races have the ability to constantly produce workers but with zerg as soon as you build a ton of units, you gave up a ton of drones. If you can ENSURE significant damage, I would consider your play reasonable, but there is no way to, so I must condemn it to simple, though potent, cheese.
True, there will be times you don't do damage and end up behind. Still, the idea behind the aggressive strategy is to use your information of his tech choice to determine the correct unit composition to attack. Roach or roach/ling openings are guaranteed damage against most hellion openings. You're going to produce some units to defend anyway, the extra units you put into attacking are made up by the fact that you take map control and do some damage. There are a lot of ways to take a 3rd, tech up, drone up, etc while you put on pressure as zerg.
You would think that considering how much time you put into your guide you would have the decency to remove the clip that drops the N-word. Maybe you're not aware of it, but the N word is still quite offense (not to be so technical but -er is much much worse than -a) and made me cringe. Regardless of the depth of the word, it's pretty unprofessional to have any blatantly clear curse word thrown in EIGHT seconds into the video. - -"
Touching on noxn's jab at your content, I have yet to see any real depth into your posts. They consist to me of first and foremost shameless plugging, useless spoilers, and a bunch of build orders, without any real explanation. It seems to me like you've just taken a vod of an aggressive zerg game, copied the build order, and popped it into your thread. Why do they work? When would a bad time to execute the build? You claim
On October 23 2011 01:50 TangSC wrote: There's more to it than that, there are subtle bits of information I use to determine whether to attack or macro, and there's more finesse to the execution than just mashing 1 a-move. That's why I'd like to make a distinction between a Blind Cheese and an Aggressive Response.
But you don't explain how in your "guide" you're blindly making units at food counts anyway, where's the "response" element in that?
On October 23 2011 02:17 FinestHour wrote: Too many people stuck with the mindset that zerg has to br the turtley, reactive race. This guide is a great way to change up the playstyle a little. Cool stuff!
Yeah, thats how i play, im gonna start watching the rest of this.
On October 23 2011 02:53 Amaterasu1234 wrote: Is Jecho's Roach/ling/bling bust guide appropriate to mention? I don't know if it still works or not... but I don't see why not...and it certainly fits the style of aggressive zerg.
------------
Edit: I noticed you only had the roach/ling push vs 1/3 gate expo in zvp. A lot of pro Z's, when they scout 1 gate FE, will mass ling for 1 minute @ 6 minutes then make a huge attack @ 7 minutes while droning behind it. If the toss doesn't have superb forcefields, lings can take out sentries, deny the expansion, but even win the game right there ((high unlikely). This ling attack only works vs 1 gate expo...3 gate has too many forcefields available, leaving a larger margin of error for the toss and his forcefields.
It was done by goswser on mkp in mlg orlando and looking invinsible...
But you don't explain how in your "guide" you're blindly making units at food counts anyway, where's the "response" element in that?
If you scout hellions, roach/ling is the response. If you scout 2gate or 2rax pressure, 1base ling/bane is the response. If you scout a bunker and tanks at the top of their ramp, you may opt to just play macro instead of making as many roaches and lings.
Whether you execute an attack depends largely on your drone scouting and your zergling scouting, and also whether you perform that attack as a means to secure a small advantage or win the game outright depends on scouting and "feel". I make the example in my lecture how if you're doing roach ling against terran and you break up the ramp and you're doing tons of damage, you may continue to keep streaming lings to end the game. However, if you deny his expansion but he's able to defend the top of the ramp, it's much better to start droning yourself and possibly take a 3rd.
On October 23 2011 14:31 oOOoOphidian wrote: All-inning people who don't expect an all-in is about the summary of this "guide."
Yes, some openers are greedy or metagame an economic zerg, but a proper response and good scouting of your all-in will result in failure every time.
Why do these threads keep getting spammed all over the forum? It is really obnoxious to see huff and puff about absolutely no content.
Everyone seems to think that if Zerg is on the offensive it's an all-in build, and this is the type of misconception about aggressive zerg that I'm trying to argue against. It's not all-in, as long as you have planned followups in the situations where you just do damage but don't end the game. Example: you go for roach ling in ZvT and they get fast tanks and bunker their main. Well, you now can drone behind it and take a 3rd while they take a 2nd, maybe even delay their natural expand with the units you had intended to attack with. It is theoretically true that if you execute an early timing attack and it does no damage, you will be behind in the macro game. But you have to take into account that your attacks will almost always do some measure of damage, and if you can exploit map control and information that aggressive play gives you, you can move into macro games with several advantages.
I think anyone can agree there are pros and cons to aggressive and defensive play styles, and if you choose aggression then that's a viable stylistic choice that shouldn't be labeled so negatively.
Well whether an attack is an allin or not behind how much you get behind if your oppponent responds correctly. I think that regarding baneling busts and early roach pushes, its pretty much an allin as the terran should almost always be able to win the game (given equal mechanics) if he plays intelligently. Whether you have a follow up or not is kidna irrelevant. The follow up might work against most players, but whether it works against most high masters or other GM players is irrelevant, its whether it works again players who play correctly.
On October 23 2011 14:31 oOOoOphidian wrote: All-inning people who don't expect an all-in is about the summary of this "guide."
Yes, some openers are greedy or metagame an economic zerg, but a proper response and good scouting of your all-in will result in failure every time.
Why do these threads keep getting spammed all over the forum? It is really obnoxious to see huff and puff about absolutely no content.
Everyone seems to think that if Zerg is on the offensive it's an all-in build, and this is the type of misconception about aggressive zerg that I'm trying to argue against. It's not all-in, as long as you have planned followups in the situations where you just do damage but don't end the game. Example: you go for roach ling in ZvT and they get fast tanks and bunker their main. Well, you now can drone behind it and take a 3rd while they take a 2nd, maybe even delay their natural expand with the units you had intended to attack with. It is theoretically true that if you execute an early timing attack and it does no damage, you will be behind in the macro game. But you have to take into account that your attacks will almost always do some measure of damage, and if you can exploit map control and information that aggressive play gives you, you can move into macro games with several advantages.
I think anyone can agree there are pros and cons to aggressive and defensive play styles, and if you choose aggression then that's a viable stylistic choice that shouldn't be labeled so negatively.
Well whether an attack is an allin or not behind how much you get behind if your oppponent responds correctly. I think that regarding baneling busts and early roach pushes, its pretty much an allin as the terran should almost always be able to win the game (given equal mechanics) if he plays intelligently. Whether you have a follow up or not is kidna irrelevant. The follow up might work against most players, but whether it works against most high masters or other GM players is irrelevant, its whether it works again players who play correctly.
I disagree actually, I've had so many games where I've done an attack and expanded behind it. It's standard for other races and equally viable for zerg. Watch Dong Rae Gu against ThorZain or DRG against Strelok:
Funny how he answers every post except the ones asking why he claims GM when he isnt, Also I'm GM with 1k games played and never seen you so I doubt you have GM mmr either
On October 24 2011 22:04 chrusher97 wrote: Funny how he answers every post except the ones asking why he claims GM when he isnt, Also I'm GM with 1k games played and never seen you so I doubt you have GM mmr either
If you watched the lecture, you'd know. See you in season 4
On October 24 2011 22:04 chrusher97 wrote: Funny how he answers every post except the ones asking why he claims GM when he isnt, Also I'm GM with 1k games played and never seen you so I doubt you have GM mmr either
If you watched the lecture, you'd know. See you in season 4
I find the guide well written. So good job. Idk how much of a good response you will get though just because people have a 'bad reputation' of you. Seems like you could post gold and theyd hate ya. Haters gonna hate though.
Even stephano plays 2 base aggression (even making macro hatchs before 3rd) quite often in zvt and to a lesser extent zvp. Aggression is what more zergs need, good job :/
On October 24 2011 22:04 chrusher97 wrote: Funny how he answers every post except the ones asking why he claims GM when he isnt, Also I'm GM with 1k games played and never seen you so I doubt you have GM mmr either
If you watched the lecture, you'd know. See you in season 4
I find the guide well written. So good job. Idk how much of a good response you will get though just because people have a 'bad reputation' of you. Seems like you could post gold and theyd hate ya. Haters gonna hate though.
Even stephano plays 2 base aggression (even making macro hatchs before 3rd) quite often in zvt and to a lesser extent zvp. Aggression is what more zergs need, good job :/
We just lost to Waterloo last week in CSL. They have a large team with a lot of top players that seem to be very willing to coach/help everyone else. This is an awesome thread to learn from...especially since I'm a Zerg player!
On October 24 2011 22:04 chrusher97 wrote: Funny how he answers every post except the ones asking why he claims GM when he isnt, Also I'm GM with 1k games played and never seen you so I doubt you have GM mmr either
If you watched the lecture, you'd know. See you in season 4
Even stephano plays 2 base aggression (even making macro hatchs before 3rd) quite often in zvt and to a lesser extent zvp. Aggression is what more zergs need, good job :/
I haven't seen much 2base aggression from Stephano, where did you see these games I'd love to watch.
Another relatively popular aggressive style of zerg is the roach/ling/bling w/drops in zvp that allows for some insanely powerful timing attacks when you reach +2 melee, allowing 1 bane to kill TONS of probes in 1 hit...4 banes totally wiping out a mineral line...
On October 24 2011 22:04 chrusher97 wrote: Funny how he answers every post except the ones asking why he claims GM when he isnt, Also I'm GM with 1k games played and never seen you so I doubt you have GM mmr either
If you watched the lecture, you'd know. See you in season 4
Even stephano plays 2 base aggression (even making macro hatchs before 3rd) quite often in zvt and to a lesser extent zvp. Aggression is what more zergs need, good job :/
I haven't seen much 2base aggression from Stephano, where did you see these games I'd love to watch.
Im at work, so can't search for the replay/games effectively. But im positive he did it in multiple games at IPL3. He had a macro hatch multiple times before his third was dropped im pretty sure. I can't remember how much aggression he did off of it, but i remember talking to my bf during IPL about he was one of the few zergs that I saw take their third hatch late (or rather later than any normal macro zerg) I get off work in 2 hours. I'll try to find the replay or replays if possible.
One way you can convince people of the 'aggressive' style is to make it sound like the 'losira' style that was popular a while back. Strong 2 base timings with a 3rd dropping while doing it. Against toss that style completely rapes
edit: i believe he didn't neccesarrily do 'strong' timings every game and apply pressure. he seemed to drop the 3rd late sometimes just to be safe
On October 25 2011 03:10 Amaterasu1234 wrote: Another relatively popular aggressive style of zerg is the roach/ling/bling w/drops in zvp that allows for some insanely powerful timing attacks when you reach +2 melee, allowing 1 bane to kill TONS of probes in 1 hit...4 banes totally wiping out a mineral line...
I underutilized baneling drops I think it's something all zergs should experiment heavily with.
On October 23 2011 14:31 oOOoOphidian wrote: All-inning people who don't expect an all-in is about the summary of this "guide."
Yes, some openers are greedy or metagame an economic zerg, but a proper response and good scouting of your all-in will result in failure every time.
Why do these threads keep getting spammed all over the forum? It is really obnoxious to see huff and puff about absolutely no content.
Everyone seems to think that if Zerg is on the offensive it's an all-in build, and this is the type of misconception about aggressive zerg that I'm trying to argue against. It's not all-in, as long as you have planned followups in the situations where you just do damage but don't end the game. Example: you go for roach ling in ZvT and they get fast tanks and bunker their main. Well, you now can drone behind it and take a 3rd while they take a 2nd, maybe even delay their natural expand with the units you had intended to attack with. It is theoretically true that if you execute an early timing attack and it does no damage, you will be behind in the macro game. But you have to take into account that your attacks will almost always do some measure of damage, and if you can exploit map control and information that aggressive play gives you, you can move into macro games with several advantages.
I think anyone can agree there are pros and cons to aggressive and defensive play styles, and if you choose aggression then that's a viable stylistic choice that shouldn't be labeled so negatively.
Well whether an attack is an allin or not behind how much you get behind if your oppponent responds correctly. I think that regarding baneling busts and early roach pushes, its pretty much an allin as the terran should almost always be able to win the game (given equal mechanics) if he plays intelligently. Whether you have a follow up or not is kidna irrelevant. The follow up might work against most players, but whether it works against most high masters or other GM players is irrelevant, its whether it works again players who play correctly.
If anything this shows a better player punishing an extremely greedy player who starts building units at the 7:00 to 8:00 minute mark. This should not be a normal game.
On October 23 2011 14:31 oOOoOphidian wrote: All-inning people who don't expect an all-in is about the summary of this "guide."
Yes, some openers are greedy or metagame an economic zerg, but a proper response and good scouting of your all-in will result in failure every time.
Why do these threads keep getting spammed all over the forum? It is really obnoxious to see huff and puff about absolutely no content.
Everyone seems to think that if Zerg is on the offensive it's an all-in build, and this is the type of misconception about aggressive zerg that I'm trying to argue against. It's not all-in, as long as you have planned followups in the situations where you just do damage but don't end the game. Example: you go for roach ling in ZvT and they get fast tanks and bunker their main. Well, you now can drone behind it and take a 3rd while they take a 2nd, maybe even delay their natural expand with the units you had intended to attack with. It is theoretically true that if you execute an early timing attack and it does no damage, you will be behind in the macro game. But you have to take into account that your attacks will almost always do some measure of damage, and if you can exploit map control and information that aggressive play gives you, you can move into macro games with several advantages.
I think anyone can agree there are pros and cons to aggressive and defensive play styles, and if you choose aggression then that's a viable stylistic choice that shouldn't be labeled so negatively.
Well whether an attack is an allin or not behind how much you get behind if your oppponent responds correctly. I think that regarding baneling busts and early roach pushes, its pretty much an allin as the terran should almost always be able to win the game (given equal mechanics) if he plays intelligently. Whether you have a follow up or not is kidna irrelevant. The follow up might work against most players, but whether it works against most high masters or other GM players is irrelevant, its whether it works again players who play correctly.
If anything this shows a better player punishing an extremely greedy player who starts building units at the 7:00 to 8:00 minute mark. This should not be a normal game.
Well even against more standard players, the timing is very effective at doing damage, keeping you safe from harass while you take a 3rd.
On October 24 2011 22:04 chrusher97 wrote: Funny how he answers every post except the ones asking why he claims GM when he isnt, Also I'm GM with 1k games played and never seen you so I doubt you have GM mmr either
Have you even tried looking at sc2ranks. You can clearly see he was GM season 2.
On October 25 2011 03:10 Amaterasu1234 wrote: Another relatively popular aggressive style of zerg is the roach/ling/bling w/drops in zvp that allows for some insanely powerful timing attacks when you reach +2 melee, allowing 1 bane to kill TONS of probes in 1 hit...4 banes totally wiping out a mineral line...
Such a strong way to play if you have the micro to manage the drops well. I like the big roach armies with burrow/move/upgrades. That way I can be very mobile, try to do damage, snipe his 3rd, nydus, roach drop, etc. until I have broodlords out.
Very nice. I feel that this style can be very powerful, especially from a psychological standpoint. Say in a best of 3 you were to utilize this type of hyper-agression and win. This would "unsettle" all but the strongest mentalities, and give you much more than simply a 1 game advantage, but also a psychological advantage. Even if you were to lose, having someone play so agressively against you is certainly disconcerting for the opponent.
On October 25 2011 23:27 Bagration wrote: Very nice. I feel that this style can be very powerful, especially from a psychological standpoint. Say in a best of 3 you were to utilize this type of hyper-agression and win. This would "unsettle" all but the strongest mentalities, and give you much more than simply a 1 game advantage, but also a psychological advantage. Even if you were to lose, having someone play so agressively against you is certainly disconcerting for the opponent.
Well played, July would be proud.
That's a great point Bagration, I think it's absolutely necessary to have some hyper aggressive or even all in builds under your belt to "mix it up" in tournaments, clan wars, and even when you play the same opponent a few times in a row on ladder. Just make sure it's not too obvious that you're doing something new.
On October 24 2011 22:04 chrusher97 wrote: Funny how he answers every post except the ones asking why he claims GM when he isnt, Also I'm GM with 1k games played and never seen you so I doubt you have GM mmr either
Have you even tried looking at sc2ranks. You can clearly see he was GM season 2.
Yeah, the season he paid people to play on his account.
On October 23 2011 14:31 oOOoOphidian wrote: All-inning people who don't expect an all-in is about the summary of this "guide."
Yes, some openers are greedy or metagame an economic zerg, but a proper response and good scouting of your all-in will result in failure every time.
Why do these threads keep getting spammed all over the forum? It is really obnoxious to see huff and puff about absolutely no content.
Everyone seems to think that if Zerg is on the offensive it's an all-in build, and this is the type of misconception about aggressive zerg that I'm trying to argue against. It's not all-in, as long as you have planned followups in the situations where you just do damage but don't end the game. Example: you go for roach ling in ZvT and they get fast tanks and bunker their main. Well, you now can drone behind it and take a 3rd while they take a 2nd, maybe even delay their natural expand with the units you had intended to attack with. It is theoretically true that if you execute an early timing attack and it does no damage, you will be behind in the macro game. But you have to take into account that your attacks will almost always do some measure of damage, and if you can exploit map control and information that aggressive play gives you, you can move into macro games with several advantages.
I think anyone can agree there are pros and cons to aggressive and defensive play styles, and if you choose aggression then that's a viable stylistic choice that shouldn't be labeled so negatively.
Well whether an attack is an allin or not behind how much you get behind if your oppponent responds correctly. I think that regarding baneling busts and early roach pushes, its pretty much an allin as the terran should almost always be able to win the game (given equal mechanics) if he plays intelligently. Whether you have a follow up or not is kidna irrelevant. The follow up might work against most players, but whether it works against most high masters or other GM players is irrelevant, its whether it works again players who play correctly.
Well yeh, but if the opposing player defends withut taking damage (having early bunker or 2 - thats onyl very little indirect damage), and makes a good counter attack your in a lot of trouble if you droned. LIke watch MVP vs DRG (a gsl game a month back), drg actually did a lot of dmg as MVP bunker was to late, but he could not defend the counter marine/tank attack.
MVP geenralyl though will make these kind of timings that not a lot of terran players will, and it just punishes the droning zerg. So against most terran players, sure you can do these allinish attacks, but your still weak if A) The terran defend efficiently, B) has a build where he can counter you - like no eraly 3rd command center or mech play, and C) Attacks you while your droning.
Most of the time as zerg you cant spot whether the terran is doing something greedy, like double expanding of reactored hellions, or going for 4 hellions, into marine/tank push on 2 bases without any oddson barracks ( like mvp does). Hence you simply cant react efficiently, and this is why its allinish.
However just because its allinish doesn't mean its a bad build. Its sure good to vary op your play with these kind of attacks once a while, and it isn't veyr often you wil have a build order loss with a roache response attack vs reactor hellion, but once in a while you will, and long-term its definitely better to have a solid strategy that doesn't rely on opponents not doing a certain build, but rely on pure mechanics.
On October 24 2011 22:04 chrusher97 wrote: Funny how he answers every post except the ones asking why he claims GM when he isnt, Also I'm GM with 1k games played and never seen you so I doubt you have GM mmr either
Have you even tried looking at sc2ranks. You can clearly see he was GM season 2.
Yeah, the season he paid people to play on his account.
On October 24 2011 22:04 chrusher97 wrote: Funny how he answers every post except the ones asking why he claims GM when he isnt, Also I'm GM with 1k games played and never seen you so I doubt you have GM mmr either
Have you even tried looking at sc2ranks. You can clearly see he was GM season 2.
Yeah, the season he paid people to play on his account.
Would love to see some proof.
So would I. I'm going to start live streaming my games with commentary this season so this type of accusation will be proven false.
On October 24 2011 22:04 chrusher97 wrote: Funny how he answers every post except the ones asking why he claims GM when he isnt, Also I'm GM with 1k games played and never seen you so I doubt you have GM mmr either
Have you even tried looking at sc2ranks. You can clearly see he was GM season 2.
Yeah, the season he paid people to play on his account.
Would love to see some proof.
So would I. I'm going to start live streaming my games with commentary this season so this type of accusation will be proven false.
When you get into GM again, possibly. Sitting at 1450 masters at NA....yeah, I believe your cheese gets you to about that level
On October 24 2011 22:04 chrusher97 wrote: Funny how he answers every post except the ones asking why he claims GM when he isnt, Also I'm GM with 1k games played and never seen you so I doubt you have GM mmr either
Have you even tried looking at sc2ranks. You can clearly see he was GM season 2.
Yeah, the season he paid people to play on his account.
Would love to see some proof.
So would I. I'm going to start live streaming my games with commentary this season so this type of accusation will be proven false.
When you get into GM again, possibly. Sitting at 1450 masters at NA....yeah, I believe your cheese gets you to about that level
I don't understand where you get off making these sort of blatant accusations without any proof.
Nice write up! Im the gold kind of zerg that is passive and feels there is nothing for me to do untill the mutas cone out vs T or the broodlords against toss. I try to macro and react to others. This makes me predictable and often lose games. This is helpfull stuff to mix in next to macro games.
On October 24 2011 12:26 phiinix wrote: Don't forget his try hard funny warnings.
You would think that considering how much time you put into your guide you would have the decency to remove the clip that drops the N-word. Maybe you're not aware of it, but the N word is still quite offense (not to be so technical but -er is much much worse than -a) and made me cringe. Regardless of the depth of the word, it's pretty unprofessional to have any blatantly clear curse word thrown in EIGHT seconds into the video. - -"
Touching on noxn's jab at your content, I have yet to see any real depth into your posts. They consist to me of first and foremost shameless plugging, useless spoilers, and a bunch of build orders, without any real explanation. It seems to me like you've just taken a vod of an aggressive zerg game, copied the build order, and popped it into your thread. Why do they work? When would a bad time to execute the build? You claim
On October 23 2011 01:50 TangSC wrote: There's more to it than that, there are subtle bits of information I use to determine whether to attack or macro, and there's more finesse to the execution than just mashing 1 a-move. That's why I'd like to make a distinction between a Blind Cheese and an Aggressive Response.
But you don't explain how in your "guide" you're blindly making units at food counts anyway, where's the "response" element in that?
I sort of have to agree here with this guy's response.
If you want to know the difference between 'blind cheese' and 'aggressive responses', aggressive responses are just reactional like for instance if you see a protoss player try to cut a corner and off of a 1 gate expand, take their nexus slightly earlier than normal, you can make a round of zerglings (like 16 lings) and by the time speed finishes, punish him for trying to cut that corner.
A blind cheese is just a build that has been practiced to 'blindly counter' another build, usually being the standard build. HOpefully the other player plays a normal macro game, and you blindly make units and pretty much hope that you do enough damage to get ahead such as a roach/ling attack with like idk 22ish drones. Start ling speed, roach warren when ling speed is like 1/3 done and roach warren will be done when ling speed is done and you should have around 7 roaches followed up by rounds of speedlings until you do enough damage to start droning up again. Thats blind because you don't know if its going to work or not.
Actually that roach/ling was a bad example because you can certainly choose to do it as soon as you see a reaper expand or hellion expand. It's not something that is pre-determined before the game. Something like a 14/14 speedling "fake expo", keep drones on gas and get a fast lair and basically nydus worm full of speedlings into the protoss base. Its becoming more popular in the gsl and the most common follow up is hydralisks off of 2 bases. I believe this one zerg in wcg prelims does it, i forget his name but i think he does it a couple times with pretty good success.
On October 24 2011 22:04 chrusher97 wrote: Funny how he answers every post except the ones asking why he claims GM when he isnt, Also I'm GM with 1k games played and never seen you so I doubt you have GM mmr either
Have you even tried looking at sc2ranks. You can clearly see he was GM season 2.
Yeah, the season he paid people to play on his account.
Would love to see some proof.
So would I. I'm going to start live streaming my games with commentary this season so this type of accusation will be proven false.
When you get into GM again, possibly. Sitting at 1450 masters at NA....yeah, I believe your cheese gets you to about that level
Its a good thing you're not dodging the question of showing proof much like how you called Tang out for not answering why he isn't in GM......
Even after inputting the build you have for the "ZvT Tang's Roach/Ling Timing Attack" it lists that you should start your Hatch at 15, not 16. Try it out in YABOT and see what it feels like. I did the build and it felt fantastic. I was slightly off predicted times due to my drone gathering at the beginning being ~2 seconds slow because I can't select the hatch fast enough and get my guys on minerals, and I think it takes into account optimal build. It may be something to visit to see if it's infact the optimal build order for this type of build.
Even after inputting the build you have for the "ZvT Tang's Roach/Ling Timing Attack" it lists that you should start your Hatch at 15, not 16. Try it out in YABOT and see what it feels like. I did the build and it felt fantastic. I was slightly off predicted times due to my drone gathering at the beginning being ~2 seconds slow because I can't select the hatch fast enough and get my guys on minerals, and I think it takes into account optimal build. It may be something to visit to see if it's infact the optimal build order for this type of build.
I agree I've actually been doing 15 hatch, 16gas 15 pool 17 overlord after observing DRG games.
Stop hating on this guy. Who cares if the style has been talked about before and has been shown in previous games in GSL. This guy took the time to put up a well-written "guide" on sc2 strategy. He may be self-promoting and spamming, but if you feel that way just don't read the guide. If you keep on posting "omg, seen this before rofl" the thread will just get bumped to the top of the sc2 strat forum. If you really think the guide is bad, just don't post and it'll quickly fall to the often unread pages of the forum.
Hello, I am one of the students in the video and I feel as if I owe an apology. It was a major flaw of logic when I said the n-word and I wish to apologize to anyone who was offended. The context was when we were talking about bm that we recieve after wins. In which I clearly not intelligently said "i get called a ********) Once again sorry about this, it will not happen again.
On October 27 2011 14:22 Vei wrote: Is it true you're not GM? Please answer.
No one is GM at the moment, Vei. I was Grand Master from the first day until the last day of season 3.
I know for a fact you were not GM last season on either of your accounts.
Can't say for Season 1 or 2, still pretty stupid to blatantly lie like that and don't say "I have GM MMR" because that doesn't make you a GM. I have GM MMR but I don't go around advertising that I'm GM.
On October 27 2011 14:22 Vei wrote: Is it true you're not GM? Please answer.
No one is GM at the moment, Vei. I was Grand Master from the first day until the last day of season 3.
I know for a fact you were not GM last season on either of your accounts.
Can't say for Season 1 or 2, still pretty stupid to blatantly lie like that and don't say "I have GM MMR" because that doesn't make you a GM. I have GM MMR but I don't go around advertising that I'm GM.
I know for a fact that he WAS GM last season. What say you?
On October 27 2011 14:22 Vei wrote: Is it true you're not GM? Please answer.
No one is GM at the moment, Vei. I was Grand Master from the first day until the last day of season 3.
I know for a fact you were not GM last season on either of your accounts.
Can't say for Season 1 or 2, still pretty stupid to blatantly lie like that and don't say "I have GM MMR" because that doesn't make you a GM. I have GM MMR but I don't go around advertising that I'm GM.
Tang is a shameless self promoter/spammer who does everything he can to maximize his exposure and profits. He has so many accounts because they were getting banned from incessant spamming of the reddit/tl channels on bnet.
While I understand most of your points, Tang, I'm curious as to whether you consider a timing attack as playing "aggressively".? Or should we zergs be pressuring on top of that as well?
On October 28 2011 11:57 Temporarykid wrote: While I understand most of your points, Tang, I'm curious as to whether you consider a timing attack as playing "aggressively".? Or should we zergs be pressuring on top of that as well?
a timing attack is what zerg pressure is. a timing attack can be split up into an economic timing attack that maximizes your economy, or a calculated one, where you cut econ and attempt to overwhelm the other person with units
On October 28 2011 11:57 Temporarykid wrote: While I understand most of your points, Tang, I'm curious as to whether you consider a timing attack as playing "aggressively".? Or should we zergs be pressuring on top of that as well?
a timing attack is what zerg pressure is. a timing attack can be split up into an economic timing attack that maximizes your economy, or a calculated one, where you cut econ and attempt to overwhelm the other person with units
On October 27 2011 14:22 Vei wrote: Is it true you're not GM? Please answer.
No one is GM at the moment, Vei. I was Grand Master from the first day until the last day of season 3.
I know for a fact you were not GM last season on either of your accounts.
Can't say for Season 1 or 2, still pretty stupid to blatantly lie like that and don't say "I have GM MMR" because that doesn't make you a GM. I have GM MMR but I don't go around advertising that I'm GM.
I know for a fact that he WAS GM last season. What say you?
On October 27 2011 14:22 Vei wrote: Is it true you're not GM? Please answer.
No one is GM at the moment, Vei. I was Grand Master from the first day until the last day of season 3.
I know for a fact you were not GM last season on either of your accounts.
Can't say for Season 1 or 2, still pretty stupid to blatantly lie like that and don't say "I have GM MMR" because that doesn't make you a GM. I have GM MMR but I don't go around advertising that I'm GM.
I know for a fact that he WAS GM last season. What say you?
Tang and VPTang were not gm last season
VPTang was grand master from Day 1 until the day GM locked.
Hey, as a Macro (mid-high Master) Zerg, I chose to play a little more aggressive in my ZvTs and ZvZs lately (I'm pretty comfortable playing hardcore macro vs Protoss ) But to be honest, I can't take a lot of information of this thread. All the examples are openings (which I mostly know how to perform) and apart from that there is not a lot of concrete stuff (things like: "if you see your X opponent doing/having ~this when you have ~this, a Y switch/aggression can catch him offguard). So I wanted to ask if you have any midgame information about how to get aggressive outside of standard gameplay like mutaharass ZvT. (f.e. Roach/baneling midgame against terran, like stephano uses against a spread out macroterran, or roach/hydra play in ZvZ to hit a player that is teching)
On October 29 2011 06:14 Big J wrote: Hey, as a Macro (mid-high Master) Zerg, I chose to play a little more aggressive in my ZvTs and ZvZs lately (I'm pretty comfortable playing hardcore macro vs Protoss ) But to be honest, I can't take a lot of information of this thread. All the examples are openings (which I mostly know how to perform) and apart from that there is not a lot of concrete stuff (things like: "if you see your X opponent doing/having ~this when you have ~this, a Y switch/aggression can catch him offguard). So I wanted to ask if you have any midgame information about how to get aggressive outside of standard gameplay like mutaharass ZvT. (f.e. Roach/baneling midgame against terran, like stephano uses against a spread out macroterran, or roach/hydra play in ZvZ to hit a player that is teching)
I'm working on a ZvT thread on aggressive transitions.
On October 27 2011 14:22 Vei wrote: Is it true you're not GM? Please answer.
No one is GM at the moment, Vei. I was Grand Master from the first day until the last day of season 3.
I know for a fact you were not GM last season on either of your accounts.
Can't say for Season 1 or 2, still pretty stupid to blatantly lie like that and don't say "I have GM MMR" because that doesn't make you a GM. I have GM MMR but I don't go around advertising that I'm GM.
I know for a fact that he WAS GM last season. What say you?
Tang and VPTang were not gm last season
not only that, it is misleading to call this a grandmaster lecture when he's not even GM and there are several people in this thread that claim he paid real pros to play his account in order to push his coaching website.
On October 27 2011 14:22 Vei wrote: Is it true you're not GM? Please answer.
No one is GM at the moment, Vei. I was Grand Master from the first day until the last day of season 3.
I know for a fact you were not GM last season on either of your accounts.
Can't say for Season 1 or 2, still pretty stupid to blatantly lie like that and don't say "I have GM MMR" because that doesn't make you a GM. I have GM MMR but I don't go around advertising that I'm GM.
I know for a fact that he WAS GM last season. What say you?
Tang and VPTang were not gm last season
not only that, it is misleading to call this a grandmaster lecture when he's not even GM and there are several people in this thread that claim he paid real pros to play his account in order to push his coaching website.
People claim a lot of things. Without any proof, all it amounts to is white noise.
Besides, you're only in bronze, you've never even made it into silver league, and you paid real pros to get you into a higher a league, but they screwed you over and took your money instead. Now prove I'm wrong, or keep quiet you hypocrite.
See how easy this is? Provide proof that he's lying and/or paid pros to get him into GM, or attack the ideas in his threads. This ad-hominem bullshit has to stop.
Considering I've played so many games and I'm top 200 on both Tang and VPTang this season and also that I post my games up on my website, it's a pretty silly accusation. The replays even show builds that I've written team liquid guides on.
These guides are so blatantly dishonest. You're not a master of aggressive play; as someone who has an aggressive playstyle myself, aggressive play involves scouting weaknesses and capitalizing them through attack rather than trying to macro; these are things like constantly checking if the enemy is vulnerable to a counter attack and consistently scouting them to see if they're cutting any corners.
What you're advocating is blind cheese, such as your ling/bling allin vs a 2raxing Terran. You have no strategic or mechanical skill, you simply do allin builds that players haven't seen before or see very rarely, which works great on ladder, especially because players so often cut corners.
You're not doing any high-level play, or even playing Zerg "aggressively". Playing Zerg aggressively is abusing the speed of your units to punish mistakes; you're just doing blatant allin build orders that are easily countered. For instance, you do things like ling bling or roach ling allin players based on what you think they might be doing, whereas if they were to be playing safe or doing something else you would automatically lose.
You're trash, and whether you're grandmaster or not, it means absolutely nothing. You're conning others and writing useless guides (in fact, I believe one of your first "guides" was the usual life coaching positive mindset bullshit).
Anybody reading this guide shouldn't listen to a word of it, except to memorize build orders if you feel like executing an allin and not trying to actually improve your fundamental play.
I'm totally at a loss for words regarding the unfathomable amount of bullshit being spouted off by people who don't know Tang, have never experienced his worth as a coach, and simply make ridiculous statements based on here-say and nothing more.
Maybe the title of the thread would have benefit from not having the word Grandmaster in it, but frankly, since Tang has been GM in seasons past, its not bullshit.
Besides, whether or not someone is GM doesn't mean they are incapable of producing content for players equal to or below their level of play that benefit said players. Being in Platinum, I take input from those in my league and above. I adjust the amount of salt I also ingest based upon a number of variables but its totally possible that a fellow Plat player is capable of providing input that helps me improve my game.
You know, cause I'm not some feces-encrusted internet warrior handing out blocks of text thoroughly imbued with enough vitriol to choke a Blue whale.
If you're already familiar with the concepts discussed in the OP, good for you. Move on to your next internet abomination and stop littering TL with pages of baseless shit-talking.
On October 29 2011 06:14 Big J wrote: Hey, as a Macro (mid-high Master) Zerg, I chose to play a little more aggressive in my ZvTs and ZvZs lately (I'm pretty comfortable playing hardcore macro vs Protoss ) But to be honest, I can't take a lot of information of this thread. All the examples are openings (which I mostly know how to perform) and apart from that there is not a lot of concrete stuff (things like: "if you see your X opponent doing/having ~this when you have ~this, a Y switch/aggression can catch him offguard). So I wanted to ask if you have any midgame information about how to get aggressive outside of standard gameplay like mutaharass ZvT. (f.e. Roach/baneling midgame against terran, like stephano uses against a spread out macroterran, or roach/hydra play in ZvZ to hit a player that is teching)
I'm working on a ZvT thread on aggressive transitions.
On October 27 2011 14:22 Vei wrote: Is it true you're not GM? Please answer.
No one is GM at the moment, Vei. I was Grand Master from the first day until the last day of season 3.
I know for a fact you were not GM last season on either of your accounts.
Can't say for Season 1 or 2, still pretty stupid to blatantly lie like that and don't say "I have GM MMR" because that doesn't make you a GM. I have GM MMR but I don't go around advertising that I'm GM.
I know for a fact that he WAS GM last season. What say you?
Tang and VPTang were not gm last season
not only that, it is misleading to call this a grandmaster lecture when he's not even GM and there are several people in this thread that claim he paid real pros to play his account in order to push his coaching website.
People claim a lot of things. Without any proof, all it amounts to is white noise.
Besides, you're only in bronze, you've never even made it into silver league, and you paid real pros to get you into a higher a league, but they screwed you over and took your money instead. Now prove I'm wrong, or keep quiet you hypocrite.
See how easy this is? Provide proof that he's lying and/or paid pros to get him into GM, or attack the ideas in his threads. This ad-hominem bullshit has to stop.
You think people from the community just randomly pick someone and go say he let pros ladder on his account? The fact that people are saying it alone already means that SOMETHING has happened. There wouldn't be any rumors about it if there was no reason to think it was true.
On October 27 2011 14:22 Vei wrote: Is it true you're not GM? Please answer.
No one is GM at the moment, Vei. I was Grand Master from the first day until the last day of season 3.
I know for a fact you were not GM last season on either of your accounts.
Can't say for Season 1 or 2, still pretty stupid to blatantly lie like that and don't say "I have GM MMR" because that doesn't make you a GM. I have GM MMR but I don't go around advertising that I'm GM.
I know for a fact that he WAS GM last season. What say you?
Tang and VPTang were not gm last season
not only that, it is misleading to call this a grandmaster lecture when he's not even GM and there are several people in this thread that claim he paid real pros to play his account in order to push his coaching website.
People claim a lot of things. Without any proof, all it amounts to is white noise.
Besides, you're only in bronze, you've never even made it into silver league, and you paid real pros to get you into a higher a league, but they screwed you over and took your money instead. Now prove I'm wrong, or keep quiet you hypocrite.
See how easy this is? Provide proof that he's lying and/or paid pros to get him into GM, or attack the ideas in his threads. This ad-hominem bullshit has to stop.
You think people from the community just randomly pick someone and go say he let pros ladder on his account? The fact that people are saying it alone already means that SOMETHING has happened. There wouldn't be any rumors about it if there was no reason to think it was true.
That's the most flawed logic I've ever heard, I've been accused of getting arrested in a McDonalds parking lot for smoking pot too - so even though that never happened, according to your logic since someone accused me, it MUST be true. I'll state it again, no one has ever played on my accounts and the accusations are 100% fabricated.
On October 27 2011 14:22 Vei wrote: Is it true you're not GM? Please answer.
No one is GM at the moment, Vei. I was Grand Master from the first day until the last day of season 3.
I know for a fact you were not GM last season on either of your accounts.
Can't say for Season 1 or 2, still pretty stupid to blatantly lie like that and don't say "I have GM MMR" because that doesn't make you a GM. I have GM MMR but I don't go around advertising that I'm GM.
I know for a fact that he WAS GM last season. What say you?
Tang and VPTang were not gm last season
not only that, it is misleading to call this a grandmaster lecture when he's not even GM and there are several people in this thread that claim he paid real pros to play his account in order to push his coaching website.
People claim a lot of things. Without any proof, all it amounts to is white noise.
Besides, you're only in bronze, you've never even made it into silver league, and you paid real pros to get you into a higher a league, but they screwed you over and took your money instead. Now prove I'm wrong, or keep quiet you hypocrite.
See how easy this is? Provide proof that he's lying and/or paid pros to get him into GM, or attack the ideas in his threads. This ad-hominem bullshit has to stop.
You think people from the community just randomly pick someone and go say he let pros ladder on his account? The fact that people are saying it alone already means that SOMETHING has happened. There wouldn't be any rumors about it if there was no reason to think it was true.
That's the most flawed logic I've ever heard, I've been accused of getting arrested in a McDonalds parking lot for smoking pot too - so even though that never happened, according to your logic since someone accused me, it MUST be true. I'll state it again, no one has ever played on my accounts and the accusations are 100% fabricated.
There is a difference between real life and the SC2 community, in real life people get accused of random stuff all the time so they can get sued for money or whatever. In the sc2 community however if alot of people are saying that for instance someone let pro players ladder on his account, then it is actually very likely that there is a hint of truth in there. All I'm saying.
On October 27 2011 14:22 Vei wrote: Is it true you're not GM? Please answer.
No one is GM at the moment, Vei. I was Grand Master from the first day until the last day of season 3.
I know for a fact you were not GM last season on either of your accounts.
Can't say for Season 1 or 2, still pretty stupid to blatantly lie like that and don't say "I have GM MMR" because that doesn't make you a GM. I have GM MMR but I don't go around advertising that I'm GM.
I know for a fact that he WAS GM last season. What say you?
Tang and VPTang were not gm last season
not only that, it is misleading to call this a grandmaster lecture when he's not even GM and there are several people in this thread that claim he paid real pros to play his account in order to push his coaching website.
If you guys did a simple search on sc2ranks, that a kid in elementary school could do, you'd feel silly for saying false things
On October 27 2011 14:22 Vei wrote: Is it true you're not GM? Please answer.
No one is GM at the moment, Vei. I was Grand Master from the first day until the last day of season 3.
I know for a fact you were not GM last season on either of your accounts.
Can't say for Season 1 or 2, still pretty stupid to blatantly lie like that and don't say "I have GM MMR" because that doesn't make you a GM. I have GM MMR but I don't go around advertising that I'm GM.
I know for a fact that he WAS GM last season. What say you?
Tang and VPTang were not gm last season
not only that, it is misleading to call this a grandmaster lecture when he's not even GM and there are several people in this thread that claim he paid real pros to play his account in order to push his coaching website.
People claim a lot of things. Without any proof, all it amounts to is white noise.
Besides, you're only in bronze, you've never even made it into silver league, and you paid real pros to get you into a higher a league, but they screwed you over and took your money instead. Now prove I'm wrong, or keep quiet you hypocrite.
See how easy this is? Provide proof that he's lying and/or paid pros to get him into GM, or attack the ideas in his threads. This ad-hominem bullshit has to stop.
You think people from the community just randomly pick someone and go say he let pros ladder on his account? The fact that people are saying it alone already means that SOMETHING has happened. There wouldn't be any rumors about it if there was no reason to think it was true.
That's the most flawed logic I've ever heard, I've been accused of getting arrested in a McDonalds parking lot for smoking pot too - so even though that never happened, according to your logic since someone accused me, it MUST be true. I'll state it again, no one has ever played on my accounts and the accusations are 100% fabricated.
There is a difference between real life and the SC2 community, in real life people get accused of random stuff all the time so they can get sued for money or whatever. In the sc2 community however if alot of people are saying that for instance someone let pro players ladder on his account, then it is actually very likely that there is a hint of truth in there. All I'm saying.
On October 27 2011 14:22 Vei wrote: Is it true you're not GM? Please answer.
No one is GM at the moment, Vei. I was Grand Master from the first day until the last day of season 3.
I know for a fact you were not GM last season on either of your accounts.
Can't say for Season 1 or 2, still pretty stupid to blatantly lie like that and don't say "I have GM MMR" because that doesn't make you a GM. I have GM MMR but I don't go around advertising that I'm GM.
I know for a fact that he WAS GM last season. What say you?
Tang and VPTang were not gm last season
not only that, it is misleading to call this a grandmaster lecture when he's not even GM and there are several people in this thread that claim he paid real pros to play his account in order to push his coaching website.
People claim a lot of things. Without any proof, all it amounts to is white noise.
Besides, you're only in bronze, you've never even made it into silver league, and you paid real pros to get you into a higher a league, but they screwed you over and took your money instead. Now prove I'm wrong, or keep quiet you hypocrite.
See how easy this is? Provide proof that he's lying and/or paid pros to get him into GM, or attack the ideas in his threads. This ad-hominem bullshit has to stop.
You think people from the community just randomly pick someone and go say he let pros ladder on his account? The fact that people are saying it alone already means that SOMETHING has happened. There wouldn't be any rumors about it if there was no reason to think it was true.
Dude? were you homeschooled? cause usually by middle school or highschool we've all learned that rumors take nothing more than NOTHING to get started. Thats why they are rumors...
I can't believe I'm reading the above ... People also say Destiny is a racists and horrible father, people also say incontrol is fat, people also say that I once drowned 7 baby kittens... guess there must be something to all those too...
EDIT : The point is if you want to refute his advice, refute his advice - Tang has at some point been in grandmaster and top 200 lists. The Waterloo CSL team is full of players who could tell if Tang was bs or not, they wouldn't have intvited him to a LIVE LECTURE if they thought he was horirble, that is good enough expert confirmation for me.
Gotta stand up for my fellow Ontarians - yours to discover Biaatchs
On October 29 2011 11:19 sanddbox_sc2 wrote: These guides are so blatantly dishonest. You're not a master of aggressive play; as someone who has an aggressive playstyle myself, aggressive play involves scouting weaknesses and capitalizing them through attack rather than trying to macro; these are things like constantly checking if the enemy is vulnerable to a counter attack and consistently scouting them to see if they're cutting any corners.
What you're advocating is blind cheese, such as your ling/bling allin vs a 2raxing Terran. You have no strategic or mechanical skill, you simply do allin builds that players haven't seen before or see very rarely, which works great on ladder, especially because players so often cut corners.
You're not doing any high-level play, or even playing Zerg "aggressively". Playing Zerg aggressively is abusing the speed of your units to punish mistakes; you're just doing blatant allin build orders that are easily countered. For instance, you do things like ling bling or roach ling allin players based on what you think they might be doing, whereas if they were to be playing safe or doing something else you would automatically lose.
You're trash, and whether you're grandmaster or not, it means absolutely nothing. You're conning others and writing useless guides (in fact, I believe one of your first "guides" was the usual life coaching positive mindset bullshit).
Anybody reading this guide shouldn't listen to a word of it, except to memorize build orders if you feel like executing an allin and not trying to actually improve your fundamental play.
You're certainly entitled to your own opinion of my play style, but in actuality I very, very rarely blind all-in, in fact about 90% of my builds will have a switch point where I switch from attacking units back to drones with some sort of economic follow through and I can show so many of my games where I do damage and macro behind it and end up winning, against top master and grand master players. So unless you , you can't just say I'm advocating "blind cheese." Most of my mid-game pushes require 2-3 fully saturated bases so this is my actual "goal" with any early aggressive: to give me a chance to win the game early OR to be at an advantage when I reach the 2-3base timing attack.
I like to think of playing zerg like playin poker: there is no "correct" style. There are successful aggressive players and successful tight players. The advantages of being aggressive are that you pick up a lot of small pots (early game wins) but also, when you pick up a solid hand (macro up) you still know how to play it well. And when you play very aggressive, you'll frequently find yourself in tough, unorthodox situations - which is where experience and game sense come in. And those are the situations I love in SC2 - when neither side really knows what the "correct" response and split-second decision making determines the victor!
On October 29 2011 11:19 sanddbox_sc2 wrote: These guides are so blatantly dishonest. You're not a master of aggressive play; as someone who has an aggressive playstyle myself, aggressive play involves scouting weaknesses and capitalizing them through attack rather than trying to macro; these are things like constantly checking if the enemy is vulnerable to a counter attack and consistently scouting them to see if they're cutting any corners.
What you're advocating is blind cheese, such as your ling/bling allin vs a 2raxing Terran. You have no strategic or mechanical skill, you simply do allin builds that players haven't seen before or see very rarely, which works great on ladder, especially because players so often cut corners.
You're not doing any high-level play, or even playing Zerg "aggressively". Playing Zerg aggressively is abusing the speed of your units to punish mistakes; you're just doing blatant allin build orders that are easily countered. For instance, you do things like ling bling or roach ling allin players based on what you think they might be doing, whereas if they were to be playing safe or doing something else you would automatically lose.
You're trash, and whether you're grandmaster or not, it means absolutely nothing. You're conning others and writing useless guides (in fact, I believe one of your first "guides" was the usual life coaching positive mindset bullshit).
Anybody reading this guide shouldn't listen to a word of it, except to memorize build orders if you feel like executing an allin and not trying to actually improve your fundamental play.
You're certainly entitled to your own opinion of my play style, but in actuality I very, very rarely blind all-in, in fact about 90% of my builds will have a switch point where I switch from attacking units back to drones with some sort of economic follow through and I can show so many of my games where I do damage and macro behind it and end up winning, against top master and grand master players. So unless you , you can't just say I'm advocating "blind cheese." Most of my mid-game pushes require 2-3 fully saturated bases so this is my actual "goal" with any early aggressive: to give me a chance to win the game early OR to be at an advantage when I reach the 2-3base timing attack.
I like to think of playing zerg like playin poker: there is no "correct" style. There are successful aggressive players and successful tight players. The advantages of being aggressive are that you pick up a lot of small pots (early game wins) but also, when you pick up a solid hand (macro up) you still know how to play it well. And when you play very aggressive, you'll frequently find yourself in tough, unorthodox situations - which is where experience and game sense come in. And those are the situations I love in SC2 - when neither side really knows what the "correct" response and split-second decision making determines the victor!
You don't "very rarely" blindly allin, you always blindly allin and hope that your unskilled opponents are being greedy. You're not even grandmasters league.
On October 27 2011 14:22 Vei wrote: Is it true you're not GM? Please answer.
No one is GM at the moment, Vei. I was Grand Master from the first day until the last day of season 3.
I know for a fact you were not GM last season on either of your accounts.
Can't say for Season 1 or 2, still pretty stupid to blatantly lie like that and don't say "I have GM MMR" because that doesn't make you a GM. I have GM MMR but I don't go around advertising that I'm GM.
I know for a fact that he WAS GM last season. What say you?
Tang and VPTang were not gm last season
not only that, it is misleading to call this a grandmaster lecture when he's not even GM and there are several people in this thread that claim he paid real pros to play his account in order to push his coaching website.
People claim a lot of things. Without any proof, all it amounts to is white noise.
Besides, you're only in bronze, you've never even made it into silver league, and you paid real pros to get you into a higher a league, but they screwed you over and took your money instead. Now prove I'm wrong, or keep quiet you hypocrite.
See how easy this is? Provide proof that he's lying and/or paid pros to get him into GM, or attack the ideas in his threads. This ad-hominem bullshit has to stop.
You think people from the community just randomly pick someone and go say he let pros ladder on his account? The fact that people are saying it alone already means that SOMETHING has happened. There wouldn't be any rumors about it if there was no reason to think it was true.
Appeal to Belief is a fallacy that has this general pattern:
Most people believe that a claim, X, is true. Therefore X is true.
This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the fact that many people believe a claim does not, in general, serve as evidence that the claim is true.
Provide evidence, or stop throwing out baseless accusations.
On October 29 2011 11:19 sanddbox_sc2 wrote: These guides are so blatantly dishonest. You're not a master of aggressive play; as someone who has an aggressive playstyle myself, aggressive play involves scouting weaknesses and capitalizing them through attack rather than trying to macro; these are things like constantly checking if the enemy is vulnerable to a counter attack and consistently scouting them to see if they're cutting any corners.
What you're advocating is blind cheese, such as your ling/bling allin vs a 2raxing Terran. You have no strategic or mechanical skill, you simply do allin builds that players haven't seen before or see very rarely, which works great on ladder, especially because players so often cut corners.
You're not doing any high-level play, or even playing Zerg "aggressively". Playing Zerg aggressively is abusing the speed of your units to punish mistakes; you're just doing blatant allin build orders that are easily countered. For instance, you do things like ling bling or roach ling allin players based on what you think they might be doing, whereas if they were to be playing safe or doing something else you would automatically lose.
You're trash, and whether you're grandmaster or not, it means absolutely nothing. You're conning others and writing useless guides (in fact, I believe one of your first "guides" was the usual life coaching positive mindset bullshit).
Anybody reading this guide shouldn't listen to a word of it, except to memorize build orders if you feel like executing an allin and not trying to actually improve your fundamental play.
You're certainly entitled to your own opinion of my play style, but in actuality I very, very rarely blind all-in, in fact about 90% of my builds will have a switch point where I switch from attacking units back to drones with some sort of economic follow through and I can show so many of my games where I do damage and macro behind it and end up winning, against top master and grand master players. So unless you , you can't just say I'm advocating "blind cheese." Most of my mid-game pushes require 2-3 fully saturated bases so this is my actual "goal" with any early aggressive: to give me a chance to win the game early OR to be at an advantage when I reach the 2-3base timing attack.
I like to think of playing zerg like playin poker: there is no "correct" style. There are successful aggressive players and successful tight players. The advantages of being aggressive are that you pick up a lot of small pots (early game wins) but also, when you pick up a solid hand (macro up) you still know how to play it well. And when you play very aggressive, you'll frequently find yourself in tough, unorthodox situations - which is where experience and game sense come in. And those are the situations I love in SC2 - when neither side really knows what the "correct" response and split-second decision making determines the victor!
The difference between poker and sc2 is that you dont have to play a game of probabilities and high risks. You can actually choose between the poker "style" where you often will flip coins on all-ins, or the solid style where you win on better mechanics.
I like to avoid risks, and not win because i get a lucky "river" card or whatever. But every man to his own.
On October 29 2011 11:19 sanddbox_sc2 wrote: These guides are so blatantly dishonest. You're not a master of aggressive play; as someone who has an aggressive playstyle myself, aggressive play involves scouting weaknesses and capitalizing them through attack rather than trying to macro; these are things like constantly checking if the enemy is vulnerable to a counter attack and consistently scouting them to see if they're cutting any corners.
What you're advocating is blind cheese, such as your ling/bling allin vs a 2raxing Terran. You have no strategic or mechanical skill, you simply do allin builds that players haven't seen before or see very rarely, which works great on ladder, especially because players so often cut corners.
You're not doing any high-level play, or even playing Zerg "aggressively". Playing Zerg aggressively is abusing the speed of your units to punish mistakes; you're just doing blatant allin build orders that are easily countered. For instance, you do things like ling bling or roach ling allin players based on what you think they might be doing, whereas if they were to be playing safe or doing something else you would automatically lose.
You're trash, and whether you're grandmaster or not, it means absolutely nothing. You're conning others and writing useless guides (in fact, I believe one of your first "guides" was the usual life coaching positive mindset bullshit).
Anybody reading this guide shouldn't listen to a word of it, except to memorize build orders if you feel like executing an allin and not trying to actually improve your fundamental play.
You're certainly entitled to your own opinion of my play style, but in actuality I very, very rarely blind all-in, in fact about 90% of my builds will have a switch point where I switch from attacking units back to drones with some sort of economic follow through and I can show so many of my games where I do damage and macro behind it and end up winning, against top master and grand master players. So unless you , you can't just say I'm advocating "blind cheese." Most of my mid-game pushes require 2-3 fully saturated bases so this is my actual "goal" with any early aggressive: to give me a chance to win the game early OR to be at an advantage when I reach the 2-3base timing attack.
I like to think of playing zerg like playin poker: there is no "correct" style. There are successful aggressive players and successful tight players. The advantages of being aggressive are that you pick up a lot of small pots (early game wins) but also, when you pick up a solid hand (macro up) you still know how to play it well. And when you play very aggressive, you'll frequently find yourself in tough, unorthodox situations - which is where experience and game sense come in. And those are the situations I love in SC2 - when neither side really knows what the "correct" response and split-second decision making determines the victor!
The difference between poker and sc2 is that you dont have to play a game of probabilities and high risks. You can actually choose between the poker "style" where you often will flip coins on all-ins, or the solid style where you win on better mechanics.
I like to avoid risks, and not win because i get a lucky "river" card or whatever. But every man to his own.
Just because you play macro doesn't mean you aren't taking risks. In fact, I feel most comfortable when I'm playing my hyper aggressive style I feel like it's when I'm droning that I'm taking the risk. There's so many ways of approaching that game that you're right, it really "to each their own" but I would disagree when you say playing aggressive is risky or lucky.
You're not good and you cheese every game. How can anyone think that you are good? You're also BM which is funny because you put up this facade that you are kind and nice. Sick one base baneling bust bro. I thought you said you rarely do blind all ins?
On October 29 2011 11:19 sanddbox_sc2 wrote: These guides are so blatantly dishonest. You're not a master of aggressive play; as someone who has an aggressive playstyle myself, aggressive play involves scouting weaknesses and capitalizing them through attack rather than trying to macro; these are things like constantly checking if the enemy is vulnerable to a counter attack and consistently scouting them to see if they're cutting any corners.
What you're advocating is blind cheese, such as your ling/bling allin vs a 2raxing Terran. You have no strategic or mechanical skill, you simply do allin builds that players haven't seen before or see very rarely, which works great on ladder, especially because players so often cut corners.
You're not doing any high-level play, or even playing Zerg "aggressively". Playing Zerg aggressively is abusing the speed of your units to punish mistakes; you're just doing blatant allin build orders that are easily countered. For instance, you do things like ling bling or roach ling allin players based on what you think they might be doing, whereas if they were to be playing safe or doing something else you would automatically lose.
You're trash, and whether you're grandmaster or not, it means absolutely nothing. You're conning others and writing useless guides (in fact, I believe one of your first "guides" was the usual life coaching positive mindset bullshit).
Anybody reading this guide shouldn't listen to a word of it, except to memorize build orders if you feel like executing an allin and not trying to actually improve your fundamental play.
You're certainly entitled to your own opinion of my play style, but in actuality I very, very rarely blind all-in, in fact about 90% of my builds will have a switch point where I switch from attacking units back to drones with some sort of economic follow through and I can show so many of my games where I do damage and macro behind it and end up winning, against top master and grand master players. So unless you , you can't just say I'm advocating "blind cheese." Most of my mid-game pushes require 2-3 fully saturated bases so this is my actual "goal" with any early aggressive: to give me a chance to win the game early OR to be at an advantage when I reach the 2-3base timing attack.
I like to think of playing zerg like playin poker: there is no "correct" style. There are successful aggressive players and successful tight players. The advantages of being aggressive are that you pick up a lot of small pots (early game wins) but also, when you pick up a solid hand (macro up) you still know how to play it well. And when you play very aggressive, you'll frequently find yourself in tough, unorthodox situations - which is where experience and game sense come in. And those are the situations I love in SC2 - when neither side really knows what the "correct" response and split-second decision making determines the victor!
The difference between poker and sc2 is that you dont have to play a game of probabilities and high risks. You can actually choose between the poker "style" where you often will flip coins on all-ins, or the solid style where you win on better mechanics.
I like to avoid risks, and not win because i get a lucky "river" card or whatever. But every man to his own.
Just because you play macro doesn't mean you aren't taking risks. In fact, I feel most comfortable when I'm playing my hyper aggressive style I feel like it's when I'm droning that I'm taking the risk. There's so many ways of approaching that game that you're right, it really "to each their own" but I would disagree when you say playing aggressive is risky or lucky.
There is smart aggression, like the kinds of counterattacking and constant prodding that DRG does, and dumb, coin-flip aggression, which is what you do. In Starcraft 2, allins are very effective against a player not at the top of their game, especially during ladder, when it's essentially a bo1 (and therefore you have no chance to establish how skilled your opponent is beforehand).
A true "aggressive" ZvT style would involve frequent counterattacks and timing attacks, but never blind allins. Indeed, an aggressive style can include allins, such as how JulyZerg plays, but these allins need to be calculated, not completely blind, and they must be on multiple bases to have the greatest chance of success (for example, a 6gate is a lot scarier than a 4gate and offers more of a fallback).
If you'd like, I'd be glad to play a showmatch against you simply to demonstrate how poorly you understand the game. (Disclaimer: Winning showmatches doesn't prove a point, this is purely to illustrate what a poor player Tang is).
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.
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?
A sanddbox_sc2 vs TangSC show match would be amazing. It would be a great way for Tang to show off his aggressive style in a more competitive environment (a series of games vs the same opponent rather than a single ladder game).
You're not good and you cheese every game. How can anyone think that you are good? You're also BM which is funny because you put up this facade that you are kind and nice. Sick one base baneling bust bro. I thought you said you rarely do blind all ins? ]
You're not good and you cheese every game. How can anyone think that you are good? You're also BM which is funny because you put up this facade that you are kind and nice. Sick one base baneling bust bro. I thought you said you rarely do blind all ins? ]
Doing 1 baneling bust = "cheese every game"
Yeah thats the only baneling bust you've ever done.
I wanted to post in a decent thread for my 1500th post, and I came across this.
As someone who used to routinely hang out in Tang's BNet Channel, I really enjoyed this video, and as a player who enjoys the Aggressive Zerg Playstyle, I support this thread.
On October 27 2011 14:22 Vei wrote: Is it true you're not GM? Please answer.
No one is GM at the moment, Vei. I was Grand Master from the first day until the last day of season 3.
I know for a fact you were not GM last season on either of your accounts.
Can't say for Season 1 or 2, still pretty stupid to blatantly lie like that and don't say "I have GM MMR" because that doesn't make you a GM. I have GM MMR but I don't go around advertising that I'm GM.
I know for a fact that he WAS GM last season. What say you?
Tang and VPTang were not gm last season
not only that, it is misleading to call this a grandmaster lecture when he's not even GM and there are several people in this thread that claim he paid real pros to play his account in order to push his coaching website.
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.
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?
...and can someone explain to me why we're talking shit about Tang? I see this as some campus event he happened to have a video of and thought it would be nice to share it with TL. No idea how Tang being cocky or bad at sc2 came into this.
people probably talking shit about Tang, because this aggressive build that Tang calls is actually all in plays that extremely risky sure it will get u to master... but will it make you a pro? no.
I use some of Tang's provided build myself in game, but none of them are actually Macro oriented and if those early pressure doesnt work you are most likely dead against good players. Nothing against Tang, i loved the lecture, but I do not believe this is the way to go about playing sc2. Im just another typical guy who thinks game should last at least 30 mins for nice long macro game. Because in macro game the true skill reveals, not in early all in games.
On November 02 2011 01:42 Haustka wrote: people probably talking shit about Tang, because this aggressive build that Tang calls is actually all in plays that extremely risky sure it will get u to master... but will it make you a pro? no.
I use some of Tang's provided build myself in game, but none of them are actually Macro oriented and if those early pressure doesnt work you are most likely dead against good players. Nothing against Tang, i loved the lecture, but I do not believe this is the way to go about playing sc2. Im just another typical guy who thinks game should last at least 30 mins for nice long macro game. Because in macro game the true skill reveals, not in early all in games.
I think you're right in that the 1base bane bust against toss/terran is fairly all-in, but the trick is to do it in situations where it'll be hard for your opponent to defend (Hence a responsive all-in versus a blind cheese) However, not all aggressive builds are like this - if you check out my newest post on ZvT ( http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=280526 ) you'll see the roach/ling actually has some really powerful transitions and almost never puts you in a terrible spot. I've beat some of the top pros with these builds so you can't really say it's "most likely dead" against good players. Just remember if you're going to play aggressive to have very precise switch-points and planned transitions and timing attacks in the mid-late game. This is what makes the difference between just making master with hyper-aggression and hitting the top of the master division / grand master. I rarely do an attack and think "damn I'm dead", I usually do some measure of damage and move into the mid-game with either a slight lead or a slight disadvantage (which could easily happen playing macro).
yeah, its actually great that you do most of your early pressure with very precise timing and calculated moves. Then fall bak and go macro oriented.
ive been working on those type of early aggression myself and have a lot of success as well, but at the same time i also find myself hard to stop keep all ining. I guess thats where experience comes in and amount of time u put into the game.
We're shit talking about Tang because he's a complete douche bag. He is the most BM player I have ever met on bnet (and I'm far from the only one saying this as you can see in this thread), and I think it's absolutely ridiculous that he puts up this smart nice guy facade when he's actually a premiere ass hole.
He also DOES all in every single game. Especially baneling busts. It's kind of a joke.
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.
On November 02 2011 03:12 Legion710 wrote: We're shit talking about Tang because he's a complete douche bag. He is the most BM player I have ever met on bnet (and I'm far from the only one saying this as you can see in this thread), and I think it's absolutely ridiculous that he puts up this smart nice guy facade when he's actually a premiere ass hole.
He also DOES all in every single game. Especially baneling busts. It's kind of a joke.
I do like my baneling busts, but it's certainly not my preference. Also, I'm only BM to people who are rude to me first. I'm probably the only guy on Bnet who says "gl hf, have a good game" at the start of every game. I highly recommend people treat their opponents with utmost respect, that's how you learn and find practice partners. And no, I don't all-in every single game. There are quite a few macro games uploaded on my website. If it were possible/reasonable to all-in every game and get to grand master, I'd probably do it - it's simply not possible you HAVE to have followthrough to your aggression and solid macro mechanics.
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.
On October 29 2011 11:19 sanddbox_sc2 wrote: These guides are so blatantly dishonest. You're not a master of aggressive play; as someone who has an aggressive playstyle myself, aggressive play involves scouting weaknesses and capitalizing them through attack rather than trying to macro; these are things like constantly checking if the enemy is vulnerable to a counter attack and consistently scouting them to see if they're cutting any corners.
What you're advocating is blind cheese, such as your ling/bling allin vs a 2raxing Terran. You have no strategic or mechanical skill, you simply do allin builds that players haven't seen before or see very rarely, which works great on ladder, especially because players so often cut corners.
You're not doing any high-level play, or even playing Zerg "aggressively". Playing Zerg aggressively is abusing the speed of your units to punish mistakes; you're just doing blatant allin build orders that are easily countered. For instance, you do things like ling bling or roach ling allin players based on what you think they might be doing, whereas if they were to be playing safe or doing something else you would automatically lose.
You're trash, and whether you're grandmaster or not, it means absolutely nothing. You're conning others and writing useless guides (in fact, I believe one of your first "guides" was the usual life coaching positive mindset bullshit).
Anybody reading this guide shouldn't listen to a word of it, except to memorize build orders if you feel like executing an allin and not trying to actually improve your fundamental play.
You're certainly entitled to your own opinion of my play style, but in actuality I very, very rarely blind all-in, in fact about 90% of my builds will have a switch point where I switch from attacking units back to drones with some sort of economic follow through and I can show so many of my games where I do damage and macro behind it and end up winning, against top master and grand master players. So unless you , you can't just say I'm advocating "blind cheese." Most of my mid-game pushes require 2-3 fully saturated bases so this is my actual "goal" with any early aggressive: to give me a chance to win the game early OR to be at an advantage when I reach the 2-3base timing attack.
I like to think of playing zerg like playin poker: there is no "correct" style. There are successful aggressive players and successful tight players. The advantages of being aggressive are that you pick up a lot of small pots (early game wins) but also, when you pick up a solid hand (macro up) you still know how to play it well. And when you play very aggressive, you'll frequently find yourself in tough, unorthodox situations - which is where experience and game sense come in. And those are the situations I love in SC2 - when neither side really knows what the "correct" response and split-second decision making determines the victor!
The difference between poker and sc2 is that you dont have to play a game of probabilities and high risks. You can actually choose between the poker "style" where you often will flip coins on all-ins, or the solid style where you win on better mechanics.
I like to avoid risks, and not win because i get a lucky "river" card or whatever. But every man to his own.
Just because you play macro doesn't mean you aren't taking risks. In fact, I feel most comfortable when I'm playing my hyper aggressive style I feel like it's when I'm droning that I'm taking the risk. There's so many ways of approaching that game that you're right, it really "to each their own" but I would disagree when you say playing aggressive is risky or lucky.
True, there is a difference between being a greedy macro player and a solid macro player. A solid macro player understands how to play safe, and how to drone correctly. This requires a lot of practice however, and its probably easier (in the short/medium term) to just be the agressive player and not have to learn to play safe. However long term ish, this style wont work, as the solid macro player has learned how to defeat every single one of your allins. However obivously playing perfect solid macro game is difficult as hard and most people aren't near that skill cap yet.
But believe me, every time you skip drones to get an attacking force, your taking risks in a similar way as the guy who overdrones.
I personally think that it is a nice write up Tang. Most of the people in here talking shit are the ones that lose to it and get mad, I am assuming. I don't give a shit if someone wrote up an entire article on how to cheese (which many people have). It's still a way to play the game, and a win is a win. Deal with it fags.
On November 02 2011 03:39 EmerTehFreek wrote: I personally think that it is a nice write up Tang. Most of the people in here talking shit are the ones that lose to it and get mad, I am assuming. I don't give a shit if someone wrote up an entire article on how to cheese (which many people have). It's still a way to play the game, and a win is a win. Deal with it fags.
User was warned for this post
Ummm...you're missing the point. No one would care if he wrote "Tangs guide to Cheese". People are mad cause hes pretending its not cheese, and well thought out/flexible build orders. He's doing THIS so he can find students to "coach" (Con) out of money
No need for anyone to get mad at him for teaching people how to cheese. The world needs preschool teachers too folks. BUT big boys plAY with big boyS and cheesers either look extremely dumb or very lucky vs actual skilled players so if thats the kinda rise they are searching for, let them give themselves little rises with a 10min win :D
On November 02 2011 03:12 Legion710 wrote: We're shit talking about Tang because he's a complete douche bag. He is the most BM player I have ever met on bnet (and I'm far from the only one saying this as you can see in this thread), and I think it's absolutely ridiculous that he puts up this smart nice guy facade when he's actually a premiere ass hole.
He also DOES all in every single game. Especially baneling busts. It's kind of a joke.
I'm pretty sure you've already out bm-ed him with this post
On November 02 2011 03:39 EmerTehFreek wrote: I personally think that it is a nice write up Tang. Most of the people in here talking shit are the ones that lose to it and get mad, I am assuming. I don't give a shit if someone wrote up an entire article on how to cheese (which many people have). It's still a way to play the game, and a win is a win. Deal with it fags.
User was warned for this post
Ummm...you're missing the point. No one would care if he wrote "Tangs guide to Cheese". People are mad cause hes pretending its not cheese, and well thought out/flexible build orders. He's doing THIS so he can find students to "coach" (Con) out of money
There is no way you can reasonably claim he is swindling money out of some poor victims. If people sign up for a lesson from Tang, then they're signing up for a lesson on how to play Tang-style zerg. Same deal if you sign up for a lesson with Idra, you'd expect a lesson on how to play Idra-style zerg.
From what I gather in this thread, you're at least twice as obnoxious as I've ever seen Tang be.
On November 02 2011 03:39 EmerTehFreek wrote: I personally think that it is a nice write up Tang. Most of the people in here talking shit are the ones that lose to it and get mad, I am assuming. I don't give a shit if someone wrote up an entire article on how to cheese (which many people have). It's still a way to play the game, and a win is a win. Deal with it fags.
User was warned for this post
Ummm...you're missing the point. No one would care if he wrote "Tangs guide to Cheese". People are mad cause hes pretending its not cheese, and well thought out/flexible build orders. He's doing THIS so he can find students to "coach" (Con) out of money
There is no way you can reasonably claim he is swindling money out of some poor victims. If people sign up for a lesson from Tang, then they're signing up for a lesson on how to play Tang-style zerg. Same deal if you sign up for a lesson with Idra, you'd expect a lesson on how to play Idra-style zerg.
From what I gather in this thread, you're at least twice as obnoxious as I've ever seen Tang be.
no, they're signing up for lessons from a "Grandmaster" zerg when in fact Tang has a sketchy past and has not shown grandmaster understanding of the game, much less play.
Don't worry guys, i have a nice counter lecture in the works to this guide: building 3 bunkers. It'll be a lecture running approximately 5 minutes in length.
All-ins are fine on ladder for getting "ladder points," not for actually improving at the game though. So i'd assume this guide is on just getting some ladder points, with essentially the same end purpose of a guide "to 6 pooling." With roach all-ins, baneling allins, you'll every now and then beat someone way better than yourself, but you're sorta gimping your own learning curve in the process to get an imaginary 10 points on ladder that boosts your ego.
On November 02 2011 03:39 EmerTehFreek wrote: I personally think that it is a nice write up Tang. Most of the people in here talking shit are the ones that lose to it and get mad, I am assuming. I don't give a shit if someone wrote up an entire article on how to cheese (which many people have). It's still a way to play the game, and a win is a win. Deal with it fags.
User was warned for this post
Ummm...you're missing the point. No one would care if he wrote "Tangs guide to Cheese". People are mad cause hes pretending its not cheese, and well thought out/flexible build orders. He's doing THIS so he can find students to "coach" (Con) out of money
There is no way you can reasonably claim he is swindling money out of some poor victims. If people sign up for a lesson from Tang, then they're signing up for a lesson on how to play Tang-style zerg. Same deal if you sign up for a lesson with Idra, you'd expect a lesson on how to play Idra-style zerg.
From what I gather in this thread, you're at least twice as obnoxious as I've ever seen Tang be.
no, they're signing up for lessons from a "Grandmaster" zerg when in fact Tang has a sketchy past and has not shown grandmaster understanding of the game, much less play.
I have yet to see him in GM I dont know why he posts that in every article topic. The amount of threads are a little obnoxious, interesting write-ups, but they all seem the same. I think he is getting a lot of negative attention because this is the same thing we saw with CombatEX back in broodwar, it may come across as a guide for lowbies but it looks like a thread to just boast and brag (or like stated above find 'students'). Regardless they are interesting to read, I just wish he would combine them all into one thread instead of making a dozen of them ~.~
On November 02 2011 03:39 EmerTehFreek wrote: I personally think that it is a nice write up Tang. Most of the people in here talking shit are the ones that lose to it and get mad, I am assuming. I don't give a shit if someone wrote up an entire article on how to cheese (which many people have). It's still a way to play the game, and a win is a win. Deal with it fags.
User was warned for this post
Ummm...you're missing the point. No one would care if he wrote "Tangs guide to Cheese". People are mad cause hes pretending its not cheese, and well thought out/flexible build orders. He's doing THIS so he can find students to "coach" (Con) out of money
There is no way you can reasonably claim he is swindling money out of some poor victims. If people sign up for a lesson from Tang, then they're signing up for a lesson on how to play Tang-style zerg. Same deal if you sign up for a lesson with Idra, you'd expect a lesson on how to play Idra-style zerg.
From what I gather in this thread, you're at least twice as obnoxious as I've ever seen Tang be.
He didn't write Tang's guide to Tang style play. He wrote Tang's guide to aggressive zerg play, and is using these topics to promote his coaching while putting up the facade that he is actually skilled at this game.
Him being bad mannered, the rumors about him being laddered up by pros, etc...they mean absolutely nothing in this argument. What does matter is that he's trying to profit off of the ignorance of others, and abusing the term "aggressive zerg play" because people think it's some sort of unique and innovative idea. His play would more properly be called "blindly aggressive zerg play", "senselessly aggressive zerg play", or even "low level zerg play".
Following his guides will only make you a strategically worse player. He has nothing of value to add to knowledge of the game or the community as a whole.
On November 02 2011 03:12 Legion710 wrote: We're shit talking about Tang because he's a complete douche bag. He is the most BM player I have ever met on bnet (and I'm far from the only one saying this as you can see in this thread), and I think it's absolutely ridiculous that he puts up this smart nice guy facade when he's actually a premiere ass hole.
He also DOES all in every single game. Especially baneling busts. It's kind of a joke.
And I'm sure that before he starts getting rude with you guys, you're all rainbows and buttercups.
My intuition tells me that a guy who loves all-in early aggression doesn't earn a whole lot of "gg"s.
On November 02 2011 06:58 avilo wrote: Don't worry guys, i have a nice counter lecture in the works to this guide: building 3 bunkers. It'll be a lecture running approximately 5 minutes in length.
All-ins are fine on ladder for getting "ladder points," not for actually improving at the game though. So i'd assume this guide is on just getting some ladder points, with essentially the same end purpose of a guide "to 6 pooling." With roach all-ins, baneling allins, you'll every now and then beat someone way better than yourself, but you're sorta gimping your own learning curve in the process to get an imaginary 10 points on ladder that boosts your ego.
Pretty much this. But I think its good for every player to know how to all in every once in a while.
On November 02 2011 03:39 EmerTehFreek wrote: I personally think that it is a nice write up Tang. Most of the people in here talking shit are the ones that lose to it and get mad, I am assuming. I don't give a shit if someone wrote up an entire article on how to cheese (which many people have). It's still a way to play the game, and a win is a win. Deal with it fags.
User was warned for this post
This was a perfectly fine post and opinion until the last line, lol.
On November 02 2011 06:58 avilo wrote: Don't worry guys, i have a nice counter lecture in the works to this guide: building 3 bunkers. It'll be a lecture running approximately 5 minutes in length.
All-ins are fine on ladder for getting "ladder points," not for actually improving at the game though. So i'd assume this guide is on just getting some ladder points, with essentially the same end purpose of a guide "to 6 pooling." With roach all-ins, baneling allins, you'll every now and then beat someone way better than yourself, but you're sorta gimping your own learning curve in the process to get an imaginary 10 points on ladder that boosts your ego.
Pretty much this. But I think its good for every player to know how to all in every once in a while.
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.
On November 02 2011 06:58 avilo wrote: Don't worry guys, i have a nice counter lecture in the works to this guide: building 3 bunkers. It'll be a lecture running approximately 5 minutes in length.
All-ins are fine on ladder for getting "ladder points," not for actually improving at the game though. So i'd assume this guide is on just getting some ladder points, with essentially the same end purpose of a guide "to 6 pooling." With roach all-ins, baneling allins, you'll every now and then beat someone way better than yourself, but you're sorta gimping your own learning curve in the process to get an imaginary 10 points on ladder that boosts your ego.
Pretty much this. But I think its good for every player to know how to all in every once in a while.
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.
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.
So, is there a reason why an aggressive style would be preferred when the current game suggests that the absolute strongest Z style is highly macro-oriented? (see: NesTea)
On November 02 2011 06:58 avilo wrote: Don't worry guys, i have a nice counter lecture in the works to this guide: building 3 bunkers. It'll be a lecture running approximately 5 minutes in length.
All-ins are fine on ladder for getting "ladder points," not for actually improving at the game though. So i'd assume this guide is on just getting some ladder points, with essentially the same end purpose of a guide "to 6 pooling." With roach all-ins, baneling allins, you'll every now and then beat someone way better than yourself, but you're sorta gimping your own learning curve in the process to get an imaginary 10 points on ladder that boosts your ego.
Pretty much this. But I think its good for every player to know how to all in every once in a while.
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.
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.
This is probably my biggest problem in ZvP. I don't actually push or harass enough, and I just let them max out. If I actually did shit like bling drops, then I would probably be able to get to diamond. ZvT, you just can't be really aggressive with anything besides mutas. Everything else is too easy to stop without even watching.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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).
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!
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!
On November 02 2011 06:58 avilo wrote: Don't worry guys, i have a nice counter lecture in the works to this guide: building 3 bunkers. It'll be a lecture running approximately 5 minutes in length.
All-ins are fine on ladder for getting "ladder points," not for actually improving at the game though. So i'd assume this guide is on just getting some ladder points, with essentially the same end purpose of a guide "to 6 pooling." With roach all-ins, baneling allins, you'll every now and then beat someone way better than yourself, but you're sorta gimping your own learning curve in the process to get an imaginary 10 points on ladder that boosts your ego.
Pretty much this. But I think its good for every player to know how to all in every once in a while.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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 01:55 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 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
Not seeing him anywhere. If he did make it to GM today all that says to me is that that Sc2's meta is still at the point where people can all in their way to the top. Its all very depressing.
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.
Not seeing him anywhere. If he did make it to GM today all that says to me is that that Sc2's meta is still at the point where people can all in their way to the top. Its all very depressing.
Did you even read this thread? You obviously didn't... The thread is about not all-inning lol
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.
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 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 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 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!
Thanks for the guide. This is incredibly helpful to me. I've recently changed my passive macro style to somewhat aggressive timing attack to force opponent to respond wrongly. Like vT, pushing with around 10 roach at 8 min mark (which is safe for me because I often lose to reactor hellions anyways) to force him to think I'm going mass roach which he could likely to respond with marauder. Then if the first timing doesnt out right kill or dmg him, I follow up with mass ling off three base, I only morph blings if I scout a standard mass marine/tank/medivac push, in which I go standard ling/bling/muta play. Another important aspect of this is that terran has scans which for whatever reason only scan in main base for tech or just outside natural where most zerg rallies his units. NO, I deny him information by placing my army in obscure places(able to defend drops of course.
Aggressive zerg can be quite powerful early and late game. Its the mid game that we are forced to be passive to get our economy up. Mid game timings are just not as powerful for zerg as it is for terran or protoss.
I don't understand why everyone is so mad at Tang. He is showing us how to punish players which is a good thing for lower league players to understand, even though if you cheese to punish.
I myself improved my play using this style. So I thank you Tang for showing me a different side of Zerg.
On November 04 2011 10:45 Rivkeh wrote: I'd be really happy to see non-muta aggression become a tool in Z's toolbox making a scarier race and adding to the depth of play, way to be TangSC.
Don't forget about muta aggression though! You can always transition from the roach/ling to 4gas 2base muta
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.
People don't do that because it's a boring and shitty way to play this game. Only if you had some financial interest like scamming bad players out of some extra money or really put that much of a premium on the icon in your profile would you do this.
I got to high master by doing lame cheeses before I took the time to really try and improve. After 5-10 games of it it just wears on you doing the exact same build every game to every player. Ever since I stopped some months ago I've gotten much better at this game.
Unfortunately for me, all my old practice partners who just played standard and legit the entire time are competing at MLGs and trying to go pro, whereas I'm just another random mid master player (GM on SEA, but that's not a real server).
You could probably be a great player if you put the time you spend promoting yourself and cheesing into actually learning how to lay standard macro games. Instead, you continually try to forward this persona of "hey I'm the greatest and I cheese pros, pay me money and I'll reveal my secrets to you, a lowly silver player."
I can't wait to see you make it back to GM though, as I'm sure you will. Interspersed between two long streaks of cheesey all-ins will be 20-30 epic macro games of unquestionable skill. And I'm sure we won't get any replays of them.
Also don't send me 4 PMs me asking me to be nice to you when you shit on everything that this forum stands for in helping players improve by advocating your cheesy style and trying to pass it off as high level play. If you don't like being criticized for your actions, then change your actions.
People don't do that because it's a boring and shitty way to play this game. Only if you had some financial interest like scamming bad players out of some extra money or really put that much of a premium on the icon in your profile would you do this.
I got to high master by doing lame cheeses before I took the time to really try and improve. After 5-10 games of it it just wears on you doing the exact same build every game to every player. Ever since I stopped some months ago I've gotten much better at this game.
Unfortunately for me, all my old practice partners who just played standard and legit the entire time are competing at MLGs and trying to go pro, whereas I'm just another random mid master player (GM on SEA, but that's not a real server).
You could probably be a great player if you put the time you spend promoting yourself and cheesing into actually learning how to lay standard macro games. Instead, you continually try to forward this persona of "hey I'm the greatest and I cheese pros, pay me money and I'll reveal my secrets to you, a lowly silver player."
I can't wait to see you make it back to GM though, as I'm sure you will. Interspersed between two long streaks of cheesey all-ins will be 20-30 epic macro games of unquestionable skill. And I'm sure we won't get any replays of them.
Also don't send me 4 PMs me asking me to be nice to you when you shit on everything that this forum stands for in helping players improve by advocating your cheesy style and trying to pass it off as high level play. If you don't like being criticized for your actions, then change your actions.
I've received an incredibly positive response from the majority of the SC2 community and I know my efforts to help people improve will not be appreciated by everyone, but that's perfectly fine. I love what I do and I thoroughly enjoy my play style so comments like yours truly don't phase me. If you took the time to constructively contribute and help improve the quality of my guides and posts, I'd happily consider your suggestions. Your criticism, however, is filled with spite and does not help anyone. I wish you'd put your time into helping out the community by doing a lecture or writing TL threads rather than spreading such negativity.
People don't do that because it's a boring and shitty way to play this game. Only if you had some financial interest like scamming bad players out of some extra money or really put that much of a premium on the icon in your profile would you do this.
I got to high master by doing lame cheeses before I took the time to really try and improve. After 5-10 games of it it just wears on you doing the exact same build every game to every player. Ever since I stopped some months ago I've gotten much better at this game.
Unfortunately for me, all my old practice partners who just played standard and legit the entire time are competing at MLGs and trying to go pro, whereas I'm just another random mid master player (GM on SEA, but that's not a real server).
You could probably be a great player if you put the time you spend promoting yourself and cheesing into actually learning how to lay standard macro games. Instead, you continually try to forward this persona of "hey I'm the greatest and I cheese pros, pay me money and I'll reveal my secrets to you, a lowly silver player."
I can't wait to see you make it back to GM though, as I'm sure you will. Interspersed between two long streaks of cheesey all-ins will be 20-30 epic macro games of unquestionable skill. And I'm sure we won't get any replays of them.
Also don't send me 4 PMs me asking me to be nice to you when you shit on everything that this forum stands for in helping players improve by advocating your cheesy style and trying to pass it off as high level play. If you don't like being criticized for your actions, then change your actions.
I've received an incredibly positive response from the majority of the SC2 community and I know my efforts to help people improve will not be appreciated by everyone, but that's perfectly fine. I love what I do and I thoroughly enjoy my play style so comments like yours truly don't phase me. If you took the time to constructively contribute and help improve the quality of my guides and posts, I'd happily consider your suggestions. Your criticism, however, is filled with spite and does not help anyone. I wish you'd put your time into helping out the community by doing a lecture or writing TL threads rather than spreading such negativity.
You're delusional. The only positive response is from noobs that find that allins increase their winrate (no way!) and from your delusional ego congratulating yourself for swindling dozens of bad players.
None of your play is without risk, and none of it shows skill. You execute various highly-effective allins because ladder is a best of one format. It's very easy to lose to someone who 6 pools every game, but very hard to lose a best of five against them once you figure out how unskilled of a player they are.
You're no different. If you want to show your skill, play a showmatch versus someone, instead of making pretty-looking but otherwise useless guides to try to promote your website/stream/coaching. You haven't even attempted to strategically defend any aspect of your play, you've simply been saying "lots of people who are bad at this game find me helpful and why are you meanies still picking on me?". You have no intellectual honesty; you're here to profit, or at the very least to stroke your own ego.
Both of these posts go in depth on the teaching part of SC2.
The post on a positive mindset has barely anything to do with starcraft but it's a great post for any one who wants to learn how to play the game nonetheless. The post on an effective opening build describes what I believe is a popular (used to be popular?) opening for zerg. In the end, the whole post has very little to do with the build itself and highlights the thinking required for learning any new build.
I'm only a gold player, so I can't comment on Tang's play, except by saying that he's better than I am.
I can comment, just from looking at both of these posts, that he's a good teacher. I can tell from both of these posts that he knows how to explain things in a way that allows someone to walk away having learned something they can apply later. Both of these posts, after I read them, made me a better player. This lecture is the same way.
For some reason, Tang is getting hell from some self appointed people who believe he's doing something wrong by adding onto his posts links to more of him. He streams and he's just letting you know. He coaches and he's just letting you know. After putting in the effort and time to make posts like these, it's fair to give him a few lines to promote even more things he does for the community.
One last thing as well. I got some coaching from Tang. It was very informative in that it taught me about starcraft 2 and, more importantly, it gave me tools that I could use to practice better than I could before.
Not sure why Tang is getting so much rap for teaching aggressive/cheesy play?
First off, cheese is the best way to learn. I flogged around for a bit in bronze league when I first started playing, then I discoved that you could actually just build a spawning pool at 6 supply. Once that got accomplished, I used that as a stepping stone to gold league by learning how to multitask/macro by building only 6 lings at the start and trying to keep them alive as long as possible. I went from bronze scrub to diamond scrub in 100 games. Obviously not record breaking, but something to consider. Why would anyone below plat, or hell even diamond, even attempt to do complicated stuff when they can't do simple stuff like cheese? You have to start with the easy stuff or you're NEVER going to learn the hard stuff.
Oh, and EVERY progamer knows some cheese of some sort. Even IdrA. Cheese is part of the game, deal with it. If you refuse to ever cheese, you're worse off than the people who do cheese every game. So unless you see July posting in the threads about how to do aggressive play, I'd suggest everyone stfu and give this guy a chance.
On November 06 2011 16:50 Inters wrote: Not sure why Tang is getting so much rap for teaching aggressive/cheesy play?
First off, cheese is the best way to learn. I flogged around for a bit in bronze league when I first started playing, then I discoved that you could actually just build a spawning pool at 6 supply. Once that got accomplished, I used that as a stepping stone to gold league by learning how to multitask/macro by building only 6 lings at the start and trying to keep them alive as long as possible. I went from bronze scrub to diamond scrub in 100 games. Obviously not record breaking, but something to consider. Why would anyone below plat, or hell even diamond, even attempt to do complicated stuff when they can't do simple stuff like cheese? You have to start with the easy stuff or you're NEVER going to learn the hard stuff.
Oh, and EVERY progamer knows some cheese of some sort. Even IdrA. Cheese is part of the game, deal with it. If you refuse to ever cheese, you're worse off than the people who do cheese every game. So unless you see July posting in the threads about how to do aggressive play, I'd suggest everyone stfu and give this guy a chance.
Lol no, just no.
You say you got to diamond by using cheese as a basis?
I guarantee you a person that got to diamond (like myself) using macro and proper mechanics as a basis would beat you in a best of X every single time. Cheese is not an efficient way to learn at all.
On November 06 2011 16:50 Inters wrote: Not sure why Tang is getting so much rap for teaching aggressive/cheesy play?
First off, cheese is the best way to learn. I flogged around for a bit in bronze league when I first started playing, then I discoved that you could actually just build a spawning pool at 6 supply. Once that got accomplished, I used that as a stepping stone to gold league by learning how to multitask/macro by building only 6 lings at the start and trying to keep them alive as long as possible. I went from bronze scrub to diamond scrub in 100 games. Obviously not record breaking, but something to consider. Why would anyone below plat, or hell even diamond, even attempt to do complicated stuff when they can't do simple stuff like cheese? You have to start with the easy stuff or you're NEVER going to learn the hard stuff.
Oh, and EVERY progamer knows some cheese of some sort. Even IdrA. Cheese is part of the game, deal with it. If you refuse to ever cheese, you're worse off than the people who do cheese every game. So unless you see July posting in the threads about how to do aggressive play, I'd suggest everyone stfu and give this guy a chance.
Lol no, just no.
You say you got to diamond by using cheese as a basis?
I guarantee you a person that got to diamond (like myself) using macro and proper mechanics as a basis would beat you in a best of X every single time. Cheese is not an efficient way to learn at all.
K but this guide assumes you already have pretty decent mechanics. You'd think the title 'Grandmasters' infers this isn't a guide for bronzies to get to diamond.
Just because IdrA only knows how to drone and max to 200/200 before doing anything doesn't mean it's the only viable way to play zerg. Aggressive zerg is definitely viable and we see so much of that from top korean players like Losira and DRG.
First off, cheese is the best way to learn. I flogged around for a bit in bronze league when I first started playing, then I discoved that you could actually just build a spawning pool at 6 supply. Once that got accomplished, I used that as a stepping stone to gold league by learning how to multitask/macro by building only 6 lings at the start and trying to keep them alive as long as possible. I went from bronze scrub to diamond scrub in 100 games. Obviously not record breaking, but something to consider. Why would anyone below plat, or hell even diamond, even attempt to do complicated stuff when they can't do simple stuff like cheese? You have to start with the easy stuff or you're NEVER going to learn the hard stuff.
While different people learn in different ways, I think you make a great point. Lower-level players do not have the mechanics and fundamentals to macro efficiently off 3-5 bases and control maxed out armies with a varied unit composition. Therefore, their play really shouldn't be designed to squeeze out small economic leads. In fact, I would argue that players should first learn to macro a 1-base style perfectly before moving on to 2 base, and then 2 base before three, etc. There's no reason a gold level player needs to have 80 drones, they should be focusing on 1-2base timing attacks that will help improve their multitasking and mechanics much faster than an enormous economy. For players looking to learn, focus on timing out your early game precisely and executing standard 1-2 base timing attacks. If you can't execute an effective 4gate, 10pool, 3racks stim rush, etc, how do you expect to grasp more advanced play? Besides, I can safely say that the vast majority of SC2 games end after a 1 to 2base timing attack, and it's a strong way to play and improve.
First off, cheese is the best way to learn. I flogged around for a bit in bronze league when I first started playing, then I discoved that you could actually just build a spawning pool at 6 supply. Once that got accomplished, I used that as a stepping stone to gold league by learning how to multitask/macro by building only 6 lings at the start and trying to keep them alive as long as possible. I went from bronze scrub to diamond scrub in 100 games. Obviously not record breaking, but something to consider. Why would anyone below plat, or hell even diamond, even attempt to do complicated stuff when they can't do simple stuff like cheese? You have to start with the easy stuff or you're NEVER going to learn the hard stuff.
While different people learn in different ways, I think you make a great point. Lower-level players do not have the mechanics and fundamentals to macro efficiently off 3-5 bases and control maxed out armies with a varied unit composition. Therefore, their play really shouldn't be designed to squeeze out small economic leads. In fact, I would argue that players should first learn to macro a 1-base style perfectly before moving on to 2 base, and then 2 base before three, etc. There's no reason a gold level player needs to have 80 drones, they should be focusing on 1-2base timing attacks that will help improve their multitasking and mechanics much faster than an enormous economy. For players looking to learn, focus on timing out your early game precisely and executing standard 1-2 base timing attacks. If you can't execute an effective 4gate, 10pool, 3racks stim rush, etc, how do you expect to grasp more advanced play? Besides, I can safely say that the vast majority of SC2 games end after a 1 to 2base timing attack, and it's a strong way to play and improve.
Yeah after thinking about this issue at length, you're right on the money. I had been writing in threads to "macro better", but then I reflected on how I learned the game and it was in mastering 1 base timings. Then I eventually learned when to drop the 2nd base and worked to master 2 base timings. Its' kind of a weird point to understand as someone who is already a good player, but if you think back to where you were at one time, it may shed some light on how you can advise others.
People don't do that because it's a boring and shitty way to play this game. Only if you had some financial interest like scamming bad players out of some extra money or really put that much of a premium on the icon in your profile would you do this.
I got to high master by doing lame cheeses before I took the time to really try and improve. After 5-10 games of it it just wears on you doing the exact same build every game to every player. Ever since I stopped some months ago I've gotten much better at this game.
Unfortunately for me, all my old practice partners who just played standard and legit the entire time are competing at MLGs and trying to go pro, whereas I'm just another random mid master player (GM on SEA, but that's not a real server).
You could probably be a great player if you put the time you spend promoting yourself and cheesing into actually learning how to lay standard macro games. Instead, you continually try to forward this persona of "hey I'm the greatest and I cheese pros, pay me money and I'll reveal my secrets to you, a lowly silver player."
I can't wait to see you make it back to GM though, as I'm sure you will. Interspersed between two long streaks of cheesey all-ins will be 20-30 epic macro games of unquestionable skill. And I'm sure we won't get any replays of them.
Also don't send me 4 PMs me asking me to be nice to you when you shit on everything that this forum stands for in helping players improve by advocating your cheesy style and trying to pass it off as high level play. If you don't like being criticized for your actions, then change your actions.
I've received an incredibly positive response from the majority of the SC2 community and I know my efforts to help people improve will not be appreciated by everyone, but that's perfectly fine. I love what I do and I thoroughly enjoy my play style so comments like yours truly don't phase me. If you took the time to constructively contribute and help improve the quality of my guides and posts, I'd happily consider your suggestions. Your criticism, however, is filled with spite and does not help anyone. I wish you'd put your time into helping out the community by doing a lecture or writing TL threads rather than spreading such negativity.
The post on a positive mindset has barely anything to do with starcraft but it's a great post for any one who wants to learn how to play the game nonetheless.
That thread didn't even draw any research from the entire field of performance psychology, one of the most highly relevant fields to Starcraft 2.
On November 06 2011 13:56 Marokeas wrote:
The post on an effective opening build describes what I believe is a popular (used to be popular?) opening for zerg. In the end, the whole post has very little to do with the build itself and highlights the thinking required for learning any new build.
A decent guide for the lower-level players among us, even if a bit obvious. Probably the only one of his guides that could help anybody, even if it does so in a very small way.
On November 06 2011 13:56 Marokeas wrote: I'm only a gold player, so I can't comment on Tang's play, except by saying that he's better than I am.
Skill is actually irrelevant to a strategy discussion; but if we want to go that route, I'm better than Tang is, and I say his play is awful. Also, you're perfectly allowed to comment on his play, just as even bronze leaguers can criticize Idra for losing mutalisks carelessly or attacking at a bad time.
On November 06 2011 13:56 Marokeas wrote: He streams and he's just letting you know. He coaches and he's just letting you know.
He's not just letting us know, he's trying to profit, and writing poor guides that appeal to bad players to promote these profitable endeavors of his.
On November 06 2011 16:50 Inters wrote:
Oh, and EVERY progamer knows some cheese of some sort. Even IdrA. Cheese is part of the game, deal with it. If you refuse to ever cheese, you're worse off than the people who do cheese every game.
Knowing cheese is different than executing cheese every game; more importantly, this isn't advertised as a guide for cheese, but for "aggressive zerg play". Also, it's much better to never cheese than to always cheese.
On November 06 2011 16:50 Inters wrote: So unless you see July posting in the threads about how to do aggressive play, I'd suggest everyone stfu and give this guy a chance.
Once again, skill is irrelevant if you understand the game, which you obviously don't. If skill is so important to you, I'll gladly play you.
On November 06 2011 16:50 Inters wrote: Not sure why Tang is getting so much rap for teaching aggressive/cheesy play?
First off, cheese is the best way to learn. I flogged around for a bit in bronze league when I first started playing, then I discoved that you could actually just build a spawning pool at 6 supply. Once that got accomplished, I used that as a stepping stone to gold league by learning how to multitask/macro by building only 6 lings at the start and trying to keep them alive as long as possible. I went from bronze scrub to diamond scrub in 100 games. Obviously not record breaking, but something to consider. Why would anyone below plat, or hell even diamond, even attempt to do complicated stuff when they can't do simple stuff like cheese? You have to start with the easy stuff or you're NEVER going to learn the hard stuff.
Oh, and EVERY progamer knows some cheese of some sort. Even IdrA. Cheese is part of the game, deal with it. If you refuse to ever cheese, you're worse off than the people who do cheese every game. So unless you see July posting in the threads about how to do aggressive play, I'd suggest everyone stfu and give this guy a chance.
Lol no, just no.
You say you got to diamond by using cheese as a basis?
I guarantee you a person that got to diamond (like myself) using macro and proper mechanics as a basis would beat you in a best of X every single time. Cheese is not an efficient way to learn at all.
Yes it is, because you have to start at the bottom to understand every step of the game. You use a macro build and make a barracks on X timing because of what? Cheese defense.
So a good way to learn is to cheese until someone beats it, then you see their build and you do the next build that defeats that build and use it until it too is defeated, until you just work yourself up into a macro based aggressive build or whatever.
People who blindly just copy macro builds because pros do it are missing all the information up the the point of that build. All the pros have that knowledge from giving and receiving cheese in order to refine these builds to the usually good builds that they are.
On November 06 2011 16:50 Inters wrote: Not sure why Tang is getting so much rap for teaching aggressive/cheesy play?
First off, cheese is the best way to learn. I flogged around for a bit in bronze league when I first started playing, then I discoved that you could actually just build a spawning pool at 6 supply. Once that got accomplished, I used that as a stepping stone to gold league by learning how to multitask/macro by building only 6 lings at the start and trying to keep them alive as long as possible. I went from bronze scrub to diamond scrub in 100 games. Obviously not record breaking, but something to consider. Why would anyone below plat, or hell even diamond, even attempt to do complicated stuff when they can't do simple stuff like cheese? You have to start with the easy stuff or you're NEVER going to learn the hard stuff.
Oh, and EVERY progamer knows some cheese of some sort. Even IdrA. Cheese is part of the game, deal with it. If you refuse to ever cheese, you're worse off than the people who do cheese every game. So unless you see July posting in the threads about how to do aggressive play, I'd suggest everyone stfu and give this guy a chance.
Lol no, just no.
You say you got to diamond by using cheese as a basis?
I guarantee you a person that got to diamond (like myself) using macro and proper mechanics as a basis would beat you in a best of X every single time. Cheese is not an efficient way to learn at all.
Yes it is, because you have to start at the bottom to understand every step of the game. You use a macro build and make a barracks on X timing because of what? Cheese defense.
So a good way to learn is to cheese until someone beats it, then you see their build and you do the next build that defeats that build and use it until it too is defeated, until you just work yourself up into a macro based aggressive build or whatever.
People who blindly just copy macro builds because pros do it are missing all the information up the the point of that build. All the pros have that knowledge from giving and receiving cheese in order to refine these builds to the usually good builds that they are.
There's nothing wrong with executing a macro build poorly; as you work on your weaknesses, your macro will improve. Having poor macro is a very poor excuse for not trying to improve your macro.
For example, when I started in Gold league, I was under the impression that the way to play zerg was to drone and then make army when the enemy pushed out. It turns out that if the enemy pushes out at 10 minutes, one or two rounds of units won't save you. Furthermore, the way that drone saturation works (diminishing returns past 16 and no returns past 24 on minerals) means that it's desirable to produce units instead of drones when you have enough, regardless of whether an attack is immediately coming.
The more I played, the better my creep spread, injects, upgrade timings, micro, etc improved. The first 100 or so games I barely spread any creep at all; for a long time, I also never got upgrades (including roach speed, even when I went roach hydra against...Terran).
The point is that even if you're bad, you can still play a macro style - you'll just be bad at it, which is okay, because your goal is to improve.
On November 06 2011 16:50 Inters wrote: Not sure why Tang is getting so much rap for teaching aggressive/cheesy play?
First off, cheese is the best way to learn. I flogged around for a bit in bronze league when I first started playing, then I discoved that you could actually just build a spawning pool at 6 supply. Once that got accomplished, I used that as a stepping stone to gold league by learning how to multitask/macro by building only 6 lings at the start and trying to keep them alive as long as possible. I went from bronze scrub to diamond scrub in 100 games. Obviously not record breaking, but something to consider. Why would anyone below plat, or hell even diamond, even attempt to do complicated stuff when they can't do simple stuff like cheese? You have to start with the easy stuff or you're NEVER going to learn the hard stuff.
Oh, and EVERY progamer knows some cheese of some sort. Even IdrA. Cheese is part of the game, deal with it. If you refuse to ever cheese, you're worse off than the people who do cheese every game. So unless you see July posting in the threads about how to do aggressive play, I'd suggest everyone stfu and give this guy a chance.
Lol no, just no.
You say you got to diamond by using cheese as a basis?
I guarantee you a person that got to diamond (like myself) using macro and proper mechanics as a basis would beat you in a best of X every single time. Cheese is not an efficient way to learn at all.
Yes it is, because you have to start at the bottom to understand every step of the game. You use a macro build and make a barracks on X timing because of what? Cheese defense.
So a good way to learn is to cheese until someone beats it, then you see their build and you do the next build that defeats that build and use it until it too is defeated, until you just work yourself up into a macro based aggressive build or whatever.
People who blindly just copy macro builds because pros do it are missing all the information up the the point of that build. All the pros have that knowledge from giving and receiving cheese in order to refine these builds to the usually good builds that they are.
There's nothing wrong with executing a macro build poorly; as you work on your weaknesses, your macro will improve. Having poor macro is a very poor excuse for not trying to improve your macro.
For example, when I started in Gold league, I was under the impression that the way to play zerg was to drone and then make army when the enemy pushed out. It turns out that if the enemy pushes out at 10 minutes, one or two rounds of units won't save you. Furthermore, the way that drone saturation works (diminishing returns past 16 and no returns past 24 on minerals) means that it's desirable to produce units instead of drones when you have enough, regardless of whether an attack is immediately coming.
The more I played, the better my creep spread, injects, upgrade timings, micro, etc improved. The first 100 or so games I barely spread any creep at all; for a long time, I also never got upgrades (including roach speed, even when I went roach hydra against...Terran).
The point is that even if you're bad, you can still play a macro style - you'll just be bad at it, which is okay, because your goal is to improve.
If you don't practice the game from the ground up, then you will have bad unit decisions and poorer unit control.
On November 07 2011 18:42 SpoR wrote:If you don't practice the game from the ground up, then you will have bad unit decisions and poorer unit control.
At the same time if you focus on macroing yourself to Masters then you'll have a much broader understanding of the mid- and lategame. But I agree that if I was able to redo the journey from Bronze to Masters I would've gone for a 1 base all in from Bronze to Gold. 2 base all in from Gold to Diamond and then started working on more longterm builds. The problem is hardly anyone is able to have such a long term plan of how to reach Masters. People tend to find a play style they like and stick to it through the entire ranking system.
People don't do that because it's a boring and shitty way to play this game. Only if you had some financial interest like scamming bad players out of some extra money or really put that much of a premium on the icon in your profile would you do this.
I got to high master by doing lame cheeses before I took the time to really try and improve. After 5-10 games of it it just wears on you doing the exact same build every game to every player. Ever since I stopped some months ago I've gotten much better at this game.
Unfortunately for me, all my old practice partners who just played standard and legit the entire time are competing at MLGs and trying to go pro, whereas I'm just another random mid master player (GM on SEA, but that's not a real server).
You could probably be a great player if you put the time you spend promoting yourself and cheesing into actually learning how to lay standard macro games. Instead, you continually try to forward this persona of "hey I'm the greatest and I cheese pros, pay me money and I'll reveal my secrets to you, a lowly silver player."
I can't wait to see you make it back to GM though, as I'm sure you will. Interspersed between two long streaks of cheesey all-ins will be 20-30 epic macro games of unquestionable skill. And I'm sure we won't get any replays of them.
Also don't send me 4 PMs me asking me to be nice to you when you shit on everything that this forum stands for in helping players improve by advocating your cheesy style and trying to pass it off as high level play. If you don't like being criticized for your actions, then change your actions.
I've received an incredibly positive response from the majority of the SC2 community and I know my efforts to help people improve will not be appreciated by everyone, but that's perfectly fine. I love what I do and I thoroughly enjoy my play style so comments like yours truly don't phase me. If you took the time to constructively contribute and help improve the quality of my guides and posts, I'd happily consider your suggestions. Your criticism, however, is filled with spite and does not help anyone. I wish you'd put your time into helping out the community by doing a lecture or writing TL threads rather than spreading such negativity.
On November 06 2011 16:50 Inters wrote: Not sure why Tang is getting so much rap for teaching aggressive/cheesy play?
First off, cheese is the best way to learn. I flogged around for a bit in bronze league when I first started playing, then I discoved that you could actually just build a spawning pool at 6 supply. Once that got accomplished, I used that as a stepping stone to gold league by learning how to multitask/macro by building only 6 lings at the start and trying to keep them alive as long as possible. I went from bronze scrub to diamond scrub in 100 games. Obviously not record breaking, but something to consider. Why would anyone below plat, or hell even diamond, even attempt to do complicated stuff when they can't do simple stuff like cheese? You have to start with the easy stuff or you're NEVER going to learn the hard stuff.
Oh, and EVERY progamer knows some cheese of some sort. Even IdrA. Cheese is part of the game, deal with it. If you refuse to ever cheese, you're worse off than the people who do cheese every game. So unless you see July posting in the threads about how to do aggressive play, I'd suggest everyone stfu and give this guy a chance.
Lol no, just no.
You say you got to diamond by using cheese as a basis?
I guarantee you a person that got to diamond (like myself) using macro and proper mechanics as a basis would beat you in a best of X every single time. Cheese is not an efficient way to learn at all.
Yes it is, because you have to start at the bottom to understand every step of the game. You use a macro build and make a barracks on X timing because of what? Cheese defense.
So a good way to learn is to cheese until someone beats it, then you see their build and you do the next build that defeats that build and use it until it too is defeated, until you just work yourself up into a macro based aggressive build or whatever.
People who blindly just copy macro builds because pros do it are missing all the information up the the point of that build. All the pros have that knowledge from giving and receiving cheese in order to refine these builds to the usually good builds that they are.
There's nothing wrong with executing a macro build poorly; as you work on your weaknesses, your macro will improve. Having poor macro is a very poor excuse for not trying to improve your macro.
The point is that even if you're bad, you can still play a macro style - you'll just be bad at it, which is okay, because your goal is to improve.
You make some good points Sandbox, and I agree to an extent. Obviously those who want to play a macro style will benefit from practicing macro and so it makes sense to play macro. However, I think a lot of players misunderstand and think macro zerg is the ONLY way to play zerg and that's the misconception I'm looking to abolish. I think players watch idra and ret drone up to 80, and get really frustrated when they play very greedy and get killed by cheese, all-in timing attacks, harassment, etc. Then, once they finally get to a maxed out army, their opponent rolls them over with a 150food colossus/stalker/sentry army. Macro zerg has its benefits, but for the bronze-platinum level players, playing aggressive is the way to improve and have fun along the way. AND my point in saying that I'm a grand master zerg is that even though aggression is a way to improve, it is also a style that can take you to the top. I'm not Nestea and there are numerous flaws and gaps in my play, but to say I blind-cheesed my way to GM is inaccurate because I've played most of the top NA players multiple times.
On November 06 2011 16:50 Inters wrote: Not sure why Tang is getting so much rap for teaching aggressive/cheesy play?
First off, cheese is the best way to learn. I flogged around for a bit in bronze league when I first started playing, then I discoved that you could actually just build a spawning pool at 6 supply. Once that got accomplished, I used that as a stepping stone to gold league by learning how to multitask/macro by building only 6 lings at the start and trying to keep them alive as long as possible. I went from bronze scrub to diamond scrub in 100 games. Obviously not record breaking, but something to consider. Why would anyone below plat, or hell even diamond, even attempt to do complicated stuff when they can't do simple stuff like cheese? You have to start with the easy stuff or you're NEVER going to learn the hard stuff.
Oh, and EVERY progamer knows some cheese of some sort. Even IdrA. Cheese is part of the game, deal with it. If you refuse to ever cheese, you're worse off than the people who do cheese every game. So unless you see July posting in the threads about how to do aggressive play, I'd suggest everyone stfu and give this guy a chance.
Lol no, just no.
You say you got to diamond by using cheese as a basis?
I guarantee you a person that got to diamond (like myself) using macro and proper mechanics as a basis would beat you in a best of X every single time. Cheese is not an efficient way to learn at all.
Yes it is, because you have to start at the bottom to understand every step of the game. You use a macro build and make a barracks on X timing because of what? Cheese defense.
So a good way to learn is to cheese until someone beats it, then you see their build and you do the next build that defeats that build and use it until it too is defeated, until you just work yourself up into a macro based aggressive build or whatever.
People who blindly just copy macro builds because pros do it are missing all the information up the the point of that build. All the pros have that knowledge from giving and receiving cheese in order to refine these builds to the usually good builds that they are.
There's nothing wrong with executing a macro build poorly; as you work on your weaknesses, your macro will improve. Having poor macro is a very poor excuse for not trying to improve your macro.
The point is that even if you're bad, you can still play a macro style - you'll just be bad at it, which is okay, because your goal is to improve.
You make some good points Sandbox, and I agree to an extent. Obviously those who want to play a macro style will benefit from practicing macro and so it makes sense to play macro. However, I think a lot of players misunderstand and think macro zerg is the ONLY way to play zerg and that's the misconception I'm looking to abolish. I think players watch idra and ret drone up to 80, and get really frustrated when they play very greedy and get killed by cheese, all-in timing attacks, harassment, etc. Then, once they finally get to a maxed out army, their opponent rolls them over with a 150food colossus/stalker/sentry army. Macro zerg has its benefits, but for the bronze-platinum level players, playing aggressive is the way to improve and have fun along the way. AND my point in saying that I'm a grand master zerg is that even though aggression is a way to improve, it is also a style that can take you to the top. I'm not Nestea and there are numerous flaws and gaps in my play, but to say I blind-cheesed my way to GM is inaccurate because I've played most of the top NA players multiple times.
You actually just summed up the reason why there are fewer zergs in lower leagues, as well as why there are more bad zergs in lower leagues.
On November 06 2011 13:56 Marokeas wrote: I'm only a gold player, so I can't comment on Tang's play, except by saying that he's better than I am.
Skill is actually irrelevant to a strategy discussion; but if we want to go that route, I'm better than Tang is, and I say his play is awful. Also, you're perfectly allowed to comment on his play, just as even bronze leaguers can criticize Idra for losing mutalisks carelessly or attacking at a bad time.
Am I the only one who wants to see this go to a best of 7?
On November 06 2011 13:56 Marokeas wrote: I'm only a gold player, so I can't comment on Tang's play, except by saying that he's better than I am.
Skill is actually irrelevant to a strategy discussion; but if we want to go that route, I'm better than Tang is, and I say his play is awful. Also, you're perfectly allowed to comment on his play, just as even bronze leaguers can criticize Idra for losing mutalisks carelessly or attacking at a bad time.
Am I the only one who wants to see this go to a best of 7?
Not saying I'm better than sandbox or anything but we're at least comparable, my points are higher! Once I get my stream operational, I'd probably play a respectful show match with someone of equal or greater skill than me.
On October 23 2011 07:14 solidbebe wrote: No offense to this guy, but I really get the idea you're putting out all these guides just for bragging, your previous guides were both about old builds that everyone knew already and that you decided would make a good excuse to make a thread, and this 'guide'. What does it say besides that zerg should be aggressive ( which has been a seconday style for a long time too, and on which alot of guides have been reading such as Axa's start the aggression guide ), that you're a grandmasters player and a few aggressive builds that are already pretty known and some of which are used by pro's ( like your roach ling attack vs terran, sen just did that a few times at blizzcon vs MVP and select, people could just load up some replays from sen and learn them themselves).
I agree furthermore these are just ling all ins beating players who cut corners (like skipping banes.)
On October 23 2011 07:14 solidbebe wrote: No offense to this guy, but I really get the idea you're putting out all these guides just for bragging, your previous guides were both about old builds that everyone knew already and that you decided would make a good excuse to make a thread, and this 'guide'. What does it say besides that zerg should be aggressive ( which has been a seconday style for a long time too, and on which alot of guides have been reading such as Axa's start the aggression guide ), that you're a grandmasters player and a few aggressive builds that are already pretty known and some of which are used by pro's ( like your roach ling attack vs terran, sen just did that a few times at blizzcon vs MVP and select, people could just load up some replays from sen and learn them themselves).
I agree furthermore these are just ling all ins beating players who cut corners (like skipping banes.)
Untrue, my builds perform well against defensive players as long as your execution is strong. Please review the replays and note the amount of times my opponents open defensive banelings/spine and still lose to constant ling aggression.
On October 23 2011 07:14 solidbebe wrote: No offense to this guy, but I really get the idea you're putting out all these guides just for bragging, your previous guides were both about old builds that everyone knew already and that you decided would make a good excuse to make a thread, and this 'guide'. What does it say besides that zerg should be aggressive ( which has been a seconday style for a long time too, and on which alot of guides have been reading such as Axa's start the aggression guide ), that you're a grandmasters player and a few aggressive builds that are already pretty known and some of which are used by pro's ( like your roach ling attack vs terran, sen just did that a few times at blizzcon vs MVP and select, people could just load up some replays from sen and learn them themselves).
I agree furthermore these are just ling all ins beating players who cut corners (like skipping banes.)
Untrue, my builds perform well against defensive players as long as your execution is strong.
I agree with Ralethon and solidbebe on this one. If people want to watch standard aggression play they could just load up some replays from pro players and learn themselves. This thread could have been dead a couple weeks ago, all I am seeing now i you bumping it with posts bragging about yourself.
On October 23 2011 07:14 solidbebe wrote: No offense to this guy, but I really get the idea you're putting out all these guides just for bragging, your previous guides were both about old builds that everyone knew already and that you decided would make a good excuse to make a thread, and this 'guide'. What does it say besides that zerg should be aggressive ( which has been a seconday style for a long time too, and on which alot of guides have been reading such as Axa's start the aggression guide ), that you're a grandmasters player and a few aggressive builds that are already pretty known and some of which are used by pro's ( like your roach ling attack vs terran, sen just did that a few times at blizzcon vs MVP and select, people could just load up some replays from sen and learn them themselves).
I agree furthermore these are just ling all ins beating players who cut corners (like skipping banes.)
Untrue, my builds perform well against defensive players as long as your execution is strong.
I agree with Ralethon and solidbebe on this one. If people want to watch standard aggression play they could just load up some replays from pro players and learn themselves. This thread could have been dead a couple weeks ago, all I am seeing now i you bumping it with posts bragging about yourself.
I don't agree, watching pro games is not the best way to learn SC2 for lower level players.
On October 23 2011 07:14 solidbebe wrote: No offense to this guy, but I really get the idea you're putting out all these guides just for bragging, your previous guides were both about old builds that everyone knew already and that you decided would make a good excuse to make a thread, and this 'guide'. What does it say besides that zerg should be aggressive ( which has been a seconday style for a long time too, and on which alot of guides have been reading such as Axa's start the aggression guide ), that you're a grandmasters player and a few aggressive builds that are already pretty known and some of which are used by pro's ( like your roach ling attack vs terran, sen just did that a few times at blizzcon vs MVP and select, people could just load up some replays from sen and learn them themselves).
I agree furthermore these are just ling all ins beating players who cut corners (like skipping banes.)
Untrue, my builds perform well against defensive players as long as your execution is strong.
I agree with Ralethon and solidbebe on this one. If people want to watch standard aggression play they could just load up some replays from pro players and learn themselves. This thread could have been dead a couple weeks ago, all I am seeing now i you bumping it with posts bragging about yourself.
I don't agree, watching pro games is not the best way to learn SC2 for lower level players.
Speak for yourself, I've learned more about zerg watching Nestea and Losira then I have reading about how to break bunkers with banelings, or mass zerglings.
What I mean is I don't think it's ideal for players who can't macro 4-5 bases to have the mindset that they have to play a late-game zerg. It's better to work from the bottom up, 1base timings attacks, 2 base timing attacks, etc.
On November 10 2011 03:59 TangSC wrote: What I mean is I don't think it's ideal for players who can't macro 4-5 bases to have the mindset that they have to play a late-game zerg. It's better to work from the bottom up, 1base timings attacks, 2 base timing attacks, etc.
If all they do is 1 base all ins, 2 base all ins they won't improve at all that way because if it fails they are guaranteed to lose... It is better in the long run for that lower level player to learn how to macro rather then do 1 base ling bane all in every game or 2 base make 3 drones and then all in. That will not help them at all except in the micro portion of the early game.
On November 10 2011 03:59 TangSC wrote: What I mean is I don't think it's ideal for players who can't macro 4-5 bases to have the mindset that they have to play a late-game zerg. It's better to work from the bottom up, 1base timings attacks, 2 base timing attacks, etc.
If all they do is 1 base all ins, 2 base all ins they won't improve at all that way because if it fails they are guaranteed to lose... It is better in the long run for that lower level player to learn how to macro rather then do 1 base ling bane all in every game or 2 base make 3 drones and then all in. That will not help them at all except in the micro portion of the early game.
I understand that point of view, but I disagree. I think timing attacks with X units with Y upgrades at Z time in the game is the way to improve timings, multitasking, micro, and macro. It's not that every game has to be an all-in, in fact I almost always encourage 2-3 separate well-planned timing attacks to add structure to your play.
while my style is very different in the sense that I prefer a "silent pressure" macro oriented zerg, I think for everyone who is saying that you're just all-inning, that's somewhat true. It's all in, in the sense that if it fails, you lose. But in the sense that it is a "bad" move or a choice that will make you lose because people can hard counter it, they're missing the point. You're executing that all-in based on a read. Talk to anyone on slayers, their game revolves around timing attacks and all-ins.
I know we've had our disagreements before, and I think it is somewhat shameless how much you promote yourself, but I think you should have some defense against everyone's imo unwarrented criticism of your contributions, which show a very different side of zerg play.
In another light, tang is the anti-idra. Or the style Idra used to play which revolved purely on macro. But even then, people complained that Idra's style was bad in the sense that it shouldn't work if the opponent scouts well and all-ins him...or that he was open to just die to blind all-ins. Similarly, Tang's style will lose to someone who perfectly scouts him and he'll lose to people who blind counter whatever style he's going for. But, that isn't to say the way he's approaching the game is without merit. It's a style just like macro. It requires scouting, reacting, good mechanics, and proper decision making- which includes calculated risks. (just like anytime zerg makes drones over units)
So yeah, I use his style, but I think everyone is just reacting more to the somewhat shameless self promotion. However, I don't think that should detract from the content of the post. Or rather blind people to the content.
On November 16 2011 18:48 Aletheia27 wrote: while my style is very different in the sense that I prefer a "silent pressure" macro oriented zerg, I think for everyone who is saying that you're just all-inning, that's somewhat true. It's all in, in the sense that if it fails, you lose. But in the sense that it is a "bad" move or a choice that will make you lose because people can hard counter it, they're missing the point. You're executing that all-in based on a read. Talk to anyone on slayers, their game revolves around timing attacks and all-ins.
I know we've had our disagreements before, and I think it is somewhat shameless how much you promote yourself, but I think you should have some defense against everyone's imo unwarrented criticism of your contributions, which show a very different side of zerg play.
In another light, tang is the anti-idra. Or the style Idra used to play which revolved purely on macro. But even then, people complained that Idra's style was bad in the sense that it shouldn't work if the opponent scouts well and all-ins him...or that he was open to just die to blind all-ins. Similarly, Tang's style will lose to someone who perfectly scouts him and he'll lose to people who blind counter whatever style he's going for. But, that isn't to say the way he's approaching the game is without merit. It's a style just like macro. It requires scouting, reacting, good mechanics, and proper decision making- which includes calculated risks. (just like anytime zerg makes drones over units)
So yeah, I use his style, but I think everyone is just reacting more to the somewhat shameless self promotion. However, I don't think that should detract from the content of the post. Or rather blind people to the content.
This post is completely wrong. All inning blindly and doing a timing attack based off scouting is two completely different things. Most of the people hating on Tang are doing so because he blind all ins more often than not. Not only that, but he spams chat channels and markets himself as a GM when he clearly isn't.
Slayers players do builds to snipe their opponents in a tournament setting. They do them because they either know the other players weakness or its something they wouldn't expect. Tang all ins on ladder against random opponents, hence "coin flipping."
Lastly, Tang is not the anit-idra. Idra doesn't coin flip. If you watch Idra's stream, he tries to play as safe as possible because he hates losing to cheese. The opposite to Tang would be someone who just blindly expands and drones all day without scouting. From what I've seen, Tang's builds only revolve around blind timings and getting lucky.
Why is this thread still up? I just assumed it was closed. It is a blatant advertisement for his coaching and website, without paying teamliquid.
Ironically he disses the other guy talking about being GM. He is NOT GRANDMASTER nor even close. There was also a rumor he paid someone to level his account, doesn't matter because he couldn't sustain it. Because he plays a limited style he really rips off terran and protoss players (I am a coach and have heard from new students who received Tangs coaching).
All this "lecture" is -was you casting a replay where you ling/roach busted someone. You could just watch some DarkForce replays to see crisp timings or other aggressive zergs, but you chose to host your own. And no this is not a troll nor do I have particular beef with Tang, but part of me doesn't like to know a coach taking advantage of people is out there.
On November 16 2011 23:30 JediGamer wrote: Why is this thread still up? I just assumed it was closed. It is a blatant advertisement for his coaching and website, without paying teamliquid.
Ironically he disses the other guy talking about being GM. He is NOT GRANDMASTER nor even close. There was also a rumor he paid someone to level his account, doesn't matter because he couldn't sustain it. Because he plays a limited style he really rips off terran and protoss players (I am a coach and have heard from new students who received Tangs coaching).
All this "lecture" is -was you casting a replay where you ling/roach busted someone. You could just watch some DarkForce replays to see crisp timings or other aggressive zergs, but you chose to host your own. And no this is not a troll nor do I have particular beef with Tang, but part of me doesn't like to know a coach taking advantage of people is out there.
I've made grandmaster twice and I'm confident in my skills as a player and as a coach.
ur not gm, just using it to advertise your crap, same as u spam every fucking public room in the battlenet. god im getting so angry on ppl like you. bregging with wrong information etc
On November 17 2011 01:16 Bad_Habit wrote: ur not gm, just using it to advertise your crap, same as u spam every fucking public room in the battlenet. god im getting so angry on ppl like you. bregging with wrong information etc
I don't spam, I contribute - if I'm posting something in a chat channel, I stand by it - I'm likely promoting a video or article that will benefit a lot of players who are looking to improve.
I'm curious to what you have contributed. Everytime you "contribute" something it is directly linked to your pay-for-coaching site. And yes I realize this thread being bumped will help you and I don't mind. But your not even close to GM level if you were, you would be GM this season I'm assuming.
How about a link to one of your zerg lessons. I'd really like to see what you actually do within a lesson, I hear you tell your students not to record so IMO it seems like your hiding something, whereas incontrol and destiny and desrow sometimes stream lessons, you avoid it. It is pretty tell-tale imo you are taking advantage of people.
Does teamliquid realize within the first 5 seconds of that video some guys just says "nigger". Quote from video "you can be assured I'll be grandmaster season 4 even though i got dropped season 3". It is season 4, no GM.
I made season 4 GM for a day, then they reset without telling anyone ^_^ but I'm over it, and like I said, very confident in my skills as a player and coach. My stream now has 2 coaching vods you can check out.
Yes, there was an error where random masters players made GM at the start of season 4. All of my accounts got in, later on, only 2 were left. They only removed non-gm level accounts.
Yes that's what I heard too - I just wish they said "Hey guys, we made a mistake - in 2 days we're going to remove players with lower MMR and open up grand master again." A lot of players didn't know they were removed until it was too late.
You weren't going to get in either way. The slots were for people like TT1, idra, etc. The people who were near GM rating got in. People with barely even records who weren't close got removed. Its grandmaster league, top 200. Not top 600-1000.
On November 16 2011 23:30 JediGamer wrote: Why is this thread still up? I just assumed it was closed. It is a blatant advertisement for his coaching and website, without paying teamliquid.
Ironically he disses the other guy talking about being GM. He is NOT GRANDMASTER nor even close. There was also a rumor he paid someone to level his account, doesn't matter because he couldn't sustain it. Because he plays a limited style he really rips off terran and protoss players (I am a coach and have heard from new students who received Tangs coaching).
All this "lecture" is -was you casting a replay where you ling/roach busted someone. You could just watch some DarkForce replays to see crisp timings or other aggressive zergs, but you chose to host your own. And no this is not a troll nor do I have particular beef with Tang, but part of me doesn't like to know a coach taking advantage of people is out there.
This is almost as BM as you were to me when you lost while off-racing on a smurf account...
In all seriousness, though, I don't see what you're trying to do here. Tang is describing some aggressive Zerg play, doing his best to help lower league Zergs get easier wins in quick games. I honestly think playing aggressively and macro-intensive are both good ways to improve your game. I don't see what's wrong with Tang linking to his site from a guide. Sure, there are other ways for someone to learn about Zerg timings (e.g. watching Darkforce), but this doesn't mean that Tang shouldn't be allowed to write his own guide. It just seems like you are hating for the sake of hating, and trying to sell yourself as a superior "coach". But given how ridiculously BM you were to me when we played *in a custom*, I think you should grow up before coaching (and before spewing hate on TL)...
i wouldnt have problems with this if he wouldnt lie like hell. i worked alot that i could open a thread with "grandmaster" in front if it. then he noticed it gets more attention than his crap, so he added it himself even tho hes nothing close to it. then hes spamming every fucking channel in bnet to promoted his fucking coaching shit. hes just an attentionwhore thats the problem here. but because of me he can write whatever he wants as long as its the truth
On November 16 2011 23:30 JediGamer wrote: Why is this thread still up? I just assumed it was closed. It is a blatant advertisement for his coaching and website, without paying teamliquid.
Ironically he disses the other guy talking about being GM. He is NOT GRANDMASTER nor even close. There was also a rumor he paid someone to level his account, doesn't matter because he couldn't sustain it. Because he plays a limited style he really rips off terran and protoss players (I am a coach and have heard from new students who received Tangs coaching).
All this "lecture" is -was you casting a replay where you ling/roach busted someone. You could just watch some DarkForce replays to see crisp timings or other aggressive zergs, but you chose to host your own. And no this is not a troll nor do I have particular beef with Tang, but part of me doesn't like to know a coach taking advantage of people is out there.
This is almost as BM as you were to me when you lost while off-racing on a smurf account...
In all seriousness, though, I don't see what you're trying to do here. Tang is describing some aggressive Zerg play, doing his best to help lower league Zergs get easier wins in quick games. I honestly think playing aggressively and macro-intensive are both good ways to improve your game. I don't see what's wrong with Tang linking to his site from a guide. Sure, there are other ways for someone to learn about Zerg timings (e.g. watching Darkforce), but this doesn't mean that Tang shouldn't be allowed to write his own guide. It just seems like you are hating for the sake of hating, and trying to sell yourself as a superior "coach". But given how ridiculously BM you were to me when we played *in a custom*, I think you should grow up before coaching (and before spewing hate on TL)...
You ever seen this ? http://www.z33k.com/starcraft2/coach/sc2coaching Ahem. Been doing it for almost 2 years now . People like Tang exist everywhere. Most are honest about it though, and don't have a labelled rank that they can't achieve. Check out acelessons.com before checking out the tang coaching site, 25 an hour for midish master level coaching in general is just not worth it.
On November 17 2011 05:33 JediGamer wrote: Ahem. Been doing it for almost 2 years now . People like Tang exist everywhere. Most are honest about it though, and don't have a labelled rank that they can't achieve. Check out acelessons.com before checking out the tang coaching site, 25 an hour for midish master level coaching in general is just not worth it.
Edit: When I say "you" I'm referring to JediGamer, when I say "Tang" I'm referring to Tang, in case this is unclear.
I see that you are indeed trying to do good (and Tang I believe is also trying to do good, but is really annoying in how he goes about it).
That said, the one time I ran into you online, you were playing a custom on a smurf account, tried 4 gating me and failed, then proceeded to BM me as no one has BMed me before, so it was kind of hard to forget. I see you have a thread about "turning over a new leaf" here, although that thread didn't turn out too well for you (although hopefully you are actually following through on what you said in your OP there 3 months ago, it seems like outside of your SC2 rage you are a good guy and coach).
Anyways, I still stand by my point that you are being too harsh on Tang -- it just seems like an attempt at "I am a more legitimate coach, Tang shouldn't even post at all". Tang has been in GM before, so I don't see a huge problem with prefixing his thread with "Grandmaster".
On November 17 2011 05:33 JediGamer wrote: Ahem. Been doing it for almost 2 years now . People like Tang exist everywhere. Most are honest about it though, and don't have a labelled rank that they can't achieve. Check out acelessons.com before checking out the tang coaching site, 25 an hour for midish master level coaching in general is just not worth it.
Anyways, I still stand by my point that you are being too harsh on Tang -- it just seems like an attempt at "I am a more legitimate coach, Tang shouldn't even post at all". Tang has been in GM before, so I don't see a huge problem with prefixing his thread with "Grandmaster".
Just means I need to work harder to prove myself, and I understand I can't make everyone happy at once but I do my best to provide content I think people will benefit from the most.
I'm baffled that you're still plastering "Grandmaster" over every useless guide that you write when you have already admitted that you are not currently grandmasters (and I'll add that the only reason you WERE in Grandmasters League for a day was because of a bug in the ladder system that incorrectly promoted players).
Also, JDub, I consider it equally evil to try to advertise your coaching in this thread. Any thread entitled guide, especially one in the strategy section, shouldn't be here for the intent of profit (which is the main reason why I so strongly disapprove of Tang's obvious ploy to bring traffic to his website).
On November 17 2011 14:26 sanddbox_sc2 wrote: I'm baffled that you're still plastering "Grandmaster" over every useless guide that you write when you have already admitted that you are not currently grandmasters (and I'll add that the only reason you WERE in Grandmasters League for a day was because of a bug in the ladder system that incorrectly promoted players).
Also, JDub, I consider it equally evil to try to advertise your coaching in this thread. Any thread entitled guide, especially one in the strategy section, shouldn't be here for the intent of profit (which is the main reason why I so strongly disapprove of Tang's obvious ploy to bring traffic to his website).
I've made GM twice and I don't mention coaching in the thread, I write strategy guides and do lectures because I enjoy it and I think it'll help people improve.
On November 17 2011 14:26 sanddbox_sc2 wrote: I'm baffled that you're still plastering "Grandmaster" over every useless guide that you write when you have already admitted that you are not currently grandmasters (and I'll add that the only reason you WERE in Grandmasters League for a day was because of a bug in the ladder system that incorrectly promoted players).
Also, JDub, I consider it equally evil to try to advertise your coaching in this thread. Any thread entitled guide, especially one in the strategy section, shouldn't be here for the intent of profit (which is the main reason why I so strongly disapprove of Tang's obvious ploy to bring traffic to his website).
I've made GM twice and I don't mention coaching in the thread, I write strategy guides and do lectures because I enjoy it and I think it'll help people improve.
making GM twice doesn't matter. what matters is you're not GM NOW. don't u get it already?
On November 17 2011 14:26 sanddbox_sc2 wrote: I'm baffled that you're still plastering "Grandmaster" over every useless guide that you write when you have already admitted that you are not currently grandmasters (and I'll add that the only reason you WERE in Grandmasters League for a day was because of a bug in the ladder system that incorrectly promoted players).
Also, JDub, I consider it equally evil to try to advertise your coaching in this thread. Any thread entitled guide, especially one in the strategy section, shouldn't be here for the intent of profit (which is the main reason why I so strongly disapprove of Tang's obvious ploy to bring traffic to his website).
I've made GM twice and I don't mention coaching in the thread, I write strategy guides and do lectures because I enjoy it and I think it'll help people improve.
On October 23 2011 01:50 TangSC wrote: Fundamentals of Hyper-Aggressive Zerg Play Lecture by Tang (233) Chat Channel: TangStarcraft www.TangStarcraft.com for Coaching / Replays / Tutorials. Change the way you think about SC2! My stream ( http://www.twitch.tv/tangsc ) will soon be operational with daily ladder commentaries, coaching, professional guest appearances, etc. The show will be designed primarily to help my observers improve.
On November 17 2011 14:26 sanddbox_sc2 wrote: I'm baffled that you're still plastering "Grandmaster" over every useless guide that you write when you have already admitted that you are not currently grandmasters (and I'll add that the only reason you WERE in Grandmasters League for a day was because of a bug in the ladder system that incorrectly promoted players).
Also, JDub, I consider it equally evil to try to advertise your coaching in this thread. Any thread entitled guide, especially one in the strategy section, shouldn't be here for the intent of profit (which is the main reason why I so strongly disapprove of Tang's obvious ploy to bring traffic to his website).
I've made GM twice and I don't mention coaching in the thread, I write strategy guides and do lectures because I enjoy it and I think it'll help people improve.
On October 23 2011 01:50 TangSC wrote: Fundamentals of Hyper-Aggressive Zerg Play Lecture by Tang (233) Chat Channel: TangStarcraft www.TangStarcraft.com for Coaching / Replays / Tutorials. Change the way you think about SC2! My stream ( http://www.twitch.tv/tangsc ) will soon be operational with daily ladder commentaries, coaching, professional guest appearances, etc. The show will be designed primarily to help my observers improve.
LoL. How can someone lie so many times in a row. This honestly reminds me of Incontrols chat with deezer about cheating almost verbatim scenario. Someone must be getting some of his money from this though usually TL closes stuff like this.
On November 17 2011 14:26 sanddbox_sc2 wrote: I'm baffled that you're still plastering "Grandmaster" over every useless guide that you write when you have already admitted that you are not currently grandmasters (and I'll add that the only reason you WERE in Grandmasters League for a day was because of a bug in the ladder system that incorrectly promoted players).
Also, JDub, I consider it equally evil to try to advertise your coaching in this thread. Any thread entitled guide, especially one in the strategy section, shouldn't be here for the intent of profit (which is the main reason why I so strongly disapprove of Tang's obvious ploy to bring traffic to his website).
I've made GM twice and I don't mention coaching in the thread, I write strategy guides and do lectures because I enjoy it and I think it'll help people improve.
On October 23 2011 01:50 TangSC wrote: Fundamentals of Hyper-Aggressive Zerg Play Lecture by Tang (233) Chat Channel: TangStarcraft www.TangStarcraft.com for Coaching / Replays / Tutorials. Change the way you think about SC2! My stream ( http://www.twitch.tv/tangsc ) will soon be operational with daily ladder commentaries, coaching, professional guest appearances, etc. The show will be designed primarily to help my observers improve.
LoL. How can someone lie so many times in a row. This honestly reminds me of Incontrols chat with deezer about cheating almost verbatim scenario. Someone must be getting some of his money from this though usually TL closes stuff like this.
I've never lied in any of my threads - thus, TL has not closed my threads. I think the majority of people realize what I'm trying to do for the community and support my efforts, and I know first hand that the threads have helped sc2 players improve. I don't say this as a personal attack, Jedi, but I think that even if you disagree with my posts,it would be much more beneficial to this forum if you spent your time providing the content you thought was helpful rather than insulting other people's efforts.
On November 18 2011 01:06 SKTerran.117 wrote: Why is syndicate still allowed to post here.
I don't get why people are hating so much, I personally wasn't impressed by the bit I watched, but all this discussion is doing is bumping the thread.
:|
If he wants to try to help noobs let him.
he's never been in it to help noobs. this is all a thinly veiled guise for his coaching website. that part is very clear from the way the OP is presented.
On October 23 2011 01:50 TangSC wrote: I've never lied in any of my threads - thus, TL has not closed my threads. I think the majority of people realize what I'm trying to do for the community and support my efforts, and I know first hand that the threads have helped sc2 players improve. I don't say this as a personal attack, Jedi, but I think that even if you disagree with my posts,it would be much more beneficial to this forum if you spent your time providing the content you thought was helpful rather than insulting other people's efforts.
If you ever claimed to have gotten GM on your own merits - you would have been lying. Your account was leveled; people looked into your match history, hotkey usage, and apparently you even switched RACES for some games during a season. You somehow managed to annoy the people you paid, who were the ones who probably leaked half the truth in the first place.
I suppose I don't even need to mention the most damning evidence - which is that without a leveler, you can't even maintain much of a margin above 50% even at the mid masters level...
On October 23 2011 01:50 TangSC wrote: I've never lied in any of my threads - thus, TL has not closed my threads. I think the majority of people realize what I'm trying to do for the community and support my efforts, and I know first hand that the threads have helped sc2 players improve. I don't say this as a personal attack, Jedi, but I think that even if you disagree with my posts,it would be much more beneficial to this forum if you spent your time providing the content you thought was helpful rather than insulting other people's efforts.
If you ever claimed to have gotten GM on your own merits - you would have been lying. Your account was leveled; people looked into your match history, hotkey usage, and apparently you even switched RACES for some games during a season. You somehow managed to annoy the people you paid, who were the ones who probably leaked half the truth in the first place.
I suppose I don't even need to mention the most damning evidence - which is that without a leveler, you can't even maintain much of a margin above 50% even at the mid masters level...
I challenge you to support any of those claims with evidence, because no one has ever played a game on any of my accounts but me. Please spend some time researching my stats and games before you make silly implications.
ignore the haters bro, i can tell you first hand every single one of the guides you write even on races i dont play have helped me soo much! i didnt watch the whole lecture but what i did watch was impressive and i think your doing great things for the community so stick with it......and do a lecture on terran next plz ! ps anyone who thinks tang paid for leveling is off their rocker, ive seen him play live against masters and gms and he played really well, and his style is very fun to observe
Hey all. I had a lot of complaints about the lecture file not working - we've transferred it over to a new youtube channel for the Waterloo CSL Team: http://www.youtube.com/user/UWCSLtv?feature=watch The file is now working, sorry for the confusions everyone.
EPT
I think it's something all zergs should experiment heavily with.
. If your research finds anything interesting I haven't mentioned please let me know!
)![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nlGCI.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i1141.photobucket.com/albums/n587/tang442244/TangLogo2.png)
