[G] University Lecture: Improving SC2 Mechanics - Page 2

On December 23 2011 08:45 UmiNotsuki wrote:
Oh Tang, Tang, PLEASE stop encouraging players to 8 pool drone all-in me on ladder. I know you're still bitter about losing that way to the University of Rochester in CSL (how does the only loss for your entire team all season being yours feel?) but surely we can be adults here and play games of skill rather than luck.

In all seriousness, I actually do disagree with... well everything you have written here and in your last guide. Over-aggressive play is a good way to win games, and I give you that. It is also a terrible way to improve, and while you'll surely talk my ear off in another guide about how cheese is the ultimate pinnacle of skill, please understand that when you play in such a way that you'll only win if your opponent fucks something up, you're simply crossing your fingers and praying to god that your opponent fails. Your wins are not your success, but your opponent's failure. Remember that next time you consider writing a guide.

On December 23 2011 09:03 TyrantPotato wrote:
ah another tang lecture....

i wonder how many <10 post new users will post in this thread to praise your brilliance.

On December 23 2011 15:09 TechnoZerg wrote:
we should conduct an experiment. get two newbies, one trained by a macro-orientated coach and one trained by an aggressive-orientated coach. would be interesting to see who comes out on top

On December 24 2011 01:23 Chaosvuistje wrote:
I just want to comment on the quiz.

The quiz is really strange and the answers don't really make much sense at all. Let me just plow through all the answers first, then through the questions:

a) Build up another timing attack immediately.

This one makes relative sense, considering that if you do X amount of damage you should be transitioning into a new timing attack, although this is something you should be transitioning during or right before the attack. It can't really be done reactionary after the attack in all circumstances.

b) Move into a standard and safe mid game with a timing attack or at least some form of pressure.

This is the one that really itches me. The attack appearantly already happened in the early game, which should mean I'm already an aggressive player anyway. It also shows that the 'attack' is an all in that has to do damage, otherwise you would already be transitioning naturally into that midgame and a follow up timing attack.

c) Take a risk by expanding, teching, or going all-in.

Any good player will use the time you gain during the attack to expand or tech. The only thing you can do reactively is 'all in' which is only really a good option if your first attack did like 0 damage or if you did such a crushing blow to him that you should have already won, but the opponent is only hanging in by a small thread.

d) Macro up hard with multiple bases so I can afford high-tier units and maxed out armies.

Only idiots would go straight from attack into turtle 200 mode. A varied player will mix in harass or timing attacks along the way unless he wants to, for example, hive rush for broodlords for a lategame timing attack. If the opponent allows you to simply go for a 200/200 ball after an attack that did damage to him, he is bad.

So moving onto the questions:

1) If you attack and do lots of damage, nearly crippling your opponent's economy and army what do you do?

The right answer would be, whatever the hell you wanna do. You can expand, tech or go for a strong follow up timing attack. There is no wrong answer if you are in the lead, pick any of them and you should be good to go.

2) If you attack and do almost no damage and think you're behind, what do you do?

Now you're basically pidgeonholed into all in attacking to even the score out. Only in SvS ( Stupid player versus Stupid player ) will teching or expanding get you back into the game.

3) If you attack and do some damage and feel like you're on equal grounds, what do you do?

Well you should have gotten an expansion or additional tech during the attack anyway so you have an advantage in that front, so you abuse it. Be it by macroing up an army faster than him and going for a timing attack or abusing the tech advantage to go for a timing push or mass harass.


The way you win in Starcraft is by abusing advantages that you have. Certainly attacking and being aggressive ( not just by timing attacks but by harassment as well ) are some amazing options to abuse those times when your army is superior to his. But it can't always be 'be aggressive'. There are certain situations where macroing up or teching up will be far, far more effective in the long run than being aggressive could be. I won't go the length that your play is bad ( which it isn't, it's just different ) but I will say that placing yourself into boxes ( Aggressor/Reactor/Macro-or ) you make yourself one-dimensional.

On the ladder that doesn't really shine through that much, as you just face an opponent in a Bo1 and you don't know whether he is aggressive, reactive or macro oriented. But in any other format, good players will sniff out your one-dimensionalism and destroy you. So this is why I at the same time welcome your input, and scratch my head about it. It doesn't explain the full spectrum of Starcraft, just the aggressive portion.

I would rather face an 'aggressive opponent' over an aggressive styled, but not too bad in tech or macro games, opponent simply because you can expect much less and you can be far more at ease that in any other field you will be better than him.

One dimensionalism is great for ladder heroes, it sucks utterly in a tournament or BoX setting however. So it totally depends on what you want to be, Grandmaster or Champion of Craftcup #329. Most of the people on this forum expect you to want the latter over the former.

On December 24 2011 01:53 TangSC wrote:

You definitely make some good points, Chaos. In terms of ladder, you're right in that you can do the same build EVERY game if you want and still make it to a pretty high level - but this isn't necessarily what I mean by improving by being aggressive. It's more about planning your steps, and using aggression (which forces you to look away from your base while macroing) to improve your mechanics. For example, I'm well-known for opening with speedling aggression in ZvZ and Roach/Ling aggression in ZvT. While I may do similar aggressive openings in each game, I rarely execute the same follow through twice. It's the situation I'm in during and after my early-game pressure that determines which path I choose. ZvZ is my best matchup, so I'll describe a few common scenarios:

First, let's say I open speedlings and end up doing crippling damage because my opponent neglects banelings. I'm just going to continue streaming lings until the cows come home, because I know I can end it - he just won't be able to match production once he loses so much economy and it's essentially a guaranteed win if I continue the attack.
Second, if I open speedlings and he gets LOTS of banelings in time, and my lings do virtually no damage as a result, I'll gain some advantages in the form of map control and squeeze out a few drones. There's one problem though - I'm likely behind in economy and his tech (banelings) is superior to mind (lingspeed), so it'll be hard to move into a standard macro game because there's always the threat of a ling/baneling counter attack. In this situation, I'm probably only going to squeeze out a few more drones to support a roach warren, get 6-8 roaches and commit to a Roach/Ling all-in. I'm hoping to abuse the fact that he thinks he held the pressure well with banelings, and also choose a type of tech (roaches) that performs well against his response to my lings (banelings). Also, if he decides to counter-attack me, I can hold it easily.
Last, if I go speedlings and we end up in a bit of a 'stalemate' where I do decent damage, enough to justify my zergling investment and end up on equal grounds with my opponent, that's where I'll likely play a standard macro game and move into upgraded roaches and infestors (or mutas) off 2 bases. If he's not looking to attack me, and he's adequately prepared for another attack, there's no choice but to macro up.

I appreciate the feedback, and I mean everyone will have different opinions on the "correct" thing to do in each scenario, but I hope this helps to explain my reasoning on the quiz questions/answers.

On December 24 2011 03:00 Chaosvuistje wrote:


Let me just say one thing first that we absolutely agree on, if you play aggressive and macro at the same time, you WILL train your mechanics faster since you will be playing much faster than when you would be left alone to only think of injects and such. If you want to get really good at macro you have to be good at doing macro during attacks, and aggressive play ( or in my case harassment based play ) gives you more of that training and will make you as a player much better, because the opponent can really mess with you but you will still be up there macroing like a boss.

In the situation that you described however, the Speedling aggression, it is more a case of 'is this build good or not' rather than having an aggressive build. I'm not dismissing aggressive builds at all, just ones that you will lose because of factors out of your control ( aka a build order loss ).

The thing you laid out is that in the case that your opponent is going mass banelings, even if it is blind or not, that you are behind and have to do an all in to respond is what I'm hinging at. This isn't bad neccesarily because you will still kill bad players who can't hold your all in follow up, but if you meet a good player that does hold your all in, you just lost to reasons out of your control. Which amount to a ton of frustrating losses the better players you face, and you'll keep asking yourself if you are just bad at the game while it is the inflexibility of the build in some circumstances that ultimately was the culprit.

I myself wouldn't neccesarily claim I'm an aggressive player, but I am certainly aggressive in my reactions to some things I scout. The only aggression I am willing to do is the type that doesn't amount to losses outside of your own control, but if I can fit in aggression that is flexible in all circumstances whatever I face, I will fit it in 100% of the time. I'm against attacks that are stupid in the case that if my opponent does X he automatically gets way ahead, and about 90% of all attacks possible in Starcraft 2 fit in this box.

I'm all for being aggressive, infact I like it way above just slow macro games. But I'm against stupid builds that can amount to build order losses in certain circumstances, which is why I generally don't advocate most of the one base attacks and why I mostly avoid threads about them.

We don't hate aggressiveness here on the Strat forum, just inflexibility and one-dimensionalism, which is what most one base or two base attacks amount to. This is my explanation for the kind of negative feedback you get a lot. I hope this explains my viewpoint of it and I wish you the best in your future endeavors .

On December 25 2011 04:51 Lebzetu wrote:
Being aggressive that much in ZvZ seems like a coinflip if anything. Your other styles seem to revolve around your opponent not being safe and not making a baneling nest. The baneling nest is essential in ZvZ and everyone should get it, but if your opponent scouts that you are making a lot of units then you are behind because he can just make roaches or banelings, depending on what you have made. All they have to do is see what you have (which is easy, just suicide a ling) and then your aggression is shut down. If you also scout they havent taken a third or something similair to that, you can assume two base aggression.

On December 29 2011 21:07 ins(out)side wrote:
I really like these lectures and wish that I were there to interact! You know, to answer all the more obvious questions like, "Whats a timing attack?". I would've totally dropped my Platinum knowledge like it was hot =)

But in all seriousness, I totally agree that playing aggressively is one of if not the absolute best methods for improving some of the most important of your SC2 mechanics. For example, one cannot successfully be aggressive and put smart pressure on with something like 3 gate pressure build without taking good care of the three M's.

If you simply A move your force either over to the natural or the third of your opponent, you're liable to start losing units for no good reason. If you spend too much time focusing on micro'ing your army, you'll fall behind at home likely forgetting structures that are crucial to your build. It has been said by the guys from Glitch TV and by others I'm sure (but they were the first I heard using the term) that one must micro your macro. I couldn't agree more. In fact, in one sense that can be considered a way of defining what multitasking is: in one sense it is microing your macro (or microing while you macro).

Being able to successfully execute the pressure build requires that you manage all 3 of the M's well because faltering in one area can cause the whole thing to come apart. If you can't micro while macroing you need to ask yourself why? A lack of efficient hotkey use is one of the more frequent problems in that area. That is yet another thing about playing aggresively, it can help you come to understand your real weaknesses in a more specific fashion than something rather ambiguous like: I lost because I didn't macro that game. There might be real cases where that is true but that kind of response is more of a knee jerk reaction based upon reading countless TL threads where effective macro play is revealed to be all one needs to make it to Masters. There might be SOME truth to that, but the fact is that reaching masters requires skill with all the M's, not just one.

I have found based upon my experience both just hammering out games and in lessons with high level coaches that having a specific build/timing attack to pull off provides tons of opportunity to improve many of the most important aspects and mechanics of the game. By having something specific to aim for, you provide yourself a benchmark to see how you did in terms of microing your macro, handling harassment etc. If you can pull off your build with all the various variables that go along with the game, you know you did well and you can review your replay to see where you did well and where you can do better.

In conclusion, playing an aggressive style allows for one to actively improve the three M's because if you can't use all three, chances are your build won't come together. By pressuring your opponent, especially your Zerg opponent, you force units and get to see what exactly your enemy is up to. This is a form of scouting information that can of course be extremely useful. Improving the basics of sound mechanics through pressure play and acquiring information that you can use to execute a game ending timing attack are all good reasons to at least have an aggressive build somewhere in your arsenal of builds.