|
On January 08 2012 13:25 Theovide wrote:
A good example is the game where I think it was Darkforce that won against Sound in HSC on shattered temple, at an early stage Darkforce had LOADS of lings but only the same count of drones as Sound, and Sound had two orbitals, but because of the lings Sound was forced to build bunkers as well wait longer until he could fly out his CC. If Darkforce hadn't sacrificed a lot of lings bringing a bunker to red but not even killing it, Sounds cc would have been delayed even more, as it wasn't before that Sound knew he could fly out. And still doing so Darkforce got an really solid economical lead, taking out the gold rocks with the zerglings aswell as droning madly meanwhile Sound had to play really carefully.
As a conclusion, with all these three reasons for having units, and not even including the fact that you'd get a bunch of freewins vs people without adequate defense, (ie scenario one). I'd say that aggresive builds might not only be viable, but better. I think Stephano is the best proof of that, with builds where he nearly constantly has a big pack of zerglings, he can easily deal with pushes and often because of his bigger army than other zergs, trade more costefficently so that he'll turn up with both more army and drones that another zerg meeting the same build. The only build that would always be strong against such builds is if the terran decides to play just as greedy as he can get away with, but that is hard, and even so I'm doubtful if a terran doing so is better off than the terran playing aggressive against a zerg trying to drone as hard as possible.
tl:dr as long as you don't sacrifice the units in cases you wont be able to do enough damage to make them worth it, you are not going to be very far behind, unless you did a build which was completely all in.
it tilts me that you take this game as an example. the situation is super different. i killed 2 or 3 reapers, 2 or 3 scvs with those lings and i had to build those lings because of the bunker rush. and then the reaction time is generally alot less against lings, and they are more useful later on (you cant counter his natural with slow roaches when he moves out).
also he didnt have hellions, which is why he had to move out so late.
god now i know again why i stopped posting in strategy.
|
On January 09 2012 03:38 Morghaine wrote:
What would also be interesting is spotting when to retreat and when to push, because it's not as obvious, especially for the lower leagues. Like: If you see a bunker with a marauder shooting out of it and at least X Marines, retreat and camp expo, otherwise push.
The only problem with that is it's hard to just say "this amount of units means you should retreat". It's really a trial and error thing, or "Game Sense." The reason is while someone new to this style might push up the ramp see a bunker with marines/hellions and pull back, a more experienced player may know that since the terran has no marauders you can probably break in with the roaches and surround the SCVs or bunker itself. As your skill in executing this style improves, so too does your decision-making when decided whether to engage and "go for the jugular" or simply pressure/contain.
|
On January 09 2012 09:25 DarKFoRcE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 13:25 Theovide wrote:
A good example is the game where I think it was Darkforce that won against Sound in HSC on shattered temple, at an early stage Darkforce had LOADS of lings but only the same count of drones as Sound, and Sound had two orbitals, but because of the lings Sound was forced to build bunkers as well wait longer until he could fly out his CC. If Darkforce hadn't sacrificed a lot of lings bringing a bunker to red but not even killing it, Sounds cc would have been delayed even more, as it wasn't before that Sound knew he could fly out. And still doing so Darkforce got an really solid economical lead, taking out the gold rocks with the zerglings aswell as droning madly meanwhile Sound had to play really carefully.
As a conclusion, with all these three reasons for having units, and not even including the fact that you'd get a bunch of freewins vs people without adequate defense, (ie scenario one). I'd say that aggresive builds might not only be viable, but better. I think Stephano is the best proof of that, with builds where he nearly constantly has a big pack of zerglings, he can easily deal with pushes and often because of his bigger army than other zergs, trade more costefficently so that he'll turn up with both more army and drones that another zerg meeting the same build. The only build that would always be strong against such builds is if the terran decides to play just as greedy as he can get away with, but that is hard, and even so I'm doubtful if a terran doing so is better off than the terran playing aggressive against a zerg trying to drone as hard as possible.
tl:dr as long as you don't sacrifice the units in cases you wont be able to do enough damage to make them worth it, you are not going to be very far behind, unless you did a build which was completely all in. it tilts me that you take this game as an example. the situation is super different. i killed 2 or 3 reapers, 2 or 3 scvs with those lings and i had to build those lings because of the bunker rush. and then the reaction time is generally alot less against lings, and they are more useful later on (you cant counter his natural with slow roaches when he moves out). also he didnt have hellions, which is why he had to move out so late. god now i know again why i stopped posting in strategy.
Really starting to agree. I'm losing faith in TL's population's ability to provide good, intelligent and thought out posts in Strategy. Too much baseless arguing.
|
On January 08 2012 01:18 Crypdos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2012 23:55 TangSC wrote:On January 06 2012 20:57 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:
I think doing a good old bling bust is stronger than roach pushes.
reasons:
* roaches are slow, during the time they need to travel to the opponents base, they are a 'dead' investment. In general: the longer your army is on transport, the easier a push is to hold (longer preparation and you fight with your army of T-60 seconds against his T+0 seconds army)
* speedlings are much faster, so the initial punch can be stronger, since it results from your T-30 seconds economy.
* banelings can be morphed directly at the opponents base in case, this has somewhat the effect of a proxy pylon, since you can directly strengthen your army without having a traveling time (however banes need time to morph).
* you dont't lose a drone+resources to a roach warren (=200 mins = 8 slings)
* in case he has a strong defense, just don't morph banes (flexibility)
* in case he has not expanded, just block his nat, no need to bust (flexibility)
The only advantage of roaches is larvae efficiency, which might be the major reason why roach pushes are preferred in some scenarios. I prefer roach/ling due to the amount of players that open with hellion expand. Roaches are much stronger against hellions, and also you can use roaches defensively if they counter attack later. You would think this build is good against hellion expand, while it actually does terrible against it. He will have a techlab on his barracks, while his 4 hellions will camp in front of your natural. Once you move out with your roaches he will see it immediately. Because of how slow roaches are, you will face a bunker with marauders and the 4 hellions in position to roast your lings when you arrive. This minimal defense holds this semi-allin (he can even salvage the bunker), and put you really behind.
What if the Zerg doesn't do the all in? As a Terran you don't actually know for certain. There could be a ton of roaches and lings or there could be a spire coming or a fast third.
|
On January 08 2012 01:18 Crypdos wrote:
You would think this build is good against hellion expand, while it actually does terrible against it.
He will have a techlab on his barracks, while his 4 hellions will camp in front of your natural. Once you move out with your roaches he will see it immediately. Because of how slow roaches are, you will face a bunker with marauders and the 4 hellions in position to roast your lings when you arrive. This minimal defense holds this semi-allin (he can even salvage the bunker), and put you really behind.
He won't be able to hold his expansion. That's the point of a reactor expand: getting an expansion with safety. Even if you cant bust the ramp, you can camp the natural, and deny his expansion. You also mess up his timings. Busting the ramp is just a bonus, it's not the goal.
|
Roach/ling, imho, is most detrimental when they delay tanks for any reason whatsoever.
Like, if I see reapers, I'll drop that warren, and have at it! If I see 1 rax FE, drop and go! Pretty much if I suspect a delayed tank for any reason.
This is how I've been playing zvt lately and it has been getting some pretty good results vs high masters
|
On January 11 2012 13:26 Amaterasu1234 wrote:
Roach/ling, imho, is most detrimental when they delay tanks for any reason whatsoever.
Like, if I see reapers, I'll drop that warren, and have at it! If I see 1 rax FE, drop and go! Pretty much if I suspect a delayed tank for any reason.
This is how I've been playing zvt lately and it has been getting some pretty good results vs high masters
Yes having a tank and a bunker with SCVs is probably your best option. Huge hellion/banshee styles are great too (with a fast expansion)
|
Darkforce's reply is exactly why players should not these cheesy "pressure" builds.
Tang's builds are based on blind aggression. As Darkforce explains, he used early aggression as a reactionary response. He didn't hop into the game thinking "I'm going to use this great mass zergling opener vs the terran to pressure his expo and gain an advantage!"
Top-tier players decision-making is logical and changes based on what they see, including the tiniest details. Tang's builds are based on build orders that assume his opponent is going to make a mistake. There are times when Code A+ players will execute these builds, but at least consider that they have a lot more information at the start of the game (who their opponent is and their history)
|
On January 12 2012 01:55 blinkblue wrote:
Darkforce's reply is why players should be learning from the best and not these cheesy "pressure" builds.
Tang's builds are based on blind aggression. As Darkforce explains, he uses early aggression as a reactionary response.
Top-tier players decision-making is logical and changes based on what they see, including the tiniest details. Tang's builds are based on build orders that assume his opponent is going to make a mistake.
Darkforce's reply is an opinion, no more valid than others'. He has biases like anyone else. Opening with early aggression with planned transitions is not "blind." I don't understand how you expect newer players to have "top-tier decision-making to the point they can change based on what they see, including the tiniest details." A new player needs a gameplan/goal, and then structure. If their game plan is to execute an early attack to gain map control, scouting, and safety to drone - that's a completely viable option, and in my experience, more solid than telling them to drone blindly.
|
On January 12 2012 01:58 TangSC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 01:55 blinkblue wrote:
Darkforce's reply is why players should be learning from the best and not these cheesy "pressure" builds.
Tang's builds are based on blind aggression. As Darkforce explains, he uses early aggression as a reactionary response.
Top-tier players decision-making is logical and changes based on what they see, including the tiniest details. Tang's builds are based on build orders that assume his opponent is going to make a mistake. Darkforce's reply is an opinion, no more valid than others'. He has bias's like anyone else. Opening with early aggression with planned transitions is not "blind". His reply regarding his reactionary response is not his opinion, it's fact.
Edit: I meant my post to be regarding darkforce's response to the comment about a game where he made a lot of early zerglings. Someone else brought up the game, not you.
Regardless, seeing his thought-process and decision making is the point I'm trying to make. He opens very standard, and then based on certain events, starts producing to counter his opponent. That sort of reactionary play is clearly what makes such a significant difference between the best players and your idea of "good" players.
|
On January 12 2012 02:00 blinkblue wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 01:58 TangSC wrote:On January 12 2012 01:55 blinkblue wrote:
Darkforce's reply is why players should be learning from the best and not these cheesy "pressure" builds.
Tang's builds are based on blind aggression. As Darkforce explains, he uses early aggression as a reactionary response.
Top-tier players decision-making is logical and changes based on what they see, including the tiniest details. Tang's builds are based on build orders that assume his opponent is going to make a mistake. Darkforce's reply is an opinion, no more valid than others'. He has bias's like anyone else. Opening with early aggression with planned transitions is not "blind". His reply regarding his reactionary response is not his opinion, it's fact. You brought up a game as an example of darkforce using a ling aggression build as if he has blindly chosen to use it at the start of the match while excluding all of the obvious early-game events.
I never used DarkForce as a reference, I've only seen one or two of his games. I don't know where you're getting this concept of blind aggression, that's not at all what I'm suggesting. My argument is that having an aggressive opening in response to Terran expansion builds can be very safe/solid play if executed properly with planned transitions.
|
LOL i love how only zerg can do "2b all in" and be absolutely fine. because they have larva to remake and plus they can just take 3rd + 4th and make 20-30 drones while pushing and yes i do know what im talking about im high masters terran and no im not claiming imbalance im just stating a fact take it however you want but no other race can do a HUGE PUSH and be fine afterwards aslong as the zerg doesnt suck that is.
User was warned for this post
|
On January 12 2012 01:58 TangSC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 01:55 blinkblue wrote:
Darkforce's reply is why players should be learning from the best and not these cheesy "pressure" builds.
Tang's builds are based on blind aggression. As Darkforce explains, he uses early aggression as a reactionary response.
Top-tier players decision-making is logical and changes based on what they see, including the tiniest details. Tang's builds are based on build orders that assume his opponent is going to make a mistake. Darkforce's reply is an opinion, no more valid than others'.
Darkforce didn't just give an opinion, he gave you an argument, and some arguments are better than others.
|
On January 12 2012 03:03 OldManZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 01:58 TangSC wrote:On January 12 2012 01:55 blinkblue wrote:
Darkforce's reply is why players should be learning from the best and not these cheesy "pressure" builds.
Tang's builds are based on blind aggression. As Darkforce explains, he uses early aggression as a reactionary response.
Top-tier players decision-making is logical and changes based on what they see, including the tiniest details. Tang's builds are based on build orders that assume his opponent is going to make a mistake. Darkforce's reply is an opinion, no more valid than others'. Darkforce didn't just give an opinion, he gave you an argument, and some arguments are better than others.
True, he did suggest a good alternative in the ling/bane/roach all-in.
|
this is a very good build to put pressure on terrans who like to do very fast 1rax FE, CC first, or 3 CC (extra in-base CC). Especially if they do not BLINDLY (yes, terran would be blind in this situation) go for tanks before hellions. Given that you have two to four zerglings out early on (18-20 supply) that you can scout with (and an overlord in position you might get information with)... you can decide *not* to make the roaches and zerglings if scouting information really tells you not to.
This opening build is not sacrificing any economy other than mined gas until 28 supply. As zerg I have used this strategy with 100% winrate thus far vs early expanding terrans in high masters / grandmasters. No I do not BLINDLY build the roaches and zerglings, I have scouting information telling me that pressuring them using roaches and speedlings is good. How is this different from any standard build?
Thank you Tang for this guide, it gives me yet another build in my arsenal for tournament play when I decide to enter tournaments again 
|
On January 12 2012 02:04 TangSC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 02:00 blinkblue wrote:On January 12 2012 01:58 TangSC wrote:On January 12 2012 01:55 blinkblue wrote:
Darkforce's reply is why players should be learning from the best and not these cheesy "pressure" builds.
Tang's builds are based on blind aggression. As Darkforce explains, he uses early aggression as a reactionary response.
Top-tier players decision-making is logical and changes based on what they see, including the tiniest details. Tang's builds are based on build orders that assume his opponent is going to make a mistake. Darkforce's reply is an opinion, no more valid than others'. He has bias's like anyone else. Opening with early aggression with planned transitions is not "blind". His reply regarding his reactionary response is not his opinion, it's fact. You brought up a game as an example of darkforce using a ling aggression build as if he has blindly chosen to use it at the start of the match while excluding all of the obvious early-game events. I never used DarkForce as a reference, I've only seen one or two of his games. I don't know where you're getting this concept of blind aggression, that's not at all what I'm suggesting. My argument is that having an aggressive opening in response to Terran expansion builds can be very safe/solid play if executed properly with planned transitions.
Your build is not really a reaction to an expansion though, its just a blind 2 base allin.
|
On January 12 2012 04:39 DarKFoRcE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2012 02:04 TangSC wrote:On January 12 2012 02:00 blinkblue wrote:On January 12 2012 01:58 TangSC wrote:On January 12 2012 01:55 blinkblue wrote:
Darkforce's reply is why players should be learning from the best and not these cheesy "pressure" builds.
Tang's builds are based on blind aggression. As Darkforce explains, he uses early aggression as a reactionary response.
Top-tier players decision-making is logical and changes based on what they see, including the tiniest details. Tang's builds are based on build orders that assume his opponent is going to make a mistake. Darkforce's reply is an opinion, no more valid than others'. He has bias's like anyone else. Opening with early aggression with planned transitions is not "blind". His reply regarding his reactionary response is not his opinion, it's fact. You brought up a game as an example of darkforce using a ling aggression build as if he has blindly chosen to use it at the start of the match while excluding all of the obvious early-game events. I never used DarkForce as a reference, I've only seen one or two of his games. I don't know where you're getting this concept of blind aggression, that's not at all what I'm suggesting. My argument is that having an aggressive opening in response to Terran expansion builds can be very safe/solid play if executed properly with planned transitions. Your build is not really a reaction to an expansion though, its just a blind 2 base allin.
For someone inexperienced in executing this push, it could be considered all-in. But if you've taken the time to refine transitions and execution, it's just an opening that doesn't necessarily put you in a worse spot than general macro. I just don't think it puts you that behind, in the absolute WORST case scenario you do no damage but you delay an expo and you have a 3rd building with map control and a considerable defense.
|
So what do you do if your opponent goes reactor hellion -> banshee (maybe even with cloak) -> CC?
If you aim for the later i allin i suggested you have more time to find out what your opponent is doing, and also success rate against builds where it actualyl works is probably higher.
If you have an EU acc im willing to play T vs your build, altho my T sucks. Just to see whether its as easy to counter as i think it is.
edit: By the way you put it, almost nothing is really an allin, because if you do enough damage etc. you almost always have a transition followup bla bla bla
|
On January 12 2012 04:56 DarKFoRcE wrote:
So what do you do if your opponent goes reactor hellion -> banshee (maybe even with cloak) -> CC?
If you aim for the later i allin i suggested you have more time to find out what your opponent is doing, and also success rate against builds where it actualyl works is probably higher.
If you have an EU acc im willing to play T vs your build, altho my T sucks. Just to see whether its as easy to counter as i think it is.
edit: By the way you put it, almost nothing is really an allin, because if you do enough damage etc. you almost always have a transition followup bla bla bla
That build is one of the strongest, but usually you can still break in. I've had games that were really close against reactor hellion/banshee expands and it's been win some / lose some. Usually depends on how much damage I do, how fast I respond to their banshees, etc.
I'm definitely up for practicing on EU, though I can't today. Message me your EU info and we'll experiment soon.
|
You make 8 roaches, a ton of lings and go and attack. You see a third orbital at the natural. Perfect! My blind build order might get a build order win! I swarm the front with my forces... and he holds it losing basically nothing. Hellions roast the lings. 1 marauder and 1 tank with marines in a repaired bunker clean up the roaches. When an all in cant beat a triple orbital opening if the Terran gets bunkers, then the all in relies on huge mistakes by the Terran.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
