|
On February 19 2012 05:28 TangSC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2012 05:23 llKenZyll wrote:On February 19 2012 04:20 TangSC wrote:On February 19 2012 02:51 RampancyTW wrote:On February 19 2012 02:04 TangSC wrote:On February 19 2012 01:20 RampancyTW wrote:
Nobody is saying zerg can only play macro. But there's a big difference between solid, aggressive play and most of the builds you've posted. My issue with most of these guides is that they're not reactive builds designed to exploit scouted weaknesses (which is where aggressive play kicks in). They essentially amount to pre-determined cheeses with a stunted economy, which is where you get most of your complaints from. You'll get a ton of BO-win ladder points with builds like these if opponents don't scout and respond correctly, or are playing too greedy, but unless you inflict significant damage there is zero benefit to doing a build like this. "Map control" is entirely arbitrary unless you're specifically controlling for/against THINGS.
I would love and fully support a guide from you about, for example, establishing a quick third with a decent economy and then turning on a goddamn Zerg killswitch of fury when you spot weaknesses in your opponents' defenses. That would be an AWESOME, comprehensive guide for aggressive Zerg play, and most importantly it would establish all of the basic economic and tech pieces that a Zerg would need to transition afterwards. THAT is solid play. Guides like these are gimmicky. They may be good gimmicks, bad gimmicks, whatever-- the important thing is that they're gimmicks. The words "gimmick, allin, cheese" etc are, in my opinion, useless words. Everyone has a different opinion of what the definitions are. The point is, it's not always what which style you choose, it's about doing the style perfectly. There's a vast skill gap between a master using the builds I've outlined and a silver player using them. I could just as easily argue that my builds are "solid" because they put your opponent on the back foot while you drone/respond to the information your attack gives you, and that playing defensive "macro" style with roaches is not particularly helpful because you're not multitasking and your units are too slow to scout. In short, I really don't think there should be so many unwritten rules about which strategy is correct to employ or any negative associations with builds that deviate from what some people have come to accept as "standard". I don't frown upon cheese or all-ins in regards to them being cheese or all-ins. I dislike your builds because they stunt so much tech and economy for army early on, which FORCES you to do significant damage with them to even have a chance of winning. "Solid" styles have a pretty universally accepted definition: Builds/styles that will work even if your opponent knows they are coming, because their effectiveness is determined almost entirely by the execution of the user relative to the execution of the opponent. Your builds sacrifice the tools needed to enter the midgame in a good position if you don't do enormous damage. THAT does not come down to arbitrary labeling. That does not come down to anything other than the fact that you blindly cut economy and tech in favor of a big fat army that may or may not do damage. Tech will ALWAYS help you. Economy will ALWAYS help you. A big army now, if it sacrifices the other two, does not help you at ALL if you can't do heavy damage with it. The issue is NOT that you don't play a macro style. The issue is that you play a GIMMICKY style (that you do not acknowledge as gimmicky), as opposed to a solid aggressive style. You can know this build is coming and still lose, we can play a BO5 anytime you like and I'll use this opening each game. Lol, time to whip out the dicks and see whose is biggest. I'm just making a point. Also Kenzy, I would really prefer you kept those types of remarks to yourself, judging from the comments from your reddit account (and the fact that you were banned twice), I really don't think you have anything constructive to contribute: http://www.reddit.com/user/llKENZYll
...Did you actually go on reddit and look up this guy's account to find a way to insult him? You are insane.
|
I'd love to see Tang play against DarkFoRcE in a BO5 concerning this strategy.
Please provide replays or VODs when complete <3 :D
EDIT: agrees with guy above me
|
On February 19 2012 05:23 llKenZyll wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2012 04:20 TangSC wrote:On February 19 2012 02:51 RampancyTW wrote:On February 19 2012 02:04 TangSC wrote:On February 19 2012 01:20 RampancyTW wrote:
Nobody is saying zerg can only play macro. But there's a big difference between solid, aggressive play and most of the builds you've posted. My issue with most of these guides is that they're not reactive builds designed to exploit scouted weaknesses (which is where aggressive play kicks in). They essentially amount to pre-determined cheeses with a stunted economy, which is where you get most of your complaints from. You'll get a ton of BO-win ladder points with builds like these if opponents don't scout and respond correctly, or are playing too greedy, but unless you inflict significant damage there is zero benefit to doing a build like this. "Map control" is entirely arbitrary unless you're specifically controlling for/against THINGS.
I would love and fully support a guide from you about, for example, establishing a quick third with a decent economy and then turning on a goddamn Zerg killswitch of fury when you spot weaknesses in your opponents' defenses. That would be an AWESOME, comprehensive guide for aggressive Zerg play, and most importantly it would establish all of the basic economic and tech pieces that a Zerg would need to transition afterwards. THAT is solid play. Guides like these are gimmicky. They may be good gimmicks, bad gimmicks, whatever-- the important thing is that they're gimmicks. The words "gimmick, allin, cheese" etc are, in my opinion, useless words. Everyone has a different opinion of what the definitions are. The point is, it's not always what which style you choose, it's about doing the style perfectly. There's a vast skill gap between a master using the builds I've outlined and a silver player using them. I could just as easily argue that my builds are "solid" because they put your opponent on the back foot while you drone/respond to the information your attack gives you, and that playing defensive "macro" style with roaches is not particularly helpful because you're not multitasking and your units are too slow to scout. In short, I really don't think there should be so many unwritten rules about which strategy is correct to employ or any negative associations with builds that deviate from what some people have come to accept as "standard". I don't frown upon cheese or all-ins in regards to them being cheese or all-ins. I dislike your builds because they stunt so much tech and economy for army early on, which FORCES you to do significant damage with them to even have a chance of winning. "Solid" styles have a pretty universally accepted definition: Builds/styles that will work even if your opponent knows they are coming, because their effectiveness is determined almost entirely by the execution of the user relative to the execution of the opponent. Your builds sacrifice the tools needed to enter the midgame in a good position if you don't do enormous damage. THAT does not come down to arbitrary labeling. That does not come down to anything other than the fact that you blindly cut economy and tech in favor of a big fat army that may or may not do damage. Tech will ALWAYS help you. Economy will ALWAYS help you. A big army now, if it sacrifices the other two, does not help you at ALL if you can't do heavy damage with it. The issue is NOT that you don't play a macro style. The issue is that you play a GIMMICKY style (that you do not acknowledge as gimmicky), as opposed to a solid aggressive style. You can know this build is coming and still lose, we can play a BO5 anytime you like and I'll use this opening each game. Lol, time to whip out the dicks and see whose is biggest.
This made me laugh for a solid minute hahaha!
|
On February 20 2012 04:23 Odal wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2012 05:28 TangSC wrote:On February 19 2012 05:23 llKenZyll wrote:On February 19 2012 04:20 TangSC wrote:On February 19 2012 02:51 RampancyTW wrote:On February 19 2012 02:04 TangSC wrote:On February 19 2012 01:20 RampancyTW wrote:
Nobody is saying zerg can only play macro. But there's a big difference between solid, aggressive play and most of the builds you've posted. My issue with most of these guides is that they're not reactive builds designed to exploit scouted weaknesses (which is where aggressive play kicks in). They essentially amount to pre-determined cheeses with a stunted economy, which is where you get most of your complaints from. You'll get a ton of BO-win ladder points with builds like these if opponents don't scout and respond correctly, or are playing too greedy, but unless you inflict significant damage there is zero benefit to doing a build like this. "Map control" is entirely arbitrary unless you're specifically controlling for/against THINGS.
I would love and fully support a guide from you about, for example, establishing a quick third with a decent economy and then turning on a goddamn Zerg killswitch of fury when you spot weaknesses in your opponents' defenses. That would be an AWESOME, comprehensive guide for aggressive Zerg play, and most importantly it would establish all of the basic economic and tech pieces that a Zerg would need to transition afterwards. THAT is solid play. Guides like these are gimmicky. They may be good gimmicks, bad gimmicks, whatever-- the important thing is that they're gimmicks. The words "gimmick, allin, cheese" etc are, in my opinion, useless words. Everyone has a different opinion of what the definitions are. The point is, it's not always what which style you choose, it's about doing the style perfectly. There's a vast skill gap between a master using the builds I've outlined and a silver player using them. I could just as easily argue that my builds are "solid" because they put your opponent on the back foot while you drone/respond to the information your attack gives you, and that playing defensive "macro" style with roaches is not particularly helpful because you're not multitasking and your units are too slow to scout. In short, I really don't think there should be so many unwritten rules about which strategy is correct to employ or any negative associations with builds that deviate from what some people have come to accept as "standard". I don't frown upon cheese or all-ins in regards to them being cheese or all-ins. I dislike your builds because they stunt so much tech and economy for army early on, which FORCES you to do significant damage with them to even have a chance of winning. "Solid" styles have a pretty universally accepted definition: Builds/styles that will work even if your opponent knows they are coming, because their effectiveness is determined almost entirely by the execution of the user relative to the execution of the opponent. Your builds sacrifice the tools needed to enter the midgame in a good position if you don't do enormous damage. THAT does not come down to arbitrary labeling. That does not come down to anything other than the fact that you blindly cut economy and tech in favor of a big fat army that may or may not do damage. Tech will ALWAYS help you. Economy will ALWAYS help you. A big army now, if it sacrifices the other two, does not help you at ALL if you can't do heavy damage with it. The issue is NOT that you don't play a macro style. The issue is that you play a GIMMICKY style (that you do not acknowledge as gimmicky), as opposed to a solid aggressive style. You can know this build is coming and still lose, we can play a BO5 anytime you like and I'll use this opening each game. Lol, time to whip out the dicks and see whose is biggest. I'm just making a point. Also Kenzy, I would really prefer you kept those types of remarks to yourself, judging from the comments from your reddit account (and the fact that you were banned twice), I really don't think you have anything constructive to contribute: http://www.reddit.com/user/llKENZYll ...Did you actually go on reddit and look up this guy's account to find a way to insult him? You are insane.
Lol no, I'm friends with one of the reddit mods and he told me the story of how Kenzy keeps remaking new accounts so that he can troll people, but they don't IP ban like Team Liquid
|
Disregarding the thread hate, I thought that this guide was a great way to improve your zergling micro vs banelings. That's just how I, as a platinum, feel about this guide! Thanks for doing this, Tang~
|
I don't understand why so many people are hating on Tang for producing this guide, you're not forced to use it and if you believe you can easily counter it, then good for you. In the right hands making the correct transitions based on what you scout, I think it could be deadly at all levels of play, which is partly proven by him taking down high calibre players in the replays. I think everyone here agrees that playing a macro style is the most effective way to improve at the game, but that's not to say that specialised builds like this don't have a place for players of all skills. Their use in BoX formats is great, and it's undeniable that niche skill sets like ling micro will benefit from using it, which will in turn improve your play overall. I think it's a great build to be well-versed in, and I (like many others, I'm sure) really appreciate the time he's spent on the guides. Cheers Tang, great job!
|
I think the most fun part about zerg is that it doesn't follow a very strict build order and so you get to figure out a good way to transition into something safe/economical/aggression
So I won't really recommend anyone going for this because you would better off playing more games, learning more about the matchup and then get your own transition. Then you can understand the build and the reason why this timing is good for another aggression etc.
|
Im a gold player and if theres one thing i can say about this build:
it helps improving your micro against banelings by a lot (eg. target fire with queen/spinecrawler).
Maybe the build doesnt work vs all GM/M players and not all the time, but if your micro is bad (like mine) you can improve your ZvZ with this pretty good. If its not your style, to sometimes play an aggressive (somewhat all-in) stlye, dont do it. I tried to win games without beeing kinda cheesy or all-in-ing for a long time. Then I accepted it as part of the game.
|
darkforce vs tang bo5 gogogo
|
While I always love a nice macro game myself and essentially never rush (a weakness!), I think that this guide seems pretty dang reasonable - it should certainly not have drawn such ferocious hate. I would also be very wary against statements such as "<race x> is meant to be played in <style y>"; while "Zerg is a reactive race." it a useful in-game heuristic, I think getting stuck on it when considering builds can really limit your potential. What's the constructive value of categorically dismissing a whole set of builds because of some preconception?
Having said that, I don't think this is the end-all of Zerg builds - but it's not presented as such either!. I think it can be a great thing to break out in a BOx and for teaching aggression and micro on the ladder. Thank you for the well-written guide, mr Tang - I'm sure it'll help me figure out ZvZ better, and once I've mastered it it'll have a nice place in my toolbox.
|
Dear Tang,
I know you are a talented player, these builds are great, but I think you want to consider the following:
These builds are only good for players with good mechanics. If injects are lacking, these builds are useless, and become very weak. And the opening phase is highly micro heavy. It is not a bad build, but it is neither a 100% guaranteed win or a stable safe opening.
Since these builds gets laughed at by higher level players, and not suitable for lower level players who lack mechanics. Why don't you go ahead and design some builds that are less dependent on mechanics and safe, and at the same time, talk about when to power units and attack, and when to drone a bit and plan for another attack. This is more important for a ZvZ matchup in my honest opinion. I am a diamond zerg player and my ZvZ is bad because I never know when to drone and when to make units. I have been trying to figure it out and go for safer builds like hatch first into defensive baneling, then look for a timing window and baneling counter bust him while droning up behind. I think these kinds of concepts are far more important for both lower level players and higher level players. And I am pretty sure you know that pretty well too. Because you know when to drone when your attack is failing and starting to plan for another attack.
I have tried your builds (2 hatch ling all-in), and I had mild success until got hardcore shut down by good baneling spread (not even micro), then I started to go hatch first into defensive banelings, once I shut down a ling flood, I immediately counter push and drone a bit behind. It is just so much more affective, and I can even say that I all-in after I hold off the initial push. Maybe you should teach how to identify when to all-in. :D
gl hf on being influential in the community!
|
On February 21 2012 00:24 lhr0909 wrote:
Dear Tang,
I know you are a talented player, these builds are great, but I think you want to consider the following:
These builds are only good for players with good mechanics. If injects are lacking, these builds are useless, and become very weak. And the opening phase is highly micro heavy. It is not a bad build, but it is neither a 100% guaranteed win or a stable safe opening.
The style is much stronger for players with good mechanics, sure, but it's also a way to improve injects/multitasking/micro. I don't think any build is a guaranteed win. In my personal experience, I've felt the most safe/stable when using this build as opposed to defensive roach or baneling openings.
|
Saying that it's weak if you do it wrong, so that forces people to do it correctly and get better is a false assumption. People will simply die and not know why. People don't so much understand how to analyze and how to improve, because if they did, they wouldn't need your guides. Saying its strong if done correctly is nice, but when those that can do it right say its weak comparatively, it may be something that's not mega worthwhile. As its only strong if done correctly, it's not worthwhile for people in lower leagues with lower ability to execute, as they will once again, simply die.
I am not nor have I been trying to hate, and my references to "people" are in reference to the majority of players that are not in masters or GM.
Similarly, I do not entirely understand why you do not accept the gimmicky/allin nature of your proposed guides, etc, as in several of your guides you manage to get a third up before even half saturation, just so you can say you have 3 bases. Same goes with getting your natural up early- its done without a thought to actually saturating those bases in a timely manner.
|
i m high diamond player EU, i ve tryed this build in every single ZvZ in the last week i think.. in some cases it works really really well and it's really difficult to stop it (roach expand, roach ling, only ling for example) but vs baneling i really can win only if i arrive at his base and he has not baneling yet..
finally i think its viable build but it is not really solid and, at my level and with my micro, i have too many difficulties vs baneling because 3 baneling with good control can stop it pretty easy.. so i'll use it sometimes maybe in the future but i'll go for more solid build in the most of cases. Anyway thanks tang 
|
Gold/Plat Zerg here, so take my opinion/comments/whatever at the worth you'll deem them.
I think I've read most (if not all) of the guides Tang has posted here, and they always get flamed for being gimmicky/all-in/etc which I can't dispute 100%. In this one, for example, your Part 3 video for "What to do if the Roach/sling push fails?" is pretty much "Get another hatch, +1 upgrade, and try again". Day9 has said many times something to the extent of pushes like these will become slightly less effective over time - exponential decay, diminishing returns, whatever you want to call it - and the trick is to know when you've maxed your potential and transition out of it... typically, I like Roach/Festor but I've also done Roach/Hydra or Sling/Festor in ZvZ, depending on where I stand with resources and what they're doing. That's my only real criticism is that this guide (and some of your others) offer no suggestions on how to get into Lair tech and go from there and instead seem to focus on forcing your opponent to react to what you're doing, rather then for you to react to what they're doing. It reminds me a bit of campaign zerg.
What I can say is that I agree with you that to write this off as gimmicky/all-in/cheese is wrong - it's definitely a style. I have ALWAYS (and I mean always) hated the sling/bling micro wars of ZvZ... primarily because I was never really good at them. I usually opted to use sling, spines, and queens defensively while I go for two base into Roaches and just skip the baneling step entirely. I have since opted for using a similar style to the one you suggest to deny their expansion and get my two base economy up to try and stay a base ahead of them, rather then just playing defensively.
All in all, the guide is well written and the videos offer great general advice and tips (at least for lower league players) and provides a good skeleton for those who hate sling/bling wars, such as myself. Seeing as the style I developed isn't too far at all from this, I appreciated the subtle hints of how to react if I don't scout that expo or how to deal with early pools.
I feel that my previous mindset of "Their expo is killed, time to get to roaches" doesn't mesh with my opener, so I will certainly be attempting to keep up with my aggression... although I highly doubt if a roach/sling push failed, I'll transition into a macro hatch and an upgrade. I typically spine hard and go into a muta play (if I can beat them to it) or sling/festor (if they're going muta).
|
On February 21 2012 06:52 Katastrophe wrote:
That's my only real criticism is that this guide (and some of your others) offer no suggestions on how to get into Lair tech and go from there and instead seem to focus on forcing your opponent to react to what you're doing, rather then for you to react to what they're doing. It reminds me a bit of campaign zerg.
That's a good point, I don't often talk about the more macro-oriented transitions but when you're using any aggressive style, you need to know mid/late game macro for the matches that make it to that point. In general, I go 2base mutalisk so that I again have the map control to drone/take a 3rd. Once I have about 8-10 mutas, I switch to infestor / roach / upgrades and eventually when my 3rd is established I go for hydras mixed with roaches til maxed.
For example:
http://drop.sc/116315
|
On February 21 2012 07:04 TangSC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 06:52 Katastrophe wrote:
That's my only real criticism is that this guide (and some of your others) offer no suggestions on how to get into Lair tech and go from there and instead seem to focus on forcing your opponent to react to what you're doing, rather then for you to react to what they're doing. It reminds me a bit of campaign zerg. That's a good point, I don't often talk about the more macro-oriented transitions but when you're using any aggressive style, you need to know mid/late game macro for the matches that make it to that point. In general, I go 2base mutalisk so that I again have the map control to drone/take a 3rd. Once I have about 8-10 mutas, I switch to infestor / roach / upgrades and eventually when my 3rd is established I go for hydras mixed with roaches til maxed. For example: http://drop.sc/116315
See, if you had made this Part Three, I think a lot of people would consider it more "legitimate".
That replay alone shows much more 'game sense' then what the OP leads one to believe, as far as 'the next step'.
Your guides are always well organized and easy to comprehend to even lower league players, but this sort of example of a follow up definitely opens the doors for those less experienced.
All in all, it's an aggressive style, no doubt. Although it may not be for everyone, I prefer it oppose to the more "macro until last possible minute" styles.
My last question is your suggested build order. Like I mentioned before, I sort of stumbled across a similar style while laddering that keeps the same core concept of getting gas enough for speed, stop droning at 16 Drones, expand, and mass zerglings. However, I use a 14g/14p/20h as oppose to your suggested 15p/15g/17h.
Aside from a slightly delayed attack time due to the slower hatch, why do you opt for your order? Do you consider your order to be 'optimized' or is it a matter of preference? I apologize if I'm asking too many "newb" questions.
|
On February 21 2012 11:09 Katastrophe wrote:
Aside from a slightly delayed attack time due to the slower hatch, why do you opt for your order? Do you consider your order to be 'optimized' or is it a matter of preference? I apologize if I'm asking too many "newb" questions.
It's probably this way to optimize larvae. I'll test both builds out and see.
|
This is just what i need thank you so much for this Tang!!!!
|
Russian Federation262 Posts
Hey Tang, gj with dat guide and others. Just wanna ask u smthing... Do u have plans at writing a few ZvP guides?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
