EPTOn February 17 2012 05:30 pAnatiC wrote:
Thanks again for this awesome guide!
Now zvz makes fun and i managed to win against him! :D
Thanks again for this awesome guide!
Now zvz makes fun and i managed to win against him! :D
Yeah yeah you got lucky
[G] Rushing Relentlessly: A Guide to Zerg vs Zerg - Page 9
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
TangSC
Canada1866 Posts
Yeah yeah you got lucky | ||
|
venom_x
7 Posts
Hey Tang, you probably don't remember me but I argued with you somewhat recently about the viability of your bling ling drop v P in the ucsl group. On that note I'd like to mention that I actually varied your build somewhat and it does work once in a while and is a nice tool to have under your belt. Also brings me to a question unrelated to this thread -> in your bling drop you start lair at or before the 4:20 mark -> just wondering how exactly you achieve that if you go for a 14/14 speedling expand into lets say a 20/21 expansion. Ive never been able to afford both at the 4:20 mark, record I've made is maybe something like 4:40. But anyways this is a side note and irrelevant. I've always personally considered your style of play not to be the best for efficient improvement; that is just my opinion. I think its more worth it as a zerg player to constantly play standard, and even if that means losing a million games to timing attacks, that really just expands your arsenal and knowledge of the game as a whole. Zerg is a reactionary race, whether you like that or not, and so simply for that reason in my opinion it's always been worth playing a standard, solid style. That doesn't mean I don't play aggresive, that doesn't mean I don't advocate it either. In fact having aggressive or "all-in" builds under your belt is essential to be a creative, unpredictive, and a good player. But like I said, in my opinion for the zerg race, starting off as a new player and learning that way really doesn't benefit much. In fact, I can even prove to you that even you don't believe that. In a previous comment of yours you stated that even you yourself use to play a macro style and improved at the game and got to masters league, only at which point you started to play aggressive various builds. So, to be honest, I think even you agree that at lower levels it is more efficient to play standard, especially as zerg, and develop mechanics and solid understanding of this game. That's my opinion on the matter and sometimes I've always felt you should advocate and accept, but that doesn't mean you don't have a right to post agressive builds as you see fit. I don't mind reading them, and yes they are helpful, but not for improval as a zerg at lower levels. Now to this build. To be honest I think this is probably one of your most faulty guides, especially for lower league players. There is no way that anyone at that level can possible micro lings better than their oponent with ling bling, and if they can, it means theyre slipping with their macro. That is just fact, because there isn't enough multitasking capability at that level. Quite frankly I think that really at any level this isn't fully viable with someone of equal skill to the agressor but I guess everyone can make mistakes. However, I'm going to describe to you the way I've played zvz for two straight seasons now, with about a 70-80% win rate. I've already described to you that I think it is more efficient to improve with solid standard build orders and strategies. The way I've been playing ZvZ is simply 15 hatching as much as humanly possible. My zvz is mainly map based and really depends on ramps and the ability to defend my natural. On maps for example like metal, shattered, and shakuras where the ramp choke is small, I always 15 hatch roach. The ramp is easily blocked with 3 roaches, and the rest that I make are used for those annoying ling attemtpts to take down my natural. Once I have enough roaches to easily defend, I drone up and since most of my oponents try this ling style when they do see me go for the 15 hatch roach, they under drone and that makes up for the making of the roaches. It's a fairly micro intensive style (in the early game), and if I make even the smallest mistake of moving my roaches in an unfavourable position I can easily lose. It is a mechanic based strategy and generally allows for me to solidly transition into the mid-game. Obviously this style is not whatsoever viable on larger maps, roaches are slow and useless in the early game and any competent opponent on a map like TDA, antigua etc. would either just run right by, or surround them while moving out. That was a sever difficulty I had a few seasons ago when the larger maps came into play, I simply didn't know what to do anymore and got lost in zvz on those maps. I tried 14/14 and really just never was that good at it because its always hard to know what to do next - blings, expand etc? But again, I forced myself to find a way to make 15 hatch work. I finally found a solution and have yet to be beaten (in the early game at least) with it. I 15 hatch into 14/14 and rather then going for speed i delay it for the quick bling nest for defense, then get my speed later. Again, I've faced your strategy countless times, and with equal or higher level micro than my oponents, I can still get blings and enough lings and double queens to defend myself for any early ling pressure. I think at least on the NA server, there is a lot of undesire to open 15 hatch for zergs in zvz. A lot of opponents I face go 14/14 and I always tell them at the end of the game to consider attempting 15 hatch strats for improvement. It really only takes a bit of practice and decent mechanics to hold off early pressure if you are on point with your building timings (which you easily should be in the early game). This is why I don't think your build is all that viable, at least against my playstyle in zvz. Maybe if it's my first game of the day would I lose to such early pressure, and miss micro my defenses, but otherwise I pretty much never lose in the early game in Zvz anymore. And if you were to ask me what I do against early pools, the obvious answer is I don't 15 hatch. Anything under 14 pool (even a 13 pool) on certain maps can really be pretty much game deciding against a 15 hatch. Which brings me to another fault I seem to see in the community which is that a lot of zergs refuse to drone scout in zvz - I think this is because especially at high/pro level players are confident that their micro will keep them alive even against the earliest of pools and so they find it an advantage to keep that drone mining. But that is simply something I don't understand, why not early scout and if you see an early pool simply drop yours 1/2 supply later and you are already economically ahead and can defend the pressure. Anyways, sorry for the long post. Generally I like your guides and even though I am by no means a good player I like to try some of them out once in a while to see if they are viable for my own style, or if they are just a good tool for me to pull out in a BoX series. But this one (at least for myself) is really not viable under any circumstance and I don't ever lose to any early pressure in zvz like this unless my mechanics aren't up to par yet for the day. | ||
|
TangSC
Canada1866 Posts
On February 17 2012 15:57 6xFPCs wrote: I would encourage anyone who labels this an all-in to try it. Droning at any point during the build seems to work quite well. This is certainly no worker-pulling no econ all-in, simply a big ling timing followed by a roach+ling. True, the build I've detailed in this thread is very low-econ. I've stated, like you mention, that you can drone anytime you feel safe - the idea to take away is exactly that. Drone when you're safe! | ||
|
Hossinaut
United States453 Posts
| ||
|
Daggeroth
Australia2 Posts
| ||
|
decaf
Austria1797 Posts
On February 18 2012 03:29 Hossinaut wrote: I don't understand the perpetual need to be aggressive. Why not be aggressive at specific times TO FORCE ERRORS rather than to kill them? Watching Korean pro streams and the GSL, if they have the opportunity, they'll kill you. If they do not, they'll try to do damage, killing drones, parts of your army, making you be everywhere so that somewhere you'll get messed up. Why is this not preferable to ALWAYS AGRESS UPON THINE ENEMY! If you simply force mistakes, you can force a position of strength from which you may win the game. Why put yourself into a situation of vulnerability of your aggression fails? I don't understand the reasoning, as it seems to just be win win win go go go agress agress agress rather than an emphasis on actual tangible improvement. I agree. Allins are not the right way to learn this game. Sure you take some wins off players better than you, but you do not deserve those wins, because you bank on your opponent simply not scouting you most of the time. If you all in in a game and it's not a reacionary all in you will learn nothing from this game - there is no conclusion to be drawn. Sure you will become better at the all in, but you will lack game knowledge and proper mechanics, which _definitely_ is going to keep you from improving huge time. You place higher than you actually shoulld, because your start is easier to execute, which creates the illusion that leads into thinking you've actually improved. In the gsl there is no player who all ins every game and doesn't know how to play a proper game and there's a reason why that is. Sure, someone will argue "but it's a great build to have if you're playing a bo3", to be quite honest, how many players actually do play bo3s on a regular basis? In my opinion the only thing that is to be learned from Tang is Bumping Relentlessly. All those wacky strats at the top of the sc2 strategy sections actually don't make me want to come here anymore. | ||
|
TangSC
Canada1866 Posts
On February 18 2012 18:15 decaf wrote: I agree. Allins are not the right way to learn this game. Sure you take some wins off players better than you, but you do not deserve those wins, because you bank on your opponent simply not scouting you most of the time. If you think players don't "deserve" wins because they play aggressively, or that there's only one "right way" to learn the game, then that's fine! You're entitled to your own opinion and if you want to play exclusively macro or write guides that are macro-focused, that's your choice. I write guides on styles that have helped my students and I improve some of the key mechanics in SC2. These builds are all based on executing an attack so that you can seize map control, scout, and respond. All these very aggressive styles require you to constantly move out an army while managing your base economy/production, which is in my experience one of the most important/underdeveloped skills for the majority of players. The fact is simple: macro teaches you game sense and the ability to be "reactive," but for learning players this is not as important as just being able to execute a basic attack. There is no evidence to support any of your arguments. For you to say you don't frequent the forums because of posts like mine is very rude, I spend a lot of my time writing guides, making tutorials, and helping people improve. In general I've received a lot of support from the SC2 community. For the people who say zerg can only play macro, I say "Yeah? Then why do your ladder points belong to me?" | ||
|
decaf
Austria1797 Posts
On February 19 2012 00:31 TangSC wrote: If you think players don't "deserve" wins because they play aggressively, or that there's only one "right way" to learn the game, then that's fine! You're entitled to your own opinion and if you want to play exclusively macro or write guides that are macro-focused, that's your choice. I write guides on styles that have helped my students and I improve some of the key mechanics in SC2. These builds are all based on executing an attack so that you can seize map control, scout, and respond. All these very aggressive styles require you to constantly move out an army while managing your base economy/production, which is in my experience one of the most important/underdeveloped skills for the majority of players. The fact is simple: macro teaches you game sense and the ability to be "reactive," but for learning players this is not as important as just being able to execute a basic attack. There is no evidence to support any of your arguments. For you to say you don't frequent the forums because of posts like mine is very rude, I spend a lot of my time writing guides, making tutorials, and helping people improve. In general I've received a lot of support from the SC2 community. For the people who say zerg can only play macro, I say "Yeah? Then why do your ladder points belong to me?" And then you realize ladder points don't equal skill. | ||
|
TangSC
Canada1866 Posts
On February 19 2012 01:06 decaf wrote: And then you realize ladder points don't equal skill. If you get a promotion because you're a great macro player, you've become more skilled and you deserve the promotion. If you get a promotion because you're a great at 6-pooling, you've become more skilled and you deserve the promotion. I would congratulate the 6pooler and the macro player, and encourage both players to keep playing the style that appeals to them most. | ||
|
pAnatiC
Germany123 Posts
ya, i guess too  was really hard to hold your attacks but then i was way ahead in upgrades hope we will see us again | ||
|
RampancyTW
United States577 Posts
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. | ||
|
nface
106 Posts
On February 19 2012 01:15 TangSC wrote: If you get a promotion because you're a great macro player, you've become more skilled and you deserve the promotion. If you get a promotion because you're a great at 6-pooling, you've become more skilled and you deserve the promotion. I would congratulate the 6pooler and the macro player, and encourage both players to keep playing the style that appeals to them most. Yeah... that makes like no sense. How exactly did the guy who 6 pools all the time get more skill? | ||
|
Iksf
United Kingdom444 Posts
| ||
|
Ainvar
United States68 Posts
On February 19 2012 01:21 nface wrote: Yeah... that makes like no sense. How exactly did the guy who 6 pools all the time get more skill? Because to beat a Masters level player with a 6-pool it means you have better micro or decision making. | ||
|
TangSC
Canada1866 Posts
On February 19 2012 01:21 nface wrote: Yeah... that makes like no sense. How exactly did the guy who 6 pools all the time get more skill? It's a different set of skills, but there's no reason one should be held in higher esteem than the other. Both need to be honed if you want to improve. | ||
|
nface
106 Posts
On February 19 2012 01:53 TangSC wrote: It's a different set of skills, but there's no reason one should be held in higher esteem than the other. Both need to be honed if you want to improve. If you really think that, then that would explain why you call your builds macro aggression instead of all ins. And thus you have like no knowledge about this game and cant be paid attention to. | ||
|
TangSC
Canada1866 Posts
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". | ||
|
llKenZyll
United States853 Posts
On February 09 2012 08:24 pac.558 wrote: i don't like the fact that all these stategies are based on your opponent sucking I agree. | ||
|
RampancyTW
United States577 Posts
On February 19 2012 02:04 TangSC wrote: 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.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". "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. | ||
|
NostalgiaTag
Canada508 Posts
I'm assuming that you wanted to make speed @100 gas then pull drones off gass till roaches? | ||
| ||
