EPTFor the most part, you want to play as safe as possible.
Playing greedy, safe or both: What`s the formula? - Page 2
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
Mrvoodoochild1
United States1439 Posts
For the most part, you want to play as safe as possible. | ||
|
Micket
United Kingdom2163 Posts
The real greedy players are generally the Terran players, as their triple orbital builds into double engie bay builds often have a unit count of 9 marines, 4 hellions at the 9 minute mark. However, they do everything based on scouting too. You will get some players like Marineking mix in absolutely everything to basically get free wins if his opponent cannot scout him properly. For Terran, this is the best way to play, as long as you got the fundamentals (which Marineking has in abundance). Zerg have to play greedy to keep up because safe Zerg is very bad in all matchups except v Z. Against Terran, 2 base all ins are very very uncommon and aren't very good on large maps anyway. Against Protoss, you have to be exceptionally greedy to beat 2 base all ins anyway. You just need to know when to stop droning. Against Zerg, stuff is different. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On April 24 2012 01:44 Zarahtra wrote: Personally I'd rather play greedy and learn what I can get away with, what/how I need to scout and force myself to defend with bare minimum. This is ofcourse just mostly for ladder, as when people get to know you, you have to mix different strategies in. This only works at the pinnacle skill level of Starcraft (which for all I know you may be at, but most people reading your post won't be). Doing this on ladder doesn't teach you much at all, as the inferior execution of your opponents prevents them from being able to effectively identify and punish you for the risk you're taking. Therefore initially it's impossible to estimate how much you can realistically get away with. Compared to playing conservatively, it tends to lead to more easy victory or easy defeat scenarios, neither of which tests your mechanics hard enough regularly enough for you to maintain and/or improve your effective skill level. Which in turn means that once you hit a ladder level where your opponents will actually test your strategy's weaknesses and you need superior mechanics to get away with the bare minimum, you will not be able to play it out perfectly. Which then at best negates any strategic advantage you gained from playing greedy in the first place. | ||
|
PiGStarcraft
Australia1003 Posts
'Greedy' players tend to lose when they get tricked or misread their scouting information. And therefore that's a problem with their gameknowledge or scouting, not greed. Also referring to Stephano as 'safe' because he builds alot of units tells me you're looking at the game from a purely defensive standpoint. He isn't looking to be 'safe', he's building units to potentially be aggressive. Sure that's just semantics, but the point is that if you want to play safe you have to always be looking for opportunities to be aggressive or playing 'safe' is just a mixture of not macroing particularly hard, and not punishing greedy opponents either. Now if you then factor in how players like stephano play you realise that they can just build units a lot earlier and get away without having such a huge economic lead by always looking for opportunities to be aggressive and punish his opponents whereas the Ret/Idra style players normally will not be heavily aggressive AT ALL until a certain point in the game that they pre-decided. So ultimately it is a stylistic option. What do you enjoy playing and feel you're strongest/most confident with? Personally I find it's much easier to handle just playing defensively rather then playing a mixture of macro and aggression. I learnt to play the game in this order: 1) Greedy macro play 2) All-ins/timing attacks 3) Mastered multitasking and mechanics as well as game knowledge so could play a mixture of both. | ||
|
Lazzi
Switzerland1923 Posts
| ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
You should try to play in such a way that when your opponent would make all the right counter moves you would still have an equall or at least playable game. Playing to greedy is counting on the opponent to make mistakes, same with most of the cheeses. | ||
|
Arcanefrost
Belgium1257 Posts
| ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
| ||
|
FLiP491
United States124 Posts
There are specific cases where you don't have all the information you need to make a perfect decision, but in general that's not the case. Unless you're practicing specific builds, I don't think it's a good idea to go into games with the mindset of 'i must macro up to 3-4 bases before anything' or 'i must kill him with x all in before y minutes' Pigstarcraft above me got it right. Although you can mix 1 and 2, the idea is to get to 3. | ||
|
Zarahtra
Iceland4053 Posts
On April 24 2012 01:59 Talin wrote: This only works at the pinnacle skill level of Starcraft (which for all I know you may be at, but most people reading your post won't be). Doing this on ladder doesn't teach you much at all, as the inferior execution of your opponents prevents them from being able to effectively identify and punish you for the risk you're taking. Therefore initially it's impossible to estimate how much you can realistically get away with. Compared to playing conservatively, it tends to lead to more easy victory or easy defeat scenarios, neither of which tests your mechanics hard enough regularly enough for you to maintain and/or improve your effective skill level. Which in turn means that once you hit a ladder level where your opponents will actually test your strategy's weaknesses and you need superior mechanics to get away with the bare minimum, you will not be able to play it out perfectly. Which then at best negates any strategic advantage you gained from playing greedy in the first place. But surely, if I get a lot of easy wins playing greedy, I will eventually be playing above my true skill level, where at worst I will be fighting against superior players which will require me to stretch my own skills to the limit or at best be at a level where people can read my greed correctly and try to punish it. In any case, my point wasn't so much about my opponent having the game knowledge to read my build correctly, but rather that any allin/timing that gets thrown at me while I'm playing greedy, in theory in the least, I should be identifying what went wrong and what I can do to prevent it next time, be it with better scouting, better scout denial, less greed, scraping the build altogether or the least favorable one, accept it as a risk and a build order win for my opponent. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
 That was sc:bw back then ofc, but the point stands for any RTS.On February 19 2007 16:22 Cascade wrote: It depends on HOW MUCH more you power then the other guy: ![[image loading]](http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/1369/gainasfncofpowerzx6.png) Or at least that is how I look at this. Not that I can tell a zergling from a battlecruiser... EDIT: ok, it quite hard to read the text. right click --> show image (or w/e it says in english OSs...) makes it better for me. | ||
|
Skwid1g
United States953 Posts
| ||
|
Fueled
United States1610 Posts
| ||
|
K3Nyy
United States1961 Posts
I'd say always play safe but solid (which includes punishing them if they are greedy and attack when you know you can win). Sometimes though, you're up against a much better player and you might need a slight edge to come out ahead so it might be better for you to take that risk. Overall though, I don't like plays that rely on your opponent being bad so I'd vote for always play safe. | ||
|
1st_Panzer_Div.
United States621 Posts
| ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
| ||
|
Aratan
United States90 Posts
| ||
|
Wrathsc2
United States2025 Posts
| ||
|
TeeTS
Germany2762 Posts
| ||
|
QNdie
Poland210 Posts
| ||
| ||
