|
After watching Naniwa`s last games in GSL, he pretty much played greedy the whole time. It was like he was betting on the lottery, pure gamble.
Other players, like Stephano, tend to do a very safe opening against zerg 100% time (14 gas / 14 pool). He only does 15 hatch when he sees the opponent is doing the same (for example in Metalopolis close positions). But then we have Sheth, another greedy player. He really likes to do 15 hatch in ZXZ, specially with a late pool.
And we see many other players, like Ret or Idra, who loses because they droned too much. It`s like they don`t correct their mistakes. Everyone knows them as players who likes to make too many drones. But What If this playstyle stands by and it`s actually worthy doing it so? The kings of drones (Idra, Ret, etc.) surely have way more shots to win the game, and they rip apart their opponents who play safe.
What do you guys think? Is it better to be a safe or a greedy player in general? Can you make examples of the best players in the world (koreans and foreigns) and classify if they are a mix of being greedy and safe, or just one or another?
edit: Mods, if this is the wrong specific forum, please move to SC2 Stategies.
|
Generally I find greedy play becomes less greedy based on your own skill. Typically, the higher level the games, the more the defender's advantage can be stretched to cover some greedy build.
I've seen top Koreans 15 hatching in most ZvZs for months now, and destroying all the foreigners with it. Of course it's possible than an aggressive player with good enough micro could break it even if your micro and control to defend is pretty good. It's hard to say what is safe or not in ZvZ because no one really plays with perfect micro. Practically, in a tournament setting, it would be about gauging your opponent's skill and making as playing as greedy as you think you can against them (you may not need as many units if his micro isn't so good, etc.) but that's pretty advanced.
For something like just ladder games, it makes sense to me to just play safe. If you're greedy you'll get away with things on ladder you shouldn't be able to get away with if they were better, so it's really hard to say how greedy any non-pro should be.
Players like Idra and Ret probably don't make too many drones, and maybe they need to micro better so they can get away with fewer units. It's weird because these types of macro zergs don't micro that much even though it can help you get away with more drones. Of course that's just what I observe, I'm not as good as them so I'm not really sure.
No one's really playing perfectly so it's impossible to figure out a perfect way to play. It's partially stylistic, although in theory there should only be one correct way to play and everything else loses with perfect play. Perfect play is unrealistic, though, and starcraft is too complicated to ever figure out anything like perfection.
Flash would be the closest thing we've ever seen, although that is BW. He's known for doing greedy eco builds and being really good at holding off any type of all in or whatever. It really isn't about his choice to do that build being the perfect one, so much as he is really good at defending while being greedy. He plays Terran, though, where it's pretty simple, not as complicated as droning for Zerg. It's way harder to pinpoint an exact nuTmber of drones/units you need than whether or not you can hold a fast CC build.
|
The best way to play is to have a mix of both strategies. If you become known as someone who always plays greedy, then your opponents will try to take advantage of that (like with IdrA). So a solid all-round player will mix in high aggression / cheese with super fast expand builds to keep his opponent guessing. A good example is MKP. He is known for his trademark micro and aggression, but he regularly mixes in very greedy builds (especially in the MLG finals last night).
Of course, stuff like this only matters in a tournament environment where there's the possibility to learn the playstyle of the opponent. On the ladder just pick a style that works for you and go with it.
|
Standard>cheese>greedy>standard is how it's always been.
Ideally, you'd want to be diverse and well versed with all three so as not to become predictable. Standard is pretty much defined as how much you can get away with economically without dying to cheese though, so if you only want to focus on one style standard is the way to go.
|
If you scout properly and know the ins and outs of the game and your opponent, you know exactly what corners you can cut and what chances you can take. You can be as greedy as possible, and certainly more greedy than your opponent... therefore, giving you the necessary edges you need to win the game. That's usually what you need to do to beat your opponent, especially at the highest levels of the game.
|
I've watched GSL vods in korean and one comment by commentator Ahn ( AKA Engine) included "What I've noticed
from Naniwa's play is that he is really good at getting more ahead when he is ahead of the oppenent in a game"
I really think its a matter of style. For example, MC, who is one of the best protoss in the world, pretty much all- ins
most of the time when he is acually capable of (pretty good ) macroing into the late game. I prefer Naniwa's style cuz
im more of a macro oriented player. One thing to notice is that if you want to play like MC, youve gotta have exceptional
micro but not every player can micro like MC  . However, I do think that a good player should be able to mix macro
and all ins in their BO2, 3 or whatever, cuz if the opponent knows that you play the same all the time, its easy for him to
snipe you with the build they've prepared. This is the problem with foreigners in GSL. Huk lost a lot cuz all the korean
players knew that he 1 gate FE vs T, FFE vs Z and ive seen him sniped by that so many times.
|
In the future (I'm guessing 2-3 years from now) we'll see the BEST korean terrans playing greedy in 90% of their matchups. The best players know how to play greedy and still defend the most well executed cheeses.
|
I think aggressive is best, it forces the opponent down a more predictable tech path. I think opening 15cc is fine though
|
Its very simple, you need to be as greedy as possible while staying as safe as possible if that makes any sense.
You need to get the most out of every build while defending any possible allins with minimum amount of units.
|
I think it's not a matter of playing greedy or not, you just want to get some sort of advantage over your opponent. Some like to aim for a bigger economy, others for faster tech. You just need to scout and be sure where your edge is. If your opponent fast expands and you expand as well but later than him, you know you are behind in economy. This is especially true in mirror matchups.
In my opinion it's just a stylistic choice. Greedy players try to get away with as little as possible, while teching players try to hit as hard as possible. I do think that you should aim for the extremes when making that choice, since staying in the middle usually means you have no strengths, eventhough you aren't completely dead against something either.
|
play save, loose to greed and crush allins...
play greedy, loose to allins and punish save...
play allin, crush the greed and loose to save...
Whatever you do, does not care.
Just do it full and no between.
If you play a gamble game and decide not to gamble,
well, you lost before the game starts.
Welcome in the world of sc2...
|
Early dronegambling is the Zergform of doing some "close my eyes, cross my fingers, hope he doesn't notice" - 1/2-base rush.
Like doing such a rush, it's an easy win if your opponent doesn't react accordingly, because you just get far ahead. That being said, I think that the pros you mention are nothing like those casual players. It's rather that if you have good scouting and good knowledge about the game, you know what your opponent will be capable of.
A player like Ret 15hatches, because he knows that the only way to lose if he does it properly in ZvZ, is that his opponent goes for some blindcounter build. Everything else comes down to him not fucking up, so it's basically his game to lose, not his opponents to win - which is the situation you always want to be in, when you reach a decent level.
I think the best players are those, which play greedy and either react extremly well to what their opponent is doing, or which play greedy and create a safeness, by backing up their greed with aggression, but it also differs a lot from race to race.
Examples:
MarineKing is very greedy, but he changes his builds a lot and he goes from greedy play into very strong aggression and doesn't give his opponent the room that he needs to punish MKPs greed.
Nestea is the other category. He basically tries to just swallow attack after attack after attack and keeps on getting ahead by trading equally of a better economy. --> that's what basically every macrozerg aims for
For safe players, I'd say Genius is a good example. He tends to get very late 3rd bases, but gets all the safe techs he wants/needs like upgrades and colossi first of 2base.
|
It should not be possible to keep up by playing extremely conservative on a pro level. Playing "greedy" should be a norm for progamers, however the corners they cut must be based on their ability to overcome difficult situations with raw skill and having a clear plan on how to mitigate the disadvantages, rather than hope that these situations will not happen.
In Brood War you're very rarely going to see the exact same builds and strategies being played on pro level, high amateur level (such as foreign bw), and ladder. Higher level strategies tend to be more difficult to use and much more easily punished even by lesser opponents if they're not executed correctly, so instead of failing terribly at replicating the way a progamer plays, it is wiser to learn some of the older, staple builds.
The same will likely happen more and more in SC2 as the time goes on.
Edit: I think the way Ret approaches the game in its infancy is the most correct one (for the progression of strategy, sadly not so much for immediate benefit to himself). He attempts to beat every obstacle at the last possible moment, with the smallest possible investment, foregoing any redundant safety net in favor of amassing a greater advantage instead. With proper commitment and training, this is what a progamer should strive to do in all the matchups.
|
In my opinion the strife should always be to play as safe and standard as possible. You should not play greedy unless you know how to play standard and safe.
I recommend playing standard and safe untill you reach grandmaster or pro.
|
Isn't this essentially a case of risk versus reward? If you play greedy, you risk dying to someone who follows an aggressive build, likewise if you play too safe your opponent can use that to his advantage and be greedy and be economically ahead. Its about attaining a balance and a sense of how the game is going to play out, which will only come with experience. I hit masters this season and I'm still learning to read the game better.
|
I think the more players are greedy the better. Especially at high level play. You see so many 1 Gate > Expand, 1 Racks > Expand and 15 Hatches. Players know how to fend off the early aggression, but that doesn't mean its gone altogether and that people will never lose to it.
|
I'll quote Engine the Korean Commentator on this.
"offensive < defensive < greedy < offensive < defensive < greedy < ..."
|
Play greedy when you can be greedy; play safe otherwise.
|
On April 24 2012 00:58 Fus wrote:
In my opinion the strife should always be to play as safe and standard as possible. You should not play greedy unless you know how to play standard and safe.
I recommend playing standard and safe untill you reach grandmaster or pro.
Which is better, to play safe and win against all allins and loose to all greed, or play greedy and win against all safe play and loose to allins?
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.
|
well playing greedy most of the time will work on high level, but you need to mix it up a few times for sure.
|
It should not be your goal to play greedy. Your strat is situational based on the map and the player you are against. If you are playing on Metrapolis against a player that does not have an agressive playstyle, then you want to play as greedy as possible.
For the most part, you want to play as safe as possible.
|
Ret and Idra play safe but on the borderline of greed, ie still safe. They only properly greed if they scout and think it is possible to do so or because of the player they are playing against. Idra plays very greedy vs Bomber, but very safe vs Boxer. Stephano plays super greedy vs Protoss, but safe vs Zerg.
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.
|
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.
|
Greedy is a bit of a misleading term. It's only greedy depending on what you scout or what you know about your opponent. Idra and Ret scout nonstop and then choose what they believe is the maximum amount of drones they can get away with in that situation. This works a large portion of the time and so is it really greedy play? Or did they build the correct amount of drones? Well It's obviously the correct amount except when they lose.
'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.
|
The all point of the game is to be as greedy as you can as long as you don't die, that's why top players are greedier, they can hold harder push with less than us.
|
Safe.
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.
|
You basically identify your opponent's possible attack timings and play as greedy as possible until the point that you need to defend vs those. If you try to be safe vs every possible all-in you will lose to a "greedy" player. I don't like the word greedy because it's rather smart play, and not just blindly taking risks.
|
Sometimes I like to play greedy since I don't get as angry when I lose since I can easily trace back my mistake to a BO loss due to my greed. When I play safe and lose against something aggressive, then I might get frustrated at my lack of skill when attempting to hold that aggression off. However, if I play really greedy and lose to aggression, I can easily brush it off.
|
It's not really a matter of playing greedy or all inning, it's about taking what your opponent is giving you and getting ahead.
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.
|
On April 24 2012 01:59 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
A FINALLY found that post I made back in 2007, that addresses this issue!  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.
|
The best way to play is always be slightly greedier than your opponent. That's how macro games work. The problem is that it's often hard to know exactly how greedy your opponent is being, which is why people have developed "safe" styles.
|
Like many have said its all situational and depends on the map/race of the other play. I'll normally open greedy unless its a mirror. Then I just have to wait for the other guys 4 gate to come in and fail D:
|
In my opinion, playing greedy is the same as cheese, but to the other end. It's basically hoping your opponent doesn't respond correctly.
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.
|
The higher up you go, I think the greedier we see players go, wether it's economical or all-in or what not, eventually you have to cut corners, or the people that do will beat the safe standard play every time. That said, the higher you go, the more information players garner from scouting and are better at actively watching the map for timings and drops.
|
I like setting the pace. Whenever I lose control of the game it's because my own forcing has fallen apart. I don't know what category that would fall under though. I basically just try to play according to Nony's philosophy about making builds.
|
I generally like playing greedy and then simply defending. Unless its PvZ where i feel forced to try to kill the third
|
be as greedy as possible without dying
|
Play as greedy as possible and as safe as needed. That has to be the rule for a SOLID longgame-build. If you tune your build after this principle, you'll have the most success on a longterm basis.
|
Mixing it up is really necessary, your play can't become too predictable if you want to be a real tournament contender. Look at all the champions: Mvp, NesTea, MC, MKP, DRG; they will never go the same style every game.
|
The way I see it, no matter whether you want to all-in or play macro you should *typically* play as greedy as you can go gain an edge in achieving whatever goals you have for that game. The trick is of course, playing as greedy as possible and being able to fend off anything that might punish you, I personally don't even see it as *greedy* so much as pushing your economy as hard and fast as you can for as long as you can. Oftentimes playing greedy and getting killed for it can be perfectly fine as it lets you know how far you can push it and how much you can get away with, not to mention that playing greedy isn't even all that unsafe as long as you know what you are doing and have good scouting skills.
Playing safe can work fine too though, especially if you feel confident in your ability to win so long as you don't die early or whatever, such as if you have really good micro or strategy to rely upon.
Also I just wanna throw this out there, I think calling greedy play a type of cheese is just utterly ridiculous and I think most people who call greedy play cheese simply aren't very good at this game and don't really know just how many corners can be cut with decent scouting and still be perfectly safe. Like for example, if a few months ago I was taking 3hatches before gas against Protoss I would probably be called an eco-cheeser, yet today I can do it and everyone knows it's a perfectly safe opening and not even remotely cheesy. I don't think I've ever heard a caster use the term 'eco cheese' and I'm highly suspicious that the term is only really used by diamond and below players.
|
You have to mix it up. Thats the most important.
Even Stephano doesnt 14/14 every game in BoX series. (e.g.: 10 pool vs Nestea)
I think its a big weakness of players like Ret and Idra that they never cheese. Or Nony who plays very safe.
So between very good players it reaches an equilibrium, which leads to so-called coinflips.
Lets take a classical cloak vs detection:
- If you never go cloaked units, your opponent can pass on detection and be safe. If you always go cloaked, you can easily be countered.
- For the other guy: If you always get detection, your opponent never goes cloaked. So that money spent gets you behind.
You always to mix it up. Not only between cheese and not cheese, but also between safe and not safe.
|
Don't forget that you have to know how to spot for all-ins and timings. GM and Pros always try to figure out with little bits of info what the opponent is doing. So, their builds are actually a lot greedier than what most ppl would do or have to do!
For example, I once saw Kas play vs a toss player (can't remember exactly, i think it was on recent IEM) and lose a lot to DT's. I remember Day9 speaking of his build and warning about that eventuality, the 7:30 mark. He eventually lost the game.
I have done his same build and lost to DT play , although i had 3 orbitals, they didn't had enough energy (or i didn't control well) for me to be confortable. So, nowadays, i try to get a E-bay and/or save some energy at that point.
Point: Pros make their builds the GREEDIEST possible, as well as the SAFEST possible, as Beastyqt has so wisely posted:D, so when you copy someone's build, remember that they already now their pro's and con's. YOU, however, have to learn them all. My advice would be to start learning all your vulnerable spots and say : "against the possibility of DT's, i will..." "against the possibility of a baneling bust, i will..."
gl and hf
|
greedy play usually is accompanied, by really save scouting. While Save play normally without alot of scouting. At the end one player will waste their resources in scouting and cut corners and the other in defenses against everything. Both can turn out cheaper then the other at the end. So play on the weakness of your opponent or to your strength if you don't know the opponent.
I personally play save and deny scouting without showing my cards, then my opponent can't play greedy, or they have an extreme high chance of loosing by build order.
|
Its a pretty simple question to start with, How much economy can i get and still feel safe? If playing a macro game, the answer should be as much as possible. So i play as "greedy" as i can until i consistently get punished for it. Its just about finding the limits of the my ability and the style im using.
I guess what i'm saying is, its only greedy if i get punished for it. Otherwise i successfully chose the maximum amount of economy available.
|
I think the best way to play "greedy" is by giving your opponent reasons not to attack. This could mean anything from having 3 bunkers up to having cloaked banshees all over, but however you like to play, know that you need to protect your expansions as a first priority. I like to use aggression to cover greed, like in TvZ, the 1 rax fe into hellion banshee fast third is incredibly strong as it allows you to pressure zergs into staying in their bases until they have lair tech, and by then you should have turrets to defend your third. Also, in TvT, its very easy to do marine aggression builds into fast third, then as long as you don't lose your army, you can make a ridiculously fast 4th. The reason this is possible is that with a good marine-medivac army, you cannot be attacked without fear of a strong counter, so your 3rd and 4th are safe.
|
On April 24 2012 09:00 ComBro1 wrote:
I think the best way to play "greedy" is by giving your opponent reasons not to attack. This could mean anything from having 3 bunkers up to having cloaked banshees all over, but however you like to play, know that you need to protect your expansions as a first priority. I like to use aggression to cover greed, like in TvZ, the 1 rax fe into hellion banshee fast third is incredibly strong as it allows you to pressure zergs into staying in their bases until they have lair tech, and by then you should have turrets to defend your third. Also, in TvT, its very easy to do marine aggression builds into fast third, then as long as you don't lose your army, you can make a ridiculously fast 4th. The reason this is possible is that with a good marine-medivac army, you cannot be attacked without fear of a strong counter, so your 3rd and 4th are safe.
Stephano includes a roach aggression that tends to destroy your build. Maybe your build isn't as safe as you think :p
|
In ladder, play greedy everytime. Ofc you'll face some sick all in but in the end, you'll be able to defend it and you will play greedier.
|
You need to be as greedy as possible. Key word there, possible.
At the highest level, as many have said, even the smallest advantages matter, largely due to the fact that, unless one of them manages to procure a slight advantage, they will remain precisely equal due to their perfect macro. However, slight advantages can easily be negated or even countered if the opponent capitalizes, so you must also play as safe as possible.
It's a very delicate thing.
|
On April 24 2012 09:10 MilesTeg wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2012 09:00 ComBro1 wrote:
I think the best way to play "greedy" is by giving your opponent reasons not to attack. This could mean anything from having 3 bunkers up to having cloaked banshees all over, but however you like to play, know that you need to protect your expansions as a first priority. I like to use aggression to cover greed, like in TvZ, the 1 rax fe into hellion banshee fast third is incredibly strong as it allows you to pressure zergs into staying in their bases until they have lair tech, and by then you should have turrets to defend your third. Also, in TvT, its very easy to do marine aggression builds into fast third, then as long as you don't lose your army, you can make a ridiculously fast 4th. The reason this is possible is that with a good marine-medivac army, you cannot be attacked without fear of a strong counter, so your 3rd and 4th are safe. Stephano includes a roach aggression that tends to destroy your build. Maybe your build isn't as safe as you think :p
lol the build is kinda designed to give you ample warning for any early roach aggression, the banshees and hellions serve as scouts as well as harassment, and besides, roaches suck vs banshees . just lift your OC, bunker up, and you'll be fine.
|
Playing safe is a good way to beat a player worse than you. Playing greedy or hyperaggressive is a good way to beat a player as good as you or better.
|
Be as greedy as possible while staying safe.
|
Playing safe is a good way to beat a player worse than you. Playing greedy or hyperaggressive is a good way to beat a player as good as you or better.
I agree with this, playing safe is basically you saying in your head "i don't need to be greedy to beat this guy"/
|
The simple answer is information. You need to have information on what you are up against because blindly going 1 racks double cc into double gas is just as much of a cheese as 6 pool.
|
Mixing strategies is always going to be stronger than specializing in just one. Because SC2 is such a counter-heavy game, if you opponent can accurately predict your behavior then you're in a very bad place.
Personally, when I play a BO3, I like the idea of spreading my strategies across a timeline. I like to go super cheesy in game #1, super greedy in game #2, and fall back on standard in game #3. I like to cheese at the beginning of a BO3 instead of the end, because sometimes I can get my opponent to tilt right off the bat. Even if the cheese fails, the opponent will likely play super cautiously in game#2, which will usually let me get away with a super greedy build. In game 3 I like to fall back on something more cheese-proof, because from an emotional standpoint I hate losing series purely because of cheese. I think it makes good strategic sense too. Because that way it doesn't matter if my opponent pins me as either a "cheesy player" or "macro player"; no matter which route my opponent commits to in game 3, I will be able to edge them by playing to the middle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
