I highly value your feedback and look forward to hearing your comments on my work so far.
I'd also like to discuss the learning approach I take here before receiving a bunch of flak for it. I have a feeling a lot of people are going to beat their chests and scream macro and mechanics at the top of their forum lungs and berate me for misleading the delicate minds of newbies with allins. Don't get me wrong, I do quite heartily agree that mechanics are the fundamental skills required to develop playing SC2. I disagree with a very common interpretation of that, however.
I don't believe macro to necessarily include multiple bases and a city of production facilities: macro is all about hotkeys, they allow you to issue commands fast enough to gain more money and spend more money. If you are practicing using these hotkeys to build structures, units, and workers, I don't think it matters just how many of these Command Centers or production facilities are attached to the key, the result of the practice is the same. You could argue that having more bases and thus increased income creates stress to use these hotkeys faster or more efficiently leading to more skill at macro, and while true, I believe the same stress is created managing your army in a way that makes using a single base viable on ladder. For that reason, I believe the one base approach to work just as well.
There is a substantial benefit to working with a single base versus multiple bases. From a very early stage, the player is forced to be more careful with controlling his units (micro) and being precise with his/her build. This exposes said player to the full depth of the game right off the bat, and allows him to develop these skills from the very beginning. As s/he gets more proficient, adding a Command Center and/or removing an SCV pull is trivial because the player as a deeper understanding of build orders. The only thing left to learn for them is how much production to add and having that production added to the appropriate hotkeys - a very simple thing to do. For that potent reason, I believe a one base approach to be even better.
This is a style of improvement and learning I'm sharing in the hopes others think the same way I do and are able to use this approach to succeed.
You say there are advantages but there are also a ton of disadvantages:
-Don't learn to make workers throughout the game -Don't learn to constantly make supply depots -Don't learn to add on production -Don't learn to expand and defense expansions -Don't learn to know when to sacrifice an expansion -Don't learn to prioritize adding said depots/production/expansions over obsessing over microing a battle
Sure if your only goal is to get that little Masters icon next to your name to get some warm fuzzy feeling then 1base is the way to go. If you want to also know you are looked down upon by the majority of the community and your skills are nothing but a paper tiger then go the approach of learning the game proper.
-Don't learn to make workers throughout the game Yes you do, in the builds I describe all the workers are not pulled (just the oversaturated ones)
-Don't learn to constantly make supply depots In the builds I'm using, with the exception of the bronze build (I cut out the depots to make it easier), you need to make depots until the end of the game in most situations
-Don't learn to add on production You're right, but there is more attention paid to managing the production facilities you do have (not over queuing), and this is something easily picked up later
-Don't learn to expand and defense expansions Not always true, you could be attacked earlier than your timing or be counter attacked while executing a build - and besides, this is really just multitasking, and you are exercising that skill by denying and attacking expansions
-Don't learn to know when to sacrifice an expansion That's extremely game specific, not a general skill - but you do get a lot of practice trading units and in so doing develop your skill at estimating cost and reward
-Don't learn to prioritize adding said depots/production/expansions over obsessing over microing a battle You need to continually produce workers/units/supply while being aggressive and is the same skill whether you have 1 base or 4, the only difference is more depots when you move your screen back to base - very minor
Sure if your only goal is to get that little Masters icon next to your name to get some warm fuzzy feeling then 1base is the way to go. If you want to also know you are looked down upon by the majority of the community and your skills are nothing but a paper tiger then go the approach of learning the game proper. The goal is to improve, and achieving Masters is the proof of that improvement. While you will get a warm fuzzy feeling, it's because you've improved. I'm not saying one base is the end all be all of SC2, I'm saying it's a great place to start and learn the game all the way to the higher levels. After you're there, as I detailed in the original post, learning the rest is quite easy because you have all the skills necessary to learn them quickly. After all, a Command Center is just another part of a build an a small addition to the same hotkey you've been using since bronze. The skills you learn approaching the game this way is a far cry from a paper tiger - it's a concrete foundation ready to support the full weight, complexity, and depth of SC2.
On January 23 2013 23:38 Tenks wrote: You say there are advantages but there are also a ton of disadvantages:
-Don't learn to make workers throughout the game -Don't learn to constantly make supply depots -Don't learn to add on production -Don't learn to expand and defense expansions -Don't learn to know when to sacrifice an expansion -Don't learn to prioritize adding said depots/production/expansions over obsessing over microing a battle
Sure if your only goal is to get that little Masters icon next to your name to get some warm fuzzy feeling then 1base is the way to go. If you want to also know you are looked down upon by the majority of the community and your skills are nothing but a paper tiger then go the approach of learning the game proper.
I understand where you are coming from, but some people learn or pick up things differently then others do. If the true goal is to improve your game, winning, losing, or even rank shouldn't matter at all.
On January 23 2013 23:38 Tenks wrote: You say there are advantages but there are also a ton of disadvantages:
-Don't learn to make workers throughout the game -Don't learn to constantly make supply depots -Don't learn to add on production -Don't learn to expand and defense expansions -Don't learn to know when to sacrifice an expansion -Don't learn to prioritize adding said depots/production/expansions over obsessing over microing a battle
Sure if your only goal is to get that little Masters icon next to your name to get some warm fuzzy feeling then 1base is the way to go. If you want to also know you are looked down upon by the majority of the community and your skills are nothing but a paper tiger then go the approach of learning the game proper.
Most importantly imo, you'll never learn to evaluate what you can afford / when you can afford it / how to use it properly and how to transition against what your opponent does. Basically you'll never win a standard game but you're also gonna start losing tons of games because the higher you get, the more players will (easily) dispatch of 1 base shenanigans. I doubt you'll ever learn how to deal with infestors for example if you only play 1 base. You'll probably never even see one and if you do, you've probably already lost. 1 base openings are good, yes. And they can be important to mix in if you play a tournament. But this is ladder ffs, you'll never even be good enough to play in a tournament if all you do is 1 base all in.
You're learning to micro, yeah. But you're only learning to micro vs what your opponent can have at the time your all in hits, which is pretty stupid as it completely ignores learning to control vs units that hit later. You'll be able to outmicro zealot/stalker maybe. Cool! Will you be able to handle blink stalkers/chargelots? Different story. If you're gonna do all ins, at least do 2 base all ins where your army somewhat resembles a composition that's useful throughout the game.
Your videos involve you facing the newest of the bronze, i would like to see the strat you do against somebody decent! GOGO advanced video or something ;/
Interesting, I feel Filters' method is akin to classically training a new SC2 player, this is different, and different isn't necessarily a bad thing. I am curious to others opinions on using cheese as a valuable teaching method, I ask because recently my housemate has taken a liking to SC2 and has just bought the game, I was wondering if Filters method would be ideal, or is it better to learn 1 base builds first, as they do have their merit. I would bank you would see faster overall improvement from 1 base builds, however it would only be improvement up to a certain point. Would any higher level players have an opinion on this?
On January 24 2013 00:49 mau5mat wrote: Interesting, I feel Filters' method is akin to classically training a new SC2 player, this is different, and different isn't necessarily a bad thing. I am curious to others opinions on using cheese as a valuable teaching method, I ask because recently my housemate has taken a liking to SC2 and has just bought the game, I was wondering if Filters method would be ideal, or is it better to learn 1 base builds first, as they do have their merit. I would bank you would see faster overall improvement from 1 base builds, however it would only be improvement up to a certain point. Would any higher level players have an opinion on this?
Well it's definitely not the worst thing to start with. You shouldn't be doing builds that require more infrastructure than you can manage properly. But masters is too high I think. You should be able to handle a one base economy by the time you reach gold. If you're in silver or bronze, sure. You'll learn basic micro. The thing is though, your opponents are obviously bronze or silver too so they won't micro too well. I think you gain more by learning standard builds because you'll be able to profit on more fronts. If you play protoss though, I feel like 2 base all ins are a GREAT tool to learn protoss micro as you'll be using units that protoss has to use perfectly at a high level to survive (zealots, sentries, stalkers, maybe immortals).
On January 24 2013 00:49 mau5mat wrote: Interesting, I feel Filters' method is akin to classically training a new SC2 player, this is different, and different isn't necessarily a bad thing. I am curious to others opinions on using cheese as a valuable teaching method, I ask because recently my housemate has taken a liking to SC2 and has just bought the game, I was wondering if Filters method would be ideal, or is it better to learn 1 base builds first, as they do have their merit. I would bank you would see faster overall improvement from 1 base builds, however it would only be improvement up to a certain point. Would any higher level players have an opinion on this?
This guide is more short term with a cutoff where you would have to branch out and learn how to 2base ect. Filter's guide goes straight to the endgame which has no cutoff, but is long and takes time to learn. It really is up to you and your housemate though, would he prefer to have a simple goal that teaches a few aspects of SC2 or a more complex goal that teaches most aspects at once?
On January 23 2013 23:38 Tenks wrote: You say there are advantages but there are also a ton of disadvantages:
-Don't learn to make workers throughout the game -Don't learn to constantly make supply depots -Don't learn to add on production -Don't learn to expand and defense expansions -Don't learn to know when to sacrifice an expansion -Don't learn to prioritize adding said depots/production/expansions over obsessing over microing a battle
Sure if your only goal is to get that little Masters icon next to your name to get some warm fuzzy feeling then 1base is the way to go. If you want to also know you are looked down upon by the majority of the community and your skills are nothing but a paper tiger then go the approach of learning the game proper.
I did a very similar method to OP. I played Terran until masters then switched to protoss. Once you get to masters, it's much easier to study/practice because you have developed the core mechanics of playing a small number of short builds flawlessly and can expand from there. To give you an idea of how successful this method can be, I'm comfortably top 25 gm for the duration of this season. It's definitely not just for that little masters icon imo. gogo OP gj gl hf
On January 23 2013 23:38 Tenks wrote: You say there are advantages but there are also a ton of disadvantages:
-Don't learn to make workers throughout the game -Don't learn to constantly make supply depots -Don't learn to add on production -Don't learn to expand and defense expansions -Don't learn to know when to sacrifice an expansion -Don't learn to prioritize adding said depots/production/expansions over obsessing over microing a battle
Sure if your only goal is to get that little Masters icon next to your name to get some warm fuzzy feeling then 1base is the way to go. If you want to also know you are looked down upon by the majority of the community and your skills are nothing but a paper tiger then go the approach of learning the game proper.
I did a very similar method to OP. I played Terran until masters then switched to protoss. Once you get to masters, it's much easier to study/practice because you have developed the core mechanics of playing a small number of short builds flawlessly and can expand from there. To give you an idea of how successful this method can be, I'm comfortably top 25 gm for the duration of this season. It's definitely not just for that little masters icon imo. gogo OP gj gl hf
^ thanks to all the replies above. @Eifer; Could you elaborate on what you used to get to Masters buildwise as Terran?
On January 23 2013 23:38 Tenks wrote: You say there are advantages but there are also a ton of disadvantages:
-Don't learn to make workers throughout the game -Don't learn to constantly make supply depots -Don't learn to add on production -Don't learn to expand and defense expansions -Don't learn to know when to sacrifice an expansion -Don't learn to prioritize adding said depots/production/expansions over obsessing over microing a battle
Sure if your only goal is to get that little Masters icon next to your name to get some warm fuzzy feeling then 1base is the way to go. If you want to also know you are looked down upon by the majority of the community and your skills are nothing but a paper tiger then go the approach of learning the game proper.
I did a very similar method to OP. I played Terran until masters then switched to protoss. Once you get to masters, it's much easier to study/practice because you have developed the core mechanics of playing a small number of short builds flawlessly and can expand from there. To give you an idea of how successful this method can be, I'm comfortably top 25 gm for the duration of this season. It's definitely not just for that little masters icon imo. gogo OP gj gl hf
^ thanks to all the replies above. @Eifer; Could you elaborate on what you used to get to Masters buildwise as Terran?
I would probably use both of these, one day practice one method the next practice the other. Once you have hit all the required targets regularly move up to next level.
Thank you for making this, it's refreshing to see someone share/teach a method that doesn't focus on making a bunch of stuff. Of course, those methods can work well too, but working on 1 base plays also allows you to focus on specific things and improve them quickly while still being able to go very far. I think it's more fun too, focusing on things like micro, unit counters, when to attack, etc., rather than when to expand and how many production facilities to build.
To be a really good player you must not play macro all the time, or else you'll get too predictable. Learning some one base builds is always a good method to improve. Getting a good mix of all-ins and macro builds is the right choice to make. Especially, in the basic learning phase you will get a mix of both skills, macro and micro. I think that this is another good way for learning, which finally doesn't emphasize on macro only.
On January 23 2013 23:38 Tenks wrote: You say there are advantages but there are also a ton of disadvantages:
-Don't learn to make workers throughout the game -Don't learn to constantly make supply depots -Don't learn to add on production -Don't learn to expand and defense expansions -Don't learn to know when to sacrifice an expansion -Don't learn to prioritize adding said depots/production/expansions over obsessing over microing a battle
Sure if your only goal is to get that little Masters icon next to your name to get some warm fuzzy feeling then 1base is the way to go. If you want to also know you are looked down upon by the majority of the community and your skills are nothing but a paper tiger then go the approach of learning the game proper.
Let's say someone wants to learn a new playstyle. This is one of the best ways to go about it. When you start something new from the ground up, you can learn it from a beginners viewpoint all over again. That may not be the goal here, but it is a potential implementation for this theory.
Its superficial masters league to get it by one-basing. Back when I was P i got to masters by 1basing and 2basing all of my opponents. Yes, I had the icon, but I didn't have the mechanics to compete with even skilled opponents past the early/midgame. I went back (when i switched to T) and learned all stages of the game. Now I can say I am legit masters because i can keep up with my opponents at all stages of the game (in fact I prefer the midgame and lategame because it allows me to outplay my opponents better then I could with cheesy aggressive builds that lose when scouted.
That said, it's important to mix in some aggression now and then to prevent you from being too predictable.
I dont like the plat build against terran, it's seems to late. Because most terrans will have 100 supply at the 10 minute mark, and will know ur on 1base with tanks. They will catch ur tanks unsieged, when he's medivacs are out, it's game over for this build. I dont see how this late push can win games against a 2-base T, but, im only silver so who cares
I did like the micro tutorial bout stutterstepping and splitting and the strats to gold. There arent many easy tutorials bout that on utube
I was a bit skeptical after reading the description but after watching the first two videos, I can see how these would be useful for newer players trying to refine their game. Even the basic stuff you go over like hotkeys and game settings are really important. Also, since you mention that in later guides (I think you say Diamond) there are deviations so I think this series will be less rigid than the description makes out.
I actually use a similar idea when I want to improve. In the sense that I'll take a core build and get a good friend to do a counter build and then we'll just play it over and over again. It really helps you to refine your build. And, of course, in the end you'll work out the best times to make your deviations and what to scout out for too .
If I had more time I'd check out more videos . Furthermore, the monotone was definitely on the good side compared to the full range of "12 year old who's just drunk 12 cans of coke" to actually "sounds like death itself" VODs I think we've all seen and heard haha !
On January 24 2013 03:06 HoLe wrote: I one based to rank 1 diamond.
And now I can macro like a motherfucker.
Riddle me that, haters.
Rank 1 diamond isn't considered high level at all on TL.
There's isn't a level that's considered high. We have heard everything under the sun that's either high or not high.
We've seen people who said:
"GM? you're still shit" "Not GSL champion? still shit"
In the end? We need to move away from this elitist mindset. Bring in more customers. Bring in new blood, more users, more players, grow the game for god sake. It doesn't matter whether they're bronze or whether they're GM.
People are people. And we need more of them.
1-base play is the foundation of what we all started on back in 2010 when this game first came out. And we still see 1-base play even in the big tournaments. 1-base play is here to stay.
I think one basing up to gold or low platinum is probably ideal, and then start working on the more complicated stuff. This is speaking as a low diamond player.
On January 23 2013 23:38 Tenks wrote: You say there are advantages but there are also a ton of disadvantages:
-Don't learn to make workers throughout the game -Don't learn to constantly make supply depots -Don't learn to add on production -Don't learn to expand and defense expansions -Don't learn to know when to sacrifice an expansion -Don't learn to prioritize adding said depots/production/expansions over obsessing over microing a battle
Sure if your only goal is to get that little Masters icon next to your name to get some warm fuzzy feeling then 1base is the way to go. If you want to also know you are looked down upon by the majority of the community and your skills are nothing but a paper tiger then go the approach of learning the game proper.
On January 24 2013 03:06 HoLe wrote: I one based to rank 1 diamond.
And now I can macro like a motherfucker.
Riddle me that, haters.
Rank 1 diamond isn't considered high level at all on TL.
There's isn't a level that's considered high. We have heard everything under the sun that's either high or not high.
We've seen people who said:
"GM? you're still shit" "Not GSL champion? still shit"
In the end? We need to move away from this elitist mindset. Bring in more customers. Bring in new blood, more users, more players, grow the game for god sake. It doesn't matter whether they're bronze or whether they're GM.
People are people. And we need more of them.
1-base play is the foundation of what we all started on back in 2010 when this game first came out. And we still see 1-base play even in the big tournaments. 1-base play is here to stay.
The reason I mentioned Rank 1 Diamond not being high is because he was using it to justify his point. I wasn't speaking from an elitist mindset or even criticising 1 base play, I'm simply stating that if you want to prove that 1 base play can take you from diamond to masters then saying you are Rank 1 Diamond is not the way to achieve that.
Also what? we're discussing the effectiveness of 1 base play as a method to achieve a masters rank and/or improve, we're not talking about growing the game. It's frustrating how every conversation to do with SC2 turns to 'grow esports'.
One thing that i think needs mentioning here is that this is how most people learned Sc2. In the beta and for a little while after the release everything was one base one base one base, especially for terran (zerg would sometimes two base). eventually as pros refined their play they started taking more bases because they could hold all of the cheeses. Most people don't have their play refined to the point where they can hold a well designed all in. Even alot of pros don't, which is why we still see all ins mixed in with tournament play. So, i think that people that stress "macro" (three bases and a bazillion production buildings) are forgetting how the metagame got to this point, they began going 5 rax reaper and have since refined their play to where it is now.
On January 24 2013 05:14 DBS wrote: One thing that i think needs mentioning here is that this is how most people learned Sc2. In the beta and for a little while after the release everything was one base one base one base, especially for terran (zerg would sometimes two base). eventually as pros refined their play they started taking more bases because they could hold all of the cheeses. Most people don't have their play refined to the point where they can hold a well designed all in. Even alot of pros don't, which is why we still see all ins mixed in with tournament play. So, i think that people that stress "macro" (three bases and a bazillion production buildings) are forgetting how the metagame got to this point, they began going 5 rax reaper and have since refined their play to where it is now.
Im sure the deluge of balance changes had nothing to do with that. In all honesty T cannot really one base a Z nowadays because 6-8 queens holds everything T can throw at them quite nicely. If queens were as good in beta as they are now we might have seen a similar iron wall style zerg we see nowadays. I myself think that timing attacks are a good way to learn the game when you are a newer player, but 2 base -> push + third are the best IMO because 2 base into potential macro improves a much broader skillset then a 1 base player with SCV pulls.
Currently Im coaching a gold league real-life friend of mine, and the advice i give in that league is to do a 2 base bio + medivac timing, transitioning into 8 rax marine marauder medivac in all matchups. The purpose is to stress how important macro is at gold league. I analyze his replays and its commonplace to see him up 30+ supply at the 10 minute mark. Obviously this timing is sub-optimal in every non vsP matchup (as well as the followups) but gold league is not optimal league. When you improve to plat diamond and beyond you start using real builds like hellion banshee and real transitions like marine tank or mech.
I'm working on the diamond stuff tonight, I'm just going to approach one matchup at a time now.
For those that are concerned, in my opinion it is certainly quite viable to 1 base your zerg opponents even at the master level. I will be proving this over the next few days.
Thanks for all the comments and feedback so far! You guys are awesome, even the ones who disagree.
On January 24 2013 08:12 Scail wrote: I'm working on the diamond stuff tonight, I'm just going to approach one matchup at a time now.
For those that are concerned, in my opinion it is certainly quite viable to 1 base your zerg opponents even at the master level. I will be proving this over the next few days.
Thanks for all the comments and feedback so far! You guys are awesome, even the ones who disagree.
Yes it's viable, but much stronger off a 1 rax FE. Forces them to scout and you can follow up with a hellion marauder 3 rax all in, with a SCV pull.
On January 24 2013 08:12 Scail wrote: I'm working on the diamond stuff tonight, I'm just going to approach one matchup at a time now.
For those that are concerned, in my opinion it is certainly quite viable to 1 base your zerg opponents even at the master level. I will be proving this over the next few days.
Thanks for all the comments and feedback so far! You guys are awesome, even the ones who disagree.
Yes it's viable, but much stronger off a 1 rax FE. Forces them to scout and you can follow up with a hellion marauder 3 rax all in, with a SCV pull.
Please post this. I have been looking for a 2 base hellion marauder, everything I have found is only 1 and that is just so easy to scout and react to
A zerg player is "forced" to scout and respond to any type of aggression.
While working with more than 1 base is something I intend to do after my series, I find it hard to swallow that you can just state outright that a 1 rax FE hellion marauder is allin is automatically superior to anything you can do off of one base. It's out of the scope of my series right now, but since I will be looking at alternative strategies later and sharing them on youtube, do you have any high masters/GM/pro replays or VODs I can reference to back your claims up?
On January 24 2013 09:24 Scail wrote: A zerg player is "forced" to scout and respond to any type of aggression.
While working with more than 1 base is something I intend to do after my series, I find it hard to swallow that you can just state outright that a 1 rax FE hellion marauder is allin is automatically superior to anything you can do off of one base. It's out of the scope of my series right now, but since I will be looking at alternative strategies later and sharing them on youtube, do you have any high masters/GM/pro replays or VODs I can reference to back your claims up?
Polt does a 1 rax Fe into 3 rax 1 fac marauder hellion attack all the time. Last time I remember was on whirlwind.
I support this idea, I started out with very aggressive play in SC2 and eventually I branched out to what people would consider to be "macro" play. When I finally did branch out to macro play, I found that I was able to macro more efficiently than most of the players I was facing because I 1. understood what kinds of production can be supported off of each base, 2. was used to not que-ing units when I macro because it's especially inefficient to do so when executing builds with lower base counts. My aggressive 1 - 2 base play during the beginning of my career allow me to macro better, micro better and multitask better than the opponents I face. As for game knowledge/ game sense and build orders for "standard play" I think that comes much more quickly than mechanics which is what I think this OP is trying to achieve.
This is kind of how MKP improved his StarCraft 2 game. We first saw him opening with two rax every game and when he started losing, he moved on to other all-ins and builds and with enough games played, he's now a complete package.
On January 24 2013 09:24 Scail wrote: A zerg player is "forced" to scout and respond to any type of aggression.
While working with more than 1 base is something I intend to do after my series, I find it hard to swallow that you can just state outright that a 1 rax FE hellion marauder is allin is automatically superior to anything you can do off of one base. It's out of the scope of my series right now, but since I will be looking at alternative strategies later and sharing them on youtube, do you have any high masters/GM/pro replays or VODs I can reference to back your claims up?
And think of it logically. What all ins to T have that are 1 base vs Z? Mara hellion. 2 rax, 1-1-2 2 port banshee, random mass marine allin 4/5/6 rax.
Also, what else do 1 base all ins as terran need? Micro. Stutter stepping, hellion shoot and scoot, banshee shoot and scoot. Marine split/whole army split vs banes on creep. Micro isn't always readily abundant in the low levels...and as a 1 base all in hangs on the execution and unit control, I find 1 rax FE more forgivable because of the sheer unit count/size
All of them are scoutable, very easily. I find most players can scout a 1 base play easier, as most low level players 'scout' the gas or 1 base play / lack of FE. Most players, sadly, don't do follow up scouts after seeing a 1 rax FE until an OL poke. People see 1 rax FE, and go onto auto pilot drone mode. There are SO many all ins you can do off 1 rax FE that don't hit much later than their 1 base counterpart, but with 2 OC econ/Mules behind it. Due to players lack of follow up scouting, people get caught with their pants down droning and going for their ever loved fast thirds.
I feel all 1 base TvZ has the same bane...queens and spines.
Yes, they do work. Especially low level where people just auto pilot regardless of what they see. I just find/feel the follow up all ins you can do off 1 rax FE in TvZ have more potential than any 1 base all in...sans 11/11 which is in it's own world.
By no means stop your video series... just voicing an opinion. Carry on, good sir.
Nice build, but isn't 1 base becoming outdated? Will it improve macro and micro at the same level if you had gone for a macro game instead of just 1 base?
You're listing off a bunch of builds that are common and often used. For TvZ I will be introducing something a little new that I think works quite well.
You guys remember how Flash gained his fame in BW? Nothing but cheese in nearly all his games. It's a fact - Winning more -> higher self esteem -> better overall games.
I think the more important part of becoming a better player is focusing on the correct things. A lot of these will be present whether you learn Filter's 50 SCV + 100 food at 10 minutes with Stim + Medivacs or you do a 4 gate and only accept that warp gate research finishing at exactly 5:30.
The problem comes in oh 44 scvs and 91 food. Stim finishes by the time I get there... meh good enough.
Or research finished at 5:55 hit at 7 minutes... meh still won.
Focusing on getting that build as close to perfection has helped me improve more than I think learning a more macro oriented build but not having it as clean. I really like dApollo's tutorials as far as build selection goes, reacting to different things but his macro is actually pretty poor in a lot of his games, even before the 10 minute mark. He makes up for that in a lot of different ways that a newer player just shouldn't (game reading, micro, ...)
I think it's more important that you are doing something extremely well than it is to do something very good poorly. (and by poorly I don't mean horribly. I mean those couple second pauses in between building workers that really add up.)
Fully support your project, I believe this is the best and most efficient way to progress. When you 1-base for long enough and advance some ranks, you stop doing it by yourself, not because you read somewhere it's a "bad thing to do". And you enter the macro games with advanced unit handling and mechanics.
Nothing worse like experiencing a game you struggle to expand and play macro but you're mechanics and controls are utter shit. Forced macro games from the start are a very very bad way to approach SC2.
I've been there, it sucks. Then I worked on heavy mechanical play from 1-2 base builds (which are, btw, much harder to pull off then some neverending expand game in gold league) and now I can play macro all 3 races in Master league. Cool huh?
I reccomend every new player to learn 1-all in per mu and try to master it. If they 4gate to make sure there hitting 5:45 and not 6:15. I just feel it is useless to "Macro" in Bronze through Platinum. Your not learning to read anything because everything is late and some players are just stupid. Also winning lots of quick games is more fun than losing a 20 minute game.
What makes macro play stronger is better unit control, learning one bases builds forces the player to learn how to use units and master build orders.
However, I do recommend trying to do 2 one base mu and 1 macro mu. This allows the player to learn what it feels like to be on more than one base.
While I dont think this is the most efficient method of learning the game, I definitely think its a more fun way of learning that can produce satisfying results (wins) quickly (I.E. what I think most younger generation gamers are looking for nowadays. Easier ways to win and faster ways to the 'fun' part.)
@govie: I bet you at least 30-50 of that supply is in workers, while only about 20 is in for OP. Supply is misleading, OP SHOULD have a bigger army than the opponent.
The additional bonus is that you get to have a really big army most of the time which is always fun (regardless if you end upp winning or walking into tank tank fire like a boss).
I did Taerix guide followed by Filter's guides. I will definitely try this - as someone said it is always nice to have a set of builds you can to fairly well.
On January 25 2013 18:26 Grubbegrabbn wrote: Nice effort into this video series I like it. To end it all with a pull all SCV all-in makes it feel a bit cheesy though.
I really think Taerix guide is one of the simplest and at the same time builds some good habits:
The additional bonus is that you get to have a really big army most of the time which is always fun (regardless if you end upp winning or walking into tank tank fire like a boss).
I did Taerix guide followed by Filter's guides. I will definitely try this - as someone said it is always nice to have a set of builds you can to fairly well.
Thanks for the comments. It's not "ended" with an SCV allin, the series is far from over and the SCV pull is only used using the platinum build against terran opponents. Every other build and matchup only pulls oversaturated workers.
Entertaining series, and I think it's healthy to balance one's macro strategies with the occasional all-in, just to keep things fresh and fun. However, your constant use of racial comments during the video series show profoundly poor judgment. Personally, I don't care what you think about Jews, Mexicans, Blacks, Whites, Asians,etc., and it's completely irrelevant to the game. Let's keep it about SC2 and not about your racial stereotyping (of real people, that is. Go ahead and make all the comments you want about zerg scum).
Ok, so please excuse my newbie ass for asking this question but: I've watched a bunch of your videos and I see that you go for your orbital at 17 supply. Why is that? Normally the orbital would finish up at around 15 supply (assuming 12 rax) and you could start the orbital around that time. Is there some economic benefit for waiting another 2 supply before you start your orbital? Is it a MULE thing?
I just finished watching the TvP Diamond Build. I liked the build and plan on using it on the ladder.
If you are using a replay, could you have the production tab up and/or just leave it on your POV? I got pissed when I was trying to follow along and suddenly a 2nd starport was almost finished. Where the hell did that one come from?
The appeal of the Filter SC builds are the fact that at the end of each video he puts up a graphic that has benchmarks of the build at certain times and you can judge where you are based on those benchmarks. Would you consider something similar for your videos?
I know that you are trying to make a new video every night but I think that people (namely me) will get more out of it if you focus on producing the best video possible regardless of how long it takes. It will take a few days for the average gamer to digest the bronze/silver/gold ect. builds and practice them and become proficient at them. I would rather see a video of a perfectly executed build next week (or in two weeks) than a video with execution errors posted tomorrow. I'm mimicking you, show me how it's done.
I like your series and look forward to more videos. I hope consider my advice and I look forward to you teaching me in future videos.
Tried it on ladder and failed (silver). Maybe it didnt work because i didnt really believed this build was viable tho (ill be honest). Marine are so weak without upgrades and the push is a bit late as i see it. But then again, i did nothing really wrong.....
Im still guessing 2rax (11/11 or Concussive push) is more viable then this 6rax, just because it hits sooner and u can transition out of it. Does anyone have the same experiences and feelings bout this build?
... More constructively, I think there's a place for one-base play. Getting to masters without expanding is certainly doable. A friend of mine basically DT rushed to masters. People like Gaelzi, ActionJesuz, and Weedadmins, even someone like optikZero or Piqliq have shown that you can win at a high ladder level by focusing on one-base play, though many of them are also capable of playing after cheese fails.
But at low levels focusing on macro gives you a better opportunity for comeback. While your opponent is f***ing that micro chicken you're patiently building up your army & tech. As long as you can survive past the 11 minute mark versus a one-base player, you win. There were games where I literally lost every SCV to a hellion drop, but because I had 2 mules and already had a big army, I made the comeback. More commonly I'd lose a lot of workers to mutas or DTs or a cloak banshee (people at low levels have a huge boner for INVISIBLE UNITS), but I'd still be ahead economically and in base army value (i.e. not counting harassment units)
I can see how separating the "build your army" phase from the "fight!" phase might be useful in terms of learning mechanics. It might be easier to transition from one-base play to "okay, now we have to fight and build stuff all at once" than it is to transition from an intense macro focus to being able to micro.
On January 25 2013 10:19 MysteryMeat1 wrote: I reccomend every new player to learn 1-all in per mu and try to master it. If they 4gate to make sure there hitting 5:45 and not 6:15. I just feel it is useless to "Macro" in Bronze through Platinum. Your not learning to read anything because everything is late and some players are just stupid. Also winning lots of quick games is more fun than losing a 20 minute game.
What makes macro play stronger is better unit control, learning one bases builds forces the player to learn how to use units and master build orders.
However, I do recommend trying to do 2 one base mu and 1 macro mu. This allows the player to learn what it feels like to be on more than one base.
On January 30 2013 00:17 govie wrote: Tried it on ladder and failed (silver). Maybe it didnt work because i didnt really believed this build was viable tho (ill be honest). Marine are so weak without upgrades and the push is a bit late as i see it. But then again, i did nothing really wrong.....
Im still guessing 2rax (11/11 or Concussive push) is more viable then this 6rax, just because it hits sooner and u can transition out of it. Does anyone have the same experiences and feelings bout this build?
it probably didn't work because you have silver level mechanics. post the replay and we'll see where you are at the time of the push compared to where the OP is
i think this method is the best for getting better, you've got to get your mechanics up to masters level before you worry about getting your intelligence up there
On January 24 2013 00:04 Scail wrote: -Don't learn to make workers throughout the game Yes you do, in the builds I describe all the workers are not pulled (just the oversaturated ones)
-Don't learn to constantly make supply depots In the builds I'm using, with the exception of the bronze build (I cut out the depots to make it easier), you need to make depots until the end of the game in most situations
-Don't learn to add on production You're right, but there is more attention paid to managing the production facilities you do have (not over queuing), and this is something easily picked up later
-Don't learn to expand and defense expansions Not always true, you could be attacked earlier than your timing or be counter attacked while executing a build - and besides, this is really just multitasking, and you are exercising that skill by denying and attacking expansions
-Don't learn to know when to sacrifice an expansion That's extremely game specific, not a general skill - but you do get a lot of practice trading units and in so doing develop your skill at estimating cost and reward
-Don't learn to prioritize adding said depots/production/expansions over obsessing over microing a battle You need to continually produce workers/units/supply while being aggressive and is the same skill whether you have 1 base or 4, the only difference is more depots when you move your screen back to base - very minor
Sure if your only goal is to get that little Masters icon next to your name to get some warm fuzzy feeling then 1base is the way to go. If you want to also know you are looked down upon by the majority of the community and your skills are nothing but a paper tiger then go the approach of learning the game proper. The goal is to improve, and achieving Masters is the proof of that improvement. While you will get a warm fuzzy feeling, it's because you've improved. I'm not saying one base is the end all be all of SC2, I'm saying it's a great place to start and learn the game all the way to the higher levels. After you're there, as I detailed in the original post, learning the rest is quite easy because you have all the skills necessary to learn them quickly. After all, a Command Center is just another part of a build an a small addition to the same hotkey you've been using since bronze. The skills you learn approaching the game this way is a far cry from a paper tiger - it's a concrete foundation ready to support the full weight, complexity, and depth of SC2.
There's nothing wrong with trying to get to masters on one base strats and 6 pools. The problem is the people who let them get there. Scouting is a big part of the game, but people take macro strats for granted as if there's a NR 10 rule in place on ladder.
It's up to diamond leaguers to make sure people who only execute these strats never make it to masters.
This isn't for me, but it could definitely help people. Anyone who makes stuff for free for other people is ok in my book. I don't get all the negativity.
I don't like big one base all-ins, just because when they get scouted and shut down, it feels pretty bad, but when you win, it's like, well, my opponent screwed that up. That's how it feels to me. Then again, one of the worst feelings is playing a super long game and losing because you didn't find a hidden expo, and you were way further behind than you thought.
EDIT: Forgot to make my point--don't hate on someone who's trying to help people learn. If we all played the same way, the game would be boring.
People seem to forget just how often Code S/Proleague players use 1 base strategies.
I am fully behind aggressive play and I think it genuinely does help you improve your play. It makes it a hell of a lot easier to work out WHY you lost, and that is the key thing that you need in order to improve.
If you try and teach a low level player to macro chances are they make dozens of big mistakes over a long game. This makes it really hard to identify and then correct the critical mistakes.
Personally I'd advocate a middle ground of 2-base timing attacks, these can be very almost as powerful as all-ins, but are much easier to transition out of if you don't flat-out kill your opponent.
I really like the idea, but the main appeal of Filter's series is that he gives clear "build orders" or benchmarks in texts as well as in his videos for every strategy or stage he shows. I might be overlooking something here, but it seems like you just created a playlist of videos that exclusively show your play and no clear instructions or anything of the sort. Adding instructions, theory and benchmarks might make this a more complete guide and more useful to players
Meh I really don't buy the idea that 1 base all-ins teach you micro, in fact I argue the opposite. The whole point of an all-in is sacrificing economy/tech for units, so generally when you're executing an all-in you're going to be ahead in army. Therefore unless your micro is worse than your opponents you should win. Now if you're playing standard and scout the all-in relatively late you need much more impressive micro to hold. Think, when jaedong defeats a 6 pool with a hatch first it's incredible, but if somebody 6 pools another player nobody gushes about their micro, unless their awing over mostly eye candy maneuvers like ff a bunker or kiting with banshees, both of which aren't that hard.
You might get to masters on ladder because every game is a 1-off, I you were playing a boX you'd lose much more because your game is 1 dimensional. And while certain people can learn to a point an then branch out I don't buy that they couldn't have just been practicing macro games the whole time and also improved. Maybe it helps with ladder anxiety because winning a lot is more fun, regardless of whether or not you are exploiting ladder tendencies. Oh well, the greatest joy for me is holding an all-in so bring it on.
I do believe that Filter's approach is technically better if you want to learn a macro game. But it is also nice to know a ton of strategies even if its on 1 base.
I was Protoss for a long time, and all I knew was very strong all-in's. But by the time that I got high enough, players knew how to hold off all in's (if scouted properly) and I hit a wall. So, take this series with a grain of salt.
Edit:
I'm going to tries this method out, but I will be starting it at the Plat. MMR and see how it works. Because Plat level is just about the time Filters B.O.'s no long really worked when the meta game transitioned over. I will give this the benefit of the doubt.
I have tried the platinum build in high plat EU server and against zerg and protoss I am able to win almost every time. However against terran I almost never win. 'The build is countered by banhee and tanks' in tutorial means about any terran opening. On the other hand you make it almost work against quite a few tanks, where as I loose to even two or three.
My question is - should I focus on better control, as it is subpar if I am unable to make the plat build work against terran or does that strategy require master skills to pull off anyway?
Blindly following an execution can only lead to so much success. So much more skill of the game comes from having a really good 'game sense'. If you ever play in tournaments its a whole different realm of competition, you can't 1 build your way to a best of x series. If your goal is ever grandmasters/high masters, you will meet the same players time and time again, sometimes 2-5 times a day. If u only do that 1 build, you start becoming readable and very beatable.
On January 30 2013 00:17 govie wrote: Tried it on ladder and failed (silver). Maybe it didnt work because i didnt really believed this build was viable tho (ill be honest). Marine are so weak without upgrades and the push is a bit late as i see it. But then again, i did nothing really wrong.....
Im still guessing 2rax (11/11 or Concussive push) is more viable then this 6rax, just because it hits sooner and u can transition out of it. Does anyone have the same experiences and feelings bout this build?
it probably didn't work because you have silver level mechanics. post the replay and we'll see where you are at the time of the push compared to where the OP is
i think this method is the best for getting better, you've got to get your mechanics up to masters level before you worry about getting your intelligence up there
Just say : Your wrong, it does work, try it again. Don't give up Ofcourse, i must post my experiences till now, even if they were negative in the start. If u don't like that, thats your problem. Dont forget silverleague players will never have a master-mechanics, because there in silverleague
Next update: On topic Worked better this time, dunno if it was bad luck last time or i did something wrong. I'm guessing with the silver build, i could try to get a nice winratio in total with the 6rax/6minute marinepush. Against any expanding player it feels like a basic autowin, aslong as :
1. U dont get supplyblocked before 6 minutes; 2. Move out at 6 minutes not later, the later u move out, the harder it gets; 3. Keep filling those production cycles when u push out.
So in general. My first experiences were negative, but after trying again, it went better. I want to play with it some more today, to get like 20 games, and then post a winratio of a silverleagueplayer doing the silverbuild in every matchup.
I think a lot of people are being too critical of this series, because it's based on all-in play. Personally, I think if you make it to a division, you belong there - whether you macro or all-in. It's not about which style you choose, it's about executing that style as best you can.
We need to stop judging styles and players based on their worker count, and realize there are many deep fundamentals and mechanics that can be improved only by incorporating a variety of styles.
I like this guide and I do think while this doesn't teach you how to macro from 70 worker saturation, it does teach you the important skill of making decisions on the fly in battles, prioritizing targets and general micro and basic multitasking, something that the FilterSC guide misses, so I think both guides compliment each other nicely. I do want to try the exact opposite. I will lose all my placements in HotS and play Random so this is a clean slate for me. I want to try to play as greedy as humanly possible and roll over opponents with huge economy. Losing will force me to scout better and to the point, I will have to sharpen my timings and micro, and of course take advantage of my income. Risk vs reward.
How bout some comments from the perspective of a beginner.
I just started playing sc2 yesterday, absolute first game. never touched BW before, seldom even touched the RTS genre. Literally didn't even know what an SCV was until my first game (AI). Stepping out of my comfort zone of Dota2 / 1 unit control games to learn something mechanically tougher.. but I'm keen to learn so why not?
I have seen Filter's videos as well as OP's ones and I feel that Filter's macro style leading to longer games means there are more mistakes a new player like me run into, yes, i know mistakes are essential to learning but using Filter's macro style, I feel that I have to play AI until I can not only hit the benchmarks but also be able to learn everything the terran race has to offer before playing my 1st game against a real life opponent.
with the OP's guide, the learning curve isn't that steep, and personally I'm more confident using his tactics at matchmaking because he runs through what the lower tier units do and uses them to great effectiveness.
In Filter's videos, he's already talking about factory, gas, starport, medivacs, reactor etc when a day ago I didn't even know what a supply depot did.
So thanks OP, keep those videos coming because they are informative at least to me, a complete newcomer.
I feel that one base play is quite good in improving very tight timings that we rarely see these days. Having a 1 base eco also strongly encourages better unit control to make the timing successful. All in all, there are advantages and disadvantages. Good write OP.
Reached Diamond league today playing primarily macrogames. Except TvP . Eagerly awaiting your future videos! I hope to reach masters before HOTS is out.
I see a lot of people habe given their moral perspective on the build so i will do it too . I am a high platinum player and, as I saw this guide and tried it i suddently realized why it's so effective.
The metagame evolves, we all know that. At the beginning of Starcraft the FE was something incredibly risky, almost considered economic cheese and was based on ppl not scouting. In time the Progamers improved their micro and realized they can handle pretty much any one base agression and moved on to FE to gain an edge.
This Metagame change was based on improved defensive play but was suddently adopted by all players, in all leagues who actually DON'T have the necesary micro to defend a one base play. The zergs are incredible these days, taking their 3rd at 5 min etc. I used to lose about 75% of my TvZ with 1 Rax FE but with this build i won 90% of my TvZ the last 30 games. They can't defend so they SHOULDN'T expand that fast. I hope this shifts the metagame back a little.
I think this is an awful thread. If you learn to play "properly" what suddenly happens is, you can get masters with any build doing any style when you're experienced enough. I.E: we may both have the masters icon, but I'm also plat with an account only making queens and top 8 masters with random on a different account, likely both things you couldn't do.
Of course 1 base is easier. So if you're goal is improving you wouldn't restrict yourself to what's easiest.
Just an FYI. It's not a "push" or "build" but just a generic opening that can be used against each race at low level and be aggressive and fall into a marine tank medic or banshee push.
Gas first 1-1-1. Reactor immediately on rax, fac make 1 hellion -> tech lab. Starport on tech lab, rax constant marines, and hellion production. Hits with something like 7-8 marines, 2-3 hellions, and a banshee somewhat early. Puts good pressure on any race, and you can go into a very fast 1-1-1 because of gas first.
Wow, a lot of people completely miss the point of this. The idea is not to be a 1-base player forever, but to build a foundation from which you can more easily learn to play macro games.
this is probally the best way to learn the mechanics of the game to start out. i would say the best way to teach urself the mechanics however, once u get the mechanics of the 1 base down so its all automatic you should be pushing ur self to add me aka add on expansions and such no need to go all the way to masters if ur goal is to learn and not to get masters icon. you should always be adding on new stuff as old stuff becomes second nature otherwise ur not getting better after a certain point.
macro is all about hotkeys?? Come on you cant be serious...
In ladder 1 base cheese might work but what about when you enter a tournament and play a series against someone?? After you cheese the first game they are gonna scout much more and your chances of winning drop dramatically.
On January 23 2013 23:38 Tenks wrote: You say there are advantages but there are also a ton of disadvantages:
-Don't learn to make workers throughout the game -Don't learn to constantly make supply depots -Don't learn to add on production -Don't learn to expand and defense expansions -Don't learn to know when to sacrifice an expansion -Don't learn to prioritize adding said depots/production/expansions over obsessing over microing a battle
Sure if your only goal is to get that little Masters icon next to your name to get some warm fuzzy feeling then 1base is the way to go. If you want to also know you are looked down upon by the majority of the community and your skills are nothing but a paper tiger then go the approach of learning the game proper.
Who cares what the community thinks. Who cares what anybody thinks? Even on the internet. Skill wise - if you want to improve. 1 base play will limit you a lot. If you want to be a stable master player you need to learn a lot more than just 1base play.
On January 23 2013 23:38 Tenks wrote: You say there are advantages but there are also a ton of disadvantages:
-Don't learn to make workers throughout the game -Don't learn to constantly make supply depots -Don't learn to add on production -Don't learn to expand and defense expansions -Don't learn to know when to sacrifice an expansion -Don't learn to prioritize adding said depots/production/expansions over obsessing over microing a battle
Sure if your only goal is to get that little Masters icon next to your name to get some warm fuzzy feeling then 1base is the way to go. If you want to also know you are looked down upon by the majority of the community and your skills are nothing but a paper tiger then go the approach of learning the game proper.
I understand where you are coming from, but some people learn or pick up things differently then others do. If the true goal is to improve your game, winning, losing, or even rank shouldn't matter at all.
I like your last sentence there, however, allow me to improve upon it sir : )
"If the true goal is to improve your game, losing will not matter, however promotions and wins will surely follow."
On January 24 2013 05:42 iAmJeffReY wrote: If you need a wider variety of one and two bade TvX builds send me a note. I got a plethora of all ins and aggression to Fe builds
Hey pal, I'd gladly take some All-in/1-base aggression builds. Got my way to Diamond and probably low Masters skill level when I do play by macro, but mixing in hyper aggressive stuff is really fun now that getting better isn't so important for me.
On February 12 2013 16:23 EleanorRIgby wrote: macro is all about hotkeys?? Come on you cant be serious...
In ladder 1 base cheese might work but what about when you enter a tournament and play a series against someone?? After you cheese the first game they are gonna scout much more and your chances of winning drop dramatically.
Also, what about when you are being chased by a bear?
This is also super relevant to most low-master Star Craft players.
On February 12 2013 06:00 GGHHGG wrote: I think this is an awful thread. If you learn to play "properly" what suddenly happens is, you can get masters with any build doing any style when you're experienced enough. I.E: we may both have the masters icon, but I'm also plat with an account only making queens and top 8 masters with random on a different account, likely both things you couldn't do.
Of course 1 base is easier. So if you're goal is improving you wouldn't restrict yourself to what's easiest.
Your e-peen is huge.
Riddle me this, Batman:
If I am not in Master league now, and by practicing these builds, I do get promoted to Master league, then in what way am I not a better player than I was before?
On February 12 2013 06:00 GGHHGG wrote: I think this is an awful thread. If you learn to play "properly" what suddenly happens is, you can get masters with any build doing any style when you're experienced enough. I.E: we may both have the masters icon, but I'm also plat with an account only making queens and top 8 masters with random on a different account, likely both things you couldn't do.
Of course 1 base is easier. So if you're goal is improving you wouldn't restrict yourself to what's easiest.
Your e-peen is huge.
Riddle me this, Batman:
If I am not in Master league now, and by practicing these builds, I do get promoted to Master league, then in what way am I not a better player than I was before?
In the way that you're exactly the same skill as a player, just with different builds. In the way that as soon as hots was to come out and those builds no longer work, you'd become bronze again and the real master player would still be masters because the builds don't matter.
Learning 1-base allins is more than just constructing a series of buildings and a-move. It's about building efficiently and executing properly. Learning those attributes will transition into any other play.
On February 13 2013 01:43 trew wrote: Learning 1-base allins is more than just constructing a series of buildings and a-move. It's about building efficiently and executing properly. Learning those attributes will transition into any other play.
That's true of any build. The only difference with all-ins is that the time until you actually pull the trigger is shorter, so properly executing your build is fundamentally easier.
I get the argument that all-ins are a legitimate component of the game and any good player should at least have a working knowledge of how to execute these all-ins, even if just for the purpose of being better prepared to defend against your opponents all-ins. Different sorts of all-ins are like condiments that you add to your Starcraft burger. But if all you do is eat ketchup, you're really missing the point.
On February 12 2013 06:00 GGHHGG wrote: I think this is an awful thread. If you learn to play "properly" what suddenly happens is, you can get masters with any build doing any style when you're experienced enough. I.E: we may both have the masters icon, but I'm also plat with an account only making queens and top 8 masters with random on a different account, likely both things you couldn't do.
Of course 1 base is easier. So if you're goal is improving you wouldn't restrict yourself to what's easiest.
Your e-peen is huge.
Riddle me this, Batman:
If I am not in Master league now, and by practicing these builds, I do get promoted to Master league, then in what way am I not a better player than I was before?
In the way that you're exactly the same skill as a player, just with different builds. In the way that as soon as hots was to come out and those builds no longer work, you'd become bronze again and the real master player would still be masters because the builds don't matter.
Brilliant response, not only did it make me laugh, but so honestly truthful of 100s or thousands of players who have learnt a build to masters.( and are therefore better than players at the low levels)
The elitism in the communtiy is silly, this is not a communtiy where the value of the person is in his league, but what they are offering the community:
From the OP trying to advocate understanding 1 base builds as an effective way to start learning the game.
To the opposite views screaming bloody murder that doing it this way inherently limits you as you move up.
Neither are completely correct as neither is completely right, as there is no right way to play. both are needed tho in the communtiy to make as well rounded as possible as a game.
I think there is alot of people in this community that either/both get hung up on the 'metagame being the right and most efficient style' as if its some kind if blocky pixelated, rigid juggernaut that can hardly moved from the days of gaming back in the 80's. and forget that the metagame is actually just the subtle and everchanging, you know that i know that you know level upon level of thinking that both players will do in a game.
SO what I am trying to say is that it is impossible to stay ahead of the curve(metagame) or even necessarily level with it as it just.constantly.shifts.
As a means of introducing someone completely new to the game to basic mechanics and such, I think that 1 base builds are absolutely fantastic, there is less to focus on, which means TARGETED improvement at specific areas, which in general, should allow for faster improvement. When it can be executed to a decent standard, you can slowly add on more things to be aware of and maintain while keeping the originally learned material going. In this way of improving, the new player isn't swamped under a multitude of things that must be done. I say this as a player that was trained in the, 'one base bad, 3 base good' mantra of learning from a completely macro-centric view.
The Army uses a crawl, walk run mentality in teaching new skills to soldiers. This is a similar idea, and its what I used when I started playing again.
One basing gets your early game nice and tight, since successful execution usually requires hitting your build order in a timely fashion, and it does so in a way thats easy for newer players to understand. It can be challenging to hit a 10 minute 2 base timing, but less so to hit a 6 minute off one base. EVERY GAME has an early game, its the foundation of everything you do, and it is important to have this phase locked down.
As you progress, you can use your one base foundation to add in more complicated builds easily, since adding in an extra building or two is not so tough when you are on top of your opener.
As far as not learning to transition, I learned a good amount of transitioning skills from one basing, just from the times I did damage but not enough to kill and I had to expand/tech/add production in order to break the stalemate.
To me it seems illogical to have some new player try to set up and manage 2+ bases of production when they cant properly set up one. I never found myself limited, because when I had a good handle on my one base stuff it was easier to scale the concept up and add an extra base than it was to just try and play for three+ bases every game.
I think there are two factors at play here in resisting 1base:
1) Peoples egos get smashed along with their buildings when you successfully one base them. Its like getting dunked on in basketball or something. Losing to 1 base all ins is mostly about poor scouting/not knowing the proper response, and it stings a bit when someone kicks your door in and ends the game in 6 minutes.
2) Some people are just more defense oriented in their gaming philosophy. I think its harder to learn a pure macro style without any kind of 1 base foundation, but I also think its stupid/cowardly to sit in your base until max, especially if you have windows to kill the guy (windows you learn about through all-ins and such). Some of us are drawn to killing things, others to defending until they hit some critical mass and then moving out.
Will say this though, no one ever won a game just by producing units, you have to use them properly, and thats a staple of 1 base play.
All the arguments about whether it is better to use an all-in vs. a macro builds are totally missing the point. All that matters, in terms of boosting your MMR, is whether you win or lose. The strategy you used to win or lose is immaterial to the formula. The player who wins most of the time is the better player. By definition.
I would argue that you cannot win most of the time with a single strategy, as you need to be able to adapt to whatever situation you encounter. But whatever strategy wins the game is the best strategy to use. Nothing else matters.
Unless you're not having fun. In which case, the best strategy is the one you enjoy the most, regardless of whether you win.
On February 12 2013 06:00 GGHHGG wrote: I think this is an awful thread. If you learn to play "properly" what suddenly happens is, you can get masters with any build doing any style when you're experienced enough. I.E: we may both have the masters icon, but I'm also plat with an account only making queens and top 8 masters with random on a different account, likely both things you couldn't do.
Of course 1 base is easier. So if you're goal is improving you wouldn't restrict yourself to what's easiest.
Your e-peen is huge.
Riddle me this, Batman:
If I am not in Master league now, and by practicing these builds, I do get promoted to Master league, then in what way am I not a better player than I was before?
In the way that you're exactly the same skill as a player, just with different builds. In the way that as soon as hots was to come out and those builds no longer work, you'd become bronze again and the real master player would still be masters because the builds don't matter.
The 1 base player can just adapt another cheese. In fact, when HotS comes out, cheese would most likely become stronger, not weaker, at least, until the defence of such new builds are perfected. The macro player will most likely drop in rank during this time. I expect the same to happen all the way up to the GSL, to be perfectly honest.
To climb the leagues you have to strengthen your mechanics. Even if you play sloppy without a proper build, you can often hold your own in your league with your mechanics.
As for all-ins: I think they're well-formed game models for you to follow with specific benchmarks with clear signs of progress and the chance to see exactly what you did right or wrong each game.
Most people would believe Tenks, but OP does actually have a point. Its important to learn basic mechanics/macro/timing before game sense such as the things described. Everyone learns everything when they are pro. This is just a different path to follow. Personally, i got to gold doing 3rax, and switched to zerg to play conventionally with a strong foundation. Just as macro has things cheese can't teach you, its the same way for cheese. A passive player will be missing skills too.
Another thing that really pisses me off is that people hate cheesers. Cheesing is a strategy, just like any other, just faster. No matter how passive you play ur gonna build units and attack eventually. I really don't understand why cheese is recognized as bad, or why cheesers are ostracized for doing something the game allows them to, or even why its become so notorious that it has its own name. Is Hyun a noob/bad person for cheesing in KoTH? AreaKitty? Why have we established out own "rules"? Starcraft is a strategy game. Cheese is a strategy...
I think that greater skill is necessary in the Lategame, and as such people strive to be as good as posisble, and thus test themselves in the lategame, so from what I can see get irritated when they can't do this.
Personally I feel that having both early mid and lategame timings is the way to look at a strategy game. Especially an RTS like this, but, consider this, if you are in Bronze/Silver i suspect alot of people are playing casually,(who will also be the vast majority of the people who complain as its the biggest pool of players) will also want to no be in that league, so will attribute the reason they are, to the fact that it is notorious for being the low league where people cheese.
Missing the fact, that with good scouting and macro when playing against people in bronze and silver, you should embrace the fact that they try and 'cheese' you, as you will win that much faster, and be able to play more games. Whenever i have played in Bronze, I can play as greedy as i want, as 99percent of the time, the builds will be so inefficient and the timings so late, it won't matter anyway.
People who are against this are kind of the reason foreigners get stomped. A lot of the best korean players in the world, like flash and mkp, got their start by one-base all-inning. I've tried filtersc's method, and it's great but it leaves me with some holes in my play. I still can't scout and hold cheese properly, but if I get 3 rax stimmed, 6-8 pooled, or 4gated and I die I GG because it's a failure on my part, not the other players. If you learn ONLY the filter way, you're kind of left with more money than you can manage towards the end of the game and you rely on your opponent derping around. By practicing some protoss 2-base executions and terran 1-1-1, you get a good feel for exactly how much units you can squeeze out of a few production facilities. It's a whole different game when every 50 minerals or 50 gas counts.
On February 16 2013 09:53 Elderbury wrote: All the arguments about whether it is better to use an all-in vs. a macro builds are totally missing the point. All that matters, in terms of boosting your MMR, is whether you win or lose. The strategy you used to win or lose is immaterial to the formula. The player who wins most of the time is the better player. By definition.
I would argue that you cannot win most of the time with a single strategy, as you need to be able to adapt to whatever situation you encounter. But whatever strategy wins the game is the best strategy to use. Nothing else matters.
Unless you're not having fun. In which case, the best strategy is the one you enjoy the most, regardless of whether you win.
1 basing is cheesy and boring and win or lose I boo the players that fight this way, every time I see any race hold the one base all in I cheer, and when they lose I still consider them the better player, it's much harder to hold than it is to attack with the one base, the GM player that one bases all the time might as well be bronze in my book, these players are utter crap and make every game they play BORING for there opponent
On February 16 2013 09:53 Elderbury wrote: All the arguments about whether it is better to use an all-in vs. a macro builds are totally missing the point. All that matters, in terms of boosting your MMR, is whether you win or lose. The strategy you used to win or lose is immaterial to the formula. The player who wins most of the time is the better player. By definition.
I would argue that you cannot win most of the time with a single strategy, as you need to be able to adapt to whatever situation you encounter. But whatever strategy wins the game is the best strategy to use. Nothing else matters.
Unless you're not having fun. In which case, the best strategy is the one you enjoy the most, regardless of whether you win.
The thing about 1base plays like this is that they boost your ladder rating above where it would be playing standard macro.
For someone trying to learn, this is a very good thing! You learn much more from playing people better than you than playing at your own level. Probably the best thing would be alternating 2 weeks or so of cheesing with 2 weeks or so of attempting solid macro play for maximum improvement speed.
People get so tied up on how other people should learn the game, the fact is, playing the game in any intelligent shape or form is going to improve your mechanics and abilities. This includes macro oriented play and aggressive oriented play like the OP is suggesting. I have a firm belief that figuring out a build order that is enjoyable and executable and doing that repeatedly is going to teach you the majority of mechanics in itself just over time. Because of the variable gameplay you'll encounter on the ladder, you'll often find yourself having to adjust or tweak the build to work often, but still follow through, and that is probably one of the best lessons. I believe the second part of that equation is watching the replay and seeing how your opponent reacted to you. Once you have an idea of how to react, and how people react to the things that the see, or you show, or that you let them to believe they see, you have a very legitimate grasp on the game. So whether you're approach is to try and do aggressive/all in gameplay or macro/economic oriented gameplay, eventually you will have to understand both sides of that coin to hang with the best of the best, but being good at one or the other will obviously and indubitably take you to to a higher strata of the game, so cheers!
As a new player, I can't say whether or not these methods of learning are effective in terms of really understanding the game, but I can say that limiting focus to a certain area has been very beneficial for me. The first thing I came across that proposed limiting your focus as a player was the staircase which I picked randomly from the forums, but I've tried it from time to time and the idea of just worrying about macro has been helpful for me. As a new and fairly casual player, I still have trouble going into a game and trying to do everything at once. If I know that all I want to do is build marines and SCV's it's much easier for me to remember things like my supply count, building SCV's constantly or finding ways to spend my money.
It seems like a lot of the opposition to this particular method is that a one base is a gimmick, but for me one base is just much easier to manage. I still lose a lot of time when I expand, so if I didn't expand and focused on SCV's until one base was saturated then completely shut my mind to that element of the game, I think it would be a good way for me to introduce other concepts like upgrades without having everything fall apart on me like it tends to when I just go out on my own without any learning method guiding me.
Long story short, I think one base play sounds like a good way to explore certain aspects of the game. The rank that you gain from that kind of play doesn't seem all that important as long as you understand more of the concept that make Starcraft so overwhelmingly complicated for a new player.
I do not like this series at all, but my reasons have nothing to do with the allin nature of it. My first problem is that he has made racist comments multiple times. Even if the quality of his teaching was good, this alone completely takes away any interest I might have had in his series. The big problem in quality really highlights how good Filter's series is. There are no benchmarks, and the OPs goal seems to be have other players exactly copy his builds. Filter encourages an organic approach that is key for new players in my opinion. Set goals and achieve them by trying to meet certain benchmarks. This teaches players much better than build memorization, regardless of whether they are trying to play a macro game or a rush.
I do like the idea of a series on how to allin and the thought process behind those builds. I feel that new players and skilled players need to learn both aspects of the game. Macro is an excellent way to learn the game, and I think it is far better to only learn macro than it would be to only learn rushes, but to be honest, a truly solid player should be able to play both styles. I hope someone can take the idea of this series and do something about it or that the OP can clean it up, since my problem with it is the implementation, not the idea.
This is interesting I've posted in this thread that i would test the builds more and give a judgement on it how well they work.
Today i played 5 games in silver league with just 16scv's --> 5rax --> pump marines and attack without scv's. I won all 5 matches and got promoted instantly... Now this ofcourse is a bit wierd as i see it, but it's not a lie.
Apparantly, blizzard awards 1baseplays with more MMR then long term macro? I used to do "the filterSC" mostly, with which i didnt got promoted with to gold. And this to me is wierd because my macro was mostly spot on (50 scv's and 100 supply at ten minutes )...
Wierd, but im not complaining.
2nd question : Could it be that in lower levels APM mostly determince if u get promoted? my apm over the whole game 50 above my average. Ths could explain why 1baseplays gets u promoted sooner?
Apparantly, blizzard awards 1baseplays with more MMR then long term macro? I used to do "the filterSC" mostly, with which i didnt got promoted with to gold. And this to me is wierd because my macro was mostly spot on (50 scv's and 100 supply at ten minutes )...
Or Blizzard changed the way league percentages work and you got promoted based on the change and the number of wins.
I think the series has value, I agree with Zrifts observation that his off color comments can be distracting to sensitive people and thus turn people off to his learning style, but that doesn't invalidate what he has done in the series. His later videos don't have that kind of commentary.
What I like about the series is he builds on Filter's series and gives a different perspective on playing the game more agressive. He also puts a little more emphasis on what micro is needed to win battles.
Unfortunatly it appears we have lost him though. He hasn't updated his videos since January, so we will never know his secret of getting to Masters after diamond
Go to recording devices -> microphone properties -> enhancements, then check what you can select to help with your recording. It's horrible, you need to fix it if you want more viewers.
EPT
