|
On June 27 2013 21:44 Spec wrote:
Why does your walk-through video have a cam of the closet behind you? Do you use it to keep an eye on the monster?
Yes, the other night I saw the new Monsters Inc. movie in theatre...scary stuff.
|
Imo, if people still made Banshees like in WoL Hellion/Banshee style 
|
awesome bo, good to pull once in a best of
|
On June 27 2013 22:40 TangSC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 10:29 Markwerf wrote:On June 27 2013 09:31 DaemonX wrote:
Day9 defined all-in as a build with 'no next step'. This is a good working definition.
Shine's style can have a heap of next steps, it doesn't leave you in an awkward position tech-wise. Does it have to deal damage? Yes. But so do all serious aggressions. If you aren't doing it blind HOPING it will do damage, but instead are responding to a scout or trigger from your opponent that makes it highly probable that you will be dealing damage, then I for one don't call aggression that leaves you in a reasonable position an 'all-in'.
eg 4-gate = all-in. You are left without a second base, low probe count AND no tech. You have no next step if your opponent isn't dead -> you are all-in.
eg hell-bat drop before CC -> you have no 2nd CC and a low unit count to defend and cannot apply pressure -> you are all-in.
eg attacking with all your units when you have 50% of your drones wiped out from a drop instead of remaking -> all-in
eg 2-base 1/1 roach-bane push on 60 drones. You have tech, drones and bases and upgrades, you can go in any direction as long as you do enough damage your opponent cannot take a 3rd before you - NOT all-in.
eg 12 roach aggression on 2 base in response to gasless expand. You have 2x gas geysers, letting you get to lair in 20 seconds, 2 base and 2 queens. As long as damage is dealt to opponent's natural, who you KNOW is low tech, you are NOT all-in.
Basically any big attack that isn't harass is 'all-in' to some extent because you are are behind if you don't do good damage. Going into semantics and discussing if this build is all-in or not is so silly. The day9 definition is a bit stupid as basically all builds have a next step, it's easier to see it as an attack that has to do a lot of damage which this definately is.. You make a good point, the whole notion of an all-in is arbitrary because most builds have a next step/follow-through (though I'd argue that DaemonX is right that a 4gate in PvZ or early pools/proxy rax with worker pulls are blind all-ins). It is a worthwhile discussion though. All-ins and borderline all-ins are slowly becoming less taboo on the North American and European servers, but there's still a lot of people who completely reject the benefits of learning/incorporating aggressive styles.
I think the semantics matter - because these terms are used disparagingly and those styles and players are stigmatised, but also because the terms do mean something.
If I'm saying "well he's all-in", what I mean is "hold this with no damage and I auto-win". Ie when toss does a 4-gate, I scout it, he turns up to 8 roaches 3 spines 3 queens in a tiny choke in front of 2 base saturation, he sadly goes home to die - he was "all in". It's not all-in if I've 8-pooled and he KNOWS I cannot hold a 4gate with zero damage.
All-in is a legitimate descriptor that has been abused by every player who got attacked when it wasn't terribly convenient in their current game plan/style/build to be attacked and wanted someone or something to blame.
I don't think your builds are - by and large - all-ins. As long as they're not done blind. Except the 'second barrel'. That shit is whack in all cases, do it blind as a bat
|
On June 28 2013 09:07 DaemonX wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 22:40 TangSC wrote:On June 27 2013 10:29 Markwerf wrote:On June 27 2013 09:31 DaemonX wrote:
Day9 defined all-in as a build with 'no next step'. This is a good working definition.
Shine's style can have a heap of next steps, it doesn't leave you in an awkward position tech-wise. Does it have to deal damage? Yes. But so do all serious aggressions. If you aren't doing it blind HOPING it will do damage, but instead are responding to a scout or trigger from your opponent that makes it highly probable that you will be dealing damage, then I for one don't call aggression that leaves you in a reasonable position an 'all-in'.
eg 4-gate = all-in. You are left without a second base, low probe count AND no tech. You have no next step if your opponent isn't dead -> you are all-in.
eg hell-bat drop before CC -> you have no 2nd CC and a low unit count to defend and cannot apply pressure -> you are all-in.
eg attacking with all your units when you have 50% of your drones wiped out from a drop instead of remaking -> all-in
eg 2-base 1/1 roach-bane push on 60 drones. You have tech, drones and bases and upgrades, you can go in any direction as long as you do enough damage your opponent cannot take a 3rd before you - NOT all-in.
eg 12 roach aggression on 2 base in response to gasless expand. You have 2x gas geysers, letting you get to lair in 20 seconds, 2 base and 2 queens. As long as damage is dealt to opponent's natural, who you KNOW is low tech, you are NOT all-in.
Basically any big attack that isn't harass is 'all-in' to some extent because you are are behind if you don't do good damage. Going into semantics and discussing if this build is all-in or not is so silly. The day9 definition is a bit stupid as basically all builds have a next step, it's easier to see it as an attack that has to do a lot of damage which this definately is.. You make a good point, the whole notion of an all-in is arbitrary because most builds have a next step/follow-through (though I'd argue that DaemonX is right that a 4gate in PvZ or early pools/proxy rax with worker pulls are blind all-ins). It is a worthwhile discussion though. All-ins and borderline all-ins are slowly becoming less taboo on the North American and European servers, but there's still a lot of people who completely reject the benefits of learning/incorporating aggressive styles. I don't think your builds are - by and large - all-ins. As long as they're not done blind. Except the 'second barrel'. That shit is whack in all cases, do it blind as a bat
Well it would be a stretch to say some of my builds aren't all-ins lol, but it's interesting that you say the 'second barrel' from the triple barrel bust is all-in because it's blind. This is a bit off-topic for this thread, but you have the option of Overseer scouting the Terran as soon as the Lair is done to decide whether to attack. Honestly though, doing that particular build blindly works well because the only thing that the attack MUST accomplish is resetting Terran's army count so that Zerg can saturate their third behind the attack.
|
Love the builds Tang! I always find myself trying to play more macro-oriented, but 100% agree with you that learning a few very powerful aggressive builds like this makes you a more well rounded player (and they're fun!). Keep 'em coming sir! Much appreciated.
|
I love these guides, although to be (perhaps) overly critical, I don't think this one is that special. People have been doing like this since early Wings. But props, and I hope to look at and learn from more of your guides.
|
On June 29 2013 03:40 BlackPride wrote:
I love these guides, although to be (perhaps) overly critical, I don't think this one is that special. People have been doing like this since early Wings. But props, and I hope to look at and learn from more of your guides.
It's not overly critical to say this one isn't that special  but it's at least "nifty". I'll take nifty.
|
On June 27 2013 22:43 TangSC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 21:44 Spec wrote:
Why does your walk-through video have a cam of the closet behind you? Do you use it to keep an eye on the monster? Yes, the other night I saw the new Monsters Inc. movie in theatre...scary stuff.
And you never know if Shine may have hidden a hydralisk roach in there.
|
After looking over my last 30 TvZs I'm becoming more and more convinced that to avoid getting hit by weird builds like these (and Ive seen all sorts of weird allins on ladder) it's better to simply delay stim and get a Siege tank out first before the Hellions. Ive had a game when a 6 pooler shut down all scouting, forced me to turtle for a good 4 minutes, until I realized he double expanded and droned. Lost that game. Not really the same acenario but similar. Might as well sacrifice some economy for that extra layer of safety.
|
On June 28 2013 21:53 TangSC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 09:07 DaemonX wrote:On June 27 2013 22:40 TangSC wrote:On June 27 2013 10:29 Markwerf wrote:On June 27 2013 09:31 DaemonX wrote:
Day9 defined all-in as a build with 'no next step'. This is a good working definition.
Shine's style can have a heap of next steps, it doesn't leave you in an awkward position tech-wise. Does it have to deal damage? Yes. But so do all serious aggressions. If you aren't doing it blind HOPING it will do damage, but instead are responding to a scout or trigger from your opponent that makes it highly probable that you will be dealing damage, then I for one don't call aggression that leaves you in a reasonable position an 'all-in'.
eg 4-gate = all-in. You are left without a second base, low probe count AND no tech. You have no next step if your opponent isn't dead -> you are all-in.
eg hell-bat drop before CC -> you have no 2nd CC and a low unit count to defend and cannot apply pressure -> you are all-in.
eg attacking with all your units when you have 50% of your drones wiped out from a drop instead of remaking -> all-in
eg 2-base 1/1 roach-bane push on 60 drones. You have tech, drones and bases and upgrades, you can go in any direction as long as you do enough damage your opponent cannot take a 3rd before you - NOT all-in.
eg 12 roach aggression on 2 base in response to gasless expand. You have 2x gas geysers, letting you get to lair in 20 seconds, 2 base and 2 queens. As long as damage is dealt to opponent's natural, who you KNOW is low tech, you are NOT all-in.
Basically any big attack that isn't harass is 'all-in' to some extent because you are are behind if you don't do good damage. Going into semantics and discussing if this build is all-in or not is so silly. The day9 definition is a bit stupid as basically all builds have a next step, it's easier to see it as an attack that has to do a lot of damage which this definately is.. You make a good point, the whole notion of an all-in is arbitrary because most builds have a next step/follow-through (though I'd argue that DaemonX is right that a 4gate in PvZ or early pools/proxy rax with worker pulls are blind all-ins). It is a worthwhile discussion though. All-ins and borderline all-ins are slowly becoming less taboo on the North American and European servers, but there's still a lot of people who completely reject the benefits of learning/incorporating aggressive styles. I don't think your builds are - by and large - all-ins. As long as they're not done blind. Except the 'second barrel'. That shit is whack in all cases, do it blind as a bat Well it would be a stretch to say some of my builds aren't all-ins lol, but it's interesting that you say the 'second barrel' from the triple barrel bust is all-in because it's blind. This is a bit off-topic for this thread, but you have the option of Overseer scouting the Terran as soon as the Lair is done to decide whether to attack. Honestly though, doing that particular build blindly works well because the only thing that the attack MUST accomplish is resetting Terran's army count so that Zerg can saturate their third behind the attack.
I think you misread me.
I said the second barrel was an exception in that it's not really all-in EVEN IF blind because it's guaranteed damage in the current metagame. The only way it isn't is if they're into tanks or heavy mech.
|
On July 01 2013 16:58 DaemonX wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 21:53 TangSC wrote:On June 28 2013 09:07 DaemonX wrote:On June 27 2013 22:40 TangSC wrote:On June 27 2013 10:29 Markwerf wrote:On June 27 2013 09:31 DaemonX wrote:
Day9 defined all-in as a build with 'no next step'. This is a good working definition.
Shine's style can have a heap of next steps, it doesn't leave you in an awkward position tech-wise. Does it have to deal damage? Yes. But so do all serious aggressions. If you aren't doing it blind HOPING it will do damage, but instead are responding to a scout or trigger from your opponent that makes it highly probable that you will be dealing damage, then I for one don't call aggression that leaves you in a reasonable position an 'all-in'.
eg 4-gate = all-in. You are left without a second base, low probe count AND no tech. You have no next step if your opponent isn't dead -> you are all-in.
eg hell-bat drop before CC -> you have no 2nd CC and a low unit count to defend and cannot apply pressure -> you are all-in.
eg attacking with all your units when you have 50% of your drones wiped out from a drop instead of remaking -> all-in
eg 2-base 1/1 roach-bane push on 60 drones. You have tech, drones and bases and upgrades, you can go in any direction as long as you do enough damage your opponent cannot take a 3rd before you - NOT all-in.
eg 12 roach aggression on 2 base in response to gasless expand. You have 2x gas geysers, letting you get to lair in 20 seconds, 2 base and 2 queens. As long as damage is dealt to opponent's natural, who you KNOW is low tech, you are NOT all-in.
Basically any big attack that isn't harass is 'all-in' to some extent because you are are behind if you don't do good damage. Going into semantics and discussing if this build is all-in or not is so silly. The day9 definition is a bit stupid as basically all builds have a next step, it's easier to see it as an attack that has to do a lot of damage which this definately is.. You make a good point, the whole notion of an all-in is arbitrary because most builds have a next step/follow-through (though I'd argue that DaemonX is right that a 4gate in PvZ or early pools/proxy rax with worker pulls are blind all-ins). It is a worthwhile discussion though. All-ins and borderline all-ins are slowly becoming less taboo on the North American and European servers, but there's still a lot of people who completely reject the benefits of learning/incorporating aggressive styles. I don't think your builds are - by and large - all-ins. As long as they're not done blind. Except the 'second barrel'. That shit is whack in all cases, do it blind as a bat Well it would be a stretch to say some of my builds aren't all-ins lol, but it's interesting that you say the 'second barrel' from the triple barrel bust is all-in because it's blind. This is a bit off-topic for this thread, but you have the option of Overseer scouting the Terran as soon as the Lair is done to decide whether to attack. Honestly though, doing that particular build blindly works well because the only thing that the attack MUST accomplish is resetting Terran's army count so that Zerg can saturate their third behind the attack. I think you misread me. I said the second barrel was an exception in that it's not really all-in EVEN IF blind because it's guaranteed damage in the current metagame. The only way it isn't is if they're into tanks or heavy mech.
OH :p sorry, yes I agree =)
|
What's terran response to this? Early tanks? One base?
From zerg perspective, can we scout Terran's build early enough to say this 12 roach push will not do well? Is there enough time for a zergling or overlord to scount terran's main and adjust the build?
Or is it an early meta game such that you are blindly hoping the terran doesn't have a good counter?
|
On July 03 2013 16:13 BigRedDog wrote:
What's terran response to this? Early tanks? One base?
From zerg perspective, can we scout Terran's build early enough to say this 12 roach push will not do well? Is there enough time for a zergling or overlord to scount terran's main and adjust the build?
Or is it an early meta game such that you are blindly hoping the terran doesn't have a good counter?
Well this 12-Roach push is something you would only do after scouting a CC first or 1rax expand. If Terran goes gas before expansion, they can get tanks out and it's bad news. You can do it as an early meta game build, but it's not nearly as effective against builds with gas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
18420
947
53
EPT
