|
On October 28 2013 16:09 vaderseven wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2013 15:19 Vies wrote:On October 28 2013 14:04 vaderseven wrote: Get cheese builds and macro builds OUT of this thread lol. They are just silly concepts and if posters can't get past that then they should just refrain from posting.
I encourage people to post about game plans they have seen or used or to ask game plan related questions in this thread. I'd be happy to... After reading this thread I feel inspired to develop a game plan for each of my 3 MU's so I can tweak and improve it over time. I recently switched to Zerg and feel extremely lost in the zvz match up. I want to develop a game plan around the Gasless ZvZ +1/+1 roach timing 1. Get to 2 base via either pool first or hatch first. Scout opponents natural with overlord to identify early pool so we don't die. Rush out 4 queens and sim city with evo chambers/roach warren. Block the entrance with 2 queens and save energy to transfuse if opponent decides to put on ling/bling aggression. I suggest choosing an opening based on the map and mid game choice. In this case you know the mid game choice of roach with ups so make sure your opening flows well into that. The only remaining factor is map so choose pool first or hatch first based on which is better for getting to that roach mid game when taking into account the map. Show nested quote +On October 28 2013 15:19 Vies wrote:2. Drone up to ~50 drones, take a 3rd base and start producing roaches. (Use overseers to scout if Z elected for roach or muta composition and how heavily they are droning their 3rd. Depending on opponents choice, keep producing roaches and attack or drone up the 3rd base. This is going to be the part of your play that generates the most loses at first but dont let that get you down. Save every replay and name them based on the enemy strategy and when you have a bunch of vs one strat watch them all in a row and look for the trends in their movements and build. Find times where you have units that can stop some of the trends (queens to deny ovi or a few lings to control a key tower etc etc) to gain small advantages. Then once you really know that enemy style decide on any decision making type changes you will need to make and what you see in game should trigger them and then go test those ideas out. Repeat until you feel like you know the right way to play vs every style at this stage. (note: this stage is the main powering stage of this Zerg's plan and scouting and reacting during moments of powering is something that thoughtful and logical decision making creates amazingly smart looking plays out of. if this zerg is able to successfully ID the enemies plan for this stage of the game and maintain some kind of advantage into the next stage he should be set to win or gain a very large advantage.) Show nested quote +On October 28 2013 15:19 Vies wrote:3. Defend until 3 bases are saturated and then move out for an attack when 2+/2+ is nearing completion. I love it. You clearly havent mapped out an entire game plan yet but THIS is how you handle the fact that you dont have a game plan mapped 100% yet. You go into the game with a logical idea and execute it with confidence. If you do that, you will have invaluable wins and loses as replays that will help to answer the next questions you have. Show nested quote +On October 28 2013 15:19 Vies wrote:Other than this I am really not sure... Do I add in hydras for the 2+/2+ timing attack? if so when do I add the hydra den? Should I have infestors in the 2+/2+ timing window? If so when? What happens if I cannot engage efficiently at the 2+/+2 timing window or if the engagement goes relatively evenly... What is my follow up? How do I deny expansions while keeping my own safe? What end game unit composition should i be shooting for? Step 1, go and do this build ALOT on ladder or with practice partners. Step 2, save every single win and lose and keep them in some kind of ogranized way that allows you to quickly watch every lose vs one style or every win vs one style. Step 3, ask yourself is this winning every game? If yes, you have done it. GG go win gsl! If no, ensure that significant macro mistakes are not the main contributing factor to the +2/+2 timing window failing (to do this, ensure that you know when you get +2/+2 and know the roach count you should have at that time; if you are hitting the benchmarks for your build then its likely not a macro error) and if its not a macro error go to step 4. Step 4, look at exactly what is happening and ask yourself are you dieng to something or are you failing to kill something. If you are failing to kill something, decide on a logical change that you feel will allow you kill something that is needed to claim the win. If you are dieing to something (such as a counter attack or a unit comp or a timing attack that comes before or after your timing or a tech choice that comes before or after your timing), then come up with a logical idea on how go from the +2/+2 timing game state and to keep the game going longer. Step 5, Test your logical idea in real games. If you idea requires additional tweaking (I need Hydras to kill this player that has mutas, but when do I get them) simply pick a timing and try it out with 100% confidence. After a good number of games where you use that timing look at all the replays where you use the timing and see if it is working or not and if not then decide on a logical way to change the timing (I dont have enough hydras when I get the den at 50% of +2, obv I need to get the den sooner; if I get the den as I start +2 I dont have enough units at the +2 timing so I need it later... GREAT you know its somewhere between +2 starting and 50% completion of +2). As for the end game unit composition, expansion control, and what is your follow up? Your plan right now lacks those things. These are things that you will have to provide some confident self thought up logic to. Since you are basing your planning off of the roach +1 and +2 timings which is a mid game set of timings I will recommend two concepts (normally it is STRONGEST to base your plan on as late a part of the game as you can imagine a winning game state for but naturally that is something that does not always occur when making a plan): Try to make the +2 timing your game winner. This will aid you in making all the decision leading to the +2 timing stronger but will not be as strong in theory as a plan that goes for an even later goal. The later the goal, the easier it is to account for enemy plans that try to win before the goal occurs (this is the reason why 'standard' styles or the styles we see alot of tend to become later and later game focused as the game ages). Planting an extra hatchery for additional larva that can be in play as you switch to full army production makes sense with this in mind. Try to come up with a logical next punch that follows up on the strs of the +2 timing. The strengths are obviously the upgrades and the army size. I would logically suggest going for +3 and some kind of support unit that has synergy with the roach or roach/hydra army. Going for +3 and infestors seems logical with that in mind. If you can not come up with a valid next punch then you know that you have reached the skill ceiling of this plan and you can either try to refine an earlier part of it or put it in your back pocket for future use and begin work on another game plan! Please note that I do not know if any of this plan I outlined in this post is GOOD or BAD I just know that I (and the zerg that posted) used some logic and we now have a VERY testable good concept that can teach us alot about the game and make us better at ZvZ.
Thanks vaderseven! Lots of golden nuggets in here. I never thought of saving each replay so I can watch them all consectuively later. This will no doubt grant ALOT of insight.
I
|
On October 28 2013 13:14 SC2John wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2013 12:33 Dan26 wrote:On October 28 2013 03:02 SC2John wrote:On October 27 2013 19:59 Dan26 wrote: Macro is always to me defined as economy and infrastructure:
Economy: Proper saturation, constant worker production, securing expansions, and spending your money.
Infrastructure: Adding production, getting upgrades, building placement, avoiding supply blocks, and walling off (sim city).
So in summary, securing and protecting your income, whilst spending it efficiently and correctly is in my view the purest definition of Macro. And although I feel the terms macro and strategy are used loosely and interchangeably, my above definition I think will feel right for a lot of people.
All other aspects of the game such as map control, scouting, harassment, timing attacks, compositions etc are in my view 'Strategical'. Whereas Macro is about the ability to power your Strategy with money (economy), whilst being able to spend your money properly (infrastructure).
TL;DR (Anything below is extra you need not read) To further make a clear distinction, I have an example that we all know well; the TvZ matchup. For purposes of simplicity I'll note some real basic timings:
(1) 11:30 - 4M creep clearing push. (2) Continue to rally on 3 bases, with 8 barracks, 2 factories and 1 starport.
Very basic strategy, with the goal to kill the zerg player with constant aggression, before they can kick their economy and tech into high gear. Obviously a lot is missing, but the point I'm making is that the above is a 'Strategy', and is clearly defined outside of 'Macro'. 'Macro' in this case would getting 1-1 upgrades going whilst constantly producing units and securing your 3rd. Macro is the ability to spend your money where it's needed in order to power your economy, which in turn powers your strategy. Strong macro requires strong multi-tasking, in the case of certain strategies, as you usually need to perform 'Macro' whilst composing your attack.
That being said, I think that a "Macro Strategy" would be one where you focus on macro, and play re-actively whilst attempting to get a stronger economy into the mid-game. Which is a great plan because you don't rely on harassment or timing attacks.
I think you're missing the point of my post. Macro, in your definition, is simply a tool to support your strategy. In just the same way, aggression, composition, and hiding information are also tools to support your strategy. A "macro game" or "macro strategy", though, is simply a game based around a plan (according to my definition). If you goal is to win with an attack, the timing of it doesn't actually change the goal; it just changes the way you get there. Whether you attack at 4:00, 10:00, 14:00, or 20:00 for the win, the game goal is still the same. What if starting with an aggressive play gives you a stronger economy going into the mid game? What if, 3 months ago, doing a hellbat drop was the BEST POSSIBLE WAY to get a stronger economy in the mid game? When you start thinking like that, you see that your definition of "macro strategy" is inherently flawed. If your focus is to use a greedy, safe play to get a strong mid-game advantage, so be it. But that doesn't mean that an aggressive play is somehow subpar or not as "macro-oriented" as a more passive play. They are both means to an end: getting a better mid game economy. Yes but as you said in your original OP, you actually have a "macro build" which is correct. Everything from early game to late game is focused on denying bases, getting ahead, opening up with macro (e.g. CC first), having map control, and killing workers. Whereas the other strategies you pointed out are designed to kill. So a "hellbat drop" entails macro of course it does. But there are many different types of "Hell-bat drop" strategies. Some delay the expansion in order to follow up with some early timing attack with tanks. Some are greedy behind it in order to get an economical advantage, so they can defeat their opponent in the mid-late game stages. So yes, a "Hell-bat drop" can be defined as "Macro orientated". However a 6 pool, cheese, or 10-min one base timing attack are not macro orientated. They become macro orientated should the attack fail. A strategy you have to "macro out of" is not macro orientated. I feel like there is a meter bar with a slider, at one end is aggression/defense, and at the other end is macro. You can have both to varying degrees, but never both at equal strength, having one weakens the other to some extent. So when you open CC first against someone who opens up 1-1-1 first on a large map, you can prepare adequate defenses in time to defend it, then you'll be way ahead because your economy is superior. The difference is that your have prioritized macro over aggression, hence it's a "Macro orientated strategy" with other elements mixed in order to not die early on. In the above case, getting 1-1-1 after CC first is your defense mechanic. Some keywords here: Passivity, macro, scouting, and defense. This could quickly turn into an aggressive strategy if you scout your opponent has been far more greedier than you, and you have to punish it or fall way behind. Otherwise you can just be as greedy, and get early upgrades while building your 3rd. So it's still macro orientated. Eventually you move out at maximum supply and hope to win by "having more stuff" faster than your opponent. A "Macro stress test" if you will. Good for Diamond and below to win by pure macro and mechanics. So a macro build can net many wins in the lower leagues, if your mechanics and scouting (game reading) are up to speed. I think we're just getting into semantics here. I prefer to think of the sliding meter bar as "extremely early aggression to lategame focus". In my 3rd example, I use the term "macro" to make the strategy more easily recognizable and understandable. In conversation, I'm okay with using the term "macro game" to describe a long game, but I think "lategame-focused game" is a better way to look at a game when analyzing it. At some point in WoL, 6pool was beginning to be a viable opening against protoss players due to its ability to punish the ever-increasing nexus first play. Behind this, the zerg would take an expansion, get a gas up, and pull ahead economically. Does this make the 6pool a cheesy strategy? No, because the strategy for the player focuses on a later period of time, the 6pool is just something the player does to get ahead economically. Another example: in the finals of IEM NY, Life opened with a 15 hatch block against Naniwa into a double expand with gas and still played the game out all the way into queen/SH/hydra/infestor. Even though he opened with a "cheesy" play, his focus was on the late game. We want to break out of this flawed thinking that somehow you have to take a fast expansion or go double upgrades or not attack until 10:00 in order to play a "macro game". If we want to play a "lategame-focused game", we'll probably end up doing some of these things, but that doesn't mean that we HAVE to go CC first or some kind of safe, conservative opening. When you start fitting yourself into a mold and making up imaginary rules ("seeing ghosts" as Day9 puts it), you start to slowly narrow your vision and your problem-solving ability until you cease to actually improve.Seriously, listen to this podcast and all the other ones VaderSeven posted: http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/Day9/Day[9]0014-HOP3-AGoodMindset.mp3
Hhhmm I agree, I think I got a little obsessed with semantics there. Everything I have said was to do with the definition of Macro but I want to point out to all that have read my posts, that anything written there is not how I plan, or play a game of Starcraft. I've always had a clear strategy from start to end in any matchup. As I'm currently working into Diamond league again, I would say I'm playing a "Macro" game. But the meaning behind saying this is: "I'm not trying to kill my opponent quickly, I want to play a solid strategy, with no mechanical mistakes, in order to power an efficient timing and/or harassment that may or may not yield me a strong advantage in the mid-game". So that's what Macro really means to me.
For example, in TvT, I always open 12/12 reaper expand (build CC in main). Then I'll get my factory and add a second gas, followed by my Starport. Depending on what I scout I'll go straight to cloak banshee, or I'll pump out some mines and a medivac if I think a certain type of aggression is coming. After this I make sure my SCV's are in constant production, and that I build a 3rd CC in my main base before my natural is saturated. Long term the goal is to have a solid marine-tank composition with crisp upgrade timings and an appropriate medivac count. To win I want to damage his economy in the early game as much as possible whilst expanding myself and continuing to expand and spend my money properly. From here I put down a sensor tower in a strategic location whilst maintaining map control to posture my army in a favourable position.
I've been playing a while now, so I also have the ability to spot certain timing attacks such as the marine tank banshee push, or marine hellion elevator etc. So having this knowledge and experience allows me to adjust my strategy slightly in order to adapt to scouting information.
|
On October 28 2013 14:57 vaderseven wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2013 12:33 Dan26 wrote:On October 28 2013 03:02 SC2John wrote:On October 27 2013 19:59 Dan26 wrote: Macro is always to me defined as economy and infrastructure:
Economy: Proper saturation, constant worker production, securing expansions, and spending your money.
Infrastructure: Adding production, getting upgrades, building placement, avoiding supply blocks, and walling off (sim city).
So in summary, securing and protecting your income, whilst spending it efficiently and correctly is in my view the purest definition of Macro. And although I feel the terms macro and strategy are used loosely and interchangeably, my above definition I think will feel right for a lot of people.
All other aspects of the game such as map control, scouting, harassment, timing attacks, compositions etc are in my view 'Strategical'. Whereas Macro is about the ability to power your Strategy with money (economy), whilst being able to spend your money properly (infrastructure).
TL;DR (Anything below is extra you need not read) To further make a clear distinction, I have an example that we all know well; the TvZ matchup. For purposes of simplicity I'll note some real basic timings:
(1) 11:30 - 4M creep clearing push. (2) Continue to rally on 3 bases, with 8 barracks, 2 factories and 1 starport.
Very basic strategy, with the goal to kill the zerg player with constant aggression, before they can kick their economy and tech into high gear. Obviously a lot is missing, but the point I'm making is that the above is a 'Strategy', and is clearly defined outside of 'Macro'. 'Macro' in this case would getting 1-1 upgrades going whilst constantly producing units and securing your 3rd. Macro is the ability to spend your money where it's needed in order to power your economy, which in turn powers your strategy. Strong macro requires strong multi-tasking, in the case of certain strategies, as you usually need to perform 'Macro' whilst composing your attack.
That being said, I think that a "Macro Strategy" would be one where you focus on macro, and play re-actively whilst attempting to get a stronger economy into the mid-game. Which is a great plan because you don't rely on harassment or timing attacks.
I think you're missing the point of my post. Macro, in your definition, is simply a tool to support your strategy. In just the same way, aggression, composition, and hiding information are also tools to support your strategy. A "macro game" or "macro strategy", though, is simply a game based around a plan (according to my definition). If you goal is to win with an attack, the timing of it doesn't actually change the goal; it just changes the way you get there. Whether you attack at 4:00, 10:00, 14:00, or 20:00 for the win, the game goal is still the same. What if starting with an aggressive play gives you a stronger economy going into the mid game? What if, 3 months ago, doing a hellbat drop was the BEST POSSIBLE WAY to get a stronger economy in the mid game? When you start thinking like that, you see that your definition of "macro strategy" is inherently flawed. If your focus is to use a greedy, safe play to get a strong mid-game advantage, so be it. But that doesn't mean that an aggressive play is somehow subpar or not as "macro-oriented" as a more passive play. They are both means to an end: getting a better mid game economy. However a 6 pool, cheese, or 10-min one base timing attack are not macro orientated. They become macro orientated should the attack fail. A strategy you have to "macro out of" is not macro orientated. I feel like there is a meter bar with a slider, at one end is aggression/defense, and at the other end is macro. You can have both to varying degrees, but never both at equal strength, having one weakens the other to some extent. So when you open CC first against someone who opens up 1-1-1 first on a large map, you can prepare adequate defenses in time to defend it, then you'll be way ahead because your economy is superior. Your meter bar with a slider is bad mindset. Focus only on the plan you have made for winning the game and you will realize that this slider bar is just a framework to describe the natural decision making that needs to happen in order to reach the end plan that the player wanted to get. I think you are trying to separate openings/builds/strats into camps and really that is a flawed way to view the game. Your viewpoint fails to create understanding or to outline logic behind plays and, as such, will only hide knowledge from you in the long run. Simply look at the game as a template in which to execute a plan. Your plan is like an argument. It is a theory you have on what is a logical way to win the game. You then use mechanics in game in an effort to prove your point. The example SC2John gave about 6 pool when it was semi common and your reaction to it is a perfect example of how your mindset is limiting your understanding. If you see aggression, of what you label cheesy, and then see a followup you give in to confirmation bias and simply call it macro-ing out of a cheese. Putting aside that I dislike the way you use both cheese and macro in that sentence, you cant make an argument like that. It literally is confirmation bias and is VERY strong evidence of a flaw in your logical model for labeling strategy. Also, the strategy he was talking about with the 6 pool won more games in the late game than with the 6 pool timing. It was an optimal opening in many eyes on some maps for creating a mid game game state that could lead an end game that had the Zerg as the winner. It was part of a plan. It wasnt a macro play or a cheese. It was an opening. I hate how the best advice that is traditionally given to someone learning is to focus on Macro and not to Cheese. It creates a focus on mindless mechanics, not aim to win, and a black and white view of aggression and greed. Starcraft 2 does not work like that at all. Starcraft 2 works much closer to a chess game than some kind of game of chicken. You have to develop a position, have a plan of attack (be it to attack first or second!), and be able to keep your desired end game (be it a 9:00, 12:00, or 25:00 end game) in mind so that you can continuously bend your play back towards your plan while still reacting to and reading your opponent. Read this quote again from the OP: Show nested quote +[Back when I was playing on iCCup] I used to have a Korean Starcraft practice partner. One day he asked me, "Why do you think Koreans are so 'cheesy' when they're learning to play?" I don't remember exactly what I replied, but it was probably something along the lines of: "They've got better micro, macro, etc., so they can win early." He took a moment, then responded, "No, it's because the goal of the game is much simpler." My practice partner was telling me that when they are learning the game (when they are new) they tend to favor game plans that win the game much sooner and with less steps. By doing that they practice the concept of playing out a game plan instead of blindly playing for a vague later game state.As our convo went on, my friend (his name was HyeongJu Ban or simply Ban) explained that as a player becomes better and their understanding of the game increases, they naturally go for later and later wins. You see, as they get better mechanically they can handle more macro and micro actions and as their understanding expands they can formulate more and more complex game plans. I really see this lack of mindset in the foreign scene as a critical problem holding back the average player and honestly is one of the biggest contributing factors to the difference in average skill between Korea and the rest of the world. The two other large factors (having the strongest professional scene and having the highest density of players in a small physical area) actually help to ensure that the average new player is exposed to someone at the local PC bang that will set them on the right path and mindset. Most of the very best players clearly subscribed to this mindset and a bit of research into their playstyle progressions provide strong support to what Ban passed onto me and I onto SC2John. Look at Flash, MVP, MKP, JulyZerg, iloveoov, Jaedong, Maru, Losira, Bisu, Naniwa, and others (MANY more). All of these players had a reputation among forum posters that speak English as being "very cheesy" and each slowly became known as "macro" players. WATCH a cross section of their games. They didn't change their approach to the game. They simply were executing plans they knew inside and out and as time went on and they played more and more they became familiar with more and more plans of increasing complexity. They were masters of excellent game plans from the start of their careers onward and nothing about their approach to strategy ever changed yet so many people that speak English feel like they went through mysterious transformations from cheesy players to macro gods.
Ok I don't subscribe to any mindset that puts strats/builds into one camp... I was merely making an attempt to define macro and I've kind of failed on that part... That's all fine.
But I sure as hell don't have a bad mindset, and I sure as hell don't use a sliding bar to formulate my strategies. I was merely theorizing and using an idea to make a point about macro. Which has just caused a lot of confusion and yes It kind of went off topic and I apologize for that.
I want to point out I spend a lot of time watching pros stream, and have and do watch Day9 regularly as well as all of the Sean "Apollo" Clark tutorial videos on youtube. Not to mention my constant perusal of these forums for fresh ideas and insights. Generally my strategies involve a safe economic opener (usually 12/12 reaper), with the intent of making no mechanical mistakes and ensuring my victory is from "having more stuff". Of course I pick an early game composition such as marine tank banshee, then transition into upgraded marine tank medivac for mid-late game. I'm comfortable with this composition in TvT and love the mobility and positional strength of marine tank that most Terrans will go for.
I do like to use the term cheese for strategies such as a Protoss player putting his first gateway in your base. It's funny, silly, and yet can kill an unsuspecting player who doesn't scout. Hence I never blame cheese for losses. I only blame myself for losing. Using the term cheese is just an easy way to quickly refer to strange funky builds that can kill you quickly very early in the game. I never categorize and dumb down strategies into "cheese" or "all-ins" or "macro builds", but the terms do have a time and purpose e.g. "I got all-ined by a Terran after my harass put him way behind".
Today I played a game vs a Terran upon where I defeated him from simply having stronger mechanics and a better economy. I ended up watching the replay with the guy afterwards because he wanted to improve so I obliged and I pointed out some errors in his play. It was really refreshing, because I also benefited from it (When you want to learn, teach). For example he forgot to add production, also forgot to re-saturate his natural after an attack, picked bad engagements, and his attempts at counter attacks were quickly snuffed out from solid map control and vision.
So vaderseven, I totally agree with everything you've said. I also like how you pointed out that as a player gains experience, they tend to focus on a later game win. In hindsight, this is very true for me, as I love big engagements and have become more and more comfortable in late game situations. Also as a player progresses, their ability to read their opponent improves dramatically. Such as recognizing a common timing or composition, or deflecting an attack when all you saw was what was revealed when you poked up the ramp etc. Experience, reflection, deliberate practice and involvement with the community is a very sound approach to improving your game.
Anyway I just didn't want to come off as someone with a poor mindset, in my attempt to define macro. : ) .
|
Honestly we all use those words like that. The danger is when you allow that to enter any part of the analysis part of your thinking. That as guy just cheesed me with roaches is a normal no thought required statement. That guy planned to kill me as I was building my 3rd OC and my 2nd through 5th rax and getting 1/1 is what I must think when reflecting on my play. I wanted to hit a 3/3 anti hive timing and he wanted to hit a roach timing when I was investing a lot into infrastructure needed for my plan. Thinking in terms of actual plans helps hugely in finding solutions to problems. If I just left it mentally as cheese I might just think scout better and defend a tiny bit more. When I realize and respect his plan I can begin to appreciate many of the smaller variables in his play that reveal his plan to me earlier on which will allow me to power alot slower because I know that if he is planning on that timing then my plan has a much longer clock on it than if I was playing a muta/ling/bling player.
Think about how often people ask for the counter to a cheese and how no one ever asks for advise on how to use a longer term 'macro style' to actually close a game out. Simply knowing my plan of a 3/3 anti hive timing helps me to be able to watch a lose vs a roach timing and easily intuit several ways to deal with his plan.
On a direct note to your tvt plan: I recommend strongly having a more defined win goal. A reasonable example would be to say that vs mech you will transition to sky terran on 4 or 5 bases and use your mid game marine tank to delay his push until you have the better comp and vs marine tank you will deny X map specific base that would normally be his 4th or 5th. If you don't want to sky terran vs mech as your post might indicate then go for getting to 5 or 6 bases quickly behind your first max army and then trading units to keep him from maxing too soon. You can then use your huge economy to through cost ineffective trades when he eventually does push. There is a million different plans you can go for. Make sure they define how to win and use some kind of logic that you personally can feel.
By adding that final layer of planning to win you have a huge increase in motivation for how to exactly position your army, expand, and attack. You will also see your win rate go way up. It's not that you lack a plan it's just it is a bit vague in what it wants to do to win. There is an art in being able to declare how the game will be won. When you master that art phrases like winning on your own terms begin to apply to all of your games and early and mid game decisions that could be handled several ways become very obvious choices as they are leading to a much more refined goal.
|
Legend tells of a legendary thread of legend...
Seriously love you TL strategy guys. Especially my protoss heroes Teoita and SC2John, but also vaderseven and crew Every time you guys write something here it makes me get noticeably better at the game. So thank you all. A ton.
Developing my game plan has been something I've worked on for years now since I started watching day9 pre-SC2. But because I always played BW casually as a child it never really hit home how important these things are until well into my SC2 career. PvT has remained one of my best matchups through WoL and HotS due to my mindset and gamelan. I really need to work on developing that part of my game in the other matchups. Especially PvP, as this season I'm sitting at a sexy 30~40% win rate
I don't have very much to contribute to the discussion here just yet as I'm at work and don't have access to my replays and such that I'd want to be able to look over, but believe me I'll be back. probably tonight. SC2John and Teoita for executors 2014.
|
Northern Ireland461 Posts
This thread is absolutely one of the best threads I have ever read on SC2, massive kudos to all the contributors, all these posts are worth their weight in gold.
|
On October 28 2013 21:16 Dan26 wrote:
Anyway I just didn't want to come off as someone with a poor mindset, in my attempt to define macro. : ) .
I think that was in part the OP's point, unless I'm failing at reading comprehension today: if you spend all of your time trying to 'define' something, then you're focusing on stuff that doesn't actually help you win games. If you want to be ultra-blunt about it: a win has no 'qualifiers'. I got 15 ladder points, you lost 15 ladder points. End of story. Whether or not you are labeling it as 'cheese' or 'macro' or 'standard' actually has zero relevance to the improvement of your game, or your strategic approach to the game. They're words that someone who is casting or describing the overall flow of the game can use.
From a strategy and improvement mindset, the question should not be "did I achieve my goal of a macro game?" but instead "My plan was to do X (specific thing)... what stopped X from happening? Why did my opponent's plan stop mine? Was it a flaw in execution, or is the plan itself not equipped to deal with that particular case? How can I alter my plan to account for that particular case?" As soon as you start throwing phrases like "Well, this type of cheesy play is a blind counter", I believe you close off a great deal of learning avenues.
Slight tangent: I wrote the TL guide on CC-first in TvP. Regularly when I write guides, I have questions pop up in comments or PMs about "Isn't X a build-order counter/autowin?" I don't believe I've ever answered that question with a 'yes'. Not because there aren't builds that are very, very good against things like CC-first in TvP, but because saying "Well, if my opponent does X I'm dead" doesn't do anything for your game. 4-gate Warp Prism is super deadly versus CC-first, but I've spent MANY occasions watching replays and practicing techniques to hold against it because I'm not thinking about "cheese beats macro" or "my plan is to play a macro game", I'm thinking "my plan is to take a fast expo, prevent a Protoss from comfortably securing an early third with 10 minute pressure, and then transitioning to a strong high-tech army via a third base behind my 10 minute pressure. 4-gate Prism strikes at this time in my plan; what are the tools I can try to defend?" All specific statements, all specific questions, all with possibly very specific answers. Nowhere would the discussion be improved by using the terms macro or cheese or standard when I can have crystal clear explanations that don't carry assumptions implied (like 'cheese' does - the danger being that everyone's heard implications with that word are different).
Thumbs up, guys, great topic!
|
United States4883 Posts
On October 28 2013 15:19 Vies wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2013 14:04 vaderseven wrote: Get cheese builds and macro builds OUT of this thread lol. They are just silly concepts and if posters can't get past that then they should just refrain from posting.
I encourage people to post about game plans they have seen or used or to ask game plan related questions in this thread. I'd be happy to... After reading this thread I feel inspired to develop a game plan for each of my 3 MU's so I can tweak and improve it over time. I recently switched to Zerg and feel extremely lost in the zvz match up. I want to develop a game plan around the Gasless ZvZ +1/+1 roach timing 1. Get to 2 base via either pool first or hatch first. Scout opponents natural with overlord to identify early pool so we don't die. Rush out 4 queens and sim city with evo chambers/roach warren. Block the entrance with 2 queens and save energy to transfuse if opponent decides to put on ling/bling aggression. 2. Drone up to ~50 drones, take a 3rd base and start producing roaches. (Use overseers to scout if Z elected for roach or muta composition and how heavily they are droning their 3rd. Depending on opponents choice, keep producing roaches and attack or drone up the 3rd base. 3. Defend until 3 bases are saturated and then move out for an attack when 2+/2+ is nearing completion. Other than this I am really not sure... Do I add in hydras for the 2+/2+ timing attack? if so when do I add the hydra den? Should I have infestors in the 2+/2+ timing window? If so when? What happens if I cannot engage efficiently at the 2+/+2 timing window or if the engagement goes relatively evenly... What is my follow up? How do I deny expansions while keeping my own safe? What end game unit composition should i be shooting for?
I just wanted to throw my take on this out there:
First thing, remember that my analysis begins with how you win and recreates the steps on how to get to that winning position. You don't want to focus on the process, you want to focus on the goal. So in this case, you need to define how you're going to win FIRST. Looking at your post, maybe we can say something like "I want to win with a maxed out roach push with +2/+2" and then work our way back from there.
Strategy goal: I want to win with a maxed out roach push with +2/+2 (ranged)
Step 1: What ingredients are necessary for our goal? We're probably going to need 3 bases, 3-4 hatches, and double evo chambers. We're probably going to have to secure a rather early 3rd, and we probably need to hit before our opponent gets out higher tech. A maxed out roach push against ultras or broodlords is an instalose situation, so we're probably going to have to hit rather early in the game or force a lot of pressure on our opponent to keep him from teching up. Let's choose a random time for the maxed out roach push...how about 15:00? If we look at some pro VoDs, we can get an even better indication of WHEN we're supposed to hit maxed roaches and +2/+2.
Step 2: How do we get to 3 bases with double evos? We need to find a way to safely and quickly secure our third base; what MID GAME unit composition are we shooting for? It seems obvious that if we want to hit a roach max timing, we should probably secure it with plain roaches. That's not our only option, but it seems to make the most sense right now. We can deflect any kinds of ground attacks in the mid game by having a lot of roaches with +1/+1 and speed and we can deflect mutas with queens and spores. If we get into particular trouble, we can rely on counterattacks and spine crawlers to buy us enough time to get the forces we need out.
Step 3: How can we refine the mid game? Are there ways we can improve our situation heading into the late game? We could try doing a roach attack with +1/+1 and see if that puts us in a better position later. We can try going burrow and doing roach harass every time our opponent moves out. We can try other little moves like faking a queen/roach all-in or doing speedling counterattacks, etc., etc. In this stage of the game, we want to ask ourselves: "What is the best way to play the mid game that will get me to my winning moment with +2/+2 maxed roaches?"
Step 4: How do we get to the stage where we're producing roaches? What is the best early game to get us to our mid game? Well, we kind of mentioned we wanted double evos and we know a gasless, double evo -> roach opening, so we can try that. It's important to note that this isn't our only choice of a build order. If we come across a better build to lead us into the mid game, we shouldn't be afraid to ditch this one. For the moment, however, we can try out this build and find it's strengths and weaknesses and how to hold certain pressures, etc., etc. Our goal in this stage is to get a working model that allows us to get to the mid game in the best possible scenario.
Step 5: In what ways can we refine the early game? Can we safely eke out an advantage by doing something like cutting an early queen or getting our evo chambers up earlier? This should be an area of exploration in which we focus on perfecting our general macro and learning subtle scouting tells and how to respond to them. After extensive ladder experience, we can learn how to stop any early pressure or how to hold early all-ins. Once we get a good idea of how we're going to open, we refine it until it leads us into the mid game seamlessly.
Step 5: Which maps work well for this strategy? After doing this strategy many times on the ladder against different opponents on different maps, you can start to get a good feel for whether or not it's a working strategy. For instance, this style might not work in cross positions on Frost or more choky maps like Bel'Shir. It seems to work out well on more open maps, though, like Derelict or Whirlwind. On maps where this strategy doesn't work well, maybe we can make some slight adjustments to make it hit sooner or maybe add in hydras for our +2/+2 push; our goal won't change drastically, but we can take the general idea of our strategy and mold it a little bit into a strategy that's perfect for THAT map.
Conclusion: I want to open with a gasless FE into double evo chambers and roaches. To defend against early speedling/baneling pressure, I'll produce several early queens and make a good sim city. After I secure my 3rd base, I will produce roaches non stop and do a +1/+1 speedroach timing and drone up my 3rd expansion behind it. If I am losing the battle, I will fall back and attempt to buy enough time to translate my superior economy into a maxed roach timing. Shortly before +2/+2 finishes and I'm approaching a maxed out army, I will move out with my roaches and constantly rally roaches to the front.
I hope this lays things out in an way that's easier to understand. I cannot stress enough that the goal of strategy is the most important thing. When you sit down to think out a strategy, you should be focused on making sure everything in the game goes to support your ultimate goal, even if you have to discard a build or mid game attack that you originally really liked. Don't get overly attached to ideas like "I always go hatch first" or "I always go early speed to make sure I survive the early game" but instead use them to support your goal: "I go hatch first with this strategy to make sure I can get 4 early queens and creep at my natural to defend any kind of early aggression and lead me into an economically superior mid game." Everything needs to connect from beginning to end.
_
|
John, it makes me tickled pink how you were able to completely understand my points that night. This is my favorite thread on TL right now.
|
On October 29 2013 14:38 SC2John wrote:
I hope this lays things out in an way that's easier to understand. I cannot stress enough that the goal of strategy is the most important thing. When you sit down to think out a strategy, you should be focused on making sure everything in the game goes to support your ultimate goal, even if you have to discard a build or mid game attack that you originally really liked. Don't get overly attached to ideas like "I always go hatch first" or "I always go early speed to make sure I survive the early game" but instead use them to support your goal: "I go hatch first with this strategy to make sure I can get 4 early queens and creep at my natural to defend any kind of early aggression and lead me into an economically superior mid game." Everything needs to connect from beginning to end.
This is a much better way to think about strategy.
My question is: how far do you play this out? I'll illustrate with an example to communicate what I'm thinking.
Matchup: TvP, map = Frost, Whirlwind, or Akilon (easier to get lots of bases)
Goal: delay the Protoss third and deny his fourth long enough to amass a versatile high-tech Bio/Viking army with at least 12-15 Ghosts and a similar number of Vikings which can dictate the terms of any Protoss engagement in my favour.
Let's say I open CC-first, he goes super economic 1-gate FE, and we both reach a very normal midgame where he manages to deflect pressure and get up a third at about 13:00. Furthermore, I succeed in delaying his fourth with non-committal engagements and minor drop harassment until I have a 180-160 supply advantage and my Viking/Ghost count is starting to rise on four bases. I'm posturing on the map, and have the ability to force any engagement he tries to be favourable for me. I have reached my goal, confident that my decision-making and positioning are better than my opponent's.
Now what? If the Protoss refuses to come out and just sits there, not engaging, and impossible to attack into, how many 'extra' goals should I come up with to deal with this situation?
Should I implement a goal along the lines of: I will trade off most of my Marine/Marauder force via multiple Medivac drops to bleed him out? I will transition to 3/3 Battlecruisers slowly as I maintain a lockdown on the center of the map? What sorts of corner cases should I have a pre-planned adaptation for, and if I can't, how do I effectively create goals on the fly?
|
United States4883 Posts
On October 30 2013 00:46 Jazzman88 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 14:38 SC2John wrote:
I hope this lays things out in an way that's easier to understand. I cannot stress enough that the goal of strategy is the most important thing. When you sit down to think out a strategy, you should be focused on making sure everything in the game goes to support your ultimate goal, even if you have to discard a build or mid game attack that you originally really liked. Don't get overly attached to ideas like "I always go hatch first" or "I always go early speed to make sure I survive the early game" but instead use them to support your goal: "I go hatch first with this strategy to make sure I can get 4 early queens and creep at my natural to defend any kind of early aggression and lead me into an economically superior mid game." Everything needs to connect from beginning to end.
This is a much better way to think about strategy. My question is: how far do you play this out? I'll illustrate with an example to communicate what I'm thinking. Matchup: TvP, map = Frost, Whirlwind, or Akilon (easier to get lots of bases) Goal: delay the Protoss third and deny his fourth long enough to amass a versatile high-tech Bio/Viking army with at least 12-15 Ghosts and a similar number of Vikings which can dictate the terms of any Protoss engagement in my favour. Let's say I open CC-first, he goes super economic 1-gate FE, and we both reach a very normal midgame where he manages to deflect pressure and get up a third at about 13:00. Furthermore, I succeed in delaying his fourth with non-committal engagements and minor drop harassment until I have a 180-160 supply advantage and my Viking/Ghost count is starting to rise on four bases. I'm posturing on the map, and have the ability to force any engagement he tries to be favourable for me. I have reached my goal, confident that my decision-making and positioning are better than my opponent's. Now what? If the Protoss refuses to come out and just sits there, not engaging, and impossible to attack into, how many 'extra' goals should I come up with to deal with this situation? Should I implement a goal along the lines of: I will trade off most of my Marine/Marauder force via multiple Medivac drops to bleed him out? I will transition to 3/3 Battlecruisers slowly as I maintain a lockdown on the center of the map? What sorts of corner cases should I have a pre-planned adaptation for, and if I can't, how do I effectively create goals on the fly?
I think maybe the issue is that your goal should state how you want to win. Saying that you want to reach a certain composition or take a certain amount of bases is a good goal, but it doesn't state how you're going to win. If the goal is: "I want to deny my opponent's fourth long enough to amass an unbeatable ghost/viking army and then faceroll him," suddenly you have a concrete way to win and a goal to shoot for. If you try this out several times and feel like no matter how you refine the earlier stages of the game, you still can't make it happen, you might try to change your goal to something more sensible or add an additional statement to your original goal: "if my opponent turtles and refuses to attack, I will secure center map control and start a BC transition."
I think, at the highest levels of play (this is a bit of theorycrafting), no strategy is not pre-planned. On any given map, you might have a range of strategies you've developed. Depending on the situation, your original goal might shift to another goal which is better suited for that particular game, but you're never actually "making up goals on the fly."
|
On October 29 2013 01:57 mau5mat wrote: This thread is absolutely one of the best threads I have ever read on SC2, massive kudos to all the contributors, all these posts are worth their weight in gold.
#That. Could we get a sticky?
|
Well you shouldn't be making up goals on the fly but if you are inexperienced in a particular situation always watch the replay and think of strategies you could have done then have a friend play the opposing side assume the position you realized that they are doing something you have never faced before and try to play it out with your new strategy to see if its viable in the situation you were in
|
If you are inexperienced in a situation you should have a plan made pregame still on how you want to win. Try 100% to execute that plan. Confidence in your plan in game and out of game skepticism and considering of other options. Never the other way around.
|
Canada8157 Posts
When I see macro game as oppose to a short/cheese game, I think of the amount of multitasking, unit control, map awareness and army composition you have to have compared to the early game.
Say for example a cannon rush in PvP on Yeonsu. In my books it's definitely not a macro game, but still has the clear goal in mind and requires good execution to reach that goal. So I guess I am drawing an arbitrary line when I separate the macro game from the cheese game. I guess I put it somewhere along the lines of hitting a timing attack with tier 2 units and not be in terrible shape if it doesn't go as well as planned, or something around there
|
There is a lot of great information in this thread, easily one of my favorites.
A key point about the "having a goal" mentality is that starcraft is way too fast and way too attention intensive for anyone to efficiently think about goals on the fly. If you have a pre-game mental map about what you are trying to accomplish and how to deviate/react, that's a lot of mental resources you are saving yourself during the actual game.
That said, I am not sure that the goal must necessarily be how to kill the opponent. The more laid out your game plan is, the more it would converge, ideally, to just being a complex map on how to gain incremental advantages, and then you win with... whatever. The important part is knowing beforehand what "advantage" to persue at a given stage of the game.
|
United States4883 Posts
On October 30 2013 11:04 bertu wrote: There is a lot of great information in this thread, easily one of my favorites.
A key point about the "having a goal" mentality is that starcraft is way too fast and way too attention intensive for anyone to efficiently think about goals on the fly. If you have a pre-game mental map about what you are trying to accomplish and how to deviate/react, that's a lot of mental resources you are saving yourself during the actual game.
I agree. One of the biggest issues with "APM" I face is that often times my macro falls apart simply because I don't know where I'm headed. When you have a fully mapped-out game plan, your APM becomes a lot more effective because you just know exactly what to do at all times.
That said, I am not sure that the goal must necessarily be how to kill the opponent. The more laid out your game plan is, the more it would converge, ideally, to just being a complex map on how to gain incremental advantages, and then you win with... whatever. The important part is knowing beforehand what "advantage" to persue at a given stage of the game.
I disagree. Stating a goal like: "I want to have a superior late game economy of 4 bases while denying my opponent's 4th" is exactly the same as "I want to have a superior mid game economy by powering hard and lightly harassing my opponent". Both of them are PARTS of a game plan, but they don't actually point anywhere.
A good game plan would look something like: "In TvZ, I want to step into the mid game with a superior economy by doing hellion/banshee harassment and powering hard (double ups, 3CC). Once I get my tech and production up, I want to focus on denying my opponent's 4th base with 4M for as long as possible while taking my own. Once I take my 4th base, I will drill his newly-created 4th base with constant pressure until my opponent is no longer able to defend and crumbles to my aggression." As you can see, I took the two concepts I mentioned earlier and formed them into a solid game plan that, most importantly, explained how I would win. There are a ton of variations on how I could get from early game -> hellion/banshee -> 3-base 4M, so I still maintain those as convergence points. But now I have a working guideline of what I actually want to do in the game. I know there will be a definite point where I either win or lose.
|
I want to add that the BEST game plans combine two concepts: not dieing and snowballing an advantage to a win.
Innovations 4M TvZ plays are great examples as he uses hellions to deny creep for a bit, then a 1/1 force to either hold back larger mineral based ling armies OR to push back larger creep based queen openings, then doing a 2/2 parade push into a base that has been made more vulnerable due to a lack of enough creep (this push leapfrogs and kills creep OR if it gets to a base REALLY fast kills a base which can be almost impossible to come back from) OR uses a 2/2 4M army to hold his third vs aggressive ground based plays such as roach bane or hydra roach, then a hard hitting 3/3 timing to deny one of the Zerg's four bases.
He continues the plan past that but vs all but the best his game plan wins there. He has a GOAL here of having cleared creep vs greedy players (denying an advantage of map control vs players cutting corners) or not dieing vs other things that cant afford to get that creep and then snowballing the lack of mapcontrol/creep into a very strong push of 3/3 bio.
|
On October 30 2013 11:04 bertu wrote:
That said, I am not sure that the goal must necessarily be how to kill the opponent. The more laid out your game plan is, the more it would converge, ideally, to just being a complex map on how to gain incremental advantages, and then you win with... whatever. The important part is knowing beforehand what "advantage" to persue at a given stage of the game.
On October 30 2013 15:12 vaderseven wrote: I want to add that the BEST game plans combine two concepts: not dieing and snowballing an advantage to a win.
Vanderseven made a a great statement that better conceives what I was trying to say.
For anyone familar with the card game magic: the gathering, I just made a blog post inspired by this thread, describing how most of sc2 game plans would correlate to mtg's deck archetypes of control, aggro, combo and aggo-control.
+ Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=433935#1
|
This is a fantastic thread and discussion. Thank you.
I have a question, however. This is all quite interesting information, but a little over my head as an inexperienced/bad player. I can't really conceive of a "plan" that I want to pursue. Maybe I'm too inexperienced/bad to be using this information?
More to the point: How does someone (either in general or like me) come up with a plan? What is the source for the fabrication of your end goal?
|
|
|
|