|
Hello TL,
I come to you with a problem, i cannot decide on which race i would like to play. I'm currently around 1200 points in my platinum division playing platinum and low diamonds. I have played around 100 or so ladder games with each race and feel that my play is low diamond range, in other words i got the basics. I have fun playing all the races and do not have a favorite in anyway.
Now i have been following the pro sc2 scene for a while now and i keep hearing the same thing on why people play the races they do
"i picking (race) because it fit my playstyle."
now im no way near any good at this game yet so i dont really have an explanation of what mine would be, so here comes my REAL question(s).
1. What is playstyle exactly?
2. What does each race have playstyle-wise?
3. What race YOU think i should play..... just cuz i'd like to hear
|
The easiest way to explain would be Macro Style vs Micro Style.
If you like expensive, powerful units you go protoss, if you like a lot of stuff and 'swarmyness' you go zerg, if you like heavy-duty guns-a-blazing you go terran, etc.
|
gonna go light on the info here this is what i think
1 my playstyle is heavy on micro strong units, and I am more keen on ending games quickly than letting them go to heavy base numbers.
2 so I choose protoss, I chose night elf in Warcraft 3 and I like having less units. protoss have stronger units so i make less of them and control them with micro-management because many of them have active skills (blink storm etc)
if you want more units, zerg. this also comes with more macro and more macro control
if you want more balance, terran. terran have a lot of variety in playstyle.
3 overrall I think the term "playstyle" is pretty self-explanatory and you shouldnt have a problem figuring it out if you are 1200+ platinum
|
In my eyes, playstyle simply means the type of strategies you typically use. For example, I have a pretty macro heavy playstyle, I tend to FE more times than I should, meaning I'm more passive. qxc has a pretty drop heavy playstyle (iirc), that is very aggressive.
|
I can tell you what playstyle isn't - a crutch to explain your bad plays.
There are legit uses, but that's what people usually mean when they say it.
|
On October 20 2010 13:29 piroko139 wrote:
In my eyes, playstyle simply means the type of strategies you typically use. For example, I have a pretty macro heavy playstyle, I tend to FE more times than I should, meaning I'm more passive. qxc has a pretty drop heavy playstyle (iirc), that is very aggressive.
this is pretty the closest anwser you can get imo
|
Races aren't really defined by play styles. Zerg, Terran, and Protoss can all use an aggressive, defensive, harass-based, ect. When people say
"i picking (race) because it fit my playstyle."
it means (or at least I would think) they like the options the race has to suit their style.
|
Hey buddha im around lower diamond range like you at 1600 Diamond and i've considered switching races alot before. ( I currently play Z )
1. I believe playstyle is things like if you like big macro games, all-ins, how aggressive you are, how reactive, etc.
2. Zerg is a reactive race and your defending alot of them time while macroing. Not saying that Z can't harrass or anything like that but i mean a T would move out while you would try to fight him in the open.
If you like macroing Zerg zerg since it also takes more mechanical skills through larva, creep, etc.
3. If you like to macro and you think you would take advantage from good mechanics i think you should try Zerg
My bad if i didn't give enough btw add PingPong.236 if you ever wanna play or whatnot. peace
|
On October 20 2010 13:33 Whole wrote:Races aren't really defined by play styles. Zerg, Terran, and Protoss can all use an aggressive, defensive, harass-based, ect. When people say it means (or at least I would think) they like the options the race has to suit their style.
Sure you can play any style as any race, but some are simply better at it. Terran is best at harassing (and they need to be because they suck at a macro style), zerg the opposite. Protoss is...confused :D
|
In my view play style can mean things like...
-I like to harass so I generally pick mutas over hydras
-I like having lots of bases so I turtle hard and only attack when I'm maxed
-I've got good micro so I like to force micro heavy situations (like early rushes) or use micro heavy units like spell casters
I dunno I think it's best described as the way of playing you enjoy the most or you think you're the best at
|
On October 20 2010 13:40 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 13:33 Whole wrote:Races aren't really defined by play styles. Zerg, Terran, and Protoss can all use an aggressive, defensive, harass-based, ect. When people say "i picking (race) because it fit my playstyle." it means (or at least I would think) they like the options the race has to suit their style. Sure you can play any style as any race, but some are simply better at it. Terran is best at harassing (and they need to be because they suck at a macro style), zerg the opposite. Protoss is...confused :D
I disagree. Terran has great early harass, but late game, Zerg harass becomes pretty awesome. 20 Mutalisks can psychologically deny almost any expansion and just tear an undefended base apart. Baneling Bombs and Ling Backstabs are brutal. Terran has great early game harass, but it can easily be defended later on.
And Terran doesn't really suck at macro style...sure they can't instantly reinforce, but a 200/200 Terran army can be pretty brutal.
|
Playstyle should incorporate everything everyone before me has said. It is not a absolutely defined term such as "what does it mean to be considered aggressive" but can be similarly understood.
Your playstyle is governed by what you like to do and what you do, do.
It should simply be defined as your style when playing Starcraft II.
At the racial perspective, you may happen to like Zerg because larva is more interesting than T and P production buildings. If you like that, then good. Then if you're more into how your units on creep move faster than that's also good. Then, if you abuse that creep alot by using your mobility in your game, then that is a combination liking something and doing something, which supports a playstyle. Another example would be for Terran players who always move out with plenty of siege tanks, then your playstyle could be seen as more defensive, etc.
At the micro/macro perspective, if you like having a lot of money, then you might like to have a lot of workers at each base and a lot of bases. If you expand a lot and make plenty of workers, then THAT is part of your playstyle: an economy oriented one.
Then there are more unique playstyles such as players who like to ambush. Burrowed banelings? Flanking with zerglings? What about using forcefields to trap your enemy from behind? These are all fun things, and if a trend develops then it becomes part of your playstyle.
I think you understand, but here are some examples that people would consider playstyles.
A person who is very unpredictable (gets different tech, uses units weirdly, etc.)
A person who is very good at hit and runs (drops, run-bys, etc.)
A person who is very safe and steady (one base until siege tanks, then expand with turrets, a few bunkers, banshees once they are both set up, slowly expand, etc.)
The more you follow a certain trend of play the more that becomes YOUR style.
Take away the play in style and think of it as simply, your style. The way you play Starcraft II.
|
On October 20 2010 13:40 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 13:33 Whole wrote:Races aren't really defined by play styles. Zerg, Terran, and Protoss can all use an aggressive, defensive, harass-based, ect. When people say "i picking (race) because it fit my playstyle." it means (or at least I would think) they like the options the race has to suit their style. Sure you can play any style as any race, but some are simply better at it. Terran is best at harassing (and they need to be because they suck at a macro style), zerg the opposite. Protoss is...confused :D
All of these responses are pretty good. Basically you're playstyle doesn't choose your race for you, it's your preference of a certain race's options that will.
For example, I play zerg because I like to have map control, expand a lot, and contain by means of backstabs (as opposed to terran, who can contain with a giant line of tanks). I also want to harass whenever I have the opportunity, but don't really enjoy using hellions or medivacs. I like mutas alot from bw, and thus I play zerg.
edit: Also I wouldn't even say most people have much of a play style. I'm also mid-low diamond, and most of the builds or styles I play came from watching other people and attempting to recreate what they did.
It seems like it would really take a lot of games to develop your own style, one that works anyway.
|
I heard this from a chess book:
"Unless you are a top professional, you don't have a playstyle, you have a series of weaknesses"
|
On October 20 2010 15:18 thenexusp wrote:
I heard this from a chess book:
"Unless you are a top professional, you don't have a playstyle, you have a series of weaknesses"
I really like that quote. Yeah I guess you could define "playstyle" as the things you are least bad at. haha.
|
On October 20 2010 15:18 thenexusp wrote:
I heard this from a chess book:
"Unless you are a top professional, you don't have a playstyle, you have a series of weaknesses"
I really like that quote. Yeah I guess you could define "playstyle" as the things you are least bad at. haha.
Starcraft and chess, yet another similarity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
