|
Hi, I'd like to discuss a specific problem or mistake that is very widespread and very impactfull. It is not mechanics related nor is it tactical. It's a problem in a more general sense.
I am talking about assumptions. But not about the ones we make during a game, like the ones that make us build a robo when we only see hellions and marines being made. It's more of a meta'ish problem.
To start of, I'll make a short list of what I think are assumptions that I and a lot of ppl have. Some of them are useful and some of them are harmful some are both. Go to the list and make your thoughts:
- For having a healthy economy you should allways produce workers
- Zealots are good vs Zerglings
- Maps with short rush distances are bad for Zergs
- Large Maps are good for Zergs
- Protoss have the strongest lategame army
- Bunkers are for free
- Island expansions are easy to defend
- For fighting off cloack banshees or DTs you need detection
- Zerg units are less costeffective
- Mutalisks counter Zealots
- Cheese ends games fast
- Creep spreading is allways good
- High Templar are support units
- Defending is allways easyer than attacking
- Expanding lets you keep an advantage
- All-ins are easy to pull off
Ok thats enough for the moment  . These are all assumptions that we make sometimes. I think we make them because we try to figure out general concepts that help us understand how the game works, so we can tailor builds and make in game decisions that are solid and make sense.
But what if those assumptions hinder us in some way to do the best thing? Should we repeat all the collected SC2 concepts we have made up so far?
What are assumptions you make or you dont like?
Have there been assumptions in the scbw and sc2 history that where thrown away after some time?
EDIT:
I really like where this discussion is going. Some of the responses discuss the above list and some of them come up with other assumptions. Here are some posts I want to add into the OP because I think they are thought provoking. Note that there are alot more interesting and also sceptical posts in this thread the following are just some that go along with the intention of this thread:
+ Show Spoiler +On December 17 2010 23:55 LittleeD wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2010 23:46 Fa1nT wrote:
[...]
- For fighting off cloak banshees or DTs you need detection
----- Fact...
[...] Ghosts work as well. EMP And I believe Fungal Growth hits invisable targets as well? On December 17 2010 23:58 Adebisi wrote:Show nested quote +- Zealots are good vs Zerglings
----- They (With attack upgrades) 2-shot zerglings quite quickly and protect stalkers, which are not good vs zerglings. This is fact.
- Mutalisks counter Zealots
-----All X air-to-ground counters all Y ground-to-ground. I think you are still making assumptions. Sure zealots are good in combat vs zerglings but zerglings with speed can dance circles around them and so if a zerg player is massing lings you will want a more diverse force, probably sentries with forcefields or some stalker support to actually deal with lings if you want to be able to move out from your base. Same idea with Mutas vs Zealots, I think I can demonstrate the point better with Mutas vs Roaches though, look at the current state of ZvZ, in theory one would assume Mutas would be able to counter roaches but by the time you have enough gas to get a good force of Mutas he will simply have WAY more roaches and can crush your base, so while on paper Mutas have air to ground, Roaches have no ground to air so Mutas must counter Roaches, but that's certainly not the case and going for Mutas in most situations is asking to lose. On December 18 2010 00:01 andrewwiggin wrote:
Here are some assumptions I had, and whether they've changed or not.
1. Banelings are the logical counter to marines, and a cost-effective counter.
Yeah, Foxer was like.. pshh. logic is overrated. =/
2. You can't do your first expansion anywhere but at your natural, because it's easier to defend your main and natural due to their short distance.
This is sometimes, but funnily enough, not always true. I sometimes do sneaky expansions in other places, although I will place a pylon at the front of my natural to feign a foregone expansion there. But yes.. for some reason, even pros don't always send their scout to search all the expansion points on a map.
That's my 2 cents! (I do like this thread though, there might always be that one assumption that someone thinks to themselves they can defy!) On December 18 2010 02:33 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2010 01:37 imyzhang wrote:On December 18 2010 00:49 Trezeguet wrote:On December 17 2010 23:53 Falcon_NL wrote:On December 17 2010 23:47 Trezeguet wrote:On December 17 2010 23:38 archangel967 wrote:
The problem with all of your statements is that they lack context. (Which I'm sure if the point of your post) Take your first statement:
For having a healthy economy you should allways produce workers
Of course producing workers all of the time is good for having a healthy economy. What's not healthy for your economy is only making workers and then losing everything to a rush.
Discussing any of these in a general sense isn't going to yield much fruit because each one is very situational.
As to your first section about assumptions in general...I think this is a perfect example of what separates the "best" from the rest of us. I think it's even deeper than what you are thinking because it is not always good to produce workers to have a healthy economy no matter when. First it depends on what you consider a healthy economy. Does it mean having a stronger one than your opponent, is that affected by the race matchup?, does it mean that you can support your build order?, what if your opponent goes 7 pool, is having 10 scvs a healthy economy in comparison?, what if you already have 48 workers at 2 bases, do you really need to be making workers to have a good economy? There is so much to consider. Sure it is a fair assumption since it is good 90% of the time, but yeah, the OP kind of asks a rhetorical question. When you see that you are saturated in your main and in your natural, its highly likely that you will run dry fairly quickly, You NEED to expand when this happens, and those extra workers could saturate this new expo rly quickly, guaranteeding a quick advantage when you expand. yeah, but not Always. That's the point. how is this not always true? if you cant keep the expansion alive then you shouldnt expand. you shouldnt have made so many workers in the first place because it's just diminishing your ability to keep another expansion alive. if someone makes 16 more workers than me then expands, i can spend that 1200 minerals on getting ~8 more zealots instead. then my opponent has an extra expansion, which is harder to defend, and a weaker army by 8 zealots, which is harder to defend with, and his stronger economy wont kick in until the nexus finishes, and his increased army production from that stronger economy wont kick in until another minute or two after that. so i have a huge window of time to take advantage of my opponent's weaker army and harder to defend base. On December 18 2010 04:00 Ichabod wrote:While watching the Iccup.tv 49 hour event, the Maynard was playing, and had some very interesting strategies. With all the standard 2rax aggression, zergs are already playing somewhat defensively; Maynard was able to take down some fairly good players by pulling off a very fast expansion in TvZ and actually creating a planetary fortress at his natural, leading into a very quick third. "Is an OC always necessary for the natural?" A PF can provide exceptional defense and guarantees that you won't lose that expansion early on, possibly worth the foregone cost of not building an OC, this possibility is usually just disregarded based on the assumption that the OCs benefit is so great that all other alternatives aren't worth it. Maybe it isn't worth it, but it could be worth looking into in more situations. + Show Spoiler [Second, possibly more controversial] +The assumption that getting zergling speed ASAP is absolutely necessary in ZvT/ZvZ. in ZvT, at least, if you don't see 2rax pressure, maybe you could skip speed and go for a quicker lair to get really fast lair tech, infestors specifically. The infestors should be out by the time a midgame push comes out, able to cripple medivac-less armies; this could be less possible in ZvZ since baneling/speedling/roach aggression comes very fast. Fast infestors have a lot of potential, even if not just 'rushed' to, since they are one of the most cost efficient units in the game.
Also note that the list I made is just a random mix of assumptions I have or other players/casters seem to have. I'am not trying to be a smartass (I know allready that I'am smart). I'am just very interested in this because Starcraft2 (and Starcraft) is such a complex and deep game, that everytime something seems to be taken as facts/standard etc. make me sceptic. It is also interesting to see how different the approaches are to the game. So pls go on! 
|
Some of those assumptions are actually facts.
|
I don't get the point of this thread. That's a list of common knowledge, some strategic/tactical advice and some counters. Those may influence the outcome of the game in your favor or, in case your approach was wrong, may lose you the game.
Sure, you shouldn't stick too much to a certain mindset / strategy - but that's about it.
|
On December 17 2010 23:23 KevinIX wrote:
Some of those assumptions are actually facts.
This is exactly why I made this thread. Tell us about those facts and why you think that.
|
i can see your point that those assumptions could be hindering us from being open-minded and creative (especially the map dependencies of the match-ups).
they affect you subconsciously while you are playing the game and therefore your decision making.
it would be interesting if you could just delete your whole assumption list and see if you could come up with some new innovative ideas how to play the game. (I'm thinking of TLO's terran play, which is/was very unique at the time he came up with it)
i don't like the assumption, that short maps are bad for zergs. i mean.. look at idra's instruction video, it doesn't look like he has any problems on steppes of war!
|
Canada1637 Posts
i don't like the assumption, that short maps are bad for zergs. i mean.. look at idra's instruction video, it doesn't look like he has any problems on steppes of war! The hydra/spine push is a great example of using a small map to zerg's advantage.
Also bunkers being "free" always bothered me, I think it is a fact they are not free, first off the SCV build time of course costs you minerals, as well the future value of 100 minerals is far less than the present value, if for example you build the bunker @5min and salvage @8min. Bunkers are without a doubt not free. This is not to say bunkers are not awesome, they are indeed, they just are not free .
I like the idea of creep spreading being not always optimal, the concept of using less creepspread for safer burrowed baneling traps always appealed to me. But that's the only instance I can think of, I guess just any burrow ambush, thoughts?
|
The problem with all of your statements is that they lack context. (Which I'm sure if the point of your post) Take your first statement:
For having a healthy economy you should allways produce workers
Of course producing workers all of the time is good for having a healthy economy. What's not healthy for your economy is only making workers and then losing everything to a rush.
Discussing any of these in a general sense isn't going to yield much fruit because each one is very situational.
As to your first section about assumptions in general...I think this is a perfect example of what separates the "best" from the rest of us.
|
bunkers aren't "free"
it takes an scv to build it, when it could be mining
|
"- Mutalisks counter Zealots"
Am I wrong to assume this?
|
- For having a healthy economy you should allways produce workers
----- This is an opinion, cannot be proven or disproven, but 60-80 workers is almost never bad. Except late game when you need army more than workers.
- Zealots are good vs Zerglings
----- They (With attack upgrades) 2-shot zerglings quite quickly and protect stalkers, which are not good vs zerglings. This is fact.
- Maps with short rush distances are bad for Zergs
----- Zerg has the weakest early game defense if they want to set themselves up to go into mid-game with a decent economy, which is required to be even with your opponent. This is not a fact, but when most players agree with it....
- Large Maps are good for Zergs
----- With large creep and overlord spread, large maps allow zerg to see an attack coming 15-30 seconds before it reaches their base, this is a fact.
- Protoss have the strongest lategame army
----- This is hard to argue against, a large 200/200 protoss army with upgrades will simply beat any other 200/200 army in almost any composition. In fact, just mass void rays usually can win a game, though many players would all-in (one big final attack) before this is reached.
- Bunkers are for free
----- They are not free, but they are investments that never put you in the negative. It's like giving a body guard 100$, and if they protect you, it's worth it, and if they fail, you get the 100$ back.
- Island expansions are easy to defend
----- Missile turrets out DPS battlecruisers... and nydus are hard to use on islands. This is an opinion, but an acceptable one.
- For fighting off cloak banshees or DTs you need detection
----- Fact...
- Zerg units are less costeffective
-----Mostly Fact, zerg was designed to be like this. Roach is an exception maybe, they are really good for their cost.
- Mutalisks counter Zealots
-----All X air-to-ground counters all Y ground-to-ground.
- Cheese ends games fast
----- It does.
- Creep spreading is always good
------ Except in team games where you may block your allies, it is. Also, when you might want to hide an expansion, creep can give it away from the hatchery.
- High Templar are support units
----- They are. A army of high templars alone is not very good, they need tanks and other units to finish off enemies storm weakens.
- Defending is always easier than attacking
----- For zerg, this is always true. You can get your units faster at your base. For terran, don't know. Since you can focus units as they come out of buildings 1-at-a-time. Protoss can warp in anywhere, so it's not to big of a deal for them.
- Expanding lets you keep an advantage
----- More money = more advantage.
- All-ins are easy to pull off
----- Most of them are much easier than playing a macro game. This is something that cannot be proven, but everyone knows.
|
On December 17 2010 23:38 archangel967 wrote:
The problem with all of your statements is that they lack context. (Which I'm sure if the point of your post) Take your first statement:
For having a healthy economy you should allways produce workers
Of course producing workers all of the time is good for having a healthy economy. What's not healthy for your economy is only making workers and then losing everything to a rush.
Discussing any of these in a general sense isn't going to yield much fruit because each one is very situational.
As to your first section about assumptions in general...I think this is a perfect example of what separates the "best" from the rest of us.
I think it's even deeper than what you are thinking because it is not always good to produce workers to have a healthy economy no matter when.
First it depends on what you consider a healthy economy. Does it mean having a stronger one than your opponent, is that affected by the race matchup?, does it mean that you can support your build order?, what if your opponent goes 7 pool, is having 10 scvs a healthy economy in comparison?, what if you already have 48 workers at 2 bases, do you really need to be making workers to have a good economy?
There is so much to consider. Sure it is a fair assumption since it is good 90% of the time, but yeah, the OP kind of asks a rhetorical question.
|
On December 17 2010 23:19 clickrush wrote:
- For having a healthy economy you should allways produce workers
- Zealots are good vs Zerglings
- Bunkers are for free
- Defending is allways easyer than attacking
- All-ins are easy to pull off
dont agree with this ones.
there is a point where you want to stop building worker if you reach 200.
4 zerglings with micro can kill a zelot.
i think you mean 1 pack of same cost against other pack of same cost.
else : 100 zelots kill your base and you cant stop him with 1 muta ^^
bunker cost 100 mins you need to build it. Its like having the 100 mins unused in your bank. Early 100 are much more than later 100. +you loose mining time by building it.
Sometimes its easyer to atack: like sending a cloak banshee is easyer to hold of the cloak banshee
there are very complicated allins...
|
On December 17 2010 23:47 Trezeguet wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2010 23:38 archangel967 wrote:
The problem with all of your statements is that they lack context. (Which I'm sure if the point of your post) Take your first statement:
For having a healthy economy you should allways produce workers
Of course producing workers all of the time is good for having a healthy economy. What's not healthy for your economy is only making workers and then losing everything to a rush.
Discussing any of these in a general sense isn't going to yield much fruit because each one is very situational.
As to your first section about assumptions in general...I think this is a perfect example of what separates the "best" from the rest of us. I think it's even deeper than what you are thinking because it is not always good to produce workers to have a healthy economy no matter when. First it depends on what you consider a healthy economy. Does it mean having a stronger one than your opponent, is that affected by the race matchup?, does it mean that you can support your build order?, what if your opponent goes 7 pool, is having 10 scvs a healthy economy in comparison?, what if you already have 48 workers at 2 bases, do you really need to be making workers to have a good economy? There is so much to consider. Sure it is a fair assumption since it is good 90% of the time, but yeah, the OP kind of asks a rhetorical question.
When you see that you are saturated in your main and in your natural, its highly likely that you will run dry fairly quickly, You NEED to expand when this happens, and those extra workers could saturate this new expo rly quickly, guaranteeding a quick advantage when you expand.
|
On December 17 2010 23:46 Fa1nT wrote:
[...]
- For fighting off cloak banshees or DTs you need detection
----- Fact...
[...]
Ghosts work as well. EMP
And I believe Fungal Growth hits invisable targets as well?
|
On December 17 2010 23:55 LittleeD wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2010 23:46 Fa1nT wrote:
[...]
- For fighting off cloak banshees or DTs you need detection
----- Fact...
[...] Ghosts work as well. EMP
If you have ghosts there are better uses for EMP though.
It's like saying.
"Well I don't need detection because i can just wait for the banshee to run out of energy :D!"
It's not cost effective ;p
|
Canada1637 Posts
- Zealots are good vs Zerglings
----- They (With attack upgrades) 2-shot zerglings quite quickly and protect stalkers, which are not good vs zerglings. This is fact.
- Mutalisks counter Zealots
-----All X air-to-ground counters all Y ground-to-ground.
I think you are still making assumptions. Sure zealots are good in combat vs zerglings but zerglings with speed can dance circles around them and so if a zerg player is massing lings you will want a more diverse force, probably sentries with forcefields or some stalker support to actually deal with lings if you want to be able to move out from your base.
Same idea with Mutas vs Zealots, I think I can demonstrate the point better with Mutas vs Roaches though, look at the current state of ZvZ, in theory one would assume Mutas would be able to counter roaches but by the time you have enough gas to get a good force of Mutas he will simply have WAY more roaches and can crush your base, so while on paper Mutas have air to ground, Roaches have no ground to air so Mutas must counter Roaches, but that's certainly not the case and going for Mutas in most situations is asking to lose.
|
- Island expansions are easy to defend
^i think
- Island expansions are generally risky
is a safer assumption
|
On December 17 2010 23:46 Fa1nT wrote:
- For having a healthy economy you should allways produce workers
----- This is an opinion, cannot be proven or disproven, but 60-80 workers is almost never bad. Except late game when you need army more than workers.
- Zealots are good vs Zerglings
----- They (With attack upgrades) 2-shot zerglings quite quickly and protect stalkers, which are not good vs zerglings. This is fact.
- Maps with short rush distances are bad for Zergs
----- Zerg has the weakest early game defense if they want to set themselves up to go into mid-game with a decent economy, which is required to be even with your opponent. This is not a fact, but when most players agree with it....
- Large Maps are good for Zergs
----- With large creep and overlord spread, large maps allow zerg to see an attack coming 15-30 seconds before it reaches their base, this is a fact.
- Protoss have the strongest lategame army
----- This is hard to argue against, a large 200/200 protoss army with upgrades will simply beat any other 200/200 army in almost any composition. In fact, just mass void rays usually can win a game, though many players would all-in (one big final attack) before this is reached.
- Bunkers are for free
----- They are not free, but they are investments that never put you in the negative. It's like giving a body guard 100$, and if they protect you, it's worth it, and if they fail, you get the 100$ back.
- Island expansions are easy to defend
----- Missile turrets out DPS battlecruisers... and nydus are hard to use on islands. This is an opinion, but an acceptable one.
- For fighting off cloak banshees or DTs you need detection
----- Fact...
- Zerg units are less costeffective
-----Mostly Fact, zerg was designed to be like this. Roach is an exception maybe, they are really good for their cost.
- Mutalisks counter Zealots
-----All X air-to-ground counters all Y ground-to-ground.
- Cheese ends games fast
----- It does.
- Creep spreading is always good
------ Except in team games where you may block your allies, it is. Also, when you might want to hide an expansion, creep can give it away from the hatchery.
- High Templar are support units
----- They are. A army of high templars alone is not very good, they need tanks and other units to finish off enemies storm weakens.
- Defending is always easier than attacking
----- For zerg, this is always true. You can get your units faster at your base. For terran, don't know. Since you can focus units as they come out of buildings 1-at-a-time. Protoss can warp in anywhere, so it's not to big of a deal for them.
- Expanding lets you keep an advantage
----- More money = more advantage.
- All-ins are easy to pull off
----- Most of them are much easier than playing a macro game. This is something that cannot be proven, but everyone knows.
When you say that that the zealots need attack upgrades, that makes the statement not a fact, but more situational.
Large maps are not always better, what if every base has a cliff for thors and tanks?
You do not have to have detection to kill cloaked units, it just really helps
Defending is not always easier for Zerg, that is why sometimes you have base trade situations.
Cheese does not always make a fast game, just some of the time.
Expanding does not always keep your advantage since it is a risk. The cc/nexus/hatch isn't free and neither are additional workers (if needed) that go there.
I think some people are missing the point of the OP. Almost 0 things in the game are always true. A muta doesn't always do the same damage, more bases doesn't always mean more income, sure the muta always flies, but it doesn't always have more mobility (fungal) and so on. Saying things are fact is very often true, but what about when they aren't and do those things constrict our thinking?
|
Here are some assumptions I had, and whether they've changed or not.
1. Banelings are the logical counter to marines, and a cost-effective counter.
Yeah, Foxer was like.. pshh. logic is overrated. =/
2. You can't do your first expansion anywhere but at your natural, because it's easier to defend your main and natural due to their short distance.
This is sometimes, but funnily enough, not always true. I sometimes do sneaky expansions in other places, although I will place a pylon at the front of my natural to feign a foregone expansion there. But yes.. for some reason, even pros don't always send their scout to search all the expansion points on a map.
That's my 2 cents! (I do like this thread though, there might always be that one assumption that someone thinks to themselves they can defy!)
|
On December 17 2010 23:57 Fa1nT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2010 23:55 LittleeD wrote:On December 17 2010 23:46 Fa1nT wrote:
[...]
- For fighting off cloak banshees or DTs you need detection
----- Fact...
[...] Ghosts work as well. EMP If you have ghosts there are better uses for EMP though. It's like saying. "Well I don't need detection because i can just wait for the banshee to run out of energy :D!" It's not cost effective ;p
Sometimes, it's more cost effective to storm a DT than suffer endless probe losses as you wait for an obs. He's just saying that it's not a fact, not that it's reasonable to use only EMP for detection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
