|
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.
|
I think the point is that if we question these things we might find better methods. Day9 talks about this quite a bit.
- For having a healthy economy you should allways produce workers
Here we might learn that cutting some probes allows us to drop a second nexus faster, which will end up netting us a better econ than if we had built straight probes.
- Zealots are good vs Zerglings
True, but what if you can get some upgrades, I use a fast +1 atk for lings some games and all of a sudden zealots are not quite as good an investment
- Maps with short rush distances are bad for Zergs
Usualy, but watch Catz play (or Morrows drone rush) Day 9 talks about how in BW island maps were awful for zerg but he practised that 1 match so much it became one of his strongest
- Large Maps are good for Zergs
Watch Nada play Shakuras and you might not be so sure about his one
- Protoss have the strongest lategame army
This one isn't even that wildly held I think. what about the "300" food zerg army or thor banshee
- Bunkers are for free
obviously they are not, This is said a lot by non-terran players but I think most terran players would disagree
- Island expansions are easy to defend
I personally find this untrue (unless you are a muta player) since it is so hard to get an army to the location
- For fighting off cloack banshees or DTs you need detection
This reminds me of a technique QXC uses where to remove attackers from his base he will often attack them forcing them to withdraw the units to save their own base. Here we can use mthods like this to force retreats or like BOxer in BW use AOE on your structures to eliminate enemy cloaked units
- Zerg units are less costeffective
Infestors and so on.
There are more but I think the point is that if we can question these assumptions we might be able to expand our playstyle and further the games development.
|
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.
Taking it a bit further i often counter voidrays with speedlings. I can actually build them faster than the voidray can kill them. So by hitting my opponents base w/ slings he is forced to attack them but it isn't possible to kill them fast enough so he loses everything.
(oops sorry for the double post)
|
On December 18 2010 00:09 rastaban wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2010 23:58 Adebisi wrote:- 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. Taking it a bit further i often counter voidrays with speedlings. I can actually build them faster than the voidray can kill them. So by hitting my opponents base w/ slings he is forced to attack them but it isn't possible to kill them fast enough so he loses everything. (oops sorry for the double post)
I really like this one! I can approve that because I've experienced the same when I open stargate.
|
On December 17 2010 23:32 clickrush wrote:Show nested quote +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.
are u fucking kidding me? can you not go research this stuff on your own? go look at liquidpedia to see why (x) is good against (y).
even some of your assumption are incomplete (making them wrong).
most (good) players dont assume that it's good to make workers for your economy, we know that we need 20-24 workers to fully saturate a mineral field, and around 60-70 workers to have an optimal army - income ratio, and we know this because we've had people already do so much in depth research about this kind of stuff during the beta. it's all around the forums and if u want people to tell you why these are facts, go look for them ur self and tell us what you find.
edit: "For fighting off cloack banshees or DTs you need detection"
how is that not a fact? do you think people would really consider placing an scv or any other unit next to a dt and use siege splash to kill the dt or something?
And to be honest these are not "assumptions", the list you provided are misconceptions with some facts.
|
I assume you not savvy with the dictionary. A lot of those are fact. The op is almost doing the opposite of what was intended by saying those are all assumptions you are hurting the communities drive forward versus helping it.
|
Id like to add "Scrap Station is a zerg map." While getting a quick expansion is helpful for zerg and a long rush distance doesnt make it a zerg map. This would mean jungle basin is a zerg map. Scrap station isnt a zerg map because the chokes are small so zerg cant get a quick arc. The opponent can also get a quick expo which leaves you 2 base vs 2 base and the 3rd base is very close to their 3rd. Also once the rocks get broken it leads to a very short and tight rush distance which seige tanks and collosi/storm do wonders against zerg.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
What's the point here? You've cobbled together a handful of truisms about Sc2, listed them with no context whatsoever, called them into question for no reason, and then left everyone else to pick up the pieces.
You've strongly hinted that you believe some (or all?) of these 'assumptions' to be incorrect, but yet provided no evidence of how, for example, mutalisks might not counter zealots. So why make this thread again? Are you asking us to try to divine the processes of your mind? Are you asking for helpful advice as to whether these items really are true? Are you trying to spur a discussion? Because usually to start discussion, you need to actually contribute yourself.
|
United Kingdom3685 Posts
I'd like to add a few assumptions of my own and get some opinions. I hope they provoke some insightful strategic discussion.
- Ursadons and ursadaks are capable of mating and reproduction in a similar manner to lions and tigers. The offspring of an ursadon/ursadak is an ursadonk.
- If two templars incorrectly perform the archon fusion dance, the result is an overweight and/or elderly archon.
- Combat-Ex is good at Starcraft.
|
On December 17 2010 23:53 Falcon_NL wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
You can actually kill DTs with 4 banelings pretty easily if you have them lying around. Just find the blurry thing and then press X.
|
Creep spreading isn't always good.
Say it's a ZvZ and you plan to use a ling/muta force vs a roach/hydra force.
You def don't wanna spread creep
|
A lot of these when applied correctly are completely true, and any good player would how to apply it correctly.
There's an exception to just about everything, so when you throw an "always" into a statement of course it's going to be untrue.
"- For fighting off cloack banshees or DTs you need detection"
Everyone knows you can storm the unit while it's still invisible, or use some other form of AoE, but no one in their right mind would say to themself "Oh hey, he is going for DT's. I'll just get a couple of tanks and use splash damage to fight them off."
If you just add one word to it:
"For effectively fighting off cloak banshees or DTs you need detection"
it becomes a fact. (The only exception is if you somehow know they will only be making one or two cloaked units >.>)
|
On December 18 2010 00:49 Trezeguet wrote:Show nested quote +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?
|
- Maps with short rush distances are bad for Zergs
I've been questioning this recently. Certainly this is true in the early game. However, with the new way that creep works, zerg has a way to bring this into check. Now if its a short rush distance, the creep actually becomes a major hazard for the opponent. Check out IdrA's commentary on his strategy vs. Huk on Steppes of War.
His strategy (hydralisk/spinecrawler push) is extremely reliant on creep, and really only works because of the short rush distance.
|
I disagree about Toss having the strongest 200/200 army. When Zerg gets "perma-maxed" and replenishes their army to 200 faster than you, their "200" army is effectively stronger because it "regenerates." I'm not talking about shield or hp regeneration either, I'm talking about supply regeneration.
Also, Terran's 200/200 can have fewer workers if he's got a few OCs and is MULEing pretty well, making it effectively a "stronger" 200/200.
Most people fear the big Protoss ball once HTs are out with storm and khydarin amulet... well, this is true, is is fearsome. But if you're afraid of HTs, you should squeeze out some ghosts with moebius reactor or infestors with pathogen glands. Both EMP and fungal are excellent against big armies. I think most Terrans forget that the 100hp damage to shields that EMP does is more damage than being in a psi-storm for the full duration, it's instant, and it can be fired from a cloaked unit!
|
Island expansions are not easier to defend. But a lot of times they go unscouted. However if they are found, its pretty hard to defend without investing a lot into it which you really don't want to do.
|
I disagree about Toss having the strongest 200/200 army. When Zerg gets "perma-maxed" and replenishes their army to 200 faster than you, their "200" army is effectively stronger because it "regenerates." I'm not talking about shield or hp regeneration either, I'm talking about supply regeneration.
That totally does not count. Obviously if the zerg has 3k more resources or something then the zerg should be at an advantage. He is referring to a 200 food army, not a 300 food army.
|
- Ursadons and ursadaks are capable of mating and reproduction in a similar manner to lions and tigers. The offspring of an ursadon/ursadak is an ursadonk.
I think it would be an Ursadonkey.
Regarding the original topic, i would like to add something on a bit of a higher perspective. People tend to view assumtions pretty strange. Either they are not aware that their interpretation of a situation involves any assumtions at all, or they think that having assumptions is generally a bad idea. But both are wrong. First of all, you always have assumtions when interpreting a situation. Those are mostly based on experience. But having them is not a bad thing, you only need to be aware of what assumtions go into your conclusions, thus you should be able to notice when the situation changes.
For example, if you are a Zerg player, and attack one zealot with 4 lings on open ground, you will kill him. So you can think of this as an advantageous trade, and do it again the next time you see one zealot. However, this time the zealot is behind a choke where only one ling passes through, and easily slaughters your 4 lings. Why did this happen? Because you were not aware of the assumptions your theory includes. Which are, mainly, that the lings are able to surround the zealot without much trouble.
But if you try to not make any assumptions at all, you will not get anything done at all, since pretty much any situation is so complex that if you don`t make senseful assumptions, you will have no idea how something plays until after it happens, since every situation is a bit different from the many similar situations you have already experienced. It is safe to assume that with 20 marines, you will kill one zealot without taking much damage every time.
So basically, just be aware of what you assume when you conclude something, and you will be fine, as you will notice when you are in a situation where your assumptions do not fit.
|
I think it also boils down to how these assumptions impact our definitions.
What is a healthy economy? Isn't it just relative to your opponent?
If you cut workers and built more units to negatively affect his economy, if the net result was that you had more workers harvesting than he did, is your economy not healthy by relative comparison?
|
8748 Posts
On December 18 2010 01:37 imyzhang wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
[B]\
- Mutalisks counter Zealots
\
Wat. That's from the Day9 (sarcastic) school of thought my friend. If they don't have anything that aims up, it MAKES ME INVINCIBLE!!! A lot of these are indeed facts. (Creep spreading is always good? of course it is! It's freeeeeee!!!!)
The one assumption that I see is that bunkers are free. While this is practically true, building some random bunker on the map (say you're bunker rushing) can set you back early game. It's just like engi-blocking a natural. It still costs minerals until you salvage/cancel it!
High Templar are support units : Yes they are. That's obvious. You cant just run around storming everything. In fact, what I see a lot (It saddens me) is inflated templar counts. A player will see his gas go up and say "Oh i guess it's time to buy more Templar!" Although really they could be doing a lot of different things with that gas and not having a bunch of useless units lying around (after all, you only need 3-6 storms per engagement, depending on scale). Sentries are a big one. People don't truly realize how EPIC sentries still are lategame. This STILL prevents marauders from kiting you, go figure. Also, *late game* there really aren't many dark templar running around like in BW. If you have a sufficient amount of ht, can't you just make some dts and do some harass? Of course this is assuming you're doing the *NOT* stupid thing and going for templar b/c they're infinitely better than collosus imo.
|
An assumption is not something that is always untrue. It is also not even necessary that it is ever untrue. An assumption can also be a truth, it is just something you assume for your theory to work (Using theory as a broad term for pretty much anything). Now, for your theory to work, the assumptions have to be true, since the theory is built upon them being true. If you find out that your assumptions are untrue, you need to work on your theory.
|
you know, OP, your post has really changed my perspective of starcraft. maybe i've been playing based on assumptions like those too much.
do we really need drones to mine minerals?
do we really need a barracks to build marines?
do we really need to build pylons to get more supply?
can zerglings really only hit ground?
i used to assume so, but maybe that isn't the case.
|
On December 18 2010 02:57 universalwill wrote:
you know, OP, your post has really changed my perspective of starcraft. maybe i've been playing based on assumptions like those too much.
do we really need drones to mine minerals?
do we really need a barracks to build marines?
do we really need to build pylons to get more supply?
can zerglings really only hit ground?
i used to assume so, but maybe that isn't the case.
Man i don't think you guys understand what the OP is trying to get at. Obviously all the things that you are stating are true. He is trying to break some of the misconceptions which could NOT be true. Such as you don't ALWAYS have to be building workers to have a greater economy. You don't NEED detection to beat cloaked units. That is completely different to do we really need drones to mine minerals.
(Which btw you don't you can use scv,probes,mules)
|
scan costs 270 minerals
lolz
|
Ok, people are taking the OP completely the wrong way. I like this post because it makes you challenge decisions that people make based off of assumptions and what is true in most "normal" scenarios. It's good to think out why these assumptions are often true and when they can sometimes be false. If you're armed with that knowledge, you can react according to the situation.
Liquid Tyler just had an excellent point of when you shouldn't expand. A possible scenario (at least for zerg) for not making continuous drones is if you expanded early but are being rushed. Larvae are precious, if you pump out enough lings to defend, your drone cutting will still result you in being up an expansion. Once the rush has been blocked, drone up and you'll find yourself magically ahead.
At least in ZvZ, creep spread is not necessarily always good. If you're army is super mobile (lings+mutas) and your opponent is going roach hydra, maybe creep spread will help him more than you.
Other stuff has been covered by other people. I think the main thing to take away is to always question why you do the things you do.
I have another that day9 kind of explored: zergs should always make queens ASAP.
|
On December 17 2010 23:19 clickrush wrote:
- For having a healthy economy you should allways produce workers
Cutting worker production means you aren't trying to expand/macro anymore.
On December 17 2010 23:19 clickrush wrote:
- Zealots are good vs Zerglings
They are.
On December 17 2010 23:19 clickrush wrote:
- Maps with short rush distances are bad for Zergs
They are if you 15 hatch.
On December 17 2010 23:19 clickrush wrote:
- Large Maps are good for Zergs
They are if you 15 hatch.
On December 17 2010 23:19 clickrush wrote:
- Protoss have the strongest lategame army
If protoss can expand and tech freely the whole game.
On December 17 2010 23:19 clickrush wrote:
- Bunkers are for free
Moving bunkers is free.
On December 17 2010 23:19 clickrush wrote:
- Island expansions are easy to defend
True, against T or P.
On December 17 2010 23:19 clickrush wrote:
- For fighting off cloack banshees or DTs you need detection
The number of effects that can stop cloaked units that aren't detection are minimal and generally a waste of said effect (like blowing a bunch of storms to kill dts or something).
On December 17 2010 23:19 clickrush wrote:
- Zerg units are less costeffective
Offset by the ease of which zerg can gain map control and expand.
On December 17 2010 23:19 clickrush wrote:
- Mutalisks counter Zealots
True. Is the protoss tech option capable of holding off mutas?
On December 17 2010 23:19 clickrush wrote:
- Cheese ends games fast
Normally.
On December 17 2010 23:19 clickrush wrote:
- Creep spreading is allways good
Yes, except maybe in ZvZ.
On December 17 2010 23:19 clickrush wrote:
- High Templar are support units
HTs are garbage alone. Warp-ins with kaydarin only work when the other person is oblivious to it.
On December 17 2010 23:19 clickrush wrote:
- Defending is allways easyer than attacking
Defending normally allows both easier reinforcing and easier positioning.
On December 17 2010 23:19 clickrush wrote:
- Expanding lets you keep an advantage
If your expansion is easily defended and your army value advantage is significantly higher then just 400/300 minerals.
On December 17 2010 23:19 clickrush wrote:
- All-ins are easy to pull off
Most set BO all-ins don't require any effort from a macro perspective because you never have to think to make workers/supply/expansions. Most all-ins are just big micro-focused timing attacks without any follow through.
How many of these assumptions were you actually calling into question? Almost all of these are true.
|
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?
emp and fungal reveal (so they count as detection?), also exploding banelings and target firing splash can be good
|
+ Show Spoiler +On December 18 2010 03:28 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2010 23:19 clickrush wrote:
- For having a healthy economy you should allways produce workers
Cutting worker production means you aren't trying to expand/macro anymore. They are. Show nested quote +On December 17 2010 23:19 clickrush wrote:
- Maps with short rush distances are bad for Zergs
They are if you 15 hatch. They are if you 15 hatch. Show nested quote +On December 17 2010 23:19 clickrush wrote:
- Protoss have the strongest lategame army
If protoss can expand and tech freely the whole game. Moving bunkers is free. Show nested quote +On December 17 2010 23:19 clickrush wrote:
- Island expansions are easy to defend
True, against T or P. Show nested quote +On December 17 2010 23:19 clickrush wrote:
- For fighting off cloack banshees or DTs you need detection
The number of effects that can stop cloaked units that aren't detection are minimal and generally a waste of said effect (like blowing a bunch of storms to kill dts or something). Show nested quote +On December 17 2010 23:19 clickrush wrote:
- Zerg units are less costeffective
Offset by the ease of which zerg can gain map control and expand. True. Is the protoss tech option capable of holding off mutas? Normally. Yes, except maybe in ZvZ. HTs are garbage alone. Warp-ins with kaydarin only work when the other person is oblivious to it. Show nested quote +On December 17 2010 23:19 clickrush wrote:
- Defending is allways easyer than attacking
Defending normally allows both easier reinforcing and easier positioning. Show nested quote +On December 17 2010 23:19 clickrush wrote:
- Expanding lets you keep an advantage
If your expansion is easily defended and your army value advantage is significantly higher then just 400/300 minerals. Most set BO all-ins don't require any effort from a macro perspective because you never have to think to make workers/supply/expansions. Most all-ins are just big micro-focused timing attacks without any follow through. How many of these assumptions were you actually calling into question? Almost all of these are true.
I think the OP was pointing how each of the things that you pointed out as being true had a conditional. Cheese normally ends games quickly but it you do enough damage but don't outright kill your opponent it is possible to transition into a normal macro game. Spreading creep is good except maybe in ZvZ.Small maps are bad for Zerg if the zerg 15 hatches. Defending normally allows both easier reinforcing and easier positioning.
One of the most recent assumptions that I saw broken in GSL was oGsMc vs TLAF-Liquid'Jinro, I forget which map. Jinro was expanding to his natural and had two bunkers filled with Marines/Marauders infront of it. Artosis said "MC will probably back off right now because Jinro is pretty safe" (paraphrasing), but MC attacked and won the game.
|
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.
|
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.
This is a great point especially since Zerg units don't cloak and burrowed ones can't attack while cloak. You do sacrifice Muling but as long as you stay even/ahead of the Zerg in expos you should be in good shape and you will have better defense at the natural.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On December 18 2010 04:05 archangel967 wrote:Show nested quote +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. This is a great point especially since Zerg units don't cloak and burrowed ones can't attack while cloak. You do sacrifice Muling but as long as you stay even/ahead of the Zerg in expos you should be in good shape and you will have better defense at the natural.
Maybe with the lead you get from early expanding you can build a third in-base OC and get a further lead? haha just theory-crafting at this point.
|
On December 18 2010 03:12 travis wrote:
scan costs 270 minerals
lolz
And all zerg buildings cost infinite minerals 
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.
I think assumptions like these are the ones we should be thinking about.
Does the expansion CC need to be an orbital?
Do you really need zergling speed ASAP?
Does zerg always need to be a base up on t/p?
Does protoss need to go collosus?
Is lair tech needed for anti air?
[Thats all I can think of right now]
There are a lot of ideas that are thrown around as fact but aren't always true, and there are a lot of things we do just because... but do they need to be done? When you actually think about it, it's pretty apparent it isn't needed. Obviously a zerg can use queens/spores for anti air, but usually you see zergs tech to spire/hydra ASAP when it might be possible to play a little greedier and just rely on the queens/spores.
|
Here's another one.
"Zerg needs to have two bases to compete with Terran and Protoss."
On December 18 2010 03:56 [ur]Chin wrote:
Cheese normally ends games quickly but it you do enough damage but don't outright kill your opponent it is possible to transition into a normal macro game.
The daily Day9 did on this a couple days ago was pretty cool. I wouldn't exactly call that game a "normal" macro game, but it was close enough.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On December 18 2010 04:12 Baby_Seal wrote:Here's another one. "Zerg needs to have two bases to compete with Terran and Protoss." Show nested quote +On December 18 2010 03:56 [ur]Chin wrote:
Cheese normally ends games quickly but it you do enough damage but don't outright kill your opponent it is possible to transition into a normal macro game.
The daily Day9 did on this a couple days ago was pretty cool. I wouldn't exactly call that game a "normal" macro game, but it was close enough.
TLO vs Huk game 2 @ MLG Dallas comes to mind. TLO 6 pools and "transitions" into 3 base vs 2 base win. Fun game to watch.
|
- 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
I guess you can call these assumptions, but this isn't what I have in mind when I trust an "assumption". Instead, I "assume" these:
- If you plan on playing a late-game macro game, you should always produce workers
- Zealots are good vs Zerglings, if the Zerglings can not get a full surround.
- Maps with short rush distances are bad for Zergs in a standard game.
- Large Maps are good for Zergs in a standard game.
- Protoss have the strongest lategame army [I don't believe this is true.]
- Moving bunkers is for free
- Island expansions are easier to defend against a heavy ground based army.
- For fighting off cloak banshees or DTs with minimal losses and to prevent future harass, you need detection
- Zerg units are less costeffective [I don't believe this is true]
- Mutalisks counter Zealots
- Cheese ends often games fast
- Creep spreading is always good
- High Templar are support units
- Defending is allways easyer than attacking [I don't belive this is true]
- Expanding lets you keep an advantage
- All-ins are easy to pull off [I don't belive this is true]
I consider these to be facts.
|
On December 18 2010 06:29 KevinIX wrote:Show nested quote +
- 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
I guess you can call these assumptions, but this isn't what I have in mind when I trust an "assumption". Instead, I "assume" these: - If you plan on playing a late-game macro game, you should always produce workers - Zealots are good vs Zerglings, if the Zerglings can not get a full surround. - Maps with short rush distances are bad for Zergs in a standard game. - Large Maps are good for Zergs in a standard game. - Protoss have the strongest lategame army [I don't believe this is true.]- Moving bunkers is for free - Island expansions are eas ier to defend against a heavy ground based army.- For fighting off cloak banshees or DTs with minimal losses and to prevent future harass, you need detection - Zerg units are less costeffective [I don't believe this is true]- Mutalisks counter Zealots - Cheese ends often games fast - Creep spreading is always good - High Templar are support units - Defending is allways easyer than attacking [I don't belive this is true]- Expanding lets you keep an advantage - All-ins are easy to pull off [I don't belive this is true]I consider these to be facts.
Now you're adding context to each of the statements which actually gives us something specific to talk about!!!
|
On December 18 2010 04:28 [ur]Chin wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 18 2010 04:12 Baby_Seal wrote:Here's another one. "Zerg needs to have two bases to compete with Terran and Protoss." Show nested quote +On December 18 2010 03:56 [ur]Chin wrote:
Cheese normally ends games quickly but it you do enough damage but don't outright kill your opponent it is possible to transition into a normal macro game.
The daily Day9 did on this a couple days ago was pretty cool. I wouldn't exactly call that game a "normal" macro game, but it was close enough. TLO vs Huk game 2 @ MLG Dallas comes to mind. TLO 6 pools and "transitions" into 3 base vs 2 base win. Fun game to watch.
I really like this example because it seems to contradict to some generally made assumptions. I think TLO is a player who experiments alot. Often he will get (mostly) useless information from this (like: when you neural parasite a zerg egg then it dies) but sometimes he comes up with new tactics or strategies and everyone likes him for that.
What I also think is that one can beat others by using the fact that he makes assumptions. I dont know how to call it. Mindgames? Metagaming?
I also think that a ton of subtle concepts that I/you/we use are not true 100% of the time. A small change in a buildorder that first doesnt seem optimal but has ingenuity in it is maybe a consequence of not assuming something.
In the other hand I stand by the fact that we need to make a lot of assumptions because they make us more solid players and casters so we can learn one thing at a time.
|
On December 18 2010 06:34 archangel967 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2010 06:29 KevinIX wrote:
- 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
I guess you can call these assumptions, but this isn't what I have in mind when I trust an "assumption". Instead, I "assume" these: - If you plan on playing a late-game macro game, you should always produce workers - Zealots are good vs Zerglings, if the Zerglings can not get a full surround. - Maps with short rush distances are bad for Zergs in a standard game. - Large Maps are good for Zergs in a standard game. - Protoss have the strongest lategame army [I don't believe this is true.]- Moving bunkers is for free - Island expansions are eas ier to defend against a heavy ground based army.- For fighting off cloak banshees or DTs with minimal losses and to prevent future harass, you need detection - Zerg units are less costeffective [I don't believe this is true]- Mutalisks counter Zealots - Cheese ends often games fast - Creep spreading is always good - High Templar are support units - Defending is allways easyer than attacking [I don't belive this is true]- Expanding lets you keep an advantage - All-ins are easy to pull off [I don't belive this is true]I consider these to be facts. Now you're adding context to each of the statements which actually gives us something specific to talk about!!!
Yeah, I think that the whole point of the OP is that all of the 'assumptions' we make really rely on context. If your opponent has a lot of zerglings, zealots are a good unit to have to beat them. But if he has ONLY zerglings, then he's probably getting mutas soon and zealots will soon be less useful.
Here's one: if you see a colossus (tvp) you need to get vikings before you can deal with them. If the protoss is going 1-base colossus, though, its better to simple pump out a decent number of marauders and just roll the toss, especially if he then tries to expand. He simply won't have enough units to defend.
One that really bothers me is the whole "hellions RAPE zerglings/zealots/insert light units here". Yeah they do huge damage, especially with blue flame, but they only shoot about once every other month. Speedlings are the best way to catch and surround hellions - and when they are surrounded, they're only shooting one ling at a time, and they're almost certainly going to die even against an equivalent value of slings to hellions.
|
I like the post a few pages back where someone stated that A-to-G units do not always counter pure ground units. Technically, one void ray can kill 10 immortals (for example). However, 10 immortals can kill a Protoss Base pretty damn fast. In that case, I'd rather have zealots, if solely for the fact that the immortals would be shooting them for long enough for warping cooldown to finish. Likewise, if I had only zealots and the opponent hits my mineral line with mutas, base racing with my zealots may allow them to counter the mutalisks by forcing them home to kill them.
|
On December 18 2010 08:06 Treadmill wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2010 06:34 archangel967 wrote:On December 18 2010 06:29 KevinIX wrote:
- 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
I guess you can call these assumptions, but this isn't what I have in mind when I trust an "assumption". Instead, I "assume" these: - If you plan on playing a late-game macro game, you should always produce workers - Zealots are good vs Zerglings, if the Zerglings can not get a full surround. - Maps with short rush distances are bad for Zergs in a standard game. - Large Maps are good for Zergs in a standard game. - Protoss have the strongest lategame army [I don't believe this is true.]- Moving bunkers is for free - Island expansions are eas ier to defend against a heavy ground based army.- For fighting off cloak banshees or DTs with minimal losses and to prevent future harass, you need detection - Zerg units are less costeffective [I don't believe this is true]- Mutalisks counter Zealots - Cheese ends often games fast - Creep spreading is always good - High Templar are support units - Defending is allways easyer than attacking [I don't belive this is true]- Expanding lets you keep an advantage - All-ins are easy to pull off [I don't belive this is true]I consider these to be facts. Now you're adding context to each of the statements which actually gives us something specific to talk about!!! Yeah, I think that the whole point of the OP is that all of the 'assumptions' we make really rely on context. If your opponent has a lot of zerglings, zealots are a good unit to have to beat them. But if he has ONLY zerglings, then he's probably getting mutas soon and zealots will soon be less useful. Here's one: if you see a colossus (tvp) you need to get vikings before you can deal with them. If the protoss is going 1-base colossus, though, its better to simple pump out a decent number of marauders and just roll the toss, especially if he then tries to expand. He simply won't have enough units to defend. One that really bothers me is the whole "hellions RAPE zerglings/zealots/insert light units here". Yeah they do huge damage, especially with blue flame, but they only shoot about once every other month. Speedlings are the best way to catch and surround hellions - and when they are surrounded, they're only shooting one ling at a time, and they're almost certainly going to die even against an equivalent value of slings to hellions.
I like you came up with the hellions are good vs zerglings/zealots assumption. I actually made some tests and chargelots tear hellions apart in small numbers until 12-14 units. So in that context blue hellions are only good vs chargelots when they can get good flanks or when something tanks damage for them because throwing down a ton of factories to match the chargelot count doesnt seem like a good idea. But then again: Thats only an assumption
|
On December 17 2010 23:23 KevinIX wrote:
Some of those assumptions are actually facts. Not really:
- For having a healthy economy you should allways produce workers
I don't know, I don't produce workers when I place my 9 pylon or my 14 pool down or what-not, I'd say having a pool or not getting myself supply blocked at that point would be detrimental to my economy in the end. So hey, you shouldn't "always" produce workers.
- Zealots are good vs Zerglings
I don't know, when the zerg players has been pumping upgrades and is 3/3 for ground + crack, and I'm maxed at air, do you mind if I use carriers instead? Hey, another counter example.
- Maps with short rush distances are bad for Zergs
I'd say that Novice Steps of War is pretty zerg favoured
- Large Maps are good for Zergs
Lost temple?
- Protoss have the strongest lategame army
Quite general and subjective, do I even need to comment
- Bunkers are for free
Absolutely not, because there is inflation in StarCraft economics, this is what you really have to look out for when saying 'you can get it back' or 'paying for itself', money gradually loses its value as the game progresses.
- Island expansions are easy to defend
Also against a Terran who siege-shells you from across the ridge?
- For fighting off cloack banshees or DTs you need detection
Never tried fungal growth, EMP, storm, using splash, baneling autodetonate?
- Zerg units are less costeffective
The queen too?
- Mutalisks counter Zealots
Except that mutalisk dps is so low that in a 200/200 situation you'd wish you have something else that can also stop the zealot march of death before it kills of all your buildings.
- Cheese ends games fast
There have been enough 6pools who did severe economic damage but didn't end the game, prompting both players to basically start from scratch again.
- Creep spreading is allways good
I don't know, my 2v2 Terran ally once got annoyed with that he couldn't build stuff anymore because of my creep.
- High Templar are support units
What kind of support is a storm drop, what unit are they supporting?
- Defending is allways easyer than attacking
Not with mutalisks
- Expanding lets you keep an advantage
Or your expansion gets taken out just when it finishes.
- All-ins are easy to pull off
You try going 4gate blink stalker against Idra one day.
There, a counter-example to every situation, admittedly some of these are quite far-fetched but some are also quite reasonable situations showing that you don't want to think strictly into these rules at all times.
|
^^ Hyperbolic counterexamples don't really prove your point.
Think all-ins are easy? Well then BEAT IDRA. Ha! Just disproved that one, /smug.
|
but his counterexamples are intelligent and funny nontheless
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
