|
Hi All- I had asked this question on the Questions and Answers thread in the strategy forum, and there was not a very strong answer- so here goes.
The question was:
How can you tell what your playstyle is?
I wanted to expand this to make it a discussable topic.
We all know the stereotypes about the races' playstyles. Terran moves slowly and harasses, Zerg expands everywhere, and Protoss gets a deathball.
Yes, it is possible to try to be a very mobile Protoss and Terrans get to identify as playing with mech and playing with MMM (two extremely different playstyles, almost different factions), but we all know that when we watch the pros, we see Protoss players getting the deathball, Zerg players expanding, and other "Standard play".
How do you know what your playstyle is, though? What constitutes playstyle? Is it large macro tenancies, like egIdra's decisions to expand at seemingly the most absurd times (according to the casters that I watch), or is it small things, like Huk's hearts?
Does a Race define someone's playstyle, or does someone's playstyle decide their race?
E: I'm just going to go around and pick up on some examples of people talking about how the races play.
From the Warp Prism Effectiveness Thread
+ Show Spoiler +I think it has very little to do with the warp prism, and much more to do with Protoss' style of play.
Protoss, how they are currently played, has no need to slow down other race's production/tech, they need to focus on their own. I think the Protoss tech choices are too unflexable, but that is the Style of the race itself.
This thread
E2: To prevent argument about the term "Style", you can replace that with "How to define yourself as a player"
eg- I am a X + Y
"I am an Agressive Terran"
"I am a macro Zerg"
"I am a cheesy Protoss"
"I am a harass orriented Zerg"
"I am Spanishiwa"
|
When you get highly rated, at minimum mid diamond level, you establish a playstyle.
Your definition of play style per race is wrong mind you. Least, i'm pretty sure it is. Terran may move slow, but not any slower than Protoss. Especially since MMM is the most commonly used (Most seen imo) strat. Zerg are expanders but they are a very speed based race. Hence creep benefit, roach speed, bling speed, ultra as a massive and T3 unit move speed, ling speed, etc.
Play style though, is how YOU play the game as your race. As a protoss, you can be very aggressive in a number of ways. You can be a harass oriented player focusing on harrassment to get ahead. Or you can be extremely defensive. Focusing on letting them come to you where you're comftorable, where you set yourself a defense position, where you are ready. You can do a lot of drop play, 2,3,4, hell even 5 pronged attacks. Or you can be all around and just do everything.
Example, White-ra is an all around player. He's not limited to one specific playstyle. He's offensive, defensive, strategical, cheesy, and a specialist in sexual harassment of SCVs, Drones, and probes in every way.
Spanishiwa on the other hand is a very macro oriented player. He is sometimes offensive, but that's when he sees a big opening. Even with a small or medium window to be offensive, he will not take it. He'd rather gain an advantage by sitting back. This makes him a fairly defensive player, especially since he throws up a ton of Spine Crawlers. But he's also a heavy macro player. Like Idra. The thing about Spanishiwa, is that he also relies on Queens and heavy scouting to keep him in the early game (Because he's pumping drones constantly) and prefers longer games as that's usually where Zerg excel. Spanishiwa is also an extremely powerful player mid to late game as once he is satisfied with his macro, he will just dominate you left and right. Relentless attacks from all corners of the map. His Nydus worm action is phenomenal. He uses Nydus' not only to attack and keep his opponent on the backfoot, but also to connect somewhat far bases. That way if they're attacked, he's able to reinforce far quicker than running all the way around. His style is to play macro, defensively then later become an ultralisk and just give his opponent the hug of death.
That's how he mainly plays. That's his style.
Me, i'm a defensive player. I dislike going O. As a Protoss, in PvP i'd rather the 4-gate come to me, and if it doesn't, good. He's teching, i'll expand. or vice versa. That's my style. I scout a lot, and I play defensively. I fight where i'm favored, in choke points, and I always get as many upgrades as soon as I am able to. That's my style. Doesn't mean I don't change it up every now again, but that's my preferred way to play.
|
On May 04 2011 10:30 silver2zilver wrote:
When you get highly rated, at minimum mid diamond level, you establish a playstyle.
you don't get a "style" until you're at the very top of a sport/game/whatever. before that all you have are mistakes that you haven't fixed yet.
|
On May 04 2011 10:36 rauk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 10:30 silver2zilver wrote:
When you get highly rated, at minimum mid diamond level, you establish a playstyle.
you don't get a "style" until you're at the very top of a sport/game/whatever. before that all you have are mistakes that you haven't fixed yet.
I agree completely. Until you are at a level where you CAN execute pretty much any strategy competently, your preference or avoidance of parts of the game is more a indication of your lack of experience/skill than an overarching style.
Its a tough trap to get caught in. You have to catch yourself when you get backstabbed and think: "oh, but I don't like basetrades, its not my style." and pick the move you think is most optimal in the situation.
Trying to end games in 10minutes because you can't keep up in a macro game, or turtling till 200/200 because your micro and decision making is poor? Not a style, you just need more practice.
|
I think that if you're looking to choose a race, like right after picking up the game, you receive the advice: pick the race that suits your playstyle.
I think to find that out, you can play random and see what you miss about each of the races, like if you play zerg and say "oh, I don't like getting killed in the early game" then maybe you should try terran, which due to the traits of the race (ie walling off) allow you to be quite safe early game.
And as for high level playstyle (ie Idra v Catz styles), I think that comes from what you just like to do. I used to love to do crazy things like proxy hatches and early pools (I guess cheesy builds) but after playing more and more games, I started to like more solid play. So I guess that's where I think style is derived.
|
Style is not about choice. Style is about instinctual reaction.
|
Your style comes from what you feel the most comfortable doing, methinks
|
On May 04 2011 10:36 rauk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 10:30 silver2zilver wrote:
When you get highly rated, at minimum mid diamond level, you establish a playstyle.
you don't get a "style" until you're at the very top of a sport/game/whatever. before that all you have are mistakes that you haven't fixed yet.
Wow, that's an awesome quote
|
I think style is just a matter of what your weaknesses are. If you look at the very top players they don't have a "style," they just do what they feel gives them the best chance of winning. MC's style is his aggressiveness, guess what? That is his weakness. He has lost games to people he is definitely better than, just because of his style.
|
On May 04 2011 10:36 rauk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 10:30 silver2zilver wrote:
When you get highly rated, at minimum mid diamond level, you establish a playstyle.
you don't get a "style" until you're at the very top of a sport/game/whatever. before that all you have are mistakes that you haven't fixed yet.
I dislike this mentality. People disregard anyone that isn't at least masters+ to be generally bad players.
Anyone masters plus is an amazing player. Diamond players are awesome as well. Not amazing, but they're good.
Same mentality goes for Silver, Gold and Platinum. Having worked my way up from Silver (recently) I KNOW what i'm talking about here. Most players in Silver-Gold know good builds. Know when to tap out. Are able to execute builds. Their problem is timing. Their APM is fairly low (average i've noticed, I watch my replays, around 50). In platinum, timings are refined, players are hitting their marks. People have their builds well done. Not perfect, but well done.
Please understand that just because you're not masters, does not mean you aren't playing good or know timings, or builds or able to scout, or micro. Believe me, people are able to micro fairly effectively lower levels. I'm not talking a move kite back and forth as Terran. I'm talkiing splitting, drops while attacking your front, baiting, drop ship plays, baneling drops, sniping, casting, sandwhich/flanking. ALL this occurs in Gold +.
You still "suck" in comparison to pro's, but that's a harsh comparison.
|
I think to find that out, you can play random and see what you miss about each of the races
The difficulty behind this, is that you have to play the race in question a certain way. Do you play aggressive Zerg? You might not like that and not realize it- blame it on the race, and then miss it. That leads me into what another poster said:
Your definition of play style per race is wrong mind you
One way that Zerg plays may be totally different from how someone else views how Zerg plays. The Architect is right when he says that most players are told to pick the race that fits their playstyle, but this often comes with a whole bunch of generalizations of what the race is. Assuming that someone does take this advice, they say "I'm going to learn Protoss right now"- they go look up the most popular protoss build order, the 4 Gate, and it turns out they don't like being aggressive in the early game. They never discover the rest of the race.
The discussion on the Warp Prisms is talking about how the Protoss units don't fare well in smaller numbers, and the deathball has to be kept together. Does this force them into a playstyle?
(I don't really want to make this a protoss discussion)
If I can call someone out:
i'd rather the 4-gate come to me, and if it doesn't, good. He's teching, i'll expand. or vice versa. That's my style. I scout a lot, and I play defensively. I fight where i'm favored, in choke points, and I always get as many upgrades as soon as I am able to. That's my style. Doesn't mean I don't change it up every now again, but that's my preferred way to play.
This is a very good definition of a playstyle. I have to ask you then, why Protoss? Does Protoss favor that style of play?
|
On May 04 2011 10:43 sob3k wrote:
I agree completely. Until you are at a level where you CAN execute pretty much any strategy competently, your preference or avoidance of parts of the game is more a indication of your lack of experience/skill than an overarching style.
This makes a lot of sense but at the same time, I think it isn't completely true. Your definition..that any decision we make that differentiates us from the best choice is really a mistake or at least something we're not supposed to be doing.
But this makes the assumption that there IS a best choice to make.
For example, late game, when I'm Zerg facing Terran on a huge map, I'm almost always harassing constantly with Zerglings and Mutalisks and only fighting head-on after they've already been hurt to a certain point.
You can't say that another Zerg, who in the same situation who would rather use fungal growth constantly is either playing more or less correct than the previous Zerg.
Unlike something like checkers, where there literally is a BEST move to be made, Starcraft has at any given point anywhere between 2 to 20 moves you should be doing. You could say that you should always make a worker at your base, then split at the beginning of each game is the proper way to begin, so people not doing that are making tiny mistakes, opposed to stylistic choices, but as games progress, it breaks down as there are multiple ways to beat your opponent.
It can often be obvious what basic actions a player should do (or should've done) (such as canceling his greedy expansion, for instance), but more often than not, the choices players make such as where to scout or how you split your army if you're getting ready to flank, don't have obvious right answers, where there is a freedom that the player has, which doesn't necessarily mean deviation from a better play. In 1v1's on 2v2 maps, there are tons of space that you have to control, and whether it's through having your army in a position where it can quickly react or by attacking your opponent more often to not allow them to hit you from a different side is up to your choice, and similarly, your style..
Imagine a ZvZ where you, liking map control to a huge extent choose not to make infestors to counter your opponent's heavy roach play.
If you lose, then players can criticize your "style" (which as you called it, is often actually the mistakes or choices someone are taking instead of more preferable ones) but if you win, then how can you say that what you really did was wrong or right?
|
On May 04 2011 11:04 silver2zilver wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 10:36 rauk wrote:On May 04 2011 10:30 silver2zilver wrote:
When you get highly rated, at minimum mid diamond level, you establish a playstyle.
you don't get a "style" until you're at the very top of a sport/game/whatever. before that all you have are mistakes that you haven't fixed yet. I dislike this mentality. People disregard anyone that isn't at least masters+ to be generally bad players. Anyone masters plus is an amazing player. Diamond players are awesome as well. Not amazing, but they're good. Same mentality goes for Silver, Gold and Platinum. Having worked my way up from Silver (recently) I KNOW what i'm talking about here. Most players in Silver-Gold know good builds. Know when to tap out. Are able to execute builds. Their problem is timing. Their APM is fairly low (average i've noticed, I watch my replays, around 50). In platinum, timings are refined, players are hitting their marks. People have their builds well done. Not perfect, but well done. Please understand that just because you're not masters, does not mean you aren't playing good or know timings, or builds or able to scout, or micro. Believe me, people are able to micro fairly effectively lower levels. I'm not talking a move kite back and forth as Terran. I'm talkiing splitting, drops while attacking your front, baiting, drop ship plays, baneling drops, sniping, casting, sandwhich/flanking. ALL this occurs in Gold +. You still "suck" in comparison to pro's, but that's a harsh comparison.
masters are terrible players but that's not the point.
i'm trying to say that it's unproductive to try and figure out what kind of "style" to play when you're not the very best, because you should be trying to become competent at the basics of the game instead and not make retarded mistakes.
|
Generally speaking someone will find a build when they first start. They will alter it to make it better for themselves. Studying that final product in its element will show you your playstyle. Playstyle being when a person is aggressive, when they expand, when they tech, building placement, and anything else unique.
My own style? Well, I'll get back to you in a couple years-I've got much to figure out 
|
i'd rather the 4-gate come to me, and if it doesn't, good. He's teching, i'll expand. or vice versa. That's my style. I scout a lot, and I play defensively. I fight where i'm favored, in choke points, and I always get as many upgrades as soon as I am able to. That's my style. Doesn't mean I don't change it up every now again, but that's my preferred way to play.
This is a very good definition of a playstyle. I have to ask you then, why Protoss? Does Protoss favor that style of play?
Yes it does. Protoss are able to defend well. As stated, i'm a defensive player. They also have shields which I like to use to my advantage when I choose to harass. I do as much damage to T or z until they destroy my shields. I prefer that over teching for healing, even though you will get that eventually as T. Just having that shield makes me feel like i have another form of health which puts me at a calm while playing. I hate seeing half my marines and marauders in low hp after a stim or battle while teching for medics.
I like their ability to warp in anywhere there's a powerfield. This helps me be defensive. I like their ease of scouting with Observers. I feel better knowing where my opponent is, what they're doing, what they plan to do.Their very hard counters (Immortals vs armored, collosus vs all light large numbered units). I love Force Fields. Everything Protoss has in their arsenal, I love to use.
I'm not a fan of Terran. They require a lot of strategic locations and attacks. Their style or tank pushes, kiting, mechs, isn't something I enjoy. I like Zerg play, their speed dominance, counter ability, moving "static" defense, unit selection, massing units quickly and I like the macro and hyper aggressive style.
|
I agree with those who stated that "You don't really have a 'style', until you've actually experienced and developed a true understanding of the game."
I'm a 700 Master player and I honestly can't tell you my "style". I just do what I know. People like, MVP have style's because they play every style at a high level and have chosen the one they feel most confident with.
Thing is, I could say that I play a macro style, an aggressive style, or a territory based style. but the truth says that we should all be great in each of these style's because they are a fundamental part of strategy.
Perhaps a new way to ask this question would be, "Which part of Starcraft 2 strategy do you understand best?" i.e. Timing attacks, movement prediction, tech prediction, identifying and exploiting positional weakness, etc. This is a strategy game after all. : /
Though it certainly is a trap, I would like to believe that I have a certain particular style. That way, I can distinguish my self from my peers.
|
playstyle isnt something an starcraft player below high masters can possess in my opinion.
no one asks little leaguers what their "playstyle" is and for good reason.
|
I respectfully disagree that a player can't be low level (below diamond) and have a play style. True, they might not be able to execute a desired plan very well, but I think a play style is more than that. I also believe that a play style extends beyond the race that you choose to play. Can there be a passive zerg? An expansionist Terran? Why not? Can a Protoss expand like a Zerg player? No, obviously not. But within Protoss (or any race) there's room to manoeuver between passive/aggressive, turtling/expansionist.
I don't know if anyone is familiar with the classic literature on poker theory, but one of the classic player typologies suggested by Alan Schoonmaker (PhD) was on a scale of passive/aggressive, and tight/loose. So you could either be tight-passive (aka weak-tight), tight-aggressive (shark), loose-passive (fish), or loose-aggressive (maniac). It's absolutely clear from years and years of results that the tight-aggressive players, and some loose-aggressive players are the most profitable of all players. Even better is having the ability to switch between types whenever you feel like it. Schoonmaker argued that players chose a style that fit their personality (more like the style chose them), so really only the best could pick and choose how they wanted to play. The rest were slaves to their own personalities.
So I might suggest something similar for Starcraft. Most people don't have the ability to choose their style. People who fear conflict in real life probably won't thrive in SC because they'll be too passive/turtlish. Aggressive people will do better, but they can get in trouble if they over-extend themselves. Anyways, my proposed SC typologies from poker:
Passive/Turtle
Aggressive/Turtle
Passive/Expansionist
Aggressive/Expansionist
Thoughts?
|
I'd say I'm a macro/harass zerg, I don't like pushing my opponent directly, but I love playing defensive, getting out mutas and constantly hitting worker lines. I always feel more comfortable if my opponent comes to me and I have some form of defenders advantage (generally creep.)
|
Yeah I think it's pretty obvious there are deviations in playstyles and the idea that you need to be really good at starcraft to have them is ridiculous. A playstyle is a differentiation in approach to beating an opponent; as someone said earlier in the thread, there is no perfect move in starcraft beyond the first couple of minutes.
Different playstyles are why some zergs will tech muta and harass while others will tech infestor and defensively macro up another base, or yet others will baneling bust and try to end the game. These can all be viable options in given situations, but undoubtedly one of these midgame tech options will be a comfortable safety net that individual players would describe as their "standard midgame".
Everyone should be able to deviate from their preferred style ideally, but the first step in getting good is finding and developing a style you are comfortable with and can execute with your preferred race. For the record, my favorite and most natural playstyle is the Spanishiwa style, macro up and roll em over
|
You can be an aggressive player at heart but unable to execute aggressive moves while keeping up on expanding and managing your economy. Your play style would then seem passive, all because you lack the fundamental skills necessary to execute to your liking. That's why it's counter productive to talk about play styles for people who haven't mastered the basics yet.
|
On May 04 2011 10:36 rauk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 10:30 silver2zilver wrote:
When you get highly rated, at minimum mid diamond level, you establish a playstyle.
you don't get a "style" until you're at the very top of a sport/game/whatever. before that all you have are mistakes that you haven't fixed yet.
Of course players have style. ANY player has a style. It may not be as pronounced, due to mistakes, but to take that away from players just because they don't play perfectly is absurd. It's like if I said I could only talk about a persons playstyle in soccer or some other sport once they were pro level...
Bronzies/Silver leaguers can decide to play aggressively, defensively - harass, not harass etc etc. It's unfair of you to take that away.
On May 04 2011 20:58 tjosan wrote:
You can be an aggressive player at heart but unable to execute aggressive moves while keeping up on expanding and managing your economy. Your play style would then seem passive, all because you lack the fundamental skills necessary to execute to your liking. That's why it's counter productive to talk about play styles for people who haven't mastered the basics yet.
True, but they still have a style even if it isn't intentional... Whether it's worth analyzing is a different story all together.
|
I thought you were trying to explain my playstyle, but good thing people who replied understands playstyle and share it with other people.
|
I think that your playstyle is not determined by your race, but rather by the beliefs of the players to how you can win games.
The 2 most obvious differences would be players going for all in builds opposed to players who go for macro games. This actually isn't a good way to put player in different categories in my oppinion though, since Protoss going Nexus first against terran or Zergs just droning like crazy without having any defenses are doing things which is very similar to all-in strategies. I think a lot is about how high the risks are a player is willing to take to get an advantage. Are you willing to drop the marines with your mediavcs even though there could be a whole bunch of blink stalker killing it? Mutas catching it in mid air? Do you scan before you drop? Will you go 1 gate robo in PvP when they take a 2nd gas and their energy on their Nexus is kinda low?
I wouldn't really say being a Zerg which tries to deny a 3 gate Expand is aggressive (if the Protoss doesn't throw the nexus down greedily early) is 'agressive', it is a player which takes a huge risk because loosing his whole army to FF will mean some really hard economic disadvantages or a period of vunerability where he has no army. Same goes with agressive drop play, yes drops are risky. Also a Protoss getting his 200/200 Deathball while turteling is taking a huge risk, he banks on the Zerg not breaking him/getting an army composition, which will clean erverything up.
I consider myself to be a player that doesn't take huge risks, against P I almost always scout on 9, against Zerg i 3gate/FFE, against terrans i 3 gate Expand and against P I 3 gate robo (thats not a risk I'm learning how to deal with a 4 gate with this^^). I'm also a reactionary player, most the time that I move out is because I see my opponent expanding (or at least think he his). I think Starcraft is about knowing what you opponent is doing and reacting to this in the correct way.
|
On May 04 2011 10:36 rauk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 10:30 silver2zilver wrote:
When you get highly rated, at minimum mid diamond level, you establish a playstyle.
you don't get a "style" until you're at the very top of a sport/game/whatever. before that all you have are mistakes that you haven't fixed yet.
Everyone has play styles, whether they consciously realize it or not. It's like their ingame personality.
A person may prefer siege tank over marines, prefer roach/infestor over muta/ling. You may say that it depends on the strat they use, but in the end of the day, it's about personality.
For example, when you just engage in a battle, after the battle finish, a person may unconsciously choose CC and S S to create SCV, another may unconciously choose rax and A A to make marines, another may unconsciously choose factory and S to make a tanks. You can clearly see that the first one prefer economy, the second one depend on his mobile ability, and the third one unconsciously believe in positioning. If you don't call that play style, I don't know what that is.
Sure that if you develop a style, your other trait will get stagnate. For example, if you prefer economy, you;'ll get really good at managing it. Over time, you'll know in and out how much income you need to afford a particular strat, you should drone up or not in that particular situation. But in the other hand, you'll not develop your experience about unit composition, positioning; you don't know what the minimum number of tanks you need to fend of that harass, or how to position yourself to pick off a collosus without getting hit by stalkers. So it's not that people don't have play style because they haven't fixed their mistakes yet; it's the play styles that give them those handicaps.
|
Yes it does. Protoss are able to defend well....
The confusing thing about this, is that you said that you develop a playstyle once you get to a certain level of play. I'm sure that many people agree that you should choose one race and focus on it and use it to get to the higher ranking. If that's the case, a person is picking a race while blind, because he is not high enough up to know his/her playstyle. How do you counter that effect?
I thought you were trying to explain my playstyle, but good thing people who replied understands playstyle and share it with other people.
That was not my intention. I was hoping to generate knowledgeable discussion by prompting with common interpretations of the phrase, "Playstyle". The purpose of this thread, I think, is to understand how people develop, discover, and identify their playstyles. (And how their race choice has an effect on that)
I think there are lot of good posts here. I will say this about the High Rank vs Low Rank battle:
+ Show Spoiler +I think that it is a bit nearsighted to suggest that lower level players do not make decisions ingame. There are often multiple "Right answers" in starcraft, and I think that how they choose what their answer is (Do I expand now?), can indicate a little of what their playstyle is.
However, this is really not the thread for this, and I don't want it to turn into that. If it suits you, you can use examples from pros, and how they developed and discovered their playstyle. (Or yours, if you deem yourself worthy)
|
My style is trying to copy what I see from pros and not doing a very good job :D
|
On May 04 2011 11:11 rauk wrote:
masters are terrible players
AHL players are terrible at hockey.
|
Once again- this is NOT a discussion on Masters being awesome or terrible.
Do people choose their race for mechanics, or for style?
|
what does "style" have anything to do with good/bad skills? lol
it simply means one's play style (macro, aggressive, creative, etc.)
a bad player could have style, he/she will just be bad at it. however this "bad" player can choose to play aggressively or passively and whatnot.
i for one had a motto after watching [oops]reach, "play protoss like zerg" (played toss in bw) so macro mentality is still very heavy on me. however that doesnt mean i dont know how to be aggressive, macro mode is just switched on by default in my head. (i FE more than half of my games)
|
Someones style is their personally, their mental and emotional traits being displayed within the game. Your style is based on your instincts, what you think is right. If your an aggressive player, you will probably find it very hard to simply sit back and turtle because its not in your nature.
|
It's constantly changing.
I'm Terran and I like to think the tippy top players have this game (almost) figured out.
MVP says you need to play hyper aggressive and keep the game low-economy.
So while naturally I became a turtle terran because all in all its easier to play that way I think I need to switch to a highly aggressive style
|
Does loving a particular unit count as a style?
I seriously love the feel of marines in every match-up because they're just so damn cool to micro around (this would explain why MKP is my favourite player).
Whenever I engage with marines I'm like DAMN that was sick.
TvZ: Marine splitting against banelings, chasing off mutas, hitting 4 bases at once in little groups, kiting against zerglings, dropping on cliffs
TvP: Stim kitting zealots (even while focusing down stalkers :O!), constant marine attacks in small groups, sniping down colosus, melting the protoss gateway units, drops!
TvT: MARINE MICRO TO DESTROY TANKS ZOMG SO GOOD <333
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
