|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
