|
On October 31 2013 10:33 Millicant wrote:
This is a fantastic thread and discussion. Thank you.
I have a question, however. This is all quite interesting information, but a little over my head as an inexperienced/bad player. I can't really conceive of a "plan" that I want to pursue. Maybe I'm too inexperienced/bad to be using this information?
More to the point: How does someone (either in general or like me) come up with a plan? What is the source for the fabrication of your end goal?
How new are you?
|
Hey vaderseven, thanks for taking an interest!
I'm not very new... I've been playing since the beta, though I've been away from the game for a bit (over a year). I'm only just now playing HotS and all my old builds/game plans (not to mention skills) are outdated.
More than anything, I'm not a terribly creative player. Additionally, it seems that most players I'm up against don't really follow exact timings or even strategies. Doesn't this sort of depend on your opponent playing, uh, well? 
|
On October 31 2013 12:19 Millicant wrote:Hey vaderseven, thanks for taking an interest! I'm not very new... I've been playing since the beta, though I've been away from the game for a bit (over a year). I'm only just now playing HotS and all my old builds/game plans (not to mention skills) are outdated. More than anything, I'm not a terribly creative player. Additionally, it seems that most players I'm up against don't really follow exact timings or even strategies. Doesn't this sort of depend on your opponent playing, uh, well?
I'm not vaderseven but i'll try to answer some of your questions.
First of all, the idea that your old builds/plans are outdated isn't completely right. Some of them might still work with a few small adjustments. If you do want to play the more newer styles and you need inspiration, just watch some proffesional games and search for a style you like (it's important that you pick something that you think will work for you, don't pick a style just because you believe it has the most succes). Then you want to come up with a plan around that style. For instance i like to play mutas in zvz because of the map control it gives. Then my plan with mutas is to delay/deny his 3rd for as long as possible after which i switch into a roach +1/+1 timing which should give me the win if i managed to delay his 3rd long enough. It's not a perfect plan, but it works for me.
Notice that my zvz plan doesn't rely on my opponent playing well. If he doesn't play well, it just makes it easier for me to execute.
|
United States4883 Posts
On October 31 2013 19:49 dis4ster wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 12:19 Millicant wrote:Hey vaderseven, thanks for taking an interest! I'm not very new... I've been playing since the beta, though I've been away from the game for a bit (over a year). I'm only just now playing HotS and all my old builds/game plans (not to mention skills) are outdated. More than anything, I'm not a terribly creative player. Additionally, it seems that most players I'm up against don't really follow exact timings or even strategies. Doesn't this sort of depend on your opponent playing, uh, well? I'm not vaderseven but i'll try to answer some of your questions. First of all, the idea that your old builds/plans are outdated isn't completely right. Some of them might still work with a few small adjustments. If you do want to play the more newer styles and you need inspiration, just watch some proffesional games and search for a style you like (it's important that you pick something that you think will work for you, don't pick a style just because you believe it has the most succes). Then you want to come up with a plan around that style. For instance i like to play mutas in zvz because of the map control it gives. Then my plan with mutas is to delay/deny his 3rd for as long as possible after which i switch into a roach +1/+1 timing which should give me the win if i managed to delay his 3rd long enough. It's not a perfect plan, but it works for me. Notice that my zvz plan doesn't rely on my opponent playing well. If he doesn't play well, it just makes it easier for me to execute.
I was going to mention this. The best place to look for a template is pro replays/VoDs. If you're not sure how to play or how to map out a strategy, just look at a professional game and try to identify the series of goals that make up the strategy. Then just copy the same strategy and see if it works for you. The BEST games for this kind of thing are good timing attacks that are one-sided stompings; this is because there is an obvious, short-term goal, and it was probably executed to near perfection.
For instance: + Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=430061 (abbreviated) Goals: - 1-gate FE (+ don't die to cheesy stuff)
- 3-gate zealot pressure
- Immortal/sentry push
In the end, you get a strategy that looks something like this: "I will expand early off of 1 gateway, using a zealot cancel to prevent 6pool pressure. I will have a wall and a sentry up by 5:20 to prevent speedling attacks. Once warp gate finishes, I will pressure with my MSC and 6 zealots while constantly chronoboosting out immortals. When I reach 3 immortals, I will push out of my base - leaving my MSC at home to defend against counterattacks - and target the third base of the zerg. If the zerg puts up spine crawlers at the third pre-emptively, I will walk directly into the natural."
Also, yes, if you have a solid plan and good mechanics, you should be able to crush anyone trying to do "unorthodox" things or playing badly (for the most part, nothing like a probe scout on 9 into a super delayed proxy stargate into 2 oracles hitting 3 minutes later -_-).
|
I want to piggy back on Millicant's post. This has been an excellent thread.
I've been playing on and off for a bit over a year now, sinking the vast majority of time into 2v2s and 3v3s with my buddies because I was scared of proper laddering.
I've recently made a switch from Terran to Protoss and I'm trying to do some 1v1s finally and slowly working my way past Bronze league foes whenever I get the courage to ladder.
I'm struggling with the gameplan aspect, as the wealth of information out there is supremely overwhelming and just figuring out what to do against each race has become a stumbling block. I'd like to figure out something appropriate to my skill level but I am not sure how.
This has become a bit meandering so I'll just end it here and say thanks again for an interesting read.
|
United States4883 Posts
On November 01 2013 00:38 BigSolar wrote:
I want to piggy back on Millicant's post. This has been an excellent thread.
I've been playing on and off for a bit over a year now, sinking the vast majority of time into 2v2s and 3v3s with my buddies because I was scared of proper laddering.
I've recently made a switch from Terran to Protoss and I'm trying to do some 1v1s finally and slowly working my way past Bronze league foes whenever I get the courage to ladder.
I'm struggling with the gameplan aspect, as the wealth of information out there is supremely overwhelming and just figuring out what to do against each race has become a stumbling block. I'd like to figure out something appropriate to my skill level but I am not sure how.
This has become a bit meandering so I'll just end it here and say thanks again for an interesting read.
Nono, it's quite understandable. If you go back to the OP, you'll see the anecdote about my friend's conversation with his Korean practice partner:
I used to have a Korean Starcraft practice partner. One day he asked me, "Why do you think Koreans are so cheesy when they're learning to play?" I don't remember exactly what I replied, but it was probably something along the lines of: "They've got better micro, macro, etc., so they can win early." He took a moment, then responded, "No, it's because the goal of the game is much simpler."
At your level, you should work on playing games with very simple goals and a short-term game plan, such as basic cheeses and 1- or 2-base timing attacks. I know there are a lot of people who are against playing "non-macro" styles and who think it just makes you a "cheesy player"...but the fact of the matter is that easier game plans are easier to execute and thus are easier to learn. Trying to copy Bomber's TvP is mind-bogglingly borderline impossible while performing a proxy 2-gate or a banshee into marine/tank TvT build is totally doable. Learning how to do a 2-base immortal push in PvZ perfectly is much easier than trying to learn a long, drawn-out, lategame-focused strategy perfectly. EDIT: That is not to say that you don't want to get to that point some day. You just don't want to throw yourself into the deep end without learning how to swim first.
Don't worry about mechanics or that you're not playing a "macro" game. If you're hitting all your timings correctly and successfully winning with well-executed, short-term strategies, you'll get better a lot faster (and you'll probably win a lot more). Again, if you're unsure of the correct direction, look to professional games. The best types of games to learn from are one-sided stompings with well-executed attacks. If you practice learning even a basic strategy EXACTLY as good as a professional - hitting every timing, making sure you're hitting benchmarks - then you'll learn and get better in no time and be able to start learning more complex strategies.
List of some good strategies to learn: + Show Spoiler +- Proxy 2-gate (all matchups)
- Delayed 4-gate (all matchups)
- 10-gate into 3-gate (PvP)
- 3-gate blink stalker all-in (PvP, PvT)
- DT rush into 4-gate/archon bust (all matchups)
- +1 7-gate all-in (PvZ off of FFE)
- Cannon rush (Yeonsu only)
|
Wow, thanks for the detailed reply. I'll definitely try to work on these "cheeses" that I've avoided for whatever reason, even in team games.
Once I work a couple of these out against the AI I'll take it to ladder. Question: let's say my opponent holds my attack. Should I just declare it a loss and gg, or attempt to play the game out, even though I currently only want to work on these short term games? I suppose in theory the games will end shortly thereafter due to a counter-push, but there are an awful lot of turtlers in low leagues.
|
Hi guys,
First thing i want to say is that it's a great topic, very interesting.
Second, i'm sorry for my english, i probably make a lot of error, i'm a french guy and i try to make progress in english but for the time being i'm not really good... So i hope i will be understandable.
I've read this post since it's start and i was very interest. Indeed i'm exactly in same position than BigSolar and i wanted for some times ask exaclty the same question.
But i have 3 questions to ask about the list of strategies to learn :
1) I've found a post in which they give a PDF of 15 protoss' all-ins : http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=426907
I just wanted to now if you recommend us to learn those all-ins to start ?
2) About the strategies you recommend : the proxy 2-gate and the cannon rush. I quite don't understand how these strategies could be interesting for us to learn. Because these are just 2 binary strategies : either you win either you lose. I quite don't understand their purpose if we want to improve our game.
3) It's maybe me who don't understand, but what do you want to say with the "Delayed 4-gate" ?
I hope you will understand my english.
Thank you for your answers.
|
On November 01 2013 01:47 SC2John wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 00:38 BigSolar wrote:
I want to piggy back on Millicant's post. This has been an excellent thread.
I've been playing on and off for a bit over a year now, sinking the vast majority of time into 2v2s and 3v3s with my buddies because I was scared of proper laddering.
I've recently made a switch from Terran to Protoss and I'm trying to do some 1v1s finally and slowly working my way past Bronze league foes whenever I get the courage to ladder.
I'm struggling with the gameplan aspect, as the wealth of information out there is supremely overwhelming and just figuring out what to do against each race has become a stumbling block. I'd like to figure out something appropriate to my skill level but I am not sure how.
This has become a bit meandering so I'll just end it here and say thanks again for an interesting read.
Nono, it's quite understandable. If you go back to the OP, you'll see the anecdote about my friend's conversation with his Korean practice partner: Show nested quote +I used to have a Korean Starcraft practice partner. One day he asked me, "Why do you think Koreans are so cheesy when they're learning to play?" I don't remember exactly what I replied, but it was probably something along the lines of: "They've got better micro, macro, etc., so they can win early." He took a moment, then responded, "No, it's because the goal of the game is much simpler." At your level, you should work on playing games with very simple goals and a short-term game plan, such as basic cheeses and 1- or 2-base timing attacks. I know there are a lot of people who are against playing "non-macro" styles and who think it just makes you a "cheesy player"...but the fact of the matter is that easier game plans are easier to execute and thus are easier to learn. Trying to copy Bomber's TvP is mind-bogglingly borderline impossible while performing a proxy 2-gate or a banshee into marine/tank TvT build is totally doable. Learning how to do a 2-base immortal push in PvZ perfectly is much easier than trying to learn a long, drawn-out, lategame-focused strategy perfectly. EDIT: That is not to say that you don't want to get to that point some day. You just don't want to throw yourself into the deep end without learning how to swim first.Don't worry about mechanics or that you're not playing a "macro" game. If you're hitting all your timings correctly and successfully winning with well-executed, short-term strategies, you'll get better a lot faster (and you'll probably win a lot more). Again, if you're unsure of the correct direction, look to professional games. The best types of games to learn from are one-sided stompings with well-executed attacks. If you practice learning even a basic strategy EXACTLY as good as a professional - hitting every timing, making sure you're hitting benchmarks - then you'll learn and get better in no time and be able to start learning more complex strategies. List of some good strategies to learn: + Show Spoiler +- Proxy 2-gate (all matchups)
- Delayed 4-gate (all matchups)
- 10-gate into 3-gate (PvP)
- 3-gate blink stalker all-in (PvP, PvT)
- DT rush into 4-gate/archon bust (all matchups)
- +1 7-gate all-in (PvZ off of FFE)
- Cannon rush (Yeonsu only)
This is fantastic. While I certainly want to continue improving my mechanics (the staircase maybe?) you've just provided a clear path. Learn the short game first, learn the long game once you're able. That makes so much sense, yet the clamor of "cheese is bad" has overshadowed the common sense of learning to play short, tightly focused games before you dive into long, sprawling, and for a less experienced player, unmanageable games.
I think BigSolar hit more precisely on what I was trying to say: the possibilities and knowledge required are overwhelming. Where do you even begin? The obvious answer - start with a less complicated game plan. Additionally, watching the pros and finding somebody to emulate is a great idea.
Thank you. I will surely be back to ask more inane questions, but this is spectacular.
|
Let me start with the caveat that this is a fantastic way to approach the game and even life. However it is not the only effective way to the think about the game.
A major criticism is that this analysis largely ignores the thought process of the opponent. In interviews many players state that they did not come with a build order prepared. Even in important matches pros state that they only come with prepared builds for maybe 2 out of the 5 maps (builds that were probably developed using the mindset you establish here). They frequently say they wanted to play reactively.
Of course you could achieve the same results using this mindset. But as a zerg player who has extensively researched zerg pros, I feel that zergs generally do not approach the game in this direction (I think suppy thinks along these lines though). Personally, I play zerg with the goal of allowing myself to approach the game from this perspective, but with the realization that my opponents will do everything they can to stop me. So yes, I can use this mindset but for me I feel more comfortable approaching this with a loose goal but an emphasis on the game flow and on my opponent's intentions.
|
Just wanted to say this is an absolutely great post, and mirrors some of the things I've learned from poker that I'm now applying to learning SC2 from the ground up.
The adherence to the terms "macro" and "cheese" are pretty similar to poker players adherence to the terms "value" and "bluff" in that you can come up with definitions for them, and they may even be mathematically distinct in certain spots, but for the most part they just get in the way of solid strategy formulation.
I'll be attempting to utilize this in my own adventures on the ladder, and can already see how this can help me to more effectively utilize scouting times and information gained.
In the future I'll probably post some of my thoughts on strategies for each matchup in order to get feedback from more experienced players, but for now I'll just say great read and thanks  .
|
United States4883 Posts
I just want to make this clear before I begin: almost all cheeses and "all-in" attacks are a bit of a coinflip. In the most basic sense, you're sacrificing tech and economy for an early attack that can be defended with proper scouting, preparation, and defense. If you fail to win with your attack, you have relatively no tech or economy at home to compete with your opponent's. However, this doesn't mean that they aren't constructive for learning a game plan or learning how to formulate a strategy. On the right maps with good execution against the right strategies, they can be deadly, and that's what learning strategy is all about. Not only are you learning in bits and pieces, you're also adding to your "toolbox", your arsenal of strategy.
On November 01 2013 02:44 BigSolar wrote:
Wow, thanks for the detailed reply. I'll definitely try to work on these "cheeses" that I've avoided for whatever reason, even in team games.
Once I work a couple of these out against the AI I'll take it to ladder. Question: let's say my opponent holds my attack. Should I just declare it a loss and gg, or attempt to play the game out, even though I currently only want to work on these short term games? I suppose in theory the games will end shortly thereafter due to a counter-push, but there are an awful lot of turtlers in low leagues.
Sometimes you have a plan ready for the game that fails to actually achieve what it was supposed to achieve. When this happens, you have to look a few things before dismissing the strategy:
- Was my timing good? Did I hit the correct timings with the correct numbers of things? Did I hit my benchmarks?
- Was my execution good or bad? Did I control my units well? Was my positioning good or are there better ways of approaching the attack?
- Is this map good for the strategy? Could maybe a more open map improve my execution? A more narrow, choky one?
- Was my opponent blind-countering me? Did he just get lucky?
- Is my strategy based on a gamble or a gimmick? Is there a way I can better control the flow
You want to make sure there wasn't some kind of flaw or outside force that made the strategy not work. If you can rule every single one of these out and say the strategy was executed perfectly but was stopped dead, then you may be working with a bad strategy (or just playing against a really good player). As far as continuing to play the game through, you can if you want to. But from an analysis standpoint, when your strategy fails, the game is essentially over; everything that happens afterwards, whether you win or lose, is not worth inspecting as it relates to your original game plan.
On November 01 2013 03:35 Tonymoi wrote:Hi guys, First thing i want to say is that it's a great topic, very interesting. Second, i'm sorry for my english, i probably make a lot of error, i'm a french guy and i try to make progress in english but for the time being i'm not really good... So i hope i will be understandable. I've read this post since it's start and i was very interest. Indeed i'm exactly in same position than BigSolar and i wanted for some times ask exaclty the same question. But i have 3 questions to ask about the list of strategies to learn : 1) I've found a post in which they give a PDF of 15 protoss' all-ins : http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=426907I just wanted to now if you recommend us to learn those all-ins to start ? 2) About the strategies you recommend : the proxy 2-gate and the cannon rush. I quite don't understand how these strategies could be interesting for us to learn. Because these are just 2 binary strategies : either you win either you lose. I quite don't understand their purpose if we want to improve our game. 3) It's maybe me who don't understand, but what do you want to say with the " Delayed 4-gate" ? I hope you will understand my english. Thank you for your answers.
1) Yeah, sure, they look all right. I can't vouch for all of them, but they're written by GM players, so they're probably pretty good and fairly precise.
2) Doing cheeses generally works your micro really hard while allowing you to ease off the macro a bit; something like a proxy 2-gate or a cannon rush is just the kind of thing you want to do when you're just starting and need to learn some basics. In the higher levels, cheeses are much more refined and require much better control. A masters player doing a proxy 2-gate is infinitely better than a platinum league player doing a proxy 2-gate.
3) A "Korean" 4-gate is a 4-gate with one gas off of a 10-gate; a normal 4-gate is a 12-gate or 13-gate with one gas; and a delayed 4-gate, which is most often used in HotS, is a 13-gate with two gases. If you don't get two gases, you don't have a MSC and your push is severely weakened.
On November 01 2013 05:10 Mauzel wrote:
Let me start with the caveat that this is a fantastic way to approach the game and even life. However it is not the only effective way to the think about the game.
A major criticism is that this analysis largely ignores the thought process of the opponent. In interviews many players state that they did not come with a build order prepared. Even in important matches pros state that they only come with prepared builds for maybe 2 out of the 5 maps (builds that were probably developed using the mindset you establish here). They frequently say they wanted to play reactively.
Of course you could achieve the same results using this mindset. But as a zerg player who has extensively researched zerg pros, I feel that zergs generally do not approach the game in this direction (I think suppy thinks along these lines though). Personally, I play zerg with the goal of allowing myself to approach the game from this perspective, but with the realization that my opponents will do everything they can to stop me. So yes, I can use this mindset but for me I feel more comfortable approaching this with a loose goal but an emphasis on the game flow and on my opponent's intentions.
I disagree with that. Look at my analysis of Life's ZvP against Naniwa. In it, I argue that underneath Life's seemingly crazy and unpredictable playstyle lies a very clear set of transitions which he follows and flows between in order to keep his momentum going in the game. Sure, he definitely breaks from the mold and does things like queen/roach/nydus or fast ultralisks or no early pressure straight into queen/SH/infestor, but these are slight variations based on knowledge and intuition I can't even begin to understand. My point is that even though Life does a bunch of wacky things and seemingly very different builds, there's still a very clear plan underneath it.
Likewise, if we look at Jaedong's ZvP, we can see some very clear patterns that form how he plays. Even though he is known as a "reactive zerg player", he has a plan going into the game. Often times he plays very greedily behind really good reads while poking and prodding the protoss at key times to get additional scouting info. He avoids making units and dumps most of gas into tech. Then, when he gets a good read on the opponent's army, he blasts out the best counter unit. It's reactive, but it's still based on Jaedong's plan.
So, if you will, zerg relies more heavily on a good set of transitions than on specific attack timings. It's not that they're playing purely "reactively" and "non-planned" but that they're playing reactively within a pre-planned guideline.
Also, to everyone else, thank you for your support! Again, vader and I encourage people to post some game plans and specific strategies they have and try to break it down the same way we do!
|
Northern Ireland461 Posts
I wrote a response on Reddit to a fellow Terran player who was having trouble in TvZ, I attempted to use what I had learned in this thread to come up with a way to help him improve by looking at using a game plan to steer you to a win, by using a pro game as a reference. For the sake of time, I will paste what I have written, in the hopes that yourself, or Vader, will tell me if I'm on the right track for analysing and constructing game plans from VODs or replays.
''I would also watch some of Flash's games from his streamed ladder session he played a couple of months ago, his gameplan and execution is amazing, anyone could learn from watching it.
http://www.twitch.tv/ktrolsterflash/b/453050408 - Notable TvZ games; 32:18. Watch specifically how he executes his build to lead onto a plan of what to do in the match up.
1. How do I not die and secure an early third to set up my mid game.
2. How do I make my 2/2 parade push stronger and less cost effective for the Zerg, while keeping him honest.
3. How do I stop Zerg getting to Hive.
4. How do I kill him.
These 4 steps are a basic TvZ template, in this video you can see Flash hit all of these as best he can.
1. He uses hellions to scout/threaten runby, but pulls back and uses them in conjunction with mines to protect his third going up.
2. He pushes with medivacs + 1/1 to clear creep and force banelings (gas) from the Zerg.
3. He parades to the Zergs 4th (while taking his own) to trade gas units from the Zerg for more mineral heavy units from the Terran, this constant pressure makes it very hard for the Zerg to tech to Hive without dying.
4. He aims to kill the Zerg at 3/3.''
This is what I generally have in my head when I enter into a TvZ, however in TvP and TvT my game plan is vague and less defined, as a consequence I feel less comfortable and more stressed in those match-ups, if you have any help for me in that regard I would be extremely grateful.
|
I love to play mech with Terran, as bio is too difficult for me to control vs. Zerg. I want to analyze Flash's game vs DRG on Derelict Watcher from IEM New York: http://us.esl.tv/video/3dca06cc715c9cdc/
Goal: Move out at +2/+2 with tank, thor, hellion, and banshee when Zerg is transitioning to Hive tech, in order to kill them before Vipers are produced, which would render our mech army useless.
Working backwards: Use constant hellion/banshee production to establish map control, pressure Zerg, and roast drones while setting up a third base, beginning double armory upgrades, and working up to 5 factory mech production. The pressure prevents Zerg from teching up quickly, buying us time to produce an unstoppable mech deathball.
How to open? Use a reaper expand to scout the Zerg's opener while we take our natural and prepare for early game aggression.
Am I getting the concept? Is there something I'm missing? Thanks
|
Firstly, much <3 for this post. First time listening to those podcast and quite an eye (ear) opener.
RE: Zerg, there are some strats where you aren't reactive but most of the time I think our composition and tech can vary wildly when reacting.
Case: vs Terran
Non reactive could be Roach Rush, Roach/Bane busts and the like.
However, I have experienced a huge divergence in game plan in a more long term game i.e. Bio/Mine vs Mech scenario. This is completely reactionary I feel.
Vs Bio/Mine
My normal game plan is survive the bio/mine rally-craft, get to 4 bases and deny Terran 4th using Ling/Bane/Muta and starve him out.
Vs Mech
I switch to Roach + mass SH; + some Muta (to still control drops/force THOR & turrets/generally be annoying), saving a small bank for Corruptors if Terran goes mass Ravens or Banshee. The overall goal I suppose is the similar in all macroesque games i.e. (pressure 3rd and deny 4th). But the game is so different that I don't think it's the same game plan at all.
It turns into a very difference game despite my plan.
Appreciate thoughts on strategic planning for zerg.
|
United States4883 Posts
On November 01 2013 10:37 Crugio wrote:
Firstly, much <3 for this post. First time listening to those podcast and quite an eye (ear) opener.
RE: Zerg, there are some strats where you aren't reactive but most of the time I think our composition and tech can vary wildly when reacting.
Case: vs Terran
Non reactive could be Roach Rush, Roach/Bane busts and the like.
However, I have experienced a huge divergence in game plan in a more long term game i.e. Bio/Mine vs Mech scenario. This is completely reactionary I feel.
Vs Bio/Mine
My normal game plan is survive the bio/mine rally-craft, get to 4 bases and deny Terran 4th using Ling/Bane/Muta and starve him out.
Vs Mech
I switch to Roach + mass SH; + some Muta (to still control drops/force THOR & turrets/generally be annoying), saving a small bank for Corruptors if Terran goes mass Ravens or Banshee. The overall goal I suppose is the similar in all macroesque games i.e. (pressure 3rd and deny 4th). But the game is so different that I don't think it's the same game plan at all.
It turns into a very difference game despite my plan.
Appreciate thoughts on strategic planning for zerg.
Well, obviously you need to change things up based on scouting your opponent. Honestly, I think it's best to treat mech as an entirely different race. You have 2 game plans there already (although you seem to be a little shaky on the mech gameplan, which is pretty normal lol), you just choose whichever one works best when you get to a divergence point (when you scout mech).
It's important to note the difference between playing to practice and playing to win. In terms of practice, you should generally follow through with whatever strategy you had planned, despite the opponent's build and adjustments. This is so that you can test your build thoroughly and refine it against everything. When you're playing to win, you want to have an arsenal of already refined strategies at your disposal. Don't get confused and think you have to adjust your strategy and play "reactively" against your ladder opponents during a game.
|
I have a question.
What is your thought process when dealing with mirror matches where your opponent plays exactly the same as you and tries to achieve the same goals as you? How do you gain an advantage in that situation?
|
Scout denying and better execution.
|
On November 01 2013 14:48 SC2John wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 10:37 Crugio wrote:
Firstly, much <3 for this post. First time listening to those podcast and quite an eye (ear) opener.
RE: Zerg, there are some strats where you aren't reactive but most of the time I think our composition and tech can vary wildly when reacting.
Case: vs Terran
Non reactive could be Roach Rush, Roach/Bane busts and the like.
However, I have experienced a huge divergence in game plan in a more long term game i.e. Bio/Mine vs Mech scenario. This is completely reactionary I feel.
Vs Bio/Mine
My normal game plan is survive the bio/mine rally-craft, get to 4 bases and deny Terran 4th using Ling/Bane/Muta and starve him out.
Vs Mech
I switch to Roach + mass SH; + some Muta (to still control drops/force THOR & turrets/generally be annoying), saving a small bank for Corruptors if Terran goes mass Ravens or Banshee. The overall goal I suppose is the similar in all macroesque games i.e. (pressure 3rd and deny 4th). But the game is so different that I don't think it's the same game plan at all.
It turns into a very difference game despite my plan.
Appreciate thoughts on strategic planning for zerg.
Well, obviously you need to change things up based on scouting your opponent. Honestly, I think it's best to treat mech as an entirely different race. You have 2 game plans there already (although you seem to be a little shaky on the mech gameplan, which is pretty normal lol), you just choose whichever one works best when you get to a divergence point (when you scout mech). It's important to note the difference between playing to practice and playing to win. In terms of practice, you should generally follow through with whatever strategy you had planned, despite the opponent's build and adjustments. This is so that you can test your build thoroughly and refine it against everything. When you're playing to win, you want to have an arsenal of already refined strategies at your disposal. Don't get confused and think you have to adjust your strategy and play "reactively" against your ladder opponents during a game.
Now, that seems to bring up a great question. With a strict adherence to a "plan" you essentially have two players with two plans, and whichever happens to work better wins. Where does Adaptability/Flexibility come into it? When does a player deviate from his plan to exploit his enemy?
|
I'm glad you brought up Life and Jaedong for Zerg but where do you think their "win condition" lies? While Zerg can go for all-ins or aggressive timings like roach/bane and 10p speed on 4 player maps, they still do play around timings (e.g. have lings out around 6:00 to deny/take a 3rd, or scout for a potential immortal/sentry and stop drone production, etc.). Often times they must also alter (and not just re-order) their game-plan depending on what they scout (mid-game all-ins, air compositions, mech, etc.), and while this does NOT mean that they need to be purely reactive with no plan, it does mean that they need to have a variety of "builds" and "transitions" at their disposal.
For both players it does seem like getting into a game-state where mutas are unanswerable by Protoss is the ideal, and the game is a series of checks on the Protoss at certain timings (e.g. when they try to take a 3rd) and transitions based on their unit composition.
It's also worth noting that some players like Life seem to focus on planning a strategy based on their opponent or their race (e.g. hitting 2 base muta timings vs. Terran in WoL, his ZvP nowadays), while some players focus on their opponent's race (Stephano has said in interviews he just plays the race and not the player), while other players tend to play the map more (someone like DRG).
Also, I wrote a post on Life's ZvP which you may want to read:
EDIT:
I forgot to mention that if you do the work backwards method for analyzing the play of a Zerg player like Life (his games vs. HerO at IEM NYC are a great example), we often see instances where he's transitioning behind an attack so it's very clear that he's not trying to win off of an attack (a situation a ladder warrior may easily try to and successfully win off of not transitioning and just spamming units) so it's obvious then that that is not his "win condition". Yet even against top-tier competition it's still possible for him to "win on step 9 out of a 18-step plan". I remember NesTea saying a long time ago (WoL circa late 2010, early 2011) that Zerg couldn't win on its own and it had to prevent the other player from winning, maybe this isn't true now but I do believe there's a lot of strategic maneuvering going on in these plays.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
