TangSC Profile Blog Joined July 2011 Canada 1852 Posts Last Edited: 2013-08-15 14:20:22 #1



Hello Ladies and Gentlemen of Team Liquid,



I'd like to share a Starcraft article that I wrote for GLHF Magazine a few months back. The article explains why I personally believe that using an aggressive style is the best way to improve at SC2. This is a topic that I am passionate about and I really look forward to the discussion that follows.



Here is an excerpt of the article:



+ Show Spoiler + All-In FTW



The Fine Art of Aggression

When I started playing StarCraft II, I heard the same advice over and over in professional casts, forums, and chat channels: "You must learn to play a straight-up, standard-macro style to develop your mechanics." Likewise, I frequently heard this advice: "You must avoid gimmicky, all-in styles that will hinder your mechanics and development." But this advice never helped me. Since season 1 of Wings of Liberty, I have been an advocate of aggressive playstyles - not only because they are the most fun, but because an active style (rather than a passive style) is the optimal way to improve multitasking, mechanics, and mindset.



Now I should mention my own bias: I first learned Zerg by repeating the 10-Pool in team games, an "all-in" style where you keep only 10 workers mining minerals to constantly produce Speedlings. And for about two months, that's all I did - and I mean that's all I did. I made master in all my team divisions using the most simple but crisp early Speedling attacks. I can say with complete confidence that even though most games ended between the 6-8 minute mark, this was when I experienced the most essential and rapid improvement in fundamental mechanics - multitasking, injecting, hotkeying/control grouping, rallying, Zergling micro, etc.



Another important stage in my development was when I started using variations and transitions. I still wanted to do my optimized Speedling build, but I began to realize situations where it wasn't as effective. A basic example is against 2 Terran opponents who just wall-off (making early Zerglings useless). Sometimes I would eventually win if my ally could break the wall, but there was no advantage to getting the Zerglings so early - it made more sense to delay the Pool a bit and hit at a later timing. So I optimized two Speedling variations - a 10-Pool Speedling build that hit at 5:00 (with less Zerglings) and a 14-Pool that hit at 6:00 (with more Zerglings). And at the start of every game I would calculate - based on matchups, maps, opponents - which of the two Speedling attacks I would use. Win rate went up.



Then I realized that even with the new and optimized timing, there were situations where Zerglings just weren't useful anymore (like if my opponent had too many Hellions). So, I started to practice Roach and Baneling follow-ups, and I optimized these transitions to the same level of precision as the 10-Pool. Again, win rate went up. Finally, I started to really branch out; I often still opened with the Speedling builds, but in some situations/matchups I would skip the Zerglings and open with 1-2 Base Roach and Baneling timings. By the time I stopped doing team games and moved into 1v1s, I was ranked top 10 globally in 2v2s, 3v3s, and 4v4s - and I had a relatively complex system of 1-2 base timing attacks/transitions/all-ins that I would cycle between, depending on the situation/matchup/etc. I applied the same approach to 1v1s, and it proved both effective and entertaining.



So as you can see, in my early days I took almost baby-like steps, but I made sure I cleared each step before moving to the next one. When I chose any build, any timing, any transition, I would focus on the economic steps 100% until it was as perfect as it could be. Once the build was optimized, I would practice it over and over until the execution and unit control became second nature, and then I would do the same for the variations and follow-up transitions. I rarely practiced standard macro and instead relied on some 15-20 timing attacks/variations/transitions. It may seem like this approach would stunt mid- and late-game development, but eventually more and more games started making it to the three-four base stage.



The goal of being hyper-aggressive isn't to avoid the mid-game; it's to improve systematically, starting with the basics. The fact is, to be the best player you can (whether you're aggressive/all-in player, a standard/macro player, or anything in between), you need to have solid early, mid, and late game fundamentals - but I think that if I had chosen to start with three-four base styles, I would have been overwhelmed. Even though the builds I chose were simple and even all-in, they still taxed me to the limit of my ability - so many players think that cheesy/all-in styles require less skill than macro styles, but truth is they require different skills. So many players think that you're putting yourself at a disadvantage in the long run if you don't learn standard macro builds, but there are skills and mechanics that are best-developed with aggressive, even all-in styles.



One of the most important skills that is improved with an aggressive style is multitasking. The ability to look away from your base while maintaining production is absolutely essential in SC2 - and anytime you're attacking, you're forced to strain your multitasking. If you don't actively push yourself and your multitasking, you will not progress as fast as you could. It's not that a reactive/macro style doesn't develop multitasking at all - of course it does, you have to scout and defend your opponents' attacks while keeping up with macro - it's that an aggressive style forces you to develop multitasking faster.



Another advantage to using aggressive styles is what I call the "advantage of the first aggressor." We all hear about the defender's advantage and how in an ideal world, the defender will always pull out ahead because of the distance your opponent has to travel. But in the real world, being the first-aggressor is just as much of an advantage - if you can make proper use of it. All StarCraft II players have a plan at the start of each game (I hope). Broadly speaking, you can assume that your opponent wants to do X build to get Y units; and if you can throw a wrench into that X build, it's going to affect how they get Y units. This seems pretty straight-forward, but it's incredibly important - builds are about flow, and most players aren't nearly as comfortable executing even their most-practiced builds if they're interrupted and messed with. So if you make the first move and attack, and plan ahead how to transition later, then you're sticking to your plan and forcing your opponent to deviate from his. It is extremely difficult to play when you're under pressure, and if you get to the point where you're calm and confident in your timing attacks and transitions, you'll induce more and more mistakes from your opponent - and you'll be able to capitalize on these mistakes in a way that wins you the game.



One thing that is so interesting about an aggressive style is that the more you experiment with all-ins, the more you will find grey area - builds that you thought were "all-in" that can be transitioned out of. There have been so many games where I opened with, say, a 1-base baneling all-in against Protoss, did some significant/equalizing damage, and moved into the mid-game with neither side knowing who was ahead. Some of the games I transitioned and lost, some of them I transitioned and won. And that's why the whole notion of an "all-in" is a bit of a problem in Starcraft 2 - all top-level aggressive players have a follow-through for every attack, no matter how much of a commitment the attack is. Even in some games where I did these attacks and dealt absolutely no damage, I would always, always, always try another step, another timing attack, another "all-in". I didn't know it then, but this was "mindset" training - this taught me to keep my cool in situations where I'm way behind (which is essential regardless of the style you play).



Aggressive strategies are fun and effective ways to improve multitasking, mechanics, and mindset – and that is why all-ins are an integral part of StarCraft II for both beginners and professionals. Newer players benefit by first learning and then refining basic builds that force them to be active with their units while managing smaller economies. Experienced players benefit by using their skills and experience to develop their own advanced systems of attacks and variations, blurring the lines of “all-in” with well-planned transitions. Finally, all players benefit by keeping calm and composed in situations where they’re behind – besides, would you rather leave a game after a failed bust of your opponent’s base, or after they successfully bust yours? Personally, win or lose, I like to make my opponents sweat.



So get out there and experiment with some 10 Pools, some Gateway pushes, some Proxy-Raxes. Refine your economy, improve your execution, develop your transitions, and find your own grey area.



Thank you for reading and stay aggressive,



Tim “TangSC” Clark

Team All-Inspiration.com

www.TangStarcraft.com When I started playing StarCraft II, I heard the same advice over and over in professional casts, forums, and chat channels: "You must learn to play a straight-up, standard-macro style to develop your mechanics." Likewise, I frequently heard this advice: "You must avoid gimmicky, all-in styles that will hinder your mechanics and development." But this advice never helped me. Since season 1 of Wings of Liberty, I have been an advocate of aggressive playstyles - not only because they are the most fun, but because an active style (rather than a passive style) is the optimal way to improve multitasking, mechanics, and mindset.Now I should mention my own bias: I first learned Zerg by repeating the 10-Pool in team games, an "all-in" style where you keep only 10 workers mining minerals to constantly produce Speedlings. And for about two months, that's all I did - and I mean that's all I did. I made master in all my team divisions using the most simple but crisp early Speedling attacks. I can say with complete confidence that even though most games ended between the 6-8 minute mark, this was when I experienced the most essential and rapid improvement in fundamental mechanics - multitasking, injecting, hotkeying/control grouping, rallying, Zergling micro, etc.Another important stage in my development was when I started using variations and transitions. I still wanted to do my optimized Speedling build, but I began to realize situations where it wasn't as effective. A basic example is against 2 Terran opponents who just wall-off (making early Zerglings useless). Sometimes I would eventually win if my ally could break the wall, but there was no advantage to getting the Zerglings so early - it made more sense to delay the Pool a bit and hit at a later timing. So I optimized two Speedling variations - a 10-Pool Speedling build that hit at 5:00 (with less Zerglings) and a 14-Pool that hit at 6:00 (with more Zerglings). And at the start of every game I would calculate - based on matchups, maps, opponents - which of the two Speedling attacks I would use. Win rate went up.Then I realized that even with the new and optimized timing, there were situations where Zerglings just weren't useful anymore (like if my opponent had too many Hellions). So, I started to practice Roach and Baneling follow-ups, and I optimized these transitions to the same level of precision as the 10-Pool. Again, win rate went up. Finally, I started to really branch out; I often still opened with the Speedling builds, but in some situations/matchups I would skip the Zerglings and open with 1-2 Base Roach and Baneling timings. By the time I stopped doing team games and moved into 1v1s, I was ranked top 10 globally in 2v2s, 3v3s, and 4v4s - and I had a relatively complex system of 1-2 base timing attacks/transitions/all-ins that I would cycle between, depending on the situation/matchup/etc. I applied the same approach to 1v1s, and it proved both effective and entertaining.So as you can see, in my early days I took almost baby-like steps, but I made sure I cleared each step before moving to the next one. When I chose any build, any timing, any transition, I would focus on the economic steps 100% until it was as perfect as it could be. Once the build was optimized, I would practice it over and over until the execution and unit control became second nature, and then I would do the same for the variations and follow-up transitions. I rarely practiced standard macro and instead relied on some 15-20 timing attacks/variations/transitions. It may seem like this approach would stunt mid- and late-game development, but eventually more and more games started making it to the three-four base stage.The goal of being hyper-aggressive isn't to avoid the mid-game; it's to improve systematically, starting with the basics. The fact is, to be the best player you can (whether you're aggressive/all-in player, a standard/macro player, or anything in between), you need to have solid early, mid, and late game fundamentals - but I think that if I had chosen to start with three-four base styles, I would have been overwhelmed. Even though the builds I chose were simple and even all-in, they still taxed me to the limit of my ability - so many players think that cheesy/all-in styles require less skill than macro styles, but truth is they require different skills. So many players think that you're putting yourself at a disadvantage in the long run if you don't learn standard macro builds, but there are skills and mechanics that are best-developed with aggressive, even all-in styles.One of the most important skills that is improved with an aggressive style is multitasking. The ability to look away from your base while maintaining production is absolutely essential in SC2 - and anytime you're attacking, you're forced to strain your multitasking. If you don't actively push yourself and your multitasking, you will not progress as fast as you could. It's not that a reactive/macro style doesn't develop multitasking at all - of course it does, you have to scout and defend your opponents' attacks while keeping up with macro - it's that an aggressive style forces you to develop multitasking faster.Another advantage to using aggressive styles is what I call the "advantage of the first aggressor." We all hear about the defender's advantage and how in an ideal world, the defender will always pull out ahead because of the distance your opponent has to travel. But in the real world, being the first-aggressor is just as much of an advantage - if you can make proper use of it. All StarCraft II players have a plan at the start of each game (I hope). Broadly speaking, you can assume that your opponent wants to do X build to get Y units; and if you can throw a wrench into that X build, it's going to affect how they get Y units. This seems pretty straight-forward, but it's incredibly important - builds are about flow, and most players aren't nearly as comfortable executing even their most-practiced builds if they're interrupted and messed with. So if you make the first move and attack, and plan ahead how to transition later, then you're sticking to your plan and forcing your opponent to deviate from his. It is extremely difficult to play when you're under pressure, and if you get to the point where you're calm and confident in your timing attacks and transitions, you'll induce more and more mistakes from your opponent - and you'll be able to capitalize on these mistakes in a way that wins you the game.One thing that is so interesting about an aggressive style is that the more you experiment with all-ins, the more you will find grey area - builds that you thought were "all-in" that can be transitioned out of. There have been so many games where I opened with, say, a 1-base baneling all-in against Protoss, did some significant/equalizing damage, and moved into the mid-game with neither side knowing who was ahead. Some of the games I transitioned and lost, some of them I transitioned and won. And that's why the whole notion of an "all-in" is a bit of a problem in Starcraft 2 - all top-level aggressive players have a follow-through for every attack, no matter how much of a commitment the attack is. Even in some games where I did these attacks and dealt absolutely no damage, I would always, always, always try another step, another timing attack, another "all-in". I didn't know it then, but this was "mindset" training - this taught me to keep my cool in situations where I'm way behind (which is essential regardless of the style you play).Aggressive strategies are fun and effective ways to improve multitasking, mechanics, and mindset – and that is why all-ins are an integral part of StarCraft II for both beginners and professionals. Newer players benefit by first learning and then refining basic builds that force them to be active with their units while managing smaller economies. Experienced players benefit by using their skills and experience to develop their own advanced systems of attacks and variations, blurring the lines of “all-in” with well-planned transitions. Finally, all players benefit by keeping calm and composed in situations where they’re behind – besides, would you rather leave a game after a failed bust of your opponent’s base, or after they successfully bust yours? Personally, win or lose, I like to make my opponents sweat.So get out there and experiment with some 10 Pools, some Gateway pushes, some Proxy-Raxes. Refine your economy, improve your execution, develop your transitions, and find your own grey area.Thank you for reading and stay aggressive,Tim “TangSC” ClarkTeam All-Inspiration.com



You can find the edited/formatted version here:



Thank you and GL HF Hello Ladies and Gentlemen of Team Liquid,I'd like to share a Starcraft article that I wrote for GLHF Magazine a few months back. The article explains why I personally believe that using an aggressive style is the best way to improve at SC2. This is a topic that I am passionate about and I really look forward to the discussion that follows.Here is an excerpt of the article:You can find the edited/formatted version here: GLHF Issue 5 - Pages 27-29 Thank you and GL HF Coaching www.allin-academy.com | Team www.All-Inspiration.com

Alakaslam Profile Blog Joined September 2011 United States 14076 Posts #2



This may be the same way I learn, I have an amigo who does hardcore macro styles nearly every game and is pretty much masters (low-mid depending on how long it has last been since he had time) and raged often at cheese- the term coupled with his reaction caused me to see aggressive play as inherently dishonorable. However, the above^^ has me encouraged, I'm not all about cheesy play myself but if it is the stepping stone out of silver/bronze level multitasking & play (master player would say this and decision making are my core issues outside of macro mechanics etc. which apparently come with this) then it is well worth it.



Great read but must say and warn...

+ Show Spoiler + /inb4 "you cheesy maniac enabler" rage... Epic.This may be the same way I learn, I have an amigo who does hardcore macro styles nearly every game and is pretty much masters (low-mid depending on how long it has last been since he had time) and raged often at cheese- the term coupled with his reaction caused me to see aggressive play as inherently dishonorable. However, the above^^ has me encouraged, I'm not all about cheesy play myself but if it is the stepping stone out of silver/bronze level multitasking & play (master player would say this and decision making are my core issues outside of macro mechanics etc. which apparently come with this) then it is well worth it.Great read but must say and warn... Come play Diplomacy with us!

Larkin Profile Blog Joined January 2012 United Kingdom 7149 Posts #3 Interesting.



I think aggressive play (particularly 10 pools) are far more valid in team games than 1v1, however. In 1v1 you will find players are far more adept at holding them due to the way the maps are laid out - there are smaller chokes and builds can be slightly different - FFEing in 2v2 is practically unheard of, when it is the standard in 1v1 (PvZ, anyway).



I also don't think it prepares you well enough for "the real deal". Yes, your mechanics may be good, and yes you may well have a high win rate - but eventually you'll face players who can smack down your attack with ease, and then you've either lost, or you're playing from behind. Just last week I played a guy who did a 3gate robo 2 immortal push in every PvP he played according to his match history. Not necessarily cheesy, but as soon as I deflected it without much loss with my own 2gate robo expand build, he left, only to do it the next game again.



Players need to learn all aspects of the game. Improving mechanics through aggressive builds can be a good thing - but learning when your race is strongest and others are weakest by playing long games and learning timings is better.



https://www.twitch.tv/ttalarkin - streams random stuff, high level teamleague, maybe even heroleague

AnomalySC2 Profile Joined August 2012 United States 1965 Posts #4 What's scariest. An opponent that only 6 pools. An opponent that only hatch first into passive game until 200 pop. A player that only does 2 base timing attacks meant to kill a specific build. Or an opponent that can and will do any style if he thinks it will beat what you're trying to do?



Point is, play however you want. If you're tired of fast expanding every single game then do something else......

Thieving Magpie Profile Blog Joined December 2012 United States 6752 Posts #5 On August 16 2013 00:13 Larkin wrote:

Interesting.



I think aggressive play (particularly 10 pools) are far more valid in team games than 1v1, however. In 1v1 you will find players are far more adept at holding them due to the way the maps are laid out - there are smaller chokes and builds can be slightly different - FFEing in 2v2 is practically unheard of, when it is the standard in 1v1 (PvZ, anyway).



I also don't think it prepares you well enough for "the real deal". Yes, your mechanics may be good, and yes you may well have a high win rate - but eventually you'll face players who can smack down your attack with ease, and then you've either lost, or you're playing from behind. Just last week I played a guy who did a 3gate robo 2 immortal push in every PvP he played according to his match history. Not necessarily cheesy, but as soon as I deflected it without much loss with my own 2gate robo expand build, he left, only to do it the next game again.



Players need to learn all aspects of the game. Improving mechanics through aggressive builds can be a good thing - but learning when your race is strongest and others are weakest by playing long games and learning timings is better.







Isn't both the goal?



You don't have to go BitbyBit nor do you have to go full Idra tilt. Aggressive and macro when proper. Life, Innovation, etc... they all do that. Isn't both the goal?You don't have to go BitbyBit nor do you have to go full Idra tilt. Aggressive and macro when proper. Life, Innovation, etc... they all do that. Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?

rd Profile Blog Joined July 2010 United States 2584 Posts Last Edited: 2013-08-15 15:58:10 #6



On August 16 2013 00:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:

Show nested quote +

On August 16 2013 00:13 Larkin wrote:

Interesting.



I think aggressive play (particularly 10 pools) are far more valid in team games than 1v1, however. In 1v1 you will find players are far more adept at holding them due to the way the maps are laid out - there are smaller chokes and builds can be slightly different - FFEing in 2v2 is practically unheard of, when it is the standard in 1v1 (PvZ, anyway).



I also don't think it prepares you well enough for "the real deal". Yes, your mechanics may be good, and yes you may well have a high win rate - but eventually you'll face players who can smack down your attack with ease, and then you've either lost, or you're playing from behind. Just last week I played a guy who did a 3gate robo 2 immortal push in every PvP he played according to his match history. Not necessarily cheesy, but as soon as I deflected it without much loss with my own 2gate robo expand build, he left, only to do it the next game again.



Players need to learn all aspects of the game. Improving mechanics through aggressive builds can be a good thing - but learning when your race is strongest and others are weakest by playing long games and learning timings is better.







Isn't both the goal?



You don't have to go BitbyBit nor do you have to go full Idra tilt. Aggressive and macro when proper. Life, Innovation, etc... they all do that. Isn't both the goal?You don't have to go BitbyBit nor do you have to go full Idra tilt. Aggressive and macro when proper. Life, Innovation, etc... they all do that.



They also play tournaments which generally involve BO3's where mixing in aggression can punish greedy play. Vast majority if not every person who might read this are not playing bo3's. It's really pointless to play aggressive when you can learn the same mechanics playing standard while also getting exposure to the late game.

The reason everyone tells you to play a straight-up and standard game is because you can learn those same multi-tasking skills through normal, standard play, while also getting to the late game and learning much more important skills such as decision making. Playing aggro doesn't teach you to multi-task, it teaches you to execute very basic builds and produce units from a very small income. It's pretty disingenuous to vaguely say "go proxy gate" as if that's supposed to help someone keep their phoenixes active while staying ontop of their build at home.They also play tournaments which generally involve BO3's where mixing in aggression can punish greedy play. Vast majority if not every person who might read this are not playing bo3's. It's really pointless to play aggressive when you can learn the same mechanics playing standard while also getting exposure to the late game.

TXRaunchy Profile Joined June 2013 United States 131 Posts #7 What's wrong with playing cheesy, all-iny or macro? This is a game and the concept is to win at all regards. So I don't understand why people BM so hard when they lose to a build that they can do themselves?

Achaia Profile Joined July 2010 United States 632 Posts Last Edited: 2013-08-15 15:57:24 #8 On August 16 2013 00:13 Larkin wrote:

Interesting.



I think aggressive play (particularly 10 pools) are far more valid in team games than 1v1, however. In 1v1 you will find players are far more adept at holding them due to the way the maps are laid out - there are smaller chokes and builds can be slightly different - FFEing in 2v2 is practically unheard of, when it is the standard in 1v1 (PvZ, anyway).



I also don't think it prepares you well enough for "the real deal". Yes, your mechanics may be good, and yes you may well have a high win rate - but eventually you'll face players who can smack down your attack with ease, and then you've either lost, or you're playing from behind. Just last week I played a guy who did a 3gate robo 2 immortal push in every PvP he played according to his match history. Not necessarily cheesy, but as soon as I deflected it without much loss with my own 2gate robo expand build, he left, only to do it the next game again.



Players need to learn all aspects of the game. Improving mechanics through aggressive builds can be a good thing - but learning when your race is strongest and others are weakest by playing long games and learning timings is better.







Players don't NEED to do anything lol. Find out what parts of the game you enjoy and learn those parts. People too often forget that this is a game and certain play styles just aren't for everyone. If that guy likes his 3 gate robo 2 immortal push and wants to do it every game who cares? Obviously he'll lose to the more experienced who can spot it and respond appropriately, but how is that different from someone not being able to manage larva enough in a mid game scenario to produce enough units as Zerg, or expanding at the wrong times in a macro game? There's strengths, weaknesses and pitfalls to avoid with every play style (other than Innovation of course :D) and if you're under the pro level I don't think that players should be forced to play a certain way or ridiculed if they don't.



Players don't NEED to do anything lol. Find out what parts of the game you enjoy and learn those parts. People too often forget that this is a game and certain play styles just aren't for everyone. If that guy likes his 3 gate robo 2 immortal push and wants to do it every game who cares? Obviously he'll lose to the more experienced who can spot it and respond appropriately, but how is that different from someone not being able to manage larva enough in a mid game scenario to produce enough units as Zerg, or expanding at the wrong times in a macro game? There's strengths, weaknesses and pitfalls to avoid with every play style (other than Innovation of course :D) and if you're under the pro level I don't think that players should be forced to play a certain way or ridiculed if they don't. On August 16 2013 00:56 TXRaunchy wrote:

What's wrong with playing cheesy, all-iny or macro? This is a game and the concept is to win at all regards. So I don't understand why people BM so hard when they lose to a build that they can do themselves?



Crap this guy said basically the same thing but better... lol Crap this guy said basically the same thing but better... lol http://www.youtube.com/SCBattleGrounds

rd Profile Blog Joined July 2010 United States 2584 Posts #9 On August 16 2013 00:56 TXRaunchy wrote:

What's wrong with playing cheesy, all-iny or macro? This is a game and the concept is to win at all regards. So I don't understand why people BM so hard when they lose to a build that they can do themselves?



Because at a certain level those builds stop working unless your opponent was so greedy it's cheesy in itself. You can't possibly ask that question with a serious face like you don't know why people get upset? Because at a certain level those builds stop working unless your opponent was so greedy it's cheesy in itself. You can't possibly ask that question with a serious face like you don't know why people get upset?

Larkin Profile Blog Joined January 2012 United Kingdom 7149 Posts #10 On August 16 2013 00:56 Achaia wrote:

Show nested quote +

On August 16 2013 00:13 Larkin wrote:

Interesting.



I think aggressive play (particularly 10 pools) are far more valid in team games than 1v1, however. In 1v1 you will find players are far more adept at holding them due to the way the maps are laid out - there are smaller chokes and builds can be slightly different - FFEing in 2v2 is practically unheard of, when it is the standard in 1v1 (PvZ, anyway).



I also don't think it prepares you well enough for "the real deal". Yes, your mechanics may be good, and yes you may well have a high win rate - but eventually you'll face players who can smack down your attack with ease, and then you've either lost, or you're playing from behind. Just last week I played a guy who did a 3gate robo 2 immortal push in every PvP he played according to his match history. Not necessarily cheesy, but as soon as I deflected it without much loss with my own 2gate robo expand build, he left, only to do it the next game again.



Players need to learn all aspects of the game. Improving mechanics through aggressive builds can be a good thing - but learning when your race is strongest and others are weakest by playing long games and learning timings is better.







Players don't NEED to do anything lol. Find out what parts of the game you enjoy and learn those parts. People too often forget that this is a game and certain play styles just aren't for everyone. If that guy likes his 3 gate robo 2 immortal push and wants to do it every game who cares? Obviously he'll lose to the more experienced who can spot it and respond appropriately, but how is that different from someone not being able to manage larva enough in a mid game scenario to produce enough units as Zerg, or expanding at the wrong times in a macro game? There's strengths, weaknesses and pitfalls to avoid with every play style (other than Innovation of course :D) and if you're under the pro level I don't think that players should be forced to play a certain way or ridiculed if they don't.



Show nested quote +

On August 16 2013 00:56 TXRaunchy wrote:

What's wrong with playing cheesy, all-iny or macro? This is a game and the concept is to win at all regards. So I don't understand why people BM so hard when they lose to a build that they can do themselves?



Crap this guy said basically the same thing but better... lol Players don't NEED to do anything lol. Find out what parts of the game you enjoy and learn those parts. People too often forget that this is a game and certain play styles just aren't for everyone. If that guy likes his 3 gate robo 2 immortal push and wants to do it every game who cares? Obviously he'll lose to the more experienced who can spot it and respond appropriately, but how is that different from someone not being able to manage larva enough in a mid game scenario to produce enough units as Zerg, or expanding at the wrong times in a macro game? There's strengths, weaknesses and pitfalls to avoid with every play style (other than Innovation of course :D) and if you're under the pro level I don't think that players should be forced to play a certain way or ridiculed if they don't.Crap this guy said basically the same thing but better... lol



Perhaps need is the wrong word. Replace it with "ought" or "should" if that makes the point more worthwhile to you.



Of course, it's up to the player to do what he pleases. But I personally cannot see the point in not trying to get better. When I first started playing Halo, I used to just spray SMGs around. It was fun, but didn't get me very far. I started using the BR like the good players so I could compete with and become better than them.



It's the same kind of thing with SC2, for me at least. To try and play the safer style to improve my overall skill at the game. I could 4gate every game and maintain like a 70% win rate. Hell, when I started playing I used to do that. But there's a certain sense of satisfaction in playing for the long game, holding off early aggression, and making your opponent look like a fool. "That might work on lesser players, son, but not on me."



I suppose in the end like all video games it's just an ego thing. To want to be assured you are better than the opposition. Perhaps need is the wrong word. Replace it with "ought" or "should" if that makes the point more worthwhile to you.Of course, it's up to the player to do what he pleases. But I personally cannot see the point in not trying to get better. When I first started playing Halo, I used to just spray SMGs around. It was fun, but didn't get me very far. I started using the BR like the good players so I could compete with and become better than them.It's the same kind of thing with SC2, for me at least. To try and play the safer style to improve my overall skill at the game. I could 4gate every game and maintain like a 70% win rate. Hell, when I started playing I used to do that. But there's a certain sense of satisfaction in playing for the long game, holding off early aggression, and making your opponent look like a fool. "That might work on lesser players, son, but not on me."I suppose in the end like all video games it's just an ego thing. To want to be assured you are better than the opposition. https://www.twitch.tv/ttalarkin - streams random stuff, high level teamleague, maybe even heroleague

Thieving Magpie Profile Blog Joined December 2012 United States 6752 Posts #11 On August 16 2013 01:19 Larkin wrote:

Show nested quote +

On August 16 2013 00:56 Achaia wrote:

On August 16 2013 00:13 Larkin wrote:

Interesting.



I think aggressive play (particularly 10 pools) are far more valid in team games than 1v1, however. In 1v1 you will find players are far more adept at holding them due to the way the maps are laid out - there are smaller chokes and builds can be slightly different - FFEing in 2v2 is practically unheard of, when it is the standard in 1v1 (PvZ, anyway).



I also don't think it prepares you well enough for "the real deal". Yes, your mechanics may be good, and yes you may well have a high win rate - but eventually you'll face players who can smack down your attack with ease, and then you've either lost, or you're playing from behind. Just last week I played a guy who did a 3gate robo 2 immortal push in every PvP he played according to his match history. Not necessarily cheesy, but as soon as I deflected it without much loss with my own 2gate robo expand build, he left, only to do it the next game again.



Players need to learn all aspects of the game. Improving mechanics through aggressive builds can be a good thing - but learning when your race is strongest and others are weakest by playing long games and learning timings is better.







Players don't NEED to do anything lol. Find out what parts of the game you enjoy and learn those parts. People too often forget that this is a game and certain play styles just aren't for everyone. If that guy likes his 3 gate robo 2 immortal push and wants to do it every game who cares? Obviously he'll lose to the more experienced who can spot it and respond appropriately, but how is that different from someone not being able to manage larva enough in a mid game scenario to produce enough units as Zerg, or expanding at the wrong times in a macro game? There's strengths, weaknesses and pitfalls to avoid with every play style (other than Innovation of course :D) and if you're under the pro level I don't think that players should be forced to play a certain way or ridiculed if they don't.



On August 16 2013 00:56 TXRaunchy wrote:

What's wrong with playing cheesy, all-iny or macro? This is a game and the concept is to win at all regards. So I don't understand why people BM so hard when they lose to a build that they can do themselves?



Crap this guy said basically the same thing but better... lol Players don't NEED to do anything lol. Find out what parts of the game you enjoy and learn those parts. People too often forget that this is a game and certain play styles just aren't for everyone. If that guy likes his 3 gate robo 2 immortal push and wants to do it every game who cares? Obviously he'll lose to the more experienced who can spot it and respond appropriately, but how is that different from someone not being able to manage larva enough in a mid game scenario to produce enough units as Zerg, or expanding at the wrong times in a macro game? There's strengths, weaknesses and pitfalls to avoid with every play style (other than Innovation of course :D) and if you're under the pro level I don't think that players should be forced to play a certain way or ridiculed if they don't.Crap this guy said basically the same thing but better... lol



Perhaps need is the wrong word. Replace it with "ought" or "should" if that makes the point more worthwhile to you.



Of course, it's up to the player to do what he pleases. But I personally cannot see the point in not trying to get better. When I first started playing Halo, I used to just spray SMGs around. It was fun, but didn't get me very far. I started using the BR like the good players so I could compete with and become better than them.



It's the same kind of thing with SC2, for me at least. To try and play the safer style to improve my overall skill at the game. I could 4gate every game and maintain like a 70% win rate. Hell, when I started playing I used to do that. But there's a certain sense of satisfaction in playing for the long game, holding off early aggression, and making your opponent look like a fool. "That might work on lesser players, son, but not on me."



I suppose in the end like all video games it's just an ego thing. To want to be assured you are better than the opposition. Perhaps need is the wrong word. Replace it with "ought" or "should" if that makes the point more worthwhile to you.Of course, it's up to the player to do what he pleases. But I personally cannot see the point in not trying to get better. When I first started playing Halo, I used to just spray SMGs around. It was fun, but didn't get me very far. I started using the BR like the good players so I could compete with and become better than them.It's the same kind of thing with SC2, for me at least. To try and play the safer style to improve my overall skill at the game. I could 4gate every game and maintain like a 70% win rate. Hell, when I started playing I used to do that. But there's a certain sense of satisfaction in playing for the long game, holding off early aggression, and making your opponent look like a fool. "That might work on lesser players, son, but not on me."I suppose in the end like all video games it's just an ego thing. To want to be assured you are better than the opposition.



If no one does aggressive play, why not play greedy every game? If everyone plays greedy, why not rush each game? If everyone rushes each game, why not play safe?



Putting a hierarchy to one strategy as if it is superior to other strategies is silly. If no one does aggressive play, why not play greedy every game? If everyone plays greedy, why not rush each game? If everyone rushes each game, why not play safe?Putting a hierarchy to one strategy as if it is superior to other strategies is silly. Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?

NHY Profile Joined October 2010 981 Posts #12 On August 16 2013 01:01 rd wrote:

Show nested quote +

On August 16 2013 00:56 TXRaunchy wrote:

What's wrong with playing cheesy, all-iny or macro? This is a game and the concept is to win at all regards. So I don't understand why people BM so hard when they lose to a build that they can do themselves?



Because at a certain level those builds stop working unless your opponent was so greedy it's cheesy in itself. You can't possibly ask that question with a serious face like you don't know why people get upset? Because at a certain level those builds stop working unless your opponent was so greedy it's cheesy in itself. You can't possibly ask that question with a serious face like you don't know why people get upset?



Which level is that? Because it works quite well in Code S finals. Which level is that? Because it works quite well in Code S finals.

InfCereal Profile Joined December 2011 Canada 1555 Posts #13 On August 16 2013 01:01 rd wrote:

Show nested quote +

On August 16 2013 00:56 TXRaunchy wrote:

What's wrong with playing cheesy, all-iny or macro? This is a game and the concept is to win at all regards. So I don't understand why people BM so hard when they lose to a build that they can do themselves?



Because at a certain level those builds stop working unless your opponent was so greedy it's cheesy in itself. You can't possibly ask that question with a serious face like you don't know why people get upset? Because at a certain level those builds stop working unless your opponent was so greedy it's cheesy in itself. You can't possibly ask that question with a serious face like you don't know why people get upset?



If they stopped working, no one would do them at a high level. That's a silly arguement. There's a reason people don't go double evo before pool - It doesn't work. If cheesy builds didn't work, people simply wouldn't do them. If they stopped working, no one would do them at a high level. That's a silly arguement. There's a reason people don't go double evo before pool - It doesn't work. If cheesy builds didn't work, people simply wouldn't do them. Cereal :: AllThingsZerg.com :: SC2Overwatch.com

rd Profile Blog Joined July 2010 United States 2584 Posts Last Edited: 2013-08-15 16:33:35 #14 On August 16 2013 01:24 NHY wrote:

Show nested quote +

On August 16 2013 01:01 rd wrote:

On August 16 2013 00:56 TXRaunchy wrote:

What's wrong with playing cheesy, all-iny or macro? This is a game and the concept is to win at all regards. So I don't understand why people BM so hard when they lose to a build that they can do themselves?



Because at a certain level those builds stop working unless your opponent was so greedy it's cheesy in itself. You can't possibly ask that question with a serious face like you don't know why people get upset? Because at a certain level those builds stop working unless your opponent was so greedy it's cheesy in itself. You can't possibly ask that question with a serious face like you don't know why people get upset?



Which level is that? Because it works quite well in Code S finals. Which level is that? Because it works quite well in Code S finals.



Are you playing bo7's on the ladder? Are you even playing the same opponent multiple times? If you read the post before (just 3 posts up) I literally smacked down this stupid notion that because pros mix in cheese, you have to do it on ladder too. They're doing it because they have an opponent they can read into across multiple games. It's funny because most of the same pros on ladder don't really cheese unless they're chain queueing against the same person multiple times. If you aren't ultra high masters/GM you probably aren't going to chain queue at reasonable times of day.



If you're intent on getting to the code S finals I'd be more concerned with having solid all-around play before trying to assemble builds to meta game a specific opponent's playstyle. Are you playing bo7's on the ladder? Are you even playing the same opponent multiple times? If you read the post before (just 3 posts up) I literally smacked down this stupid notion that because pros mix in cheese, you have to do it on ladder too. They're doing it because they have an opponent they can read into across multiple games. It's funny because most of the same pros on ladder don't really cheese unless they're chain queueing against the same person multiple times. If you aren't ultra high masters/GM you probably aren't going to chain queue at reasonable times of day.If you're intent on getting to the code S finals I'd be more concerned with having solid all-around play before trying to assemble builds to meta game a specific opponent's playstyle.

THE_oldy Profile Joined July 2010 Australia 97 Posts Last Edited: 2013-08-15 16:37:21 #15 OP seems right about improving to the point where people actually can consistently beat you with solid play.



As your win rate starts dropping each time an all in stops working you either refine the all in or make adjustments. Taking a macro lead might be the best transition to an all in, but you might just end up going into many mid games with even eco anyway.



By the time your build stops working completely you have the skill to pick up a new build anyway, and understand the refinement you should be aiming for in early game. Seems like a pretty good time to start really focusing on a tight mid game. And aggression is just more fun Strategy is the motivation for tactics

Thieving Magpie Profile Blog Joined December 2012 United States 6752 Posts #16 On August 16 2013 01:31 rd wrote:

Show nested quote +

On August 16 2013 01:24 NHY wrote:

On August 16 2013 01:01 rd wrote:

On August 16 2013 00:56 TXRaunchy wrote:

What's wrong with playing cheesy, all-iny or macro? This is a game and the concept is to win at all regards. So I don't understand why people BM so hard when they lose to a build that they can do themselves?



Because at a certain level those builds stop working unless your opponent was so greedy it's cheesy in itself. You can't possibly ask that question with a serious face like you don't know why people get upset? Because at a certain level those builds stop working unless your opponent was so greedy it's cheesy in itself. You can't possibly ask that question with a serious face like you don't know why people get upset?



Which level is that? Because it works quite well in Code S finals. Which level is that? Because it works quite well in Code S finals.



Are you playing bo7's on the ladder? Are you even playing the same opponent multiple times? If you read the post before (just 3 posts up) I literally smacked down this stupid notion that because pros mix in cheese, you have to do it on ladder too. They're doing it because they have an opponent they can read into across multiple games. It's funny because most of the same pros on ladder don't really cheese unless they're chain queueing against the same person multiple times. If you aren't ultra high masters/GM you probably aren't going to chain queue at reasonable times of day. Are you playing bo7's on the ladder? Are you even playing the same opponent multiple times? If you read the post before (just 3 posts up) I literally smacked down this stupid notion that because pros mix in cheese, you have to do it on ladder too. They're doing it because they have an opponent they can read into across multiple games. It's funny because most of the same pros on ladder don't really cheese unless they're chain queueing against the same person multiple times. If you aren't ultra high masters/GM you probably aren't going to chain queue at reasonable times of day.



Yes, but metagames shift as much as a Bo7



If you don't stay aware of the metagame trends, then you're not really playing the game.



If *everyone* plays safe, there is no reason to not play greedy.



If *everyone* suddenly plays greedy, there's no reason not to be aggressive.



If *everyone* suddenly plays aggressive, there's no reason not to play safe.



Why? Because they're all legitimate strategies that only work within a defined metagame. Playing safe works because a lot of people cheese/are aggressive on the ladder. When people stop being cheesy aggressive, being greedy becomes the "optimal" way to learn the game. Yes, but metagames shift as much as a Bo7If you don't stay aware of the metagame trends, then you're not really playing the game.If *everyone* plays safe, there is no reason to not play greedy.If *everyone* suddenly plays greedy, there's no reason not to be aggressive.If *everyone* suddenly plays aggressive, there's no reason not to play safe.Why? Because they're all legitimate strategies that only work within a defined metagame. Playing safe works because a lot of people cheese/are aggressive on the ladder. When people stop being cheesy aggressive, being greedy becomes the "optimal" way to learn the game. Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?

rd Profile Blog Joined July 2010 United States 2584 Posts #17 On August 16 2013 01:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:

Show nested quote +

On August 16 2013 01:31 rd wrote:

On August 16 2013 01:24 NHY wrote:

On August 16 2013 01:01 rd wrote:

On August 16 2013 00:56 TXRaunchy wrote:

What's wrong with playing cheesy, all-iny or macro? This is a game and the concept is to win at all regards. So I don't understand why people BM so hard when they lose to a build that they can do themselves?



Because at a certain level those builds stop working unless your opponent was so greedy it's cheesy in itself. You can't possibly ask that question with a serious face like you don't know why people get upset? Because at a certain level those builds stop working unless your opponent was so greedy it's cheesy in itself. You can't possibly ask that question with a serious face like you don't know why people get upset?



Which level is that? Because it works quite well in Code S finals. Which level is that? Because it works quite well in Code S finals.



Are you playing bo7's on the ladder? Are you even playing the same opponent multiple times? If you read the post before (just 3 posts up) I literally smacked down this stupid notion that because pros mix in cheese, you have to do it on ladder too. They're doing it because they have an opponent they can read into across multiple games. It's funny because most of the same pros on ladder don't really cheese unless they're chain queueing against the same person multiple times. If you aren't ultra high masters/GM you probably aren't going to chain queue at reasonable times of day. Are you playing bo7's on the ladder? Are you even playing the same opponent multiple times? If you read the post before (just 3 posts up) I literally smacked down this stupid notion that because pros mix in cheese, you have to do it on ladder too. They're doing it because they have an opponent they can read into across multiple games. It's funny because most of the same pros on ladder don't really cheese unless they're chain queueing against the same person multiple times. If you aren't ultra high masters/GM you probably aren't going to chain queue at reasonable times of day.



Yes, but metagames shift as much as a Bo7



If you don't stay aware of the metagame trends, then you're not really playing the game.



If *everyone* plays safe, there is no reason to not play greedy.



If *everyone* suddenly plays greedy, there's no reason not to be aggressive.



If *everyone* suddenly plays aggressive, there's no reason not to play safe.



Why? Because they're all legitimate strategies that only work within a defined metagame. Playing safe works because a lot of people cheese/are aggressive on the ladder. When people stop being cheesy aggressive, being greedy becomes the "optimal" way to learn the game. Yes, but metagames shift as much as a Bo7If you don't stay aware of the metagame trends, then you're not really playing the game.If *everyone* plays safe, there is no reason to not play greedy.If *everyone* suddenly plays greedy, there's no reason not to be aggressive.If *everyone* suddenly plays aggressive, there's no reason not to play safe.Why? Because they're all legitimate strategies that only work within a defined metagame. Playing safe works because a lot of people cheese/are aggressive on the ladder. When people stop being cheesy aggressive, being greedy becomes the "optimal" way to learn the game.



Metagame has nothing to do with it. It's already assumed the builds executed within the confines of what a metagame deems viable. And the standard builds which abide by the same metagame are not going to die to these all-ins unless they're unsolved, but not many people here are going to be breaking the metagame with 10 pools or proxy rax. Metagame has nothing to do with it. It's already assumed the builds executed within the confines of what a metagame deems viable. And the standard builds which abide by the same metagame are not going to die to these all-ins unless they're unsolved, but not many people here are going to be breaking the metagame with 10 pools or proxy rax.

AnomalySC2 Profile Joined August 2012 United States 1965 Posts #18 On August 16 2013 01:01 rd wrote:

Show nested quote +

On August 16 2013 00:56 TXRaunchy wrote:

What's wrong with playing cheesy, all-iny or macro? This is a game and the concept is to win at all regards. So I don't understand why people BM so hard when they lose to a build that they can do themselves?



Because at a certain level those builds stop working unless your opponent was so greedy it's cheesy in itself. You can't possibly ask that question with a serious face like you don't know why people get upset? Because at a certain level those builds stop working unless your opponent was so greedy it's cheesy in itself. You can't possibly ask that question with a serious face like you don't know why people get upset?



But they don't stop working at high level play. For every build there is another build that excels vs it, so having the star sense to feel out when you should slip in an all in is very important for pro players. None of this is really all that important for ladder sessions anyways. Play however you want, whenever you want, and have FUN while trying to progress your own skill level.



If you enjoy fast expanding every game, then keep fast expanding every game. If you're bored of it and want to proxy some barracks in your opponents natural, then go for it. Who cares if some people will rage at you, that's their problem. In the end you're the one increasing your arsenal and having fun while doing it. You also just might find that rushes/timing attacks aren't as easy as you think they are. There is plenty of thinking on your feet and micro involved with rushes. But they don't stop working at high level play. For every build there is another build that excels vs it, so having the star sense to feel out when you should slip in an all in is very important for pro players. None of this is really all that important for ladder sessions anyways. Play however you want, whenever you want, and have FUN while trying to progress your own skill level.If you enjoy fast expanding every game, then keep fast expanding every game. If you're bored of it and want to proxy some barracks in your opponents natural, then go for it. Who cares if some people will rage at you, that's their problem. In the end you're the one increasing your arsenal and having fun while doing it. You also just might find that rushes/timing attacks aren't as easy as you think they are. There is plenty of thinking on your feet and micro involved with rushes.

JKM Profile Joined November 2011 Denmark 419 Posts #19 Good article/blog, but I think you miss a bit. I think aggressive or outright cheesy play can improve a players skill quite a bit for two reasons. The one you state about builds being very crisp and tuned, but also because it's alot quicker playing those styles meaning you grind more games to make your build even more crisp and get excellent at hitting that allin/timing.



Plays that rely on gimmicky stuff I have less faith in improving someone significantly. 1338, one upping 1337

ECA.BruTATroN Profile Blog Joined August 2010 United States 275 Posts #20 On August 16 2013 01:47 JKM wrote:

Good article/blog, but I think you miss a bit. I think aggressive or outright cheesy play can improve a players skill quite a bit for two reasons. The one you state about builds being very crisp and tuned, but also because it's alot quicker playing those styles meaning you grind more games to make your build even more crisp and get excellent at hitting that allin/timing.



Plays that rely on gimmicky stuff I have less faith in improving someone significantly.





agreed. agreed. http://www.twitch.tv/brutatron

1 2 3 4 Next All