I find that when I'm working a strategy out and trying to get it right, particularly if it's something I've come up with and not something which I'm imitating, I will repeat it over, and over, and over on ladder, trying to refine and understand it.
I'm curious, what's your approach? Do you just play and use whatever build comes into your head at the beginning? Do you focus on game concepts instead of strategic ideas?
Or are you like me, and take an idea and hash it out almost endlessly?
Whatever vs. worse players, it works anyway. Just stay convinced you beat them and it works. Pure standard against equals, stuff I tested over and over again. Chaotic improvisation against higher ups, most times trying to deviate standard timings. Throws them off, the weirder it is.
I have a standard portfolio of builds that I play most and keep on adding some more variations all the time, but don't really practice them as much. For example I play 60-70% standard 2-3 BO's, 20% I play variations and 10% I play new things all the time.
I think it's very important to keep on adding new strategies as each of them will teach you something new, for example how to maximize the use of a specific unit (you would never learn how to micro wraiths right if you don't play 2 port wraith once in a while. So when you for example need them vs some kind of a 2 base zerg air hive, you're more prepared if you played 2 port wraith for some period). You'll also learn a lot of transitions by playing different strategies and these transitions you can utilize afterwards as deviations from standard game (this will happen once in a while when you're thrown out of balance by a weird game)
Imbatoss, can you explain, what you mean by "game concepts"? I cannot really make sense of that.
If all of you say "strategies", how far do you go in planning that out before a game? (build order, approach to map, attack-timings and tactics)
I'd say an actual strategy - like in war, in rl - requires and is based on intel about the opponent. You go into a war with a strategy depending on your knowledge about opponent's forces/means, and you work on it as the battles go on, adapting the strategy to the changing realities.
In BW this would mean that you have a strategy for the matchup you're playing on a map, maybe even specifically for your opponent if you know him, but then you adapt depending on how things fall into place.
Boxer had some strategies that required everything to work according to plan, or he would fall behind too much. Like that TvT vs Hiya on Blue Storm. Similarly Flash's Bisu-stomp @ Monthy Hall.
My understanding of "strategic idea" is a complete outline of a certain matchup or game on a certain map: what to open up with, when to take bases, what armies to build, when and where to attack, how to actually work out an advantage and bring the opponent into a position where he has to gg. Then, one has to change that plan because some designated goals could not be achieved...
I read somewhere, that one should never change the strategy, but I'm not sure how that is meant. Is it coined to not making rash decisions which work against what you did so far? Does changing your strategy make you weaker necessarily? Or meant in the way that you never find a good strategy if you don't follow through with it?
I think of strategies far too rarely, I'm afraid, not to mention come up with my own...
I don't think I've ever gone into a game with a set build in mind (Unless cheesing) I come up with the most viable build after scouting the opponent and getting a feel for the style of game he's going for.
when i was a low lvl player i was training one build over and over in preparation for ISL.i remember that after training with alfio and zerggboy the build i was using made meso frustated cuz the build wasnt working,i wasnt feeling the build,so alfio told me,eon u cant play the game like this,training one build over and over will not carry you far as zerg player when you are the reactive race.in the end i stoped training the build and just used instead one i had in my mind and had much better results.but u know if you are terran player i guess training +1 4 barracks over and over is very helpful.
it happens to me watching movies or sc2 games(specially Maru games i comeback with better ideas of how to execute my builds,or add better steps into it.)
On January 21 2017 03:41 kogeT wrote: I have a standard portfolio of builds that I play most and keep on adding some more variations all the time, but don't really practice them as much. For example I play 60-70% standard 2-3 BO's, 20% I play variations and 10% I play new things all the time.
I think it's very important to keep on adding new strategies as each of them will teach you something new, for example how to maximize the use of a specific unit (you would never learn how to micro wraiths right if you don't play 2 port wraith once in a while. So when you for example need them vs some kind of a 2 base zerg air hive, you're more prepared if you played 2 port wraith for some period). You'll also learn a lot of transitions by playing different strategies and these transitions you can utilize afterwards as deviations from standard game (this will happen once in a while when you're thrown out of balance by a weird game)
That's interesting, and plays back into the OP. Will you become actually decent at wraith control by playing once in a while? It seems doubtful. That'll be a whole lot of wraith play down the road, surely, which can only happen through intense focus on the strategies incorporating that unit.
I like your rationale that new strategies help you deal with different situations more effectively, that's an interesting way to see it. On reflection, I think that certainly agrees with how I imagine such intense practice will be useful.
On January 21 2017 05:58 Highgamer wrote: Imbatoss, can you explain, what you mean by "game concepts"? I cannot really make sense of that.
If all of you say "strategies", how far do you go in planning that out before a game? (build order, approach to map, attack-timings and tactics)
I'd say an actual strategy - like in war, in rl - requires and is based on intel about the opponent. You go into a war with a strategy depending on your knowledge about opponent's forces/means, and you work on it as the battles go on, adapting the strategy to the changing realities.
In BW this would mean that you have a strategy for the matchup you're playing on a map, maybe even specifically for your opponent if you know him, but then you adapt depending on how things fall into place.
Boxer had some strategies that required everything to work according to plan, or he would fall behind too much. Like that TvT vs Hiya on Blue Storm. Similarly Flash's Bisu-stomp @ Monthy Hall.
My understanding of "strategic idea" is a complete outline of a certain matchup or game on a certain map: what to open up with, when to take bases, what armies to build, when and where to attack, how to actually work out an advantage and bring the opponent into a position where he has to gg. Then, one has to change that plan because some designated goals could not be achieved...
I read somewhere, that one should never change the strategy, but I'm not sure how that is meant. Is it coined to not making rash decisions which work against what you did so far? Does changing your strategy make you weaker necessarily? Or meant in the way that you never find a good strategy if you don't follow through with it?
I think of strategies far too rarely, I'm afraid, not to mention come up with my own...
So your idea of strategy is very much based on what I would imagine as "game concepts" (a pretty confusing term). General ideas of how an advantage can be gained or how something can be countered, as an overall approach for how to win. For example, his economy is x strength mine needs to by y, or else I should try to kill him within z amount of time before his advantage becomes overpowering.
I would say my approach to strategy is a specific idea or method, in that game, for gaining an advantage. I'm somehow going to take the initiative by engineering a situation which gives me some advantage, and try and use general game knowledge and skill to turn that into a win. It doesn't feel nice, to me, to play reactively.
Your point about intel is a good one and makes me think, not because intel is a novel idea in BW (we all scout, I hope!!), but because it's so often not prioritised nearly enough. I think there's a tendency to think we can understand the reality and adapt based on what we see without actively scouting, such as the army we're bumping into, but often, by then, it's too late! For example, when your army gets crushed in a mirror MU because you didn't check how much production your opponent was building. This is a totally reactive style. I think in my mind, I often confuse reactive play with on-the-fly strategising, for example, scouting your opponent's tech and adjusting your army composition to beat it, not just to avoid dying against it.
Perhaps that's why I become over-concerned with individual ideas in my own play, whereas the key solution is often to simply scout more dilligently! Engineering a situation in advance isn't the only way to seize the initiative. Opportunities constantly present themselves, if you're watching...
On January 21 2017 06:51 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote: when i was a low lvl player i was training one build over and over in preparation for ISL.i remember that after training with alfio and zerggboy the build i was using made meso frustated cuz the build wasnt working,i wasnt feeling the build,so alfio told me,eon u cant play the game like this,training one build over and over will not carry you far as zerg player when you are the reactive race.in the end i stoped training the build and just used instead one i had in my mind and had much better results.but u know if you are terran player i guess training +1 4 barracks over and over is very helpful.
it happens to me watching movies or sc2 games(specially Maru games i comeback with better ideas of how to execute my builds,or add better steps into it.)
That's interesting, partly because Zerg often sort of makes the first "move", and as such I don't usually imagine it as reactive.
You're also clearly an extremely skilled player, now probably more than ever. If you were to prepare hard for a tournament now, would you focus on individual builds again given that your general game skill has reached such a high level? I often think that being a solid player is step one, and that the best thing then is to be also unpredictable on top of it. That is to say, have a wide variety of strategies which you can use effectively at any time.
I play standart builds, usually 1 per MU. In some MUs I have a macro build (e.g. siege expand, 1 gate expand, 4 hatch before gas) and an agressive build (2fac). I play same and standart vs all the opponents, even vs the best of them (couple of times Bs and As joined my games). I lose a lot, but so what I'm not really focusing on being victorious. It also often feels very good when I have lost but played nicely.
I play P, just started again. Vs Z I try 11/11 nex/forge into sairs/lots. Vs T I usually do 1 gate goon/range exp, with or without reavers. Vs P I go 1 gate/ goon/range into whatever I feel like after I see if he does 1 or 2 gates.
I get frustrated nowadays because when I lose it's because of my horrible execution, I don't feel outsmarted, I feel out-played mechanically and I hate it. Back when I played actively I reached B lvl on ICCup and now I can barely keep C- and I keep having less units at certain times that I am used to have. Like, I used to be maxed vs T at around minute 12, now I have like 150 - 160 supply when I am not harassed and it sucks. Still having fun but I know I can do better.
On January 21 2017 02:42 ImbaTosS wrote: I find that when I'm working a strategy out and trying to get it right, particularly if it's something I've come up with and not something which I'm imitating, I will repeat it over, and over, and over on ladder, trying to refine and understand it.
I'm curious, what's your approach? Do you just play and use whatever build comes into your head at the beginning? Do you focus on game concepts instead of strategic ideas?
Or are you like me, and take an idea and hash it out almost endlessly?
What works best, in your experience?
Depends on what you want to achieve I guess. If you really want to improve a certain build, you have to play that over and over to increase your understanding of what adjustments you have to make based on what your opponent is doing. But if I only play for fun or to win of course I won't be using the same opening all the time.
Just to clarify things, I'm not trying to make a specific point here, which it seems people are looking for. I'm more interested to know what everyone else does! Maybe then I can apply it, maybe not, but it has been fascinating for me so far.
Eh, I usually pick one opening per match-up and practice it for a few weeks, only varying via adaptations\follow-ups that I do depending on scouting information. When people I play against repetitively start to blind counter me every game, I put aside the desire to "just practice", and blind counter them, instead. Since I vary the main openings I practice through time, there'll be some 3-5 per match-up I'm comfortable with, although there still are (viable) styles I rarely touch at all.
On January 21 2017 08:05 Bakuryu wrote: eonzerg what build were you practicing
It was 3 hatch lair into 6 htacheries,the 6 as expansion into +1 carapace air and ground basing my army in muta scourge lings into ultra ling defiler,but i couldnt make the transition in good shape.
Elegant to be honest in the last years my preparation for any tourney is fish ladder fs map,i do check streams and vods and get everything together in my head,so it is easy for me to add new build even if never tried it before.the last time i did train for an event was the showmatch vs scan,i did iit with cryoc and in practise the late games were okay,it wasnt the case vs scan :d
On January 22 2017 03:43 13Julia wrote: There is no strategy, you need to become one with starcraft and achive enlightedness in the chaotic flow of unencumbered play.
On January 21 2017 08:05 Bakuryu wrote: eonzerg what build were you practicing
It was 3 hatch lair into 6 htacheries,the 6 as expansion into +1 carapace air and ground basing my army in muta scourge lings into ultra ling defiler,but i couldnt make the transition in good shape.
I have a go-to build for each match-up, and deviations in match-ups (i.e., 1-base toss, mech terran, etc), then other builds that I've practiced a lot.
It helps to write the builds down. Then they stick in your brain better, and you can hold more builds in your mind. What I do depends on the current map's "Meta". For example, if I play ZvT on Destination, I can be sure that I'm probably going to face a mech terran. The "Meta" also changes depending on what progamers do. If Bisu, Flash, Jaedong, Stork, Zero, or Fantasy do a thing, I expect to start seeing it on the ladder.
I almost always cheese in free for all games with my friends. I can't not do it. Even if I get killed immediately after. It's just too much fun. Also when I manage to survive and when the guy I cheese manages to survive it becomes these epic grudges throughout the FFA that are so damn fun.
On January 22 2017 07:03 ninazerg wrote: I have a go-to build for each match-up, and deviations in match-ups (i.e., 1-base toss, mech terran, etc), then other builds that I've practiced a lot.
Yah I'm the same way. I have very standard builds that mentally I'm always prepared to play in each game with three exceptions:
1. I'll deviate if my opponent does something unconventional or forces me to react in a certain way, like you mentioned 1-base toss or mech terran.
2. If I know my opponent's build, I will obviously change mine. For instance, if I know my opponent is someone who tries to Nexus before cannons PvZ, or 14 CCs... I'll 9 pool. This happens quite often, because people tend to play the same and it just feels like a free advantage. Sounds so simple but the amount of players I go against don't adjust or try to take this advantage.
3. On the other end of the spectrum, I'll try occasionally to switch up my build if my opponent is unpredictable but knows my style so I don't become exploitable. For instance, people expect me to 12 Hatch every game so they'll be the ones who try to open with a more greedy build. I like to balance my range.
My approach is sometimes a bit different, and something I really recommend for mid level players. Practice the use of certain units first then you can train the BO for it, meaning: - When I felt like I had no good control or multitask while dropping what I would do is to lean over robotic builds over and over, 1 gate robo, 2 gate robo, sair/reaver etc... as to improve in this aspect of the game, same for arbiters, storms, carriers, dragoon micro... you name it. - Once you feel comfortable with the units you can start trying specific BO's that maximize the use of this units, you can't do 2 base arbiter if you can't use them properly because you will just get stomped over and over again and you will think the BO is bad which will limit your choices.
When playing "unvariable BO's", like PvZ you can open FFE, or 11Gate exp, or 10/12Gate if its ladder do whatever you feel like, for instance currently I am doing 11Gate exp instead of the usual FFE because I feel its more demanding in terms of micro and multitasking for me, which I need to get back in shape.
When playing a "serious" game, the more info you can have on your opp before the match the better to help you prepare, then it is up to scouting + situation, that's why you need to have a good amount of different options to choose the better one.
about the only thing I would tend to make "static" when I play is the first two buildings, where I build my pylon, and the gate.. well I almost only open pylon>gate, never nexus first or forge. On what follows I make variations but there are things I come back to often. Then I would tend to try to break that repetition. I want to be able to play vs random so that's one reason why I don't like forge or nexus first openings I think. So I don't FE vs Z, I make my pylon at the top of the slope like I would kinda have to if I were playing vs random. Which is not even true and maybe it's more like not placing your pylon at natural is dangerous vs Z but fine otherwise?^^ not exactly. Generally I don't start with a long term plan for the game I build it up as the game goes, and I think that bruce lee quote is great^^
I enjoy having basic openings that flow into my style of play which is one of a more macro orientated playstyle. So, I generally open every match up with a standard fast expand. Depending on what i scout i have various builds that fit well into fast expansion openings. Those are the things I constantly practice because its the most enjoyable to me. Some people are more agressive which is great too, that just doesnt suit my playstyle. Find your strengths: macro. Micro, turtle, aggression, or whatever and mold your builds around the playstyle that you are strongest at and have the most fun playing.