Improving SC2 Mechanics by Playing Aggressive Brought to you by the University of Waterloo CSL Team Lecture by Tim Clark aka Tang
Happy Holidays TeamLiquid!
You may remember back in October, I was invited by the University of Waterloo CSL Team to present a lecture on the Fundamentals of a Hyper-Aggressive Zerg Playstyle. We analyzed why zerg is a good race to be aggressive and the types of builds that can punish or even kill greedy opponents in the early game. My goal was to show that even though macro is considered "standard", it's not the only way to excel at SC2. If you haven't viewed it yet, you can find the TL thread below:
Last month, I was invited back to give another lecture. I still wanted to talk about aggression, but I decided the topic should be something everyone can benefit from, not just zerg players. So the topic of November's lecture is "Improving SC2 Mechanics by Playing Aggressive." In case you aren't aware, there's a charity called "Movember" in Canada where everyone wears a mustache (no matter how goofy it looks) for the whole month of November to raise donations. So if you're wondering why I'm sporting a very thin and silly mustache, that's why haha. Check out http://ca.movember.com/ to donate or spread awareness.
Here are the links to the games discussed in this lecture: + Show Spoiler +
A lot of the time when players adopt a pure-macro style, they get in the habit of doing one thing at a time - first, they'll focus ONLY on macro by building workers and supply, then when they get an army they'll focus ONLY on micro when they push out to attack. But if you're utilizing an aggressive style, then you're likely moving out with an army multiple times during every game. Because of this, you're constantly controlling you units (micro) while building additional units or workers (macro) simultaneously (multitasking). It sounds ridiculous to say that playing aggressively improves your macro faster than playing economical, but it's actually true. In many situations, the ability to manage your production and economy while microing is a far more critical skill than just being able to max out quickly.
Additional Tip for Learning Players: Worker scout every game. If your goal is to improve, give yourself as much to do as possible. If you're watching the scouting drone, you're spending as much time as possible looking away from your base but still building workers and supply. And who knows, you may get some extra information, scout cheese, or even throw your opponent off their timings with worker harass.
We've all heard Day9 talk about the importance of having a mid-game plan - and it's incredibly sound advice because a lot of players are programmed to just drone and drone and drone, to build up their economy as fast as possible without having a clear plan of how to put their resources to efficient use. It's important to ask yourself: "How am I going to win the game?" Since you usually have to attack to win a game of StarCraft II, my argument is your mid-game plan should to be attack often and well. There are a few things to consider when you're structuring your timing attacks...
1) Planning: How can I maximize my timings and economy to give me the strongest possible push? 2) Execution: How can I manage my units more effectively? 3) Foresight: What viable transitions do I have in the event I don't win the game outright? What queues do I have to stop unit production and choose a new tech path?
Reason 3: "The Ball is in your Court" (Throw your opponent off their game)
As you've probably already come to terms with, SC2 is a game of psychology and mindset. The more you throw your opponent off their plan/build order, the more of a psychological advantage you have. Some players argue that being bad mannered is a way to put your opponent on tilt, but I disagree with this - you don't have to disrespect someone to throw them off their game. Playing aggressive is the best way to do this, because as the attacking player you have several advantages...
1) The defensive player is contained, so they can't harass or scout, meaning they don't know whether you're droning or you're planning an all-in. 2) You gain map control and scouting information when you attack. 3) You dictate the flow of the game, giving you the crucial mindset advantage of feeling in control. Have you ever had that feeling where you executed an attack perfectly, did lots of damage, and knew not only that were ahead and but also exactly how you were going to finish the game with another attack 5-10 minutes later? That's the feeling I want you to have all the time.
Think you're an aggressive player? Try this quiz for fun.
1) If you attack and do lots of damage, nearly crippling your opponent's economy and army what do you do?
a) Build up another timing attack immediately. b) Move into a standard and safe mid game with a timing attack or at least some form of pressure. c) Take a risk by expanding, teching, or going all-in. d) Macro up hard with multiple bases so I can afford high-tier units and maxed out armies. Answer: + Show Spoiler +
A. Build up another timing attack immediately. This is the ideal scenario: If your opponent is crippled, there's no way he can hold another attack. Don't give him the chance to win by letting him tech or expand.
2) If you attack and do almost no damage and think you're behind, what do you do? a) Build up another timing attack immediately. b) Move into a standard and safe mid game with a timing attack or at least some form of pressure. c) Take a risk by expanding, teching, or going all-in. d) Macro up hard with multiple bases so I can afford high-tier units and maxed out armies. Answer: + Show Spoiler +
C. Take a risk by expanding, teching, or going all-in. This is the worst scenario and in general, you almost have to take a risk. This is a great time go mutas, DTs, cloak banshee, or drops when they're behind. Or, you can try to REALLY power your economy to catch up
3) If you attack and do some damage and feel like you're on equal grounds, what do you do? a) Build up another timing attack immediately. b) Move into a standard and safe mid game with a timing attack or at least some form of pressure. c) Take a risk by expanding, teching, or going all-in. d) Macro up hard with multiple bases so I can afford high-tier units and maxed out armies. Answer:+ Show Spoiler +
B. This should be how most of your games pan out, and you should always have a next step assuming a fairly equal exchange. An aggressive player will have a planned response at each stage of the game to pressure or kill the opponent.
If you get all questions correct, you're definitely an aggressive player and ready for ladder. If you get two correct, you could afford to turn up the heat a bit. 1 Correct, you're too passive and need to attack more. 0 Correct, did you even watch the lecture?!
Another important point about timing attacks, which I neglected in my lecture, is one of the best exercises for brand new players (silver/bronze) is to perfect a simple timing attack. Things like 7roach rush, 3rax stim push, and 4gate are a great way to practice refining a build order and executing it. Then once you've got the basics of a 1 base build down, you can experiment with executing the one base attack, expanding, executing a 2base attack, expanding, and so on. A very basic example for newer players of each race: 3Rax -> Expo -> 6Rax -> Expo -> 9Rax 7Roach rush -> Expo -> Roach/Speedling attack -> Expo -> Roach/Ling/Baneling attack (Similar to 3 barrel bust) 3-4Gate -> Expo -> 6-7 Gate -> Expo -> 7-10Gate -> Expo
And that concludes the recap of the lecture. Thank you all for reading, enjoy your holidays, and if you have some downtime over the break, use it to practice some fun and aggressive new builds! Please post comments/questions below. Also, post any suggestions for aggressive builds you think would help players improve,
On December 23 2011 05:55 Markwerf wrote: How exactly does this fit with the university? Are these lectures part of some course or is it simply hosted at the university?
The University of Waterloo Collegiate Starleague Team hosts the event on campus, it's not part of a course it's just an event the club hosts. It's not just for Waterloo students though, anyone in the region can observe.
Question 1 is vague, because there are lots of damages you can do. If your damage consists of mostly econ/tech damage (i.e. you destroyed his expo, sniped key tech buildings or production facilities), but his core army is still intact, you should play defensively and ride out your econ advantage. Trying to attack again soon will result in loss.
On December 23 2011 06:09 Rabo wrote: Question 1 is vague, because there are lots of damages you can do. If your damage consists of mostly econ/tech damage (i.e. you destroyed his expo, sniped key tech buildings or production facilities), but his core army is still intact, you should play defensively and ride out your econ advantage. Trying to attack again soon will result in loss.
That's a good point, I meant if you did crippling damage to army and economy (or economy before a large army is produced).
Thanks Tang. Since i saw your first lecture i was trying to get more agressive in my play. and as u said my micro and macro increased because of doing so many things at one time. its hard:-) But its worth it!.
Okay, so the quality of the VoD is crap but the quality of the content is golden. Definitely need a better camera and camera man with some lighting and maybe even a digital input. It's hard to see the replay, because of the quality, the lighting, and the fact that the camera man was more interested in getting you in the shot (even if you're not talking, like in game 2--you vs painuser) than he is in the replay.
Oh Tang, Tang, PLEASE stop encouraging players to 8 pool drone all-in me on ladder. I know you're still bitter about losing that way to the University of Rochester in CSL (how does the only loss for your entire team all season being yours feel?) but surely we can be adults here and play games of skill rather than luck.
In all seriousness, I actually do disagree with... well everything you have written here and in your last guide. Over-aggressive play is a good way to win games, and I give you that. It is also a terrible way to improve, and while you'll surely talk my ear off in another guide about how cheese is the ultimate pinnacle of skill, please understand that when you play in such a way that you'll only win if your opponent fucks something up, you're simply crossing your fingers and praying to god that your opponent fails. Your wins are not your success, but your opponent's failure. Remember that next time you consider writing a guide.
On December 23 2011 08:45 UmiNotsuki wrote: Oh Tang, Tang, PLEASE stop encouraging players to 8 pool drone all-in me on ladder. I know you're still bitter about losing that way to the University of Rochester in CSL (how does the only loss for your entire team all season being yours feel?) but surely we can be adults here and play games of skill rather than luck.
In all seriousness, I actually do disagree with... well everything you have written here and in your last guide. Over-aggressive play is a good way to win games, and I give you that. It is also a terrible way to improve, and while you'll surely talk my ear off in another guide about how cheese is the ultimate pinnacle of skill, please understand that when you play in such a way that you'll only win if your opponent fucks something up, you're simply crossing your fingers and praying to god that your opponent fails. Your wins are not your success, but your opponent's failure. Remember that next time you consider writing a guide.
Haha you mean this game? http://www.youtube.com/ratanakdefectueux#p/c/EC5D8CC803E679CB/12/c7tt3jkAaao I'm disappointed I lost that CSL game, but it's ok. He cheesed me with a ling/drone all in, but executed it well and deserved the win. This lecture really isn't about using cheese, it's more about planning out your timing attacks and "next steps." I don't really think it's about hoping your opponent messes up, more about putting pressure on your opponent.
Thanks for the video and the recap. I'm working on getting more aggressive -- learning to multitask is what makes SC2 an intriguing hobby for me, and the argument posed that by playing aggressively you are forced to learn macro while multitasking makes sense. It also makes fun to move out and around the map more often. Thanks for the quality material.
On December 23 2011 08:45 UmiNotsuki wrote: Oh Tang, Tang, PLEASE stop encouraging players to 8 pool drone all-in me on ladder. I know you're still bitter about losing that way to the University of Rochester in CSL (how does the only loss for your entire team all season being yours feel?) but surely we can be adults here and play games of skill rather than luck.
In all seriousness, I actually do disagree with... well everything you have written here and in your last guide. Over-aggressive play is a good way to win games, and I give you that. It is also a terrible way to improve, and while you'll surely talk my ear off in another guide about how cheese is the ultimate pinnacle of skill, please understand that when you play in such a way that you'll only win if your opponent fucks something up, you're simply crossing your fingers and praying to god that your opponent fails. Your wins are not your success, but your opponent's failure. Remember that next time you consider writing a guide.
On December 23 2011 09:03 TyrantPotato wrote: ah another tang lecture....
i wonder how many <10 post new users will post in this thread to praise your brilliance.
If you have a problem with his lectures, why don't you try contributing builds and strategies yourself? Maybe you should recognize his passion and dedication and help write a guide or give suggestions instead of trying to shut him down? Tang is doing a lot more for the community than you are, and many players are benefiting from his help. Flaming on the internet is pretty easy to do, and it also accomplishes nothing.
I find it interesting mods are so quick to close and warn people who disagree with them, or post a guide with a logo on it, but leave blatant flames and trolling in guides without repercussion. Umi, kindly quit spamming the thread, if you're not going to contribute anything.
Tang, it might be useful to maybe do a few lessons on late game situations, or transitions into a normal game from aggression. I think that's the only way for those uninitiated with aggression to see that making a few units isn't cheese... that, or they're hopeless.
Alright guys, I know many of you have your skeptical views on this style of play, and moreover with the way Tang is presenting it. But the truth is what Tang is teaching is a very valid way to play on the ladder. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, just as a Macro oriented style of playing goes. However, there is the common misconception that this style of play should not work at all but honestly if you aren't already pro or on the tip top of the GM ladder- then you're in no position to make that claim.
People still lose and aggressive players still win and benefit from playing this style. Let me tell you why.
Numero Uno- It's FUN. Regardless of whether or not you win or lose, when you're playing this game as your hobby this style of play makes the game very exciting, and equally refreshing if you've been playing a macro style this entire time. Other reasons include the foundations that it provides lower level players with, they learn about the dynamics of timing attacks and how easily effected they are when there are small changes in either your build order or decision making. You can say the same about a macro oriented style, but you need to know both to have a very nice handle on it without playing hundreds upon hundreds of macro games.
You cannot be a non-pro macro fiend and expect to win a bo3 against a significantly superior opponent. You need to be able to execute an aggressive tactic, PERFECTLY, sometimes in order to get that one up versus your opponent, after all SC2 is also a mind game. That is why I find Tang's in-depth analysis of aggressive play as an evil necessity (I say evil because we all hate losing to it). For higher level players you may find that this information and analysis is unnecessary, but that only pertains to you, not the lower leagues who hardly have a grasp around a standard game. It's easier for them to understand this, rather than all the intricacies of a long game, furthermore Tang does his best to cover it completely so you won't have to go back and re-examine why your aggressive tactic failed to work only to find fundamental flaws. Sure you may think this could be explained in 10 minutes, but you could do the same for macro- why not have more in-depth analysis?
Well in the end it helped me. I may not use this aggressive style exclusively, but it most definitely helped me out in getting out of Diamond and climbing my way up higher in the Master League. Being a former 100% standard, macro player- I can say that there are many missed and unpracticed fundamentals you gain from playing Tang's style. Understanding how to make an aggressive play work in your game is essential in becoming a better player.
To be honest, it doesn't really matter if you play aggressive or if you play standard. Its about how well you know your build and how well you execute. I think your learn about as much with either, it doesn't really matter.
The most important part with aggressive play, and what differentiates it from cheese, is having a good transition. Wether it be 6 pool or otherwise. No one should cheese on the ladder, it doesn't lead to growth. Aggression is not the same as cheese.
we should conduct an experiment. get two newbies, one trained by a macro-orientated coach and one trained by an aggressive-orientated coach. would be interesting to see who comes out on top
I play a macro based standard game every game. However, I learned some early roach push builds when I was starting out and I think Tang has a good point about improving macro by playing aggressive. When you are still learning basic mechanics, being aggressive is a good idea, because you learn to keep up with spending and injects while moving an army. I didn't watch the whole lecture, but another point is that playing aggressive makes you learn when your army can beat the opposing army, which improves your decision making.
I have seen a lot of pros streaming coaching sessions and it is very common for them to recommend that a low-level player master a one base roach push before moving on to more sophisticated play, because you have to walk before you run.
Finally, if nobody played aggressive zerg on the ladder, then P and T would get super greedy and go nexus/cc first in every game vs zerg. Somebody has to keep greedy players (like me) honest.
TL;DR -- Tang is helping lower league people learn and enjoy SC2. He's not telling people NOT to play standard. Let him do his thing.
On December 23 2011 08:45 UmiNotsuki wrote: Oh Tang, Tang, PLEASE stop encouraging players to 8 pool drone all-in me on ladder. I know you're still bitter about losing that way to the University of Rochester in CSL (how does the only loss for your entire team all season being yours feel?) but surely we can be adults here and play games of skill rather than luck.
In all seriousness, I actually do disagree with... well everything you have written here and in your last guide. Over-aggressive play is a good way to win games, and I give you that. It is also a terrible way to improve, and while you'll surely talk my ear off in another guide about how cheese is the ultimate pinnacle of skill, please understand that when you play in such a way that you'll only win if your opponent fucks something up, you're simply crossing your fingers and praying to god that your opponent fails. Your wins are not your success, but your opponent's failure. Remember that next time you consider writing a guide.
1. Our team has 5 or 6 losses this season. Can you at least make accurate flames please? 2. Your opinion is your right but it'd be nice if you actually took in the content of the post before just blatantly attacking the author who took the time to help out a part of the community. Not everyone plays the same. That'd be stupid. Would you really want to watch a game where every single match is exactly the same? He never said cheese is the pinnacle of skill. He's saying that being aggressive can be beneficial to your play. 3. Counting on your opponent to fuck up is really not impossible. Nobody plays the game perfectly so obviously there will be mistakes in play.
On December 23 2011 09:03 TyrantPotato wrote: ah another tang lecture....
i wonder how many <10 post new users will post in this thread to praise your brilliance.
I wonder how many 900 post new users will post in this thread to trash talk Tang
On December 23 2011 15:09 TechnoZerg wrote: we should conduct an experiment. get two newbies, one trained by a macro-orientated coach and one trained by an aggressive-orientated coach. would be interesting to see who comes out on top
That's actually a really interesting idea lol. I've had some students who want to learn aggressive styles and some who want to learn macro. I keep notes on my students' mechanics (supply, injects, constant production, larva, etc) and there was a significant difference in the amount of improvement with those adopting an aggressive style, but it could also be that I'm better at aggression than macro. It would be an interesting experiment to combine coaches' data and see what styles really do yield the greatest improvements.
The quiz is really strange and the answers don't really make much sense at all. Let me just plow through all the answers first, then through the questions:
a) Build up another timing attack immediately.
This one makes relative sense, considering that if you do X amount of damage you should be transitioning into a new timing attack, although this is something you should be transitioning during or right before the attack. It can't really be done reactionary after the attack in all circumstances.
b) Move into a standard and safe mid game with a timing attack or at least some form of pressure.
This is the one that really itches me. The attack appearantly already happened in the early game, which should mean I'm already an aggressive player anyway. It also shows that the 'attack' is an all in that has to do damage, otherwise you would already be transitioning naturally into that midgame and a follow up timing attack.
c) Take a risk by expanding, teching, or going all-in.
Any good player will use the time you gain during the attack to expand or tech. The only thing you can do reactively is 'all in' which is only really a good option if your first attack did like 0 damage or if you did such a crushing blow to him that you should have already won, but the opponent is only hanging in by a small thread.
d) Macro up hard with multiple bases so I can afford high-tier units and maxed out armies.
Only idiots would go straight from attack into turtle 200 mode. A varied player will mix in harass or timing attacks along the way unless he wants to, for example, hive rush for broodlords for a lategame timing attack. If the opponent allows you to simply go for a 200/200 ball after an attack that did damage to him, he is bad.
So moving onto the questions:
1) If you attack and do lots of damage, nearly crippling your opponent's economy and army what do you do?
The right answer would be, whatever the hell you wanna do. You can expand, tech or go for a strong follow up timing attack. There is no wrong answer if you are in the lead, pick any of them and you should be good to go.
2) If you attack and do almost no damage and think you're behind, what do you do?
Now you're basically pidgeonholed into all in attacking to even the score out. Only in SvS ( Stupid player versus Stupid player ) will teching or expanding get you back into the game.
3) If you attack and do some damage and feel like you're on equal grounds, what do you do?
Well you should have gotten an expansion or additional tech during the attack anyway so you have an advantage in that front, so you abuse it. Be it by macroing up an army faster than him and going for a timing attack or abusing the tech advantage to go for a timing push or mass harass.
The way you win in Starcraft is by abusing advantages that you have. Certainly attacking and being aggressive ( not just by timing attacks but by harassment as well ) are some amazing options to abuse those times when your army is superior to his. But it can't always be 'be aggressive'. There are certain situations where macroing up or teching up will be far, far more effective in the long run than being aggressive could be. I won't go the length that your play is bad ( which it isn't, it's just different ) but I will say that placing yourself into boxes ( Aggressor/Reactor/Macro-or ) you make yourself one-dimensional.
On the ladder that doesn't really shine through that much, as you just face an opponent in a Bo1 and you don't know whether he is aggressive, reactive or macro oriented. But in any other format, good players will sniff out your one-dimensionalism and destroy you. So this is why I at the same time welcome your input, and scratch my head about it. It doesn't explain the full spectrum of Starcraft, just the aggressive portion.
I would rather face an 'aggressive opponent' over an aggressive styled, but not too bad in tech or macro games, opponent simply because you can expect much less and you can be far more at ease that in any other field you will be better than him.
One dimensionalism is great for ladder heroes, it sucks utterly in a tournament or BoX setting however. So it totally depends on what you want to be, Grandmaster or Champion of Craftcup #329. Most of the people on this forum expect you to want the latter over the former.
On December 24 2011 01:23 Chaosvuistje wrote: I just want to comment on the quiz.
The quiz is really strange and the answers don't really make much sense at all. Let me just plow through all the answers first, then through the questions:
a) Build up another timing attack immediately.
This one makes relative sense, considering that if you do X amount of damage you should be transitioning into a new timing attack, although this is something you should be transitioning during or right before the attack. It can't really be done reactionary after the attack in all circumstances.
b) Move into a standard and safe mid game with a timing attack or at least some form of pressure.
This is the one that really itches me. The attack appearantly already happened in the early game, which should mean I'm already an aggressive player anyway. It also shows that the 'attack' is an all in that has to do damage, otherwise you would already be transitioning naturally into that midgame and a follow up timing attack.
c) Take a risk by expanding, teching, or going all-in.
Any good player will use the time you gain during the attack to expand or tech. The only thing you can do reactively is 'all in' which is only really a good option if your first attack did like 0 damage or if you did such a crushing blow to him that you should have already won, but the opponent is only hanging in by a small thread.
d) Macro up hard with multiple bases so I can afford high-tier units and maxed out armies.
Only idiots would go straight from attack into turtle 200 mode. A varied player will mix in harass or timing attacks along the way unless he wants to, for example, hive rush for broodlords for a lategame timing attack. If the opponent allows you to simply go for a 200/200 ball after an attack that did damage to him, he is bad.
So moving onto the questions:
1) If you attack and do lots of damage, nearly crippling your opponent's economy and army what do you do?
The right answer would be, whatever the hell you wanna do. You can expand, tech or go for a strong follow up timing attack. There is no wrong answer if you are in the lead, pick any of them and you should be good to go.
2) If you attack and do almost no damage and think you're behind, what do you do?
Now you're basically pidgeonholed into all in attacking to even the score out. Only in SvS ( Stupid player versus Stupid player ) will teching or expanding get you back into the game.
3) If you attack and do some damage and feel like you're on equal grounds, what do you do?
Well you should have gotten an expansion or additional tech during the attack anyway so you have an advantage in that front, so you abuse it. Be it by macroing up an army faster than him and going for a timing attack or abusing the tech advantage to go for a timing push or mass harass.
The way you win in Starcraft is by abusing advantages that you have. Certainly attacking and being aggressive ( not just by timing attacks but by harassment as well ) are some amazing options to abuse those times when your army is superior to his. But it can't always be 'be aggressive'. There are certain situations where macroing up or teching up will be far, far more effective in the long run than being aggressive could be. I won't go the length that your play is bad ( which it isn't, it's just different ) but I will say that placing yourself into boxes ( Aggressor/Reactor/Macro-or ) you make yourself one-dimensional.
On the ladder that doesn't really shine through that much, as you just face an opponent in a Bo1 and you don't know whether he is aggressive, reactive or macro oriented. But in any other format, good players will sniff out your one-dimensionalism and destroy you. So this is why I at the same time welcome your input, and scratch my head about it. It doesn't explain the full spectrum of Starcraft, just the aggressive portion.
I would rather face an 'aggressive opponent' over an aggressive styled, but not too bad in tech or macro games, opponent simply because you can expect much less and you can be far more at ease that in any other field you will be better than him.
One dimensionalism is great for ladder heroes, it sucks utterly in a tournament or BoX setting however. So it totally depends on what you want to be, Grandmaster or Champion of Craftcup #329. Most of the people on this forum expect you to want the latter over the former.
You definitely make some good points, Chaos. In terms of ladder, you're right in that you can do the same build EVERY game if you want and still make it to a pretty high level - but this isn't necessarily what I mean by improving by being aggressive. It's more about planning your steps, and using aggression (which forces you to look away from your base while macroing) to improve your mechanics. For example, I'm well-known for opening with speedling aggression in ZvZ and Roach/Ling aggression in ZvT. While I may do similar aggressive openings in each game, I rarely execute the same follow through twice. It's the situation I'm in during and after my early-game pressure that determines which path I choose. ZvZ is my best matchup, so I'll describe a few common scenarios:
First, let's say I open speedlings and end up doing crippling damage because my opponent neglects banelings. I'm just going to continue streaming lings until the cows come home, because I know I can end it - he just won't be able to match production once he loses so much economy and it's essentially a guaranteed win if I continue the attack. Second, if I open speedlings and he gets LOTS of banelings in time, and my lings do virtually no damage as a result, I'll gain some advantages in the form of map control and squeeze out a few drones. There's one problem though - I'm likely behind in economy and his tech (banelings) is superior to mind (lingspeed), so it'll be hard to move into a standard macro game because there's always the threat of a ling/baneling counter attack. In this situation, I'm probably only going to squeeze out a few more drones to support a roach warren, get 6-8 roaches and commit to a Roach/Ling all-in. I'm hoping to abuse the fact that he thinks he held the pressure well with banelings, and also choose a type of tech (roaches) that performs well against his response to my lings (banelings). Also, if he decides to counter-attack me, I can hold it easily. Last, if I go speedlings and we end up in a bit of a 'stalemate' where I do decent damage, enough to justify my zergling investment and end up on equal grounds with my opponent, that's where I'll likely play a standard macro game and move into upgraded roaches and infestors (or mutas) off 2 bases. If he's not looking to attack me, and he's adequately prepared for another attack, there's no choice but to macro up.
I appreciate the feedback, and I mean everyone will have different opinions on the "correct" thing to do in each scenario, but I hope this helps to explain my reasoning on the quiz questions/answers.
Interesting quiz, I pretty much took it before I watched the lecture, got 2/3, just that last one tbh if i'm on equal grounds I tend to macro up and mass expand to try to gain the economic edge.
On December 24 2011 01:23 Chaosvuistje wrote: I just want to comment on the quiz.
The quiz is really strange and the answers don't really make much sense at all. Let me just plow through all the answers first, then through the questions:
a) Build up another timing attack immediately.
This one makes relative sense, considering that if you do X amount of damage you should be transitioning into a new timing attack, although this is something you should be transitioning during or right before the attack. It can't really be done reactionary after the attack in all circumstances.
b) Move into a standard and safe mid game with a timing attack or at least some form of pressure.
This is the one that really itches me. The attack appearantly already happened in the early game, which should mean I'm already an aggressive player anyway. It also shows that the 'attack' is an all in that has to do damage, otherwise you would already be transitioning naturally into that midgame and a follow up timing attack.
c) Take a risk by expanding, teching, or going all-in.
Any good player will use the time you gain during the attack to expand or tech. The only thing you can do reactively is 'all in' which is only really a good option if your first attack did like 0 damage or if you did such a crushing blow to him that you should have already won, but the opponent is only hanging in by a small thread.
d) Macro up hard with multiple bases so I can afford high-tier units and maxed out armies.
Only idiots would go straight from attack into turtle 200 mode. A varied player will mix in harass or timing attacks along the way unless he wants to, for example, hive rush for broodlords for a lategame timing attack. If the opponent allows you to simply go for a 200/200 ball after an attack that did damage to him, he is bad.
So moving onto the questions:
1) If you attack and do lots of damage, nearly crippling your opponent's economy and army what do you do?
The right answer would be, whatever the hell you wanna do. You can expand, tech or go for a strong follow up timing attack. There is no wrong answer if you are in the lead, pick any of them and you should be good to go.
2) If you attack and do almost no damage and think you're behind, what do you do?
Now you're basically pidgeonholed into all in attacking to even the score out. Only in SvS ( Stupid player versus Stupid player ) will teching or expanding get you back into the game.
3) If you attack and do some damage and feel like you're on equal grounds, what do you do?
Well you should have gotten an expansion or additional tech during the attack anyway so you have an advantage in that front, so you abuse it. Be it by macroing up an army faster than him and going for a timing attack or abusing the tech advantage to go for a timing push or mass harass.
The way you win in Starcraft is by abusing advantages that you have. Certainly attacking and being aggressive ( not just by timing attacks but by harassment as well ) are some amazing options to abuse those times when your army is superior to his. But it can't always be 'be aggressive'. There are certain situations where macroing up or teching up will be far, far more effective in the long run than being aggressive could be. I won't go the length that your play is bad ( which it isn't, it's just different ) but I will say that placing yourself into boxes ( Aggressor/Reactor/Macro-or ) you make yourself one-dimensional.
On the ladder that doesn't really shine through that much, as you just face an opponent in a Bo1 and you don't know whether he is aggressive, reactive or macro oriented. But in any other format, good players will sniff out your one-dimensionalism and destroy you. So this is why I at the same time welcome your input, and scratch my head about it. It doesn't explain the full spectrum of Starcraft, just the aggressive portion.
I would rather face an 'aggressive opponent' over an aggressive styled, but not too bad in tech or macro games, opponent simply because you can expect much less and you can be far more at ease that in any other field you will be better than him.
One dimensionalism is great for ladder heroes, it sucks utterly in a tournament or BoX setting however. So it totally depends on what you want to be, Grandmaster or Champion of Craftcup #329. Most of the people on this forum expect you to want the latter over the former.
You definitely make some good points, Chaos. In terms of ladder, you're right in that you can do the same build EVERY game if you want and still make it to a pretty high level - but this isn't necessarily what I mean by improving by being aggressive. It's more about planning your steps, and using aggression (which forces you to look away from your base while macroing) to improve your mechanics. For example, I'm well-known for opening with speedling aggression in ZvZ and Roach/Ling aggression in ZvT. While I may do similar aggressive openings in each game, I rarely execute the same follow through twice. It's the situation I'm in during and after my early-game pressure that determines which path I choose. ZvZ is my best matchup, so I'll describe a few common scenarios:
First, let's say I open speedlings and end up doing crippling damage because my opponent neglects banelings. I'm just going to continue streaming lings until the cows come home, because I know I can end it - he just won't be able to match production once he loses so much economy and it's essentially a guaranteed win if I continue the attack. Second, if I open speedlings and he gets LOTS of banelings in time, and my lings do virtually no damage as a result, I'll gain some advantages in the form of map control and squeeze out a few drones. There's one problem though - I'm likely behind in economy and his tech (banelings) is superior to mind (lingspeed), so it'll be hard to move into a standard macro game because there's always the threat of a ling/baneling counter attack. In this situation, I'm probably only going to squeeze out a few more drones to support a roach warren, get 6-8 roaches and commit to a Roach/Ling all-in. I'm hoping to abuse the fact that he thinks he held the pressure well with banelings, and also choose a type of tech (roaches) that performs well against his response to my lings (banelings). Also, if he decides to counter-attack me, I can hold it easily. Last, if I go speedlings and we end up in a bit of a 'stalemate' where I do decent damage, enough to justify my zergling investment and end up on equal grounds with my opponent, that's where I'll likely play a standard macro game and move into upgraded roaches and infestors (or mutas) off 2 bases. If he's not looking to attack me, and he's adequately prepared for another attack, there's no choice but to macro up.
I appreciate the feedback, and I mean everyone will have different opinions on the "correct" thing to do in each scenario, but I hope this helps to explain my reasoning on the quiz questions/answers.
Let me just say one thing first that we absolutely agree on, if you play aggressive and macro at the same time, you WILL train your mechanics faster since you will be playing much faster than when you would be left alone to only think of injects and such. If you want to get really good at macro you have to be good at doing macro during attacks, and aggressive play ( or in my case harassment based play ) gives you more of that training and will make you as a player much better, because the opponent can really mess with you but you will still be up there macroing like a boss.
In the situation that you described however, the Speedling aggression, it is more a case of 'is this build good or not' rather than having an aggressive build. I'm not dismissing aggressive builds at all, just ones that you will lose because of factors out of your control ( aka a build order loss ).
The thing you laid out is that in the case that your opponent is going mass banelings, even if it is blind or not, that you are behind and have to do an all in to respond is what I'm hinging at. This isn't bad neccesarily because you will still kill bad players who can't hold your all in follow up, but if you meet a good player that does hold your all in, you just lost to reasons out of your control. Which amount to a ton of frustrating losses the better players you face, and you'll keep asking yourself if you are just bad at the game while it is the inflexibility of the build in some circumstances that ultimately was the culprit.
I myself wouldn't neccesarily claim I'm an aggressive player, but I am certainly aggressive in my reactions to some things I scout. The only aggression I am willing to do is the type that doesn't amount to losses outside of your own control, but if I can fit in aggression that is flexible in all circumstances whatever I face, I will fit it in 100% of the time. I'm against attacks that are stupid in the case that if my opponent does X he automatically gets way ahead, and about 90% of all attacks possible in Starcraft 2 fit in this box.
I'm all for being aggressive, infact I like it way above just slow macro games. But I'm against stupid builds that can amount to build order losses in certain circumstances, which is why I generally don't advocate most of the one base attacks and why I mostly avoid threads about them.
We don't hate aggressiveness here on the Strat forum, just inflexibility and one-dimensionalism, which is what most one base or two base attacks amount to. This is my explanation for the kind of negative feedback you get a lot. I hope this explains my viewpoint of it and I wish you the best in your future endeavors .
On December 24 2011 01:23 Chaosvuistje wrote: I just want to comment on the quiz.
The quiz is really strange and the answers don't really make much sense at all. Let me just plow through all the answers first, then through the questions:
a) Build up another timing attack immediately.
This one makes relative sense, considering that if you do X amount of damage you should be transitioning into a new timing attack, although this is something you should be transitioning during or right before the attack. It can't really be done reactionary after the attack in all circumstances.
b) Move into a standard and safe mid game with a timing attack or at least some form of pressure.
This is the one that really itches me. The attack appearantly already happened in the early game, which should mean I'm already an aggressive player anyway. It also shows that the 'attack' is an all in that has to do damage, otherwise you would already be transitioning naturally into that midgame and a follow up timing attack.
c) Take a risk by expanding, teching, or going all-in.
Any good player will use the time you gain during the attack to expand or tech. The only thing you can do reactively is 'all in' which is only really a good option if your first attack did like 0 damage or if you did such a crushing blow to him that you should have already won, but the opponent is only hanging in by a small thread.
d) Macro up hard with multiple bases so I can afford high-tier units and maxed out armies.
Only idiots would go straight from attack into turtle 200 mode. A varied player will mix in harass or timing attacks along the way unless he wants to, for example, hive rush for broodlords for a lategame timing attack. If the opponent allows you to simply go for a 200/200 ball after an attack that did damage to him, he is bad.
So moving onto the questions:
1) If you attack and do lots of damage, nearly crippling your opponent's economy and army what do you do?
The right answer would be, whatever the hell you wanna do. You can expand, tech or go for a strong follow up timing attack. There is no wrong answer if you are in the lead, pick any of them and you should be good to go.
2) If you attack and do almost no damage and think you're behind, what do you do?
Now you're basically pidgeonholed into all in attacking to even the score out. Only in SvS ( Stupid player versus Stupid player ) will teching or expanding get you back into the game.
3) If you attack and do some damage and feel like you're on equal grounds, what do you do?
Well you should have gotten an expansion or additional tech during the attack anyway so you have an advantage in that front, so you abuse it. Be it by macroing up an army faster than him and going for a timing attack or abusing the tech advantage to go for a timing push or mass harass.
The way you win in Starcraft is by abusing advantages that you have. Certainly attacking and being aggressive ( not just by timing attacks but by harassment as well ) are some amazing options to abuse those times when your army is superior to his. But it can't always be 'be aggressive'. There are certain situations where macroing up or teching up will be far, far more effective in the long run than being aggressive could be. I won't go the length that your play is bad ( which it isn't, it's just different ) but I will say that placing yourself into boxes ( Aggressor/Reactor/Macro-or ) you make yourself one-dimensional.
On the ladder that doesn't really shine through that much, as you just face an opponent in a Bo1 and you don't know whether he is aggressive, reactive or macro oriented. But in any other format, good players will sniff out your one-dimensionalism and destroy you. So this is why I at the same time welcome your input, and scratch my head about it. It doesn't explain the full spectrum of Starcraft, just the aggressive portion.
I would rather face an 'aggressive opponent' over an aggressive styled, but not too bad in tech or macro games, opponent simply because you can expect much less and you can be far more at ease that in any other field you will be better than him.
One dimensionalism is great for ladder heroes, it sucks utterly in a tournament or BoX setting however. So it totally depends on what you want to be, Grandmaster or Champion of Craftcup #329. Most of the people on this forum expect you to want the latter over the former.
You definitely make some good points, Chaos. In terms of ladder, you're right in that you can do the same build EVERY game if you want and still make it to a pretty high level - but this isn't necessarily what I mean by improving by being aggressive. It's more about planning your steps, and using aggression (which forces you to look away from your base while macroing) to improve your mechanics. For example, I'm well-known for opening with speedling aggression in ZvZ and Roach/Ling aggression in ZvT. While I may do similar aggressive openings in each game, I rarely execute the same follow through twice. It's the situation I'm in during and after my early-game pressure that determines which path I choose. ZvZ is my best matchup, so I'll describe a few common scenarios:
First, let's say I open speedlings and end up doing crippling damage because my opponent neglects banelings. I'm just going to continue streaming lings until the cows come home, because I know I can end it - he just won't be able to match production once he loses so much economy and it's essentially a guaranteed win if I continue the attack. Second, if I open speedlings and he gets LOTS of banelings in time, and my lings do virtually no damage as a result, I'll gain some advantages in the form of map control and squeeze out a few drones. There's one problem though - I'm likely behind in economy and his tech (banelings) is superior to mind (lingspeed), so it'll be hard to move into a standard macro game because there's always the threat of a ling/baneling counter attack. In this situation, I'm probably only going to squeeze out a few more drones to support a roach warren, get 6-8 roaches and commit to a Roach/Ling all-in. I'm hoping to abuse the fact that he thinks he held the pressure well with banelings, and also choose a type of tech (roaches) that performs well against his response to my lings (banelings). Also, if he decides to counter-attack me, I can hold it easily. Last, if I go speedlings and we end up in a bit of a 'stalemate' where I do decent damage, enough to justify my zergling investment and end up on equal grounds with my opponent, that's where I'll likely play a standard macro game and move into upgraded roaches and infestors (or mutas) off 2 bases. If he's not looking to attack me, and he's adequately prepared for another attack, there's no choice but to macro up.
I appreciate the feedback, and I mean everyone will have different opinions on the "correct" thing to do in each scenario, but I hope this helps to explain my reasoning on the quiz questions/answers.
Let me just say one thing first that we absolutely agree on, if you play aggressive and macro at the same time, you WILL train your mechanics faster since you will be playing much faster than when you would be left alone to only think of injects and such. If you want to get really good at macro you have to be good at doing macro during attacks, and aggressive play ( or in my case harassment based play ) gives you more of that training and will make you as a player much better, because the opponent can really mess with you but you will still be up there macroing like a boss.
In the situation that you described however, the Speedling aggression, it is more a case of 'is this build good or not' rather than having an aggressive build. I'm not dismissing aggressive builds at all, just ones that you will lose because of factors out of your control ( aka a build order loss ).
The thing you laid out is that in the case that your opponent is going mass banelings, even if it is blind or not, that you are behind and have to do an all in to respond is what I'm hinging at. This isn't bad neccesarily because you will still kill bad players who can't hold your all in follow up, but if you meet a good player that does hold your all in, you just lost to reasons out of your control. Which amount to a ton of frustrating losses the better players you face, and you'll keep asking yourself if you are just bad at the game while it is the inflexibility of the build in some circumstances that ultimately was the culprit.
I myself wouldn't neccesarily claim I'm an aggressive player, but I am certainly aggressive in my reactions to some things I scout. The only aggression I am willing to do is the type that doesn't amount to losses outside of your own control, but if I can fit in aggression that is flexible in all circumstances whatever I face, I will fit it in 100% of the time. I'm against attacks that are stupid in the case that if my opponent does X he automatically gets way ahead, and about 90% of all attacks possible in Starcraft 2 fit in this box.
I'm all for being aggressive, infact I like it way above just slow macro games. But I'm against stupid builds that can amount to build order losses in certain circumstances, which is why I generally don't advocate most of the one base attacks and why I mostly avoid threads about them.
We don't hate aggressiveness here on the Strat forum, just inflexibility and one-dimensionalism, which is what most one base or two base attacks amount to. This is my explanation for the kind of negative feedback you get a lot. I hope this explains my viewpoint of it and I wish you the best in your future endeavors .
I definitely see what you're getting at, but even in the baneling example there's no limit to how good your zergling micro and multitasking can be, so in theory it is in your control (I've beat plenty of baneling openings with pure-zergling). I see a harassment/macro oriented style to be a great way to improve too, for the reasons you outlined. Our views are two branches of the same tree, although I don't think it's bad to know how to execute 1 or 2 base all-ins in some circumstances! I know we've all had those "Oh no" moments where we lose everything, and in those situations an all-in counter is really your only option and it pays to know how to do it well. It's important that you mention scouting and responding with aggression, because I think there's a big difference between responsive-aggressive players and blind-aggressive. I think where our thinking differs is when I scout information that tells me if I execute an all-in, I'm almost guaranteed to win, I prefer to take that route and the fast win. No right or wrong answer, just a matter of playstyle / preference
Another really informative lecture. I've been enjoying this aggressive style series you have been presenting. Macroing is important but being aggressive is fun and has really helped with my multitasking
Being aggressive that much in ZvZ seems like a coinflip if anything. Your other styles seem to revolve around your opponent not being safe and not making a baneling nest. The baneling nest is essential in ZvZ and everyone should get it, but if your opponent scouts that you are making a lot of units then you are behind because he can just make roaches or banelings, depending on what you have made. All they have to do is see what you have (which is easy, just suicide a ling) and then your aggression is shut down. If you also scout they havent taken a third or something similair to that, you can assume two base aggression.
Well it's a good opening, but it's not the only way to open aggressive in ZvZ. You can do things like hide your lings or go a baneling or roach warren after the first ling push too. Merry Christmas by the way
On December 25 2011 04:51 Lebzetu wrote: Being aggressive that much in ZvZ seems like a coinflip if anything. Your other styles seem to revolve around your opponent not being safe and not making a baneling nest. The baneling nest is essential in ZvZ and everyone should get it, but if your opponent scouts that you are making a lot of units then you are behind because he can just make roaches or banelings, depending on what you have made. All they have to do is see what you have (which is easy, just suicide a ling) and then your aggression is shut down. If you also scout they havent taken a third or something similair to that, you can assume two base aggression.
Still, a lot of players open roaches or speedlings and in those situations it's nearly an auto-win if you micro/macro/multitask well. At the very least, it'll set you up with map control and mobile units which gives you the opportunity to drone up and tech. And in those situations that your opponent DOES open banelings, it's not just an auto-loss because banelings explode - micro comes into play, and you can switch into baneling or roach yourself. The biggest danger is an immediate ling/baneling all-in, in which case you have a number of options depending on when you scout it (Tech bane/roach, spine, or counter-attack when he moves out).
I really like these lectures and wish that I were there to interact! You know, to answer all the more obvious questions like, "Whats a timing attack?". I would've totally dropped my Platinum knowledge like it was hot =)
But in all seriousness, I totally agree that playing aggressively is one of if not the absolute best methods for improving some of the most important of your SC2 mechanics. For example, one cannot successfully be aggressive and put smart pressure on with something like 3 gate pressure build without taking good care of the three M's.
If you simply A move your force either over to the natural or the third of your opponent, you're liable to start losing units for no good reason. If you spend too much time focusing on micro'ing your army, you'll fall behind at home likely forgetting structures that are crucial to your build. It has been said by the guys from Glitch TV and by others I'm sure (but they were the first I heard using the term) that one must micro your macro. I couldn't agree more. In fact, in one sense that can be considered a way of defining what multitasking is: in one sense it is microing your macro (or microing while you macro).
Being able to successfully execute the pressure build requires that you manage all 3 of the M's well because faltering in one area can cause the whole thing to come apart. If you can't micro while macroing you need to ask yourself why? A lack of efficient hotkey use is one of the more frequent problems in that area. That is yet another thing about playing aggresively, it can help you come to understand your real weaknesses in a more specific fashion than something rather ambiguous like: I lost because I didn't macro that game. There might be real cases where that is true but that kind of response is more of a knee jerk reaction based upon reading countless TL threads where effective macro play is revealed to be all one needs to make it to Masters. There might be SOME truth to that, but the fact is that reaching masters requires skill with all the M's, not just one.
I have found based upon my experience both just hammering out games and in lessons with high level coaches that having a specific build/timing attack to pull off provides tons of opportunity to improve many of the most important aspects and mechanics of the game. By having something specific to aim for, you provide yourself a benchmark to see how you did in terms of microing your macro, handling harassment etc. If you can pull off your build with all the various variables that go along with the game, you know you did well and you can review your replay to see where you did well and where you can do better.
In conclusion, playing an aggressive style allows for one to actively improve the three M's because if you can't use all three, chances are your build won't come together. By pressuring your opponent, especially your Zerg opponent, you force units and get to see what exactly your enemy is up to. This is a form of scouting information that can of course be extremely useful. Improving the basics of sound mechanics through pressure play and acquiring information that you can use to execute a game ending timing attack are all good reasons to at least have an aggressive build somewhere in your arsenal of builds.
On December 29 2011 21:07 ins(out)side wrote: I really like these lectures and wish that I were there to interact! You know, to answer all the more obvious questions like, "Whats a timing attack?". I would've totally dropped my Platinum knowledge like it was hot =)
But in all seriousness, I totally agree that playing aggressively is one of if not the absolute best methods for improving some of the most important of your SC2 mechanics. For example, one cannot successfully be aggressive and put smart pressure on with something like 3 gate pressure build without taking good care of the three M's.
If you simply A move your force either over to the natural or the third of your opponent, you're liable to start losing units for no good reason. If you spend too much time focusing on micro'ing your army, you'll fall behind at home likely forgetting structures that are crucial to your build. It has been said by the guys from Glitch TV and by others I'm sure (but they were the first I heard using the term) that one must micro your macro. I couldn't agree more. In fact, in one sense that can be considered a way of defining what multitasking is: in one sense it is microing your macro (or microing while you macro).
Being able to successfully execute the pressure build requires that you manage all 3 of the M's well because faltering in one area can cause the whole thing to come apart. If you can't micro while macroing you need to ask yourself why? A lack of efficient hotkey use is one of the more frequent problems in that area. That is yet another thing about playing aggresively, it can help you come to understand your real weaknesses in a more specific fashion than something rather ambiguous like: I lost because I didn't macro that game. There might be real cases where that is true but that kind of response is more of a knee jerk reaction based upon reading countless TL threads where effective macro play is revealed to be all one needs to make it to Masters. There might be SOME truth to that, but the fact is that reaching masters requires skill with all the M's, not just one.
I have found based upon my experience both just hammering out games and in lessons with high level coaches that having a specific build/timing attack to pull off provides tons of opportunity to improve many of the most important aspects and mechanics of the game. By having something specific to aim for, you provide yourself a benchmark to see how you did in terms of microing your macro, handling harassment etc. If you can pull off your build with all the various variables that go along with the game, you know you did well and you can review your replay to see where you did well and where you can do better.
In conclusion, playing an aggressive style allows for one to actively improve the three M's because if you can't use all three, chances are your build won't come together. By pressuring your opponent, especially your Zerg opponent, you force units and get to see what exactly your enemy is up to. This is a form of scouting information that can of course be extremely useful. Improving the basics of sound mechanics through pressure play and acquiring information that you can use to execute a game ending timing attack are all good reasons to at least have an aggressive build somewhere in your arsenal of builds.
It's funny that you mention benchmarks, because my next thread will likely be on the topic of setting benchmarks and improving the efficiency of your practice. Thanks for your input, ins(out)side, especially your observations on how pressuring an opponent (Especially zerg) often gives you a lot of information and forces a less-than-ideal response like producing units when they could be making drones. You just have to be careful that you respond well to what you see.
Another important point about timing attacks, which I neglected in my lecture, is one of the best exercises for brand new players (silver/bronze) is to perfect a simple timing attack. Things like 7roach rush, 3rax stim push, and 4gate are a great way to practice refining a build order and executing it. Then once you've got the basics of a 1 base build down, you can experiment with executing the one base attack, expanding, executing a 2base attack, expanding, and so on. A very basic example for newer players of each race: 3Rax -> Expo -> 6Rax -> Expo -> 9Rax 7Roach rush -> Expo -> Roach/Speedling attack -> Expo -> Roach/Ling/Baneling attack (Similar to 3 barrel bust) 3-4Gate -> Expo -> 6-7 Gate -> Expo -> 7-10Gate -> Expo
Obviously for higher tier players, you're going to want a less predictable style with more tech and refined timings but for those who are brand new to the game, these types of simple progressions are much better than learning a fast expand or similar build.