EPTA word about All In's and other types of "cheese" - Page 2
| Blogs > Pandain |
|
Gecko
United States519 Posts
| ||
|
gurrpp
United States437 Posts
I don't really see where you get the dichotomy of cheese and solid play. If your opponent is playing a greedy/economic build, you can punish him with early aggression. Likewise, if your opponent is doing an early aggression build, you want to defend with minimal investment and get as much economy as possible. If anything early aggression makes the game even more exciting. To me, the most exciting part of Starcraft is information control and brinksmanship. Seeing an overlord barely miss scouting the second refinery, or a scan just missing the spire/tech building are incredibly exciting. Good players plan their builds to suit their opponent's playstyle and the map. Watching the mindgames in a BoX series also greatly helps the entertainment value, and watching practice partners, or long time rivals meet up in the tournament is priceless. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46140 Posts
After reading through the entire thread, the contribution I want to make (as opposed to just saying "This" to every reply) is in direct response to the two bold statements you made in your OP, Pandain: "We're forgetting to adapt." No, we're really not. Sure, you may hear whining about losses and complaining that Race X or Unit Y is imbalanced or overpowered, but for the most part, we're facing strategies and attempting to counter them with our own builds. We're trying new things. Furthermore, if the adaptation is to attack faster or try a hidden tech route, then this is exactly the all-in or cheese strategy that counters a standard, effective build. The adaptation therefore IS all-in or cheese. "The way to win is through solid play, not cheeses/all in's." To say that all-in or cheese builds are worse off than standard builds is silly. What basis are you going by? It depends on skill level and risk. Guess what? I love to go standard 4-gate as Protoss. And guess what the most common thing I lose to is? Dark templar cheese. Cheese > standard in this scenario. Not in every case, but certainly in some cases. Mainly when you recognize that you're outmatched if you both go the same builds. In fact, I would go so far as to say that cheese and all-in strategies are what revolutionize gameplay. These are the builds that are incredibly creative (hence "non-standard") and call for revamping of the system. Boxer's bunker rushes. Bisu's corsair + dark templar success. These made fans go wild, were insansely creative, and used a heck of a lot of skill in their own right. Oh yeah, and they were pretty successful too. Standard builds may be safe, but cheese and all-in strategies have the potential to break the mold (not to mention toy with your opponent psychologically, another bonus for you). You seem to assume that all-in and cheese strategies have no skill behind them, and are all luck based. In fact, you use the phrase "push and pray it works". That's NOT a smart player's mindset going into an all-in attack. I may recognize that I need some workers to tank damage, just a few more meat shields for my main attackers... and that if I use my workers, I'll win the game outright rather than break even with my opponent. If sacrificing your workers ends up winning you the game, it's not a stupid, luck-driven move. Sometimes it's quite calculated. | ||
tree.hugger
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
On November 24 2010 06:02 Chill wrote: I disagree with basically everything you wrote. I'm not sure what you're basing this on or how you're going to prove it. Obviously you can imagine a game where solid play is an all-in. Who's to say SC2 isn't that game? You seem to have made a lot of different points, so forgive me if you see this as simply taking something out of the context of your argument. But in regards to that last sentence; I think this is completely the wrong way to approach Sc2. Undoubtedly the way Sc2 evolves will be different than how BW did, and it may be that Sc2 games naturally ought to be shorter and more all-in oriented than its counterpart. But surely this isn't entertaining. In writing recaps for the GSL last season, I was constantly struck by how every single game was 10-15 minutes long, with a few outliers a little longer, and a few outliers a little shorter. That doesn't strike me as healthy. The two final series of last night's games (RainbOw-NewDawn and BitByBit-HayprO) were pretty awful games from pretty much any standard. They weren't close, there weren't a ton of dramatic moments, there wasn't a good deal of top level skill on display (You might reasonably object to that, I certainly couldn't win those games, yet these players are probably capable of a good deal more.) and there wasn't a lot of big flashy battles. These are things that get people into the seats to watch. And right now, a lot of Sc2 isn't delivering that. I'm not sure if Pandain is correct in advocating that the solution come from the players, and I think further patching is inevitable and should be welcomed. But the idea that Sc2 can exist as an esport if it's confined to a whole lot of all-ins and cheesy play seems suspect to me. | ||
|
Copenap
723 Posts
Yeah, I'm calling it, 14 hatch is cheese. I don't see a Nexus or CC before any defense (Forge or a production facility) is build and that as well is cheese for me. I understand that a Zerg functions different but as long as I have a good chance of defeating this with early aggression I would go for it instead of taking the guaranteed economic disadvantage. It's like a ZvZ where one is 6 pooling and after scouting the other player responds with 8 pool or whatever. Would you say that the 8 pooler is cheesing? | ||
|
onlinerobbe
Germany547 Posts
 | ||
|
Karliath
United States2214 Posts
On November 24 2010 19:38 Copenap wrote: I would like to bring another point to the discussion. A lot of people are calling out a Terran for being cheesy if he counters a 14 hatch with the double barracks and scv all-in but in my opinion the Zerg is actually the one cheesing. Yeah, I'm calling it, 14 hatch is cheese. I don't see a Nexus or CC before any defense (Forge or a production facility) is build and that as well is cheese for me. I understand that a Zerg functions different but as long as I have a good chance of defeating this with early aggression I would go for it instead of taking the guaranteed economic disadvantage. It's like a ZvZ where one is 6 pooling and after scouting the other player responds with 8 pool or whatever. Would you say that the 8 pooler is cheesing? I don't think cheese is the right word, but I agree. Your regular cheeser is trying to 1) sacrifice economy 2) build an early army 3) hopefully succeed in an attack that justifies the sacrifice of economy. Someone who expands early is going to 1) sacrifice an early army 2) build a better economy 3) hope that he can get away with the expansion, and not regret his decision to not build an army. | ||
| ||
