|
It's been in my mind eating away at me for a while now. I'm kind of starting to think learning/practicing macro is just a lost cause. I've been a zerg player since about 2 month before beta came out. (I got into bw really late.) Since beta it just seems that macro will never win. I'm not saying omfg imba. Instead it seems sc2 is ruled by all ins and cheese. Most of the player base promotes it. I was always told just get better when you get higher up you will stop encountering it. So since getting into beta I climbed very fast went from a bronze player to a plat player in no time. (than onto diamond when it was released.) But I'm starting to notice it doesn't go away. After watching many tourny's like GSL 1-4, king of the beta, hdh, iem Germany. I'm starting to notice that cheese and all ins still work excellently.
If you can win at least 51% of all your games in the first 11 min why wouldn't you do it? I have asked this question before but people always said things like "well you're never going to get better if you do that!" Well i beg to differ cause it seems most of the successful players are cheesy/all in/ gimmicky players.
After watching Jinro vs IdrA last night this idea slapped me in the face. Why would you ever not do an all in? on ladder I've died pretty much all the time due to cheese/one base all in's and all of my heroes die to the exact same things. IdrA is known for having amazing macro. Nestea is known for having some of the best decision making sc2 has ever seen. Tester is one of the most amazing macro tosses I've ever seen. Yet all of these players just get raped by all ins or cheese.
So if these truly amazing players are getting beat by people who do love to one base does it not make the one basing player better? They are winning best of 3s/5s/7s doesn't that prove they're the better player? I love sc2 as a player and a spectator but it just seems like macro is a lost cause unless there is an unspoken mutual agreement to have a macro game.
Author note: This is my first blog and this is just mindless ranting.
 
|
It's not "cheese" anymore though. The only reason people refer to quick wins as "allins and cheese" is because we are used to the macro heavy BW play that dominated. It's a different game with more effective strategies that just happen to be good in the early game.
I dont even play sc2 and I know this cmon people!
|
First off, all of these players have amazing fundamentals and mechanics. You don't get and develop these if all you do is cheese cheese cheese. You might get really good at one type of micro, but you won't learn much about decision making, how to macro, how to control big armies, scouting, etc.
Alot of games may have cheese, but even so some of these games invariably end up being macro games; at which point these fundamentals become essential. If you have no idea what to do after your 6 pool fails, and no skills other than 6 pool ling micro you're going to get stomped into oblivion anytime things turn out even after a cheese or someone defends well.
Moreover if you always cheese then players know you're playstyle and can easily adapt to it and counter it. A large part of the strength of cheese lies in its unpredictability and surprise element; if you always do it that is removed and players just play extra safe against you and take the easy win.
Not to mention most all cheese/allin can be defended with standard play, and certainly in my opinion longer, intensive macro games are far more fun since they use a much greater and varied skill set. Even if you could cheese and win 51% of your games, who is to say you can't become and skilled macro player and win 70% of your games?
|
this is interesting as the people on the bnet forums and TL indicated since beta that SC2 was all macro and no micro...
|
lol i only laugh if people try to rush/all in/cheese me. i throw em mah nexus in tha face!
|
On January 20 2011 07:53 Hypnosis wrote:
It's not "cheese" anymore though. The only reason people refer to quick wins as "allins and cheese" is because we are used to the macro heavy BW play that dominated. It's a different game with more effective strategies that just happen to be good in the early game.
I dont even play sc2 and I know this cmon people!
You'll have to forgive me for I'm still young in sc years I was always told cheese was devoting all your resources to win right away with no intention on moving to the mid game.
|
Cheese will only win you so many games. Wins should come from solid builds and clean crisp attacks.
I think Day9 said something like this, but I'm not sure
|
there's no such concept as macro in sc2 anymore the way it existed in bw. macro will never win you games in sc2 because everybody can macro as good as any other player.
also all this talk about skill level in sc2 is blown way out of proportion. luck in decision making constitutes so much of game results that it just doesn't matter how well you can multitask and how precise you are in your micro.
without anything particularly to practise in sc2 in terms of macro and micro, the skill ceiling isn't high enough for anyone to garner better results from practising.
that is why so may sc2 games are won by new adjustments on existing builds and cheesies and all ins.
|
Calgary25998 Posts
It's not fun? I'm not trying to be a programer and neither are you, so why would you play a style that isn't enjoyable simply to increase your win efficiency by 10%?
|
On January 20 2011 08:37 Chill wrote:
It's not fun? I'm not trying to be a programer and neither are you, so why would you play a style that isn't enjoyable simply to increase your win efficiency by 10%?
Provided that it does increase a player's win efficiency by 10%, it's a problem.
Now I'm not sure that it does, but I certainly prefer a game that keeps 1 base plays and all-in's down to a certain extent.
|
People play sc to get better and increasing your win% is getting better am i wrong? I was just saying idk why someone wouldn't want to play for the 7 min mark or the 12 min mark if it makes you better instead of trying to go for a 20min game. If you can beat someone in a best of 3/5/7 by ending the game in the first 9 min by doing a variety of allin/cheese/timings does that not make you the better player?
Edit: If i lose to a 4 gate even tho my macro is better does that not make the 4 gater the better player?
|
On January 20 2011 07:48 Joroth wrote:
Well i beg to differ cause it seems most of the successful players are cheesy/all in/ gimmicky players.
After watching Jinro vs IdrA last night this idea slapped me in the face.
+ Show Spoiler +At what point did Jinro all in last night? If you are talking about the double bunker on metalopolis you need to realize that he was expanding behind it and only made 2 marines. Considering that and the fact that he could salvage the bunkers means that he was delaying idra's expansion at the cost of 2 scv's. That hardly sounds like an all-in to me.
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
On January 20 2011 09:05 Lemonwalrus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2011 07:48 Joroth wrote:
Well i beg to differ cause it seems most of the successful players are cheesy/all in/ gimmicky players.
After watching Jinro vs IdrA last night this idea slapped me in the face. + Show Spoiler +At what point did Jinro all in last night? If you are talking about the double bunker on metalopolis you need to realize that he was expanding behind it and only made 2 marines. Considering that and the fact that he could salvage the bunkers means that he was delaying idra's expansion at the cost of 2 scv's. That hardly sounds like an all-in to me.
I think the author isn't only talking about all ins. In SC2, there's so many ways to rush an opponent and win the game automatically if he isn't prepared, but at the same time you can transition into a mid, late game if you didn't win at the start. Because there is no or very little punishment for rushing. Players tend to rush every game. It's just how SC2 was designed.
@OP
It's a myth that as you rank up, people cheese less. I think as you rank up, people cheese even more. I'm #91 in TOP 200 NA so I'm speaking from a top master league perspective.
|
Winning isn't bad, and if you can win through cheese go for it. If a strategy is dominant enough to win a large portion of the time it is used you can't really call it a cheese anymore.
|
On January 20 2011 09:15 T.O.P. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2011 09:05 Lemonwalrus wrote:On January 20 2011 07:48 Joroth wrote:
Well i beg to differ cause it seems most of the successful players are cheesy/all in/ gimmicky players.
After watching Jinro vs IdrA last night this idea slapped me in the face. + Show Spoiler +At what point did Jinro all in last night? If you are talking about the double bunker on metalopolis you need to realize that he was expanding behind it and only made 2 marines. Considering that and the fact that he could salvage the bunkers means that he was delaying idra's expansion at the cost of 2 scv's. That hardly sounds like an all-in to me. I think the author isn't only talking about all ins. In SC2, there's so many ways to rush an opponent and win the game automatically if he isn't prepared, but at the same time you can transition into a mid, late game if you didn't win at the start. Because there is no or very little punishment for rushing. Players tend to rush every game. It's just how SC2 was designed. @OP It's a myth that as you rank up, people cheese less. I think as you rank up, people cheese even more. I'm #91 in TOP 200 NA so I'm speaking from a top master league perspective.
but if you are really a top player, you can defend the "cheese" VERY easily.. The only thing that needs to be looked at right now, is the SCV/marine all-ins.. because mules provide terrans with the resources they lose so fast. Other than that, everything else is fair game and easy to stop if you dont make mistakes.
Im speaking from a top 200 perspective too, and everytime I lose in the first 11 minutes, its 99.9% my fault (i misclick/dont micro properly/make bad decisions).. Everything besides that SCV all-in is defendable, therefor nothing should be called cheese. Its all easy to stop if you can micro properly.
|
I don't think you can win with only cheese. Sure, I'm platnum, but even I already destroy 80% of the people who cheesed me.
When I played protoss I learned to hold off 1 base terrans and cheeze zergs. Took me some time after switching to Terran, but now I have proper responses to Proxy gates, 6 pools, 4 gates, bbust and the like. Sure, the cheese doesn't go away, but that doesn't mean you can't defeat it.
|
There needs to be a list of what cheese builds are, cause I honestly have no idea what people are referring to when they say cheese anymore. The definition keeps changing.
|
On January 20 2011 07:48 Joroth wrote:
I love sc2 as a player and a spectator but it just seems like macro is a lost cause unless there is an unspoken mutual agreement to have a macro game.
This is not true. If you look at the early days of BW, there were tons of cheesy games. Have you ever seen Boxer's games? Back in the day, he was the best. But as players started figuring out the game, these builds lost their effectiveness. If you put Jaedong against Boxer today, I can guarantee that Boxer wouldn't be able to win with one of the bunker rushes that made his career years ago.
There is no unspoken agreement between Flash and Jaedong that says they have to both have at least 5 bases, it just so happens that they are both so insanely good that it would be practically suicide to try and end the game faster.
No offense to the current pro gamers, but nobody has come even close to perfection in SC2. The mastery that Flash has in BW is not held by anyone in SC2 yet. Once players get even better than they are now, you won't be able to cheese every game and get into the GSL.
Instead of macro players, think of them as all-around players. They are just so good that they can't be killed early. IdrA doesn't just hope for a macro game, he forces it. Cheese may seem strong at the moment, but it's not THAT bad. The good players will consistently stay on the top, and the cheesers will die out or be forced to play longer games.
To finish my post though, I would like to say that BW and SC2 probably won't end up being the same and people will just need to get over the fact that some games end before every base on the map is taken. SC2 is much faster and is designed to have shorter length games. This was Blizzard's decision (judging by their map pool and balance ideas) and we will have to accept that. Just because 2-3 base play is uncommon in the BroodWar Proleague doesn't mean it can't be the standard for SC2.
|
and this is just mindless ranting.
it reads like that. but just cool off and think it through
macro does NOT = 3 fully saturated or 4 + base play. may be macro heavy, but you can have
amazing macro off 2 bases and win in the mid-game as opposed to (very) late
also
cheese/allin does NOT = doing effective rushes or timing pushes that get you ahead, even if they straight-up win you games sometimes
ye there's a lot of 1basing and allining and some cheese, but it's nothing good macro and decision making can't fix. and it's getting rarer too.
i think too many people are getting frustrated about all these strategies and timings that can make them or their favorite players lose a game in the mid and sometimes early game and proceed to decide that the game itself is flawed
and it isn't nearly as bad as it may seem. when all's said and done, this is a different game than bw, the dynamics and mechanics are different, learn to live with it already and stop getting confused and frustrated when bw criteria doesn't apply to sc2.
from a viewer perspective, just look how diverse it's getting to be already after half a year since release, this gsl showcased more strategies and positional play and expanding than all other previous major sc2 tourneys. and that's because people are getting better and better at the fundamentals and are figuring more and more of the different timings as the overall understanding of the different matchups and map (dis)advantages by the players is getting better and better
from a player perspective, if custom games for fun with friends aren't within your reach for whatever reason and all you get to do is ladder, then keep practicing standard play and while you're working on your builds and coming up with ideas, you'll understand more and more of the various timings, army comps, positions, strategies that your opponent can hit you with just by playing against them. you'll get better and better at your standard play and the better people get good at countering different things the more the metagame will evolve towards more of what we've gotten used to with bw from the strategical pov. but it will never be the same
now, if you're a casual gamer, getting stuck wherever on the ladder makes sc2 a lot less fun, this is where the lack of lan really hurts, but that's got nothing to do with how the game is evolving
as for unit and map balance issues which make various types of allins more effective, you'll just have to wait for those to be addressed by blizz/community and the top players to make some more breakthroughs and advance the understanding of the game as a whole.
simplistic version: time will fix shit inevitably, and if it won't, you'll have thrown away nerves and time wondering why a sequel game that's designed for faster matches (mules/addons, chrono/warpgates, inject/creep, 2xgas/base) produces faster matches than the original.
"macro" play will always have the edge, the only big difference between sc2 and bw is that you need to mix a lot more aggression in your standard play, and consequently be able to respond appropriately to more aggression while you macro up
|
On January 20 2011 09:00 Joroth wrote:
People play sc to get better and increasing your win% is getting better am i wrong?
Edit: If i lose to a 4 gate even tho my macro is better does that not make the 4 gater the better player?
Actually, some would certainly say you're wrong. For instance in BW you could probably 4 pool you're way up into the C/C+ range, maybe higher. Getting up to those ranks means your win percentage was better than what it was is you played "normal". Many people I think would argue that the 4 pool player is still pretty bad, he's just a one trick pony that wins some games when he gets lucky or has bad opponents that don't scout/adapt. When he actually starts to play very solid players that are on the ball with everything he'll get crushed laughably hard.
To me a skilled RTS player is someone who has all the RTS fundamentals, things like: micro, macro, decision making, multi-tasking, gamesense, etc.
Moreover I'm not sure cheese even gives you a higher win percent. As the skill levels go up players are far better at defending cheese; and when they most of the time its mis micro or mistakes by them.
Also, what Chill said. It sounds like you don't find these allin/cheese plays very fun....so don't do them. If you honestly think that cheesing and getting an X % wr increase makes you better, i don't know what to say because I don't see it that way; unless you're playing the best of the best, in which case your going to need all of those skills to succeed. Cheesing in 90% of your games at the top level isn't going to get you far if you don't have all the other aspects of SC skill you need.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
