|
While watching SuHoSin versus Seed in Code S, I was listening to the commentary about SuHoSin's cheesy playstyle and Artosis made some comments about playing against styles like his as facing "a series of all-ins." It got me thinking that the community uses the term "all-in" in such a broad sense that it seems to have lost its original meaning.
The shift from the original definition of "a play that will either win or lose the game outright" toward a more loose definition of "any risky play that requires damage to be dealt to be worthwhile" is much less specific and harder to really draw a boundary for.
As an example, is a 2 base roach-ling-baneling push an all-in in ZvT? Well, if Zerg takes a third base behind it and terran defends flawlessly, zerg is behind for sure due to a lack of upgrades and lower drone count, but not out of the game. However, if a zerg 10 pools and pulls drones and that fails, it is a true all-in and the game is basically over.
This specifically gets kind of touchy when discussing strategy with people due to the negative connotations that the term "all-in" carries (at least for NA players) and the imprecise definition.
In short, I guess I feel like the lexicon of the game could use a term that bridges the gap between high risk-high reward play and "all-in." The other option is to refer to risky play as "all-in" but reserve a separate term for a true "do-or-die" all-in.
I'm anxious to hear the community's thoughts on this.
 
|
Like a lot of things (e.g. "The Cloud") the phrase "all-in" has become a buzz word which doesn't really mean a lot anymore. I get a bit frustrated by the lack of vocabulary used by Tastosis and a lack of real analysis at an expert level and this is really part of that.
|
all in to me means when you stop making workers and only attack.
but this is dumb because you can stop and start making workers whenever you want. so 4gate is only an all in until you expand...
which makes sc2 a hard game imo
|
On September 10 2012 13:58 xmungam wrote:
all in to me means when you stop making workers and only attack.
but this is dumb because you can stop and start making workers whenever you want. so 4gate is only an all in until you expand...
which makes sc2 a hard game imo
24 Probes at 10 minutes is not the same as 24 probes at 5 minutes.
It's an all-in if your failed attack puts you so far behind that you're forced to rely on your opponent's mistakes.
|
If Zerg does a roach/bane timing and it's defended perfectly, they're at 35 drones vs a terrans 40-45, plus 2(or 3), mules, vs Banshee(presumably), potentially double upgrades, etc.
If Terran loses from this position it requires a really really big mistake. At high levels, those mistakes aren't made often. Thus, it's an "all-in." If your attack is required to do significant damage, otherwise you're behind so much that it takes a huge mistake, it's an all in. Otherwise, something like a 4gate isn't all in, cause you can say shit like "Well, Protoss has 20 probes, no natural, and the other player has more workers, better tech, and possibly an expo, but Protoss could technically come back!"
|
On September 10 2012 12:38 TrippSC2 wrote:
As an example, is a 2 base roach-ling-baneling push an all-in in ZvT? Well, if Zerg takes a third base behind it and terran defends flawlessly, zerg is behind for sure due to a lack of upgrades and lower drone count, but not out of the game. The correct (more precise) definition still holds in this case, as the zerg, in a perfect world, should still lose.
|
I've had lots of arguments about this. Some people contend that some builds aren't all in because they could still do damage and transition into a regular game, but that just threatens to make the phrase totally meaningless. Surely you aren't saying that there's NO SUCH THING as an all in build?
If I 6 pool and kill all but 5 probes does that mean it wasn't an all in?
I grant that there are certain levels of 'deadness'. If a Protoss goes two base stalker and fails, they may not be dead yet but without tech I'd say they are very far behind. I think sometimes Zerg appears to be all in but if the opponent has no ability to apply pressure then they might be able to drone like crazy.
|
On September 10 2012 14:08 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 13:58 xmungam wrote:
all in to me means when you stop making workers and only attack.
but this is dumb because you can stop and start making workers whenever you want. so 4gate is only an all in until you expand...
which makes sc2 a hard game imo 24 Probes at 10 minutes is not the same as 24 probes at 5 minutes. It's an all-in if your failed attack puts you so far behind that you're forced to rely on your opponent's mistakes.
Yet if your opponent were to make a big enough mistake, you could still win. So how exactly is it "all-in"? The term is useless at describing SC2 in my opinion. Like other people said, its just a buzz word, sounds cool, doesn't really have any relevance to the game.
|
On September 10 2012 16:43 PandaTank wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 14:08 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 10 2012 13:58 xmungam wrote:
all in to me means when you stop making workers and only attack.
but this is dumb because you can stop and start making workers whenever you want. so 4gate is only an all in until you expand...
which makes sc2 a hard game imo 24 Probes at 10 minutes is not the same as 24 probes at 5 minutes. It's an all-in if your failed attack puts you so far behind that you're forced to rely on your opponent's mistakes. Yet if your opponent were to make a big enough mistake, you could still win. So how exactly is it "all-in"? The term is useless at describing SC2 in my opinion. Like other people said, its just a buzz word, sounds cool, doesn't really have any relevance to the game.
It's pretty dumb to try to describe it in SC2, it worked perfectly for the All-ins in Broodwar though.
|
Italy12248 Posts
Regarding Suhosin's play, the point they were trying to make is that his intial investments into, say, baneling drops, did so little for him that all he could do was try to pull off even more gimmicky play (i think he went hydra bust as a followup on Entombed while staying on 2 bases and having a worse economy than the Protoss for a very long time for example) that would only set him farther and farther behind.
The thing with "all-ins" is, you are completely dead if you try to followup with standard play because you are behind in the first place. It's like starting to play down a worker.
That said, some builds are more allin than others. A 20 probe 4gate is allin because if the opponent isn't dead 7 minutes into the game, he will most likely have twice as much stuff as you do 8-9 minutes into the game. A Protoss pre-hive timing attack on 3 bases is somewhat allin as if you don't do a ton of damage (say, kill the 4th and reset the infestor count to 0), you will not have the tools to deal with Broodlords efficiently, but it's still a situation you can get out of. A 2 Colossus push in PvT is somewhat allin as you delay a great deal of tech and upgrades to get enough units to protect your fast colossi so they can be a threat. The list goes on and on.
Wether something is "all-in" isn't a black and white thing, in Starcraft there's an insane amount of builds, and everyone can or can not be "all-in" in different shades of grey, and they are constantly changing.
|
I use it as a technical term for the state of spending all of your income on army reinforcements. I haven't really [yet] put much thought into how this applies to zerg.
|
|
|
To me an all.in is:
A gambit where the agressor sacrifices economy and/or tech to do crippling damage or win out-right. The difference between an all-in or say agressive play/timing attack is that an all-in leaves you with virtually no outs/transitions and you wholly rely on your opponent making huge mistakes.
For instance going a 1-base DT strat is all-in. If you get shut down by permanent detection the game is virtually lost
If you go for a quick DT after expo you're investing heavily in tech that can do massive damage now, but wont be so useful later (next 10min+). So if you do next to no damage with your now "worthless" tech you're playing from behind, but you still have some means of transition because of the expo. So it's not as "all-in".
I dont think its over used. If you go for a strategy that will give your oponent a next to insurmountable advantage unless you
kill him, it's an all-in
Edit:
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/All-in
|
On September 10 2012 17:14 Teoita wrote:
Regarding Suhosin's play, the point they were trying to make is that his intial investments into, say, baneling drops, did so little for him that all he could do was try to pull off even more gimmicky play (i think he went hydra bust as a followup on Entombed while staying on 2 bases and having a worse economy than the Protoss for a very long time for example) that would only set him farther and farther behind.
The thing with "all-ins" is, you are completely dead if you try to followup with standard play because you are behind in the first place. It's like starting to play down a worker.
That said, some builds are more allin than others. A 20 probe 4gate is allin because if the opponent isn't dead 7 minutes into the game, he will most likely have twice as much stuff as you do 8-9 minutes into the game. A Protoss pre-hive timing attack on 3 bases is somewhat allin as if you don't do a ton of damage (say, kill the 4th and reset the infestor count to 0), you will not have the tools to deal with Broodlords efficiently, but it's still a situation you can get out of. A 2 Colossus push in PvT is somewhat allin as you delay a great deal of tech and upgrades to get enough units to protect your fast colossi so they can be a threat. The list goes on and on.
Wether something is "all-in" isn't a black and white thing, in Starcraft there's an insane amount of builds, and everyone can or can not be "all-in" in different shades of grey, and they are constantly changing.
I agree with most of your post.
I do understand what Artosis was getting it and I think it was totally appropriate for the target audience, since GSL viewers are more likely to understand the game and terms used better than viewers of other tournaments. I also agree that the plays that he was going for were highly risky and did warrant being called "all-in." In fact, I only mentioned it because it was what got me thinking about the term in the first place.
I also understand that casters need terms like that to be able to convey what they want to say concisely during a cast.
I also completely agree that it is situational. In a very scrappy game, attacking with a low worker count at a later portion of the game isn't an all-in because you know that your opponent is in the same boat, but the same attack in a very passive game is most likely an all-in.
My only big point of contention is that the term loses it's meaning if thrown around too often and in too many situations. Is any time that a zerg attempts to be aggressive an all-in? Violet has made a pretty solid career off of being aggressive throughout long macro games, but I doubt that anyone would say that his aggression is all-in. For non-zerg, how big does an investment need to be (or a pause in worker production) to consistute an "all-in"?
|
On September 10 2012 21:20 Aphasie wrote:To me an all.in is: A gambit where the agressor sacrifices economy and/or tech to do crippling damage or win out-right. The difference between an all-in or say agressive play/timing attack is that an all-in leaves you with virtually no outs/transitions and you wholly rely on your opponent making huge mistakes. For instance going a 1-base DT strat is all-in. If you get shut down by permanent detection the game is virtually lost If you go for a quick DT after expo you're investing heavily in tech that can do massive damage now, but wont be so useful later (next 10min+). So if you do next to no damage with your now "worthless" tech you're playing from behind, but you still have some means of transition because of the expo. So it's not as "all-in". I dont think its over used. If you go for a strategy that will give your oponent a next to insurmountable advantage unless you kill him, it's an all-in Edit: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/All-in
I'm aware of the definition of the term and that was included in the OP.
My point is there are clear-cut strategies that are all-ins (4 gate, 1 base DT rush, 1 base roach, 6-9 pool, etc.) and others that are aggressive and risky, but not necessarily all-in, like the 2 base roach-bane aggression that I mentioned in the OP. I'm sure there are several other plays that are ambiguous like that, as well. Casters tend to call them all-ins anyway, because there doesn't appear to be a clear term for an aggressive timing that is risky and puts you at a disadvantage if it fails, without losing you the game outright.
|
I think it is better to say: I am going 'all in' with this than to say: this is 'an all in'.
However, there are some builds that you just go all in with. Those builds are all ins.
|
Why can't people just use the term, "semi all-in"? It's just like in poker when someone semi-bluffs at a flop with only an open ended straight draw -- it's not a true bluff, but it is a pretty strong bluff nonetheless.
|
I use all in as a very loose term. I have played many games where I have won after doing a roach/banelng all in or a proxy 2 rax or a 3 rax all in. Sometimes the game stabilizes, and from an all in start, the game proceeds to a macro game
|
There is no such thing as an all in.
It is an illusion.
The SC2 fanbase latched onto this notion of "all ins are bad" early into SC2's life, poopularized by Grack Fields who was quick to ridicule anyone who attacked him. It was for good reason, however, that Grack took this stance. Early SC2 was almost purely 1 base play, quick attacks on very small maps.
Sadly, as SC2 grew and the metagame shifted toward favoring macro play, the fan base was unable to let go of their negative views of "all ins". The collective fanbase silently took "no rush 20 minute" to be the be-all, end-all of standard play. Any aggression and you were a "cheesy faggot" and needed to "learn to play" and should even "uninstall, you baddy-poo-poo-trash".
There was and is plenty of all in play in Brood War, and it's a legitimate way to play. I think we as a community need to let go of our unnecessary fear of "all ins" and start using them more. For fun. Or science.
|
On September 10 2012 16:43 PandaTank wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 14:08 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 10 2012 13:58 xmungam wrote:
all in to me means when you stop making workers and only attack.
but this is dumb because you can stop and start making workers whenever you want. so 4gate is only an all in until you expand...
which makes sc2 a hard game imo 24 Probes at 10 minutes is not the same as 24 probes at 5 minutes. It's an all-in if your failed attack puts you so far behind that you're forced to rely on your opponent's mistakes. Yet if your opponent were to make a big enough mistake, you could still win. So how exactly is it "all-in"? The term is useless at describing SC2 in my opinion. Like other people said, its just a buzz word, sounds cool, doesn't really have any relevance to the game.
All-In does not mean that you either win or lose the game then and there. It doesn't in SC2, and it doesn't in Poker, where the term originates.
It's exactly what it says on the tin, you're putting the entire focus of your strategy into one attack. Just because you could fail horribly and still clamber back through some miracles does not change the fact that your intent was to end the game with that one attack.
By your definitions, being "All-In" in Poker is wrong, because your opponent could just fold, and the game keeps going for another 50 hands.
On September 11 2012 00:16 happyft wrote:
Why can't people just use the term, "semi all-in"? It's just like in poker when someone semi-bluffs at a flop with only an open ended straight draw -- it's not a true bluff, but it is a pretty strong bluff nonetheless.
Because All-In in Poker has no relation to your chances at winning or losing, or even if the game will end at that moment. You're All-In if you put all your chips in the middle, and that's it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
