|
Hello TL community!
I just want to kinda express my feelings on something kinda controversial in the commuity these days. Im an upper Diamond level Terran player and lately I have been seeing in many threads and rants from friends about players who play "cheesy" styles or try to end the game early.
Basically the general stereotype for "cheesy" players or players who try to end the game early is that they have less skill than players who go for the full out macro game.
I am here to say that that opinion is complete BS and makes absolutely no sense at all, its simply illogical, we have three timespans in a typical starcraft 2 game,
The earlygame, the midgame, and the lategame.
Most of these so called "authentic not cheesy" players always go for the late game.
But what makes no sense is early game comes before late game, so therefore its more important, macro mechanics are nothing to be proud of, computers can macro perfectly, desicion making is all that matters in the very end. In given time, every pro or even many amateurs will be able to macro perfectly... Macro is nothing to be proud of...
I personally know freinds in low leagues who simply freak out and scream on skype when they get all inned or cheesed, they simply dont understand SC2, cheese is ESSENTIAL TO THE GAME. If they can't handle cheese they do not deserve their macro game.
Say me and another player are practicing, I practice early game cheese tactics nonstop, perfecting them, and player 2 practices macro and trying to manage off 3 bases, if we play who do you think will win, my early game trumps his early game but his lategame trumps my late game.
Early game is before late game, I will win, he wont be able to reach his dream late game scenario.
And to people who say early game tactics require no skill, what are you talking about?
OF COURSE it requires less skill but its still very difficult to master. Bunker rushing for example can be done in so many creative and innovative ways to get the most out of the rush, same with cannon rushing placements etc...
Late game is simply too complicated, hundreds of decisions take place in little time and its simply too hard to master perfectly, while early game is STILL very complicated...
Also note my Masters level zerg friend agrees with me in this situation while my gold and silver friends disagree vehemently.
Please Share your thoughts TL
|
There is less "Skill" in a cheese, because you're just building a specific set of units and attacking, and hoping it wins the game. You're not scouting and reacting, you're not countering what your opponent is doing, you're just making units and hoping they don't counter it.
Cheese also has less "skill" because it is a shorter game, and the shorter the game, the fewer decisions you make, and the less multi tasking you need, the longer a game goes, the better player will make more good decisions, and multi task better, whereas the cheesy douche will fail to multi and make poor decisions and lose :D
|
The reason why cheesy early game 'tactics' only exist is the lower leagues is because experience players will know how to fend it off relatively easily. That is why no progamer does it other than in tournaments for the 'surprise' factor.
|
The problem is that most cheese strategies only work if not scouted. That fact alone means that they do not require skill because you are relying on your opponent not expecting it. This is the reason that people hate cheese, because it is unstoppable if you do not know it is coming, no matter how good you are.
|
On August 17 2011 12:30 dbddbddb wrote:
The reason why cheesy early game 'tactics' only exist is the lower leagues is because experience players will know how to fend it off relatively easily. That is why no progamer does it other than in tournaments for the 'surprise' factor.
What? Pretty sure cheese exists at higher levels too.
|
Of course you are right. If no one ever attacked before the "endgame", people would just cut corners and go double expand in the first 4 minutes of the game. There needs to be cheese and allins in the early game to keep players "honest", so to speak.
|
I do feel some cheese or all-ins do take some skill or intensive micro to pull off, but every cheese can be stopped as long as it is scouted in time. Its not good to base your strategy on hoping your opponent can't stop your cheese or can't scout your cheese. Really, a player should be able to hold this off if they are supposedly a macro player with good decision making in the long game (which should transfer into good decision making in the early game).
The primary reason is just that you are relying on your opponent to either be bad, or not scout, or for you to just get lucky.
|
Optimal play aims to barely survive through the early and midgames in order to secure an overwhelming advantage in the lategame.
People who ignore the early game are bad. People who ignore the lategame are also bad.
|
of course! totally agree, many people do not understand that the point of the game is winning, and the only way you can reliably determine how much "skill" someone has is by their performance against other opponents
For example, @Leyra
What's the point of skill if you can't win? Sure you might be more skilled, but you might not be a better player (in the sense of winning games, the only concrete way of determining performance). For example, does that mean that if someone were to use a really really hard strategy, and can win against someone with a easy strategy, that he has a lot of skill? Sure, because his strategy was much harder. But he is not necessarily the "better" player, if he cannot win.
|
Also, when you are trying to manage a 4+ base economy while making units and microing it shows more skill if you can actually pull all that off. Late game isn't how you suggest as "too complicated", if anything it shows that someone has a thought out plan going all the way from T1>T2 > T3 and that they are executing that plan. I do agree that cheese is a vital part of the game, but most of the time it is Marine SCV all-in blindly with someone crossing their fingers...which gets annoying after a while.
|
Some people in ladder play extremely greedy though (13CC wtf?) i all-in/"cheese" to punish them. Some people do it in tournements for a surprise factor. This is okay, but i have no respect for people who BLINDLY cheese/allin ALL THE TIME.
|
As a game goes longer it gets more strategically and mechanically complex. A long game will have more decision to make which means more correct decisions for a good player. It will also have more units, bases, and production to manage which means more room for a good player to differentiate themself.
This is why better players tend to favor macro games. Playing macro games makes you better because it puts you in tougher situations to manage well. Worse players go for early cheese so they don't have to macro or think. Get over it.
|
As a zerg player this thread makes me so sad. I think you have an utterly warped and frankly stupid idea of what starcraft is all about.
|
Also note my Masters level zerg friend agrees with me in this situation while my gold and silver friends disagree vehemently.
I'm glad your friend in masters agrees. I wonder what the other thousands of them think.
Leyra hit the nail on the head - Think about it this way - as the game progresses, the combination of decisions/reactions you make based on scouting becomes more complicated. That is to say, apart from obvious cheese strats (By which I reference marine/scv all ins, cannon rush, etc) there is no creative reactionary play based upon scouting.
As the game progresses, you have to make decisions when to expand, when to tech switch, when to up production, when to harass from behind, etc. In the early game, these decisions don't really exist, and strategies that rely on the early game to win or more often than not an attempt to build order when.
Finding a one-base strategy online and perfecting the shit out of it doesn't make you good/skilled.
|
On August 17 2011 12:37 Noheroes wrote:Show nested quote +Also note my Masters level zerg friend agrees with me in this situation while my gold and silver friends disagree vehemently. I'm glad your friend in masters agrees. I wonder what the other thousands of them think. Leyra hit the nail on the head - Think about it this way - as the game progresses, the combination of decisions/reactions you make based on scouting becomes more complicated. That is to say, apart from obvious cheese strats (By which I reference marine/scv all ins, cannon rush, etc) there is no creative reactionary play based upon scouting. As the game progresses, you have to make decisions when to expand, when to tech switch, when to up production, when to harass from behind, etc. In the early game, these decisions don't really exist, and strategies that rely on the early game to win or more often than not an attempt to build order when. Finding a one-base strategy online and perfecting the shit out of it doesn't make you good/skilled.
What if you win games? Isn't that the goal of SC2? Just theoretically. What if someone is inhumanely good at mindgaming/predicting, that they can win at least 50% of their games doing early game strategies? As long as he wins, it's fine right?
I mean, yes you definitely do need a lot more skill the later a game gets for the reasons you described, but as long as you win, I would say you are "good". Maybe not skilled, but good [at winning].
|
Alot of cheeses are much harder to hold off than to actually execute. This leads to cheesy players getting in trouble they can rank up the ladder to the point they face players that can hold off their cheese and if they switch into a macro style they are much less skilled then players of their rank and just lose. Cheese should be part of the game but it should be a little harder to pull off for certain rushes IMO
|
On August 17 2011 12:27 DivinitySC2 wrote:
Late game is simply too complicated, hundreds of decisions take place in little time and its simply too hard to master perfectly, while early game is STILL very complicated...
Late game is harder than early game, yes? That's what this is saying, right?
Meaning that if one person masters the late game and the other person - the cheeser - masters the early game, 'mastering' the remainder of the game is comparatively easier for those who focused on the late-game. They just need to practice the early game (again, what was conceded to be easier to master) to get there.
Cheese is important. Attacks are important to punish greed. 'Timing attacks' is an over-used phrase, don't use it if you're a caster unless you can explain effectively what timing is being exploited. All-ins are important to punish greed.
But doing so blindly every game isn't an effective way to get better as an SC2 player.
|
On August 17 2011 12:36 Drium wrote:
As a game goes longer it gets more strategically and mechanically complex. A long game will have more decision to make which means more correct decisions for a good player. It will also have more units, bases, and production to manage which means more room for a good player to differentiate themself.
This is why better players tend to favor macro games. Playing macro games makes you better because it puts you in tougher situations to manage well. Worse players go for early cheese so they don't have to macro or think. Get over it.
Well stated. I've read this sentiment from two posters now and I agree: longer games are more taxing on mechanics AND require more (reactive) decision-making.
To the poster claiming that "winning" is the prime means of determining skill, I don't understand your logic. Wins through cheese often abuse the structure of the game (taking advantage of the difficulty and/or confusion that arises from trying to scout early game). Abusing the incomplete information that we all have when the load screen resolves into the game to achieve a win does not demonstrate skill.
|
Unless I am mistaken, you are saying that a player who cheeses often has more skill than someone who is better at macroing off of 3 base. The definition of cheese however is a strategy that requires surprise to be effective. If the macro player has a better mid/late game, he should win the majority of the games because a solid macro player has solid mechanics and, therefore, will scout for cheeses and be almost immune to most cheeses. With this in mind, the macro player will win more because he will be able to shut down your early game tactics with relative ease.
Some cheeses will give him problems, but the macro player will have a higher win % overall.
|
To put it simple, you give me a basketball and put me against Kobe, then tell us first point wins. I have a much better chance of beating the obviously much better Kobe when all I have to do is score one point and I have the ball. Now you give me a ball and tell me and Kobe to go to 50, I get crushed, because there is less endurance is needed, less knowledge of the game is needed, less skill is needed in a short game, there is more luck involved then normal. It is a full fledge game of its only, but being that it is shorter there is less decision making/less reacting and playing, meaning that there is less of a chance of messing up and getting behind.
I agree "cheese" is needed, it makes the game interesting and keeps you guessing, but as in the Kobe example, you put a chesser against a macro player they might be able to take a game off of them but 9/10 the macro player will win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
