On December 26 2009 23:28 Phrujbaz wrote: Dictionary: (informal) of a solution to a problem, inelegant, showing no skill
It's not called "cheese" because that sounds similar to cheats xD
I think the following defines cheese:
1) you commit to it before scouting (so it's impossible that you are reacting to the opponent's weakness) 2) easy to stop when scouted, so you rely on surprise 3) all-in, if stopped you lose (you aren't actually doing a viable build)
You write dictionaries?
Who said it was not elegant. Boxer 3-0 over Yellow was incredibly elegant. Someone playing brutal macro oriented shit without any mind game / originality is not elgant.
Now, I just lost a game where I succesfully blocked a 4 pool. So your definition is wrong again. 4 pool is not less viable than 12 hatch, you just need to make damage because you invested early game into an agressive playstyle.
That's not different than 2 hatch muta compared to 3 hatch muta: if you don't make damage, you lose, as your eceonomy is weaker than the terran's one. So... Is 2 hatch muta cheese?
On December 27 2009 00:33 Biff The Understudy wrote: You write dictionaries?
Who said it was not elegant. Boxer 3-0 over Yellow was incredibly elegant. Someone playing brutal macro oriented shit without any mind game / originality is not elgant.
I don't write dictionaries. This is the actual dictionary definition of cheesy:
I applied this definition to starcraft, seeing what defines a strategy that is inelegant/has no skill. The following are elements that I think show you are aren't trying to outplay your opponent but simply trying to get a cheap win:
1) Commit to it before scouting 2) High-risk strategy 3) Main strength is element of surprise 4) Leaves you at a large disadvantage if stopped
So I think these elements are what define cheesy strategies.
Boxer 3-0 over yellow was not cheese. Bunker rush actually fails the cheese definition on all counts! Boxer's all in rine+scv rush only fits the definition at point 4. He had already scouted at that point, and just went for the quickest win.
That's not different than 2 hatch muta compared to 3 hatch muta: if you don't make damage, you lose, as your eceonomy is weaker than the terran's one. So... Is 2 hatch muta cheese?
Let's check if 2 hat muta is cheese:
1) commit to before scouting? -> no 2) high-risk strategy? -> no 3) main strength is element of surprise? -> no 4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> no
It seems it's not. Yes, you can debate on some of them but let's compare to four pool
1) commit to before scouting? -> definitely yes 2) high-risk strategy? -> definitely yes 3) main strength is element of surprise? -> definitely yes 4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> definitely yes
4pool is clearly cheese
Now, I just lost a game where I succesfully blocked a 4 pool. So your definition is wrong again. 4 pool is not less viable than 12 hatch, you just need to make damage because you invested early game into an agressive playstyle.
Honestly if you scout a four pool and micro intelligently, he will be so much at a disadvantage it's not even funny. If you kill the last zergling with your last SCV so you have one SCV left I don't think you really defended the four pool. You actually died to it, just decided to play out instead of gg immediately.
On December 27 2009 00:33 Biff The Understudy wrote: You write dictionaries?
Who said it was not elegant. Boxer 3-0 over Yellow was incredibly elegant. Someone playing brutal macro oriented shit without any mind game / originality is not elgant.
I don't write dictionaries. This is the actual dictionary definition of cheesy:
I applied this definition to starcraft, seeing what defines a strategy that is inelegant/has no skill. The following are elements that I think show you are aren't trying to outplay your opponent but simply trying to get a cheap win:
1) Commit to it before scouting 2) High-risk strategy 3) Main strength is element of surprise 4) Leaves you at a large disadvantage if stopped
So I think these elements are what define cheesy strategies.
Boxer 3-0 over yellow was not cheese. Bunker rush actually fails the cheese definition on all counts! Boxer's all in rine+scv rush only fits the definition at point 4. He had already scouted at that point, and just went for the quickest win. If you don't understand, I prefer giving up.
That's not different than 2 hatch muta compared to 3 hatch muta: if you don't make damage, you lose, as your eceonomy is weaker than the terran's one. So... Is 2 hatch muta cheese?
Let's check if 2 hat muta is cheese:
1) commit to before scouting? -> no 2) high-risk strategy? -> no 3) main strength is element of surprise? -> no 4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> no
It seems it's not. Yes, you can debate on some of them but let's compare to four pool
1) commit to before scouting? -> definitely yes 2) high-risk strategy? -> definitely yes 3) main strength is element of surprise? -> definitely yes 4) leaves you at a large disadvantage if defended -> definitely yes
Now, I just lost a game where I succesfully blocked a 4 pool. So your definition is wrong again. 4 pool is not less viable than 12 hatch, you just need to make damage because you invested early game into an agressive playstyle.
Honestly if you scout a four pool and micro intelligently, he will be so much at a disadvantage it's not even funny. If you kill the last zergling with your last SCV so you have one SCV left I don't think you really defended the four pool. You actually died to it, just decided to play out instead of gg immediately.
Guys if you're so scared of cheese you should just send out a super early scout or go for a safer opening. I doubt at your level it's gonna make that much of a difference. You're not a fucking progamer. You don't have to worry about that extra 10 seconds of mining time and it's long term implications. Just fucking play it safe.
On December 27 2009 07:05 KvkG wrote: Guys if you're so scared of cheese you should just send out a super early scout or go for a safer opening. I doubt at your level it's gonna make that much of a difference. You're not a fucking progamer. You don't have to worry about that extra 10 seconds of mining time and it's long term implications. Just fucking play it safe.
Wtf are you talking about - do you think timings don't apply to us because we're not progamers? That's absolutely awful mentality. Those minerals affect the timings of your minerals and thus affect either the effectiveness of a timing attack or the susceptibility of your own build vs a timing attack.
On December 26 2009 08:13 Fontong wrote: [quote] Er there are exceptions to this rule right? Proxy gate in your opponent base can be an economic opening.
What how? If it fails you lose a gateway and a pylon. Thats huge.
Opponent must cut alot of probes. you dont. you can tech a shitton faster than he can.
And have no gateways to use the tech on?
ok, you clearly haven't watched enough games to say that
Thats way too map specific. Try that on a map besides plasma and I'll guarantee you'll fail. There will always be an exception to the rules.
yeah bisu failed in this game didnt he
Sigh. Bunch of retards. I didn't write it properly, but I meant if the 2 gate if fended off then stork would of been fucked on any other map besides plasma. The point of cheese is that if it works you win, and it worked for bisu. Can we get back on track now discussing whether 2 gate is a cheese. Its because of retards like you that we get off track so easily, going what about this. Well what about this. There will always be an exception so live with it.
I see that you have given up defending your position and have instead resorted to calling me a retard.
Did you even watch Best vs Stork? Stork already had a gate and zealots in base by the time the cheese had been fended off. He also had a core finished and the robotics going up. Stop pulling shit out of your ass and actually watch the games.
I did watch the game and I can easily determine if the lurker eggs weren't there best would of rolled over stork with a bigger zealot army and a slightly better zealot production.
Now I will analyze the game for you since you don't believe me.
@5:54, I can easily call this economic disruption as dead. Why? Because stork had one almost dead zealot and no pylons supplying energy to the gateways. Here, best had 4 zealots and stork was just warping in a cybernetics core and a gateway. Now if the lurker eggs weren't there and even if we extend the rushing distance to about HBR's, best can pull off 3 zealot to stork's base, having one zealot chase down that already dead zealot and then proceed to kill the gateways, and stork might be able to make one zealot from the gateway. Best with 3 zealot and 2 gateways to work with would of easily broke into stork's base and rip shit up.
You're wrong. Horror gates (including 2 gate in their base variations) work on almost every 2 player map as an economic opening. The point is you kill their probes, force them to take probes off mining and disrupt mining while suiciding some buildings. In turn your stronger economy + travel time allows you to make up for the minerals invested in the buildings to survive short term and get ahead long term. It's not that complicated really.
On December 27 2009 07:05 KvkG wrote: Guys if you're so scared of cheese you should just send out a super early scout or go for a safer opening. I doubt at your level it's gonna make that much of a difference. You're not a fucking progamer. You don't have to worry about that extra 10 seconds of mining time and it's long term implications. Just fucking play it safe.
This is true. It will ruin your economy and timings, especially if you are terran. Yeah, at a low enough level it won't matter. But then you probably don't know anyway how to counter what you scout.
And if you scout really early it's often too early to see anything anyway. And at low level you may easily lose your scouting unit. And you can still miss proxied stuff. Sometimes I scout for pylons because they are missing, find nothing and assume P is just bad. And then they put it somewhere that doesn't make sense and I still almost autolose.
I'm not saying you shouldn't scout very early, it's still sometimes a very good idea. But there are more ways to counter cheese.
As for Bisu vs Pukjo, I don't remember any recent map where you could manner pylon and then also manner gateway on a two player map. That you also blocked probes mining from the back was huge.
What he is saying is that there are probably at least 10 other more important things, because of wich you lose a game than early scouting. And thechnicly he's right.
On topic: in base 2 gate is cheesy, but it happens, so often that it could almost pass as standart. lol And even if it gets scouted it's not aoutoloss. They match your gates and it becomes a micro battle. Voted cheese anyway.
On December 27 2009 07:05 KvkG wrote: Guys if you're so scared of cheese you should just send out a super early scout or go for a safer opening. I doubt at your level it's gonna make that much of a difference. You're not a fucking progamer. You don't have to worry about that extra 10 seconds of mining time and it's long term implications. Just fucking play it safe.
As for Bisu vs Pukjo, I don't remember any recent map where you could manner pylon and then also manner gateway on a two player map. That you also blocked probes mining from the back was huge.
Of? I don't get your point. I was merely pointing out that both the popular modern 2 player maps allow you to do a manner pylon as bad at on peaks and build 2 gates off it. Why would I be ashamed of posting on tl.
How do you cheese to B- with your 80 apm protoss is you didn't understand what Bisu did vs Pukjo was so bad because it completely blocked off those minerals?
Firstly, I don't cheese. Secondly, who the fuck are you to tell me how I play? I don't criticise whatever the fuck you do. Show me the same respect or failing that, at least try and find out what you're talking about. Thirdly, and in a similar 'you don't know what you're talking about' vein, I got B+ by understanding how to do the same build Bisu did on other maps as every other competent Protoss can do. Ask any good Protoss what the most common PvP opening on HBR was last season. They'll tell you some kind of proxy economic build. Most don't involve 2 gates but 2 gates is a solid option if the opponent doesn't threaten the pylon or cut probes. It's not at all unique to peaks, in fact its way more common on modern 2 player maps than it ever was on peaks.
On December 27 2009 07:05 KvkG wrote: Guys if you're so scared of cheese you should just send out a super early scout or go for a safer opening. I doubt at your level it's gonna make that much of a difference. You're not a fucking progamer. You don't have to worry about that extra 10 seconds of mining time and it's long term implications. Just fucking play it safe.
Wtf are you talking about - do you think timings don't apply to us because we're not progamers? That's absolutely awful mentality. Those minerals affect the timings of your minerals and thus affect either the effectiveness of a timing attack or the susceptibility of your own build vs a timing attack.
It doesn't apply to us because we are not programmer because programmer don't need to scout early as they can rely on their micro.
If your micro sucks enough that you know you can't do anything vs a cheese build, scout earlier. Period. And if you can't micro, I don't think scouting at 9 or at 12 will change anything because you kind of blow anyway.
Sigh. Bunch of retards. I didn't write it properly, but I meant if the 2 gate if fended off then stork would of been fucked on any other map besides plasma. The point of cheese is that if it works you win, and it worked for bisu. Can we get back on track now discussing whether 2 gate is a cheese. Its because of retards like you that we get off track so easily, going what about this. Well what about this. There will always be an exception so live with it.
I see that you have given up defending your position and have instead resorted to calling me a retard.
Did you even watch Best vs Stork? Stork already had a gate and zealots in base by the time the cheese had been fended off. He also had a core finished and the robotics going up. Stop pulling shit out of your ass and actually watch the games.
I did watch the game and I can easily determine if the lurker eggs weren't there best would of rolled over stork with a bigger zealot army and a slightly better zealot production.
Now I will analyze the game for you since you don't believe me.
@5:54, I can easily call this economic disruption as dead. Why? Because stork had one almost dead zealot and no pylons supplying energy to the gateways. Here, best had 4 zealots and stork was just warping in a cybernetics core and a gateway. Now if the lurker eggs weren't there and even if we extend the rushing distance to about HBR's, best can pull off 3 zealot to stork's base, having one zealot chase down that already dead zealot and then proceed to kill the gateways, and stork might be able to make one zealot from the gateway. Best with 3 zealot and 2 gateways to work with would of easily broke into stork's base and rip shit up.
You're wrong. Horror gates (including 2 gate in their base variations) work on almost every 2 player map as an economic opening. The point is you kill their probes, force them to take probes off mining and disrupt mining while suiciding some buildings. In turn your stronger economy + travel time allows you to make up for the minerals invested in the buildings to survive short term and get ahead long term. It's not that complicated really.
Sure, but at that point, stork would of definitely lost if the lurker eggs weren't there. His gateway was just warping in and best could of just sent 3 zealot to kill him off.
well this thread got me thinking, why is it important to classify builds as cheese/not cheese? Sure some builds obviously are cheese (4 pool) and some obviously aren't (10 rax) but there are tons of in between builds that people can disagree about. (maybe: 2 gate in natural, 8 rax, 9 pool speed, 2 port wraith)
The term people give to classify a build shouldn't really affect how you use the build, so is it really important to categorize builds this way? just my thoughts.. interesting discussion
On December 27 2009 09:34 funnybananaman94 wrote: well this thread got me thinking, why is it important to classify builds as cheese/not cheese? Sure some builds obviously are cheese (4 pool) and some obviously aren't (10 rax) but there are tons of in between builds that people can disagree about. (maybe: 2 gate in natural, 8 rax, 9 pool speed, 2 port wraith)
The term people give to classify a build shouldn't really affect how you use the build, so is it really important to categorize builds this way? just my thoughts.. interesting discussion
Well we at teamliquid seem to be really interested in what is a cheese and what isn't. I'm just starting with the more obvious ones and then go to more debatable ones.
Ok, now we're getting into proxy 2 gate into your opponent's base in pvt. This is highly unconventional and I can only find two games that actually used it. One of them was on plasma, where even if it failed, it would take a while to counter because of the lurker egg. I would say this is a cheese because if it failed, then they would of most likely lost.
My definition of cheeses: Various strategies that occur within the first 3 or so minutes of the game that are all in and various map exploits that also occur within the first 3 or so minutes. This includes:
1/2 proxy gate (in-base 2gate is fine) sub 9pool (9pool speed is fine) bbs (8rax is legit) supply depot blocking on hbr (just one example)
Any strategy after the fifth or so minute is fair game imo. Even the strategies that are "gay" (Proxy factory/proxy dt's, 2hatch slow lurker drop) are all ok in my book.
Let it be said I don't think many people are arguing so much as that cheese is the bane of Starcraft strategy - it's more to discuss what constitutes a "cheese build."
EPT
