|
On September 24 2008 16:45 CharlieMurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2008 03:27 Chill wrote: Yea, you got it right. It's a joke build which is why it's not in this thread. Yea, I've always though it was a retarded build. If you go scout they might get a turret or two, making the DT useless, and even further making the arbiter useless. I remember something Rekrul said like 5 years ago, something about it being a Sword strategy in the world of Guns. Someone tried it on me in a random game a few weeks later and I just laughed (and won). PS- Chill there is a typo in crackling def., you left out infinite stasis for P (you should really just remove the other defs and move it to general term for 'infinite X'; etc.), and mirror as a term of same race matchup. Shock/shockers is also a lesser used term for psi storm and HT. imo you should add some strategical terms in there as well, such as: Pincer, Crescent/Half-Circle, Wrap, Massing, etc.
i beat a zerg with the stove today. sort of.
|
On September 24 2008 17:34 dream-_- wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2008 16:45 CharlieMurphy wrote:On June 21 2008 03:27 Chill wrote: Yea, you got it right. It's a joke build which is why it's not in this thread. Yea, I've always though it was a retarded build. If you go scout they might get a turret or two, making the DT useless, and even further making the arbiter useless. I remember something Rekrul said like 5 years ago, something about it being a Sword strategy in the world of Guns. Someone tried it on me in a random game a few weeks later and I just laughed (and won). PS- Chill there is a typo in crackling def., you left out infinite stasis for P (you should really just remove the other defs and move it to general term for 'infinite X'; etc.), and mirror as a term of same race matchup. Shock/shockers is also a lesser used term for psi storm and HT. imo you should add some strategical terms in there as well, such as: Pincer, Crescent/Half-Circle, Wrap, Massing, etc. i beat a zerg with the stove today. sort of. did you get to the arbiters or did you win before that?
|
Chill can u put in MU for matchup?
|
Calgary25951 Posts
I think that's pretty common knowledge to be honest.
|
On October 16 2008 03:04 Chill wrote: I think that's pretty common knowledge to be honest. i didnt know it. i had to think really hard before i got it right. i thought mu meant moo or something. i was like "wtf you guys talking about talk english you communist bitches."
|
I've been playing Starcraft for ages, but almost exclusively campaign. With SC2 coming up, and a few friends picking up competitive Starcraft, I decided to come here and really read up on strats and almost immediately realized I needed to read up on terms first, so here I am.
Because I've read the entire thread in the last day, I think I might have a few good perspectives/discussion summations. So with respect and no further ado, I submit the following suggestions:
All-in, cheese, and han-bang are all similar and overlaping, I think the following definitions are the simplest way to describe how they relate (as I understand):
All-in: A very heavily invested, one-time attack. If this attack does not immediately tip the game in your favor, you will likely lose. Can be seen as a desperate cousin of han-bang.
Cheese: A type of strategy that entails using a non-standard opening build intended to defeat your enemy by surprise early in the game. Examples are proxy buildings and Cannon rushes. Like an all in, if this does not tip the game immediately in your favor, you will likely lose, however, because of the early-game aspect, that risk is magnified.
Han-bang: "One time". An attack that is meant to do significant damage at a specific timing. Can be seen as a calculated, purposeful cousin of all-in.
I saw someone mention that "Infinite *" might be placed into the General section. I think this is a good idea - Storm and Dark Swarm could just be the notable examples. ie:
Infinite ***: Having the ability to cast an offensive spell without end in battle by either having enough casters or use of Consume. Examples are Inf. Storm and Inf. Dark Swarm.
I've heard this for other RTS games, but not Starcraft - and though most people get it pretty quick it can confuse: Military unit: Usually refers to any non-worker with an attack command, but may also include casters with direct offensive spells..
Someone mentioned having a term for floating buildings over turrets to keep them from being explicitly targeted. I don't know if it's a tactic used often, but I've had success with a similar tactic - floating a bay and my first rak over a wall when performing an FE so that the units at the wall can be diverted to defending my natural without diverting econ to building additional military units. (this is mostly useful vs a slow but large speedling rush, or a similar zeal rush) Because one depot will likely burn down under such a rush, the wall can then be gated as usual. ...Back to the point, I've been in discussions where we've termed the tactic "shadowing" or "shadow hiding."
Finally, am I the only one that uses mass-Hallucinate on a somewhat regular basis? ie casting Hallucinate from as many as 12 templar to create a disposable spearhead when breaking a fortified position or push (against terran) with speed zealots, or clogging anti-air to sneak in a strike at an opponent's mineral line or similar. As above, I've discussed this before and we called it an "H-sponge." ie "He used an h-sponge of scouts to get his shuttles through." I'm surprised that there's no common term for it. I'll grant you the times you'd do something like this wouldn't come up often, particularly against skilled players, but it can save the day if you're up against a wall anyway, if you have giant gas reserves, or if you just catch someone getting lazy.
|
On October 25 2008 05:12 Redsplinter wrote: I've been playing Starcraft for ages, but almost exclusively campaign. With SC2 coming up, and a few friends picking up competitive Starcraft, I decided to come here and really read up on strats and almost immediately realized I needed to read up on terms first, so here I am.
Because I've read the entire thread in the last day, I think I might have a few good perspectives/discussion summations. So with respect and no further ado, I submit the following suggestions:
All-in, cheese, and han-bang are all similar and overlaping, I think the following definitions are the simplest way to describe how they relate (as I understand):
All-in: A very heavily invested, one-time attack. If this attack does not immediately tip the game in your favor, you will likely lose. Can be seen as a desperate cousin of han-bang.
Cheese: A type of strategy that entails using a non-standard opening build intended to defeat your enemy by surprise early in the game. Examples are proxy buildings and Cannon rushes. Like an all in, if this does not tip the game immediately in your favor, you will likely lose, however, because of the early-game aspect, that risk is magnified.
Han-bang: "One time". An attack that is meant to do significant damage at a specific timing. Can be seen as a calculated, purposeful cousin of all-in.
I saw someone mention that "Infinite *" might be placed into the General section. I think this is a good idea - Storm and Dark Swarm could just be the notable examples. ie:
Infinite ***: Having the ability to cast an offensive spell without end in battle by either having enough casters or use of Consume. Examples are Inf. Storm and Inf. Dark Swarm.
I've heard this for other RTS games, but not Starcraft - and though most people get it pretty quick it can confuse: Military unit: Usually refers to any non-worker with an attack command, but may also include casters with direct offensive spells..
Someone mentioned having a term for floating buildings over turrets to keep them from being explicitly targeted. I don't know if it's a tactic used often, but I've had success with a similar tactic - floating a bay and my first rak over a wall when performing an FE so that the units at the wall can be diverted to defending my natural without diverting econ to building additional military units. (this is mostly useful vs a slow but large speedling rush, or a similar zeal rush) Because one depot will likely burn down under such a rush, the wall can then be gated as usual. ...Back to the point, I've been in discussions where we've termed the tactic "shadowing" or "shadow hiding."
Finally, am I the only one that uses mass-Hallucinate on a somewhat regular basis? ie casting Hallucinate from as many as 12 templar to create a disposable spearhead when breaking a fortified position or push (against terran) with speed zealots, or clogging anti-air to sneak in a strike at an opponent's mineral line or similar. As above, I've discussed this before and we called it an "H-sponge." ie "He used an h-sponge of scouts to get his shuttles through." I'm surprised that there's no common term for it. I'll grant you the times you'd do something like this wouldn't come up often, particularly against skilled players, but it can save the day if you're up against a wall anyway, if you have giant gas reserves, or if you just catch someone getting lazy.
I like your definitions, and a little off topic but yes you are one of the few people that uses mass hallucinate, and there are reasons for that. - the hallucinations takes double the damage(even though you get two they die horrendously fast) - psionic storm costs less, and most people consider it to do more damage - even if you do get hallucination it is usually not for a while, and is more of a late game thing when you should have arbitors or carriers - it's a waste of energy to hallucinate such low-cost easy producible units. if anything use it on one of their siege takes in the mass of their army, or on your arbitors/carriers. (see PP for recall ownage) i'm sure there are probably more but those are some common problems with your logic
|
Thanks for the input I arranged my post so that the relevant bits were first - and I hope Chill sees them as fit definitions.
As for hallucinate, I know some of the common issues, and restrict it basically to cases where getting an opponent to waste even one or two attacks is worthwhile, or when fighting asymmetric warfare where the trickery itself might throw someone off. Anywho, don't want to get off topic again - rather just reiterate the fact I was surprised its out of most people's playbooks completely.
|
I have one, Feeding - when you micro a unit to take the impact of an aoe shot, typically vs the Reavers scarabs, but all aoe damages apply..
Instead of moveing away from the enemy you single out 1 of your own units and move it towards the enemy, drawing fire onto it and hopefully spareing rest of army from AoE impact.
I think it's a pretty well known definition. But maybe it could be explained better
|
Shadow Toss - When a Protoss player attempts a Dark Templar rush and, if unsuccesful, proceeds to tech to Arbiters. An example of the build would be in Reach vs Boxer on Katrina
|
United States3824 Posts
Dinosaur Toss- When a toss player proxy dt's into two-gate carrier and you can't do anything about it. Example would be games that Stork plays in Proleague
|
You know, the Fantasy Build probably deserves a stringent definition. It gets annoying when people call any build the Fantasy Build, the same way the Bisu build is a specific follow up after FE.
|
Zileas invented the reaver, all reaver use should be named after him!
|
Korea (South)3086 Posts
On October 28 2008 12:19 thunk wrote: You know, the Fantasy Build probably deserves a stringent definition. It gets annoying when people call any build the Fantasy Build, the same way the Bisu build is a specific follow up after FE. Isn't that build called SKT1 Metal or something like that? Or am I wrong? I thought it's specifically when it's a 2 vulture drop into Valkyries and gols. (Sometimes mixed with tanks, depending on the zerg player's unit mix)
|
|
may be you should add a line "WGT: the best Clan League and Nation Wars", since there is ICC and PGT
|
Backstab should be included imo
|
Wouldnt this stuff be called "jargon"?
|
United States4796 Posts
I hope this is considered a reasonable bump..
But the game has changed enough.
In the definition of Dancing, it says it is most commonly done with hydras and goons. I believe mutalisk should be added to that now?
|
On September 08 2009 09:01 El.Divino wrote: I hope this is considered a reasonable bump..
But the game has changed enough.
In the definition of Dancing, it says it is most commonly done with hydras and goons. I believe mutalisk should be added to that now?
I've never heard anyone say "muta dancing" or anything of the like before.
But I don't think anyone uses "second natural" anymore. They say third.
|
|
|
|