|
On January 08 2012 16:41 o[twist] wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 16:39 Fontong wrote:On January 08 2012 16:35 o[twist] wrote:On January 08 2012 16:33 Taekwon wrote:On January 08 2012 16:31 o[twist] wrote:On January 08 2012 16:31 Taekwon wrote:On January 08 2012 16:29 o[twist] wrote:On January 08 2012 16:28 Taekwon wrote:On January 08 2012 16:26 o[twist] wrote:On January 08 2012 16:25 kingalexxx wrote:
[quote]
It's not cheese at all....he's just punishing sHy for being so greedy wat? i don't mind it at all but it's definitely cheese. Bunker rush is standard response to neutralize economic advantage from 12 nex this wasn't a standard bunker rush, did you see all the scvs? How does the number of scvs count? He pulled off like ten. enough to force probes out and enough to still continue the game should his bunker rush fail. ergo, not cheese 10 workers in an attack = cheese. not criticizing, it worked beautifully. Your logic please? Or is this some brightline you just made up? logic? i've been here for several years and have never seen anyone object to early aggression that involved ten workers being called cheese, and i've regularly seen aggression of this type called cheesy. i don't think there's any reason that it being in response to something, or it being strategically sensible, would make it not cheese. that said, i don't think it's a particularly important or meaningful term and i'm not sure why everyone seems to be flipping out about it. You can't lump all early aggression together like that no matter how many years you've been here. This sort of attack is very different from the rofl build why can't i? it's how i've seen the term used. if you can point me to a definition of cheese that would exclude it, i'm happy to read it, but as i understand it it's what the word means. by the way, the standard definitions like "if it works you win, if not you lose" and "one way or another the game is over in a few minutes" etc. don't actually work either. there have definitely been games that started 4pool, 8rax etc. that ended up with the cheese doing a certain amount of damage and then getting cleared up, and with rough equalization and normal play after that.
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Cheese
Check out the examples and maybe you'll understand better
|
On January 08 2012 16:29 mustaju wrote:
STX son.
SKT is next on our hitlist.
Excelent. The sooner we get our revenge the better.
|
|
|
On January 08 2012 16:38 kingalexxx wrote:
Imagine if STX still had Kal....
Kal had something like 30% winrate for the greater part of last year, I don't blame STX for deciding to drop him, especially when he probably had one of the higher salaries of all the players on the team.
Of course, now he's actually winning so...
|
On January 08 2012 16:40 Taekwon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 16:35 o[twist] wrote:On January 08 2012 16:33 Taekwon wrote:On January 08 2012 16:31 o[twist] wrote:On January 08 2012 16:31 Taekwon wrote:On January 08 2012 16:29 o[twist] wrote:On January 08 2012 16:28 Taekwon wrote:On January 08 2012 16:26 o[twist] wrote:On January 08 2012 16:25 kingalexxx wrote:On January 08 2012 16:24 Le French wrote:
fucking cheesers! It's not cheese at all....he's just punishing sHy for being so greedy wat? i don't mind it at all but it's definitely cheese. Bunker rush is standard response to neutralize economic advantage from 12 nex this wasn't a standard bunker rush, did you see all the scvs? How does the number of scvs count? He pulled off like ten. enough to force probes out and enough to still continue the game should his bunker rush fail. ergo, not cheese 10 workers in an attack = cheese. not criticizing, it worked beautifully. Your logic please? Or is this some brightline you just made up? logic? i've been here for several years and have never seen anyone object to early aggression that involved ten workers being called cheese, and i've regularly seen aggression of this type called cheesy. i don't think there's any reason that it being in response to something, or it being strategically sensible, would make it not cheese. that said, i don't think it's a particularly important or meaningful term and i'm not sure why everyone seems to be flipping out about it. I'd have to criticize your perception over the years then as you have several objecting over just the last few pages... I don't mind what you think of it but don't openly call it cheese without your thoughts...if you want to dodge the question, perfectly fine - I agree it's not worth flipping out over but don't arbitrarily attribute a strategic punishment as cheese without any reason... It's not even about being right or wrong, please understand. I mean no offense, but it's just about netizen etiquette for me. lololol
If he pulled that many SCVs and failed then he would have like 15 SCVs left plus a ton of lost mining time against a 12 nexus opening, which would basically be complete economic gg. In fact instances of this have happened where Terran pulls a fuckton of SCVs, kills the nexus, then loses the game because of how much it hurts your own economy (upmagic vs stork). You rarely ever see terrans pull that many scvs for this sort of thing because of that, and Last just wanted to end it right there instead of doing what I would call the "standard bunker rush response" that kills a couple of probes and causes toss to lose mining time while expanding behind mines.
e: also I don't give a shit whether it's cheese or not, only that someone called it the standard bunker rush response which it was not
|
On January 08 2012 16:43 kingalexxx wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 16:41 o[twist] wrote:On January 08 2012 16:39 Fontong wrote:On January 08 2012 16:35 o[twist] wrote:On January 08 2012 16:33 Taekwon wrote:On January 08 2012 16:31 o[twist] wrote:On January 08 2012 16:31 Taekwon wrote:On January 08 2012 16:29 o[twist] wrote:On January 08 2012 16:28 Taekwon wrote:On January 08 2012 16:26 o[twist] wrote:
[quote]
wat?
i don't mind it at all but it's definitely cheese. Bunker rush is standard response to neutralize economic advantage from 12 nex this wasn't a standard bunker rush, did you see all the scvs? How does the number of scvs count? He pulled off like ten. enough to force probes out and enough to still continue the game should his bunker rush fail. ergo, not cheese 10 workers in an attack = cheese. not criticizing, it worked beautifully. Your logic please? Or is this some brightline you just made up? logic? i've been here for several years and have never seen anyone object to early aggression that involved ten workers being called cheese, and i've regularly seen aggression of this type called cheesy. i don't think there's any reason that it being in response to something, or it being strategically sensible, would make it not cheese. that said, i don't think it's a particularly important or meaningful term and i'm not sure why everyone seems to be flipping out about it. You can't lump all early aggression together like that no matter how many years you've been here. This sort of attack is very different from the rofl build why can't i? it's how i've seen the term used. if you can point me to a definition of cheese that would exclude it, i'm happy to read it, but as i understand it it's what the word means. by the way, the standard definitions like "if it works you win, if not you lose" and "one way or another the game is over in a few minutes" etc. don't actually work either. there have definitely been games that started 4pool, 8rax etc. that ended up with the cheese doing a certain amount of damage and then getting cleared up, and with rough equalization and normal play after that. http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/CheeseCheck out the examples and maybe you'll understand better
right, i just checked that out. notice how the bunker rush with a ton of scvs is exactly the example they use
i don't have much invested in this debate so i'm happy to concede the point, i just want to make it clear that i wasn't simply throwing a pejorative term around - i don't view it as a pejorative (i love the occasional 4pool, for example) and i also feel pretty strongly that i have a decent understanding of the term.
sorry if i offended anyone, especially since i feel it was a well-played game and a well-timed attack by last.
|
Estonia4505 Posts
On January 08 2012 16:44 nineninja9 wrote:Kal had something like 30% winrate for the greater part of last year, I don't blame STX for deciding to drop him, especially when he probably had one of the higher salaries of all the players on the team. Of course, now he's actually winning so...
STX didn't "drop him". Once he finishes his Air Force ACE years, I bet he'll return, if STX still exists.
|
Thanks to Shimmy for the thread, Zona for his incredible and always interesting LR and all streamers, contributors and moral support (mustajju)!
CELEBRATE STX FANS!! MAY THIS STREAK CONTINIUE!
|
Ah, I was out too late =/
Atleast I wasn't here live when Stars lost to STX =/
|
ok i give up
study builds more otwist
|
On January 08 2012 16:48 Fontong wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 16:44 Kyuukyuu wrote:On January 08 2012 16:40 Taekwon wrote:On January 08 2012 16:35 o[twist] wrote:On January 08 2012 16:33 Taekwon wrote:On January 08 2012 16:31 o[twist] wrote:On January 08 2012 16:31 Taekwon wrote:On January 08 2012 16:29 o[twist] wrote:On January 08 2012 16:28 Taekwon wrote:On January 08 2012 16:26 o[twist] wrote:
[quote]
wat?
i don't mind it at all but it's definitely cheese. Bunker rush is standard response to neutralize economic advantage from 12 nex this wasn't a standard bunker rush, did you see all the scvs? How does the number of scvs count? He pulled off like ten. enough to force probes out and enough to still continue the game should his bunker rush fail. ergo, not cheese 10 workers in an attack = cheese. not criticizing, it worked beautifully. Your logic please? Or is this some brightline you just made up? logic? i've been here for several years and have never seen anyone object to early aggression that involved ten workers being called cheese, and i've regularly seen aggression of this type called cheesy. i don't think there's any reason that it being in response to something, or it being strategically sensible, would make it not cheese. that said, i don't think it's a particularly important or meaningful term and i'm not sure why everyone seems to be flipping out about it. I'd have to criticize your perception over the years then as you have several objecting over just the last few pages... I don't mind what you think of it but don't openly call it cheese without your thoughts...if you want to dodge the question, perfectly fine - I agree it's not worth flipping out over but don't arbitrarily attribute a strategic punishment as cheese without any reason... It's not even about being right or wrong, please understand. I mean no offense, but it's just about netizen etiquette for me. lololol If he pulled that many SCVs and failed then he would have like 15 SCVs left plus a ton of lost mining time against a 12 nexus opening, which would basically be complete economic gg. You rarely ever see terrans pull that many scvs for this sort of thing because of that, so Last just wanted to end it right there instead of what I would call the "standard bunker rush response" that kills a couple of probes and causes toss to lose mining time while expanding behind mines. An all-in is not cheese. I don't think anyone is disputing that last was going all-in with that attack. From wikipedia's definition of cheese, based on last's actions: -Cheese is a pejorative expression which refers to a strategy that is highly unconventional -and designed to take one's opponent by surprise. -In general, cheese is hard to beat if not scouted but easy to defeat if it is scouted. Unconventional? Nope, it was a standard response to early protoss greed, especially in close positions By surprise? Yes, but wasn't planned from the beginning of the game. Hard to beat if not scouted? Doesn't apply because a bunker rush is impossible to scout beforehand. It's a spur of the moment response to the opponent's build.
from the tl wiki:
"Supposed Origins
During a broadcast game on September 16, 2009, OGN commentator Um Jae Kyung (엄재경) briefly discussed the difference between a bunker rush and a "cheese" rush. According to his explanation, the term "cheese" originated from the word "cheater's" (words in Korean are sometimes shortened by the middle syllables, so 치터즈 [chi tuh zu] would become 치즈 [chi zu]). The strategy is characterized by, as opposed to a simple bunker rush, a practically unbeatable combination of most of the Terran's SCVs and a very quickly assembled group of marines. Because both Protoss and Zerg basic units are unranged, SCVs can effectively prevent the ranged marines from being destroyed by obstructing the path between the units, giving the marines a tremendous (and thus unfair) edge."
i don't think of this as an unfair advantage or a cheating strategy, though - shy could easily have cheesed too, it's not like only one race gets to cheese
|
Estonia4505 Posts
On January 08 2012 16:47 Taekwon wrote:
Thanks to Shimmy for the thread, Zona for his incredible and always interesting LR and all streamers, contributors and moral support (mustajju)!
CELEBRATE STX FANS!! MAY THIS STREAK CONTINIUE!
Thanks for helping to reform me. I hope I'll have cause to celebrate like this again. Best of luck to Stars as well! I'll cheer hard for you in your next game!
|
I didnt even have to stream, or post in the thread.
STX gonna win PL, Like I said from the beginning. SC ezmode.
|
On January 08 2012 16:48 Fontong wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 16:44 Kyuukyuu wrote:On January 08 2012 16:40 Taekwon wrote:On January 08 2012 16:35 o[twist] wrote:On January 08 2012 16:33 Taekwon wrote:On January 08 2012 16:31 o[twist] wrote:On January 08 2012 16:31 Taekwon wrote:On January 08 2012 16:29 o[twist] wrote:On January 08 2012 16:28 Taekwon wrote:On January 08 2012 16:26 o[twist] wrote:
[quote]
wat?
i don't mind it at all but it's definitely cheese. Bunker rush is standard response to neutralize economic advantage from 12 nex this wasn't a standard bunker rush, did you see all the scvs? How does the number of scvs count? He pulled off like ten. enough to force probes out and enough to still continue the game should his bunker rush fail. ergo, not cheese 10 workers in an attack = cheese. not criticizing, it worked beautifully. Your logic please? Or is this some brightline you just made up? logic? i've been here for several years and have never seen anyone object to early aggression that involved ten workers being called cheese, and i've regularly seen aggression of this type called cheesy. i don't think there's any reason that it being in response to something, or it being strategically sensible, would make it not cheese. that said, i don't think it's a particularly important or meaningful term and i'm not sure why everyone seems to be flipping out about it. I'd have to criticize your perception over the years then as you have several objecting over just the last few pages... I don't mind what you think of it but don't openly call it cheese without your thoughts...if you want to dodge the question, perfectly fine - I agree it's not worth flipping out over but don't arbitrarily attribute a strategic punishment as cheese without any reason... It's not even about being right or wrong, please understand. I mean no offense, but it's just about netizen etiquette for me. lololol If he pulled that many SCVs and failed then he would have like 15 SCVs left plus a ton of lost mining time against a 12 nexus opening, which would basically be complete economic gg. You rarely ever see terrans pull that many scvs for this sort of thing because of that, so Last just wanted to end it right there instead of what I would call the "standard bunker rush response" that kills a couple of probes and causes toss to lose mining time while expanding behind mines. An all-in is not cheese. I don't think anyone is disputing that last was going all-in with that attack.
This is pretty much all I wanted to say, never wanted to argue about cheese semantics
|
On January 08 2012 16:48 Fontong wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 16:44 Kyuukyuu wrote:On January 08 2012 16:40 Taekwon wrote:On January 08 2012 16:35 o[twist] wrote:On January 08 2012 16:33 Taekwon wrote:On January 08 2012 16:31 o[twist] wrote:On January 08 2012 16:31 Taekwon wrote:On January 08 2012 16:29 o[twist] wrote:On January 08 2012 16:28 Taekwon wrote:On January 08 2012 16:26 o[twist] wrote:
[quote]
wat?
i don't mind it at all but it's definitely cheese. Bunker rush is standard response to neutralize economic advantage from 12 nex this wasn't a standard bunker rush, did you see all the scvs? How does the number of scvs count? He pulled off like ten. enough to force probes out and enough to still continue the game should his bunker rush fail. ergo, not cheese 10 workers in an attack = cheese. not criticizing, it worked beautifully. Your logic please? Or is this some brightline you just made up? logic? i've been here for several years and have never seen anyone object to early aggression that involved ten workers being called cheese, and i've regularly seen aggression of this type called cheesy. i don't think there's any reason that it being in response to something, or it being strategically sensible, would make it not cheese. that said, i don't think it's a particularly important or meaningful term and i'm not sure why everyone seems to be flipping out about it. I'd have to criticize your perception over the years then as you have several objecting over just the last few pages... I don't mind what you think of it but don't openly call it cheese without your thoughts...if you want to dodge the question, perfectly fine - I agree it's not worth flipping out over but don't arbitrarily attribute a strategic punishment as cheese without any reason... It's not even about being right or wrong, please understand. I mean no offense, but it's just about netizen etiquette for me. lololol If he pulled that many SCVs and failed then he would have like 15 SCVs left plus a ton of lost mining time against a 12 nexus opening, which would basically be complete economic gg. You rarely ever see terrans pull that many scvs for this sort of thing because of that, so Last just wanted to end it right there instead of what I would call the "standard bunker rush response" that kills a couple of probes and causes toss to lose mining time while expanding behind mines. An all-in is not cheese. I don't think anyone is disputing that last was going all-in with that attack. From wikipedia's definition of cheese, based on last's actions: -Cheese is a pejorative expression which refers to a strategy that is highly unconventional -and designed to take one's opponent by surprise. -In general, cheese is hard to beat if not scouted but easy to defeat if it is scouted. Unconventional? Nope, it was a standard response to early protoss greed, especially in close positions By surprise? Yes, but wasn't planned from the beginning of the game. Hard to beat if not scouted? Doesn't apply because a bunker rush is impossible to scout beforehand. It's a spur of the moment response to the opponent's build.
...
By definition, if it's conventional then there should be no surprise.
Cheese has nothing to do with whether it was planned. By your definition, a 4 pool is not cheese if the player forgot to build drones.
Of course you can scout it. In fact protoss almost scouted it last game.
Editing your post and replacing it with an insult. Classy.
|
On January 08 2012 16:47 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 16:44 nineninja9 wrote:On January 08 2012 16:38 kingalexxx wrote:
Imagine if STX still had Kal.... Kal had something like 30% winrate for the greater part of last year, I don't blame STX for deciding to drop him, especially when he probably had one of the higher salaries of all the players on the team. Of course, now he's actually winning so... STX didn't "drop him". Once he finishes his Air Force ACE years, I bet he'll return, if STX still exists.
I always assumed that his choice to enter the military at this specific time was in some way influenced by STX. I actually remember reading something several months about Kal not being in STX's "long term plans," but that may have been hearsay.
|
Estonia4505 Posts
On January 08 2012 17:00 nineninja9 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 16:47 mustaju wrote:On January 08 2012 16:44 nineninja9 wrote:On January 08 2012 16:38 kingalexxx wrote:
Imagine if STX still had Kal.... Kal had something like 30% winrate for the greater part of last year, I don't blame STX for deciding to drop him, especially when he probably had one of the higher salaries of all the players on the team. Of course, now he's actually winning so... STX didn't "drop him". Once he finishes his Air Force ACE years, I bet he'll return, if STX still exists. I always assumed that his choice to enter the military at this specific time was in some way influenced by STX. I actually remember reading something several months about Kal not being in STX's "long term plans," but that may have been hearsay.
Most distressing. I'll put it in the back of my head as Hearsay though.
|
On January 08 2012 17:00 nineninja9 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 16:47 mustaju wrote:On January 08 2012 16:44 nineninja9 wrote:On January 08 2012 16:38 kingalexxx wrote:
Imagine if STX still had Kal.... Kal had something like 30% winrate for the greater part of last year, I don't blame STX for deciding to drop him, especially when he probably had one of the higher salaries of all the players on the team. Of course, now he's actually winning so... STX didn't "drop him". Once he finishes his Air Force ACE years, I bet he'll return, if STX still exists. I always assumed that his choice to enter the military at this specific time was in some way influenced by STX. I actually remember reading something several months about Kal not being in STX's "long term plans," but that may have been hearsay.
No, you are unfortunately right on both aspects. =(
Cemented by Kal's post-game interviews...
Regardless, one can only hope...Even Goojillas can't abandon their BFFs.
|
On January 08 2012 17:04 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 17:00 nineninja9 wrote:On January 08 2012 16:47 mustaju wrote:On January 08 2012 16:44 nineninja9 wrote:On January 08 2012 16:38 kingalexxx wrote:
Imagine if STX still had Kal.... Kal had something like 30% winrate for the greater part of last year, I don't blame STX for deciding to drop him, especially when he probably had one of the higher salaries of all the players on the team. Of course, now he's actually winning so... STX didn't "drop him". Once he finishes his Air Force ACE years, I bet he'll return, if STX still exists. I always assumed that his choice to enter the military at this specific time was in some way influenced by STX. I actually remember reading something several months about Kal not being in STX's "long term plans," but that may have been hearsay. Most distressing. I'll put it in the back of my head as Hearsay though.
i remember a lot of rumors going around about stx before the new pl format and team structure was finalized. i remember an especially odd one where stx was apparently planning on replacing every single player on their team. obviously they didn't and i'm not sure where the rumor came from. i think people were pretty scared about mbc ceasing to broadcast, and of course about mbc, wemade, and oz disbanding, so anything seemed believable
|
Missed that one.
Im a sad panda =(.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
