|
Zatic made a thread about Cheese and All-Ins that I believe many of us have come to accept:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=123613
Cheese: A strategy that relies overwhelmingly or entirely on secrecy. If scouted, the strategy fails and puts the executing player at a severe disadvantage, or right out costs him the game.
All-In: An aggressive strategy aimed at killing the opponent off completely in one attack. All available resources are put into this one attack and no follow-up is being considered. Should the attack fail and the opponent live through it, the game is almost certainly lost to a counter or to superior enemy tech/economy.
The Liquipedia should probably be updated to reflect this more modern view.
P.S. The people who care enough about linguistics enough to argue about it are different from the total noobs who use the word in a way not to your liking. I'm not usually irritated by threads, but this and the latest metagame post come across as highly snobby and elitist. I would put in my own 2 cents about my take on this issue, but I don't have the mental energy to argue for or against such a completely meaningless concept.
Good luck with your movement to educate the masses or form a cult of followers who will never use the word cheese or whatever. I for one will be drinking a very tall glass of wine.
|
Where did all these starcraft term nazis come from? Chill bro.
|
On July 23 2010 16:34 virgozero wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2010 16:30 Railz wrote:and if you've read my entire post you'd see that cheese is a classification of a bunch of strats
there is no need for it. people will not come up with something they do not need. Do you see someone coming up with a word that defines watering plants and bringing them outside?
Yes, its called gardening. In fact, gardening "is a classification of bunch of strategies" in which to grow plants, so...Whats your point? no its not called gardening. gardening consists on a variety of actions not specifically watering plants and bringing them outside. You are obviously missing the point to where your just trying to demote this argument by atking my horrible on-the-go examples, so I would kindly suggest you to either re-read this topic another day when your feeling a bit more open minded or just leave the discussion. that again is my "suggestion"
Yes, but if a passer-by can say the person watering plants is gardening, then in common language - it can mean just that.
And I didn't miss the point of your post. I posted early in the thread regarding my feeling about it. Calm down there sparky. Here, I'll find it again just to save you the hassle.
Nothing wrong with the term. If you take it as a negative or derogatory term that is a self issue. No different then terms like A-Move, Massing, Turtle, Bulldog, etc....It is just a strat or play style term. If its used wrong - don't listen to those streams, obviously the casters don't do their homework or run to easy terms when casting.
|
calm down. it's not like you're calling someone a n*gger or something.
|
if a strategy is based on surprise.. wait a minute there are strategies that aren't based on suprrise? Yes, of course.
I think there's a very easy line to draw here: would this strategy be at all viable if you were playing the game with shared vision? If the strategy would be an auto-loss if the opponent saw you doing it, it's cheese.
edit: FC.strike's post above sums it up nicely (wasn't there when I was writing this).
|
Ban/Eliminate "Square"
I honestly cannot find room for this term. Wikipedia defines a square as "a regular quadrilateral. This means that it has four equal sides and four equal angles (90 degree angles, or right angles)."
So what I don't see is why we even need this term.
1) If a polygon has four sides, just call it a quadrilateral.
There is NO NEED to call it a square.
2) If a polygon has equal sides, just call it equilateral.
There is NO NEED to call it a square.
3) If a polygon has equal angles, just call it equiangular.
There is NO NEED to call it a square.
We could just say "regular quadrilateral" or "regular tetragon" instead!
WHY do we need to put a LABEL on it and call it a squarE?
There is "NO" reason to do so.
"Cheese" as a term is more specific than any of the suggestions you give, and as such isn't useless. The latter part of your argument that talks about people misusing the term is a legitimate complaint, but the first part is just silly. You're also plain wrong at parts (e.g. as mentioned, most 'standard' strategies don't rely at all on surprise).
Personally I think most people have similar enough ideas of what "cheese" means so that when it's used, others understand what's being conveyed. Sure it's misused (a fast void ray with a stable transition planned out is not cheese, obviously), but you have to blame the people misusing the term, not the term itself.
|
On July 23 2010 16:31 ArvickHero wrote:
Just do it like the Koreans and call it "Strategic Play" then. Koreans don't use the term Cheese at all.. just foreigners, probably invented by somebody like Artosis or Idra after they got abused by Protoss too much.
Koreans coined the term a long time ago and still use it whenever someone bunker rushes with additional scvs
|
Sorry, but your point is basically that we have no need for the word. Well, that's not good enough for me.
A cheese build is one that is highly risky. No, your goal isn't to surprise an enemy in a strategy game, it is to have the better strategy and tactics. Some of these can be surprising, but surprising is something you don't expect. Sure, I can go for a Robo or Council, neither are unexpected for a Protoss to do. Typically, you don't expect me to plant a Pylon in some tactically genius location and rush Warpgates.
All-in means that everything goes in and that you devote all of what you have to it. While there are always exceptions, you will probably have no way of following up an all-in. Yes, people misidentify these things because people don't really have a consensus definition of cheese, but that doesn't mean much for the word itself and whether we should use it.
Early is probably referring to the early game stage, before mid-game begins. I don't know exactly what changes early game from late game, but most, if not all, cheese builds end the game before mid-game goes into effect, before expansions start moving production.
Serious resistance is just what it means, there isn't any serious resistance where you just can steamroll whatever your opponent has, maybe with some micro, maybe not. Yes, they are typically considered noobish for this reason, because you don't need the multitasking skills, although micro skills vary. A 2 Gate proxy is so early that if it isn't expected, there won't be a lot of units to defend and you can just demolish with constant Zealot production.
The word you ignored was relied, in that a cheese build NEEDS these to work. Without them, cheese builds will fail.
I will say luck plays a factor too.
|
For a guy who really dislikes the term "cheese" you sure do use it a lot haha. I do admit that the term "cheese" has been quite overused lately. My question is this: is your post just a rant about how you dislike this term or do you seriously think that people should just stop using it? If you are serious about this then let me ask you this: how do you think your post is going to help this? You went on a page long rant attacking players and casters alike. Bad rhetoric if you ask me. Also (I'm not trying to be mean seriously) I had trouble reading your post due to its poor organization.
The second thing is that the definition of cheese CAN indeed fit many types of strategies this is true, but what you are referring to is a the connotation of the word cheese meaning noobish or easy to execute. Let me ask you this though. When I say Huk pulled cheese to win against virgozero vs when I say Huk pulled the PERFECT cheese to win against virgozero suddenly the term cheese has taken on two meanings hasn't it? The word cheese doesn't always have a bad connotation as you think. For example if I used cheese to refer to boxer's bunker rushes immediately the word takes on a positive tone; however, if I say it with a bad tone then of course it's going to take on a bad meaning. It's all in how you say the word that indicates its meaning.
|
On July 23 2010 16:37 FC.Strike wrote:Zatic made a thread about Cheese and All-Ins that I believe many of us have come to accept: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=123613Cheese: A strategy that relies overwhelmingly or entirely on secrecy. If scouted, the strategy fails and puts the executing player at a severe disadvantage, or right out costs him the game. All-In: An aggressive strategy aimed at killing the opponent off completely in one attack. All available resources are put into this one attack and no follow-up is being considered. Should the attack fail and the opponent live through it, the game is almost certainly lost to a counter or to superior enemy tech/economy. The Liquipedia should probably be updated to reflect this more modern view. P.S. The people who care enough about linguistics enough to argue about it are different from the total noobs who use the word in a way not to your liking. I'm not usually irritated by threads, but this and the latest metagame post come across as highly snobby and elitist. I would put in my own 2 cents about my take on this issue, but I don't have the mental energy to argue for or against such a completely meaningless concept. Good luck with your movement to educate the masses or form a cult of followers who will never use the word cheese or whatever. I for one will be drinking a very tall glass of wine.
I understand your philosophy and I am on the same boat. But hey this a forum? Why not? Its not like im serous about this, OMG I MUST LET EVERYONE KNOW THAT THEY'VE BEEN USING THE WORD CHEESE WRONG !!!!
I am in this as much as you are in this to reply.
no. its not. Its just a discussion. and what makes your definition of cheese more accurate than liquidpedias? what makes anyone's defintion of cheese more accurate than liquidpedias?
We have to start somewhere.
We can either assume liquidpedia is right and talk from there or assume you and a certain amount of people are right and talk from there. Where do we start, I dont know. But frankly it doesn't matter. The point is out there I am sure.
and "highly snobby and elitist" wtf?
so everytime someone comes up with a discussion that many people go "hmm?"
its considered snobby and elitist? You should reflect on that.
|
On July 23 2010 16:28 virgozero wrote:
and if you've read my entire post you'd see that cheese is a classification of a bunch of strats
there is no need for it. people will not come up with something they do not need. Do you see someone coming up with a word that defines watering plants and bringing them outside?
No, because that's a combination of two things, where as cheese is just one. It is a broad term meant to encompass a variety of strategies that share common ground. We do see people coming up with terms for going out into the wilderness and walking around. Hiking. This is a better comparison, (despite being random) as like cheese Hiking can encompass lots of things, you could walk up a mountain, you could walk along a river, whatever. Its the same broad strokes of an activity, with varying specifics.
On July 23 2010 16:28 virgozero wrote:
if you've read I told you specifically not to alter its definition. you must be illiterate or just skipped that part, im hoping on the latter.
Ok lets avoid insults. I thought it relevant to include that part, as changing the definition is the logical followthough to having a term which is thought to be pointless. I probably should have included my reasoning there.
On July 23 2010 16:28 virgozero wrote:Show nested quote +On your analysis of Cheesy, how can you not understand what Cheesy means?
It means that a strategy is partly reliant on not being scouted and is semi-all-in. except that is not what cheese means at all. So let me ask YOU how YOU cannot understand what Cheese means when its clearly stated in the liquidpedia dictionary.
Ah what? I do understand what Cheese means. Let me re-state what I was trying to say originally, a little clearer, as you didn't get it. Cheesy is similar to Cheese, however it is only partially all-in, and only partially relies on surprise. However it still tries to end the game early, and still tries to do so without serious opposition.
On July 23 2010 16:28 virgozero wrote:Show nested quote +
It doesn't insta-win, but neither is it an instant loss if it doesn't work. You can argue that that applies to all strategies, but its just more for cheesy strategies.
this doesn't make sense. this is like saying an apple can also be called a wapple because its more like a wapple anyways. I don't exactly know the name of that particular logical fallacy but its error is obvious.
Ok I'll admit that that was very badly worded. However your comparison doesn't really work either. What I'm saying is, firstly, see above for what exactly Cheesy is. If we then add onto this that Cheese either works, or loses the game for the person doing it (Since it is all-in), then Cheesy is almost all in. If it works, great, if it doesn't, then it doesn't mean a instant loss for the person trying it. It has some followthrough. The tradeoff is that a Cheesy strategy usually is less effective than a Cheese if it works perfectly.
Also i'll add in my edit to the previous post, since it gives a good example of what im talking about.
Oh, and on cheese being easy/noobish. Ok some people may misuse it this way, but for instance; (KotB tourny spoiler)+ Show Spoiler +
Tester did a 4warpgate rush against HuK to warp units into his main. It was clearly a cheese, but it wasn't noobish by any means. Intotherainbow also utilized some highly effective cheese (or semi cheese) and this provides a good example of semi cheese. He pushed with some marines/marauders and at the same time floated his proxy factory into his main to divert forces. Definitely 'cheesy', as it relies on the proxy fac not being scouted, and is a clear attempt to end the game early. It is also semi all-in, as if it was to fail it would put him at a rather severe disadvantage. However it is not clean cut cheese, as should it fail he hasn't lost the game completely. Hence cheesy.
|
got my popcorn ready, now lets see how fast this turns into a rage fest.
|
One mans cheese is another mans "strategic play" its all about perspective.
For example you get 5 pooled and go whine on the forums about cheesy D level zergs ruining your stats on iccup. Or you could go make a brag blog about how awesome you are 5 pooling everyone.
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=137731
|
The fact that liquipedia defines the word should be a godsend for you. The fact that it is defined mean we can stick to a definition for it, even if it doesn't suit your needs (not sure how long you've been following PL or whatever but the term is definitely there and was coined by the Koreans) If its banned from liquipedia then it means whatever joe schmoe wants it to be. "You're going mass carriers? Cheesy" "Do I smell mech? Cheesy". Remember, acknowledging as negative only gives it more power. Just use the term and move on.
|
On July 23 2010 16:39 Crahptacular wrote:
"Cheese" as a term is more specific than any of the suggestions you give, and as such isn't useless.
i said at the very beginning we are assuming liquidpedia is correct.
You're also plain wrong at parts (e.g. as mentioned, most 'standard' strategies don't rely at all on surprise).
Lol okay. So what exactly is the point of scouting? You won't be suprised right? everythings going to happen exactly as you wish. why send that lonely scv out there to scout, you know whats coming.
Personally I think most people have similar enough ideas of what "cheese" means so that when it's used, others understand what's being conveyed. Sure it's misused (a fast void ray with a stable transition planned out is not cheese, obviously), but you have to blame the people misusing the term, not the term itself.
again this is because you have a diff. defintion with cheese but like I said we're assuming liquidpedia is the dictionary.
On July 23 2010 16:40 RageOverdose wrote:
Sorry, but your point is basically that we have no need for the word. Well, that's not good enough for me.
I am sorry I'll make sure the next time I post it will be good enough for you.
A cheese build is one that is highly risky. No, your goal isn't to surprise an enemy in a strategy game, it is to have the better strategy and tactics. Some of these can be surprising, but surprising is something you don't expect. Sure, I can go for a Robo or Council, neither are unexpected for a Protoss to do. Typically, you don't expect me to plant a Pylon in some tactically genius location and rush Warpgates.
again your coming up with your own defintion. I've said, were following liquidpedia. Why choose your defintion over Crahptacular's? (the above poster)
|
On July 23 2010 16:18 virgozero wrote:
Its either "an all-in strategy that relies on surprise to win a game early without serious resistance" or its not. How can a strategy be "kinda cheesey". "kinda cheesy" = relatively high risk, with relatively low chance of transitioning out of it, if it doesn't work.
The term depends a lot on the metagame, or the current trends of the game. For example, on the Asia server people play a lot more cheesy when players from other servers look at it, but they actually pull through it, often even if it fails - so, in their current trends of the game, the risk of the same strat is not that high. Hence, on their server the same thing is not cheese.
Cheese is fine, but is looked a little down upon, because it is usually with lower winning percentage than a more macro-oriented game, and it allows players with inferior experience/mechanics to sometimes beat better players. "Better" here means - in case of a large league or public ladder, where all games are known, the players who rank the highest. Because then if someone takes too many risks, it will cost them on the long run (and people may even learn about them and counter their cheeses), and they will not have as good ranking as someone who uses solid well polished long-term builds.
Nevertheless it's part of the game, just because if one would only play macro and never cheese, then they would be too predictable and get losing to cheese. So the really good player has to be able to do both, but usually the best players do not over-cheese (cannot afford such low %). Hope that helps.
I'd say that cheese has better application in tournament schemes than public league schemes. Because in direct elimination the solid macro players have high chance of being sniped along the way by at least one right cheese (risk), well suited for ruining their strat. While eventually one of all the "cheesers" (the risk-oriented players) is more likely to reach the final and win. Look at it as a multi-tournament strategy: if you play 10 tournaments with very risky plays, at least a couple of times you will get extraordinarily lucky streaks and win a couple of tournaments. While if you play the strat which would total the highest winning % of this amount of games, you still may end up without winning any tournament. But in a league, especially a public league, playing so risky will not get you good enough ranking.
Since leagues are usually the most respected, the risky play is not as highly regarded as the more boring solid play. However the risky players will be more likely to win tournaments, and so the public often loves those players, even if they perform worse in large leagues. Same principles apply to other sports and games, so I guess this wall of text should be pretty clear. 
|
Cheese (in a negative sense) is just a word used by people that want to play the game in a certain way.
There is no wrong way to win.
|
Fucking hell, can we not get away from all of these pointless semantics arguments? Go read a book or go on a Wiki-spree on Linguistics and you'll quickly learn that it doesn't really matter what people call something. It's the context that is important, not the terminology- especially in an informal setting like a video game forum.
Language (and just about everything else outside of mathematics) is subjective, and none more so than the English language. Dictionaries, encyclopedias, and thesauruses report the current usage of words, they do not dictate it. This is why we have new editions every X number of years.
At the moment, the definition of Cheese as used with SC2 seems to be anything unorthodox or unexpected. Something outside of the bounds of (are you ready for this?) the metagame. At any given time, any strategy could shift from Cheese to Standard and hardly anyone would even notice.
Hell, the only time I get angry at the usage of the word is when people use it as an excuse for why they lost, or when people bitch about the usage of the word!
|
Nowadays, a "cheesy strategy" is just something that does not promote a long macro game. It's obviously not true, but it's just how the term has become popularized. It seems like people called anything that's not a FE in PvZ a "cheesy strategy", but obviously, it's just a deviation from the "standard build".
Basically, if it ain't standard, it's some kind of cheese.
|
Wow I'd just like to say virgozero you are mean. Everyone is trying to explain to you that they still wish to have the word cheese in their vocabulary and you lash out like a wolf cornered by hunters.
Let me give you another example. The word "epic" is the perfect example of this particular situation. Now I do not like this word. Do I use it? Sure I use it plenty of times in my daily vocabulary. Now the reason I do not like this word is not because I dislike the sound or its meaning. I dislike this word because it is overused and often in cases where I do not approve. This is exactly your argument against the word cheese. You believe it is overused and in some cases where people use it, you do not agree. Because I dislike the word epic, do I go around saying to people you should not use the word because it is used so incorrectly all the time? No I do not. Do I go around telling people to stop using the word because there are other suitable replacements? No I do not. It is a word that people have come to know and to accept. This is the word cheese. Sure, cheese can have a negative connotation as I've pointed out in my last post, but it is also a positive thing in some cases. Take it how you will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
