|
Coming up with good definitions is so much harder than nitpicking those we have. However, that which does not kill you makes you stronger so I'm actually helping by being obnoxious!
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.
Let's think about how different the game would be without fog of war. If both players had vision of the whole map, the game would be almost unrecognisable (worker harrass would be pretty much obsolete, all tactical traps would vanish, etc.) yet only the "secrecy" element has been removed.
Everything that we lose would have to be cheese, going by the definition, because those are all things that noone would bother doing once they are no longer secret. That would mean a majority of what we're doing in game is "cheese" which raises the question what use is the concept then anyway? You might say that those do not amount to a strategy, but in reality they amount to much more than that, namely a style of play.
Consider, why do we want to kill the scouting drone? Is it because once it's dead, we're going to cheese? Or is it because we're going standard most of the time, but we want to keep that a secret because having "cheese" as a remote posiblity in the oponent's mind is useful for us? Going standard in this situation would also be a type of cheese, since we all seem to care a whole lot about it being a secret.
I'm only partly serious but I think explicitly answering these objections or refining the definition would make it better!
|
Im kinda new to the hhole cheese word (in this context), but to me:
Cheese: What good players blame when they loose.
and
Cheese: Using units people don't use alot.
Cheese: Going air when the opponent has a bunch of Ground to ground units.
I learned this while watching orb and idra play
|
Zurich15361 Posts
On May 11 2010 19:23 Doctorasul wrote:Coming up with good definitions is so much harder than nitpicking those we have. However, that which does not kill you makes you stronger so I'm actually helping by being obnoxious! Show nested quote +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.
Let's think about how different the game would be without fog of war. If both players had vision of the whole map, the game would be almost unrecognisable (worker harrass would be pretty much obsolete, all tactical traps would vanish, etc.) yet only the "secrecy" element has been removed. Everything that we lose would have to be cheese, going by the definition, because those are all things that noone would bother doing once they are no longer secret.
This is nonsense and an invalid reversal conclusion. My definition is
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.
and not
Something nobody would do if the map was revealed.
They are not the same.
|
I knew all in, but I thought cheese = rush... Good to know!
|
+ Show Spoiler +On May 11 2010 19:23 Doctorasul wrote:Coming up with good definitions is so much harder than nitpicking those we have. However, that which does not kill you makes you stronger so I'm actually helping by being obnoxious! Show nested quote +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.
Let's think about how different the game would be without fog of war. If both players had vision of the whole map, the game would be almost unrecognisable (worker harrass would be pretty much obsolete, all tactical traps would vanish, etc.) yet only the "secrecy" element has been removed. Everything that we lose would have to be cheese, going by the definition, because those are all things that noone would bother doing once they are no longer secret. That would mean a majority of what we're doing in game is "cheese" which raises the question what use is the concept then anyway? You might say that those do not amount to a strategy, but in reality they amount to much more than that, namely a style of play. Consider, why do we want to kill the scouting drone? Is it because once it's dead, we're going to cheese? Or is it because we're going standard most of the time, but we want to keep that a secret because having "cheese" as a remote posiblity in the oponent's mind is useful for us? Going standard in this situation would also be a type of cheese, since we all seem to care a whole lot about it being a secret. I'm only partly serious but I think explicitly answering these objections or refining the definition would make it better!
The better response here, is that Cheese is a strategy, while the things you've mentioned are tactics that people would cease to do. The definition is perfectly consistent.
Of course you need to use secrecy in your tactics. Otherwise the game is simple. It's just a game of counters until you hit 200/200, then test who has better micro, and hope neither of you falls asleep and misses something clearly in view.
Also, you kill the scouting drone because the game is a game of imperfect information. It doesn't cause you to lose or even put you at a huge disadvantage to someone if they know your strategy, but it doesn't help you. When they don't know what you're doing, it delays their response. Your strategy doesn't rely on secrecy but it does benefit from it, because before your opponent has scouted your precise build, he has to prepare for all possibilities. Once he knows what you're doing, he only has to prepare for what you're doing. It's totally different from cheese, because your strategy should hopefully be content with being scouted, but not being scouted provides you additional benefits.
|
On May 06 2010 18:16 acceL.sik wrote:
Yep, cheese goes ALL THE WAY BACK TO WAR3. Rofl, gtfo newb.
Read -> Comprehend -> Post.
I was citing use in WC3 as predating the explanation of its origin provided in Liquipedia. Since WC3 came out in 2002, I'd say that was valid.
I think most people of sufficient intelligence who have been around for any amount of time pick up on the proper definitions. If you see someone misusing terms like "metagame", "cheese", "all in", etc. then you know that either they are pretty new or just dumb.
|
On May 12 2010 00:34 rocketsauce wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 18:16 acceL.sik wrote:
Yep, cheese goes ALL THE WAY BACK TO WAR3. Rofl, gtfo newb.
Read -> Comprehend -> Post. I was citing use in WC3 as predating the explanation of its origin provided in Liquipedia. Since WC3 came out in 2002, I'd say that was valid. I think most people of sufficient intelligence who have been around for any amount of time pick up on the proper definitions. If you see someone misusing terms like "metagame", "cheese", "all in", etc. then you know that either they are pretty new or just dumb.
I guess you didn't notice his sarcasm, even pointed out in all caps. His point is that "cheese" and its definition has been around since the beginning of starcraft (1998).
It predates both WC3 and liquipedia.
|
@BlasiuS: No, I understand that was what he was implying, and I don't contest that it was in use during SC1/BW. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with my original point, which was simply that the Liquipedia explanation was off base. All this tedious explanation would be totally unnecessary if people would just put a little more care in before shooting off some childish reply.
As I said in my original post, calling things "cheesy" is common in English, and predates not only SC1 but video games in general, so I don't know why we're even having this little back and forth.
edits: Clarification.
|
|
|
Thanks a lot for the clarification I was not part of the sc1 scene so I never even heard of these terms used in this way until I started playing/watching sc2.
There seems to be a stigma against any type of cheese or all-in strategy by the pros, but I kind of feel like if a lesser-skilled opponent knows he can't win a normal(macro) game vs a better opponent trying to end the game quickly is often a form of meta-gaming to allow you to have a chance.
Just my feelings.
Thanks again for the info :D
|
much needed thread. Thanks!
|
On May 13 2010 05:08 groms wrote:
Thanks a lot for the clarification I was not part of the sc1 scene so I never even heard of these terms used in this way until I started playing/watching sc2.
There seems to be a stigma against any type of cheese or all-in strategy by the pros, but I kind of feel like if a lesser-skilled opponent knows he can't win a normal(macro) game vs a better opponent trying to end the game quickly is often a form of meta-gaming to allow you to have a chance.
Cheese is a viable strategy and something even pro's use, the stigma is more with someone who utilizes cheese on a regular basis for the very reason you just stated. If you cheese because you don't think you can win a macro game then you will never ever learn to play a better macro game because you are not getting any practice.
|
This may be unrelated but I'd love to see some definitions of "Rush" vs. "Push", "Pressure" and what differentiates a "Timing Push" from a regular push or pressure.
Thanks!
|
On May 13 2010 05:37 RPGabe wrote:
This may be unrelated but I'd love to see some definitions of "Rush" vs. "Push", "Pressure" and what differentiates a "Timing Push" from a regular push or pressure.
Thanks!
I don't think there is any clearcut definition of these things and when it comes down to details everyone will have slightly different opinions so anyone will be able to nitpick what I say here but I'll give an overall guideline to the terms you mentioned.
A push is an aggressive move generally involving the majority of your combat units with the intent of securing a specific objective. The objective can be to break a contain, to secure an expansion or vital position for map control, destroying an enemy expansion or to just flat out kill the opponent.
The difference between a push and any other kind of aggressive movement really is that a push is substantial enough that the opponent will be forced to engage with his main army in order to halt you, thus the objective of a push can also be to draw out the enemy army to a for you favorable position.
A timing push is a push intended to take advantage of a temporary situation during which you will some factor giving you a slight edge.
Basically there are three kinds of timing windows:
Unit timing: This is the most common type of timing attacks, they occur when you gain one or several upgrades that suddenly boosts your army strength or when you add a certain unit type or critical mass of a unit type to your army composition.
Examples are a terran bio build that moves out to attack so that the push reaches the enemy at the same time as stim and plus one weapons finishes researching or it could be a push that beings when a certain number of medivacs are added to he bio mix or in TvP when ghosts are added alternatively when a given number of ghosts have enough energy for emp.
Production timing: A timing push that takes place a given time after you have set up an expansion just as the increased production from the expansion kicks in.
Counter timing: A timing push intended to hit just before the opponent gains a timing window for example just as the opponent has expanded and thus invested resources into the expansion, having less units and still not gotten the extra production out of said expansion. Or for example a terran marauder/hellion build that attacks the second the zerg builds a spire in order to beat the impending mutalisk timing window for the zerg.
A rush is pretty much just a very specific type of timing attack where you try to make an attack as fast as possible, either as fast into the game as possible with whatever tier 1 unit type you can assemble a critical mass of first or as fast as possible for a given unit type, again a terran example would be getting banshee's as fast as possible and then instantly attacking.
In general a rush will tech fast to whatever unit is going to be used, sacrificing survivability on the way creating a very devastating counter timing window until the intended rush units have been assembled.
Pressure is aggression or the threat of aggression intended to restrict the opponents play. Harassment is a kind of pressure, as is just moving an army to attack and then pull back. But pressure can also consist of no combat at all but purely the threat of an attack. A zerg player with a force of mutalisks can fly around an opponents base taking shots at workers and buildings, while the opponents army is strong enough to repel the mutas, they pressure the opponent thus preventing him from moving out as if he does move his army to attack the mutalisks will destroy the base.
A terran player with early reapers will, even if he does not actually attack but just move them back and fourth into the enemy base pressure the opponent to keep his units at the mineral line to stop any harass, thus pinning him back and preventing a push.
Pressure is pretty much a luxury for whichever player has the initiative in the game and its utilized to deny the opponent certain plays.
|
stop talking. you try to validate certain builds by throwing even more names onto them. why do you even have to put a name onto something? is it because if you lose you can just say "oh you fucking cheese sperm-face faggot"
all-in: you bring every unit (workers included.) sort of like in soccer when you bring the goalie out or like hockey. sometimes in TvP i will bring scvs as fodder and shield to the front of my marines for an early all-in. hence the term all-in. you have nothing left. duh.
cheese: fuck this shit. whoever came up with this needs to be shot. originally 4 pool was called a zergling rush. not fucking cheese. i mean come up with a word at least better than cheese... what are we fucking mice or something?
|
To me, cheese is a word that has no true meaning. I simply refer to things as risky or conservative.
When I play zerg and rush, or terran and reaver/hellion rush, or warpgate in units with an early pylon, I don't think of this as cheese, although I'm typically accused of such when it succeeds. Honestly, it's a great way to scout the opponent, and at the same time make him focus on fortifying his position, thus taking the fight to his base rather than mine. It's all part of the game, and a viable strategy.
There are potentially exploits, however, when something that shouldn't work, ie soon to be fixed in the next patch, is used in every game you see. For example, when larvae were growing on a hatchery after canceling a unit, and after the queen already spawned eggs on it. In SC1, when you'd play on a map with one min patch and a terran would fly his cc over it so you can't click on it, that's an exploit.
However, proxy bases, rushes, etc., it's all part of the game, each carrying its own risks and benefits, and those players who cry "cheese!" need to simply get better at countering with a strat of their own.
|
An all-in is not "all in" in the sense that it is a risky strat if your scouting information tells you that it will almost definitely succeed. Case in point, zerg FE with not enough spine crawlers at his nat? 4 gate timing push may be All-in but it is not at all risky and would win you the game barring bad micro on your part.
|
Very good post, this, as well as the liquipedia pages, will be linked time and time again as people yell that a 2-base mid-game hydra push is a cheese...
|
Cheese is whatever my opponent is doing that makes me lose. If I lose, I got cheesed, because I am clearly better than him.
/rages
No but seriously, how is 14-cc rated as cheese but not all-in? If your opponent sneezes at your 14cc you just plain lose. If it goes up and you don't lose right then and there, you're almost certainly going to win.
|
the only thing i dont like about the idea "not be scouted" is that isn't true conversely for non-cheese. If you straight up let your opponent know you're siege expanding, theres the simple counter of a 12nex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
