|
Zurich15325 Posts
In this topic I will try to provide general definitions to what “cheese” and “all-in” strategies are.
Both terms are regularly used on this forum, and most of the time are being misused.
“Cheese” is probably the worst of the two in terms of how people use it. You see people referring to any kind of rush as cheese. Then you see people complaining fast tech is cheese. You see people just crying cheese because they lost against a strategy they haven’t seen before.
All-in is misused often enough as well. People think it’s the same as cheese. Or they call simply aggressive styles or timing attacks “allin”.
So, let’s have a look at my own definitions:
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.
A couple of examples:
1. Proxy BBS: Cheese and all-In. If scouted in time can be defended. The proxy character means it can’t live a counter attack. The rush has to succeed, or the game is lost, making it an all in attack.
2. 2gate: Neither cheese nor all-in. A 2gate can be scouted and still put pressure on the opponent. It can do just moderate damage and the executing player can still transition out of it.
3. 14cc: Cheese. The game is almost certainly lost if this is scouted early.
4. No lair roach against Z who techs to muta: All-in. The roaches have to win the game, or else the muta will finish the roach player off once your attack is repelled.
5. Fast banshee/void ray/muta: Neither cheese nor all-in. The strategy will almost certainly fail if scouted in time, but it won’t automatically lose the game.
6. Fast reaper (9rax inbase): Neither cheese nor all in. Fails if scouted, sets T back if it fails but doesn’t outright lose the game.
7. Fast reaper (6rax proxy): Cheese and all-in. Fails to kill the opponent if scouted, loses the game if it doesn’t do enough damage to equalize the cut SCV (all-in).
8. 4 gate robo (against 1 base): Neither cheese nor all in
9. 4 gate robo (against expo): Arguably all-in. At some point the expanding player will have the stronger army and the stronger economy – attack has to be effective before.
10. Turtle and tech to guardian / carrier / doom drop / other strong late game strategy: All-in. The late attack has to kill the opponent off or no follow up possible due to build time / resources.
11. 6pool: All-In. Arguably cheese as well, as it is way less effective if scouted early. However the main characteristics of the 6pool is not secrecy but the early attack and the lack of follow up.
As you can see the distinction isn’t always clear, and often enough it’s hard to determine if an attack is all in or not. Also, as with everything in Starcraft those examples don’t have to play out exactly like described. Of course a proxy BBS can be scouted, fail, but against the odds do just enough damage that both players are even afterwards.
Still, in a nutshell:
Cheese – must not be scouted.
All-in – does not have a follow up.
|
On May 05 2010 20:07 zatic wrote:
4. No lair roach against Z who techs to muta: All-in. The roaches have to win the game, or else the muta will finish the roach player off once your attack is repelled.
I tend to disagree here. The lair can be started right as you move out, and Queens + Spores fend off a lot of mutas. If you time your attack correctly, it is guaranteed to hurt your opponent's economy, either by killing drones or by forcing a lot of defense (and additionally delaying the mutas).
Apart from that, I agree with pretty much everything, especially the definitions themselves are good.
|
I'm surprised that 2 gate proxy and 6 pool aren't on this list. Either way... nice clarification.
|
Zurich15325 Posts
Yes and as I tried to explain with the reaper and 4gate examples you can construct versions for every single of those examples where the definitions don't apply anymore. The examples are just there to illustrate the differences between cheese, allin, and "normal" play.
If you have a better example please suggest.
|
I don't think cheese/all-in's have to mean for you to loose the game if they fail to fit the definition.
IMHO, if something set's you back by a certain extent if scouted or if it depends on the enemy doing/not doing something, it can be called "cheese".
Also, All-in's don't have to cost you the game almost immediately after the failed push, but it will put you at a certain disadvantage, that will cost you the game in the long run against an equally skilled player who played a macro-game and defended the push.
I also consider VR's and early Banshees cheese, because you heavily depend on those Units doing Damage and your whole strategy depends on what your opponent is doing - whether he scouts or not, whether he plays safe with turrets or has other anti-air etc.
This is also because of the crappy Unit-control of SC2 - you depend more on killing off the enemy with one sweep cuz he does not have enough anti-air, whereas in SCBW, you could still harrass and not immediately die to a counterattack after your 2-starport-wraith got scouted and did not destroy the enemy. Now try to do sth useful with VR's or Banshees if the enemy is prepared against them. Try to outmicro Marines+Vikings with VR's or keep harrassing with them when the player has enough Turrets/Cannons. Also, they are not as good in a straight-up fight, which is a much bigger deal than in SCBW, because SC2 depends much more on big army-vs-army-fights, in which even a small number of Units that don't do terrible, terrible DMG will cost you the battle.
|
Anything that the other player does ever.
|
Zurich15325 Posts
On May 05 2010 20:27 DamageInq wrote:
I'm surprised that 2 gate proxy and 6 pool aren't on this list. Either way... nice clarification.
Added 6pool. For 2gate vs 2gate proxy see the reaper example.
Edit: generally don't focus on examples though. The important part are the defining characteristics: Cheese - secrecy; All-in - no followup
|
Very good topic. As a cheese and all in I'd add 1 gate assimilator (feign) into 2 gate proxy.
|
First time poster here. I was wondering what you consider the following to be (had it done to me once and I didn't adapt well enough). I personally thought it was cheese (but I saw it all the way) - so by that definition it wasn't.
Playing Z(me)vP - he comes in my base and puts 2 assimilators, makes a forge+gateway+canon behind wall, and then techs to void rays. I allowed the assimilators to finish and killed them with my lings. But that put me late enough on my lair/hydras that I died to his zealot/void raid army.
|
I'd call that .. a clever move coupled with inexperience from your side?
|
Great post to clarify it. Lets just hope ppl are gonna read it and take it to heart ^^
|
Would have to disagree on a couple of those
Number 8 would have to be all-in, if you're attack fails your economy is so bad that it just almost impossible to get back up
good read though~~
|
On May 05 2010 23:03 sYz-Adrenaline wrote:
Would have to disagree on a couple of those
Number 8 would have to be all-in, if you're attack fails your economy is so bad that it just almost impossible to get back up
good read though~~
your opponents also on 1 base tho
|
This has confirmed that almost everything in copper is a 'gimmick' which is generally cheese. I'm curious what chargelot against stalker one base vs two base is on pvp. Arguably all in, because they are on an expo, you aren't, and they have stalkers if you fail...
|
Thanks, it's pretty frustrating how often these keep getting thrown around improperly. Sadly this OP will likely have to be reposted every other week or so as people forget. 
|
You people all have it wrong..
Cheese is defined as the following.
If you are Protoss, anything that Zerg or Terran does that causes you to lose is cheese.
If you are Terran, anything that Zerg or Protoss does that causes you to lose is cheese.
If you are Zerg anything that Terran or protoss does that causes you to lose is cheese.
Sheesh people, get it right. :D
|
Awesome post :D
Now do one for the defintion of "push"
I see that one severely misused on the strategy forum. People call any attack a push, when it's only a specific type of attack.
|
Isn't baneling bust vs Terran cheese aswell? Nice post 
and: guardian = broodlord right?
|
On May 05 2010 23:06 faction123 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2010 23:03 sYz-Adrenaline wrote:
Would have to disagree on a couple of those
Number 8 would have to be all-in, if you're attack fails your economy is so bad that it just almost impossible to get back up
good read though~~ your opponents also on 1 base tho
yes doing a better econmonic build so the longer you stay on that tech the better/stronger he gets
|
|
|
Calgary25977 Posts
The fact that this thread even needs to exist puts in a rage. Only bans can save me now.
|
despite this thread 2000 newbies will continue to refer to non-cheese builds as cheese.
|
On May 05 2010 23:37 HolydaKing wrote:Isn't baneling bust vs Terran cheese aswell? Nice post and: guardian = broodlord right? I'd say it depends. It is entirely possible for you to scout a supply depot wall and then decide to go banelings. In which case I'd say it's more like early pressure than cheese, possibly a bit on the all-in side, but not really(since you know what your enemy is doing and it doesn't really matter if he scouts your baneling nest, not to mention that it's conceivable that a zerg with lots of lings can deny scouting altogether that early in the game).
A blind baneling bust without actually scouting the terran wall-in is a cheese in my book though. If he sees your baneling nest relatively early he can just make a proper wall and win.
|
by this argument all cheeses are all-ins...
|
Calgary25977 Posts
On May 06 2010 00:07 TossNub wrote:
by this argument all cheeses are all-ins...
By this comment you reveal that you either cannot accurately read or can read but cannot comprehend what you have read.
|
that little girl scares me 0_o
|
On May 06 2010 00:11 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 00:07 TossNub wrote:
by this argument all cheeses are all-ins... By this comment you reveal that you either cannot accurately read or can read but cannot comprehend what you have read.
By this comment you reveal that you either are in a bad mood or are in a good mood but are a meanie.
TossNub, they often overlap, but not always. For example, 14CC is cheese because ur dead if it is scouted early, but it does have a very clear followup (a normal game with economic advantage).
|
Calgary25977 Posts
On May 06 2010 00:19 roflcopter420 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 00:11 Chill wrote:On May 06 2010 00:07 TossNub wrote:
by this argument all cheeses are all-ins... By this comment you reveal that you either cannot accurately read or can read but cannot comprehend what you have read. By this comment you reveal that you either are in a bad mood or are in a good mood but are a meanie. TossNub, they often overlap, but not always. For example, 14CC is cheese because ur dead if it is scouted early, but it does have a very clear followup (a normal game with economic advantage).
There's nothing mean or bad about that comment whatsoever. From Zatic's definitions:
Cheese: If scouted, the strategy fails and puts the executing player at a severe disadvantage
All-in: All available resources are put into this one attack and no follow-up is being considered.
There is overlap, but not complete overlap.
|
On May 06 2010 00:22 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 00:19 roflcopter420 wrote:On May 06 2010 00:11 Chill wrote:On May 06 2010 00:07 TossNub wrote:
by this argument all cheeses are all-ins... By this comment you reveal that you either cannot accurately read or can read but cannot comprehend what you have read. By this comment you reveal that you either are in a bad mood or are in a good mood but are a meanie. TossNub, they often overlap, but not always. For example, 14CC is cheese because ur dead if it is scouted early, but it does have a very clear followup (a normal game with economic advantage). There's nothing mean or bad about that comment whatsoever. From Zatic's definitions: Cheese: If scouted, the strategy fails and puts the executing player at a severe disadvantage All-in: All available resources are put into this one attack and no follow-up is being considered. There is overlap, but not complete overlap.
very much agreed with the definitions that zatic put
|
good ole' cannon rush?
also... burrowed roaches, burrowed infestors, DTs, cloaked banshees, nukes are all cheeses then if i build the required structures a wee bit off base (on generated creep)?
|
On May 06 2010 00:22 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 00:19 roflcopter420 wrote:On May 06 2010 00:11 Chill wrote:On May 06 2010 00:07 TossNub wrote:
by this argument all cheeses are all-ins... By this comment you reveal that you either cannot accurately read or can read but cannot comprehend what you have read. By this comment you reveal that you either are in a bad mood or are in a good mood but are a meanie. TossNub, they often overlap, but not always. For example, 14CC is cheese because ur dead if it is scouted early, but it does have a very clear followup (a normal game with economic advantage). There's nothing mean or bad about that comment whatsoever. From Zatic's definitions: Cheese: If scouted, the strategy fails and puts the executing player at a severe disadvantage All-in: All available resources are put into this one attack and no follow-up is being considered. There is overlap, but not complete overlap.
no need to explain to me, i both understood and explained to TossNub in a way fit for someone who might be reading impared. While your comment to TossNub was technically true, I think the way you formulated the sentence might have been aimed at insulting him. Why else put such focus on what his comment revelead, instead on focusing directly on the misunderstanding he made?
Cheers, good sir.
|
On May 06 2010 00:02 Amber[LighT] wrote:
despite this thread 2000 newbies will continue to refer to non-cheese builds as cheese.
Then we will point them to this thread 2000 times.
Our hyperlinks will blot out the sun
|
I think those definitions work fine, but I know personally "cheese" goes back much further than just last year. Back in WC3 it was common to refer to "huntress cheese", etc. and it comes -- obviously -- not from some onomatopoeia of a Korean word, but from calling specific build orders/strategies cheesy. As in lame, or noobish. Ergo why "huntress cheese" is the best example.
It was specifically used to reference strats that were commonly thought probably should be nerfed a bit (again, huntresses being a good example depending on the patch.)
Regardless of your definition, I'm 100% certain that the liquipedia explanation involving korean words is way off the mark. Calling things "cheesy" (to mean lame or dorky) is very common in english, and that's certainly where it comes from.
|
On May 06 2010 00:19 roflcopter420 wrote:
TossNub, they often overlap, but not always. For example, 14CC is cheese because ur dead if it is scouted early, but it does have a very clear followup (a normal game with economic advantage).
Can you give me, a total noob, another example for cheese which is not all-in, since the 14cc is the only example for this?
Also where is the difference between cheese and a "bold move"? Can cheese only happen in "early game"?
Assume midgame - enemy has been on 1 expansion the whole time, so you're behind economically.
Now you try to take 2 expansions (1 hidden) at the same time (while only having the army to defend one).
By only taking 1 expansion you stay behind, because the enemy had his advantage longer. You just got even (so not really an option).
But if the 2nd expansion is scouted and killed you're even further behind (definition of cheese).
|
Can you give me, a total noob, another example for cheese which is not all-in, since the 14cc is the only example for this?
Any kind of economic cheese. Hidden expos, for example.
Also where is the difference between cheese and a "bold move"? Can cheese only happen in "early game"?
You seem to be laboring under the belief that "cheese"="bad". It does not. It's simply "cheese".
If you're behind and you have to cheese to get back to parity, do it. Don't be afraid of what things are called.
|
On May 06 2010 00:43 Zocat wrote:
Can you give me, a total noob, another example for cheese which is not all-in, since the 14cc is the only example for this?
imo 15cc is also cheese but not all in. Also some harass-oriented builds are cheesy, but not all in.
Also where is the difference between cheese and a "bold move"? Can cheese only happen in "early game"?
Assume midgame - enemy has been on 1 expansion the whole time, so you're behind economically.
Now you try to take 2 expansions (1 hidden) at the same time (while only having the army to defend one).
By only taking 1 expansion you stay behind, because the enemy had his advantage longer. You just got even (so not really an option).
But if the 2nd expansion is scouted and killed you're even further behind (definition of cheese).
i dunno lol
|
PvZ: 1gate proxy and forge wall at choke for possible cannon rush with 2 zealots or adapt into walled off fast expo if zerg managed to defend.
This is an example of proxying shits in the middle and cannon rushing but not an all in nor cheese.
|
I just recently thought about making a thread like this. Your definitions are very solid. The misunderstanding is even worse for the word "metagame" though. Nony's thread, despite being very accurate, didn't really help the situation much.
|
On May 06 2010 00:43 Zocat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 00:19 roflcopter420 wrote:
TossNub, they often overlap, but not always. For example, 14CC is cheese because ur dead if it is scouted early, but it does have a very clear followup (a normal game with economic advantage). Can you give me, a total noob, another example for cheese which is not all-in, since the 14cc is the only example for this? Also where is the difference between cheese and a "bold move"? Can cheese only happen in "early game"? Assume midgame - enemy has been on 1 expansion the whole time, so you're behind economically. Now you try to take 2 expansions (1 hidden) at the same time (while only having the army to defend one). By only taking 1 expansion you stay behind, because the enemy had his advantage longer. You just got even (so not really an option). But if the 2nd expansion is scouted and killed you're even further behind (definition of cheese).
Prior to the queen and spine crawler nerf:
the build a hatch + cancel + lay egg + build spine crawler build was a good example of cheese that was not an all-in build.
2gate proxy is another example of a cheese build that is NOT all-in
|
Hiding Stargates is one thing, but hiding a Dark Shrine is pretty much bonefied sensible. It only allows the production of a unit, it doesn't physically produce it.
And by their very nature, they inflict way more damage in their first attack if you manage to catch someone with their pants down.
|
Just curious, to what extent at the platinum level do you think you see the following:
Cheese
All-in
Standard Gameplay
20/20/60?
|
I'd also like to see some sort of definition of timing attack vs attack and Fast Expand vs Expand.
I hear people refer to every attack as a "timing" attack. I believe it is possible to attack without it being based purely on a timing counter.
With Expands, after a certain point, it ceases to be a FE and just and Expand.
|
You don't see a lot of all-in, or cheese. I believe Plat players generally realise they're never going to get a 100% win rate and relying on the dumb-luck of all-ins and cheese strats to get them up in the ladder isn't statistically sound. They're just unreliable, and tend to get nerfed anyway (Immortal pushes, Marines/SCV charges, Roach/Queen/Drone charges etc.).
Any Plat player that wants to win has to learn how the manipulate and exploit the tug-of-war of a standard game. Although you sometimes still get 6-Pooled by some dumbass. The tactics Plat players employ in the early game are often more conservative versions of all-in strats, where they sacrifice surprise and speed of the attack for one that will more reliably do some damage, but they always have a follow-through plan, knowing full-well that their attack isn't going to cripple their opponent, just make his life harder.
For instance, I have yet to be hit by the 'super fast' Reaper (6 Rax), but the 'moderately fast' Reaper (9+ Rax) is very, very common.
|
I've never really understood the value behind having a well defined 'cheese' and 'all-in' term. To me, the two terms add nothing to any starcraft discussion.
|
Someone pass the memo onto Idra... kid thinks whenever he looses it is 'cheese'
|
I've had proxy 8rax reapers scouted many times and it still works quite well. I guess it's an all in, but I wouldn't call it cheese under these definitions.
|
On May 06 2010 02:03 ploy wrote:
I've never really understood the value behind having a well defined 'cheese' and 'all-in' term. To me, the two terms add nothing to any starcraft discussion.
If they're not well-defined they have no value (see also: metagame; note here the important thing is not if there is a proper definition, but what the community perceives as the definition). If they are well-defined they can be used to concisely express an idea and there is value in that.
However I very much doubt that we'll see standardized usage of at least "cheese" so it'll remain mostly meaningless.
|
On May 06 2010 01:41 ThreeSixDrew wrote:
Just curious, to what extent at the platinum level do you think you see the following:
Cheese
All-in
Standard Gameplay
20/20/60?
beyond 1400 elo plat, it's like 80% standard.
|
On May 06 2010 01:41 ThreeSixDrew wrote:
Just curious, to what extent at the platinum level do you think you see the following:
Cheese
All-in
Standard Gameplay
20/20/60?
Uh.. all-in is still quite popular.
On May 06 2010 02:24 zomgzergrush wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 01:41 ThreeSixDrew wrote:
Just curious, to what extent at the platinum level do you think you see the following:
Cheese
All-in
Standard Gameplay
20/20/60? beyond 1400 elo plat, it's like 80% standard.
Not by a long shot.
|
I was actually just thinking of making some sort of thread asking what the "real" definitions of these words were, or if they even really had any, given the variety of ways in which these terms are used by different people (but especially by commentators on streams/vods, since that's where noobs generally first encounter the terms). Additionally, as has been previously noted in this thread, the overuse of the word "cheese" to describe anything you lose to is particularly bad.
A note about people calling something "cheese" if they lose to it... Doesn't that mean that you just didn't scout well enough? I think that even at high levels of play, one should not be able to take such things as your opponents generally not cheesing for granted, as this just lets you be lax in scouting. This also seems to be the reason why cheese works at low levels of play. People don't scout, or scout terribly.
One thing I'm still wondering after reading this thread is the following: If you make it so that it is virtually impossible for your opponent to scout something, is it still considered cheese, even though the likelihood of it being scouted is approaching or possibly actually zero? While this still fits the definition of "IF scouted THEN horribly screwed up", I don't think it'd actually be cheese, because there is no actual possibility of it being scouted.
Moving on to the (obviously related) discussion of All-ins and the overuse of that. I believe I heard someone use the phrase "a series of all-ins" the other day, which doesn't seem to fit your definition. I think he may have actually been referring to cheese, but I'm not really sure. This leads me back to the question that Zocat asked earlier. I'll ask it another way, though. Is there ANY difference between cheese/all-ins and bold moves? If so, is it the level of planning/play involved? Are cheese and all-ins subsets of the larger class of bold moves?
That's all I've got for now. I really find this discussion to be both interesting and (perhaps unfortunately) needed.
|
Now that the OP has defined cheese for everyone, let me expand on the players who use such tactics.
Only bitches cheese. Cause bitches ain't shit but hoes and tricks.
Like every tool out there, people who cheese generally have no self-awareness. This authoritative analysis of the cheeser (henceforth referred to as "bitches") will allow all the socially retarded kids that cheese to identify themselves and hopefully come to terms with their behavior. Until now, bitches thought that they were only sacrificing sound economic builds in the interest of using a "strategy" void of any skill whatsoever in the interest of a quick and easy win. However, they have been completely unaware of the fact that they are really sacrificing any claim they had towards being a Man.
You see, when you begin to question the kind of motivation that pushes an otherwise healthy and normal person to become bitches, you reach some obvious conclusions: bitches have no confidence in their ability to reliably win without cheese. The suspense and challenge of winning a game straight up is too much emotional stimulation for a bitches so he is forced to consider alternative measures. Like all emotional women, the bitches rationalizes his negative behavior and convinces himself that he is in fact "skilled" and a "capable" player. The bitches thinks "If it's a competition and it wins, then it's good enough for me!"
However, even this new testosterone destroying strategy is not fullproof. The bitches begins to lose against skilled Men because of their extensive experience dealing with ex girlfriends and bleeding vaginas. The bitches is then forced to further rationalize his capabilities and eventually settles on being just a lesser animal in the food chain. What this means is that the bitches is able to get a free meal here and there but they are quick to run off in the presence of more dominant Men. Effectively, the bitches thrives on a stolen sense of power that he is otherwise incapable of earning. This behavior can be observed in the real world by interacting with a power hungry rent-a-cop who is quick to assert his authoritah until the real police arrive and he cowers away.
Bitches exist in all video games. From Dagon carrying Lina in dota and 3v3 Protocol WC3 teams to noob tubers in MW2 and hallway nade spammers in BF2142, bitches have exercised their limited intellectual faculties to find the one press I-win buttons in every game (something they are very proud of, despite the fact that my 4 year old nephew is able to accomplish the same feats while rolling his face across the keyboard).
Ladies and gentlemen, this epidemic is growing as our culture continues to reward participation instead of achievement. Less Men are being made today than ever before in the history of our nation. I implore you all to do your duty to combat this growing problem by following these guidelines:
- You must scout your opponent and his sexuality as soon as possible (Man or Bitches).
- If you scout a Man, engage him in Manly conversation about your shared superiority.
- If you scout bitches, prepare the mechanical counter to his cheese. Just as cheese is a simple exercise in thoughtless repetition, so is countering cheese.
- This is the most important point: You must talk to the bitches throughout, explain that you are going to dominate him and proceed to thoroughly destroy the bitches' best attempt at being good. This display of confidence and execution will overwhelm the bitches. With enough interaction with real Men using my proven techniques, the bitches will eventually see that he has become a shadow of his former self and will strive to regain his former glory.
Let there be no confusion. If you would argue that being a bitches, even part-time, is either "fun" or a "legitimate strategy that can be used to win because all that matters is the result", then you too must seek help. With enough therapy, you may be able to start growing some balls and regain a sense of honor.
|
I don't know that cheese is always about secrecy. A lot of proxy gateway builds are not hidden very well for proximity and still work very well. For me, cheese is something that you generally must be prepared for, because it usually can't be scouted in time to counter. So, yes, based on secrecy... but the counter isn't to scout it, it's to be prepared. In the cases of reaper rush and proxy gateway, you usually need to prepare for these things ahead of time by having a safe timing on your production building rather than an economic one.
|
On May 06 2010 03:42 shinosai wrote:
I don't know that cheese is always about secrecy. A lot of proxy gateway builds are not hidden very well for proximity and still work very well. For me, cheese is something that you generally must be prepared for, because it usually can't be scouted in time to counter. So, yes, based on secrecy... but the counter isn't to scout it, it's to be prepared. In the cases of reaper rush and proxy gateway, you usually need to prepare for these things ahead of time by having a safe timing on your production building rather than an economic one.
Well by the definitions put forth by this thread, it is simple. If you proxy and don't care if it gets scouted, then it is not cheese. It may or may not be all-in, but it is simply not cheese.
Edit: it would be an entertaining exercise to figure out what race is the most cheese race using this set of definitions, for both BW and SC2 by just counting the number of strategies considered to be based on stealth (cheese as defined in this thread).
One more edit: A question from a BW example to clarify something for me. In PvT suppose that Protoss goes for a proxy reaver drop, is this considered cheese?
From my understanding it is not, while it fails almost completely to cause any economic damage when scouted, it does not leave the Protoss at a major disadvantage (assuming they are not retarded and do not lose the shuttle with reaver). They still have a reaver for breaking a push by the Terran or shuttle for Zealot bombs.
|
Zurich15325 Posts
On May 06 2010 00:43 Zocat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2010 00:19 roflcopter420 wrote:
TossNub, they often overlap, but not always. For example, 14CC is cheese because ur dead if it is scouted early, but it does have a very clear followup (a normal game with economic advantage). Can you give me, a total noob, another example for cheese which is not all-in, since the 14cc is the only example for this? Also where is the difference between cheese and a "bold move"? Can cheese only happen in "early game"? Assume midgame - enemy has been on 1 expansion the whole time, so you're behind economically. Now you try to take 2 expansions (1 hidden) at the same time (while only having the army to defend one). By only taking 1 expansion you stay behind, because the enemy had his advantage longer. You just got even (so not really an option). But if the 2nd expansion is scouted and killed you're even further behind (definition of cheese).
Hidden tech can be considered cheese but not all-in. Let's say you hide a fast DT tech and if the DT don't kill the opponent you want to use the DT thread to safely get you expansion up. Fails if scouted, puts you at a severe disadvantage if scouted early (early enough that you don't get your DT out), but has a clear followup.
Yes normally cheese strategies are confined to the early to midgame due to near complete information from the midgame on. The hidden expansion you mentioned is a good example of later "cheesy" strategies.
A "bold move" is not a term that really needs defining does it? It's just that, a move that is bold. The in-your-face-proxy mentioned somewhere in this thread is definitely not cheese but you can call it a bold move if you want.
Generally you shouldn't try to look for more examples of what is cheese and what is all-in. But before you cry "cheesy all-in" at an unusual strategy just consider: Did the strategy rely on secrecy? Did it have a follow-up?
|
On May 06 2010 01:51 Spidermonkey wrote:
I hear people refer to every attack as a "timing" attack. I believe it is possible to attack without it being based purely on a timing counter.
haha, i'm guessing you watch gretorps stream
|
On May 06 2010 01:41 ThreeSixDrew wrote:
Just curious, to what extent at the platinum level do you think you see the following:
Cheese
All-in
Standard Gameplay
20/20/60?
40/40/20
Edit: I can safely say that if you're talking about ALL of platinum, then yes the majority of people are there through cheese and all ins. Top end platinum is a different story, of course.
|
I don't agree with op.
Cheese and all-in are the same thing.
14 CC isn't cheese..is simply a start that can be countered by a fast scout with a proper answer.
(so also making 3rax marauder is cheese because it can be easily countered by void ray? With this definition we are going to tell that everyhing in the game is cheese, in fact EVERY bio terran army can be easily countered by storms and so on)
If the community decide to accept this definition we can take it as a standard but, in my opinion, it has not much reason to exist.
|
On May 06 2010 17 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 06 2010 17 end_of_the_skype_highlighting:56 LuDwig- wrote:
I don't agree with op.
Cheese and all-in are the same thing.
14 CC isn't cheese..is simply a start that can be countered by a fast scout with a proper answer.
(so also making 3rax marauder is cheese because it can be easily countered by void ray? With this definition we are going to tell that everyhing in the game is cheese, in fact EVERY bio terran army can be easily countered by storms and so on)
If the community decide to accept this definition we can take it as a standard but, in my opinion, it has not much reason to exist.
Could you please re-write your post in English? You just said "14cc isn't cheese, but I agree that the situation with it is the same as OP's defnition of cheese" and the rest of your post was 100% wrong.
|
On May 06 2010 00:37 rocketsauce wrote:
I think those definitions work fine, but I know personally "cheese" goes back much further than just last year. Back in WC3 it was common to refer to "huntress cheese", etc. and it comes -- obviously -- not from some onomatopoeia of a Korean word, but from calling specific build orders/strategies cheesy. As in lame, or noobish. Ergo why "huntress cheese" is the best example.
It was specifically used to reference strats that were commonly thought probably should be nerfed a bit (again, huntresses being a good example depending on the patch.)
Regardless of your definition, I'm 100% certain that the liquipedia explanation involving korean words is way off the mark. Calling things "cheesy" (to mean lame or dorky) is very common in english, and that's certainly where it comes from.
Yep, cheese goes ALL THE WAY BACK TO WAR3. Rofl, gtfo newb.
|
Really just comes down to people making excuses when they lose so they feel better. Who cares what they call it. If you lost you lost, don't be that noob that calls everything that beats them cheese or all-in.
|
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
|
Zurich15325 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.
|
The word cheese applies to everything a Protoss builds (havent seen a single fast nexus lately because why would you trade early aggression with decent economy against good econ without agression?). The word All-in applies pretty much to nothing a protoss builds (except cannonrush maybe) because since automining is in starcraft 2 the early agression wont cut into your ability to macro as hard as it would be in broodwar and that applies to every race but Zerg (limitations on drones when you chose early agression).
What I want to say is that even a 3gate will have a decent economy if you delay the opponent.... which is not hard to pull off. In other words: Starcraft 2 is a cheesy shithole as long as you dont get rid of automining or make the maps even larger so a proxy has to be timed a lot better. Right now every idiot can pull off a 2gate into voidray or reaper into banshee or whatever, without a proper malus.
The words all-in and cheese are outdated because except cannonrush and 6pool there is no all-in (hell, even bunkers can be sold). Cheese is inflationary because you can call so many strategies cheese now, technically you can say you lost to cheese 90% of the games.
That may sound whiny but it is the ugly truth -.-
|
On May 05 2010 21:39 Infiltrator wrote:
Very good topic. As a cheese and all in I'd add 1 gate assimilator (feign) into 2 gate proxy.
I like doing this against P's that go 1gate tech and dont wall in.
|
The first one comes pretty close to my understanding of the term. I feel like a cheese strategy entails something unconventional, something non-standard, or some use of units or features of the game in a way that wasn't intended. Something that breaks the standard order of early, mid- and late game and their association with certain unit types. In this sense, I find an SCV all-in cheesy, and I also find it cheesy when the first move an opponent makes is plastering my base with photon cannons.
(Note that I don't imply that anything unconventional is cheese, nor that all cheese is all-in, nor that all all-in is cheese.)
The definitions given in the OP no doubt make sense and provide a clear difference, which is good, but I think you also have to take into account how a term is actually used and to accomodate that use in your definition, as long as you cannot prove it "wrong" in some straightforward way. And the kind of play I described above warrants its own term. "Cheese" seems to fit.
But if this is about people on bnet who cry "cheese" every time they lose to something they didn't expect then and there (or simply every time they lose), then I don't know why it's even necessary to put up this discussion. There obviously is a lot of "cheese" crying where there is no cheese. But that's just like saying that reapers are "gay" or that a bunch of marauders killing you are "lame". There is no meaning to that other than that some kid is angry, and thus no need for an argument.
|
Most of you need a healthy dose of http://shoryuken.com/showthread.php?t=221148
See past the fact that it's aimed at Street Fighter and understand that it applies to SC as well. Everyone who wants to be good at games should read it, really.
|
I remember Starcraft from back before it was even Brood War. Back when Spawning Pools only cost 150 minerals, and comsat 75 energy, and the larva spawn rate was ridiculous. According to liquipedia, the word cheese stems from the koreans shortening cheater to cheese. The word cheese is thrown around far too often. I've heard that DT rushes are cheese which is ludicrous.
Cheese does NOT have to refer to the build being unscoutable, but rather it being overwhelmingly powerful to the point of inability of the victim to do anything to defeat it with both current knowledge and anything that could have been scouted.. 4 or 6 pooling in SC 1.00 was almost beyond defeating. Marines combined with enough SCV's were completely unbeatable early enough in the game due to range; regardless of the scouting, you simply could not kill the units.
However, as the game goes past the opening, you should be scouting somehow, even with you opponent denying it. If you don't see something coming after the 3 minute mark, it's probably not cheese, Anything that takes to long to execute cannot be cheese, because it can be scouted. DT's or any other tier 3 is not cheese, early aggression is not cheese; the word is way too overused.
There is supposed to be some local imbalance in the game (not the bad kind, the kind that makes the races different). A lot of builds rely on local imbalances to add to their strength, though they aren't cheese. Tanks outrange every unit in the game, but people don't call tanks cheese, that's just a good imbalance. The problem with using the word cheese, is that you play down the opponent using it instead of thinking of how to defend it. It's almost always an excuse for poor scouting, or being too greedy.
Cheese is only a problem in the first 2-3 minutes, just learn to deal with it and defend, use your scouting worker to check around more than just his base, put out spotters or build up forces if you think it's coming. Don't use it as an excuse, just play the game better. Cheese is a BS word that is thrown around, but it is in the game, so you have to put up and deal with it.
|
With the advent of several guides/threads with cheese in the title and lots of discussion, this thread needs a healthy bump.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](/staff/zatic/allincheese.jpg)
