|
This build is the definition of cheese all-in
Cheese has been defined as any plan that requires secrecy to function (which was made clear with the delayed rax building and scout deny with wall off). An all-in is anything that lacks a good transition, which this does as you have no gas and have invested heavily in Marine production.
Your timing windows isn't great, given many players will have decent tech down by the 6 minute mark, such as Tanks.
As a Protoss player, I will be highly suspect if I scout no gas and a double depot wall off, and will produce additional gateway units and assume a bio push, thus getting Charge and HT relatively quick. All it takes is a couple of sentries to stall with a few Stalkers to fire down the ramp while Charge comes out. Once that comes out you auto lose basically because you'll have only Bio units and Chargelots eat those.
Honestly, this is a build that is so typical of players that just want to win games ASAP with no actual creativity or thought.
|
What is your definition of a good build? Using this build every time is a bad idea if you are playing the same person repeatedly. If you are constantly playing new opponents who don't expect it, like in ladder, this build can take you to diamond. If this build becomes common however, people will quickly learn how to counter it and it will once again be a mediocre build (not bad).
|
On July 23 2010 07:29 Sabresandiego wrote:
What is your definition of a good build? Using this build every time is a bad idea if you are playing the same person repeatedly. If you are constantly playing new opponents who don't expect it, like in ladder, this build can take you to diamond. If this build becomes common however, people will quickly learn how to counter it and it will once again be a mediocre build (not bad).
But is the point to win with a mindless strategy, grinding the ladder? Maybe if you want to play good people ASAP... but... It's a good build to use once in a bo3 or a bo5 or something of that nature, but to do it over and over on the ladder gains you nothing, as it takes little skill to execute and gives you no experience managing mid or late-game at all.
|
On July 23 2010 07:09 DanielD wrote:
No, not all builds can be defeated if scouted. 3 hatch muta ZvT in BW is expected a lot of the time, and it comes down to micro, unit placement, and what build the T does. 4warpgate push is still hard to beat if you scout it. 3rax ghost push is still hard to beat if you scout it. 15 hatch 16 pool is counterable but not insta-lose if scouted.
6 rax marines TvT? You beat it if you scout it. It's not theory-craft, it's a fact that bunker+ a tank in mineral line destroys marine all-in.
And your definition of cheese is weird... is a cannon rush NOT cheese than? Because it's easily counterable.
Cheese is something that is hard to stop if you don't see it coming.
Cheese, IMO, is any build that is a exceedingly hard build to counter even if you know it's coming and try to stop it. Thus, it becomes abused and becomes a call sign for those without skill because it can't be stopped. Any build that can be countered easily, is not Cheese because it takes no effort to counter and thus shouldn't be feared. I would just call those builds, weak.
I would actually use more descriptive words than Cheese when describing builds. A 6-Rax build is an All-In Limited Rush build. That means a lot more than just saying Cheese because that term is so abstract.
6 pool? Another All-In Limited Rush.
All-In insinuates a loss if the initial doesn't work. Rush indicates limited tech because it's as early as it can be done. Limited means 1-2 types of units. See how that means so much more to people who really want to analyze a strategy? Obviously it can be abused if you use too many terms, but note how much more descriptive my explaination is instead of just saying one term that conjures up lots of animosity instead of critical thinking.
The problem with saying that Cheese only applies to builds taht are easily counter when scouted is that it covers too many builds. All in Banshee, if not scouted, is deadly. Is it Cheese though? The term Cheese is being abused by TL people to the point of it now having little meaning in that it has too much meaning. Don't describe a build simply with one term because I'll find tons of builds or tons of strats that either break that definition or fit it and shouldn't.
Use more than one word descriptions because you can isolate the problem more readily than just saying a generic term that a lot of people forgot the origins of and have dispositions against. Say Cheese and people just start making up units that can counter it.
It's like Proxy Buildings. I hate that term. Back in the day, we just said, "Forward built". Man those were good days when we didn't create confusing terms that can't even effective explain their effect.
|
A good build in my mind requires the ability to adjust to mid and late game, even if its a bit rough in the transition.
I'll use PvP, since 90% of my games over the closing weekend were that match up, as an example. 4 Gate was very popular, but didn't have a solid transition. If a player scouted it and got a couple of Immortals out with a few sentries (not hard to do), the 4 gate push could be held off and then a strong Immortal Stalker push would usually end the game against the 4 gate player. Even if the Immortal push failed, you could easily transition into Colossi and do Warp Prism harass. Not saying it wasn't a strong build, the 4 Gate, but lacked a solid mid to late game transition.
The Megarax build, which this effectively is, is a bit tricky to hold off if not entirely prepared, but is by no means unstoppable. And if it is held off, the defending player is generally at a huge advantage.
As someone said earlier, there is a reason for "standard builds," as they have some flexibility and can adjust depending on what they scout. Where as a build like this is just "well, I hope he doesn't get fast Tank/Banelings/Colossi or HT/Archons, or knows how to defend his ramp well."
Its a strong build at lower levels, but relying on it while just lead to a weaker player over all I feel.
|
On July 23 2010 07:49 mecra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2010 07:09 DanielD wrote:
No, not all builds can be defeated if scouted. 3 hatch muta ZvT in BW is expected a lot of the time, and it comes down to micro, unit placement, and what build the T does. 4warpgate push is still hard to beat if you scout it. 3rax ghost push is still hard to beat if you scout it. 15 hatch 16 pool is counterable but not insta-lose if scouted.
6 rax marines TvT? You beat it if you scout it. It's not theory-craft, it's a fact that bunker+ a tank in mineral line destroys marine all-in.
And your definition of cheese is weird... is a cannon rush NOT cheese than? Because it's easily counterable.
Cheese is something that is hard to stop if you don't see it coming. Cheese, IMO, is any build that is a exceedingly hard build to counter even if you know it's coming and try to stop it. Thus, it becomes abused and becomes a call sign for those without skill because it can't be stopped. Any build that can be countered easily, is not Cheese because it takes no effort to counter and thus shouldn't be feared. I would just call those builds, weak. I would actually use more descriptive words than Cheese when describing builds. A 6-Rax build is an All-In Limited Rush build. That means a lot more than just saying Cheese because it's so abstract. 6 pool? Another All-In Limited Rush. All-In insinuates a loss if the initial doesn't work. Rush indicates limited tech because it's as early as it can be done. Limited means 1-2 types of units. See how that means so much more to people who really want to analyze a strategy? Obviously it can be abused if you use too many terms, but note how much more descriptive my explaination is instead of just saying one term that conjures up lots of animosity instead of critical thinking. The problem with saying that Cheese only applies to builds taht are easily counter when scouted is that it covers too many builds. All in Banshee, if not scouted, is deadly. Is it Cheese though? The term Cheese is being abused by TL people to the point of it now having little meaning in that it has too much meaning. Don't describe a build simply with one term because I'll find tons of builds or tons of strats that either break that definition or fit it and shouldn't. Use more than one word descriptions because you can isolate the problem more readily than just saying a generic term that a lot of people forgot the origins of and have dispositions against. Say Cheese and people just start making up units that can counter it. It's like Proxy Buildings. I hate that term. Back in the day, we just said, "Forward built". Man those were good days when we didn't create confusing terms that can't even effective explain their effect.
Here
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Cheese
I don't see why you're so resistant to defining a term, or calling this cheesy-as-provolone build what it is.
I'm not calling it cheese and then "making up units that can counter it", I stated the simple fact that my standard TvT build would beat this with the addition of a bunker, which I would place if/when I scouted this, making this build cheese because w/o the element of surprise it would fail.
But I see you've decided to argue semantics and ignore the discussion about this build, so never mind.
|
Sorry for me not going with generic vernacular. I like to actually discuss things rather than claim superiority over something just because its, "Cheese" and thus claim simple counter. Hell, I'm waiting for someone to claim their scouting SCV can counter this build!
I would call the 6 rax: All-In Limited Rush. So I am calling the build what it is, I'm just not using weak and abstract terminology to do so.
|
Mecra, it is cheese though, at least against T. One fast Tank and this build is done, and someone will get a fast tank if they scan and see 6 naked raxes, or even nothing and no gas at your main. The no gas alone is telling enough, more so if the scouting SCV (1st or 2nd) doesn't see a CC going down or anything at the Natural.
|
Last try.
It's not "weak and abstract", it is a very specific definition: something that hurts you economically to pull off, that if scouted, will likely fail, but if un-scouted, will have to be properly (and most of the time, with difficulty) defended by the person being cheesed in order for them to not lose outright or be at a disadvantage.
I wasn't "not discussing it" either, I was just agreeing with Lu_cid that if he scanned this guy's main he would easily be able to prepare for this build, because it's a cheese build and scouting nothing in the main, or scanning the rax, would tip you off that you need a bunker and to prepare for an attack.
If you want to come up with your own term for it, go right ahead, but don't tell me I can't call my gaming PC a gaming PC because it's generic vernacular and that I should call it "graphics and memory oriented personal computer" .
|
Can a mod close this thread, please? I've been posting on this thread too, and the past 8 pages of this thread are just repeats of what people already said, and there's increasingly more trash-talking than actual discussion. In addition, the game is not even playable now, so this strat can't even be tested, and there's no point in people getting so worked up and throwing nasty words at each other over a strategy that can't even be tested atm.
|
On July 23 2010 08:22 DanielD wrote:
Last try.
It's not "weak and abstract", it is a very specific definition: something that hurts you economically to pull off, that if scouted, will likely fail, but if un-scouted, will have to be properly (and most of the time, with difficulty) defended by the person being cheesed in order for them to not lose outright or be at a disadvantage.
I wasn't "not discussing it" either, I was just agreeing with Lu_cid that if he scanned this guy's main he would easily be able to prepare for this build, because it's a cheese build and scouting nothing in the main, or scanning the rax, would tip you off that you need a bunker and to prepare for an attack.
If you want to come up with your own term for it, go right ahead, but don't tell me I can't call my gaming PC a gaming PC because it's generic vernacular and that I should call it "graphics and memory oriented personal computer" .
Last try.
If we were arguing about what a "gaming" PC was, then you would have to call it that. But we're not because it doesn't cause quite the nerd rage it does here on TL with "Cheese". However, fear not, there are plenty of arguments across the net and such over very similiar abstract terms. "Rice Burner" for example in the racing scene.
So, is all in Roach cheesy? All in Ling? All in Banshee? Are all All-Ins cheesy? All in Marauder? All in Zealots? All in Stalkers? All in Reapers? Because last time I checked, all All-Ins are win/lose usually based on the scout and hamper your economy. because all these have the same charactistics as All-In Marines. Thus, all these should be classified as Cheesy. What about rushing to Battlecruisers? Cheesy? Same issue because if you're rushing to them, you are forgoing other tech and probably economy to get it. You probably wouldn't call these builds Cheesy but they all have the same properties if you don't scout them.
Just because something has a definition doesn't mean that it's a good one or always applicable.
I would also agree to a lock. Gimpy made his point, and the nerd ragers came out to play. Some good stuff has come out of the discussions, but the contributive nature of the thread is done.
|
Relax on the arguing. You're both smarter than each other.
All-in means if your attack doesn't do significant damage, you'll be far behind. Cheese means if it doesn't get scouted, it's very hard to stop, but if it does get scouted, it's easier to stop. This 6 barracks marine play is both all-in and cheese.
|
For all the people confused as to why its better to drop all five baracks at once.
if you go gradually, it has some advantages. but the scv that would have been mining is instead used to build the barracks (obviously) but by waiting till you have the money to drop all five of the barracks at once, those scvs mine until then, getting you the opportunity to have your fifth and sixth barracks done almost fourty or so seconds earlier than otherwise.
downside? you wait till forever to have the chance to create more unit production facilities. its personal preference.
|
On July 23 2010 11:06 kcdc wrote:
Relax on the arguing. You're both smarter than each other.
Hate it when that happens! It's like an endless loop! 
|
On July 23 2010 06:54 mecra wrote:
But since you're terran, isn't everything cheese because it could fail if you use a scan?
No, is not. Take any push timing that has a follow up as an example and you'll understand why scouting some builds doesn't really change the outcome of the game.
With your "solid logic" you are implying that 1/1/1 openings, 2/1, literally EVERY build is cheese. If every build is cheese then the therm holds no purpose (because it doesn't define anything, because it doesn't discern anything).
So, it's either that the whole SC competitive community has been using a empty concept over the years or that you don't really grasp what the word means.
If a cheese is scouted, is not the "push" "attack" or "tactic" the one that fails. It's pretty much the whole game. They are tactics that suffer from heavy neck bottles after a denied wave of attack.
1/1/1 openings, 2/1/expand, +1/timingpush, ect, do not fall inside this definition.
So, yeah. Unsurprisingly, not everything is cheese.
It's really an equation between the economical cost, the importance of secrecy, and the response time that demands in the oposing player. There are some gray areas (like 4gate) but this strat is:
- Pretty much depending on secrecy
- Generates a huge economic set back and pretty much commits you to bio units in the mid-game
- Sets back your economy
- Delays teching
- Depends on a single unit (there is no army mix subtleties)
So... This is pretty down the rabbit whole to place it in the "gray area". And since, pretty much everyone but yourself agrees, I think there is nothing more to discuss.
|
How in the world is this thread still running. O.o
Mass marine openings are brutally effective against any player whose mechanics are lacking. Because marines are so easy to pull off, such a strategy will easily punch holes through players who still have trouble spending all of their resources, etc.
In addition, the strategy is very quick and can be replayed many many times against people on the ladder who are mostly expecting something different.
Will all in type builds help you become a better player?
Depends on how you define "better player." You'll get real good at using this particular all-in, but will probably have trouble moving to more robust strategies.
Are marine all-in type builds effective on the ladder?
Yes. To a point.
Should you personally use this build to climb the ladder?
That's up to you to decide.
|
On July 23 2010 14:30 gREIFOCs wrote:
No, is not. Take any push timing that has a follow up as an example and you'll understand why scouting some builds doesn't really change the outcome of the game.
With your "solid logic" you are implying that 1/1/1 openings, 2/1, literally EVERY build is cheese. If every build is cheese then the therm holds no purpose (because it doesn't define anything, because it doesn't discern anything).
So, it's either that the whole SC competitive community has been using a empty concept over the years or that you don't really grasp what the word means.
If a cheese is scouted, is not the "push" "attack" or "tactic" the one that fails. It's pretty much the whole game. They are tactics that suffer from heavy neck bottles after a denied wave of attack.
1/1/1 openings, 2/1/expand, +1/timingpush, ect, do not fall inside this definition.
So, yeah. Unsurprisingly, not everything is cheese.
It's really an equation between the economical cost, the importance of secrecy, and the response time that demands in the oposing player. There are some gray areas (like 4gate) but this strat is:
- Pretty much depending on secrecy
- Generates a huge economic set back and pretty much commits you to bio units in the mid-game
- Sets back your economy
- Delays teching
- Depends on a single unit (there is no army mix subtleties)
So... This is pretty down the rabbit whole to place it in the "gray area". And since, pretty much everyone but yourself agrees, I think there is nothing more to discuss.
It's fun when you think I'm serious.  Also a note, I enjoy watching you guys nerd rage and blow your nuts over people who don't see eye to eye to your elite understanding of a computer game and its associated communities.
I honestly don't believe that scans make Terran uncheesable but it's fun to throw out there because so many of you claim that scans counter all cheese because you know so well how to counter all possible situations given the limited capability of a scan against a real opponent. When making such all-encompassing claims, it's simply evidence to their real lack of skill and understanding because they have to exaggerate the response. "SCOUTING KILLS THIS! TANKS KILL THAT!" yeah yeah yeah.
So, carry on little lemmings, don't let me try to disuade you from ever seeing something from a different angle than the rest of the community. Don't let me actually challenge your vocabularly or brow-beating mentality that you bring to people who don't act like the rest of you. You don't have to agree with me, but being so firmly entrenched in your notions speaks volumes about how versatile you guys are.
Quite simply, a ton of you would still die to this "Cheese" because frankly I sincerely doubt you all possess the l33t skills to counter something you may not know is coming. Plus, if you were to guess this tactic and be proven wrong and thus owned by a different "Cheese" method, that would also be as satisfying.
Some day maybe we'll have a game where every tactic or strategy is viable and can't be used as a meter of how good somone is because of how "Cheesy" the community deems the implementation. Nah, you guys need your definitions to feel good about your "pure" styles of play and how superior they are to the weaker players who must rely on cheap tactics to win.
Frankly, I thought we were playing a game to try new things. I didn't know we were competing at life or something else so important.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On July 23 2010 15:24 mecra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2010 14:30 gREIFOCs wrote:
No, is not. Take any push timing that has a follow up as an example and you'll understand why scouting some builds doesn't really change the outcome of the game.
With your "solid logic" you are implying that 1/1/1 openings, 2/1, literally EVERY build is cheese. If every build is cheese then the therm holds no purpose (because it doesn't define anything, because it doesn't discern anything).
So, it's either that the whole SC competitive community has been using a empty concept over the years or that you don't really grasp what the word means.
If a cheese is scouted, is not the "push" "attack" or "tactic" the one that fails. It's pretty much the whole game. They are tactics that suffer from heavy neck bottles after a denied wave of attack.
1/1/1 openings, 2/1/expand, +1/timingpush, ect, do not fall inside this definition.
So, yeah. Unsurprisingly, not everything is cheese.
It's really an equation between the economical cost, the importance of secrecy, and the response time that demands in the oposing player. There are some gray areas (like 4gate) but this strat is:
- Pretty much depending on secrecy
- Generates a huge economic set back and pretty much commits you to bio units in the mid-game
- Sets back your economy
- Delays teching
- Depends on a single unit (there is no army mix subtleties)
So... This is pretty down the rabbit whole to place it in the "gray area". And since, pretty much everyone but yourself agrees, I think there is nothing more to discuss. It's fun when you think I'm serious. Also a note, I enjoy watching you guys nerd rage and blow your nuts over people who don't see eye to eye to your elite understanding of a computer game and its associated communities.
Narcissistic much? No one here is nerd raging, perhaps at best just shaking our heads at why you'd disagree with everyone else on the definition of a word defined by the community. You're arrogance only feeds your ignorance, and it is rather depressing to watch you twist what everyone has said to fit your distorted view of the community.
In the meantime, have fun "trying" new things by following well known all-in build orders.
|
I have a BS in physics and it is correct that building raxes one by one or all at once produce 6 raxes at exactly the same time. Assuming you spend all your min and pump scv constantly all builds that make a certian number of marines and end up with the same number of raxes will be very close.
The only factor would be the rate you produce scvs. If that doesn't change, then nothing else matters. I find that there is no window of attack against me if I wait for all 5 extra rax to build at once, and I find that my timing pushes match up nicely with the 2nd or 3rd group of 6 marines that come from these raxes. It's so easy this way, that I don't bother trying to build as I go. Also, it is harder to scout.
Siege mode with a couple of tanks can finish at about 6min if the rax makes the tech lab. This is quick enough to stop the rines, but any other T build is too slow to develop a counter to rines without a couple of bunkers (which are rare).
One may be able to get a higher count of rines with less raxes building sooner, but it would sacrifice the rate of reinforcement, which is really what ends the game.
|
My favorite build is the 1,1,1. I like to hellion rush into mech expo against z and I like to 1,1,1 against toss with an early raven into expo. Against T, I usually rush to tank/vikings with 1 early maurader in case of reapers, then contain. I like lots of builds, but I really needed an easy all-in rush for a change of pace
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
