|
I'm sure some of you guys can help me here:
All-in: Liquipedia definition: "A type of attack where the player commits everything in an attack, thus forgoing any long-term strategy from that point."
However, I read a lot of people saying things like "3 gate robo is more all in than 2 gate robo" etc - I dont understand how this term applies there. If you just stop producing for a second, you can change your strategy really quite easily - expand, tech, etc. I would have thought having fewer production buildings and expanding earlier makes you more vulnerable to early pressure, therefore being more of a gamble (as you are more vulnerable to getting wiped out).
I know I do not know much about the game, so can someone explain to me what "all in" means in this context?
|
basically in the case you are talking about, the expression refers to the fact that 3gate robo gives you more chance to recover if your big all in push fails... therefore 2gate robo, with the intention of doing a big timing push to win is "more" all-in.
The easier it is to recover from a failed all-in push, the less of an all-in it is. Did that make sense? does to me, but i know what i mean lol.
edit.... i read your thing backwards....
in your example, 2gate robo expand has a long term goal. 3gate robo, no expand is designed to be an all in push, short term goal.
|
The concept of "all in" has become pretty blurred. The point in you example is that it is used almost synonymously with "less economical". I.e. "more all in" = "less economical". Economical might not even be the right term to use, but something like "long term" vs "short term" strategy.
|
emythrel - You're saying the opposite of what other people have told me; but you seem to be saying what I say - 2 gate robo seems like more of a gamble that 3 gate robo, to me at least.
Alsn - Thanks, this is really helpful. I guess this is what people mean when they say "all in"  , going for short term power.
|
It's probably closer to say "difficult to transition out of without abandoning the entire strategy in the first place".
Take 6 pool for example. The point is to kill your opponent without him having sufficient defenses. This obviously is not always the case, but if it fails, you have to abandon the idea of constantly producing lings to flood the gate.
Take 2 gate for example. Same thing, it's hard to transition out of the idea of flooding the opponents front with zealots.
Take korean 4 gate for example. If it fails, you have warpgate sure, but your opponent has an economic advantage and it'll be difficult to get it back.
|
All-in to me is investing on a strategy or attack that leaves you in a disadvantage if it fails.
The ambiguity is on the word 'fail'. If you can trade off enough of their units, it would constitute to a 'neutral' gain in which you can still recover and change strategy. If you are unable to deal a serious blow, it would leave you vulnerable to a counter attack or behind in economy, which in theory against any competent player would result a game loss on your part.
|
It's an overused term. It should mean you are gambling the game on whatever you're attacking with or doing.
A more realistic "all-in" would be a terran who pulls all his SCVs with that marine attack (insert mule comment here) or a zerg who 6 pools and ruins any chance at a come back should it fail.
At the higher levels more things are "all-in" complained about because going 3 gateways and a robo even though you can shut production down to expo may have you far enough behind economically you can't catch up. I feel like it's a gamble but not "all-in" as many describe it and 4 gate.
|
All-in means that you are risking your entire game on a single plan of attack, and if it fails there's no possible way for you to recover. If you rush to get several marines out as fast as possible, then bring your marines and all of your SCVs for a crazy all-out attack that you hope your opponent will not be prepared for, then that is "all in".
Many people have been using this term wrong. There's no such thing as "more all in than ____" or "sort of an all in move". They're trying to say "this is a risky play that will leave him at a disadvantage if it fails", and they just use the term all in because it sounds cool and a lot of other people have been saying it.
"All in" means you either win the game with your attack, or you have a 0% chance to survive. You bet all of your chips, you have nothing left in reserve, either it goes your way or it doesn't.
|
I don't like the way the meaning has changed over time. Not so long ago (and I haven't been here long) it was referring to base trades, any attack where you sent your workers with you, etc. In these cases it's very similar to poker - you're throwing in all your chips, if it works you'll win - however if it doesn't, you lose.
Nowadays anything that isn't strictly economic seems to be referred to "all in" or "more all in" - the most oxymoronic combination of terms. Even to strategies that will leave you with many options, likely going to at the worst result in traded armies, and haven't substantially damaged your economy - like the regular 4 gate. How is that "all in"?
Personally I don't even consider Korean 4 gate to be an all-in - as you're likely to do a large amount of damage even if it fails, to the extent that the liquipedia article has 600 words dedicated to transitioning in the case that the Korean 4 gate doesn't completely win the game. But I think I'm alone in thinking that.
|
It´s an all in if you can´t throw down an expo after / during the attack safely or your economy is gone if you took workers in the attack. Or you stayed on one base and tried to kill the opponents nat, you have lost unless you do serious amounts of damage.
All in simply means an attack where you must do serious damage or you are 99.9% done against any competent player.
However, I read a lot of people saying things like "3 gate robo is more all in than 2 gate robo" etc - I dont understand how this term applies there. If you just stop producing for a second, you can change your strategy really quite easily - expand, tech, etc. I would have thought having fewer production buildings and expanding earlier makes you more vulnerable to early pressure, therefore being more of a gamble (as you are more vulnerable to getting wiped out).
It´s not very smooth to build extra producing facilities early in the game and then not using them.
3 gate robo is "more all in" because against weaker/ faster expanding builds you must do some damage or you will be behind more than with 2 gate robo because you can expand earlier with just two gates.
|
An example of all in- pulling most of your SCV's to repair a rushed thor. That thor better be a hero thor and win the game, otherwise, there's no coming back.
|
The meaning of "all-in" is heavily distorted due to always looking from the perspective of a macro-minded player (which is obviously biased). There are very few moves that are all-in in SC2, and it comes down to 6-pool and similar stuff.
The way things work in reality is that you can do a balanced strategy - a very thin line in the middle where you don't commit to aggression that has to cause damage, but you also don't power your economy so hard you're vulnerable to said aggression.
From that point, you can deviate from a balanced strategy in two directions, towards the two extremes - economic or aggressive. The more you deviate in either direction, the more (calculated) risks you take. Aggressive strategies risk economic inferiority and hope to cause sufficient damage to come out on top. Economic strategies risk getting trashed by aggression and hope to achieve economic superiority in later stages of the game. It's a risk either way, and the risk is just about equal.
The difference is that aggressive players get called out on going "all-in" because their strategy focused on having to do damage in order for them to win, but the macro-minded players never get called out on that, even though their strategy focused on having to survive in order to win.
|
On November 12 2010 20:08 Talin wrote:
The meaning of "all-in" is heavily distorted due to always looking from the perspective of a macro-minded player (which is obviously biased). There are very few moves that are all-in in SC2, and it comes down to 6-pool and similar stuff.
The way things work in reality is that you can do a balanced strategy - a very thin line in the middle where you don't commit to aggression that has to cause damage, but you also don't power your economy so hard you're vulnerable to said aggression.
From that point, you can deviate from a balanced strategy in two directions, towards the two extremes - economic or aggressive. The more you deviate in either direction, the more (calculated) risks you take. Aggressive strategies risk economic inferiority and hope to cause sufficient damage to come out on top. Economic strategies risk getting trashed by aggression and hope to achieve economic superiority in later stages of the game. It's a risk either way, and the risk is just about equal.
The difference is that aggressive players get called out on going "all-in" because their strategy focused on having to do damage in order for them to win, but the macro-minded players never get called out on that, even though their strategy focused on having to survive in order to win.
Intelligent, thoughtful post.
|
"All in" In my humble opinion can be counted on a scale
Total All-In <<---------------------------->> Hardly All-In.
I would say that the harder it is for the attacker to recover should the attack fail, the more "All-In" it is.
|
On November 12 2010 20:08 Talin wrote:
The meaning of "all-in" is heavily distorted due to always looking from the perspective of a macro-minded player (which is obviously biased). There are very few moves that are all-in in SC2, and it comes down to 6-pool and similar stuff.
The way things work in reality is that you can do a balanced strategy - a very thin line in the middle where you don't commit to aggression that has to cause damage, but you also don't power your economy so hard you're vulnerable to said aggression.
From that point, you can deviate from a balanced strategy in two directions, towards the two extremes - economic or aggressive. The more you deviate in either direction, the more (calculated) risks you take. Aggressive strategies risk economic inferiority and hope to cause sufficient damage to come out on top. Economic strategies risk getting trashed by aggression and hope to achieve economic superiority in later stages of the game. It's a risk either way, and the risk is just about equal.
The difference is that aggressive players get called out on going "all-in" because their strategy focused on having to do damage in order for them to win, but the macro-minded players never get called out on that, even though their strategy focused on having to survive in order to win.
That's true but I think the reason why the macro players don't get called out for it is because it's the accepted way of optimizing your game. Day9 and others have said that the best way to lose is to simply get rolled by your opponent having only drones. Then in the next game you make a little less drones and see how it goes. The "all-in" style is usually not used in such a manner (trying to perfect your game), which I believe is one of the main reason why people look down on that as opposed to the other side.
|
An easy way to put it is, An "all in" wins right away if the opponent is not prepared and will lose you the game if you dont do enough damage. But an all in can be conducted in many ways, it can be just making drones and be 100% certain to lose at any time if the opponent desides to attack you (fruitdealer vs some terran on kulas in gsl 1 anyone?)
Example:
5 gate of 1 base is based on an early win and loosing units constantly, letting you use the extra 100 minerals a pylon would require on units. If you dont do enough damage, against a FE zerg, you will be way behind in economy and production and thus lose the game.
|
On November 12 2010 18:34 emythrel wrote:
basically in the case you are talking about, the expression refers to the fact that 3gate robo gives you more chance to recover if your big all in push fails... therefore 2gate robo, with the intention of doing a big timing push to win is "more" all-in.
The easier it is to recover from a failed all-in push, the less of an all-in it is. Did that make sense? does to me, but i know what i mean lol.
edit.... i read your thing backwards....
in your example, 2gate robo expand has a long term goal. 3gate robo, no expand is designed to be an all in push, short term goal.
wow.......just wow.
@OP the easy answer is that people are stupid, if there's something liquipedia states that contradicts with what a random person says... stick to liquipedia.
3 Gate robo has become one of the most standard builds in PvT, there's nothing all in about it whatsoever unless he's hellbent on never ever expanding.
|
now. i will try to explain my definition of an "all-in"
lets say you have 5 bucks. you didnt buy food yet but some guys says. guess in what hand i have my crayon and i will pay you twice your money. so you can have that tasty but expencive sandwich. you're like yeah. it'll save me time and some free money. so you bet on his right hand with all you've got and win or lose. if he indeed had the crayon in his right hand you win 5 bucks. if he doesnt you lose 5 bucks.
so to translate this into starcraft 2. you go for a 8 rax outside of your oponents base. send all of your scv's after the first 2 marines pop and blast your way into his base. if he played economicly. like a 15 hatch 14 pool you win. if he went pool first and got a spinecrawler up. you lose all your scv's or a LOT of mining time and your baracks gets killed "or leaving your base open to attacks" which puts you in a bad spot. meaning a loss.
all in. create your win with 1 move. but if you dont win you are dead. ^^ thats basicly it
|
A true all-in is actually a thing of beauty.
But it's also quite rare and requires a large amount of understanding and timing.
You want a series of upgrades and key unit numbers to all come into effect at the same time. And then you reinforce as fast as you can, often you will build an extra few unit structures and stock up on supply before the attack so when you cut all workers you can spend your resources fast enough.
Another way of looking at it is fully commiting to a timing attack and that's where this "level" of all-in comes from.
If you slightly commit to a timing attack by cutting a few workers, but not all, reinforcing the attack but still upgrading/expanding too then that's more "all-in" than not cutting any workers but less "all-in" than stopping all late-game play and going 100% in.
|
The term All-in is slowly degenerating into a measure of how risky aggression is. Not only is it confusing, it's also biased and added to that, plain wrong.
6 pooling is called "All-in" whereas making nothing but drones until 25 supply is referred to "risky, but if it pays off...." Truth is, they're both strategies and probably equally likely to pay off against a given opponent. For some reason (I guess BW mentality?) being aggressive is frowned upon and any gameplan that doesn't involve an expansion before 35 supply and/or a timing attack get called "lame all-in". I loved how people were accusing Foxer of doing "dumb Terran all-ins" when he took out Fruitdealer with excellent timings, awe-inspiring micro as well as a solid economy (plus expansion). How on earth is that an all-in?
Now, as eople slowly start understanding that SC2 is - in fact - not Broodwar we are now at the point where you can be "less all-in" and "more all-in", moving the term even more away from its original context in Poker.
Reality check - there is no such thing as scaling an all-in. It's either all-in or it's not. All-in means you either win or lose the game right then and there. Failure to win, means an autoloss. There is ZERO chance of recovery if you don't win with the attack. In SC2 there are very few, if any, true All-ins. Anything that has a recovery option (remote as it may be) or a backup plan is a STRATEGY that has a certain level of risk involved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
