|
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.
|
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.
A lot of really excellent, thoughtful replies, but this is really a great post, and a balanced viewpoint that it seems a lot of people are overlooking. Can't say it better than this. Thankyou all
|
Any strategy in which you sacrifice a macro equality (# of bases/workers) in exchange for a bigger army, that'san all-in. The understanding is that it needs to do significant damage to get on an even footing (which should be made a lot easier thanks to your army size.
It's possible that an all-in doesn't win or lose the game immediately. So long as both players are on about equal footing after the attack an "all-in" won't lose you the game.
|
People keep referencing poker and then claiming that it's impossible for there to be degrees of all in. In poker, if you have vast majority of your chips in the pot, you're mostly-in. If you lose the hand, you're probably not going to win the game. I know, I know, "a chip and a chair" and all that. It's possible you could come back, sure, but you're not going to have repeated success trying to come back like that, because the odds are against it. There's a Day9 quote floating around that goes something like, "How did you do that!?" "Oh, that's easy, you just lose your whole !@#$ing base..."
Actually, the more I think about it, the more poker is about the worst example you could. In poker, if you aren't 100% successful, that big pile of chips you bet are gone, and you're almost sure to lose the game - a mostly in is, for the purposes of repeatability, an all in. At least in Starcraft, if your attack is only moderately successful, you can put yourself on even footing with your opponent - in other words, the pot is split proportionally to how much you win or lose by.
|
To anyone saying that heavy agression can be compared to heavy eco powering: You're stupid. All in refers to the follow-up of a strategy. It doesn't focus much on the strategy itself but on how easy it is to transition out of and what long-term plans it encompasses. You can beautifully transition into anything off of a good economy, which isn't the case if you invested into units or production facilities instead.
|
Zurich15357 Posts
It's very simple, Liquipedia is right and everyone misusing it is wrong, and stupid.
There is no "less" all-in or "little" all-in. All-in is All-in, either your attack works or it's over for you.
Obviously since in Starcraft the game isn't actually over until someone GGs All-in in this case means the game is decided at that point, not actually over.
|
It's simple, you have no chance to survive after your timed attacked. It's a poker reference, i'm betting all my chips on this one attack, if it fails i'm out of the game, if it succeeds i win. 3 gate robo isn't all in, that's a timed attack meant to deal terrible terrible damage. That's what most build orders are.
All in is 6 or 8 pool with workers included.
|
On November 13 2010 00:22 zatic wrote:
It's very simple, Liquipedia is right and everyone misusing it is wrong, and stupid.
There is no "less" all-in or "little" all-in. All-in is All-in, either your attack works and you win the game or it's over for you.
Obviously since in Starcraft the game isn't actually over until someone GGs All-in in this case means the game is decided at that point, not actually over.
I disagree, why is the term all-in black and white? There's ALWAYS variables in every game that can change the outcome dramatically like having those 25 minerals for a live-saving extractor or your enemy mis-microing his last unit. There's a big difference between a 7RR and a 6pool with drones. One can follow up and still win games if it fails to kill the opponent the other one doesn't. However both strategies can be called all in.
It's stupid to only call strategies all in that have EXACTLY SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN 0% of winning if they fail. A 3 gate robo is more all in than a 2 gate robo, simply because it expenses more ressources that do not flow into a long-term game plan and has more difficulty transitioning into other strategies.
And by that definition even a 6 pool with drones isnt all in since as seen in the Nada vs Leenock g1, the attack technically failed, Nada still had a floating Command Center and if Nada had managed to kill all of Leenocks drones he would've drawn the game. Therefore by your definition even a 6 pool with drones isnt all in since it can fail and still win the game.
|
because with an all-in you either deal terrible damage and can end the game then and there, or you take terrible damage and since you invested 100% of your resources and army, most likely cutting workers to do so, if they defend your all-in attack, they will typically be able to counter you, or simply will have a huge food and/or tech advantage and be clearly in the lead.
example, 4gate, warping reinforcements at a forward pylon, tpically cutting probes after a certain point, either you crush them and constantly reinforce, or they beat you, kill the forward pylon and counter with a food and income advantage.
But 3-4 gating while keeping reins at your base to remass your troops while you hit with a timing attack (which will be less army then an all in, and usually won't commit completely, just do some damage and back out) is not an all in.
Think of poker, when you go all in you are committing all your chips to one play; hence the term for starcraft. If you lose that hand, gg. Sure SC continues on, but its almost like keeping enough for blinds for next hand in poker.... sure you'll get a chance to play, but its almost statistically impossible to double your bid the next 10 hands, chances are you'll be out anyway.
|
Why argue semantics about "all-in"
It's usage in both poker and Starcraft is that of jargon or slang. Therefore, it is the community and how they use the word that ultimately decides its meaning. As with all jargon/slang how each community uses the word can be different or can evolve to have different subtleties.
It is pretty clear that "all-in" in SC2 is describing a play style that significantly deviates from balanced play. Meaning tending towards higher aggression at the cost of economy or visa-versa.
To semantically argue that you should use other language that is more technically correct is equivalent to stating you should always say "yes" instead of "yeah" or make sure you know the usage of thee and the.
"more all-in" follows the common internet slang trends to minimize the words needed to effectively communicate a concept. While this may initially confuse some newer people to the community, it is easily understood with any time in.
Regards,
-E
|
On November 13 2010 00:17 ChickenLips wrote:
To anyone saying that heavy agression can be compared to heavy eco powering: You're stupid. All in refers to the follow-up of a strategy. It doesn't focus much on the strategy itself but on how easy it is to transition out of and what long-term plans it encompasses. You can beautifully transition into anything off of a good economy, which isn't the case if you invested into units or production facilities instead.
Except that is not quite true.
Both strategies have advantages and transitioning options if they're initially successful - aggressive strategies if they cause enough damage to at least equalize the economy, economic strategies if they withstand the aggression without suffering too much damage. If they are not successful though, both will suffer equally.
You're not going to have a beautiful follow-up if your expo dies so that you're actually worse off than your opponent or if you straight out die to the first push .
Long term plans are only feasible when they incorporate feasible solutions for short term problems. If that is not the case then they're just as dangerous and you gamble just as much (if not more) than the aggressive player.
|
On November 13 2010 00:59 Eeryck wrote:
Why argue semantics about "all-in"
It's usage in both poker and Starcraft is that of jargon or slang. Therefore, it is the community and how they use the word that ultimately decides its meaning. As with all jargon/slang how each community uses the word can be different or can evolve to have different subtleties.
It is pretty clear that "all-in" in SC2 is describing a play style that significantly deviates from balanced play. Meaning tending towards higher aggression at the cost of economy or visa-versa.
To semantically argue that you should use other language that is more technically correct is equivalent to stating you should always say "yes" instead of "yeah" or make sure you know the usage of thee and the.
"more all-in" follows the common internet slang trends to minimize the words needed to effectively communicate a concept. While this may initially confuse some newer people to the community, it is easily understood with any time in.
Regards,
-E
because it is an issue of old community vs new community.
Look at the usage of the term "meta-game". It may make sense to newcomers who did not follow the BW scene in certain usages, but those who have been part of that community for the past X number of years, read it and go, "hunh.... that isn't meta game"
same issue with "all in" or a "push" or even the term "cheese". So yes, people who have been more active in certain communities would like to preserve the original meanings of terminology, it is more clear in the long run then having different meanings for the same word.
|
On November 13 2010 01:31 baconbits wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2010 00:59 Eeryck wrote:
Why argue semantics about "all-in"
It's usage in both poker and Starcraft is that of jargon or slang. Therefore, it is the community and how they use the word that ultimately decides its meaning. As with all jargon/slang how each community uses the word can be different or can evolve to have different subtleties.
It is pretty clear that "all-in" in SC2 is describing a play style that significantly deviates from balanced play. Meaning tending towards higher aggression at the cost of economy or visa-versa.
To semantically argue that you should use other language that is more technically correct is equivalent to stating you should always say "yes" instead of "yeah" or make sure you know the usage of thee and the.
"more all-in" follows the common internet slang trends to minimize the words needed to effectively communicate a concept. While this may initially confuse some newer people to the community, it is easily understood with any time in.
Regards,
-E
because it is an issue of old community vs new community. Look at the usage of the term "meta-game". It may make sense to newcomers who did not follow the BW scene in certain usages, but those who have been part of that community for the past X number of years, read it and go, "hunh.... that isn't meta game" same issue with "all in" or a "push" or even the term "cheese". So yes, people who have been more active in certain communities would like to preserve the original meanings of terminology, it is more clear in the long run then having different meanings for the same word.
Again, just like poker and SC2 are different, BW and SC2 are different so the language that evolves and its meanings will also.
FWIW, the "old community" could be equated to the vast majority of parents, while the "newer community" their tech savvy children. Look at how the parents struggle to understand internet/texting short hand and would prefer their children use standard English. Anytime there is change there will be those that want to maintain the status quo because that is what they understand. However, if the change is ultimately of higher value to the overall new community then you just end up being a dinosaur. For that reason, I tend to avoid "preservation" type justifications. I believe it limits my ability to progress and change.
Regards,
-E
|
All-in is an okay term to describe certain strategies. 2port banshee is one of them. Since you've invested so much into banshees, your ground army suffers. If the banshees fail to do any damage and the opponent shuts down any effectiveness either with static defense or proper unit counters; then you're incredibly behind. Although if it works successfully, you'll win out right or be incredibly far ahead of your opponent.
In No Limited Hold Em, even if you go all-in, you do not lose all of your chips per se as the opposing players can only win as much as they bet, although it will leave you severely behind in terms of chip count and ruin any chances of you winning.
So if you compare it that way, the term "all-in" works fine for describing certain strategies.
|
On November 13 2010 00:22 zatic wrote:
It's very simple, Liquipedia is right and everyone misusing it is wrong, and stupid.
There is no "less" all-in or "little" all-in. All-in is All-in, either your attack works or it's over for you.
This is the most accurate response. People misuse words all the time like "all-in" and "cheese."
Sending ALL of your SCVs with your army to attack the other player is "all-in." When the attack is over, the game is over and you either won or lost. Like in Poker.
Beyond that, there is a spectrum from pure military to pure economy, to everything in between. Simple 1 base play is not "all-in" because you can always save up for an expansion later, it just might take longer. Some builds are more focused on military and aggression than economy. But they are not all-in.
|
I think the term is severely overused by the community, hopefully this thread will convince some people to stop using it improprerly.
I agree with the above posters and the liquipedia entry, 'all in' SHOULD mean you have (nearly) ZERO chance of winning if you fail.
Correcting some of the poker analagies above.
If I shove my chips into the middle of the table in poker, I don't get to take some back if the cards aren't going my way. I either win, or I lose. Sure, my opponent might not have as many chips as I do, but it's the absolute maximum bet I could possibly make at the time. Most of the time if you go all in and lose you are severely crippled if not completely out.
A sliding scale of 'all in' doesn't make any sense. It has the word "ALL" right in the term. It's binary in it's nature and sound, so when you try to apply a sliding scale to those words it just leads to confusion.
I think a better term would be 'aggressive' or 'risky' or something.
|
All-in seems like it's started to take over the concept of a "must do damage" timing attack.
How much damage an attack 'must do' is a sliding scale from 0 for a non-committing attack to 100 for an all-in attack. It's not like an attack is either all-in or is successful if it does 0 damage, there's a whole scale there. People just lack a word they want to use to describe an attack that has to do 'a lot' of damage, but not outright win, to not end the game.
Take a 6 pool. I need to kill 6-12 workers and/or some units to not lose outright with 6 pool, but it's not all-in. I still have 5 workers and if I do kill 10 workers I may not win instantly, but I'm not out of the game.
Compare that to 6 pool with me pulling my drones. I need to deal 95-100% damage (kill all workers & all units until my opponent has <50 minerals) or I lose. Yeah I can bring my drones back to mine if I keep them alive and kill off almost everything, but it's very unlikely that it's feasible to cause that level of damage without losing the drones.
Really a full 100% all-in is kinda impossible as you can always likely have at least 1 worker and a CC left over.
|
On November 13 2010 00:26 ChickenLips wrote:
I disagree, why is the term all-in black and white?
because that's what the word "all" means
|
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.
This post needs more love. Ignore what everyone else has said.
|
At this point in the game at higher levels it's never an all-in unless you actually bring your workers with you because of the fact that a high-diamond-level player executes the strategy with 90-100% success (most of the time).
e.g if I'd 7pool I'd do enough damage to justify it but still not quite finish my opponent off thus bringing the game to a balanced or slightly ahead state.
All-in is just a term which is incredibly over-used.
|
'All-in' means sacrificing macro for a strong army, to such an extent that you're not able to fight back if he survives your push & comes to your base.
|
Many people are dumb, refuse to actually try to understand what something means, and don't understand terms so they use them solely in the context they've heard them and from this myriad of new uses forms a different meaning entirely.
To a lot of people "all-in" is any kind of attack that is meant to win the game, which is simply untrue. People will blow off strategies and builds as "all-in" or "cheese" for no reason other than they think it's an ezmode build that doesn't count if you win with it.
|
On November 13 2010 01:31 baconbits wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2010 00:59 Eeryck wrote:
Why argue semantics about "all-in"
It's usage in both poker and Starcraft is that of jargon or slang. Therefore, it is the community and how they use the word that ultimately decides its meaning. As with all jargon/slang how each community uses the word can be different or can evolve to have different subtleties.
It is pretty clear that "all-in" in SC2 is describing a play style that significantly deviates from balanced play. Meaning tending towards higher aggression at the cost of economy or visa-versa.
To semantically argue that you should use other language that is more technically correct is equivalent to stating you should always say "yes" instead of "yeah" or make sure you know the usage of thee and the.
"more all-in" follows the common internet slang trends to minimize the words needed to effectively communicate a concept. While this may initially confuse some newer people to the community, it is easily understood with any time in.
Regards,
-E
because it is an issue of old community vs new community. Look at the usage of the term "meta-game". It may make sense to newcomers who did not follow the BW scene in certain usages, but those who have been part of that community for the past X number of years, read it and go, "hunh.... that isn't meta game" same issue with "all in" or a "push" or even the term "cheese". So yes, people who have been more active in certain communities would like to preserve the original meanings of terminology, it is more clear in the long run then having different meanings for the same word.
People have a fairly concrete idea on the definition of "all-in" though. For metagame, people just assign the term to whatever the fuck they please.
|
all-in is the new "cheese". People got tired of using the term cheese and the whole definition has become so hazy, everyone just started saying all-in instead. Which is a more literal term of "if this attack fails, I lose". But just like "cheese", it's being overused and may just use the term for an attack that sacrifices a lot of econ in favor of an attack that intends on ending the game rather than pushing into the late game.
|
in poker it means ur beting all your chips
in sc2 means if the attack fails you lose =x
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
