EPTAs far as "all in" meaning something that has no next step - I still think that those words don't apply to a lot of situations they are used for. For instance, idra calling Tyler's two-base play all-in: if Tyler destroys a lot of Idra's army and prevents him from getting a third but can't break his position, Tyler can resume probe production and get a third at his leisure. I don't know if that was his plan but he didn't have to because he never got put in that position. So, to me, it's a lot more useful to say that he stopped probe production and concentrated on fighting unit production, than to say that he "allin"ed, implying that if he doesn't win immediately then he has no next step, which doesn't even seem true.
"cheese" and "all in" as hurtful to discussion - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
spearofsolomon
United States7 Posts
As far as "all in" meaning something that has no next step - I still think that those words don't apply to a lot of situations they are used for. For instance, idra calling Tyler's two-base play all-in: if Tyler destroys a lot of Idra's army and prevents him from getting a third but can't break his position, Tyler can resume probe production and get a third at his leisure. I don't know if that was his plan but he didn't have to because he never got put in that position. So, to me, it's a lot more useful to say that he stopped probe production and concentrated on fighting unit production, than to say that he "allin"ed, implying that if he doesn't win immediately then he has no next step, which doesn't even seem true. | ||
|
HydroXy
United States513 Posts
On November 26 2010 02:52 spearofsolomon wrote: First of all, when you press the "Find Match" button in sc2, you are "all in". You've decided to play a competitive game in which the only possible outcome is to win or lose. From that perspective, it seems redundant to describe any strategy or tactic as "all in" at any point after that, as we have already established that we are "all in". So if there is a specific set of actions which people mean to describe by the words "all in" then I think that they should be more precise with their language and highlight when and why the tactics/timings are good/not good. How does joining a game mean we are all in? Because we're fully focused on the game--"all" of our focus is "in" the game? I think the misconception here is yours, because when people use the words "all in" they actually are talking about specific tactics/timing (e.g., you cut worker production, mass units, and attack right as the opponent expands). Further, I would contend that in every game, there are moments where one player (and usually both) make a decision to engage that could potentially win or lose them the game. If what the derogatory "all in" refers to is that decision to put the game on the line with a set of actions, knowing, "there's no way back if this doesn't work," then why is a max army fight more acceptable than a cannon rush? Now would be a good time to differentiate between "cheese" and "all ins". Cannon rushing is cheese and is all in. There may be situations where an opponent has played so well that your only remaining option to win is to mass up an army and make a last stand. That's not cheese, but you're all in; after having played through the game, your opponent has taken so many advantages that you've been reduced to this last remaining option. It's a rational response to your opponent's better play, and I don't think it should be shunned. Contrast this to a situation where a player is not hopelessly behind, but instead arbitrarily decides to attack all in. This is less rational, since failing will again result almost certainly in a loss. Thus, the variance of your play becomes significantly higher; it starts to look like a gamble, rather than reliance on skill. Now consider cheese. To use your example to highlight the difference: When you come into the game with the goal of not attacking till your army is maxed, you do so under the belief that your macro and defending will be better than yours opponent's macro and harassment. You're relying on your skill to achieve the goal. In the case of a cannon rush, you play the game hoping to win by surprise and/or by your opponent making mistakes (e.g., not defending it properly). There's very little that a player can do to separate a "skilled" cannon rush from a poor one. You're not relying on your skill set, but on factors outside of your control. At that point, you might as well play roulette instead. I think the answer is that it feels more like "the way the game is supposed to be played". There's a set of artificial constraints that some of the community embraces that are not actually enforced by the game engine. See Sirlin's "Playing to Win" for a lot more on this concept. The universe doesn't enforce not killing other humans, but the world generally seems to frown upon it. Is something acceptable just because it's possible? The reason I started thinking about this was because of Idra's description of Tyler's tactics in their showmatch a couple weeks ago. On the SotG Idra described it as a "two-base all in" and as "abuse" where Tyler made two probes for every patch and then stopped probe production and just made attacking units from there. I think it was 5-gate but I'm not sure. Later he recommended it to incontrol for the gsl qualifier so I guess he either didn't mean those words derogatorily or else he came around in his view of it, but either way I thought that if "all in" can be used to describe two-base play, then it's pretty useless as a term and I wish that people would stop using it and be more precise with their language. Why? Tyler had no backup plan. His attack either wins or fails. Everything he's got, included his chance of winning, is put into one attack. What's a better description? Again, I think this is your misunderstanding of the term rather than the community's. .... I don't have any particular opinion on whether cheese is good or bad as a tactic (although along with everyone else I hate losing to it), but I do know that it doesn't have to be "all in" as long as it does damage, and also that scouting it definitely doesn't mean a sure victory for the defender, so I wanted to offer an alternative definition to the discussion and hope I can contribute in a small way to the starcraft zeitgeist. I'd agree with you on face that cheese isn't necessarily all in, although cheese almost always is accompanied by an all in, simply because cheese puts the player in a position where failure puts the player almost too far behind. | ||
|
ppshchik
United States862 Posts
The term "cheesy" is still subjective in Starcraft 2 as the strategies aren't discovered yet. | ||
|
flodeskum
Iceland1267 Posts
On November 26 2010 02:57 YoiChiBow wrote: I actually totally agree with you on this one. But I think all-ins and cheeses are good when you play like a bo3 in a tournament or something. Korean coaches apparently encourage people to throw some all-in buidls into their gameplay according to Jinro. Ofc, all tournament players should do all-in pushes and cheese on occasion. Just like poker players will mix up their play during sessions just to throw people off. It's all a part of being unpredictable and shouldn't really be frowned upon. | ||
|
Clamev
Germany498 Posts
| ||
|
huameng
United States1133 Posts
On November 26 2010 03:43 spearofsolomon wrote: As far as "all in" meaning something that has no next step - I still think that those words don't apply to a lot of situations they are used for. For instance, idra calling Tyler's two-base play all-in: if Tyler destroys a lot of Idra's army and prevents him from getting a third but can't break his position, Tyler can resume probe production and get a third at his leisure. I don't know if that was his plan but he didn't have to because he never got put in that position. So, to me, it's a lot more useful to say that he stopped probe production and concentrated on fighting unit production, than to say that he "allin"ed, implying that if he doesn't win immediately then he has no next step, which doesn't even seem true. How often do you think a situation where there is literally no way the game couldn't stabilize into an equal position? Almost always, what is commonly called all-in has some potential to do enough damage to be favorable but not enough damage to win. But if this is very unlikely then we call the strategy all-in. And it's very unlikely in situations where you sacrifice a lot of economy, since you would have to even out the economy by killing a bunch of drones, but not kill most of the drones which seems very difficult to imagine. Certainly it's always possible to construct a situation where something called all-in ends up in an even game until one person isn't mining or something equally drastic, but that doesn't mean we should abandon a term that almost everyone understands. And calling Tyler's strategy "all-in" is, at least to me, (and most people here I'd assume) getting across that he stopped probe production and concentrated on fighting unit production! I don't see what else it could mean. | ||
|
awesomoecalypse
United States2235 Posts
If I DT rush, I am relying basically on my opponent not doing a good enough job of scouting. If I surprise him with my DTs, chances are good I'll either win outright or do enough damage to take a strong advantage. If he scouts me in time, however, then those DTs will be wildly inefficient for their cost, and I'll have tied up so many resources in getting them that I am at a severe disadvantage. In other words, given that proper scouting is a requirement of mistake-free play, I am essentially banking on my opponent making a mistake. If I go 3-gate Robo, on the other hand, I am not putting myself in a position to insta-win....but I'm also not relying on my opponent making mistakes. My opponent can scout me, and I can still proceed with my strategy, and if I execute well and make good decisions, I can win even if he knows what I'm doing. On ladder, there is no particular advantage to either playstyle. People make mistakes a lot, you only play people once, so banking on a fuck-up by your opponent can be a decent bet. But in a tournament, where the quality of play will likely be higher, where your opponents will likely prepare for what you do, and where you play multiple games, banking on your opponent making a costly mistake is risky. That doesn't mean its never a good idea...but if all you can do is try to trick or surprise your opponent, you probably won't win many matches in a row, which is what it will take to win it all. Solid play on the other hand, can work much better in a tournament format. You aren't banking on surprising your opponent--in fact you sort of assume they'll figure out what your doing. You're relying on superior execution. If you're good enough, the element of chance is much lower, and you have a much better shot at winning multiple games in a row against opponents who have tried to prepare for you. | ||
|
Lobotomist
United States1541 Posts
Cheese: a strategy which must go unscouted in order to work. Examples: any offensive proxy, very early pool, All-in: any strategy, tactic or decision which has no follow-up plan. Examples: 6 pool with all the drones pulled, 200/200 2 base timing pushes, most attacks where the attacker pulls a majority of his workers and uses them to fight. Most cheeses are all-in, as they don't have very good follow ups, but all-ins do not have to be cheese. | ||
|
MaKfejA
Canada117 Posts
On November 26 2010 03:03 Enervate wrote: Umm, let me provide an analogy. In poker, you can bet increments of money over a period of time, or you can go "all-in", and if you lose, you're out. But if you lose hands where you don't go all-in, you can still play. This is like Starcraft. If you pull all of your workers to attack, and you lose the battle, you're out of the game. If you lose one smaller engagement, you still have a chance to come back. That's where the term all-in comes from. Also, cheese, assuming the game is balanced, should be incredibly easy to stop if scouted. Cheese largely relies on the element of surprise and usually is very aggressive meaning that you cut workers and it is kind of "all-in". However, cheese has also been adapted to the phrase "econ cheese". So basically, cheese is any sort of play designed to catch your opponent off guard and give you an advantage, whether militarily or economically. This. There are times when you go all-in in poker. You could be doing because you have a certainty of winning the hand, or because you're bluffing. In either case, if you lose that hand, you're out. This is one strategic possibility. In Starcraft, the same strategic possibility exists--and if it succeeds, you have a huge advantage, usually resulting in a win. If it fails, you have zero possibility of winning simply because you have nothing left. When you go into a game, you could consider each attack a hand of poker, and can risk all you have by going "all-in". | ||
|
Dystisis
Norway713 Posts
| ||
|
Aelfric
Turkey1496 Posts
| ||
|
SichuanPanda
Canada1542 Posts
Cheese - A strategy which takes place during the opening minutes of a game and that if scouted by ones opponent will result in a near instant defeat for oneself. If the opponent is unable to scout or otherwise have knowledge of the build coming there is very high chances of it either outright ending the game or dealing critical damage. All-in - Similar to a cheese in that it is an attack which if ineffective will put the attacker at a harsh disadvantage, but different in several areas. Firstly an all-in can occur at any point of the game, and it can also be scouted and still be a viable move (unlike cheeses where if scouted with enough time to spare can easily be thwarted). Secondly an all-in is quite often not actually intended to end the game outright, but to deal equal or more damage to ones opponent than it cost to do the all-in. Which is why the 2 rax marine/scv rush (against Zerg) on the Korean server lately is so effective, sure all those marines and scvs more often than not all get killed. But if you manage to kill one or both queens (assuming there is two), most of the drones, or key tech buildings, both players will be set-back equally, if not putting the Zerg slightly behind. Finally all-ins to actually be classified as such much include all of a players units including workers, because of the nature of the attack. It must do equal damage to what it cost, or it simply will put you at a disadvantage. | ||
|
SmoKim
Denmark10305 Posts
| ||
|
Eminent Rising
United States174 Posts
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Cheese http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/All-in | ||
|
imyzhang
Canada809 Posts
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Cheese | ||
|
n3mo
United States298 Posts
all in - no foreseeable secondary option. you either win with this push, or you lose the game in a few minutes. cheese - generally unorthodox strategy that becomes much more easily defended if scouted. nothing there implies positive or negative. for example, if you're a zerg and just ravaged my base, i might weigh my options. deciding that you're probably pumping drones, and that i'll never be able to catch up, i bring EVERYTHING and attack you now. its a case of "im behind, so attack before i get even further behind because there's no way for me to catch up". its perfectly legitimate to do when shit hits the fan, and can catch an opponent with their pants down. cheese is not easy. its not easier to carry out the cheese than to defend the cheese. prime example - if you consider foxer's 2 rax marine stuff cheese (which you arguably could), look at the micro skill involved in pulling it off. stutter step marine micro, using SCVs to intercept melee units, etc. it is by no means 'easy' to pull off. again, cheese and all-in do not imply positive or negative. certain ones do (cannon rushes are generally considered cheese, all-in, and a noob thing to do), but similar things aren't (forge FE with a cannon blocking zerg expo is...debatable, but not all-in, and not seen as a noob thing). edit// ah, got ninja'd. whoops. | ||
|
TheAntZ
Israel6248 Posts
You've decided to play a competitive game in which the only possible outcome is to win or lose. From that perspective, it seems redundant to describe any strategy or tactic as "all in" at any point after that, as we have already established that we are "all in" Just...what? This makes no sense. Like there is zero logic in there | ||
|
latan
740 Posts
but it is true that it is not clear wether some move is all in or not. cheese only means tactics that will make you extremely pissed off if they work against you. | ||
|
shabinka
United States469 Posts
| ||
|
TheAntZ
Israel6248 Posts
On November 26 2010 08:18 rawk wrote: Please define all-ins correctly. An all in is a stragety with no transition to a mid game. If someone holds off your 6 pool or 4WG you'll be behind economically. Thats wrong too, because you can still all-in in the midgame. It is essentially an attack or tactic that has no follow up. Something that you do with the mentality of "If this doesnt win, I have no further plan" | ||
| ||
