|
tl;dr is in bold.
I've been thinking a bit about how people use the words "cheese" to describe a tactic that is usually considered low-level or noobish, and in looking at a lot of the discussion about cheese people generally define it as something that is "allin-ish". Sometimes they also include "if you scout it then you win."
I think that these definitions are so broad as to be useless, and that as a result when people use these words, it damages real discussion.
I'm by no means a high-caliber player, but I will give some reasons for my opinion that I think are obvious enough to be valid without a complete understanding of every fine point in the game.
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.
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?
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 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.
Finally, if "all in" is not useful as a descriptor, then using it to define cheese means that cheese is also poorly defined. However, I think that what people mean when they say "cheese" is more clear, but that it's kind of "I know it when I see it". I don't know if this is comprehensive, but I think that a better working definition of cheese is a tactic which is much easier to execute than it is to defend. This feels like abuse because one player is taking advantage of a racial discrepancy, or a timing window in mirror matchups (cannon rush for instance in PvP, 8 pool in ZvZ, etc). From this perspective cheese seems less odious, as it's difficult to rationalize why a player would not want to take advantage of a tactic that is much easier to execute than to defend.
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.
|
Uh.. that's not a better definition of cheese.
Cheese's definition is fine, since it describes what it is.. changing either the word or definition accomplished nothing.
Same for the "all in" thing, okay, let's change the definition since "Find Match" is all-in. What do I call a push where I bring all my SCVs and I plan to end the game right there or lose?
Not all cheese is all-in.
..? See how it's pointless and everything you said is redundant?
|
Words are words, and "all-in" and "cheese" (if used correctly) describe certain strategies that have certain shared characteristics.
The reason people don't like the words is because they don't like the characteristics. The problem happens when the person finds something else they don't like but tries to describe it using a word that doesn't apply. When that happens, all you need to do is correct them by saying "no, a 4 gate is not cheese. It may be something you dislike along with cheese, but they are different."
|
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.
|
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.
When I went to purchase StarCraft 2 for $60, I went all-in with my credit card.
=(
|
The reason why it is all in is because there is no viable follow up if he doesn't do crippling damage. Since he stopped probe production, expanding will be too difficult to do.
REAL cheese is all-in. REAL cheese is 2 gate proxy, 6 pool, mass cannon rush. Something that if you don't do enough damage, and if they crush it, you have completely lost. If you lose all but a few of your scvs to a 6 pool you lose. If you lose only a couple and defend it, you win. If you don't win after defending cheese, then you did something wrong in your followup after the defense. 1-1-1 banshee isn't cheese. Mass void ray isn't cheese. People use the word wrong.
The reason why Idra has a lack of respect for two base all-ins (which is what Tyler did, just being honest), is because a year from now that will have easily been figured out by almost all players, and almost completely non-viable. Idra's goal is to find a way to play that is the future. A very heavy macro-based play. Even then, cheese and all-in's did exist even till today in BW so they do have their place. Their purpose is to play against a player you know will do a certain build. Everyone knows Idra always goes for the most economic build, so having a build that will punish that, is essential to winning against Idra. And that is what Tyler did. I have a lot of respect for that kind of "play it as a set" mentality. But then you look at players like Flash... And you start to see the depth of insight of Idra. He sees the future of this game as looking more like BW. Remember Boxer was successful when cute things did really really well. Then he wasn't as successful for a pretty long period of time. Even Nada was pretty much the most successful progamer of all time, and he was heavy macro.
|
no, a build is considered all-in when there's no followup, and you'll lose 99% of games if you fail to kill the guy then, hence the term similar to Poker, going all-in, no going back.
As for cheese, it's just a build in the early game that is really powerful when it goes undetected. that's it.
|
Your definition of cheese is almost every strategy in one area or another.
The words cheese and all-in have a clearly defined meaning. Cheese is a strategy that can be almost entirely blocked based on knowing it's coming. All in is a strategy that has no follow up, it doesn't necessarily include ending the game immediately. An all-in cast last until you mine out your base, if your strategy is to steadily stream units without ever expanding.
It's important to classify strategies so you understand their strengths and weaknesses. The terms don't have an inherently negative connotation - that's an attribute that a select group of people arbitrarily choose to apply to the term. How some members of the StarCraft community use a term (improperly) is a completely different topic, however.
|
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.
|
I highly disagree with most of your post but the part that REALLY struck me was this:
`a better working definition of cheese is a tactic which is much easier to execute than it is to defend.`
SOOOOO many cheese are much easier to execute than defend. Take for example, Free vs Hiya or Bisu vs Pokju to name some famous BW examples. Sure, there alot of common cheese that take very little thought or skill to execute like 6 pool. But really, there are many cheese which have to be carefully planned and practiced like the GSL2 finals game 1.
|
all in is when there is no next step, pressing the find match button has a next step which is playing the game.
|
Your definition of cheese will probably describe all cheese and a bunch of other things, like hellion drops and using banelings vs marines, at any time during the game. Maybe you mean build orders instead of tactics, but then it still gets things like 10/15 gate. (a bw example since my sc2 knowledge isn't that great) In general aggressive build orders are easier to execute than defend. I think your definition has some merit, though, and it explains why people hate losing to cheese so much. (We are both bad players, but since you chose a cheese strategy and I didn't you won.)
As an aside, the reason you wouldn't want to constantly do cheeses as you have defined them is the relative difficulty of execution vs defense doesn't matter, all that matters is that your strategy is harder to defend than your opponent is capable of doing.
Max army fights are more acceptable than cannon rushes because max army fights are unavoidable, right? And they aren't necessarily all-in, since trading most of one army for all of another army is very likely. I think calling something "all-in" just says that the game is likely to be decided in the next few minutes and without any sort of transition from the person using the all-in. I'm not sure what definition you had in mind, but this one doesn't overlap with "starting the game", and it's not derogatory and it's pretty precise IMO. (Clearly not that precise, but I am not an expert in the strategies so I can't narrow it down.)
|
Or you could just describe cheese as gimmicky.
|
I disagree with basically everything.
But it seems you're more annoyed at terms than anything else. These two terms have been discussed before.
A bit of a strawman, but here's something I'm nitpicking
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? The only people who think max army fight is more acceptable than canon rush are those who are butthurt, but there is a difference.
If you lose the fight in a max-army fight, you still have an economy to build more units with - your economy should be more or less similar to the opponents and unless you got completely demolished in the army-trade you're still able to fight on. You canon rush? You've cut probes, no gate way, etc; you HAVE to do damage with it in order to catch up economically. The difference is the economy/tech, and that seperates (for the most part) all-in vs non-allin.
|
why are there always threads about this, it has been disscussed so amny times. why don't people ever look on liquipedia. it explains how a rush can be all in and cheese is pretty much always all in.
 cheese
rush
^helpful links 
|
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're defining "all in" for yourself and not in terms of how it's been defined within the space of Starcraft strategy discussions and commentary. There's no point in using a different word because what we have is a very meaningful term that defines a specific and limited set of strategies within the game with clear implications (as soon as a commentator says "he's all in!" we know immediately that there will be aggression and no further bases).
Sure, we could step back and say someone is all in as soon as he chooses a strategy + backup plan a + backup plan b etc. but then we begin to approach a situation where the phrase loses the urgency it originally had.
Also, I've never considered term "all-in" to be entirely derogatory. You're right that any strategy within the space of the game should be treated the same way, and it generally is when wins are more valuable than entertainment (others may argue that all-ins are below the belt). The reason all-ins or "cheese" can eventually become derogatory is that entertainment value will be forever married to the competitive sport, and all-ins within SC2 simply aren't as entertaining.
|
Oh look, it's this thread again. Theres one of these exact threads every 6 months or so.
|
When Koreans are interviewed, they refer to "cheese" as "strategic play". If this "cheese" never existed, then players would simply play greedy all the time.
|
yea it's getting a bit overboard. Tastosis nowadays refers to every other attack as all in.
|
All-in is a perfectly okay term. All-in's are simply strategies that have no alternatives. There are not transitions, no flexibility. They are a one and done strat that either wins the game in one battle or loses it in one battle. All-in strats put all your chips on a single gamble, hence the term "all-in".
Cheese is a term that is used perhaps too loosely, and it's important to note that the two terms are not mutually exclusive.
|
I would like to point to the variety of definitions listed here for "cheese" as reinforcing my point that people don't really agree on what cheese is. So, even if you don't agree with my definition of what people mean when they say "cheese", you can at least see that you don't agree with each other. Even liquipedia's definition is so broad as to be useless. I was trying to point out that perhaps people should stop using words that have no clear meaning except to be pejorative, and be more clear about what is good or bad about tactics.
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.
|
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.
|
Agree, cheesing is a part of the strategy in psychological warfare in BO5 / Bo7 matches. I only consider proxiers in ladder "cheesers "
The term "cheesy" is still subjective in Starcraft 2 as the strategies aren't discovered yet.
|
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.
|
i don´t think you understand what "all-in" means to be honest.
|
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.
|
I dunno if "cheese" is the right term, but I do think its important to distinguish between play that is reliant on tricking your opponent/surprising them/your opponent making a mistake, and play that is equally effective even if your opponent knows its coming.
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.
|
I believe the defenitions go like this:
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.
|
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".
|
Definitions do not really matter, what matters is how the word is used.
|
Actually all-in only means you won't have a proper follow-up for the next of the game after that push/move. It is not "all-in" to start a game with a winning purpose. These are really different things and you, for some reason i dunno why want to mix them up imo.
|
The correct definitions of cheese and all-in are as follows.
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.
|
what would Action Jesus do?
|
|
|
|
|
is it just me, or has this been discussed to death already? from what i remember (and agree with) from other threads:
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.
|
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
|
your bolded words are a very (very) weak argument. it is very clear what all in means, just like in poker. if it fails, you lose.
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.
|
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.
|
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"
|
On November 26 2010 02:52 spearofsolomon wrote:
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 you're implying those that "incorrectly" use the term "all in" play some sort of special version of SC where you can leave at any time, or be half in half out, dip your foot in the water first no mummy it's too cold wtfbbq.
You're definition of "all in" is incorrectly broad. Of course once you join a game, yea you're gonna win or lose. The term relates to "specific" build orders that do not give you the chance to recover economically from if they fail.
|
I don't think any problem lies with the terms "Cheese" and "All-in" themselves, but more so with people either:
A: Not knowing what the words really mean
and/or
B: Improperly using the words
Our OP provides a brilliant example of both cases A and B, as I'm sure most of you would agree. Another problem is people throwing these words around in anger when they lose, à la "I didn't scout properly and lost, what cheese!"
Now is there a solution?
The only one I can think of is the rigorous re-education of the community. If someone is throwing the terms around wildly and erroneously, let them know about it haha, and correct them. This way we could keep the spread of misinformation to a minimum and avoid threads like this in the future.
(P.S. It'd be awesome if someone reputable from the community would ever take it upon themselves to compile a glossary of commonly used terms that the community can agree on as well, for new players to reference :p)
|
On November 26 2010 08:40 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
I don't think any problem lies with the terms "Cheese" and "All-in" themselves, but more so with people either:
A: Not knowing what the words really mean
and/or
B: Improperly using the words
Our OP provides a brilliant example of both cases A and B, as I'm sure most of you would agree. Another problem is people throwing these words around in anger when they lose, à la "I didn't scout properly and lost, what cheese!"
Now is there a solution?
The only one I can think of is the rigorous re-education of the community. If someone is throwing the terms around wildly and erroneously, let them know about it haha, and correct them. This way we could keep the spread of misinformation to a minimum and avoid threads like this in the future.
(P.S. It'd be awesome if someone reputable from the community would ever take it upon themselves to compile a glossary of commonly used terms that the community can agree on as well, for new players to reference :p)
Honestly I think that the solution is to stop using the words entirely.
"OMG Actionjesus 6-pooled hahaha wow" is just as expressive as "OMG Actionjesus cheesed hahaha wow", except you don't have people calling things which aren't cheese cheese and using the word in stupid ways. What does the word 'cheese' really contribute? Nothing, except for a bunch of stupid comments in every other thread. Every one knows what 6-pool or proxy tech does; calling it cheese is like calling a 'marine build' when someone makes a barracks, and then people start throwing around 'marine build' as an insult.
|
On November 26 2010 08:44 Redmark wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2010 08:40 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
I don't think any problem lies with the terms "Cheese" and "All-in" themselves, but more so with people either:
A: Not knowing what the words really mean
and/or
B: Improperly using the words
Our OP provides a brilliant example of both cases A and B, as I'm sure most of you would agree. Another problem is people throwing these words around in anger when they lose, à la "I didn't scout properly and lost, what cheese!"
Now is there a solution?
The only one I can think of is the rigorous re-education of the community. If someone is throwing the terms around wildly and erroneously, let them know about it haha, and correct them. This way we could keep the spread of misinformation to a minimum and avoid threads like this in the future.
(P.S. It'd be awesome if someone reputable from the community would ever take it upon themselves to compile a glossary of commonly used terms that the community can agree on as well, for new players to reference :p) Honestly I think that the solution is to stop using the words entirely. "OMG Actionjesus 6-pooled hahaha wow" is just as expressive as "OMG Actionjesus cheesed hahaha wow", except you don't have people calling things which aren't cheese cheese and using the word in stupid ways. What does the word 'cheese' really contribute? Nothing, except for a bunch of stupid comments in every other thread. Every one knows what 6-pool or proxy tech does; calling it cheese is like calling a 'marine build' when someone makes a barracks, and then people start throwing around 'marine build' as an insult.
I still think they are very effective words when they are used correctly. The beauty of them is that they express something that could take a while to explain otherwise. Not all cheeses or all-ins are as obvious as a double proxy rax/gate or a 6-pool for example. That's just how adjectives work.
I would rather people are able to describe an attack as an all-in rather than having to go through the process of saying "And if this attack doesn't do major damage to player B, player A is going to be put into a terrible position and will most likely lose the game!", or instead of just calling a strat cheese someone must say "If this gets scouted Player A is going to have an easy time defending it so long as he knows the proper response and Player B will have just lost the game pretty much, what a gamble!". Each time it takes about 10 times as long to explain it than to just use the proper adjective.
And while that might not seem so bad on a forum, imagine how it is for people like casters. Would it be better for them to have an easily accessible word with a clear meaning to use, or have to explain what's happening every time something like this happens and not be able to talk about what else is happening, or worse yet, just leave it up to the viewer to figure out for themselves?
|
I see cheese in E-sports the same as I see "cheese" in any other sport. Think of a bunt in baseball, or starting with a low fuel load in a race so you can get an early advantage, or kicking short in rugby to try to get possesion back, the list goes on. Basically a tactic is a tactic, it shouldn't matter whether it's unorthodox, or if you don't scout it then you lose, because if you can do it, then it's a legitimite tactic.
|
all-in and cheese are fine as descriptions
the only harm comes in the negative connotations attached to them
|
Great post. I too feel that we should blur the line between defining all-in or "standard", like the koreans.
|
I think all in means a strategy that will leave u completely helpless if not done successfully. ive played plenty of games where I push, they hold, they push, I hold, then I win. pressing the find match button didnt make those games all in, they just made them happen at alll
|
IdrA stated is was abusive against players... so he recommends his teamate to do it in the qualifiers to help him get into the round of 64.. what is wrong with that...
|
On November 26 2010 02:52 spearofsolomon wrote:
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.
Well, it is all-in. If that push fails, the game is over - you can't recover from it, or afford to retreat and transition in 90% of cases.
Don't see your point here.
|
All these terms are here for the community to better follow along with what people say. Instead of saying 'a tactic which is much easier to execute than it is to defend.' we say cheese. Whatever people take in the meaning as, there is a general consensus of what the broad meaning of words like cheese, all-ins, counters, hard-counters are.
In situations where you need to nitpick, yes generalizing things as 'cheese' or 'all-in' strategies could hurt the discussion. But when we're just discussing a game or comparing strategies and we use such terms, most people understand what we're talking about.
|
I think that the terms "cheese" and "all in" are accurate terms. What I agree with is that people too often use "cheese" and "all in" to mean "strategies that I am not competent enough to beat."
Granted, this is not always the case, but it usually is.
|
topics like this have been madde sooooooo many times. all of which ended up with stupid people saying stupid stuff like "but thats how we like to use the word so too bad!" turns into some kinda argument and the mods start posting pics of cheeses and locks the thread.
it all comes down to people being stupid. there are stupid people, its inevitable.
|
On November 26 2010 02:58 Aberu wrote:
The reason why it is all in is because there is no viable follow up if he doesn't do crippling damage. Since he stopped probe production, expanding will be too difficult to do.
REAL cheese is all-in. REAL cheese is 2 gate proxy, 6 pool, mass cannon rush. Something that if you don't do enough damage, and if they crush it, you have completely lost. If you lose all but a few of your scvs to a 6 pool you lose. If you lose only a couple and defend it, you win. If you don't win after defending cheese, then you did something wrong in your followup after the defense. 1-1-1 banshee isn't cheese. Mass void ray isn't cheese. People use the word wrong.
The reason why Idra has a lack of respect for two base all-ins (which is what Tyler did, just being honest), is because a year from now that will have easily been figured out by almost all players, and almost completely non-viable. Idra's goal is to find a way to play that is the future. A very heavy macro-based play. Even then, cheese and all-in's did exist even till today in BW so they do have their place. Their purpose is to play against a player you know will do a certain build. Everyone knows Idra always goes for the most economic build, so having a build that will punish that, is essential to winning against Idra. And that is what Tyler did. I have a lot of respect for that kind of "play it as a set" mentality. But then you look at players like Flash... And you start to see the depth of insight of Idra. He sees the future of this game as looking more like BW. Remember Boxer was successful when cute things did really really well. Then he wasn't as successful for a pretty long period of time. Even Nada was pretty much the most successful progamer of all time, and he was heavy macro.
Stop stating your own reasons as if its a fact. The reason (most sensible one to believe) why idra has a lack of respect for two base all-ins( or any other all-ins for that matter) is because it doesn't take that much skill as standard play.
|
On November 26 2010 02:56 bonifaceviii wrote:
Words are words, and "all-in" and "cheese" (if used correctly) describe certain strategies that have certain shared characteristics.
The reason people don't like the words is because they don't like the characteristics. The problem happens when the person finds something else they don't like but tries to describe it using a word that doesn't apply. When that happens, all you need to do is correct them by saying "no, a 4 gate is not cheese. It may be something you dislike along with cheese, but they are different."
I agree with your post except for the part about 4gate not being cheese, its arguable whether it is or is not, and it does fall under liquipedia's definition pretty strongly assuming probes are cut for the push. (which they often are)
Cheese most often refers to an unexpected strategy that relies on large parts on secrecy and/or psychological impact on the opponent.
Players use cheese to force a more unbalanced game. The unbalanced nature of cheese usually serve to make decision making on the defending side more fatal. Thus, the cheesing player is given a chance to come back from an otherwise lost game or the possibility to outwit a stronger opponent. A common form in practice is to neglect a long term viable economy to be able to produce a couple of extra units for attack.
A main characteristic of cheese is whatever the form, if scouted in time and answered correctly, it will almost surely fail and put the executed player at a severe disadvantage.
|
All-in is a perfectly okay term. All-in's are simply strategies that have no alternatives. There are not transitions, no flexibility. They are a one and done strat that either wins the game in one battle or loses it in one battle. All-in strats put all your chips on a single gamble, hence the term "all-in".
Cheese is a term that is used perhaps too loosely, and it's important to note that the two terms are not mutually exclusive.
Is there a " like" button in the forums =)
I stand by the purpose of the original post/this thread, which is to stop all the crying for supposedly "cheese" strategies, if they weren't supposed to work Blizz would've done something about them, if they weren't supposed to exist, why would they even exist in the BW pro scene.
The match might be more fun to watch when it evolves into a massive macro epic match, but quick games have their place too, they're a lot more tense than the macro games, where it's usually small advantages/mistakes adding up to a win/loss.
|
The terms are fine, but the negative connotations and overuse of the words during a tournament in threads is unbearable.
They are definitely part of this game and can be effective and what I don`t like is when people automatically label a player bad if they see a player all-in or cheese their favorite player. I get the feeling most people say it when they think it is unstoppable or something they can`t deal with themselves.
|
You can cancel when you press the find match button.
Just throwing that ou tthere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
