|
Evidently, there are a number of ways to achieve a fairly high winrate at a fairly high level of play in Starcraft II.
One of the terms thrown around at this level of play is the phrase "gimmicky," as if to describe a style of play that lacks "legitimacy" or soundness. But what does that mean?
The OED gives us:
gimmick (noun)
a trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or business.
Not particularly enlightening, given the range of things called "gimmicky." Burrowed banelings, dark templar, six pooling, base trading, greedy openings -- it seems as if the whole gamut of playstyles has been at least one point in time criticized as a gimmick.
There's an easy answer we can provide to the definition with respect to Starcraft -- that is, a deviation from "standard play" such that a proper response to the "gimmick" in question would lead to a definite loss or at least disadvantage.
OK, a little better. But:
a) can't that be said about every game state in Starcraft?
b) when a "gimmicky" tactic works with consistency, at what point does it stop becoming a "gimmick" and start becoming standard repertoire?
I'm curious to hear what you, TL, have to say on the matter.
tl; dr: Is MarineKing's blind 3CC/double Engineering Bay a gimmick? What about Destiny and CatZ's burrowed infestor play? CombatEX's cannon rushes? Bad_Habit six pooling to Grandmaster league? When do these things stop becoming gimmicks and simply become "builds?"
|
Gimmicky is a one trick pony. It's cheesy but it specifically exploits something about the player, map, current meta (etc.).
Example: The proxy pylon location at the back of the base on Daybreak that is occasionally exploited in PvZ
|
I define gimmicky as something that relies almost purely on surprise factor to work. If someone is even remotely aware it's coming, it will fail.
Something becomes standard when it isn't instantly destroyed by scouting it.
|
Gimmick imo is a tactic that only works when the opponent either hasn't seen it before or hasn't scouted it.
If the opponent does know about the tactic and/or scouts it he will counter it (assuming he's a good rts player and not a robot of course).
|
I think that a gimmicky strategy is something unconventional that relies on the opponent not knowing the correct response for it. However, if the opponent were to react the correct way, they would have an easy win.
|
I'm in no way a pro, or even close to masters, but in my oppinion the "gimmicky" plays are the ones that:
a, are impossible to transition out of in a fasion that would put you on par/ahead of your opponent if the "gimmick" doesn't win you the game
b, revolves around one mechanic that if scouted/dealt with properly will make you lose the game hands down.
c, uses a mechanic/unit that's op.
Now, for me this point of view makes almost every strategy viable in certain situations. For an example the 6 pool opening does not have to be "gimmicky" in itself as long as it's done on a map where the player is able to transition out of it and still be able to win the game. The same goes for burrowed baneling/dark templar plays where while the mechanics of the units may be "gimmicky" (or able to use in a "gimmicky" fashion) it can be used in such a way that it improves your build. An example of good dt play would be naniwa's against feast at DHW where dt drops in combination with zealot warp-ins killed tons of probes, units and buildings putting naniwa with a larger bank to secure his lead and victory.
Just 6 pooling and then quitting when it fails goes with out saying that it's using "gimmicky" play, while it can give you some wins it will not improve your play (if that's what you're after) or be viable as a strategy every game in a best of x (if you're playing tournaments). The same goes for constant dt rushes, cannon rushes and so on. When scouted or dealt with properly it's just bad, and "gimmicky".
The third alternative is not as common anymore since the units of Sc2 are rather balanced. But the early days of reaper play comes to mind.
Looking at your post this I realize this is pretty much your point as well ^^. To answer the final question I'd say that they are always just builds. If they are good builds of bad builds depends on your execution, your opponent and the current meta game.
|
I'd rather look at what the player using these builds is doing, because a lot of the time its the player that's gimmicky.
If you have a player that uses the same build game in and game out, to achieve fast and easy wins, it would start to become a gimmick. Like cannon rushing every game or six pooling every game. The build is not so much of a gimmick as is the player who's using the build.
Now if you have a player that 9/10 times plays a standard macro game, but throws in a build like a 6 pool or a cannon rush to throw off the other player, that's brilliant. You need to have those builds mixed in so you don't become predictable.
So it all comes down to why is this player using this build and is this the only thing they do?
|
Gimmicky - Anything IdrA doesn't approve of
|
HSD (honest Starcraft 2 dictionary) defines gimmicky play as:
"gimmicky (adj.) - a term used by angry players to justify their losses in a pathetic attempt to deligitimize their opponent's success"
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On November 24 2012 19:51 SolidMoose wrote:
I define gimmicky as something that relies almost purely on surprise factor to work. If someone is even remotely aware it's coming, it will fail.
Something becomes standard when it isn't instantly destroyed by scouting it.
I'd agree with this, the reason gimmicks work so well in low leagues.
|
I would say gimmick indirectly contains the same meaning as risky
|
Gimmicky means something that relies on surprise factor to work.
|
A gimmicky strategy means it relies on some trick. A lot of cheeses and all ins are gimmicks, but it does not mean all gimmicky strategy are allins or cheeses.
Example: DT builds are gimmicky. Doing a DT expand build is not cheesy or all in. It is a great build in some situations. Inca was called a gimmicky player because he relied on the trick, "DTs", all the time.
All new strategies are "gimmicky". If this new strategy continues to work even after the trick is found out it becomes "solid". That means all strategies at one point were gimmicky. Immortal/Sentry all-in was a gimmick when it was first introduced. Now it is a solid strategy.
There are some very famous players who became famous from gimmicky strategies like July and Bisu in Starcraft 1. This bisu build is probably the most notorious "gimmicky strategy"
Most people use gimmicky like this as:
"gimmicky (adj.) - a term used by angry players to justify their losses in a pathetic attempt to deligitimize their opponent's success"
|
If you looked up gimmicky in the dictionary, there would only have to be a picture of Bly.
|
The easiest way to define it in my opinion would be to think of the consequences of any strategy. For example we'll imagine you are at a lan tournament and you decide to put your new strategy to use against someone. Now if this strategy works and you win is it likely your opponent will walk up to you and punch you in the face. If the answer is yes then you probably employed what is known as a "gimmicky" strategy. I hope this helped you resolve any questions you have on this topic!
|
On November 24 2012 20:07 murphs wrote:
Gimmicky - Anything IdrA doesn't approve of
tl;dr building a gateway b4 the 3rd nexus.
|
I don't think a gimmick neccessarily has to be cheesey.
Best example of a gimmick I can think of: Destiny's famous "Retard Magnet". Sacrificing an overlord to pull units out of position and then running units in.
It's a trick that probably won't work twice, but that doesn't mean it isn't cool, or legitimate.
|
Non standard play which relies on your opponent not countering it as he expects "standard play" and usually doesnt work twice against same player.
|
I would just say it's the opposite of standard. However it holds a much more negative tone than unorthodox.
|
On November 24 2012 21:02 HuTSC2 wrote:
If you looked up gimmicky in the dictionary, there would only have to be a picture of Bly.
Could you explain this? I mean I'm interested to know what special Bly does, I don't follow any zergs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
