|
gimmicky = tricky
It means you rely on a specific trick or a list of tricks, but which can't really be called a complete polished optimized strategy. That further implies you have more success with your gimmicky style on the ladder in Bo1s vs strangers than in a long series vs an opponent that has studied and prepared for your style. On the other hand, having a well designed perfected strategy means you could maintain good win ratio even against opponents that prepare specifically against your style, because you don't rely on surprising them, but rather on having a really solid really well executed strat.
Obviously these qualifications can't be completely separated from each other and the boundaries between them can be blurred, but in the extreme cases one can tell the difference between gimmicky and solid.
|
An offensive strategy that relies on not being scouted!
On November 24 2012 19:42 poeticEnnui wrote:
tl; dr: Is MarineKing's blind 3CC/double Engineering Bay a gimmick? "
that's a macro cheese (the worst form of cheese, because sheeple praise players for doing this kind of bullshit.
|
A gimmick is a superhero like superman. He has incredible powers, until people realise that they just need some kriptonite handy. Then despite his powers they can overcome him with relative ease.
|
I don't really like these threads "What's an all in, what's cheese, what's gimicky...".
It's quite obvious as to what a gimmick is just by looking it up on the net. It's basically just to trick your opponent (Mass Hydra/Nydus.... Cancelling your Gases after they have scouted them....)
/end thread
|
its anything that has an opponents mistake prerequisite for success, be it not scouting or blindly hoping something like detection isnt made in a large amount rather then just any detection. an example would be if you went DT pheonix and zerged a lair then tried to kill all the overseers before more were morphed in time
its usually a flimsy build that can fail with the smallest of success from the enemy.
|
On November 24 2012 19:51 Technique wrote:
Gimmick imo is a tactic that only works when the opponent either hasn't seen it before or hasn't scouted it.
Pretty much this.
Also, it should be mentioned that what is a "gimmick" in a pro level game ( say a 2 rack in a situation where you think the opponent won't scout you ) might be a valid strategy in a low level game ( say a 2 rack in gold league where it's very hard to actually stop ).
The opposite might apply as well to certain strategies where a low level player gets a away with a micro-intensive strategy like 3 fast expand just because the opponent hasn't seen it before but in a pro level game where both player have the micro it's actually a viable strategy.
|
On November 24 2012 22:17 blug wrote:
I don't really like these threads "What's an all in, what's cheese, what's gimicky...".
It's quite obvious as to what a gimmick is just by looking it up on the net. It's basically just to trick your opponent (Mass Hydra/Nydus.... Cancelling your Gases after they have scouted them....)
/end thread
Right, but then you have pro players -- or players in general -- calling all sorts of things that aren't this "gimmicky." Of course it's pointless for a pragmatic individual to ask any sort of ontological question, but it's at the very least interesting to see how everyone conceives (differently) of a single concept.
|
You say if it works consistently when does it stop being gimmicky and becomes a build? Well the thing is it doesn't work consistently. Only if you match against other players. If they know what you're doing it's easy(ier) to stop.
On the other hand, "standard" builds are that way because you can openly do this build with your opponent knowing it and you would still be fine (though he could prepare an all-in to abuse weak points in your build but you know what I'm saying.)
|
it's something incredibly non-standard which relies upon the opponent reacting poorly in order to win. if the opponent reacts in a standard, safe fashion, gimmicky play will generally lose. a good example of a player with a "gimmicky" style is naama. in addition, there's nothing wrong with gimmicky play. it's unreliable but it can win games.
|
I think the difference between a gimmicky play and cheese/risky play comes down to the player.
A gimmicky player relies on their gimmick to win. For example, six pooling your way to GM. In a BO x situation verse a player of similar MMR they have no chance because the opponent will know they are going to 6pool and just play safe.
Now, if this 6pooler is skilled enough to play a macro game well and win that way (meaning the opponent can't just automatically play super defensive, or risk getting way behind) then they are a legitimate player who just likes to cheese more than most.
|
Gimmicky play is some gay tactic you lose to, because you weren't scouting your opponent's build entirely since you try to be a cool cat like MarineKingPrime.
|
It would actually be a picture of Protoss
|
On November 24 2012 21:15 MrBitter wrote:
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.
Yeah, too often the word gimmicky is used in a negative sense when it doesn't have to be. Many gimmicks often get praised, but not called gimmicks, like warp prism immortal micro, burrowed banelings, storm drops, etc.
Often definitions include the idea of the tactic being hidden or not readily apparent.
gim·mick
1. an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, especially one designed to attract attention or increase appeal.
2. a concealed, usually devious aspect or feature of something, as a plan or deal
Synonyms
1. stunt, plan, ruse, ploy
When someone is being gimmicky it means they are relying far too heavily on stunts, ruses, and ploys rather than fundamentally solid play. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. You know who got famous for having incredible stunts but subpar fundamentals, which would be called gimmicky today? Boxer.
|
Well burrowed infestors are the only off the beat strat zergs have so no it isnt a gimmick
things like being able to invest 500 in cannon rushes which a Z (doesn't affect T as they can put their CC in their main) can't scout unless they waste a drone running around their natural for 15 seconds before planting their hatch (and then they still have to pull a ton of drones) and following that up with a super powerful + 2 blink timing from cross spots. you see, that is a gimmick.
I guess you could call mass unscouted roach drops a gimmick but
and as for terran, well.. you know, they can do a ton of weird shit that works. always have been able to
gimmicks for the most part in a gamers mind mean (terrible strategy that shouldn't work but does, and works well)
|
I think the definition of gimmicky is fairly obvious, and it's the same in SC2 or fighting games. It's just a trick that works situationally, and will be foiled if your opponent is prepared for it. "Being prepared" could mean scouting it, going for a different build than you had anticipated, or simply knowing that it's possible and playing so that they don't lose to it. A gimmick is not a strategy, but a part of a strategy, like tricking your opponent into building something and then rendering it useless.
In some ways you are correct; every strategy works better if your opponent does not scout it, or uses a build that your build counters, but I think gimmicks are unique in that they typically rely on the opponent to play a certain way to succeed. Note that not all gimmicks are cheesy, in fact most aren't. A cheesy build usually is gimmicky, however, because it doesn't work well against someone who's prepared for it.
|
Gimmick is indeed a trick which relies on your opponent not scouting/realizing it. Basically, if you play your SC2 games a certain way which leads to going "Well, he beat me because he understood I was doing X, most people don't, so it's fine", you're probably using a gimmicky tactic. There has to be some reliance on the tactic for it to be gimmicky though, using 1-2 burrowed banelings on your ramp to stop marine rushes isn't gimmicky, while relying on burrowed banelings to win you the game is.
|
On November 24 2012 21:52 JKM wrote:An offensive strategy that relies on not being scouted! Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 19:42 poeticEnnui wrote:
tl; dr: Is MarineKing's blind 3CC/double Engineering Bay a gimmick? " that's a macro cheese (the worst form of cheese, because sheeple praise players for doing this kind of bullshit.
Macro cheese? Cheese and greed are on the complete opposite ends of the spectrum, not two different kinds of the same thing.
|
People use the word gimmicky way too broadly. It's disappointing even in this thread, to see all these people's definitions related to rushes, cheeses, etc. or simply "non standard" stuff.
What the definition means is more that you're attracting attention, but not in the kind of "trick" you guys are describing. Different definitions differ of course, but the word "trick" isn't the only way to describe the definition of the word gimmick. What it really means when it says "trick" is, as this definition says, to attract attention. It is to not to gain some strategic advantage in an RTS game..It does not have to do with your opponent being deceived.
A gimmick is something that works just as well as something that isn't a gimmick. The difference in the gimmick is that it serves the same purpose, except that it differs in some insignificant way that causes it to attract attention.
Some examples:
Splitting workers 1-1-1-1-1-1 instead of 3-3. (Where the player splits them in such a way that both ways, executed at the speed of the player, results in exactly the same mineral income).
Spelling the word "HI" with your depots in your base.
Doing extractor trick (given the speed at which the player does it on the given map results in exactly the same mineral income).
Now, although the kinds of gimmicks in SC2 are quite few (or at least insignificant to note due to almost or virtually no strategic difference), I guess you could say certain things are "gimmicky" in the sense that they are not perfect gimmicks, but they are similar to gimmicks. Things that are different to attract attention, but do have slight differences in strategic value.
Examples:
Using a warp prism for a Colossus only for killing the opponent's roaches, which results in a straight up confrontation between the P and Z armies, of which the result is similar to if they simply used that time building a warp prism to get out the next colossus faster, and have that colossus fight. The warp prism micro attracts attention, but the result is not really beneficial, if at all.
Calling down a MULE to repair your army when you aren't going to even engage soon, and your opponent happens to not engage. Bringing some SCVs could be a better choice, but calling down a MULE is flashy.
Using hydras to, when very ahead, kill an opponent, instead of any other zerg unit which would probably be better in most cases.
You can't call most things (if not everything) that Boxer does as gimmicky. Perhaps remotely gimmicky, but most of the interesting things he does actually have different strategic value. For example, on Terminus RE, he would put a marine and SCV behind a depot at the xel naga tower. That is actually useful because he can control the tower easily and efficiently until the zerg player gets something other than zerglings -- of which they would have to reveal their tech/army movement to Boxer.
|
On November 28 2012 23:54 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
People use the word gimmicky way too broadly. It's disappointing even in this thread, to see all these people's definitions related to rushes, cheeses, etc. or simply "non standard" stuff.
What the definition means is more that you're attracting attention, but not in the kind of "trick" you guys are describing. Different definitions differ of course, but the word "trick" isn't the only way to describe the definition of the word gimmick. What it really means when it says "trick" is, as this definition says, to attrack attention. It is to not to gain some strategic advantage in an RTS game..It does not have to do with your opponent being deceived.
A gimmick is something that works just as well as something that isn't a gimmick. The difference in the gimmick is that it serves the same purpose, except that it differs in some insignificant way that causes it to attract attention.
Some examples:
Splitting workers 1-1-1-1-1-1 instead of 3-3. (Where the player splits them in such a way that both ways, executed at the speed of the player, results in exactly the same mineral income).
Spelling the word "HI" with your depots in your base.
Doing extractor trick (given the speed at which the player does it on the given map results in exactly the same mineral income).
While this may be true on some level, this is not the way the word has ever been used in a competitive gaming setting.
|
On November 28 2012 23:59 Cel.erity wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 23:54 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
People use the word gimmicky way too broadly. It's disappointing even in this thread, to see all these people's definitions related to rushes, cheeses, etc. or simply "non standard" stuff.
What the definition means is more that you're attracting attention, but not in the kind of "trick" you guys are describing. Different definitions differ of course, but the word "trick" isn't the only way to describe the definition of the word gimmick. What it really means when it says "trick" is, as this definition says, to attrack attention. It is to not to gain some strategic advantage in an RTS game..It does not have to do with your opponent being deceived.
A gimmick is something that works just as well as something that isn't a gimmick. The difference in the gimmick is that it serves the same purpose, except that it differs in some insignificant way that causes it to attract attention.
Some examples:
Splitting workers 1-1-1-1-1-1 instead of 3-3. (Where the player splits them in such a way that both ways, executed at the speed of the player, results in exactly the same mineral income).
Spelling the word "HI" with your depots in your base.
Doing extractor trick (given the speed at which the player does it on the given map results in exactly the same mineral income). While this may be true on some level, this is not the way the word has ever been used in a competitive gaming setting.
True, but even the definition used in the SC2 community isn't well defined -- if it took on some new meaning, then we could go on something. But right now, people's definitions are way too scattered. It's not strong enough to merit a new, official definition. My perspective on this is not that there are several new definitions being created, but rather many people misusing the word.
Also, gimmicky and gimmick aren't the only words misused in the SC2 scene, which also causes me to view it that way.
Furthermore, there have been right uses of the word gimmick/gimmicky in the SC2 scene. By your argument (or are you just sharing an observation -- if you do, then yes, i agree with that observation), does that mean that you can't use the "real" definition of gimmick/gimmicky in competitive esports? Or does it mean that there are several new meanings, of which differ so greatly and are so vague that they are hardly even definable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
