|
On November 29 2012 07:37 ScandiNAVIan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2012 07:22 monkybone wrote:
Whether it's a gimmick depends on the situation. What is cheesy play for professional players isn't necessarily cheesy for lower level players, as different principles apply. Depending on skill, players play and react differently and with varying effectiveness. And similarly the "gimmick" tag must be applied differently. You can't say that if a professional player performs a so-called gimmicky strategy, then the strategy is gimmicky no matter who does it, and in no matter the situation.
For example, 1 base DT rush might just be a reliable and effective strategy below some certain skill level, almost no matter what your opponent are doing. You can't call it a gimmicky strategy in this case. For others, it is extremely gimmicky play and involves a whole lot of specific assumptions of what your opponent will be doing.
What characterizes gimmicky play is that it's surprising, and therefore it can never be a consistent part of the metagame. It is effective because of heavy abuse of the metagame It involves a very specific guess of what your opponent is doing without you knowing it. As a strategy it will quickly lose its effectiveness as soon as people are made aware of it, as it is in principle has an easy solution. Normal strategies on the other hand may stay effective despite "solutions", and will work to some extent across the whole spectrum of common metagame strategies, and beyond, whereas gimmicky strategies does not. Whether an opening is reliable or effective has nothing to do with being gimmicky or not. Gimmicky is when something will only work because opponent is unaware of whats happening or because it's not blocked/dealt with appropriately.
wouldnt that qualify almost everything as "gimmick"?
|
It is quite moronic to value innovation and then turn around and call it "gimmicky". I'm not a fan of the word and don't think I've ever used it in reference to Starcraft. "Stylistic", "fragile", "underused", "sneaky", "micro-intensive"; these are words I prefer to use to describe things I feel a little bit insecure calling "solid".
|
On November 29 2012 07:40 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2012 07:37 ScandiNAVIan wrote:On November 29 2012 07:22 monkybone wrote:
Whether it's a gimmick depends on the situation. What is cheesy play for professional players isn't necessarily cheesy for lower level players, as different principles apply. Depending on skill, players play and react differently and with varying effectiveness. And similarly the "gimmick" tag must be applied differently. You can't say that if a professional player performs a so-called gimmicky strategy, then the strategy is gimmicky no matter who does it, and in no matter the situation.
For example, 1 base DT rush might just be a reliable and effective strategy below some certain skill level, almost no matter what your opponent are doing. You can't call it a gimmicky strategy in this case. For others, it is extremely gimmicky play and involves a whole lot of specific assumptions of what your opponent will be doing.
What characterizes gimmicky play is that it's surprising, and therefore it can never be a consistent part of the metagame. It is effective because of heavy abuse of the metagame It involves a very specific guess of what your opponent is doing without you knowing it. As a strategy it will quickly lose its effectiveness as soon as people are made aware of it, as it is in principle has an easy solution. Normal strategies on the other hand may stay effective despite "solutions", and will work to some extent across the whole spectrum of common metagame strategies, and beyond, whereas gimmicky strategies does not. Whether an opening is reliable or effective has nothing to do with being gimmicky or not. Gimmicky is when something will only work because opponent is unaware of whats happening or because it's not blocked/dealt with appropriately. wouldnt that qualify almost everything as "gimmick"?
It most certainly does which makes Starcraft II a frustrating game to play for people who like to compete on making sound strategical decisions and mastery of mechanics.
|
|
|
|
|
On November 29 2012 07:58 monkybone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2012 07:37 ScandiNAVIan wrote:On November 29 2012 07:22 monkybone wrote:
Whether it's a gimmick depends on the situation. What is cheesy play for professional players isn't necessarily cheesy for lower level players, as different principles apply. Depending on skill, players play and react differently and with varying effectiveness. And similarly the "gimmick" tag must be applied differently. You can't say that if a professional player performs a so-called gimmicky strategy, then the strategy is gimmicky no matter who does it, and in no matter the situation.
For example, 1 base DT rush might just be a reliable and effective strategy below some certain skill level, almost no matter what your opponent are doing. You can't call it a gimmicky strategy in this case. For others, it is extremely gimmicky play and involves a whole lot of specific assumptions of what your opponent will be doing.
What characterizes gimmicky play is that it's surprising, and therefore it can never be a consistent part of the metagame. It is effective because of heavy abuse of the metagame It involves a very specific guess of what your opponent is doing without you knowing it. As a strategy it will quickly lose its effectiveness as soon as people are made aware of it, as it is in principle has an easy solution. Normal strategies on the other hand may stay effective despite "solutions", and will work to some extent across the whole spectrum of common metagame strategies, and beyond, whereas gimmicky strategies does not. Whether an opening is reliable or effective has nothing to do with being gimmicky or not. Gimmicky is when something will only work because opponent is unaware of whats happening or because it's not blocked/dealt with appropriately. It has everything with being reliable and effective or not. If a strategy is reliable and effective, it will never be called a gimmick by the very nature of the word. And at a certain skill levels it doesn't always matter what your opponent knows. To deal with something "appropriately" is a relative thing.
I misspoke. Of course, it has everything to do with being reliable. It has nothing to do with being effective. Not sure how reliable managed to sneak its way into what I wrote.
Could you elaborate what you mean with "at a certain skill level it doesnt always matter what your opponent knows"?
As far as dealing with something appropriately, I simply mean that you - provided you're aware of whats going on & you're in a position to come out ahead regardless of how flawlessly your opponent executes whatever he's up to - will come out ahead.
Edit: typo
|
A strategy that relies on the opponent responding incorrectly or simply poor scouting from the opponent.
|
On November 29 2012 10:29 FuzZyLogic wrote:
A strategy that relies on the opponent responding incorrectly or simply poor scouting from the opponent.
Why do people keep describing cheese?
a gimmick doesn't have to rely on bad scouting or play. If you get to 20 minutes in to the game and then only make 200/200 infestors, thats gimmicky. Your opponent can scout that you only have infestors, like 50 of them, and can try to stop you but can they? Whether they can or can't makes no difference, building your entire army as just infestors is gimmicky.
Gimmicks can be many things, not just limited to "things that only work once, things that only work if unscouted" etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
