|
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.
|
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.
|
In relation to sc2 i've only seen it in forums, where people were disappointed with certain (new) units or abilities or where people looked down on some (unfamiliar) strategies. Most of the time it's used as an point in itself, without further explanation.
I always disregard the term, for it seems to be used only for expression of disdain more than anything else.
|
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
I don't think that half of the things you listed are gimmicky. Cancelling gases after they've been scouted can just be smart. I recently watched a ZvT in the GSL (I think MKP was the Terran) where the Zerg scouted 3CC and immediately cancelled his Lair and went into a Roach/Ling/Bane bust. Was that gimmicky? I would say no, he scouted a greedy opening an responded accordingly.
I tend to think that gimmicky is more along the lines of blind all in cheeses. BitByBitPrime comes to mind here. Old school all-in 4 gates are gimmicky. Quick double StarGate play PvZ. These are things that all used to be popular because they could get wins very easily. As people figured them out though they fell out of style because the wins were based on the novelty of the gimmick that no one had solved yet.
p.s. Also, your snide /end thread comment should have just been /thread. If you're going to be an internet snob at least do it right.
Bahaha, was reading through quotes and this made me laugh. Not that I agree with it necessarily, just funny! :D
On November 28 2012 23:27 Let it Raine wrote:
It would actually be a picture of Protoss
|
On November 28 2012 23:54 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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.
Spoilered quote for length. Gimmicks do involve attracting attention of course, but they don't specifically have to be designed to attract, they just happen to attract attention, and it could be just the viewers attention they attract instead of the opponent. It doesn't mean that they can't have strategic use. A defensive nuke has strategic use, but it also attracts attention. Other games may have level gimmicks like Sonic 2 where there are hill top catapults or metropolis screws. They attract attention because they are unique, but they don't have to be designed to attract attention. And how is putting a marine and scv behind a depot at the tower not a gimmick? Also I said he got famous for using many gimmicks, that means in bw. He would do things like fake drop with his dropships to draw forces away while he attacks from another angle, research the rare optic flare just to blind observers for his cloaked wraiths, nuke rush and float an engi bay over the silo so the enemy couldn't see it, fly 4 barracks into the walled off enemy base, proxy barracks and lift off to a hidden base to confuse his opponents, wall his opponents mineral line with a barracks and build marines behind the minerals, deny scouts into an empty base to fake out his opponent. All things people today might label(whether correctly or incorrectly+ Show Spoiler +On November 28 2012 23:37 Fyrewolf wrote:
You know who got famous for having incredible stunts but subpar fundamentals, which would be called gimmicky today? Boxer.
|
On November 24 2012 19:42 poeticEnnui wrote:
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?"
a) People will insult any play style that potentially catches them off guard and that ends the game early. Getting beat by a couple DTs early game is frustrating, but that play isn't a gimmick anymore than it is a gimmick that the other player decided to hold off on getting detection to build their economy faster simply because most players won't explore this strategic option.
b) It shouldn't matter if play is standard or not. This is a strategy game. All options should be left on the table to keep your opponent on their toes. You wouldn't play chess with the exact same opening every time, would you? So why would you in SC2? That's just makes your opponent comfortable in making unsound assumptions and getting away with it simply because most players follow suit.
I can understand if people want to practice their late game macro/micro. But to just assume that your random opponent on ladder is equally interested in that is just silly. If you want to practice only late game then practice with some friends or play ladder and don't really get all bent out of shape when someone takes you out quickly. In all honesty, it doesn't matter how good you are late game if you can't make it there. Your strategy and build should account for that. Most late game strategies are quite greedy builds.
|
it's just a term people who are upset about losing use to discredit their opponent's play.. "he just played really gimmicky"
|
Not trying to armchair mod, but really I don't see the point of this thread, even in terms of discussion. It's like making a thread called "What constitutes as cheese?" or "What qualities make a bonjwa?" Team Liquid is one of the most diverse gaming forums I've ever been to; getting a general consensus on something so ambiguous and not exactly thought-provoking just has no point to it, especially when it's a term that's not exactly widely used.
In any event, I'd wager that most people consider "gimmicky" within the context of Starcraft as simply "not common play". Something you see maybe a few times per tournament; or just from one player. If it is truly effective and is picked up on, then it no longer becomes "gimmicky".
|
To me? As a fan of BoxeR I would call BoxeR's play gimmicky. It wasn't standard at all, and sometimes he did very surprising off the wall things, it was just his thing. It was what he did, it was his gimmick. It wasn't a bad thing.
On these forums? Most of the time I see "gimmicky" used to describe anything that a player does that allows them to beat the favored player or the crowd favorite. If, for example, MarineKing were to beat Stephano, no matter what MKP did someone would call it gimmicky. Conversely if MKP was beaten by say ... InControl, no matter what InControl did it would be called gimmicky.
|
the trojan horse is gimmicky
|
I define gimmicky as a build that would not work if the opponent did not make a mistake in scouting or otherwise.
ex. not scouting greedy expands that cannot be held, not scouting for burrowed banes, not building the right unit composition.... etc...
Basically something that relies on your opponent screwing up instead of you winning on even ground.
|
On November 29 2012 01:14 deathmirage wrote:
a) People will insult any play style that potentially catches them off guard and that ends the game early. Getting beat by a couple DTs early game is frustrating, but that play isn't a gimmick anymore than it is a gimmick that the other player decided to hold off on getting detection to build their economy faster simply because most players won't explore this strategic option.
That's because both styles are gimmicky. Going for early DTs doesn't win you the game against standard play and probably puts you behind when it doesn't do enough damage. Going overboard on economy which opens you up to instadeath is also gimmicky since you're assuming your opponent won't play aggressive.
Standard play is to play for the long term. You want good economy and macro to get a lead before the late game, but you don't want to die to aggressiveness, so you go for a middleroad where you go as economical as possible while staying safe. One could make the case that going for more economy at the cost of defense is a strategic choice, and maybe so, but it's a gimmicky play when you base your tactic on assumptions and luck.
|
My definition of gimmicky is something that relies on your opponent not scouting or something that requires the surprise factor in order to work.
It's something that abuses certain aspects of the game. It's something that you would never lose to in a million years, but you did because it's abuse.
|
On November 29 2012 01:58 SpikeStarcraft wrote:
the trojan horse is gimmicky
Great example of a gimmicky strategy.
|
On November 24 2012 21:28 herMan wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I wouldnt advice you to go there. Bly ZvP openings are just retarded.
|
On November 28 2012 23:46 Zenbrez wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 21:52 JKM wrote: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. Macro cheese? Cheese and greed are on the complete opposite ends of the spectrum, not two different kinds of the same thing.
You occasionally hear the term econocheese thrown out there, though mostly regarding Zerg and Terran (Quick thirds from Protoss don't seem to have the same effect). I agree with the sentiment that greed fundamentally differs from cheese or "gimmicky" play at its core. This is essentially a complaint that you were unable to punish/respond to that greed in any meaningful way; ergo their production/upgrades/general ability to spend superseded your own
|
I dont understand this "gimmick" discourse. What did you expect? It's a game of imperfect information where scouting sacrifices a lot - of course "gimmicky" play is viable.
|
On November 29 2012 03:46 Sbrubbles wrote:Great example of a gimmicky strategy.
So I should knock on Protoss' door, and ask them to open up to my Trojan overlord? I would actually love to see that guy who had dialogues with people while establishing "embassies," in their base do this.
|
On November 29 2012 03:51 ThomasjServo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 23:46 Zenbrez wrote:On November 24 2012 21:52 JKM wrote: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. Macro cheese? Cheese and greed are on the complete opposite ends of the spectrum, not two different kinds of the same thing. You occasionally hear the term econocheese thrown out there, though mostly regarding Zerg and Terran (Quick thirds from Protoss don't seem to have the same effect). I agree with the sentiment that greed fundamentally differs from cheese or "gimmicky" play at its core. This is essentially a complaint that you were unable to punish/respond to that greed in any meaningful way; ergo their production/upgrades/general ability to spend superseded your own
Cheese and greed are not on the same spectrum. Greed is just another word for relying on thin* defense while getting from A to B at an accelerated pace.
Macro cheese is risking to fall behind in case opponent does X which you cannot rule out in your efforts to get to B.
Edit: typo
|
gimmick is the new cheese?
most disgusting thing about sc2 community is the cries of cheese this, cheese that.
my friends do it all the time (@#$% cheese, i'll beat him normal game anytime) and i just shake my head.
i mean shit, people are calling fast expands ECON CHEESE for fuck sakes
i hope this mindset dies off... maybe when sc2 popularity die off and only hardcore players remain where majority of them dont give a single fuck on tactics/strategy to cry about.
|
When I hear 'gimmicky' as a way of describing someones style of play I usually just interpret it as they play in a way that if their opponent is aware of how they play they have a much lower chance of winning.
This usually means they take really dumb risks because they assume their opponent will respect them too much and let them get away with it. Or it could mean that they rely heavily on one aspect of their play and if that is shut down they have no ability to overcome that in other areas of their play.
Either way its something you say about someone when you disrespect their style of play and they annoy you.
|
On November 24 2012 21:01 GhostFall wrote: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: Show nested quote +
"gimmicky (adj.) - a term used by angry players to justify their losses in a pathetic attempt to deligitimize their opponent's success"
I like this one the best as the answer to your question. I agree with what he's said here 100%
|
Gimmicky as it relates to SC2
1. A build that relies on your opponent not knowing what is coming, either through hidden choices or trickery.
Examples: Proxy buildings, Zergs who transfer most their drones to their natural to appear greedy, placing buildings in odd locations. Taking a hidden fast expand to an odd location.
2. A build that exploits an opponents tendency to do X, that would not work against most other opponents or again.
Examples: Going 3 cc because your know your opponent plays greedy (usually), early/late all ins, timings that are not solid timings but specifically chosen for the opponents tendency. Cancelling a fast expand because you know your opponent only scouts once.
3. Exploiting some known or unknown flaw in game mechanics or map design.
Examples: The pylon behind the mineral line on daybreak, the bunker location on XNC, the old bottom of the ramp pylon/bunker wall. Dropping siege tanks into the abyss on metalopolis.
|
Technically almost every build designed to be a step ahead of the meta game (such as partings forge in base --> nexus first) are gimmicky. People just say it to make them feel better about losing to it, when in reality its a strategy designed to attack a certain players tendencies or the most frequent tendencies of a matchup in the metagame.
|
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.
Exactly.
|
Many of you confuse the term with cheese and all-ins. Gimmicky is none of these.
Being gimmicky is to rely heavily on something that when used once, shouldn't be useful again. It can be useful, but it has such extreme weaknesses that it'll flat out fail against the appropriate response. I guess you could say there has to be a norm for something to be gimmicky. If the norm in TvZ is marine/tank, then playing mech every game would be gimmicky, the same could be said about playing mass air every game too.
There are situations/maps where it's useful, but as standard play it's easily exploitable and thus once the gimmick is "figured out" your play is so much weaker. That's why people are being called "gimmicky" players. When they are figured out, they'll lose. (I hate to use real people as an example but I think GoOdy illustrates this to some extent.)
|
Gimmicky = Floating the CC to the Gold Base on Metropolis at the beginning.
|
On November 29 2012 04:29 aintthatfunny wrote:Show nested quote +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. Exactly.
Well, does that mean that drops (overlord, warp prism, medivac) are gimmicks?
|
|
|
On November 24 2012 19:48 BlackPanther wrote:
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 think doing certain things that abuse the metagame are also considered gimmicky. They work now on the ladder cause when you can play 100 games there are certain builds that come out more than others and your build counters them so overall you 'win' but I find that a strategy that relies on your opponent playing a certain way is 'gimmicky'
|
Gimmicky play is usually pretty similar to cheese, but in my opinion it goes beyond that. I consider extremely greedy and/or risky play gimmicky as well.
If your strat works really well when your opponent doesn't realize its coming, but fails miserably if he reads your play correctly, that's gimmicky play.
|
From the definitions people are coming up with on the first page, gimmicky is synonymous with cheesy.
Cheese, which has a pretty set in stone definition (despite all the newcoming SC2 players that never played BW and develop their own meaning of the word which is simply nonsense), has been for quite a while "a strategy that relies on being unscouted to work."
It's been that way for YEARS before SC2 was released. Most allins are cheeses, although not all are (ie. 1-1-1 allin TvP is not a cheese, it can be fully scouted and still incredibly powerful).
Allin is merely something that if you don't do substantial damage with an attack, you will lose (for example you decide you're not going to engage - simply not engaging results in you losing). You cannot recover unless a certain amount of damage is dealt.
|
The term in sc2 really is overused though to the point where alot of clever play is labelled gimicky, just becuase is it unexpected. I think quite alot of robot type players in sc2 just want the same play every game and then a-move into each other in the middle of the map, that would get boring pretty damn fast imo. Need creative and different strats so the game does not get uber stale.
|
United States13143 Posts
On November 24 2012 20:09 kafkaesque wrote:
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"
In my experience, this is really the correct answer.
|
Many different things define a gimmick.
A risky play that is not guaranteed to pay off and is probably negative expectation in the long run against good opponents, but will occasionally win. For example, burrowed banelings.
A play that is simplistic in nature and intended to win in only a single way. For example, a 4gate all in.
A play that relies on some single mechanic or characteristic to win. For example, blink or cloak.
Basically it means the opposite of solid all-around play. It seeks to maximize a single aspect of the game to win instead of developing a general skill set, which affords a player numerous compositions, spells, tactics, strategies, and can win in numerous phases of the game.
|
a gimmick in relation to competitive sports, or esports, requires a meta-breaking-strategy. for it to work, it depends on your opponent to either make a mistake or not achieve their full potential
|
To me gimmicky play can be a number of things. It can be single actions or entire strategies. The primary component though is relying on your opponent either not scouting it or having not seen it before, or anything that strongly deviates from the norm.
A prime example of a gimmicky build would be the nexus cancel 4gate where you make it look like you are 1gate expoing and you cancel your nexus and 4gate. If the opponent sees the cancel, they should be able to prepare to hold it off. And chances are if you win against someone once with it they will make sure to scout it every other time you play them, causing it to never work again.
Heck I would define my own PvZ play as gimmicky because it deviates from the norm since I do Nony's 2gate expand as I like the positives associated with it (faster warpgate, more opportunities to pressure the Zerg, much faster tech. All in exchanges for a slightly slower nexus. It also seldom dies to early pools unless you screw up severely or don't put your second pylon near the ramp to make sure the gate stays powered). Have I won a lot of PvZs purely because the Zerg had no idea how to handle this build? Probably. Does that mean this build is bad? Absolutely not.
Other things I would rank as gimmicks would be taking dangerous expands that you have no chance of holding unless the opponent doesn't scout it (be it regular expand locations earlier than you normally can, or ninja expands that you would have no way of holding), DT builds that rely solely on the opponent not having detection, 4gating while hiding a probe in the opponent's base hoping they won't find it, blind roach/ling all-in (again, 2gate expo demolishes those but if you scout it, you can easily with any PvZ opener). Really, blind all-ins in general seen to fit the theme. Also, cutesy micro that is either over the top, or completely unnecessary (we've all played those Terrans who over-micro their bio and end up worse off because of it).
|
Bly. Watch his playstyle and you'll get a definition what "gimmick" style means.
He has build his sc2 career around it.
|
On November 29 2012 06:48 Bill Murray wrote:
a gimmick in relation to competitive sports, or esports, requires a meta-breaking-strategy. for it to work, it depends on your opponent to either make a mistake or not achieve their full potential
Not necessarily. You seem to be obvious to the fact that SCII is a game of imperfect information.
|
A gimmick is something that has a hard counter, and if that hard counter is employed, the tactic is shut down, at least for the time being.
|
|
|
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.
|
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
