|
On January 31 2013 01:56 Mortal wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2013 01:53 Blargh wrote:
Cheese is bad because it adds elements of randomness to the game. You are hoping your opponent cut a corner, trying to outsmart what they are going to do, but that's just taking a risk, which should never be in a strategy game in the first place. With chess, the game is based off of knowledge, there are "correct" or "perfect" moves at points in the game, so you should never HAVE to rely on luck if you truly that intelligent, but since it has such a high skill cap in terms of strategy/thought/pieces, even moves that aren't "perfect" can still be a good move, but will require the opponent to also fail to make a "perfect" move.
The more chance the game, the more often a player may win despite being a less skilled player. You can consider it skill to be able to predict what your opponent is going to do, but since you have no certainty, it will always be a risk. But since SC2 uses imperfect strategy (cannot see opponents tech, builds, etc.) risks will always be used, and thus, cheese will. Stopped reading right there. This is completely wrong and a ridiculously awful way to look at the game. I doubt you even know what you're talking about when you say "cheese," as most people get it wrong anyway. It's not random, it's perfectly legitimate, and adds depth and interest to the game, when a "cheese" is performed.
I would agree that there is a level of randomness to cheese your opponent can blind counter you or star sense what you are are doing or even get the right read even with misdirection. However this level of randomness holds true in early aggressive play and macro games, such as if a terran scouts your first colossus spawning and can pump out faster vikings accordingly for the first engagement.
|
On January 31 2013 01:26 Hezzina wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2013 01:20 LuNa. wrote:
I don't see how you could classify cheesing as an art though. Cheesing is simply an early all in and yes I would say there is little skill involved in doing one. I don't see how executing a 4 Gate is skillful when it's one of the easiest builds you could possibly do but regardless cheesing is simply coin flipping and I don't see how taking a chance requires some sort of skill. Yes you can out micro your opponent while performing a cheese but the actual cheese itself requires little effort to pull off. I would say cheese is good to do from time to time if you were in a tournament but if you cheese every game then I don't see how you can say you're a skilled player. You rely on chance to win games The skill of a good cheese comes from mind gaming and misleading your opponent prior to the attack as well as being able to follow up, which is the same thing that many macro builds do by showing only select information and denying scouting to either feign aggression or that you are playing passive.
I don't see how you can call it a "good" cheese. An all in is an all in, yes some are stronger than others but it's still a coin flip at the end of the day so I'm not sure how one can say that's good. You will win if your opponent plays super greedy or if he just doesn't know how to react properly (which is probably the case in lower leagues) and you will most likely lose if they play safe, have good scouting and react in time. That's why at the highest level of play cheesing doesn't always happen, it's good to throw one in here and there but at the top level those players know how to scout and react to anything. If you're having a lot of success doing cheese builds every game on ladder, no offense to you but I think it has more to do with your opponent than you or the build you choose.
|
On January 31 2013 01:34 Mortal wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2013 01:20 LuNa. wrote:
I don't see how you could classify cheesing as an art though. Cheesing is simply an early all in and yes I would say there is little skill involved in doing one. I don't see how executing a 4 Gate is skillful when it's one of the easiest builds you could possibly do but regardless cheesing is simply coin flipping and I don't see how taking a chance requires some sort of skill. Yes you can out micro your opponent while performing a cheese but the actual cheese itself requires little effort to pull off. I would say cheese is good to do from time to time if you were in a tournament but if you cheese every game then I don't see how you can say you're a skilled player. You rely on chance to win games ever watch MVP on atlantis spaceship in gsl finals? my guess is not.
Yes I have and the last time I did, the only reason he won the game was because his opponent over extended after he defended the 2 rax. You probably know what game I'm referring to as well.
|
On January 31 2013 02:07 Mortal wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2013 02:03 AnomalySC2 wrote:On January 31 2013 01:56 Mortal wrote:On January 31 2013 01:53 Blargh wrote:
Cheese is bad because it adds elements of randomness to the game. You are hoping your opponent cut a corner, trying to outsmart what they are going to do, but that's just taking a risk, which should never be in a strategy game in the first place. With chess, the game is based off of knowledge, there are "correct" or "perfect" moves at points in the game, so you should never HAVE to rely on luck if you truly that intelligent, but since it has such a high skill cap in terms of strategy/thought/pieces, even moves that aren't "perfect" can still be a good move, but will require the opponent to also fail to make a "perfect" move.
The more chance the game, the more often a player may win despite being a less skilled player. You can consider it skill to be able to predict what your opponent is going to do, but since you have no certainty, it will always be a risk. But since SC2 uses imperfect strategy (cannot see opponents tech, builds, etc.) risks will always be used, and thus, cheese will. Stopped reading right there. This is completely wrong and a ridiculously awful way to look at the game. I doubt you even know what you're talking about when you say "cheese," as most people get it wrong anyway. It's not random, it's perfectly legitimate, and adds depth and interest to the game, when a "cheese" is performed. You must not have been around during the early days of SC2. Bitbybiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit Oh I was. I'm not saying doing it every game is any more interesting than watching bl/infestor vs. colo/mo-ship (watching both is absolutely tragically boring). But in a BoX it only makes sense to mix it in to keep the game pace uneasy for your opponent.
I agree with you, it's necessary for pro players but at the same time everyone hates the feeling of losing to cheese. When you get build order owned it just feels cheap. I believe this is how the term cheese came to popularity and the real reason why people frown upon it so much.
|
On January 31 2013 02:13 AnomalySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2013 02:07 Mortal wrote:On January 31 2013 02:03 AnomalySC2 wrote:On January 31 2013 01:56 Mortal wrote:On January 31 2013 01:53 Blargh wrote:
Cheese is bad because it adds elements of randomness to the game. You are hoping your opponent cut a corner, trying to outsmart what they are going to do, but that's just taking a risk, which should never be in a strategy game in the first place. With chess, the game is based off of knowledge, there are "correct" or "perfect" moves at points in the game, so you should never HAVE to rely on luck if you truly that intelligent, but since it has such a high skill cap in terms of strategy/thought/pieces, even moves that aren't "perfect" can still be a good move, but will require the opponent to also fail to make a "perfect" move.
The more chance the game, the more often a player may win despite being a less skilled player. You can consider it skill to be able to predict what your opponent is going to do, but since you have no certainty, it will always be a risk. But since SC2 uses imperfect strategy (cannot see opponents tech, builds, etc.) risks will always be used, and thus, cheese will. Stopped reading right there. This is completely wrong and a ridiculously awful way to look at the game. I doubt you even know what you're talking about when you say "cheese," as most people get it wrong anyway. It's not random, it's perfectly legitimate, and adds depth and interest to the game, when a "cheese" is performed. You must not have been around during the early days of SC2. Bitbybiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit Oh I was. I'm not saying doing it every game is any more interesting than watching bl/infestor vs. colo/mo-ship (watching both is absolutely tragically boring). But in a BoX it only makes sense to mix it in to keep the game pace uneasy for your opponent. I agree with you, it's necessary for pro players but at the same time everyone hates the feeling of losing to cheese. When you get build order owned it just feels cheap. I believe this is how the term cheese came to popularity and the real reason why people frown upon it so much.
True, but the blame shouldn't be thrown at cheese itself. Look at mirror matchups. How many games have we seen where someone wins a PvP because the other guy just forgot an obs or forge? Or how about blindly going Phoenix and the other guy happens to lose because he's going robo? I agree that bo wins suck, but that shit happens in all aspects (less as the game goes forward, but if someone goes 3 hatch before pool unanswered, he's definitely going to have a sick macro advantage).
|
On January 31 2013 02:10 LuNa. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2013 01:26 Hezzina wrote:On January 31 2013 01:20 LuNa. wrote:
I don't see how you could classify cheesing as an art though. Cheesing is simply an early all in and yes I would say there is little skill involved in doing one. I don't see how executing a 4 Gate is skillful when it's one of the easiest builds you could possibly do but regardless cheesing is simply coin flipping and I don't see how taking a chance requires some sort of skill. Yes you can out micro your opponent while performing a cheese but the actual cheese itself requires little effort to pull off. I would say cheese is good to do from time to time if you were in a tournament but if you cheese every game then I don't see how you can say you're a skilled player. You rely on chance to win games The skill of a good cheese comes from mind gaming and misleading your opponent prior to the attack as well as being able to follow up, which is the same thing that many macro builds do by showing only select information and denying scouting to either feign aggression or that you are playing passive. I don't see how you can call it a "good" cheese. An all in is an all in, yes some are stronger than others but it's still a coin flip at the end of the day so I'm not sure how one can say that's good. You will win if your opponent plays super greedy or if he just doesn't know how to react properly (which is probably the case in lower leagues) and you will most likely lose if they play safe, have good scouting and react in time. That's why at the highest level of play cheesing doesn't always happen, it's good to throw one in here and there but at the top level those players know how to scout and react to anything. If you're having a lot of success doing cheese builds every game on ladder, no offense to you but I think it has more to do with your opponent than you or the build you choose.
In the post I address this issue, most "good" early aggression builds are not an all-in all-ins and cheeses are not mutually exclusive however just because it is one does not mean it is the other, many cheeses have a strong follow up to them however are still reliant on damage being done to equal the economic field. A good cheese also minimizes the coin flip through the ways that I mentioned inside the main post such as reading the meta game, mind gaming your opponent, feeding false information etc...
|
On January 31 2013 02:17 Mortal wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2013 02:13 AnomalySC2 wrote:On January 31 2013 02:07 Mortal wrote:On January 31 2013 02:03 AnomalySC2 wrote:On January 31 2013 01:56 Mortal wrote:On January 31 2013 01:53 Blargh wrote:
Cheese is bad because it adds elements of randomness to the game. You are hoping your opponent cut a corner, trying to outsmart what they are going to do, but that's just taking a risk, which should never be in a strategy game in the first place. With chess, the game is based off of knowledge, there are "correct" or "perfect" moves at points in the game, so you should never HAVE to rely on luck if you truly that intelligent, but since it has such a high skill cap in terms of strategy/thought/pieces, even moves that aren't "perfect" can still be a good move, but will require the opponent to also fail to make a "perfect" move.
The more chance the game, the more often a player may win despite being a less skilled player. You can consider it skill to be able to predict what your opponent is going to do, but since you have no certainty, it will always be a risk. But since SC2 uses imperfect strategy (cannot see opponents tech, builds, etc.) risks will always be used, and thus, cheese will. Stopped reading right there. This is completely wrong and a ridiculously awful way to look at the game. I doubt you even know what you're talking about when you say "cheese," as most people get it wrong anyway. It's not random, it's perfectly legitimate, and adds depth and interest to the game, when a "cheese" is performed. You must not have been around during the early days of SC2. Bitbybiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit Oh I was. I'm not saying doing it every game is any more interesting than watching bl/infestor vs. colo/mo-ship (watching both is absolutely tragically boring). But in a BoX it only makes sense to mix it in to keep the game pace uneasy for your opponent. I agree with you, it's necessary for pro players but at the same time everyone hates the feeling of losing to cheese. When you get build order owned it just feels cheap. I believe this is how the term cheese came to popularity and the real reason why people frown upon it so much. True, but the blame shouldn't be thrown at cheese itself. Look at mirror matchups. How many games have we seen where someone wins a PvP because the other guy just forgot an obs or forge? Or how about blindly going Phoenix and the other guy happens to lose because he's going robo? I agree that bo wins suck, but that shit happens in all aspects (less as the game goes forward, but if someone goes 3 hatch before pool unanswered, he's definitely going to have a sick macro advantage).
Yep, but PvP is probably the most blatant example of what you're talking about. It's by far the worst offender when it comes to build order ownage due to warp gate (mostly). It became even more random when they nerfed 4 gate because that build specifically was so strong that it simply killed a ton of options protoss players could choose from (which lowered the amount of stuff you had to worry about).
But here is the thing, even White Ra raged about 4 gate in pvp. I can remember him saying something like "gg you gosu 4 gate" when MC owned him with it way back in some gsl match. If something can piss off manner ra.....
Edit: Also I'm not even sure 3 hatch before pool is that great in sc2 due to heavily delaying queen production. I could be wrong but it just seems like a bad idea.
|
I love cheese unless my favorite players (*cough* Hero *cough*) lose to it.
|
I think alot of the grief towards cheese comes from the fact that it's so damned hard to scout in time. Using your own example of 7RR against protoss FFE, pretending to take a hatch (attack probe / build hatch --> cancel) and the main becomes unscoutable due to a queen emerging on the field and 2-4 lings chasing the probe away from the natural and any xel'naga tower there may be. You have to be very keen to read the small signs that something is awry and even so you can't really be sure because you don't get to scout the zerg main base for the next 5-10 minutes.
On January 30 2013 18:14 Hezzina wrote:
Second - Good cheese is not an all-in in most cases it must do something or else you are behind but there does tend to be a follow up to cheese.
Don't include this in what cheese is. Atleast I think the vast majority don't look at an pressure build and consider it cheese. Pressure builds have their own role. Oftentimes they're designed to hit players who play particularly greedy to kill workers, delay tech or perhaps win the game if the defending player fails to defend properly.
This is most prevalent in TvT where you often see players 1rax FE lose 5-10 workers against players going for fast medivac hellion / marine pressure, and the game continuing on equal footing because they both end up with 2 orbitals and equal number of workers. The reason this build is a pressure build and not a cheese is fairly simple, that the defending terran cannot avoid losing marines and scvs if the aggression is properly executed (outside of blind hardcounters).
Cheese can sometimes transition into normal games, but most often the game is over when the cheese works or fails, because the situation is very fragile for both players rarely leading to an even trade.
|
On January 31 2013 02:34 JKM wrote:I think alot of the grief towards cheese comes from the fact that it's so damned hard to scout in time. Using your own example of 7RR against protoss FFE, pretending to take a hatch (attack probe / build hatch --> cancel) and the main becomes unscoutable due to a queen emerging on the field and 2-4 lings chasing the probe away from the natural and any xel'naga tower there may be. You have to be very keen to read the small signs that something is awry and even so you can't really be sure because you don't get to scout the zerg main base for the next 5-10 minutes. Show nested quote +On January 30 2013 18:14 Hezzina wrote:
Second - Good cheese is not an all-in in most cases it must do something or else you are behind but there does tend to be a follow up to cheese.
Don't include this in what cheese is. Atleast I think the vast majority don't look at an pressure build and consider it cheese. Pressure builds have their own role. Oftentimes they're designed to hit players who play particularly greedy to kill workers, delay tech or perhaps win the game if the defending player fails to defend properly. This is most prevalent in TvT where you often see players 1rax FE lose 5-10 workers against players going for fast medivac hellion / marine pressure, and the game continuing on equal footing because they both end up with 2 orbitals and equal number of workers. The reason this build is a pressure build and not a cheese is fairly simple, that the defending terran cannot avoid losing marines and scvs if the aggression is properly executed (outside of blind hardcounters). Cheese can sometimes transition into normal games, but most often the game is over when the cheese works or fails, because the situation is very fragile for both players rarely leading to an even trade.
Its why I included the "Good" part, yes a cheese can be an all-in but if you have no follow up there is a good chance of losing. I defined what I believe cheese is based off of how liquidpedia described it and I agree, if everyone agrees that this is not the definition of cheese I will gladly change it. However it should be kept in mind "Cheese" and "All-in" are different things although are not mutually exclusive of each other.
|
Cheese can be very exciting and is a valuable tactic to have in your arsenal in a bo7 
|
On January 31 2013 00:16 Eventine wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2013 20:16 reapsen wrote:
I think you create too much threads about topics that have been discussed over and over and over again. Just search for threads containing "cheese" in the title -> Showing 100 results from 100 threads of 659 total results.
Cheese / Early Agression / All-In / call-it-what-you-want has been and will always be part of the game.
Its a legit opportunity to collect quick wins or a way to win against a "better" player. Every one knows they exist, every one has done it, and every one has lost against it. Such losses can be very frustrating, so some folks will get mad.
End of story.
Edit: All of your threads have the flavor of you trying to get belly-licked that you made it into masters by winning some 60 games with 7RR (which is fine, really). I hope we get away from the idea that better players go for macro/late game and avoid early aggression. The better player wins.
Yep. This is why even Nestea 7pools sometimes.
|
As someone who plays aggressive I don't really like the argument that its easy. I think at the lower levels (bronze-gold) it can be quite easy to win with cheesy and aggressive play, but the higher up you go the harder it gets to execute and the defender can be in a much better position especially with proper scouting, reacting and positioning. The art of cheesy and aggressive play is to trick your opponent with false information, strategically placed proxys and very good execution. MKP is regarded as one of the best sc2 Terran players for those reasons. Despite his opponents knowing his playstyle he can still make it work whilst the odds are stacked against him.
I think some of the risks with cheesing can be compared similarly to things in the mid game. Tech switches rely on your opponent not scouting them, as well as fast tech such as grabbing a fast hive to get quick broodlords and just hoping you don't get attacked. Its what helps make players individual and gives sc2 a great variety of styles.
Personally I play aggressive because I don't have a lot of time to play (2 nights a week and maybe some time over weekend) last thing I want is to spend 20 or more minutes in a game to lose in a big engagement, after investing a lot of time into that game, my build order and execution.
|
On January 31 2013 02:47 GohgamX wrote:Cheese can be very exciting and is a valuable tactic to have in your arsenal in a bo7
All the gsl champs mix in cheeses. If you get too predictable a good opponent will start to hard counter you.
|
Idk why people who say cheese is bad because they're taking a risk is a bad thing, IMO risk taking is a good thing, and should be a part of every game. It's why I think chess is unbelievably boring: there's no REAL risk involved, just rote memorization of what your opponent can do, and then what you do, repeat. It's like trying to do nothing but win through build order wins. Booooring.
Risk taking counts on either your own excellent skill or your opponents' lack of skill. It's mindgames. Done properly, it allows you to shine. Yes, there is an element of luck involved, but what game DOESN'T have an element of luck involved?
BW, TL's absolute perfect game, had luck. Dota has luck. Counter strike has some luck. Are they bad games because of it? No. All physical sports have some element of luck. Luck is a good thing for competition.
|
On January 31 2013 01:42 AnomalySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2013 01:36 Yorbon wrote:
the word cheese needs to go. All strategies/tactics are equal. It's just that some work better than others. And some require far more skill/thought than others. until wins/losses are determined by how much skill/thought a strategy requires, that is completely irrelevant.
|
On January 31 2013 03:14 Thienan567 wrote:Idk why people who say cheese is bad because they're taking a risk is a bad thing, IMO risk taking is a good thing, and should be a part of every game. It's why I think chess is unbelievably boring: there's no REAL risk involved, just rote memorization of what your opponent can do, and then what you do, repeat. It's like trying to do nothing but win through build order wins. Booooring. Risk taking counts on either your own excellent skill or your opponents' lack of skill. It's mindgames. Done properly, it allows you to shine. Yes, there is an element of luck involved, but what game DOESN'T have an element of luck involved? BW, TL's absolute perfect game, had luck. Dota has luck. Counter strike has some luck. Are they bad games because of it? No. All physical sports have some element of luck. Luck is a good thing for competition.
Chess can be played flawlessly by a computer, sc2 with fog of war luck will always be a factor letting humans stay dominant other then micro.
|
On January 31 2013 03:14 Yorbon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2013 01:42 AnomalySC2 wrote:On January 31 2013 01:36 Yorbon wrote:
the word cheese needs to go. All strategies/tactics are equal. It's just that some work better than others. And some require far more skill/thought than others. until wins/losses are determined by how much skill/thought a strategy requires, that is completely irrelevant.
Ok but who wants to play a game with unbalanced strategies. Especially as a "professional".
|
On January 31 2013 04:50 AnomalySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2013 03:14 Yorbon wrote:On January 31 2013 01:42 AnomalySC2 wrote:On January 31 2013 01:36 Yorbon wrote:
the word cheese needs to go. All strategies/tactics are equal. It's just that some work better than others. And some require far more skill/thought than others. until wins/losses are determined by how much skill/thought a strategy requires, that is completely irrelevant. Ok but who wants to play a game with unbalanced strategies. Especially as a "professional".
Professionals really don't care weather a game have unbalanced strategies or not, they care if the strategy help or hurt them making money. That's why they are professionals: they play to make money.
|
On January 31 2013 03:14 Thienan567 wrote:Idk why people who say cheese is bad because they're taking a risk is a bad thing, IMO risk taking is a good thing, and should be a part of every game. It's why I think chess is unbelievably boring: there's no REAL risk involved, just rote memorization of what your opponent can do, and then what you do, repeat. It's like trying to do nothing but win through build order wins. Booooring. Risk taking counts on either your own excellent skill or your opponents' lack of skill. It's mindgames. Done properly, it allows you to shine. Yes, there is an element of luck involved, but what game DOESN'T have an element of luck involved? BW, TL's absolute perfect game, had luck. Dota has luck. Counter strike has some luck. Are they bad games because of it? No. All physical sports have some element of luck. Luck is a good thing for competition.
Luck is a good thing for spectator sports. It makes it so that you cant just use some sort of calculator to determine outcomes. Its the degree that luck could effect something that determines whether or not it could be good for competition. In the circumstances listed, such as for BW, luck could play a role, but not always. That is the important thing. For a while, WoW-arena had a short E-sports life and i followed it. WoW-arena had luck too, but the elements of luck were drastically different than those of BW or DotA.
BW//DotA luck
"ill put my proxy X here, he probly wont scout this spot..." "lucky #$%^& scouted the most random location ever...."
"lets gank top lane, should be an easy 3v2" "o, counter ganking exists."
These might be examples of RTS luck, but in WoW-arena's case...
"lets do a quick swap to the healer, hes in a bad position". "OMFG WHAT A DODGE STREAK WTF"
These are 2 very different 'brands' of luck. One is healthy, being simply unable to predict other human's 100% of the time. The other is RNG, a dice roll that potentially determines an entire match. While i dont think that sort of luck killed WoW-arena, i certainly dont think it helped at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
