|
I read so many times on TL forums users saying something along the lines of "I have no respect for player X, because he's a cheeser."
It seems to me that people think cheesing is not a honorable way of playing. Why is that? I can agree that abusing imbalanced stuff and being a Patch[insert race] is not honorable, because in a way it's cheating. But if the game is balanced why would one be more mad when losing to cheese than when losing in the late game?
I for one consider builds that involve making a bunch of units and just wrecking the opponent the purest and most honorable way of playing Starcraft. Back in the day I had the most fun using and watching Korean Protoss players use "bulldog"
vs Terran. Now there is a whole book of builds and I'm not quite sure which one I like the best.
|
hm no one really like to lose to a cheese because an X race has a build order to pull it off. but if you dont get scout then you have no reason to complain... but if you do scout and you see it coming but cant hold it off, primarily becuase the player is able to abuse the cheesing unit, then it gets irritating. like back in the day mothership and blink stalker all in.
|
|
|
it's just whiny posters who pretend to be honorable and better fans for it.
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
sOs is the best anyone who says otherwise is a poophead
|
heh, what do people know about honor these days
|
Cheesing is awesome. You do whatever it takes to get the win, because the better player at the moment, always wins.
|
Are you asking why cheesing is considered "dishonorable" but then saying anyone who does well after a race/unit gets buffed is cheating.....?
|
On February 06 2016 15:13 riotjune wrote:
heh, what do people know about honor these days
Dunno, use it to save the princess in another castle?
|
It has to do with the gamedesign. A cheese in this game is such an easy thing to do while the opponent cant really scout it properly either.
That has been the case since release pretty much.
If someone makes a cheese and the game is designed for you to be able to scout it, react properly and it require micro for both sides etc i wouldnt have any problem with this sort of thing but thats not the case its rng luck fest with little skill to execute things.
Its like playing poker in a so called e-sport game. Its bad design as hell + very boring
On February 06 2016 15:14 BronzeKnee wrote:
Cheesing is awesome. You do whatever it takes to get the win, because the better player at the moment, always wins.
Nice trolling man
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37023 Posts
I am an "honorable" cheeser whenever I ladder. 'Nuff said.
|
On February 06 2016 15:22 Foxxan wrote:
It has to do with the gamedesign. A cheese in this game is such an easy thing to do while the opponent cant really scout it properly either.
That has been the case since release pretty much.
If someone makes a cheese and the game is designed for you to be able to scout it, react properly and it require micro for both sides etc i wouldnt have any problem with this sort of thing but thats not the case its rng luck fest with little skill to execute things.
Its like playing poker in a so called e-sport game. Its bad design as hell + very boring
Poker is a skill based game. Luck is involved but not the determining factor. Otherwise you wouldn't have professional players.
As for being easier to execute than hold. I don't think that that is the case in LotV.
|
Because people dont like losing to someone who know how to execute an easy cheesy buildorder by getting caught off guard, the longer the game goes, the more skill it requires, big army engagements, positioning, scouting, multitasking and transitioning. In that sense, people see macro games as the true test of skill between two players, vsing a cheese is just defending then just winning, or not being able to scout/react/army out of position slightly and you lose.
|
Who cares what other people consider "honourable" or not. Personally I'd consider anything within the bounds of the game honourable (okay there are some exception. Floating/hiding buildings to waste your opponent's time or typing "has left the game!" to fake out your opponent isn't terribly honourable.)
|
I didn't like it in WoL because 4gate could be a bit of "didn't scout, you die" and so could many other builds.
Now the cheeses are much more fun and interactive. Besides things like Nydus where it's the same boring element of old, similar to a 4gate, I don't mind the cheeses now - they're much better and require actual fucking micro and maneuvering around. Much more interesting. I was also younger and more suceptible to that attitude of "playing like a scrub" or getting angry at the game.
Cheeses take skill in LOTV, where they didn't before 
|
people hate cheesing because they want to play a macro back and fourth game, but with cheesing they might lose and feel that they didnt get to play a "proper" game, since they didnt get a chance to do something other then try and hold the allin. when you get cheesed it feels like you get the back and fourth taken away from you and can only defend and takes your game plain so ppl get salty about it.
i hate it some time because it feels like they just want to try and get a free win, and hope i either suck or dont know how to stop it which is insulting (but thats in my head really). but whats funny is its also makes for fun games cause you have no guide to what to which makes for crazy games.
|
|
|
I don't think theres a dishonorable way of playing, but I do thing that is bad (really bad) design the way many cheeses/BOs work in SC2, from BOs in wich all you have to do is do it correctly (almost going in automode) to win, to the fact that there races that have more of these builds that the others (namely protoss).
I think it would've be cool if all the races had an equal ammount of these cheesy BOs, it would make the game interesting, instead of having the 1 "bullshit race"
I know that if there was enough stuff to make a "greath book of terran bullshit" I would've love starcraft way more.
|
The game is about winning, not being honorable. Those people who say that are a bunch of butthurt cry babies.
|
Imagine a majestic mountain nirvana of gaming. At its peak are fulfillment, “fun,” and even transcendence. Most people could care less about this mountain peak because they have other life issues that are more important to them, and other peaks to pursue. There are a few, though, who are not at this peak, but who would be very happy there. These are the people I’m talking to with this book. Some of them don’t need any help; they’re on the journey. Most, though, only believe they are on that journey but actually are not. They got stuck in a chasm at the mountain’s base, a land of scrubdom. Here they are imprisoned in their own mental constructs of made-up game rules. If they could only cross this chasm, they would discover either a very boring plateau (for a degenerate game) or the heavenly enchanted mountain peak (for a “deep” game). In the former case, crossing the chasm would teach them to find a different mountain with more fulfilling rewards. In the latter case, well, they’d just be happier. “Playing to win” is largely the process of shedding the mental constructs that trap players in the chasm who would be happier at the mountain peak.
Excerpt from David Sirlin's "Playing to Win"-- a great resource for understanding the optimal competitive mindset.
|
On February 06 2016 15:25 CheddarToss wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2016 15:22 Foxxan wrote:
It has to do with the gamedesign. A cheese in this game is such an easy thing to do while the opponent cant really scout it properly either.
That has been the case since release pretty much.
If someone makes a cheese and the game is designed for you to be able to scout it, react properly and it require micro for both sides etc i wouldnt have any problem with this sort of thing but thats not the case its rng luck fest with little skill to execute things.
Its like playing poker in a so called e-sport game. Its bad design as hell + very boring
Poker is a skill based game. Luck is involved but not the determining factor. Otherwise you wouldn't have professional players. As for being easier to execute than hold. I don't think that that is the case in LotV.
Poker still has a large margin of luck involved.
And the better player can lose even with a 95% advantage.
|
On February 06 2016 14:51 CheddarToss wrote:
I read so many times on TL forums users saying something along the lines of "I have no respect for player X, because he's a cheeser."
It seems to me that people think cheesing is not a honorable way of playing. Why is that? I can agree that abusing imbalanced stuff and being a Patch[insert race] is not honorable, because in a way it's cheating. But if the game is balanced why would one be more mad when losing to cheese than when losing in the late game?
I for one consider builds that involve making a bunch of units and just wrecking the opponent the purest and most honorable way of playing Starcraft. Back in the day I had the most fun using and watching Korean Protoss players use "bulldog"
vs Terran. Now there is a whole book of builds and I'm not quite sure which one I like the best.
Your name is CheddarToss. You should have zero problems!
It's part of the game. Why win in 20 minutes if he's vulnerable to an attack at 5 minutes?
Just be mannered and gl hf/variations to start. GG when you lose! If people harp on honor, chances are they never give honor regardless.
|
There is only one way for your opponent to play a honourable game:
Play macro and then gracefully lose.
|
Thankfully ladder points aren't determined by your opponent's opinion of your build.
People tell themselves all kinds of crazy things when they're upset.
|
In my opinion, honor is just when you win using legit methods e.g., not using maphack or whatever to gain an unfair advantage. Otherwise, I don't care how people win. This is a competitive game, you play to win, not to please the other player. A lot of sc2 players are just super egotistical and don't realize that they are bad, not the game. It's funny how people will cite all sort of sources and twisted stats just to point out inherent problems within the game to show that they lost due to some sort of imbalances, and not their fault.
|
I don't think cheesing is an issue, unless like cheesing is ltierally all you do, and you're not learning how to play the game. Like if you literally can't win a game except when you cheese because you have 0 fundamentals, that's a problem.
|
because it takes twice the amount of skill / game sense to win a macro game.
/close thread.
|
When people abuse something it's not their fault you can blame design wise or balance but you can't blame player.They wanna win only so no matter what they do it doesn't matter.
I understand why people hate cheese so much but they are blame wrong object.
// Same issue i found in CSGO: Casual player blame another hidding spot too much but if you don't check potential place it's your fault not their fault because camping .And if you can't accept the design wise go play another game ...LOL....
|
i think you'll typically see the no-respect thing happen in a live report thread, or in talking about specific balance in a thread dedicated to it. if someone sees a thread about a unit they have quips about, they're probably going to peek in to see what's boiling, and to add their 2c of frustrations.
i have a couple points to make about maybe why that is.
i think players tend to put themselves on a pedestal of good and proper play. speaking from previous experiences, if i'm putting a lot of effort into setting something up ingame and i end up getting pulled apart in the meanwhile (i can't keep up with the action at this point), it's going to all seem a bit annoying and i can only ever put it on the player or what allows him to do what he did. drops, tech switches, certain harass are the usual suspects. part of it is coming to terms with a more well-rounded playstyle which actually suits the pacing of the game better, as opposed to doing whatever i think and feel is correct. this happens in all sorts of sports while you're training and playing better opponents.
they move, think, and play more efficiently than you do, but you can do certain shots, tricks, or setups that put you on a good fighting level. your criticisms of their play are that they are lesser, minus the fact that there are very visible and negative impacts that your techniques have on your play as well.
that said, to get better at this game unless you're a very conditioned and motivated introverted kind of player, you need to be discussing the game with others, and going over replays and certain situations until you become more comfortable with them. addressing your problem points is another notch on the belt for a faster, more aware and less self-absorbed you.
where does honour or respect lay in all of this?
the lack of respect for another player is all in the immediate differences you see before and after the game. it's much more rare to discuss the game like actual competitors and human beings to both learn from the experience. you take a guy who is hard into crossfit, and some guy who is into bodybuilding and there will inherently be many disagreements about the proper methods. it's obvious. they're living the differences each and every day while they train and practice with those thoughts in mind, even if they aren't thinking about the other side of the fence.
when you cheese and disallow a player from playing their legos/pieces exactly the way they wanted to (often times practice to do so), they suddenly have to change and problem solve a whole new situation. there is negativity to the wider situation at an outset.
when you defy their expectations, you earn respect or admonishment, intially.
especially with the way how online anonymity or online interaction tends to be between gamers, it's very easy to just exchange rude words and move on immediately.
unfortunately, this isn't how you make friends online or in the real world, it isn't how you sort differences, and the way the situation is played out is entirely acceptable now.
understanding why that is, or where it stems from is another sore point that people generally don't want to think about because it relates to their very own mental handicaps.
|
On February 06 2016 15:22 Foxxan wrote:
Nice trolling man
I dont know it was trolling or sarcasm, but the guy has absolutely right. Cheese is the part of the game, it always was in BW and I dont see a reason why it shouldnt be a part of SC2. As you said, the only concern should be balance - and so it must only be possible to stop it with proper play (scouting, in the first place). And if there is such a situation that cheese is too difficult to stop, that's the designer who is in fault, not the player who abuse it. If you are anable to accept your loss becouse the oponent surprised/outsmarted you, go play Counter Strike and spare me your whining. Or play only with guys who you know they dont cheese. This game isnt made to make you feel superior for "fair" winning or "fair" playing.
There is no honour in crying like a little baby.
On February 06 2016 17:14 lestye wrote:
I don't think cheesing is an issue, unless like cheesing is ltierally all you do, and you're not learning how to play the game. Like if you literally can't win a game except when you cheese because you have 0 fundamentals, that's a problem.
No, its ok too. If the player cant manage with mechanics, he must relly on ruse and surprise factor. The guy who is cheesing all games the same way will be losing most of times anyway. If he is creative enouth to pull off cheesy in many ways and he is winning with that, I respect him for creativity.
|
There is absolutely nothing dishourable about cheese.
Sometimes it can be a let down for viewers, sometimes you see exactly what you hate to play against on ladder. Both ways it just raises the levels of salt.
There is also the (often correct) notion that when a player is a clear underdog he should mix it up and avoid a "standard" game. This is where the cheese = no skill thing comes from, but we all know its a lie. Also, this has nothing to do with honor.
If the player with less skill wins he outsmarted the opponent or "had a good day" or got lucky, again, it has nothing to do with honor.
But maybe, if a player is trying to prove himself, instead of just focus on the win, he should play a standard macro game, meh...
Lastly, some cheeses are hard to execute and fun to watch so any complains are just prejudice.
|
On February 06 2016 18:54 Superbanana wrote:
Lastly, some cheeses are hard to execute and fun to watch so any complains are just butthurt
Fixed for you.
And +1 for whole your post.
|
During their whole lives all people do is making excuses of them being bad. Honor is just a kind of excuse.
|
You see over the last 15 years I never learned how to macro. I learned how to micro though. When I was actively playing sc2 2 bases was the maximum of what I could handle, and even then I would hotkey all my buildings and press asdf and tab randomly. I still won because I am a micro god :D I would win games where I did not lose a single unit. So I am not cheesing, I am surviving damn it
|
as much as I dislike cheeses on ladder (because lets face it, its a complete coinflip if you dont play the meta, the person or play a boX series) its a completely viable way of winning.
I would never cheese personally because, well I dont like coinflipping my game, I feel like im skillcapping myself very hard by cheesing and I personally enjoy more multitasking heavy control rather than the kind of micro cheese usually allows for.
I dont like watching pros that cheese because usually it means no multitasking, no macro and no mechanics.
But that doesnt mean its not a 100% viable way of playing. In the end its all about winning right?
|
Because cheese lets much worse opponents win vs someone who is better in general.
Edit: It's at least true for like up to masters.
|
On February 06 2016 19:13 NEEDZMOAR wrote:
But that doesnt mean its not a 100% viable way of playing. In the end its all about winning right?
Its all about having fun. But if the game with cheese tactics isnt fun, why are you playing ladder, designed mostly to compare the lengh of the wieners, in the first place?
Because cheese lets much worse opponents win vs someone who is better in general.
This is argumentation of 12-years old spoiled kid, not the mature player, who should know better that many players will do anything to get away with victory.
|
On February 06 2016 18:31 hitthat wrote:I dont know it was trolling or sarcasm, but the guy has absolutely right. Cheese is the part of the game, it always was in BW and I dont see a reason why it shouldnt be a part of SC2. As you said, the only concern should be balance - and so it must only be possible to stop it with proper play (scouting, in the first place). And if there is such a situation that cheese is too difficult to stop, that's the designer who is in fault, not the player who abuse it. If you are anable to accept your loss becouse the oponent surprised/outsmarted you, go play Counter Strike and spare me your whining. Or play only with guys who you know they dont cheese. This game isnt made to make you feel superior for "fair" winning or "fair" playing. There is no honour in crying like a little baby. Show nested quote +On February 06 2016 17:14 lestye wrote:
I don't think cheesing is an issue, unless like cheesing is ltierally all you do, and you're not learning how to play the game. Like if you literally can't win a game except when you cheese because you have 0 fundamentals, that's a problem. No, its ok too. If the player cant manage with mechanics, he must relly on ruse and surprise factor. The guy who is cheesing all games the same way will be losing most of times anyway. If he is creative enouth to pull off cheesy in many ways and he is winning with that, I respect him for creativity.
It's not good for a player to be one dimensional like that. Ideally a player has a few tools in his toolshed to pull from, if he prefers cheesing, whatever. But if cheesing is literally the only thing you can do, and its only win condition, that's not good either. People should at least have the capability of playing a macro game or do another strategy.
|
I belive this dicussion just like mayweather vs pacquiao match.....
|
On February 06 2016 19:20 lestye wrote:
It's not good for a player to be one dimensional like that. Ideally a player has a few tools in his toolshed to pull from, if he prefers cheesing, whatever. But if cheesing is literally the only thing you can do, and its only win condition, that's not good either. People should at least have the capability of playing a macro game or do another strategy.
As I said, completely one dimmentional player will be losing most of time. It's not such a big concern IMO. Besides it has nothing to do with "honor". The rule that "People should at least have the capability of playing a macro game" implies that cheesers shouldnt play that game and have fun with it. And I'm really against that way of thinking.
|
Cheese feels dishonorable because the cheeser relies heavily on luck and/or surprising his opponent. You don't feel bested when you lose to a gimmick, you feel like you stepped in a shit and it makes you angry.
I don't think cheese win is any less valid than a "normal" victory but nothing obligates me to respect the cheeser as much as I respect other players. I can't change the rules of the game but I can decide who deserves my respect.
|
Whenever I see no nexus or other buildings with my scout, and later I see a bunch of zealots coming at me, I don't have any issues when I lose. I should be able to tell what's going on and prepare instead of droning.
But when I see a liberator sieging my mineral line with no way of hitting it with a spore or a ravager, because of map, or when terran dropped a tank on a cliff back in bw, that was infuriating.
To me a dishonorable cheese is not any cheese, but the one that can be done with minimum effort when the preparation or counter play against it requires you to do 5x more then your opponent. Map abuse or abuse of some broken mechanic/unit.
|
On February 06 2016 19:44 Nazara wrote:
Whenever I see no nexus or other buildings with my scout, and later I see a bunch of zealots coming at me, I don't have any issues when I lose. I should be able to tell what's going on and prepare instead of droning.
But when I see a liberator sieging my mineral line with no way of hitting it with a spore or a ravager, because of map, or when terran dropped a tank on a cliff back in bw, that was infuriating.
To me a dishonorable cheese is not any cheese, but the one that can be done with minimum effort when the preparation or counter play against it requires you to do 5x more then your opponent. Map abuse or abuse of some broken mechanic/unit.
Once again: it's game's fault, not the player who exploits its weak points. It gives the insight of the design flaws. The good place for adressing this is balance discusion thread/strategy thread, not a chat of the cheesing player.
|
Well there are a few different things here.
1) Buildorder loss, this is more mindgames and in a series its planning and strategy. This kind of cheese I like because its about predicting what the opponent will do. If you realize the layers behind these games it will many times be impressive, intelligent and ballsy.
2) Executing a build so well that it kills someone even if its scouted, this means the cheesing players is very good at cheesing,micro, decisionmaking and so on. The problem is that people expect the best players like herO, Zest, Innovation or soO to be able to hold all-ins and cheese, especially if its scouted. Normally the best players can hold these cheeses and thats why they do the builds they do beause they know they can stop all cheeses that can come their way.If they fail either it is actually an OP strat, like WP+adept strat vs T recently or blink stalkers vs T in the past or the cheeser is extremely skilled and that skill should be respected just like macro skill.
3) Executing a cheese that doesn't get scouted and killing someone. In this situation either the cheesed player play bad (doesn't scout even if he should) or he doesn't scout on purpose because he know he can hold anything that comes his way. If the player is confident he can hold and doesn't scout and still lose to cheese then the cheeser is extremely skilled at what he does.
People have this attitude because they expect players like Inno and Zest to always be able to defend cheese and the only possiblity they fail is because the strat used against them is OP. That is not true because if it would be OP everyone would be using the cheese and in that case Inno or Zest should easility be able to predict the cheese and expect it. This happens sometimes but its very rare, I gave examples of that earlier.
|
It seems to me that people think cheesing is not a honorable way of playing. Why is that?
Because cheesing is less about mechanically outplaying your opponent and more about having build order luck. There is a reason rock-scissor-paper isn't an interesting game.
I think people just don't like to lose.
No that's not it. Sc2 is about large armies being all around the map and rewarding high level micro, macro and multitasking. Chees prevents that.
Poker is a skill based game. Luck is involved but not the determining factor. Otherwise you wouldn't have professional players.
In poker you play thousands of hands to minimize variance. And the only reason luck exist in poker is to keep the suckers play the game. In Sc2 that reason doesn't exist (since you don't get money from the suckers).
And yes even then, you can outplay your opponent and still lose over 10K hands. Seriously, the poker example is so terrible, and I don't understand why you would use it when you don't understand the game.
If you realize the layers behind these games it will many times be impressive, intelligent and ballsy.
Occationally you have one guy maybe thinking he can get a 60-40 edge by doing a certain build against a certain opponent (because no pro usually do the same thing 100% of the time). I don't understand why its entertaining to see a game be decided by so much luck.
Also it's not high level strategic if you spot one guy doing a certain build too much. E.g. Byun does hellion openings and doesn't follow up with Tanks --> You can assume he does the same thing and blind-counter with Roach/Ravager timing attack.
How is that super skillful? How is that deep strategic knowledge? No all it is, is that you know that if you do a certain build and you assume Byun does build X --> You probably win.
That's extremely simplistic from a strategic perspective. In every sport, it's the mechanics/technique that is the charm of the game. Like Messi outdribling someone. Not coinflipping. And in chess, I assume there are a ton more variables that goes into the decisionmaking proces, which makes that interesting to watch from a strategic perspective.
|
On February 06 2016 19:57 Hider wrote:
No that's not it.
I would argue it is.
|
On February 06 2016 20:00 hitthat wrote:I would argue it is.
I just explained you why its not. Losing an intensive macrogame where you got outplayed in every single way, but wasting time losing because someone flipped a coin is a lame experience.
I don't understand how you cannot see this difference.
|
Imagine if you play a soccer game and on team lines up with 4-4-2 and the other team lines up with 6-3-1 and gets a 95% win as a result of a different formation.
Would anyone think that is awesome, and talk about sick strategic mindgames?
Or would most people just see that its completely retarded.
And the reason people cannot see that cheese/early game allins are completely retarded in Sc2 is that they are so used to it so you think its just has to be that no way.
But no, one of the reasons MOBA's are succesful is because you actually get to play a macrogame. You don't have to worry about dumb shit. You don't instalose if your opponent buys a certain item and you didn't expect it. RTS games could easily learn from that.
If you manage to outmindgame your opponent, it should grant you a small advantage.
|
Oki this thread is not very good and needs to end, to be honest.
So I'll close the discussion with a bit of history.
Surcouf is the most famous french corsair ever, capturing countless ships all over the oceans (mostly british ones).
One day, when a British captive officer challenged Surcouf with the words "You French fight for money while we fight for honour", Surcouf replied "Each of us fights for what he lacks most".
Wise words that should be remembered...
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On February 06 2016 20:21 Hider wrote:
Imagine if you play a soccer game and on team lines up with 4-4-2 and the other team lines up with 6-3-1 and gets a 95% win as a result of a different formation.
There's a cheese that wins 95% of the time? BO plz
|
On February 06 2016 20:21 Hider wrote:
Imagine if you play a soccer game and on team lines up with 4-4-2 and the other team lines up with 6-3-1 and gets a 95% win as a result of a different formation.
Would anyone think that is awesome, and talk about sick strategic mindgames?
Or would most people just see that its completely retarded.
But nobody would called that "unhonorable".
I just explained you why its not. Losing an intensive macrogame where you got outplayed in every single way, but wasting time losing because someone flipped a coin is a lame experience.
Oh come'on. This is such a lame excuse. If you think it's not ok, dont play ladder and find a sparingpartners instead.
And I'm actually convinced that cheesers are contributing to balance more than usual balance whiners becouse they find effective new ways to counter many shit, that could be close to imposible to stop other way.
|
|
|
People don't like cut-throat play. Even though it is a really effective style to use. I'm not talking just cheese, I mean playing to kill as much as possible, it is the type of play that can instantly punish a smaller mistake from the opponent and make it game-ending. Which is frustrating as hell. Still a very good way to play though, and not at all "dishonourable" :3
MC and Life really epitomised this in my opinion, if they see a chink in the armour, they just *kill*.
|
France12793 Posts
On February 06 2016 20:21 Hider wrote:
And the reason people cannot see that cheese/early game allins are completely retarded in Sc2 is that they are so used to it so you think its just has to be that no way.
It's not retarded. Why would superior players waste their time playing only macro games against inferior opponents?
Destroying a foreigner in less than 30 minutes is the most dominating performance you can do... If you take a lot of time to win it isn't as impressive trust me.
|
I can respect cheesy play a thousand times more than turtling, passive play. You're not being a strategic mastermind, you're being annoying and a waste of time.
And just to be clear, I'm not referring to defensive play. I mean the full on "I put planetary fortresses everywhere, guarded by tanks, guarded by towers, guarded by liberators, guarded by ... I'm never going to attack, just slowly expand until you're bored out of your mind".
If I ever had to choose "unhonorable play", it would be that. Cheese play at least involves putting the burden of winning on yourself, while this passive play is more like "I've got no life dude, it's okay if this game goes on for 10 hours. If you wanna win, try breaking this LOL". In fact I don't mind any strategy that involves actually DOING something.
|
On February 06 2016 20:21 Hider wrote:
...
And the reason people cannot see that cheese/early game allins are completely retarded in Sc2 is that they are so used to it so you think its just has to be that no way.
But no, one of the reasons MOBA's are succesful is because you actually get to play a macrogame. You don't have to worry about dumb shit. You don't instalose if your opponent buys a certain item and you didn't expect it. RTS games could easily learn from that.
If you manage to outmindgame your opponent, it should grant you a small advantage.
if the macro game of a moba like league of legends or dota 2 (vastly difference experiences) or even heroes of the storm consists of a very linear set of ideal pathways to your gold/items then yes, you are enabled a macro game.
there are also mechanics set in place that artificially extend a casual level game. towers, "inhibitors" respawning, and until some years ago (though for a very long time it remained this way) LoL games were always at least a certain length. it was 20m+ until you were allowed the option to give up.
i feel that going into the success or fun of the currently popular genre is going off on an entirely different tangent.
all intertwined, there's audience, friends, community, personal investment, timing, and even marketing involved.
i bold what i personally feel is most important and is keeping many north american people playing.
when it comes to the moba game (and i have played it from the very beginning),
people insta-lose (or come close to it) because relatively, they don't grasp the economy and concept of farming for their heroes very well, and choose items and builds that are bad against their opponents without even realizing it.
there are very obviously phases in a moba's patch cycle where certain heroes, builds, items, or timings are all considered 'cheesy' because it all does too much for the amount of investment or control it requires. it's extremely relatable.
in league of legends, there are passive gold items that granted health or regen bonuses which extended the game and gave you an economical advantage for unreasonably low cost--they were used by nearly every single hero in the game.
if it was part of a good time in the meta or a good design choice, they gave it a chance and quickly nerfed it thereafter making it all a bit irrelevant and everyone had to relearn how they played their lanes/style or dropped the heroes immediately. you can't just cherry-pick issues with game balance because of the apparent success of a game.
you very obviously dislike cheese and on the other side of the coin, feel that normal play is more skillful.
in my opinion, i would disagree because i think being cheesed and being able to deal with it to pull it into a longer game is the skill that most people should be aiming for at some point. not only are you getting the sort of longer and slower game that you want, you're teaching the other player how to play straight up against you (if you want to look at it that way, or if you play each other ever again).
more than anything at all when it comes to RTS, i think the best mentality is to look at your games and to figure out if you could have won the game any sooner than you did (when winning), or if you could have actually won from a losing position. the answer is most certainly "yes". sometimes you'll notice a player at a high level who is somewhat stubborn and will open the game up with a hole in their play. cheese is the most efficient and quickest way you can abuse that.
cheese in the sense that most players like avilo will all-chat and express their disgust for it when in fact is is completely legitimate play. end the game if you know you can. end the game even if you're unsure, and figure out the method for it (becoming a better and more consistent player by doing so).
|
Honor and merit are notions that are used to justify why you're still the good guy even though you just embarrassingly lost that game
|
TBH any player who can get enough of a reputation to be considered a "cheeser" and still be successful with it is highly skilled. You dont think other pros will think "Better be on super-high alert for some bullshit right here"? Of course they do, especially at the top levels where people literally study their upcoming opponents.
It must require a hell of alot of skill, strategy, creativity & more to be able to consistently cheese top players and be known for it. You cant just do the same build the same way every damn game and win like you can on ladder.
I have great respect for cheese plays at high level, even if they arent the most entertaining. Ladder is a different story lol.
|
France12793 Posts
I would add that if you could not cheese/all-in, the BoX series would be very boring and/or lack strategic depth.
Conditionning is very important... remember Mvp vs Squirtle game 7?
|
Personally I don't like cheese, because in my opinion, usually the skill that is required to stop a cheese is greater than the skill required to execute a cheese. In the end it balances itself out because once the opponent is able to stop the build, the odds of winning become very very small for the cheesing player.
Of course there's no rulebook on how to play and you can do whatever you want. Certain playstyles not being honorable is not something you should concern yourself with. But that doesn't mean I will respect you as a player. I'm not sure if these things are still around though, haven't seen low apm tosses that do dumb builds that are still highly ranked.
edit: also just want to say that I don't think cheese is bad in a ''best of'' tournament situation.
Also, think of BityByBit if you were around during that era, did you like how he played? Did you respect him?
|
France12793 Posts
edit: BitByBit was bad at allins/cheese ^^
|
On February 06 2016 21:36 Bojas wrote:
Also, think of BityByBit if you were around during that era, did you like how he played? Did you respect him?
Yes I did. Do you respect Sniper?
|
I used to play a whole lot during WoL since beta and when tourneys online/offline were a thing for the game.
There was a time when i'd get cannon rushed, 1v1, 2v2, diamond, masters, whatever, several games in a row.
I think recall my count going up to 10+ in a row one gaming session. Now? I would be caught dead, licking doorknobs for a fetish photobook, gluing pubes to my face, before dying to another cannon rush. I really appreciated that whole experience because i learned how to hold off a common cheese (as it was back in the day) and win .
Here's an story/experience involving cheese.
I had an acquaintance who was touting his own horn as an RTS player at the top level of 2v2 Warcraft 3, being rated highly on ladder on some occaisions. He decided he'd dip his toes in Starcraft and immediately contacted me since i was the Starcraft guy. He's new and he realizes it, so he asks for some pointers while he figures out some builds.
He's going to play protoss, awesome. He's figuring out his own builds? "Hey dude, no need to worry about that stuff, tons of stuff have been figured out, let me teach you some timings."
So i teach him 4-gate, while he's playing against insane computers or w/e he's into while practicing. I make sure he understands the build and we have a back-and-forth about cheese and macro builds and where they stand in the game. 4-gate happens to be a regular opening that all protoss players should understand and be able to execute/defend against at that point in time.
He asks for some games for practice, saying that he's confident he can take some games against a veteran player. "You going to practice 4-gate and forge nexus like we talked about?" -"yeah ofc."
We get in lobby, his map choices, and he cannon rushes me first game.
Alright that was the first game, a bit cheeky but a cannon rush is a cannon rush and i scouted it because it happens a lot. I tell him it's a common strat, probably won't work against me in particular knowing my luck on ladder and the way i cut economy to scout. We talk about actually practicing the 4-gate, 3-gate, or any other build we went and practiced in single-player.
"Sorry, yeah i'll play now, just thought it might work against you."
Second game, he 2-gates. We go over the replay and talk about how it could have been better on the map and what he could have done to win with it. It's fine, he's trying to add cheese to his toolbox for ladder, i get it.
Third game, cannon rushes me again and i'm getting a bit peeved, like jackychan.jpeg what happened to all the stuff we were practicing before bro sort of peeved. Can he not play straight up? I ask him this as polite as i can muster because at this point i feel like he's just trying to get a win against me so he can tell everyone, instead of "practicing" like he originally proposed. He apologizes, we move into another one of his map choices, a really odd one.
Fourth game i scout around like normal and take a detour, what do i spot? 4 straight up gateways, proxied, producing zealots next to my base. It gets to the point where he tries making a cannon in my base during the micro exchanges.
Holy shit. Seriously, is he for real? Who is this man? I mean fuck i guess it's 4-gate.
He loses again and i tell him, "Yo this is a little rude, if you're just going to cheese me all day, i don't know what to say to you, let's forget this all happened and i hope you do alright in ladder."
Top WC3 2v2 player for one season, right here. I had no words, because he was totally serious.
Obviously he drops the game pretty quickly and we never talked about it again.
|
Well, natural selection eliminated that guy. That's fine. In contrary, back in BW first guys who responded to mindless Sauron Zerg tactics were all kind of rushers, bunker rushers, proxy barrack bunker rushers and any other kind of cheesers. Zergs hated them for it. But in long term it helped the game in evolution.
|
I think that cheesing also sucks a lot of fun out of this game.
I enjoy:
- back and forth games
- varying unit composititions throughout the game, deciding when and how to switch
- making decisions between engaging/countering/waiting
- utilizing different approaches to wear your opponent down (timing attacks/dropping etc.)
- spell casting + spell dodging
All of these aspects are neglected when your opponent goes for some stupid do or die-strategy that decides the game within 3 minutes. Where is the fun in that? You may have some cute micro battles but that's about it.
|
On February 06 2016 22:03 MapleLeafSirup wrote:
I think that cheesing also sucks a lot of fun out of this game.
I enjoy:
- back and forth games
- varying unit composititions throughout the game, deciding when and how to switch
- making decisions between engaging/countering/waiting
- utilizing different approaches to wear your opponent down (timing attacks/dropping etc.)
- spell casting + spell dodging
All of these aspects are neglected when your opponent goes for some stupid do or die-strategy that decides the game within 3 minutes. Where is the fun in that? You may have some cute micro battles but that's about it.
It's true. But it has nothing to do with honor concerns.
|
Cheese by definition is a play that only works when the opponent makes a mistake. Hence it is not a skillfull way to play.
|
France12793 Posts
On February 06 2016 22:06 Big J wrote:
Cheese by definition is a play that only works when the opponent makes a mistake. Hence it is not a skillfull way to play.
You realize that macro games rely on forcing your opponents to do mistakes?
So outmultitasking someone is not a skillful way to play for example?
|
You play to win, period. As long as it's legal, it's fine.
|
On February 06 2016 22:06 Big J wrote:
Cheese by definition is a play that only works when the opponent makes a mistake. Hence it is not a skillfull way to play.
Many top athletes and players use strategies that include not just playing a solid game, but also capitalizing on an opponent's mistakes. They still have to capitalize effectively; it's still skillful.
|
Cheese is actually quite a skill to pull off at the right time. The honourable way of playing is trying your best to win.
|
France12793 Posts
On February 06 2016 22:39 [PkF] Wire wrote:
Cheese is actually quite a skill to pull off at the right time. The honourable way of playing is trying your best to win.
Yeah this is a good way of life
|
In lower leagues I think cheese is a problem for people who should be learning macro, multitasking and how to use its race units, its a damage for their mechanics. A lot of protoss players who get into diamond or masters by cheese have bad mechanics when you look in replay in their camera view. Usually they don't use camera hotkeys, have low response time for a drop, can't scout well and so on. It can happen with other races too, but protoss have more cheese openings and 1 base all ins in their arsenal.
|
when I think of the topic I don't relate it to cheese at all, I relate it to manners and respect. If the guy is complaining about balance and rage quitting, then I don't respect them
|
4713 Posts
There is no such thing as a honorable or dishonorable way to play, that,s a like people with a hurt ego tell themselves.
However this problem is also magnified in part due to a design flaw of SC2 which makes it so that certain strategies (in large part all-ins) are easier to execute than their defense. Thus loosing against a all-in can feel cheep and disheartening.
Again it doesn't make cheeses any less honorable, but it its a design issue that should be addressed at some point.
|
On February 06 2016 15:28 RivaL1 wrote:
Because people dont like losing to someone who know how to execute an easy cheesy buildorder by getting caught off guard, the longer the game goes, the more skill it requires, big army engagements, positioning, scouting, multitasking and transitioning. In that sense, people see macro games as the true test of skill between two players, vsing a cheese is just defending then just winning, or not being able to scout/react/army out of position slightly and you lose.
What is "skill"? The closest thing we can get to a rigorious definition is the "ability to win games", and if cheese wins you games, aren't you more skilled than your opponent?
I also used to rage about cheese etc, but now I just see it as part of the game.
|
It is just an "easy" way to win I guess. Playing a macro build and defending an all-in then going on to crush the opponent because his cheesy gimmicky strategy that involves mistakes on your part was deflected is much more rewarding and will produce the better player (absolutely) over a period of time.
Also if you were to play the same person more than once the cheeser is fucked since that's really the only thing a lot of them know. So, in a tournament setting where you are playing a best-of series being able to only cheese is garbage.
|
8748 Posts
Sometimes I think people are just jealous. Think about it: you are playing against the best "safe" player in the world who is expecting you to do something weird and is trying hard to scout it and prepare for it. With a knowledgeable player on alert and limited options, you still have to find a way to break him. It's not that easy and usually involves a level of strategy that 99% of viewers aren't even aware is happening. So the viewers don't understand how it's working which makes them doubly jealous. They want to call it luck but the players are able to keep being successful with it over many tournaments against many people so they can't call it luck. All they see is someone accomplishing a really difficult task over and over again and not understanding how and they get upset about it.
|
On February 06 2016 21:45 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2016 21:36 Bojas wrote:
Also, think of BityByBit if you were around during that era, did you like how he played? Did you respect him? Yes I did. Do you respect Sniper?
I know Sniper is a Zerg but to be honest I don't recall his playstyle. I was mostly inactive at the end of 2012 to like mid 2014.
|
you play honorable if you don't abuse external mechanical help. So everything the game doesn't provide you as an option is a no go. All forms of strategy belong into a game. As there is no honor on the battle field. Unless you are so badass you can allow yourself to play with a few self set restrictions.
Like your Zealots aren't allowed to interfere with other Zealots fighting an opponent, as long as the fight is just a 1 on 1.
|
On February 06 2016 23:54 NonY wrote:
Sometimes I think people are just jealous. Think about it: you are playing against the best "safe" player in the world who is expecting you to do something weird and is trying hard to scout it and prepare for it. With a knowledgeable player on alert and limited options, you still have to find a way to break him. It's not that easy and usually involves a level of strategy that 99% of viewers aren't even aware is happening. So the viewers don't understand how it's working which makes them doubly jealous. They want to call it luck but the players are able to keep being successful with it over many tournaments against many people so they can't call it luck. All they see is someone accomplishing a really difficult task over and over again and not understanding how and they get upset about it.
This so much, and most people should understand it, although i noticed that most people here dont even play the game anymore.
But if you play the game and you rank up, you notice many more things, and spectating is even more fun! The only negative thing about ranking up is to see that most casters ( not all) are pretty dumb really.
I am sure that i have no idea of what is really going on all the time, but whenever i find a new 'strategy' or way of looking at the game, then its just like i had my first peace of candy or my first time being high.
|
On February 07 2016 00:01 Bojas wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2016 21:45 Nebuchad wrote:On February 06 2016 21:36 Bojas wrote:
Also, think of BityByBit if you were around during that era, did you like how he played? Did you respect him? Yes I did. Do you respect Sniper? I know Sniper is a Zerg but to be honest I don't recall his playstyle. I was mostly inactive at the end of 2012 to like mid 2014.
Sniper is one of the zergs who benefitted the most from BL/infest. His playstyle was basically: play some different stuff when ahead in series, and when it really matters, go BL/infest and freewin. He won a GSL doing that and he gets a lot of undeserved hate for it.
Sniper is interesting because he's playing macro, and I'm certain he got his fair share of terrans 2raxing him, as any zerg did at the time. But he's the one who won't get any respect for what he accomplished, because of the context. This helps put the honor of not cheesing into perspective: you can tell it's ultimately used to justify a biased perspective, as there are plenty of situations where circumstances dictate that the cheeser is the good guy and nobody has trouble accepting it.
|
There's this "Play to win" vs "Play for Ego" blogpost by Greedy Goblin that anyone who thinks cheesers aren't being honorable should read. It follows up on Sirlin and I think highlights the real reason why some people act the way they do.
|
Doesnt exist in sc2. Stephano had "honorable" play because he invented ZvP for ~2 years.
Hardcounter design kills "honorable play" perfectly.
|
France12793 Posts
Tbh abusing the queen buff/BL infestor bad design was easier than cheesing yet with better results but it's not the players' fault if abusing bad design / balance gives you the best shot.
|
The diehard "proper" players mostly left years ago when it was clear blizz wasnt going to make a game they enjoyed, i dont think ive seen many of those comments in a long time
|
BW was full of cheese tactics and thanks to that game never stagnated to the very end (with the sole exception of ZvZ). Istead of whining, koreans started creating less-cheese-friendly maps and safer strategies. The balance was all about racearms - BO's were invented via experiments and not whining and patches. I have no sympathy for so-called "honorable" losers, becouse they tend to overuse not only word "cheese" and "cheap" for those who beat them, but also "noob" and general mockery for those who losing against them.
|
Peolpe say that because cheese is much more easy to do than macro game and depends more of the capability from the defender to scout and react properly than the agressor execute it well. But that's just mimimi most times its just lack of scout of the opponent.
|
On February 07 2016 00:41 Poopi wrote:
Tbh abusing the queen buff/BL infestor bad design was easier than cheesing yet with better results but it's not the players' fault if abusing bad design / balance gives you the best shot.
I don't disagree with that, the point is that it's not enough for someone to cheese for him to be deemed not honorable. He needs to cheese AND be the bad guy. Which is why you can tell it's not a legit criticism, more of a justification.
|
On February 06 2016 19:20 hitthat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2016 19:13 NEEDZMOAR wrote:
But that doesnt mean its not a 100% viable way of playing. In the end its all about winning right? Its all about having fun. But if the game with cheese tactics isnt fun, why are you playing ladder, designed mostly to compare the lengh of the wieners, in the first place? Show nested quote +Because cheese lets much worse opponents win vs someone who is better in general. This is argumentation of 12-years old spoiled kid, not the mature player, who should know better that many players will do anything to get away with victory.
I said I dont like executing cheeses, I love playing against them because its often an easy hold (since I play very safe). How did you not understand that?
edit: additionally, I dont find it entertaining to watch cheesers because coinflipping a bit of luck and nice execution is not as impressive to me as someone whos very good at the skillsets required to play a macro game, which means that I personally value non cheesy players higher than cheesy players.
note this is obviously my personal opinion.
Yes this is a part of the game, yes a win is a win, but honestly what impresses you the most? a guy whos able to flip a coin, or a guy whos able to do 123 things simultaneously.
|
On February 07 2016 00:48 Aocowns wrote:
The diehard "proper" players mostly left years ago when it was clear blizz wasnt going to make a game they enjoyed, i dont think ive seen many of those comments in a long time Ya, they probably all went back to Age of Empires Treaty 40 or something like that.
|
On February 06 2016 22:08 Poopi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2016 22:06 Big J wrote:
Cheese by definition is a play that only works when the opponent makes a mistake. Hence it is not a skillfull way to play. You realize that macro games rely on forcing your opponents to do mistakes? So outmultitasking someone is not a skillful way to play for example?
You're talking about winning. but the point of playing macro in a balanced game is that you don't rely on your opponent's mistakes for not losing the game and rather wait or try to force mistakes so that you win eventually by being the better playermaking less (severe) mistakes or executing better. When you cheese you lose the game when the opponent makes no mistake, even if you make no mistake either.
|
On February 07 2016 01:21 NEEDZMOAR wrote:
I said I dont like executing cheeses, I love playing against them because its often an easy hold (since I play very safe). How did you not understand that?
Uhhh, sorry, my bad. It sounded like if i asked YOU directly, when my intention was general asking why would anyone play in ladder if he cant stand playing with cheesers - who are there, and all he wants is "fun" (not his ego boosting).
To your edited part - indeed, "straigh" win is more impresive, but it doesnt make cheese unhonourable - what is the whole point of this discusion.
|
I think it's just more embarrassing to lose early and so people get extra salty.
|
On February 07 2016 00:17 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2016 00:01 Bojas wrote:On February 06 2016 21:45 Nebuchad wrote:On February 06 2016 21:36 Bojas wrote:
Also, think of BityByBit if you were around during that era, did you like how he played? Did you respect him? Yes I did. Do you respect Sniper? I know Sniper is a Zerg but to be honest I don't recall his playstyle. I was mostly inactive at the end of 2012 to like mid 2014. Sniper is one of the zergs who benefitted the most from BL/infest. His playstyle was basically: play some different stuff when ahead in series, and when it really matters, go BL/infest and freewin. He won a GSL doing that and he gets a lot of undeserved hate for it.
Ah, well I still see that as a methodical style that took skill to refine. You can't reach lategame without being skilled, whereas there are tons of protoss and terrans that got GM by doing a one base build that takes very little practice to perfect.
Sniper is interesting because he's playing macro, and I'm certain he got his fair share of terrans 2raxing him, as any zerg did at the time. But he's the one who won't get any respect for what he accomplished, because of the context. This helps put the honor of not cheesing into perspective: you can tell it's ultimately used to justify a biased perspective, as there are plenty of situations where circumstances dictate that the cheeser is the good guy and nobody has trouble accepting it.
I think being "honorable" is a silly concept. My point is about the asymmetry in skill when it comes to defending and executing certain cheese builds. I'm not sure what you mean by " situations where circumstances dictate that the cheeser is the good guy''.
|
On February 07 2016 01:28 hitthat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2016 01:21 NEEDZMOAR wrote:
I said I dont like executing cheeses, I love playing against them because its often an easy hold (since I play very safe). How did you not understand that? Uhhh, sorry, my bad. It sounded like if i asked YOU directly, when my intention was general asking why would anyone play in ladder if he cant stand play the cheesers - who are there, and all he want is "fun" (not his ego boosting).
Heres my take on it: I love SC2 because the RNG is minimal. in 99% of the cases Im losing because I fucked up.
I love a fair game where my mind is challenged. Now being cheesed is often very favored for the cheeser because hes been practicing the situation a ton and if im unlucky I have very little to no experience with it, which means its unfavorable.
It could also be like in ZvZ where theres no safe way of playing. the opening is a coinflip which either puts you behind or ahead (e.g if youre going 17 pool youre safe vs 13/12 but you will most certainly lose vs double hatch before pool or hatch gas pool).
Just because I dislike a part of sc2 doesnt mean im not going to play sc2. Its still great ina lot of other aspects and it gives me a lot of joy.
In fact I doubt its even possible to find activities you love absolutely everything about.
|
@NEEZMOAR that's also my point, additionally, cheesers will know in advance what the game will look like, so the strategic depth is extremely limited for them. Whereas the player that plans on playing a macro game has to scout and defend something he doesn't know is coming. I'm fine with this for tournament best of Xs, but I dislike it when people who do this every single ladder game get really far with it despite sup-bar mechanics.
|
On February 06 2016 17:20 syriuszonito wrote:
because it takes twice the amount of skill / game sense to win a macro game.
/close thread.
I do not agree! There is no way to quantify skill, except results. If I can destroy any player in the world with my first 5 units, then I'm the best at this game. It doesn't really matter if a godly macro player could roll me in the mid/late game, because he would never survive that long. So it you win, you have skill. It's as simple as that.
|
France12793 Posts
On February 07 2016 01:26 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2016 22:08 Poopi wrote:On February 06 2016 22:06 Big J wrote:
Cheese by definition is a play that only works when the opponent makes a mistake. Hence it is not a skillfull way to play. You realize that macro games rely on forcing your opponents to do mistakes? So outmultitasking someone is not a skillful way to play for example? You're talking about winning. but the point of playing macro in a balanced game is that you don't rely on your opponent's mistakes for not losing the game and rather wait or try to force mistakes so that you win eventually by being the better playermaking less (severe) mistakes or executing better. When you cheese you lose the game when the opponent makes no mistake, even if you make no mistake either.
But what if certain races are harder/easier to play? 
So the only good answer is "winning without cheating (and don't lose on purpose)".
|
On February 07 2016 01:49 Poopi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2016 01:26 Big J wrote:On February 06 2016 22:08 Poopi wrote:On February 06 2016 22:06 Big J wrote:
Cheese by definition is a play that only works when the opponent makes a mistake. Hence it is not a skillfull way to play. You realize that macro games rely on forcing your opponents to do mistakes? So outmultitasking someone is not a skillful way to play for example? You're talking about winning. but the point of playing macro in a balanced game is that you don't rely on your opponent's mistakes for not losing the game and rather wait or try to force mistakes so that you win eventually by being the better playermaking less (severe) mistakes or executing better. When you cheese you lose the game when the opponent makes no mistake, even if you make no mistake either. But what if certain races are harder/easier to play? So the only good answer is "winning without cheating (and don't lose on purpose)".
i have said on multiple occasions that I dom't believe in easier and harder in sc2. things that "feel" harder are also usually more powerful. it balances out, otherwise the game would show plain imbalances in winrates
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
