As many of you know, there's been a lot of fairly heated debate (though sometimes just heated air) about the play of TSL_Rain, particularly in his series against Nestea. On one side, people decried Rain as a poor player relying on all-ins and luck who sucked out several better players to the top. Others have contested that Rain found a weakness in Nestea's play and played to win, noting that a strategy is a strategy and that if Nestea was the better player he should have stopped the rush. This was sadly accompanied by typical balance whines, counter whines, accusations of bronze league play, etc.
That's a bad way to make any point.
Personally, I think SCBW and SC2 are games of decision making, and longer games allow for more decisions and more interesting play. Hence I prefer more macro-oriented styles, and am kind of put off when a series is mostly comprised of rushes or all-ins. I was displeased with the Rain/Nestea series as a fan, but not out of hate for rain, terran players, or something like that. I just didn't like the games. It happens. I would probably skip a Rain vs. BitbybitPrime best of 9.
That really should be the end of it.
Other people were much more offended. They called Rain terrible, were profane and generally awful. Of course, people who thought Rain was doing what he needed to win (a valid point, even if as a fan I disagree) were often just as rude to the initial posters and zealous in their desire to counter-post and mock people.
It was sad to see all this happen. Snark here and there is funny. InControl is hilarious on state o the game, in part due to his rants and faux bad-manner. But people really go too far in their internet dick-measuring contests sometimes instead of sitting back, thinking about how two different points can have their merits, and respectfully disagreeing. People often talk about how awesome the community is for this game. I bet all of you on some level enjoy SC2 because of how inviting and interactive players and fans are. A community like that, however, requires respect, and we should keep that in mind when getting in a debate.
Yes, it's the internet. People are awful on the internet. That's what mods are for. Please, don't be part of the problem. Debates are great, flame wars are terrible.
*This was kind of heavy handed, so here's a picture of a cute bunny to lighten things up
It's the bunny of peace On a more serious note, what did you expect? It's the Internet. On the Internet everybody has an opinion, and theirs is always the correct one. While the Internet is huge, most people on it are narrow minded....
But hey, whatever. Cheese games are just as valid as long macro games. And I don't believe it's easy to pull a cheese against a progamer, so I'd say if you win with it, go for it. And it won't be a viable strategy to winning a tournament, as once you cheese once, other players will be ready for it, so you'll probably fail in the next few rounds anyway.
TLTR: Agree, I don't get what all the noise is about.
i feel cheese and all in builds are something that we will see less and less of over time because when everything is balanced and the players are of similar skills, those sorts of attacks have low success rates. Builds that get called safe are called safe for a reason. reactionary macro play is ultimately what will come out on come, so when people are allining all over the place it feels like bad play, because it is. Those builds have no long term success. they are also no fun to watch. I just wish players would do basically what Jinro has done, which is practice strong safe builds, reacting to the info he gathers, rather than allining all the time.
OK guys I feel like I should start posting, I've been lurking the forums for a while.
I can't see the obsession of people calling early game tactics "cheese" or even more, disliking them. I come from a different planet of gaming called DotA (8 years player) where it's quite the opposite: There is a general hate towards turtling/farming because its mostly boring. Early game is quite important and it's what usually decides the flow of the game. That goes for most strategy games SC2, DotA, chess....[..] hell even backgammon!
I can understand though if you hate the poor show of a "cheese-attack" which for me is not poor at all. Take for example Rain's SCV all-in today: it was 7-8 marines microing against 3-5 stalkers. I loved that! It was intense and breathtaking! What's the difference seeing 8v8 units and seeing 50v50 units?
TL;DR= Since when is it lame to early attack at SC2? and why is it not lame to tech/expand? ..... Moreover, when trying to tech/expand without building the right defenses and eventually losing why is it OK to whine? Who defines what is lame and what is not? Anyone played DotA before? It's the equivalent to getting all +dmg items to farm and not getting boots - You are bound to lose and you should give opponent ALL the respect for winning you.
I'd counter that a long, macro game does not require turtling up and not attacking. Indeed, harass, timing pushes, early pressure and the like can be quite awesome. The difference is the overall plan. If someone pushes out with 6 blink stalkers while expanding or chronoboosting probes, I consider that pretty great. Blink micro is exciting, and the use of the attack isn't only damage but also containment to protect the expo. Early pressure is something people plan for, and the pros have counter builds and contingencies built into their overall game plan.
This particular debate was born out of the perceived reliance of the all-in/rush. For many, it felt as though the other features of planning and timings were denied by a build which is either crushed in gg or a instance lost. While that doesn't account for all the rushes (indeed, Rain's rushes weren't always all-in), it does help explain why Broodwar fans might not enjoy those games. Timings in broodwar were well developed; they were constantly interesting and fun, and there were lots of minor battles, harass, and large clashes over the course of one game. That dynamic is lacking in all-in rushes, and some people really miss those. You many prefer a more aggressive, in your face style, but I'd posit that as the game develops you'll get that and more without a reliance on all-ins. Time will tell.
Again, this is not at all to say Rain is bad. He's quite good. It's only to say that a style that many crave seems to be missing.
On December 09 2010 22:37 AfouToPatisa wrote: OK guys I feel like I should start posting, I've been lurking the forums for a while.
I can't see the obsession of people calling early game tactics "cheese" or even more, disliking them. I come from a different planet of gaming called DotA (8 years player) where it's quite the opposite: There is a general hate towards turtling/farming because its mostly boring. Early game is quite important and it's what usually decides the flow of the game. That goes for most strategy games SC2, DotA, chess....[..] hell even backgammon!
I can understand though if you hate the poor show of a "cheese-attack" which for me is not poor at all. Take for example Rain's SCV all-in today: it was 7-8 marines microing against 3-5 stalkers. I loved that! It was intense and breathtaking! What's the difference seeing 8v8 units and seeing 50v50 units?
TL;DR= Since when is it lame to early attack at SC2? and why is it not lame to tech/expand? ..... Moreover, when trying to tech/expand without building the right defenses and eventually losing why is it OK to whine? Who defines what is lame and what is not? Anyone played DotA before? It's the equivalent to getting all +dmg items to farm and not getting boots - You are bound to lose and you should give opponent ALL the respect for winning you.
Your misconception is the misconception that people hate cheese.
It's a legit part of the game for sure, but when it consists of 75%+ of the total games played, something is terribly wrong.
I think the huge majority of us enjoy a 'complete game' as opposed to anything else. A lot of people are associating macro with turtling, but this isn't some bronze league turtle terran situation with no harass and just a giant ball 1a move once everyone is maxed. You (usually) get to see much more of the complexities in longer matches than a lot of the 'cheese' sets.
No one can be blamed for cheesing on Delta, Steppes, or Blistering. The worst thing that happened to the GSL this season was removing the veto of such terrible maps.
On December 09 2010 22:56 FOUTWENTYSIXTY wrote: It's the maps.
No one can be blamed for cheesing on Delta, Steppes, or Blistering. The worst thing that happened to the GSL this season was removing the veto of such terrible maps.
I hear this a lot, but without much explanation. Could you maybe elaborate?
Rain is not terrible. People do all-ins because they are strong. Don't blame the player, blame the game. Weaken all-ins, and the number of all-in-ers will fall.
Reason why people are against rushes/all-ins? Simple. It takes less skill to rush/all-in than it takes to macro. "Oh foxer is so good, foxers micro is so baller" Pooi! A player like MVP can micro just as good and play pass the MMM all-in phase of the game. People don't want to see a less skilled player beat a better player. Eg, Ret, Haypro and Nestea losing.
Also, all-ins are also much much much much much much less entertaining to watch compared to macro games. Rain vs NesTea or Cliiiiide vs Leenock.
On December 09 2010 22:56 FOUTWENTYSIXTY wrote: It's the maps.
No one can be blamed for cheesing on Delta, Steppes, or Blistering. The worst thing that happened to the GSL this season was removing the veto of such terrible maps.
I hear this a lot, but without much explanation. Could you maybe elaborate?
Those maps are so small and rush distance so short that doing anything OTHER than making a huge army is extremely dangerous.
Couple that with the fact that every race has very scary units once they tech up to them (Banshees, Mutalisks, Colossi) and you have all the ingredients of a cock-tail game where you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't, you might as well just cheese and get it over with.
On the cheese-hating argument, I think IdrA hit the nail on the head with his Artosis interview posted earlier today. The game favors cheese right now. There is no way to play past it. Cheese in general is just so strong, everything else is optional. You can end any game in the first 5 minutes and have a 50%+ win rate out of the deal, the only race that can shut cheese down right now is Terran. Something needs to be done balance wise to make anti-cheese stronger in general (probably buffing static defenses) if we want to see macro play on a regular basis.
I'm trying to learn to control myself and be easy on stuff mentioned in OP. But its damn hard sometimes.
Most of posters here are nerds. Nerds typically a little socially-awkward and have experienced some unfairness in their life, they become touchy/sensitive about this. When something unfair happens their defense mode activates and they start complaining/raging/whining about it. Thats what I think is the problem.
I don't blame players for cheesing. Its definitely game-design issue. And I don't like it. That's all I can tell.
a lot of RTS games have some sort of "cheese" or Timing Attack as a way to punish a player who go for expanding very early, but if they were to hold it off at the same time, they'd have a major advantage 5 minutes later
if they weren't in the game, a lot of people would probably blindly expand early
I hear this a lot, but without much explanation. Could you maybe elaborate?
Let's be charitable and say that certain maps are badly designed relative to professional maps in Brood War. On these maps it is more difficult to hold an expansion than to play a purely one base game. Since these maps can't be removed a higher percentage of players who prefer one base play have come through the tournament and a higher percentage of macro orientated players have gone out.
This has meant a higher percentage of protoss going through since they naturally benefit from games being decided by 4 gates or fast voids or hidden tech. It has also meant that one base all in terrans have done well. Zerg who were asked to qualify on Metal, Xel' Naga and Scrap, suddenly walk into maps that punish any kind of expansion.
So you end up with no Zerg, a disproportionate amount of Protoss, and the worst kind of terrans. And Jinro, but Jinro is awesome.
As long as the GSL is on Blizzard maps, and especially if it's on all the Blizzard maps we can't expect a professional level tournament.
Here's the bottom line for me, in a bo5 or bo7 you need to switch it up sometimes with all-in builds because it's an important part of being an intelligent competitor. On the other hand, when someone does nothing but all-in builds then they are being extremely risky and as a result are not being a smart competitor. That's about it.
Remember this game is still relatively new, and these all-in/cheesy builds are still being figured out. Once things settle down then methods to counter these builds will become well established. If there's an all-in that turns out to be too powerful I would imagine that it'll eventually get patched.
Most of posters here are nerds. Nerds typically a little socially-awkward and have experienced some unfairness in their life, they become touchy/sensitive about this. When something unfair happens their defense mode activates and they start complaining/raging/whining about it. Thats what I think is the problem.
I don't think that accounts for everybody. I'm a huge nerd (psych grad student who loves stats and methodology) who can be kind of weird and has very much had my share of unfairness. But overall I try to see people as people, not as abstracted opponents or obstacles. I understand frustration, totally, but there are times where this is just silly. All-ins vs. not all-ins isn't someone cutting you off in traffic where your adrenaline is pumping; it's another person on their at 4:30am who thinks differently about a video game. People can be insecure sometimes, but a 5 second pause would make all the difference and as a community we should really encourage that pause.
EPT![[image loading]](http://customersrock.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/bunny.jpg)
