| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
AmericanJesus
United States10 Posts
On March 17 2010 04:36 JTPROG wrote: If my 10 year old brother beat Flash with a new cheese strat, you would consider him the better player? k. Hell yes, and kudos to your brother for innovating. If he went 100-0 with a cheese strat? Patch time. | ||
|
Xeris
Iran17695 Posts
On March 17 2010 04:27 JTPROG wrote: What I meant was moreso "if you can never beat a person straight-up you're the worse player." Which is straight up correct. How can you just make random blanket statements without providing any proof. You don't EVER define what "cheese" is, nor what "straight up" is. What does straight up even mean? How can you call things straight up or not in a 3 week old game. The only person making valid arguments in favor of 'cheese=bad' is IdrA. All you're doing is making general undefended statements and saying "IdrA is the only person that gets it"... no: IdrA is the only one providing solid evidence. There are tons of people who are disagreeing with you that are providing real evidence to support their claims. "If a player cheeses 50% of his games and another player cheeses 10% of his games... who do you think will be a better player in a year" - that's a retarded argument. There are 3459349 things wrong with that statement. - For example: what if the guy who cheeses 50% of the time played 10 times more. So he still has an exponentially higher number of "straight up" games than the guy who only cheeses 10% of the time. - What if the guy who cheeses 50% is more intelligent and has a better understanding of RTS than the guy who cheeses 10%, what's going to happen? - What if the guy who cheeses 10% doesn't watch and analyze his replays to improve his play, while the guy who cheeses 50% does. That was the best argument you made in 6 pages and it's fucking terrible. You just sound like an angry newbie. Cheesing is part of the game. If Blizzard didn't want it to be there, they would have made the game start at mid-game stages to avoid it altogether. Cheesing adds a level of unpredictability and excitement to otherwise boring games. Who is really bad... the player who 'cheeses' or the player who loses to it consistently? For example: I lost 4 games in a row to protosses who warp gate rushed me last week. You seem like you would be blaming "stupid cheese" for the loss, while I blamed my inability to come up with a counter to it after 4 times. Being able to not play like a robot has very distinct advantages. If you have some really strong 'cheese' builds in addition to 'standard' builds, I can guarantee you will be a better player at the end of the day as opposed to some guy who plays like a mindless robot and does the same two builds every time. | ||
|
DN2perfectionGM
United States233 Posts
but if you cheese against strangers and win at a good rate, that doesn't make you a good player. but if you can win something like bo7 at a good rate, then regardless of whether you cheese or not, you are doing something right. so cheese is not necessarily wrong. It is necessary at times to keep the opponent guessing. And if it can work even when the opponent expects it, then it is a legit strategy. ex. boxer vs yellow. but it is also dumb just to cheese one time strategy against strangers. that's just being a ladder whore. but even then, you have to be careful with beta ladder whores, since they help beta w/ balancing. and since they never argued that they are good players anywhos. op was very sure of his statements, and there are some legit arguments made. But bashing cheese in general was just asking for it from TL, and everyone expected this outcome the moment they read the first page, regardless of the surge of IdrA | ||
|
TeWy
France714 Posts
On March 17 2010 01:15 IdrA wrote: the reason the bw meta game shifted to that is that people like to win. cheese became more rare because its inherently luck based. doesnt matter how strategically genius you are, if they scout or guess what you're doing, and what you're doing is dependent on them not knowing what you're doing, you lose. you can know how good flash is, you can know exactly what hes gonna do, and hes still gonna beat you because hes just that fucking good. how people could prefer horang to flash given that, or how they fuckin love fantasy getting allined by a trash player because he didnt wall properly, is beyond me. not only is it gay, its bad for esports. ya cheese can be exciting (because of the luck/simplicity of it, its very obvious to a crowd that when proxy bbs gets scouted the game has reached a turning point. the climax is less clear in real games), but bad players winning, and luck based games, are not good for something that wants to be a real competition. also, oddly enough, its largely bad players (the kind who are capable of winning because of these cheesy strategies) who defend it as some kind of strategical genius. for instance, someone who would ling allin a famous player and then post the replay of it while bragging about how they masterminded the strategical flow of the game. Cheesing is just another way of playing good. If it was a "bad strat", like 6 gates no expansion mass stalkers A move all in, you wouldn't call it a cheese. Precisely, the cheese is not something stupid, it's supposed to be a dagger perforating your chest at a very precise moment. You think that it's bad for Esports, because the "worst player" CAN win ? But if the "best" player is the one cheesing, like Savior against Ret at Blizzcon, it doesn't bother you anymore right ? Does that make sense ? And on another note, is somebody "good" if he can play long macro game effectively, no matter if he can't defeat an All in Zergling rush ? Who made these rules ? Is that the purpose of Starcraft competitions ? To me, and to the overwhelming majority of people who never passed B on ICCup, Starcraft 1,2 are nothing more than entertainments (to an extent, it's the same for you). You are an entertainer. What matters is, are cheeses more entertaining than standard playstyle ? The answer to that is undoubtebly yes, therefore so called "cheeses" are good for you. If cheeses were prohibited in Pro competitions, I'm pretty sure that your salary wouldn't be half of what it is right now, because a lot of casual people would find the game kind of predictable and boring and would stop watching them. | ||
|
orcn00b
Spain27 Posts
I feel my English, I am using the google translator. Catalunya salu2 !!!!! | ||
|
JTPROG
United States254 Posts
On March 17 2010 04:43 Xeris wrote: How can you just make random blanket statements without providing any proof. You don't EVER define what "cheese" is, nor what "straight up" is. What does straight up even mean? How can you call things straight up or not in a 3 week old game. The only person making valid arguments in favor of 'cheese=bad' is IdrA. All you're doing is making general undefended statements and saying "IdrA is the only person that gets it"... no: IdrA is the only one providing solid evidence. There are tons of people who are disagreeing with you that are providing real evidence to support their claims. "If a player cheeses 50% of his games and another player cheeses 10% of his games... who do you think will be a better player in a year" - that's a retarded argument. There are 3459349 things wrong with that statement. - For example: what if the guy who cheeses 50% of the time played 10 times more. So he still has an exponentially higher number of "straight up" games than the guy who only cheeses 10% of the time. - What if the guy who cheeses 50% is more intelligent and has a better understanding of RTS than the guy who cheeses 10%, what's going to happen? - What if the guy who cheeses 10% doesn't watch and analyze his replays to improve his play, while the guy who cheeses 50% does. That was the best argument you made in 6 pages and it's fucking terrible. You just sound like an angry newbie. Cheesing is part of the game. If Blizzard didn't want it to be there, they would have made the game start at mid-game stages to avoid it altogether. Cheesing adds a level of unpredictability and excitement to otherwise boring games. Who is really bad... the player who 'cheeses' or the player who loses to it consistently? For example: I lost 4 games in a row to protosses who warp gate rushed me last week. You seem like you would be blaming "stupid cheese" for the loss, while I blamed my inability to come up with a counter to it after 4 times. Being able to not play like a robot has very distinct advantages. If you have some really strong 'cheese' builds in addition to 'standard' builds, I can guarantee you will be a better player at the end of the day as opposed to some guy who plays like a mindless robot and does the same two builds every time. I have added a definition of what I define as cheese a while ago on OP so people understand better. As for the 50% 10% argument, we are OBVIOUSLY ASSUMING that everything is EQUAL except for the cheese %. Why the hell would we assume differences in a point of comparison?... And saying that it is unintuitive is just plain stupid. Please read OP again since I made it more clear cause apparently people don't understand simple things. I have provided plenty of proof and examples to back up my statements. | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
It is in the middle: Cheese can be good. Solid play can be good. THE BEST is a player who plays solid but mixes in a cheese every once in awhile. People forget Flash got the attention by cheesing a couple of big players and winning. Could he make a career off of that? NOT NEARLY as successful of a career as he has had if he was a pure cheeser.. that is for sure. So practice a cheese every once in awhile on the ladder. But if you do it each game and want to defend that if it wins you games it is good is faulty and short-sighted logic. Being a solid player that does the macro style but can mix in a cheese is the most dangerous player you can be. A pure cheeser is NOT. | ||
|
lIlIlIlIlIlI
Korea (South)3851 Posts
| ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
On March 17 2010 04:26 {88}iNcontroL wrote: man this beta is doing amazing things to charlie's ego.. he fucking wins a game and suddenly he is calling out idra.. anyone EVER thought they'd see this day rofl? I've played Idra before he went to korea in BW and I've seen a few of his reps n sc2. It's not like he's some kind of unbeatable pro in sc2 already. Especially since he's such a predictable macro/mechanics player who despises cheese. He's essentially giving up a psychological edge by even saying cheese is bad. | ||
|
professorjoak
318 Posts
On March 17 2010 01:59 JTPROG wrote: You won't win a tourney with cheese. What about Mondragon's 40+ ZvP overpool->ling canon runby wins in the TSL1 ladder? Or would you claim a difference between transition-able cheese and all-in? As a random player, I sometimes decide beforehand on each map that I'll cheese if I get race X because part of being a random is casting a psychological uncertainty over your opponent that ANYTHING could happen. | ||
|
ItsBigfoot
United States432 Posts
| ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
I define cheese as: A mostly unpreventable, unscoutable (in time), luck-based strategy, usually a rush, that relies on your opponent being unprepared or not knowing what to do, but would probably not work twice against the same player. Unpreventable/Unscoutable, So like when a zerg denies probe scouts that is cheese? Luck based? Does this include calculated risks, Gambling IS a valid strategy whether you want to acknowledge it as one or not. Being Uprepared? You basically just singled out like 90% of the strategies in any RTS game. Not knowing what to do? lol? Probably won't work twice? You mean like how boxer totally mindfucked yellow and 'cheesed' him multiple times in a row? Dude like I said, 'cheese' is relative and if you wanna write it off as 100% bad you are just plain bad. A better definition of 'cheese' would be; a calculated gambit that often employs psychology into the strategy. Gambit being the key word here. | ||
|
GoodNewsJim
United States122 Posts
On March 16 2010 23:40 rackdude wrote: Why you should cheese in the Beta ladder. The goal is to exploit the game and find whatever strategies are unstoppable/imbalanced. You've basically been chosen to this, that's what a beta is for. If you think you can win every game with a cheese, exploit your heart out and make people cry on the forums. Yes, and if you don't get people QQing on forums directly, maybe people will take your build and adopt it for themselves, so they get people QQing on forums too. | ||
|
lIlIlIlIlIlI
Korea (South)3851 Posts
| ||
|
Comeh
United States18918 Posts
But let's just put it this way - what if koreans had put off doing 3 warpgates and 2 gateway proxies until major post-beta starleagues in pvp. Think of the shit storm that would have occurred. + Show Spoiler + Oh, and for the skill vs. ladder's sake argument - being a good player requires two things - 1. playing a good solid normal game 2. playing an unorthodox game. If you cannot defend cheese well, then you don't deserve to be playing with the best. Cheese is a part of the game. Sure, some cheese builds are auto wins, but that is a luck/risk that some players are willing to take at times, and simply part of the game. If cheese was 100% defendable vs all builds, then it would be far more boring / uninteresting, as the better player would ALWAYS win. Its this sort of flexibility/depth that makes BW so great. | ||
|
Tinithor
United States1552 Posts
On March 17 2010 04:27 JTPROG wrote: What I meant was moreso "if you can never beat a person straight-up you're the worse player." Which is straight up correct. And who said Yellow was better than boxer? They didn't play straight-up so we don't know. Just because Boxer cheesed doesn't mean hes definitely worse, just means he cheesed that game. If he couldn't ever beat yellow in a straight-up game then yeah, he's worse. Being better and winning aren't necessarily correlated 100%. IDK what being "better" means if its not connected to winning really. Maybe you should stop making up imaginary ideas of whats "better" or "worse" and just accept accept that they are DIFFERENT playstyles. | ||
|
bendez
Canada283 Posts
| ||
|
FortuneSyn
1825 Posts
When you cheese, you improve decision making under weird circumstances when your cheese semi succeeds. For all the retard practice robots out there, learn to make your head less square. | ||
|
McDonalds
Liechtenstein2244 Posts
On March 17 2010 03:32 fyyer wrote: People who descredit cheese, especially directed at those who's defining gameplay is around it are scrubs. The game has a set of rules in place, and they're clear. Zerglings can't shoot air, SCV's can't build cannons, and a Barracks costs 150 minerals. Does the game give a fuck if you got scv rushed? Nope. Does the game give a fuck if you got 6 pooled? Nope. Every in game strategy directed towards the final goal - Winning, is valid. This is the most important post in this thread. Up to that point anyway, I stopped reading there. Simply put, if there is some facet of the game that you consider to be unfair, then the game isn't as good as you think it is. Go find something to do with your time that doesn't enrage you. | ||
|
JTPROG
United States254 Posts
On March 17 2010 05:18 CharlieMurphy wrote: lmao, Unpreventable/Unscoutable, So like when a zerg denies probe scouts that is cheese? Luck based? Does this include calculated risks, Gambling IS a valid strategy whether you want to acknowledge it as one or not. Being Uprepared? You basically just singled out like 90% of the strategies in any RTS game. Not knowing what to do? lol? Probably won't work twice? You mean like how boxer totally mindfucked yellow and 'cheesed' him multiple times in a row? Dude like I said, 'cheese' is relative and if you wanna write it off as 100% bad you are just plain bad. A better definition of 'cheese' would be; a calculated gambit that often employs psychology into the strategy. Gambit being the key word here. Unless the zerg is doing something cheesy while denying the scout, such as 4 pooling, which I don't see how it would be possible to deny a scout in that case, I don't see your point. Think about it, by the time you figure out hes 4-pooling its basically too late. That is unpreventable/unscoutable. It's not cheese if you're not actually doing something cheesy. Preventing something is not initiating something. Denying a scout is not cheese... And it wouldn't work twice if yellow actually put all his effort in trying to stop it, in which case he prob would have ended up winning the game. That's the point. And I never said cheese was 100% bad. Can you people read? I'm just saying if you want to be good you should play predominantly standard build 90%+. Worry about the cheese later, after you're far and above decent. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 RotterdaM StarCraft: Brood War 924PiGStarcraft562 UpATreeSC  216NeuroSwarm  124SteadfastSC 77JuggernautJason76 ForJumy  20Dota 2 Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
PiGosaur Monday
OlimoLeague
StarCraft2.fi
StarCraft2.fi
The PondCast
StarCraft2.fi
|
|
|
EPT
