Poll: Rushing in Starcraft

[AugustFall]

http://www.youtube.com/user/HDstarcraft#p/u/0/MHT6cjr-bJ8

lol -^

I've seen a lot of people on here complain that they don't like getting rushed so early on in the game but I thought I'd like to get a discussion going on why you think it's okay/think it's bad gaming.

I personally think it's become a part of Starcraft and indeed a lot of RTSs, the moral is: build faster and keep your defences up from the start.

 

[Klepa]

I guess people see it as unsophisticated.

The full potential and beauty of the game is in the different units, the balance between them, and the different strategies they allow you to use. You might as well play Dune II if you're just going to attack with starting units, basicly ignoring everything that makes SC2 better than other RTS games.

 

[Airhead]

Hmm. I'm not a very advanced Starcraft player, but I think that an early rush with basic combat units is a viable strategy. It can be countered, and when that happens the attacker is left at a disadvantage.

Rushing with workers on the other hand looks more like a one-time trick. If it works - you win. If it doesn't - you're cooked. Basically the game is decided within seconds, leaving out all the potential complexity of the endgame. So yeah, I guess a worker rush dumbs down the game and I would be annoyed if it was tried on me frequently, even if I succeeded in defending myself. It would get very boring very quickly.

 

[YoyoTimes5]

I guess people see it as unsophisticated.

The full potential and beauty of the game is in the different units, the balance between them, and the different strategies they allow you to use. You might as well play Dune II if you're just going to attack with starting units, basicly ignoring everything that makes SC2 better than other RTS games.

Lol, you say the beauty of the game allows you to utilize different strategies and rushing is a strategy, why should it draw ire over other strategies. Its not IMBA or OP unless you are incompetent on a consistent basis.

Besides, saying something like "rush isn't fair" is a slippery slope. When is attacking "fair"?Do all your matches turn into NR? Those are the degenerate games, IMO.

 

[Cody211282]

As much as I hate it I do have to say

I like games to last longer then 3 minutes so I never use it.

 

[Avaholic03]

In a truly competitive RTS, rushing isn't about winning the game immediately. It's about keeping the pressure on, getting a resource advantage and eventually dominating the endgame. If someone gets rushed and loses quickly, then it's time to develop an opening strategy that's not all about teching quickly. It's not hard to counter. In SC2, Terrans can wall off their base, Zerg can mass cheap units and Protoss can out-micro with Stalkers. Being rushed doesn't have to mean you're dead. Just be ready for it.

 

[randomsix]

It's really risky, so if you do something like that, and the game ends no matter what (you win if you find them, you lose if you don't), I think its stupid. If you want to play a game of russian roulette, I'm sure there are use map settings for that.
The more traditional zerg rush I still support, as rushing with combat units is a valid tactic.

 

[Continuity]

The early rush is a gamble, like randomsix says, either way its game over. I think its a fine tactic so long as you think you have a good chance of winning, i.e. you're fairly sure you have some sort of edge, otherwise its just bad tactics because of the high risk.

 

[Srdjan]

Yep WWII would be much different if Poland had two years to build up.

If you are too slow no matter how much strategic planning you have for the later stages you will lose and it should be like it.

 

[siNwrath]

How is any form of rush in a reasonably balanced game environment anything other than OK? If it was a bad move, then the fault is on the player not the tactic.

I personally don't like the idea of playing a game where the players have decided on an arbitrary no-rush time, as it completely breaks the normal flow of the game, and offers little to no insight on how the game is actually played, but to each his own I guess. It kind of reminds me of people rage quitting in L4D2 because the score isn't in their favour, as if quitting will make you a better player in the long run.

 

[David_G]

I'll just copy-paste my response from the other rushing thread:

I'm indifferent, but rushing is a legitimate strategy, even though it's kinda annoying. However, if you're a good player, you can counter it, and it's very funny and exciting to witness it in a pro-match, like Jaedong doing a 4-pool Zergling rush against Flash (in Starcraft, if you're wondering), it was awesome.

Explanation of the 4-Pool Zergling Rush:
In Starcraft Skirmish matches you start with 4 of your workers (Drones, SCVs or Probes) and your main building (Hatchery, Command Center or Nexus), ordinarily players gather minerals and build workers, the amount of workers depending on the strategy you want to be using during the match.

Normally Zerg spawn 9 or 10 Drones before building their next building, which is ordinarily either a Spawning Pool, or a second Hatchery. The Terran build 10 SCVs and while the 11th SCV is building they build either a Supply Depot, or a Barracks. The Protoss usually build 10 Probes, then a Pylon and then either a Gateway, or a Forge if they're looking to Fast Expand.

Now to the topic at hand the 4-Pool Zerg rush. A normal Zerg rush is a 9-pool rush, which means spawning 9 Drones, then building a Spawning Pool and then spawning the Zerglings. A 4-Pool is more crazy because you don't spawn any Drones, you just gather minerals with the Drones you have at the start, until you gather 200 Minerals and build your Spawning Pool. This is my favourite kind of rush because it's very rarely used today, and it's very interesting to see someone use it.

tl;dr: I like rushes because they're very fun to witness when utilized properly, and it's fun to see the victim struggling to counter.

 

[Roganwilson]

I don't personally like rushing, but it is a valid strategy, and one that isn't hard to defeat, given experience with the game. However, I like long games, where you end with massive armies fighting in a winner-takes-all showdown. So rushing is against my code.

 

[Zhukov]

Redundant thread is extremely redundant [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.223898-Poll-Rushing-and-you].

Even by the standards of this forum.

 

[Claymorez]

http://www.youtube.com/user/HDstarcraft#p/u/0/MHT6cjr-bJ8

lol -^

I've seen a lot of people on here complain that they don't like getting rushed so early on in the game but I thought I'd like to get a discussion going on why you think it's okay/think it's bad gaming.

I personally think it's become a part of Starcraft and indeed a lot of RTSs, the moral is: build faster and keep your defences up from the start.

It's part of the game - however it doesn't require alot of skill as all you have to do is watch a video of some 'pro' starcraft players do it with race x and then copy them as it tends to be the best way to pull that rush off.

I feel the more each player waits and develops their race and then have a war the more skill there becomes involved in winning as there are more options on how to react to situations.

 

[silver wolf009]

I hate it, but not only in starcraft. I play lord of the rings battle for middle earth 2, have you ever seen 5000 goblin warriors and archers within 8 minutes? its not a pretty sight man.

 

[Proteus214]

Well, I do it all the time so I would be a hypocrite to say it's not a good strategy.

The truth is, it wins me games.

I do get countered often and I am able to counter another rushing player. I really don't see a problem with it.

 

[PxDn Ninja]

I rush away from starcraft, but that is about it.

 

[Woodsey]

Uhh...

Here we go. This is going to be like sniping in multiplayer, isn't it? Or when people actively dictate what perks and weapons you can and cannot use?

If the game allows you to do it (and you're not exploiting some massive bug) then it's a fair strategy. Camping goes on that list too.

Quit your *****-fits people.

 

[Ickorus]

Part of the game, that looks like it could really easily be countered so I have no problem with it.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Also RAK, is it just the speed and style of the game that sucks the fun out of the game or is it the difficulty?

I can understand the 'old school' style drawing away from the fun, but the league system should at least help deal with the difficulty of the game.

It's the speed and style of the game that irritates me. Since playing the Total War series and Ground Control, I've been drawn away from the traditional RTS style of gameplay for something that closer resembles realistic military tactics. It wouldn't be as much of an issue in the single-player, but the whole resource-gathering thing doesn't make sense to me in multiplayer any more. Because you have to formalise strategies for that component of the game, it makes it difficult for me to build up defences in time to avoid attack.

I've been playing RTS games since the original Command & Conquer, but in the single-player mode, where there's less pressure regarding the resource collection.

basically this for me too. its really sad how many people on there (i know a few too) there soul reason for playing the game is to win, not even to enjoy the game, to win at any means possible. and to me that is just not fun at all, i want to play a game that lasts longer than 5 minutes and that is actually fun to play, that is also why i fucking hate sc2's online mode because its so overly competitive in hardcore elitist mode i can't stand it.