Do you think beta is rushcraft?

I did look a while on google for other talk about rushcraft and it's pretty hard to find. So I want to ask here:

Do you think beta is rushcraft?
Do you think everyone is out to win each game as fast as possible just to have more wins to their name?
Is defending agaunst a rush unbalanced? As in nithing can defend against a really good rush?
Do you think the rocks are a good counter to the rushes?
Or do you disagree and think the early game (or entire game lol) is fine as it is?

 

Here are my answers:

Do you think everyone is out to win each game as fast as possible just to have more wins to their name?

Everybody wants to win and have more wins in their name. That's if you're talking ladder. If you're talking friendly games or practice games, then no. Then I must say that some people LOVE long macro games, and some people love to rush and proxy! There's no problem with a game going on a while for ME.

Is defending agaunst a rush unbalanced? As in nithing can defend against a really good rush?

If you rush and fail, usually you're far behind. But that depends on the rush, amount of damage made, counter reactions... If it's an all-in rush or if you're just making early timing attacks.. Usually just scout! That's a good starter to see if an early rush is comming! And if you're a good player you can stop any rush or proxy if you have scouted your opponent and not done something crazy like go command center the first thing you do versus a 6-pool Zerg. It's all balanced!

Do you think the rocks are a good counter to the rushes?

Rocks in those "training/nub" maps that block of your main definitely stop (early) rushes. But, I'd hate to have every map have you bunkered in! A part of Starcraft is rushing! You shouldn't take that away!

 

I think the TL podcasts said it best, the StarCraft beta was mostly about rushes. Yes, the StarCraft 2 beta is the same for now but it will change just like it did before. Another factor is map size and player count. Once we get more variety in this, I beliee that'll also help.

Of course, it could just be that StarCraft 2 is a faster game and it's playing with the veteran's sense of time.

 

I for one try to beat the toss as fast as possible.....dont like them carriers

 

Starcraft 2 is a much faster game than SC BW. Better pathing ,automining and MBS speeds up the game considereble . Best Terran rush defence vs Protoss and Zerg are to block the ramps with supply depots(or barracks) until you have a decet force of Marines and Maruaders.

However, at Youtube I have seen Terran rushes like Reapers rushes, but they take longer tiem to produce after a patch. I have even seen a stupid rush where a Terran player beat a Protoss player using a Planetary Fortress rush. He simply teched until PF was avalelbe, SCVS entered commandcenter, float it over and landed in opponents base and upgraded it to a Planaetery Fortress that killed everything.

 

ALL RTS GAMES ARE RUSH GAMES.

rushing = easiest way to kill noobs. bottom line: if he had enough time to build x number of units, so did you. learn to play the game better and their rush will fail.

 

Personally I like having some maps with lots of rush preventing rocks there. Just so people can have rushcraft games on the other maps and at least have a chance to get to teir 2 in the maps with the rocks. I'm not against rushcraft and I'm not for it either. I just would like players to have the opportunity to have quick and long games if they want to. Variety is the spice of life they say.

So when I get to play SC2 (that'll be retail knowing my luck) I'd want a mix of rush and non-rush games. If I can't get a few non-rush games in, then I'll stick to custom maps and scenarios.

Say this is true, then why bother even make a tier 2 and 3? Just have tier one and no more. Cause in rush games very rarely does even tier 2 get touched. Just perfect tier 1 and rush all day long.
In short what's the point if units/buildings existing in the game when you never get to use them?

 

because tier 2 and 3 are for when rushes don't work.

RTS stands for REAL TIME strategy. it's about building the most effective army as fast as you can. if you can kill the enemy with tier 1 units then do it. this applies to every RTS game ever made.

higher tier units are for people who
1. scouted properly and knows a rush will not get through the enemy base.
2. defended the initial rush properly and knows higher-tier units are more cost-effective than just massing low-tier units
3. breaking through a turtling enemy who specifically built their base to defend against a rush.

the only reason you'd never get to use them is because you suck and you keep losing to rushes, or your enemy sucks and keeps losing to rushes.

like i said before- if they had time to build X number of units, so did you. you should not die to rushes if you are at least as good with economy as your opponent.

 

This topic is not about rush tactics. it's about 99% of games being rushcraft and how that is affecting the overall experience of beta that people are having. And obviously this is having an effect. People seem to be taking rushcraft for granted. Like SC2=Rushcraft. And most people seem to be ok about it.

Tactics talk is all about how to make or survive a rush, what to do before and after a rush etc etc. Most tactics guides and even others posters here like the one above expecially just take it for granted every game will have a rush. They don't even plan for a non rush game. it seems in many people's minds it really is rushcraft.

I'm sure if Blizzard made it that on ladder that games longer than say roughly 20 or 30 mins were worth 2x or 3x as much to your ranking then a quick rush game, then I'm sure players would make sure their games are longer. That'd kill many rush games right there. Cause with the ladder setup as it is, there's no incentive to play longer games. Just get cheap quick wins over and over and you get a better ranking. Also they could have a ladder mode where the first winner after 20 or 30 mins wins. ANd if you win before that time, it's classified as a loss cause you won before the timer was up. Just another idea but same end result as the above idea I had. I think Blizzard needs to give more incentive to play a longer game.
(I really think someone should post this on the official beta forums for blizzard to think about. I quite like these ideas).

I'm sure even with the above ideas people would still rush and just leave enough fo the enemy alive until the time was up and 2 seconds later kill what was left of the enemy and win. But I'm sure Blizzard and other smart beta testers could take these ideas and turn them into something actually useable.

I know you can not equate SC1 and SC2 game times. because of SC2's better unit pathing, beter build queues etc etc. You can get more accomplished in a minute of SC2 gameplay as compared to a minute of SC1 gameplay. I don't think this was intentional by Blizzard. But all these fixes in SC2 really made many of the slower aspects of SC1 a thing of the past.

Mind you with today's busy lifestyles many people don't have time for long games. But a few quick 10 minute rush games people would have time for. And I think many of SC2's fanbase is of this portion of the population with little free time. So in this respect rushcraft is a good thing for them. And since it looks like retail ladder will propably be rushcraft to, this suits the casual players even more.

And on the flip side of the coin. Those with lots of free time or wanting a meatier SC2 experience will have single player campaigns, and the custom campaigns and other user created stuff. Sure a lot of that is single player. But I think that is how SC2 is evolving. You have to look outside of ladder/general multiplayer for a long game. Mind you I'm not against this. I just think how SC is evolving is really interesting.

 

I dont really agree with you on that the8thark. In most of my games the first rush will fail or push one side more defensive and one side more offensive. The tactics vary if/when there is an initial rush, but if I'm sitting here with a bunch of tier one units and some guy is spending all his early rescources teching to carriers you bet I'm going to kill him because I wont be able to kill the carriers he is making 2-3 minutes down the line.

In my experiance there is an early rush in 50/75% of the games I play...there is a succesful rush (note: killing economy or destroying parts of a base) in about 25% of the games I play. This is a fair use of a rushing tactic, using tier 1 well to prevent people from early teching to tier 2-3. Guess what I do after I do an initial rush however? I mix in tier 2 units and hit them again, or maybe split forces and sneak in the back to raid while I force an army into the open....the options are wide and varied past that inital rush.

.I think many people are having trouble with tier 1 combat however...tier 2 and 3 aren't given units. You cant sit there at the start and think "I'm going to make a fleet of carriers" Its a given way to get yourself killed when part of your opponents budget is spent on harrasment. A better way to think of this would be "Combat in stages". You'll have combat at thier 1 with both tier 1 units in the mix, then a tier 2 combat with your chosen advancement to counter what you think your opponent is going for. If both round 1 and 2 have no victor you go for the big tier 3 guns and pull out the stops, but skipping tiers 1 or 2 of combat does and SHOULD leave you open to counter.

The obvious question here is now, so do you advocate rushing every game? Note: I said tier 1 combat, not where or when it happens...block off your ramp with enough force to hold back attacks and you'll have much more of a tier 2 advantage if you get there. You aren't FORCED to rush in order to win, but you are forced to participate in tier 1 combat which is what I think gets many people frustrated.

 

No. I am all for balanced play where ther players can choose to take part in rush and non rush games as they see fit. But I agree with you tier 1 combat is not always a rush. And yes you have to use tier 1 units. To earn your way to tier 2 and 3. And I agree most people think all early tier 1 combat = rushcraft. And that is just not the case. It's like any game you have to beat level 1 to get to level 2. And here you have to get past the tier 1 stage to get to tier 2 and 3. So in this respect I totally agree with you, that people can and do become frustrated by this.

I think your numbers are a little off. But we all experience different games/replays to each person's experiences can be different.

 

I think it's natural for an RTS Beta to be infested with Rushing Attempts just like all Blizzard RTS betas before. Even after the release you will see people cheesing some rushing builds and you will read posts about people complaining how this rush is unbeatable. Give it some time and then you will realize that it is quite beatabel. I still can remember how people used to say Huntresses Rush in WC3 was unbeatable but the next patch Blizzard buffed Huntresses! We just need to learn to play better. Then and only then we can say whether certain kind of rushing is effective or not.


Do you think beta is rushcraft?
The only common rush tactic I've encountered is Void Rays, I was destroyed many times and there was nothing I could do about it. But now I wish my protoss go Void Rays because I think it's easier for me to face a Protoss Void Ray rusher than a good player who uses Protoss to their real strength.


Do you think everyone is out to win each game as fast as possible just to have more wins to their name?
That is sadly true and I don't understand why they do that. :wacko:


Is defending agaunst a rush unbalanced? As in nithing can defend against a really good rush?
I'm not a good player and I get beaten in a normal game more than when I get beaten by a rush so I really cannot tell if I can say "there's nothing I can do to defend against named rush". I heard people saying this rush is unbeatable (Marine + SCV rush) if against Zergs but sinceI play Terran I never faced it.


Do you think the rocks are a good counter to the rushes?
You mean the block of rocks on ramps? These are bad and I think they should be removed. It only hurt those with low APM.


Or do you disagree and think the early game (or entire game lol) is fine as it is?
The average game is fast (20 minutes average) which is, in my opinion, is perfect. I think with a little bit of tweaking the game is fair when it comes to vareity. You can press-rush if you want, you can harass, you can defend and tech, there's Early Game, Mid Game, Late Game. I think that's very healthy and I like variety.

 

As a Terran player (maybe this is different for the other races), the only times I've ever lost to a rush is when 1) I failed to scout properly, usually in my own base or 2) the other player is engaged in some ridiculous cheese.

I've had players proxy gate me and that's worked a few times but I've smartened up now.

Now they can bring that rush, because it sure as hell means there's going to be a massive force of Terran infantry rushing up their choke in about 30 seconds.

 

Well from what you say JonX, rush counters are way to OP'd. For my liking rushes should be effective about 50% of the time with 2 players of equal skill. Since you can defend against most rushes, means in my liking rushes need a buff. Either rush defences need a nerf or rushing units need a buff/boost. To make the 50% win/loss of rushes.

The below post I know but I don't want to make a new post. And that's another reason I think rushes are not balanced. Against all races I'd like the 50% win/loss ratio of the rush.

 

haha its pretty much impossible to rush a good terran player.

 

I have seen in a replay a banshee rush. I actually don't know if the zerg player did something wrong (he maybe expand to early) but he just had his queen to defend air. For Protoss it should be the same.

 

No. At the very least, no one 13-pool rushes me.

No. That doesn't work. The AMM isn't even working properly, but it still makes it hard to get far from a 50% win percentage.

I don't really know what you mean, since I've yet to be horribly early-rushed.

Only on novice maps. Otherwise they block secondary entrances, but a rush usually hits early, and that means not taking advantage of those secondary entrances.

Early game is a bit boring. Always doing the same thing, especially the first few minutes.

 

Yes, since rushing is not only Zergling rush. There are Roach rush, Baneling rush, Mutalisk rish, Banshee, MM rushes.

Yes, everyone, including me. I mean, who wants to lose? If you dont rush, you'll be rushed, or pushed away from expos. I think it is the way the game is meant to be played. You rush (or get rushed), survive, then you harass, and bug your opponent. As a Zerg player, I know I can't leave Terran os Protoss alone, or I will get Steamrolled...

No, you only lose to rushes if you "assume" there are no risks and don't defend. It take 2 Zealots to defeat a Zergling rush, or 3 Marines. Terrans can defeat ANY rush since they can easily block their choke point way before Zerglings can get there. For Zerg, a Spine Crawler will do the trick. From there on, you scout. Perhaps he will go fast air, you may consider it a rush, and if you dont have some Hydras/Stalkers/etc, you lose.

Nope, they block only rear doors or shortcuts.

No, I agree, early game is brutal. Check out my videos to see a sample ;-)

 

Thanks everyone for your imput. We all basically agree rushing is a part of starcraft.

I have another question.
Do you think rushes should always succed, or always fail or be a 50/50 win/loss success rate of each individual rush?

 

Rushing should 90% fail IF and only if your opponent scouted you and saw it coming. Your opponent would then react with a hard counter to your rush plan. However, if your opponent never bothered to scout or anticipate your rush then your rush should work 90% of the time. In other sense, rush against good players fail 90% of the time and against bad players work 90% of the time.

The problem with rushing builds is it requires no thinking. The rusher knows what to do before entering the game with a set of orders he has stored in his memory. He then casually execute these steps and send his units, that shouldn't give a 50% win chance (no matter what) because it would promote pre-programmed playing which doesn't reward reaction-playing.

It is always hard to "react" to a strategy than plan to do one. If the opponent saw the rush coming the opponent "reacts" to it and must think in seconds what to build and do it fast which probably interrupts his original plan. That is MUCH harder than memorizing a build and attacking at xx:xx time and see if it works; repeat. Which justified my suggestion to make it fail 90% of the time against good players.