Rushes - good or bad?

Block your choke or something, you need to fight early game to make it into mid-late.

 

I find rushing really annoying.

In StarCraft II, there are a lot of maps with really small chokes, however, such as Blistering Sands. (Often, there are back ways to bases screened by LoS blockers or blocked by rocks, meaning the small chokes will lose their significance as the game progresses, preventing excessive defensive stalemates.)

This is a bit of an ironic development; in Brood War, all the new tilesets deliberately have wider ramps.

 

Yea, ever tried retreating up your ramp with goons when a terran has you contained? It doesn't work, it's almost better to stay and fight and die in 3 seconds.

 

I don't enjoy getting hit by a rushing opponent, which is why I prefer to get one in first. I'd prefer it if these games made it difficult to exploit rushing, where great sacrifices are made to do it and more often than not leads to failure.

That could be accomplished with default base defenses, like damage done by the Main, that prevents small numbers of units attacking your base. But don't make it too strong -- just enough to make rushing into a difficult choice.

 

Rushing is part of the game and is what makes SC such a fun game. If the defenses are too strong, then every single game will result in people turtling and teching up. There will be no early game action. Early game units would be useless and no one would build them if defenses are too strong. It is why that there needs to be a mix in between. I believe SC1 has this mix in that defenses aren't too strong to make rushing useless. But they are good enough to help fend off rush if you execute properly.

Without rushing, early game will be extremely boring. The reason SC was such an entertaining game was that the minute you start the game, you have to be aware of everything around you. You can't expect to tech-up without receiving any penalty. It's part of the strategy. Do you risk your early game and tech-up and set up multiple expansions? If you succeed, and your opponent doesn't rush or find out, you will crush him mid-late game. Take a look at a pros matchup. Most games started off with a battle scene right off the bat with Tier 1 units. If the opponent is not equally skilled, the game would end right there. However, during that span, if the players are evenly matched, the players would expand + tech-up + constant battle in between. If the game is very good, it will end with Tier 2.5-3 units.

I personally always rush in a game because I love the fast and intense action from the get-go. I don't like to turtle in my base. This isn't sim-city. This is SC. A fast-paced real time strategy game. If you can't stop a rush, learn to deal with it. Once you lean how to deal with it, you will appreciate the impact that rushing has in SC.

 

Well said Ych, well said my friend. Wish I could word things like you can.

 

Just to toss my hat into the ring on this issue, originally I never liked rushing, I still don't. Like the OP said I believe rushing changes the dynamics of the game to make it more micro intensive which gives the advantage to the person who can micro better, I have never been good at micro hence why I dislike the impact of rushing. However, every non-UMS map I have played has a setup where a player can defend against a rush with no losses or close to no losses. Right now if Sc2 maintains the Sc feel it will be riding the edge of whether or not rushing is to powerful just like Sc did. I think if rushes were made any more powerful than they currently are then there would be a problem, however if they are made to much weaker then the game will lose its feel. Despite my hatred of rushing one of my most memorable games involved me being rushed. A Terran player hit my main hard and pretty much had me on the defensive the entire game, atleast that is what he had believed. After he finished destroying my main base and began looking for my expo he found his entire army of Vultures and Tanks surrounded by Zealots and Archons, his primary force went down in less then a minute and in his haste to destroy my main he never made enough defenses and his main quickly followed the path of his army, bringing out the GG.

I don't like rushes, and I think they should be discouraged a litle bit more than they currently are but they do have their place.

 

If you had an expansion already (especially one that wasn't your natural), it wasn't really a rush. A rush is someone building a really early barracks/spawning pool/gateway and attacking with the very first units that come out.

 

I think what Kerwyn meant was he was rushed at the beginning of the game, and his opponent kept the pressure on and eventually destroyed his main later, after he had built and fortified an expansion.

 

A proper rush is say, the typical 6 drones, spawning pool, 6 ling build order. Thats a risky gamble since you set your economy back, and it isn't done in most maps.

What's normal is early game harassment. Some people can't handle the mental pressure when they are forced to improvise to defend their base when they were not prepared. Starcraft has always forced you to deal with those unexpected troubles.

This is no gentlemanly game where you don't attack until your opponent feels prepared, this is a wargame. No mercy, everything goes. Thats what makes starcraft such a successfull game and it should stay that way.

 

IMO rushing is as a valid tactic as every other tactic in SC. If you say rushing should be banned, why not ban some other tactics that when get you unprepared, destroy you without any chance of survival, such as a mass army of BCs or Carries. Or even the muta rush.

The point is that all this tactics are absolutely not a win/win situation. They do have a cost. A failed rush means you lost a lot of early game economy. Rushing through tech to get early muta, BC or carriers means you are completely exposed in early-mid game. What I try to say is that all this tactics, unfair as they may seem, are in fact a gamble that players SHOULD be encouraged to make (I dont like masses of BC or carriers though), because those possibilities are what make SC the great game it is.

If you dont like rushes, play another RTS, one that has a slower pace, such as AOE2. But if you want to play SC, you sould be willing to rush and be rushed.

 

Is rushing not biased towards Protoss and Terran? Zerg are at a disadvantage.

 

How are zerg at a disadvantage? They can generally hit faster and with more units to keep from economy etc.

 

For some years now the zergling rush has not been considered a first class strategy. Experienced players tend not to use it anymore, instead favouring a fast expand or working up to a muta harass or a hydralisk/guardian combo.

 

If non-zerg players do a rush against a zerg, they have a high chance of defeating the zerg in the early game. Something should be done to counter this.

 

Well the zerg do have a badass queen now...

 

Zergling rush is used quite often.

Though you're right about the fe and muta, it is highly favoured.

Hydra, guardian? You do realize that this is very very insane on gas right? A zerg will need five gas for this.

 

Maybe he means hydra's and lurkers...

 

Possibly, which is a pretty common thing to do. I hate lurkers, luckily, you can see where their spikes come from, and storm that spot.

Jasmine is a woman by the way.

 

Darkone you seem to hate the Zerg. And rushing is still a valid strat, but even if you took that out (at least early rushes) all that would do is force the players to rush with other units that are higher up in tech. So u can't really conpletely remove rushes. Think I the galiath the mutalisk and the archon were you first units. Then there would be muta/archon/galiath rushes intead of zerglings/zealots/marines