The Legitimacy of Cheese

General Discussion
Prev 1 3 4 5 14 Next
My first problem with cheese is that my 4 year old brother was able to cannon rush a plat zerg player and win the game from it.

My point. A really bad player can be a far superior player with very, very little effort.

My second problem with cheese. It doesn't allow for creative game play. Cheese games are not fun to watch. At all. Its just, oh he's cheesing. Hope player "x" can scout it and hold it. A main focus of this game is to be creative. Not to win every game in the first few minutes.
10/16/2011 06:43 PMPosted by iDontKnow
Cheese definitely takes less skill than playing a full game, you cant deny that

unless you focus fire with your cannons (cannon rush) or micro your zealots (proxy 2 gate)


You also have to focus fire units in a full game, and you have to focus fire with far more precision and speed in a full game. Whether or not you do so can be the difference between victory or loss, far more so than just telling a cannon to focus fire a marine (which it will probably do automatically anyway)



If anybody really wants to Objectively measure skill of full game vs cheese, just take a bunch of brand new SC2 players, give them a 10 minute lesson on how to cheese, and a 10 minute lesson on how to play a macro game, and then pit them vs Diamonds
Half the new players cheese, half the new players attempt a full game. See which play style
accumulates more wins


The test isnt even necessary. We all know the cheese would win
Objectivity vs subjectivity huh? Technically, you could claim that nothing is objectively true, because every "truth" must be known by a subjective individual. That being said, are you trying to say that cheese is legitimate because there is no such thing as illegitimate? A perfect parallel to that argument could be that murder is not immoral because morality is subjectively defined.

Don't make an argument you aren't prepared to commit to. If the vast majority (I understand this fact can be contested) decides that there is something underhanded going on, that's a decent indicator that it is "illegitimate" in the same sense stealing or slander is illegitimate or immoral. Just because there is no "objective truth" behind saying cheese is lame does NOT mean the opinion isn't justified.


But there is an objective standard of legitimacy: the fact that the game allows it in the first place. Anything the game allows is legitmate, and anything the game does not allow is not. No subjectivity. No moral implications. Just facts.


But we're not trying to prove whether or not Cheese is legitimate.

We're saying Cheese takes way less skill, which can be proven objectively
Finally! Thank you, Dutch. I've been trying to convice people from the get-go that cheese is legitamite, but because I'm a "bronze-league noob," my opinion counts for nothing.
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html

If this were real life and you were coming at me with a sword and I shot you with a gun, as you screamed "cheese!" with your dieing breath, I would relish in the fact that I was still alive.

Winning is winning.
basically, most people who "cheese" dont feel confident in a macro game, so they all in. they're scared that their rank might drop if they spend time actually learning anything.

on the other hand, if you can't hold it, you deserve to lose.
Cheese is considered an inferior playstyle and "less skilled" because as the game develops and cheeses are figured out the ability to win games with cheese without a solid macro game to back it up becomes an extremely unstable style that will not win in the upper echelons of competitive play, whereas being a strong macro player, even without cheese, can still hold you at the top of a developed competitive scene.

Example of a cheesy player who did well when the game was new: bitbybit. I don't see him in code S now. Also BoxeR was very dominant with cheesy micro-management play back in 2002 when BW had not fully developed yet (and developed very slowly due to the fact replays were not released). As the game was figured out and his gimmicky playstyle faded, Boxer could no longer maintain his status as a top tier player. He had okay macro games to back up his innovative play, but nothing compared to macro bonjwas...

Such as Flash. Yes, Flash sometimes cheeses, but since he has risen to the top of the scene much much less. He doesn't need to cheese to win because his mechanics are stupidly strong and he can just beat people in straight up games.

Edit: just to clarify I think that cheese is fine, however should be used carefully and in moderation. Throwing in a few carefully planned cheeses can enhance the power of your macro based games, especially in BoX series.
Cheese doesn't take a different skill set, it barely takes any. There are two reasons to cheese.

1. Your opponent is greedy or you expect them to be greedy and you want to punish them for it
2. Your macro ability is severely lacking to the point where if you get to the midgame you are almost guaranteed to lose.

#1 is a legitimate reason to cheese. If you know your opponent is going to take greedy expos then you can punish them for it, that's part of the game and honestly I think people who do take greedy expos are just as bad as the cheesers since they are just doing a set build without adapting it to whatever information they scout from their opponent.

#2 you don't see a lot at higher levels, but are rampant at mid and low levels because they've basically picked up one cheese build that can win them a game in under 8 minutes and that's all they do every game no matter what.
10/16/2011 05:48 PMPosted by AaronRodgers
dallas couldnt finish the game against the patriots bunch of overpaid losers. they had it and blew it classic POS team.


ur awful mad about the Cowboys considering you play for the Packers.
Cheese is legitimate it's fun to watch and takes skill to exicute and requires a risk to be taken just like playing the macro game
Going through the idra game threads, its painfully evident that people get really, really mad when cheese is present. These people also fail to understand the concept of subjectivity vs objectivity. Guess what, kids? Cheese is legitimate.

The two main arguments against cheese:

1. Cheese is boring!

Says who? nuff said. Cheese is exciting, cheese is boring, who is more right? Nobody. Personally, I like cheese. You may not. This doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong, or vice versa. This is not a legitimate argument.

2. Cheese doesn't allow for the game to be decided on skill!

Also incorrect. Cheese requires a different kind of skill; see Boxer v. Idra. Idra is very orthodox, excels in macro play, and is known to rage in the face of cheese. Why would Boxer willingly put himself at a disadvantage to allow Idra to play to his strengths by playing a conventional game? The very decision to cheese shows exceptional insight into the psychological aspect of the game. While cheese may not require macro skills and positioning, for example, it requires extremely quick reaction time and critical decision-making skills. Are the former skills more legitimate than the latter? No, they are different. Boxer is clearly far better at making snap judgements as evidenced by his bunker+scv push vs FE in game 6.

The main problem with everyone crying about cheese is that what one person likes, another may dislike. They don't understand that there are different aspects of skill involved in the game and that no one strategy is more "legitimate" than the other regardless of the justification.

The e-sports aspect opens up analogies to other sports - guess what, cheese exists. Teams that forsake one aspect of the game for another are rewarded and punished for it all the time - look at any team that builds their team around offence while sacrificing defence. Same concept. Are the Washington Capitals cheesing because they have Ovie, Backstrom, and Semin lighting it up? No, their defence is full of holes and they get routinely owned because of it just as often as they own teams susceptible to their strategies.

Bring it on, kids. Tell me why cheese makes u mad and how its ruining the game.


Absolute win. +1
But there is an objective standard of legitimacy: the fact that the game allows it in the first place. Anything the game allows is legitmate, and anything the game does not allow is not. No subjectivity. No moral implications. Just facts.


If we're saying that anything that is allowed is legitimate then there would be nothing to argue about at all, and any strategy would hold as much merit as any other. Clearly there IS an element of subjectivity, because a large population of players believe cheese is illegitimate (or apparently do). What were you trying to achieve here?

10/16/2011 06:45 PMPosted by ZCBP
Ooh, and a Kierkegaardian appears on the scene. I like it, and a nice point. But I still think cheese is legitimate and I think the comparison to murder is a bit extreme. A wide enough consensus has agreed that murder is detrimental that we have laws on the books against it. Nothing like the same thing can be said about cheese.


Have to do something with my philosophy degree =) I wasn't equating cheese to murder, that would be absurd. OP thought he was all tough by talking about objectivity vs. subjectivity, was just pointing out what his position might imply IRL.
Probably only people in the lower league dislike cheese because their knowledge on the game, thus their decision-making senses, is lackluster.
I love playing against cheese; it adds a new excitement to game and it helps me practice my decisions making. :)


But there is an objective standard of legitimacy: the fact that the game allows it in the first place. Anything the game allows is legitmate, and anything the game does not allow is not. No subjectivity. No moral implications. Just facts.


The game allows for stream sniping (Blizzard could ban streaming if they wanted), so that's allowed?


Yep.
This is an RTS, so I agree that all strategies are legitimate. There isn't actually anything wrong with cheesing.

But don't try to pretend that cheese takes just as much skill as other types of play. It doesn't.

Managing your army while at the same time macroing up and making sound tactical choices all at the same time will always take more skill than doing an early game cheese and microing it properly.
Cheese is legitimate, but boring to watch. It takes less skill and can result in a better player being knocked out by a worse player, as very very often happened in PvP pre-1.4, as the only strategy that worked was the 4 gate all-in so very good toss could easily be knocked out by worse toss in tourneys. Now that the matchup has been fixed somewhat we get much more entertaining matches, like the ones in the MLG final.

In general I find cheese very boring to watch because of a few things: it involves small numbers of T1 units so we never get to see the cool stuff the game has, it involves less skill in general so we don't get to see really good players make really good decisions and macro and scouting and transitions, etc.

I also find it frustrating from a spectator's point of view to watch a better player lose to a worse one, especially when I was hoping to see said better player go face to face with other good players later in the tournament. For example, how awful would it have been if richman had knocked out HuK really early, or knocked out IdrA before he had a chance to play Boxer, Bomber, and MC? Ugh that would have sucked.
10/17/2011 12:37 PMPosted by GrInquisitor
But there is an objective standard of legitimacy: the fact that the game allows it in the first place. Anything the game allows is legitmate, and anything the game does not allow is not. No subjectivity. No moral implications. Just facts.


If we're saying that anything that is allowed is legitimate then there would be nothing to argue about at all, and any strategy would hold as much merit as any other. Clearly there IS an element of subjectivity, because a large population of players believe cheese is illegitimate (or apparently do). What were you trying to achieve here?


Well, you see, that's what I'm getting at. There actually isn't anything to argue about. Cheese is legitimate, and a large population of players are simply wrong.
About cheese, I'm mainly annoyed that zerg have so little of the same compared to Terran or Protoss. It's more of a dictating the game issue than anything else for me. There's very little initiative compared to the other two races.

Despite how big calling people son and kid might make you feel, it actually decreases your credibility rather than increasing it.

This times 500.
If cheese is supposed to be balanced and fair to all races, then why can Terran and Protoss do it so well but Zerg have literally no option besides the terrible 6-7-8 pool?
I am a literal noob, but i have a question. this is an RTS right? Real Time Strategy. If i was a general and had the means to easily crush my opponent, and know i dont have the power to defeat my opponent "legitimately" i will use the easy way. All's fair in love and war

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum