Poll: Rushing and you

[Tibike77]

I don't see rushing as being inherently a problem. What I do see as a problem is the fact most RTS multiplayer scenarios (at least those usually built into most RTS titles at launch) start off with just the barebone basics that allow you to bootstrap your development, and THAT makes rushes possible (and desirable) in the first place.

I would like to see is the option on just about any map you play to start off with an already-built mini base (especially some fixed defenses) and some small amount of units too, all of which would render rushing as a do-or-die strategy practically moot.
Ideally, there would be several levels of the pre-built bases, from the "minimalistic" start that's almost the only option nowadays up to a fully developed end-game-size base... and also variable (selectable) initial unit pools.
Or, heck, maybe some kind of "pre-game resource pools", where you set up your base and your units TowerDefense style according to some "pre-game resource costs", in a frozen time mode, before the game actually starts.

The possibilities are endless, imagination is the only limit.
It's not the rushes that are bad, it's the fact that rushes are almost always a good idea that's bad.

 

[Dancingman]

"Sometimes quantity has a quality of its own" It's worked in civilized warfare since the days of Sumer, why change what works?

 

[DarkDain]

Anyone can lose to a rush, even pro's, they are not easily countered and sometimes its dumb luck that saves you, or dumb luck that can make your rush kill you. Two evenly skilled players, if one of them rushes/cheeses, your pretty much turning the game into a dice roll. Game could use a truce time that you can set.

 

[Pearwood]

Ironically enough I've just seen two cannon rushers in a row. The first one won by surprise, the second one got scouted by my overlords, probe killed by my drones and base blown up by my banelings ^.^ boom boom boom!

So yeah I agree that cannon rushing is cheap.

 

[magicman4443]

I don't see rushing as any worse than any other cheese strategy. Anything that's a really ridiculous way to win, be it teching straight for carriers and then spamming like there's no tomorrow, or rushing in with zerglings, I feel it doesn't really hold in the spirit of amassing armies and then tactically controlling them to see which player is ultimately better.

 

[Matt Kloepfer]

I hate rushing. It's true.

Well to be fair, SC2 makes a good attempt at balancing out this strategy, as it's pretty easy to rush with each race. Terran have the reactor and can build simultaneously from more than one barracks. Protoss have warp gates, which I've used countless times to spawn in an enemy base, and Chrono Boost. I'd say the balance is pretty good, but this is just speaking from one RTS experience. Many others have horrible balance with rushing strategies, so I hear you man.

 

[sarge1942]

my cousin thinks i suck at RTS's because i don't rush, mainly in a game called crusader, you start with either 2,000 gold or 10,000 and some resources, in that game you are able to buy and sell resources at a market, one of the cheapest buildings, so he sells everything and speed builds mercinaries who are created immediately and swarms your base, he can have about twenty guys on you before you've even built a single sword, anyone can do it but it's just so... cheap, it becomes who can press the hire button faster. in short yes i hate rushing, i always die by it.

 

[TerranReaper]

I have a replay of me beating a cannon rush, wanna see it? =D

I'm still confused on how you interpret rush, since it seems different from my definition of rush. I consider rush to be an early attack while it seems like you consider rush to be what we call an "All-in" tactic. Of course, seeing this is Starcraft, there are ways to prevent it. Seems like people consider scouting to be highly overrated these days though, you'll be amazed with how valuable small bits of information can help you.

 

[Freshman]

It's wrong, because its not S&R
if you're strategy is not to scout and react, you're doing it wrong. If you scout and see the toss rushing void rays, you gather a force and attack as soon as possible, that rush is informed and makes sense. If you just send off your dudes as soon as you make them, and you win, you're opponent is an idiot, and so are you. that person getting rushed clearly didn't scout, and if they had, they would have had plenty of time to turtle up in response. the rusher, not scouting either in this case, is an idiot for sending off his dudes without knowing whats out there, but he got lucky.(unless in multiple players per team situations, getting rushed by 18 lings instead of 6 is basically impossible to counter, IMO).

The only problem I've seen so far is zerg v protoss rushes because toss generally play gateways a bit back from the entrance so that their troops will still be able to exit the base. so the 6 lings can run in against the 1 zlot, kill it and then hit the probes or gateway pylons. however, I beleive this could be countered with a different decision on gateway placement, but they have no early shooty units, so it could still be a problem, unless the zlots are spawning on the ramp side of the gateway.

 

[Freshman]

Well to be fair, SC2 makes a good attempt at balancing out this strategy, as it's pretty easy to rush with each race. Terran have the reactor and can build simultaneously from more than one barracks. Protoss have warp gates, which I've used countless times to spawn in an enemy base, and Chrono Boost. I'd say the balance is pretty good, but this is just speaking from one RTS experience. Many others have horrible balance with rushing strategies, so I hear you man.

terran can rush reapers too, slightly less effective, but hillarious when it works cuz they didn't scout

 

[CanadianWolverine]

Before someone starts calling "noob" on me, yes, I know that I suck at Starcraft. I am simply horrible. Yes, I know that it's relatively easy to repel a rush if you work quickly and skillfully. That's not what I'm talking about.

I've always viewed RTSes as complex thought games in disguise, or as I like to call it, "Exploding Chess". A proper player needs to have an extraordinary sense of awareness and must be able to use everything at his disposal to defeat his enemy. It's really an elegant game, if you look past the gore.

In fact, that is the reason why I like Starcraft: unlike every other RTS, where most of the battles are simply building up the most offensive units and throwing them at each other, SC requires a lot of thought and manipulation. It's the smart man's RTS.

It's (please specify) a fine thing to do in moderation with Def and Econ - for a REAL TIME strategy game.

Don't take this the wrong way, I am totally not a good player at RTS games competively either, my actions per second (or whatever the unit of measurement is) is pitiful. It hardly matters what my strategy is because the other guy is a bind king or prince or magistrate or ... I don't care, I just suck at whipping together a base in a few seconds and rolling out units to defend, rush, or gather. So you know what I realized and I get the impression from the tid bits I pulled out of your Original Post?

You probably would have more fun sticking to either single player RTS or alternatively: go play Turn Based Strategy single or multiplayer. Then you really will be playing "Exploding Chess", since RTS is only comparable to chess if both chess players are taking their turns at the exact same time trying to move pieces around the board quicker than the other guy - what are you willing to bet chess games like that end up with one of the players going "Screw this!" and rage quiting as he slaps the board and pieces off the table after you both basicly push crap across the squares in one big two handed shove of "pwnage"?

In real time and real life, its just as important to quick as it is to be smart, strong, durable, accurate, efficient and profitable but for the rest of us, turn based is probably where its at. Just sayin', the Quick and the Dead and stuff.

 

[Freshman]

So i read everybodies responses now, and I'm still going to say any player who scouts it out, and sees the rush should win every dam time, In Starcraft or Starcraft 2 (or any other good RTS). If you didn't, you just need to get better at the game. other RTS's however, this may not be the case. age of empires 2, scouts are too slow, maps too big, easy to hide a barracks and rush, shut down their resource gathering, especially as the huns (no pop buildings required) halo wars, rush warthogs as the proffeser lady and you win, always ( the only counters I've seen are arbiter, which is pretty sketchy, and building 4 turrets (human only, covenant ones always miss cuz hogs too fast), which lets the opponent expand as much as they like, you still lose).

In most RTS games, there is a Rock-Paper-Scissors relationship. It's Rush/Tower/Economy.

A "Tower", a very defensive person, will focus very quickly on defensive structures, stationary defenses, and powerful, slow moving units. When a rush person attacks full force, the defense person has an advantage. Defense is naturally easier, because its on your terms. There strategy is tailor made to defeat rushes. After the battle, the rusher has nothing, but the tower has most of his defenses left. Pack up those slow moving defensive units, move them to the enemy base, unhindered thanks top the previous defeated rush, and the rusher is destroyed.

An Economy person is ready for the long haul. They build a lot of gatherers, research a lot of tech, and will be building the top tier unit in as little time as possible. A tower person prepares for an attack from the economy that never comes. Then, the tower players defenses don't look so fancy when the economy comes in with units tiers above the towers.

A Rusher builds the basic unit as fast as humanly possible, to catch the other by surprise. An economy player will have an impressive number of SCVs that don't mean anything against the endless hoard of zerglings. The economy players measly defenses might fend off the rush, but not without a crippling blow to the players base and resources. Meaning the second attack will be like taking candy from a baby.

If you have a problem with rushes, focus more on defenses. Look for slow moving units, stationary units, and AoE units, as well as whatever best counters your opponents base unit. If your just not good at that strategy, which may be likely if your having a problem, try a Rush strategy of your own. Maybe try to harass more, or look for other defensive options or weak spots to exploit. If the problem is ground only units, get fliers and harass. There is a solution. Worst case scenario, play the side you have problems with against the race you usually play, and figure out what works against you.

this dude is exactly right. but before you commit, go see what your opponent is doing, and pick the option that beats them.

 

[Crazie_Guy]

This is why RTS games have long since lost favor with me, being ostensibly little more than glorified action games based just as much in the way of manual speed and precision as a platformer. That's not to say I don't love many RTSs, but they are improperly labeled as strategy games. Real strategy games are best served up turn based.

 

[TK421]

I will put my opinion on this topic in simple terms.
[HEADING=1]FOR THE SWARM!!![/HEADING]

 

[spartan231490]

Rushing is a tactic. A really good strategist is good because he can counter any tactic you use. that said, i dont care because i don't play rts. even this thread is only mildly entertaining. however, i object to your objection of a tactic because it is barbaric. It is a game simulating a war. Of course it's barbaric, it's all about killing hordes of "people". btw, some would say that taking boys from thier children when they are under 10 years old and mercilously training them to be soldiers is barbaric, but it worked pretty well for the spartans. Most people would say that it is barbaric to kill infants and young children because they are disabled, but it worked pretty well for the spartans. and i bet when you watched the movie 300, you wanted thier side to win. didn't you?

 

[Gudrests]

Well....sometimes the best way to beat an opponent is to kick him in the face before he can fight back...thats exactly what rushing is...if you look at Sc2 as a fight...rush = swinging as soon as you both know its a fight...and not chaning back then running at the guy...because if he see's it...he can counter it...yes everyone knows you can couter a rush by building just as fast but..Common...thats like complaning that in chess someone gets to move first......like really...what kinda RTS would stop a play from attacking in the first 1-3 mins...not very real to me lol

 

[IxionIndustries]

I hate rushes, especially fucking zealot rushes. Those things are so damn hard to kill with lings, and somehow, the computer opponents and human opponents always seem to get like 8 of the fuckers.

Yeah, that's why I don't do melee. I always go for the custom games.

Scout early, if he's got 2 gates before a cybernetics core, he's gonna rush. build a queen and a couple of spine crawlers and place them near your mineral line, That will scare him off and leave him vulnerable because he now has to build up his base. Good luck and happy swarming!

Naw, I can usually wind against the Protoss in SC2. It's just SC1 where I have issues.

 

[Pearwood]

Hm gonna ask a related question here - does anyone know how the hell you get through photon cannons massed at their ramp as zerg? Burrowed roaches don't work, the bloody overpowered things are detectors, banelings don't work cause you'd need 20 of them just to get 1 close enough to hit the damn things. Mass air doesn't work because they know that's the only way you can get past their cannons and build anti air. So any tactic that's not those three?

 

[vivalahelvig]

It's MONTY PYTHONS FLYING CIRCUSSSSS.

OT: its ok in tf2, as in, a heavy rush with a leading demo axe knight!