Rush poll

[Spulm]

Yesterday when I was playing DoW with Amir. He said that some guy told him that Rushing requires less skill than normal playing. At first I thought, nay, but then I started to think better and now I wonder.

Rushing is just a fast build queue and good timing. If you are faster than the other player, then you win. But what is the reason why you need more skills in mid games or ate games.

Okay, this a bit weird explanation of the poll, but I just woke up and I am messed up :confused:

M.

[mOle]

to be fast... u need to be good.... it also takes a good players to stop a rush

[Admiral Piett]

LoL spulm...u just made a post about me....i am the king of noob rushing, if i dont win by that...(won about 70% of them) then i am totaly scrued....i end up being weaker and weaker as the time goes in a game...care to teach me :lol:

[mOle]

lol... hehe, thats how it goes... example with Generals:: ZH

If using rush, they can sell thyre HQ after building a supply dp... and get alot of extra cash... but if they dont win by rush (10% chance they loose :p ) the are F.U.C.K.E.D

[The Fell Hand]

Well, the poll itself is a little broad. That's like asking, is a person who's good at math, smarter than non-math person?

The obvious answer is no, but, however, if it's the sole quality we are evaluating, I think the answer can be hypothesized clearly and concisely.

If two players are of equal skill play each other, and one rushes...the one who rushes is most likely more adept at the early game, from having rushed often, and well, if you play 1v1s and intense, high level games, you'll notice there always is a harass to see if the opponent is vulnerable to rushing. This is called an RTS. Plain and simple. So that said, people can be bitter, and declare rushers as unskilled, but if you haven't the skill to withstand that rush, well, then you won't even get a chance to show any skills later on. That's why I can encourage players to temporarily abandon "fun" gaming for sake of learning to survive the harsh world of early games with rushes and skilled micro users.

Is a vocal person more qualified to get a job than someone who is timid and doesn't
catch the employers attention? Is a rusher more skilled than a non-rusher? Point being, short answer, YES, long answer MAYBE. You have to GET to later game to even get a chance to compare your later games. Some rushers are one trick horses. The best rushers are simply highly skilled players pressing the obvious advantage. No shame, in fact, shame on those who DON'T make an opposing player pay for not being prepared early. Play RTS' for years on end, and this becomes quite clear. Someone who's adept at early game, is POSSIBLY more skilled than a player who isn't adept at early game. For all you know he sucks. For all you know he's just ending it as fast as possible to get that win, because you aren't even worth their time.

^damn that's so right. :P

[Spulm]

Well, the poll itself is a little broad. That's like asking, is a person who's good at math, smarter than non-math person?

Yes, I know that, but I mean most of the time. I did not add it to the poll question because I did not know how to put it in good Englsih... :|

Meh. like I said, just woke up ;)

M.

[ilia]

Statistically true. Statistics can be wrong, though.

[MVB]

If you can't rush, you're less skilled than someone who can rush, because your skills later on never come into play.

If someone is 100 times more skilled than someone at late-game, but can't get to late-game b/c he can't handle rushes, then he's not very skilled at all.

Nevertheless, I think late-game is important; many know I'm playing more or less only 2v2v2 lately, and it's b/c of skill-type issues such as the fact that in straight team vs team or 1v1 it's just build fast and build lots, and the best build order plus build speed plus a little economy and micro wins, rather than the person who is tactically and strategically wisest.

[Mistress Crystal]

Not being able to rush isn't to say that someone can't stop a rush.

It's all a matter of play style. Either you're aggressive or defensive. I'd say about 75% of the time the aggressor will win, but there are still some players out there that are good without rushing.

Beating back the rush takes just as much skill. What I do, is I use MVB's rush build, but I only aggress to the middle of the map. I take my opponents down 1 point at a time. Chop the legs off and lean... I don't think that's rushing, but it's worked everytime since I've adapted it.

You just can't do that. You can't say rushing is for skilled, and non-rushing is for losers. It's all opinion and how you play the game. Different people use skills differently.

[Foree]

Rush's effectiveness also depends on the map you are playing on - some of them favorise it, some not, just with being better for a diff race.

Rushing is always a matter of skill and experience, though there are 2 types of rushes -- to destroy and to stop. Obviously, the first one is the most risky as you gotta throw all your ressources on the fight without a fast tech advancement so if you lose, you're as well as fucked, while the other rush leaves you a door -- you only halt the enemy, but if you fail you still can make an effective comeback.

You just can't do that. You can't say rushing is for skilled, and non-rushing is for losers. It's all opinion and how you play the game. Different people use skills differently.

Exactly

Though I rush 90% of the time I don't think of defensive tactics as noobish or lame, as it all depends on the situation and gamestyle.

[MVB]

My point is just that someone who can rush/rush stop (Which I consider the same) AND play mid-late game is more skilled than someone who can only play mid-late game.

When I say that I consider the two the same, by stopping a rush you are building up units fast enough to match one, which means you have the basic skills required to rush yourself if you so choose.

[Morpheus]

I must say, though, this game doesn't have that many variations of gameplay. You either build to rush or to defend against it, building order being almost the same all the time. If you choose to tech and get quick-rushed, you lost the game. Even if you got a full plasma squad very quickly, it will still loose to 3 regular SM squads. There's very little variety to the strategy of building and teching, most of them being in 3v3 and 4v4, where you can build to match different races of the opponents and to complement your teammates' forces.

Wouldn't it be so cool, if there was a game with very dynamic gameplay and also have high speed and intensity? Get the best from HW2 and DoW together - that'd be awsome.

[MVB]

PLAY 2V2V2, BECAUSE IT HAS STRATEGY/VARIETY/ETC.

[amir]

well i think if u rush and succeed u are skilled but if the other player beats ur rush they are skilled to.
but as many other people said if u cant take a rush but u are skilled in late game u cant really say ur skilled cause if u cant take a rush u never gunna get to the late game.
over all i think if u can make a succesful rush in more than 1 occasion u are more skilled than the person who cant take a rush(or make a rush). :thumbup

[2biT]

The statement is true because..

Most rush players are better skilled than non-rushers which are mainly noobs.

The real question should be..

Do you think rushing games takes more skill than tech climbing games..

And the answer is rushing = very good macro, tech climbing = go be a accountant and stop playing dow..

The best games are tho's that go back and forth between rushers all the wile the tech tree is climbing..

[mOle]

attack is the best defence

atleast in !v1, 2v2 etc

but i have to agree with MVB about its best playing 3 or more teams... so you need to do both attack and defence at the same time

[ilia]

attack is the best defence


Actually not in DoW, since the recent wave of turret mofos assures that you do my style - hold them back, but dont always run guns blazing into their base.

[Blacksand]

Always a debatable point. Always an entertaining debate.
The basic argument comes down to .. some people say rushing takes no skill or is lame, ect, ect. These are -mainly- the same people that want to host a quickstart game and have a 5 minute grace period from attacks.

I am an agressive player, I always have been, and I always will be. Agression does not always translate into rushing.
Harassment attacks from my inital scouts, killing the worker before the commander is even out, ect, ect .. these are tactics, nothing more. I fail to see how this can be considered lame or unskilled, it is simply a lack of preparedness on my opponent's part.

I can remember a game on Mortalis where I was hit by my neighbor's initial ork squad before my first scout was even out. It had me offbalance and reeling the rest of the game, I mean .. BADLY. I was effectively taken out for the rest of the game, and that is the point of a rush.

In my experience, defensive players or turtlers usually lose. There is always an advantage to offense, and that is the fact that you usually have control of the situation. If you've taken the fight to the enemy, you can dictate the terms of the fight. They aren't going to be able to cap new points, hit your flank, ect, ect. And all the while you should have a squad capping new points, focusing on tech, making sure your reinforcements are getting to the front lines, and so forth. They will more like than not be spending all they have trying to beat back the rush and even if they do, you'll still be at an advantage because of superior economy. Again, this is mainly in my own experience.

[laserflip]

My point is just that someone who can rush/rush stop (Which I consider the same) AND play mid-late game is more skilled than someone who can only play mid-late game.

When I say that I consider the two the same, by stopping a rush you are building up units fast enough to match one, which means you have the basic skills required to rush yourself if you so choose.

rushing and playing well early game are totally different things. in HW2, for example, i can rush with ints anyone and win. but if you int rush me, and i dont rush, i will still win. why? because i can build ints just as fast if not faster than you, only i DONT attack. if someone builds fast but doesnt attack, a rush is 100% useless against him. people rush work against are people who build at medium or slow speed early game in favor of setting up economy/resources.



And the answer is rushing = very good macro, tech climbing = go be a accountant and stop playing dow..

..
and THAT is why jews cant rush.