Is Rushing Ok?

[Ringo]

I usually rush, and I expect to be rushed unless other rules are CLEARLY stated before beginning the game. As always this is as much a form of defence, and not just a way of trying to win quickly... And it is also as much a gamble on the rushers part - if the rush fails misserable.
Moving the battle field over to the enemy also keeps the enemy occupied, and thereby buying the rusher time to build up his own defences.

I just played a quick-match in Generals, where my opponent started bitching over me rushing. I usually tend to play quick-matches because there are no pre-game discussions about rules like "no rush 10m", "no superweapons" and so on...
Rules that seem to be impossible to uphold anyway, either because someone simply breaks it, or because there is some confusion in interpretation of the rules.

By playing without fictional rules, there really is no way to be angry - because you accept the REAL rules of the games and expect anything from you opponent.
Just my opinion - let me hear yours...

 

[Rico]

I fucking hate rushes because anyone new to the game is going to screwed. I can usually prevent most rushes from murderizing me except for the better GLA tunnel operations, though. It still annoys me as it takes up time I'd much rather spend in the build queue (I'm a bad multitasker)

That said... I play with friends usually so we mutually agree not to rush (none of us are good at it anyway) and when I played online I just chose no rush servers... or if it was a normal server and someone rushed me I lived with it, and didn't bitch. Moral of the story is, if you don't want rushing, host or join a no rush game instead of self-imposing your rule that nobody else follows.

So in summary Ringo, I think you're in the right, but I disagree with your style of playing. It's like camping in FPS games - you are more vulnerable but you can get easy kills, and few people agree with your playing style.

 

[Jr2swiss]

I'm not sure in Generals, I played SC, but i'm perfectly fine with rushes. Yeah it'll kill beginners fast, but its not really fun if your playing an unworthy oponent. . If they are beginners they should play in beginner games.

Rushing is perfectly fair IMO.

www.gp32z.com

 

[generalnmx]

If your opponent asks you not to rush, then you should abide by their wishes, otherwise you're just a griefer. Of course there is a chance you may be up against a griefer who lies to people about being a newbie and/or not rushing, but that's the reality of life - we can't escape evil. To do something evil just to escape evil is pointless and stupid. Of course I am using evil in the literary sense here, but you get my point.

If you play to win, I'll never play against you, nor will it cause me any regret to be beaten by a wimp who can't stand a fair challenge.

Given this, I find the poll ambigious and I can't answer it.

 

[PinkSpider]

Depends on the game... On Total Annihilation I set a game up with around 30 min build time.... meaning both teams had a chance to build defences/ an army; and in turn a more fun game. On Tib Sub I played a mixture of techniques; I used to block my base off and rush with the units I got when I started, and if the enemy where foolish enough to try and scout they would fail and die... but if that didnt work it would end up in a drawn out game cause they couldnt see my base and I could see theres; plus by the time they could see the land I would have thousands of artillery all stealthed.... This is the technique that got me to number 2 rank in the UK. Oh and it pisses me off when people do it in Warcraft 3... I like to train my hero up first :/

 

[Ringo]

If your opponent asks you not to rush, then you should abide by their wishes, otherwise you're just a griefer.

​

I consider myself fair, and I don't break rules if they are stated before beginning. In generals however there is something called Quick-match, where it matches players up who just want to start a game. In this type no rules by standard apply, since there are no pre-game setting up.
I see where you're coming from, but it pisses me off when the "no rush"-rules is something my opponent decides upon, when I got a small force in his camp. Also because I expect to be rushed by opponent, and couldn't know if we were playing with special rules.

If you play to win, I'll never play against you, nor will it cause me any regret to be beaten by a wimp who can't stand a fair challenge.

​

A bit harsh I think, since I just (finally) play thegame by the rules set by the programmers. Don't know if you play Generals Zero Hour, but not rushing say a "Super Weapons General" is just stupid, since allowing him to build up his defences will make his base near impossible to attack, allong with some wicked weaponry.

Oh and it pisses me off when people do it in Warcraft 3... I like to train my hero up first :/

​

I just recently was introduced to Warcraft 3, and haven't really gotten in to it - so I wouldn't know (It pisses me of that the troops get in the way of each other).


Unlike what you might believe of me, I'm NOT a 1337 Generals player. My stats in the games is something like twice as many losses as wins. I just found that there are way to many unfair players on the net (setting fictional rules with the intention of breaking them), and by playing without rules no-one is unfair.
I agree with Rico that playing with people you know, is a better gaming-experience since you agree on the same rules. However even when I play a few friends together, we play without special rules.
This is however not a style of playing I have praticed in other RTS-games before.

On the topic of playing to win. I don't know if anyone have seen the article on the subject on Sirlin.net . It's a rather interesting read. The reason I don't post the exact url, is because the homepage has a lot of interesting dev-articles about game-balancing, that does not deserve to stand in the shadow of a "playing to win"-topic. Rather post the link in a different topic for developers to notice.

(allthough the homepage is stated in this article)

 

[DemonStar55]

I don't like rushing but I usualy make the fisrt attack because their slow

I use to be able to do a fast rush w/ protoss on SC but I ferget my tatics seince I don't play it anymore

my firend use to do a SCV rush w/ terrean in SC :rolleyes:

 

[Aaaaaaaa]

What is classed as a rush?

 

[mattmagoo]

AFAIK its when someone attacks too early thus ruining the game

'too early' cant really be defined

I play the Age of .. series and i hate people doing that, i try to plan out my village for the long term and they come in and fuck it all up b4 i get the chance to build much

 

[Rico]

Not just 'attacking too early', but rather setting up a factory and churning out endless offence units in large hordes whilst building up your own defenses. The idea is that the victim will not have built his defence up yet and so your units can destroy much of his work-in-progress base. The only real way to defend it is to 'rush' defence as well so that you have a couple of turrets or whatnot to dispatch the rushing units.

 

[Ringo]

What is classed as a rush?

​

Also a good point. Once I was playing in a "no rush 10 min"-game, and was being acused of rushing bacause I overran a supply-depot of my opponent... Not his primary supply-source - one farther up the map.

In this case the "no rush"-rule apparently ment "Don't attack any of my forces, whereever they may be within the first 10 min." :rolleyes:

 

[raven]

Damn they should have had these rules a little over 50 years ago. Hitler would have never gotten away with his annoying blitzkrieg strategies :rolleyes:

I do not like rushing myself but it's a strategy and IMO it's a bit silly to complain about the way your opponent is playing. If you haven't set any rules before you start playing everything should be allowed. It's a war, remember?

 

[generalnmx]

I consider myself fair, and I don't break rules if they are stated before beginning. In generals however there is something called Quick-match, where it matches players up who just want to start a game. In this type no rules by standard apply, since there are no pre-game setting up.
I see where you're coming from, but it pisses me off when the "no rush"-rules is something my opponent decides upon, when I got a small force in his camp. Also because I expect to be rushed by opponent, and couldn't know if we were playing with special rules.

Of course the rules need to be stated at or before the beginning of the game, and stating them while you are under attack is just plain silly.

A bit harsh I think, since I just (finally) play thegame by the rules set by the programmers. Don't know if you play Generals Zero Hour, but not rushing say a "Super Weapons General" is just stupid, since allowing him to build up his defences will make his base near impossible to attack, allong with some wicked weaponry.

If you don't like not rushing opponents that can quickly get amazing defenses, then don't play against those who insist on no rush Each game has a different definition of "no rush". Blizzard RTSes have fairly balanced teams, while games like the one you mentioned can be rather unbalanced. So if they say "don't attack for 10 minutes", you can say that's unfair and not play against them. Just don't force them to play by your rules, since that's unfair in itself.

 

[LHC]

I don't play online RTSs, but matches that end within 3 minutes seems like a waste of time.

 

[Rico]

They should make an infinite RTS (just like those 60 minute matches of AvP 2... those were the days) with say five players and six bases. As soon as one base is destroyed, the defeated player starts up in the empty base where he builds up a new force. Obviously alliance is key here if he is to survive, but even if he is defeated he would just pop up again. There will always be an empty base so whenever anyone is defeated they just pop back up again. The game goes on forever!!

 

[Ringo]

They should make an infinite RTS (just like those 60 minute matches of AvP 2... those were the days) with say five players and six bases. As soon as one base is destroyed, the defeated player starts up in the empty base where he builds up a new force. Obviously alliance is key here if he is to survive, but even if he is defeated he would just pop up again. There will always be an empty base so whenever anyone is defeated they just pop back up again. The game goes on forever!!

​

I'm sure something like that would be possible in Blizzard's game-series, since custom maps seems to be able to be programmed in any possible way.
I remember the Pac-man clone for Star Craft.

 

[DemonStar55]

They should make an infinite RTS (just like those 60 minute matches of AvP 2... those were the days) with say five players and six bases. As soon as one base is destroyed, the defeated player starts up in the empty base where he builds up a new force. Obviously alliance is key here if he is to survive, but even if he is defeated he would just pop up again. There will always be an empty base so whenever anyone is defeated they just pop back up again. The game goes on forever!!

​

I'm sure something like that would be possible in Blizzard's game-series, since custom maps seems to be able to be programmed in any possible way.
I remember the Pac-man clone for Star Craft.

​

lol that map is awesome thier also is a pacman map on CS