Talk:Rush (computer and video games)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rush (computer and video games) article.
Article policies
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of Mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Contents

[edit] Rewrite of "Culture" Section?

This may simply be my personal stylistic bias showing through, but it seems that the "Culture" section of this page, while interesting, needs to be cleaned up, possibly to the point of a total rewrite. For example:

In RTS-games that have been played for a long time, anti-rush strategies are usually developed, causing most rushes to become more of an attempt at early pressure rather than a direct attempt to win the game, though the latter still sometimes occurs.

In the Age of Empires series, sometimes, certain rules are applied in which the players are forbidden to rush before reaching a certain age period. Such rules are simply a mutual understanding between players. In the latest RTS-games, the developer made rushing an almost futile strategy. This was done by strengthening the settlement by further fortifying it with projectiles and, in some other cases, with towers. Another change was to make the villagers stronger; attacking the villagers with weak units was no longer a profitable business.

I may give it a shot later, but I just wanted to bring it up in case anyone felt like beating me to the punch. Jonny-mt 18:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translation made

I translated this page to fr:wikipedia and added some elements. Thank you for your job :) --Meithal

[edit] Redirect from "Zerg Rush"

should not "zerg rush" be redirected to "zergling rush"?

[edit] Possible Racist Bias

In StarCraft, the rush is often accompanied by chat that includes East Asian-style Internet lingo such as "kekeke" and East Asian-style emoticons such as "^__^"; this is indicative of StarCraft's popularity in South Korea.

This sounds borderline racist ---172.185.53.67 03:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Anon

Anything can be construed as racist if a person wants to see racism there badly enough. It's not racist. StarCraft IS immensely popular in South Korea (even today), and the "kekeke zerg rush" meme did originate from Korean players. teh TK 02:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

a soft cackle? Mallerd (talk) 12:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

"Kekeke zerg rush" is a statement of mockery,just like "you got owned noob" or " what a loser,hahaha".Zerg uses hydras as core unit all the game,its versatile,fast and has enough firepower to overwhelm expensive units(even tanks). typical hydra rush,requires enough production capacity to overwhelm(usually 3hatch build orders,close to midgame),can be complimented by lings,is far costlier and of course effective strategy then zergling rushes(you need to have superior defenses(guarded minefields with bunkers/tanks/turrets),strong counter-units(i.e zealots,lurkers,tanks,medic/marines,cloaked units)) to stop hydras. I think it should be noted such rushes are more properly termed builds(build orders),(muta build,hydra build,muta-ling build,archon-arbiter build,etc)because they will work the entire game(with reduced efficiency as the enemy builds defense),serving as recipes and guidelines for warfare.Even at endgame,a dozen zerglings will still be threat.

[edit] Harassment

Ive added a harassment section, since harassment is more widely excepted than rushing, and also covers lots.

[edit] The Fighting Game examples.

Perhaps this section should be reworked, at least in the examples column. It seems to be merely listing main characters, and I would disagree with some of the list, especially since many of the character recur throughout their series of games, enduring drastic changes in gameplay and reworkings of moves and tiers, making it impossible to consistently maintain a single strategy. I would especially disagree that Ryu (Street Fighter) fits the profile, and in a lot of other cases, we seem to be confusing rushdown strategy with lockdown or pressure games. Either way, I'm calling for a revamp of the entire section, and I'll work on it when I've had some sleep. -- Digital Watches 08:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zerg Rush merging with Tank Rush

I don't think this is accurate. A zerg (or more accurately a Zergling rush) is mobbing the enemy with massive amounts of cheap units early in the game. A tank rush is a different technique altogether, involving overwhelming power in the form of large numbers of high-end, expensive units.

I don't mind the 2 being merged together, as long as they are strongly contrasted. Tank Rush, Carrier Rush, etc. is basically the opposite of a Zerg Rush. They are both effective offensive strategies, but other then that they are opposite. I'd say the spectrum goes Zerg Rush, Rush, Tank Rush, Turtling, Walling Up, Delaying Game. Mathiastck 15:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to merge, they are different tactics as Mathiastck said. I will 'be bold' and get rid of the template, seeing as there seems no reason to leave it there...feel free to put it back if someone has an argument for the merger.Darkcraft 12:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
You guys are confusing "tank rush" and "mass tanks" in context of StarCraft. "Tank rush" means you build minimal marines and go straight for tanks. You can tank rush with 2 tanks. "Mass tanks" is what you were saying "involving overwhelming power". --Voidvector 22:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] chess gambit

how is it a good analogy with rush? how?

[edit] Rainbow Six Vegas

The article mentions Rainbow Six Vegas using the "Realistic" difficulty setting to prevent Rushing. However this only applies during single player and co-op, not multiplayer deathmatch. The "Realistic" setting only applies to NPCs, and has no bearing on other players.

The effect described is actually to counter the StormTrooper Effect.

[edit] Article should be split

This article is trying to describe two different tactics/strategies in gaming. One is act of "being the first". The other is the act of "massing units". Those two are distinct concepts in most video games. While they do play hand in hand in most games, distinction needs to be drawn. --Voidvector 13:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

How about it gets sourced so it won't be deleted, then we talk about a split? David Fuchs (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, unless circumstances change. Massing units, and massing units first, are not all that different in concept. I don't think you could create two articles without overlapping the content. Moreover, the word "rush" is, in fact, used interchangeably in practice. Unless you can demonstrate convincingly that we need 2 articles, I really doubt it is going to happen. So I'm removing the tag, as it's been a few months and no one has offered a basis for the split. Ham Pastrami (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Precisely, what kind of sources would be good for this article? I mean, please, give examples of sourcing that would be good for this article, not just a link to the guidelines pages, which anyone can find by himself. 160.92.7.69 13:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think well-established strategy guides can be used in this case, since they are like the only literature that would include such information. "Well-established" meaning published on official website or in print, not some random forum. --Voidvector 22:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goblin Tactics

Can anyone support the term Goblin Tactics? It is only mentioned at the top of the article and I personally have never heard this used. I can see where the connection between some lore sets goblins and zerg may be logical but unless anyone can confirm the use of the term it probably shouldn't be mentioned in a culture article like this one. ASA-IRULE 22:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sections

I have merged most of the content on this page to 3 sections based on 3 main genres of games: RTS, FPS, and Online RPG. I used Online RPG because "rush" can apply to both MMO and non-MMO RPGs. In addition, I have ordered the sections as RTS, FPS, and then Online RPG because I believe that reflects the "rush" history development best. --Voidvector 00:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Dark Templar in StarCraft

Shouldn't the Dark Templar be added to the Harrassing or Raiding section? Its cloaking ability is similar to the "Wind Walk" ability, and it has a pretty good damage meaning it can effectively destroy enemy production units (i.e. the Probe, the Drone, the SCV...) .PRhyu 12:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article name

The disambiguation for this article is not correct. A rush is not a "computer or video game". The disambig tag should be something like "(tactic)" or similar. Also the usage of the word seems more heavily weighted toward a verb, which means we should be using the -ing form, i.e. Rushing (tactic), since we are describing mainly the act of rushing and not so much the word rush itself. I will leave it to you folks to decide what to do, but I think some change is needed. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mammoth tank rush?

I'm quite sure that in Command and Conquer 3, GDI players generally rush Pitbulls, not Mammoths— because by the time you had the time and technology to build Mammoths, the time for rushing (see definition) has passed, and it would be called "steamrolling".--KelvinHOWiknerd(talk) 03:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC) KelvinHOWiknerd(talk)

I agree. Massing the unit on the other end of the technology tree can be overwhelming, but not due to its speed. --Kizor 10:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rushing and spammming

Strictly speaking rushing is a special case (early game, low tech) of spammimg, which is the use of a large number of similar units - e.g. Vampire Lords in Heroes of Might and Magic III (a TBS!), Amazon Knights in Total Annihilation: Kingdoms, Slashers / Samsons in Total Annihilation. IMO it would be useful to make Rush (computer and video games) and Spam (video gaming term) support each other as much as possible, to mimimise duplication and make room in each article for more content that is specific to each article. Philcha (talk) 10:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That's true, the use of a Death Knight and Ghouls in Warcraft 3 was what I was thinking off. By the way, I don't understand how you can see Vampire lords early game and low tech. Perhaps the vampire estate can be purchased early, but to make vampire lords (spam)effective you need a lot of them. That is hard to do, in early stages of the game. Mallerd (talk) 12:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge "Tank rush" into "Rush (computer and video games)"

I've proposed that Tank rush should be merged into Rush (computer and video games). Please comment at Talk:Tank rush. Philcha (talk) 10:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit]  ?

"The alternatives to rushing are turtling and economic boom. These have a rock-paper-scissors relationship: a rush beats a boom, a boom beats a turtle, and a turtle beats a rush"

A turtle can't beat a rush, especially a rush that is early in the game. There are often weak defenses against formidable units. Mallerd (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the truth is that it's dangerous to generalise. Games vary, for example many reviews said that Total Annihilation: Kingdoms makes early game rushes harder than in most RTS games. And maps vary - rushing (or preparing as if to rush, just in order to defend against a rush) is often almost mandatory on small maps, but may be economic suicide on large maps as the intended victim has time to get in a little economic development first then build units and / or structures to hold off the rush. And chokepoints can enable a small defensive force to hold off a more numerous rushing force.
"Boom" is also not the term I'd have chosen, but "economic development and expansion", although perhaps more accurate, is less concise. Philcha (talk) 01:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
That's true. I have played warcraft 3 and frozen throne, company of heroes, age of mythology, praetorians, warzone 2100 and all the C&C games except C&C3 and newer. In the games I played, at least a human player never "booms" in particular. Everyone wants to get money, but units are necessary, even to expand economically. I've never seen anyone just create economic buildings and no units. Or does economic boom mean something entirely different in the context of videogame tactics? Mallerd (talk) 11:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I have to admit this is the 1st time I've seen "boom" used in this way. But as I said, it all depends on the game and the map. For example in Starcraft island maps (at least one is included on the game's CD) there's no point in military spending until one has the means to build air transports and / or fighters, and the prerequisites for these are expensive by early-game standards, so you crank up your economy first. Much the same is true for Red Alert 2 and its offshoots, although the choices are more complex.
However your initial point remains valid: "a rush beats a boom, a boom beats a turtle, and a turtle beats a rush" is a ridiculous generalisation that's false in probably the majority of cases. Philcha (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The times that I've seen a good turtle in action, in C&C Generals Zero Hour that was, it was actually a turtle only because it had boomed economically. The guy just always had money. Most games start with limited recources which makes it difficult to build formidable defences within say, 5 minutes. I think it is safer to generalise with this statement. Do you think otherwise? Please comment. Mallerd (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
It depends on the relative costs and effectiveness of defences versus rushers. For example in Master of Orion II (a TBS) a couple of battleships (total about 1800 production points' worth) will generally avoid taking on a Missile Base (150 production points, IIRC) early in the game - although Master of Orion II’s blockade mechanism provides an economic discouragement to turtling. Based on the range of games I've seen, I'd say any generalisation about this is dangerous. Philcha (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I am all with you now, since this example clearly shows that not only unit statistics make it dangerous to generalise, but also individual players. I would almost say, delete the sentence with the rock-paper-scissors comparison. Mallerd (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Taking your previous comment in consideration, I was thinking about Warcraft III some more. In that game it is possible to train a Blademaster Hero which is able to windwalk, that means he turns invisible and has increased movement speed. This way, the hero is capable to destroy the resource gatherers of the enemy on its own. So, rushing is not strictly speaking spamming of low-tech units. It is just attacking real soon. Besides, the Blademaster rush also negates the statement that the rush cannot defeat a "turtle". Mallerd (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
A tricky point. Some authors distinguish between rushing and raiding, although IIRC it aplies more to Total Annihilation’s economic model (important static resource collectors outside the initial base) than to the Warcraft / Starcraft / Age of Empires / etc. model (where your resource-gathering workers are close to your start-point in the early game). Philcha (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)