Talk:Rush (video games)

message: 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)
thread_title: Rewrite of "Culture" Section?

message: 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)
thread_title: Possible Racist Bias

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Fighting Game examples. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Zerg Rush merging with Tank Rush 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Article should be split 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Sources

message: 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)
thread_title:  Goblin Tactics 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sections 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Dark Templar in StarCraft 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mammoth tank rush? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Rushing and spammming

message: 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)
thread_title: Merge "Tank rush" into "Rush (computer and video games)"

message: May come in handy:
*Rushing and Raiding - copy from defunct Cavedog site. Philcha (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources / notes

message: I've never heard the term "four pool rush" before, even though I spent most of my life playing broodwar for 18 months.  I've always heard it called "6 rush" (6 zerglings), and it has a "4 rush" variant (4 zerglings).Codik (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  4 pool rush

message: Raiding: "Raiding, by contrast, implies a focus on "hit and run" (or "bite and flee") attacks on an enemy's resource gathering units and apparatus".
Harrassing: "Harassing is almost the same as the process of rushing, but being extremely cautious so as not to lose the 'harassing' units. It involves hitting valuable but unprotected targets, such as poorly-defended resources, workers that are not blocked off, or merely annoying enemy forces via the use of fast or stealthy units."
So what's the difference? --203.33.167.161 (talk) 09:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between 'raiding' and 'harrassing' is unclear. 

message: Let's forget StarCraft for a moment.
Rushing is a perfectly legitimate technique employed in many RTS games nowadays, even blizzard's own Warcraft 3. Now, I will honestly say that I wasn't an avid SC player, but I *am* a regular ladder player in wc3 and it's not "unfair". Rushing and harassing, as well as countering said tactics, is all part of the current meta. Besides, people rarely win games solely based on a successful early rush. Additionally, successfully countering rushes can be as destructive if not more so than attempting to do it at all.
Speaking as someone who plays Warcraft and Dawn of War(the latter being sadly horribly unbalanced), I think this article is too hung up on what the terminology meant back when SC was all the rage. --217.129.10.40 (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the top poster, rushing is still an accepted strategy, and regarded as an almost mystical talent when observing someone who does it well as it requires a speed and efficiency beyond the norm. Yes, back when RTS games first came out, it was considered unsportsmanlike to rush. People preferred to build up an attack, then charge, repeat until you ran out of resources. Nowadays is a lot different.
"Rushes that are guaranteed to lose you the game if failed, also known as "cheese", are still seen as cheap way of winning however."
The above sentence is based on very old views and should be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrissd21 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rushing and how it labels players as "newbies" 

message: A Zerg is when one force greatly outnumbers another and wins by sheers numbers.
A Rush is when one force attacks the other so quickly that it catches them unprepared.
I suggest separating the two, as they are two distinct tactics.
A "Zerg Rush" simply suggests a rush using a far larger force than the opposing force.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.76.22 (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The entire link and definition is wrong! 

message: "It is analogous to the blitzkrieg in real-world ground warfare, in which speed and surprise are used to overwhelm an enemy before they build a sizable defense."
Not really.. Surprise has nothing to do with it, speed kind of.. It's more of a mass numbers thing. Zerging in Age of Empires 1 was an axemen rush, no surprise, a lot of speed, more of a "I have 50 axe men, you have 5".
Surprise is a main factor of a blitzkrieg. As such, I vote removing the reference as while it does give an example to a non-gamer, it does it in such a way that the viewer starts with a wrong idea. Chrissd21 (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blitzkrieg Usage 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Rush (video games)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "ywwr":
From Experience point: 
From Mob (computer gaming): 
Reference named "shahromine":
From DikuMUD: 
From Mob (computer gaming): 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Rush (video games)]] 

message: Dont know how to reference. 96.240.34.47 (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death by Proxy references 

message: Removed the section on "dancing." First, dancing has nothing to do with rushing or harassing; it's a micro technique and can be used in any type of battle, late game or early, offense or defense. Second, the definition is wrong--the point of dancing is to counteract focused fire by "dancing" the targeted unit backward, forcing the enemy to chase it while your other units fire at them. Finally, dancing works quite well with hydralisks. 99.181.230.148 (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dancing Section Removed 

message: I'm perplexed by the TCG section that says trading card games "such as Magic: The Gathering" call this tactic "flooding." While I can't speak for other games, I've played Magic for 15 years, attended tournaments regularly for 6, encountered hundreds of other playes, and read countless strategy articles and I have *never* heard this tactic referred to as flooding. Most Magic players would call it a "weenie" or "aggro" strategy (and might call it a "swarm" or "rush" when you attack with a bunch of cheap, expendable guys), but if you said you got "flooded," they would understand that as you drawing lands (resources) for several turns when they are no longer needed. If this actually is a term used in a TCG, the example should change to whatever game that term is used in. 64.119.55.158 (talk) 03:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who Calls it "Flooding" in TCGs? 

message: This is all very interesting commentary on how people play video games, but Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia. Would someone like to try to convince me why this should not be sent to AFD? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Gaming tactics do not merit deletion simply because they are gaming tactics (see the numerous tactics listed in Template:Chess, for instance), but seeing as this article does not cite any reliable sources, it doesn't seem like it meets WP:GNG, meaning that it should probably be sent to AFD regardless. ~Mable (chat) 07:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this an encyclopedia article?