Slut Rushing

[peow130]

I just wanted to let you all know how distasteful, unskillful, and completely gay slut rushing is.
Not only is this strategy completely full of faggotry, it's aimed to win the game at an early rate. Why, you might ask? Well, my only reason i can think of is that the player slutting is really just terrible.
Honestly, slutting isn't even a good strat.
You're using a civ strictly designed to get mass swords out an early rate to target the other guy's eco.
You're fucking pathetic. I may not be a pro mid sh player, but even i can say that this strat is fucking bullshit, and is grounds for an immediate altf4.
I fucking hate all of you slutrushers, go fuck yourselves.
P.S. I hope you all die of fucking cancer. Assfucks.

/rant

[taco]

it might be because some of us are capable of booming whilst building an army at the same time.(crazy i no) and at sometime u will b required to build an army and attack to win the game. its been a commendable strategy in almost any muliplayer game and is unavoidable. for instance if u play with ppl who dont attack untill 60f11 and u attack them at 20f11 they would comsider this a rush. so ur not going to actually ever play a game in which some1 isnt rushing.( i am aware of the few key differences between rushing and slut rushing) however the same principle applies for both.
the only reason i can think of for u not rushing, or accepting rushing is that ur a cb'er
/end of counter rant.

[lightnessking.]

I do agree slut rushing is playing for victory, but it's also a tactic.
In the end, 90% of the boomers will survive a slutrush, and outboom the rusher.

[peow130]

Yo im all for rushing.
Thats cool idgaf about that.
But rallying your units to another persons base is pure faggotry.

[taco]

rallying units is still rushing so u are or arnt all for rushing?

[empire2]

I dont know if this topic is irony pure or meant to be serious?

[Eisregen]

on 4vs4 larg map or 1vs1 expan civs are fucking strong in 3vs3 or 2vs2 small map its hard against rush civs but expan it works too.
imo this makes aoc mid much more fun cuz u have more options fast rushing turtle much biger fights with counter and big bases.
the proplem with most expan player is they counter not fast enught.
if u just build sword better use normal sword civ or ca civ.
with expan civ u always need counter fast that makes u fucking strong agains sword rusher since they cant switch units fast.
fight vs expert expan player is much harder then vs expert rush player.

[taco]

on 4vs4 larg map or 1vs1 expan civs are fucking strong in 3vs3 or 2vs2 small map its hard against rush civs but expan it works too.
imo this makes aoc mid much more fun cuz u have more options fast rushing turtle much biger fights with counter and big bases.
the proplem with most expan player is they counter not fast enught.
if u just build sword better use normal sword civ or ca civ.
with expan civ u always need counter fast that makes u fucking strong agains sword rusher since they cant switch units fast.
fight vs expert expan player is much harder then vs expert rush player.

i really disagree with 4v4 ive always found that expan has let the team down more then anything. the 30 civ points could be used for pop cap, mili ups even eco ups. anything which could give u that little advantage when u hit pop which will happen quickly as its 155. i dont c the use of expan, sure u get more cits out quicker but i garentee that those cits u make who ever is ur wing will lose just as many because of ur lack of army. all 4 players settlements imo is the strongest. and when eec made the conversion over to aoc to play mid that was only re-enforced as our top players at the time were getting beaten by simply team work from the eec players. the eecs skill wasnt much better then ours. they were just cutting down the wings while the aocs pocket tried to boom and like always had to try and fight a 2v1 on there side.
i might have it wrong and looking at it from another perspective expan might not be the problem in my example it might be the fact that some1 who is given expan will automatically start over booming unless paying attention to it.
anyway this is a much better discussion then mid dm, i mean 8 pages on a sett which 2 from what ive read 2 ppl claim to be pros at and not much else.

[Eisregen]

a good knight boom can easy beat two no expan player
same with cav boom yes at start rush player have some ca more but dont realy hurt u with moral
but mass balis will end it..
with good team play it isnt that hard vs 2 rushers expan is no excuse for sit in base and boom.
It's up to the map/spots and playing style waht civ is best if u dont expand and fill the map with buildings better use a rush civ..

[Captain Nemo]

I know that poew doesn't demand much seriousness in this topic but it is an interresting one non the less, because it stretches out to many setts. In Mid SH I've never really concicered it much of a problem many players have learned to resist this "slutrush", but for those who have not yet learned the trick they'll die every game in 5f11.

On some level u can say we play the game and it's about winning. Slutrush works and killing your opponenet and have the game over in 10f11 is a way to win. On the other hand I think most people play to have fun. Some people have fun with the very short games and look for a way to win as fast as possible, but Im part of the people who like the long games with booming - to some extend. in middle aoc it often gets to the point where it's more about spamming units out and attack than it is micro and strategy which I'm not a fan of. Im not a fan of having the game "falsely" dragged out either. Sometimes u don't rush people just because they're fun to play vs in the long run, but somehow you should take advantage of your ability to play the early stage of the game better instead of letting someone live to have a game.

As much as u hate slutrushes theres really nothing to do about it, but finding a counter or put up some rules, which quite frankly would be like resigning. I could extend this discussion to other setts such as mod dm, where we actually saw an attempt from the admins (sorry megs ), to weaken such a rush, but I think we better keep it to aoc for now...

[taco]

a good knight boom would lose a fuckload of cits against 2 decent sword slutters 2v1. such a stupid assumption honestly. you require several factors to be in ur favor to even think about winning a 2v1 against ppl who will have combined over 4 times ur army at 10f11 and with a hero very soon to emerge. id b saying gg b4 they even bother to counter u.
//cbfed explaining y else ur stupid eis

[Eisregen]

i often win 1 vs2 sometimes 1vs3 with knight civ i dont say on wing i say when ur pocket and u boom with knight civ in a 4vs4 u can easy take 2 players out!
and it isnt realy hard not much micro just dont let ur hero die..and build zueus
i often to this when i know my wing is total noob and trust me most times i can take my side down.

[taco]

problems with ur theory(if u would call it a theory)
1. ur talking about unskilled players ---> this completely ruins any and all argument about ur boom.
2. if ur opponents are half decent they would not let u boom, or both boom against u, knowing ur wing is noob.
3. knights require about 20f11(usually more) to become deadly.
4. any half decent ca player would of focused on u the second they knew u were knights. stopping and weakening u to the point where u are forced to mix bali or mass siege towers being able to start to fend off the ca, in which the swords then would have out massed u by about 4:1 crushing ur knights and bali.
5. knights are strongest in 3v3 and 4v4 where countering ur knights conflicts with the pop they are given. given the massive difference in pop roughly 450 to ur 155 or if u will 540 to ur 180(3v1). ur knights or the strength of knights is almost non existent even with hero and zues.

i cant see u beating 2 never lone 3 good players with a knight boom, alot of what ive said is hypothetical. but is realistic.

[Omega]

"Slut" rushing is a strategy. Furthermore, its an effective strategy. It's not an auto-win, or unbeatable. If you're constantly dying to a slut rush in a quick amount of time, you need to either suck less or play something that's better. This means, you need to stop being bad at the game, or stop playing strats/civs that are bad.

I also really hate how AoC players make stupid comments about rushing, booming, and Expansionism.

In the end, 90% of the boomers will survive a slutrush, and outboom the rusher.

Bullshit. Every time I play a normal sword strategy, I'm apparently slut rushing according to AoCers. Nearly every time I do so versus an AoC player who's using Expansionism, I end up having an equal or better economy than them, because they're either dead or have been sufficiently crippled. It doesn't even matter if they survive the rush or not, because the point of the rush is NOT to kill them despite the fact it does so with disappointing frequency. Instead, the point of the rush is to gain the initiative in the game, and to lay down some selective hurt on them.

I will say though, it depends a lot on the players. However, any time someone talks about booming versus rushing in a no rules game, the first thing that crosses my mind is that they're either a noob or a scrub, or just haven't thought about things very much. Booming in a no rules game means you loose unless your opponent is utter shit. Same with flat out rushing, you loose unless your opponent is utter shit. There are a lot of positions in the middle between the extremes, and only the middle and maybe 25% to the left and right of it are ever going to work in a good game that's no rules. Of course, if you're in the range of possibilities that actually works, it's not about where you are on that scale (relatively booming or relatively rushing), but about how well you play it that makes you win or loose. If you're booming a bit more than your opponent, it's about how well you can defend against them and press your economic advantage to turn it into a numbers//counter advantage that makes you win, not the fact you're booming a bit more than your opponent, and the reverse is true (although the advantage you need to press in that case is military, obviously).

But rallying your units to another persons base is pure faggotry.

Would it be cool if I let them build, then 1/2 second after they pop out attack-move to your base, or just move them there? I'm not rallying to your base then! Of course... The effect would essentially be the same because you're not attacking me back at all.

The reason people rally to another person's base is just to spare the small fraction of travel time, and because attack-moving there is stupid if your opponent is doing the same thing you are, because either your guys are going to fight approximately midway between your bases, or if your opponent is rallying, your guys are going to hit his once, then follow them all the way back to your base where he'll get exactly what he wants out of the rush, and you won't.

However, pure rally rushing is the sign of a noob. Not so noob that they attack-move, but the sign of a noob none the less. Because, you damn well better manually control your army once they get near your opponents base. (Note: Against bad players, strictly rally rushing will suffice because they're bad... This lets you win and be lazy as hell)

the proplem with most expan player is they counter not fast enught.

That's part of the problem, but the bigger problem is nearly every single Expansionism player out there simply booms too much. They have no idea where a good balance between army and economy lies, and it shows. Another big weak point is actually using the army they have--most of them absolutely suck at it, and manage to turn situations where they should honestly be fine into situations where they loose significant chunks of their economy. This is essentially saying they're not good enough at EE to bother protecting potential future advantages and to not get greedy and take too much risk on potential future advantage payoffs.

fight vs expert expan player is much harder then vs expert rush player.

No, it really is about the same if they're both the same skill level.

i might have it wrong and looking at it from another perspective expan might not be the problem in my example it might be the fact that some1 who is given expan will automatically start over booming unless paying attention to it.

You certainly hit on one big contributing factor. As I see it, all the contributing factors were (a lot are inter-related):
-They had no idea HOW to deal with any kind of rush strategy, as they instantly assumed anyone who played rush was a noob and couldn't make an economy. It was about 3 months before I think they even noticed I didn't use Metallurgy to rush them, because that's when the 'OMG NOOB META RUSHER' comments stopped.
-They had REALLY bad teamwork.
-They overvalued Expansionism and booming.
-They had preconceived ideas about how the game should be played, which didn't map to how the game actually could be played. Examples include doubling, trippling, and quadrupling when attacking, attacking while their army was away, eco kill, wonder rape, et cetera. (Either that, or they were just so butthurt about loosing that they made up excuses like that)

It's interesting to note that a lot of these points still apply, just to a very minor degree. I definently think a lot of AoC players still overvalue Expansionism and booming, and aren't all that adept at dealing with rushes, for example.

a good knight boom can easy beat two no expan player

I agree, if the two no expansionism players are extremely bad at the game. Otherwise, that's bullshit.

1) You didn't say what the non-expansionism players were. If one or both of them are CA, the knight player is automatically dead.
2) If they're both swords, the knight player is still dead, becuase the knight player will have no economy in a matter of minutes, and even if they do retain SOME economy, one of the sword players will early-hero it and pop Richard out at 11 f11 (as opposed to 14-16 f11 which is a standard time for a hero), then they'll both just mow down every single thing you have.

same with cav boom yes at start rush player have some ca more but dont realy hurt u with moral
but mass balis will end it..

Since you said "same with", we're still talking about the 1v2 situation... In which case, bullshit. The other players will have at least TWICE as many CA as you do (underestimate in raw numbers because no exp will have a slightly better initial CA timeline, but it's about right if you're talking CA at your base ), and they can easily split those armies up into say, 2 groups each, then raid you from every conceivable angle until you're dead. If somehow that doesn't kill you outright becuase it fucks your economy, it doesn't really matter because it means you can't expand your economy or hurt theirs, which means they have vastly more production ability than you do, including ballistas.

If it's just 1v1... Then, it's pretty much entirely down to the two players, not who has expansionism or not.

In Mid SH I've never really concicered it much of a problem many players have learned to resist this "slutrush", but for those who have not yet learned the trick they'll die every game in 5f11.

On some level u can say we play the game and it's about winning. Slutrush works and killing your opponenet and have the game over in 10f11 is a way to win. On the other hand I think most people play to have fun. Some people have fun with the very short games and look for a way to win as fast as possible, but Im part of the people who like the long games with booming - to some extend. in middle aoc it often gets to the point where it's more about spamming units out and attack than it is micro and strategy which I'm not a fan of. Im not a fan of having the game "falsely" dragged out either. Sometimes u don't rush people just because they're fun to play vs in the long run, but somehow you should take advantage of your ability to play the early stage of the game better instead of letting someone live to have a game.

I'd just like to add, that just because someone is "slut rushing", doesn't mean the game can't last for a long time. If everyone can actually defend the rush WELL (not just defend it, but defend it without too much losses and/or inflicting equal losses on the rusher), it can last as long or longer than a game where everyone booms a lot.

i often win 1 vs2 sometimes 1vs3 with knight civ i dont say on wing i say when ur pocket and u boom with knight civ in a 4vs4 u can easy take 2 players out!
and it isnt realy hard not much micro just dont let ur hero die..and build zueus
i often to this when i know my wing is total noob and trust me most times i can take my side down.

You're playing versus idiots, noobs, or both. If they weren't, the following would happen:

If 1 sword, 1 CA: The CA guy would instantly attack you and rape your ass, forcing you to make balis, to which he'd respond in kind. The sword guy would just pop a hero way before you can get one (assuming he even NEEDS to do so), and then they'd both gank your ass, you having nothing you can do about it except die. Game over, you lost.

If both CA: You auto-die. It's trivial for them to raid you to death, pick off all your knights, and more than match how many balis you have (individually... meaning that in total they'll have twice what you've got, along with an army that shreds yours). Game is over way before you get a Zeus or a hero.

If both swords: Either your economy instadies due to lots of swords, or one of them pops an early hero and they both overrun you with nothing you can do about it. Game is over way before you get a Zeus or a hero.

They could of course alternatively both boom, too, but there's little point because they're going to win anyway.

I can't even imagine how bad you'd get owned against 3 players...

[Eisregen]

omega it isnt hard play vs 2 ca player with knights when u have some time at start...