Your strategy would work better at the macro level - a systemic growth with the requirement not to have a fall-through. It's a low deviation strategy.
Their strategy would work better at the micro level - a single point of failure allows them an overwhelming advantage.
(If you play magic, the analogy I use is Blue control vs threat management, where if blue can counter any threat, they are virtually untouchable, whereas a single threat can destroy them).
This leads me to believe that the strategies are asymetrical, in which one plays differently and has a different risk profile than the other.
I think this emphasises my point above - your strategy is good... if you are good at it. However, the skill level and risk level doesn't scale the same. One mistake by you against a rusher can end the game - if you are good enough to prevent breakthrough, etc and still out resource/level/etc the enemy the majority of the times, then your strategy would be dominant (but this would leave the optimal strategy with those without your skillset to rush... and yes, I agree, that would be likely )But one point: these do work at the extreme noob level. Just taking a tactic that is not overly silly will beat the people who indeed do take overly silly tactics. Like that.. don't make mass wisps, make other units instead, like archer.
The inferior player has nothing to lose by rushing. The skilled player loses very little, if they are playing someone of equal skill... but that assumes that you could play a rush as skillfully as the creep approach, which is unlikely.
I think this is natural. You also have a preference, one that I don't think many people can emulate. So it seems there are multiple factors. In the abscence of a developped strategy, rushing is optimal because it takes the least amount of skill and is the most likely to cause the "one error = lose" threat. However, and as a result, those that are unable to deal with the "one error" problem also rush as a counter because they don't have your skillset.But I still think that this approach still oversimplifies the person's contribution in the team; I think it's a communication that disregards other people's talents from the start. It is some freaking TJ trait! ETJ?
This is probably a relative skill level problem and at the pro level the rush is probably done to prevent your creep tatic (presuming the skill level there is high enough to avoid the one-error problem to start with) as much as anything else.
True, but the question is if they are truly biased or measuring their own abilities. I think the bias here would be more conditioning - you get punished for not rushing, therefore training you to rush in the next game. Every "error" that produces a loss for you against a rusher encourages that mindset.Just as a reminder, the bias was not about the preferred strategy, but about thinking that one's strategy produces wins over others, whereas the strategy is so usual as to actually produce 50:50 wins unless if it is refined.