I think this glitch needs to be banned from competitive BW, for the following reasons:
1. It offers much greater power that a unit (skill) is supposed to have:
It is similar to gas-walk glitch, which is banned in competitive BW. A worker is not supposed to have the ability to walk pass all blocking units, which effectively counters all anti-scout effort.
This is unlike stacked muta, where air units are supposed to have no collision size. Stacked muta is just micro tricks to enable that in an easier way. To some extent, they're closer to clone micro rather than glitches.
Also unlike hold lurkers, where a unit is supposed to choose the best timing to attack (think about DT and wraith). Hold lurker is just like an ordinary ambush, similar to burrowed ling ambush.
2. It can be universally triggered in almost all circumstances.
Unlike mineral walk, which can only be triggered in certain circumstances where minerals are available in the battlefield.
This makes it closer to stacked SCVs, which is also banned in competitive BW.
3. It introduces a new strategy without any effective counters.
Glitch with effective counters is positive to BW scene as it increases the strategic diversity. However, a new strategy without effective counters (mines will be busted right after the recall) will eventually destroy certain matchups.
This is unlike stacked muta, which is countered effectively by vessel (radiation).
Also unlike hold lurker, whose effectiveness reduces with the availability of detectors (vessel, or scan-before-proceed).
4. It is almost impossible to trigger it unintentionally, making the case clear if someone deliberately exploit it.
It is almost impossible the clustered recall could happen accidentally. This is also the reason why it hasn't been discovered for 20 years. This is unlike mineral walk, because in some circumstances it's hard to distinguish mineral walk vs. simply mining the minerals. Thus when this is exploited, the intention is very clear thus there is no gray area regarding whether to disqualify a player because of that.
On May 12 2018 07:03 FuzzyImp wrote: I think this glitch needs to be banned from competitive BW, for the following reasons:
1. It offers much greater power that a unit (skill) is supposed to have:
It is similar to gas-walk glitch, which is banned in competitive BW. A worker is not supposed to have the ability to walk pass all blocking units, which effectively counters all anti-scout effort.
This is unlike stacked muta, where air units are supposed to have no collision size. Stacked muta is just micro tricks to enable that in an easier way. To some extent, they're closer to clone micro rather than glitches.
Also unlike hold lurkers, where a unit is supposed to choose the best timing to attack (think about DT and wraith). Hold lurker is just like an ordinary ambush, similar to burrowed ling ambush.
2. It can be universally triggered in almost all circumstances.
Unlike mineral walk, which can only be triggered in certain circumstances where minerals are available in the battlefield.
This makes it closer to stacked SCVs, which is also banned in competitive BW.
3. It introduces a new strategy without any effective counters.
Glitch with effective counters is positive to BW scene as it increases the strategic diversity. However, a new strategy without effective counters (mines will be busted right after the recall) will eventually destroy certain matchups.
This is unlike stacked muta, which is countered effectively by vessel (radiation).
Also unlike hold lurker, whose effectiveness reduces with the availability of detectors (vessel, or scan-before-proceed).
4. It is almost impossible to trigger it unintentionally, making the case clear if someone deliberately exploit it.
It is almost impossible the clustered recall could happen accidentally. This is also the reason why it hasn't been discovered for 20 years. This is unlike mineral walk, because in some circumstances it's hard to distinguish mineral walk vs. simply mining the minerals. Thus when this is exploited, the intention is very clear thus there is no gray area regarding whether to disqualify a player because of that.
On the other hand, it takes maybe 10 seconds to prepare the "cluster glitch" it seems, and if your arbiter dies/emp you have your entire army glitching, and leave them vulnerable. Idk how easy it is to seperate them but it's probably a hastle. Mines prob still go off more than not and protoss can loose a lot of units.
I think this glitch can be adjusted by balancing the maps, just like we've done against similar glitches (f.e maps with more space for turrets were created when muta glitch was found). if no map change can make arbiter weaker, we can just bring back more 'normal maps' where terran was too strong before in late game, but now it might be close lategame due to the threat of such a recall.
You're calling a ban on something that hasn't yet been used in a professional brood war game, ever?
On May 12 2018 07:03 FuzzyImp wrote: I think this glitch needs to be banned from competitive BW, for the following reasons:
1. It offers much greater power that a unit (skill) is supposed to have:
It is similar to gas-walk glitch, which is banned in competitive BW. A worker is not supposed to have the ability to walk pass all blocking units, which effectively counters all anti-scout effort.
This is unlike stacked muta, where air units are supposed to have no collision size. Stacked muta is just micro tricks to enable that in an easier way. To some extent, they're closer to clone micro rather than glitches.
Also unlike hold lurkers, where a unit is supposed to choose the best timing to attack (think about DT and wraith). Hold lurker is just like an ordinary ambush, similar to burrowed ling ambush.
2. It can be universally triggered in almost all circumstances.
Unlike mineral walk, which can only be triggered in certain circumstances where minerals are available in the battlefield.
This makes it closer to stacked SCVs, which is also banned in competitive BW.
3. It introduces a new strategy without any effective counters.
Glitch with effective counters is positive to BW scene as it increases the strategic diversity. However, a new strategy without effective counters (mines will be busted right after the recall) will eventually destroy certain matchups.
This is unlike stacked muta, which is countered effectively by vessel (radiation).
Also unlike hold lurker, whose effectiveness reduces with the availability of detectors (vessel, or scan-before-proceed).
4. It is almost impossible to trigger it unintentionally, making the case clear if someone deliberately exploit it.
It is almost impossible the clustered recall could happen accidentally. This is also the reason why it hasn't been discovered for 20 years. This is unlike mineral walk, because in some circumstances it's hard to distinguish mineral walk vs. simply mining the minerals. Thus when this is exploited, the intention is very clear thus there is no gray area regarding whether to disqualify a player because of that.
On the other hand, it takes maybe 10 seconds to prepare the "cluster glitch" it seems, and if your arbiter dies/emp you have your entire army glitching, and leave them vulnerable. Idk how easy it is to seperate them but it's probably a hastle. Mines prob still go off more than not and protoss can loose a lot of units.
I think as some pros (like Best, Flash) tried out, it probably doesn't take 10 seconds, perhaps 3~4 seconds. If this is allowed, pros might try very hard to make it very effective. Plus, you don't need 4 ~ 5 X of an ordinary recall army. Perhaps 2 ~ 3 X of the army size might already give you enough competitive advantage.
I think this glitch can be adjusted by balancing the maps, just like we've done against similar glitches (f.e maps with more space for turrets were created when muta glitch was found). if no map change can make arbiter weaker, we can just bring back more 'normal maps' where terran was too strong before in late game, but now it might be close lategame due to the threat of such a recall.
Not sure it's the time to bring back Lost Temple, or other 1.07-era maps which substantially buffs Terran. Even we can buff Terran with maps, then how about TvZ? Also this is not only about balance, this is more about whether a unit could have the un-countered ability that it shouldn't have. Like gas-walk ban, which clearly says workers shouldn't have the ability to "unconditionally" counter all anti-scout effort. Arbiter shouldn't have the ability to recall without an effective counter.
You're calling a ban on something that hasn't yet been used in a professional brood war game, ever?
Things like flying drones / templar, I am not sure whether it's banned before a single use of them in professional scene.
I think Blizzard should apply the following rule: If LancerX can take 1 game out of 700 vs Flash no metter what circunstances then this powerful weapon should be banned from ASL and upcoming OSLs and Scan should be allowed to come back to KCM if he promises he won't talk to Savior ever again Wassap excluded, I can't think of something more fair.
On May 12 2018 07:03 FuzzyImp wrote: I think this glitch needs to be banned from competitive BW, for the following reasons:
1. It offers much greater power that a unit (skill) is supposed to have:
It is similar to gas-walk glitch, which is banned in competitive BW. A worker is not supposed to have the ability to walk pass all blocking units, which effectively counters all anti-scout effort.
This is unlike stacked muta, where air units are supposed to have no collision size. Stacked muta is just micro tricks to enable that in an easier way. To some extent, they're closer to clone micro rather than glitches.
Also unlike hold lurkers, where a unit is supposed to choose the best timing to attack (think about DT and wraith). Hold lurker is just like an ordinary ambush, similar to burrowed ling ambush.
2. It can be universally triggered in almost all circumstances.
Unlike mineral walk, which can only be triggered in certain circumstances where minerals are available in the battlefield.
This makes it closer to stacked SCVs, which is also banned in competitive BW.
3. It introduces a new strategy without any effective counters.
Glitch with effective counters is positive to BW scene as it increases the strategic diversity. However, a new strategy without effective counters (mines will be busted right after the recall) will eventually destroy certain matchups.
This is unlike stacked muta, which is countered effectively by vessel (radiation).
Also unlike hold lurker, whose effectiveness reduces with the availability of detectors (vessel, or scan-before-proceed).
4. It is almost impossible to trigger it unintentionally, making the case clear if someone deliberately exploit it.
It is almost impossible the clustered recall could happen accidentally. This is also the reason why it hasn't been discovered for 20 years. This is unlike mineral walk, because in some circumstances it's hard to distinguish mineral walk vs. simply mining the minerals. Thus when this is exploited, the intention is very clear thus there is no gray area regarding whether to disqualify a player because of that.
On the other hand, it takes maybe 10 seconds to prepare the "cluster glitch" it seems, and if your arbiter dies/emp you have your entire army glitching, and leave them vulnerable. Idk how easy it is to seperate them but it's probably a hastle. Mines prob still go off more than not and protoss can loose a lot of units.
I think as some pros (like Best, Flash) tried out, it probably doesn't take 10 seconds, perhaps 3~4 seconds. If this is allowed, pros might try very hard to make it very effective. Plus, you don't need 4 ~ 5 X of an ordinary recall army. Perhaps 2 ~ 3 X of the army size might already give you enough competitive advantage.
I think this glitch can be adjusted by balancing the maps, just like we've done against similar glitches (f.e maps with more space for turrets were created when muta glitch was found). if no map change can make arbiter weaker, we can just bring back more 'normal maps' where terran was too strong before in late game, but now it might be close lategame due to the threat of such a recall.
Not sure it's the time to bring back Lost Temple, or other 1.07-era maps which substantially buffs Terran. Even we can buff Terran with maps, then how about TvZ? Also this is not only about balance, this is more about whether a unit could have the un-countered ability that it shouldn't have. Like gas-walk ban, which clearly says workers shouldn't have the ability to "unconditionally" counter all anti-scout effort. Arbiter shouldn't have the ability to recall without an effective counter.
Let's look at FuzzyImp's post, just to make a point as to how there can no logical or semantical argument be made about this:
On May 12 2018 07:37 FuzzyImp wrote:1. It offers much greater power that a unit (skill) is supposed to have:
It is similar to gas-walk glitch, which is banned in competitive BW. A worker is not supposed to have the ability to walk pass all blocking units, which effectively counters all anti-scout effort.
On the other hand, all other methods of sliding workers past walls are deemed legal.
This is unlike stacked muta, where air units are supposed to have no collision size. Stacked muta is just micro tricks to enable that in an easier way. To some extent, they're closer to clone micro rather than glitches.
No. Air units actually have a collision size, by the way. That's why they are pushed apart when idling. What is exploited here is magic boxes, which were originally implemented only to distinguish between movement of units in close formations (which keeps the formation) and movement of units far apart (which brings them together in one spot). Muta stacking works by overwriting the standard behaviour for tight unit formations by adding a faraway unit to the control group. This is not how the developers ever expected it to be and therefor, using strict semantics, should be considered a bug and, by your logic, banned.
Also unlike hold lurkers, where a unit is supposed to choose the best timing to attack (think about DT and wraith). Hold lurker is just like an ordinary ambush, similar to burrowed ling ambush.
Hold Lurkers is also unintended behaviour from the devs' point of view. You are not supposed to be able to give Lurkers hold position commands. So you cannot really make a distinction here.
2. It can be universally triggered in almost all circumstances.
Unlike mineral walk, which can only be triggered in certain circumstances where minerals are available in the battlefield.
Some preconditions still need to be met, you need something to trigger collision. Apart from that "can universally be triggered" applies to most behaviours in the game, no matter whether intended by design or bug, legal or illegal.
This makes it closer to stacked SCVs, which is also banned in competitive BW.
Yes. But what is the reason for that?
3. It introduces a new strategy without any effective counters.
Glitch with effective counters is positive to BW scene as it increases the strategic diversity. However, a new strategy without effective counters (mines will be busted right after the recall) will eventually destroy certain matchups.
This is unlike stacked muta, which is countered effectively by vessel (radiation).
Also unlike hold lurker, whose effectiveness reduces with the availability of detectors (vessel, or scan-before-proceed).
At this point this is still all theocrafting, there is no established meta to support this argument.
4. It is almost impossible to trigger it unintentionally, making the case clear if someone deliberately exploit it.
It is almost impossible the clustered recall could happen accidentally. This is also the reason why it hasn't been discovered for 20 years. This is unlike mineral walk, because in some circumstances it's hard to distinguish mineral walk vs. simply mining the minerals. Thus when this is exploited, the intention is very clear thus there is no gray area regarding whether to disqualify a player because of that.
No. There's actually a big problem here. Units can overlap in BW all the time for all kinds of reasons. Archon warps are a possible trigger in this case, which are commonplace events. So if you want to establish a rule that "no units recalled units shall be overlapping", players are likely to violate it by accident. But if you allow a grey area and leave it to the decision of referees, players are going to try to exploit that grey area and judgements will not always be fair.
I think as some pros (like Best, Flash) tried out, it probably doesn't take 10 seconds, perhaps 3~4 seconds. If this is allowed, pros might try very hard to make it very effective. Plus, you don't need 4 ~ 5 X of an ordinary recall army. Perhaps 2 ~ 3 X of the army size might already give you enough competitive advantage.
Potential of this is not actually "unlimited". Again: You can only about double the size of the recalled army. Let's say a Protoss has about 150 army supply. That's 75 goons. With a normal recall, you can recall up to 25 of them (or 1/3 of your army). With pre-stacking you can recall up to about 50 of them (or 2/3 of your army).
In conclusion, this kind of argumentation is futile and cannot lead to good or meaningful conclusions. When you really look at why certain things are banned, you realize it depends on whether they add depth to gameplay or have the game (or certain aspects of it) degenerate into some repetitive one-trick performance.
Stacked Recall probably has the potential to fall on either side, but it's hard to tell without many real games and an established meta around it. Blizzard is right to keep up their hands-off, don't tweak game mechanics, approach. As for Afreeca: They deemed it appropriate to run the current ASL almost exclusively on completely non-standard maps, allegedly to make it more interesting by making it hard on Flash (and any other Terran). If they would ban this outright, that'd be very hypocritical. And there's another problem: Leagues are one thing, but how would you enforce a ban in normal ladder play?
On May 12 2018 19:12 Freakling wrote: Let's look at FuzzyImp's post, just to make a point as to how there can no logical or semantical argument be made about this:
On May 12 2018 07:37 FuzzyImp wrote:1. It offers much greater power that a unit (skill) is supposed to have:
It is similar to gas-walk glitch, which is banned in competitive BW. A worker is not supposed to have the ability to walk pass all blocking units, which effectively counters all anti-scout effort.
On the other hand, all other methods of sliding workers past walls are deemed legal.
This is unlike stacked muta, where air units are supposed to have no collision size. Stacked muta is just micro tricks to enable that in an easier way. To some extent, they're closer to clone micro rather than glitches.
No. Air units actually have a collision size, by the way. That's why they are pushed apart when idling. What is exploited here is magic boxes, which were originally implemented only to distinguish between movement of units in close formations (which keeps the formation) and movement of units far apart (which brings them together in one spot). Muta stacking works by overwriting the standard behaviour for tight unit formations by adding a faraway unit to the control group. This is not how the developers ever expected it to be and therefor, using strict semantics, should be considered a bug and, by your logic, banned.
Also unlike hold lurkers, where a unit is supposed to choose the best timing to attack (think about DT and wraith). Hold lurker is just like an ordinary ambush, similar to burrowed ling ambush.
Hold Lurkers is also unintended behaviour from the devs' point of view. You are not supposed to be able to give Lurkers hold position commands. So you cannot really make a distinction here.
2. It can be universally triggered in almost all circumstances.
Unlike mineral walk, which can only be triggered in certain circumstances where minerals are available in the battlefield.
Some preconditions still need to be met, you need something to trigger collision. Apart from that "can universally be triggered" applies to most behaviours in the game, no matter whether intended by design or bug, legal or illegal.
3. It introduces a new strategy without any effective counters.
Glitch with effective counters is positive to BW scene as it increases the strategic diversity. However, a new strategy without effective counters (mines will be busted right after the recall) will eventually destroy certain matchups.
This is unlike stacked muta, which is countered effectively by vessel (radiation).
Also unlike hold lurker, whose effectiveness reduces with the availability of detectors (vessel, or scan-before-proceed).
At this point this is still all theocrafting, there is no established meta to support this argument.
4. It is almost impossible to trigger it unintentionally, making the case clear if someone deliberately exploit it.
It is almost impossible the clustered recall could happen accidentally. This is also the reason why it hasn't been discovered for 20 years. This is unlike mineral walk, because in some circumstances it's hard to distinguish mineral walk vs. simply mining the minerals. Thus when this is exploited, the intention is very clear thus there is no gray area regarding whether to disqualify a player because of that.
No. There's actually a big problem here. Units can overlap in BW all the time for all kinds of reasons. Archon warps are a possible trigger in this case, which are commonplace events. So if you want to establish a rule that "no units recalled units shall be overlapping", players are likely to violate it by accident. But if you allow a grey area and leave it to the decision of referees, players are going to try to exploit that grey area and judgements will not always be fair.
I think as some pros (like Best, Flash) tried out, it probably doesn't take 10 seconds, perhaps 3~4 seconds. If this is allowed, pros might try very hard to make it very effective. Plus, you don't need 4 ~ 5 X of an ordinary recall army. Perhaps 2 ~ 3 X of the army size might already give you enough competitive advantage.
Potential of this is not actually "unlimited". Again: You can only about double the size of the recalled army. Let's say a Protoss has about 150 army supply. That's 75 goons. With a normal recall, you can recall up to 25 of them (or 1/3 of your army). With pre-stacking you can recall up to about 50 of them (or 2/3 of your army).
In conclusion, this kind of argumentation is futile and cannot lead to good or meaningful conclusions. When you really look at why certain things are banned, you realize it depends on whether they add depth to gameplay or have the game (or certain aspects of it) degenerate into some repetitive one-trick performance.
Stacked Recall probably has the potential to fall on either side, but it's hard to tell without many real games and an established meta around it. Blizzard is right to keep up their hands-off, don't tweak game mechanics, approach. As for Afreeca: They deemed it appropriate to run the current ASL almost exclusively on completely non-standard maps, allegedly to make it more interesting by making it hard on Flash (and any other Terran). If they would ban this outright, that'd be very hypocritical. And there's another problem: Leagues are one thing, but how would you enforce a ban in normal ladder play?
agree mate.Ad the lurker hold yes and no...In theory You're not supposed to use hold possition but You can spamm stop command
Flash lost in ASL before this bugg was discovered "worldwide"...I'm pretty sure somebody found this bugg/feature earlier just couldnt see the potential.
On May 12 2018 19:12 Freakling wrote: Let's look at FuzzyImp's post, just to make a point as to how there can no logical or semantical argument be made about this:
On May 12 2018 07:37 FuzzyImp wrote:1. It offers much greater power that a unit (skill) is supposed to have:
It is similar to gas-walk glitch, which is banned in competitive BW. A worker is not supposed to have the ability to walk pass all blocking units, which effectively counters all anti-scout effort.
On the other hand, all other methods of sliding workers past walls are deemed legal.
This is unlike stacked muta, where air units are supposed to have no collision size. Stacked muta is just micro tricks to enable that in an easier way. To some extent, they're closer to clone micro rather than glitches.
No. Air units actually have a collision size, by the way. That's why they are pushed apart when idling. What is exploited here is magic boxes, which were originally implemented only to distinguish between movement of units in close formations (which keeps the formation) and movement of units far apart (which brings them together in one spot). Muta stacking works by overwriting the standard behaviour for tight unit formations by adding a faraway unit to the control group. This is not how the developers ever expected it to be and therefor, using strict semantics, should be considered a bug and, by your logic, banned.
Also unlike hold lurkers, where a unit is supposed to choose the best timing to attack (think about DT and wraith). Hold lurker is just like an ordinary ambush, similar to burrowed ling ambush.
Hold Lurkers is also unintended behaviour from the devs' point of view. You are not supposed to be able to give Lurkers hold position commands. So you cannot really make a distinction here.
2. It can be universally triggered in almost all circumstances.
Unlike mineral walk, which can only be triggered in certain circumstances where minerals are available in the battlefield.
Some preconditions still need to be met, you need something to trigger collision. Apart from that "can universally be triggered" applies to most behaviours in the game, no matter whether intended by design or bug, legal or illegal.
3. It introduces a new strategy without any effective counters.
Glitch with effective counters is positive to BW scene as it increases the strategic diversity. However, a new strategy without effective counters (mines will be busted right after the recall) will eventually destroy certain matchups.
This is unlike stacked muta, which is countered effectively by vessel (radiation).
Also unlike hold lurker, whose effectiveness reduces with the availability of detectors (vessel, or scan-before-proceed).
At this point this is still all theocrafting, there is no established meta to support this argument.
4. It is almost impossible to trigger it unintentionally, making the case clear if someone deliberately exploit it.
It is almost impossible the clustered recall could happen accidentally. This is also the reason why it hasn't been discovered for 20 years. This is unlike mineral walk, because in some circumstances it's hard to distinguish mineral walk vs. simply mining the minerals. Thus when this is exploited, the intention is very clear thus there is no gray area regarding whether to disqualify a player because of that.
No. There's actually a big problem here. Units can overlap in BW all the time for all kinds of reasons. Archon warps are a possible trigger in this case, which are commonplace events. So if you want to establish a rule that "no units recalled units shall be overlapping", players are likely to violate it by accident. But if you allow a grey area and leave it to the decision of referees, players are going to try to exploit that grey area and judgements will not always be fair.
I think as some pros (like Best, Flash) tried out, it probably doesn't take 10 seconds, perhaps 3~4 seconds. If this is allowed, pros might try very hard to make it very effective. Plus, you don't need 4 ~ 5 X of an ordinary recall army. Perhaps 2 ~ 3 X of the army size might already give you enough competitive advantage.
Potential of this is not actually "unlimited". Again: You can only about double the size of the recalled army. Let's say a Protoss has about 150 army supply. That's 75 goons. With a normal recall, you can recall up to 25 of them (or 1/3 of your army). With pre-stacking you can recall up to about 50 of them (or 2/3 of your army).
In conclusion, this kind of argumentation is futile and cannot lead to good or meaningful conclusions. When you really look at why certain things are banned, you realize it depends on whether they add depth to gameplay or have the game (or certain aspects of it) degenerate into some repetitive one-trick performance.
Stacked Recall probably has the potential to fall on either side, but it's hard to tell without many real games and an established meta around it. Blizzard is right to keep up their hands-off, don't tweak game mechanics, approach. As for Afreeca: They deemed it appropriate to run the current ASL almost exclusively on completely non-standard maps, allegedly to make it more interesting by making it hard on Flash (and any other Terran). If they would ban this outright, that'd be very hypocritical. And there's another problem: Leagues are one thing, but how would you enforce a ban in normal ladder play?
agree mate.Ad the lurker hold yes and no...In theory You're not supposed to use hold possition but You can spamm stop command
Flash lost in ASL before this bugg was discovered "worldwide"...I'm pretty sure somebody found this bugg/feature earlier just couldnt see the potential.
AFAIK spamming the stop command on lurkers won`t do a thing to stop them from attacking.
On May 12 2018 19:12 Freakling wrote: And there's another problem: Leagues are one thing, but how would you enforce a ban in normal ladder play?
Interesting point. I never seen anyone using the shift-gas trick ever in the new ladder, this rule probably embedded in people`s mindso deeply that they never thought about they can use it.
I`m currently undecided about the "total recall", I`m trying to synthethize more opinions on the subject. On the other hand I think we should either allow all engine generated game behaviour bugs/features or none (which counts one though?), probably they aren`t on the same level, but it`s clearly weird that some are allowed and some not, but the issue is definitely not easy.
It's already hard for a medium or low skill terran to move out of his base vs an evenly skilled toss due to apm requirement and now terran players have to focus on main base defence as well... maybe not in the pro scene but tvp balance is even more broken now for the vast majority of starcraft brood war players.
When I do this to tanks and siege, they explode, tossusagi
Sieged Tanks on top of buildings (including geysers and minerals) explode. That's a workaround for an old exploit where players would land a building on top of Tanks to make them harder to kill (cannot attack them with melee units and, depending on exact position, cannot click on them).
I've also been reading into the code a bit, but I do not yet fully understand how the placement of units on arrival around the Arbiter works (that's a section of 170 lines of code I have yet to figure out). However, so far it seems like
Recall targets a square area of 128x128 pixels, centered around the mouse position, if targeted on ground, or, if targeted on a unit, around the unit position.
there is no direct upper limit to how many units can be recalled (however, there is definitely some kind of limit of how much space they are allowed to take up on arrival, but I haven't figured out that part yet)
On May 12 2018 19:12 Freakling wrote: Let's look at FuzzyImp's post, just to make a point as to how there can no logical or semantical argument be made about this:
On May 12 2018 07:37 FuzzyImp wrote:1. It offers much greater power that a unit (skill) is supposed to have:
It is similar to gas-walk glitch, which is banned in competitive BW. A worker is not supposed to have the ability to walk pass all blocking units, which effectively counters all anti-scout effort.
On the other hand, all other methods of sliding workers past walls are deemed legal.
This is unlike stacked muta, where air units are supposed to have no collision size. Stacked muta is just micro tricks to enable that in an easier way. To some extent, they're closer to clone micro rather than glitches.
No. Air units actually have a collision size, by the way. That's why they are pushed apart when idling. What is exploited here is magic boxes, which were originally implemented only to distinguish between movement of units in close formations (which keeps the formation) and movement of units far apart (which brings them together in one spot). Muta stacking works by overwriting the standard behaviour for tight unit formations by adding a faraway unit to the control group. This is not how the developers ever expected it to be and therefor, using strict semantics, should be considered a bug and, by your logic, banned.
Also unlike hold lurkers, where a unit is supposed to choose the best timing to attack (think about DT and wraith). Hold lurker is just like an ordinary ambush, similar to burrowed ling ambush.
Hold Lurkers is also unintended behaviour from the devs' point of view. You are not supposed to be able to give Lurkers hold position commands. So you cannot really make a distinction here.
2. It can be universally triggered in almost all circumstances.
Unlike mineral walk, which can only be triggered in certain circumstances where minerals are available in the battlefield.
Some preconditions still need to be met, you need something to trigger collision. Apart from that "can universally be triggered" applies to most behaviours in the game, no matter whether intended by design or bug, legal or illegal.
3. It introduces a new strategy without any effective counters.
Glitch with effective counters is positive to BW scene as it increases the strategic diversity. However, a new strategy without effective counters (mines will be busted right after the recall) will eventually destroy certain matchups.
This is unlike stacked muta, which is countered effectively by vessel (radiation).
Also unlike hold lurker, whose effectiveness reduces with the availability of detectors (vessel, or scan-before-proceed).
At this point this is still all theocrafting, there is no established meta to support this argument.
4. It is almost impossible to trigger it unintentionally, making the case clear if someone deliberately exploit it.
It is almost impossible the clustered recall could happen accidentally. This is also the reason why it hasn't been discovered for 20 years. This is unlike mineral walk, because in some circumstances it's hard to distinguish mineral walk vs. simply mining the minerals. Thus when this is exploited, the intention is very clear thus there is no gray area regarding whether to disqualify a player because of that.
No. There's actually a big problem here. Units can overlap in BW all the time for all kinds of reasons. Archon warps are a possible trigger in this case, which are commonplace events. So if you want to establish a rule that "no units recalled units shall be overlapping", players are likely to violate it by accident. But if you allow a grey area and leave it to the decision of referees, players are going to try to exploit that grey area and judgements will not always be fair.
I think as some pros (like Best, Flash) tried out, it probably doesn't take 10 seconds, perhaps 3~4 seconds. If this is allowed, pros might try very hard to make it very effective. Plus, you don't need 4 ~ 5 X of an ordinary recall army. Perhaps 2 ~ 3 X of the army size might already give you enough competitive advantage.
Potential of this is not actually "unlimited". Again: You can only about double the size of the recalled army. Let's say a Protoss has about 150 army supply. That's 75 goons. With a normal recall, you can recall up to 25 of them (or 1/3 of your army). With pre-stacking you can recall up to about 50 of them (or 2/3 of your army).
In conclusion, this kind of argumentation is futile and cannot lead to good or meaningful conclusions. When you really look at why certain things are banned, you realize it depends on whether they add depth to gameplay or have the game (or certain aspects of it) degenerate into some repetitive one-trick performance.
Stacked Recall probably has the potential to fall on either side, but it's hard to tell without many real games and an established meta around it. Blizzard is right to keep up their hands-off, don't tweak game mechanics, approach. As for Afreeca: They deemed it appropriate to run the current ASL almost exclusively on completely non-standard maps, allegedly to make it more interesting by making it hard on Flash (and any other Terran). If they would ban this outright, that'd be very hypocritical. And there's another problem: Leagues are one thing, but how would you enforce a ban in normal ladder play?
agree mate.Ad the lurker hold yes and no...In theory You're not supposed to use hold possition but You can spamm stop command
Flash lost in ASL before this bugg was discovered "worldwide"...I'm pretty sure somebody found this bugg/feature earlier just couldnt see the potential.
AFAIK spamming the stop command on lurkers won`t do a thing to stop them from attacking.
On May 12 2018 19:12 Freakling wrote: And there's another problem: Leagues are one thing, but how would you enforce a ban in normal ladder play?
Interesting point. I never seen anyone using the shift-gas trick ever in the new ladder, this rule probably embedded in people`s mindso deeply that they never thought about they can use it.
I`m currently undecided about the "total recall", I`m trying to synthethize more opinions on the subject. On the other hand I think we should either allow all engine generated game behaviour bugs/features or none (which counts one though?), probably they aren`t on the same level, but it`s clearly weird that some are allowed and some not, but the issue is definitely not easy.
Spamming stop command will stop Your lurkers from attacking 100% , I've personally used that many times when occasion appeard out of nowhere.I havent played SC:R but If it's the same engine nothing should've changed...You need to spamm hard tho
On May 12 2018 19:12 Freakling wrote: Let's look at FuzzyImp's post, just to make a point as to how there can no logical or semantical argument be made about this:
No. Air units actually have a collision size, by the way. That's why they are pushed apart when idling. What is exploited here is magic boxes, which were originally implemented only to distinguish between movement of units in close formations (which keeps the formation) and movement of units far apart (which brings them together in one spot). Muta stacking works by overwriting the standard behaviour for tight unit formations by adding a faraway unit to the control group. This is not how the developers ever expected it to be and therefor, using strict semantics, should be considered a bug and, by your logic, banned.
I think in your argument, you have mingled 3 different things together that are supposedly to be orthogonal to each other.
1. The intended characteristic / limitation each unit should have. 2. The viable mechanism to achieve the capability. 3. The default behavior of each unit when it is not explicitly being micro-ed, i.e.: melee mode behavior.
The point I was trying to make is, whether a certain behavior is banned in competitive BW or not, is mostly align with 1 (the intended characteristic / limitation each unit should have) but has little co-relation with 2 and 3.
Let's look at your argument. Air unit are pushed apart when idling. This has zero indication about whether air unit has collision size or not. This is more about category 3) (the melee mode behavior). There is a simple test to determine whether some unit has collision size or not. If unit B is on the moving direction of Unit A, can Unit A pass-through Unit B without changing Unit B's position. If the answer is yes, then either A or B has zero collision size. This is the reason why air unit is intended to be zero collision size.
The melee mode behavior has nothing to do with intended capability. Let's look at another example, in the battlefield of a ZvP match-up, a Zerg unit will rarely choose observer as a prioritized target if not being micro-ed, does it mean if some Player micro the unit to attack observer make it break through the unit's intended limitation? No. Agree with that?
If the intended characteristic for air units is 0 collision size, whether Player can achieve that in the game falls under category 2). Note that, assume there is a super AI playing BW with a very high upper bound of APM, it can achieve stacked muta without the stacked muta trick, because it can just send a large number of move command to do that. With that understanding, you could know, what's the essence of stacked muta trick? It is just a new way of easier micro being discovered. It doesn't breaks through the intended limitation of air unit. It breaks through the limit of a human Play could micro because of an easier micro mechanism has been introduced. This alone won't make the trick banned.
Let's talk about hold lurker then. Should lurker has the ability to hold fire when some enemy is in range. It should have, because most other units have the ability (and it's more logical to have the ability). For most other units (e.g.: dragoon), the player just simply send a move order to make it hold fire. Then it will be quite natural to consider lurker should have this ability as well. Again hold lurker trick can be considered as an easier micro being discovered rather than breaking through a unit's intended limitation.
To finalize my point I will discuss a few notable known glitches:
Observer over Turret: Observer should have the ability to move to any position. Intended. Not banned.
Drops to Defuse Mines: Unit should be able to go on and off dropships. Intended. Not banned.
Mineral Walk: Workers are suppose to have 0 collision size when mining (otherwise they couldn't mine at all). Intended. Not banned. Note that this is a far more complicated case that takes a lot more to get it completely explained. I can probably explain my argument in another thread.
Manner Pylon: Probes should be able to build Pylon wherever it wants. Intended. Not banned.
Lurker Hold Position: Lurkers should have the ability to hold fire when enemies are in range, like most other units. Intended. Not banned.
Flying Drones and Templar: Drones or templars are not intended to fly. Not intended. Banned.
Gas Walk: Workers are not intended to be stacked while not mining. Not intended. Banned.
Cargo Glitch: Workers are not intended to be stacked just for returning to the base. Not intended. Banned.
This will support the argument to ban clustered recall. Because ground units are not intended to be stacked.
In conclusion, this kind of argumentation is futile and cannot lead to good or meaningful conclusions. When you really look at why certain things are banned, you realize it depends on whether they add depth to gameplay or have the game (or certain aspects of it) degenerate into some repetitive one-trick performance.
Stacked Recall probably has the potential to fall on either side, but it's hard to tell without many real games and an established meta around it.
No, this is not the case. As far as I know, for the banned glitches (like gas walk, cargo glitch), I don't think KeSpa has waited long enough for the meta to be completely established. Some (e.g.: carge glitch) is a minor thing which has small impact to the meta.
And there's another problem: Leagues are one thing, but how would you enforce a ban in normal ladder play?
This is quite easy. Once the rule becomes explicit, Blizzard can just ban the account if someone reports willful violation. Alternatively, Blizzard can make units self-explode when clustered recall is attempted.
I think in your argument, you have mingled 3 different things together that are supposedly to be orthogonal to each other.
Why orthogonal? These things are strongly correlated.
1. The intended characteristic / limitation each unit should have. 2. The viable mechanism to achieve the capability.
(1) is completely determined by (2), unless you are a mind reader that knows every little thing that went through the devs' heads at the time.
3. The default behavior of each unit when it is not explicitly being micro-ed, i.e.: melee mode behavior.
To idle on stop command? There is no specific melee mode behaviour for any unit, what are you even talking about?
The point I was trying to make is, whether a certain behavior is banned in competitive BW or not, is mostly align with 1 (the intended characteristic / limitation each unit should have) but has little co-relation with 2 and 3.
So units within a magic box moving in formation is not an "intended characteristic/limitation" to you? Units glitching through minerals or workers going through units blocking ramps via mineral walk is not a breaking of the same?
Let's look at your argument. Air unit are pushed apart when idling. This has zero indication about whether air unit has collision size or not.
Now you are making an error in conflating the existence of a collision box with its effect on unit behaviour. The latter is simply different for air and ground units.
This is more about category 3) (the melee mode behavior).
Again, there is no such thing, it's a nonsensical term.
There is a simple test to determine whether some unit has collision size or not. If unit B is on the moving direction of Unit A, can Unit A pass-through Unit B without changing Unit B's position.
Now you are proving yourself wrong. If you move one air unit through a position occupied by another, idling one, the idling one will get pushed aside. As another example: Mining workers can walk through other (stationary) units without pushing them aside, because collision for workers (with non-building ground units) is disabled during mining (the engine simply ignores all collisions with non-building ground units). However, other ground units cannot just walk through mining workers because their collision is on and worker still have a collision box!
If the answer is yes, then either A or B has zero collision size. This is the reason why air unit is intended to be zero collision size.
tldr: You need to distinguish between collision box size and collision status (enabled/disabled) as well as between ground and air unit collision handling. By the way, even if a unit actually had a collision box size of 0 it would still have a 1x1 px sized collision box, so it would actually collide with other units.
The melee mode behavior has nothing to do with intended capability.
Again that term… And I am wondering why you even bring it up/invent it, when it's got nothing to do with the topic.
Let's look at another example, in the battlefield of a ZvP match-up, a Zerg unit will rarely choose observer as a prioritized target if not being micro-ed, does it mean if some Player micro the unit to attack observer make it break through the unit's intended limitation? No. Agree with that?
Of course. I am not the one arguing for banning use of a predictable behaviour of the engine because of foregone conclusions and some wishy-washy reasons.
If the intended characteristic for air units is 0 collision size,
Which it is not.
whether Player can achieve that in the game falls under category 2).
And what is (2) for you exactly? What it really is or what the devs originally intended it to be?
Note that, assume there is a super AI playing BW with a very high upper bound of APM, it can achieve stacked muta without the stacked muta trick, because it can just send a large number of move command to do that. With that understanding, you could know, what's the essence of stacked muta trick? It is just a new way of easier micro being discovered. It doesn't breaks through the intended limitation of air unit.It breaks through the limit of a human Play could micro because of an easier micro mechanism has been introduced. This alone won't make the trick banned.
What point are you even trying to make here? How is this any different from the micro trick discussed in this topic?
Let's talk about hold lurker then. Should lurker has the ability to hold fire when some enemy is in range. It should have, because most other units have the ability (and it's more logical to have the ability). For most other units (e.g.: dragoon), the player just simply send a move order to make it hold fire.
And Lurkers cannot move. In fact, the ability to just hold fire is absolutely unusual and unintended for any unit.
Then it will be quite natural to consider lurker should have this ability as well. Again hold lurker trick can be considered as an easier micro being discovered rather than breaking through a unit's intended limitation.
The Lurker cannot move and likewise dies not have a hold position ability on its own. This was conscious decision made by the devs (although it is just the default for burrowed units, so probably no deeper considerations went into it). How can you argue then that this does not break any "intended limitations" of the game or the unit?
To finalize my point I will discuss a few notable known glitches:
Observer over Turret: Observer should have the ability to move to any position. Intended. Not banned.
And Turrets should have the ability to attack any air unit in their attack range. So this is a bug, a very clear breaking of the intended behaviour of the game. And it was not always legal.
Drops to Defuse Mines: Unit should be able to go on and off dropships. Intended. Not banned.
Well, this is just micro, not important for the topic…
Intended. Not banned. Note that this is a far more complicated case that takes a lot more to get it completely explained. I can probably explain my argument in another thread.
And originally it was just intended as an easy workaround to solve the mining issue. Everything else that comes from it, worker drilling, mineral hopping, unit stacking, are just byproducts that happen to be powerful tools within the game through which players can achieve new feats and new map mechanics become possible. But there is no objective argument to be made here which one of these abuses is "withing the intended game mechanics" or not. They all are when you take the game mechanics as a de-facto basis, none of them are if you consider the game mechanics just a means to achieve a certain goal.
Manner Pylon: Probes should be able to build Pylon wherever it wants. Intended. Not banned.
Again, this is a trivial example of micro and decision making, not of actual or perceived breaking of game mechanics, so not related to the topic…
Lurker Hold Position: Lurkers should have the ability to hold fire when enemies are in range, like most other units. Intended. Not banned.
Already had that example…
Flying Drones and Templar: Drones or templars are not intended to fly. Not intended. Banned.
This is hard to achieve (so it does very rarely happen accidentally) and breaks map limits, so of course it is banned. (it's also been patched out a long time ago, at least for the most part).
Gas Walk: Workers are not intended to be stacked while not mining. Not intended. Banned.
It is banned because it has been proven to be completely imba and degenerative to gameplay, though. That's the salient difference.
Cargo Glitch: Workers are not intended to be stacked just for returning to the base. Not intended. Banned.
What exactly constitutes a "cargo glitch" anyway? If it is just normal worker drilling using return cargo, then it is actually very much within the game mechanics (it is just worker drilling) and I don't think it is even illegal
This will support the argument to ban clustered recall. Because ground units are not intended to be stacked.
In conclusion, this kind of argumentation is futile and cannot lead to good or meaningful conclusions. When you really look at why certain things are banned, you realize it depends on whether they add depth to gameplay or have the game (or certain aspects of it) degenerate into some repetitive one-trick performance.
Stacked Recall probably has the potential to fall on either side, but it's hard to tell without many real games and an established meta around it.
No, this is not the case. As far as I know, for the banned glitches (like gas walk, cargo glitch), I don't think KeSpa has waited long enough for the meta to be completely established. Some (e.g.: carge glitch) is a minor thing which has small impact to the meta.
Kespa decisions have not always been the epitome of wisdom. They also had a very different scene to work off with all the team houses testing such things and giving them feedback before any televised games. The current streaming scene could do the same, but give it a few weeks or months.
And there's another problem: Leagues are one thing, but how would you enforce a ban in normal ladder play?
This is quite easy. Once the rule becomes explicit, Blizzard can just ban the account if someone reports willful violation. Alternatively, Blizzard can make units self-explode when clustered recall is attempted.
[/quote]Needless to say, a report & banhammer system is always a bad solution. It is inefficient and frustrating for every one involved and should be reserved for the most severe issues, such as hacking. Exploding units (just like for sieged tanks under buildings) would be a more acceptable workaround. They could just add some sort of fixed unit number limit(s) to the recall code, though.
In conclusion, this kind of argumentation is futile and cannot lead to good or meaningful conclusions. When you really look at why certain things are banned, you realize it depends on whether they add depth to gameplay or have the game (or certain aspects of it) degenerate into some repetitive one-trick performance.
Stacked Recall probably has the potential to fall on either side, but it's hard to tell without many real games and an established meta around it. Blizzard is right to keep up their hands-off, don't tweak game mechanics, approach.
Very well said, this summarises it pretty damn well. I think anyone who gives some thinking time to the metter should arrive to a similar conclusion, but don't forget you are trying to make sense to someone who calls "Irradiate" "Vessel radiation" and is asking to bring Lost Temple back to buffer Terran (omg!)
EPT
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/xgyzG7L.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/GsFZeYx.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/kliDxJm.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/EZZal4T.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/IZCE9V7.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/EVRyYJY.jpg)
