|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
...or why hold lurker isn't. It seems either both should be allowed, or neither.
UNACCEPTABLE ANSWER: in order to use allied mines you have to go into the Diplomacy screen, for hold lurker you don't.
I mean, that should have nothing to do with it. You can do hold lurker by going into the Diplomacy screen too; does that mean that "allied lurker" is banned but "hold lurker" isn't? If you don't believe that, why would allied lurker be okay but allied mines not be? (Please don't say that ZvT is imbalanced otherwise.) If you DO believe that allied lurker is meaningfully different from hold lurker, how do you reconcile that with the fact that the two do the exact same thing, are almost identically easy to do, and provide the exact same unfair advantage? We should be banning unfair actions based on their effects on the game, not how they are carried out.
Like, hold lurker is obviously unintended by the developers, in much the same way that gas stack attack and observer over a turret are unintentional. Just because they don't involve going into the diplomacy screen shouldn't mean that it's okay.
To those of you that say that if we ban hold lurker then we have to ban workers on hold position and workers patrolling because they are equally unintentional - you missed the point. The whole idea is that we should be banning based on effect and not mode of execution. Workers on patrol and hold position aren't really gamebreakers, and their effect is minimal. Hold lurker, gas stack attack, and observer on a turret are vastly different, and affect the game much more than using a worker instead of a ling to patrol between expansions. They confer significant advantages to whichever side abuses the bug.
That's why, for example, repeatedly pressing stop on a burrowed lurker shouldn't be banned even if hold lurker is. (Maybe you can make a case for banning it, but it's a pretty offensive notion, telling players that they can't keep spamming stop with certain units - it'd feel like NR15.) Rather, I'd say that there isn't that much of an unfair advantage to be gained when someone spams stop on lurkers; in cases like that, the amount of effort you have to invest and the macro / time you give up negate, to a large extent, any potential benefit.
|
|
|
That's why I immediately leave the game if someone abuses game mechanics.
|
early game tvp would change a lot and protosses would be going 1 gate obs a lot more. in pro games allied lurkers works best early to early mid game. It can work late game but they wont usually do that much damage since the terran will have vessels floating around and firing off scans enough to detect them. i think that allied mines would be much more gamebreaking then hold lurker but i think it would be kinda cool to have it legal for a bit just to see toss's incorporating mass archon into their builds ;p
|
the answer is simple : you can stop lurker in game by spaming the S key (stop) while you cant stop a mine to "attack". So stop lurker by using hold with an overlord or aiming a distant building is just a easiest way to do it.
|
It would be cool if you could hotkey 10 mines and simultaneously spam stop, that way copying ally mine without allying it!
Too bad it's not possible, the APM freaks would <3 it ;D
|
Hah, I thought you were saying ban all forms of lurk stop/hold. Banning hold (with ol or however peolpe do it now adays) seems like a legitimate complaint. But s-spamming should certainly be allowed. You can still do it and be effective too ! =]
I assume the only way you could check this would be bw chart??
|
Mines are not suppose to be controllable, for christ's sake they have no command menu.
Lurker on the other hand does. The tech for lurkers also happens to coincide with terran getting academy (early to mid game-ish), so with a little diligence terrans are fine.
You can't possibly be asking this. Terran doesn't need another cheap shot.
|
Preventing lurkers from attacking is totally different from preventing mines from attacking. Lurkers are units and supposed to be under the direct control of the player. Mines are not supposed to be controllable. Hold lurkers is simply part of controlling the unit, allied mines is cheating.
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
On June 19 2007 12:55 .dragoon wrote:
The tech for lurkers also happens to coincide with terran getting academy (early to mid game-ish), so with a little diligence terrans are fine.
And mine tech coincides with obs tech and is after overlord tech. What are you trying to say?
You can't possibly be asking this. Terran doesn't need another cheap shot.
You can't possibly be suggesting that getting rid of hold lurker is a 'cheap shot' for Terran. As for allied mines - well, why do you defend the hold lurker cheap shot but not the Terran cheap shot?
On June 19 2007 12:56 Sr18 wrote:
Preventing lurkers from attacking is totally different from preventing mines from attacking. Lurkers are units and supposed to be under the direct control of the player. Mines are not supposed to be controllable. Hold lurkers is simply part of controlling the unit, allied mines is cheating.
Obs on turret is part of controlling the unit. Gas stack is part of controlling the unit. Your line of argument is insufficient to just leave it at "you have control over the unit, so you can do anything you want with them".
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
Look, I don't sway particularly strongly towards banning allied mine AND hold lurker or not banning either; but I think it's abhorrent that we ban one but not the other. It's an ideological and philosophical inconsistency.
|
First of we have the arguments of realism. It is just common sense to have a rule that forbids you from allying your enemy. There is a war, you fight til the death. Allying your opponent is just wrong. You are the commander of your troops. You can order your your troops to hold their attacks, but mines aren't supposed to be controlled by you.
Okay then some other arguments. It's hard since every argument that makes sense you reply with "don't say that" in your first post. You say that "Workers on patrol and hold position aren't really gamebreakers."
I say they can very well be gamebreakers. You scout a lingrush, drag some SCVs to your ramp and put a marine behind. Hold position and your safe. No hold position and there is a chance the lings can come up if your not careful and you die. I think I've seen more gamebreaking "scv-holdposition on ramp" stuff than gamebreaking "hold lurker" stuff actually... Just because lings not coming up a ramp doesn't look as spectacular as lurkers killing 20 marines doesn't mean hold-lurkers change the game more.
Mostly I think it's just annyoing to have a rule that prohibits hold lurker though. That means someone has to watch the first person vod afterward and check if the zerg really used stop instead of hold before he can be declared as the winner. It's just to annyoing. Also, if you have lings and lurkers and overlords in the same controlgroup and hold (ok doesn't happen often, but still) should the zerg be declared loser just because he accidently hold his lurker? Even if it's hard you can make an innocent mistake to hold a lurker, but you sure as hell can't accidently change from enemy to ally.
I think lurker is allowed and allied mines not, just because it's easy and doesn't hurt the balance in any matchup. T can fight P okay without allied mines and T can fight Z good even with hold lurkers. If you think it's unfair, then you have to except to have balance brought up. T owns Z statwise in, if not all, then almost all starleagues.
So to sum it up: Allied mines change the game too much and are easy to ban. Hold lurkers doesn't change the game too much and are hard to ban.
|
Yeah sure ban holding lurkers with overlords, just make sure you ban held scv with marines (another "obviously" unintended move) at the same time.
Certain glitches are simply frowned upon, while others are not. This is just something to accept i think, (since brood war has more or less moved beyond beeing just a computer game.) Other example: workers stacked by minerals contra workers stacked by shift clicking gas...
edit: got owned by simply skimming the OP first time around =P sry about that.
But seriously how can you claim that held workers are not a game breaker while held lurkers are ????
Held lurkers are used in relativly few games and decide the outcome in even fewer.
Held scv on ramp is used as often the terran possibly can (aka he scouted early enough) whenever he is either pool first rushed or 2 gated.
And more often than not it will also win him the game, or at least give him a big advantadge the times he manages to perform it flawlessly.
9 and 11 pool would be soo much stronger vs t if held scv where banned. While banning hold lurkers would hardly change zvt at all.
Except that it would probably bring new popularity to 2 fact 4 rax timing push.
And gas stack contra mineral stack, both of these are used in a way that the devs did NOT intend. Yet we choose to keep one but not the other simply because one breaks the game, the other one does not. The line between them is entirly arbitrary.
//edit
|
Cadical
United States469 Posts
I think you answered your own question
On June 19 2007 12:28 GrandInquisitor wrote:
The whole idea is that we should be banning based on effect and not mode of execution.
They decided that hold lurkers and its effects are acceptable.
and obs on turret is not banned anyways
|
"in order to use allied mines you have to go into the Diplomacy screen, for hold lurker you don't." and you are behaving like a fag lately.* Hope your period is over soon.
Iirc there was said by that time that allied mines you con only achieve it off game, while hold lurker you use game mechanics.
*http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=38446
edit: my, 7 posts while opening and reading the topic, and writing a reply
|
you can't use allied mines in One vs One mode. i think that's why it's not allwed?
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
On June 19 2007 13:09 KlaCkoN wrote:
Yeah sure ban holding lurkers with overlords, just make sure you ban held scv with marines (another "obviously" unintended move) at the same time.
Certain glitches are simply frowned upon, while others are not. This is just something to accept i think, (since brood war has more or less moved beyond beeing just a computer game.) Other example: workers stacked by minerals contra workers stacked by shift clicking gas...
edit: got owned by simply skimming the OP first time around =P sry about that.
But seriously how can you claim that held workers are not a game breaker while held lurkers are ????
Held lurkers are used in relativly few games and decide the outcome in even fewer.
Held scv on ramp is used as often the terran possibly can (aka he scouted early enough) whenever he is either pool first rushed or 2 gated.
And more often than not it will also win him the game, or at least give him a big advantadge the times he manages to perform it flawlessly.
9 and 11 pool would be soo much stronger vs t if held scv where banned. While banning hold lurkers would hardly change zvt at all.
Except that it would probably bring new popularity to 2 fact 4 rax timing push.
And gas stack contra mineral stack, both of these are used in a way that the devs did NOT intend. Yet we choose to keep one but not the other simply because one breaks the game, the other one does not. The line between them is entirly arbitrary.
//edit
I don't get it. Do SCV's in front of marines on ramp on STOP instead of HOLD POS just like, not do anything? I don't believe that. And I think hold lurker - losing a control group of mm - has potential to change the game much more than SCV's on a ramp on HOLD instead of STOP.
Moreover, if banning hold lurkers would hardly change ZvT at all, let's do it and reconcile this ideological self-contradiction then.
|
haha you responded while I was editing =P
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
On June 19 2007 13:08 joeki wrote:
First of we have the arguments of realism. It is just common sense to have a rule that forbids you from allying your enemy. There is a war, you fight til the death. Allying your opponent is just wrong. You are the commander of your troops. You can order your your troops to hold their attacks, but mines aren't supposed to be controlled by you.
So you think allied lurkers should be banned, while hold lurkers shouldn't? Does that really make sense, considering they do the same thing?
Okay then some other arguments. It's hard since every argument that makes sense you reply with "don't say that" in your first post. You say that "Workers on patrol and hold position aren't really gamebreakers."
I say they can very well be gamebreakers. You scout a lingrush, drag some SCVs to your ramp and put a marine behind. Hold position and your safe. No hold position and there is a chance the lings can come up if your not careful and you die. I think I've seen more gamebreaking "scv-holdposition on ramp" stuff than gamebreaking "hold lurker" stuff actually... Just because lings not coming up a ramp doesn't look as spectacular as lurkers killing 20 marines doesn't mean hold-lurkers change the game more.
You don't need hold position to do that. You can just move them there and it does the same thing.
Mostly I think it's just annyoing to have a rule that prohibits hold lurker though. That means someone has to watch the first person vod afterward and check if the zerg really used stop instead of hold before he can be declared as the winner. It's just to annyoing.
Almost no one uses spam stop. It's too hard. But given that more people might try to do that afterwards, this is still a small harm I'm willing to bite if I'm banning hold lurk. (Personally, I think just allowing allied mine is fine.)
Also, if you have lings and lurkers and overlords in the same controlgroup and hold (ok doesn't happen often, but still) should the zerg be declared loser just because he accidently hold his lurker? Even if it's hard you can make an innocent mistake to hold a lurker, but you sure as hell can't accidently change from enemy to ally.
And oops, I JUST SO HAPPENED to get rid of hold lurker while his mnm moved over me. That's a ridiculous argument.
I think lurker is allowed and allied mines not, just because it's easy and doesn't hurt the balance in any matchup. T can fight P okay without allied mines and T can fight Z good even with hold lurkers. If you think it's unfair, then you have to except to have balance brought up. T owns Z statwise in, if not all, then almost all starleagues.
This is an even worse argument. Balance considerations should have nothing to do with our rules; otherwise, should we institute rules like "Zerg cannot use hold lurker on Z >> T maps"? Should we not allow P users to use gas stack trick in PvZ because PvZ is imbalanced?
And point to me an example of any Starleague game where the only way Z could win was Hold Lurker. I guarantee you it would not have changed the outcome of any professional game.
|
United States42522 Posts
I know you don't wanna hear this but using the diplomacy thing is external to the game engine. It is outside the game commands. Hold lurker is not. As for banned on effect, not execution. Hold lurkers is legal in progames and balance is fine. Allied mines is illegal and balance is still fine. So change nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
