|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
On June 19 2007 13:40 5HITCOMBO wrote:
Well, if that's the case, should patrol workers be banned too?
Read first post?
On June 19 2007 13:41 5HITCOMBO wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2007 13:40 GrandInquisitor wrote:On June 19 2007 13:38 5HITCOMBO wrote:The difference is that you're causing your opponent's unit to not work, not yours. Turrets are also another unit that can't do anything but stop and attack, by the way  . Okay, flying drone and flying templar. Gas stack bug. There are a lot of examples where we ban you from issuing certain series of commands. Those were not in the original broodwar. They were patched in. Now they're patched out. (Except for stack, which I think still works.)
That's not the point, the point is that those were banned when they were present in the game, right? And rightfully so....
On June 19 2007 13:42 tehredbandit wrote:
Grandinquisitor, if your so hellbent on your opinion on this issue why are you asking for others opinions only to shut them down? Just go to the old threads and argue with your self... quietly....at your own home.....with no one around....sex with kittens....
I created the topic hoping that either 1) I could change a mind or two; 2) find out an argument that was convincing and that I didn't know before. Neither of those have happend yet, apparently, because TL's collective debating ability appears about the level of a wasted chimpanzee (though with more toilet humor).
|
You don't need to be looking for an explanation in-game, cus you can just as easily find another "reason" that refutes it.
Just know that stop lurkers are ruled as a legitimate tactic, and allied mines are a serious exploit.
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
On June 19 2007 13:46 5HITCOMBO wrote:
Well... honestly, what's the point in arguing about this? We're not going to change the rules that have been set in place by the korean leagues, nor are we going to have much influence over the foreign leagues (which base practically everything off of the korean ones). Allied mines is banned. Hold lurkers is not. We can't change that.
You honestly think we can't change the rules of WGT and ICCup?
And why do I see eighty page topics in General Forum every single day on politics if none of us can singlehandedly change the country from a forum topic? That's not what I expect.
|
Ill say again every unit in the game has the ability to Not attack. Clearly the reason why lurkers do not have a hold position button is because they cant attack when unburrowed and therefore will not randomly go attack stuff when you dont want them to. When lurkers are burrowed they cant move and therefore dont have a need for the hold position button either. they still have the STOP command which hmmm maybe possibly... was put in there to tell a unit to hmmmmmmmmmmmm... STOP ATTACKING?
your ridiculous argument has been entertaining.
|
"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."
I can point out every single game ZvT game that has been played without hold lurker. It's easy. "If a hold lurker would have been there his marines would get raped". So show me any game and I can probably show where hold lurkers would have helped. Don't see why it matters though. You seem to only focus on what is happening and what's not happening. Hold-scvs prevents zergs from coming in. You can't tell what would happen if the scv's would've been non-hold.
"You don't need hold position to do that. You can just move them there and it does the same thing."
No. Attack a hold SCV and it won't move. Attack a normal SCV and it runs around like crazy trying to find a way out. It's almost always easier to get up a non-hold SCV ramp then a hold-scv ramp. No doubt about that. It's hard to tell exactly when though since it, again, only prevents something from happening, wheres hold-lurkers show us the effect right away.
"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?"
No that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying keep it simple. We should have as few rules as possible to make the gamers feel they can play the game without being scared of breaking a rule. Banning allied mines is extremly simple while banning holdlurkers is enough trouble (maybe not for you, but for the gamers and the admins) to let it go. It doesn't hurt more than the trouble it takes to ban it.
And oops, I JUST SO HAPPENED to get rid of hold lurker while his mnm moved over me. That's a ridiculous argument.
Maybe for you, but it's just too annyoing. Why not just keep it simple? It CAN hurt gameplay for some zerg players and they HAVE to check it somehow if they implent that rule. It's just too much work for something ridiculous that doesn't hurt gameplay.
"So you think allied lurkers should be banned, while hold lurkers shouldn't? Does that really make sense, considering they do the same thing?"
Yeah I guess in one way I'm saying that. I'm saying "ban changing from enemy to ally in a game". Stop lurkers and hold lurkers also do the same thing by the way.
|
On June 19 2007 12:28 GrandInquisitor wrote:
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.
Why? That's like not allowing Zergs to use Ultras in ZvP because their effect is gamebreaking.
The same goes for Mass Carriers.
|
On June 19 2007 13:48 GrandInquisitor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2007 13:46 5HITCOMBO wrote:
Well... honestly, what's the point in arguing about this? We're not going to change the rules that have been set in place by the korean leagues, nor are we going to have much influence over the foreign leagues (which base practically everything off of the korean ones). Allied mines is banned. Hold lurkers is not. We can't change that. You honestly think we can't change the rules of WGT and ICCup? And why do I see eighty page topics in General Forum every single day on politics if none of us can singlehandedly change the country from a forum topic? That's not what I expect.
Because there are a lot of people out there with a lot of free time and not much foresight.
|
On June 19 2007 13:39 GrandInquisitor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2007 13:35 Jonoman92 wrote:
Cuz T is already imba!!
But really, think about starcraft beign played in One vs One mode, where you can't ally and hence can't used allied mines. The makers of the game didn't watn those damn allied mines to come into play in their 1v1 mode so it shoudl be banned. Hold lurker is merely a clever ploy while allied mines is erm exploiting the functions that blizz nicely gave us so that we could have games with more than 2 people. There are different modes that prevent us from doing certain things, some of which prohibit the execution of certain exploits. That shouldn't be the determinator of what exploits are allowed and which aren't. Imagine a mode of Starcraft where you can only select one unit at a time and you can't see faraway buildings under fog of war and etc. (It doesn't exist, of course, but this is a thought experiment.) Would the existence of that mode indicate that in melee you can't do Hold Lurker?
Ok, your argument doesn't exactly hold up because why shouldn't each game setting for the specific mode determine what is allowed in that specific game? It seems like if each setting has varying rules they were put like that for a reason and therefore should be followed hence (no allying in One vs One mode).
Another theory is that lurkers are units that can be controlled by the overmind(aka: you) or w/e, while mines are mechanical and once they are laid there is no way to control them whatsoever. A vult get 3 mines doing 125 damage each lets not make it more imba. And this argument assumes that turrets has a lil dude inside that doens't ake up any supply.... Since you can manually contol those...
edit: ehh, my second paragraph could be put better but basically. Lurkers are a units with different usable modes and are dynamic and can be controlled in various ways to to the most damage possible. Mines are specifically meant to be traps (spring up upone enemy approach) and to not be dynamic like the lurker.
|
On June 19 2007 12:28 GrandInquisitor wrote:
UNACCEPTABLE ANSWER: in order to use allied mines you have to go into the Diplomacy screen, for hold lurker you don't.
lol. This is a totally acceptable answer. Also, whats your stance on the 1v1 game set? You never responded to that my friend. your a douche btw. Coming in here and calling tl full of chimps and what not. dare i say. fuck you?
|
How do protosses lose to allied mines? Do they not always have an observor with their goons? And if it's early game prior to observors, they probably wouldn't have enough goons to get through a mine field anyways.
|
On June 19 2007 12:55 .dragoon wrote:
Mines are not suppose to be controllable, for christ's sake they have no command menu.
As a terran user I would prefer by far that "allied mines" is legal, but this is the answer.
And it's the same with observer stacked on turret.
It's just for "realism" and appeal of the game. That realism that we massive gamers often forget...
Hold lurker needs instead a sort of control, that make it "realistic".
My two cents.
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
On June 19 2007 13:49 joeki wrote:
"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."
I can point out every single game ZvT game that has been played without hold lurker. It's easy. "If a hold lurker would have been there his marines would get raped". So show me any game and I can probably show where hold lurkers would have helped. Don't see why it matters though. You seem to only focus on what is happening and what's not happening. Hold-scvs prevents zergs from coming in. You can't tell what would happen if the scv's would've been non-hold.
You were talking about how T > Z in starleague. I responded that that would have still happened with allowing hold lurker. I fail to see how that's relevant, then.
"You don't need hold position to do that. You can just move them there and it does the same thing."
No. Attack a hold SCV and it won't move. Attack a normal SCV and it runs around like crazy trying to find a way out. It's almost always easier to get up a non-hold SCV ramp then a hold-scv ramp. No doubt about that. It's hard to tell exactly when though since it, again, only prevents something from happening, wheres hold-lurkers show us the effect right away.
"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?"
No that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying keep it simple. We should have as few rules as possible to make the gamers feel they can play the game without being scared of breaking a rule. Banning allied mines is extremly simple while banning holdlurkers is enough trouble (maybe not for you, but for the gamers and the admins) to let it go. It doesn't hurt more than the trouble it takes to ban it.
Okay then. Solve both of those problems by allowing hold pos with workers, hold lurk, AND allied mines. Less rules for everyone.
And oops, I JUST SO HAPPENED to get rid of hold lurker while his mnm moved over me. That's a ridiculous argument.
Maybe for you, but it's just too annyoing. Why not just keep it simple? It CAN hurt gameplay for some zerg players and they HAVE to check it somehow if they implent that rule. It's just too much work for something ridiculous that doesn't hurt gameplay.
I was referring to Zerg players being scared that they accidentally use hold lurker. No one exploits hold lurker accidentally; they might accidentally put on hold, but definitely won't abuse it.
"So you think allied lurkers should be banned, while hold lurkers shouldn't? Does that really make sense, considering they do the same thing?"
Yeah I guess in one way I'm saying that. I'm saying "ban changing from enemy to ally in a game". Stop lurkers and hold lurkers also do the same thing by the way.
Well then, we differ on this point. I think allied mines, if they are to be banned at all, is because of the gamebreaking effect it has, not because how one does it.
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
On June 19 2007 13:51 5HITCOMBO wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2007 12:28 GrandInquisitor wrote:
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.
Why? That's like not allowing Zergs to use Ultras in ZvP because their effect is gamebreaking. The same goes for Mass Carriers.
......
On June 19 2007 13:52 5HITCOMBO wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2007 13:48 GrandInquisitor wrote:On June 19 2007 13:46 5HITCOMBO wrote:
Well... honestly, what's the point in arguing about this? We're not going to change the rules that have been set in place by the korean leagues, nor are we going to have much influence over the foreign leagues (which base practically everything off of the korean ones). Allied mines is banned. Hold lurkers is not. We can't change that. You honestly think we can't change the rules of WGT and ICCup? And why do I see eighty page topics in General Forum every single day on politics if none of us can singlehandedly change the country from a forum topic? That's not what I expect. Because there are a lot of people out there with a lot of free time and not much foresight.
Political debate is useless, therefore, if it doesn't immediately engender swift societal change?
On June 19 2007 13:53 Jonoman92 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2007 13:39 GrandInquisitor wrote:On June 19 2007 13:35 Jonoman92 wrote:
Cuz T is already imba!!
But really, think about starcraft beign played in One vs One mode, where you can't ally and hence can't used allied mines. The makers of the game didn't watn those damn allied mines to come into play in their 1v1 mode so it shoudl be banned. Hold lurker is merely a clever ploy while allied mines is erm exploiting the functions that blizz nicely gave us so that we could have games with more than 2 people. There are different modes that prevent us from doing certain things, some of which prohibit the execution of certain exploits. That shouldn't be the determinator of what exploits are allowed and which aren't. Imagine a mode of Starcraft where you can only select one unit at a time and you can't see faraway buildings under fog of war and etc. (It doesn't exist, of course, but this is a thought experiment.) Would the existence of that mode indicate that in melee you can't do Hold Lurker? Ok, your argument doesn't exactly hold up because why shouldn't each game setting for the specific mode determine what is allowed in that specific game? It seems like if each setting has varying rules they were put like that for a reason and therefore should be followed hence (no allying in One vs One mode).
Sure. But we don't play One v One mode much, do we?
Another theory is that lurkers are units that can be controlled by the overmind(aka: you) or w/e, while mines are mechanical and once they are laid there is no way to control them whatsoever. A vult get 3 mines doing 125 damage each lets not make it more imba. And this argument assumes that turrets has a lil dude inside that doens't ake up any supply.... Since you can manually contol those...
imba? Lurkers get UNLIMITED SHOTS doing 40 normal damage, they're so imba!!!
Already referred to control argument earlier.
On June 19 2007 13:54 tehredbandit wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2007 12:28 GrandInquisitor wrote:
UNACCEPTABLE ANSWER: in order to use allied mines you have to go into the Diplomacy screen, for hold lurker you don't.
lol. This is a totally acceptable answer. Also, whats your stance on the 1v1 game set? You never responded to that my friend. your a douche btw. Coming in here and calling tl full of chimps and what not. dare i say. fuck you?
I don't know why I write responses if no one reads them.
On June 19 2007 13:55 nvn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2007 12:55 .dragoon wrote:
Mines are not suppose to be controllable, for christ's sake they have no command menu.
As a terran user I would prefer by far that "allied mines" is legal, but this is the answer. And it's the same with observer stacked on turret. It's just for "realism" and appeal of the game. That realism that we massive gamers often forget... Hold lurker needs instead a sort of control, that make it "realistic". My two cents.
If it's realism we want, drone drill should be banned, no?
|
"observer over a turret are unintentional "
i really think this is intentional... i mean come on, u dont see goons or w/e get stucked when they have a battlecruiser over them
|
Well you obviously put alot of thought into this. I have arguments as to why hold lurker shouldn't be banned, but as to why allied mines is not allowed I haven't really thought about much. Mainly because I don't play TvP/PvT much and don't really know how much inpact it can have. When I think about it I think it can be a disaster since they can blow up every protoss unit at once.
But on the other hand, Terran players are more careful now because of well placed hold lurkers and I guess Protoss players would adapt too. I'm just too tired of too many terrans in the leagues right now and guess it has an impact on how I am thinking 
So ok I don't really know the reason allied mines are banned and I haven't seen anyone post any good argument eather yet. They are however proffesional in Korea and I suspect there is a good reason which I hope someone will post soon. If not, then I agree with you: It's strange.
|
GI is such a peaceful man.... untill it comes to imbalance or glitch threads. Then may the lord help you
|
Because if 2players use allied mines the game is over in a draw. That's why it should be forbidden to ally an opponent in a game, this game isnt meant to end on a draw. So yes lets ban allied lurkers, but lets keep stoplurkers because its another mechanismn behind it.
|
I don't see why you flame GI in this thread. He makes a good point, obviously thought about it alot and makes you think. It's not his fault you all come with retarded arguments that he knows how to respond to. Work on your ego guys. He is calling your responses stupid, not you personaly. That's what you are doing to him.
Just wow.
|
United States4471 Posts
The real reason is just because the people who set up the rules for tournaments and leagues don't consider hold lurker to be as damaging as allied mines. People can come up with all sorts of reasons, but the bottom line is that the people running the show believe one has too great an effect on competitive gaming while the other does not. Anyone who thinks for more than a few minutes about this will realize this and accept that for what it is. If someone wants to change this, then they need to come up with a way to convince those who run tournaments to do so. The same reasoning for allied mines can be used for other "broken" tactics like gas stacking, etc.
As to my personal opinion as to why one is different from the other, for me it's all about the game mechanics. As someone stated, hold lurker doesn't require you to change the game settings, in particular settings that can't be changed in the 1vs1 or TopvsBottom modes. It can be argued that one mode holds no greater importance or relevance than the other, but it should be considered that the modes that were specifically designed for one on one battles and team battles do not allow for allied mines to be used. Allied mines pretty much only works in Melee, which, in my opinion, is just a default mode that Blizzard threw out there to allow people a lot of freedom and flexibility with how they play. If any modes can be argued to have been intended for competitive gaming, it would be the 1vs1 and TopvsBottom modes. The argument about the hold command being difficult to implement because of the unique nature of the lurker being only able to attack while burrowed is also convincing to me as to why, while it may not be available without pulling a "trick", lurkers on hold should be allowed.
It can be argued that hold lurker and allied lurker do the same thing and so both should be banned, but it's not really convincing, at least not to me. If people, like me, are arguing that it's the method (or means) by which you accomplish allied mines that is the problem, the mere fact that the effect hold lurkers has can be duplicated with mechanics manipulation similar to allied mines is irrelevant. The rationale is that of the means not the ends. If you want to argue the ends, then refer back to my first paragraph.
Basically, you can break the reasoning for hold lurkers and allied mines into two categories. One is the means by which they are implemented, which leads to the argument as to whether you personally believe the game modes/mechanics arguments are relevant. Some would argue that the modes/mechanics say nothing about Blizzard's intent as to the two tactics, while some would argue that Blizzard's intent doesn't matter in the first place. It's up to each to decide for themselves, but there really is no right or wrong answer here. The next category is the ends or effects of the two tactics, which basically becomes a discussion of just how much effect the two have on competitive gaming. It appears that a large portion of the SC community doesn't consider hold lurkers to have as much of a negative impact as allied mines does, so consensus sides with them being treated differently. Even beyond concensus, the mere fact that one is allowed while the other isn't at the very highest level of the game should suggest that they're different in that one is okay while the other isn't.
I'm not sure if GI will be satisfied by this explanation, but that's all there is to be said on the subject. You can either go with the means explanation and then choose to agree or disagree with the fact that the mechanics/modes of the game suggest that the two tactics are different, or you can go with the ends explanation and choose to argue against the majority and the people in charge. Either way, you will walk away dissatisfied if you expect to find satisfactory answers different from those I've listed or expect those in charge of competitive gaming to change their policies regarding the two tactics in response to a relatively minor part of the community that disagrees with one being banned while the other is not.
|
does anyone know how to stack probes ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
