|
On June 19 2007 14:10 Mango wrote:
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.
Yeah that's a good argument actually. Then it means it must be banned in TvT and if you ban it TvT you have to ban it TvP and TvZ obviously. You can't make it too confusing.
Maybe you have thought about this too GI? 
|
"imba? Lurkers get UNLIMITED SHOTS doing 40 normal damage, they're so imba!!!"
Tanks get unlimited shots at the longest range in the game which does more damage then lurkers. IMBA IMBA IMBA IMBA IMBA....
and btw lurkers have the stop button and mines dont....
|
Alot of interesting arguments here - I'll make mine brief:
The main reason I think hold lurkers should be allowed and allied mines should not (although I don't feel strongly about either...) is because I feel that you should be able to stop a lurker from attacking just like any other unit.
I'll give an example from a real life situation (sort of..):
Say you're engaged in some guerilla warfare with your enemy and you've got a trap set up. You've got 20 strategically placed soldiers hidden in the jungle where you are pretty sure your enemy is going to walk through. Those soldiers are instructed to hold their position until you give the order (thru earpiece, or hand signal, etc.). Obviously to acheive maximum effect, you need to wait for the enemy to be fully enclosed within the perimeter of your trap so holding is vital to the success.
Thats how I look at hold lurks. It is obviously to the zerg's benefit to hold until most of the rines are in range of the lurks, and if this were an actual battle the overmind would give the lurker(s) those precise instructions. Its not like lurkers are mindless robots who attack non-stop, they are under the control of the overminde just like every other zerg unit.
A vultures mines on the other hand, are not under the control of the Terran commander, they are triggered by pressure and do not have any intelligence of their own. It's that simple, the lurker is an intelligent (kind of) creature that is able to take instructions, spiders mines are not.
PS sorry if any of this was covered while I was typing but I started this thing at 13:58... 
|
United States4471 Posts
Btw, while a lot of the posts made in response to GI's original post have been less than ideal (putting it kindly), GI's responses to those have also been less than ideal. GI is just as guilty of degrading this discussion as the others with the way he has posted, even if he may have had justifiable reasons for doing so. It's hard to make yourself appear to be above the masses of the ignorant or idiotic when you're lowering yourself to their level.
|
Because allied mine is imba and hold lurker is not?
Or maybe because hold lurker can be done in legitimate ways whereas allied mine can not.
Gas stack is obviously a bug that would totally imba early game, having 12 scvs stack and destroy the shit out of everything.
Obs glitch doesn't imba stuff but I guess it's kind of gay since turrets are there to kill obs and drops.
All comes down to whether it affects balance or not. Hold lurker has been allow for a while and I'd still say T > Z in professional leagues. Plus, it's only viable for a short period of time anyway since the Zerg won't be planting fifty 125 damage spider mines all over the map.
|
For some strange reason certain types of hold lurker are banned, i am not sure the exact reason, but the most effective method is not (Attacking building in fog of war).
As you stated allied mines has to be done in the diplomacy screen, i exspect if allied lurker HAD to be done that way it would also be banned. But also keep in mind that on ladders like PGT/Abyss/ICC in 1on1 mode allied mines isn't even an option which is where 1on1 would take place, however in 2on2 you can allie mines, i would assume that it is unfair for 1 to be able to do it and the other cannot, hold lurker can be performed in either, if you wanna allie lurker in 2on2 HF but it's really retarded consdiering it can be done in better more effective ways.
To summerize, Hold lurker can be performed in every game type, while allied mines can't be performed in as many.
|
There isn't much for me to add here (as far as I can see), except that... some of the arguments put against GI are completely ridiculous. Step away from the "philosophy of war" for a second. Step away from what units are able to do and not. Just because you have to go through a different set of steps does not change the fact that hold lurkers and allied mines give rise to the same effect.
So why should one be banned and not the other? They're the exact same thing .
|
United States4471 Posts
On June 19 2007 14:16 Daveed wrote:
There isn't much for me to add here (as far as I can see), except that... some of the arguments put against GI are completely ridiculous. Step away from the "philosophy of war" for a second. Step away from what units are able to do and not. Just because you have to go through a different set of steps does not change the fact that hold lurkers and allied mines give rise to the same effect.
So why should one be banned and not the other? They're the exact same thing .
If by "effect" you mean that both tactics allow you to selectively attack with something that not supposed to be able to, then yes they're the same. However, "effect" can also refer to the effect the two tactics have on competitive SC as a whole, and in that, there appears to be abundant evidence that the two are different in that aspect.
|
Live2Win
United States6657 Posts
On June 19 2007 14:16 Daveed wrote:
There isn't much for me to add here (as far as I can see), except that... some of the arguments put against GI are completely ridiculous. Step away from the "philosophy of war" for a second. Step away from what units are able to do and not. Just because you have to go through a different set of steps does not change the fact that hold lurkers and allied mines give rise to the same effect.
So why should one be banned and not the other? They're the exact same thing .
I'm sure if Allied mines was possible to do any other way, it'll be allowed.
Actually there is one way to make it do almost the same thing.
If you cast optical flare on the mines, then they won't explode until you are right next to them (unless they have vis due to other units).
I know the effect isn't nearly as devastating or useful, but it brings to my point that it has a similar effect yet not banned.
The question should not be should "stop lurker" be banned since "allied mine" is, the question should be would "allied mines" be allowed if it was done in any other way?
I think it would.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
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.
if thats your logic then you're just really really whiny. Hold Lurker isn't "GAME BREAKING", it only works in specific situations and the only real point is for a zerg to buy himself some time.
There's a reason this technique is celebrated within progaming and loathed in D- foreigner circles and I really want you to consider that before you think you have anything worthwhile to say on the matter.
|
On June 19 2007 13:55 GrandInquisitor wrote:
Okay then. Solve both of those problems by allowing hold pos with workers, hold lurk, AND allied mines. Less rules for everyone.
WHAT PROBLEM?
Everyone in this thread but you has the opinion that the rules are fine as they are.
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
On June 19 2007 14:10 Mango wrote:
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.
hahaha. That's undeniably true, but at the same time so very....
On June 19 2007 14:11 XaI)CyRiC wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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.
From an ends standpoint, I can hardly believe that the rules were made in response to painstaking analysis of thousands of games. It feels more like the discussion began and ended at "Diplomacy screen"; at which point, one needs to bite the harm of disallowing allied lurker while allowing hold lurker.
Like:
On June 19 2007 14:19 XaI)CyRiC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2007 14:16 Daveed wrote:
There isn't much for me to add here (as far as I can see), except that... some of the arguments put against GI are completely ridiculous. Step away from the "philosophy of war" for a second. Step away from what units are able to do and not. Just because you have to go through a different set of steps does not change the fact that hold lurkers and allied mines give rise to the same effect.
So why should one be banned and not the other? They're the exact same thing . If by "effect" you mean that both tactics allow you to selectively attack with something that not supposed to be able to, then yes they're the same. However, "effect" can also refer to the effect the two tactics have on competitive SC as a whole, and in that, there appears to be abundant evidence that the two are different in that aspect.
I don't feel that that is the case. Mines are more plentiful than lurkers, yes, but mines are one-use-only. The two seem parallel in almost every other way.
On June 19 2007 14:13 Trey5 wrote:Alot of interesting arguments here - I'll make mine brief: The main reason I think hold lurkers should be allowed and allied mines should not (although I don't feel strongly about either...) is because I feel that you should be able to stop a lurker from attacking just like any other unit. I'll give an example from a real life situation (sort of..): Say you're engaged in some guerilla warfare with your enemy and you've got a trap set up. You've got 20 strategically placed soldiers hidden in the jungle where you are pretty sure your enemy is going to walk through. Those soldiers are instructed to hold their position until you give the order (thru earpiece, or hand signal, etc.). Obviously to acheive maximum effect, you need to wait for the enemy to be fully enclosed within the perimeter of your trap so holding is vital to the success. Thats how I look at hold lurks. It is obviously to the zerg's benefit to hold until most of the rines are in range of the lurks, and if this were an actual battle the overmind would give the lurker(s) those precise instructions. Its not like lurkers are mindless robots who attack non-stop, they are under the control of the overminde just like every other zerg unit. A vultures mines on the other hand, are not under the control of the Terran commander, they are triggered by pressure and do not have any intelligence of their own. It's that simple, the lurker is an intelligent (kind of) creature that is able to take instructions, spiders mines are not. PS sorry if any of this was covered while I was typing but I started this thing at 13:58...
Your brand of realism is a convincing argument (and I mean that sincerely) if we buy that Starcraft is meant to be a realistic game. But so many bugs in the game engine seem so unrealistic that if we are designing our ruleset with realism in mind, so many other things would need to be banned - drone drill first among them.
On June 19 2007 14:13 XaI)CyRiC wrote:
Btw, while a lot of the posts made in response to GI's original post have been less than ideal (putting it kindly), GI's responses to those have also been less than ideal. GI is just as guilty of degrading this discussion as the others with the way he has posted, even if he may have had justifiable reasons for doing so. It's hard to make yourself appear to be above the masses of the ignorant or idiotic when you're lowering yourself to their level.
It's a little difficult to try to respond coolly and intelligently when your topic is filled with people who, reading the first line of the post, immediately mash out an incoherent reply like CAUSE U NEED 2 GO INTO ALLY SCREEN GG DISCUSSION OVER FAG. I didn't write a couple hundred words on the topic to see people spontaneously and unprovokedly drag it into the mud.
On June 19 2007 14:14 mahnini wrote:
Because allied mine is imba and hold lurker is not?
Spoken like a true Z user.
|
hold lurker is sometimes the only chance the zerg can catch up if he did 2 hatch fast lurker against FE terran but the build order failed to do any dammage.
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
On June 19 2007 14:35 5HITCOMBO wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2007 13:55 GrandInquisitor wrote:
Okay then. Solve both of those problems by allowing hold pos with workers, hold lurk, AND allied mines. Less rules for everyone. WHAT PROBLEM? Everyone in this thread but you has the opinion that the rules are fine as they are.
Sigh. I was referring to HIS problems that he had with my opinion. Get a grip.
On June 19 2007 14:34 FakeSteve[TPR] 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.
if thats your logic then you're just really really whiny. Hold Lurker isn't "GAME BREAKING", it only works in specific situations and the only real point is for a zerg to buy himself some time. There's a reason this technique is celebrated within progaming and loathed in D- foreigner circles and I really want you to consider that before you think you have anything worthwhile to say on the matter.
Ditto for allied mines, then? Where's the difference?
|
On June 19 2007 14:42 tKd_ wrote:
hold lurker is sometimes the only chance the zerg can catch up if he did 2 hatch fast lurker against FE terran but the build order failed to do any dammage.
STOP POSTING
|
On June 19 2007 14:44 GrandInquisitor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2007 14:35 5HITCOMBO wrote:On June 19 2007 13:55 GrandInquisitor wrote:
Okay then. Solve both of those problems by allowing hold pos with workers, hold lurk, AND allied mines. Less rules for everyone. WHAT PROBLEM? Everyone in this thread but you has the opinion that the rules are fine as they are. Sigh. I was referring to HIS problems that he had with my opinion. Get a grip.
It's actually OUR problems that we have with your opinion. I don't think anyone in this thread has backed you up once.
|
Allied mines in not possible in 1v1 mode. The ONLY reason games aren't played on that mode is because the games must be broadcasted. If ANYTHING doesn't work on 1v1 mode which works on ums it should be disallowed.
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
On June 19 2007 14:46 5HITCOMBO wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2007 14:44 GrandInquisitor wrote:On June 19 2007 14:35 5HITCOMBO wrote:On June 19 2007 13:55 GrandInquisitor wrote:
Okay then. Solve both of those problems by allowing hold pos with workers, hold lurk, AND allied mines. Less rules for everyone. WHAT PROBLEM? Everyone in this thread but you has the opinion that the rules are fine as they are. Sigh. I was referring to HIS problems that he had with my opinion. Get a grip. It's actually OUR problems that we have with your opinion. I don't think anyone in this thread has backed you up once.
What, no apology for blatantly and deliberately misinterpreting my post, just moving onto other baseless spiteful accusations? And how is any of that relevant to the logical validity of my argument?
(fyi check first post)
|
United States7166 Posts
why do you keep saying about what Blizzard intended the units to be? do you even realize that Blizzard guys have stated several times saying 'im sure expert players will find ways to use units in Starcraft 2 that we never imagined, like they did for the original starcraft'
using units in ways they never intended is fine, why the hell wouldn't it be? it's simple, allying your opponent for any reason is banned, like many have said if you had to ally to 'hold lurker' then it wouldnt be allowed either. makes sense to me, allying your opponent is not right
|
On June 19 2007 14:44 GrandInquisitor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2007 14:35 5HITCOMBO wrote:On June 19 2007 13:55 GrandInquisitor wrote:
Okay then. Solve both of those problems by allowing hold pos with workers, hold lurk, AND allied mines. Less rules for everyone. WHAT PROBLEM? Everyone in this thread but you has the opinion that the rules are fine as they are. Sigh. I was referring to HIS problems that he had with my opinion. Get a grip. Show nested quote +On June 19 2007 14:34 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: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.
if thats your logic then you're just really really whiny. Hold Lurker isn't "GAME BREAKING", it only works in specific situations and the only real point is for a zerg to buy himself some time. There's a reason this technique is celebrated within progaming and loathed in D- foreigner circles and I really want you to consider that before you think you have anything worthwhile to say on the matter. Ditto for allied mines, then? Where's the difference?
As far as I can tell, allied mines a lot worse in TvT and TvP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
