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 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?
I'm not gonna argue with you cuz by the looks of this thread its a fruitless endeavour. I'm saying you don't understand the concept of hold lurker in its proper context in hopes that you'll stop posting about it.
i think the most important thing to consider is how satisfying it is to unleash a hold lurker attack on an unsuspecting group of marines. that thrilling moment where you excitedly hold your breath and your bladder as the marines walk over your lurkers, it's a thrilling starcraft experience. don't ban hold lurker because it's awesome!
and ban hold scvs on ramp because zergling rush never works anymore
On June 19 2007 13:03 GrandInquisitor wrote: 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".
The argument is sufficient. Your counter argument with the examples "gas stack" and "obs on turret" is insufficient. There is a good reason not to allow the examples you gave. There is no good reason not to allow a player to prevent his lurkers from firing. The comparison between hold lurkers and gas stack / obs on turret is weak and irrelevant.
Judging from this thread you don't really want to be convinced, so just accept the fact that hold lurker is allowed and allied mine is not and that there is a good reason for that. You might not understand the reason, but if you refuse to listen then that is simply your loss. No hard feelings.
On June 19 2007 14:42 GrandInquisitor wrote: 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.
Maybe not painstaking analysis of thousands of games, but the collective conclusion by the competitive SC community that allied mines are a big enough problem to ban while hold lurkers isn't. Make no mistake, for all the arguments that have been made on both sides, if hold lurkers created a large enough negative effect, leagues and tournaments would prohibit it. I've heard the opinions of some of the better foreign gamers in previous threads where they believed that allied mines "breaks" certain matchups like TvT, whereas no such thing has ever been said (to my knowledge) about hold lurkers.
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.
I don't understand how this quoted portion related to my post that you quoted. I'm not sure how mines being more plentiful than lurkers is relevant to my posts. The part you quoted prior to this part of your post was just further explaining the point I made before and clarified again in the earlier part of this post. The general concensus among the people who obviously matter in allowing allied mines vs. hold lurkers is that one has too great a negative effect on competitive SC, while the other doesn't. It doesn't take a published study to show that, it's implied by the collective policies of competitive SC over the past few years. Allied mines isn't new or something that hasn't been discussed before by the SC community. The fact that it's controversial and been discussed before, coupled with the fact that allied mines is banned while hold lurker is not, is all the evidence we need on this particular line of reasoning.
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.
I agree that the whole "realism" argument isn't very convincing when it comes to computer games, particularly those in the Sci-Fi genre.
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.
It's not hard to disregard people who post unintelligently or incoherently, nor is it difficult to maintain one's composure and choose to not respond in a like manner. How does responding in the same manner that upset you and dragged your thread into the mud help the situation? I think it's quite evident that it doesn't help, it actually contributes to the problem and makes it worse.
On June 19 2007 14:14 mahnini wrote: Because allied mine is imba and hold lurker is not?
Spoken like a true Z user.
This opinion isn't held just by Z users, it's held by many others, amongst them people who play TvT. It's easy to disregard the opinion because it's stated so simply and in an unsophisticated manner, but its validity remains true. Allied mine is believed by many to be "imba" while hold lurker is not.
[quote] Maybe not painstaking analysis of thousands of games, but the collective conclusion by the competitive SC community that allied mines are a big enough problem to ban while hold lurkers isn't. Make no mistake, for all the arguments that have been made on both sides, if hold lurkers created a large enough negative effect, leagues and tournaments would prohibit it. I've heard the opinions of some of the better foreign gamers in previous threads where they believed that allied mines "breaks" certain matchups like TvT, whereas no such thing has ever been said (to my knowledge) about hold lurkers. [/quote]
that's interessting why do allied mines break TvT?
Okay. I can accept that allied mines break TvT pretty irreparably after someone walked through it with me on AIM. I still think that hold lurk has the potential to wreak as much havoc in ZvP and ZvT as allied mines TvT, and that TvT could adapt to allied mines, but it's not worth continuing this trainwreck of a topic.
[QUOTE]On June 19 2007 15:23 Sadir wrote: [QUOTE]On June 19 2007 15:12 XaI)CyRiC wrote:
[quote] Maybe not painstaking analysis of thousands of games, but the collective conclusion by the competitive SC community that allied mines are a big enough problem to ban while hold lurkers isn't. Make no mistake, for all the arguments that have been made on both sides, if hold lurkers created a large enough negative effect, leagues and tournaments would prohibit it. I've heard the opinions of some of the better foreign gamers in previous threads where they believed that allied mines "breaks" certain matchups like TvT, whereas no such thing has ever been said (to my knowledge) about hold lurkers. [/quote]
that's interessting why do allied mines break TvT?
[/QUOTE]
Terran players have nothing that detects mines that they would consider using in terran vs terran for any other reason. Science vessels aren't exactly useful and nobody's gonna scan everywhere when they want to move.
Losing a huge army because of a bunch of mines means you lose the game pretty much without question
On June 19 2007 15:25 GrandInquisitor wrote: Okay. I can accept that allied mines break TvT pretty irreparably after someone walked through it with me on AIM. I still think that hold lurk has the potential to wreak as much havoc in ZvP and ZvT as allied mines TvT, and that TvT could adapt to allied mines, but it's not worth continuing this trainwreck of a topic.
This is what I'm talking about.. you made this thread because you think the potential is there for hold lurkers to be game-breaking?
You don't bother applying your hunch to actual game context and you wonder why there isn't a wave of support for you?
Wtf hold lurker not imba ? Oh right because you're all playing mutas first right ? I'm pretty sure if all zerg would play lurks first, and using the hold trick, they'd kill worth of 300 minerals or even more killed marines... And we all know how deadly is a 6 marines / medics army... As a zerg user for 8 years or maybe more this hold lurks is clearly imba and shouldn't really be allowed as it does for allied mines... I mean uncontrolable mines ? Wtf where do you live ? With the technology nowadays why wouldn't we control them as we can detonate c4 from a cell phone ? The vultures could for some reason make them not to attack even if there's an ennemy above them right ? That's why i think hold lurks shouldn't be allowed although i use it since it's not forbidden and is really a bonus.
On June 19 2007 15:25 GrandInquisitor wrote: Okay. I can accept that allied mines break TvT pretty irreparably after someone walked through it with me on AIM. I still think that hold lurk has the potential to wreak as much havoc in ZvP and ZvT as allied mines TvT, and that TvT could adapt to allied mines, but it's not worth continuing this trainwreck of a topic.
This is what I'm talking about.. you made this thread because you think the potential is there for hold lurkers to be game-breaking?
You don't bother applying your hunch to actual game context and you wonder why there isn't a wave of support for you?
You honestly think that ZvP/ZvT wouldn't be different at all if hold lurkers were more ubiquitous?
On June 19 2007 15:30 RaiZ wrote: Wtf hold lurker not imba ? Oh right because you're all playing mutas first right ? I'm pretty sure if all zerg would play lurks first, and using the hold trick, they'd kill worth of 300 minerals or even more killed marines... And we all know how deadly is a 6 marines / medics army... As a zerg user for 8 years or maybe more this hold lurks is clearly imba and shouldn't really be allowed as it does for allied mines... I mean uncontrolable mines ? Wtf where do you live ? With the technology nowadays why wouldn't we control them as we can detonate c4 from a cell phone ? The vultures could for some reason make them not to attack even if there's an ennemy above them right ? That's why i think hold lurks shouldn't be allowed although i use it since it's not forbidden and is really a bonus.
If Hold-Lurkers could be abused to the extent that you say, then no doubt the professional community would have abused it to death, and it would be banned.
On June 19 2007 GrandInquisitor wrote: 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.
On June 19 2007 GrandInquisitor wrote: The fact that lurkers do not naturally have the Hold Position building suggests to me that Blizzard did not intend for lurkers to be able to not attack. It suggests to me that they intended it in the exact same spirit of mines - that they will always attack, and it forewarns itself.
In every single PvZ I've played no one's ever tried to do hold lurker. I don't play TvZ, but every TvZ I do play or have obsed I have not seen anyone try to do hold lurker.
Don't tell me that in every single one of those situations hold lurker would not have made a difference. Especially in low-level gaming, not everyone's adapted to playing hold lurker. But to give one example, I see even good players blindly maynard to new expoes all the time, waiting until CC is done before putting down a turret or cannons (or perhaps putting cannon out of range), all the while to vulnerable to a pair of hold lurkers hidden behind the mineral line.
On June 19 2007 GrandInquisitor wrote: 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.
On June 19 2007 GrandInquisitor wrote: The fact that lurkers do not naturally have the Hold Position building suggests to me that Blizzard did not intend for lurkers to be able to not attack. It suggests to me that they intended it in the exact same spirit of mines - that they will always attack, and it forewarns itself.
Next time I put my obs on your turret or gas stack hack to destroy your nexus in a ladder game, I'll be sure to cite this magazine article as a reference to WGT.
On June 19 2007 14:48 Slayer91 wrote: 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.
I think it might not be banned, if you could do this in 1v1 mode. Since players SHOULD be playing 1v1 but for the sake of other people watching you allow obs via ums means you still should play as you would in the correct mode.
On June 19 2007 15:42 GrandInquisitor wrote: In every single PvZ I've played no one's ever tried to do hold lurker. I don't play TvZ, but every TvZ I do play or have obsed I have not seen anyone try to do hold lurker.
So I'm wondering again why you made this thread?
Don't tell me that in every single one of those situations hold lurker would not have made a difference. Especially in low-level gaming, not everyone's adapted to playing hold lurker. But to give one example, I see even good players blindly maynard to new expoes all the time, waiting until CC is done before putting down a turret or cannons (or perhaps putting cannon out of range), all the while to vulnerable to a pair of hold lurkers hidden behind the mineral line.
Great, so for your example, you've described a situation where it doesn't actually matter if the lurkers hold position or not. You don't apply the theory to proper context, because evidently you don't understand what the proper context is. I can say it a hundred times and you're still gonna just mentally skip over it.
Hell, why don't you make a thread about how imbalanced burrowed zerglings and hydralisks are?
EPT
![[image loading]](http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/9133/sc06copynm1.jpg)
