|
[B] 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).[/quote]
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.
[/QUOTE]
erm, lurks do 40 damage right I always thought they did 20...? Just because we don't play one vs. mode often has no beraing on whether it matters or not. It just means we play the game in a different way the the makers meant it to be played. And secondly with that, I play several one vs. one games every day on ICCUP and I had during wgt beta as well....
-tried to edit to just show the parts where you were answering my argument in the quote. I failed a bit but I think you can understand althoguh others might not.
|
I think what matters is how the act is executed rather than its effects on the game. It seems more objective that way. If we're going to talk about effects on the game, where do we fairly draw the line? A while back, trouble arised when that one player (can't remember his name) had a worker holding a mineral chunk and abusing the return cargo order to pass by another player's blocked ramp.
My explanation for hold lurker/allied mines has always been this. Progamers are playing a 1v1 match. So the game mode is really "one on one." In this mode, the diplomacy options are disabled. However, the game is played on UMS so that observers are possible. Nonetheless, the game should still be treated exactly like a one on one game (play it like the observers aren't even there). When this is the case, hold lurkers is still possible.
I feel the execution explanation is more objective, but apparently, it isn't. Many people still disagree about whether the execution matters or not.
edit: Also, just wanted to add that you can also hold lurker in diplomacy doesn't make a difference. The fact is, it CAN be done without the the diplomacy.
Another point about the intentions of the developers. I feel like this doesn't matter as long as what you're doing stays inside the game. So I'm ok with stack workers, holding workers using another unit, etc. I guess this is a topic in SC that some of us are just going to have to disagree about because this topic has been discussed many times and I rarely see anyone switching perspectives.
|
On June 19 2007 16:28 Zelniq wrote:
whoops my mistake i misread one of your posts, but anyway what is left to discuss? it's banned not only because the method of how you have to do it but mostly because how heavily it effects the game, mostly for TvT, while hold lurker is nowhere close as gamebreaking
Maybe not as close as gamebreaking, but that allows obviously a HUGE advantage.
As i said hold lurks hasn't been used enough by the pro zerg to be having an impact. Just imagine savior holding lurks at the 3rd terran base's mineral line on Tau cross and then sudendly the terran send all his remaining scv to this base... Chances are like 70/30 that the terran will see it but if not, i really can't see why it would not be gamebreaking...
|
GI: Thought-provoking post, thanks.
By each of the major arguments:
Diplomacy Menu:
I think this is the real reason. As has been mentioned, it doesn't work in 1v1 and tvb mode, and really classifies this as a clear exploit in my books. Other than that, the side effects of having all your other units not firing are REALLY bizarre. Imagine as a casual spectator a zerg drops a terran base... and the terran troops don't respond for a while until the player notices and quickly goes to unally the enemy. I think it'd turn me off the game if someone had to explain that they weren't attacking because of this allied mines thing. Banning allied lurks but not hold lurks is fine... the ban is quite simple - no allying the enemy in game.
Gameplay:
I agree with Live2Win that "allied" mines would probably be allowed if they could be done in another way (e.g. using a hold position command on the mines). I think they could make the game more exciting (just like how hold lurkers do). They'd probably have more of an impact on tvp than tvz, which would be good for balance. I'm not convinced tvt would be broken... getting a sci-vessel or two in the typical long tvt would change the matchup a bit but not break it. It's possible it would slow down the matchup a little more though, (which would be a bad thing for spectators), because if someone opens with vultures you have to be careful to accumulate enough comsat or a vessel to counterattack (or risk getting mine-trapped).
Realism: I don't think it's so unrealistic to be able to remotely activate/deactivate the mines. They're sophisticated technology, and they must already beam some recon information to HQ, since they provide vision. (Plus I wouldn't really care if it were unrealistic either.)
Both players allying ending game: Uhh if they keep allied victory off, the game wouldn't end, right?
So that said, I think it's reasonable/good that most major leagues/tourneys ban allied mines, but when playing with friends I think also be perfectly fine and interesting to play a variant where allied mines are allowed.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On June 19 2007 16:37 Polemarch wrote:
Realism: I don't think it's so unrealistic to be able to remotely activate/deactivate the mines. They're sophisticated technology, and they must already beam some recon information to HQ, since they provide vision. (Plus I wouldn't really care if it were unrealistic either.)
yeah i don't think realism really matters but just for anyone wondering about it, terran technology is mostly scavenged and spider mines are made from scavenged motion sensor technology not remote detonation junk
|
After watching the video MDT posted a few days back, this is exactly what I was thinking as well.
I only skimmed through the replies, but in short, I agree with GI's points.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On June 19 2007 16:43 Cambium wrote:
After watching the video MDT posted a few days back, this is exactly what I was thinking as well.
I only skimmed through the replies, but in short, I agree with GI's points.
You mean the game vs TheSTC? Savior had two lurkers above his ramp as well and a TON of drones, TheSTC was fucked one way or another. Those hold lurkers were just for show.
|
Calgary25955 Posts
You have to edit diplomacy; if there was a way to do it otherwise it would be allowed. Not sure why that isn't an acceptable answer or why you are making huge posts.
Allied Lurker isn't allowed.
I agree Hold Lurker shouldn't be allowed. But that doesn't mean Allied Mines should be allowed. One doesn't correlate with the other.
|
i think it's half the inconvenience of making sure games are played on diplomacy-enabled game modes, and half the complicated matter of such cheap disposable weapons being granted such damage potential (raising balance questions).
obviously a complicated matter, and i don't think you've looked at it from enough angles if you have such a clear opinion to one side. the headache caused by unwrapping all the issues on ally mines is enough reason alone for people to just leave it banned. i guess you could say hold lurker just causes fewer headaches.
|
I think I'm going to go use stop lurks in a game real quick cuz of this thread, holy shit.
EVERYTHING always ends up in a flame war here, jesus.
|
United States7166 Posts
On June 19 2007 16:37 RaiZ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2007 16:28 Zelniq wrote:
whoops my mistake i misread one of your posts, but anyway what is left to discuss? it's banned not only because the method of how you have to do it but mostly because how heavily it effects the game, mostly for TvT, while hold lurker is nowhere close as gamebreaking Maybe not as close as gamebreaking, but that allows obviously a HUGE advantage. As i said hold lurks hasn't been used enough by the pro zerg to be having an impact. Just imagine savior holding lurks at the 3rd terran base's mineral line on Tau cross and then sudendly the terran send all his remaining scv to this base... Chances are like 70/30 that the terran will see it but if not, i really can't see why it would not be gamebreaking...
as people already said in this thread, you can simply place lurker by mins so they wont attack CC but will attack scv line
|
United States4471 Posts
On June 19 2007 15:49 RaiZ wrote:
Because almost EVERY zerg user plays muta first. And then holding lurkers becomes obsolete because a lot of terrans can scan everywhere with their fast expand or they may already have vessels. However what about if we played lurkers first ? I'd be glad if someone can link me a lot of vods including lurks first's games because i'm pretty sure we haven't seen it a lot and thus we can't yet judge if it should be allowed or not.
IF, as you allege, hold lurkers is so imbalanced, it makes no sense why Z wouldn't go lurk first as opposed to muta first. If you then argue that muta first is better simply because it's more mobile/versatile/etc. and thus every Z goes muta first against T, then when does that hypothetical scenario where hold lurkers decimate an early MMF group and totally ruin a match occur? Isn't it suspicious that something that you fear so much regarding hold lurker happens so rarely at the highest levels of play?
Also, you have failed to grasp Steve's point regarding the lack of usage of hold lurkers at the pro level. If hold lurkers could give Z such a huge advantage, as you're alleging, then WHY don't progamers do it more? Why don't they use it to a sufficient extent to show you just how much it affects the matchup? The only possible answer to those questions which would support your argument that hold lurkers so severely imbalance ZvT/P would be that progamers have somehow not noticed this fact. I think you can see the obvious flaws in that explanation. Otherwise, Steve's argument holds up, that quite simply progamers have tried it, tested its limits, use it in games, and it has yet to impact the game negatively in such a way that has gotten it banned.
|
United States4471 Posts
On June 19 2007 16:37 RaiZ wrote:
Maybe not as close as gamebreaking, but that allows obviously a HUGE advantage.
As i said hold lurks hasn't been used enough by the pro zerg to be having an impact. Just imagine savior holding lurks at the 3rd terran base's mineral line on Tau cross and then sudendly the terran send all his remaining scv to this base... Chances are like 70/30 that the terran will see it but if not, i really can't see why it would not be gamebreaking...
Why should we have to imagine Savior or any pro Zerg doing this? Why doesn't it happen all the time if it gives such a "HUGE advantage"? If they do or it does, then why isn't it banned in progaming?
|
United States7166 Posts
seriously go try hold lurker in many games, they may not go as you think
|
On June 19 2007 17:47 Zelniq wrote:
seriously go try hold lurker in many games, they may not go as you think
Yeah, there's really only a small window to do it in. And even then, most of hte time you can get away with s-spaming it. Act like a retard and send lings in while ur lurks are burrowed a screen back. Retreat past them and start spaming and splat =x. But it's not even 1 in 10 games that I go for hold or stop lurks.
|
It doesn't matter
Neither would really change the game much if they were allowed or removed.
TvZ? Who cares. TvP? If you have mines outside of your base, and you don't have observers, odds are you're pretty screwed regardless of whether they are allied or not. (Say you did some failed DT crap, without robo).
TvT I can understand a bit. But odds are, in TvT you'd know if there was a huge fucking minefield laying around.
The only thing I can really say it'd change is if you were allowed to allied mine on someones expansion when they don't have detection, and so they can't do jack about it when they should be able to pop the mine up and kill it. This would be delaying them to game winning proportions, and can't move out cause there's a mine field.
However, it is this persons own fault for allowing them to get mines so close to their base.
Otherwise, it doesn't completely change TvT. Nor does it matter.
Allied mines is fine. Hold lurker is fine. (I can't remember the last time hold lurker has even been effective at pro level).
Part of why allied mines isn't fine was because you have to physically ally the person, and unally the person which seemed cheap for tournament play. I don't really care personally.
Allied mines and hold lurker work a lot better at the lower levels of play.
|
Anything to do with allying your opponent is cheap imo just like allied lurk is illegal allied mines are illegal as well. If we had the ability to manually select mines and hold them from coming up then it would be different but we cant. However we can do it with lurkers so why should it be illegal to hold a unit from attacking.. if it really mattered pros would complain about it but they dont and its not as easy to do as you think. Also ive seen hold lurkers in zvp quite a bit.
|
On June 19 2007 14:50 GrandInquisitor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2007 14:46 5HITCOMBO wrote: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)
I read the first post. In much the same way that you don't win a fight by saying "I know you're going to punch me in the face", you don't win this argument by saying "I know what you're going to say".
But I apologize for being so harsh on you. I really do like you as a person, I just don't think you're arguing a very good point, and the topic has gone on for seven pages. A lot of good posts that should end the argument (Testie's is probably the biggest one) are being masked out by the sheer amount of stupid posts making weak arguments "helping" our side.
But yeah, no hard feelings.
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
On June 19 2007 18:28 5HITCOMBO wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2007 14:50 GrandInquisitor wrote:On June 19 2007 14:46 5HITCOMBO wrote: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) I read the first post. In much the same way that you don't win a fight by saying "I know you're going to punch me in the face", you don't win this argument by saying "I know what you're going to say". But I apologize for being so harsh on you. I really do like you as a person, I just don't think you're arguing a very good point, and the topic has gone on for seven pages. A lot of good posts that should end the argument (Testie's is probably the biggest one) are being masked out by the sheer amount of stupid posts making weak arguments "helping" our side. But yeah, no hard feelings.
<3
and i meant first post as in first reply
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
On June 19 2007 17:43 Zelniq wrote:
as people already said in this thread, you can simply place lurker by mins so they wont attack CC but will attack scv line
Can't do that on certain bases, unless you count putting the lurker so far away that it can only hit the edge of the minline. So for example, the mains on Python.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
