...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.
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.
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".
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
On June 19 2007 12:28 GrandInquisitor wrote: 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?
I think the important thing here is that you can't use allied mines unless you go to the Diplomacy screen, which is not true for hold lurker.
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
Obs on turret is indeed banned in a lot of tourneys. Don't know about pro, but it is on WGT.
On June 19 2007 13:25 Kwark wrote: 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.
I don't understand why you guys point to this. Is Starcraft honestly going to fall apart at the seams, with its precarious balance shattered if we legalize allied mines or get rid of hold lurker? That's not the overriding consideration in this case.
On June 19 2007 13:11 PePe QuiCoSE wrote: "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.
On June 19 2007 12:28 GrandInquisitor wrote: 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?
I think the important thing here is that you can't use allied mines unless you go to the Diplomacy screen, which is not true for hold lurker.
Wow, no way! I totally did not realize that! Please pay no attention to the next ten lines devoted to analyzing that exact fact!
GrandInquisitor your argument here fails because of one fact. To stop mines from attacking, you have to ALLY your opponent. This is clearly an exploit which is rightfully not allowed in pro starcraft. On the other hand you can tell any UNIT in the game which doesnt include a mine that is laid in the ground from a vulture to NOT ATTACK. if you were to take the ability to stop a lurker from attacking when you want it to, well then every unit would have to lose this ability. The fact that people have found other ways to stop the lurkers from attacking then sitting there and spamming S doesnt mean it needs to be taken from the game. It definately doesnt mean that allied mines needs to be added back in.
Seriously, the only reason why Allied Mines is banned and Hold Lurkers isn't is because you can give commands to a Lurker, but you can't give commands to a mine. It's like glitching an SCV through mins or a Vulture through Pylons or something - you can give it commands to get it through. You can't command a mine to blow up.
GI you have a point there and ive thought about this too, but i think its something along the lines of the mines being usable very early in a game already and the damage that can be done by doing allied mines is much more than stop lurker, and lurker comes a little later in the game and compared to mines, not as destructive
nonetheless you have a point and im not a really pro player so =D
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.
On June 19 2007 13:33 AlexanderTheGreat wrote: GrandInquisitor your argument here fails because of one fact. To stop mines from attacking, you have to ALLY your opponent. This is clearly an exploit which is rightfully not allowed in pro starcraft. On the other hand you can tell any UNIT in the game which doesnt include a mine that is laid in the ground from a vulture to NOT ATTACK. if you were to take the ability to stop a lurker from attacking when you want it to, well then every unit would have to lose this ability. The fact that people have found other ways to stop the lurkers from attacking then sitting there and spamming S doesnt mean it needs to be taken from the game. It definately doesnt mean that allied mines needs to be added back in.
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.
On June 19 2007 13:33 5HITCOMBO wrote: Seriously, the only reason why Allied Mines is banned and Hold Lurkers isn't is because you can give commands to a Lurker, but you can't give commands to a mine. It's like glitching an SCV through mins or a Vulture through Pylons or something - you can give it commands to get it through. You can't command a mine to blow up.
I talked about this already, no? You can tell an obs to stay over a turret but that's banned.
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?
On June 19 2007 13:11 PePe QuiCoSE wrote: "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.
edit: my, 7 posts while opening and reading the topic, and writing a reply
Gosh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that once we discussed this topic once on these forums, we could never ever talk about it again.
My point was how different you approached that discussion compared to this one. In the other one you were open to discussion, here you have your mind set up and discrediting the main point of the whole issue and ranting any argument given. And btw, it was my honest opinion, not a mere attack. I beleived you are smart enough to look to the main reason why this was done this way and set up and argument why you don't agree.
edit: btw. i'm logging off, so i'm out of this discussion before it turns into a 6 long pages thread (aka. pm)
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....
[edit] also.. in a 1vs1 option you cannot ever ally the other person. since in some ladders this is even the only way to make a game count, it would be reduntent to even allow allied mines.
On June 19 2007 13:40 PePe QuiCoSE wrote: My point was how different you approached that discussion compared to this one. In the other one you were open to discussion, here you have your mind set up and discrediting the main point of the whole issue and ranting any argument given. And btw, it was my honest opinion, not a mere attack. I beleived you are smart enough to look to the main reason why this was done this way and set up and argument why you don't agree.
and you are behaving like a fag lately.* Hope your period is over soon.
Sounds like a voice of a mature debater to me.
I mean, what's wrong with having my mind set up? You say it as if it is an Inherently Bad Thing; what's so offensive about me having a thought-out opinion, and creating a topic explaining it and then asking for people to convince me otherwise?
You're the one who applies labels like "rant" and "discredit the main point of the whole issue" to my perfectly reasonable post; you're the one who is resorting to pathetically unfunny juvenile personal attacks rather than try to give this any thought.
On June 06 2006 20:58 Blind wrote: For those who don't know what this bug is, it's when you select one or more worker, tell it to mine an unused geyser, hold shift and order it to mine the geyser a few more times, then while still holding shift, finally order it to move anywhere. It will move as if mining, so it'll go through any units.
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.
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).
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?
"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.
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 13:35 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.
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".
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.
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.
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 13:35 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!!!
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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 .
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.
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?
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.
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....
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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 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?
As far as I can tell, allied mines a lot worse in TvT and TvP.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Because almost EVERY zerg user plays muta first.
So you think progamers are just drooling retards who are SO LOCKED IN to using mutalisks that they just can't see the glorious might of hold lurker
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?
No offense but WHY IN THE HELL we need to be a victim in order to prevent this ? Can't we prevent this BEFORE we're victims ? Not giving any insight about possible(s) imbalance(s) just because we're not involved or because it hasn't happened very often is simply retarded.
What he meant by there is simply because it isn't used very often. If it was used a lot more i'm pretty sure there'd be imba thread involving hold lurks.
Edit :
On June 19 2007 15:51 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: So you think progamers are just drooling retards who are SO LOCKED IN to using mutalisks that they just can't see the glorious might of hold lurker
Where did i say progamers are drooling retards ? :X Using mutalisk is undoubtely a good option as it can do a lot of thing. I'm just saying lurks strat are simply underused nothing more nothing less. It's also more difficult to control the lurks since we need glings support, but i can guarantee you that if we manage to move freely with the lurks, not a single terran would be moving ahead of their base untill they have vessels just because they fear a lot of holding lurks.
From what I can tell when lurker is scanned they will micro vs the lurkers to stop them getting out of the choke, when they do break out the t generally will tech faster vs lurker to tanks and vessels anyway. If the Z isn't containing outside the choke the pro T would probably suspect something anyway, or they just pull a casy haha.
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.
the attacking w/ stacked workers bug is not even close to a surprised lurker attack, where the only thing it allows you to do is to KEEP LURKERS FROM ATTACKING, and all you have to do is hold it with another unit, spam Stop, or attack a building out of range, not do some weird crap in order to have a crapton of workers combine into some super worker that does massive damage ok? jeezes christ. as for obs over turret, doesnt that not always work? so it's a risk, you may just lose your obs trying to do this, and if any other unit that attacks air including another turret gets near it, obs is dead anyways, which he can see anyways as it still detects, but not fires (right?) is it even banned in leagues? that one is more iffy, i can see it being legal and being banned both, but still it's also not close to holding lurkers from attacking, there should be no shame in ever doing that.
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?
Maybe not all my threads are made to bitch and whine about what happened to me last night in op tl-west, but to spark some intellectual discussion. Tough concept to grasp, I know.
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.
Steve I want you to think real long and hard about the different implications of having a lurker at a minline shoot whenever something gets in range (aka a warping nexus), and a lurker that only shoots at the minline when a line of probes comes in.
Hell, why don't you make a thread about how imbalanced burrowed zerglings and hydralisks are?
No, I'm too busy making blog entries with shitty MSPaints that no one else finds funny anymore. What's the "proper context" for that?
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?
Maybe not all my threads are made to bitch and whine about what happened to me last night in op tl-west, but to spark some intellectual discussion. Tough concept to grasp, I know.
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.
Steve I want you to think real long and hard about the different implications of having a lurker at a minline shoot whenever something gets in range (aka a warping nexus), and a lurker that only shoots at the minline when a line of probes comes in.
Hell, why don't you make a thread about how imbalanced burrowed zerglings and hydralisks are?
No, I'm too busy making blog entries with shitty MSPaints that no one else finds funny anymore. What's the "proper context" for that?
Did you know that a lurker behind some minerals may or may not be in range of a warping nexus?????? Put the fucking lurker in the correct place and see what happens.
Arguing with someone stating "UNACCEPTABLE ANSWER: in order to use allied mines you have to go into the Diplomacy screen, for hold lurker you don't." in this post will lead nowhere. Because thats what its all about really.
Mines were designed to detonate no matter what, theres no "stop" button on them. Who knows, blizzard might intentionally have added the function which means that you can hold certain units if you place them in groups. However i'm sure they did not intend the "allie" function to be used to blow up 23239232 goons.
I think you assume that hold lurkers and allied mines are on the same (or similar) power level.
Scenarios for both:
Hold lurkers: Before they are discovered are able to deal a bunch of damage to a portion of the army in a ranged line or two, taking out a decent sized force. Their presence is then known and the opposing player has time to react and avoid the lurkers. These lurkers are supply units that the Zerg player has invested and represent a part of his army.
Allied mines: Before they are discovered are able to deal a bunch of damage to a large portion or potentially all of a large strike force, taking out a significant force anywhere thet they have been placed. The mines are gone, but so is the opposing army; there is no time for the opponent to react. His army is gone and any units left will not be able to avoid the incoming Terran armada. The mines did not use supply and did not represent a part of the Terran army.
Hold lurkers will never be able to do damage equal to the potential of that from allied mines in any matchup.
Furthermore, when hold lurkers are used, the opponent now knows where a chunk of the Zerg swarm is. The other portion of his swarm will be smaller because of the use of the hold lurkers. But when allied mines are used, the Terran army should still be at large and in full force and attacking a dwindled army.
However, one might say that in the case of the hold lurkers that the zerg now has a larger army and can attack in full. This is true, but the victimized army will be much weaker in the case against allied mines. Hold lurkers cannot win the game on the spot, they just can't attack enough units at once to do so. By the time there are enough lurkers to eliminate a group of units, the opposing play should have additional units. The hold lurkers should never be able to eliminate enough of the opposition at once to just outright win. Sure, the hold lurkers can tip the scales decidedly in the Zerg players favor and lead him, even directly, to victory. Though it is much easier to defend and make a comeback against hold lurkers than it is to do so against a successful allied mine assault.
I actually agree. I've been very outspoken about my hatred of hold-lurker for many years.
If you want complete honesty, I think the reason it is not banned is because it basically doesn't effect ZvPorZ and ZvT is the "hard" matchup. In addition, it most certainly does not break ZvT at a pro level either. Some might even go so far as to say that it helps balance early game ZvT.
I can't say I necessarily disagree with those points.
I can't stand seeing it used in Progames though, as a fan, since it can basically be a game decider if the Terran blows it. I guess that could be said for a lot of things as well though.
So in the end, I realize that my hatred of HL is somewhat irrational and I'll never try to convince others to feel the same as I do about it, since I can't even come up with a good reason for it. However, I reserve the right to call a Zerg player a lameo for getting lucky using it. Chojja and Savior...I'm looking at you.
you lost a bunch of probes maynarding to an expo by a surprise lurker attack then make a thread wondering why allied mines is banned but hold lurker isnt? as many said you have to ally your opponent, it's pretty obvious that no matter what allying your opponent should be prohibited no matter what it accomplishes. however it certainly is possible that it might still be banned anyway if you could hold them in the same way you can hold lurkers, simply because they are so much more devastating and harder to do something about, mainly as terran. for the Dota players it'd be like being techies and having remote mines as your basic skill instead of as your ultimate, and also removing the gem from the game, but on a worse scale
On June 19 2007 16:11 Zelniq wrote: you lost a bunch of probes maynarding to an expo by a surprise lurker attack then make a thread wondering why allied mines is banned but hold lurker isnt?
Hold Lurker never happened to me, sorry, guess I only explained that in the posts you ignored.
FakeSteve: if you don't want to get offended don't come in here and start shit like "You're too newb/stupid to understand The Proper Context in which Said Tactics are Employed Unlike Me. Go create topics on how burrowed zerglings are so imba lololol"
On June 19 2007 16:15 Zelniq wrote: not enough TLnetters respect zerg. give them a break, it's rough not being able to always mass spam workers like the other races can.
That's why i've nothing wrong with holding drones at ramps since we "sacrifice" 1 larvae for that... While the p or t can make non stop peons while having offensives units at the same time.
On June 19 2007 16:11 Zelniq wrote: you lost a bunch of probes maynarding to an expo by a surprise lurker attack then make a thread wondering why allied mines is banned but hold lurker isnt?
FakeSteve: if you don't want to get offended don't come in here and start shit like "You're too stupid to understand The Proper Context in which Said Tactics are Employed Unlike Me. Go create topics on how burrowed zerglings are so imba."
You do not understand the proper context surrounding Hold Lurker. This is not a personal attack, its a statement of fact. I told you that it doesn't have to matter if lurker hold position or not and it didn't even occur to you that its entirely possible for lurkers to be in range of probes at the minerals and not in range of the nexus.
Accept this, and either learn something or drop it entirely. Keep your petty bullshit to yourself, this thread ain't a spotlight to be shining on yourself so the world can see GrandInquisitor 0wnin nubz left and right.
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
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...
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
So what im thinking, is that allied mines are banned because of the impact it will have on professional gaming. With allied mines, I believe, the terran dominance will reach an all-time high, with terrans in mass numbers at OSL MSL PROLEAGUE Tournaments. However, Starcraft is a living being. It changes, it evolves, and the stratedgys will too. Protoss players WILL adapt to the new change and build their bo's around that fact. When Hold Lurkers was not invented yet, im sure terran players had their mnm everywhere, denying expansions left and right, and proposed the possibility of hold lurker to be imbalanced. Once it was introduced they built around it. Wating to get tanks, and a vessel to perform the push. However, as it satnds, tehre is a progaming scene and it would quickly die out with 2000 tvt's before the Protoss palyers would adapt to it. That is why probably, there hasnt been a huge drastic game-balancing patch in... 5 years? i dunno since spawning pools costed 150 (when progaming was relativley quite small? They got rid of bugs taht werent as game changing.
Observer on turret, i believe is not significant enough to introduce a protoss dominance. Map imbalance? Maybe they did not realize the strategy involved that favoured different races, because they are making better balanced map now to favour all races.
Sorry Tensai but I think that's a horrible argument.
You are arguing that the reason they are banning it is because they don't want one race to be dominant over another, or the other two. Sorry but there's no way they'd do something like that in a professional league. In no way would that be justifiable and I'm sure there would be a HUGE uproar if that turned out to be even slightly true.
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 start by invalidating any reasonable arguements as to why allied mine should be banned. When these arguements are mentioned, you cry and whine about people not reading the OP or whatever. There is a reason these reasons are pointed out consistently. They make sense.
Like Cyric pointed out, you can look at it in two ways. The effect and the means. Perhaps its a combination of both. Mentioning allied lurker is idiotic. No one uses allied lurker. Just because it happens to have the same effect as hold lurker does not matter. If allied lurker somehow gave more advantages than hold lurker, im sure it would be banned. Regardless of what you think, changing game settings is way different than manipulating game mechanics.
Personally, I think OGN/MBC/Kespa or whoever is making the rules weigh the balance issues, fair play, and the wow factor and come up with a decision. Wow factor meaning how spectacular these moves will look to the spectators. Using stack worker to help defend or attack is very "cool." It helps all races and is a skill the progamers can utilize. However, using gas stack mode to attack or pass through blocks is obviously imbalanced even though it may look cool. Of course, there are many decisions that will seem iffy. Using buildings to jump units over walls, for example, give terrans an advantage. Reason why its not banned? They obviously thought it does more good than harm to the overall sport.
4 out of 5 ppl answering in this thread either cannot read what GI said in his first post or are to narrowminded to focus on the question he brought up. Let execution *completly* aside and focus on the impact on the game, how much effect can it have on the outcome of a game and how much time or attention does it need to be executed, how often do you get in situations where you can use it?
Now focusing on those points..
1. Lurker Hold: - It requires less then 5 clicks or one second to prepare and even less to let the trap go. - If done correct it can deal extreme damage, killing whole CG of MnM or even more. - Situations for it are given in any TvZ Match and sometimes in TvP
2. Scv Hold - It requires the same amount of attention as a lurker hold - If done correct it cane save you against an early lingrush, 9 pool etc - Only in TvZ and only if Z goes early agression
3. Allied Mines - It requires a lot of attention since none of your units will attack during that time, and a clever player will notice it if you dont attack manual with some of your units. - If done correct it can maximize the mines damage - Situations where you can focus your whole attention on one spot mined up, have absolutley no other units that should fight your opponent and could alert him of your tactic, your opponent has no form of detection with him and moves exactly where you predicted him to do *before* he does anything else .. very rare.
From all this (only focusing on what it requires, where it can be used and what impaced it has on the game) the Lurker Hold is *by far* the best glitch, far better then hold scv oder allied mines.
I agree with GI. But still I would not create a rule against lurker or scv hold. But from what it takes to execute allied mines, from all the risks and disadvantages you take from it and the time you have to focus on only that, I don't see a point in forbidding it.
And diplomacy should be resolved before the battle starts. It's only the games fault that it permits to ally(not just TvB or One on One). See like in W3, you chose teams beforehand and you can't change that in the game no more.
On June 20 2007 02:09 LastWish wrote: Why is this thread so long?
You can't tell mines what to do, stupid.
And diplomacy should be resolved before the battle starts. It's only the games fault that it permits to ally(not just TvB or One on One). See like in W3, you chose teams beforehand and you can't change that in the game no more.
This thread is so long because nobody reads what he wrote and therefor does not understand what he is trying to say ...
It's like everyone just reads "blabla allied mines .. bla bla lurker hold .. blabla forbidden!" and quickly types the first thing that comes to his mind before even reading the whole first post, not even talking about pages of other posts.
On June 19 2007 12:41 gds wrote: 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.
QFT. one is possible by normal means, one is impossible.
On June 19 2007 12:41 gds wrote: 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.
QFT. one is possible by normal means, one is impossible.
One can also argue that the effect of hold/stop lurkers is different from allied lurkers.
Sure, both of them can be used to ambush enemies, but when you are using allied lurkers, your whole army won't attack. Maybe this is the things that the authorities (who set the rules) dont want.
I don't like my above approach in answering the question, my other approaches are being covered in the previous arguments, too lazy to say it again. =P
I don't see exactly for what you are fighting. Do you want that often to use allied mines in league games (how often are you playing 2v2 league games?)? Or do you urge to see it used by pros? If so why?
If the answer to both points is no the only reason left to discuss this is the (still very righteous) fight for the right of the mine to be treated like lurker. I can't guarantee for sure but I guess mines are not too envious of lurkers. It seems the problem could be rather Protoss: Since they are so manly they want to give their opponent every advantage possible, the cheaper the enemy the better for their pride.
[EDIT]: Thanks Chosi, I certainly got the wronge idea. I would still insist that it's futile to arguement that it should be allowed if hold lurker is allowed because the base for that is a righteous thought that you just can't apply in situations like this.
On June 20 2007 06:05 silynxer wrote: I don't see exactly for what you are fighting. Do you want that often to use allied mines in league games (how often are you playing 2v2 league games?)?
I think you have a wrong idea of allied mines, it has noting to do with 2v2 games. This is allied mines (at it's best):
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.
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.
The reason we gave on WGTour is the following (I defended this case for allied mines to be banned and for hold lurkers to be allowed) :
--> In a true 1 on 1 game can you allie the opponent? No. How can you use allied mines when it's just 2 people. In war you do not ally your opponent and set mines so when they walk over you just pwn them. If we could do that then Bush would be more popular.
--> Holding lurkers was something blizzard DID intend to have in the game. This is a normal function that all units in the game posses, and this is no different for the Zerg Lurker. You are given the option to hold your units, but you cannot ally your opponent.
i just read the first and last page..but what are you guys talking about? lurkers can be done with stop button....allies have to be set before game WTF?????????????
the reason is simple!
IS TO MAKE THE GAME BETTER!
hold lurker make the game more balanced! imagine being impossible to hold lurker... terran could go out with 12rine+4medic and rape everywhere. just have to dodge the lurkers. if you dont think so i can go on this example, but i think is understandable by most people.
allied mine make the game more imbalanced! i mean...txt would be only about vultures + wraiths..would be just like zxz.... ok...i know that txt could be like zxz, etc...but i think the way it is now is better then it would be.
that's why hold lurker is accepted and allied mine is not!
SEE THE CONSEQUENCES AND WHAT IS BETTER FOR STARCRAFT
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.
You won't be able to allied mines in Starcraft 2 auto-match making
If someone did spam S for lurkers, would u complain? What if they did hold lurkers instead? Most important is if you didn't know which they use, why does it even matter. Both are valid tactics.
Good luck doing allied mines in ladder games.
EDIT: someone been losing way too much to hold lurkers
On June 19 2007 13:25 Kwark wrote: 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
.
![[image loading]](http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/9133/sc06copynm1.jpg)
Gj
