|
Canada11321 Posts
@ Matrijs
Again the specified probability of reaching that scenario is absolutely horrendous, whereas the Terran situation, however rare is within the realm of probability and has already caused issues. As long as we are talking about hypotheticals...
@Niji87
Fuel is a dumb idea. Stop trying to nerf mechanics that have existed for 12 years. Especially since this isn't the only way to cause a draw by attrition.
But this mechanic has not existed in this form in SCBW. It hasn't been around for 12 years. It's received a significant buff. Speed and Space to Hide. This is causing problems that have not occurred in 12 years AND are far more likely to happen (or rather have happened) then any of Matrijs weird hypothetical situations.
|
This is indeed somewhat of an odd situation, but not odd enough to where it never happens. I'd say it happens often enough to where it needs to be fixed. What if this happens in a big tournament? With $20,000 on the line, there is no right or wrong answer. I'd hate to see that happen.
|
On May 10 2010 08:31 Falling wrote:
@ Matrijs
Again the specified probability of reaching that scenario is absolutely horrendous, whereas the Terran situation, however rare is within the realm of probability and has already caused issues. As long as we are talking about hypotheticals...
It doesn't seem that unlikely to me, actually. Consider: suppose a Protoss player went for a Voidray rush while the Zerg went for speedlings. The voidray kills off all of the Zerg player's buildings, but just as it kills off the last one, it dies to the Zerg player's last remaining spore crawler. Meanwhile, the speedlings attack the Protoss base, run by the cannons at the entrance and kill everything inside. The zerg player, realizing he must kill all his opponent's buildings to win, attacks the cannons, but all his zerglings die, leaving one pylon and one cannon alive.
I've never seen it happen, but then I've never seen a Terran liftoff stalemate, either.
The bottom line is this: the objective of the game is to kill all the opponent's buildings. If you haven't done that, you haven't won, no matter how strong your army is. So what that means is if you're in a situation where neither player can kill all the other's buildings, the game is a draw because neither player can achieve the victory condition.
|
It doesn't have to be a stalemate, you guys seriously have never had terrans who have lost that just prolong games for no reason? Why not make it so that overlords have to be killed to beat a zerg? Or make it so that every unit has to be killed to eliminate a player in 1v1? It's obnoxious.
It is exactly why the reveal mechanic is introduced.
-Not all mechanics are good, example: canceling eggs gets the larva back
-Not all mechanics are preserved from BW, examples: there's a reveal mechanic now; zerg buildings die without creep
It doesn't have to be fuel, making lifted buildings not count as buildings would be fine.
|
@Mohdoo:
If a draw situation happens in a tournament you give a regame, I'd assume. I certainly wouldn't agree with any ruling that gives a loss to either player in a draw situation. IIRC it's happened in BW a couple times, though I certainly can't find any of the games.
You either have the ref call the game as soon as it becomes a draw or (if the game has no ref for whatever reason) you have either player allowed to call a draw and then a ref watches the replay to confirm (with a loss if you call a draw in a non-draw situation).
edit: For precisely this reason I'm not really convinced this is a huge problem. The ladder is meaningless until Blizzard attaches prizes to it, and in addition individual games in the ladder are generally much less meaningful than individual games in a tournament even if the ladder does have prizes.
That said, if there are prizes attached to the ladder it'd be good if the game could figure out a draw situation and end the game appropriately. I don't immediately see any problems with the no-income and no-damage over a long time interval suggestions.
|
Canada11321 Posts
On May 10 2010 08:35 Matrijs wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2010 08:31 Falling wrote:
@ Matrijs
Again the specified probability of reaching that scenario is absolutely horrendous, whereas the Terran situation, however rare is within the realm of probability and has already caused issues. As long as we are talking about hypotheticals... It doesn't seem that unlikely to me, actually. Consider: suppose a Protoss player went for a Voidray rush while the Zerg went for speedlings. The voidray kills off all of the Zerg player's buildings, but just as it kills off the last one, it dies to the Zerg player's last remaining spore crawler. Meanwhile, the speedlings attack the Protoss base, run by the cannons at the entrance and kill everything inside. The zerg player, realizing he must kill all his opponent's buildings to win, attacks the cannons, but all his zerglings die, leaving one pylon and one cannon alive. I've never seen it happen, but then I've never seen a Terran liftoff stalemate, either. The bottom line is this: the objective of the game is to kill all the opponent's buildings. If you haven't done that, you haven't won, no matter how strong your army is. So what that means is if you're in a situation where neither player can kill all the other's buildings, the game is a draw because neither player can achieve the victory condition.
I can also imagine a situation in SCBW where Zerg as a Spore colony and nothing else and Protoss has a pylon and a carrier with not enough money to make an interceptor. Stalemate right? But never happened enough to make an issue of it (if ever). Whereas the Terran lift is actually quite likely in the case of a base trade. They have both Speed and Space to hide indefinitely.
It's a very specific combination of units- so it's specified probability. This makes it astronomically less probable then the Terran situation which can have any possible combination of unit except air. You may not have personally experienced it. But it is far more probable and is actually demonstrable as this has become an issue several times.
|
On May 10 2010 08:38 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2010 08:35 Matrijs wrote:On May 10 2010 08:31 Falling wrote:
@ Matrijs
Again the specified probability of reaching that scenario is absolutely horrendous, whereas the Terran situation, however rare is within the realm of probability and has already caused issues. As long as we are talking about hypotheticals... It doesn't seem that unlikely to me, actually. Consider: suppose a Protoss player went for a Voidray rush while the Zerg went for speedlings. The voidray kills off all of the Zerg player's buildings, but just as it kills off the last one, it dies to the Zerg player's last remaining spore crawler. Meanwhile, the speedlings attack the Protoss base, run by the cannons at the entrance and kill everything inside. The zerg player, realizing he must kill all his opponent's buildings to win, attacks the cannons, but all his zerglings die, leaving one pylon and one cannon alive. I've never seen it happen, but then I've never seen a Terran liftoff stalemate, either. The bottom line is this: the objective of the game is to kill all the opponent's buildings. If you haven't done that, you haven't won, no matter how strong your army is. So what that means is if you're in a situation where neither player can kill all the other's buildings, the game is a draw because neither player can achieve the victory condition. I can also imagine a situation in SCBW where Zerg as a Spore colony and nothing else and Protoss has a pylon and a carrier with not enough money to make an interceptor. Stalemate right? But never happened enough to make an issue of it (if ever). Whereas the Terran lift is actually quite likely in the case of a base trade. They have both Speed and Space to hide indefinitely.
So, what you're saying is, because of the increased speed of terran flying buildings, and because of the space around the edges of the map, draws are more common in SC2 than they were in SC:BW.
That's fine: institute a draw mechanic.
|
Canada11321 Posts
On May 10 2010 08:40 Matrijs wrote:
So, what you're saying is, because of the increased speed of terran flying buildings, and because of the space around the edges of the map, draws are more common in SC2 than they were in SC:BW.
That's fine: institute a draw mechanic.
Or fix the mechanic/ maps that causes all these draws for one race and one race only.
|
I have been playing as toss, and i had a base trading game on scrap station. I want mass stalk/zealot, he went for mass viking. i had just put up an expo(as i often do when i attack) and he killed my main and all but one probe and i murdered his CC and he floated off to the island, i had to rebuild from one probe while he sat on his ass waiting to get annihilated, it was the stupidest crap I've ever played, the game was about 7 minutes longer than it should have been (sadly i re-installed beta since i was having problems and all my saved reps disappeared).
I'm confused why you don't just lose when you have NO SCV's, NO base(cc, nex, hatch), and NO units, GAME OVER.
|
I think an addition to the reveal system could be implemented.
Two things I would consider reasonable to add, after the reveal timer has ended. One would be to add another time, so the player that has no yet built a CC, will lose once it runs out. The second feature they could add, would be sort of damage over time mechanic, like the Zerg has, where buildings off creep will take damage over time.
Obviously this wouldn't solve the problem of Command Centers floating in the edge of the maps, but given that in most situations, it comes down to either player having lost their main base. I think this would solve the problem most of the times.
|
United States47024 Posts
|
yup. it happened to me right now. dudes lifted off and i have no air units but i have ground. all he has is a floating command center. and now he won't quit.
|
On May 10 2010 08:23 HawaiianPig wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2010 08:17 Matrijs wrote:On May 10 2010 08:07 HawaiianPig wrote:
I find that the Terran lift-off standoff is the only situation I can think of where a player's only option is to sit stubbornly or lose. Some other such scenarios: 1) Zerg player has a mutalisk, a non-hatchery building, and a creep tumor to keep the building alive. Protoss player has a zealot, a pylon, and a photon cannon. The protoss player can't move out to attack because the mutalisk will kill the zealot, and the mutalisk can't kill the photon cannon or the pylon. 2) Protoss player has a zealot and a pylon. Zerg player has two speed zerglings and a bunch of buildings, but cannot rebuild. Neither player can attack the other. The zealot can't even go any significant distance away from the pylon to chase a zergling because the other one will attack the pylon. I could think of plenty more. You might object that these seem rare and unlikely to occur in a real game. My response would be that I play mainly Terran, have played at least a hundred games, and have never seen a floating building stalemate, nor been in a situation where I could have created one. That's the thing, both players on each side of these scenarios could win in some way, even if it's the result of the opposing player moving into a loss. With a Terran liftoff, only the Terran is the one who can move into loss, the other player can only wait. Simply put, scenarios above involve: Player A: Moves into loss OR waits for win. Player B: Moves into loss OR waits for win. (And of course, it may very well be possible for these players to move into a win by some miracle of micro, but it's still possible) And the Terran Lift-Off: Player A: Moves into loss OR waits for win. Player B: Waits for win. There is absolutely no potential for a win in this situation for the Terran, only loss. Show nested quote +On May 10 2010 08:19 FabledIntegral wrote:
I completely think that if you don't have any means to kill a Terran's floating building, then you should lose. End of story.
I have never really ever played Terran in SC1 or SC2 as a laddering race. It's just a mechanic of their race. It's quite clear that you're supposed to kill all your opponent's bulidings to win. If you can't, then you shouldn't get a win just because you won on the ground.
In essence, he took out all your air capabilities to ensure he *wouldn't* lose. How is this any different than a Terran player floating his CC to an island and rebuliding on the island and coming back? How is that fair - a Zerg player can't lift his hatch and move it to an island and rebuild!!! We're starting to rehash here, why must the opponent of the Terran be forced to tech to air while the Terran himself doesn't have to? (Saying "because it's always been that way" is really not a valid argument). What if Protoss Nexuses were cloaked from the beginning, would it be fair for players to have to tech to detection for building elims?
Yes. Because you wouldn't be able to kill the Protoss without it, you should be aware that you shouldn't go for a base trade without it.
|
Canada11321 Posts
On May 10 2010 09:06 FabledIntegral wrote:
Yes. Because you wouldn't be able to kill the Protoss without it, you should be aware that you shouldn't go for a base trade without it.
So you were being serious before...
We really are retreading old arguments.
Yes, that is the way it works now. But should it be that way in the future? No other race has this issue. If Terran is knocked down to nothing but ground units (and a building) and Zerg or Protoss only have a Hatch/ Nexus or (gateway, Robo, et), then Terran would win. They don't need to save an air unit just in case.
It's a base trade- by definition you're trying to knock your opponent out before he can do so with yours. That means any air unit would be called in. (It could be the difference between a win or a loss.) You wouldn't have a secret air force just chilling any more than you would have a secret army just chilling.
But I think I'm almost out of steam for this debate....
|
On May 10 2010 08:46 mnck wrote:
I think an addition to the reveal system could be implemented.
Two things I would consider reasonable to add, after the reveal timer has ended. One would be to add another time, so the player that has no yet built a CC, will lose once it runs out. The second feature they could add, would be sort of damage over time mechanic, like the Zerg has, where buildings off creep will take damage over time.
Obviously this wouldn't solve the problem of Command Centers floating in the edge of the maps, but given that in most situations, it comes down to either player having lost their main base. I think this would solve the problem most of the times.
I wouldn't mind this idea.
Say maybe 20 or 30 minutes? Even that seems kinda long.
10 Minutes? If you haven't built a CC/Nex/Hatch in 10 minutes, I don't see why it shouldn't reward you an autoloss. If neither play has built a nexus by the time both their timers have run out, (Make sure the system waits for both), then they are awarded a draw.
|
On May 10 2010 09:24 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2010 09:06 FabledIntegral wrote:
Yes. Because you wouldn't be able to kill the Protoss without it, you should be aware that you shouldn't go for a base trade without it. So you were being serious before... We really are retreading old arguments. Yes, that is the way it works now. But should it be that way in the future? No other race has this issue. If Terran is knocked down to nothing but ground units (and a building) and Zerg or Protoss only have a Hatch/ Nexus or (gateway, Robo, et), then Terran would win. They don't need to save an air unit just in case. It's a base trade- by definition you're trying to knock your opponent out before he can do so with yours. That means any air unit would be called in. (It could be the difference between a win or a loss.) You wouldn't have a secret air force just chilling any more than you would have a secret army just chilling. But I think I'm almost out of steam for this debate....
Because all three races have to be similar in that regard right? Why should Zerg have harassable food supplies in fact, it's not fair, all other races have stationary ones!
EDIT: What if a protoss has a pylon on an island? Should the protoss lose if the Zerg kills everything with speedlings except the pylon?
To make it further, what if the protoss kills every zerg buliding except the spawning pool before the last zealot dies. Zerg has a 70 supply army but no hatchery and no air units. Protoss still has that pylon on the island. Now Zerg loses because its spawning pool will eventually die. Why should Zerg be punished by a mechanic that causes their building to slowly die off creep, even when they clearly "won"?
SECOND EDIT: Fuel mechanic doesn't solve the issue if the Terran can reland on an island. Or anywhere the enemy can't get to.
|
personally i think that this is a situation where the maps need to be fixed, not so much the mechanics of the game.
Consider all the sc1 maps you know (except for ones like outsider and el nino/great barrier reef)
most of the sc1 maps are made in such a way so that buildings that are floated off have almost nowhere to float off and be safe from ground units that can atk air.
With the creation of sc2 maps, I noticed that maps such as scrap station have tons of open area that is inaccessible to ground units. I'm guessing that blizzard did this in order to encourage drops and whatnot, but it seems that some terrans have been abusing it to force stalemates (which really ticks me off).
I think that blizzard needs to make maps that don't have as much open area, rather than do things like fuel for command centers.
edit: by "open area inaccessible to ground units" i meant areas where only air units can be, not areas that are islands and whatnot
|
The thread has become very convoluted because at there are two issues at stake: Lift off stalls and Stalemates. They can be related, but they can also be separate. It just so happens that the OP related an incidence when both occurred. In this post, I will attempt to separate the two issues, propose solutions, and preemptively offer rebuttals to some potential counterarguments.
Issue 1: Lift off Stalls It doesn't necessary have to initiate a draw. There are plenty of instances when BM Terrans refuse to GG and stall for 5+ minutes until their opponent has air units to hunt down rogue lifted buildings.
Solution: Lifted buildings do not count as active buildings for the consideration of the victory condition. Optional warning period for the Terran player. It does not mess with fuel; Terrans can still have scouting buildings that remain in the air.
Counterargument: Eliminating buildings is the game.
Rebuttal: There are no inviolable, physical laws in the universal that dictate this is how it should be in SC2. The victory condition is arbitrary decided. What counts as a building is also arbitrary decided. Overlords, for all purposes are more or less permanently flying supply depots. The main reason why it is not a requirement to kill overlords hiding around the map to defeat a zerg is because it's simply obnoxious. It is the same reason why it isn't necessary to eliminate the opposing standing army. It is the same reason why there's the reveal mechanic
Counterargument: This is the Terran heritage. It has been like this in BW for 10 years.
Rebuttal: This is a negligible change to Terran play in the standard game. Not everything is carried over from BW. Zerg buildings now die when not sustained by creep. If something is against the spirit of the game, why shouldn't it be changed? Should we have kept the egg reverting to larva when canceled mechanic? The community and Blizzard do not like hiding farms/pylons. This is why the reveal mechanic is put in place.
Counterargument: It's not intuitive from a design POV that buildings lose value when lifted
Rebuttal: True, but this is diminished by the warning period given to the Terran player.
Counterargument: Do zealots/zerglings need to eat?
Rebuttal: The solution doesn't have anything to do with fuel. Even if it did, the change is for game play, not realism. Also, a sack of rocks has better logic than you.
Counterargument: It doesn't solve all stalemates.
Rebuttal: No, it doesn't. Again, lift off stalls do not always equate stalemates. It will, however, reduce the number of stalemates. Partial solutions can help. It's impossible to stave off germs by washing your hands, but you still do it. Which leads to...
Issue 2: Stalemates This can happen in numerous different ways in any match up.
Solution: Forced draw when all players have no income and lost no units after a warning period. These two metrics are already gathered by the game. This solution also does not preclude draw offers. Draw offers would be cool and should be in the game too, but an obstinate player will never accept a draw offer.
|
i just dont like the fact that terran is the only race that can force this stalemate. i just think that if the terran raises a building, it should not count as a building until it establishes itself on the ground. any race can put a plyon/depot/cheapzergbuilding on a island... thats fair. if a stalemate arrives from that situation its fine. but dont play oneside and ignore the fact that terran is the only person that can decide whether he wants to all in and trade bases and if he/she loses army can run off to the farthest corner... man up and take the loss...
|
Lots of dumbass people in this thread. This is how the game has always worked. Get the fuck over it. Should zerg players be able to nydus? Should Protoss players be able to warp gate? I mean what the fuck its how the game works and it makes the races different.
How about you quit fucking bitching that the terran lifted off and go build a unit and kill his buildings. If you dont have enough resources thats your own fault for trading bases like a dipshit while knowing terran has the possibility to lift off.
Having a standing army means absolutely fucking nothing. Having a standing army vs a dt means nothing. Should the protoss player have to reveal his dt because you have 400 zealots with no ob and just a pylon? Stop crying.
A draw button solves this. Period. No other solution should even be discussed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
