EPTThey might not want to take a draw anyway, and would rather opt for the sit online until someone's connection craps out.
Lifted Terrans and Stalemate - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
DuneBug
United States668 Posts
They might not want to take a draw anyway, and would rather opt for the sit online until someone's connection craps out. | ||
|
ScienceRob
United States382 Posts
| ||
|
Pervect
1280 Posts
On May 08 2010 16:39 LennethEX wrote: That applies to both players in this situation... Can someone actually explain the rational for saying that Terran lost? NonY said in the stream that he had a cybercore, a gateway and a standing army as if these facts are supposed to mean anything. In the case of Nony's game, the Terran had a CC floated all the way to the corner of the map. Nothing else, no units whatsoever. Nony had 2 stalkers and an unpowered gateway and cybernetics core. Once the CC was floating in the corner Nony was just patrolling with his Stalkers and would see and be able to shoot the CC if it ever moved. The Terran had a 0% chance of winning and was only staying alive because he could float forever. If he ever actually moved, he would lose. Nony ended with a standing army and a means to kill his opponent and win. The Terran did not. | ||
|
Pervect
1280 Posts
On May 08 2010 16:53 ScienceRob wrote: You guys are being silly about this. SHould a viking crash becuase its been in the air too long and needs to refuel? Think about what you are suggesting... Shut the fuck up. User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
pyr0ma5ta
United States458 Posts
On May 08 2010 10:41 Zealot Lord wrote: ok maybe a draw - but personally in my own view I don't see why it should be a draw if one side has units and the other side doesn't? Because the win condition is "eliminate all your opponent's buildings or be the last one in the game." The opponent still has buildings, and hasn't left the game, so you haven't won. It's like having a Bishop and a King left against a bare King in Chess, as long as the bare King plays optimally, he can't lose. The game is a draw, regardless of the fact that he's down a Bishop. | ||
|
pzea469
United States1520 Posts
Non related really, but before i thought that it would be nice if lift required a building like a barraks or engineering bay or something so that terran would'nt be able to just float over as soon as the game would begin. But I don't find this to be too big of an issue, idk if it even bothers people that terran can do this that much. | ||
|
LennethEX
Canada15 Posts
On May 08 2010 16:57 Pervect wrote: In the case of Nony's game, the Terran had a CC floated all the way to the corner of the map. Nothing else, no units whatsoever. Nony had 2 stalkers and an unpowered gateway and cybernetics core. Once the CC was floating in the corner Nony was just patrolling with his Stalkers and would see and be able to shoot the CC if it ever moved. The Terran had a 0% chance of winning and was only staying alive because he could float forever. If he ever actually moved, he would lose. Nony ended with a standing army and a means to kill his opponent and win. The Terran did not. I'm not denying any of that but by what authority can you declare that Terran lost? Certainly it's not the game rules as it would have informed NonY that he won. As pyr0ma5ta said, "eliminate all your opponent's buildings or be the last one in the game.". The rules say nothing about standing armies or having the means to kill the opponent as win conditions. | ||
|
Pervect
1280 Posts
On May 08 2010 17:12 LennethEX wrote: I'm not denying any of that but by what authority can you declare that Terran lost? Certainly it's not the game rules as it would have informed NonY that he won. As pyr0ma5ta said, "eliminate all your opponent's buildings or be the last one in the game.". The rules say nothing about standing armies or having the means to kill the opponent as win conditions. Which is why I assume this thread has been made, to suggest a solution to what is seen by some as a problem. The current "rules" of the game don't cover this, which is why this solution was presented. Determining whether of not its a problem is part of the discussion in this thread and something that should probably be established. | ||
|
LennethEX
Canada15 Posts
On May 08 2010 17:17 Pervect wrote: Which is why I assume this thread has been made, to suggest a solution to what is seen by some as a problem. The current "rules" of the game don't cover this, which is why this solution was presented. Determining whether of not its a problem is part of the discussion in this thread and something that should probably be established. Yeah that's perfectly fine... I was just annoyed by the people suggesting that Terran should have recognized a loss that didn't actually occur. An "offer draw" button is probably the best solution. | ||
|
araged
Czech Republic189 Posts
On May 08 2010 15:11 Fen wrote: You cant just force players to attack. If a terran wants to put his building in the middle of nowhere, thats his right. If you cannot kill him, then you cannot win the game. Giving the terran buildings fuel will not stop stalemates from occuring. There are plenty of situations where two people would not want to attack each other because it would be a loss for the attacker. I think that a draw system should be implemented. Players can offer their opponent a draw at any time past 5 mins or something. The other can accept and the result will be a draw. Also add in a force draw button, which if there is no damage done and no resources mined within the next 10 mins, the game is drawn. Quoted for truth, just because you have 2 units and 2 buildings, while he has 1, doesn't mean that you won. If you can't kill his buildings, it's your own problem for screwing up. It's stalemate, so deal with it. And yes, draw option should be introduced. Both option to choose and forced after 15 mins of no action. | ||
|
Rokk
United States425 Posts
On May 08 2010 16:57 Pervect wrote: In the case of Nony's game, the Terran had a CC floated all the way to the corner of the map. Nothing else, no units whatsoever. Nony had 2 stalkers and an unpowered gateway and cybernetics core. Once the CC was floating in the corner Nony was just patrolling with his Stalkers and would see and be able to shoot the CC if it ever moved. The Terran had a 0% chance of winning and was only staying alive because he could float forever. If he ever actually moved, he would lose. Nony ended with a standing army and a means to kill his opponent and win. The Terran did not. Nony also had a 0% chance of winning since he had unpowered gateways and cyber cores and had no way to make additional income. Obviously he did not have a means to kill his opponent if he couldn't kill his CC. If he could kill his opponent, he would have. Hence the draw. This is a stupid argument. Terran had 0% chance of winning. Protoss had 0% chance of winning. The goal is not to have a standing army at the end of the game. The goal is to kill the opponent's structures. | ||
|
randombum
United States2378 Posts
Just because he cannot kill you does not mean you have won. It is a draw if you cannot kill him and he cannot kill you regardless of if you would win if he decides to suicide. Imagine another scenario, of Zealot + cannons/pylon vs dt pylon. The dt user can never win, but he can prevent himself from dying. Should he lose because if he can't win? No, its a draw. Should we make it so cannons lose detection after 5 minutes of no action? What about if a protoss has a single dt blocking a ramp vs a maxed out terran army, but the terran has no mobile dection or means to get one because the toss sniped all of them when he knew he could not win outright. Should we change the game so dts become visible after they have been in the game too long? If you cannot fulfill the victory condition which is destroy all your opponents buildings then you have not won regardless of you situation. (Unless your opponent leaves). | ||
|
slowmanrunning
Canada285 Posts
| ||
|
slowmanrunning
Canada285 Posts
On May 08 2010 16:53 ScienceRob wrote: You guys are being silly about this. SHould a viking crash becuase its been in the air too long and needs to refuel? Think about what you are suggesting... yes but this is an entire building, and this isn't so much about logic, as it is about game mechanics, because T shouldn't win just because he can lift off his buildings. He doesn't deserve to win when it's YOU that has the army. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
|
pandabearguy
United States252 Posts
On May 08 2010 17:41 slowmanrunning wrote: yes but this is an entire building, and this isn't so much about logic, as it is about game mechanics, because T shouldn't win just because he can lift off his buildings. He doesn't deserve to win when it's YOU that has the army. and you don't deserve to win if you can't kill his buildings | ||
|
Grobyc
Canada18410 Posts
| ||
|
DarQraven
Netherlands553 Posts
The game's goal and end condition is to "destroy all enemy buildings or be the last one standing". Since being the last one standing is basically a consequence of the other condition, destroying all buildings, I don't think that is all that relevant. It's mostly there to explain why you win if everyone leaves the game. So, in my opinion, the goal of the game can be shortened to: destroy all buildings. So if the goal is destroying all buildings, shouldn't players play towards that goal? Obviously before the Terran runs away, they are, but once Terran floats off his buildings, he ceases to play towards the end condition of the game. That's basically a forfeit in my opinion. If we for a moment consider a situation where both players were not permitted to leave the game until this endgame condition was met (thereby going purely by the current rules), the outcome is clear: Eventually the Terran will have to land his CC and have it destroyed. Without landing it somewhere, he has no chance of destroying the other player's buildings. The Protoss, while not in a position of luxury, still has a means to meet the engame condition while the Terran does not. This is not in any way comparable to a King/King+Bishop stalemate where both players COULD still win if the other screwed up. The crucial difference is that, through some mistake of epic proportions, one player could have his Bishop and King taken by the opposing king. (Of course this is prevented by endangering your own king being considered an illegal move, but the game itself allows for it.) What's a Terran going to do with only a CC? | ||
|
Piste
6180 Posts
On May 08 2010 10:23 cujo2k wrote: yes terran should have fuel in their buildings. it's epicly retarded that they can float buildings and force a stalemate when they have no units I don't see why it's so "epicly retarted". Everyone knows that so don't put yourself into that situation. | ||
|
DminusTerran
Canada1337 Posts
| ||
| ||
