|
On May 09 2010 00:46 pyr0ma5ta wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2010 17:01 pyr0ma5ta wrote:On May 08 2010 10:41 Zealot Lord wrote:On May 08 2010 10:36 Sadist wrote:On May 08 2010 10:34 Zealot Lord wrote:
Hmm.. maybe have it so that if the Terran player does not have a single building landed/built on the ground within a certain duration of time it will be auto-loss? I would think its quite fair - and shouldn't be hard to implement either. the terran shouldnt lose. It should just be a draw. 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. I demand that someone who is suggesting that floating buildings not count or fall down eventually or whatever respond to my post.
They wont, because your point is solid.
I remember back when I was young and learning chess. I managed to get a big advantage over my opponent. He then put me in perpetual check, to which I got really pissed off about. Obviously I was going to win the game, I had a huge piece advantage. But he was capable of preventing me from winning, and therefore we had to call a draw. I tried to argue that he was being rude by continously checking me without any more strategy, and argued that there should be a rule that prevents players from doing that etc.
But in the end, thats a fair part of the game. What you people are asking (those who say, the terran would lose if he landed and therefore should get the loss) is for the terran to deliberately throw the match. You might as well ask the other player to blow up his own buildings.
Adding fuel to terran buildings is stupid, it will only help in a very small number of stalemate cases in forcing a winner.
The only logical solution is to allow players to offer a draw, and then place a timer after the draw has been offered, in which if 10 mins goes by without minerals being mined or damage being done, a draw is called. This is fair.
|
How bout if we make terran buildings not count as a building when it is lifted up?
|
I will take the bait, yes the conditions for victory are to eliminate the other persons buildings, but when you ONLY have a building but the other person has something that can kill the buildings if the person doesn't run away and sit in a corner then how can you honestly say you deserve a draw or win? The fact is the other person does have the means to win if you didn't sit in a corner AFKing. I never thought the point of floating a building was so that a Terran can avoid the obvious outcome of a game if he plays legit. Now what I mean by playing legit is not running his buildings into the other guys army, but if you honestly believe you can kill the person then land somewhere and do it. Otherwise no you didn't win, you dodged and no you didn't tie, you hid. How bout in that chess game if there was a square way off to the side that was unreachable by any chess piece in play, do you consider that a strategical win or an absurd idea?
|
I dunno if its been mentioned yet but fuel is so stupid lets just imagine this scenario :
after both cheese , reaper zealot whatever terran loses everything but his rax or cc, toss has about 5 zealots and a pylon/gate left but no money or probes for a nexus.
obviously toss cant win and terran cant win, so adding fuel is gonna punish terran even though protoss has no way of killing him anyway.
how is that fair? if protoss cant kill terran because he lifted he obviously doesnt deserve the win in the first place
|
Another possible solution to this problem is to give players the ability to reset the match if combat doesn't occur within the next 30 minutes of battle. The idea behind this new option is that RTS games shouldn't end in a stalemate.
Regardless, I think Blizzard should work to eliminate any kind of last-minute maneuvering that allows losing players to force artificial stalemates.
|
But you know..if you had tried to land and use the buildings as intended what would happen? It comes down to if you didn't AFK and float your buildings would die because the other person still has units. He still has the means to kill, you have the means to dodge your loss. Its not fair to the terran that if he has no units his buildings will die when they land? Does that not sound absurd to you? Its not punishment, its evening the playing field. There is no reason why someone should have a get out of jail free card as long as the other person can not make air.
|
Stalemate? In StarCraft? Look if some guy is just floating his CC around to delay the inevitable create 1 of these three units: Terran-Viking, Protoss-Void Ray, or Zerg-Mutalisk. You can attack ground and air with those units eliminating the option or thought of a draw, and can be produced in 3 minutes (Muta being the longest if you need to upgrade to Lair). I know this is basic info, but if your wanting a draw feature added. This may be news to you lol
|
The debate is about stalemating when there is a base trade and the Terran loses his ground army, but the other person has units(none that can fly) and the terran runs his building to a corner and AFKs till someone quits. I think its obvious with air units its not possible 
|
Don't base trade a Terran!
There we go, problem solved, that sure was easy!
|
On May 09 2010 01:12 arb wrote:
I dunno if its been mentioned yet but fuel is so stupid lets just imagine this scenario :
after both cheese , reaper zealot whatever terran loses everything but his rax or cc, toss has about 5 zealots and a pylon/gate left but no money or probes for a nexus.
obviously toss cant win and terran cant win, so adding fuel is gonna punish terran even though protoss has no way of killing him anyway.
how is that fair? if protoss cant kill terran because he lifted he obviously doesnt deserve the win in the first place
if the terran only has a rax and no army or any way to get an army and the toss player has 5 zealots ofc he should win. That is kind of the hole point with the reveal mechanism, that players shouldn't be able to hide buildings just to draw out a match they can't win.
|
terrans should lose if they have no buildings on the ground like the other races
|
8748 Posts
On May 09 2010 01:03 Fen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 00:46 pyr0ma5ta wrote:On May 08 2010 17:01 pyr0ma5ta wrote:On May 08 2010 10:41 Zealot Lord wrote:On May 08 2010 10:36 Sadist wrote:On May 08 2010 10:34 Zealot Lord wrote:
Hmm.. maybe have it so that if the Terran player does not have a single building landed/built on the ground within a certain duration of time it will be auto-loss? I would think its quite fair - and shouldn't be hard to implement either. the terran shouldnt lose. It should just be a draw. 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. I demand that someone who is suggesting that floating buildings not count or fall down eventually or whatever respond to my post. They wont, because your point is solid.
His point... is not a point at all. It's just a re-statement of the rules. He quotes a guy saying "should" and responds by saying how it is. Know the difference between is/ought? If he wants to use how it is as an argument for why it should be the way it is, most people are gonna blow him off, as they should.
|
On May 09 2010 01:27 Vip3ra wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 01:12 arb wrote:
I dunno if its been mentioned yet but fuel is so stupid lets just imagine this scenario :
after both cheese , reaper zealot whatever terran loses everything but his rax or cc, toss has about 5 zealots and a pylon/gate left but no money or probes for a nexus.
obviously toss cant win and terran cant win, so adding fuel is gonna punish terran even though protoss has no way of killing him anyway.
how is that fair? if protoss cant kill terran because he lifted he obviously doesnt deserve the win in the first place if the terran only has a rax and no army or any way to get an army and the toss player has 5 zealots ofc he should win. That is kind of the hole point with the reveal mechanism, that players shouldn't be able to hide buildings just to draw out a match they can't win.
But the point of the game is to destroy all enemy buildings, no?
A draw is a draw. The issue is that there needs to be a mutual draw or restart mechanism so that situations like this can be ended quickly; I have no problem with drawing itself.
|
On May 09 2010 01:12 arb wrote:
I dunno if its been mentioned yet but fuel is so stupid lets just imagine this scenario :
after both cheese , reaper zealot whatever terran loses everything but his rax or cc, toss has about 5 zealots and a pylon/gate left but no money or probes for a nexus.
obviously toss cant win and terran cant win, so adding fuel is gonna punish terran even though protoss has no way of killing him anyway.
how is that fair? if protoss cant kill terran because he lifted he obviously doesnt deserve the win in the first place
Oh how terribly unfair to add a system wherein the player who still has attacking forces will win the game
|
8748 Posts
The replay just ends at 9:06:07 with his CC still floating in the corner. Nothing happens the whole time except my Stalkers patrol. It shows up as a loss in my Match History but I don't have a loss on my ladder record. So maybe it just didn't record...? I don't know who my opponent was so I can't check his profile. If I try to load the score screen for the game, I get an error.
|
On May 09 2010 01:33 floor exercise wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 01:12 arb wrote:
I dunno if its been mentioned yet but fuel is so stupid lets just imagine this scenario :
after both cheese , reaper zealot whatever terran loses everything but his rax or cc, toss has about 5 zealots and a pylon/gate left but no money or probes for a nexus.
obviously toss cant win and terran cant win, so adding fuel is gonna punish terran even though protoss has no way of killing him anyway.
how is that fair? if protoss cant kill terran because he lifted he obviously doesnt deserve the win in the first place Oh how terribly unfair to add a system wherein the player who still has attacking forces will win the game
But the issue is that he doesn't deserve to win, because he didn't make units capable of killing flying buildings.
For god's sake, if you're going to base trade a Terran, just hide a void ray or a mutalisk somewhere. There's no point rewarding sloppy play by cutting some slack for players who base trade a Terran and don't account for the fact that Terran buildings can lift off.
|
On May 09 2010 01:30 TheTuna wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 01:27 Vip3ra wrote:On May 09 2010 01:12 arb wrote:
I dunno if its been mentioned yet but fuel is so stupid lets just imagine this scenario :
after both cheese , reaper zealot whatever terran loses everything but his rax or cc, toss has about 5 zealots and a pylon/gate left but no money or probes for a nexus.
obviously toss cant win and terran cant win, so adding fuel is gonna punish terran even though protoss has no way of killing him anyway.
how is that fair? if protoss cant kill terran because he lifted he obviously doesnt deserve the win in the first place if the terran only has a rax and no army or any way to get an army and the toss player has 5 zealots ofc he should win. That is kind of the hole point with the reveal mechanism, that players shouldn't be able to hide buildings just to draw out a match they can't win. But the point of the game is to destroy all enemy buildings, no? A draw is a draw. The issue is that there needs to be a mutual draw or restart mechanism so that situations like this can be ended quickly; I have no problem with drawing itself.
Well terran is the only race that can force a draw this way, every other race will get its buildings reveled and any army the other person has will be able to end the game. And yes you could get the same situation with an island. But i bet 95% of all matches that end in a stall is because terran hides buildings in the air
|
On May 09 2010 01 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 09 2010 01 end_of_the_skype_highlighting:34 TheTuna wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 01:33 floor exercise wrote:On May 09 2010 01:12 arb wrote:
I dunno if its been mentioned yet but fuel is so stupid lets just imagine this scenario :
after both cheese , reaper zealot whatever terran loses everything but his rax or cc, toss has about 5 zealots and a pylon/gate left but no money or probes for a nexus.
obviously toss cant win and terran cant win, so adding fuel is gonna punish terran even though protoss has no way of killing him anyway.
how is that fair? if protoss cant kill terran because he lifted he obviously doesnt deserve the win in the first place Oh how terribly unfair to add a system wherein the player who still has attacking forces will win the game But the issue is that he doesn't deserve to win, because he didn't make units capable of killing flying buildings. For god's sake, if you're going to base trade a Terran, just hide a void ray or a mutalisk somewhere. There's no point rewarding sloppy play by cutting some slack for players who base trade a Terran and don't account for the fact that Terran buildings can lift off.
The point is, why should one race be able to win in situations where every other race would lose? Let's say you have 5 zealots and a pylon your opponent has barracks, it'll be a draw? Now if they're a Protoss who have a spawning pool, or a gateway, it'd be their victory. I'm not sure how exactly that is fair.
Why do you need freaking starport/spire/stargate units to be able to win vs terran when any other race vs any other race can win with only tier one units.
|
On May 09 2010 01:38 Vip3ra wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2010 01:30 TheTuna wrote:On May 09 2010 01:27 Vip3ra wrote:On May 09 2010 01:12 arb wrote:
I dunno if its been mentioned yet but fuel is so stupid lets just imagine this scenario :
after both cheese , reaper zealot whatever terran loses everything but his rax or cc, toss has about 5 zealots and a pylon/gate left but no money or probes for a nexus.
obviously toss cant win and terran cant win, so adding fuel is gonna punish terran even though protoss has no way of killing him anyway.
how is that fair? if protoss cant kill terran because he lifted he obviously doesnt deserve the win in the first place if the terran only has a rax and no army or any way to get an army and the toss player has 5 zealots ofc he should win. That is kind of the hole point with the reveal mechanism, that players shouldn't be able to hide buildings just to draw out a match they can't win. But the point of the game is to destroy all enemy buildings, no? A draw is a draw. The issue is that there needs to be a mutual draw or restart mechanism so that situations like this can be ended quickly; I have no problem with drawing itself. Well terran is the only race that can force a draw this way, every other race will get its buildings reveled and any army the other person has will be able to end the game. And yes you could get the same situation with an island. But i bet 95% of all matches that end in a stall if because terren hides buildings in the air
Yes, but this is the way the racial mechanic is supposed to work. Terran buildings burn to death at low health instead of healing like Protoss or Zerg structures, so they get the ability to fly. The issue is not the ability of Terrans to force a draw, but rather that there is no official draw mechanic in place.
@Shikyo-This can easily be avoided, just don't base trade Terrans. Also, let's say Terrans and Protoss are both reduced to a single building in the red with no workers. The Terran player will lose, because his building will burn down.
But wait, why should one race be able to win in a situation where another one can't?
|
He doesn't deserve to win yet the person with no units flying in a corner doesn't lose? I cannot honestly understand how people can justify flying off a building with the intention of AFKING till the other guy quits when you know you can't land and continue to play. I posted all I can in this thread I don't wanna reiterate myself every other post but basically it comes down to this. Say no to stalemates, be the better man if you are a terran who is floating to win..grow some balls and try to land and play the game as intended.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
