EPTP.S. Btw i saw the situation.. Nony clearly had the game won, a forced draw would have been offensive.
Lifted Terrans and Stalemate - Page 9
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Talic_Zealot
688 Posts
P.S. Btw i saw the situation.. Nony clearly had the game won, a forced draw would have been offensive. | ||
|
cujo2k
Canada1044 Posts
On May 08 2010 20:34 Piste wrote: I don't see why it's so "epicly retarted". Everyone knows that so don't put yourself into that situation. Just because it's a well-known game mechanic from BW, doesn't mean it's not a stupid mechanic that shouldn't have ever been implemented into the game. Allowing someone to force a draw with a floating building and no units makes no sense whatsoever. I fail to see how you can give a draw to an "army" that has cowardly fled from the battle via air transport. Although in this case it's not even an army that's fled, it's just a space station with a few engineers inside of it. | ||
|
palanq
United States761 Posts
You can still draw by landing on an inaccessible island or cliff, but it's an improvement. Also implement an 'offer draw' system. | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On May 09 2010 02:11 floor exercise wrote: "It's the asymmetry of the races that makes the game interesting" And pray tell, what part of stalemates is interesting? What part about base trades are interesting? Neither army fights the other and it's a race to see who can kill the other person's base faster. Obviously not all base trades play out this way, but plenty of them do (or the winner is the one that sneaks out a worker, and starts a building). A mechanic that makes it advantageous to avoid those scenarios for one side decreases how often it will actually pop up (it's not like Terran's going to play for the draw unless they're certain they can't win). Sure it makes a few awful stalemates, but I'd rather have 1 awful stalemate than a bunch of games where the players just base trade and the winner is the one who kills buildings faster. | ||
|
floor exercise
Canada5847 Posts
On May 09 2010 02:37 palanq wrote: If a T's buildings are ALL floating, I say give him 1 or 2 minutes to land at least one or lose. You can still draw by landing on an inaccessible island or cliff, but it's an improvement. Also implement an 'offer draw' system. Honestly a draw system is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater I would say 95% of stalemates involve Terran, and that's being generous, it's probably closer to 99%. It's very hard to reach a legitimate stalemate where neither player can kill the other. Even then, most of those kind of stalemates are just two players who don't want to commit to an attack. So the obvious problem is Terran being able to float their buildings indefinitely. I think there's some very simple rules that can be put in place to solve this issue without breaking terran or removing any of the advantages of floating buildings, just minimizing the abuse of that mechanic. A draw system could even result in people trying to drag out games that they have clearly lost just to try to convince the opponent to draw when in reality they should just leave and accept defeat. I think fix what's clearly broken before you try to entirely alter the way games end by adding another outcome other than winning or losing. On May 09 2010 02:45 TheYango wrote: What part about base trades are interesting? Neither army fights the other and it's a race to see who can kill the other person's base faster. A mechanic that makes it advantageous to avoid those scenarios for one side decreases how often it will actually pop up (it's not like Terran's going to play for the draw unless they're certain they can't win). Sure it makes a few awful stalemates, but I'd rather have 1 awful stalemate than a bunch of games where the players just base trade and the winner is the one who kills buildings faster. Are you conceding that currently Terrans have more incentive to engage in base trading, and that their opponent has incentive not to? Because wouldn't a new system mean less base trades since it's in neither persons best interest since neither have an easy out? And some of the most thrilling games in bw and sc2 have been elimination races. Really horrible argument :/ | ||
|
condoriano
United States826 Posts
| ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On May 09 2010 02:48 condoriano wrote: Nony I don't get it, what if he had ground units and no economy and you had a mined out nexus (or made a pylon) on the island and no units, would you automatically assume you lost? What's the point of this argument? This brings up another point: even with limited float time, any map with island expos or unreachable high ground can still result in stalemates anyway, because Terran can just land on unreachable ground. | ||
|
yB.TeH
Germany413 Posts
| ||
|
DminusTerran
Canada1337 Posts
On May 08 2010 21:43 Slunk wrote: Oftentimes you plan early aggression because you just wanna expand. But when you arrive at your enemy's base you find yout that he is killing the rocks and going inside your base / dropping you with all he has. At this point you cannot win if you are zerg or protoss. The terran is going to kill all your buildings and float his away. The only chance is to remain in the game longer. I like how you say oftentimes like this shit actually happens more than once every 200 games, and honestly if you don't scout your opponents army movement/drop tech you might be dumb. | ||
|
Slunk
Germany768 Posts
On May 09 2010 05:51 DminusTerran wrote: I like how you say oftentimes like this shit actually happens more than once every 200 games, and honestly if you don't scout your opponents army movement/drop tech you might be dumb. Terran is the most freakin mobile race, no matter how well you scout beforehand, they can just load their shit in the medivacs and drop them into your base to force you to commit to a basetrade. And scouting medivacs does not mean that dropping is even coming at any point in the game. | ||
|
LolnoobInsanity
United States183 Posts
On May 08 2010 11:20 Sentient wrote: For the same reason Chess can end in a draw even if you are down on pieces. If you sense you are behind, playing for a draw is considered a viable strategy in most games. yes but the problem is that because stalemate is an option, the potential loser would try for that (the best option remaining to him). If draws were not an option, then terrans wouldn't have as much an incentive to be annoying and float their buildings away. Sure floating their buildings away is a viable option for the terran because it gives him the possibility of rebuilding, but at the same time it takes a certain amount of sportsmanship to say, "the chances of me rebuilding is slim to none and are only possible if the opponent falls asleep for 5 minutes. GG" and then admit defeat. The terran's two options are "stalemate or lose" whereas the nonterran's options are "win or stalemate" clearly this game should be in the nonterran's favor. Because of the possibility of stalemate (or in the case of sc2, the possiblity of leaving his building there for long enough that the opponent leaves and he gets the win) it will always be in the best interest for the terran to do so, and rob the win from the nonterran. Also, no one would want to see a tournament match where everyone has to wait around for 5 minutes or whatever for the buildings to run out of fuel or whatever else is suggested to be implemented. | ||
|
Anti-Milton
United States8 Posts
On May 09 2010 02:48 condoriano wrote: Nony I don't get it, what if he had ground units and no economy and you had a mined out nexus (or made a pylon) on the island and no units, would you automatically assume you lost? What's the point of this argument? But that scenario is different in that it is a draw that happened naturally. Zerg/Protoss have to go out of their way to get transports and spend additional resources if they had the intention of trying to force a draw by building crap at islands, while Terrans can easily lift off preexisting/necessity buildings as a last ditch effort (which does not effect their build order). No doubt natural draws are going to occur here and there, but what's in question is the standards of playing for the draw. | ||
|
faction123
Australia949 Posts
| ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
Double KO, both players simultaneously kill their last structure at the exact same time. Stalemate, Both players unable to KO (via no units left to finish the structures). Suicide Stale, both players unable to attack because they will lose if they do (1 DT & Pylon vs 1 zealot &1 canon/pylon). And then there are terrans who are douche. Lift away and sit in the corner afk unable to do anything to a crippled opponent who doesn't have an AA unit that can reach their structure. | ||
|
iggyfisk
Sweden212 Posts
| ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
The only real way to regulate this is if the terran ONLY has like a single rax or CC left. You can't put sweeping changes like "if any building is above ground for 5min" or some shit b/c people use buildings to scout and for sight. I'm personally fine with adding a draw system after a certain amount of time(shouldn't be a loss if you didn't get units that can shoot up... if u have a problem with this then that means u want to get rid of flight period which opens a new can of changes) but i'm sure there are situations where the draw system would backfire or fail (even tho i can't think of one atm). | ||
|
Talic_Zealot
688 Posts
| ||
HawaiianPig
Canada5155 Posts
On May 09 2010 00:41 Liquid`NonY wrote: Yeah, well when people kill the mystique and take me out of my role-playing mindset, then I'm going to think about why Terran buildings can float and how that's supposed to help them. Only in an absolutely terrible RTS would there be an ability that forces a draw. It's a side effect of the ability and if it can be trimmed off, it should be. I can't fathom how any of you defend the "I float away and force a draw" mechanic. Hell I wish it was in WC3 so it'd be another reason to laugh it. It's something that SC players ought to bear with shame. Truth. Honestly, as much as we all love to claim Starcraft is a perfect game, sometimes it simply isn't true. Just because something existed in Brood War, doesn't mean it's not worthy of consideration for revision in Starcraft II. Retarded Hypothetical RTS As a fun exercise, I'd like for all the naysayers to consider for a minute a Starcraft game where every race could lift off and force a stalemate. What would happen to all of those exciting building eliminations and base trades we've enjoyed watching and even participating in? When bases are traded, remaining armies engage, and a winner emerges from the ensuing battle, what happens then? Well in this glorious new RTS, if air tech hasn't been reached, the losing player gets to employ the "I float away and force a draw" mechanic. What would you say of this hypothetical RTS? Well here's the kicker: Other factors notwithstanding, this game would be fair and balanced. Simply put, if the ability to employ the "I float away and force a draw" mechanic were available to every race from the onset, as it is with Terrans, it would certainly be "fair" in the strictest sense of the term. Indeed, in this hypothetical game, every tight game that doesn't reach air tech would result in ridiculous lifting contests, ending in some painstakingly long, impossible-to-complete tests of internet-connectional fortitude. Ignoring the fact that this hypothetical RTS is extremely silly and a headache to even imagine playing, it's clear to see that there's an imbalance developed out of an unequal availability to this mechanic. Returning to Starcraft as we know it... Most here are proposing a draw-calling countdown timer that would initiate after extended periods of inactivity. This would certainly solve the other forms of stalemate that can potentially emerge, and is a great idea. However, the Terran Lift Off stalemate is far different than army/static-defense stand-offs; it's simple and flagrant abuse of an ability that was never developed for this purpose. In the event of a Terran Lift Off, the question we ask is: Is it fair to deny the player wins to Terran opponents simply because the game didn't last long enough to reach air tech? Practically every proponent of calling this scenario a draw claims that one must prepare in advance for this inherent Terran ability. The problem here, is that the "Oh just build a freakin' Void Ray" argument completely neglects the fact that Terran does not have to "freakin' research Lift Off tech." Is it fair to force one player to tech to air while the other simply begins with this air tech? It's simple: One player is given an inherent advantage in base trade situations from the onset by virtue of an ability that was never envisioned to produce this effect. This is an imbalance. In a XvX base trade, where X is anything but Terran, only a standoff between units that have the potential to deal damage can cause a stalemate. In all of these cases, no one player began the game with the ability to force a draw; this exceptionally rare stalemate occurs within the course of the game and is amicably solved by a draw timer. In Terran Lift Off stalemates, opponents of the Terran are punished for not reaching air tech simply due to a unequal access to this draw inducing ability. So let's see here... we have a mechanic that's unquestionably imbalanced due to its unequal availability. Do we do away with this "I float away and force a draw" mechanic, or keep it? The question becomes simple, though apparently subjective: Is producing a stalemate in this manner conducive to competitive gaming? We've already established that its availability to the other races is imbalanced. So if we answer yes to this question, then we need to provide all of the other races with this, or a similar, "free draw if your opponent doesn't have air tech" ability. Great stuff! Now we can all go ahead and enjoy playing Retarded Hypothetical RTS. If we answer no, then we ought to revise Terran Lifting... I propose a 5 or 10 minute fuel tank on Terran buildings. Is this really that unreasonable? As a Terran player in Starcraft II, I can't possibly imagine how any of you see this mechanic as both intended by Blizzard and in the spirit of any self-respecting Starcraft competition. The only argument I see around here claims that it's "in the game and always been part of Starcraft." Not only does this not speak to logic, but this blatantly neglects its imbalanced availability to the various races and the fact that it encourages draws. Lifting is an integral part of Terran strategy, but there's no denying its potential for abuse; its both not in the spirit of the ability, nor in the spirit of the game. | ||
|
Anti-Milton
United States8 Posts
On May 09 2010 10:07 iggyfisk wrote:Kudos to smart Terrans for making the best of sticky situations. Kudos for Terrans for having a mechanic that cannot be matched by Protoss/Zerg. NO, this is not saying races can't have unique mechanics in their units and abilities, but rather: Zerg can win, lose, or play to draw. Toss can win, lose, or play to draw. Terrans can win, lose, or play to a draw without deviating from their build order. Draw is a feasible outcome of the game, along side winning and losing. With Lift-off as it is, it's like saying a certain race should be designed to have an advantage over winning or losing by default. | ||
|
Fen
Australia1848 Posts
In the end, there are lots of different possible stalemates. Also, most maps have island expansions, so fuel wont stop most of the terran abuse anyway. You cant just turn around and say, "my enemy should suicide into me" as all of you are asking for in Nony's game. Why would you ask one person to dilberately lose and not the other? Why wouldn't you ask Nony to destroy his own buildings? The only fair answer is to put in draws. | ||
| ||
