Lifted Terrans and Stalemate

On May 08 2010 10:20 Fayth wrote:
there shud just be an auto draw after 15 mins like this other guy said, after no dmg done, no gas or no mineral collected

On May 08 2010 10:22 R1CH wrote:
Were there ever any popular maps for BW that had this issue? It seems SC2 maps have a lot more "out of bounds" territory than BW maps.

On May 08 2010 10:22 R1CH wrote:
Were there ever any popular maps for BW that had this issue? It seems SC2 maps have a lot more "out of bounds" territory than BW maps.

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.

On May 08 2010 10:36 Sadist wrote:



the terran shouldnt lose. It should just be a draw.

On May 08 2010 11:07 dinoman1989 wrote:
Why is a stalemate such a bad thing that it ought to be avoided? If a game reaches a point where neither play can possibly kill the other, then it was so equally played by both players that a stalemate and a DRAW really is the only equitable outcome.

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?

On May 08 2010 10:22 R1CH wrote:
Were there ever any popular maps for BW that had this issue? It seems SC2 maps have a lot more "out of bounds" territory than BW maps.

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.

On May 08 2010 11:28 ccou wrote:


Except chess draws are simple and moderated, lift off draws are not moderated and make the game obnoxiously long if not infinitely long.

Should make normal CCs incapable of flight, only OCs. Then give barracks, factory, and starport energy. Flight takes energy as a fuel, when a building is out of energy, it saps health instead. Give some cost to preemptively building an OC completely safe behind a terran wall.

On May 08 2010 11:28 ccou wrote:


Except chess draws are simple and moderated, lift off draws are not moderated and make the game obnoxiously long if not infinitely long.

Should make normal CCs incapable of flight, only OCs. Then give barracks, factory, and starport energy. Flight takes energy as a fuel, when a building is out of energy, it saps health instead. Give some cost to preemptively building an OC completely safe behind a terran wall.

On May 08 2010 11:31 shinosai wrote:


I don't think terran flight should be nerfed just because some protoss players enjoy base trading. A draw system could be implemented... but in the meantime if you're fighting a terran, keep in mind that terran buildings can lift off before you let them kill your nexus.

On May 08 2010 11:20 ramen- wrote:
It's the other guy's fault if he can't save anything to kill off the last buildings. if protoss has just one pylon on an island and kills all of terran's workers/air units/etc so that he can't kill the pylon, should the pylon eventually run out of energy and die since the other guys had more stuff left over?

On May 08 2010 11:28 ccou wrote:


Except chess draws are simple and moderated, lift off draws are not moderated and make the game obnoxiously long if not infinitely long.

On May 08 2010 11:13 fuzzehbunneh wrote:


there's playing to a draw and theres lifting off your stuff once youre beat so you can hide in the corner

On May 08 2010 10:51 HawaiianPig wrote:


Yeah, put it this way, if there's a Terran lifted with no army and a Protoss running around the map waiting for the Terran to float back in, if the power went out(!!!), they'd call the game in the Protoss' favour, no?

I've spoken to some on IRC about this, and the biggest objection comes from the notion that the Terran, while he has no chance to win, certainly doesn't have to move out and lose. However the nature of the lift off stalemate is always such that the opponent who is grounded (be it P Z or T), has a definite army advantage and would without question win the game if the Terran floated back in. Some may argue that the Terran could potentially rebuild, but if that were the case he would have attempted to do so long before this hypothetical fuel runs out (givin' the dude 5 minutes or 10 minutes or so is more than enough).

Secondly, I'm not sure how draws would work on the ladder, and the Terran liftoff isn't common enough to mess around with scoring systems and whathaveyou, when the easier solution is to force the game to end.

On May 08 2010 10:36 Sadist wrote:



the terran shouldnt lose. It should just be a draw.

On May 08 2010 10:36 Sadist wrote:



the terran shouldnt lose. It should just be a draw.

On May 08 2010 12:09 Liquid`NonY wrote:
We were fighting for Incineration Zone and I conquered it. He is but flying on the edge of the border with an industrial facility while I patrol the grounds with my military. I am victorious.

On May 08 2010 10:21 fatduck wrote:
TvP is horribly unbalanced already, as you know, because Protoss wins 54% of the matches. So clearly stalkers need fuel, not command centers.

Doesn't solve all stalemates, anyway - you could have one player with static d and the other with not enough units left to kill it, etc.

On May 08 2010 13:19 Hold-Lurker wrote:


For some reason, I actually laughed out loud while reading this. Did the other guy actually leave? :D

On May 08 2010 12:09 Liquid`NonY wrote:
We were fighting for Incineration Zone and I conquered it. He is but flying on the edge of the border with an industrial facility while I patrol the grounds with my military. I am victorious.

On May 08 2010 16:21 BlackHat wrote:
Why does it sound like every person in this thread saying, "Terrans shouldn't lose if they can keep a building alive, even if they have no hope of rebuilding" is someone who who sit in a game for hours with their one Starport and 35 minerals and refuse to see that they have lost.

On May 08 2010 16:36 Neshapotamus wrote:
Terrans should not have this mechanic implemented. Why not give a similar scenario in terran vs protoss. Terran has one marine and can kill all buildings but ONE CANNON is alive and is powered by a pylon. Should the protoss player leave. Then you should implement some type of pylon energy? Stop being ridiculous.

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.

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...

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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

On May 08 2010 20:33 DarQraven wrote:
The Protoss, while not in a position of luxury, still has a means to meet the engame condition while the Terran does not.

On May 08 2010 20:33 DarQraven wrote:
What's a Terran going to do with only a CC?

On May 08 2010 11:16 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:Also, I know terran had a similar advantage in bw where if both players went all in proxies vs each other the terran is supposed to be ahead.

On May 08 2010 20:55 Piste wrote:
There is no "advantage".

On May 08 2010 20:55 Piste wrote:

Both players would want to kill each other but neither can. How hard is that to understand?


What is protoss going to do with only ground units and couple unpowered buildings? OBVIOUSLY NOTHING.

There is no "advantage".

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

On May 08 2010 21:33 hoovehand wrote:
i consider it BM, but if you play for a base trade then why haven't you planned ahead and hidden a probe with enough minerals to build a nexus?

On May 08 2010 21:39 gillon wrote:


Then defend your base. Problem solved.

On May 08 2010 21:37 Koffiegast wrote:
How about an additional condition for losing/winning the game.

You lose the game if you have:
- A command center, no army units, below 50 minerals and no workers left

On May 08 2010 13:09 Bob300 wrote:


Really........ then when your about to lose liftoff and free draw... no lose. great idea

On May 08 2010 10:21 fatduck wrote:
Doesn't solve all stalemates, anyway - you could have one player with static d and the other with not enough units left to kill it, etc.

On May 08 2010 21:45 Slunk wrote:


If this is an OC, you can still win if the map has island expos.

On May 08 2010 17:33 randombum wrote:
This would be ridiculous, its a in game mechanic that is well known. It is not your win if you can force your opponent to run, but cannot kill him.

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).

On May 08 2010 23:49 Kanil wrote:
Alright, so give Terran buildings a fuel limit, if you want. Stalemates can, and will continue to happen.

What is your plan to solve those stalemates?

If your plan can solve those stalemates, then why do Terran buildings need fuel? What makes that stalemate different than any other?

My opinion: No mining/fighting for X minutes, game ends in a draw. All problems solved.

On May 08 2010 23:37 Vip3ra wrote:
The real question asked in the first post tho is should terran buildings have fuel, a max flight time to prevent this situation. I think so

On May 08 2010 21:56 Izslove wrote:
Nony failed to destroy the Terrans base so did not deserve to win.

On May 09 2010 00:27 Liquid`NonY wrote:
PS: I woke up to a defeat screen and I'm watching the replay to see how this is possible. He has one Command Center in the corner of the map, 48 minerals and 211 gas. Replay is at 1:45 out of 9:06 so far

On May 09 2010 00:33 SLTorak.Hobo wrote:
This debate has been beat to death between this thread, and the last zerg who had units but no base and terran floated(I think the Terran had a rax floated). Most people told the Zerg that he had indeed lost an not the terran but now since its Nony people are more inclined to flop the other way. I on the other hand still say a terran who floats his base while the other person has an army able to kill it has lost. Its sad the amount of people who try to justify flying off and AFKing till someone else gets bored as a win for them since they 'dun dun dun strategically waited out the opponent, showing their epic awesomenesss'. Fuel is I suppose one option that would work..better yet the Terran players can grow a set of balls and actually try to float their base an use it. If you can't do that you lose the game simply put. Overall I think its sad Blizzard is going to have to implement a hand holding feature cause of a bunch of lamers.

On May 08 2010 17:01 pyr0ma5ta wrote:


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.

On May 08 2010 23:58 Slunk wrote:


There are real stalemates, like this cannon/DT case somebody mentioned. And there are sure losses for terran players that only become stalemates because of the map layout and/or the liftoff ability. Also the latter is way more likely to happen. I bet 99% of stalemates happen because of floating buildings right now.

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.

On May 09 2010 00:46 pyr0ma5ta wrote:


I demand that someone who is suggesting that floating buildings not count or fall down eventually or whatever respond to my post.

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

On May 09 2010 01:03 Fen wrote:


They wont, because your point is solid.

On May 09 2010 01:27 Vip3ra wrote:

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.

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

On May 09 2010 01:33 floor exercise wrote:


Oh how terribly unfair to add a system wherein the player who still has attacking forces will win the game

On May 09 2010 01:30 TheTuna wrote:


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 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              09 2010 01      end_of_the_skype_highlighting:34 TheTuna wrote:


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 01:38 Vip3ra wrote:


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

On May 09 2010 01:33 Liquid`NonY wrote:
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 01:43 SLTorak.Hobo wrote:
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.

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.

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 01:09 The Hurricane Kid wrote:
How bout if we make terran buildings not count as a building when it is lifted up?

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.

On May 09 2010 01:33 Liquid`NonY wrote:
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 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              09 2010 01      end_of_the_skype_highlighting:39 TheTuna wrote:



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?

On May 09 2010 01:39 TheTuna wrote:



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.

On May 09 2010 01:46 ilnp wrote:


Nony vs. Nony's Pride
0 - 1

there's a loss on your record for you

On May 09 2010 01:34 TheTuna wrote:


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 01:45 notuswind wrote:


Your game lasted nine hours!

Although it may not always be the best option, we need a restart mechanism in order to prevent this kind of thing from happening.

TheTuna,



This is wrong because sometimes base-trading a Terran is all you can do.

In the game that we're all thinking of NonY didn't have any choice. His nexus was taken out by an early reaper harass and he didn't have the resources to build a new one, so all that was left to do was go all-in with his probes and stalkers.

On May 09 2010 01:43 TheTuna wrote:


He doesn't deserve to win because he base traded a Terran and didn't account for the possibility of liftoff. I consider that poor play.

Just out of curiosity, how many of you guys are Zerg or Protoss players?

On May 09 2010 01:49 TheTuna wrote:


Yes, it sucks that he got caught in an unwinnable situation, but those happen sometimes. The other player was able to exploit his racial mechanic to win. Terran buildings burn down, while Zerg and Protoss buildings heal, so Terrans get liftoff. All of these are able to create unwinnable situations for another player.

And again, if a Terran initiates a base trade attack, a Protoss player can just chronoboost out a Void Ray or something and tuck it away to wipe out the floating Terran buildings. It's not that hard.

I would love to see a draw mechanic from Blizzard, but the Terran racial advantage of liftoff should not be neutered in this way.

On May 09 2010 01 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              09 2010 01      end_of_the_skype_highlighting:49 TheTuna wrote:


Yes, it sucks that he got caught in an unwinnable situation, but those happen sometimes. The other player was able to exploit his racial mechanic to win. Terran buildings burn down, while Zerg and Protoss buildings heal, so Terrans get liftoff. All of these are able to create unwinnable situations for another player.

And again, if a Terran initiates a base trade attack, a Protoss player can just chronoboost out a Void Ray or something and tuck it away to wipe out the floating Terran buildings. It's not that hard.

I would love to see a draw mechanic from Blizzard, but the Terran racial advantage of liftoff should not be neutered in this way.

On May 09 2010 01:48 floor exercise wrote:
You make it sound like it's always the protoss players idea to force a base trade. It's pretty presumptuous to assume that they simply elect to trade bases rather than be forced into it by either the opponents actions or just the result of the flow of the game (ie getting caught out of position and having no logical response but to counter)

What part of choosing terran comes with the privilege of being able to force stalemates so easily? I sincerely doubt we would find that in any notes or documents detailing the design of the terran race either in sc or sc2.

Why does terran deserve to not be held to the same standard as the other 2 races in the event of an elimination race or base trade? Why is it considered fair for the terran to initiate an attack that will likely result in base trading knowing that he has the advantage of just floating if it comes down to that.

Yes, it sucks that he got caught in an unwinnable situation, but those happen sometimes. The other player was able to exploit his racial mechanic to win. Terran buildings burn down, while Zerg and Protoss buildings heal, so Terrans get liftoff. All of these are able to create unwinnable situations for another player.

And again, if a Terran initiates a base trade attack, a Protoss player can just chronoboost out a Void Ray or something and tuck it away to wipe out the floating Terran buildings. It's not that hard.

I would love to see a draw mechanic from Blizzard, but the Terran racial advantage of liftoff should not be neutered in this way.

Instead of putting all your effort into trying to convince Blizzard liftoff is unfair maybe you should just put that effort into being vigilant about what your opponent is doing. If you hate losing to lift, then get good at avoiding the situations that lead to losing to it.

On May 09 2010 01:57 TheYango wrote:

For the same reason that Terran is allowed to keep up with an opponent in terms of army production despite being a base down in SC1. It's the asymmetry of the races that makes the game interesting. This complaint is like saying "Terran on equal bases as Protoss and Zerg will win, that's not fair!" Of course it isn't--but the game was balanced around the fact that Terran able to maintain base parity with Protoss or Zerg will be able to win the game. Protoss and Zerg sometimes will not be able to stop Terran from taking bases, just like they won't be able to stop base-trade situations. Does this mean that it's poor design for Terran? Hardly.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

On May 09 2010 10:07 iggyfisk wrote:Kudos to smart Terrans for making the best of sticky situations.

On May 09 2010 14:18 HawaiianPig wrote:


Swear this is the last time I'm gonna try to explain this.

Terran has to:

cripple their enemy in such a way that they cant build 1 air unit.

Opponent has to:

cripple their enemy entirely

On May 09 2010 15:17 Ryuu314 wrote:
I don't see why Terrans being able to fly really is an issue.

BW survived for over a decade with this ability and it worked out fine.

I'm all for implementing a draw option with certain conditions, but I really don't think changing the Terran racial advantage is the way to go.

On May 09 2010 15:14 lowlypawn wrote:
My point is we need to add some mechanism to handle ALL possible drawing situations. One way would be if no minerals are mined for XX amount of minutes. I don’t know what the best solution is but let’s find a solution that works for all scenarios.

On May 09 2010 14:18 HawaiianPig wrote:
Swear this is the last time I'm gonna try to explain this.

Terran has to:

cripple their enemy in such a way that they cant build 1 air unit.

Opponent has to:

cripple their enemy entirely

On May 09 2010 16:25 Falling wrote:
2) I'm pretty sure R1CH's observation is correct. Most proleague maps did not have large empty spaces as border. There may be some safe spots, but not every map. And they were hard to get to because of the slow flying speed.

I have a solution to the draw problem. Every map in the map pool should have an island expo. That way if you trade bases with terran, then the terran doesn't have to float his cc to the corner of the map - he can float it to the expo and win directly from there. =D

Load here is an action of Terran's main building to "protect" their workers which clearly no other races have and need to be removed

On May 08 2010 22:32 Champi wrote:


/agree

On May 09 2010 17:55 NB wrote:
1/ talking about forcing a draw, let me remind you that the static defends of both Z and P could be used to force a draw in a lot of situation in BW (a very good example would be stork vs smbody that stork even used mind control to have a second race, map minded out and Z was aiming for a draw PvZ)... and all T have is semi-static which is bunker (i dont count PF here since we r talking about lifting)

On May 10 2010 03:41 Anti-Milton wrote:
Forcing a draw is not the biggest problem here, since there will be draws. But the fact is that if Zerg or Protoss are playing for the draw, they must actually spend resources and disrupt their build orders. Terrans can simply lift off pre-exisiting buildings that were going to be built in the first place, meaning they don't play for the draw but still have the ability to play for the draw.

Draw is a feasible outcome of the game. That being said, should Terrans have a free draw mechanic? How would people feel if one race had a free mechanic that gives them the advantage over other outcomes, like a free win mechanic?

On May 10 2010 03:52 crate wrote:

How do you know that T isn't disadvantaged in some other way to begin with? If you've solved SC2 and know exactly how it's balanced, I'm sure we'd all like to know.

On May 08 2010 10:20 Joey.rumz wrote:
Or Nony can say "you know, I have 500 people watching me stream, this loser on the other team probably doesn't," say gg, and find a new game.

During release, I can see this being a legit problem. But it's stupid beta where ELO will be reset who knows how many more times.

I guarentee this game was shorter than the stand off it is now enduring. I wish nony would just go find a game after leaving this, and take retribution by pounding someone's skull in (preferably with phoenix micro.)

On May 09 2010 15:14 lowlypawn wrote:
Even WC3 could end up in a draw, it was very rare but has happened. This game didn’t end up in a draw but you can see how it could happen.
http://www.highper.ch/aoh/index.php

By adding a fuel level to Terran CC won’t solve the possibility of some games turning into stalemates… I can think up several ways a SC2 game could turn into a draw.

1) Both players could have massive amounts of towers and are totally mined out. Then both players lose all their units to the towers. Now you just have towers and buildings sitting there…
2) One players could have DT guarding his base and the other players has no detection and no way to mine resources. But if the DT leave his base gets destroyed and the other players has towers in his base so the DT can’t attack.
3) Players could get stranded on an island.

My point is we need to add some mechanism to handle ALL possible drawing situations. One way would be if no minerals are mined for XX amount of minutes. I don’t know what the best solution is but let’s find a solution that works for all scenarios.

On May 08 2010 10:26 clik wrote:
I don't know about giving Terran buildings gas however Blizzard could fix their maps to not have this issue.

On May 10 2010 04:08 floor exercise wrote:

Hello fellow poster. I am really not trying to single you out here, but posts like this are why tlnet is going to shit. There's a growing trend in making these really ignorant, hyperbolic posts like this that are essentially the equivalent of using the chewbacca defense to argue a point. There's nothing offensive about what you are saying, but it's so flat out retarded that not only does it not contribute to the discussion at hand, it can't really effectively be responded to because it's just so fucking dumb.

I mean does anyone truly believe the ability to force stalemates is somehow related to race balance? Really, honestly? Do you even believe what your one line post is suggesting? Posts like this could basically be described as spam somewhat cleverly disguised as a post with actual contributory intent behind it. I mean one or two of these is fine, but it's like you refresh a new thread and it's 10 pages of comments like this. They are just so baseless and bad and make reading threads so difficult.

if Zerg or Protoss are playing for the draw, they must actually spend resources and disrupt their build orders. Terrans can simply lift off pre-exisiting buildings that were going to be built in the first place, meaning they don't play for the draw but still have the ability to play for the draw.

Do you even believe what your one line post is suggesting?

On May 10 2010 05:19 shieldbreak wrote:


This seems to be the best way to resolve this issue. Give the others an opportunity to still win while not having to nerf Terran buildings in anyway.

On May 09 2010 17:33 TheYango wrote:

So explain how altering the core game mechanic is a better choice than simply designing maps that accomodate, especially since there are plenty of advantages to be had in filling that space with useful terrain anyway?

On May 10 2010 04:35 kickinhead wrote:
Besides: Terran Buildings were able to lift in SCBW as well and noone complained about it, just because it's not an Issue in 99% of the games and in all the other games were the game goes to the point of total annihilation, the other player should've known that Terran can lift and fly away. That's why you don't basetrade against Terran etc.
And if the Terran wins by killing your last building and you weren't able to because you had no air-unit's - well, you've lost fair and square.
And if it's one of those 1 in 10'000 stalemate-situations and noone can really win - well, be the mannered one and leave...

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?

On May 10 2010 07:08 HawaiianPig wrote:
Why call this scenario a draw? Why must the game end simply because one player refuses to make a move? He certainly doesn't have to make a move, but why does this scenario exist in a truly competitive RTS?

Stalemates in chess occur through expert evasion of checkmate on the side of the losing player, not because he decides he doesn't want to make the final move that will lead to his checkmate.

On May 10 2010 05:13 Eiii wrote:
I honestly don't understand how so many people can completely miss the point. This is absolutely not a balance issue. Normal games would still proceed exactly as they always have. The biggest change this would make would be that if you wanted to use a floating building as a scout long-term, you'd have to find the APM to land it and lift it off once every five to ten minutes or so, to make sure it doesn't run out of fuel and crash.

There's completely nothing wrong with the terran's ability to lift and run their buildings. That's fine. The problem is that even if they have no possible way back into the game they can just remain there, floating around and trying to outlast their opponent. In nony's case, if he constantly scouted to ensure that the T hadn't landed anywhere-- which he did-- T has literally no way to win the game. If T moves to reestablish a base, he loses and protoss wins. In a game where both players are playing to win, that's the only possible outcome.

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.

On May 10 2010 08:17 Matrijs wrote:


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.

Edit: the point I'm trying to make here is that Terran liftoff is fine in its current form, and should not be changed. The problem is that Starcraft 2 doesn't have a way to deal with stalemate situations. That problem exists for all races and all matchups, not just Terran vs. Protoss. The obvious solution is to create a draw mechanic when some long period of time has elapsed without significant changes in the situation.

On May 10 2010 08:23 HawaiianPig wrote:


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.