|
On April 20 2014 03:07 Waise wrote:
btw, not a single person would be against this if it were a terran lifting buildings. everyone would be saying "lifting buildings has been a part of starcraft since SC1" and that would be the end of it. this is 100% anti-swarm host bias coming out, which is stupid because it's being directed at a player here, not the people who designed the game. faulting players for playing the game effectively (i.e. abusing anything and everything) is a dumb and wrong attitude
I would. I have always been advocating a "fuel" timer on terran buildings that forces them to land after a few minutes or start taking damage. It's bullshit how terran can force a draw where a player with the clearly superior army has won but missed one of the dozens buildings flying towards different edges of the map.
It's the same situation here, I'm all against stalemates. They make for really boring games, both for the spectators and the players themselves.
|
4713 Posts
On April 20 2014 03:04 Waise wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2014 02:59 Destructicon wrote:On April 20 2014 02:48 Fearest wrote:
Playing for a draw is a valid strategy in other sports. Like Soccer. I don't see why it should be ban. A person who draws constantly can never get 1st place anyway. What works in other sports doesn't need to work in SC2, the fact that its acceptable to draw in other games doesn't mean it should be acceptable in SC2. I also disagree in general with the principle of drawing being acceptable anywhere in any way shape or form as its unsportsmanlike to prolongue or stall the game out any longer when you reach a inability to win. Stalling for the sake forcing out mistakes from the opponent is fine, stalling and forcing a draw to prevent a loss is lame and goes against everything that competition stands for, if you've failed to win the game and failed to in all aspects of continuing to fight to win the game then bow out gracefully and don't dick around with everyone else's time. Lastly SC2 in its current form isn't a game where the superior player can always close out a game even if he is far ahead, rules like these should exist to protect the viewers and the rest of the tournament from people trying to use inferior game design just for the purpose of staying in it. The more I think of it,t he more I'm agreeing with the i51 admins here and the more I approve of it. so to summarize your post: -trying not to lose so you can play another game and win "goes against competition" (???) -it's not okay to use "inferior game design" to win, which i suppose makes you the arbiter of what constitutes "inferior game design." if i think building cannons behind my mineral line is abusing inferior game design to win, can i get free wins when i'm cannon rushed in a tournament? i think what goes against competitive spirit is you trying to define something you don't like from a balance perspective as an unacceptable way to play the game. what most people here aren't admitting to, but are saying, is "i don't like swarm hosts and i'm laughing that someone got punished for using them." assuming this tournament has a prize pool, i would be fucking pissed too if i were miniraser
Trying to stall because so that you can get a later advantage that you use to win is stalling to win, its sportmanship. When you've exhausted all your options to win and are just stalling for the sake of stalling, that's where you cross the line into unsportsmanlike. And as others have pointed out when one guy retreats into his main and just turtles with no mining he is effectively giving up all options to win, it is inferior game design that the other guy doesn't have any way to use the remaining resource advantage to secure a win.
The inferior game design argument I made is actually seen in other types of games. Certain fighters being banned out in certain fighting games because they are overpowered/ a boss char/ never meant to be played in competitive setting and would just break everything and you'd only see 1 match up. Bug exploits being another example as well.
As far as tournaments go I'm not the arbiter of what constitutes inferior game design, I have an opinion of what that is though, I consider inferior game design to be the inability to convert a large, nearly insurmountable resource or position advantage into a win. In your example I'd be ok with cannon rushing, because the player is actively trying to win trough some way. If however cannon rushing was becoming the only way to play, if there where no counters to it, if it was clearly easier to execute then counter then I could get behind an argument that, for the sake of the tournaments and the competitive scene, then cannon rushes should be banned until such time that the game designers fix it.
|
On April 20 2014 03:07 Waise wrote:
btw, not a single person would be against this if it were a terran lifting buildings. everyone would be saying "lifting buildings has been a part of starcraft since SC1" and that would be the end of it. this is 100% anti-swarm host bias coming out, which is stupid because it's being directed at a player here, not the people who designed the game. faulting players for playing the game effectively (i.e. abusing anything and everything) is a dumb and wrong attitude
A terran cannot get outplayed by their opponent, lift their buildings, and go HUEHUEHUE. If you're way behind and you lift all your buildings, your opponent just has to make enough to counter whatever vikings/BCs you have, and then they win.
The only way that a building lift could result in a stalemate is if they have an unbeatable air army or if there was a basetrade and their opponent can't rebuild a nexus/hatch/CC to start mining again. If you end up in either of those scenarios, the Terran was not being completely outplayed so it's perfectly legitimate for it to end as a stalemate.
|
Northern Ireland26006 Posts
While this thread is pretty interesting and all, why is there not an LR or some kind of tournament page for this tourney? Us UK folk don't often have LANs with notable players!
Feel bad for Miniraiser, as much as I hate these kind of stalemate games it seems he's been almost singled out and made an example of. At some stage perhaps it had to happen and I don't think the admins were necessarily wrong but it's unfortunate for the guy nonetheless
|
Wow. They could have just set a capped time limit for games instead of deciding themselves. Weird rules.
|
On April 20 2014 03:25 vult wrote:
Wow. They could have just set a capped time limit for games instead of deciding themselves. Weird rules.
Bo7 Series with every game a 2rax TVT score of 4-0 = very fast
Bo7 Series with every game a Firecake Vs Mana SH vs Protoss Deathball score of 3-4 = Astonishingly, scarily long.
Have fun trying to timelimit stalemates, given that legit, non stalemate series could quite possibly fit both the above criteria.
|
Its been stated within the rules from the start that playing to get a stalemate on purpose is against the rules. That means that it at least for that tournament is not a valid strategy. Seriously, if a player has given up all hope of winning and thinks its impossible to be able to win the game then in my opinion that player has been outplayed and defeated. It doesn't matter that there is a technical possibility that he can win, if the player himself deems it impossible to win he should gg out.
I agree that ofcourse trying for a stalemate in a normal game is a valid strategy but when the rules clearly state that it isn't for that tournament thats just the way it is. Miniraser should have realized he was going against the rules (for the second time in a row) and instead of going for a stalemate he should have done some risky play that might have given him a 0.0002% chance of getting back in the game. He didn't do this but rather went for the greater chance of making a stalemate against the rules.
If you go into a tournament without reading/understanding the rules then don't whine when they don't suit you, it was his choice to enter the tournament under those premises.
|
On April 19 2014 23:43 NovemberstOrm wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2014 23:39 Verator wrote:
If blizzard refuses to balance their own game competently, the community has to. This is a bit extreme, but the scene can't wait for blizzard for years to realize the flaws of their methods. It's the design of Swarmhost which allows these games not the balance.
That's always been the case. :V
|
On April 20 2014 03:12 LongShot27 wrote:
If it was clearly spelled out in the rules before hand and he did it anyway, then its no ones fault but his own
On April 20 2014 03:31 Shuffleblade wrote:
Its been stated within the rules from the start that playing to get a stalemate on purpose is against the rules. That means that it at least for that tournament is not a valid strategy.
It seems rather subjective though, no? The rule was "admins can decide the result of a game if they determine a player is deliberately playing for a stalemate" (via the OP), so where do you draw the line between purposely wanting to play for a stalemate, and merely biding your time and waiting for an opening? Whether a game lasts 3 hours or 3 minutes, a win is still a win.
|
On April 20 2014 03:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2014 03:12 LongShot27 wrote:
If it was clearly spelled out in the rules before hand and he did it anyway, then its no ones fault but his own Show nested quote +On April 20 2014 03:31 Shuffleblade wrote:
Its been stated within the rules from the start that playing to get a stalemate on purpose is against the rules. That means that it at least for that tournament is not a valid strategy. It seems rather subjective though, no? The rule was "admins can decide the result of a game if they determine a player is deliberately playing for a stalemate" (via the OP), so where do you draw the line between purposely wanting to play for a stalemate, and merely biding your time and waiting for an opening? Whether a game lasts 3 hours or 3 minutes, a win is still a win.
If it wasn't a subjective rule it would be a pretty useless rule. The entire reason it is the way it is, is to allow flexibility and personal judgement to play a role in preventing exactly the thing you just stated - lets say that the rule is that a SH player not leaving his base for 1:30 is playing for a stalemate and should be disqualified.
That'd be dumb, right? 1:30 is too short a time to be sure, an opening could have been there at 2 mins.
So the rule gets changed and now its 5 minutes. But wait, that players army was out of position at 4:50! What an opportunity!
etc etc. Eventually you end up with a very specific rule that's totally useless because it doesn't solve the problem it was meant to solve, of incredibly long, lost games where one player refuses to accept defeat in hope of a 20 minute miracle.
Much better to have an admin with the power to step in and say "Look, dude, what the fuck are you hoping for here. You've lost this game unless your opponent has some sort of incredible brainfart, time to go"
|
On April 19 2014 23:43 NovemberstOrm wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2014 23:39 Verator wrote:
If blizzard refuses to balance their own game competently, the community has to. This is a bit extreme, but the scene can't wait for blizzard for years to realize the flaws of their methods. It's the design of Swarmhost which allows these games not the balance.
So if Blizzard refuses to design their own game competently...
That is an even big slap in the face to Blizzard. It is one thing to have trouble balancing a game, quite another to not be able to design a game.
|
On April 20 2014 03:31 Shuffleblade wrote:
Its been stated within the rules from the start that playing to get a stalemate on purpose is against the rules. That means that it at least for that tournament is not a valid strategy. Seriously, if a player has given up all hope of winning and thinks its impossible to be able to win the game then in my opinion that player has been outplayed and defeated. It doesn't matter that there is a technical possibility that he can win, if the player himself deems it impossible to win he should gg out.
I agree that ofcourse trying for a stalemate in a normal game is a valid strategy but when the rules clearly state that it isn't for that tournament thats just the way it is. Miniraser should have realized he was going against the rules (for the second time in a row) and instead of going for a stalemate he should have done some risky play that might have given him a 0.0002% chance of getting back in the game. He didn't do this but rather went for the greater chance of making a stalemate against the rules.
If you go into a tournament without reading/understanding the rules then don't whine when they don't suit you, it was his choice to enter the tournament under those premises.
we understand his sentiments though~
he probably wasn't aware of the rules, yet ignorance is not an excuse.
'no one is above the law/rules'
|
how dumb. LOL @ the people in this thread who think swarm host are op or broken. The Korean Meta does not even use swarm host play in a turtle style anymore. Protoss has gotten good enough with double robo play and in ZvZ I seen Koreans that stream just bane bust with roaches on top of them. What a dumb rule banning units.
Lets ban protoss units like the MSC........jk.
|
So we can now declare strategies invalid?
I vote for blink all-in to be banned.
|
The rule is bad, because it goes against one of the nicer things about esports: the referee is 100% neutral.
However Miniraiser's own fault for not reading/understanding the rules and entering.
|
On April 19 2014 23:43 NovemberstOrm wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2014 23:39 Verator wrote:
If blizzard refuses to balance their own game competently, the community has to. This is a bit extreme, but the scene can't wait for blizzard for years to realize the flaws of their methods. It's the design of Swarmhost which allows these games not the balance.
I proposed the exact same idea of the scene balancing the game and not Blizzard five months ago. People laughed in my face and called me a fucking idiot.
The problem with OneGoal was that it wasn't really played by the pro scene and never really had any tournament backing or external ladder whatsoever. Starbow now has all three of these things even if my personal problem with the game is that they're trying way too hard to recreate Brood War and not an original RTS game on its own merits.
It's simple actually and you don't even exactly need the support of ESL either. Just get MLG, ASUS ROG, a committee of Code B pros from EU/NA/KR and a few modders/designers together to form an association separate from Blizzard, create a balance mod, fund a weekly $1,000 semi-invitational tournament which doesn't require a tournament licence, make sure it doesn't clash with WCS at all and get feedback from within the association in terms of what needs balancing and aim to bring out a balance patch and/or map update every 3 months until the game is in a 'near perfect' spot.
Call the mod Starcraft Ressurrection.
Honestly, if Blizzard were to C&D this, it would be an entire contradiction of their tournament licencing terms, it would generate a craptonne of negative PR for the company and it could potentially drive mod teams straight into the hands of other competitors like Valve and Riot who could hire said mod teams to build a free to play RTS game designed to compete with SC2.
|
SC2 literally like chess.
oh w8
|
nkr, not surprising that you aare still at it. Gj bringing to the table what we all know makes no sense.
|
Northern Ireland461 Posts
On April 20 2014 04:10 KalWarkov wrote:
SC2 literally like chess.
oh w8
I laughed so hard at this for some reason
|
unacceptable. ridiculous rule. playing for draw is 100% legit in sc2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
