|
On April 20 2014 00:00 Liquid`Snute wrote:Players can either A) Blinding cloud + baneling bomb vs the 1base spore swarmhost save, or if leading player cant afford this go for: B) Agree to a re-game as soon as possible, you know even better than admins when stuff are gonna get bonkers so dont make it more difficult than it has to be On blizzard's end it would probably make sense to implement: - Brood Lords immune to abducts (ultralisk was already hotfixed, muta was "kind of hotfixed", so why not. - Spores nerfed vs non-light Zerg units. change spore bonus from +30 dmg vs biological into +30 dmg vs biological light. Corruptors, overlords and brood lords take too much damage as it is now. - A more extreme change: Allow for abduction(incl. uproot) of spore and spine crawlers by vipers?  As stupid as it may sound the current ZvZ endgame would benefit from returning to the WoL situation. It had way more depth than the current SH/spore/viper.
I like the second suggestion most. First is ok, don't really like the extreme one. Allow them to abduct when uprooted would be kinda cool but not make much difference obv.
|
Pretty ridiculous rule imo. Playing for a draw so you can get a new match is a perfectly valid strategy once you know you cannot win. Trying "not to lose" so you can win later sounds fine imo.
|
Playing for a stalemate being banned would lower the career overall winrate of MarineKing by a fair amount.
|
On April 20 2014 03:15 Destructicon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2014 03:04 Waise wrote: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.
Nope, that's bullshit. When you play, you do everything you possibly can within the rules of the game to win, or at the very least avoid losing. In StarCraft, if you're still in the game and you still have buildings, your opponent hasn't beaten you yet. If you see a way to keep your opponent from beating you even if you can't win anymore, there is absolutely nothing unsportsmanlike about doing it. Stalemates and ties exist in many sports, and using them to keep yourself alive so you can continue to compete is not only a completely legitimate approach, but one you'd be an idiot not to use if you found yourself in such a situation.
|
On April 20 2014 04:53 Noocta wrote:
Playing for a stalemate being banned would lower the career overall winrate of MarineKing by a fair amount.
Indeed. A lot of Terrans lift and fly to the corner in early game base trades...
|
So if you are T and you lift you buildings and make them fly to have a draw that's not illegal? You can kill sh with good plays like banes to kill the locust and them take them out, they are not imbalanced in any way they are just boring as fuck, they should redisign them but this rule is just retarded because you should apply it to all T players which lift buildings to get a draw in a base trade -.-' Or you can just ban a race because why the hell not?
|
If you can't win.. Playing for the draw is always the thing to do.
|
I don't actually find the idea of banning playing for draw that bad. And I used to be a Terran player.
|
If a player is unable to set up a "win-condition" in the game how can it realistically be argued that he was "ahead"?
Seems to me that both players had no way of setting up a "win-condition" in which case it's a draw and rematch.
I also find the rule itself somewhat absurd. If I can't possibly lose and my opponent can't possibly win, at what point do we say "You know what forget it, even though there is no chance you could possibly lose this game you are actually the loser".
It just seems absurd to me to punish players for not waving the white flag in a game they can neither win nor lose, because you are effectively punishing a player for not losing...
|
On April 20 2014 05:04 SlixSC wrote:
If a player is unable to set up a "win-condition" in the game how can it realistically be argued that he was "ahead"?
Seems to me that both players had no way of setting up a "win-condition" in which case it's a draw and rematch.
I also find the rule itself somewhat absurd. If I can't possibly lose and my opponent can't possibly win, at what point do we say "You know what forget it, even though there is no chance you could possibly lose this game you are actually the loser".
It just seems absurd to me to punish players for not waving the white flag in a game they can neither win nor lose, because you are effectively punishing a player for not losing...
Ourk had the entire map under his control except for miniraser's giant sh/spore fortress, and it was the second time miniraser did such a thing
I don't doubt that if they regamed and miniraser 'lost' again, he would just keep doing that bs until he won, which is fucking awful. Playing like that is pointless for the other person, if the organizers didn't step in it would have been even more idiotic
|
I really don't understand why playing for a draw is a losing offence, and tbh I feel like it favors Terran too much.
For example, in a base race TvP if the Terran player kills the Protoss player's economy before the Protoss player gets a Pheonix / other air-to-air unit out then the Protoss player cannot win and can only play for a draw at best, no matter how much bigger / stronger their army is. Since the Terran still has the potential to win in this situation, they aren't playing for a draw but for a win. Seem unfair that Protoss would automatically lose for 'playing for a draw', since this is the best possible outcome they could get.
|
if miniraser can't win the game
and he cant play for a draw
does that mean the best move for him is to intentionally lose?
that rule violates the spirit of competition
|
So what about the other player who didn't break the swarmhoster? If I'm playing in this tournament and my opponent starts turtling swarmhosts, I'll just not take any chance to beat him and let the tournament officials disqualify *him* for playing for a draw.
|
On April 20 2014 05:11 courtpanda wrote:
if miniraser can't win the game
and he cant play for a draw
does that mean the best move for him is to intentionally lose?
that rule violates the spirit of competition
He should play to try and win.
It's a LAN. Do you want it to end?
If a player keeps playing for a draw, you are basically letting him stop the whole tournament. 2 hour stalemate games, how many do you let happen until you just give up and cancel the whole thing?
|
On April 20 2014 05:09 GTPGlitch wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2014 05:04 SlixSC wrote:
If a player is unable to set up a "win-condition" in the game how can it realistically be argued that he was "ahead"?
Seems to me that both players had no way of setting up a "win-condition" in which case it's a draw and rematch.
I also find the rule itself somewhat absurd. If I can't possibly lose and my opponent can't possibly win, at what point do we say "You know what forget it, even though there is no chance you could possibly lose this game you are actually the loser".
It just seems absurd to me to punish players for not waving the white flag in a game they can neither win nor lose, because you are effectively punishing a player for not losing... Ourk had the entire map under his control except for miniraser's giant sh/spore fortress, and it was the second time miniraser did such a thing
Ok, so what is your point?
Ourk might have had the entire map but it was impossible for him to set up a "win-condition", so he was just as far away from winning the game as Miniraser was.
If you can't possibly kill your opponent it is absolutely irrelevant how many bases you have, because you are just as far away from winning the game as your opponent is (infinitely far in that sense). That is by definition a draw and no player should be punished for that.
I mean is it really the player's fault that they were in a position where they couldn't possibly lose and decided, well... not to lose?
|
To everyone who thinks this ruling is stupid, awful, and goes against the nature of StarCraft:
What if they forced a second re-game and the same thing happened for two hours? What if they forced a third re-game and the same thing happened for two hours? What if they forced a fourth re-game and the same thing happened for two hours? What if they forced a fifth re-game and the same thing happened for two hours?
The venue isn't booked forever, the organizers simply cannot keep the games going indefinitely, it's not an option. Other players have their own lives, they might have flights they can't miss after the tournament is scheduled to be over, they can't all decide to stay because two players can't play a normal game to save their tournament lives. How accommodating is everybody else supposed to be?
I hope that Blizzard is embarrassed as fuck for not changing a unit that is so shitty, but somehow I don't imagine that they care.
|
about rules implemented,
personal opinion... its absurd...ridiculous.... but technically needed;
what happend now was one of the most extreme cases that falls under that rule.
again, that rule was made for this kind of 'abuse'
BOTTOMLINE is
we cant deny them because they are the organizers
upon entering the game, you submit to the rules and conducts set by them
you follow the rules, be it unfair or not;
if you can't, then get the hell out
|
A dumb (though understandable) rule, a dumber unit.
Swarm Hosts need to be tweaked (not saying nerfed!) so they have some vulnerability while sitting on the same spot for literally hours. As long as they aren't changed, this situation may occur in future tournaments.
(And Blizzard will keep ignoring this matter, sigh  )
|
On April 20 2014 05:16 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2014 05:09 GTPGlitch wrote:On April 20 2014 05:04 SlixSC wrote:
If a player is unable to set up a "win-condition" in the game how can it realistically be argued that he was "ahead"?
Seems to me that both players had no way of setting up a "win-condition" in which case it's a draw and rematch.
I also find the rule itself somewhat absurd. If I can't possibly lose and my opponent can't possibly win, at what point do we say "You know what forget it, even though there is no chance you could possibly lose this game you are actually the loser".
It just seems absurd to me to punish players for not waving the white flag in a game they can neither win nor lose, because you are effectively punishing a player for not losing... Ourk had the entire map under his control except for miniraser's giant sh/spore fortress, and it was the second time miniraser did such a thing Ok, so what is your point? Ourk might have had the entire map but it was impossible for him to set up a "win-condition", so he was just as far away from winning the game as Miniraser was. If you can't possibly kill your opponent it is absolutely irrelevant how many bases you have, because you are just as far away from winning the game as your opponent is (infinitely far in that sense). That is by definition a draw and no player should be punished for that. I mean is it really the player's fault that they were in a position where they couldn't possibly lose and decided, well... not to lose?
If you purposely withdraw your whole army to your main with only the intent of forcing a draw, you deserve to lose. Starcraft 2 is a game in which you play to win. Draws should be exceptional, and not something you can force twice in a row. The mere fact that you're now playing for a draw and not for a win shows you've effectively lost the game.
|
On April 20 2014 05:56 maartendq wrote:
If you purposely withdraw your whole army to your main with only the intent of forcing a draw, you deserve to lose.
What you are saying is actually a contradiction in terms.
"If you play for a draw and are in a position in which you cannot possibly lose... you effectively lost the game".
It's actual gibberish, I'm sorry.
On April 20 2014 05:56 maartendq wrote:
If you purposely withdraw your whole army to your main with only the intent of forcing a draw, you deserve to lose.
No, by definition you don't deserve to lose. If you put yourself into a situation in which neither your opponent nor you can win/lose the game respectively, then you and your opponent are both in the exact same tie situation. In no way does it follow from that, that one of the two deserves to lose...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
