|
On April 20 2014 06:37 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2014 06:30 maartendq wrote:On April 20 2014 05:58 SlixSC wrote: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... because one of the players has to much pride to admit he was bested (yes, being forced to hole up in your main with no chance or intention to get out counts as being bested). No, it doesn't. Go ahead, load up SC2 right now, do exactly that and see if the game actually ends in a draw or a loss for you and then get back at me.
It's a tournament. The organisers decide the rules, not the game. Referees are there to enforce the rules. If one of those rules states that forcing a draw is not allowed, then it's not allowed. Plain and simple.
It's like Judo: you lose points and can even end up disqualified if you do not show the will to fight to win.
Tournaments have got schedules to stick to as well. They employ a lot of people who probably don't want to work hours overtime just because one person's bad sportmanship. If you know you can't win anymore save through very stupid and thus extremely unlikely mistake from your opponent, you type "gg" and tap out. You do not go hunker down with Swarm Hosts and Spores, or fly your buildings to some corner of the map (it still surprises me that the latter is still not fixed yet).
Trying to force a draw out like that is on the same level as knowing you have lost a chess game, but deciding to still use all the time you have left on your game clock (which can sometimes be up to an hour or more). You'll lose eventually, but you'll have wasted everyone's time and made fool out of yourself.
Another example which is probably closer to home to many: imagine knowing you're gonna win a game of hearthstone, but your opponent refuses to click "end turn" and just lets the timer run.
From a spectator's point of view, I watch games to see two players duke it out 'til the very end. I do not watch Starcraft 2 to see one of them turn his main into a semi-impregnable fortress because he knows he can't win. The viewer count would plummet if that happened, and with that the prize pools and sponsorships. That's one thing I like about Korean progamers. They know they are entertainers. They want to show us good games, not lamefests.
|
On April 20 2014 06:59 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2014 06:37 SlixSC wrote:On April 20 2014 06:30 maartendq wrote:On April 20 2014 05:58 SlixSC wrote: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... because one of the players has to much pride to admit he was bested (yes, being forced to hole up in your main with no chance or intention to get out counts as being bested). No, it doesn't. Go ahead, load up SC2 right now, do exactly that and see if the game actually ends in a draw or a loss for you and then get back at me. It's a tournament. The organisers decide the rules, not the game. Referees are there to enforce the rules. If one of those rules states that forcing a draw is not allowed, then it's not allowed. Plain and simple. It's like Judo: you lose points and can even end up disqualified if you do not show the will to fight to win. Tournaments have got schedules to stick to as well. They employ a lot of people who probably don't want to work hours overtime just because one person's bad sportmanship. If you know you can't win anymore save through very stupid and thus extremely unlikely mistake from your opponent, you type "gg" and tap out. You do not go hunker down with Swarm Hosts and Spores, or fly your buildings to some corner of the map (it still surprises me that the latter is still not fixed yet). Trying to force a draw out like that is on the same level as knowing you have lost a chess game, but deciding to still use all the time you have left on your game clock (which can sometimes be up to an hour or more). You'll lose eventually, but you'll have wasted everyone's time and made fool out of yourself.
Yet did he do anything that was considered cheating? Was he maphacking? This is just silly.
People didn't give Idra loses when he was starting playing the game from 14th minute mark, or Boxer that was rushing 3 games in a row with bunkers. This "LOSS" is the weirdest, the most idiotic thing I saw in my life. Tournament shouldn't decide for the player what builds the player should choose and play.
On the other hand they should have some kind of a LIMIT on how long the game should go on for, and just restart the game and start fresh. NOT punish players for playing in their tournaments like that.
|
On April 20 2014 06:56 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2014 06:48 SlixSC wrote:On April 20 2014 06:42 pure.Wasted wrote:On April 20 2014 06:37 SlixSC wrote:On April 20 2014 06:34 pure.Wasted wrote:On April 20 2014 06:23 Caihead wrote:
So when Polt or Marineking does it it's fine because they are terran? It was fine the first time Miniraser did it. Then he immediately, deliberately did it again. I asked on the last page, I'm asking again. What happens if the second time was called a draw just like the first, and in the third game Miniraser did it again, taking up another two hours? And then he did it again? And again? In the same sense I could easily ask "why didn't ourk just 6 pool or rush miniraser?", your argument is denying Ourk any sense of agency in the early game, as if he (Ourk) was somehow magically obligated to play for lategame aswell and there was no way he could have cheesed or done an early all-in. Great logic. I didn't ask for a counter-argument, I asked for a solution. I understand that the solution the organizers implemented is not ideal in every conceivable sense. It is, as far as I can tell, the best of many shitty solutions. If you have a better one on offer, ie. give Miniraser the win and disqualify Ourk, then present an argument for it and maybe I'll be compelled. No, the best solution (given the circumstances) would probably have been to flip a coin. Ourks actions resulted in the same outcome twice just as much Miniraser's action's did. The way most people in this thread phrase their posts seems to imply that Ourk really had no agency in these games at all and was just Miniraser's toy, which is simply wrong. IF ourk had done everything in his power to stop Miniraser from turtling again endgame he could have easily forced a decision earlier, by either 6 pooling or rushing Miniraser in some other way early on. The fact that he didn't do that, means that he is just as guilty that the games resulted in a draw as Miniraser is. It's just easier to blame Miniraser because he was the defensive player in both games, which for some reason is frowned upon in this community, even though it technically is perfectly within the rules of the game itself. Really confusing. Without having seen the games, I can't judge whether the blame is really 50-50, ie. as far as I know, which isn't far at all, it's possible that Ourk tried something different in game 2, but it didn't kill Miniraser outright and led to a two hour stalemate. In the third game, he would have tried something different again, and there's no telling if it would have worked or led to another 2 hour stalemate. (if you watched the games and actually know the relevant info, please tell me!) If this is true, the blame is not 50-50, but maybe 70-30, in which case I'm OK with Miniraser getting DQed. If the blame really is equally splittable, then a coin flip may have been preferable.
And I'm ok with neither. insomnia can do with their rules whatever they want, but I don't want to see stuff like this in future tournaments, where players get disqualified because they somehow managed to not lose the game and force a draw.
A draw is a natural outcome in SC2 games, if you can't kill your opponent you don't deserve to win, just in the same sense that if your opponent can't kill you, you don't deserve to lose. Win and loss shouldn't be decided on a whim, if you want to beat someone do it ingame. And again, a draw is by definition not a loss or a win for either player. That's the reason draws even exist, if neither player can win the game -> draw.
Absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Anything else you bootstrap on to that is irrelevant, your personal dislike of turtling or assignment of "guilt" has no bearing on the definition of a draw.
If neither player can win the game it should either be a rematch or a coin flip, it doesn't make sense to give one player a win and the other player a loss if the outcome of the game was a draw (by definiton NOT a win or a loss for either player)
I can't make myself any clearer than this and I'm starting to get a little bit frustrated to be honest, because you keep bootstrapping things on to this that have nothing to do with the argument I'm making.
@maartendq: Sigh, again I have already said that I'm not discussing insomnia's rule itself, but the theoretical implications of it. Your entire last post is missing the point. insomnia can make whatever rules they want, they are free to do that and I'm free to disagree with the logic behind their rules. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
|
But forcing a stalemate in chess is a legitimate strategy that happens all the time in high level games. I'd like to echo the argument that if Mini's opponent couldn't kill him than he was as far away from winning the game as mini.
Honestly there should be a clause in most SC2 tournies that if the game is still going at 2hrs or both players call draw in chat the player with the highest score (as determined by the in game score counter) wins.
|
On April 20 2014 07:06 mtn wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2014 06:59 maartendq wrote:On April 20 2014 06:37 SlixSC wrote:On April 20 2014 06:30 maartendq wrote:On April 20 2014 05:58 SlixSC wrote: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... because one of the players has to much pride to admit he was bested (yes, being forced to hole up in your main with no chance or intention to get out counts as being bested). No, it doesn't. Go ahead, load up SC2 right now, do exactly that and see if the game actually ends in a draw or a loss for you and then get back at me. It's a tournament. The organisers decide the rules, not the game. Referees are there to enforce the rules. If one of those rules states that forcing a draw is not allowed, then it's not allowed. Plain and simple. It's like Judo: you lose points and can even end up disqualified if you do not show the will to fight to win. Tournaments have got schedules to stick to as well. They employ a lot of people who probably don't want to work hours overtime just because one person's bad sportmanship. If you know you can't win anymore save through very stupid and thus extremely unlikely mistake from your opponent, you type "gg" and tap out. You do not go hunker down with Swarm Hosts and Spores, or fly your buildings to some corner of the map (it still surprises me that the latter is still not fixed yet). Trying to force a draw out like that is on the same level as knowing you have lost a chess game, but deciding to still use all the time you have left on your game clock (which can sometimes be up to an hour or more). You'll lose eventually, but you'll have wasted everyone's time and made fool out of yourself. Yet did he do anything that was considered cheating? Was he maphacking? This is just silly. People didn't give Idra loses when he was starting playing the game from 14th minute mark, or Boxer that was rushing 3 games in a row with bunkers. This "LOSS" is the weirdest, the most idiotic thing I saw in my life. Tournament shouldn't decide for the player what builds the player should choose and play. On the other hand they should have some kind of a LIMIT on how long the game should go on for, and just restart the game and start fresh. NOT punish players for playing in their tournaments like that.
He violated one of the tournament rules, which caused him to lose that game. Doesn't matter if that he did not cheat, the organisers made the rules, referees enforce them.
Starting fresh every time a game reaches a certain limit will just enforce this kind of stalling behaviour, and will probably result in a bo3 taking about three hours to conclude.
|
On April 20 2014 07:10 red_hq wrote:
But forcing a stalemate in chess is a legitimate strategy that happens all the time in high level games. I'd like to echo the argument that if Mini's opponent couldn't kill him than he was as far away from winning the game as mini.
Honestly there should be a clause in most SC2 tournies that if the game is still going at 2hrs or both players call draw in chat the player with the highest score (as determined by the in game score counter) wins.
Chess follows a different scoring system in which players get awarded points for draws. The only thing that matters in chess tournaments is the total amount of points you amass by the end of the tournament. Chess tournaments do not have the groups into knock-out system Starcraft 2 has.
|
On April 20 2014 07:10 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2014 07:06 mtn wrote:On April 20 2014 06:59 maartendq wrote:On April 20 2014 06:37 SlixSC wrote:On April 20 2014 06:30 maartendq wrote:On April 20 2014 05:58 SlixSC wrote: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... because one of the players has to much pride to admit he was bested (yes, being forced to hole up in your main with no chance or intention to get out counts as being bested). No, it doesn't. Go ahead, load up SC2 right now, do exactly that and see if the game actually ends in a draw or a loss for you and then get back at me. It's a tournament. The organisers decide the rules, not the game. Referees are there to enforce the rules. If one of those rules states that forcing a draw is not allowed, then it's not allowed. Plain and simple. It's like Judo: you lose points and can even end up disqualified if you do not show the will to fight to win. Tournaments have got schedules to stick to as well. They employ a lot of people who probably don't want to work hours overtime just because one person's bad sportmanship. If you know you can't win anymore save through very stupid and thus extremely unlikely mistake from your opponent, you type "gg" and tap out. You do not go hunker down with Swarm Hosts and Spores, or fly your buildings to some corner of the map (it still surprises me that the latter is still not fixed yet). Trying to force a draw out like that is on the same level as knowing you have lost a chess game, but deciding to still use all the time you have left on your game clock (which can sometimes be up to an hour or more). You'll lose eventually, but you'll have wasted everyone's time and made fool out of yourself. Yet did he do anything that was considered cheating? Was he maphacking? This is just silly. People didn't give Idra loses when he was starting playing the game from 14th minute mark, or Boxer that was rushing 3 games in a row with bunkers. This "LOSS" is the weirdest, the most idiotic thing I saw in my life. Tournament shouldn't decide for the player what builds the player should choose and play. On the other hand they should have some kind of a LIMIT on how long the game should go on for, and just restart the game and start fresh. NOT punish players for playing in their tournaments like that. He violated one of the tournament rules, which caused him to lose that game. Doesn't matter if that he did not cheat, the organisers made the rules, referees enforce them. Starting fresh every time a game reaches a certain limit will just enforce this kind of stalling behaviour, and will probably result in a bo3 taking about three hours to conclude.
But what rule did the referee enforce? A natural stalemate happened. no action should have been taken. atleast thats my viewpoint. Thats the issue I have with rules like this. Playing for a draw and a natural stalemate are the same... If neither player can win, then its a draw and both players are essentially in the same position of equality. As what is not a natural stalemate situation and a unnatural stalemate? If a player is fighting their hardest to not lose. they are still playing to win.
|
I understand why they had and enforced the rule. I'd like to see the replay because I have a hard time believing the draw couldn't have been avoided... also I think it's a rather tricky rule to enforce. Rules that area hard to enforce (rely on judgement) usually lead to drama and should be avoided.
On April 20 2014 07:15 KiF1rE wrote:
But what rule did the referee enforce? A natural stalemate happened. no action should have been taken. atleast thats my viewpoint. Thats the issue I have with rules like this. Playing for a draw and a natural stalemate are the same... If neither player can win, then its a draw and both players are essentially in the same position of equality. As what is not a natural stalemate situation and a unnatural stalemate? If a player is fighting their hardest to not lose. they are still playing to win.
please reread the OP.
|
On April 20 2014 07:15 KiF1rE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2014 07:10 maartendq wrote:On April 20 2014 07:06 mtn wrote:On April 20 2014 06:59 maartendq wrote:On April 20 2014 06:37 SlixSC wrote:On April 20 2014 06:30 maartendq wrote:On April 20 2014 05:58 SlixSC wrote: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... because one of the players has to much pride to admit he was bested (yes, being forced to hole up in your main with no chance or intention to get out counts as being bested). No, it doesn't. Go ahead, load up SC2 right now, do exactly that and see if the game actually ends in a draw or a loss for you and then get back at me. It's a tournament. The organisers decide the rules, not the game. Referees are there to enforce the rules. If one of those rules states that forcing a draw is not allowed, then it's not allowed. Plain and simple. It's like Judo: you lose points and can even end up disqualified if you do not show the will to fight to win. Tournaments have got schedules to stick to as well. They employ a lot of people who probably don't want to work hours overtime just because one person's bad sportmanship. If you know you can't win anymore save through very stupid and thus extremely unlikely mistake from your opponent, you type "gg" and tap out. You do not go hunker down with Swarm Hosts and Spores, or fly your buildings to some corner of the map (it still surprises me that the latter is still not fixed yet). Trying to force a draw out like that is on the same level as knowing you have lost a chess game, but deciding to still use all the time you have left on your game clock (which can sometimes be up to an hour or more). You'll lose eventually, but you'll have wasted everyone's time and made fool out of yourself. Yet did he do anything that was considered cheating? Was he maphacking? This is just silly. People didn't give Idra loses when he was starting playing the game from 14th minute mark, or Boxer that was rushing 3 games in a row with bunkers. This "LOSS" is the weirdest, the most idiotic thing I saw in my life. Tournament shouldn't decide for the player what builds the player should choose and play. On the other hand they should have some kind of a LIMIT on how long the game should go on for, and just restart the game and start fresh. NOT punish players for playing in their tournaments like that. He violated one of the tournament rules, which caused him to lose that game. Doesn't matter if that he did not cheat, the organisers made the rules, referees enforce them. Starting fresh every time a game reaches a certain limit will just enforce this kind of stalling behaviour, and will probably result in a bo3 taking about three hours to conclude. But what rule did the referee enforce? A natural stalemate happened. no action should have been taken. atleast thats my viewpoint. Thats the issue I have with rules like this. Playing for a draw and a natural stalemate are the same... If neither player can win, then its a draw and both players are essentially in the same position of equality. As what is not a natural stalemate situation and a unnatural stalemate? If a player is fighting their hardest to not lose. they are still playing to win.
Swarmhost games do not have natural stalemates. One of the in game stalemate checks is no units lost. Locust are units and die after x time (forget what)
|
Well, he obviously didn't read the rules, so there isn't much to be discussed 
|
On April 20 2014 06:14 GTPGlitch wrote:
Okay, lemme put this scenario in front of you
let's say you're playing a zvz, and for 30 minutes it's very close action packed yadda yadda yadda, but you win a big fight and get a huge advantage. Instead of trying to come back from that, your opponent holes up in his main with mass swarmhost/spore crawler/viper Due to the design of the units, the spore buff, and the way ramps work, you can't kill him. It's a draw, regame.
After 30 minutes of action, you win a big fight and get an advantage that will snowball into a win. Unfortunately, your opponent decides to turtle in his main with SH/spore/viper. Regame again
how long do you want that bullshit to go on?
Until one of us actually wins a game. Why would any other answer be the case? Winning an engagement or gaining an economic lead doesn't mean shit if I can't actually finish off my opponent. If he adopts a defensive posture and is determined to make me throw everything I have into the teeth of his defense in an attempt to break him, but knows that such an attempt will fail, he has successfully prevented me from beating him. I don't deserve a win in that scenario.
|
On April 20 2014 07:28 Orcasgt24 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2014 07:15 KiF1rE wrote:On April 20 2014 07:10 maartendq wrote:On April 20 2014 07:06 mtn wrote:On April 20 2014 06:59 maartendq wrote:On April 20 2014 06:37 SlixSC wrote:On April 20 2014 06:30 maartendq wrote:On April 20 2014 05:58 SlixSC wrote: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... because one of the players has to much pride to admit he was bested (yes, being forced to hole up in your main with no chance or intention to get out counts as being bested). No, it doesn't. Go ahead, load up SC2 right now, do exactly that and see if the game actually ends in a draw or a loss for you and then get back at me. It's a tournament. The organisers decide the rules, not the game. Referees are there to enforce the rules. If one of those rules states that forcing a draw is not allowed, then it's not allowed. Plain and simple. It's like Judo: you lose points and can even end up disqualified if you do not show the will to fight to win. Tournaments have got schedules to stick to as well. They employ a lot of people who probably don't want to work hours overtime just because one person's bad sportmanship. If you know you can't win anymore save through very stupid and thus extremely unlikely mistake from your opponent, you type "gg" and tap out. You do not go hunker down with Swarm Hosts and Spores, or fly your buildings to some corner of the map (it still surprises me that the latter is still not fixed yet). Trying to force a draw out like that is on the same level as knowing you have lost a chess game, but deciding to still use all the time you have left on your game clock (which can sometimes be up to an hour or more). You'll lose eventually, but you'll have wasted everyone's time and made fool out of yourself. Yet did he do anything that was considered cheating? Was he maphacking? This is just silly. People didn't give Idra loses when he was starting playing the game from 14th minute mark, or Boxer that was rushing 3 games in a row with bunkers. This "LOSS" is the weirdest, the most idiotic thing I saw in my life. Tournament shouldn't decide for the player what builds the player should choose and play. On the other hand they should have some kind of a LIMIT on how long the game should go on for, and just restart the game and start fresh. NOT punish players for playing in their tournaments like that. He violated one of the tournament rules, which caused him to lose that game. Doesn't matter if that he did not cheat, the organisers made the rules, referees enforce them. Starting fresh every time a game reaches a certain limit will just enforce this kind of stalling behaviour, and will probably result in a bo3 taking about three hours to conclude. But what rule did the referee enforce? A natural stalemate happened. no action should have been taken. atleast thats my viewpoint. Thats the issue I have with rules like this. Playing for a draw and a natural stalemate are the same... If neither player can win, then its a draw and both players are essentially in the same position of equality. As what is not a natural stalemate situation and a unnatural stalemate? If a player is fighting their hardest to not lose. they are still playing to win. Swarmhost games do not have natural stalemates. One of the in game stalemate checks is no units lost. Locust are units and die after x time (forget what)
This isn't true, in Game 1 the stalemate timer kept starting but Ourk just mined 5 minerals to reset it to give himself more time. So I assume locusts do not count towards thiss timer
|
On April 20 2014 07:07 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2014 06:56 pure.Wasted wrote:On April 20 2014 06:48 SlixSC wrote:On April 20 2014 06:42 pure.Wasted wrote:On April 20 2014 06:37 SlixSC wrote:On April 20 2014 06:34 pure.Wasted wrote:On April 20 2014 06:23 Caihead wrote:
So when Polt or Marineking does it it's fine because they are terran? It was fine the first time Miniraser did it. Then he immediately, deliberately did it again. I asked on the last page, I'm asking again. What happens if the second time was called a draw just like the first, and in the third game Miniraser did it again, taking up another two hours? And then he did it again? And again? In the same sense I could easily ask "why didn't ourk just 6 pool or rush miniraser?", your argument is denying Ourk any sense of agency in the early game, as if he (Ourk) was somehow magically obligated to play for lategame aswell and there was no way he could have cheesed or done an early all-in. Great logic. I didn't ask for a counter-argument, I asked for a solution. I understand that the solution the organizers implemented is not ideal in every conceivable sense. It is, as far as I can tell, the best of many shitty solutions. If you have a better one on offer, ie. give Miniraser the win and disqualify Ourk, then present an argument for it and maybe I'll be compelled. No, the best solution (given the circumstances) would probably have been to flip a coin. Ourks actions resulted in the same outcome twice just as much Miniraser's action's did. The way most people in this thread phrase their posts seems to imply that Ourk really had no agency in these games at all and was just Miniraser's toy, which is simply wrong. IF ourk had done everything in his power to stop Miniraser from turtling again endgame he could have easily forced a decision earlier, by either 6 pooling or rushing Miniraser in some other way early on. The fact that he didn't do that, means that he is just as guilty that the games resulted in a draw as Miniraser is. It's just easier to blame Miniraser because he was the defensive player in both games, which for some reason is frowned upon in this community, even though it technically is perfectly within the rules of the game itself. Really confusing. Without having seen the games, I can't judge whether the blame is really 50-50, ie. as far as I know, which isn't far at all, it's possible that Ourk tried something different in game 2, but it didn't kill Miniraser outright and led to a two hour stalemate. In the third game, he would have tried something different again, and there's no telling if it would have worked or led to another 2 hour stalemate. (if you watched the games and actually know the relevant info, please tell me!) If this is true, the blame is not 50-50, but maybe 70-30, in which case I'm OK with Miniraser getting DQed. If the blame really is equally splittable, then a coin flip may have been preferable. And I'm ok with neither. insomnia can do with their rules whatever they want, but I don't want to see stuff like this in future tournaments, where players get disqualified because they somehow managed to not lose the game and force a draw. A draw is a natural outcome in SC2 games, if you can't kill your opponent you don't deserve to win, just in the same sense that if your opponent can't kill you, you don't deserve to lose. Win and loss shouldn't be decided on a whim, if you want to beat someone do it ingame. And again, a draw is by definition not a loss or a win for either player. That's the reason draws even exist, if neither player can win the game -> draw. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. Anything else you bootstrap on to that is irrelevant, your personal dislike of turtling or assignment of "guilt" has no bearing on the definition of a draw. If neither player can win the game it should either be a rematch or a coin flip, it doesn't make sense to give one player a win and the other player a loss if the outcome of the game was a draw (by definiton NOT a win or a loss for either player) I can't make myself any clearer than this and I'm starting to get a little bit frustrated to be honest, because you keep bootstrapping things on to this that have nothing to do with the argument I'm making. @maartendq: Sigh, again I have already said that I'm not discussing insomnia's rule itself, but the theoretical implications of it. Your entire last post is missing the point. insomnia can make whatever rules they want, they are free to do that and I'm free to disagree with the logic behind their rules. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Blizzard has openly discussed redesigning the SH specifically to prevent shit like this from happening. It is clear that according to them and many fans, what Miniraser did should not be natural to Starcraft, even if it is in the meantime.
Your argument is that the letter of the law is more important than the spirit of the law - if no patch has prevented it, then it is as legit as any strategy. My argument is that in such an extreme situation, when something must be done but following the letter of the law fails to provide any satisfying solution (a coin toss is entirely random), we should follow the spirit of the law - we know that SH is not intended to be used this way and may in fact be redesigned to prevent it in the future, therefore if anyone has to lose it should be the guy relying on this strategy to survive.
|
On April 20 2014 07:43 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2014 07:07 SlixSC wrote:On April 20 2014 06:56 pure.Wasted wrote:On April 20 2014 06:48 SlixSC wrote:On April 20 2014 06:42 pure.Wasted wrote:On April 20 2014 06:37 SlixSC wrote:On April 20 2014 06:34 pure.Wasted wrote:On April 20 2014 06:23 Caihead wrote:
So when Polt or Marineking does it it's fine because they are terran? It was fine the first time Miniraser did it. Then he immediately, deliberately did it again. I asked on the last page, I'm asking again. What happens if the second time was called a draw just like the first, and in the third game Miniraser did it again, taking up another two hours? And then he did it again? And again? In the same sense I could easily ask "why didn't ourk just 6 pool or rush miniraser?", your argument is denying Ourk any sense of agency in the early game, as if he (Ourk) was somehow magically obligated to play for lategame aswell and there was no way he could have cheesed or done an early all-in. Great logic. I didn't ask for a counter-argument, I asked for a solution. I understand that the solution the organizers implemented is not ideal in every conceivable sense. It is, as far as I can tell, the best of many shitty solutions. If you have a better one on offer, ie. give Miniraser the win and disqualify Ourk, then present an argument for it and maybe I'll be compelled. No, the best solution (given the circumstances) would probably have been to flip a coin. Ourks actions resulted in the same outcome twice just as much Miniraser's action's did. The way most people in this thread phrase their posts seems to imply that Ourk really had no agency in these games at all and was just Miniraser's toy, which is simply wrong. IF ourk had done everything in his power to stop Miniraser from turtling again endgame he could have easily forced a decision earlier, by either 6 pooling or rushing Miniraser in some other way early on. The fact that he didn't do that, means that he is just as guilty that the games resulted in a draw as Miniraser is. It's just easier to blame Miniraser because he was the defensive player in both games, which for some reason is frowned upon in this community, even though it technically is perfectly within the rules of the game itself. Really confusing. Without having seen the games, I can't judge whether the blame is really 50-50, ie. as far as I know, which isn't far at all, it's possible that Ourk tried something different in game 2, but it didn't kill Miniraser outright and led to a two hour stalemate. In the third game, he would have tried something different again, and there's no telling if it would have worked or led to another 2 hour stalemate. (if you watched the games and actually know the relevant info, please tell me!) If this is true, the blame is not 50-50, but maybe 70-30, in which case I'm OK with Miniraser getting DQed. If the blame really is equally splittable, then a coin flip may have been preferable. And I'm ok with neither. insomnia can do with their rules whatever they want, but I don't want to see stuff like this in future tournaments, where players get disqualified because they somehow managed to not lose the game and force a draw. A draw is a natural outcome in SC2 games, if you can't kill your opponent you don't deserve to win, just in the same sense that if your opponent can't kill you, you don't deserve to lose. Win and loss shouldn't be decided on a whim, if you want to beat someone do it ingame. And again, a draw is by definition not a loss or a win for either player. That's the reason draws even exist, if neither player can win the game -> draw. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. Anything else you bootstrap on to that is irrelevant, your personal dislike of turtling or assignment of "guilt" has no bearing on the definition of a draw. If neither player can win the game it should either be a rematch or a coin flip, it doesn't make sense to give one player a win and the other player a loss if the outcome of the game was a draw (by definiton NOT a win or a loss for either player) I can't make myself any clearer than this and I'm starting to get a little bit frustrated to be honest, because you keep bootstrapping things on to this that have nothing to do with the argument I'm making. @maartendq: Sigh, again I have already said that I'm not discussing insomnia's rule itself, but the theoretical implications of it. Your entire last post is missing the point. insomnia can make whatever rules they want, they are free to do that and I'm free to disagree with the logic behind their rules. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Blizzard has openly discussed redesigning the SH specifically to prevent shit like this from happening. It is clear that according to them and many fans, what Miniraser did should not be natural to Starcraft, even if it is in the meantime. Your argument is that the letter of the law is more important than the spirit of the law - if no patch has prevented it, then it is as legit as any strategy. My argument is that in such an extreme situation, when something must be done but following the letter of the law fails to provide any satisfying solution (a coin toss is entirely random), we should follow the spirit of the law - we know that SH is not intended to be used this way and may in fact be redesigned to prevent it in the future, therefore if anyone has to lose it should be the guy relying on this strategy to survive.
Alright, you heard it here first folks. Stop using swarmhosts, or there is a chance you might just get disqualified for not losing the game with them.
Are you serious, lol?
|
It takes 2 people to make a draw. How to differentiate their intentions? If both players refuse to forfeit and don't lose by overextending while attempting to win, then where do we draw the line?
Draws actually happen and it's foolish to apply such predictive powers to the players. If you're in a sticky situation and you're not sure if you're going to be able to come back at what point are you hoping for a draw? At what point are you hoping your opponent makes a mistake? These two positions overlap a lot. This is a game of limited information.
|
On April 20 2014 07:46 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2014 07:43 pure.Wasted wrote:On April 20 2014 07:07 SlixSC wrote:On April 20 2014 06:56 pure.Wasted wrote:On April 20 2014 06:48 SlixSC wrote:On April 20 2014 06:42 pure.Wasted wrote:On April 20 2014 06:37 SlixSC wrote:On April 20 2014 06:34 pure.Wasted wrote:On April 20 2014 06:23 Caihead wrote:
So when Polt or Marineking does it it's fine because they are terran? It was fine the first time Miniraser did it. Then he immediately, deliberately did it again. I asked on the last page, I'm asking again. What happens if the second time was called a draw just like the first, and in the third game Miniraser did it again, taking up another two hours? And then he did it again? And again? In the same sense I could easily ask "why didn't ourk just 6 pool or rush miniraser?", your argument is denying Ourk any sense of agency in the early game, as if he (Ourk) was somehow magically obligated to play for lategame aswell and there was no way he could have cheesed or done an early all-in. Great logic. I didn't ask for a counter-argument, I asked for a solution. I understand that the solution the organizers implemented is not ideal in every conceivable sense. It is, as far as I can tell, the best of many shitty solutions. If you have a better one on offer, ie. give Miniraser the win and disqualify Ourk, then present an argument for it and maybe I'll be compelled. No, the best solution (given the circumstances) would probably have been to flip a coin. Ourks actions resulted in the same outcome twice just as much Miniraser's action's did. The way most people in this thread phrase their posts seems to imply that Ourk really had no agency in these games at all and was just Miniraser's toy, which is simply wrong. IF ourk had done everything in his power to stop Miniraser from turtling again endgame he could have easily forced a decision earlier, by either 6 pooling or rushing Miniraser in some other way early on. The fact that he didn't do that, means that he is just as guilty that the games resulted in a draw as Miniraser is. It's just easier to blame Miniraser because he was the defensive player in both games, which for some reason is frowned upon in this community, even though it technically is perfectly within the rules of the game itself. Really confusing. Without having seen the games, I can't judge whether the blame is really 50-50, ie. as far as I know, which isn't far at all, it's possible that Ourk tried something different in game 2, but it didn't kill Miniraser outright and led to a two hour stalemate. In the third game, he would have tried something different again, and there's no telling if it would have worked or led to another 2 hour stalemate. (if you watched the games and actually know the relevant info, please tell me!) If this is true, the blame is not 50-50, but maybe 70-30, in which case I'm OK with Miniraser getting DQed. If the blame really is equally splittable, then a coin flip may have been preferable. And I'm ok with neither. insomnia can do with their rules whatever they want, but I don't want to see stuff like this in future tournaments, where players get disqualified because they somehow managed to not lose the game and force a draw. A draw is a natural outcome in SC2 games, if you can't kill your opponent you don't deserve to win, just in the same sense that if your opponent can't kill you, you don't deserve to lose. Win and loss shouldn't be decided on a whim, if you want to beat someone do it ingame. And again, a draw is by definition not a loss or a win for either player. That's the reason draws even exist, if neither player can win the game -> draw. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. Anything else you bootstrap on to that is irrelevant, your personal dislike of turtling or assignment of "guilt" has no bearing on the definition of a draw. If neither player can win the game it should either be a rematch or a coin flip, it doesn't make sense to give one player a win and the other player a loss if the outcome of the game was a draw (by definiton NOT a win or a loss for either player) I can't make myself any clearer than this and I'm starting to get a little bit frustrated to be honest, because you keep bootstrapping things on to this that have nothing to do with the argument I'm making. @maartendq: Sigh, again I have already said that I'm not discussing insomnia's rule itself, but the theoretical implications of it. Your entire last post is missing the point. insomnia can make whatever rules they want, they are free to do that and I'm free to disagree with the logic behind their rules. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Blizzard has openly discussed redesigning the SH specifically to prevent shit like this from happening. It is clear that according to them and many fans, what Miniraser did should not be natural to Starcraft, even if it is in the meantime. Your argument is that the letter of the law is more important than the spirit of the law - if no patch has prevented it, then it is as legit as any strategy. My argument is that in such an extreme situation, when something must be done but following the letter of the law fails to provide any satisfying solution (a coin toss is entirely random), we should follow the spirit of the law - we know that SH is not intended to be used this way and may in fact be redesigned to prevent it in the future, therefore if anyone has to lose it should be the guy relying on this strategy to survive. Alright, you heard it here first folks. Stop using swarmhosts, or there is a chance you might just get disqualified for not losing the game with them. Are you serious, lol?
You didn't hear it from me first. You heard it from the tournament. I just chipped in my support. And if the first couple of pages are any indication, I'm not alone. You don't have to agree, but you can't deny that Blizzard has delegitimized SH turtling by saying that artificially removing it from the game is an option they're considering.
|
Stalemates are dumb and there isn't always time for a rematch. If the player did it for multiple games in a row, then I am with the call. If its an abusive part of the game, tourneys are going to have to handle it until Blizzard addresses it.
|
On April 20 2014 07:13 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2014 07:10 red_hq wrote:
But forcing a stalemate in chess is a legitimate strategy that happens all the time in high level games. I'd like to echo the argument that if Mini's opponent couldn't kill him than he was as far away from winning the game as mini.
Honestly there should be a clause in most SC2 tournies that if the game is still going at 2hrs or both players call draw in chat the player with the highest score (as determined by the in game score counter) wins. Chess follows a different scoring system in which players get awarded points for draws. The only thing that matters in chess tournaments is the total amount of points you amass by the end of the tournament. Chess tournaments do not have the groups into knock-out system Starcraft 2 has.
Except some of them do, like the FIDE Chess World Cup.
|
Okay I haven't seen the games, but in theory at least, I think its okay to have a rule where a person is given a loss if they are playing for a stalemate, but only when the player knows that after some time they would eventually lose because his/her opponent has the upper hand.
If such a clear cut situation exists, then this is justified, because it is basically just a much longer and more complicated version of flying your command center into the corner of a map until it's finally found and destroyed.
I'm not sure if this is actually the case, but in this sense I think its very different from chess in which actual stalemates can occur and in those cases its legitimate. But if that's not what happened, I agree that it is absurd. You really have to earn your win. Maybe if, after a few battles, neither player comes out on top, then perhaps (if there are time constraints or something) the judges can pick a winner like in boxing based on performance.
edit: Actually what maarten said was really good. I have to agree with all that
|
On April 20 2014 07:39 Wardi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2014 07:28 Orcasgt24 wrote:On April 20 2014 07:15 KiF1rE wrote:On April 20 2014 07:10 maartendq wrote:On April 20 2014 07:06 mtn wrote:On April 20 2014 06:59 maartendq wrote:On April 20 2014 06:37 SlixSC wrote:On April 20 2014 06:30 maartendq wrote:On April 20 2014 05:58 SlixSC wrote: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... because one of the players has to much pride to admit he was bested (yes, being forced to hole up in your main with no chance or intention to get out counts as being bested). No, it doesn't. Go ahead, load up SC2 right now, do exactly that and see if the game actually ends in a draw or a loss for you and then get back at me. It's a tournament. The organisers decide the rules, not the game. Referees are there to enforce the rules. If one of those rules states that forcing a draw is not allowed, then it's not allowed. Plain and simple. It's like Judo: you lose points and can even end up disqualified if you do not show the will to fight to win. Tournaments have got schedules to stick to as well. They employ a lot of people who probably don't want to work hours overtime just because one person's bad sportmanship. If you know you can't win anymore save through very stupid and thus extremely unlikely mistake from your opponent, you type "gg" and tap out. You do not go hunker down with Swarm Hosts and Spores, or fly your buildings to some corner of the map (it still surprises me that the latter is still not fixed yet). Trying to force a draw out like that is on the same level as knowing you have lost a chess game, but deciding to still use all the time you have left on your game clock (which can sometimes be up to an hour or more). You'll lose eventually, but you'll have wasted everyone's time and made fool out of yourself. Yet did he do anything that was considered cheating? Was he maphacking? This is just silly. People didn't give Idra loses when he was starting playing the game from 14th minute mark, or Boxer that was rushing 3 games in a row with bunkers. This "LOSS" is the weirdest, the most idiotic thing I saw in my life. Tournament shouldn't decide for the player what builds the player should choose and play. On the other hand they should have some kind of a LIMIT on how long the game should go on for, and just restart the game and start fresh. NOT punish players for playing in their tournaments like that. He violated one of the tournament rules, which caused him to lose that game. Doesn't matter if that he did not cheat, the organisers made the rules, referees enforce them. Starting fresh every time a game reaches a certain limit will just enforce this kind of stalling behaviour, and will probably result in a bo3 taking about three hours to conclude. But what rule did the referee enforce? A natural stalemate happened. no action should have been taken. atleast thats my viewpoint. Thats the issue I have with rules like this. Playing for a draw and a natural stalemate are the same... If neither player can win, then its a draw and both players are essentially in the same position of equality. As what is not a natural stalemate situation and a unnatural stalemate? If a player is fighting their hardest to not lose. they are still playing to win. Swarmhost games do not have natural stalemates. One of the in game stalemate checks is no units lost. Locust are units and die after x time (forget what) This isn't true, in Game 1 the stalemate timer kept starting but Ourk just mined 5 minerals to reset it to give himself more time. So I assume locusts do not count towards thiss timer
I have it backwards. Its produce a unit to reset the timer. Maybe Blizzard patched it (and liquipedia doesn't have an update for it) so the zerg free units don't count as producing units but one of the reasons reality vs soulkey never triggered stalemate detection was locusts kept being made. There map was basically 99% mined out
Also if ourk could mine, he could win IMO...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
