EPTand what is this natural or artificial stalement BS? a stalement is a stalement.
terrans do it all the time with building lifts. they going to ban terrans from lifting now?
so if you think you're going to lose? just quit? don't try?
i51 gives Miniraser loss for playing for stalemate - Page 14
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
JimSocks
United States968 Posts
and what is this natural or artificial stalement BS? a stalement is a stalement. terrans do it all the time with building lifts. they going to ban terrans from lifting now? so if you think you're going to lose? just quit? don't try? | ||
|
GuitarBizarre
United Kingdom332 Posts
On April 20 2014 07:10 maartendq wrote: 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. According to Reddit, it took 3 hours to conclude the Bo1, let alone the Bo3. "it was actually 4 hours behind because of that series, game 1 was 2 hours, which was replayed, then the replay took another hour, meaning 3 hours for just game 1 of the first round of the bracket, every other game had been played and finished up to the winner bracket final which could be before game 1 finished" | ||
|
TotalBiscuit
United Kingdom5437 Posts
On April 20 2014 08:44 JimSocks wrote: a draw is a legit strategy if you're losing. who wants to lose? if you can try to force a regame then why not? and what is this natural or artificial stalement BS? a stalement is a stalement. terrans do it all the time with building lifts. they going to ban terrans from lifting now? so if you think you're going to lose? just quit? don't try? Well the main reason not to do that would be because it's against the rules of the tournament. Not a bad reason I feel | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3489 Posts
"it was actually 4 hours behind because of that series, game 1 was 2 hours, which was replayed, then the replay took another hour, meaning 3 hours for just game 1 of the first round of the bracket, every other game had been played and finished up to the winner bracket final which could be before game 1 finished" Thing is a coin toss is more fair than just giving the win to the player they feel played better. Result is all that matters in the series and horrible rules like these. | ||
|
GTPGlitch
5061 Posts
On April 20 2014 09:01 ejozl wrote: Thing is a coin toss is more fair than just giving the win to the player they feel played better. Result is all that matters in the series and horrible rules like these. Really? You think the guy that started losing the game and turtled inside his main on mass SH/spore/viper deserves a 50/50 chance of beating the guy who took control of the whole map (twice! over the course of three hours!)? Because i'm pretty sure that's objectively playing bad. It's like being in bronze and going mass PF/Turret/Tank in your main, except there's not really a way to kill it | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3489 Posts
Really? You think the guy that started losing the game and turtled inside his main on mass SH/spore/viper deserves a 50/50 chance of beating the guy who took control of the whole map (twice! over the course of three hours!)? Because i'm pretty sure that's objectively playing bad. It's like being in bronze and going mass PF/Turret/Tank in your main, except there's not really a way to kill it I didn't watch the games, but subjective opinion should have no place in this. | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On April 20 2014 09:07 ejozl wrote: I didn't watch the games, but subjective opinion should have no place in this. And yet subjective opinion is what governed the creation of particular stalemate mechanics by Blizzard, which allow this brand of Swarmhost turtle to be possible in the first place. There's nothing natural, organic, or divinely correct about the stalemate detection system in SC2, and it's subject to change at any time, like for instance when it doesn't prevent an absurd, tedious gameplay from developing. You're defending the laws because they exist, not because they're good and should exist, and being a hypocrite in the process. If Blizzard gets to create arbitrary measures for measuring what constitutes a draw and what doesn't, there's no reason a tournament can't add on its own clauses. | ||
|
hariooo
Canada2830 Posts
| ||
|
hellokittySC2
United States395 Posts
On April 20 2014 08:55 TotalBiscuit wrote: Well the main reason not to do that would be because it's against the rules of the tournament. Not a bad reason I feel Polt vs Hero anyone? Polt lifts off his buildings even though his army was crushed, hero can't make another nexus, why is this allowed compare to SH plays? | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On April 20 2014 09:36 hellokittySC2 wrote: Polt vs Hero anyone? Polt lifts off his buildings even though his army was crushed, hero can't make another nexus, why is this allowed compare to SH plays? Because it ends quickly and doesn't obnoxiously repeat itself. The first time Miniraser did it, he got his draw. | ||
|
ZAiNs
United Kingdom6525 Posts
On April 20 2014 09:36 hellokittySC2 wrote: Polt vs Hero anyone? Polt lifts off his buildings even though his army was crushed, hero can't make another nexus, why is this allowed compare to SH plays? Maybe the admins would have DQd Polt as well  .It's pretty clear they just found that rule as an excuse to not overrun. If they were enforcing their rules then the first game wouldn't have lasted 2 hours in the first place. | ||
|
OminouS
Sweden1343 Posts
| ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3489 Posts
If Blizzard gets to create arbitrary measures for measuring what constitutes a draw and what doesn't, there's no reason a tournament can't add on its own clauses True, I just don't agree with this ruling. It's like giving the win to the guy who was ahead, before the stalemate happens in a chess game. | ||
|
GuitarBizarre
United Kingdom332 Posts
On April 20 2014 09:39 ZAiNs wrote: Maybe the admins would have DQd Polt as well .It's pretty clear they just found that rule as an excuse to not overrun. If they were enforcing their rules then the first game wouldn't have lasted 2 hours in the first place. Please read the rules you're talking about before you start saying things about what they do and don't cover. http://insomniagamingfestival.com/i51/tournaments/event-byoc/starcraft-2/rules/ There is nothing whatsoever in these about game length or reasonable timeframes, save this - Players must be ready within 20 minutes of the match start time. If a player is not ready then the match is forfeited. Players are allowed a 5 minute break between tournament matches. Administrators reserve the right to change these timings if circumstances require it. These do not cover in game time, in any way. Secondly - If a player deliberately plays for a stalemate, administrators hold the right to decide the outcome of the game. If there is a natural stalemate the game will be replayed. They hold the right. That does not state that in all cases of stalemate the administrator is bound to make a decision like the one that has been made, only that they are allowed to if necessary. In this instance, they were already 3 hours behind schedule, a regame had produced the same result, and it was necessary, so it happened. Frankly, fucking deal with it, instead of going to twitter, posting a bunch of untrue shit about banning swarmhosts or making up rules (Miniraiser said both, neither are true), etc. He is allowed to be upset, however he has no basis on which to be petty about it. On April 20 2014 09:42 ejozl wrote: True, I just don't agree with this ruling. It's like giving the win to the guy who was ahead, before the stalemate happens in a chess game. The stalemate happened twice. No decision was made prior to both games ending in draws. | ||
|
GTPGlitch
5061 Posts
On April 20 2014 09:42 ejozl wrote: True, I just don't agree with this ruling. It's like giving the win to the guy who was ahead, before the stalemate happens in a chess game. The difference is that he's ridiculously ahead but it's still a stalemate It's not "oh he's ahead but there was a comeback and now it's a draw". It's "oh he's ahead but he literally can't break through because of the way zerg was designed". | ||
|
sertman
United States540 Posts
 Miniraiser should learn to play a style that doesn't involve playing 2 hour long games. | ||
|
HumpingHydra
Canada97 Posts
Voila, no stalemates. In a mined out map with drawn lines, the player who has a more central position has earned himself the win, the central point on the map is the more aggressive position and by most arguments and the position that deserves a win. Thus earlier aggression (i.e. --> not playing for a stalemate) has given control to the centre of the map. When the stalemate begins, players would have to assess their position, decide to hold or push. This would also prevent 80/200 zerg armies with no flyers from being able to kill a single terran building in the corner of the map. This is only one solution. Someone can figure out a more starcrafty solution I'm sure. There could be multitudes of solutions. Stalemates don't need to exist, nor should they IMO. | ||
|
GTPGlitch
5061 Posts
On April 20 2014 09:54 sertman wrote: I've never really agreed with Terrans lifting to force draws, so this rule is fine in my book Miniraiser should learn to play a style that doesn't involve playing 2 hour long games.Never fear! When he played vs Welmu in ATC he scouted Welmu expanding to the gold, didn't react at all, and died while trying to take a third. | ||
|
ZAiNs
United Kingdom6525 Posts
On April 20 2014 09:54 sertman wrote: I've never really agreed with Terrans lifting to force draws, so this rule is fine in my book Miniraiser should learn to play a style that doesn't involve playing 2 hour long games.They were both playing that style >_<. | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3489 Posts
The difference is that he's ridiculously ahead but it's still a stalemate I'm sorry to say, but if he cannot force the checkmate, it's a draw and a coin flip is more fair. | ||
| ||
