EPTBoth asked for regame and it was OK. It's not a problem of unités, or rules. If you can't win, you don't deserve to win. Players have to stop being BM and just play fair.
i51 gives Miniraser loss for playing for stalemate - Page 20
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
yolteotl
France76 Posts
Both asked for regame and it was OK. It's not a problem of unités, or rules. If you can't win, you don't deserve to win. Players have to stop being BM and just play fair. | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3526 Posts
If it was instead Ourk asking for regame in the "favourable" position and MiniRaiser refusing to regame, even though admins can see there's just no way for him to win, then it's fair, but from what I hear this is not the case. And if times the issue, then reducing the series to a bo1 or a coinflip would in this case be more fair. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 21 2014 09:00 ejozl wrote: You just cannot limit a players options because your behind on schedule. Saying you cannot draw is like telling a player to cheese the next game. If it was instead Ourk asking for regame in the "favourable" position and MiniRaiser refusing to regame, even though admins can see there's just no way for him to win, then it's fair, but from what I hear this is not the case. And if times the issue, then reducing the series to a bo1 or a coinflip would in this case be more fair. How is that fair to the other player? So basically I can force a tie and just hope for the 50% coin flip? I like how the solutions people come up with have more ways to abuse than a simple rule of "don't play for a stale mate." | ||
|
Aveng3r
United States2411 Posts
| ||
|
MoonfireSpam
United Kingdom1153 Posts
On April 21 2014 09:00 ejozl wrote: Saying you cannot draw is like telling a player to cheese the next game. Not at all. Saying you can't play for a draw is saying you can't "give up" and just hide in a corner with a fuckton of defensive units/structures and just sit there (in this case sounds like vipers, spores and swarm lords). It would be like if in soccer you just surround the ball with players and do nothing else because you want a draw, other team couldn't do shit without causing a foul (say a shit team playing a champions league game). It's a good rule that prevents retarded behaviour in game. Good on i51 for doing that. Seems like there's a very clear divide in how people think (or not) in the thread. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 21 2014 09:09 MoonfireSpam wrote: Not at all. Saying you can't play for a draw is saying you can't "give up" and just hide in a corner with a fuckton of defensive units/structures and just sit there (in this case sounds like vipers, spores and swarm lords). It would be like if in soccer you just surround the ball with players and do nothing else because you want a draw, other team couldn't do shit without causing a foul (say a shit team playing a champions league game). It's a good rule that prevents retarded behaviour in game. Good on i51 for doing that. Seems like there's a very clear divide in how people think (or not) in the thread. I would fucking pay to see that. Ever soccer player surrounding the ball with a 0-0 tie and yelling "You can't touch me, its a foul," and only doing so because they know they might win the shoot out. | ||
|
Dunmer
United Kingdom568 Posts
On April 21 2014 09:13 Plansix wrote: I would fucking pay to see that. Ever soccer player surrounding the ball with a 0-0 tie and yelling "You can't touch me, its a foul," and only doing so because they know they might win the shoot out. No no surround the ball and run into the opposing teams net before they realise whats up and block the nets. Then go back to what the guy above said. Easy win  | ||
|
Blargh
United States2103 Posts
I am ~neutral on the situation, though. I could care less what happened, but the whole thing is pretty humorous. | ||
|
NukeD
Croatia1612 Posts
| ||
|
Warlock40
601 Posts
On April 21 2014 09:09 MoonfireSpam wrote: Not at all. Saying you can't play for a draw is saying you can't "give up" and just hide in a corner with a fuckton of defensive units/structures and just sit there (in this case sounds like vipers, spores and swarm lords). It would be like if in soccer you just surround the ball with players and do nothing else because you want a draw, other team couldn't do shit without causing a foul (say a shit team playing a champions league game). It's a good rule that prevents retarded behaviour in game. Good on i51 for doing that. Seems like there's a very clear divide in how people think (or not) in the thread. Hahahaha, as someone with 0 knowledge of football, I think that sounds hilarious. Surely there are rules against that, right? What do they say, specifically, to prevent such a scenario? You just cannot limit a players options because your behind on schedule. Saying you cannot draw is like telling a player to cheese the next game. What if there was a scenario due to some hypothetical problem with the game design in which one player could continuously play into a draw in all his games? Would you just let him potentially coin flip into first place? I'm not sure where I stand on this. Competitive gaming means you play for the win, which can mean going for a draw, because a draw can turn into a win, whereas a loss can't. But if someone's going for a draw just to turn it into another draw, I think a line should be drawn, especially because the needs of the tournament need to be taken into account. | ||
|
phil.ipp
Austria1067 Posts
tournament has a rule against stalemate and ? people that come on hear and cry "You cannot limit the players options .. bla" are awkward . they can and they did and guess what the tournament played out just fine. nobody wants to see 2 hour games end into a draw, not the players, not the viewers, not the tournament organisers. there is nothing unetical, unlogic here, its a game, games have rules, some of them change, thats life. look to other games, like Starbow, they change units all the time, add new, and what not, nobody is complaining about limiting options. its a game and the rules and how the game is played is decided by the people who play/organise it. | ||
|
boxerfred
Germany8360 Posts
edit: yep, this post is simplifying and polemic. i just don't feel like starting the sh discussion over and over again. | ||
Destructicon
4713 Posts
On April 21 2014 18:11 boxerfred wrote: Things like this are just symptoms of bad game design imo. time for swarmhost to disappear or be changed. edit: yep, this post is simplifying and polemic. i just don't feel like starting the sh discussion over and over again. You're not alone in that, I'm tired of all the balance and game and design discussions because its basically just saying the same thing over and over again. And I echo the sentiment that I'd like something done. Glad there was a precedent like this that happened, maybe it will be an eye opener. | ||
|
FrogOfWar
Germany1406 Posts
On April 21 2014 16:44 Warlock40 wrote: Hahahaha, as someone with 0 knowledge of football, I think that sounds hilarious. Surely there are rules against that, right? What do they say, specifically, to prevent such a scenario? As someone with almost 0 knowledge of football, I do remember that they get penalized for stalling/playing for time.  | ||
|
ibraishome
Germany337 Posts
On April 21 2014 20:27 FrogOfWar wrote: As someone with almost 0 knowledge of football, I do remember that they get penalized for stalling/playing for time. If the ball is regularly "in game" there is no rule in football that prevents/penalizes playing for time. Only playing for time by not executing a free-kick or goal-kick for example can be penalized. | ||
|
SatedSC2
England3012 Posts
| ||
|
riyanme
Philippines940 Posts
your name contradicts your actions viktory "stalemate" malmberg + Show Spoiler + sorry for the mockery... hehe | ||
|
PVJ
Hungary5221 Posts
On April 19 2014 23:46 Waxangel wrote: that's pretty bad, but it's not like they decided the outcome with a coinflip because they ran out of time  That was hilarious. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20342 Posts
It's big and i support doing this but i think there should have been much clearer rules. Lets be fair, this wasn't the first game where swarmhost turtle into stalemate got regamed and the zerg took it into swarmhost turtle into stalemate AGAIN - and they usually take literally three hours. | ||
|
FFW_Rude
France10201 Posts
That's the worst rule i have ever heard of. It's even dumber than the pp incident of Leta (was it Leta ?) | ||
| ||
