On April 20 2014 00:14 darkscream wrote: Garbage tournament,admins, rulings, disappointed to see ESL even remotely involved
hilariously misguided
play the game as it is or don't run it
this, however, is more pertinent - what do you think they'll do if you had your way and games just descended into 2 hour snooze fests?
I don't think this game- or Mana vs. Firecake, or any other 2+ hour game- represents the standard game of SC2. Those are outliers, and there are always going to be situations that could force a stalemate, even without swarm hosts.
On more than one occasion in BW, there were TvT stalemates because both players had taken half the map, set up their siege tank/ goliath/ turret/ etc. lines as close as possible, and neither player was willing to move forwards (because they'd lose). So they'd draw and re-game.
Imagine if BW banned siege tanks because of the .0000000001 chance that they'd force a stalemate. lol.
On April 20 2014 00:14 darkscream wrote: Garbage tournament,admins, rulings, disappointed to see ESL even remotely involved
hilariously misguided
play the game as it is or don't run it
this, however, is more pertinent - what do you think they'll do if you had your way and games just descended into 2 hour snooze fests?
I don't think this game- or Mana vs. Firecake, or any other 2+ hour game- represents the standard game of SC2. Those are outliers, and there are always going to be situations that could force a stalemate, even without swarm hosts.
On more than one occasion in BW, there were TvT stalemates because both players had taken half the map, set up their siege tank/ goliath/ turret/ etc. lines as close as possible, and neither player was willing to move forwards (because they'd lose). So they'd draw and re-game.
Imagine if BW banned siege tanks because of the .0000000001 chance that they'd force a stalemate. lol.
They didn't ban swarmhosts...
Yeah, I just read the update ^^ Would be really shitty if they did. I think people weren't too surprised at such a thing coming from ESL.
On April 20 2014 00:29 Waxangel wrote: even with all corrections made and misunderstandings cleared up, you can still argue it's a bad rule to have in the first place
I can also argue that if a certain unit was more "interactive" then there wouldn't be a need for such a rule in the first place. I could also argue for the merit of the rule, like in the case of Reality vs SK, even though the game lasted an absurdly long time, both players where actually trying to win, when Reality returned to his main and lifted all his buildings he stopped trying to win and started to try and force a draw. At least in that case and this one it doesn't seem like such a blurry line to draw.
I've also seen base trade situations where the terran does lift buildings, but then hides them around and try to rebuild and eventually win, its a far cry from that kind of a situation to one where the clearly is just camping all his stuff int he corner of the map trying to force a draw.
Thankfully long stalemate situations like this are a rarity, because, to be frank they'd be really bad for the scene if they happened more often and I can see why some tournament organizers would prefer to take more precautions against that kind of stuff.
Edit: What I'm trying to say is, I do feel it kind of stupid that a rule like this exists that gives a player a win, but I can sort of see the merit in there being precautions taken against stalemates happening in the first place, and I do think this sort of thing needs to be consider more carefully in the future.
On more than one occasion in BW, there were TvT stalemates because both players had taken half the map, set up their siege tank/ goliath/ turret/ etc. lines as close as possible, and neither player was willing to move forwards (because they'd lose). So they'd draw and re-game.
can't say i ever remember any of those but that's going off-topic
On more than one occasion in BW, there were TvT stalemates because both players had taken half the map, set up their siege tank/ goliath/ turret/ etc. lines as close as possible, and neither player was willing to move forwards (because they'd lose). So they'd draw and re-game.
can't say i ever remember any of those but that's going off-topic
I think it's a fine analogy, but the update now says that the entire OP and point of this thread is incorrect, so we should probably just close this lol.
On more than one occasion in BW, there were TvT stalemates because both players had taken half the map, set up their siege tank/ goliath/ turret/ etc. lines as close as possible, and neither player was willing to move forwards (because they'd lose). So they'd draw and re-game.
can't say i ever remember any of those but that's going off-topic
I think it's a fine analogy, but the update now says that the entire OP and point of this thread is incorrect, so we should probably just close this lol.
I don't know, I find the implications of the update much more interesting than the original
I've seen a couple of people posting about ESL, Insomnia and this tournament has had no involvement with them.
We are using an administrator for Starcraft 2 that does work for ESL and therefore has their name in his Twitter account. Any problems you have with what occurred here are solely the responsibility of the Multiplay eSports department and our administrator Mez, ESL are an entirely separate organisation.
As for the future, I can't make any statement now, but rules are one of the things we look at after every tournament, and will do so again after this tournament. Any way we can clarify or improve our rules is always a good thing.
On more than one occasion in BW, there were TvT stalemates because both players had taken half the map, set up their siege tank/ goliath/ turret/ etc. lines as close as possible, and neither player was willing to move forwards (because they'd lose). So they'd draw and re-game.
can't say i ever remember any of those but that's going off-topic
I think it's a fine analogy, but the update now says that the entire OP and point of this thread is incorrect, so we should probably just close this lol.
I don't know, I find the implications of the update much more interesting than the original
yea im interested in Minirasert playing for a draw.
On more than one occasion in BW, there were TvT stalemates because both players had taken half the map, set up their siege tank/ goliath/ turret/ etc. lines as close as possible, and neither player was willing to move forwards (because they'd lose). So they'd draw and re-game.
can't say i ever remember any of those but that's going off-topic
I think it's a fine analogy, but the update now says that the entire OP and point of this thread is incorrect, so we should probably just close this lol.
I don't know, I find the implications of the update much more interesting than the original
Interesting. If it were the case that he wasn't mining and just sat in his main so he couldn't be broken but ultimately cannot break out then the second player Ourk would have the win if he could mine or has a clear advantage.
People using TvP is a bad example because Terran lift their buildings to prolong their chances. Zerg lift spores and spines and protoss don't really have that option. Alot of maps now have got ridden of dead space for Terran buildings. Plus base race is different than oh shit I lost and better sit in my base so he can't break me.
If Terran build 30 tanks and mass Vikings and turrets in their main but couldn't mind and the other player couldn't break but was still intact. I feel people would tell the turtle Terran in this base to fuck off and accept defeat instead of hoping for a draw or his opponent to give up and a move into his main
On more than one occasion in BW, there were TvT stalemates because both players had taken half the map, set up their siege tank/ goliath/ turret/ etc. lines as close as possible, and neither player was willing to move forwards (because they'd lose). So they'd draw and re-game.
can't say i ever remember any of those but that's going off-topic
I think it's a fine analogy, but the update now says that the entire OP and point of this thread is incorrect, so we should probably just close this lol.
I don't know, I find the implications of the update much more interesting than the original
Yeah but there are still a bunch of people who won't read the thread and just post comments based on what it said before.
I don't really see any reason why the admins would be "wrong." They have time constraints and if Miniraser is really just going to keep playing for a stalemate then they should have the right to just DQ him. Refund him the money to go to the tournament or whatever if he makes a big scene about it.
On more than one occasion in BW, there were TvT stalemates because both players had taken half the map, set up their siege tank/ goliath/ turret/ etc. lines as close as possible, and neither player was willing to move forwards (because they'd lose). So they'd draw and re-game.
can't say i ever remember any of those but that's going off-topic
I think it's a fine analogy, but the update now says that the entire OP and point of this thread is incorrect, so we should probably just close this lol.
I don't know, I find the implications of the update much more interesting than the original
Out of curiosity, why?
Because of how you make the distinction of playing the game and not playing the game
EPT
