|
I definately agree with this. Competetiveness all the way, but playing for a stalemate can be boring, and perhaps even uncompetetive
|
On April 20 2014 00:47 MrMotionPicture wrote:
So they banned the SH? Hahah what the fuck. What a shitty tournament.
New update. That didn't happen.
|
I wonder what he was trying to accomplish by playing for a stalemate? Just infinite regames to waste everyone's time?
|
On April 20 2014 00:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2014 00:47 MrMotionPicture wrote:
So they banned the SH? Hahah what the fuck. What a shitty tournament. New update. That didn't happen.
I don't know about new, it's been there since page 2
|
On April 20 2014 00:47 nkr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2014 00:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 20 2014 00:45 nkr wrote:On April 20 2014 00:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 20 2014 00:42 sixfour wrote:On April 20 2014 00:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
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
I think that's pretty interesting too, and is subjective. I feel like anyone turtling in their own base can just argue that he was waiting for an opening- for his opponent to make a mistake or waste all his resources- and wanted to then push into offensive mode for a victory.
|
Fiddler's Green42661 Posts
On April 20 2014 00:43 DarkLordOlli wrote:
Not sure if I should find this appalling or hilarious
The natural evolution of the scene.
|
On April 20 2014 00:49 Josh_Video wrote:
I wonder what he was trying to accomplish by playing for a stalemate? Just infinite regames to waste everyone's time?
stalemate is better than a loss for him
|
On April 20 2014 00:49 Josh_Video wrote:
I wonder what he was trying to accomplish by playing for a stalemate? Just infinite regames to waste everyone's time?
Exactly, and it is this aspect that I find rather uncompetetive. I mean, if it was for entertainment, then sure, entertainment is very subjective! But if you take the competetive side, you can objectively say that playing not to win is uncompetetive
|
On April 20 2014 00:50 stuchiu wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2014 00:43 DarkLordOlli wrote:
Not sure if I should find this appalling or hilarious The natural evolution of the scene.
David Kim discussing new units to add to HotS: "What if we made sc2 into a game where, if played properly, a match would NEVER end. SC2 WOULD NEVER DIE".
|
On April 20 2014 00:52 Xinzoe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2014 00:49 Josh_Video wrote:
I wonder what he was trying to accomplish by playing for a stalemate? Just infinite regames to waste everyone's time? stalemate is better than a loss for him
Yeah, but according to an earlier post in the thread, he tried to get a draw from the very start of the game, before he was even losing.
|
On April 20 2014 00:27 Liquid`Snute wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2014 00:25 Wardi wrote:On April 20 2014 00:20 nkr wrote:On April 20 2014 00:18 SatedSC2 wrote:On April 20 2014 00:15 nkr wrote:On April 20 2014 00:13 SatedSC2 wrote:On April 20 2014 00:03 nkr wrote:On April 20 2014 00:02 Wardi 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.
The player who was ahead in this situation had no gas remaining. They did re-game and in the re-game Miniraser did the same, made Swarm Hosts and pulled into his main to force another stalemate. Don't know what you do then. I fail to see how it's different from what terrans do in TvP. If your opponent has no resources to kill your floating buildings, will he be awarded a win at i51 regardless? When Terrans lift their buildings, it's usually because they're trying to win a base-race and that's their only option to prolong it. The only way a base-race can occur is if both players attack each other's bases at the same time. Therefore, if the game is in a situation where a base-race is happening, then it's clear that both players were playing to win since they must've been attacking each other in order to get into that situation. This means that this situation would fall into the category of "natural stalemate", which the rules mention results in a re-game. I didn't see Ourk's game so I shouldn't really comment on it, but it does sound like Miniraser has put himself in a situation where he has absolutely no intention of trying to win the game twice in a row. That isn't a "natural stalemate". I don't know, I feel like a lot of the time terrans do go for a draw when they have no chance of winning. It then falls on the admins to try and decipher the player's intent, and that's a slippery slope if I've ever seen one. How often do we see draws in SC2? I feel like if a draw happens twice in a row as a result of the same player doing nothing at all to attempt a win, it becomes very clear that someone is playing to draw rather than playing to win. Fair point, but I feel like with how swarmhost plays, we're going to see this a lot more often if swarmhost vs swarmhost becomes common. If a tournament has a rule like this, you basicly have to arbitrarily decide the player's intent in not attacking or tech switching in games. I think there's a difference between sitting in the middle of the map in SH vs SH and not being able to take an advantage to when you lose your advantage retreating to the main base because there is nothing else you can do. The leading player still has a responsibility to prove that he/she can break that one base with 50 swarmhosts and 30 spores, if the player can't, he/she's not deserving of the win and the almighty goddess rules it as a draw
I don't agree here. It really seems as if Miniraser is just worse than his opponent, and just no longer plays to win. He plays to draw out a stalemate and have another try.
If both players clearly still play to win, then sure, by all means let them play. But as soon as one player just hunkers down in his main base with zero intent on ever leaving it again (i.e. to win the game) then the game should be ended in favour of the aggressive player.
|
On April 20 2014 00:56 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2014 00:27 Liquid`Snute wrote:On April 20 2014 00:25 Wardi wrote:On April 20 2014 00:20 nkr wrote:On April 20 2014 00:18 SatedSC2 wrote:On April 20 2014 00:15 nkr wrote:On April 20 2014 00:13 SatedSC2 wrote:On April 20 2014 00:03 nkr wrote:On April 20 2014 00:02 Wardi 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.
The player who was ahead in this situation had no gas remaining. They did re-game and in the re-game Miniraser did the same, made Swarm Hosts and pulled into his main to force another stalemate. Don't know what you do then. I fail to see how it's different from what terrans do in TvP. If your opponent has no resources to kill your floating buildings, will he be awarded a win at i51 regardless? When Terrans lift their buildings, it's usually because they're trying to win a base-race and that's their only option to prolong it. The only way a base-race can occur is if both players attack each other's bases at the same time. Therefore, if the game is in a situation where a base-race is happening, then it's clear that both players were playing to win since they must've been attacking each other in order to get into that situation. This means that this situation would fall into the category of "natural stalemate", which the rules mention results in a re-game. I didn't see Ourk's game so I shouldn't really comment on it, but it does sound like Miniraser has put himself in a situation where he has absolutely no intention of trying to win the game twice in a row. That isn't a "natural stalemate". I don't know, I feel like a lot of the time terrans do go for a draw when they have no chance of winning. It then falls on the admins to try and decipher the player's intent, and that's a slippery slope if I've ever seen one. How often do we see draws in SC2? I feel like if a draw happens twice in a row as a result of the same player doing nothing at all to attempt a win, it becomes very clear that someone is playing to draw rather than playing to win. Fair point, but I feel like with how swarmhost plays, we're going to see this a lot more often if swarmhost vs swarmhost becomes common. If a tournament has a rule like this, you basicly have to arbitrarily decide the player's intent in not attacking or tech switching in games. I think there's a difference between sitting in the middle of the map in SH vs SH and not being able to take an advantage to when you lose your advantage retreating to the main base because there is nothing else you can do. The leading player still has a responsibility to prove that he/she can break that one base with 50 swarmhosts and 30 spores, if the player can't, he/she's not deserving of the win and the almighty goddess rules it as a draw I don't agree here. It really seems as if Miniraser is just worse than his opponent, and just no longer plays to win. He plays to draw out a stalemate and have another try at it. If both players clearly still play to win, then sure, by all means let them play. But as soon as one player just hunkers down in his main base with zero intent on ever leaving it again (i.e. to win the game) then the game should be ended in favour of the aggressive player.
Sometimes the only way to win a game is to not attack. That's not going for a draw, that's still going for the win.
|
Austria24419 Posts
On April 20 2014 00:56 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2014 00:27 Liquid`Snute wrote:On April 20 2014 00:25 Wardi wrote:On April 20 2014 00:20 nkr wrote:On April 20 2014 00:18 SatedSC2 wrote:On April 20 2014 00:15 nkr wrote:On April 20 2014 00:13 SatedSC2 wrote:On April 20 2014 00:03 nkr wrote:On April 20 2014 00:02 Wardi 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.
The player who was ahead in this situation had no gas remaining. They did re-game and in the re-game Miniraser did the same, made Swarm Hosts and pulled into his main to force another stalemate. Don't know what you do then. I fail to see how it's different from what terrans do in TvP. If your opponent has no resources to kill your floating buildings, will he be awarded a win at i51 regardless? When Terrans lift their buildings, it's usually because they're trying to win a base-race and that's their only option to prolong it. The only way a base-race can occur is if both players attack each other's bases at the same time. Therefore, if the game is in a situation where a base-race is happening, then it's clear that both players were playing to win since they must've been attacking each other in order to get into that situation. This means that this situation would fall into the category of "natural stalemate", which the rules mention results in a re-game. I didn't see Ourk's game so I shouldn't really comment on it, but it does sound like Miniraser has put himself in a situation where he has absolutely no intention of trying to win the game twice in a row. That isn't a "natural stalemate". I don't know, I feel like a lot of the time terrans do go for a draw when they have no chance of winning. It then falls on the admins to try and decipher the player's intent, and that's a slippery slope if I've ever seen one. How often do we see draws in SC2? I feel like if a draw happens twice in a row as a result of the same player doing nothing at all to attempt a win, it becomes very clear that someone is playing to draw rather than playing to win. Fair point, but I feel like with how swarmhost plays, we're going to see this a lot more often if swarmhost vs swarmhost becomes common. If a tournament has a rule like this, you basicly have to arbitrarily decide the player's intent in not attacking or tech switching in games. I think there's a difference between sitting in the middle of the map in SH vs SH and not being able to take an advantage to when you lose your advantage retreating to the main base because there is nothing else you can do. The leading player still has a responsibility to prove that he/she can break that one base with 50 swarmhosts and 30 spores, if the player can't, he/she's not deserving of the win and the almighty goddess rules it as a draw I don't agree here. It really seems as if Miniraser is just worse than his opponent, and just no longer plays to win. He plays to draw out a stalemate and have another try at it. If both players clearly still play to win, then sure, by all means let them play. But as soon as one player just hunkers down in his main base with zero intent on ever leaving it again (i.e. to win the game) then the game should be ended in favour of the aggressive player.
Also known as the Champions League final 2012
|
On April 20 2014 00:49 nkr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2014 00:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 20 2014 00:47 MrMotionPicture wrote:
So they banned the SH? Hahah what the fuck. What a shitty tournament. New update. That didn't happen. I don't know about new, it's been there since page 2
Read the OP? Ain't no body got time fo dat.
|
United Kingdom31935 Posts
On April 20 2014 00:59 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2014 00:56 maartendq wrote:On April 20 2014 00:27 Liquid`Snute wrote:On April 20 2014 00:25 Wardi wrote:On April 20 2014 00:20 nkr wrote:On April 20 2014 00:18 SatedSC2 wrote:On April 20 2014 00:15 nkr wrote:On April 20 2014 00:13 SatedSC2 wrote:On April 20 2014 00:03 nkr wrote:On April 20 2014 00:02 Wardi wrote:
[quote]
The player who was ahead in this situation had no gas remaining.
They did re-game and in the re-game Miniraser did the same, made Swarm Hosts and pulled into his main to force another stalemate. Don't know what you do then. I fail to see how it's different from what terrans do in TvP. If your opponent has no resources to kill your floating buildings, will he be awarded a win at i51 regardless? When Terrans lift their buildings, it's usually because they're trying to win a base-race and that's their only option to prolong it. The only way a base-race can occur is if both players attack each other's bases at the same time. Therefore, if the game is in a situation where a base-race is happening, then it's clear that both players were playing to win since they must've been attacking each other in order to get into that situation. This means that this situation would fall into the category of "natural stalemate", which the rules mention results in a re-game. I didn't see Ourk's game so I shouldn't really comment on it, but it does sound like Miniraser has put himself in a situation where he has absolutely no intention of trying to win the game twice in a row. That isn't a "natural stalemate". I don't know, I feel like a lot of the time terrans do go for a draw when they have no chance of winning. It then falls on the admins to try and decipher the player's intent, and that's a slippery slope if I've ever seen one. How often do we see draws in SC2? I feel like if a draw happens twice in a row as a result of the same player doing nothing at all to attempt a win, it becomes very clear that someone is playing to draw rather than playing to win. Fair point, but I feel like with how swarmhost plays, we're going to see this a lot more often if swarmhost vs swarmhost becomes common. If a tournament has a rule like this, you basicly have to arbitrarily decide the player's intent in not attacking or tech switching in games. I think there's a difference between sitting in the middle of the map in SH vs SH and not being able to take an advantage to when you lose your advantage retreating to the main base because there is nothing else you can do. The leading player still has a responsibility to prove that he/she can break that one base with 50 swarmhosts and 30 spores, if the player can't, he/she's not deserving of the win and the almighty goddess rules it as a draw I don't agree here. It really seems as if Miniraser is just worse than his opponent, and just no longer plays to win. He plays to draw out a stalemate and have another try at it. If both players clearly still play to win, then sure, by all means let them play. But as soon as one player just hunkers down in his main base with zero intent on ever leaving it again (i.e. to win the game) then the game should be ended in favour of the aggressive player. Also known as the Champions League final 2012
Bayern fans still so bitter about that. Always makes me laugh :D
|
Good action by i51. I assume that was the thing when one turtle in one base with a lot of spores. It's not winnable scenario for either and it's good that admins decided winner. People shouldn't be able to decide half in the game that they are behind and they do this one thing and force stalemate.
|
Miniraiser should apologize for making the claims he did when it was on the rules
|
On April 20 2014 01:16 shell wrote:
Miniraiser should apologize for making the claims he did when it was on the rules
I agree.
|
I approve, SH so boring! 
|
to bad I missed that, Zerg shouldn't have problems breaking Swarmhost turtles if they outplay their opponent, so I would have probably screamed at my monitor alot. But I think intervention like this is okay if one side tries to get a draw by camping that much in other cases I think playing for a draw is more then fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
