|
On April 20 2014 00:54 Josh_Video wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2014 00:52 Xinzoe wrote: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.
that wouldn't make the slightest bit of sense, why play at all if that's his goal from the beginning, it's a very understandable decision if he does it when he feels he's too behind to win the game, then playing for stalemate is the best outcome and shouldn't be forbidden
|
On April 20 2014 00:58 nkr 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. 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.
If you think that camping in your main with spores and swarmhosts is "going for the win", you don't get how swarmhost v swarmhost zvz games actually play out. if a guy retreats into his main, it means he's lost and just wants a draw. there is no way you can win from that position since you cant break out of your own main base any more than the other guy can break in. its 100% a move to waste time
|
well by "going for the win" you're relying on your opponent to make the mistake of wasting all his ressources into your impenetrable defense, though it's very unlikely to find someone stupid enough to do it, it might happen
|
Weird seeing a picture of me in a thread, but anyway, UPDATE. ESL are absolutely nothing to do with this, this is Multiplay's event with a standalone admin crew. No point giving them a bad name when they are a non factor.
|
I think the better rule would have been after the draw moving the the next map (chosen by the admin, even if the map was vetoed) rather than replay it on the same map again and face the same situation.
|
On April 20 2014 01:42 GrantSC2 wrote:
Weird seeing a picture of me in a thread, but anyway, UPDATE. ESL are absolutely nothing to do with this, this is Multiplay's event with a standalone admin crew. No point giving them a bad name when they are a non factor.
If we could get this added to the OP that would be wonderful, thanks.
|
On April 19 2014 23:56 VTJRaen wrote:
Full disclosure: I am the Mutliplay eSports Co-Ordinator and the person who agreed with and enforced this specific rule.
Just to note, Swarmhosts were not banned, and are not banned at iSeries.
An administrative decision was made after a re-game due to a natural stalemate, that in the second game Miniraser was in a position where he was playing for another re-game and, given the stated rules regarding such actions (especially with specific time restraints) that the map win would be awarded to his opponent.
Miniraser was understandably frustrated, and took those frustrations first to the admins and then to Twitter.
To start with, no just no. If one player can't break the other player it's a stalement. and the first game was just as much a draw as the second game (the same thing happend, so what changed the admins mind?),
Time shouldn't really affect the outcome of a judgement, cos then it's not a fair judgement. yes he plays for a stalement because it's hard to attack, but that doesnt make it wrong cos he can still defend. if the other player really deserved the win he would have been able to break it.
What's a natural stalement if this isn't? a floating CC? makes even less sense to me.
|
They didn't ban swarmhosts, but if they did why does it matter? Its their tournament they can make whatever rules they want.
Tons of games have banned units/weapons/characters because of balance issues when the gave developers wouldn't step in. Banning meta knight, creating a mod to force class limits in tf2, simply not putting in the bfg in quake maps, the list goes on for so many games. I'm not sure whats with all of these game purest these days but if the developers won't do a damn thing then the community -has- to fix it themselves.
I'm really really surprised that the community hasn't created a mod to change things already, its very apparent that there are things in the game that need to be fixed and blizzard will never do it.
|
Good he deserves the loss. Swarm hosts are broken units, there should be a rule against them. Just a stupid unit overall...
|
Making locusts kills not counting as real kills so if there is no other damages deal in the 5 minutes and no mining => draw.
|
I don't think the problem is people playing for a draw; it's that SH games can take 2+ hours to actually get there. It wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem if you'd just restart after 20-30 minutes when it becomes obvious that the game is going to end in a draw. So there should be an "offer draw" option, like in chess.
|
On April 20 2014 02:16 Faust852 wrote:
Making locusts kills not counting as real kills so if there is no other damages deal in the 5 minutes and no mining => draw.
That's actually pretty interesting and unorthodox.
|
Playing for a stalemate is a valid strategic choice if you feel behind and can be very exciting in itself. Happy vs Tod was the game I think? But well they didn't break any rules, so he can't complain.
On the other side this is awesome, since it puts the SH in the spotlight. I hope it happens more often, hopefully in WCS so they remove or change the fucking unit.
|
Seriously, this is as stupid as when they would randomly end games in the beginning of pro bw and just use the final score to determine the winner because games would go over the schedule. If you cant break the base you clearly arent the "winner", youre just simply winning at that point. But as we all should know winning at that point doesnt mean you won the game til you either kill all buildings or your opponent ggs. Regardless of how long it takes.
|
On April 20 2014 00:48 Muffloe wrote:
I definately agree with this. Competetiveness all the way, but playing for a stalemate can be boring, and perhaps even uncompetetive
drawing stalemate is a legit strategy, no matter what you say
when you know you cant win, its better looking for a draw than to lose
even in a stalemate, you can never say who is the better one...
its the winners obligation to prove he can overcome
let it be competitive or not, both players in a sense are incompetent or highly matched
|
Every party is at fault here. Tournament organizer is at fault for having such a dumbass rule, players are at fault for selling out and using the swarm host unit, and Blizzard is at fault for creating such a shitty unit.
Also, you could argue that hiding in your base in a legitimate strategy, as it could allow the opponent to think they are further ahead than they actually are, making them over-commit and lose the game. He could be using the fact that every player who faces swarm hosts become incredibly frustrated and starts making bad moves, too.
Though, if you guys were to look back at the time when players could not reload from replay, the tournament organizers would look at a game and if one player was what they considered "significantly far ahead", they will just award the win to that player instead of replaying it entirely. I considered that to be a shitty way of doing things, though.
|
If this was an online tournament i would agree with most people being unhappy with this decision.
In my opinion though this is a LAN tournament and at every LAN there should be strict time constraints. This may put admins in tough spots and may force them to make decisions which people wont like. I think this is fair.
|
Sounds like a dumb rule to have to begin with. If I'm playing a game and I know the opportunity to win has passed me by but I can still force a draw, I will because it's a legitimate method of keeping me from taking a loss. This is especially important to be able to do in a tournament setting. If my opponent can't beat me, why does he deserve to be awarded a win?
|
iSeries has a choice in this situation. They can either replay, waste time, stall the tournament out and make everyone at the event work longer (Including the many volunteers), in favour of having the same game played 3 times over, or they can use logic and say:
"Hmm, we can have 3 hours more SH vs SH and maybe someone will win this time, or we can say that Miniraiser was behind and that a draw wouldn't reflect the strengths of the players in this match, thus awarding him a loss and allowing Ourk, whose play was superior, to advance in a timely manner instead of wasting his, and our, and everyone elses, time."
I really don't get why anyone has a huge issue with this. It'd be different if Ourk hadn't been ahead, but everyone seems to agree that he outplayed miniraiser and shown himself to be the better player in that game.
As far as the "legit strategy" thing goes - I fail to see why the simple fact the game allows this to occur, should prevent tournament admins from making a decision for the benefit of their staff, attendees, other tournament participants, and the player whose play in said game was actually the better play.
Again, if there were apparent doubt about who had outplayed who in that game, I would (and I'm sure iSeries would) have no problem with declaring a draw and regaming as many times as necessary. But there doesn't seem to be and I don't see why there'd be any merit in pretending otherwise, given that the only person this negatively affects is miniraiser, the person who by all accounts was outplayed and sought to lean on a technicality in order to save himself.
In addition, other tournaments with less responsibility to their other participants, LAN attendees, staff, volunteers etc, may well choose to sacrifice the extra time. They have that option. I don't believe iSeries does, given the way their event runs and constraints they run it in.
|
Playing for a draw is a valid strategy in other sports. Like Soccer. I don't see why it should be ban. A person who draws constantly can never get 1st place anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
