Update: Miniraser was given a loss for intentionally playing for a draw, not for making swarm hosts.
On April 19 2014 23:56 Ourk wrote: ok im sorry but this is so wrong, they didnt ban the Swamhosts it was the fact both games mini and i went SH both games i was out playing him and he was forced to uproot into his base, on the i51 webstie you can look at the rules and it says
4.11. Draws & Stalemates
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.
he was deliberately trying to cause a stalemate both games, he could never win game 1 or game 2 but i was still mining and trying my best to stop him from doing this but nothing worked, he had a chance the first game and it was a rematch but he did the same game 2 i think it was fair what they did.
i51 tournament admins gave Miniraser a loss after they determined he was "playing for a stalemate" against his opponent Ourk (which included uses swarm hosts to turtle). i15's rules state that admins can decide the result of a game if they determine a player is deliberately playing for a stalemate (Rule 4.11).
Miniraser had originally claimed that Swarm Host use was banned by admins after he and Ourk played a 2 hour Swarm Host stalemate.
This is a really dumb and bad ruling. If the game stalled for 2 hours then have the admin step in and restart the game. Don't ban a unit. Might as well force each race to play a single style.
I can unterstand his decision because no one wants to play/see 3'' Mana vs Firecake'' reloaded games in a row but It is like you would ban Protoss in a Tournament (some people would like the idea).
That is one dumbest things I've heard so far this year. Seriously, that is completely fucking retarded. This takes any credibility of the tournament and craps all over it.
What's next? People don't like all ins and FF, ban sentries! Mech turtle is stupid, ban raven! You can't run a tournament like that.
If blizzard refuses to balance their own game competently, the community has to. This is a bit extreme, but the scene can't wait for blizzard for years to realize the flaws of their methods.
On April 19 2014 23:39 Verator wrote: If blizzard refuses to balance their own game competently, the community has to. This is a bit extreme, but the scene can't wait for blizzard for years to realize the flaws of their methods.
It's the design of Swarmhost which allows these games not the balance.
swarmhost is fucking retarded, they cant be bothered to fix zerg lategame so they dont change the swarmhost, but in zvz you can actually force a draw if you go swarmhost and theres nothing your opponent can do about it.
On April 19 2014 23:44 ZodaSoda wrote: This is more of the case of players not switching to counters and just making swarmhosts than swarmhosts causing stalemates...
Is there a counter to swarmhost zvz? I havn't seen any game go to swarmhost vs swarmhost and thus never seen the transition.
Having watched SH vs SH ZvZ on some streams, to be honest this is understandable... If you're organizing a tournament for entertainment purposes and because of one unit it turns into 2h games were nothing happens, what are you supposed to do? Lose viewers and do nothing about it, while delaying the whole tournament? Banning the unit is extreme, but what else can you do? Asking the players to not play SH would be worse than a public ban of the unit in my opinion, and would result in a massive shitfest when it is discovered. It's like PF spam in TvZ mech vs SH, the Reality vs whoever game was a fun one timer but what if it happened often? Would we watch ravens and floating buildings and waves of locusts do nothing for 1H30?
On April 19 2014 23:44 ZodaSoda wrote: This is more of the case of players not switching to counters and just making swarmhosts than swarmhosts causing stalemates...
On April 19 2014 23:44 ZodaSoda wrote: This is more of the case of players not switching to counters and just making swarmhosts than swarmhosts causing stalemates...
there is no counter in zvz to swarmhost
How about transitioning into air? Or abusing the lack of mobility of SH by running zerglings into his base? There's a reason why we don't see SH vs SH in high level games (Proleague); because SH is not really a good unit in ZvZ.
GG blizzard, how many times do we have to have idiotic games before they realize the game has problems
all it takes is for just ONE extremely long match like this to ruin a LAN's schedule (people begin to leave because the game is boring, taking too long, getting late, etc), imagine if they have more than one? LAN would never end
I can see how an 2 hour 10 minute stalemate game can get you behind on schedule. At least both the players were Zerg and both were treated equally. Though this is obviously really sad and something needs to be done to the Swarm Host and even though both are treated the same, one player might've just invested twice as much practice in using Swarm Hosts than the other player...
a counter would be using vipers to abuse swarmhosts or mutas to disrupt mining, there's is plenty things to do to make a zvz not last 2 hours and if you really think otherwise, you're full of it...
On April 19 2014 23:44 ZodaSoda wrote: This is more of the case of players not switching to counters and just making swarmhosts than swarmhosts causing stalemates...
there is no counter in zvz to swarmhost
How about transitioning into air? Or abusing the lack of mobility of SH by running zerglings into his base? There's a reason why we don't see SH vs SH in high level games (Proleague); because SH is not really a good unit in ZvZ.
Very map dependent. On certain maps, what you describe is absolutely doable. On others, there really is no way to break entrenched SH turtles. Zerg air just gets murdered by spores and vipers.
The reason you don't see SH in ZvZ at that level is because of a different meta compared to EU, and also because if you scout your opponent rushing to SH you can often just go and kill him. Once it's established, it's virtually unbreakable.
Why is it always when PengWin and I are casting together, this shit happens #ManaFireCakeNeverForget
On a serious note though, there WAS a remake before they made this ruling. The first game went for 2hr+ before a remake was called, after an hour in the remake the EXACT same situation occurred.
On April 19 2014 23:53 madals wrote: Why is it always when PengWin and I are casting together, this shit happens #ManaFireCakeNeverForget
On a serious note though, there WAS a remake before they made this ruling. The first game went for 2hr+ before a remake was called, after an hour in the remake the EXACT same situation occurred.
so the correlation of pengwin+madals and horrible games is 1.0 ... I think madals and pengwin should've been banned rather than swarmhosts
ok im sorry but this is so wrong, they didnt ban the Swamhosts it was the fact both games mini and i went SH both games i was out playing him and he was forced to uproot into his base, on the i51 webstie you can look at the rules and it says
4.11. Draws & Stalemates
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.
he was deliberately trying to cause a stalemate both games, he could never win game 1 or game 2 but i was still mining and trying my best to stop him from doing this but nothing worked, he had a chance the first game and it was a rematch but he did the same game 2 i think it was fair what they did.
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.
On April 19 2014 23:44 ZodaSoda wrote: This is more of the case of players not switching to counters and just making swarmhosts than swarmhosts causing stalemates...
there is no counter in zvz to swarmhost
How about transitioning into air? Or abusing the lack of mobility of SH by running zerglings into his base? There's a reason why we don't see SH vs SH in high level games (Proleague); because SH is not really a good unit in ZvZ.
Very map dependent. On certain maps, what you describe is absolutely doable. On others, there really is no way to break entrenched SH turtles. Zerg air just gets murdered by spores and vipers.
The reason you don't see SH in ZvZ at that level is because of a different meta compared to EU, and also because if you scout your opponent rushing to SH you can often just go and kill him. Once it's established, it's virtually unbreakable.
It's nothing to do with a different meta. In early and mid game ZvZ, it is extremely important that your zergling/roach count does not fall too far behind your opponent, or it will create a timing where you die outright. Going into swarmhosts is just gifting your opponent a free victory, unless it's a low level game.
On April 19 2014 23:56 Ourk wrote: ok im sorry but this is so wrong, they didnt ban the Swamhosts it was the fact both games mini and i went SH both games i was out playing him and he was forced to uproot into his base, on the i51 webstie you can look at the rules and it says
4.11. Draws & Stalemates
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.
he was deliberately trying to cause a stalemate both games, he could never win game 1 or game 2 but i was still mining and trying my best to stop him from doing this but nothing worked, he had a chance the first game and it was a rematch but he did the same game 2 i think it was fair what they did.
On April 19 2014 23:44 ZodaSoda wrote: This is more of the case of players not switching to counters and just making swarmhosts than swarmhosts causing stalemates...
there is no counter in zvz to swarmhost
How about transitioning into air? Or abusing the lack of mobility of SH by running zerglings into his base? There's a reason why we don't see SH vs SH in high level games (Proleague); because SH is not really a good unit in ZvZ.
Are you kidding me? Swarm Hosts are the best unit for Zerg right now. Who doesn't like free units?
Ling run by wouldn't work because of Locusts and Spine Crawlers. Mutas wouldn't work because Zergs get 50 billion Spore Crawlers now.
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.
On April 19 2014 23:56 Ourk wrote: ok im sorry but this is so wrong, they didnt ban the Swamhosts it was the fact both games mini and i went SH both games i was out playing him and he was forced to uproot into his base, on the i51 webstie you can look at the rules and it says
4.11. Draws & Stalemates
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.
he was deliberately trying to cause a stalemate both games, he could never win game 1 or game 2 but i was still mining and trying my best to stop him from doing this but nothing worked, he had a chance the first game and it was a rematch but he did the same game 2 i think it was fair what they did.
I wonder if a terran goes to snipe nexuses and floating buildings to the corners of a map counts as the same. I must say that being given a loss because your opponent can't kill you sounds like a horrible way to decide games to me.
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.
On April 19 2014 23:44 ZodaSoda wrote: This is more of the case of players not switching to counters and just making swarmhosts than swarmhosts causing stalemates...
there is no counter in zvz to swarmhost
How about transitioning into air? Or abusing the lack of mobility of SH by running zerglings into his base? There's a reason why we don't see SH vs SH in high level games (Proleague); because SH is not really a good unit in ZvZ.
Very map dependent. On certain maps, what you describe is absolutely doable. On others, there really is no way to break entrenched SH turtles. Zerg air just gets murdered by spores and vipers.
The reason you don't see SH in ZvZ at that level is because of a different meta compared to EU, and also because if you scout your opponent rushing to SH you can often just go and kill him. Once it's established, it's virtually unbreakable.
It's nothing to do with a different meta. In early and mid game ZvZ, it is extremely important that your zergling/roach count does not fall too far behind your opponent, or it will create a timing where you die outright. Going into swarmhosts is just gifting your opponent a free victory, unless it's a low level game.
Which is pretty much exactly what the "if you scout your opponent rushing to SH you can often just go and kill him" line was about. The selective reading in this place can be rather aggravating from time to time.
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.
im not watching much sc2 these days, but i once saw stephano playing zvz on heavy rain and the opponent was literally sitting in his main base (he used to have more bases obv) with 50 spores and swarmhosts and the game took over 2 hours
so fuck whoever does that i dont sympathize with miniraser at all
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?
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?
I feel admins made the right decision. They needed the games to move forward, they already offered them one rematch which they took. When the situation arose again they had no choice but to turn to the rules and offer the win to the player who was winning before a stalemate was forced.
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?
I find myself agreeing you this idea.
Starcraft is just as much about not losing as it is about winning. Going for the stalemate has been around since the beginning. I'd be incredibly upset if an admin decided that my opponent should win because I didn't want to just keel over and die. There's money on the line in these games, and a lot of these people do this full time. It's absurd that they expect them to just give up.
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?
I feel admins made the right decision. They needed the games to move forward, they already offered them one rematch which they took. When the situation arose again they had no choice but to turn to the rules and offer the win to the player who was winning before a stalemate was forced.
This is a pretty hilarious yet a really sad situation. The fact that Blizzard hasn't addressed this situation despite multiple occurrences which have been noted on reddit (FireCake vs Stephano ladder games are the immediate thought).
I don't think there's any way to make a decision everybody is happy with here - that is why there are rules and admins to enforce them. On one hand the whole tournament is delayed past a reasonable length, on the other it is a non-ideal situation to decide a match with. What can you do
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.
This should probably be in the OP infact this thread should be closed based on the fact that they were not actually banned.
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.
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.
This should probably be in the OP infact this thread should be closed based on the fact that they were not actually banned.
On April 19 2014 23:34 Squat wrote: That is one dumbest things I've heard so far this year. Seriously, that is completely fucking retarded. This takes any credibility of the tournament and craps all over it.
What's next? People don't like all ins and FF, ban sentries! Mech turtle is stupid, ban raven! You can't run a tournament like that.
might as well ban korean players on foreign tourna for tooooooooooooooooooo being imba... LOL i can understand the sentiments but personally they shouldn't have this should be a wake up call again to bliz
So basically Miniraser had no chance of winning the game, so then decided to just go for a draw by making his base impregnable, using swarm hosts and spore crawlers to defend... and this happened twice. Sounds like a legit decision from the admins to be honest. Players should play to win, not to enforce a draw.
That's just stupid. Every move within the game that doesn't break the game itself (aka cheating) should be allowed. Whether this being defensive play (= here), cheese, etc...
I love the 2 hour + swarm host games. I don't see very many of them. I think it only happens when both players play very passively. So is their a problem? Not really. Not until more than 1/10 games is taking that long.
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.
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.
Lol TvZ mech? Reality vs whoever went to a draw once and almost went to a draw again. Thank god those games weren't played at i51 UK masters because they prolly would have cut off that game like an hour into it, claiming Reality's opponent was "playing for a draw" because he was just swarmhost turtling. I mean he might have killed one tank per 5 game time minutes but eventually that whittled it into a draw.
I'm upset at the admins but what can they do? I'm assuming they have a venue rented out for a certain amount of hours. I mean slightly amatuer hour but this isn't the biggest tournament in the world so what do you really expect? Mainly it's Blizzards fault for making the game the way it is lol.
On April 20 2014 00:23 xuanzue wrote: really awful admins.
blizzard must ban them for organizing any future tournament.
it's always awful when you change the rules in between games.
They didn't change the rules in between games. They always stayed the same, Miniraser was just mad and spouted misinformation on twitter, which we here at TeamLiquid took as fact.
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.
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 game goddess rules it as a draw
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.
When you lose your advantage and take a better position, aren't you then trying to stay alive and force a mistake out of your opponent and keeping a chance of winning the game instead of staying in a situation you'll most certainly die in?
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.
When you lose your advantage and take a better position, aren't you then trying to stay alive and force a mistake out of your opponent and keeping a chance of winning the game instead of staying in a situation you'll most certainly die in?
That's called playing the game in my eyes :/
But where do you draw the line? You can't let this go on time and time again if you have to stick to a schedule. You have to make a decision to keep the tournament going on right? Giving the win to the player who had the advantage before the draw is basically the only way to decide this, if you do not have time for another regame.
To put it into perspective, 3 hours after the start of the series the 2nd Map started, which is when 2 rounds later in the tournament should have been starting.
this is ridiculous, the game can be played this way, and if its a draw so be it. But it is their tournament and they can have what ever rules they want, they are the ones giving out the prize money.
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?
After 3 hours of ZvZ a player should be able to build a seige swarm host for 15k/15k with 15 range that can't be abducted. Then if one player is just turtling on one base, the other one can break him. If the map is mined out and it's just swarm host battling, regame it.
Slightly tongue-in-cheek but idk what else to say. Reworking the swarmhost would mess up all the Zerg matchups I think but I really don't agree with giving a win to one player over the other arbitrarily.
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.
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.
When you lose your advantage and take a better position, aren't you then trying to stay alive and force a mistake out of your opponent and keeping a chance of winning the game instead of staying in a situation you'll most certainly die in?
That's called playing the game in my eyes :/
But where do you draw the line? You can't let this go on time and time again if you have to stick to a schedule. You have to make a decision to keep the tournament going on right? Giving the win to the player who had the advantage before the draw is basically the only way to decide this, if you do not have time for another regame.
To put it into perspective, 3 hours after the start of the series the 2nd Map started, which is when 2 rounds later in the tournament should have been starting.
I'm sure the admins used the rule in a way they see correct, but I still feel the rule touches fundamentals of the game that should not be touched. I hope they can revise this rule and find something better for the next event.
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
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.
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?
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 00:43 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 00:49 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Playing for stalemates in a tightly scheduled lan event is stupid. Yes, it's a legitimate strategy but if you have to start scheduling 3 hours for a best of 3 series, that's just not gonna work, so the ruling makes sense in the environment it's being applied in.
On April 20 2014 02:48 Fearest wrote: 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.
In soccer, the draw is a recorded result and the game ends in the same or only slightly longer period of time. The game ends and both players receive 1 point and the league continues as normal.
In starcraft, a draw destroys the way the tournament brackets work and necessitates tie breakers which take an equal or longer amount of time to complete. In a live setting, allocating that level of time for a series to conclude is simply not possible.
On April 20 2014 02:48 Azelja wrote: Playing for stalemates in a tightly scheduled lan event is stupid. Yes, it's a legitimate strategy but if you have to start scheduling 3 hours for a best of 3 series, that's just not gonna work, so the ruling makes sense in the environment it's being applied in.
The competition should always stand first so rules should be made to ensure optimal competition, not the smoothest schedule possible. Pretty dumb ruling and I understand why Miniraser is upset. On the upside, we used to barely ever have draws anyway before swarmhost got figured out so I hope that this is a wake up call for Blizzard so they finally start patching swarm hosts (though the 2+ hour games seem to mainly be a EU issue atm, in top level Korean play we don't see games go that long anymore).
On April 20 2014 02:48 Fearest wrote: 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.
What works in other sports doesn't need to work in SC2, the fact that its acceptable to draw in other games doesn't mean it should be acceptable in SC2. I also disagree in general with the principle of drawing being acceptable anywhere in any way shape or form as its unsportsmanlike to prolongue or stall the game out any longer when you reach a inability to win. Stalling for the sake forcing out mistakes from the opponent is fine, stalling and forcing a draw to prevent a loss is lame and goes against everything that competition stands for, if you've failed to win the game and failed in all aspects of continuing to fight to win the game then bow out gracefully and not dick around with everyone else's time.
Lastly SC2 in its current form isn't a game where the superior player can always close out a game even if he is far ahead, rules like these should exist to protect the viewers and the rest of the tournament from people trying to use inferior game design just for the purpose of staying in it.
The more I think of it,t he more I'm agreeing with the i51 admins here and the more I approve of it.
i don't understnad people talking about the timing concerns. if it's just a timing/respect for other players thing, why not instantly rule another regame when the admins feel it's going toward another stalemate? it's a strategy game and one player has to be willing/able to push a victory for a victory to occur.
On April 20 2014 02:48 Azelja wrote: Playing for stalemates in a tightly scheduled lan event is stupid. Yes, it's a legitimate strategy but if you have to start scheduling 3 hours for a best of 3 series, that's just not gonna work, so the ruling makes sense in the environment it's being applied in.
The competition should always stand first so rules should be made to ensure optimal competition, not the smoothest schedule possible. Pretty dumb ruling and I understand why Miniraser is upset. On the upside, we used to barely ever have draws anyway before swarmhost got figured out so I hope that this is a wake up call for Blizzard so they finally start patching swarm hosts (though the 2+ hour games seem to mainly be a EU issue atm, in top level Korean play we don't see games go that long anymore).
I think everyone understands why Miniraiser is upset, but the fact is what he's talking about is complete shit. Swarmhosts were not banned. The rule that was applied here was not made up or "Changed between games" - It was enforced from the official rules laid out on Multiplay's website since long before the event even started. Not to mention he's attacking Mez on twitter for making this rule up when the rule was enforced by someone completely different who already responded to this thread.
If after 2 games you end up playing for a stalemate both times, with your opponent mining and you are not, I think it's entirely reasonable to say that said opponent is the better player and that the issue lies with the design of the swarmhost and not the ability of that opponent.
On April 20 2014 02:48 Fearest wrote: 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.
What works in other sports doesn't need to work in SC2, the fact that its acceptable to draw in other games doesn't mean it should be acceptable in SC2. I also disagree in general with the principle of drawing being acceptable anywhere in any way shape or form as its unsportsmanlike to prolongue or stall the game out any longer when you reach a inability to win. Stalling for the sake forcing out mistakes from the opponent is fine, stalling and forcing a draw to prevent a loss is lame and goes against everything that competition stands for, if you've failed to win the game and failed to in all aspects of continuing to fight to win the game then bow out gracefully and don't dick around with everyone else's time.
Lastly SC2 in its current form isn't a game where the superior player can always close out a game even if he is far ahead, rules like these should exist to protect the viewers and the rest of the tournament from people trying to use inferior game design just for the purpose of staying in it.
The more I think of it,t he more I'm agreeing with the i51 admins here and the more I approve of it.
so to summarize your post:
-trying not to lose so you can play another game and win "goes against competition" (???) -it's not okay to use "inferior game design" to win, which i suppose makes you the arbiter of what constitutes "inferior game design." if i think building cannons behind my mineral line is abusing inferior game design to win, can i get free wins when i'm cannon rushed in a tournament?
i think what goes against competitive spirit is you trying to define something you don't like from a balance perspective as an unacceptable way to play the game. what most people here aren't admitting to, but are saying, is "i don't like swarm hosts and i'm laughing that someone got punished for using them." assuming this tournament has a prize pool, i would be fucking pissed too if i were miniraser
On April 20 2014 02:48 Azelja wrote: Playing for stalemates in a tightly scheduled lan event is stupid. Yes, it's a legitimate strategy but if you have to start scheduling 3 hours for a best of 3 series, that's just not gonna work, so the ruling makes sense in the environment it's being applied in.
Can't agree more, they run the tournament they can decide what is reasonable.
On April 20 2014 02:48 Fearest wrote: 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.
Stalling for the sake forcing out mistakes from the opponent is fine, stalling and forcing a draw to prevent a loss is lame and goes against everything that competition stands for, if you've failed to win the game and failed to in all aspects of continuing to fight to win the game then bow out gracefully and don't dick around with everyone else's time.
Then why are you in favor of i51's decision? He still had the potential to take the win assuming the opponent made mistakes. The same cannot be said for when a Terran floats a building off and the Zerg has no way of ever possibly killing those buildings.
I do agree that there should never be a situation where it is impossible to win for a player, like with Terrans floating buildings off. I think if a building is floating, it should no longer count towards "existing buildings" aka, give the opponent still on ground the victory.
On April 20 2014 02:48 Fearest wrote: 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.
What works in other sports doesn't need to work in SC2, the fact that its acceptable to draw in other games doesn't mean it should be acceptable in SC2. I also disagree in general with the principle of drawing being acceptable anywhere in any way shape or form as its unsportsmanlike to prolongue or stall the game out any longer when you reach a inability to win. Stalling for the sake forcing out mistakes from the opponent is fine, stalling and forcing a draw to prevent a loss is lame and goes against everything that competition stands for, if you've failed to win the game and failed to in all aspects of continuing to fight to win the game then bow out gracefully and don't dick around with everyone else's time.
Lastly SC2 in its current form isn't a game where the superior player can always close out a game even if he is far ahead, rules like these should exist to protect the viewers and the rest of the tournament from people trying to use inferior game design just for the purpose of staying in it.
The more I think of it,t he more I'm agreeing with the i51 admins here and the more I approve of it.
so to summarize your post:
-trying not to lose so you can play another game and win "goes against competition" (???) -it's not okay to use "inferior game design" to win, which i suppose makes you the arbiter of what constitutes "inferior game design." if i think building cannons behind my mineral line is abusing inferior game design to win, can i get free wins when i'm cannon rushed in a tournament?
i think what goes against competitive spirit is you trying to define something you don't like from a balance perspective as an unacceptable way to play the game. what most people here aren't admitting to, but are saying, is "i don't like swarm hosts and i'm laughing that someone got punished for using them." assuming this tournament has a prize pool, i would be fucking pissed too if i were miniraser
One of the dumber posts so far in this thread. I can't believe you're actually arguing that people are complaining about balance for a mirror matchup stalemate.
btw, not a single person would be against this if it were a terran lifting buildings. everyone would be saying "lifting buildings has been a part of starcraft since SC1" and that would be the end of it. this is 100% anti-swarm host bias coming out, which is stupid because it's being directed at a player here, not the people who designed the game. faulting players for playing the game effectively (i.e. abusing anything and everything) is a dumb and wrong attitude
On April 20 2014 02:48 Fearest wrote: 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.
What works in other sports doesn't need to work in SC2, the fact that its acceptable to draw in other games doesn't mean it should be acceptable in SC2. I also disagree in general with the principle of drawing being acceptable anywhere in any way shape or form as its unsportsmanlike to prolongue or stall the game out any longer when you reach a inability to win. Stalling for the sake forcing out mistakes from the opponent is fine, stalling and forcing a draw to prevent a loss is lame and goes against everything that competition stands for, if you've failed to win the game and failed to in all aspects of continuing to fight to win the game then bow out gracefully and don't dick around with everyone else's time.
Lastly SC2 in its current form isn't a game where the superior player can always close out a game even if he is far ahead, rules like these should exist to protect the viewers and the rest of the tournament from people trying to use inferior game design just for the purpose of staying in it.
The more I think of it,t he more I'm agreeing with the i51 admins here and the more I approve of it.
so to summarize your post:
-trying not to lose so you can play another game and win "goes against competition" (???) -it's not okay to use "inferior game design" to win, which i suppose makes you the arbiter of what constitutes "inferior game design." if i think building cannons behind my mineral line is abusing inferior game design to win, can i get free wins when i'm cannon rushed in a tournament?
i think what goes against competitive spirit is you trying to define something you don't like from a balance perspective as an unacceptable way to play the game. what most people here aren't admitting to, but are saying, is "i don't like swarm hosts and i'm laughing that someone got punished for using them." assuming this tournament has a prize pool, i would be fucking pissed too if i were miniraser
One of the dumber posts so far in this thread. I can't believe you're actually arguing that people are complaining about balance for a mirror matchup stalemate.
please read my post fully and understand what i'm saying before posting unnecessary insults. thanks!
On April 20 2014 03:07 Waise wrote: btw, not a single person would be against this if it were a terran lifting buildings. everyone would be saying "lifting buildings has been a part of starcraft since SC1" and that would be the end of it. this is 100% anti-swarm host bias coming out, which is stupid because it's being directed at a player here, not the people who designed the game. faulting players for playing the game effectively (i.e. abusing anything and everything) is a dumb and wrong attitude
On April 20 2014 03:07 Waise wrote: btw, not a single person would be against this if it were a terran lifting buildings. everyone would be saying "lifting buildings has been a part of starcraft since SC1" and that would be the end of it. this is 100% anti-swarm host bias coming out, which is stupid because it's being directed at a player here, not the people who designed the game. faulting players for playing the game effectively (i.e. abusing anything and everything) is a dumb and wrong attitude
Won't last over 2h tho. At best 5min.
like i said, if the only issue is time constraints, the admins can call a regame at any point they like. if miniraser's opponent can't see the swarm host turtle coming and beat it after it happens TWO GAMES IN A ROW, then he is the one who deserves to be called bad and not a winner. he can just fucking 9pool or something if he wants
On April 20 2014 03:07 Waise wrote: btw, not a single person would be against this if it were a terran lifting buildings. everyone would be saying "lifting buildings has been a part of starcraft since SC1" and that would be the end of it. this is 100% anti-swarm host bias coming out, which is stupid because it's being directed at a player here, not the people who designed the game. faulting players for playing the game effectively (i.e. abusing anything and everything) is a dumb and wrong attitude
On April 20 2014 02:48 Azelja wrote: Playing for stalemates in a tightly scheduled lan event is stupid. Yes, it's a legitimate strategy but if you have to start scheduling 3 hours for a best of 3 series, that's just not gonna work, so the ruling makes sense in the environment it's being applied in.
its very simple.... if your fighting against a player who pre-meditatedly seeks a stalemate and he gots that, then you must be incompetent to defeat him, therefore he is better than you in a way but if he was seeking it out after alot of battles and not planned, then you are both evenly matched
wont complain if they award a win on a certain player if it is in their rules the issue about the hosts is for bliz to address and for netizens to complain
On April 20 2014 02:48 Fearest wrote: 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.
What works in other sports doesn't need to work in SC2, the fact that its acceptable to draw in other games doesn't mean it should be acceptable in SC2. I also disagree in general with the principle of drawing being acceptable anywhere in any way shape or form as its unsportsmanlike to prolongue or stall the game out any longer when you reach a inability to win. Stalling for the sake forcing out mistakes from the opponent is fine, stalling and forcing a draw to prevent a loss is lame and goes against everything that competition stands for, if you've failed to win the game and failed in all aspects of continuing to fight to win the game then bow out gracefully and not dick around with everyone else's time.
Lastly SC2 in its current form isn't a game where the superior player can always close out a game even if he is far ahead, rules like these should exist to protect the viewers and the rest of the tournament from people trying to use inferior game design just for the purpose of staying in it.
The more I think of it,t he more I'm agreeing with the i51 admins here and the more I approve of it.
the same applies to the other, how can you possible say he wins when he can't even defeat that player therefore leading to a stalemate? nobody wants to lose, we hate to lose. accepting defeat when you know the other can't win is either stupidity or 'humility'.
On April 20 2014 03:07 Waise wrote: btw, not a single person would be against this if it were a terran lifting buildings. everyone would be saying "lifting buildings has been a part of starcraft since SC1" and that would be the end of it. this is 100% anti-swarm host bias coming out, which is stupid because it's being directed at a player here, not the people who designed the game. faulting players for playing the game effectively (i.e. abusing anything and everything) is a dumb and wrong attitude
I would. I have always been advocating a "fuel" timer on terran buildings that forces them to land after a few minutes or start taking damage. It's bullshit how terran can force a draw where a player with the clearly superior army has won but missed one of the dozens buildings flying towards different edges of the map.
It's the same situation here, I'm all against stalemates. They make for really boring games, both for the spectators and the players themselves.
On April 20 2014 02:48 Fearest wrote: 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.
What works in other sports doesn't need to work in SC2, the fact that its acceptable to draw in other games doesn't mean it should be acceptable in SC2. I also disagree in general with the principle of drawing being acceptable anywhere in any way shape or form as its unsportsmanlike to prolongue or stall the game out any longer when you reach a inability to win. Stalling for the sake forcing out mistakes from the opponent is fine, stalling and forcing a draw to prevent a loss is lame and goes against everything that competition stands for, if you've failed to win the game and failed to in all aspects of continuing to fight to win the game then bow out gracefully and don't dick around with everyone else's time.
Lastly SC2 in its current form isn't a game where the superior player can always close out a game even if he is far ahead, rules like these should exist to protect the viewers and the rest of the tournament from people trying to use inferior game design just for the purpose of staying in it.
The more I think of it,t he more I'm agreeing with the i51 admins here and the more I approve of it.
so to summarize your post:
-trying not to lose so you can play another game and win "goes against competition" (???) -it's not okay to use "inferior game design" to win, which i suppose makes you the arbiter of what constitutes "inferior game design." if i think building cannons behind my mineral line is abusing inferior game design to win, can i get free wins when i'm cannon rushed in a tournament?
i think what goes against competitive spirit is you trying to define something you don't like from a balance perspective as an unacceptable way to play the game. what most people here aren't admitting to, but are saying, is "i don't like swarm hosts and i'm laughing that someone got punished for using them." assuming this tournament has a prize pool, i would be fucking pissed too if i were miniraser
Trying to stall because so that you can get a later advantage that you use to win is stalling to win, its sportmanship. When you've exhausted all your options to win and are just stalling for the sake of stalling, that's where you cross the line into unsportsmanlike. And as others have pointed out when one guy retreats into his main and just turtles with no mining he is effectively giving up all options to win, it is inferior game design that the other guy doesn't have any way to use the remaining resource advantage to secure a win.
The inferior game design argument I made is actually seen in other types of games. Certain fighters being banned out in certain fighting games because they are overpowered/ a boss char/ never meant to be played in competitive setting and would just break everything and you'd only see 1 match up. Bug exploits being another example as well.
As far as tournaments go I'm not the arbiter of what constitutes inferior game design, I have an opinion of what that is though, I consider inferior game design to be the inability to convert a large, nearly insurmountable resource or position advantage into a win. In your example I'd be ok with cannon rushing, because the player is actively trying to win trough some way. If however cannon rushing was becoming the only way to play, if there where no counters to it, if it was clearly easier to execute then counter then I could get behind an argument that, for the sake of the tournaments and the competitive scene, then cannon rushes should be banned until such time that the game designers fix it.
On April 20 2014 03:07 Waise wrote: btw, not a single person would be against this if it were a terran lifting buildings. everyone would be saying "lifting buildings has been a part of starcraft since SC1" and that would be the end of it. this is 100% anti-swarm host bias coming out, which is stupid because it's being directed at a player here, not the people who designed the game. faulting players for playing the game effectively (i.e. abusing anything and everything) is a dumb and wrong attitude
A terran cannot get outplayed by their opponent, lift their buildings, and go HUEHUEHUE. If you're way behind and you lift all your buildings, your opponent just has to make enough to counter whatever vikings/BCs you have, and then they win.
The only way that a building lift could result in a stalemate is if they have an unbeatable air army or if there was a basetrade and their opponent can't rebuild a nexus/hatch/CC to start mining again. If you end up in either of those scenarios, the Terran was not being completely outplayed so it's perfectly legitimate for it to end as a stalemate.
While this thread is pretty interesting and all, why is there not an LR or some kind of tournament page for this tourney? Us UK folk don't often have LANs with notable players!
Feel bad for Miniraiser, as much as I hate these kind of stalemate games it seems he's been almost singled out and made an example of. At some stage perhaps it had to happen and I don't think the admins were necessarily wrong but it's unfortunate for the guy nonetheless
On April 20 2014 03:25 vult wrote: Wow. They could have just set a capped time limit for games instead of deciding themselves. Weird rules.
Bo7 Series with every game a 2rax TVT score of 4-0 = very fast Bo7 Series with every game a Firecake Vs Mana SH vs Protoss Deathball score of 3-4 = Astonishingly, scarily long.
Have fun trying to timelimit stalemates, given that legit, non stalemate series could quite possibly fit both the above criteria.
Its been stated within the rules from the start that playing to get a stalemate on purpose is against the rules. That means that it at least for that tournament is not a valid strategy. Seriously, if a player has given up all hope of winning and thinks its impossible to be able to win the game then in my opinion that player has been outplayed and defeated. It doesn't matter that there is a technical possibility that he can win, if the player himself deems it impossible to win he should gg out.
I agree that ofcourse trying for a stalemate in a normal game is a valid strategy but when the rules clearly state that it isn't for that tournament thats just the way it is. Miniraser should have realized he was going against the rules (for the second time in a row) and instead of going for a stalemate he should have done some risky play that might have given him a 0.0002% chance of getting back in the game. He didn't do this but rather went for the greater chance of making a stalemate against the rules.
If you go into a tournament without reading/understanding the rules then don't whine when they don't suit you, it was his choice to enter the tournament under those premises.
On April 19 2014 23:39 Verator wrote: If blizzard refuses to balance their own game competently, the community has to. This is a bit extreme, but the scene can't wait for blizzard for years to realize the flaws of their methods.
It's the design of Swarmhost which allows these games not the balance.
On April 20 2014 03:12 LongShot27 wrote: If it was clearly spelled out in the rules before hand and he did it anyway, then its no ones fault but his own
On April 20 2014 03:31 Shuffleblade wrote: Its been stated within the rules from the start that playing to get a stalemate on purpose is against the rules. That means that it at least for that tournament is not a valid strategy.
It seems rather subjective though, no? The rule was "admins can decide the result of a game if they determine a player is deliberately playing for a stalemate" (via the OP), so where do you draw the line between purposely wanting to play for a stalemate, and merely biding your time and waiting for an opening? Whether a game lasts 3 hours or 3 minutes, a win is still a win.
On April 20 2014 03:12 LongShot27 wrote: If it was clearly spelled out in the rules before hand and he did it anyway, then its no ones fault but his own
On April 20 2014 03:31 Shuffleblade wrote: Its been stated within the rules from the start that playing to get a stalemate on purpose is against the rules. That means that it at least for that tournament is not a valid strategy.
It seems rather subjective though, no? The rule was "admins can decide the result of a game if they determine a player is deliberately playing for a stalemate" (via the OP), so where do you draw the line between purposely wanting to play for a stalemate, and merely biding your time and waiting for an opening? Whether a game lasts 3 hours or 3 minutes, a win is still a win.
If it wasn't a subjective rule it would be a pretty useless rule. The entire reason it is the way it is, is to allow flexibility and personal judgement to play a role in preventing exactly the thing you just stated - lets say that the rule is that a SH player not leaving his base for 1:30 is playing for a stalemate and should be disqualified.
That'd be dumb, right? 1:30 is too short a time to be sure, an opening could have been there at 2 mins.
So the rule gets changed and now its 5 minutes. But wait, that players army was out of position at 4:50! What an opportunity!
etc etc. Eventually you end up with a very specific rule that's totally useless because it doesn't solve the problem it was meant to solve, of incredibly long, lost games where one player refuses to accept defeat in hope of a 20 minute miracle.
Much better to have an admin with the power to step in and say "Look, dude, what the fuck are you hoping for here. You've lost this game unless your opponent has some sort of incredible brainfart, time to go"
On April 19 2014 23:39 Verator wrote: If blizzard refuses to balance their own game competently, the community has to. This is a bit extreme, but the scene can't wait for blizzard for years to realize the flaws of their methods.
It's the design of Swarmhost which allows these games not the balance.
So if Blizzard refuses to design their own game competently...
That is an even big slap in the face to Blizzard. It is one thing to have trouble balancing a game, quite another to not be able to design a game.
On April 20 2014 03:31 Shuffleblade wrote: Its been stated within the rules from the start that playing to get a stalemate on purpose is against the rules. That means that it at least for that tournament is not a valid strategy. Seriously, if a player has given up all hope of winning and thinks its impossible to be able to win the game then in my opinion that player has been outplayed and defeated. It doesn't matter that there is a technical possibility that he can win, if the player himself deems it impossible to win he should gg out.
I agree that ofcourse trying for a stalemate in a normal game is a valid strategy but when the rules clearly state that it isn't for that tournament thats just the way it is. Miniraser should have realized he was going against the rules (for the second time in a row) and instead of going for a stalemate he should have done some risky play that might have given him a 0.0002% chance of getting back in the game. He didn't do this but rather went for the greater chance of making a stalemate against the rules.
If you go into a tournament without reading/understanding the rules then don't whine when they don't suit you, it was his choice to enter the tournament under those premises.
we understand his sentiments though~ he probably wasn't aware of the rules, yet ignorance is not an excuse. 'no one is above the law/rules'
how dumb. LOL @ the people in this thread who think swarm host are op or broken. The Korean Meta does not even use swarm host play in a turtle style anymore. Protoss has gotten good enough with double robo play and in ZvZ I seen Koreans that stream just bane bust with roaches on top of them. What a dumb rule banning units.
On April 19 2014 23:39 Verator wrote: If blizzard refuses to balance their own game competently, the community has to. This is a bit extreme, but the scene can't wait for blizzard for years to realize the flaws of their methods.
It's the design of Swarmhost which allows these games not the balance.
I proposed the exact same idea of the scene balancing the game and not Blizzard five months ago. People laughed in my face and called me a fucking idiot.
The problem with OneGoal was that it wasn't really played by the pro scene and never really had any tournament backing or external ladder whatsoever. Starbow now has all three of these things even if my personal problem with the game is that they're trying way too hard to recreate Brood War and not an original RTS game on its own merits.
It's simple actually and you don't even exactly need the support of ESL either. Just get MLG, ASUS ROG, a committee of Code B pros from EU/NA/KR and a few modders/designers together to form an association separate from Blizzard, create a balance mod, fund a weekly $1,000 semi-invitational tournament which doesn't require a tournament licence, make sure it doesn't clash with WCS at all and get feedback from within the association in terms of what needs balancing and aim to bring out a balance patch and/or map update every 3 months until the game is in a 'near perfect' spot.
Call the mod Starcraft Ressurrection.
Honestly, if Blizzard were to C&D this, it would be an entire contradiction of their tournament licencing terms, it would generate a craptonne of negative PR for the company and it could potentially drive mod teams straight into the hands of other competitors like Valve and Riot who could hire said mod teams to build a free to play RTS game designed to compete with SC2.
On April 20 2014 00:00 Liquid`Snute 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.
I like the second suggestion most. First is ok, don't really like the extreme one. Allow them to abduct when uprooted would be kinda cool but not make much difference obv.
Pretty ridiculous rule imo. Playing for a draw so you can get a new match is a perfectly valid strategy once you know you cannot win. Trying "not to lose" so you can win later sounds fine imo.
On April 20 2014 02:48 Fearest wrote: 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.
What works in other sports doesn't need to work in SC2, the fact that its acceptable to draw in other games doesn't mean it should be acceptable in SC2. I also disagree in general with the principle of drawing being acceptable anywhere in any way shape or form as its unsportsmanlike to prolongue or stall the game out any longer when you reach a inability to win. Stalling for the sake forcing out mistakes from the opponent is fine, stalling and forcing a draw to prevent a loss is lame and goes against everything that competition stands for, if you've failed to win the game and failed to in all aspects of continuing to fight to win the game then bow out gracefully and don't dick around with everyone else's time.
Lastly SC2 in its current form isn't a game where the superior player can always close out a game even if he is far ahead, rules like these should exist to protect the viewers and the rest of the tournament from people trying to use inferior game design just for the purpose of staying in it.
The more I think of it,t he more I'm agreeing with the i51 admins here and the more I approve of it.
so to summarize your post:
-trying not to lose so you can play another game and win "goes against competition" (???) -it's not okay to use "inferior game design" to win, which i suppose makes you the arbiter of what constitutes "inferior game design." if i think building cannons behind my mineral line is abusing inferior game design to win, can i get free wins when i'm cannon rushed in a tournament?
i think what goes against competitive spirit is you trying to define something you don't like from a balance perspective as an unacceptable way to play the game. what most people here aren't admitting to, but are saying, is "i don't like swarm hosts and i'm laughing that someone got punished for using them." assuming this tournament has a prize pool, i would be fucking pissed too if i were miniraser
Trying to stall because so that you can get a later advantage that you use to win is stalling to win, its sportmanship. When you've exhausted all your options to win and are just stalling for the sake of stalling, that's where you cross the line into unsportsmanlike.
Nope, that's bullshit. When you play, you do everything you possibly can within the rules of the game to win, or at the very least avoid losing. In StarCraft, if you're still in the game and you still have buildings, your opponent hasn't beaten you yet. If you see a way to keep your opponent from beating you even if you can't win anymore, there is absolutely nothing unsportsmanlike about doing it. Stalemates and ties exist in many sports, and using them to keep yourself alive so you can continue to compete is not only a completely legitimate approach, but one you'd be an idiot not to use if you found yourself in such a situation.
So if you are T and you lift you buildings and make them fly to have a draw that's not illegal? You can kill sh with good plays like banes to kill the locust and them take them out, they are not imbalanced in any way they are just boring as fuck, they should redisign them but this rule is just retarded because you should apply it to all T players which lift buildings to get a draw in a base trade -.-' Or you can just ban a race because why the hell not?
If a player is unable to set up a "win-condition" in the game how can it realistically be argued that he was "ahead"?
Seems to me that both players had no way of setting up a "win-condition" in which case it's a draw and rematch.
I also find the rule itself somewhat absurd. If I can't possibly lose and my opponent can't possibly win, at what point do we say "You know what forget it, even though there is no chance you could possibly lose this game you are actually the loser".
It just seems absurd to me to punish players for not waving the white flag in a game they can neither win nor lose, because you are effectively punishing a player for not losing...
On April 20 2014 05:04 SlixSC wrote: If a player is unable to set up a "win-condition" in the game how can it realistically be argued that he was "ahead"?
Seems to me that both players had no way of setting up a "win-condition" in which case it's a draw and rematch.
I also find the rule itself somewhat absurd. If I can't possibly lose and my opponent can't possibly win, at what point do we say "You know what forget it, even though there is no chance you could possibly lose this game you are actually the loser".
It just seems absurd to me to punish players for not waving the white flag in a game they can neither win nor lose, because you are effectively punishing a player for not losing...
Ourk had the entire map under his control except for miniraser's giant sh/spore fortress, and it was the second time miniraser did such a thing
I don't doubt that if they regamed and miniraser 'lost' again, he would just keep doing that bs until he won, which is fucking awful. Playing like that is pointless for the other person, if the organizers didn't step in it would have been even more idiotic
I really don't understand why playing for a draw is a losing offence, and tbh I feel like it favors Terran too much.
For example, in a base race TvP if the Terran player kills the Protoss player's economy before the Protoss player gets a Pheonix / other air-to-air unit out then the Protoss player cannot win and can only play for a draw at best, no matter how much bigger / stronger their army is. Since the Terran still has the potential to win in this situation, they aren't playing for a draw but for a win. Seem unfair that Protoss would automatically lose for 'playing for a draw', since this is the best possible outcome they could get.
So what about the other player who didn't break the swarmhoster? If I'm playing in this tournament and my opponent starts turtling swarmhosts, I'll just not take any chance to beat him and let the tournament officials disqualify *him* for playing for a draw.
On April 20 2014 05:11 courtpanda wrote: if miniraser can't win the game and he cant play for a draw
does that mean the best move for him is to intentionally lose?
that rule violates the spirit of competition
He should play to try and win.
It's a LAN. Do you want it to end? If a player keeps playing for a draw, you are basically letting him stop the whole tournament. 2 hour stalemate games, how many do you let happen until you just give up and cancel the whole thing?
On April 20 2014 05:04 SlixSC wrote: If a player is unable to set up a "win-condition" in the game how can it realistically be argued that he was "ahead"?
Seems to me that both players had no way of setting up a "win-condition" in which case it's a draw and rematch.
I also find the rule itself somewhat absurd. If I can't possibly lose and my opponent can't possibly win, at what point do we say "You know what forget it, even though there is no chance you could possibly lose this game you are actually the loser".
It just seems absurd to me to punish players for not waving the white flag in a game they can neither win nor lose, because you are effectively punishing a player for not losing...
Ourk had the entire map under his control except for miniraser's giant sh/spore fortress, and it was the second time miniraser did such a thing
Ok, so what is your point?
Ourk might have had the entire map but it was impossible for him to set up a "win-condition", so he was just as far away from winning the game as Miniraser was.
If you can't possibly kill your opponent it is absolutely irrelevant how many bases you have, because you are just as far away from winning the game as your opponent is (infinitely far in that sense). That is by definition a draw and no player should be punished for that.
I mean is it really the player's fault that they were in a position where they couldn't possibly lose and decided, well... not to lose?
To everyone who thinks this ruling is stupid, awful, and goes against the nature of StarCraft:
What if they forced a second re-game and the same thing happened for two hours? What if they forced a third re-game and the same thing happened for two hours? What if they forced a fourth re-game and the same thing happened for two hours? What if they forced a fifth re-game and the same thing happened for two hours?
The venue isn't booked forever, the organizers simply cannot keep the games going indefinitely, it's not an option. Other players have their own lives, they might have flights they can't miss after the tournament is scheduled to be over, they can't all decide to stay because two players can't play a normal game to save their tournament lives. How accommodating is everybody else supposed to be?
I hope that Blizzard is embarrassed as fuck for not changing a unit that is so shitty, but somehow I don't imagine that they care.
about rules implemented, personal opinion... its absurd...ridiculous.... but technically needed; what happend now was one of the most extreme cases that falls under that rule. again, that rule was made for this kind of 'abuse'
BOTTOMLINE is we cant deny them because they are the organizers upon entering the game, you submit to the rules and conducts set by them you follow the rules, be it unfair or not; if you can't, then get the hell out
A dumb (though understandable) rule, a dumber unit.
Swarm Hosts need to be tweaked (not saying nerfed!) so they have some vulnerability while sitting on the same spot for literally hours. As long as they aren't changed, this situation may occur in future tournaments.
(And Blizzard will keep ignoring this matter, sigh )
On April 20 2014 05:04 SlixSC wrote: If a player is unable to set up a "win-condition" in the game how can it realistically be argued that he was "ahead"?
Seems to me that both players had no way of setting up a "win-condition" in which case it's a draw and rematch.
I also find the rule itself somewhat absurd. If I can't possibly lose and my opponent can't possibly win, at what point do we say "You know what forget it, even though there is no chance you could possibly lose this game you are actually the loser".
It just seems absurd to me to punish players for not waving the white flag in a game they can neither win nor lose, because you are effectively punishing a player for not losing...
Ourk had the entire map under his control except for miniraser's giant sh/spore fortress, and it was the second time miniraser did such a thing
Ok, so what is your point?
Ourk might have had the entire map but it was impossible for him to set up a "win-condition", so he was just as far away from winning the game as Miniraser was.
If you can't possibly kill your opponent it is absolutely irrelevant how many bases you have, because you are just as far away from winning the game as your opponent is (infinitely far in that sense). That is by definition a draw and no player should be punished for that.
I mean is it really the player's fault that they were in a position where they couldn't possibly lose and decided, well... not to lose?
If you purposely withdraw your whole army to your main with only the intent of forcing a draw, you deserve to lose. Starcraft 2 is a game in which you play to win. Draws should be exceptional, and not something you can force twice in a row. The mere fact that you're now playing for a draw and not for a win shows you've effectively lost the game.
On April 20 2014 05:56 maartendq wrote: If you purposely withdraw your whole army to your main with only the intent of forcing a draw, you deserve to lose.
What you are saying is actually a contradiction in terms.
"If you play for a draw and are in a position in which you cannot possibly lose... you effectively lost the game".
It's actual gibberish, I'm sorry.
On April 20 2014 05:56 maartendq wrote: If you purposely withdraw your whole army to your main with only the intent of forcing a draw, you deserve to lose.
No, by definition you don't deserve to lose. If you put yourself into a situation in which neither your opponent nor you can win/lose the game respectively, then you and your opponent are both in the exact same tie situation. In no way does it follow from that, that one of the two deserves to lose...
On April 20 2014 05:56 maartendq wrote: If you purposely withdraw your whole army to your main with only the intent of forcing a draw, you deserve to lose.
What you are saying is actually a contradiction in terms.
"If you play for a draw and are in a position in which you cannot possibly lose... you effectively lost the game".
On April 20 2014 05:56 maartendq wrote: If you purposely withdraw your whole army to your main with only the intent of forcing a draw, you deserve to lose.
No, by definition you don't deserve to lose. If you put yourself into a situation in which neither your opponent nor you can win/lose the game respectively, then you and your opponent are both in the exact same tie situation. In no way does it follow from that, that one of the two deserves to lose...
Okay, lemme put this scenario in front of you
let's say you're playing a zvz, and for 30 minutes it's very close action packed yadda yadda yadda, but you win a big fight and get a huge advantage. Instead of trying to come back from that, your opponent holes up in his main with mass swarmhost/spore crawler/viper Due to the design of the units, the spore buff, and the way ramps work, you can't kill him. It's a draw, regame.
After 30 minutes of action, you win a big fight and get an advantage that will snowball into a win. Unfortunately, your opponent decides to turtle in his main with SH/spore/viper. Regame again
On April 20 2014 05:45 Storm-Giant wrote: A dumb (though understandable) rule, a dumber unit.
Swarm Hosts need to be tweaked (not saying nerfed!) so they have some vulnerability while sitting on the same spot for literally hours. As long as they aren't changed, this situation may occur in future tournaments.
(And Blizzard will keep ignoring this matter, sigh )
hosts is a good unit... it should here to stay the problem lies on fundamental flaws of 'freebies' put like a 1, 2 or 5 mineral cost per casting
if you have problems with the rules in a tournament convince admins to change/delete that rule. If admins do not do anything about it and you should keep that in consideration and play it out or just dont participate at all. Rules are rules and as admins perspective they cant let 1 series go for over 3 hours specially at a lan.
On April 20 2014 05:56 maartendq wrote: If you purposely withdraw your whole army to your main with only the intent of forcing a draw, you deserve to lose.
What you are saying is actually a contradiction in terms.
"If you play for a draw and are in a position in which you cannot possibly lose... you effectively lost the game".
It's actual gibberish, I'm sorry.
On April 20 2014 05:56 maartendq wrote: If you purposely withdraw your whole army to your main with only the intent of forcing a draw, you deserve to lose.
No, by definition you don't deserve to lose. If you put yourself into a situation in which neither your opponent nor you can win/lose the game respectively, then you and your opponent are both in the exact same tie situation. In no way does it follow from that, that one of the two deserves to lose...
Okay, lemme put this scenario in front of you
let's say you're playing a zvz, and for 30 minutes it's very close action packed yadda yadda yadda, but you win a big fight and get a huge advantage. Instead of trying to come back from that, your opponent holes up in his main with mass swarmhost/spore crawler/viper Due to the design of the units, the spore buff, and the way ramps work, you can't kill him. It's a draw, regame.
After 30 minutes of action, you win a big fight and get an advantage that will snowball into a win. Unfortunately, your opponent decides to turtle in his main with SH/spore/viper. Regame again
how long do you want that bullshit to go on?
Forever until the end of time, something gets patched, or you figure out a resource.
On April 20 2014 05:56 maartendq wrote: If you purposely withdraw your whole army to your main with only the intent of forcing a draw, you deserve to lose.
What you are saying is actually a contradiction in terms.
"If you play for a draw and are in a position in which you cannot possibly lose... you effectively lost the game".
It's actual gibberish, I'm sorry.
On April 20 2014 05:56 maartendq wrote: If you purposely withdraw your whole army to your main with only the intent of forcing a draw, you deserve to lose.
No, by definition you don't deserve to lose. If you put yourself into a situation in which neither your opponent nor you can win/lose the game respectively, then you and your opponent are both in the exact same tie situation. In no way does it follow from that, that one of the two deserves to lose...
After 30 minutes of action, you win a big fight and get an advantage that will snowball into a win. Unfortunately, your opponent decides to turtle in his main with SH/spore/viper.
Eh, what? If your opponent is in a position to stop you from killing him and make it impossible for you to win, how is you winning the fight snowballing into anything, nevermind a win?
On April 20 2014 05:56 maartendq wrote: If you purposely withdraw your whole army to your main with only the intent of forcing a draw, you deserve to lose.
What you are saying is actually a contradiction in terms.
"If you play for a draw and are in a position in which you cannot possibly lose... you effectively lost the game".
On April 20 2014 05:56 maartendq wrote: If you purposely withdraw your whole army to your main with only the intent of forcing a draw, you deserve to lose.
No, by definition you don't deserve to lose. If you put yourself into a situation in which neither your opponent nor you can win/lose the game respectively, then you and your opponent are both in the exact same tie situation. In no way does it follow from that, that one of the two deserves to lose...
A boX series is a boX series, not a boX+d where d is the number of times a player manages to force a draw. Tournaments have time schedules they'd like to stick to. Very few organisers would like it if the one hour they scheduled for a bo3 turns out to be three hours or more because one of the players has to much pride to admit he was bested (yes, being forced to hole up in your main with no chance or intention to get out counts as being bested).
I'm talking about intention here. If you have the intention to still get out, good. If you don't and you just want to wait for your opponent's army, then no. You've been bested. In SC2 the score is either 1 or 0, not 0,5. The system does not work like that.
On April 20 2014 06:23 Caihead wrote: So when Polt or Marineking does it it's fine because they are terran?
It was fine the first time Miniraser did it. Then he immediately, deliberately did it again.
I asked on the last page, I'm asking again. What happens if the second time was called a draw just like the first, and in the third game Miniraser did it again, taking up another two hours? And then he did it again? And again? The tournament can't just stop on account of one game, the venue is rented for a certain, reasonable period of time, and both the players and organizers have other things going on in their lives. If this one game suddenly takes 3 days to play out because Miniraser is desperate and his opponent simply doesn't know how to deal with this strategy, the tournament will actually be unsalvageably fucked.
If you guys have another solution to dealing with this kind of situation, I'd love to hear it.
On April 20 2014 05:56 maartendq wrote: If you purposely withdraw your whole army to your main with only the intent of forcing a draw, you deserve to lose.
What you are saying is actually a contradiction in terms.
"If you play for a draw and are in a position in which you cannot possibly lose... you effectively lost the game".
It's actual gibberish, I'm sorry.
On April 20 2014 05:56 maartendq wrote: If you purposely withdraw your whole army to your main with only the intent of forcing a draw, you deserve to lose.
No, by definition you don't deserve to lose. If you put yourself into a situation in which neither your opponent nor you can win/lose the game respectively, then you and your opponent are both in the exact same tie situation. In no way does it follow from that, that one of the two deserves to lose...
because one of the players has to much pride to admit he was bested (yes, being forced to hole up in your main with no chance or intention to get out counts as being bested).
No, it doesn't. Go ahead, load up SC2 right now, do exactly that and see if the game actually ends in a draw or a loss for you and then get back at me.
On April 20 2014 06:23 Caihead wrote: So when Polt or Marineking does it it's fine because they are terran?
It was fine the first time Miniraser did it. Then he immediately, deliberately did it again.
I asked on the last page, I'm asking again. What happens if the second time was called a draw just like the first, and in the third game Miniraser did it again, taking up another two hours? And then he did it again? And again?
In the same sense I could easily ask "why didn't ourk just 6 pool or rush miniraser?", your argument is denying Ourk any sense of agency in the early game, as if he (Ourk) was somehow magically obligated to play for lategame aswell and there was no way he could have cheesed or done an early all-in. Great logic.
On April 20 2014 05:56 maartendq wrote: If you purposely withdraw your whole army to your main with only the intent of forcing a draw, you deserve to lose.
What you are saying is actually a contradiction in terms.
"If you play for a draw and are in a position in which you cannot possibly lose... you effectively lost the game".
It's actual gibberish, I'm sorry.
On April 20 2014 05:56 maartendq wrote: If you purposely withdraw your whole army to your main with only the intent of forcing a draw, you deserve to lose.
No, by definition you don't deserve to lose. If you put yourself into a situation in which neither your opponent nor you can win/lose the game respectively, then you and your opponent are both in the exact same tie situation. In no way does it follow from that, that one of the two deserves to lose...
because one of the players has to much pride to admit he was bested (yes, being forced to hole up in your main with no chance or intention to get out counts as being bested).
No, it doesn't. Go ahead, load up SC2 right now, do exactly that and see if the game actually ends in a draw or a loss for you and then get back at me.
Load up a game and start swearing in chat. Tell me if you get a DQ. What's that, tournaments have rules?! Marvelous concept.
On April 20 2014 05:56 maartendq wrote: If you purposely withdraw your whole army to your main with only the intent of forcing a draw, you deserve to lose.
What you are saying is actually a contradiction in terms.
"If you play for a draw and are in a position in which you cannot possibly lose... you effectively lost the game".
It's actual gibberish, I'm sorry.
On April 20 2014 05:56 maartendq wrote: If you purposely withdraw your whole army to your main with only the intent of forcing a draw, you deserve to lose.
No, by definition you don't deserve to lose. If you put yourself into a situation in which neither your opponent nor you can win/lose the game respectively, then you and your opponent are both in the exact same tie situation. In no way does it follow from that, that one of the two deserves to lose...
because one of the players has to much pride to admit he was bested (yes, being forced to hole up in your main with no chance or intention to get out counts as being bested).
No, it doesn't. Go ahead, load up SC2 right now, do exactly that and see if the game actually ends in a draw or a loss for you and then get back at me.
Load up a game and start swearing in chat. Tell me if you get a DQ. What's that, tournaments have rules?! Marvelous concept.
But now you are discussing the rule itself and not the philosophical implications of it. We are discussing wether or not X logically counts as losing and not if a rule states it does. Two completely seperate arguments, which makes me think that this debate goes way over your head.
On April 20 2014 06:23 Caihead wrote: So when Polt or Marineking does it it's fine because they are terran?
It was fine the first time Miniraser did it. Then he immediately, deliberately did it again.
I asked on the last page, I'm asking again. What happens if the second time was called a draw just like the first, and in the third game Miniraser did it again, taking up another two hours? And then he did it again? And again?
In the same sense I could easily ask "why didn't ourk just 6 pool or rush miniraser?", your argument is denying Ourk any sense of agency in the early game, as if he (Ourk) was somehow magically obligated to play for lategame aswell and there was no way he could have cheesed or done an early all-in. Great logic.
I didn't ask for a counter-argument, I asked for a solution. I understand that the solution the organizers implemented is not ideal in every conceivable sense. It is, as far as I can tell, the best of many shitty solutions. If you have a better one on offer, ie. give Miniraser the win and disqualify Ourk, then present an argument for it and maybe I'll be compelled.
On April 20 2014 06:23 Caihead wrote: So when Polt or Marineking does it it's fine because they are terran?
It was fine the first time Miniraser did it. Then he immediately, deliberately did it again.
I asked on the last page, I'm asking again. What happens if the second time was called a draw just like the first, and in the third game Miniraser did it again, taking up another two hours? And then he did it again? And again?
In the same sense I could easily ask "why didn't ourk just 6 pool or rush miniraser?", your argument is denying Ourk any sense of agency in the early game, as if he (Ourk) was somehow magically obligated to play for lategame aswell and there was no way he could have cheesed or done an early all-in. Great logic.
I didn't ask for a counter-argument, I asked for a solution. I understand that the solution the organizers implemented is not ideal in every conceivable sense. It is, as far as I can tell, the best of many shitty solutions. If you have a better one on offer, ie. give Miniraser the win and disqualify Ourk, then present an argument for it and maybe I'll be compelled.
play with the standard rules of Sc2? Draws are apart of the game, much like chess... If you have the opportunity to not lose. then you best take it. thats how competition works. To me having a rule where forcing a standard outcome such as a draw, to loss to one player is bad for competition. The problem i have with the rules, is that what miniraiser did is a natural stalemate in SC2. and the problem with the other side of this coin, EVERY stalemate is intentional =/ So it just comes down to referee opinion and opinions should not exist in esport rules.
On April 20 2014 06:23 Caihead wrote: So when Polt or Marineking does it it's fine because they are terran?
It was fine the first time Miniraser did it. Then he immediately, deliberately did it again.
I asked on the last page, I'm asking again. What happens if the second time was called a draw just like the first, and in the third game Miniraser did it again, taking up another two hours? And then he did it again? And again?
In the same sense I could easily ask "why didn't ourk just 6 pool or rush miniraser?", your argument is denying Ourk any sense of agency in the early game, as if he (Ourk) was somehow magically obligated to play for lategame aswell and there was no way he could have cheesed or done an early all-in. Great logic.
I didn't ask for a counter-argument, I asked for a solution. I understand that the solution the organizers implemented is not ideal in every conceivable sense. It is, as far as I can tell, the best of many shitty solutions. If you have a better one on offer, ie. give Miniraser the win and disqualify Ourk, then present an argument for it and maybe I'll be compelled.
play with the standard rules of Sc2? Draws are apart of the game, much like chess... If you have the opportunity to not lose. then you best take it. thats how competition works. To me having a rule where forcing a standard outcome such as a draw, to loss to one player is bad for competition.
Is it good for the competition that the entire tournament may have to be canceled as a result? Seriously, we're not talking about rules in some theoretical academic vacuum, we're talking about a rented venue where there is only so much time actually allotted for games. Once that time is up, there can physically be no more games.
On April 20 2014 06:23 Caihead wrote: So when Polt or Marineking does it it's fine because they are terran?
It was fine the first time Miniraser did it. Then he immediately, deliberately did it again.
I asked on the last page, I'm asking again. What happens if the second time was called a draw just like the first, and in the third game Miniraser did it again, taking up another two hours? And then he did it again? And again?
In the same sense I could easily ask "why didn't ourk just 6 pool or rush miniraser?", your argument is denying Ourk any sense of agency in the early game, as if he (Ourk) was somehow magically obligated to play for lategame aswell and there was no way he could have cheesed or done an early all-in. Great logic.
I didn't ask for a counter-argument, I asked for a solution. I understand that the solution the organizers implemented is not ideal in every conceivable sense. It is, as far as I can tell, the best of many shitty solutions. If you have a better one on offer, ie. give Miniraser the win and disqualify Ourk, then present an argument for it and maybe I'll be compelled.
No, the best solution (given the circumstances) would probably have been to flip a coin. Ourks actions resulted in the same outcome twice just as much as Miniraser's actions did.
The way most people in this thread phrase their posts seems to imply that Ourk really had no agency in these games at all and was just Miniraser's toy, which is simply wrong.
IF ourk had done everything in his power to stop Miniraser from turtling again (in the) endgame he could have easily forced a decision earlier, by either 6 pooling or rushing Miniraser in some other way.
The fact that he didn't do that, means that he is just as guilty that the games resulted in draws as Miniraser is. It's just easier to blame Miniraser because he was the defensive player in both games, which for some reason is frowned upon in this community, even though it technically is perfectly within the rules of the game itself.
On April 20 2014 06:23 Caihead wrote: So when Polt or Marineking does it it's fine because they are terran?
It was fine the first time Miniraser did it. Then he immediately, deliberately did it again.
I asked on the last page, I'm asking again. What happens if the second time was called a draw just like the first, and in the third game Miniraser did it again, taking up another two hours? And then he did it again? And again?
In the same sense I could easily ask "why didn't ourk just 6 pool or rush miniraser?", your argument is denying Ourk any sense of agency in the early game, as if he (Ourk) was somehow magically obligated to play for lategame aswell and there was no way he could have cheesed or done an early all-in. Great logic.
I didn't ask for a counter-argument, I asked for a solution. I understand that the solution the organizers implemented is not ideal in every conceivable sense. It is, as far as I can tell, the best of many shitty solutions. If you have a better one on offer, ie. give Miniraser the win and disqualify Ourk, then present an argument for it and maybe I'll be compelled.
play with the standard rules of Sc2? Draws are apart of the game, much like chess... If you have the opportunity to not lose. then you best take it. thats how competition works. To me having a rule where forcing a standard outcome such as a draw, to loss to one player is bad for competition.
Is it good for the competition that the entire tournament may have to be canceled as a result? Seriously, we're not talking about rules in some theoretical academic vacuum, we're talking about a rented venue where there is only so much time actually allotted for games. Once that time is up, there can physically be no more games.
Then don't get involved in the theoretical debate. If that is your stance, FINE, it makes sense. But it's not what we were discussing earlier. You don't have to play semantic games with people if your stance is as clear-cut as this and you have no interest in the more theoretical discussion behind that, which is focusing on "win-conditions" and so on.
On April 20 2014 06:48 Orcasgt24 wrote: I actually don't mind that. If you play to draw you can not win, therefore you lose. Simple solution to this is play to win
I've been pretty pissed that terran can force stalemates vs protoss in certain situations. Absolute bullcrap that the protoss killed the entire terran army, could have over a hundred supply in army, but because of something as dumb as "LOL I CAN FLOAT MY BUILDINGS, YOU CAN KILL ME" is apparently worth a regame. The only race that can do such a thing, too.
I'm glad anytime somebody gets awarded a loss for forcing a stalemate. I hope this happens more often, actually.
edit - they can do it vs zergs too, but it's much more commonly seen vs toss
On April 20 2014 06:23 Caihead wrote: So when Polt or Marineking does it it's fine because they are terran?
It was fine the first time Miniraser did it. Then he immediately, deliberately did it again.
I asked on the last page, I'm asking again. What happens if the second time was called a draw just like the first, and in the third game Miniraser did it again, taking up another two hours? And then he did it again? And again?
In the same sense I could easily ask "why didn't ourk just 6 pool or rush miniraser?", your argument is denying Ourk any sense of agency in the early game, as if he (Ourk) was somehow magically obligated to play for lategame aswell and there was no way he could have cheesed or done an early all-in. Great logic.
I didn't ask for a counter-argument, I asked for a solution. I understand that the solution the organizers implemented is not ideal in every conceivable sense. It is, as far as I can tell, the best of many shitty solutions. If you have a better one on offer, ie. give Miniraser the win and disqualify Ourk, then present an argument for it and maybe I'll be compelled.
No, the best solution (given the circumstances) would probably have been to flip a coin. Ourks actions resulted in the same outcome twice just as much Miniraser's action's did.
The way most people in this thread phrase their posts seems to imply that Ourk really had no agency in these games at all and was just Miniraser's toy, which is simply wrong.
IF ourk had done everything in his power to stop Miniraser from turtling again endgame he could have easily forced a decision earlier, by either 6 pooling or rushing Miniraser in some other way early on.
The fact that he didn't do that, means that he is just as guilty that the games resulted in a draw as Miniraser is. It's just easier to blame Miniraser because he was the defensive player in both games, which for some reason is frowned upon in this community, even though it technically is perfectly within the rules of the game itself.
Really confusing.
Without having seen the games, I can't judge whether the blame is really 50-50, ie. as far as I know, which isn't far at all, it's possible that Ourk tried something different in game 2, but it didn't kill Miniraser outright and led to a two hour stalemate. In the third game, he would have tried something different again, and there's no telling if it would have worked or led to another 2 hour stalemate. (if you watched the games and actually know the relevant info, please tell me!) If this is true, the blame is not 50-50, but maybe 70-30, in which case I'm OK with Miniraser getting DQed.
If the blame really is equally splittable, then a coin flip may have been preferable.
On April 20 2014 05:56 maartendq wrote: If you purposely withdraw your whole army to your main with only the intent of forcing a draw, you deserve to lose.
What you are saying is actually a contradiction in terms.
"If you play for a draw and are in a position in which you cannot possibly lose... you effectively lost the game".
It's actual gibberish, I'm sorry.
On April 20 2014 05:56 maartendq wrote: If you purposely withdraw your whole army to your main with only the intent of forcing a draw, you deserve to lose.
No, by definition you don't deserve to lose. If you put yourself into a situation in which neither your opponent nor you can win/lose the game respectively, then you and your opponent are both in the exact same tie situation. In no way does it follow from that, that one of the two deserves to lose...
because one of the players has to much pride to admit he was bested (yes, being forced to hole up in your main with no chance or intention to get out counts as being bested).
No, it doesn't. Go ahead, load up SC2 right now, do exactly that and see if the game actually ends in a draw or a loss for you and then get back at me.
It's a tournament. The organisers decide the rules, not the game. Referees are there to enforce the rules. If one of those rules states that forcing a draw is not allowed, then it's not allowed. Plain and simple.
It's like Judo: you lose points and can even end up disqualified if you do not show the will to fight to win.
Tournaments have got schedules to stick to as well. They employ a lot of people who probably don't want to work hours overtime just because one person's bad sportmanship. If you know you can't win anymore save through very stupid and thus extremely unlikely mistake from your opponent, you type "gg" and tap out. You do not go hunker down with Swarm Hosts and Spores, or fly your buildings to some corner of the map (it still surprises me that the latter is still not fixed yet).
Trying to force a draw out like that is on the same level as knowing you have lost a chess game, but deciding to still use all the time you have left on your game clock (which can sometimes be up to an hour or more). You'll lose eventually, but you'll have wasted everyone's time and made fool out of yourself.
Another example which is probably closer to home to many: imagine knowing you're gonna win a game of hearthstone, but your opponent refuses to click "end turn" and just lets the timer run.
From a spectator's point of view, I watch games to see two players duke it out 'til the very end. I do not watch Starcraft 2 to see one of them turn his main into a semi-impregnable fortress because he knows he can't win. The viewer count would plummet if that happened, and with that the prize pools and sponsorships. That's one thing I like about Korean progamers. They know they are entertainers. They want to show us good games, not lamefests.
On April 20 2014 05:56 maartendq wrote: If you purposely withdraw your whole army to your main with only the intent of forcing a draw, you deserve to lose.
What you are saying is actually a contradiction in terms.
"If you play for a draw and are in a position in which you cannot possibly lose... you effectively lost the game".
It's actual gibberish, I'm sorry.
On April 20 2014 05:56 maartendq wrote: If you purposely withdraw your whole army to your main with only the intent of forcing a draw, you deserve to lose.
No, by definition you don't deserve to lose. If you put yourself into a situation in which neither your opponent nor you can win/lose the game respectively, then you and your opponent are both in the exact same tie situation. In no way does it follow from that, that one of the two deserves to lose...
because one of the players has to much pride to admit he was bested (yes, being forced to hole up in your main with no chance or intention to get out counts as being bested).
No, it doesn't. Go ahead, load up SC2 right now, do exactly that and see if the game actually ends in a draw or a loss for you and then get back at me.
It's a tournament. The organisers decide the rules, not the game. Referees are there to enforce the rules. If one of those rules states that forcing a draw is not allowed, then it's not allowed. Plain and simple.
It's like Judo: you lose points and can even end up disqualified if you do not show the will to fight to win.
Tournaments have got schedules to stick to as well. They employ a lot of people who probably don't want to work hours overtime just because one person's bad sportmanship. If you know you can't win anymore save through very stupid and thus extremely unlikely mistake from your opponent, you type "gg" and tap out. You do not go hunker down with Swarm Hosts and Spores, or fly your buildings to some corner of the map (it still surprises me that the latter is still not fixed yet).
Trying to force a draw out like that is on the same level as knowing you have lost a chess game, but deciding to still use all the time you have left on your game clock (which can sometimes be up to an hour or more). You'll lose eventually, but you'll have wasted everyone's time and made fool out of yourself.
Yet did he do anything that was considered cheating? Was he maphacking? This is just silly.
People didn't give Idra loses when he was starting playing the game from 14th minute mark, or Boxer that was rushing 3 games in a row with bunkers. This "LOSS" is the weirdest, the most idiotic thing I saw in my life. Tournament shouldn't decide for the player what builds the player should choose and play.
On the other hand they should have some kind of a LIMIT on how long the game should go on for, and just restart the game and start fresh. NOT punish players for playing in their tournaments like that.
On April 20 2014 06:23 Caihead wrote: So when Polt or Marineking does it it's fine because they are terran?
It was fine the first time Miniraser did it. Then he immediately, deliberately did it again.
I asked on the last page, I'm asking again. What happens if the second time was called a draw just like the first, and in the third game Miniraser did it again, taking up another two hours? And then he did it again? And again?
In the same sense I could easily ask "why didn't ourk just 6 pool or rush miniraser?", your argument is denying Ourk any sense of agency in the early game, as if he (Ourk) was somehow magically obligated to play for lategame aswell and there was no way he could have cheesed or done an early all-in. Great logic.
I didn't ask for a counter-argument, I asked for a solution. I understand that the solution the organizers implemented is not ideal in every conceivable sense. It is, as far as I can tell, the best of many shitty solutions. If you have a better one on offer, ie. give Miniraser the win and disqualify Ourk, then present an argument for it and maybe I'll be compelled.
No, the best solution (given the circumstances) would probably have been to flip a coin. Ourks actions resulted in the same outcome twice just as much Miniraser's action's did.
The way most people in this thread phrase their posts seems to imply that Ourk really had no agency in these games at all and was just Miniraser's toy, which is simply wrong.
IF ourk had done everything in his power to stop Miniraser from turtling again endgame he could have easily forced a decision earlier, by either 6 pooling or rushing Miniraser in some other way early on.
The fact that he didn't do that, means that he is just as guilty that the games resulted in a draw as Miniraser is. It's just easier to blame Miniraser because he was the defensive player in both games, which for some reason is frowned upon in this community, even though it technically is perfectly within the rules of the game itself.
Really confusing.
Without having seen the games, I can't judge whether the blame is really 50-50, ie. as far as I know, which isn't far at all, it's possible that Ourk tried something different in game 2, but it didn't kill Miniraser outright and led to a two hour stalemate. In the third game, he would have tried something different again, and there's no telling if it would have worked or led to another 2 hour stalemate. (if you watched the games and actually know the relevant info, please tell me!) If this is true, the blame is not 50-50, but maybe 70-30, in which case I'm OK with Miniraser getting DQed.
If the blame really is equally splittable, then a coin flip may have been preferable.
And I'm ok with neither. insomnia can do with their rules whatever they want, but I don't want to see stuff like this in future tournaments, where players get disqualified because they somehow managed to not lose the game and force a draw.
A draw is a natural outcome in SC2 games, if you can't kill your opponent you don't deserve to win, just in the same sense that if your opponent can't kill you, you don't deserve to lose. Win and loss shouldn't be decided on a whim, if you want to beat someone do it ingame. And again, a draw is by definition not a loss or a win for either player. That's the reason draws even exist, if neither player can win the game -> draw.
Absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Anything else you bootstrap on to that is irrelevant, your personal dislike of turtling or assignment of "guilt" has no bearing on the definition of a draw.
If neither player can win the game it should either be a rematch or a coin flip, it doesn't make sense to give one player a win and the other player a loss if the outcome of the game was a draw (by definiton NOT a win or a loss for either player)
I can't make myself any clearer than this and I'm starting to get a little bit frustrated to be honest, because you keep bootstrapping things on to this that have nothing to do with the argument I'm making.
@maartendq: Sigh, again I have already said that I'm not discussing insomnia's rule itself, but the theoretical implications of it. Your entire last post is missing the point. insomnia can make whatever rules they want, they are free to do that and I'm free to disagree with the logic behind their rules. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
But forcing a stalemate in chess is a legitimate strategy that happens all the time in high level games. I'd like to echo the argument that if Mini's opponent couldn't kill him than he was as far away from winning the game as mini.
Honestly there should be a clause in most SC2 tournies that if the game is still going at 2hrs or both players call draw in chat the player with the highest score (as determined by the in game score counter) wins.
On April 20 2014 05:56 maartendq wrote: If you purposely withdraw your whole army to your main with only the intent of forcing a draw, you deserve to lose.
What you are saying is actually a contradiction in terms.
"If you play for a draw and are in a position in which you cannot possibly lose... you effectively lost the game".
It's actual gibberish, I'm sorry.
On April 20 2014 05:56 maartendq wrote: If you purposely withdraw your whole army to your main with only the intent of forcing a draw, you deserve to lose.
No, by definition you don't deserve to lose. If you put yourself into a situation in which neither your opponent nor you can win/lose the game respectively, then you and your opponent are both in the exact same tie situation. In no way does it follow from that, that one of the two deserves to lose...
because one of the players has to much pride to admit he was bested (yes, being forced to hole up in your main with no chance or intention to get out counts as being bested).
No, it doesn't. Go ahead, load up SC2 right now, do exactly that and see if the game actually ends in a draw or a loss for you and then get back at me.
It's a tournament. The organisers decide the rules, not the game. Referees are there to enforce the rules. If one of those rules states that forcing a draw is not allowed, then it's not allowed. Plain and simple.
It's like Judo: you lose points and can even end up disqualified if you do not show the will to fight to win.
Tournaments have got schedules to stick to as well. They employ a lot of people who probably don't want to work hours overtime just because one person's bad sportmanship. If you know you can't win anymore save through very stupid and thus extremely unlikely mistake from your opponent, you type "gg" and tap out. You do not go hunker down with Swarm Hosts and Spores, or fly your buildings to some corner of the map (it still surprises me that the latter is still not fixed yet).
Trying to force a draw out like that is on the same level as knowing you have lost a chess game, but deciding to still use all the time you have left on your game clock (which can sometimes be up to an hour or more). You'll lose eventually, but you'll have wasted everyone's time and made fool out of yourself.
Yet did he do anything that was considered cheating? Was he maphacking? This is just silly.
People didn't give Idra loses when he was starting playing the game from 14th minute mark, or Boxer that was rushing 3 games in a row with bunkers. This "LOSS" is the weirdest, the most idiotic thing I saw in my life. Tournament shouldn't decide for the player what builds the player should choose and play.
On the other hand they should have some kind of a LIMIT on how long the game should go on for, and just restart the game and start fresh. NOT punish players for playing in their tournaments like that.
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.
On April 20 2014 07:10 red_hq wrote: But forcing a stalemate in chess is a legitimate strategy that happens all the time in high level games. I'd like to echo the argument that if Mini's opponent couldn't kill him than he was as far away from winning the game as mini.
Honestly there should be a clause in most SC2 tournies that if the game is still going at 2hrs or both players call draw in chat the player with the highest score (as determined by the in game score counter) wins.
Chess follows a different scoring system in which players get awarded points for draws. The only thing that matters in chess tournaments is the total amount of points you amass by the end of the tournament. Chess tournaments do not have the groups into knock-out system Starcraft 2 has.
On April 20 2014 05:56 maartendq wrote: If you purposely withdraw your whole army to your main with only the intent of forcing a draw, you deserve to lose.
What you are saying is actually a contradiction in terms.
"If you play for a draw and are in a position in which you cannot possibly lose... you effectively lost the game".
It's actual gibberish, I'm sorry.
On April 20 2014 05:56 maartendq wrote: If you purposely withdraw your whole army to your main with only the intent of forcing a draw, you deserve to lose.
No, by definition you don't deserve to lose. If you put yourself into a situation in which neither your opponent nor you can win/lose the game respectively, then you and your opponent are both in the exact same tie situation. In no way does it follow from that, that one of the two deserves to lose...
because one of the players has to much pride to admit he was bested (yes, being forced to hole up in your main with no chance or intention to get out counts as being bested).
No, it doesn't. Go ahead, load up SC2 right now, do exactly that and see if the game actually ends in a draw or a loss for you and then get back at me.
It's a tournament. The organisers decide the rules, not the game. Referees are there to enforce the rules. If one of those rules states that forcing a draw is not allowed, then it's not allowed. Plain and simple.
It's like Judo: you lose points and can even end up disqualified if you do not show the will to fight to win.
Tournaments have got schedules to stick to as well. They employ a lot of people who probably don't want to work hours overtime just because one person's bad sportmanship. If you know you can't win anymore save through very stupid and thus extremely unlikely mistake from your opponent, you type "gg" and tap out. You do not go hunker down with Swarm Hosts and Spores, or fly your buildings to some corner of the map (it still surprises me that the latter is still not fixed yet).
Trying to force a draw out like that is on the same level as knowing you have lost a chess game, but deciding to still use all the time you have left on your game clock (which can sometimes be up to an hour or more). You'll lose eventually, but you'll have wasted everyone's time and made fool out of yourself.
Yet did he do anything that was considered cheating? Was he maphacking? This is just silly.
People didn't give Idra loses when he was starting playing the game from 14th minute mark, or Boxer that was rushing 3 games in a row with bunkers. This "LOSS" is the weirdest, the most idiotic thing I saw in my life. Tournament shouldn't decide for the player what builds the player should choose and play.
On the other hand they should have some kind of a LIMIT on how long the game should go on for, and just restart the game and start fresh. NOT punish players for playing in their tournaments like that.
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.
But what rule did the referee enforce? A natural stalemate happened. no action should have been taken. atleast thats my viewpoint. Thats the issue I have with rules like this. Playing for a draw and a natural stalemate are the same... If neither player can win, then its a draw and both players are essentially in the same position of equality. As what is not a natural stalemate situation and a unnatural stalemate? If a player is fighting their hardest to not lose. they are still playing to win.
I understand why they had and enforced the rule. I'd like to see the replay because I have a hard time believing the draw couldn't have been avoided... also I think it's a rather tricky rule to enforce. Rules that area hard to enforce (rely on judgement) usually lead to drama and should be avoided.
On April 20 2014 07:15 KiF1rE wrote: But what rule did the referee enforce? A natural stalemate happened. no action should have been taken. atleast thats my viewpoint. Thats the issue I have with rules like this. Playing for a draw and a natural stalemate are the same... If neither player can win, then its a draw and both players are essentially in the same position of equality. As what is not a natural stalemate situation and a unnatural stalemate? If a player is fighting their hardest to not lose. they are still playing to win.
On April 20 2014 05:56 maartendq wrote: If you purposely withdraw your whole army to your main with only the intent of forcing a draw, you deserve to lose.
What you are saying is actually a contradiction in terms.
"If you play for a draw and are in a position in which you cannot possibly lose... you effectively lost the game".
It's actual gibberish, I'm sorry.
On April 20 2014 05:56 maartendq wrote: If you purposely withdraw your whole army to your main with only the intent of forcing a draw, you deserve to lose.
No, by definition you don't deserve to lose. If you put yourself into a situation in which neither your opponent nor you can win/lose the game respectively, then you and your opponent are both in the exact same tie situation. In no way does it follow from that, that one of the two deserves to lose...
because one of the players has to much pride to admit he was bested (yes, being forced to hole up in your main with no chance or intention to get out counts as being bested).
No, it doesn't. Go ahead, load up SC2 right now, do exactly that and see if the game actually ends in a draw or a loss for you and then get back at me.
It's a tournament. The organisers decide the rules, not the game. Referees are there to enforce the rules. If one of those rules states that forcing a draw is not allowed, then it's not allowed. Plain and simple.
It's like Judo: you lose points and can even end up disqualified if you do not show the will to fight to win.
Tournaments have got schedules to stick to as well. They employ a lot of people who probably don't want to work hours overtime just because one person's bad sportmanship. If you know you can't win anymore save through very stupid and thus extremely unlikely mistake from your opponent, you type "gg" and tap out. You do not go hunker down with Swarm Hosts and Spores, or fly your buildings to some corner of the map (it still surprises me that the latter is still not fixed yet).
Trying to force a draw out like that is on the same level as knowing you have lost a chess game, but deciding to still use all the time you have left on your game clock (which can sometimes be up to an hour or more). You'll lose eventually, but you'll have wasted everyone's time and made fool out of yourself.
Yet did he do anything that was considered cheating? Was he maphacking? This is just silly.
People didn't give Idra loses when he was starting playing the game from 14th minute mark, or Boxer that was rushing 3 games in a row with bunkers. This "LOSS" is the weirdest, the most idiotic thing I saw in my life. Tournament shouldn't decide for the player what builds the player should choose and play.
On the other hand they should have some kind of a LIMIT on how long the game should go on for, and just restart the game and start fresh. NOT punish players for playing in their tournaments like that.
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.
But what rule did the referee enforce? A natural stalemate happened. no action should have been taken. atleast thats my viewpoint. Thats the issue I have with rules like this. Playing for a draw and a natural stalemate are the same... If neither player can win, then its a draw and both players are essentially in the same position of equality. As what is not a natural stalemate situation and a unnatural stalemate? If a player is fighting their hardest to not lose. they are still playing to win.
Swarmhost games do not have natural stalemates. One of the in game stalemate checks is no units lost. Locust are units and die after x time (forget what)
On April 20 2014 06:14 GTPGlitch wrote: Okay, lemme put this scenario in front of you
let's say you're playing a zvz, and for 30 minutes it's very close action packed yadda yadda yadda, but you win a big fight and get a huge advantage. Instead of trying to come back from that, your opponent holes up in his main with mass swarmhost/spore crawler/viper Due to the design of the units, the spore buff, and the way ramps work, you can't kill him. It's a draw, regame.
After 30 minutes of action, you win a big fight and get an advantage that will snowball into a win. Unfortunately, your opponent decides to turtle in his main with SH/spore/viper. Regame again
how long do you want that bullshit to go on?
Until one of us actually wins a game. Why would any other answer be the case? Winning an engagement or gaining an economic lead doesn't mean shit if I can't actually finish off my opponent. If he adopts a defensive posture and is determined to make me throw everything I have into the teeth of his defense in an attempt to break him, but knows that such an attempt will fail, he has successfully prevented me from beating him. I don't deserve a win in that scenario.
On April 20 2014 05:56 maartendq wrote: If you purposely withdraw your whole army to your main with only the intent of forcing a draw, you deserve to lose.
What you are saying is actually a contradiction in terms.
"If you play for a draw and are in a position in which you cannot possibly lose... you effectively lost the game".
It's actual gibberish, I'm sorry.
On April 20 2014 05:56 maartendq wrote: If you purposely withdraw your whole army to your main with only the intent of forcing a draw, you deserve to lose.
No, by definition you don't deserve to lose. If you put yourself into a situation in which neither your opponent nor you can win/lose the game respectively, then you and your opponent are both in the exact same tie situation. In no way does it follow from that, that one of the two deserves to lose...
because one of the players has to much pride to admit he was bested (yes, being forced to hole up in your main with no chance or intention to get out counts as being bested).
No, it doesn't. Go ahead, load up SC2 right now, do exactly that and see if the game actually ends in a draw or a loss for you and then get back at me.
It's a tournament. The organisers decide the rules, not the game. Referees are there to enforce the rules. If one of those rules states that forcing a draw is not allowed, then it's not allowed. Plain and simple.
It's like Judo: you lose points and can even end up disqualified if you do not show the will to fight to win.
Tournaments have got schedules to stick to as well. They employ a lot of people who probably don't want to work hours overtime just because one person's bad sportmanship. If you know you can't win anymore save through very stupid and thus extremely unlikely mistake from your opponent, you type "gg" and tap out. You do not go hunker down with Swarm Hosts and Spores, or fly your buildings to some corner of the map (it still surprises me that the latter is still not fixed yet).
Trying to force a draw out like that is on the same level as knowing you have lost a chess game, but deciding to still use all the time you have left on your game clock (which can sometimes be up to an hour or more). You'll lose eventually, but you'll have wasted everyone's time and made fool out of yourself.
Yet did he do anything that was considered cheating? Was he maphacking? This is just silly.
People didn't give Idra loses when he was starting playing the game from 14th minute mark, or Boxer that was rushing 3 games in a row with bunkers. This "LOSS" is the weirdest, the most idiotic thing I saw in my life. Tournament shouldn't decide for the player what builds the player should choose and play.
On the other hand they should have some kind of a LIMIT on how long the game should go on for, and just restart the game and start fresh. NOT punish players for playing in their tournaments like that.
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.
But what rule did the referee enforce? A natural stalemate happened. no action should have been taken. atleast thats my viewpoint. Thats the issue I have with rules like this. Playing for a draw and a natural stalemate are the same... If neither player can win, then its a draw and both players are essentially in the same position of equality. As what is not a natural stalemate situation and a unnatural stalemate? If a player is fighting their hardest to not lose. they are still playing to win.
Swarmhost games do not have natural stalemates. One of the in game stalemate checks is no units lost. Locust are units and die after x time (forget what)
This isn't true, in Game 1 the stalemate timer kept starting but Ourk just mined 5 minerals to reset it to give himself more time. So I assume locusts do not count towards thiss timer
On April 20 2014 06:23 Caihead wrote: So when Polt or Marineking does it it's fine because they are terran?
It was fine the first time Miniraser did it. Then he immediately, deliberately did it again.
I asked on the last page, I'm asking again. What happens if the second time was called a draw just like the first, and in the third game Miniraser did it again, taking up another two hours? And then he did it again? And again?
In the same sense I could easily ask "why didn't ourk just 6 pool or rush miniraser?", your argument is denying Ourk any sense of agency in the early game, as if he (Ourk) was somehow magically obligated to play for lategame aswell and there was no way he could have cheesed or done an early all-in. Great logic.
I didn't ask for a counter-argument, I asked for a solution. I understand that the solution the organizers implemented is not ideal in every conceivable sense. It is, as far as I can tell, the best of many shitty solutions. If you have a better one on offer, ie. give Miniraser the win and disqualify Ourk, then present an argument for it and maybe I'll be compelled.
No, the best solution (given the circumstances) would probably have been to flip a coin. Ourks actions resulted in the same outcome twice just as much Miniraser's action's did.
The way most people in this thread phrase their posts seems to imply that Ourk really had no agency in these games at all and was just Miniraser's toy, which is simply wrong.
IF ourk had done everything in his power to stop Miniraser from turtling again endgame he could have easily forced a decision earlier, by either 6 pooling or rushing Miniraser in some other way early on.
The fact that he didn't do that, means that he is just as guilty that the games resulted in a draw as Miniraser is. It's just easier to blame Miniraser because he was the defensive player in both games, which for some reason is frowned upon in this community, even though it technically is perfectly within the rules of the game itself.
Really confusing.
Without having seen the games, I can't judge whether the blame is really 50-50, ie. as far as I know, which isn't far at all, it's possible that Ourk tried something different in game 2, but it didn't kill Miniraser outright and led to a two hour stalemate. In the third game, he would have tried something different again, and there's no telling if it would have worked or led to another 2 hour stalemate. (if you watched the games and actually know the relevant info, please tell me!) If this is true, the blame is not 50-50, but maybe 70-30, in which case I'm OK with Miniraser getting DQed.
If the blame really is equally splittable, then a coin flip may have been preferable.
And I'm ok with neither. insomnia can do with their rules whatever they want, but I don't want to see stuff like this in future tournaments, where players get disqualified because they somehow managed to not lose the game and force a draw.
A draw is a natural outcome in SC2 games, if you can't kill your opponent you don't deserve to win, just in the same sense that if your opponent can't kill you, you don't deserve to lose. Win and loss shouldn't be decided on a whim, if you want to beat someone do it ingame. And again, a draw is by definition not a loss or a win for either player. That's the reason draws even exist, if neither player can win the game -> draw.
Absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Anything else you bootstrap on to that is irrelevant, your personal dislike of turtling or assignment of "guilt" has no bearing on the definition of a draw.
If neither player can win the game it should either be a rematch or a coin flip, it doesn't make sense to give one player a win and the other player a loss if the outcome of the game was a draw (by definiton NOT a win or a loss for either player)
I can't make myself any clearer than this and I'm starting to get a little bit frustrated to be honest, because you keep bootstrapping things on to this that have nothing to do with the argument I'm making.
@maartendq: Sigh, again I have already said that I'm not discussing insomnia's rule itself, but the theoretical implications of it. Your entire last post is missing the point. insomnia can make whatever rules they want, they are free to do that and I'm free to disagree with the logic behind their rules. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Blizzard has openly discussed redesigning the SH specifically to prevent shit like this from happening. It is clear that according to them and many fans, what Miniraser did should not be natural to Starcraft, even if it is in the meantime.
Your argument is that the letter of the law is more important than the spirit of the law - if no patch has prevented it, then it is as legit as any strategy. My argument is that in such an extreme situation, when something must be done but following the letter of the law fails to provide any satisfying solution (a coin toss is entirely random), we should follow the spirit of the law - we know that SH is not intended to be used this way and may in fact be redesigned to prevent it in the future, therefore if anyone has to lose it should be the guy relying on this strategy to survive.
On April 20 2014 06:23 Caihead wrote: So when Polt or Marineking does it it's fine because they are terran?
It was fine the first time Miniraser did it. Then he immediately, deliberately did it again.
I asked on the last page, I'm asking again. What happens if the second time was called a draw just like the first, and in the third game Miniraser did it again, taking up another two hours? And then he did it again? And again?
In the same sense I could easily ask "why didn't ourk just 6 pool or rush miniraser?", your argument is denying Ourk any sense of agency in the early game, as if he (Ourk) was somehow magically obligated to play for lategame aswell and there was no way he could have cheesed or done an early all-in. Great logic.
I didn't ask for a counter-argument, I asked for a solution. I understand that the solution the organizers implemented is not ideal in every conceivable sense. It is, as far as I can tell, the best of many shitty solutions. If you have a better one on offer, ie. give Miniraser the win and disqualify Ourk, then present an argument for it and maybe I'll be compelled.
No, the best solution (given the circumstances) would probably have been to flip a coin. Ourks actions resulted in the same outcome twice just as much Miniraser's action's did.
The way most people in this thread phrase their posts seems to imply that Ourk really had no agency in these games at all and was just Miniraser's toy, which is simply wrong.
IF ourk had done everything in his power to stop Miniraser from turtling again endgame he could have easily forced a decision earlier, by either 6 pooling or rushing Miniraser in some other way early on.
The fact that he didn't do that, means that he is just as guilty that the games resulted in a draw as Miniraser is. It's just easier to blame Miniraser because he was the defensive player in both games, which for some reason is frowned upon in this community, even though it technically is perfectly within the rules of the game itself.
Really confusing.
Without having seen the games, I can't judge whether the blame is really 50-50, ie. as far as I know, which isn't far at all, it's possible that Ourk tried something different in game 2, but it didn't kill Miniraser outright and led to a two hour stalemate. In the third game, he would have tried something different again, and there's no telling if it would have worked or led to another 2 hour stalemate. (if you watched the games and actually know the relevant info, please tell me!) If this is true, the blame is not 50-50, but maybe 70-30, in which case I'm OK with Miniraser getting DQed.
If the blame really is equally splittable, then a coin flip may have been preferable.
And I'm ok with neither. insomnia can do with their rules whatever they want, but I don't want to see stuff like this in future tournaments, where players get disqualified because they somehow managed to not lose the game and force a draw.
A draw is a natural outcome in SC2 games, if you can't kill your opponent you don't deserve to win, just in the same sense that if your opponent can't kill you, you don't deserve to lose. Win and loss shouldn't be decided on a whim, if you want to beat someone do it ingame. And again, a draw is by definition not a loss or a win for either player. That's the reason draws even exist, if neither player can win the game -> draw.
Absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Anything else you bootstrap on to that is irrelevant, your personal dislike of turtling or assignment of "guilt" has no bearing on the definition of a draw.
If neither player can win the game it should either be a rematch or a coin flip, it doesn't make sense to give one player a win and the other player a loss if the outcome of the game was a draw (by definiton NOT a win or a loss for either player)
I can't make myself any clearer than this and I'm starting to get a little bit frustrated to be honest, because you keep bootstrapping things on to this that have nothing to do with the argument I'm making.
@maartendq: Sigh, again I have already said that I'm not discussing insomnia's rule itself, but the theoretical implications of it. Your entire last post is missing the point. insomnia can make whatever rules they want, they are free to do that and I'm free to disagree with the logic behind their rules. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Blizzard has openly discussed redesigning the SH specifically to prevent shit like this from happening. It is clear that according to them and many fans, what Miniraser did should not be natural to Starcraft, even if it is in the meantime.
Your argument is that the letter of the law is more important than the spirit of the law - if no patch has prevented it, then it is as legit as any strategy. My argument is that in such an extreme situation, when something must be done but following the letter of the law fails to provide any satisfying solution (a coin toss is entirely random), we should follow the spirit of the law - we know that SH is not intended to be used this way and may in fact be redesigned to prevent it in the future, therefore if anyone has to lose it should be the guy relying on this strategy to survive.
Alright, you heard it here first folks. Stop using swarmhosts, or there is a chance you might just get disqualified for not losing the game with them.
It takes 2 people to make a draw. How to differentiate their intentions? If both players refuse to forfeit and don't lose by overextending while attempting to win, then where do we draw the line?
Draws actually happen and it's foolish to apply such predictive powers to the players. If you're in a sticky situation and you're not sure if you're going to be able to come back at what point are you hoping for a draw? At what point are you hoping your opponent makes a mistake? These two positions overlap a lot. This is a game of limited information.
On April 20 2014 06:23 Caihead wrote: So when Polt or Marineking does it it's fine because they are terran?
It was fine the first time Miniraser did it. Then he immediately, deliberately did it again.
I asked on the last page, I'm asking again. What happens if the second time was called a draw just like the first, and in the third game Miniraser did it again, taking up another two hours? And then he did it again? And again?
In the same sense I could easily ask "why didn't ourk just 6 pool or rush miniraser?", your argument is denying Ourk any sense of agency in the early game, as if he (Ourk) was somehow magically obligated to play for lategame aswell and there was no way he could have cheesed or done an early all-in. Great logic.
I didn't ask for a counter-argument, I asked for a solution. I understand that the solution the organizers implemented is not ideal in every conceivable sense. It is, as far as I can tell, the best of many shitty solutions. If you have a better one on offer, ie. give Miniraser the win and disqualify Ourk, then present an argument for it and maybe I'll be compelled.
No, the best solution (given the circumstances) would probably have been to flip a coin. Ourks actions resulted in the same outcome twice just as much Miniraser's action's did.
The way most people in this thread phrase their posts seems to imply that Ourk really had no agency in these games at all and was just Miniraser's toy, which is simply wrong.
IF ourk had done everything in his power to stop Miniraser from turtling again endgame he could have easily forced a decision earlier, by either 6 pooling or rushing Miniraser in some other way early on.
The fact that he didn't do that, means that he is just as guilty that the games resulted in a draw as Miniraser is. It's just easier to blame Miniraser because he was the defensive player in both games, which for some reason is frowned upon in this community, even though it technically is perfectly within the rules of the game itself.
Really confusing.
Without having seen the games, I can't judge whether the blame is really 50-50, ie. as far as I know, which isn't far at all, it's possible that Ourk tried something different in game 2, but it didn't kill Miniraser outright and led to a two hour stalemate. In the third game, he would have tried something different again, and there's no telling if it would have worked or led to another 2 hour stalemate. (if you watched the games and actually know the relevant info, please tell me!) If this is true, the blame is not 50-50, but maybe 70-30, in which case I'm OK with Miniraser getting DQed.
If the blame really is equally splittable, then a coin flip may have been preferable.
And I'm ok with neither. insomnia can do with their rules whatever they want, but I don't want to see stuff like this in future tournaments, where players get disqualified because they somehow managed to not lose the game and force a draw.
A draw is a natural outcome in SC2 games, if you can't kill your opponent you don't deserve to win, just in the same sense that if your opponent can't kill you, you don't deserve to lose. Win and loss shouldn't be decided on a whim, if you want to beat someone do it ingame. And again, a draw is by definition not a loss or a win for either player. That's the reason draws even exist, if neither player can win the game -> draw.
Absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Anything else you bootstrap on to that is irrelevant, your personal dislike of turtling or assignment of "guilt" has no bearing on the definition of a draw.
If neither player can win the game it should either be a rematch or a coin flip, it doesn't make sense to give one player a win and the other player a loss if the outcome of the game was a draw (by definiton NOT a win or a loss for either player)
I can't make myself any clearer than this and I'm starting to get a little bit frustrated to be honest, because you keep bootstrapping things on to this that have nothing to do with the argument I'm making.
@maartendq: Sigh, again I have already said that I'm not discussing insomnia's rule itself, but the theoretical implications of it. Your entire last post is missing the point. insomnia can make whatever rules they want, they are free to do that and I'm free to disagree with the logic behind their rules. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Blizzard has openly discussed redesigning the SH specifically to prevent shit like this from happening. It is clear that according to them and many fans, what Miniraser did should not be natural to Starcraft, even if it is in the meantime.
Your argument is that the letter of the law is more important than the spirit of the law - if no patch has prevented it, then it is as legit as any strategy. My argument is that in such an extreme situation, when something must be done but following the letter of the law fails to provide any satisfying solution (a coin toss is entirely random), we should follow the spirit of the law - we know that SH is not intended to be used this way and may in fact be redesigned to prevent it in the future, therefore if anyone has to lose it should be the guy relying on this strategy to survive.
Alright, you heard it here first folks. Stop using swarmhosts, or there is a chance you might just get disqualified for not losing the game with them.
Are you serious, lol?
You didn't hear it from me first. You heard it from the tournament. I just chipped in my support. And if the first couple of pages are any indication, I'm not alone. You don't have to agree, but you can't deny that Blizzard has delegitimized SH turtling by saying that artificially removing it from the game is an option they're considering.
Stalemates are dumb and there isn't always time for a rematch. If the player did it for multiple games in a row, then I am with the call. If its an abusive part of the game, tourneys are going to have to handle it until Blizzard addresses it.
On April 20 2014 07:10 red_hq wrote: But forcing a stalemate in chess is a legitimate strategy that happens all the time in high level games. I'd like to echo the argument that if Mini's opponent couldn't kill him than he was as far away from winning the game as mini.
Honestly there should be a clause in most SC2 tournies that if the game is still going at 2hrs or both players call draw in chat the player with the highest score (as determined by the in game score counter) wins.
Chess follows a different scoring system in which players get awarded points for draws. The only thing that matters in chess tournaments is the total amount of points you amass by the end of the tournament. Chess tournaments do not have the groups into knock-out system Starcraft 2 has.
Except some of them do, like the FIDE Chess World Cup.
Okay I haven't seen the games, but in theory at least, I think its okay to have a rule where a person is given a loss if they are playing for a stalemate, but only when the player knows that after some time they would eventually lose because his/her opponent has the upper hand.
If such a clear cut situation exists, then this is justified, because it is basically just a much longer and more complicated version of flying your command center into the corner of a map until it's finally found and destroyed.
I'm not sure if this is actually the case, but in this sense I think its very different from chess in which actual stalemates can occur and in those cases its legitimate. But if that's not what happened, I agree that it is absurd. You really have to earn your win. Maybe if, after a few battles, neither player comes out on top, then perhaps (if there are time constraints or something) the judges can pick a winner like in boxing based on performance.
edit: Actually what maarten said was really good. I have to agree with all that
On April 20 2014 05:56 maartendq wrote: If you purposely withdraw your whole army to your main with only the intent of forcing a draw, you deserve to lose.
What you are saying is actually a contradiction in terms.
"If you play for a draw and are in a position in which you cannot possibly lose... you effectively lost the game".
It's actual gibberish, I'm sorry.
On April 20 2014 05:56 maartendq wrote: If you purposely withdraw your whole army to your main with only the intent of forcing a draw, you deserve to lose.
No, by definition you don't deserve to lose. If you put yourself into a situation in which neither your opponent nor you can win/lose the game respectively, then you and your opponent are both in the exact same tie situation. In no way does it follow from that, that one of the two deserves to lose...
because one of the players has to much pride to admit he was bested (yes, being forced to hole up in your main with no chance or intention to get out counts as being bested).
No, it doesn't. Go ahead, load up SC2 right now, do exactly that and see if the game actually ends in a draw or a loss for you and then get back at me.
It's a tournament. The organisers decide the rules, not the game. Referees are there to enforce the rules. If one of those rules states that forcing a draw is not allowed, then it's not allowed. Plain and simple.
It's like Judo: you lose points and can even end up disqualified if you do not show the will to fight to win.
Tournaments have got schedules to stick to as well. They employ a lot of people who probably don't want to work hours overtime just because one person's bad sportmanship. If you know you can't win anymore save through very stupid and thus extremely unlikely mistake from your opponent, you type "gg" and tap out. You do not go hunker down with Swarm Hosts and Spores, or fly your buildings to some corner of the map (it still surprises me that the latter is still not fixed yet).
Trying to force a draw out like that is on the same level as knowing you have lost a chess game, but deciding to still use all the time you have left on your game clock (which can sometimes be up to an hour or more). You'll lose eventually, but you'll have wasted everyone's time and made fool out of yourself.
Yet did he do anything that was considered cheating? Was he maphacking? This is just silly.
People didn't give Idra loses when he was starting playing the game from 14th minute mark, or Boxer that was rushing 3 games in a row with bunkers. This "LOSS" is the weirdest, the most idiotic thing I saw in my life. Tournament shouldn't decide for the player what builds the player should choose and play.
On the other hand they should have some kind of a LIMIT on how long the game should go on for, and just restart the game and start fresh. NOT punish players for playing in their tournaments like that.
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.
But what rule did the referee enforce? A natural stalemate happened. no action should have been taken. atleast thats my viewpoint. Thats the issue I have with rules like this. Playing for a draw and a natural stalemate are the same... If neither player can win, then its a draw and both players are essentially in the same position of equality. As what is not a natural stalemate situation and a unnatural stalemate? If a player is fighting their hardest to not lose. they are still playing to win.
Swarmhost games do not have natural stalemates. One of the in game stalemate checks is no units lost. Locust are units and die after x time (forget what)
This isn't true, in Game 1 the stalemate timer kept starting but Ourk just mined 5 minerals to reset it to give himself more time. So I assume locusts do not count towards thiss timer
I have it backwards. Its produce a unit to reset the timer. Maybe Blizzard patched it (and liquipedia doesn't have an update for it) so the zerg free units don't count as producing units but one of the reasons reality vs soulkey never triggered stalemate detection was locusts kept being made. There map was basically 99% mined out
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?
On April 20 2014 05:56 maartendq wrote: If you purposely withdraw your whole army to your main with only the intent of forcing a draw, you deserve to lose.
What you are saying is actually a contradiction in terms.
"If you play for a draw and are in a position in which you cannot possibly lose... you effectively lost the game".
It's actual gibberish, I'm sorry.
On April 20 2014 05:56 maartendq wrote: If you purposely withdraw your whole army to your main with only the intent of forcing a draw, you deserve to lose.
No, by definition you don't deserve to lose. If you put yourself into a situation in which neither your opponent nor you can win/lose the game respectively, then you and your opponent are both in the exact same tie situation. In no way does it follow from that, that one of the two deserves to lose...
because one of the players has to much pride to admit he was bested (yes, being forced to hole up in your main with no chance or intention to get out counts as being bested).
No, it doesn't. Go ahead, load up SC2 right now, do exactly that and see if the game actually ends in a draw or a loss for you and then get back at me.
It's a tournament. The organisers decide the rules, not the game. Referees are there to enforce the rules. If one of those rules states that forcing a draw is not allowed, then it's not allowed. Plain and simple.
It's like Judo: you lose points and can even end up disqualified if you do not show the will to fight to win.
Tournaments have got schedules to stick to as well. They employ a lot of people who probably don't want to work hours overtime just because one person's bad sportmanship. If you know you can't win anymore save through very stupid and thus extremely unlikely mistake from your opponent, you type "gg" and tap out. You do not go hunker down with Swarm Hosts and Spores, or fly your buildings to some corner of the map (it still surprises me that the latter is still not fixed yet).
Trying to force a draw out like that is on the same level as knowing you have lost a chess game, but deciding to still use all the time you have left on your game clock (which can sometimes be up to an hour or more). You'll lose eventually, but you'll have wasted everyone's time and made fool out of yourself.
Yet did he do anything that was considered cheating? Was he maphacking? This is just silly.
People didn't give Idra loses when he was starting playing the game from 14th minute mark, or Boxer that was rushing 3 games in a row with bunkers. This "LOSS" is the weirdest, the most idiotic thing I saw in my life. Tournament shouldn't decide for the player what builds the player should choose and play.
On the other hand they should have some kind of a LIMIT on how long the game should go on for, and just restart the game and start fresh. NOT punish players for playing in their tournaments like that.
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"
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.
"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.
"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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
Please read the rules you're talking about before you start saying things about what they do and don't cover.
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.
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.
The stalemate happened twice. No decision was made prior to both games ending in draws.
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.
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".
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.
Call it Unstarcraft-like, but for the longest time, I've never believed stalemates should exist. I think its very silly. Here are just a few ideas I've had over the years to prevent stalemates from occurring. Why couldn't blizzard just implement a map-shrinking fog of war/fire border that slowly constricts all four corners of the map given that a) Either player has not mined any minerals in X time. And B) no player has damaged an opposing players buildings or units (real units, not broodlings or locust) in X time. You could even argue that admins would be given the ability to decide when to start/remove the fogofwar wall if they need to for tournament-timekeeping reasons (though this would be highly disputed for favouritism, but not much more disputed than calling a game as a win for one player…)
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.
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.
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.
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.
A coin flip isn't more fair, because many viewers, players, and Blizzard agree that this kind of Swarmhost play should not be possible. It's an unhappy accident that it is possible in the first place. Think of it like a bug that Blizzard doesn't know how to patch without affecting the Swarmhost's other functions.
Miniraser is abusing the fact that there's no easy way to redesign the unit without changing up the MUs. Even so, because it's a part of the game it's given enough lenience that he got away with one and a half stupid games of it. But not two.
Miniraser is abusing the fact that there's no easy way to redesign the unit without changing up the MUs. Even so, because it's a part of the game it's given enough lenience that he got away with one and a half stupid games of it. But not two.
He's simply using the tools at his disposal. Blizzard also stated they wanted to fix Broodlord/Infestor in WoL, doesn't mean we can go in and say their wins don't count or give them losses as we see fit. If it was a final, it would've been epic and this rule wouldn't have been enforced, if it was an even lesser known player taking the map vs a turtling JaeDong, trying to force a stalemate, it would've also been different. It discredits the tournament as players are not being equally treated.
On April 20 2014 05:56 maartendq wrote: If you purposely withdraw your whole army to your main with only the intent of forcing a draw, you deserve to lose.
What you are saying is actually a contradiction in terms.
"If you play for a draw and are in a position in which you cannot possibly lose... you effectively lost the game".
It's actual gibberish, I'm sorry.
On April 20 2014 05:56 maartendq wrote: If you purposely withdraw your whole army to your main with only the intent of forcing a draw, you deserve to lose.
No, by definition you don't deserve to lose. If you put yourself into a situation in which neither your opponent nor you can win/lose the game respectively, then you and your opponent are both in the exact same tie situation. In no way does it follow from that, that one of the two deserves to lose...
because one of the players has to much pride to admit he was bested (yes, being forced to hole up in your main with no chance or intention to get out counts as being bested).
No, it doesn't. Go ahead, load up SC2 right now, do exactly that and see if the game actually ends in a draw or a loss for you and then get back at me.
It's a tournament. The organisers decide the rules, not the game. Referees are there to enforce the rules. If one of those rules states that forcing a draw is not allowed, then it's not allowed. Plain and simple.
It's like Judo: you lose points and can even end up disqualified if you do not show the will to fight to win.
Tournaments have got schedules to stick to as well. They employ a lot of people who probably don't want to work hours overtime just because one person's bad sportmanship. If you know you can't win anymore save through very stupid and thus extremely unlikely mistake from your opponent, you type "gg" and tap out. You do not go hunker down with Swarm Hosts and Spores, or fly your buildings to some corner of the map (it still surprises me that the latter is still not fixed yet).
Trying to force a draw out like that is on the same level as knowing you have lost a chess game, but deciding to still use all the time you have left on your game clock (which can sometimes be up to an hour or more). You'll lose eventually, but you'll have wasted everyone's time and made fool out of yourself.
Yet did he do anything that was considered cheating? Was he maphacking? This is just silly.
People didn't give Idra loses when he was starting playing the game from 14th minute mark, or Boxer that was rushing 3 games in a row with bunkers. This "LOSS" is the weirdest, the most idiotic thing I saw in my life. Tournament shouldn't decide for the player what builds the player should choose and play.
On the other hand they should have some kind of a LIMIT on how long the game should go on for, and just restart the game and start fresh. NOT punish players for playing in their tournaments like that.
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"
Are you dead serious, a bo1 took 3 hours? If the kid was drawing the matchs out on purpose, just because he refused to gg or take a risk to try and win, he gets DQed.
This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of and automatically makes it so I will never watch this tournament. A player should never be given a loss unless they actually lost. If the other player was actually that far ahead or that much better he could have figured out a way to kill him. This would never happen with any korean zerg vs miniraiser. The other player wasn't actually better if he couldn't kill him and did not deserve to win.
On April 20 2014 10:36 JJH777 wrote: This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of and automatically makes it so I will never watch this tournament. A player should never be given a loss unless they actually lost. If the other player was actually that far ahead or that much better he could have figured out a way to kill him. This would never happen with any korean zerg vs miniraiser. The other player wasn't actually better if he couldn't kill him and did not deserve to win.
So the event is never supposed to end? I mean, it appears they regamed one time and the same thing happened? At some point the bracket needs to move forward.
Miniraser is abusing the fact that there's no easy way to redesign the unit without changing up the MUs. Even so, because it's a part of the game it's given enough lenience that he got away with one and a half stupid games of it. But not two.
He's simply using the tools at his disposal. Blizzard also stated they wanted to fix Broodlord/Infestor in WoL, doesn't mean we can go in and say their wins don't count or give them losses as we see fit.
And bugs are tools at a player's disposal, too. You've never heard of a player getting disqualified from a tournament for abusing bugs which are plainly in the game ripe for someone to exploit?
This isn't rocket science. If you play a Swarmhost style designed to create a stalemate, or designed to create a very low probability of a victory for you and an overwhelming possibility of a stalemate, win or lose within two hours. Or don't do it two games in a row. It's taken a year since HOTS's release for a single player to be disqualified, obviously it isn't difficult to not get disqualified as long as you're not a complete tool.
If it was a final, it would've been epic and this rule wouldn't have been enforced, if it was an even lesser known player taking the map vs a turtling JaeDong, trying to force a stalemate, it would've also been different. It discredits the tournament as players are not being equally treated.
Uh, considering how many people tuned out for the Roro vs. Symbol GSL final, and loathe Roro to this day for taking that season following what was actually a pretty entertaining set of BL/Infestor games, as far as those go, I very seriously doubt your contention that 3 hours of SH turtle into a score of 0-0 in a BO7 meaning 7 games minimum still remain would have been received as anything but utter trash and gained the players anything but droves of anti-fans.
I also don't put much stock into your speculation that Jaedong would have been treated differently.
Miniraser is abusing the fact that there's no easy way to redesign the unit without changing up the MUs. Even so, because it's a part of the game it's given enough lenience that he got away with one and a half stupid games of it. But not two.
He's simply using the tools at his disposal. Blizzard also stated they wanted to fix Broodlord/Infestor in WoL, doesn't mean we can go in and say their wins don't count or give them losses as we see fit.
And bugs are tools at a player's disposal, too. You've never heard of a player getting disqualified from a tournament for abusing bugs which are plainly in the game ripe for someone to exploit?
This isn't rocket science. If you play a Swarmhost style designed to create a stalemate, or designed to create a very low probability of a victory for you and an overwhelming possibility of a stalemate, win or lose within two hours. Or don't do it two games in a row. It's taken a year since HOTS's release for a single player to be disqualified, obviously it isn't difficult to not get disqualified as long as you're not a complete tool.
If it was a final, it would've been epic and this rule wouldn't have been enforced, if it was an even lesser known player taking the map vs a turtling JaeDong, trying to force a stalemate, it would've also been different. It discredits the tournament as players are not being equally treated.
Uh, considering how many people tuned out for the Roro vs. Symbol GSL final, and loathe Roro to this day for taking that season following what was actually a pretty entertaining set of BL/Infestor games, as far as those go, I very seriously doubt your contention that 3 hours of SH turtle into a score of 0-0 in a BO7 meaning 7 games minimum still remain would have been received as anything but utter trash and gained the players anything but droves of anti-fans.
I also don't put much stock into your speculation that Jaedong would have been treated differently.
One clarification - he wasn't disqualified based on this. He went down 0-1 in a Bo3. He then ling bane allinned the next game and lost within ~15 mins.
Miniraser is abusing the fact that there's no easy way to redesign the unit without changing up the MUs. Even so, because it's a part of the game it's given enough lenience that he got away with one and a half stupid games of it. But not two.
He's simply using the tools at his disposal. Blizzard also stated they wanted to fix Broodlord/Infestor in WoL, doesn't mean we can go in and say their wins don't count or give them losses as we see fit.
And bugs are tools at a player's disposal, too. You've never heard of a player getting disqualified from a tournament for abusing bugs which are plainly in the game ripe for someone to exploit?
This isn't rocket science. If you play a Swarmhost style designed to create a stalemate, or designed to create a very low probability of a victory for you and an overwhelming possibility of a stalemate, win or lose within two hours. Or don't do it two games in a row. It's taken a year since HOTS's release for a single player to be disqualified, obviously it isn't difficult to not get disqualified as long as you're not a complete tool.
If it was a final, it would've been epic and this rule wouldn't have been enforced, if it was an even lesser known player taking the map vs a turtling JaeDong, trying to force a stalemate, it would've also been different. It discredits the tournament as players are not being equally treated.
Uh, considering how many people tuned out for the Roro vs. Symbol GSL final, and loathe Roro to this day for taking that season following what was actually a pretty entertaining set of BL/Infestor games, as far as those go, I very seriously doubt your contention that 3 hours of SH turtle into a score of 0-0 in a BO7 meaning 7 games minimum still remain would have been received as anything but utter trash and gained the players anything but droves of anti-fans.
I also don't put much stock into your speculation that Jaedong would have been treated differently.
One clarification - he wasn't disqualified based on this. He went down 0-1 in a Bo3. He then ling bane allinned the next game and lost within ~15 mins.
All they did was give him a single loss?! Oh, man...
On April 20 2014 10:47 pure.Wasted wrote: I also don't put much stock into your speculation that Jaedong would have been treated differently.
Jaedong can do no wrong in Starcraft. His fans are pretty fanatical so the fans would treat him differently for sure.
Tourney officials might also because the backlash for doing this would be amplified 100 fold. Take alot more courage to DQ Jaedong than it does to DQ Miniraiser
blizzard change something please. Admit the problems sc2 has with its units and do something about it. Dont cower and give us that weak excuse of 'not wanting to endanger progamer careers'.
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 did my research and there were a couple of stalemate TvTs in BW! 2003/12/13 Themarine vs silent_control 2007/7/25 iloveoov vs upmagic 2008/5/14 Sea vs Hwasin 2009/4/16 Canata vs Shine[Name]
On April 20 2014 12:20 ChickaChuckWally wrote: Seriously.. people still think swarmhosts are op ...
It's not OP it was a ZvZ it's just stupid unit design.
I like the decision by the tournament admins. Mini taser is behind, not enough to get crushed, but it is clear he's not trying to win and just going for a stalemate 2 games in a row. He deserves to lose that game.
On April 20 2014 12:28 tomastaz wrote: Apparently archons work pretty well
In ZvZ?
But out of curiosity, is it really that impossible to break a turtling swarmhost/ spore army in ZvZ? I don't play Zerg so I have no experience with it, but I'd think if it became clear that your opponent was never going to do anything, you'd slowly trade out your army for the perfect unit composition, take the map, and even trade somewhat unfavorably because you have a massive resource and army advantage. Just slowly starve him out o.O
On April 20 2014 12:28 tomastaz wrote: Apparently archons work pretty well
In ZvZ?
But out of curiosity, is it really that impossible to break a turtling swarmhost/ spore army in ZvZ? I don't play Zerg so I have no experience with it, but I'd think if it became clear that your opponent was never going to do anything, you'd slowly trade out your army for the perfect unit composition, take the map, and even trade somewhat unfavorably because you have a massive resource and army advantage. Just slowly starve him out o.O
Snute posted on page 8 or 9 - said Vipers made it impossible to siege down, and there's not really a good way to break a main ramp that's covered in locusts
On April 20 2014 12:28 tomastaz wrote: Apparently archons work pretty well
In ZvZ?
But out of curiosity, is it really that impossible to break a turtling swarmhost/ spore army in ZvZ? I don't play Zerg so I have no experience with it, but I'd think if it became clear that your opponent was never going to do anything, you'd slowly trade out your army for the perfect unit composition, take the map, and even trade somewhat unfavorably because you have a massive resource and army advantage. Just slowly starve him out o.O
There is no good counter composition in ZvZ. You can't go any ground base composition against SH once they reach a critical mass, they just trade to cost efficiently. You can try to bum rush the SH by destroying the locust quickly with banes, but that only works in small numbers, once SH reach a big enough mass and in a appropriate choke the banes will never connect.
You can't switch into air either because spores destroy any biological air. Mutas would just get instantly obliterated, if you don't believe me watch Revival vs Byul from this past season of WCS AM. And BL don't work either, they have only 9.5 range, abduct is 9 range and they run the same problem as mutas, once they are in range they get destroyed by spores.
On April 20 2014 12:28 tomastaz wrote: Apparently archons work pretty well
In ZvZ?
But out of curiosity, is it really that impossible to break a turtling swarmhost/ spore army in ZvZ? I don't play Zerg so I have no experience with it, but I'd think if it became clear that your opponent was never going to do anything, you'd slowly trade out your army for the perfect unit composition, take the map, and even trade somewhat unfavorably because you have a massive resource and army advantage. Just slowly starve him out o.O
Yes there is a situation late game ZvZ where neither player can win the game anymore because viper abducts make it so you cannot use broods since they will be abducted into spores which kill them very fast with the +damage vs light.
It does not happen too often, but it is possible to force this situation if you are good enough in ZvZ.
It's not the player's faults, or tournament organizer's faults that the game can go to stalemates like this...it's blizzard's fault for not addressing swarmhost stalemate issues in general. It's a bit ludicrous that miniraiser was given a loss for playing professionally and choosing the best option available at the time to him as a player - which was to go for a draw.
It's not his fault the game is like this. It's not anyone's but blizzard's, and the worst thing is they've known about this for a while, but unless enough people make an uproar about this stuff they don't seem to do anything in any meaningful time span.
Previously there was a bug where opponent's vipers could not target your units if you self shift-queued your own viper abducts onto your units...but that was not part of balance for this ZvZ lategame scenario, it was simply an abusable in-game bug.
Swarmhosts in general should have been addressed a while ago...redesigned, or removed imo.
On April 20 2014 15:50 Orcasgt24 wrote: I'm just curious if people would support Locusts not getting upgrades just like how Infested Terran's no longer get upgrades.
No coz its spawning free units until world destroys..
Don't count on Blizzard changing anything. In WC3 it took them years to nerf stuff like exp tome and raider ensnare, and by the time that happened, the game was already dead. I think the best we can hope for is another game company developing an RTS we can actually play.
On April 20 2014 17:10 Emerson_H wrote: Don't count on Blizzard changing anything. In WC3 it took them years to nerf stuff like exp tome and raider ensnare, and by the time that happened, the game was already dead. I think the best we can hope for is another game company developing an RTS we can actually play.
I don't mean to be rude, but could we please stop posting this type of zero effort whine posts? Yes, I know Blizzard can be slow with fixing obvious problems, but this type of overdramatic, self-victimizing "Alas, Blizzard cares not for e-sports, our effort is for naught"-posts serve no purpose. They don't contribute anything, they don't lead anywhere. The game has had so many problems since the release of WoL, and Blizzard have fixed most of them. They will get to this as well, sooner or later. Being angry about Swarm Hosts is perfectly reasonable, but try to be a bit more constructive, please.
On April 20 2014 03:01 Waise wrote: i don't understnad people talking about the timing concerns. if it's just a timing/respect for other players thing, why not instantly rule another regame when the admins feel it's going toward another stalemate? it's a strategy game and one player has to be willing/able to push a victory for a victory to occur.
I think in this scenario, giving the win is valid due to it holding up the entire tournament. I understand that there's no such thing as economic or map control victory in SCII, but because of how HotS ZvZ was designed, without absolutely unlimited resources, it would be impossible to break that. While Protoss and terran given massive resource banks can tailor comps to break the turtle, Zerg doesn't have that option. Because the rule was in place before the tournament began, I think the admins made the right call.
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?
Because Terran would salvage a lost game and go for a draw/rare win with cloakshees/rebuilding/medivac harrass. Miniraser just decided he was the worse player and went for the draw.
i dont see why people argue that playing for the stalemates valid, the rules clearly stated that playing for the stalemate will result in being given a loss :L and pull back into the main and turtle on swarm-hosts is literally giving up any chance of victory..
that being said swarm hosts are a terrible unit design wise( i say that as a zerg),and they lead to such boring games, worse still is that people are beginning to realise the fact they have no ground based zerg counter+ viper spore support results in unloseable games
On April 20 2014 20:40 Enigmasc wrote: i dont see why people argue that playing for the stalemates valid, the rules clearly stated that playing for the stalemate will result in being given a loss :L and pull back into the main and turtle on swarm-hosts is literally giving up any chance of victory..
that being said swarm hosts are a terrible unit design wise( i say that as a zerg),and they lead to such boring games, worse still is that people are beginning to realise the fact they have no ground based zerg counter+ viper spore support results in unloseable games
You can build your own vipers to either catch their vipers or to neutralize their spores.
On April 20 2014 20:08 shid0x wrote: Make a billion overlord load some of them with bane Send the empty one first so they tank spore damage Then baneling bomb swarmhost
new meta. fukin zerg players so unimaginative.
You don't really get how badly spores destroy biological units. Also banes cost lots of gas, and don't get bonus damage vs hosts. Unless you had something like all of alterzim except your opponent's corner to work with, it's not happening. Also you need detection to see the hosts to begin with, good luck getting seers, who also cost gas, through to sit over the host line.
On April 19 2014 23:39 Verator wrote: If blizzard refuses to balance their own game competently, the community has to. This is a bit extreme, but the scene can't wait for blizzard for years to realize the flaws of their methods.
Didn't read the entire thread, but THIS is pretty much spot on. They seriously need to fix this shit.
On April 20 2014 16:35 CutTheEnemy wrote: As a chess player I find this sad. Stalemates in chess are way more interesting than in sc2 though...
Stalemate are ok and even fun, it's just the way you're going for the stalemate (ie playing SH) that makes the game very uninteresting. I'm pretty sure a LOT of zerg doesn't like going SH. They're doing so because it gives wins. You just can't deny that SH is really strong but also deep inside the zerg's hearth they're bleeding everytime they're doing it.
On April 19 2014 23:39 Verator wrote: If blizzard refuses to balance their own game competently, the community has to. This is a bit extreme, but the scene can't wait for blizzard for years to realize the flaws of their methods.
Didn't read the entire thread, but THIS is pretty much spot on. They seriously need to fix this shit.
On April 20 2014 16:35 CutTheEnemy wrote: As a chess player I find this sad. Stalemates in chess are way more interesting than in sc2 though...
Stalemate are ok and even fun, it's just the way you're going for the stalemate (ie playing SH) that makes the game very uninteresting.
If they would add the ability of passing turns in Chess, we would get similar situations there. And there are enough rules to quickly draw stalemates as well. PDDs blocking Locust and no Army moving would be a draw after 3 waves of Locust if it was Chess and nothing else happened with the armies. The Chess rules forces activity, while you still can play for a draw if you are behind you have to do something to get there not sit there and force the opponent to sacrifice a piece in order to get the game going again.
On April 20 2014 12:28 tomastaz wrote: Apparently archons work pretty well
In ZvZ?
But out of curiosity, is it really that impossible to break a turtling swarmhost/ spore army in ZvZ? I don't play Zerg so I have no experience with it, but I'd think if it became clear that your opponent was never going to do anything, you'd slowly trade out your army for the perfect unit composition, take the map, and even trade somewhat unfavorably because you have a massive resource and army advantage. Just slowly starve him out o.O
Yes there is a situation late game ZvZ where neither player can win the game anymore because viper abducts make it so you cannot use broods since they will be abducted into spores which kill them very fast with the +damage vs light.
It does not happen too often, but it is possible to force this situation if you are good enough in ZvZ.
It's not the player's faults, or tournament organizer's faults that the game can go to stalemates like this...it's blizzard's fault for not addressing swarmhost stalemate issues in general. It's a bit ludicrous that miniraiser was given a loss for playing professionally and choosing the best option available at the time to him as a player - which was to go for a draw.
It's not his fault the game is like this. It's not anyone's but blizzard's, and the worst thing is they've known about this for a while, but unless enough people make an uproar about this stuff they don't seem to do anything in any meaningful time span.
Previously there was a bug where opponent's vipers could not target your units if you self shift-queued your own viper abducts onto your units...but that was not part of balance for this ZvZ lategame scenario, it was simply an abusable in-game bug.
Swarmhosts in general should have been addressed a while ago...redesigned, or removed imo.
Miniraiser joins tournament that explicitly states you cannot play for a draw. Plays for a draw.
Sad day for him. Deserved punishment for wasting EVERYONE's time. No one's fault but his own, maybe he should actually read the fine print or learn how to play next time.
On April 20 2014 23:47 29 fps wrote: The SH Has to be redesigned or something... as is, it's the most boring unit in the game and is the cause of many boring games.
If they won't fix that, then they should Try some of the community's suggestions.
Abduction immunity for Broodlord sounds good. (most practical vs SH camper) Changing spore dmg to +30 vs Bio Light also seems good.
Why not simply make a Locust wave cost something tiny (e.g. 5 minerals)?
It was the decision made to make the carrier and the reaver balanced in BW. (In SCII the carrier just sux though )
How is playing for a draw in an unwinnable position bad sportsmanship? It's fucking good play. How do you not understand the fact that going for a re-game in an unwinnable position is a +eV decision.
Is this a stupid fucking rule? Yes. If this becomes a problem to the point that it hinders tournaments, then clearly SC2 is not a good competitive game. Hopefully Blizzard will either fix it, or we should abandon it for something better. (I highly doubt that will be the case though, because for some reason proleague ZvZ's (top level players) don't seem to run into this).
On April 21 2014 00:18 Kashll wrote: I can't believe people are this ignorant.
How is playing for a draw in an unwinnable position bad sportsmanship? It's fucking good play. How do you not understand the fact that going for a re-game in an unwinnable position is a +eV decision.
Is this a stupid fucking rule? Yes. If this becomes a problem to the point that it hinders tournaments, then clearly SC2 is not a good competitive game. Hopefully Blizzard will either fix it, or we should abandon it for something better. (I highly doubt that will be the case though, because for some reason proleague ZvZ's (top level players) don't seem to run into this).
I hope you'll have to organize a tournament one day and have to delay everything for 4 hours because of a forced draw.
I hope Blizzard realize that HotS fails to show entertainment/great games than ever before. Finally a tournament call it too that something is wrong with this game. Blizzard needs to stop balance it, many units (SH+ Zerg T3 + Protoss T3) need a new design.
Playing for a draw maybe a valid strategy in other sports but they also have a ways to decide a winner afterwards etc penalty shots in football or sudden dead maybe they should coin flip in starcraft after draws that should teach people a lesson
I guess something like this has to happpen so blizzard wakes the fuck up... It really annoys the shit out of me how long it takes blizzard to do something about a obviously broken thing.
AND its not even the first time they take their time ... metalopolis closeposition anyone?
On April 21 2014 00:18 Kashll wrote: I can't believe people are this ignorant.
How is playing for a draw in an unwinnable position bad sportsmanship? It's fucking good play. How do you not understand the fact that going for a re-game in an unwinnable position is a +eV decision.
Is this a stupid fucking rule? Yes. If this becomes a problem to the point that it hinders tournaments, then clearly SC2 is not a good competitive game. Hopefully Blizzard will either fix it, or we should abandon it for something better. (I highly doubt that will be the case though, because for some reason proleague ZvZ's (top level players) don't seem to run into this).
Oh cool, we found someone who read Sirlin once and now thinks he is an expert in progaming and tournament organization.
I was hoping we'd see one of those in the wild at some point, I've only heard about them in fairytales.
So basically you are regurgitating someone else's opinion without any consideration as to the context. Sirlins website is not the holy gospel of eSports nor does it apply to absolutely every situation. When you are playing in a tournament, particularly one whose games have an indeterminate length and the ability to run super long (which fighting games don't by the way so you can immediately disregard some of what Sirlin argues), the schedule is king. There will be flexibility, there always has to be to make that work, however if the tournament massively overruns, you are compromising the entire event and all the players participating in it. I'm willing to bet the vast majority of SC2 tournaments have measures in place to deal with this, they simply haven't had to utilize them, with the exception of Dreamhack who has resorted to coinflips to sort this out when the schedule had to be maintained. Blizzard have designed a god-forsaken terrible unit that causes this kind of stuff to happen. These games did not occur prior to the introduction of the swarm host. One of the longest Wings of Liberty games was Boxer vs Rain, if you can believe that. Now this 3+ hour bullshit can happen (oh hey turns out infinite free units is a terrible mechanic, who knew). Tournaments must now adapt to the possibility that this might happen and where necessary take steps to prevent players from deliberately and knowingly fucking up the entire event.
iSeries is the longest running eSports tournament series in the UK. They have operated many hundreds of tournaments for all manner, they know what they are doing. This was clearly the right call in this situation and if you go into an event knowing the rules and then break them anyway, you deserve the consequences of your actions.
On April 19 2014 23:34 Squat wrote: That is one dumbest things I've heard so far this year. Seriously, that is completely fucking retarded. This takes any credibility of the tournament and craps all over it.
What's next? People don't like all ins and FF, ban sentries! Mech turtle is stupid, ban raven! You can't run a tournament like that.
Did you even read the post? They did not ban SH........ Try reading a post before going all crazy with your opinion. They have the option to award one player the win if they felt the other player was deliberately going for the draw instead of trying to win the game.
They had the right according to their own rules, but I really dislike the rule to begin with. If you can't win the game (or have a very slim chance), "deliberately" going for the draw is the right play. I would like it better if they decided a draw and a regame.
On April 21 2014 01:50 Breavman wrote: They had the right according to their own rules, but I really dislike the rule to begin with. If you can't win the game (or have a very slim chance), "deliberately" going for the draw is the right play. I would like it better if they decided a draw and a regame.
Even if they regamed once after an hour of game time and he did the same shit again. It was three hours for 1 game before the admins gave the win to the player who was playing to end the game, not wait for his opponent to die of old age.
My honest opinion: 1. The rule is kinda dumb (since stalemate is a part of the game, even if some of the players/viewers may not like it). 2. But, since it's THEIR tournament, they have the right to have their own rules (yeah, even if it's a dumb rule). 3. Players themselves choose to enter tournament or not, if they do enter, please follow the rules (even if it's a dumb one). 4. The player don't know/follow a rule (even if it's a dumb one), then it's his/her own fault and admins have the right to punish the player for it.
On April 19 2014 23:34 Squat wrote: That is one dumbest things I've heard so far this year. Seriously, that is completely fucking retarded. This takes any credibility of the tournament and craps all over it.
What's next? People don't like all ins and FF, ban sentries! Mech turtle is stupid, ban raven! You can't run a tournament like that.
Did you even read the post? They did not ban SH........ Try reading a post before going all crazy with your opinion. They have the option to award one player the win if they felt the other player was deliberately going for the draw instead of trying to win the game.
But that requires effort! We can't have that now, can we? Knee jerk reactions only!
On topic, I think this is entirely reasonable of the tournament. Miniraser clearly had this whole "If I can't win, neither can he" mentality, and had they kept doing regames, the tournament would have been delayed for many more hours. We can't accept that kind of mentality. If you lose, accept your loss. If a Terran, upon losing, lifted all their buildings into the corner with some vikings and ravens and as a result dragged the game out it would be highly frowned upon and be considered bad sportsmanship. This is no different. Heck this is worse, because at least you could chip away units in the Terran situation. This is all free units and static defence, so any attacks done would not actually do anything.
On April 19 2014 23:34 Squat wrote: That is one dumbest things I've heard so far this year. Seriously, that is completely fucking retarded. This takes any credibility of the tournament and craps all over it.
What's next? People don't like all ins and FF, ban sentries! Mech turtle is stupid, ban raven! You can't run a tournament like that.
Did you even read the post? They did not ban SH........ Try reading a post before going all crazy with your opinion. They have the option to award one player the win if they felt the other player was deliberately going for the draw instead of trying to win the game.
You guys need to cut the early posters some slack. They were working off misinformation in the original post. It was later learned that SH were not actually banned
On April 21 2014 02:06 FroZeN.Broken wrote: My honest opinion: 1. The rule is kinda dumb (since stalemate is a part of the game, even if some of the players/viewers may not like it). 2. But, since it's THEIR tournament, they have the right to have their own rules (yeah, even if it's a dumb rule). 3. Players themselves choose to enter tournament or not, if they do enter, please follow the rules (even if it's a dumb one). 4. The player don't know/follow a rule (even if it's a dumb one), then it's his/her own fault and admins have the right to punish the player for it.
Good thing that it is not a dumb rule to not want the schedule to be delayed for several hours because of uncompetetiveness then
I don't think there should be a penalty for consciously forcing a stalemate. It's part of the game if your opponent is unable to prevent such a thing then he doesn't deserve the win and it should count as a tie. Whether it's SH stalemate, or preventing air production from opponents and flying buildings into the corner of the map with a supply deficit, etc.
after 2h draw and the rematch going the same I can't feel like the organizers are to blame here. They have a schedule to keep and after potentially 4 hour with zero progress, what are they gonna do? Giving the win to the more dominate player is imo better than doing a coin flip but each to their own I guess..
Blizzard is to blame because they haven't addressed swarm hosts already.
On April 21 2014 03:26 Dazed_Spy wrote: Shouldnt a draw cause a fucking draw? Absurd ruling.
An "absurd ruling" that stops people forcing draws after hour long stalemates over and over and leading to the rest of the tournament to fall massively behind schedule and is highly likely to be immensely boring and eventually going to piss the crowd off? This is a tournament that can't keep having one player continuously do shit like that, it's not like it takes place in their own studio ala ESL and DH tournaments. They rent that location for a certain period of time, Miniraser had already forced a regame once after 2 hours, then tried to force another after yet another hour. You really think they had to time to keep dealing with that shit after 1 game took 3 hours with no outcome whatsoever?
On April 21 2014 03:26 Dazed_Spy wrote: Shouldnt a draw cause a fucking draw? Absurd ruling.
An "absurd ruling" that stops people forcing draws after hour long stalemates over and over and leading to the rest of the tournament to fall massively behind schedule and is highly likely to be immensely boring and eventually going to piss the crowd off? This is a tournament that can't keep having one player continuously do shit like that, it's not like it takes place in their own studio ala ESL and DH tournaments. They rent that location for a certain period of time, Miniraser had already forced a regame once after 2 hours, then tried to force another after yet another hour. You really think they had to time to keep dealing with that shit after 1 game took 3 hours with no outcome whatsoever?
The reality is, its a competition. If you cant win, the only excusable action is to push for a draw, which has happened countless times in sc2 as well as broodwar. People play for draws all the time, and sometimes it makes the schedule fucked up. Thats a small fucking price to pay then to have judges rule by fiat on who wins, rather than you know, who actually won.
Competition being long, is obviously preferable to it being farcical. Which it now is.
i guess there nothing much to talk here... we are all going in circles
mini failed to follow the absurd rule and got wasted, highly ridiculous rule but legitimate (see rules) we share his sentiment in our own different point of views blaming SH, the players, organizers, game and blizz
bliz: should do something; either make radical changes or be a deaf organisers: should prepare a better ruling if this 'event' occurs; a sane, fair, logical course of action players: should read and follow the rules; should make considerations on the viewers, sponsors and self image netizens: reserves the right to whine, bash and etc., but we have to respect what been decided regardless of our opinions
An "absurd ruling" that stops people forcing draws after hour long stalemates over and over and leading to the rest of the tournament to fall massively behind schedule and is highly likely to be immensely boring and eventually going to piss the crowd off?
It stops it, but both players equally deserve to go on, hence the draw. Should a consistently winning player, who only cannon rush, be punished for bringing the tournament ahead of schedule? winning or drawing, doesn't really make a difference since both of them aren't a loss.
Sounds like a good decision. Sounds like a situation where he couldn't win so just turtled up. Sortof like if a boxer was getting beaten up then hugged the ringpost so the opponent could only land illegal shots to the back.
Quite a few sports have rules to prevent that sort of behaviour (shot clocks, points for aggression, timewasting rules).
On April 21 2014 05:38 MoonfireSpam wrote: Sounds like a good decision. Sounds like a situation where he couldn't win so just turtled up. Sortof like if a boxer was getting beaten up then hugged the ringpost so the opponent could only land illegal shots to the back.
Quite a few sports have rules to prevent that sort of behaviour (shot clocks, points for aggression, timewasting rules).
How dare you apply logic to this discussion or rational thought? I thought we were blaming Blizzard for everything?
Given the rule was there, i guess calling on it was justified. I don't like the rule, but it's very understandable from an organisational point of view.
Fundamentally, i think there's nothing wrong with going for a draw, even if intentional. For a spectator sport/game, the real problem is imo the time it takes to decide it. Especially the situations where one is mining and the other isnt, and the mining person can't defeat the other for a longer period of time, are very unsatisfactory for organizers, for viewers and for players. Personally, i look at blizzard for fixing that this is even a possibility. I don't know how exactly, but if these (specifically these kind of) stalemates become a structural problem, we can't really do anything else but turn to them. Secondly, although only slightly related to this case, one can lessen the delay by draws by counting the draws as 0.5 points for each player, instead of a regame. The player who has an lead of at least 1 point at the end of game X in a BOX wins. For last games ending in a draw, this obviously doesnt make a difference. But if 2 players would draw in game 1 and 2, the person winning game 3 wins the series. This will only lessen the time loss, it won't solve the underlying problem indeed.
It's pretty sad things turned out this way. ):
edit: I see people comparing sc2 to regular sports, for example plansix and his comparison with boxing. I think that such a rule should be implemented by blizzard, to ensure uniform ruling in all tournaments. The tournament rule is very understandable, but imo should not be necessary. Blaming blizzard for this is not justified, but monitoring these kind of games would be a good thing to do, to avoid structural damage to entertainment value.
Draws in SC2 should be a rarity, but with SHvSH turtle games, draws are way too common. It's too bad that Miniraser had to resort to dragging the game out to force a draw instead of manning up for the sake of the tournament, fans, his opponent, and himself and taking the loss. Maybe more tournaments should look into absurdly long game rulings or stalemate calling, it's so boring to watch and to play.
People need to accept one simple fact which cannot in anyway be overlooked: Tournaments have time limits that must be kept. They had already spent 3 hours on one set, how much longer would it go if they did another re-game? 1 more hour? 2? maybe another forced draw happens, that is potentially another hour or so. Therefore these rules have to be in place to prevent this from happening. Those who say it isn't bad sportsmanship, well, it is, it shows blatant disrespect to the tournament admins who now have to reorganise everything in substantially less time. I feel as though I can say, without a shadow of a doubt, that if a single game that was holding up the entire tournament was happening at DH, MLG, or WCS, to the point in which it is taking hours to finish due to forced draws, an admin would step in and end it one way or another. So, people need to stop criticising Multiplay, for two reasons: One, its in their rule set, deal with it. Two, the tournament has to move on to other games so they don't run over their allotted time restriction. The problem isn't in the rule set or the ruling that was made, as these are fail safes to ensure a single match doesn't go on for longer than it should.
Now that we have that out of the way lets look at this the way it should be looked at. The problem lies within the game design, we shouldn't be rallying against the tournament, we should be rallying against the pathetically designed unit that is the Swarm Host that allows situations like this to occur and solutions need to be presented and then forced down Blizzards throat until they actually address this long overdue issue.
The longest games used to be TvT mech versus mech into skyterran, and these were extremely rare and still only lasted about an hour and a bit at most. Now we have the potential for 2 hour+ games because as it turns out, infinite free units in a limited economy game is a very bad design.
The game needs fixing, not the rules.
TL:DR, Ruling was fair, all tournaments would of done the same, SH is broken, needs fixing by Blizzard.
The logic behind the rule is understandable, but look at it this way - if tournaments left and right start collapsing because of games involving this Swarm Host bs, then maybe Blizzard will be forced to acknowledge that something is deeply wrong with the unit. Even Infestor Broodlord didn't drag games out for hours, sad that I'm pining for that of all things.
SH vs SH turtle games barely ever happen at the highest level of play (which honestly, we should consider this game to be part of in the first place), yet somehow most of the people in this thread seem to be making it into an every day event. And then blame it on blizzard because everyone hates david kim.
On April 21 2014 02:55 Grobyc wrote: I don't think there should be a penalty for consciously forcing a stalemate. It's part of the game if your opponent is unable to prevent such a thing then he doesn't deserve the win and it should count as a tie. Whether it's SH stalemate, or preventing air production from opponents and flying buildings into the corner of the map with a supply deficit, etc.
The issue is time.
Like you have to make a call, because you only have your lan center booked for so long. So are you rather just not going to finish the tournament?
I don't think the players' are much at fault, I would blame either the original rules of the tournament not being created for this event, and two, blame game design.
On April 21 2014 04:07 NukeD wrote: Dont blame the players and tournament organizers, blame the game.
No, I think I am going to blame the player who decided to drag out every game once he realized that he couldn't win.
Fair point but my primary concern is that the game should not allow you do a stalemate of that kind in the first place.
I mean I don't see an issue with it. You start a game, and things don't go your way, and you see it's not possible to win. Instead, you go for a tie, and try to win the next game.
It's a common occurrence in chess to play for a tie, and win the next game. So it's not a completely one dimensional issue.
People need to accept one simple fact which cannot in anyway be overlooked: Tournaments have time limits that must be kept. They had already spent 3 hours on one set, how much longer would it go if they did another re-game? 1 more hour? 2? maybe another forced draw happens, that is potentially another hour or so. Therefore these rules have to be in place to prevent this from happening.
This still does not answer why Ourk should be rewarded the win. Because some admin guy thinks he played better? Because he's ahead? 2 times infinity is not a bigger number than infinity, if it's a draw, it's a draw. You can shorten the series, you can give a free win at random, but you cannot just decide a winner, that's the beef I have with this rule.
People need to accept one simple fact which cannot in anyway be overlooked: Tournaments have time limits that must be kept. They had already spent 3 hours on one set, how much longer would it go if they did another re-game? 1 more hour? 2? maybe another forced draw happens, that is potentially another hour or so. Therefore these rules have to be in place to prevent this from happening.
This still does not answer why Ourk should be rewarded the win. Because some admin guy thinks he played better? Because he's ahead? 2 times infinity is not a bigger number than infinity, if it's a draw, it's a draw. You can shorten the series, you can give a free win at random, but you cannot just decide a winner, that's the beef I have with this rule.
There is one simple reason why Ourk was given the win. 1. The rule states intentionally forcing a stalemate gives you a loss, it wasn't Ourk who did this therefore he got the win. Also, if you're having to force a draw, you're doing it because you cannot win, therefore he is in a way admitting a loss by trying to do it, by trying to find a way to have a rematch. Without delaying the tournament even further it is the only logical way of resolving the issue and any other tournament would likely have done the same. Ourk has the rules on his side, therefore he won.
People need to accept one simple fact which cannot in anyway be overlooked: Tournaments have time limits that must be kept. They had already spent 3 hours on one set, how much longer would it go if they did another re-game? 1 more hour? 2? maybe another forced draw happens, that is potentially another hour or so. Therefore these rules have to be in place to prevent this from happening.
This still does not answer why Ourk should be rewarded the win. Because some admin guy thinks he played better? Because he's ahead? 2 times infinity is not a bigger number than infinity, if it's a draw, it's a draw. You can shorten the series, you can give a free win at random, but you cannot just decide a winner, that's the beef I have with this rule.
Miniraser decided that Ourk was the winner, and demonstrated it by refusing to leave his base. When he could no longer win, he decided to turtle and force a draw.
On April 21 2014 07:37 ejozl wrote: Which brings me back to, get rid of this silly rule.
So the entire tournament should be completely delayed by hours and quite likely unable to finish because someone lost but didn't want to admit it by using something which everyone with any logical sense about the game knows needs to be patched.
On April 21 2014 04:07 NukeD wrote: Dont blame the players and tournament organizers, blame the game.
No, I think I am going to blame the player who decided to drag out every game once he realized that he couldn't win.
Fair point but my primary concern is that the game should not allow you do a stalemate of that kind in the first place.
I mean I don't see an issue with it. You start a game, and things don't go your way, and you see it's not possible to win. Instead, you go for a tie, and try to win the next game.
It's a common occurrence in chess to play for a tie, and win the next game. So it's not a completely one dimensional issue.
The main issue is that ties don't happen fast in SC2. In chess a tie takes just as long as check mate, so extra games are not a huge issue. But in SC2, draws take hour, which isn't compatible with most formats. Most sports have tie breakers just for this reason. SC2 doesn't have one and if we tried to make one the community would lose their minds. Also, playing to stalemate when you know its going to get you a loss is pretty stupid.
On April 21 2014 05:38 MoonfireSpam wrote: Sounds like a good decision. Sounds like a situation where he couldn't win so just turtled up. Sortof like if a boxer was getting beaten up then hugged the ringpost so the opponent could only land illegal shots to the back.
Quite a few sports have rules to prevent that sort of behaviour (shot clocks, points for aggression, timewasting rules).
If a boxer just turned around and hugged the post then the ref would most definitely step in warn him against it make him turn around and fight. If he were to do it again he'd get points taken off or be DQ'd from the fight. I guess the analogy works well though, he couldn't win so he did something that would either draw out the fight or get disqualified lol. btw is there a VOD of this match? I wanna see what it looks like
On April 21 2014 00:18 Kashll wrote: I can't believe people are this ignorant.
How is playing for a draw in an unwinnable position bad sportsmanship? It's fucking good play. How do you not understand the fact that going for a re-game in an unwinnable position is a +eV decision.
Is this a stupid fucking rule? Yes. If this becomes a problem to the point that it hinders tournaments, then clearly SC2 is not a good competitive game. Hopefully Blizzard will either fix it, or we should abandon it for something better. (I highly doubt that will be the case though, because for some reason proleague ZvZ's (top level players) don't seem to run into this).
Oh cool, we found someone who read Sirlin once and now thinks he is an expert in progaming and tournament organization.
I was hoping we'd see one of those in the wild at some point, I've only heard about them in fairytales.
So basically you are regurgitating someone else's opinion without any consideration as to the context. Sirlins website is not the holy gospel of eSports nor does it apply to absolutely every situation. When you are playing in a tournament, particularly one whose games have an indeterminate length and the ability to run super long (which fighting games don't by the way so you can immediately disregard some of what Sirlin argues), the schedule is king. There will be flexibility, there always has to be to make that work, however if the tournament massively overruns, you are compromising the entire event and all the players participating in it. I'm willing to bet the vast majority of SC2 tournaments have measures in place to deal with this, they simply haven't had to utilize them, with the exception of Dreamhack who has resorted to coinflips to sort this out when the schedule had to be maintained. Blizzard have designed a god-forsaken terrible unit that causes this kind of stuff to happen. These games did not occur prior to the introduction of the swarm host. One of the longest Wings of Liberty games was Boxer vs Rain, if you can believe that. Now this 3+ hour bullshit can happen (oh hey turns out infinite free units is a terrible mechanic, who knew). Tournaments must now adapt to the possibility that this might happen and where necessary take steps to prevent players from deliberately and knowingly fucking up the entire event.
iSeries is the longest running eSports tournament series in the UK. They have operated many hundreds of tournaments for all manner, they know what they are doing. This was clearly the right call in this situation and if you go into an event knowing the rules and then break them anyway, you deserve the consequences of your actions.
This was clearly the wrong call and there are many more equitable ways of dealing with the time issue if that is what is at stake. At the very worst the game should have been decided by coinflip if they were out of time.
What actually happened is that a player got punished simply because the admins "didn't approve of his play", when in actuality all that player was trying to do was maximize his chances of winning a set in a tournament (GASP).
I'm aware that tournaments have very real logistical issues that they have to deal with, and I am in no way trying to say that 3 hour swarmhost games are fun to watch or not complete bullshit. What I am saying is that there are philosophically much better and fair ways to deal with this issue.
(Ignoring the personal attacks because my position is strong enough logically that I don't have to follow you there).
On April 21 2014 00:18 Kashll wrote: I can't believe people are this ignorant.
How is playing for a draw in an unwinnable position bad sportsmanship? It's fucking good play. How do you not understand the fact that going for a re-game in an unwinnable position is a +eV decision.
Is this a stupid fucking rule? Yes. If this becomes a problem to the point that it hinders tournaments, then clearly SC2 is not a good competitive game. Hopefully Blizzard will either fix it, or we should abandon it for something better. (I highly doubt that will be the case though, because for some reason proleague ZvZ's (top level players) don't seem to run into this).
Oh cool, we found someone who read Sirlin once and now thinks he is an expert in progaming and tournament organization.
I was hoping we'd see one of those in the wild at some point, I've only heard about them in fairytales.
So basically you are regurgitating someone else's opinion without any consideration as to the context. Sirlins website is not the holy gospel of eSports nor does it apply to absolutely every situation. When you are playing in a tournament, particularly one whose games have an indeterminate length and the ability to run super long (which fighting games don't by the way so you can immediately disregard some of what Sirlin argues), the schedule is king. There will be flexibility, there always has to be to make that work, however if the tournament massively overruns, you are compromising the entire event and all the players participating in it. I'm willing to bet the vast majority of SC2 tournaments have measures in place to deal with this, they simply haven't had to utilize them, with the exception of Dreamhack who has resorted to coinflips to sort this out when the schedule had to be maintained. Blizzard have designed a god-forsaken terrible unit that causes this kind of stuff to happen. These games did not occur prior to the introduction of the swarm host. One of the longest Wings of Liberty games was Boxer vs Rain, if you can believe that. Now this 3+ hour bullshit can happen (oh hey turns out infinite free units is a terrible mechanic, who knew). Tournaments must now adapt to the possibility that this might happen and where necessary take steps to prevent players from deliberately and knowingly fucking up the entire event.
iSeries is the longest running eSports tournament series in the UK. They have operated many hundreds of tournaments for all manner, they know what they are doing. This was clearly the right call in this situation and if you go into an event knowing the rules and then break them anyway, you deserve the consequences of your actions.
This was clearly the wrong call and there are many more equitable ways of dealing with the time issue if that is what is at stake. At the very worst the game should have been decided by coinflip if they were out of time.
What actually happened is that a player got punished simply because the admins "didn't approve of his play", when in actuality all that player was trying to do was maximize his chances of winning a set in a tournament (GASP).
I'm aware that tournaments have very real logistical issues that they have to deal with, and I am in no way trying to say that 3 hour swarmhost games are fun to watch or not complete bullshit. What I am saying is that there are philosophically much better and fair ways to deal with this issue.
Except they had it explicitly posted in their rules that doing what Miniraiser did could result in being awarded a loss.
He didn't get punished. He was awarded a loss so that he couldn't force a regame indefinitely until he fluked out a win.
And the coinflip would have been the opposite of fair. Ourk was clearly in the dominant position, which is why Miniraiser retreated to his main both times. A coinflip would have been utterly unfair to Ourk.
This thread made me realize there are a lot of 12 year old kids on Team Liquid who've never actually been in a professional tournament before or hosted anything even minor.
Having a regame after 4 hours is ridiculous, just for the other players participating it's exhausting alone. When in the winners bracket of a major tournament you usually wait around ~2-3 hours just for the losers bracket to finish before you have a SINGLE GAME in any Esports event. You know how tiring waiting around for 3 hours is? Having to wait 4 hours for one match to finish is insane. You aren't on the top of your game when you have to wait 8 hours for your next match to start. Having one person waste your time on purpose in an unwinnable situation is just all the more frustrating not just for tournament organizers who have limited time and a schedule to follow but for every other damned player still in the tournament!
Every single tournament on the planet would make the same ruling, anyone who thinks otherwise is absolutely clueless about professional competition.
On April 21 2014 00:18 Kashll wrote: I can't believe people are this ignorant.
How is playing for a draw in an unwinnable position bad sportsmanship? It's fucking good play. How do you not understand the fact that going for a re-game in an unwinnable position is a +eV decision.
Is this a stupid fucking rule? Yes. If this becomes a problem to the point that it hinders tournaments, then clearly SC2 is not a good competitive game. Hopefully Blizzard will either fix it, or we should abandon it for something better. (I highly doubt that will be the case though, because for some reason proleague ZvZ's (top level players) don't seem to run into this).
Oh cool, we found someone who read Sirlin once and now thinks he is an expert in progaming and tournament organization.
I was hoping we'd see one of those in the wild at some point, I've only heard about them in fairytales.
So basically you are regurgitating someone else's opinion without any consideration as to the context. Sirlins website is not the holy gospel of eSports nor does it apply to absolutely every situation. When you are playing in a tournament, particularly one whose games have an indeterminate length and the ability to run super long (which fighting games don't by the way so you can immediately disregard some of what Sirlin argues), the schedule is king. There will be flexibility, there always has to be to make that work, however if the tournament massively overruns, you are compromising the entire event and all the players participating in it. I'm willing to bet the vast majority of SC2 tournaments have measures in place to deal with this, they simply haven't had to utilize them, with the exception of Dreamhack who has resorted to coinflips to sort this out when the schedule had to be maintained. Blizzard have designed a god-forsaken terrible unit that causes this kind of stuff to happen. These games did not occur prior to the introduction of the swarm host. One of the longest Wings of Liberty games was Boxer vs Rain, if you can believe that. Now this 3+ hour bullshit can happen (oh hey turns out infinite free units is a terrible mechanic, who knew). Tournaments must now adapt to the possibility that this might happen and where necessary take steps to prevent players from deliberately and knowingly fucking up the entire event.
iSeries is the longest running eSports tournament series in the UK. They have operated many hundreds of tournaments for all manner, they know what they are doing. This was clearly the right call in this situation and if you go into an event knowing the rules and then break them anyway, you deserve the consequences of your actions.
This was clearly the wrong call and there are many more equitable ways of dealing with the time issue if that is what is at stake. At the very worst the game should have been decided by coinflip if they were out of time.
What actually happened is that a player got punished simply because the admins "didn't approve of his play", when in actuality all that player was trying to do was maximize his chances of winning a set in a tournament (GASP).
I'm aware that tournaments have very real logistical issues that they have to deal with, and I am in no way trying to say that 3 hour swarmhost games are fun to watch or not complete bullshit. What I am saying is that there are philosophically much better and fair ways to deal with this issue.
Except they had it explicitly posted in their rules that doing what Miniraiser did could result in being awarded a loss.
He didn't get punished. He was awarded a loss so that he couldn't force a regame indefinitely until he fluked out a win.
And the coinflip would have been the opposite of fair. Ourk was clearly in the dominant position, which is why Miniraiser retreated to his main both times. A coinflip would have been utterly unfair to Ourk.
Except again in no way is the rule specific (discrete and well-defined) enough to be a good rule.
And since when is being in a better position equivalent to closing out a game. The game has a very specific and clear set of criteria for winning. Either you meet them or you don't. Let's stop chess games that go too long as well and just award the win to the person that has more material (shit I hope you didn't make a good material sacrifice on the last move).
In no way am I saying a tournament should offer multiple re-games. What I am saying is that they are out of time they need a way of arbitrating the match without FUCKING OVER one of their competitors.
On April 21 2014 08:28 Kashll wrote: In no way am I saying a tournament should offer multiple re-games. What I am saying is that they are out of time they need a way of arbitrating the match without FUCKING OVER one of their competitors.
No one was fucked over. Miniraiser is a complete douchebag for wasting the time of over 30 people at the venue and every single viewer then bitching about it afterwards.
What the hell did he think was going to happen? He was going to stall for 8 hours before someone went in and said something?
On April 21 2014 08:28 Kashll wrote: In no way am I saying a tournament should offer multiple re-games. What I am saying is that they are out of time they need a way of arbitrating the match without FUCKING OVER one of their competitors.
No one was fucked over. Miniraiser is a complete douchebag for wasting the time of over 30 people at the venue and every single viewer then bitching about it afterwards.
What the hell did he think was going to happen? He was going to stall for 8 hours before someone went in and said something?
Ignoring what he did afterwards, how is a player a complete douchebag for maximizing their chances of winning a competitive game in a tournament?
I'm pretty sure what he thought would happen is that he would demonstrate that the game was a draw, and it would get replayed or arbitrated by a coinflip, thus increasing his chances of winning the set.
On April 21 2014 08:28 Kashll wrote: In no way am I saying a tournament should offer multiple re-games. What I am saying is that they are out of time they need a way of arbitrating the match without FUCKING OVER one of their competitors.
No one was fucked over. Miniraiser is a complete douchebag for wasting the time of over 30 people at the venue and every single viewer then bitching about it afterwards.
What the hell did he think was going to happen? He was going to stall for 8 hours before someone went in and said something?
Ignoring what he did afterwards, how is a player a complete douchebag for maximizing their chances of winning a competitive game in a tournament?
I'm pretty sure what he thought would happen is that he would demonstrate that the game was a draw, and it would get replayed or arbitrated by a coinflip, thus increasing his chances of winning the set.
He wasn't going to win, though. He was bad, but good at forcing at tie. Also, if you knowingly violate the rules at an event, you get what you get. And before you say the rule is bad, that may be true, but he knew it was the rule. Regardless of if we think the rule is good, he KNEW that playing that way could result in him getting loss and he did it anyways.
Also, all rules in professional sports are ill-defined on some level and force on the intent of the player. Pass interference can be a super subjective call in US football and refs make it all the time. So is "Unsportsman like conduct"
It remember me a game between Goody and Sarens for an IEM of 2010 or 2011. It was the longest pro game of WoL (1h30 or 1h50 ?). No mineral left, tanks line vs tanks line.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
It's worth noting that draws in chess are not the same as here. While the premise is the same, chess is not real-time, meaning one player always starts first. This means that the two players have to play differently. Black has to play defensively and in general, is aiming for the draw. White, on the other hand, is playing more offensively and will win more frequently. It is far more common to get a draw in chess than it is in Starcraft II, and given the turn-based system, makes more sense to have 'Draws' as a legitimate strategy.
I am ~neutral on the situation, though. I could care less what happened, but the whole thing is pretty humorous.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Can't believe i didn't hear of this for several days! Wow
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.
yeah really horrible rule, if you cant win and feel bad about it, no one should deny you the possibility to let all other people involved, feel the same thing !
On April 21 2014 23:04 phil.ipp wrote: yeah really horrible rule, if you cant win and feel bad about it, no one should deny you the possibility to let all other people involved, feel the same thing !
When you run an event that has a schedule and people can screw it up massively, then get back to the rest of us. It's a rule designed to have an event which finishes. Think about everyone else other than the one player deliberately trying to cause stalemates. It's an event which has a set time in which it needs to be completed. Therefore they need to prevent crap like multiple 2 hour games destroying the schedule.
On April 21 2014 23:04 phil.ipp wrote: yeah really horrible rule, if you cant win and feel bad about it, no one should deny you the possibility to let all other people involved, feel the same thing !
When you run an event that has a schedule and people can screw it up massively, then get back to the rest of us. It's a rule designed to have an event which finishes. Think about everyone else other than the one player deliberately trying to cause stalemates. It's an event which has a set time in which it needs to be completed. Therefore they need to prevent crap like multiple 2 hour games destroying the schedule.
Ever heard the saying "Don't hate the player, hate the game"?
It is very true in this instance. It isn't the players fault he can delay, it is the games fault. There shouldn't be strategies in the game, available to the player that reward that. Swarm Hosts never should have been released in the state they are in. They were meant to give Zerg the ability to finish opponents in the mid game according to Blizzard...
On April 21 2014 23:50 Kevin_Sorbo wrote: still if you are beaten just gg instead of dicking around for hours.
He wasn't beaten...
tahts not what op says :
he was deliberately trying to cause a stalemate both games, he could never win game 1 or game 2 but i was still mining and trying my best to stop him from doing this but nothing worked, he had a chance the first game and it was a rematch but he did the same game 2 i think it was fair what they did.
I'd have to agree with the call made by the organizers. Yes ok, as a competitor miniraiser should have done all he can not to lose, but what he did was just unsportsmanship like conduct.
I remember SlayerS_BoxeR playing for a stalemate at that one MLG against Rain in like 2011 or something. Everyone was so excited when the casters realized what he was doing. "OHHHHH Boxer u so smart!" But I guess playing for a swarm host stalemate isn't as exciting.
On April 22 2014 00:09 MichaelDonovan wrote: I remember SlayerS_BoxeR playing for a stalemate at that one MLG against Rain in like 2011 or something. Everyone was so excited when the casters realized what he was doing. "OHHHHH Boxer u so smart!" But I guess playing for a swarm host stalemate isn't as exciting.
And he didn't do it twice in a row, having been given one regame already and take a total of 3+ hours. So uh yeah it doesn;t sound like it was exciting.
On April 22 2014 00:09 MichaelDonovan wrote: I remember SlayerS_BoxeR playing for a stalemate at that one MLG against Rain in like 2011 or something. Everyone was so excited when the casters realized what he was doing. "OHHHHH Boxer u so smart!" But I guess playing for a swarm host stalemate isn't as exciting.
This just in: Swarm Host turtling with 200 spores and vipers is much more stupid than an attempt at a draw TvT! Who knew?? I mean how does Terran even try to force a draw against Terran right from the start of the game??
On April 22 2014 00:09 MichaelDonovan wrote: I remember SlayerS_BoxeR playing for a stalemate at that one MLG against Rain in like 2011 or something. Everyone was so excited when the casters realized what he was doing. "OHHHHH Boxer u so smart!" But I guess playing for a swarm host stalemate isn't as exciting.
This just in: Swarm Host turtling with 200 spores and vipers is much more stupid than an attempt at a draw TvT! Who knew?? I mean how does Terran even try to force a draw against Terran right from the start of the game??
On April 22 2014 00:09 MichaelDonovan wrote: I remember SlayerS_BoxeR playing for a stalemate at that one MLG against Rain in like 2011 or something. Everyone was so excited when the casters realized what he was doing. "OHHHHH Boxer u so smart!" But I guess playing for a swarm host stalemate isn't as exciting.
This just in: Swarm Host turtling with 200 spores and vipers is much more stupid than an attempt at a draw TvT! Who knew?? I mean how does Terran even try to force a draw against Terran right from the start of the game??
On April 22 2014 00:09 MichaelDonovan wrote: I remember SlayerS_BoxeR playing for a stalemate at that one MLG against Rain in like 2011 or something. Everyone was so excited when the casters realized what he was doing. "OHHHHH Boxer u so smart!" But I guess playing for a swarm host stalemate isn't as exciting.
This just in: Swarm Host turtling with 200 spores and vipers is much more stupid than an attempt at a draw TvT! Who knew?? I mean how does Terran even try to force a draw against Terran right from the start of the game??
Rain is Protoss.
No, this is the old Terran Rain, not the Kespa one. Note the year: 2011, before Kespa joined SC2.
On April 23 2014 05:22 ZenithM wrote: Seems pretty shady, but I can't say it saddens me much. Everything killing turtle play and Swarmhost abuse is (mostly) good ;D
There's nothing inherently wrong with turtle play as a concept. It's a good thing for the game that it's possible. The issue is that turtle play is too strong on some maps, and certain units completely ruin the concept. The swarm host, for example, is the most cost efficient unit in the game if used correctly by a massive amount. Ignore the free units part, that's not relevant. What is relevant is that if you consider the units they spawn an attack, the swarm host has the longest range of any unit in the game, stalls enemies that try to approach it, and they are burrowed making the ability to attack them non-trivial to obtain. They do a ton of damage, can't be broken head on, and they're too powerful. Swarm hosts are basically burrowed tanks with twice to three times the range and do enough damage that they can wipe out entire armies that try to push into them. That's the problem with them.