Man, are you even reading the thread? Nobody is saying to remove the lifting completely and nobody is angry at Terran lifting. It's a great mechanic on it's own. The problem is that it can be done indefinitely which in some situations gives Terran a choice to draw a game that would otherwise be lost.
otherwise be lost? why? If the opponent does not have the ability to kill the buildings why should he deserve to win?
because the other 2 races flat out would lose in similar position.
Now if you think Terran deserves this bonus, fine, each to his own, but dont pretend you dont understand why people find this a problem.
How about Terran doesn't have adetection and Protoss has so many DTs Terran can't kill the last NExus, but Protoss can't make probes, what now?
Edit> This is similar problem, with a RAVEN you would be able to kill Protoss but since you don't have any detecting unit...
There are many scenarios, and most matchups have a roughly similar situation if you turn it around.
Terrans have cloacked units as well, Im sure all of you seen games that were won by terran because of lack of detection on the Z/P part. It' s a legit technique in almost every MU to snipe overseers/observers and win with cloack units.
Similarily with flying units, or ranged units, or early static defence, or proxies, drops etc...
All of this mechanis work both ways. Sure DTs are perma-cloacked and zerg can only proxy a hatchery, but there is always something for both sides.
except for the force a draw by floating
I don't see the difference
Buidlings are Win conditions. Units are not. Only Terran can make their opponents Win condition inaccessible without the need for their own units (Protoss needing a deathball or DTs to defend their nexus is not the same as a flying Nexus in a corner that marines couldn't even shoot). There is no offense, there is no defense. The King is simply not on the board.
you can also force draws by building cannons/spines when the opponent doesn't have enough units to kill them. then they also force draws without the need for their own units.
That's a draw because they are not willing to engage, not because they are incapable of engaging, the player offering the draw is at risk of losing, the other player could theoretically attempt it if said static D couldn't win them the game if they lost and the draw becomes apparent regardless of agreements. Not having enough units isn't the same as having units, even more than enough units, that are prevented from engaging in any way.
That's really nit-picking here. If you have 1 Zealot vs 20 Spines it's really not a "choice" to engage or not.
On March 18 2019 04:16 TrashEconomy wrote: Have any of you considered making a single air unit if you think Terran floating is just so terrible and unfair?
A single. Air unit.
Oh, you can't afford to make a single air unit?
In the match you 'won'?
Interesting.
most people who care about this don't think it's imbalanced unless they're in gold league, it's just a stupid mechanic that adds nothing, is required for nothing, and directly leads to a lot of boring games and griefing on ladder
Yeah, it's a stupid mechanic that also plays an important role in lategame/basetrade strategy.
Lifting is how Terran punishes a Protoss/Zerg for abusing the dominance it otherwise has during basetrades/scrappy lategames. Yeah, you get teleportation and decentralized production: but if you screw it up, you can be put in a situation where all you can do is draw or lose.
Being angry at Terran lifting is simply childish. OK, get rid of it- what are we going to replace it with? Want to give Terran a teleportation mechanic? I'll take that, thanks. I also think that Zerg getting endless sources of free units is a stupid mechanic, but it's obviously necessary to the current state of the game and removing it would have cascading effects.
Man, are you even reading the thread? Nobody is saying to remove the lifting completely and nobody is angry at Terran lifting. It's a great mechanic on it's own. The problem is that it can be done indefinitely which in some situations gives Terran a choice to draw a game that would otherwise be lost.
otherwise be lost? why? If the opponent does not have the ability to kill the buildings why should he deserve to win?
because the other 2 races flat out would lose in similar position.
Now if you think Terran deserves this bonus, fine, each to his own, but dont pretend you dont understand why people find this a problem.
If a Protoss has nothing left except DTs and the opponent has no detection he wins. Unfair?
Lol, no? That's not how this game works? You don't have to kill those DTs to win. The win condition is to destroy the buildings.
and if you're incapable of doing that because the buildings are protected by DTs?
That's still an agreed upon draw that requires armies to fight, though the spore/spine/creep tumour is one thing the logic of this is making me agree with, since you could technically win the game against Protoss with only those buildings left.
There is still a vast difference between two players agreeing to a draw with two armies because they could both lose depending on the result of a fight they aren't willing to take, and only one party being at risk of losing and as a result forced to agree. Both players should have to be doing the same risk analysis when making the decision to draw, and that's just not the case.
On March 18 2019 03:24 yubo56 wrote: This has been discussed to death lol, this is probably the most commonly raised solution.
I don't mind the mechanic, every race has small advantages in base trades (terran buildings can float in corner, zerg doesn't have to lose overlords while P/T always lose their supply structures making rebuilding harder, protoss has recall). I think forcing players to respect these asymmetries and account for them in their winning strategy isn't unreasonable.
I wish draw offers were easier to make in SC2 though; pausing the game and waiting a few minutes for an organizer to come over is pretty annoying, as is waiting for the in-game stalemate timer (e.g. on ladder).
It's not an advantage or a winning strategy though, it's an asymmetry that allows for a draw mechanic unevenly. All three races have access to wins and losses through the asymmetry of their races, and whether any of those are unfair or imbalanced is a separate constant discussion on it's own, but this draw mechanic isn't a part of that because no other race has access to something similar. Having an advantage in winning or losing a base trade isn't the same as being able to not lose.
Where your first argument is that it allows for a "draw mechanic unevenly". And "this draw mechanic isn't a part of that because of no other race has access to something similar."
So how is being able to float your buildings not an advantage?
And what is so differently different except that we have three races which are different? Or are you just agreeing that Terran is different from Protoss and Zerg? - Yes, I agree.
"A stalemate that exists because both parties aren't willing to engage in a fight and losing it and both agreeing they aren't risking it is not the same when one party can remove the risk of losing at all."
So what is the context I removed without explicit permission, but seems to be very important? How else can I interpret "when one party can remove the risk of losing at all". Isn't the risk of losing (ALSO) removed when one party wins? So there are always two parties who can remove the risks of losing in a match. So what are you saying?
On March 20 2019 05:33 hg2g2 wrote: That's still an agreed upon draw that requires armies to fight, though the spore/spine/creep tumour is one thing the logic of this is making me agree with, since you could technically win the game against Protoss with only those buildings left.
If you have a creep tumour then you could slowly chase down that zealot with your spines until you corner him somewhere and win yeah.
Floating damage is a monobattles mechanic. Liftoff is part of terran identity and it doesn't make sense to patch in something weird here.
On March 20 2019 02:11 Geo.Rion wrote: [quote] because the other 2 races flat out would lose in similar position.
Now if you think Terran deserves this bonus, fine, each to his own, but dont pretend you dont understand why people find this a problem.
How about Terran doesn't have adetection and Protoss has so many DTs Terran can't kill the last NExus, but Protoss can't make probes, what now?
Edit> This is similar problem, with a RAVEN you would be able to kill Protoss but since you don't have any detecting unit...
There are many scenarios, and most matchups have a roughly similar situation if you turn it around.
Terrans have cloacked units as well, Im sure all of you seen games that were won by terran because of lack of detection on the Z/P part. It' s a legit technique in almost every MU to snipe overseers/observers and win with cloack units.
Similarily with flying units, or ranged units, or early static defence, or proxies, drops etc...
All of this mechanis work both ways. Sure DTs are perma-cloacked and zerg can only proxy a hatchery, but there is always something for both sides.
except for the force a draw by floating
I don't see the difference
Buidlings are Win conditions. Units are not. Only Terran can make their opponents Win condition inaccessible without the need for their own units (Protoss needing a deathball or DTs to defend their nexus is not the same as a flying Nexus in a corner that marines couldn't even shoot). There is no offense, there is no defense. The King is simply not on the board.
you can also force draws by building cannons/spines when the opponent doesn't have enough units to kill them. then they also force draws without the need for their own units.
That's a draw because they are not willing to engage, not because they are incapable of engaging, the player offering the draw is at risk of losing, the other player could theoretically attempt it if said static D couldn't win them the game if they lost and the draw becomes apparent regardless of agreements. Not having enough units isn't the same as having units, even more than enough units, that are prevented from engaging in any way.
That's really nit-picking here. If you have 1 Zealot vs 20 Spines it's really not a "choice" to engage or not.
On March 20 2019 04:38 Majick wrote:
On March 20 2019 02:31 Charoisaur wrote:
On March 20 2019 02:11 Geo.Rion wrote:
On March 20 2019 02:03 Charoisaur wrote:
On March 19 2019 23:37 Majick wrote:
On March 19 2019 22:16 TrashEconomy wrote:
On March 18 2019 11:29 brickrd wrote: [quote] most people who care about this don't think it's imbalanced unless they're in gold league, it's just a stupid mechanic that adds nothing, is required for nothing, and directly leads to a lot of boring games and griefing on ladder
Yeah, it's a stupid mechanic that also plays an important role in lategame/basetrade strategy.
Lifting is how Terran punishes a Protoss/Zerg for abusing the dominance it otherwise has during basetrades/scrappy lategames. Yeah, you get teleportation and decentralized production: but if you screw it up, you can be put in a situation where all you can do is draw or lose.
Being angry at Terran lifting is simply childish. OK, get rid of it- what are we going to replace it with? Want to give Terran a teleportation mechanic? I'll take that, thanks. I also think that Zerg getting endless sources of free units is a stupid mechanic, but it's obviously necessary to the current state of the game and removing it would have cascading effects.
Man, are you even reading the thread? Nobody is saying to remove the lifting completely and nobody is angry at Terran lifting. It's a great mechanic on it's own. The problem is that it can be done indefinitely which in some situations gives Terran a choice to draw a game that would otherwise be lost.
otherwise be lost? why? If the opponent does not have the ability to kill the buildings why should he deserve to win?
because the other 2 races flat out would lose in similar position.
Now if you think Terran deserves this bonus, fine, each to his own, but dont pretend you dont understand why people find this a problem.
If a Protoss has nothing left except DTs and the opponent has no detection he wins. Unfair?
Lol, no? That's not how this game works? You don't have to kill those DTs to win. The win condition is to destroy the buildings.
and if you're incapable of doing that because the buildings are protected by DTs?
That is when you write 'gg' and leave. Except if you are Terran, then you can lift your building, fly to the corner and go for a beer with your buddies with NO RISK of losing if opponent doesn't have air.
Ah I get it. Only Protoss is allowed to win/draw a game they should have lost.
I mean, it's obvious you are arguing in bad faith and don't actually care about how people respond, but your argument is absolutely horrid. If a base trade occurs and the opponent has a better equipped army to deal with the scenario, then they have won fair and square. It's no different than a zerg taking out all detection from an opponent and surrounding their last hatchery with lurkers or something. They made a strategic choice that won them the game because now the onus is on the opponent to attack or leave the game. The person with the worse army is the one who has to make something happen in these scenarios.
The issue people have is that as it stands, not all 3 races have an equal chance to win in a basetrade. For Protoss and Zerg, there is a trade-off that occurs where they have to have both units to defend and attack, and committing more units to one or the other has consequences. Terran doesn't currently have that risk, and this seems out of place given that basically every other scenario and decision in a game of starcraft has some form of inherent risk attached to it. There is no strategic element to "all of my units are dead so I'm going float all my buildings in a corner and go get a cup of coffee". This mechanic has been terrible since WoL, and should have been dealt with years ago. When this mechanic is used, it's mostly for abusive purposes (trolling opponents, wasting people's time at the end of a game, stuff like that).
Guys (and Dames)! When it goes to that degree you cannot anymore see his/hers (there are no many 'hers') point to a discussion, maybe its better just change the perspective and play from the that perspective. Just change your race and check yourself does your whining hold in peer-reviewed scrutiny.
was posting in the avilo fan club thread, and then saw this thread, and laughed. just going to leave this video here. lifted off buildings running out of gas would be a fine idea, it would result in more avilo rage
On March 20 2019 02:38 deacon.frost wrote: [quote] How about Terran doesn't have adetection and Protoss has so many DTs Terran can't kill the last NExus, but Protoss can't make probes, what now?
Edit> This is similar problem, with a RAVEN you would be able to kill Protoss but since you don't have any detecting unit...
There are many scenarios, and most matchups have a roughly similar situation if you turn it around.
Terrans have cloacked units as well, Im sure all of you seen games that were won by terran because of lack of detection on the Z/P part. It' s a legit technique in almost every MU to snipe overseers/observers and win with cloack units.
Similarily with flying units, or ranged units, or early static defence, or proxies, drops etc...
All of this mechanis work both ways. Sure DTs are perma-cloacked and zerg can only proxy a hatchery, but there is always something for both sides.
except for the force a draw by floating
I don't see the difference
Buidlings are Win conditions. Units are not. Only Terran can make their opponents Win condition inaccessible without the need for their own units (Protoss needing a deathball or DTs to defend their nexus is not the same as a flying Nexus in a corner that marines couldn't even shoot). There is no offense, there is no defense. The King is simply not on the board.
you can also force draws by building cannons/spines when the opponent doesn't have enough units to kill them. then they also force draws without the need for their own units.
That's a draw because they are not willing to engage, not because they are incapable of engaging, the player offering the draw is at risk of losing, the other player could theoretically attempt it if said static D couldn't win them the game if they lost and the draw becomes apparent regardless of agreements. Not having enough units isn't the same as having units, even more than enough units, that are prevented from engaging in any way.
That's really nit-picking here. If you have 1 Zealot vs 20 Spines it's really not a "choice" to engage or not.
On March 20 2019 04:38 Majick wrote:
On March 20 2019 02:31 Charoisaur wrote:
On March 20 2019 02:11 Geo.Rion wrote:
On March 20 2019 02:03 Charoisaur wrote:
On March 19 2019 23:37 Majick wrote:
On March 19 2019 22:16 TrashEconomy wrote: [quote]
Yeah, it's a stupid mechanic that also plays an important role in lategame/basetrade strategy.
Lifting is how Terran punishes a Protoss/Zerg for abusing the dominance it otherwise has during basetrades/scrappy lategames. Yeah, you get teleportation and decentralized production: but if you screw it up, you can be put in a situation where all you can do is draw or lose.
Being angry at Terran lifting is simply childish. OK, get rid of it- what are we going to replace it with? Want to give Terran a teleportation mechanic? I'll take that, thanks. I also think that Zerg getting endless sources of free units is a stupid mechanic, but it's obviously necessary to the current state of the game and removing it would have cascading effects.
Man, are you even reading the thread? Nobody is saying to remove the lifting completely and nobody is angry at Terran lifting. It's a great mechanic on it's own. The problem is that it can be done indefinitely which in some situations gives Terran a choice to draw a game that would otherwise be lost.
otherwise be lost? why? If the opponent does not have the ability to kill the buildings why should he deserve to win?
because the other 2 races flat out would lose in similar position.
Now if you think Terran deserves this bonus, fine, each to his own, but dont pretend you dont understand why people find this a problem.
If a Protoss has nothing left except DTs and the opponent has no detection he wins. Unfair?
Lol, no? That's not how this game works? You don't have to kill those DTs to win. The win condition is to destroy the buildings.
and if you're incapable of doing that because the buildings are protected by DTs?
That is when you write 'gg' and leave. Except if you are Terran, then you can lift your building, fly to the corner and go for a beer with your buddies with NO RISK of losing if opponent doesn't have air.
Ah I get it. Only Protoss is allowed to win/draw a game they should have lost.
I mean, it's obvious you are arguing in bad faith and don't actually care about how people respond, but your argument is absolutely horrid. If a base trade occurs and the opponent has a better equipped army to deal with the scenario, then they have won fair and square. It's no different than a zerg taking out all detection from an opponent and surrounding their last hatchery with lurkers or something. They made a strategic choice that won them the game because now the onus is on the opponent to attack or leave the game. The person with the worse army is the one who has to make something happen in these scenarios.
Ah so we agree then. But why do you think a Zerg/Toss with no flying unit is better equipped to deal with the baserace then the terran? It's the exact same situation.
I don't get some of this. I mean, I get why people do it, but the argument that "this doesn't affect [an arbitrarily large percentage] of games so it's a non-issue and nobody should be talking about this" is completely absurd. Most people seem to agree that stalemates don't happen most of the time, nobody is seriously arguing that (are they?). But the idea that nothing should ever be discussed nor fixed unless it does affect [arbitrarily large percentage] of games is so wrong and such a non-factor in the discussion at hand.
Imo, people who don't care about fixing the problem really shouldn't have a say in whether or not everyone else should try to fix it. The problem is real and it has existed in the game for ten years. And now (for the hundredth time, actually) a lot of people are thinking about reasonable ways to fix stalemates in ways that are more fair for all players. All players, like, what's wrong with that?
I think it's about time it gets changed since, regardless of how often it happens, it has and always will feel incredibly bad to players at all skill levels whenever it does, and it feels bad for viewers as well. On top of that, the majority of the vocal community that cares about it seems to really want it changed, and the majority of the vocal community that doesn't care doesn't want it changed.
If you're against any of that, against making the game better or in favor of shutting down or warping the conversation to make it feel like a less valid conversation to have in this forum, your arguments are the ones that seem pret-ty invalid to me.
Why can't we talk about changing the terms and effects of stalemate scenarios in ways that don't heavily favor one set of players over, might lead to fewer extremely feel-bad game wins/losses, and might lead to fewer upset discussions in forums in confusion on social media after an upsetting ending to a high-profile tournament victory/loss? I think it's the perfect time to talk about it again, and I'm clearly not the only one, so can one of the people against all of this explain why we shouldn't talk and why nothing should change?
Sure, there are other things we can be talking about (late-game design, bizarre tournament rules, so on and so on), but that doesn't make this discussion invalid. Talk about all of it, they're all things that can be done better, stalemates and feel-terrible losses and trolling that is directly caused by floating buildings is one of them.
On March 20 2019 02:59 Geo.Rion wrote: [quote] There are many scenarios, and most matchups have a roughly similar situation if you turn it around.
Terrans have cloacked units as well, Im sure all of you seen games that were won by terran because of lack of detection on the Z/P part. It' s a legit technique in almost every MU to snipe overseers/observers and win with cloack units.
Similarily with flying units, or ranged units, or early static defence, or proxies, drops etc...
All of this mechanis work both ways. Sure DTs are perma-cloacked and zerg can only proxy a hatchery, but there is always something for both sides.
except for the force a draw by floating
I don't see the difference
Buidlings are Win conditions. Units are not. Only Terran can make their opponents Win condition inaccessible without the need for their own units (Protoss needing a deathball or DTs to defend their nexus is not the same as a flying Nexus in a corner that marines couldn't even shoot). There is no offense, there is no defense. The King is simply not on the board.
you can also force draws by building cannons/spines when the opponent doesn't have enough units to kill them. then they also force draws without the need for their own units.
That's a draw because they are not willing to engage, not because they are incapable of engaging, the player offering the draw is at risk of losing, the other player could theoretically attempt it if said static D couldn't win them the game if they lost and the draw becomes apparent regardless of agreements. Not having enough units isn't the same as having units, even more than enough units, that are prevented from engaging in any way.
That's really nit-picking here. If you have 1 Zealot vs 20 Spines it's really not a "choice" to engage or not.
On March 20 2019 04:38 Majick wrote:
On March 20 2019 02:31 Charoisaur wrote:
On March 20 2019 02:11 Geo.Rion wrote:
On March 20 2019 02:03 Charoisaur wrote:
On March 19 2019 23:37 Majick wrote: [quote]
Man, are you even reading the thread? Nobody is saying to remove the lifting completely and nobody is angry at Terran lifting. It's a great mechanic on it's own. The problem is that it can be done indefinitely which in some situations gives Terran a choice to draw a game that would otherwise be lost.
otherwise be lost? why? If the opponent does not have the ability to kill the buildings why should he deserve to win?
because the other 2 races flat out would lose in similar position.
Now if you think Terran deserves this bonus, fine, each to his own, but dont pretend you dont understand why people find this a problem.
If a Protoss has nothing left except DTs and the opponent has no detection he wins. Unfair?
Lol, no? That's not how this game works? You don't have to kill those DTs to win. The win condition is to destroy the buildings.
and if you're incapable of doing that because the buildings are protected by DTs?
That is when you write 'gg' and leave. Except if you are Terran, then you can lift your building, fly to the corner and go for a beer with your buddies with NO RISK of losing if opponent doesn't have air.
Ah I get it. Only Protoss is allowed to win/draw a game they should have lost.
I mean, it's obvious you are arguing in bad faith and don't actually care about how people respond, but your argument is absolutely horrid. If a base trade occurs and the opponent has a better equipped army to deal with the scenario, then they have won fair and square. It's no different than a zerg taking out all detection from an opponent and surrounding their last hatchery with lurkers or something. They made a strategic choice that won them the game because now the onus is on the opponent to attack or leave the game. The person with the worse army is the one who has to make something happen in these scenarios.
Ah so we agree then. But why do you think a Zerg/Toss with no flying unit is better equipped to deal with the baserace then the terran? It's the exact same situation.
Protoss and Zerg buildings are all on the ground and cannot be moved to places that ground-to-ground and air-to-ground units cannot attack. Terran buildings can. And there are fewer cheap Protoss and Zerg units that can attack ground-to-air or air-to-air than can attack to-ground while Terran has Marines (and Ghosts which can attack ground-to-air and cloak).
On March 18 2019 03:24 yubo56 wrote: This has been discussed to death lol, this is probably the most commonly raised solution.
I don't mind the mechanic, every race has small advantages in base trades (terran buildings can float in corner, zerg doesn't have to lose overlords while P/T always lose their supply structures making rebuilding harder, protoss has recall). I think forcing players to respect these asymmetries and account for them in their winning strategy isn't unreasonable.
I wish draw offers were easier to make in SC2 though; pausing the game and waiting a few minutes for an organizer to come over is pretty annoying, as is waiting for the in-game stalemate timer (e.g. on ladder).
It's not an advantage or a winning strategy though, it's an asymmetry that allows for a draw mechanic unevenly. All three races have access to wins and losses through the asymmetry of their races, and whether any of those are unfair or imbalanced is a separate constant discussion on it's own, but this draw mechanic isn't a part of that because no other race has access to something similar. Having an advantage in winning or losing a base trade isn't the same as being able to not lose.
Where your first argument is that it allows for a "draw mechanic unevenly". And "this draw mechanic isn't a part of that because of no other race has access to something similar."
So how is being able to float your buildings not an advantage?
And what is so differently different except that we have three races which are different? Or are you just agreeing that Terran is different from Protoss and Zerg? - Yes, I agree.
"A stalemate that exists because both parties aren't willing to engage in a fight and losing it and both agreeing they aren't risking it is not the same when one party can remove the risk of losing at all."
So what is the context I removed without explicit permission, but seems to be very important? How else can I interpret "when one party can remove the risk of losing at all". Isn't the risk of losing (ALSO) removed when one party wins? So there are always two parties who can remove the risks of losing in a match. So what are you saying?
So, your argument is "I'm going to talk around everything and put all the pressure back on everyone else instead of having a real conversation"? Disregarding the context and other points, talking around the conversation, and putting all of the weight on everyone else, just more bad faith "arguing" overall.
Unless I'm reading all of this incorrectly, in which case I'd like to ask that you rephrase literally everything because it's so hard to understand what your points are besides apparently trying to make people feel bad.
On March 20 2019 06:21 DSh1 wrote: I really don't know where to start, but since I have time, let me help you. I picked out your first post.
On March 19 2019 23:49 hg2g2 wrote:
On March 18 2019 03:24 yubo56 wrote: This has been discussed to death lol, this is probably the most commonly raised solution.
I don't mind the mechanic, every race has small advantages in base trades (terran buildings can float in corner, zerg doesn't have to lose overlords while P/T always lose their supply structures making rebuilding harder, protoss has recall). I think forcing players to respect these asymmetries and account for them in their winning strategy isn't unreasonable.
I wish draw offers were easier to make in SC2 though; pausing the game and waiting a few minutes for an organizer to come over is pretty annoying, as is waiting for the in-game stalemate timer (e.g. on ladder).
It's not an advantage or a winning strategy though, it's an asymmetry that allows for a draw mechanic unevenly. All three races have access to wins and losses through the asymmetry of their races, and whether any of those are unfair or imbalanced is a separate constant discussion on it's own, but this draw mechanic isn't a part of that because no other race has access to something similar. Having an advantage in winning or losing a base trade isn't the same as being able to not lose.
Where your first argument is that it allows for a "draw mechanic unevenly". And "this draw mechanic isn't a part of that because of no other race has access to something similar."
So how is being able to float your buildings not an advantage?
And what is so differently different except that we have three races which are different? Or are you just agreeing that Terran is different from Protoss and Zerg? - Yes, I agree.
"A stalemate that exists because both parties aren't willing to engage in a fight and losing it and both agreeing they aren't risking it is not the same when one party can remove the risk of losing at all."
So what is the context I removed without explicit permission, but seems to be very important? How else can I interpret "when one party can remove the risk of losing at all". Isn't the risk of losing (ALSO) removed when one party wins? So there are always two parties who can remove the risks of losing in a match. So what are you saying?
So, your argument is "I'm going to talk around everything and put all the pressure back on everyone else instead of having a real conversation"? Disregarding the context and other points, talking around the conversation, and putting all of the weight on everyone else, just more bad faith "arguing" overall.
Unless I'm reading all of this incorrectly, in which case I'd like to ask that you rephrase literally everything because it's so hard to understand what your points are besides apparently trying to make people feel bad.
this thread man..... really hurts the brain.
the solution i proposed and how it works out in non-applicable and applicable situation:
as said before, after X seconds of being lifted off, all floating buildings will lose 1%hp/sec (or .5%hp/sec whatever) this will not affect people switching buildings because the value X will be greater than the few seconds required to do that. floating to an expansion can take some time and sometimes you get delayed with your expo floating. i don't want to penalize this player either. so maybe make X more than 60 seconds, perhaps a couple of minutes.
i don't want to penalize floaty scouts either so that makes the case for X being larger
so maybe X becomes 5 minutes.
It still prevents stalemates and does not impact actual game play in any way.
the only counter-argument is terrans DESERVE stalemates instead of losses. who wan's to die on that hill?
On March 20 2019 02:59 Geo.Rion wrote: [quote] There are many scenarios, and most matchups have a roughly similar situation if you turn it around.
Terrans have cloacked units as well, Im sure all of you seen games that were won by terran because of lack of detection on the Z/P part. It' s a legit technique in almost every MU to snipe overseers/observers and win with cloack units.
Similarily with flying units, or ranged units, or early static defence, or proxies, drops etc...
All of this mechanis work both ways. Sure DTs are perma-cloacked and zerg can only proxy a hatchery, but there is always something for both sides.
except for the force a draw by floating
I don't see the difference
Buidlings are Win conditions. Units are not. Only Terran can make their opponents Win condition inaccessible without the need for their own units (Protoss needing a deathball or DTs to defend their nexus is not the same as a flying Nexus in a corner that marines couldn't even shoot). There is no offense, there is no defense. The King is simply not on the board.
you can also force draws by building cannons/spines when the opponent doesn't have enough units to kill them. then they also force draws without the need for their own units.
That's a draw because they are not willing to engage, not because they are incapable of engaging, the player offering the draw is at risk of losing, the other player could theoretically attempt it if said static D couldn't win them the game if they lost and the draw becomes apparent regardless of agreements. Not having enough units isn't the same as having units, even more than enough units, that are prevented from engaging in any way.
That's really nit-picking here. If you have 1 Zealot vs 20 Spines it's really not a "choice" to engage or not.
On March 20 2019 04:38 Majick wrote:
On March 20 2019 02:31 Charoisaur wrote:
On March 20 2019 02:11 Geo.Rion wrote:
On March 20 2019 02:03 Charoisaur wrote:
On March 19 2019 23:37 Majick wrote: [quote]
Man, are you even reading the thread? Nobody is saying to remove the lifting completely and nobody is angry at Terran lifting. It's a great mechanic on it's own. The problem is that it can be done indefinitely which in some situations gives Terran a choice to draw a game that would otherwise be lost.
otherwise be lost? why? If the opponent does not have the ability to kill the buildings why should he deserve to win?
because the other 2 races flat out would lose in similar position.
Now if you think Terran deserves this bonus, fine, each to his own, but dont pretend you dont understand why people find this a problem.
If a Protoss has nothing left except DTs and the opponent has no detection he wins. Unfair?
Lol, no? That's not how this game works? You don't have to kill those DTs to win. The win condition is to destroy the buildings.
and if you're incapable of doing that because the buildings are protected by DTs?
That is when you write 'gg' and leave. Except if you are Terran, then you can lift your building, fly to the corner and go for a beer with your buddies with NO RISK of losing if opponent doesn't have air.
Ah I get it. Only Protoss is allowed to win/draw a game they should have lost.
I mean, it's obvious you are arguing in bad faith and don't actually care about how people respond, but your argument is absolutely horrid. If a base trade occurs and the opponent has a better equipped army to deal with the scenario, then they have won fair and square. It's no different than a zerg taking out all detection from an opponent and surrounding their last hatchery with lurkers or something. They made a strategic choice that won them the game because now the onus is on the opponent to attack or leave the game. The person with the worse army is the one who has to make something happen in these scenarios.
Ah so we agree then. But why do you think a Zerg/Toss with no flying unit is better equipped to deal with the baserace then the terran? It's the exact same situation.
Thank you for proving my point that you are arguing in bad faith and don't actually want to discuss the topic at hand. Why even bother posting in this thread if all you are going to do is argue against win conditions that don't exist and deliberately ignore what people are saying about the actual topic at hand.
There are basically no draw games in PvP, ZvZ, or ZvP because base races pretty much always result in one person losing because of having fewer units, the wrong tech, or just not killing their opponent in time (of course there's the odd exception but it's quite rare). It makes no sense that this is not also the case in the terran matchups. Doubly so because there can be cases where the terran can be at 0 supply with no army yet still get a draw despite the opponent having army.
And yes, the Avilo game above is exactly what I referencing (I linked that exacted game on page 3 or so in my argument on how this should be fixed). That is exactly what should not be allowed. This mechanic enables behaviour that is toxic and enables trolling. As I said before, I'm sure everyone's played a Terran who has lost the game and then floated their buildings instead of leaving the game, forcing the opponent to tech to air and waste 10+ minutes hunting down buildings just to end the game.
-If every terran building is lifted, they are destroyed after 10minutes have passed.
This would have no affect on scouting with a barracks or a factory which can keep floating all game long as long as you have a single building that is touching the ground.
How about, if a building is up in the air, it does not count towards your active buildings. Which is to say, if your opponent destroys every building that you have on the ground, you will lose the game, as flying buildings don't count. They would have to be on the ground.
And to avoid the condition being so harsh, have a timer, so if you have no buildings on the ground, you'll have a countdown, say 5 minutes, and if you do not land any of your buildings, you will lose the game. Every time you land a building the countdown resets.
On March 20 2019 12:20 GhostLinkSC wrote: How about, if a building is up in the air, it does not count towards your active buildings. Which is to say, if your opponent destroys every building that you have on the ground, you will lose the game, as flying buildings don't count. They would have to be on the ground.
And to avoid the condition being so harsh, have a timer, so if you have no buildings on the ground, you'll have a countdown, say 5 minutes, and if you do not land any of your buildings, you will lose the game. Every time you land a building the countdown resets.
You stole my idea, brah! I guess this is the most elegant solution to the problem i've been talking about since that Polt vs Strange BS. I'll add though that 5 min is too long. It has to be like 20-30 seconds at best to avoid landing and lifting buildings in different corners of the map. In addition, having ANY building in the air should prevent the stalemate timer form starting.
On March 20 2019 06:21 DSh1 wrote: I really don't know where to start, but since I have time, let me help you. I picked out your first post.
On March 19 2019 23:49 hg2g2 wrote:
On March 18 2019 03:24 yubo56 wrote: This has been discussed to death lol, this is probably the most commonly raised solution.
I don't mind the mechanic, every race has small advantages in base trades (terran buildings can float in corner, zerg doesn't have to lose overlords while P/T always lose their supply structures making rebuilding harder, protoss has recall). I think forcing players to respect these asymmetries and account for them in their winning strategy isn't unreasonable.
I wish draw offers were easier to make in SC2 though; pausing the game and waiting a few minutes for an organizer to come over is pretty annoying, as is waiting for the in-game stalemate timer (e.g. on ladder).
It's not an advantage or a winning strategy though, it's an asymmetry that allows for a draw mechanic unevenly. All three races have access to wins and losses through the asymmetry of their races, and whether any of those are unfair or imbalanced is a separate constant discussion on it's own, but this draw mechanic isn't a part of that because no other race has access to something similar. Having an advantage in winning or losing a base trade isn't the same as being able to not lose.
Where your first argument is that it allows for a "draw mechanic unevenly". And "this draw mechanic isn't a part of that because of no other race has access to something similar."
So how is being able to float your buildings not an advantage?
And what is so differently different except that we have three races which are different? Or are you just agreeing that Terran is different from Protoss and Zerg? - Yes, I agree.
"A stalemate that exists because both parties aren't willing to engage in a fight and losing it and both agreeing they aren't risking it is not the same when one party can remove the risk of losing at all."
So what is the context I removed without explicit permission, but seems to be very important? How else can I interpret "when one party can remove the risk of losing at all". Isn't the risk of losing (ALSO) removed when one party wins? So there are always two parties who can remove the risks of losing in a match. So what are you saying?
So, your argument is "I'm going to talk around everything and put all the pressure back on everyone else instead of having a real conversation"? Disregarding the context and other points, talking around the conversation, and putting all of the weight on everyone else, just more bad faith "arguing" overall.
Unless I'm reading all of this incorrectly, in which case I'd like to ask that you rephrase literally everything because it's so hard to understand what your points are besides apparently trying to make people feel bad.
the only counter-argument is terrans DESERVE stalemates instead of losses. who wan's to die on that hill?
I do, why do people feel like they're owned wins when their entire production and economy was destroyed? If you can't kill all your oopponents buildings you can't win, and terran buildings fly. That's all there is to it.
In fact it adds a fine line of strategic depth in 1 games on 500 or so.
I get that it is very annoying when you face a terran doing that, but eh it's like 1000 other things in this game, race are asymmetrically annoying to opponent. Unborrowed spores under the BL army are annoying too.
But if we want to improve the game and the experience for the vast majority of players (and watchers ), we probably should focus in other things that are really happening often and really ruin the experience, like getting rid of the photon rush (something as simple as forge requiring cyber would do it)
On March 20 2019 17:55 xongnox wrote: In fact it adds a fine line of strategic depth in 1 games on 500 or so.
I get that it is very annoying when you face a terran doing that, but eh it's like 1000 other things in this game, race are asymmetrically annoying to opponent. Unborrowed spores under the BL army are annoying too.
But if we want to improve the game and the experience for the vast majority of players (and watchers ), we probably should focus in other things that are really happening often and really ruin the experience, like getting rid of the photon rush (something as simple as forge requiring cyber would do it)
We're going in circles. The idea that "it's an issue but let's not fix it, cuz there are other bigger problems out there" is so silly. it would take 2 lines of codes to solve this.
There are any number of ways that it could be done, several have been suggested, that would have 0 impact on actual balance and normal game-play, but would solve the odd scenario that happens once in a few hundred games in pro play, and would be a Quality-of-life improvement for your average ladder player, not only to reduce the forced draws but also by discouraging/ nerfing the grieving potential of terran players.
This is not a balance issue, a change isnt indicated because let's say TvZ is 52%-48% in favor of terran, and let's attempt to fix it by this, NO. This would have virtually 0 impact on the overall state of balance in the matchups, it's about eliminating a rarely used, but stupid and very annoying mechanic.
So I learned that WESG actually has their own rules on draw that are different from the "official" client ones - namely that they award a win in case of a draw based on some points. So in such a tournament, a terran can't "force a draw" because it might as well be a loss for them anyway.
This brings two quite different angles:
- if this can be completely negated by out-of-the-client rules, is it such a big deal? - if tournament organizers feel that a draw is so unwanted that they have to explicitly make rules for it, shouldn't it be dealt with within the game?
On March 20 2019 18:11 opisska wrote: So I learned that WESG actually has their own rules on draw that are different from the "official" client ones - namely that they award a win in case of a draw based on some points. So in such a tournament, a terran can't "force a draw" because it might as well be a loss for them anyway.
This brings two quite different angles:
- if this can be completely negated by out-of-the-client rules, is it such a big deal? - if tournament organizers feel that a draw is so unwanted that they have to explicitly make rules for it, shouldn't it be dealt with within the game?
And I am honestly not sure which one to take
WESG is a joke and should't be used as a parameter for anything.