I've always found Terran's ability to draw the game by floating away their buildings a very unsatisfying way for the game to end. And one that is without parallel for the other races.
I'm suggesting a very simple fix, Terran buildings take VERY LITTLE damage while floating, something along the line of a single HP per second. Meaning a command center would take over twenty minutes to die. But it would eventually die, making float away stalemate not viable. Maybe even give a certain grace period, having the damage only start after a few minutes floating.
I don't disagree if we were designing the game from scratch. But the change is so minor, and the issue so rare, that I think you'll have a hard time convincing many people (much less Blizzard) that they should make this change. I for one hope that Blizzard doesn't change anything about scbw unless people find totally game breaking bugs or something.
I wouldn't say that Terran's ability to float buildings to create a stalemate is a totally game breaking bug, but if you were to have suggested this in 1998, I would have supported you. I think it's a reasonable fix to the issue.
Maybe terran buildings could start taking damage only after staying up in the air for too long, i.e. floating in the airt at the corners of the map & waiting for the game to close.
As a terran I'd support this change. But give at least a 3 minutes grace period or it could disrupt too much when proxy buildings are flying home or in base trade situations.
I've always found Terran's ability to draw the game by floating away their buildings a very unsatisfying way for the game to end. And one that is without parallel for the other races.
I'm suggesting a very simple fix, Terran buildings take VERY LITTLE damage while floating, something along the line of a single HP per second. Meaning a command center would take over twenty minutes to die. But it would eventually die, making float away stalemate not viable. Maybe even give a certain grace period, having the damage only start after a few minutes floating.
Would like to hear your thoughts?
i just had a game were me and zerg base traded and i managed to sqeeze out a banshee and floated my buildings, while he lost every building and had few drones but not enough to build hatchery (he just built extractors everywhere) and zero anti air units. So if you removed permanent floating for terran buildings, i would have lost that game since he had like 40 lings and 10 roaches and i had 10marines 2 medivacs and a banshee.
I've always found Terran's ability to draw the game by floating away their buildings a very unsatisfying way for the game to end. And one that is without parallel for the other races.
I'm suggesting a very simple fix, Terran buildings take VERY LITTLE damage while floating, something along the line of a single HP per second. Meaning a command center would take over twenty minutes to die. But it would eventually die, making float away stalemate not viable. Maybe even give a certain grace period, having the damage only start after a few minutes floating.
Would like to hear your thoughts?
i just had a game were me and zerg base traded and i managed to sqeeze out a banshee and floated my buildings, while he lost every building and had few drones but not enough to build hatchery (he just built extractors everywhere) and zero anti air units. So if you removed permanent floating for terran buildings, i would have lost that game since he had like 40 lings and 10 roaches and i had 10marines 2 medivacs and a banshee.
So you had a smaller army, and less buildings, and would have lost if you couldn't kill all his buildings with a single air unit in less then twenty five minutes.... I'm okay with this.
I've always found Terran's ability to draw the game by floating away their buildings a very unsatisfying way for the game to end. And one that is without parallel for the other races.
I'm suggesting a very simple fix, Terran buildings take VERY LITTLE damage while floating, something along the line of a single HP per second. Meaning a command center would take over twenty minutes to die. But it would eventually die, making float away stalemate not viable. Maybe even give a certain grace period, having the damage only start after a few minutes floating.
Would like to hear your thoughts?
i just had a game were me and zerg base traded and i managed to sqeeze out a banshee and floated my buildings, while he lost every building and had few drones but not enough to build hatchery (he just built extractors everywhere) and zero anti air units. So if you removed permanent floating for terran buildings, i would have lost that game since he had like 40 lings and 10 roaches and i had 10marines 2 medivacs and a banshee.
So you had a smaller army, and less buildings, and would have lost if you couldn't kill all his buildings with a single air unit in less then twenty five minutes.... I'm okay with this.
im not saying its ok or not, i guess its right now a feature of terrans that they have. If they removed it i wouldnt cry about it, but for example using factory or rax to scout for you have been in game forever, nerfing that, i wouldnt like it.
I've always found Terran's ability to draw the game by floating away their buildings a very unsatisfying way for the game to end. And one that is without parallel for the other races.
I'm suggesting a very simple fix, Terran buildings take VERY LITTLE damage while floating, something along the line of a single HP per second. Meaning a command center would take over twenty minutes to die. But it would eventually die, making float away stalemate not viable. Maybe even give a certain grace period, having the damage only start after a few minutes floating.
Would like to hear your thoughts?
i just had a game were me and zerg base traded and i managed to sqeeze out a banshee and floated my buildings, while he lost every building and had few drones but not enough to build hatchery (he just built extractors everywhere) and zero anti air units. So if you removed permanent floating for terran buildings, i would have lost that game since he had like 40 lings and 10 roaches and i had 10marines 2 medivacs and a banshee.
So you had a smaller army, and less buildings, and would have lost if you couldn't kill all his buildings with a single air unit in less then twenty five minutes.... I'm okay with this.
im not saying its ok or not, i guess its right now a feature of terrans that they have. If they removed it i wouldnt cry about it, but for example using factory or rax to scout for you have been in game forever, nerfing that, i wouldnt like it.
Agreed, which is why I suggest the damage should be very low. And with a grace timer. I don't mind scouting floating buildings, nor do I want to overly change the balance of the game. Just eliminate a stalemate condition. But you did bring up an important case where that would affect who won, and I didn't think about that.
I've always found Zerg's ability to draw the game by building away their broodlords a very unsatisfying way for the game to end. And one that is without parallel for the other races.
I'm suggesting a very simple fix, Zerg Broodlords spawn VERY LITTLE broodlodings while floating, something along the line of a single Broodling per minute. Meaning a command center would take over twenty minutes to die. But it would eventually die, making float away stalemate not viable. Maybe even give a certain grace period, having the broodlings only start after a few minutes floating.
------ I had more fun changing that than I should have... that series affected me deep inside.
On March 17 2019 17:30 Doko wrote: I've always found Zerg's ability to draw the game by building away their broodlords a very unsatisfying way for the game to end. And one that is without parallel for the other races.
I'm suggesting a very simple fix, Zerg Broodlords spawn VERY LITTLE broodlodings while floating, something along the line of a single Broodling per minute. Meaning a command center would take over twenty minutes to die. But it would eventually die, making float away stalemate not viable. Maybe even give a certain grace period, having the broodlings only start after a few minutes floating.
------ I had more fun changing that than I should have... hmmmm
Happy you had fun, but I don't understand. Broodlords can be used to draw a game?
On March 17 2019 17:30 Doko wrote: I've always found Zerg's ability to draw the game by building away their broodlords a very unsatisfying way for the game to end. And one that is without parallel for the other races.
I'm suggesting a very simple fix, Zerg Broodlords spawn VERY LITTLE broodlodings while floating, something along the line of a single Broodling per minute. Meaning a command center would take over twenty minutes to die. But it would eventually die, making float away stalemate not viable. Maybe even give a certain grace period, having the broodlings only start after a few minutes floating.
------ I had more fun changing that than I should have... hmmmm
Happy you had fun, but I don't understand. Broodlords can be used to draw a game?
In a way they do, there is no ground army that can engage it so the game devolves into what you just saw. Makes mass raven not seem all that bad.
On March 17 2019 17:30 Doko wrote: I've always found Zerg's ability to draw the game by building away their broodlords a very unsatisfying way for the game to end. And one that is without parallel for the other races.
I'm suggesting a very simple fix, Zerg Broodlords spawn VERY LITTLE broodlodings while floating, something along the line of a single Broodling per minute. Meaning a command center would take over twenty minutes to die. But it would eventually die, making float away stalemate not viable. Maybe even give a certain grace period, having the broodlings only start after a few minutes floating.
------ I had more fun changing that than I should have... hmmmm
Happy you had fun, but I don't understand. Broodlords can be used to draw a game?
In a way they do, there is no ground army that can engage it so the game devolves into what you just saw. Makes mass raven not seem all that bad.
I know you're just taking the piss, but TBH I kind of agree. I think the Broodling pathing block decision was probably the single worst thing done for SC2.
i always thought it would make sense to lose 1% hp/s while floating. like in wc3 when a ne building uproots its armor type changes. you can't get something for nothing :D
though this will only affect .1% of games, it would be good to implement such a change after g1 of scarlett vs maru just added to the hilarity that has been wesg
edit: i do like the idea of a grace period so you can barracks scout for a reasonable amount of time. obvious consideration i overlooked while jerking my knee
Losing shields would actually make sense for protoss, but thats absolutely not relevant in this discussion.
I wonder if mapmakers could solve the issue by making less/no dead spaces. There is no need to have dead space behind most main mineral lines for example (and its annoying af to play against too).
building float is a microcosmic joke gimmick that gets kept in the game mainly out of nostalgia for broodwar sound effects, and i fully support removing it. fuck it, let addons move around instead and we never have to worry about it again
On March 18 2019 00:07 Zeon0 wrote: I wonder if mapmakers could solve the issue by making less/no dead spaces. There is no need to have dead space behind most main mineral lines for example (and its annoying af to play against too).
now you're getting into territory that affects balance. dead space is pivotal in the effectiveness of any air harass strategy, it affects nydus play (hiding overlords etc) and it has a major effect on bio overall, not to mention that dead space afffects the map architecture and how ground terrain works too. lot of things are "annoying to play against" because you just don't know how so you lack confidence
terran building float to force draw shouldn't be removed as a game mechanic unless you also plan to take away something that affects base racing or very late late game scenarios like you know... permanently stealthed dark templar which have almost no answer to if you cannot get out a single orbital as terran or overseer as zerg; infinitely spawnable creep tumors (as long as the new one doesn't die a zerg could force stalemate by making tumors over and over as long as they got something to kill at least one of the older tumors as to not exceed building limit. But its really dumb when you think about it. One strategy that a lot of terran players do at high levels especially with styles like mech is you will typically float off buildings you don't use for vision; like your barracks, or when widowmines in TvP become useless and you don't want tanks you would float your factory. Adding fuel to buildings removes that entirely.
On March 18 2019 01:02 Ryu3600 wrote: terran building float to force draw shouldn't be removed as a game mechanic unless you also plan to take away something that affects base racing or very late late game scenarios like you know... permanently stealthed dark templar which have almost no answer to if you cannot get out a single orbital as terran or overseer as zerg; infinitely spawnable creep tumors (as long as the new one doesn't die a zerg could force stalemate by making tumors over and over as long as they got something to kill at least one of the older tumors as to not exceed building limit. But its really dumb when you think about it. One strategy that a lot of terran players do at high levels especially with styles like mech is you will typically float off buildings you don't use for vision; like your barracks, or when widowmines in TvP become useless and you don't want tanks you would float your factory. Adding fuel to buildings removes that entirely.
On March 18 2019 01:02 Ryu3600 wrote: terran building float to force draw shouldn't be removed as a game mechanic unless you also plan to take away something that affects base racing or very late late game scenarios like you know... permanently stealthed dark templar which have almost no answer to if you cannot get out a single orbital as terran or overseer as zerg; infinitely spawnable creep tumors (as long as the new one doesn't die a zerg could force stalemate by making tumors over and over as long as they got something to kill at least one of the older tumors as to not exceed building limit. But its really dumb when you think about it. One strategy that a lot of terran players do at high levels especially with styles like mech is you will typically float off buildings you don't use for vision; like your barracks, or when widowmines in TvP become useless and you don't want tanks you would float your factory. Adding fuel to buildings removes that entirely.
o.0
Dude, creep tumors don't count as buildings...
If you build a creep tumor it resets the stalemate timer, see JuggernautJason vs Bioice
I like it. I'd even more like it if floating buildings would just not count as buildings for staying in the game. Essentially the same, but easier. Terran would survive if they have at least one building on the ground, but if they lift all their buildings at once, game over.
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).
I remember this always being a topic in WoL and HotS, and have always thought it was a good thing to talk about seriously. One of the only major "issues" to me has always been the amount of people who go completely off the rails with illogical arguments: "if we change this now, what's to stop us from changing [X, Y, and Z that are completely beside the point and don't actually have anything to do with the issue at hand and the proposed fix]!"
"If we have Nydus HP/Armor/build time/literally anything, why don't we just make all Zerg units invincible forever while we're at it?!" "If we change Medivac Boost/speed/capacity/ability to pick up siege mode tanks, why don't we just remove all Mech and Bio units while we're at it?" And so on and so on with that nonsense. (Look up some fallacies such as this false dilemma fallacy if you don't understand why they are not sound arguments, or why blowing things out of proportion can make an argument invalid.)
These type of changes - "after X minutes in-game or Y minutes in the air, Terran structures will lose HP" or even "there should be more emphasis put on deciding if and when and where T structures can float to on ladder and tourney maps" - for the sake of reducing the amount of game draws, poor sportsmanship (only on ladder nowadays and much more rare as well afaik, but still), and simply un-fun qualities of the game are sound changes to me.
One issue I do think is worth discussing is how many of these kinds of changes would result in the game feeling too complex and too "misunderstandable" for players, though the very basic idea is fairly elegant.
Changing the win and draw condition rules to incorporate this into them would be another route, something that would keep the basic idea of the draw condition but with a different, potentially more fair implementation. My first idea from several years ago was to have all structures start to bleed out/catch fire (clear in-game timer with consequences/benefits depending on the player/situation) once the game detects a potential draw state (no units dying, no structures being constructed or destroyed), or possibly burn at a slow but increasing rate. I really believe it can work well even if it is now pretty rare for it to matter. Maybe not exactly how I imagine it, but something similar could work. One problem with my idea I wondered about was that it could put a huge emphasis on having town halls and many more structures or repairing/healing units (Queens) in these situations compared to before. However, I think that's kind of been the case for base trades and draws throughout the game's history.
Maybe, maybe not, just some thoughts from many years ago that very much still apply.
*Edited for typos and clarity on mobile.
**It could even have a cool name, like for per-game draws (per-game as in both players must fulfill draw state conditions for the effects to begin) it could simply be Sudden Death ("...now that we're in Sudden Death, player one is blah blah blah." Or, it could be per-player (each player fulfills conditions only for themselves), Danger Mode, Decay, whatever ("Player two has Decay..." Player four is in Danger Mode..."). In the case of a per-player condition for a Terran player, the effect would function similarly to having a timer on their floating structures.
I was thinking about this exact thing after seeing the discussions during WESG and I agree with what a lot of people have put forward so far. I think a way in which to make it easy to understand is to use the same gray timer bars that are used for queen injects and chronoboost to indicate how much time is left until the building starts taking damage. This way, in the case of floating a barracks to scout or when floating back buildings from proxies, it'll be easy to see that the building needs to be quickly landed before it starts taking damage (though if the timer for how long a building can float before it starts taking damage is set right it shouldn't be too much of an issue anyway).
I'm all for this change. It is incredibly minor but shuts down abusive play on ladder that sucks the fun out of playing the game (like the infamous game of Vibe vs. He Who Must Not Be Named, where the terran had clearly lost but floated his building in the corner with vikings and liberators and demanded Vibe allow for draw conditions even though Vibe still had mining and had the units to slowly kill the terran)
On March 18 2019 01:02 Ryu3600 wrote: terran building float to force draw shouldn't be removed as a game mechanic unless you also plan to take away something that affects base racing or very late late game scenarios like you know... permanently stealthed dark templar which have almost no answer to if you cannot get out a single orbital as terran or overseer as zerg; infinitely spawnable creep tumors (as long as the new one doesn't die a zerg could force stalemate by making tumors over and over as long as they got something to kill at least one of the older tumors as to not exceed building limit. But its really dumb when you think about it. One strategy that a lot of terran players do at high levels especially with styles like mech is you will typically float off buildings you don't use for vision; like your barracks, or when widowmines in TvP become useless and you don't want tanks you would float your factory. Adding fuel to buildings removes that entirely.
o.0
Dude, creep tumors don't count as buildings...
If you build a creep tumor it resets the stalemate timer, see JuggernautJason vs Bioice
That honestly sounds like a bug that needs to be fixed more than anything. If creep tumors don't count toward the loss conditions, they should not reset the draw timer.
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).
An offer draw button would be really funny to have in the game I support this 100%
I've always found Terran's ability to draw the game by floating away their buildings a very unsatisfying way for the game to end. And one that is without parallel for the other races.
I'm suggesting a very simple fix, Terran buildings take VERY LITTLE damage while floating, something along the line of a single HP per second. Meaning a command center would take over twenty minutes to die. But it would eventually die, making float away stalemate not viable. Maybe even give a certain grace period, having the damage only start after a few minutes floating.
Would like to hear your thoughts?
Hi,
I've always found Zerg's ability to burrow units, especially banelings a very unsatisfying way for the game to end. And one that is without parallel for the other races.
I'm suggesting a very simple fix, Zerg units take VERY LITTLE damage while burrowed, something along the line of a single HP per second. Meaning an ultralisk would take over six minutes to die. But burrowed units would eventually die, making baneling landmine wins not viable. Maybe even give a certain grace period, having the damage only start after a few minutes burrowed.
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).
An offer draw button would be really funny to have in the game I support this 100%
Legitimate draws happen so rarely that an 'offer draw' button is basically just a new tool for abuse.
I've always found Terran's ability to draw the game by floating away their buildings a very unsatisfying way for the game to end. And one that is without parallel for the other races.
I'm suggesting a very simple fix, Terran buildings take VERY LITTLE damage while floating, something along the line of a single HP per second. Meaning a command center would take over twenty minutes to die. But it would eventually die, making float away stalemate not viable. Maybe even give a certain grace period, having the damage only start after a few minutes floating.
Would like to hear your thoughts?
Hi,
I've always found Zerg's ability to burrow units, especially banelings a very unsatisfying way for the game to end. And one that is without parallel for the other races.
I'm suggesting a very simple fix, Zerg units take VERY LITTLE damage while burrowed, something along the line of a single HP per second. Meaning an ultralisk would take over six minutes to die. But it would eventually die, making baneling landmine wins not viable. Maybe even give a certain grace period, having the damage only start after a few minutes burrowed.
Would like to hear your thoughts?
Try to mock his point, if you will, but his post was about being able to force a game into a draw, not about wins. So you're really missing the point of his argument.
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).
An offer draw button would be really funny to have in the game I support this 100%
Legitimate draws happen so rarely that an 'offer draw' button is basically just a new tool for abuse.
Literally was just writing this, so ditto. A "give up" button in team games I'm slightly less opposed to, but against for single player and especially SC2.
Oh it's the annual floating buildings OP thread? why discuss that when there's more pressing issues to discuss (Mules, Planetaries, sensor towers, depot raise/lower mechanic)? But I'm guessing we'll see a thread about those soon enough anyway...
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.
Full on base trade. You have 180 supply left, and kill off the rest of terran. Terran however destroyed your ability to make air. Floating a single building gets you a draw. So, in this scenario it isn't as dumbed down as you put it, because in that scenario the enemy 'won'. Regardless I think this scenario or even the one you described happens so rarely and is simply just a strategy you need to prepare for. Nothing needs to be done about it.
I've always found Protoss' ability to win the game by playing defensively and massing a deathball a very unsatisfying way for the game to end. And one that is without parallel for the other races.
I'm suggesting a very simple fix, Protoss units take VERY LITTLE damage while being on a map, something along the line of a single HP per second. Meaning protoss has to attack. Otherwise the units would eventually die, making a typical deathball win not viable. Maybe even give a certain grace period, having the damage only start after a few minutes of map presence.
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.
Full on base trade. You have 180 supply left, and kill off the rest of terran. Terran however destroyed your ability to make air. Floating a single building gets you a draw. So, in this scenario it isn't as dumbed down as you put it, because in that scenario the enemy 'won'. Regardless I think this scenario or even the one you described happens so rarely and is simply just a strategy you need to prepare for. Nothing needs to be done about it.
So, in this basetrade, the Terran did the following:
1. Killed the enemy air producing structures
2. Killed EVERY enemy hatchery/nexus OR killed every worker while they have <50 minerals while ALSO not having the bank to produce a single air unit
Hard to really say someone 'deserves' to win a basetrade after having their entire economy and production permanently destroyed. It just...seems like they didn't really deserve a win if they can't produce a single air unit. Am I crazy?
Further, the perma-lift is one of Terran's biggest basetrade threats. Zergs have Nyduses, infinite HP regen. decentralized production, and the ability to turn units into other units. Protoss has shields, recall, perma-cloaked DT's (which are at least as annoying as lifted buildings) and decentralized production. Take away lifting, and Terran has...what, exactly?
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.
Full on base trade. You have 180 supply left, and kill off the rest of terran. Terran however destroyed your ability to make air. Floating a single building gets you a draw. So, in this scenario it isn't as dumbed down as you put it, because in that scenario the enemy 'won'. Regardless I think this scenario or even the one you described happens so rarely and is simply just a strategy you need to prepare for. Nothing needs to be done about it.
So, in this basetrade, the Terran did the following:
1. Killed the enemy air producing structures
2. Killed EVERY enemy hatchery/nexus OR killed every worker while they have <50 minerals while ALSO not having the bank to produce a single air unit
Hard to really say someone 'deserves' to win a basetrade after having their entire economy and production permanently destroyed. It just...seems like they didn't really deserve a win if they can't produce a single air unit. Am I crazy?
Further, the perma-lift is one of Terran's biggest basetrade threats. Zergs have Nyduses, infinite HP regen. decentralized production, and the ability to turn units into other units. Protoss has shields, recall, perma-cloaked DT's (which are at least as annoying as lifted buildings) and decentralized production. Take away lifting, and Terran has...what, exactly?
Nobody wants to eliminate lift entirely. You are correct that's a major asset for Terran in base trades. The issue is being able to lift indefinitely, forcing draws in a way no other race can. Draws are a flaw in the game, an ideal game should never end in a draw unless the players are literally identical in skill (virtually impossible).
On March 18 2019 04:40 Charoisaur wrote: Oh it's the annual floating buildings OP thread? why discuss that when there's more pressing issues to discuss (Mules, Planetaries, sensor towers, depot raise/lower mechanic)? But I'm guessing we'll see a thread about those soon enough anyway...
This. People have been trying this for 9 years. It's not going to happen.
Yeah, I was thinking maybe there's like limited fuel or something, so the buildings need to land occasionally 'to refuel'. This small amounts of damage over time idea definitely sounds easier to implement though.
The game's conclusion was really quite fantastic. I'm glad we got to see it play out that way, without the Terran just floating his buildings away.
On March 18 2019 04:40 Charoisaur wrote: Oh it's the annual floating buildings OP thread? why discuss that when there's more pressing issues to discuss (Mules, Planetaries, sensor towers, depot raise/lower mechanic)? But I'm guessing we'll see a thread about those soon enough anyway...
Don't forget the most pressing issue! How can a burrowed roach/infestor go through LOWERED depot? Ha! That requires top scientests, the biggest budgets and UN resolution!
i propose a solution no one could POSSIBLY disagree with. if a building lifts off, after 10 mins, it loses 1%hp/s. still viable for scouting but might have to be managed in mid game. if you really want unpowered protoss buildings to lose hp, sure, who cares. not relevant to discussion at all
On March 18 2019 08:23 Alejandrisha wrote: i propose a solution no one could POSSIBLY disagree with. if a building lifts off, after 10 mins, it loses 1%hp/s. still viable for scouting but might have to be managed in mid game. if you really want unpowered protoss buildings to lose hp, sure, who cares. not relevant to discussion at all
Exactly. That's kinda what I was talking about. A change like that would have absolutely no effect on 99% of games. All it would prevent is people being deliberately abusive with stalemates (like my previous example involving He Who Must Not be Named, who upon realizing he was about to lose, started building mass liberators/ravens and floated all his buildings into the corner and then yelled at his opponent to let the stalemate timer count down) or people who are trolling and being shitty.
We've all played a Terran who lost, and then instead of being respectful and leaving, instead opts to float buildings to different areas and waste their and their opponent's time while the opponent has to tech up to air, find every building, and kill them all. Stuff like this sucks. It doesn't add anything to the game, and the game would be much better off without it.
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
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.
Out of all things to complain about, people make these threads about something that happens once or twice per year in competitive Starcraft. Even if it was ''unfair'' its not relevant to deserve these threads. Its extra stupid and irrelevant in this case because Scarlett won that game.
This should be implemented long ago already and shouldn't even be up to discussion. Even if it affects 0.001% games, this is still just a really dumb mechanic for a game where the win condition is to destroy all buildings of your opponent.
Of course it should be done in a way that it doesn't affect balance, so as many people suggested, the buildings should have enough fuel for at least few minutes, but eventually they should start losing HP, so that "can I force a draw by flying to the corner" is not even a question.
It's the most lame thing in this game and it should definitely be fixed if we are striving to create the best game ever.
Let's make it more fun. Have it cost 1 mineral per period of time that a building is a floating. If you run out of money the building loses hp instead. To offset the cost, buff building float speed. This would make proxy 2rax transition into normal game much more costly if you want to float your barracks back.
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.
But what's the issue? If the person losing basetrade wants to grief you, you will find several extractors over the map and you will be running circles anyway. So Terran picks the buildings and flies into the corner. In the end it's a draw so you don't lose points, it just takes forever to get the draw information and message. This can be abused and this should be solved faster on the ladder - I'm all fine for updating the draw mechanic on the ladder.
We need to solve only the issue of draw in the pro matches as there is a time table and we usually cannot afford pro players running circles around 1 lifted CC with 1 marine and tickling it to death. Or flying into the corner and then arguing who won, because repeating the game is time-consuming
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.
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.
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.
Zerg can use spines and spores because these can move, so only protoss is really at a loss here. So if people really want to change this, which is imo not necessary, then you could just make it so flying buildings and unrooted spines/spores are not seen as buildings. Not sure how hard that would be to implement, but that's probably the most straight forward solution to these scenarious.
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.
Zerg can use spines and spores because these can move, so only protoss is really at a loss here. So if people really want to change this, which is imo not necessary, then you could just make it so flying buildings and unrooted spines/spores are not seen as buildings. Not sure how hard that would be to implement, but that's probably the most straight forward solution to these scenarious.
So, accidentally lifting the first CC instantly loses the game?
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.
Zerg can use spines and spores because these can move, so only protoss is really at a loss here. So if people really want to change this, which is imo not necessary, then you could just make it so flying buildings and unrooted spines/spores are not seen as buildings. Not sure how hard that would be to implement, but that's probably the most straight forward solution to these scenarious.
So, accidentally lifting the first CC instantly loses the game?
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.
Zerg can use spines and spores because these can move, so only protoss is really at a loss here. So if people really want to change this, which is imo not necessary, then you could just make it so flying buildings and unrooted spines/spores are not seen as buildings. Not sure how hard that would be to implement, but that's probably the most straight forward solution to these scenarious.
So, accidentally lifting the first CC instantly loses the game?
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.
Zerg can use spines and spores because these can move, so only protoss is really at a loss here. So if people really want to change this, which is imo not necessary, then you could just make it so flying buildings and unrooted spines/spores are not seen as buildings. Not sure how hard that would be to implement, but that's probably the most straight forward solution to these scenarious.
So, accidentally lifting the first CC instantly loses the game?
Imagine this rule on some HotS/WoL maps with the gold rush builds
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.
Zerg can use spines and spores because these can move, so only protoss is really at a loss here. So if people really want to change this, which is imo not necessary, then you could just make it so flying buildings and unrooted spines/spores are not seen as buildings. Not sure how hard that would be to implement, but that's probably the most straight forward solution to these scenarious.
It's still not equivalent though, a single worker could chase around and kill those buildings eventually if that was all that's left. The mechanic is unfair because it could allow for Terran to play for a win without the risk of losing while the opponent would have to play for a win with the risk of losing.
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.
Zerg can use spines and spores because these can move, so only protoss is really at a loss here. So if people really want to change this, which is imo not necessary, then you could just make it so flying buildings and unrooted spines/spores are not seen as buildings. Not sure how hard that would be to implement, but that's probably the most straight forward solution to these scenarious.
So, accidentally lifting the first CC instantly loses the game?
Imagine this rule on some HotS/WoL maps with the gold rush builds
That is a good point, wouldn't make it possible to have that again. Still probably worth it if one thinks that this stalemate gameplay is a problem which i personally don't subscribe to
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.
Zerg can use spines and spores because these can move, so only protoss is really at a loss here. So if people really want to change this, which is imo not necessary, then you could just make it so flying buildings and unrooted spines/spores are not seen as buildings. Not sure how hard that would be to implement, but that's probably the most straight forward solution to these scenarious.
It's still not equivalent though, a single worker could chase around and kill those buildings eventually if that was all that's left. The mechanic is unfair because it could allow for Terran to play for a win without the risk of losing while the opponent would have to play for a win with the risk of losing.
Well it is equivalent in that in both cases you have buildings which can move with your army which is big enough to make sure the buildings won't die fast enough. Terran doesn't always need actual air units, in case the enemy doesn't have any on their own though (depending on the map), so it is definitely better. Still fairly similar though. Tbf though, if you have the bigger army you can just camp on the last buildings as toss as well, it might be more similar to that. In any case, i don't think any of that is a real problem, it really doesn't happen all that often.
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.
Zerg can use spines and spores because these can move, so only protoss is really at a loss here. So if people really want to change this, which is imo not necessary, then you could just make it so flying buildings and unrooted spines/spores are not seen as buildings. Not sure how hard that would be to implement, but that's probably the most straight forward solution to these scenarious.
So, accidentally lifting the first CC instantly loses the game?
Imagine this rule on some HotS/WoL maps with the gold rush builds
That is a good point, wouldn't make it possible to have that again. Still probably worth it if one thinks that this stalemate gameplay is a problem which i personally don't subscribe to
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.
Zerg can use spines and spores because these can move, so only protoss is really at a loss here. So if people really want to change this, which is imo not necessary, then you could just make it so flying buildings and unrooted spines/spores are not seen as buildings. Not sure how hard that would be to implement, but that's probably the most straight forward solution to these scenarious.
It's still not equivalent though, a single worker could chase around and kill those buildings eventually if that was all that's left. The mechanic is unfair because it could allow for Terran to play for a win without the risk of losing while the opponent would have to play for a win with the risk of losing.
Well it is equivalent in that in both cases you have buildings which can move with your army which is big enough to make sure the buildings won't die fast enough. Terran doesn't always need actual air units, in case the enemy doesn't have any on their own though (depending on the map), so it is definitely better. Still fairly similar though. Tbf though, if you have the bigger army you can just camp on the last buildings as toss as well, it might be more similar to that. In any case, i don't think any of that is a real problem, it really doesn't happen all that often.
But...it has nothing to do with moving with the army, having armies means there is something they can fight for. Spores and Spines can't be moved somewhere where they are incapable of being attacked, and also without the need of an army at all to protect them once they are there. Both players agreeing to a draw is not the same as only one player being able to force one. If Protoss decides to park their ground only army on a Pylon and ask for a draw, Terran can technically float their buildings to safety, deny the draw and fight. If they lose that fight they do not lose the game, but if Protoss loses that fight they do. Protoss can not put themselves in a position where they can not lose.
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.
Zerg can use spines and spores because these can move, so only protoss is really at a loss here. So if people really want to change this, which is imo not necessary, then you could just make it so flying buildings and unrooted spines/spores are not seen as buildings. Not sure how hard that would be to implement, but that's probably the most straight forward solution to these scenarious.
So, accidentally lifting the first CC instantly loses the game?
Imagine this rule on some HotS/WoL maps with the gold rush builds
That is a good point, wouldn't make it possible to have that again. Still probably worth it if one thinks that this stalemate gameplay is a problem which i personally don't subscribe to
On March 20 2019 00:15 hg2g2 wrote:
On March 19 2019 23:59 The_Red_Viper wrote:
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.
Zerg can use spines and spores because these can move, so only protoss is really at a loss here. So if people really want to change this, which is imo not necessary, then you could just make it so flying buildings and unrooted spines/spores are not seen as buildings. Not sure how hard that would be to implement, but that's probably the most straight forward solution to these scenarious.
It's still not equivalent though, a single worker could chase around and kill those buildings eventually if that was all that's left. The mechanic is unfair because it could allow for Terran to play for a win without the risk of losing while the opponent would have to play for a win with the risk of losing.
Well it is equivalent in that in both cases you have buildings which can move with your army which is big enough to make sure the buildings won't die fast enough. Terran doesn't always need actual air units, in case the enemy doesn't have any on their own though (depending on the map), so it is definitely better. Still fairly similar though. Tbf though, if you have the bigger army you can just camp on the last buildings as toss as well, it might be more similar to that. In any case, i don't think any of that is a real problem, it really doesn't happen all that often.
But...it has nothing to do with moving with the army, having armies means there is something they can fight for. Spores and Spines can't be moved somewhere where they are incapable of being attacked, and also without the need of an army at all to protect them once they are there. Both players agreeing to a draw is not the same as only one player being able to force one. If Protoss decides to park their ground only army on a Pylon and ask for a draw, Terran can technically float their buildings to safety, deny the draw and fight. If they lose that fight they do not lose the game, but if Protoss loses that fight they do. Protoss can not put themselves in a position where they can not lose.
Yes i mentioned this in the text you quoted, terran's ability is stronger. Terran can force a draw if they are 100% sure the enemy doesn't have ani air units (depending on the map!). Zerg could potentially force a draw if they are sure that pulling all the static D together will be sufficient to defend the enemy army while it wouldn't if they didn't pull it together. Protoss doesn't have any similar option. At the end of the day all these situations almost never happen, even the terran one. It isn't worth consideration imo. Still, if we want to consider it then i think my solution is fine, make flying buildings and unrooted ones not be classified as buildings.
I don't care about the balance. But I would like to suggest that Terran buildings can fly indefinitely utilizing solar power. Not sure what the lore has to say about Terran energy practices.
How about we make Terran win the game if there building survive like 3hours? This way there wouldn't be the unfair mechanic that only Terrans can force draw.
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?
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.
On March 20 2019 01:54 DSh1 wrote: How about we make Terran win the game if there building survive like 3hours? This way there wouldn't be the unfair mechanic that only Terrans can force draw.
So they can force wins by not even trying to win????????
Why is everyone confusing draws with win/loss only scenarios. 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. The only way this becomes 'equivalent' is if you let zerg buildings burrow or protoss buildings cloak when unpowered, to take from some of the stupid balance whine rewrites of the original post.
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?
Only race that can secure it's buildings categorically in certain scenarios is Terran, that's why. It's not about removing Terran mechanics of lift, no no no... But if a Terran player's only viable option (in given level of competition) and response to secure his/hers buildings (and continuation of the game) is: lifting them up, it goes immediately to the level of asymmetric warfare beyond every balance talks... like ever.
Draw conditions could be and should be hard-coded to the game.
This isn't big problem, tho.
This doesn't count as "anti-terran" statement. Maru had enough balls to realize what he was doing, and ultimately acted accordingly. The moral of the story.
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?
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?
Not if the oponent is terran
Really, the amount of whining in the lines of "race X has Y different" on these forums is staggering (and it's a million times worse on b.net, unless people abandoned that place already). Why would you even want to have three races if there weren't significant differences between them? Moreover, unless you are a top pro, you can always switch races if you thing some has major advantages at literally no cost.
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.
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...
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.
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...
It Is Not The Same. Nothing is stopping you from trying to destroy the Nexus. Kiting, medivac pickups, whatever, you could try to win and the Protoss is at risk of losing, but the Terran can fly their buildings away and try to win and even if they fail they do not lose, but Protoss does not have that same option. An agreed upon stalemate where neither party is willing to fight is not the same as a forced one. Protoss could literally have probes, win the fight and be able to mine minerals but if they are out of gas and access to air could never win the game if they rebuilt a 200/200 army. No other race can take the actual win conditions away for low tier units.
Edit: units really aren't even a part of this conversation as they having nothing to do with the win condition.
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.
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.
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?
Not if the oponent is terran
Really, the amount of whining in the lines of "race X has Y different" on these forums is staggering (and it's a million times worse on b.net, unless people abandoned that place already). Why would you even want to have three races if there weren't significant differences between them? Moreover, unless you are a top pro, you can always switch races if you thing some has major advantages at literally no cost.
The only way you can argue asymmetry is fair in this case is if the other races have their own access to such a force draw scenario, but they don't. All three have access to asymmetrical win/loss scenarios, but only Terran has actual access to a forced draw scenario, it's not asymmetry they're just missing a part of their face, this is not the same as balance whining about something that you are losing to because the other party can complain about things they can lose to about you. Terran can't complain about other races forcing draws.
On March 20 2019 02:22 hg2g2 wrote: 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.
You know what else removes the risk of losing? It's called winning.
-> Lifting (all or at least most essential) buildings up in perceived no-win scenario for a Terran should constitute as 'giving up' i.e. loss.
You are Terran and you can reasonably continue the fight with at least with marginal chance of winning that game: but you have no reasons to do that.
Yes, yes, maybe temporarily, but if they are still hanging in the air there (out of the map/corner of the map) when your opponent have a control/overwhelming superiority on the ground, you just admit that you've no chances there anymore on the ground. You admit that you can't mine or produce anything (even if there would still be resources left for that). Right?
Only thing you can do is to scout with/from your invulnerable sky-castles how your ground-dwelling opponent controls the scene... Your only real options are going back to production on the ground and fight (with high probability of a loss) or just say: "GG".
... as you've already lost your strategic initiative.
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.
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
Yes, that's the point, floating doesn't matter unless you're pissed off from ladder. How many pro games with important floating can you count? We are solving a problem which has no point in solving. That's like trying to solve how to stop people from dying to sharks while other things are running wild and killing several times more people.
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.
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.
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.
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
Yes, that's the point, floating doesn't matter unless you're pissed off from ladder. How many pro games with important floating can you count? We are solving a problem which has no point in solving. That's like trying to solve how to stop people from dying to sharks while other things are running wild and killing several times more people.
sure, it's not the biggest problem in the world. But it s so simple to fix it. You cannot solve sharkattacks short of mass slaughtering them to the point of extinction. Say if you could patch the real life, that sharks suddenly dont find humans appetizing, and just ignore them, like Orcas do (which could shred humans just as easily as sharks, but they dont)
On March 20 2019 02:22 hg2g2 wrote: 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.
You know what else removes the risk of losing? It's called winning.
Wow, you literally removed the entire context and your original moronic suggestion in that quote to make this brainless response. If you believe in that statement so much, you should expect Terrans to actually try to WIN the match and be against this condition in any form. All fights should be allowed to play out and all buildings should stay on the ground so that any last army standing can win the game.
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.
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
you dont see the difference between races having asymmetric but comparable mechanics, and one race having a completely unique, non-comparable, force-a-tie mechanic (albeit rarely comes into play)? Well, cant help you out if that s the case
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.
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.
On March 20 2019 02:22 hg2g2 wrote: 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.
You know what else removes the risk of losing? It's called winning.
Wow, you literally removed the entire context and your original moronic suggestion in that quote to make this brainless response. If you believe in that statement so much, you should expect Terrans to actually try to WIN the match and be against this condition in any form. All fights should be allowed to play out and all buildings should stay on the ground so that any last army standing can win the game.
I removed the context because it was not relevant. Your posts are so wrong that I don't even know where to start.
What it comes down to is that I like the draw mechanic. Other people don't like it. But you are trying to make it sound like you have a good reason which you actually do 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.
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.
Hey guys above. This isn't conjectural, theoretical problem we are talking about. It happened in WESG bronze match between Scarlett and Maru, as you all know. It also ended as it should've been in a theoretical and hypothetical match. Thanks to Scarlett's intuition and Maru's logic (with some delay, yes). Now, in these circumstances I think what follows goes to two directions: First of all, if there are still any brains left in the Blizzard's end they will somehow remedy the issue (that is marginal at the first hand), on the other, all reasonably self-conscious ladder Terrans will ofc GG if they meet that same scenario in their Ladder games. Naturally.
You lose if you do that as Terran. QED. So, don't do it.
On March 20 2019 02:22 hg2g2 wrote: 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.
You know what else removes the risk of losing? It's called winning.
Wow, you literally removed the entire context and your original moronic suggestion in that quote to make this brainless response. If you believe in that statement so much, you should expect Terrans to actually try to WIN the match and be against this condition in any form. All fights should be allowed to play out and all buildings should stay on the ground so that any last army standing can win the game.
I removed the context because it was not relevant. Your posts are so wrong that I don't even know where to start.
What it comes down to is that I like the draw mechanic. Other people don't like it. But you are trying to make it sound like you have a good reason which you actually do not.
Suggesting converting the Draw mechanic into a Win mechanic isn't relevant? It's the most biased thing in this entire post. You clearly just don't understand logic.
On March 20 2019 04:16 UnLarva wrote: Hey guys above. This isn't conjectural, theoretical problem we are talking about. It happened in WESG bronze match between Scarlett and Maru, as you all know. It also ended as it should've been in a theoretical and hypothetical match. Thanks to Scarlett's intuition and Maru's logic (with some delay, yes). Now, in these circumstances I think what follows goes to two directions: First of all, if there are still any brains left in the Blizzard's end they will somehow remedy the issue (that is marginal at the first hand), on the other, all reasonably self-conscious ladder Terrans will ofc GG if they meet that same scenario in their Ladder games. Naturally.
You lose if you do that as Terran. QED. So, don't do it.
no it didn't happen actually. And I still haven't seen an argument which convinces me it's a "problem" except "baaaahh nerf terran, terran unfair race"
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.
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.
You'd have to foresee a loss in your scenario and then have the income and workers and creep and power etc. to be able to build these defenses before their army that apparently defeated yours beats you to it. Terran can lose the army, have no workers, no minerals, no gas, but 'foresee' this loss and float their buildings away at no expense or economic requirement and be unengageable.
On March 20 2019 04:16 UnLarva wrote: Hey guys above. This isn't conjectural, theoretical problem we are talking about. It happened in WESG bronze match between Scarlett and Maru, as you all know. It also ended as it should've been in a theoretical and hypothetical match. Thanks to Scarlett's intuition and Maru's logic (with some delay, yes). Now, in these circumstances I think what follows goes to two directions: First of all, if there are still any brains left in the Blizzard's end they will somehow remedy the issue (that is marginal at the first hand), on the other, all reasonably self-conscious ladder Terrans will ofc GG if they meet that same scenario in their Ladder games. Naturally.
You lose if you do that as Terran. QED. So, don't do it.
no it didn't happen actually. And I still haven't seen an argument which convinces me it's a "problem" except "baaaahh nerf terran, terran unfair race"
well, you're flat out immune to arguments and reason, so no surprise i guess
@Chairosaur: Why don't you just change a race? Its been unhealthy for you already too long. Don't force your ego over factual things that happened, please.
Maru did only thing he must to do in that particular situation, in those circumstances, in that match up. NOBODY can blame him about anything! He did just what was right! Luckily it was Maru vs Scarlett where this scenario happened.
Take easy sometimes man, with good faith. It won't hurt you.
On March 20 2019 04:16 UnLarva wrote: Hey guys above. This isn't conjectural, theoretical problem we are talking about. It happened in WESG bronze match between Scarlett and Maru, as you all know. It also ended as it should've been in a theoretical and hypothetical match. Thanks to Scarlett's intuition and Maru's logic (with some delay, yes). Now, in these circumstances I think what follows goes to two directions: First of all, if there are still any brains left in the Blizzard's end they will somehow remedy the issue (that is marginal at the first hand), on the other, all reasonably self-conscious ladder Terrans will ofc GG if they meet that same scenario in their Ladder games. Naturally.
You lose if you do that as Terran. QED. So, don't do it.
no it didn't happen actually. And I still haven't seen an argument which convinces me it's a "problem" except "baaaahh nerf terran, terran unfair race"
well, you're flat out immune to arguments and reason, so no surprise i guess
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
On March 20 2019 02:03 Charoisaur wrote: [quote] 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 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:
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 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.
On March 20 2019 04:16 UnLarva wrote: Hey guys above. This isn't conjectural, theoretical problem we are talking about. It happened in WESG bronze match between Scarlett and Maru, as you all know. It also ended as it should've been in a theoretical and hypothetical match. Thanks to Scarlett's intuition and Maru's logic (with some delay, yes). Now, in these circumstances I think what follows goes to two directions: First of all, if there are still any brains left in the Blizzard's end they will somehow remedy the issue (that is marginal at the first hand), on the other, all reasonably self-conscious ladder Terrans will ofc GG if they meet that same scenario in their Ladder games. Naturally.
You lose if you do that as Terran. QED. So, don't do it.
no it didn't happen actually. And I still haven't seen an argument which convinces me it's a "problem" except "baaaahh nerf terran, terran unfair race"
well, you're flat out immune to arguments and reason, so no surprise i guess
Maybe it's because your arguments are terrible
Mine, and everyone else's as well, dont forget! But everyone is just a blind terran-hater, you're one of the few reasonable chosen ones, swimming against the tide
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 don't understand what you mean really. It's not even discussion about race but about a specific lame mechanic that allows you to avoid a loss in a very lame way which basically costs you nothing and can work even if you are 0 vs 200 supply.
What is the Protoss mechanic that is similar to this?
This is a battle.net forums argument. Makes me sad. I totally agree with Charoisaur that this is a non issue. You guys act like 10% of the matches were ending that way.
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 don't understand what you mean really. It's not even discussion about race but about a specific lame mechanic that allows you to avoid a loss in a very lame way which basically costs you nothing and can work even if you are 0 vs 200 supply.
What is the Protoss mechanic that is similar to this?
why can't terran warp units on the other side of the map? why can't protoss make all their units from a single structure???
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 don't understand what you mean really. It's not even discussion about race but about a specific lame mechanic that allows you to avoid a loss in a very lame way which basically costs you nothing and can work even if you are 0 vs 200 supply.
What is the Protoss mechanic that is similar to this?
why can't terran warp units on the other side of the map? why can't protoss make all their units from a single structure???
maybe because different races are different...
You asked two questions and then you answered them yourself. I agree with your answer.
This all would be non issue if Scarlett would've been little bit more courteous and not pointed out an obvious to Maru.
Maru contemplated over the issue and made his in-game statement, of course after his own analysis over the topic. And that happened(!) not in the circumstances where, where borderline interpretations should happen anymore, considering the age of the game.
It all was marginal. After the fact, it may not be. People know their meta.
On March 20 2019 03:34 Charoisaur wrote: [quote] 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: [quote] 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 don't understand what you mean really. It's not even discussion about race but about a specific lame mechanic that allows you to avoid a loss in a very lame way which basically costs you nothing and can work even if you are 0 vs 200 supply.
What is the Protoss mechanic that is similar to this?
why can't terran warp units on the other side of the map? why can't protoss make all their units from a single structure???
maybe because different races are different...
You asked two questions and then you answered them yourself. I agree with your answer.
You still don't get the point though...
I think you are the one who doesn't get it... let's just agree to disagree and I will let you keep the battle.net forums argument going.
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.
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.
It can always be balanced by maps, ezpz. This would help to not park drops behind mineral lines in untouchable positions. It would help with clearing immortal overlords/observers too.
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.
It can always be balanced by maps, ezpz. This would help to not park drops behind mineral lines in untouchable positions. It would help with clearing immortal overlords/observers too.
It could be, yes. But which one is easier, impose a rule on mapmakers, and keep verifying whether the new maps/ new versions of maps fully comply with the rule, OR put in those couple lines of code and be done with it once and forever? Occam's razor and all that....
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.
First, you fail to acknowledge at least two knows factors :
-Blizzard's time to do "simple things" (and the quantity of apparently unrelated bugs they add by doing anything) that take "2 lines of code".
-The limited mental pressure, we, as a community of players, have on blizzard. If everyone focus in this "issue" and complain round the clock about it, maybe they will do it in 1 year, while doing nothing else during this time. For historic illustration thinks about "We Want LAN" ! That needed years of complaints and scandals to find a semi-decent solution (that require "5 lines of code" : launch the game motor with players input from the replay, like in replay mode, then switch to live mode from this state of the game )
Second, you read me bad. I didn't knowledge this as an issue, but a fine line of strategic depth, this subtle and fine mechanic is a cool feature, which gave us epic historical games.
On March 17 2019 16:27 Highrock1 wrote: I've always found Terran's ability to draw the game by floating away their buildings a very unsatisfying way for the game to end.
I disagree, I find it very exciting to watch terran players suicide all their units to destroy key units and infrastructure of their opponents to draw the game.
On March 17 2019 16:27 Highrock1 wrote: And one that is without parallel for the other races.
Yes, we have three races in starcraft which are distinctly different. Zerg can end games by slowly grinding you down with swarms of free units. Protoss can end games with massive amounts of instant splash damage. It creates interesting dynamics.
I feel that Terran has no permanently cloaked units, zerg has burrow and protoss has DT to win the lategame basetrade. It's very a-symmetrical and floating to create a draw, while destroying the nexi and probes is very strategic if you are behind. In the same way when you make DT's and snipe orbitals, but thats just my opninion, and yes i'm terran and yes it does happen that you get a draw like that.
On March 17 2019 16:27 Highrock1 wrote: I've always found Terran's ability to draw the game by floating away their buildings a very unsatisfying way for the game to end.
I disagree, I find it very exciting to watch terran players suicide all their units to destroy key units and infrastructure of their opponents to draw the game.
On March 17 2019 16:27 Highrock1 wrote: And one that is without parallel for the other races.
Yes, we have three races in starcraft which are distinctly different. Zerg can end games by slowly grinding you down with swarms of free units. Protoss can end games with massive amounts of instant splash damage. It creates interesting dynamics.
1. That is a perfectly fine opinion to have, different people find things interesting/annoying, it's really pointless to argue that aspect, if Blizz/ someone is interested of the general opinion, a poll could be done.
2. Races are different, yes, for the hundredth time, yes. Races have different racial mechanics. The game is asymmetrically balanced, and it was always intended that way, Yes. Nobody is arguing this, or saying we need to go back to warcfraft 1 game design. I dont understand why is it so hard to grasp, that this particular instance is an exception, and the other races lack anything comparable to it.
Zerg doesnt have free units. Infestors spawn units with energy, just like all the other casters. BL's and swarmhosts spawn short-lived units, they arent free, they're the method with which those units attack. There is plenty of inbuilt weaknesses if you rely on those units. Swarhmhosts/BLs cant attack or cast spells, they just spawn locusts/broodlings, which you define as "free". No, if a swarmhost manages to launch a single volley before it dies, than that locust cost exactly as much as a full swarmhost. If you manage to launch several, or even dozens it means you were very cost efficient, as the locusts cost a fraction of it. It's not that different compared to a siege tank that manages to shoot dozens of times during the course of the game. Sure it is not the same thing, but it's comparable. Terrans can repair everything. Protoss regenerates or can even fill up shields, but not effective HP. Zergs regenerate freely to full HP, but they do it very slowly. Only Zerg has burrowed (cloacked) units that can deal AOE. Terran is the only one that has ranged air units with cloak. Protoss is the only race with perma-cloacked units that can move around freely. Some of these are or can be stronger than their racial counterparts, that's not really important.
There are tons of race-specific tricks that dont have 1-1 exact matches. But they have something similar, and they all fit the RTS theme of being used either for offense, defense, crowd control (or economy). The " when behind, playing to draw" strategy doesnt really fit into this, and more importantly only one race can do it. Again, whether you enjoy watching this or not, is subjective, i believe majority of the community doesnt, but it's hard to tell without hard data.
The problem isnt even the fact that terran is favored in a base-race situation due to racial mechanics. This is (mostly) fine. Two opponents could overrun each other's bases, and Terran comes out ahead because he floats away his CCs and production buildings, the other race has to turn around eventually and make sure to confront the terran army before losing every building, while Terran enjoys a strategic advantage due to being able to defend a new position after the dust settles, even if he was left without any money or workers. It is theoretically possible that both parties are left with 0 workers and 0-49 minerals, and either no armies or very similar strength armies. In this case, the Terran automatically wins, as long as he could float away one CC, because even with 0 minerals, 0 workers, you can build up a new eco using energy for mules. This is a race-specific advantage (that is balanced out by the strengths of the other racial mechanics like injects or Chronoboost/recall) to change this aspect, the game would need to be drastically altered, the racial mechanic completely redesigned and re-balanced. One of the main reasons why Terrans dont draw more games is, that they can flat out win those hectic base-race scenarios, if they start out on even grounds. Nobody was arguing for nerfing the mules or the general relocation ability of terran, in this specific thread, as far as i could tell.
Conclusion> If the specific racial strength of the race helps it to win in a certain scenarios that is fine, as the other races also have comparable/similar racial strength helping them win in different ways. One race having the ability to force draws while the others dont is not fine (even if it is 0.x% of the games), especially because it would be so easy to do a clean fix, without having any unintended side-effects, or impacting the balance of the matchups.
On March 20 2019 20:46 Geo.Rion wrote: Conclusion> One race having the ability to force draws while the others dont is not fine (even if it is 0.x% of the games), especially because it would be so easy to do a clean fix, without having any unintended side-effects, or impacting the balance of the matchups.
Why is it not fine? And yes I read all your post and still couldn't find anything except repeating it is not fine.
I really don't like people here basing their entire posts on the assumption that it is a problem. Because it really is not or at least debatable. I also do enjoy watching draw games the most and it is an interesting feature of the game.
On March 17 2019 16:27 Highrock1 wrote: I've always found Terran's ability to draw the game by floating away their buildings a very unsatisfying way for the game to end.
I disagree, I find it very exciting to watch terran players suicide all their units to destroy key units and infrastructure of their opponents to draw the game.
On March 17 2019 16:27 Highrock1 wrote: And one that is without parallel for the other races.
Yes, we have three races in starcraft which are distinctly different. Zerg can end games by slowly grinding you down with swarms of free units. Protoss can end games with massive amounts of instant splash damage. It creates interesting dynamics.
1. That is a perfectly fine opinion to have, different people find things interesting/annoying, it's really pointless to argue that aspect, if Blizz/ someone is interested of the general opinion, a poll could be done.
2. Races are different, yes, for the hundredth time, yes. Races have different racial mechanics. The game is asymmetrically balanced, and it was always intended that way, Yes. Nobody is arguing this, or saying we need to go back to warcfraft 1 game design. I dont understand why is it so hard to grasp, that this particular instance is an exception, and the other races lack anything comparable to it.
Zerg doesnt have free units. Infestors spawn units with energy, just like all the other casters. BL's and swarmhosts spawn short-lived units, they arent free, they're the method with which those units attack. There is plenty of inbuilt weaknesses if you rely on those units. Swarhmhosts/BLs cant attack or cast spells, they just spawn locusts/broodlings, which you define as "free". No, if a swarmhost manages to launch a single volley before it dies, than that locust cost exactly as much as a full swarmhost. If you manage to launch several, or even dozens it means you were very cost efficient, as the locusts cost a fraction of it. It's not that different compared to a siege tank that manages to shoot dozens of times during the course of the game. Sure it is not the same thing, but it's comparable. Terrans can repair everything. Protoss regenerates or can even fill up shields, but not effective HP. Zergs regenerate freely to full HP, but they do it very slowly. Only Zerg has burrowed (cloacked) units that can deal AOE. Terran is the only one that has ranged air units with cloak. Protoss is the only race with perma-cloacked units that can move around freely. Some of these are or can be stronger than their racial counterparts, that's not really important.
There are tons of race-specific tricks that dont have 1-1 exact matches. But they have something similar, and they all fit the RTS theme of being used either for offense, defense, crowd control (or economy). The " when behind, playing to draw" strategy doesnt really fit into this, and more importantly only one race can do it. Again, whether you enjoy watching this or not, is subjective, i believe majority of the community doesnt, but it's hard to tell without hard data.
The problem isnt even the fact that terran is favored in a base-race situation due to racial mechanics. This is (mostly) fine. Two opponents could overrun each other's bases, and Terran comes out ahead because he floats away his CCs and production buildings, the other race has to turn around eventually and make sure to confront the terran army before losing every building, while Terran enjoys a strategic advantage due to being able to defend a new position after the dust settles, even if he was left without any money or workers. It is theoretically possible that both parties are left with 0 workers and 0-49 minerals, and either no armies or very similar strength armies. In this case, the Terran automatically wins, as long as he could float away one CC, because even with 0 minerals, 0 workers, you can build up a new eco using energy for mules. This is a race-specific advantage (that is balanced out by the strengths of the other racial mechanics like injects or Chronoboost/recall) to change this aspect, the game would need to be drastically altered, the racial mechanic completely redesigned and re-balanced. One of the main reasons why Terrans dont draw more games is, that they can flat out win those hectic base-race scenarios, if they start out on even grounds. Nobody was arguing for nerfing the mules or the general relocation ability of terran, in this specific thread, as far as i could tell.
Conclusion> If the specific racial strength of the race helps it to win in a certain scenarios that is fine, as the other races also have comparable/similar racial strength helping them win in different ways. One race having the ability to force draws while the others dont is not fine (even if it is 0.x% of the games), especially because it would be so easy to do a clean fix, without having any unintended side-effects, or impacting the balance of the matchups.
Well the are called free units because you cant treat them as a unit attack as they have HP. A tank shot do not have HP. That being said, I like free units. They are a cool way to make zerg different and they are balanced
On March 17 2019 16:27 Highrock1 wrote: I've always found Terran's ability to draw the game by floating away their buildings a very unsatisfying way for the game to end.
I disagree, I find it very exciting to watch terran players suicide all their units to destroy key units and infrastructure of their opponents to draw the game.
On March 17 2019 16:27 Highrock1 wrote: And one that is without parallel for the other races.
Yes, we have three races in starcraft which are distinctly different. Zerg can end games by slowly grinding you down with swarms of free units. Protoss can end games with massive amounts of instant splash damage. It creates interesting dynamics.
1. That is a perfectly fine opinion to have, different people find things interesting/annoying, it's really pointless to argue that aspect, if Blizz/ someone is interested of the general opinion, a poll could be done.
2. Races are different, yes, for the hundredth time, yes. Races have different racial mechanics. The game is asymmetrically balanced, and it was always intended that way, Yes. Nobody is arguing this, or saying we need to go back to warcfraft 1 game design. I dont understand why is it so hard to grasp, that this particular instance is an exception, and the other races lack anything comparable to it.
Zerg doesnt have free units. Infestors spawn units with energy, just like all the other casters. BL's and swarmhosts spawn short-lived units, they arent free, they're the method with which those units attack. There is plenty of inbuilt weaknesses if you rely on those units. Swarhmhosts/BLs cant attack or cast spells, they just spawn locusts/broodlings, which you define as "free". No, if a swarmhost manages to launch a single volley before it dies, than that locust cost exactly as much as a full swarmhost. If you manage to launch several, or even dozens it means you were very cost efficient, as the locusts cost a fraction of it. It's not that different compared to a siege tank that manages to shoot dozens of times during the course of the game. Sure it is not the same thing, but it's comparable. Terrans can repair everything. Protoss regenerates or can even fill up shields, but not effective HP. Zergs regenerate freely to full HP, but they do it very slowly. Only Zerg has burrowed (cloacked) units that can deal AOE. Terran is the only one that has ranged air units with cloak. Protoss is the only race with perma-cloacked units that can move around freely. Some of these are or can be stronger than their racial counterparts, that's not really important.
There are tons of race-specific tricks that dont have 1-1 exact matches. But they have something similar, and they all fit the RTS theme of being used either for offense, defense, crowd control (or economy). The " when behind, playing to draw" strategy doesnt really fit into this, and more importantly only one race can do it. Again, whether you enjoy watching this or not, is subjective, i believe majority of the community doesnt, but it's hard to tell without hard data.
The problem isnt even the fact that terran is favored in a base-race situation due to racial mechanics. This is (mostly) fine. Two opponents could overrun each other's bases, and Terran comes out ahead because he floats away his CCs and production buildings, the other race has to turn around eventually and make sure to confront the terran army before losing every building, while Terran enjoys a strategic advantage due to being able to defend a new position after the dust settles, even if he was left without any money or workers. It is theoretically possible that both parties are left with 0 workers and 0-49 minerals, and either no armies or very similar strength armies. In this case, the Terran automatically wins, as long as he could float away one CC, because even with 0 minerals, 0 workers, you can build up a new eco using energy for mules. This is a race-specific advantage (that is balanced out by the strengths of the other racial mechanics like injects or Chronoboost/recall) to change this aspect, the game would need to be drastically altered, the racial mechanic completely redesigned and re-balanced. One of the main reasons why Terrans dont draw more games is, that they can flat out win those hectic base-race scenarios, if they start out on even grounds. Nobody was arguing for nerfing the mules or the general relocation ability of terran, in this specific thread, as far as i could tell.
Conclusion> If the specific racial strength of the race helps it to win in a certain scenarios that is fine, as the other races also have comparable/similar racial strength helping them win in different ways. One race having the ability to force draws while the others dont is not fine (even if it is 0.x% of the games), especially because it would be so easy to do a clean fix, without having any unintended side-effects, or impacting the balance of the matchups.
Well the are called free units because you cant treat them as a unit attack as they have HP. A tank shot do not have HP. That being said, I like free units. They are a cool way to make zerg different and they are balanced
If locusts are "free-units" then Swarmhosts are the most useless units in the history of RTS since they cant attack or cast spells yet cost a lot of money and can be killed rather easily. For me, it only makes sense to think of swarmhosts together with the locust, since one cannot exist without the other. And because one of them costs money, the other isnt free either, cuz the cost is priced into the host. I just find it really strange to think of locusts/broodling as free, without taking into consideration that it is made by another unit which costs money, requires tech and can be killed, and does nothing aside from spawning the "free-unit" that carries out the attack.
It's like saying that ghosts can cast spells for free, because energy doesnt cost minerals/gas. EDIT> but this is completely off-topic discussion, not relevant to the point i was making one way or another. It's a unit (pair of units) used for attack or defence, with the aim of killing off the enemy, and not to force a draw.
Dno if this was suggested, but they could make it so that when the text comes up that says Stalemate detected, it also reads that flying buildings will run out of fuel before the game ends. So that when the 5 minutes have run out, Terran flying buildings instantly die and thereafter the game ends, in either a draw, or victory. This way it literally only affects games that would end in draw only because of a few flying Terran buildings. Also the scenario where flying buildings causes draws, is only one where no mining can be done, since otherwise the other player would be eventually able to get air units, or the Terran would eventually be able to build something.
I'm not saying I'm for or against it, there's some cool strategy that could be lost, but maybe it would be for the better?, similar to the 12 worker start.
On March 17 2019 16:27 Highrock1 wrote: I've always found Terran's ability to draw the game by floating away their buildings a very unsatisfying way for the game to end.
I disagree, I find it very exciting to watch terran players suicide all their units to destroy key units and infrastructure of their opponents to draw the game.
On March 17 2019 16:27 Highrock1 wrote: And one that is without parallel for the other races.
Yes, we have three races in starcraft which are distinctly different. Zerg can end games by slowly grinding you down with swarms of free units. Protoss can end games with massive amounts of instant splash damage. It creates interesting dynamics.
1. That is a perfectly fine opinion to have, different people find things interesting/annoying, it's really pointless to argue that aspect, if Blizz/ someone is interested of the general opinion, a poll could be done.
2. Races are different, yes, for the hundredth time, yes. Races have different racial mechanics. The game is asymmetrically balanced, and it was always intended that way, Yes. Nobody is arguing this, or saying we need to go back to warcfraft 1 game design. I dont understand why is it so hard to grasp, that this particular instance is an exception, and the other races lack anything comparable to it.
Zerg doesnt have free units. Infestors spawn units with energy, just like all the other casters. BL's and swarmhosts spawn short-lived units, they arent free, they're the method with which those units attack. There is plenty of inbuilt weaknesses if you rely on those units. Swarhmhosts/BLs cant attack or cast spells, they just spawn locusts/broodlings, which you define as "free". No, if a swarmhost manages to launch a single volley before it dies, than that locust cost exactly as much as a full swarmhost. If you manage to launch several, or even dozens it means you were very cost efficient, as the locusts cost a fraction of it. It's not that different compared to a siege tank that manages to shoot dozens of times during the course of the game. Sure it is not the same thing, but it's comparable. Terrans can repair everything. Protoss regenerates or can even fill up shields, but not effective HP. Zergs regenerate freely to full HP, but they do it very slowly. Only Zerg has burrowed (cloacked) units that can deal AOE. Terran is the only one that has ranged air units with cloak. Protoss is the only race with perma-cloacked units that can move around freely. Some of these are or can be stronger than their racial counterparts, that's not really important.
There are tons of race-specific tricks that dont have 1-1 exact matches. But they have something similar, and they all fit the RTS theme of being used either for offense, defense, crowd control (or economy). The " when behind, playing to draw" strategy doesnt really fit into this, and more importantly only one race can do it. Again, whether you enjoy watching this or not, is subjective, i believe majority of the community doesnt, but it's hard to tell without hard data.
The problem isnt even the fact that terran is favored in a base-race situation due to racial mechanics. This is (mostly) fine. Two opponents could overrun each other's bases, and Terran comes out ahead because he floats away his CCs and production buildings, the other race has to turn around eventually and make sure to confront the terran army before losing every building, while Terran enjoys a strategic advantage due to being able to defend a new position after the dust settles, even if he was left without any money or workers. It is theoretically possible that both parties are left with 0 workers and 0-49 minerals, and either no armies or very similar strength armies. In this case, the Terran automatically wins, as long as he could float away one CC, because even with 0 minerals, 0 workers, you can build up a new eco using energy for mules. This is a race-specific advantage (that is balanced out by the strengths of the other racial mechanics like injects or Chronoboost/recall) to change this aspect, the game would need to be drastically altered, the racial mechanic completely redesigned and re-balanced. One of the main reasons why Terrans dont draw more games is, that they can flat out win those hectic base-race scenarios, if they start out on even grounds. Nobody was arguing for nerfing the mules or the general relocation ability of terran, in this specific thread, as far as i could tell.
Conclusion> If the specific racial strength of the race helps it to win in a certain scenarios that is fine, as the other races also have comparable/similar racial strength helping them win in different ways. One race having the ability to force draws while the others dont is not fine (even if it is 0.x% of the games), especially because it would be so easy to do a clean fix, without having any unintended side-effects, or impacting the balance of the matchups.
Well the are called free units because you cant treat them as a unit attack as they have HP. A tank shot do not have HP. That being said, I like free units. They are a cool way to make zerg different and they are balanced
If locusts are "free-units" then Swarmhosts are the most useless units in the history of RTS since they cant attack or cast spells yet cost a lot of money and can be killed rather easily. For me, it only makes sense to think of swarmhosts together with the locust, since one cannot exist without the other. And because one of them costs money, the other isnt free either, cuz the cost is priced into the host. I just find it really strange to think of locusts/broodling as free, without taking into consideration that it is made by another unit which costs money, requires tech and can be killed.
It's like saying that ghosts can cast spells for free, because energy doesnt cost minerals/gas.
There's not price tag on locusts. First wave costs the price of the SH and then? With every wave you're lowering the price of the wave, in the end they become free. At the same time literally everything else(except brood lings ) costs energy OR material. From the SC2 perspective locusts are free as they don't cost energy or material.
Just giving my view, but how that's gonna solve draws with Terrans in the air
On March 20 2019 03:34 Charoisaur wrote: [quote] 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: [quote] 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.
Everyone who disagrees with Ben... is arguing in bad faith guys, heard it here first! Why post in a forum if you're not up for discussion? This joke thread doesn't deserve any responses tbh, not sure why I even bothered.
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: [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.
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.
Everyone who disagrees with Ben... is arguing in bad faith guys, heard it here first! Why post in a forum if you're not up for discussion? This joke thread doesn't deserve any responses tbh, not sure why I even bothered.
You never really discussed anything, you just expected other people to knock down your irrelevant straw man arguments that aren't equivalent draw mechanics, that you didn't understand well enough in the first place and needed explained back to you, but think that made you right.
Your DT argument actually makes no sense whatsoever in retrospect now because if the Protoss has enough DTs to protect a nexus from an army and you can't detect them, there's no reason they wouldn't use one of them to go kill your buildings and win the game. Everyone keeps bringing up things that aren't draws/stalemates as arguments against this discussion about draws/stalemates. The spore/spine crawler one isn't even unfair because it forces a draw, it's unfair because it could technically still win a game with only those buildings left, effectively making them units, but not making it access to a draw mechanic. But you know what the real difference is? That doesn't happen! And that possibility had to be theory-crafted into existence.
Honestly, not having any units should be a loss condition if you can't make more.
On March 17 2019 16:27 Highrock1 wrote: I've always found Terran's ability to draw the game by floating away their buildings a very unsatisfying way for the game to end.
I disagree, I find it very exciting to watch terran players suicide all their units to destroy key units and infrastructure of their opponents to draw the game.
On March 17 2019 16:27 Highrock1 wrote: And one that is without parallel for the other races.
Yes, we have three races in starcraft which are distinctly different. Zerg can end games by slowly grinding you down with swarms of free units. Protoss can end games with massive amounts of instant splash damage. It creates interesting dynamics.
1. That is a perfectly fine opinion to have, different people find things interesting/annoying, it's really pointless to argue that aspect, if Blizz/ someone is interested of the general opinion, a poll could be done.
2. Races are different, yes, for the hundredth time, yes. Races have different racial mechanics. The game is asymmetrically balanced, and it was always intended that way, Yes. Nobody is arguing this, or saying we need to go back to warcfraft 1 game design. I dont understand why is it so hard to grasp, that this particular instance is an exception, and the other races lack anything comparable to it.
Zerg doesnt have free units. Infestors spawn units with energy, just like all the other casters. BL's and swarmhosts spawn short-lived units, they arent free, they're the method with which those units attack. There is plenty of inbuilt weaknesses if you rely on those units. Swarhmhosts/BLs cant attack or cast spells, they just spawn locusts/broodlings, which you define as "free". No, if a swarmhost manages to launch a single volley before it dies, than that locust cost exactly as much as a full swarmhost. If you manage to launch several, or even dozens it means you were very cost efficient, as the locusts cost a fraction of it. It's not that different compared to a siege tank that manages to shoot dozens of times during the course of the game. Sure it is not the same thing, but it's comparable. Terrans can repair everything. Protoss regenerates or can even fill up shields, but not effective HP. Zergs regenerate freely to full HP, but they do it very slowly. Only Zerg has burrowed (cloacked) units that can deal AOE. Terran is the only one that has ranged air units with cloak. Protoss is the only race with perma-cloacked units that can move around freely. Some of these are or can be stronger than their racial counterparts, that's not really important.
There are tons of race-specific tricks that dont have 1-1 exact matches. But they have something similar, and they all fit the RTS theme of being used either for offense, defense, crowd control (or economy). The " when behind, playing to draw" strategy doesnt really fit into this, and more importantly only one race can do it. Again, whether you enjoy watching this or not, is subjective, i believe majority of the community doesnt, but it's hard to tell without hard data.
The problem isnt even the fact that terran is favored in a base-race situation due to racial mechanics. This is (mostly) fine. Two opponents could overrun each other's bases, and Terran comes out ahead because he floats away his CCs and production buildings, the other race has to turn around eventually and make sure to confront the terran army before losing every building, while Terran enjoys a strategic advantage due to being able to defend a new position after the dust settles, even if he was left without any money or workers. It is theoretically possible that both parties are left with 0 workers and 0-49 minerals, and either no armies or very similar strength armies. In this case, the Terran automatically wins, as long as he could float away one CC, because even with 0 minerals, 0 workers, you can build up a new eco using energy for mules. This is a race-specific advantage (that is balanced out by the strengths of the other racial mechanics like injects or Chronoboost/recall) to change this aspect, the game would need to be drastically altered, the racial mechanic completely redesigned and re-balanced. One of the main reasons why Terrans dont draw more games is, that they can flat out win those hectic base-race scenarios, if they start out on even grounds. Nobody was arguing for nerfing the mules or the general relocation ability of terran, in this specific thread, as far as i could tell.
Conclusion> If the specific racial strength of the race helps it to win in a certain scenarios that is fine, as the other races also have comparable/similar racial strength helping them win in different ways. One race having the ability to force draws while the others dont is not fine (even if it is 0.x% of the games), especially because it would be so easy to do a clean fix, without having any unintended side-effects, or impacting the balance of the matchups.
Well the are called free units because you cant treat them as a unit attack as they have HP. A tank shot do not have HP. That being said, I like free units. They are a cool way to make zerg different and they are balanced
If locusts are "free-units" then Swarmhosts are the most useless units in the history of RTS since they cant attack or cast spells yet cost a lot of money and can be killed rather easily. For me, it only makes sense to think of swarmhosts together with the locust, since one cannot exist without the other. And because one of them costs money, the other isnt free either, cuz the cost is priced into the host. I just find it really strange to think of locusts/broodling as free, without taking into consideration that it is made by another unit which costs money, requires tech and can be killed.
It's like saying that ghosts can cast spells for free, because energy doesnt cost minerals/gas.
There's not price tag on locusts. First wave costs the price of the SH and then? With every wave you're lowering the price of the wave, in the end they become free. At the same time literally everything else(except brood lings ) costs energy OR material. From the SC2 perspective locusts are free as they don't cost energy or material.
Just giving my view, but how that's gonna solve draws with Terrans in the air
I mean, bullets/missiles aren't free, everything has unlimited ammunition in this game, only Protoss has to pay for Interceptors! I literally just thought of this, totally unplayable
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: [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.
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.
Everyone who disagrees with Ben... is arguing in bad faith guys, heard it here first! Why post in a forum if you're not up for discussion? This joke thread doesn't deserve any responses tbh, not sure why I even bothered.
You were talking about Terran not being able win because they can't kill units to win the game, which is not a win condition. You constantly are putting up arguments that have nothing to do with the actual topic at hand while twisting the words of everybody else to suit your non-arguments.
I can quite literally quote your own post to prove my point:
If a Protoss has nothing left except DTs and the opponent has no detection he wins. Unfair?
In this scenario, the Protoss already lost because they have no buildings. The win conditions is that there are no buildings left. Units don't matter for the win condition of there being no buildings left. You've been posting on this forum for years and have likely played starcraft for years. The above quote is a textbook bad faith argument because you are arguing from a position you know to be false in order to try and weaken the argument of others.
I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. What I do have a problem with is somebody being deliberately deceitful while also being disrespectful to people who have corrected them.
On March 17 2019 16:27 Highrock1 wrote: I've always found Terran's ability to draw the game by floating away their buildings a very unsatisfying way for the game to end.
I disagree, I find it very exciting to watch terran players suicide all their units to destroy key units and infrastructure of their opponents to draw the game.
On March 17 2019 16:27 Highrock1 wrote: And one that is without parallel for the other races.
Yes, we have three races in starcraft which are distinctly different. Zerg can end games by slowly grinding you down with swarms of free units. Protoss can end games with massive amounts of instant splash damage. It creates interesting dynamics.
1. That is a perfectly fine opinion to have, different people find things interesting/annoying, it's really pointless to argue that aspect, if Blizz/ someone is interested of the general opinion, a poll could be done.
2. Races are different, yes, for the hundredth time, yes. Races have different racial mechanics. The game is asymmetrically balanced, and it was always intended that way, Yes. Nobody is arguing this, or saying we need to go back to warcfraft 1 game design. I dont understand why is it so hard to grasp, that this particular instance is an exception, and the other races lack anything comparable to it.
Zerg doesnt have free units. Infestors spawn units with energy, just like all the other casters. BL's and swarmhosts spawn short-lived units, they arent free, they're the method with which those units attack. There is plenty of inbuilt weaknesses if you rely on those units. Swarhmhosts/BLs cant attack or cast spells, they just spawn locusts/broodlings, which you define as "free". No, if a swarmhost manages to launch a single volley before it dies, than that locust cost exactly as much as a full swarmhost. If you manage to launch several, or even dozens it means you were very cost efficient, as the locusts cost a fraction of it. It's not that different compared to a siege tank that manages to shoot dozens of times during the course of the game. Sure it is not the same thing, but it's comparable. Terrans can repair everything. Protoss regenerates or can even fill up shields, but not effective HP. Zergs regenerate freely to full HP, but they do it very slowly. Only Zerg has burrowed (cloacked) units that can deal AOE. Terran is the only one that has ranged air units with cloak. Protoss is the only race with perma-cloacked units that can move around freely. Some of these are or can be stronger than their racial counterparts, that's not really important.
There are tons of race-specific tricks that dont have 1-1 exact matches. But they have something similar, and they all fit the RTS theme of being used either for offense, defense, crowd control (or economy). The " when behind, playing to draw" strategy doesnt really fit into this, and more importantly only one race can do it. Again, whether you enjoy watching this or not, is subjective, i believe majority of the community doesnt, but it's hard to tell without hard data.
The problem isnt even the fact that terran is favored in a base-race situation due to racial mechanics. This is (mostly) fine. Two opponents could overrun each other's bases, and Terran comes out ahead because he floats away his CCs and production buildings, the other race has to turn around eventually and make sure to confront the terran army before losing every building, while Terran enjoys a strategic advantage due to being able to defend a new position after the dust settles, even if he was left without any money or workers. It is theoretically possible that both parties are left with 0 workers and 0-49 minerals, and either no armies or very similar strength armies. In this case, the Terran automatically wins, as long as he could float away one CC, because even with 0 minerals, 0 workers, you can build up a new eco using energy for mules. This is a race-specific advantage (that is balanced out by the strengths of the other racial mechanics like injects or Chronoboost/recall) to change this aspect, the game would need to be drastically altered, the racial mechanic completely redesigned and re-balanced. One of the main reasons why Terrans dont draw more games is, that they can flat out win those hectic base-race scenarios, if they start out on even grounds. Nobody was arguing for nerfing the mules or the general relocation ability of terran, in this specific thread, as far as i could tell.
Conclusion> If the specific racial strength of the race helps it to win in a certain scenarios that is fine, as the other races also have comparable/similar racial strength helping them win in different ways. One race having the ability to force draws while the others dont is not fine (even if it is 0.x% of the games), especially because it would be so easy to do a clean fix, without having any unintended side-effects, or impacting the balance of the matchups.
Well the are called free units because you cant treat them as a unit attack as they have HP. A tank shot do not have HP. That being said, I like free units. They are a cool way to make zerg different and they are balanced
If locusts are "free-units" then Swarmhosts are the most useless units in the history of RTS since they cant attack or cast spells yet cost a lot of money and can be killed rather easily. For me, it only makes sense to think of swarmhosts together with the locust, since one cannot exist without the other. And because one of them costs money, the other isnt free either, cuz the cost is priced into the host. I just find it really strange to think of locusts/broodling as free, without taking into consideration that it is made by another unit which costs money, requires tech and can be killed.
It's like saying that ghosts can cast spells for free, because energy doesnt cost minerals/gas.
There's not price tag on locusts. First wave costs the price of the SH and then? With every wave you're lowering the price of the wave, in the end they become free. At the same time literally everything else(except brood lings ) costs energy OR material. From the SC2 perspective locusts are free as they don't cost energy or material.
Just giving my view, but how that's gonna solve draws with Terrans in the air
I mean, bullets/missiles aren't free, everything has unlimited ammunition in this game, only Protoss has to pay for Interceptors! I literally just thought of this, totally unplayable
You don't have to kill bullets/missiles to get to the unit launching them FFS, body blocking is a thing in this game, have you like ever tried walking under broodlords?!! Stop saying nonsense, remove their hp, make them bullets, it's fine. Edit> also changeling, infested marine, the turret of RAven... ONLY PROTOSS... do you even play this game? Edit 2> MULE
On March 17 2019 16:27 Highrock1 wrote: I've always found Terran's ability to draw the game by floating away their buildings a very unsatisfying way for the game to end.
I disagree, I find it very exciting to watch terran players suicide all their units to destroy key units and infrastructure of their opponents to draw the game.
On March 17 2019 16:27 Highrock1 wrote: And one that is without parallel for the other races.
Yes, we have three races in starcraft which are distinctly different. Zerg can end games by slowly grinding you down with swarms of free units. Protoss can end games with massive amounts of instant splash damage. It creates interesting dynamics.
1. That is a perfectly fine opinion to have, different people find things interesting/annoying, it's really pointless to argue that aspect, if Blizz/ someone is interested of the general opinion, a poll could be done.
2. Races are different, yes, for the hundredth time, yes. Races have different racial mechanics. The game is asymmetrically balanced, and it was always intended that way, Yes. Nobody is arguing this, or saying we need to go back to warcfraft 1 game design. I dont understand why is it so hard to grasp, that this particular instance is an exception, and the other races lack anything comparable to it.
Zerg doesnt have free units. Infestors spawn units with energy, just like all the other casters. BL's and swarmhosts spawn short-lived units, they arent free, they're the method with which those units attack. There is plenty of inbuilt weaknesses if you rely on those units. Swarhmhosts/BLs cant attack or cast spells, they just spawn locusts/broodlings, which you define as "free". No, if a swarmhost manages to launch a single volley before it dies, than that locust cost exactly as much as a full swarmhost. If you manage to launch several, or even dozens it means you were very cost efficient, as the locusts cost a fraction of it. It's not that different compared to a siege tank that manages to shoot dozens of times during the course of the game. Sure it is not the same thing, but it's comparable. Terrans can repair everything. Protoss regenerates or can even fill up shields, but not effective HP. Zergs regenerate freely to full HP, but they do it very slowly. Only Zerg has burrowed (cloacked) units that can deal AOE. Terran is the only one that has ranged air units with cloak. Protoss is the only race with perma-cloacked units that can move around freely. Some of these are or can be stronger than their racial counterparts, that's not really important.
There are tons of race-specific tricks that dont have 1-1 exact matches. But they have something similar, and they all fit the RTS theme of being used either for offense, defense, crowd control (or economy). The " when behind, playing to draw" strategy doesnt really fit into this, and more importantly only one race can do it. Again, whether you enjoy watching this or not, is subjective, i believe majority of the community doesnt, but it's hard to tell without hard data.
The problem isnt even the fact that terran is favored in a base-race situation due to racial mechanics. This is (mostly) fine. Two opponents could overrun each other's bases, and Terran comes out ahead because he floats away his CCs and production buildings, the other race has to turn around eventually and make sure to confront the terran army before losing every building, while Terran enjoys a strategic advantage due to being able to defend a new position after the dust settles, even if he was left without any money or workers. It is theoretically possible that both parties are left with 0 workers and 0-49 minerals, and either no armies or very similar strength armies. In this case, the Terran automatically wins, as long as he could float away one CC, because even with 0 minerals, 0 workers, you can build up a new eco using energy for mules. This is a race-specific advantage (that is balanced out by the strengths of the other racial mechanics like injects or Chronoboost/recall) to change this aspect, the game would need to be drastically altered, the racial mechanic completely redesigned and re-balanced. One of the main reasons why Terrans dont draw more games is, that they can flat out win those hectic base-race scenarios, if they start out on even grounds. Nobody was arguing for nerfing the mules or the general relocation ability of terran, in this specific thread, as far as i could tell.
Conclusion> If the specific racial strength of the race helps it to win in a certain scenarios that is fine, as the other races also have comparable/similar racial strength helping them win in different ways. One race having the ability to force draws while the others dont is not fine (even if it is 0.x% of the games), especially because it would be so easy to do a clean fix, without having any unintended side-effects, or impacting the balance of the matchups.
Well the are called free units because you cant treat them as a unit attack as they have HP. A tank shot do not have HP. That being said, I like free units. They are a cool way to make zerg different and they are balanced
If locusts are "free-units" then Swarmhosts are the most useless units in the history of RTS since they cant attack or cast spells yet cost a lot of money and can be killed rather easily. For me, it only makes sense to think of swarmhosts together with the locust, since one cannot exist without the other. And because one of them costs money, the other isnt free either, cuz the cost is priced into the host. I just find it really strange to think of locusts/broodling as free, without taking into consideration that it is made by another unit which costs money, requires tech and can be killed.
It's like saying that ghosts can cast spells for free, because energy doesnt cost minerals/gas.
There's not price tag on locusts. First wave costs the price of the SH and then? With every wave you're lowering the price of the wave, in the end they become free. At the same time literally everything else(except brood lings ) costs energy OR material. From the SC2 perspective locusts are free as they don't cost energy or material.
Just giving my view, but how that's gonna solve draws with Terrans in the air
I mean, bullets/missiles aren't free, everything has unlimited ammunition in this game, only Protoss has to pay for Interceptors! I literally just thought of this, totally unplayable
You don't have to kill bullets/missiles to get to the unit launching them FFS, body blocking is a thing in this game, have you like ever tried walking under broodlords?!! Stop saying nonsense, remove their hp, make them bullets, it's fine. Edit> also changeling, infested marine, the turret of RAven... ONLY PROTOSS... do you even play this game? Edit 2> MULE
One: the statement "Totally Unplayable" is a pretty common comic meme meant to exaggerate there being something wrong with a game based on the completely necessary oversimplification of reality gaming requires.
Two: them being units and having unit interactions is separate from them being free and a different balance conversation altogether. You don't actually have a problem with them being free. People get under brood lords all the time, and that's when they die.
Three: None of your bloody examples require MINERALS to make from the unit making them. I am not the one here who clearly lacks both an understanding of the game and critical reading comprehension skills.
On March 20 2019 22:48 Geo.Rion wrote: If locusts are "free-units" then Swarmhosts are the most useless units in the history of RTS since they cant attack or cast spells yet cost a lot of money and can be killed rather easily. For me, it only makes sense to think of swarmhosts together with the locust, since one cannot exist without the other. And because one of them costs money, the other isnt free either, cuz the cost is priced into the host.
Exactly. The locusts are the shots of the swarmhost, and the crappiest of all in the game, by the way. Ok, they have some range and hit hard, but they are f***ing slow and shoot once in ages and they can be shot down. Seriously?
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.
First, you fail to acknowledge at least two knows factors :
-Blizzard's time to do "simple things" (and the quantity of apparently unrelated bugs they add by doing anything) that take "2 lines of code".
-The limited mental pressure, we, as a community of players, have on blizzard. If everyone focus in this "issue" and complain round the clock about it, maybe they will do it in 1 year, while doing nothing else during this time. For historic illustration thinks about "We Want LAN" ! That needed years of complaints and scandals to find a semi-decent solution (that require "5 lines of code" : launch the game motor with players input from the replay, like in replay mode, then switch to live mode from this state of the game )
Second, you read me bad. I didn't knowledge this as an issue, but a fine line of strategic depth, this subtle and fine mechanic is a cool feature, which gave us epic historical games.
Looking at your line of code estimations, even taking some rhetorical liberties into account, I am not sure how much experience you have with complex software projects.
On March 17 2019 16:27 Highrock1 wrote: Hi,
I've always found Terran's ability to draw the game by floating away their buildings a very unsatisfying way for the game to end. And one that is without parallel for the other races.
I'm suggesting a very simple fix, Terran buildings take VERY LITTLE damage while floating, something along the line of a single HP per second. Meaning a command center would take over twenty minutes to die. But it would eventually die, making float away stalemate not viable. Maybe even give a certain grace period, having the damage only start after a few minutes floating.
Would like to hear your thoughts?
It sounds reasonable to me in many ways, that building relocation and stalemate floating would come at a price.
However, it would address only some, but not all stalemate conditions. Adding complexity to the game for this might not be the overall best idea, but I am not sure. Then again, it could add some strategic component for proxy buildings, when they have to be flown home.
I personally think that if the other player has been put in a position where they can't destroy the floating buildings, they don't deserve to win. The ability to draw is pretty cool imo.
If white has 2 knights, bishop, rook, against Black king with 2 pawns at their starting positions, and its white's move and there are chance to force win and declare mate in x moves by white, the Black can move his King outside the board (even from under a check) to a black's own extra-board square -A-1 in which white cannot ever attack, and just wait there until white resigns, or black's two pawns are either taken or cannot make legal moves anymore, constituting draw-position.
That's roughly equivalent asymmetric rule that led to this occurrence of happenings in that SC2 game.
On March 17 2019 16:27 Highrock1 wrote: I've always found Terran's ability to draw the game by floating away their buildings a very unsatisfying way for the game to end.
I disagree, I find it very exciting to watch terran players suicide all their units to destroy key units and infrastructure of their opponents to draw the game.
On March 17 2019 16:27 Highrock1 wrote: And one that is without parallel for the other races.
Yes, we have three races in starcraft which are distinctly different. Zerg can end games by slowly grinding you down with swarms of free units. Protoss can end games with massive amounts of instant splash damage. It creates interesting dynamics.
1. That is a perfectly fine opinion to have, different people find things interesting/annoying, it's really pointless to argue that aspect, if Blizz/ someone is interested of the general opinion, a poll could be done.
2. Races are different, yes, for the hundredth time, yes. Races have different racial mechanics. The game is asymmetrically balanced, and it was always intended that way, Yes. Nobody is arguing this, or saying we need to go back to warcfraft 1 game design. I dont understand why is it so hard to grasp, that this particular instance is an exception, and the other races lack anything comparable to it.
Zerg doesnt have free units. Infestors spawn units with energy, just like all the other casters. BL's and swarmhosts spawn short-lived units, they arent free, they're the method with which those units attack. There is plenty of inbuilt weaknesses if you rely on those units. Swarhmhosts/BLs cant attack or cast spells, they just spawn locusts/broodlings, which you define as "free". No, if a swarmhost manages to launch a single volley before it dies, than that locust cost exactly as much as a full swarmhost. If you manage to launch several, or even dozens it means you were very cost efficient, as the locusts cost a fraction of it. It's not that different compared to a siege tank that manages to shoot dozens of times during the course of the game. Sure it is not the same thing, but it's comparable. Terrans can repair everything. Protoss regenerates or can even fill up shields, but not effective HP. Zergs regenerate freely to full HP, but they do it very slowly. Only Zerg has burrowed (cloacked) units that can deal AOE. Terran is the only one that has ranged air units with cloak. Protoss is the only race with perma-cloacked units that can move around freely. Some of these are or can be stronger than their racial counterparts, that's not really important.
There are tons of race-specific tricks that dont have 1-1 exact matches. But they have something similar, and they all fit the RTS theme of being used either for offense, defense, crowd control (or economy). The " when behind, playing to draw" strategy doesnt really fit into this, and more importantly only one race can do it. Again, whether you enjoy watching this or not, is subjective, i believe majority of the community doesnt, but it's hard to tell without hard data.
The problem isnt even the fact that terran is favored in a base-race situation due to racial mechanics. This is (mostly) fine. Two opponents could overrun each other's bases, and Terran comes out ahead because he floats away his CCs and production buildings, the other race has to turn around eventually and make sure to confront the terran army before losing every building, while Terran enjoys a strategic advantage due to being able to defend a new position after the dust settles, even if he was left without any money or workers. It is theoretically possible that both parties are left with 0 workers and 0-49 minerals, and either no armies or very similar strength armies. In this case, the Terran automatically wins, as long as he could float away one CC, because even with 0 minerals, 0 workers, you can build up a new eco using energy for mules. This is a race-specific advantage (that is balanced out by the strengths of the other racial mechanics like injects or Chronoboost/recall) to change this aspect, the game would need to be drastically altered, the racial mechanic completely redesigned and re-balanced. One of the main reasons why Terrans dont draw more games is, that they can flat out win those hectic base-race scenarios, if they start out on even grounds. Nobody was arguing for nerfing the mules or the general relocation ability of terran, in this specific thread, as far as i could tell.
Conclusion> If the specific racial strength of the race helps it to win in a certain scenarios that is fine, as the other races also have comparable/similar racial strength helping them win in different ways. One race having the ability to force draws while the others dont is not fine (even if it is 0.x% of the games), especially because it would be so easy to do a clean fix, without having any unintended side-effects, or impacting the balance of the matchups.
Well the are called free units because you cant treat them as a unit attack as they have HP. A tank shot do not have HP. That being said, I like free units. They are a cool way to make zerg different and they are balanced
If locusts are "free-units" then Swarmhosts are the most useless units in the history of RTS since they cant attack or cast spells yet cost a lot of money and can be killed rather easily. For me, it only makes sense to think of swarmhosts together with the locust, since one cannot exist without the other. And because one of them costs money, the other isnt free either, cuz the cost is priced into the host. I just find it really strange to think of locusts/broodling as free, without taking into consideration that it is made by another unit which costs money, requires tech and can be killed.
It's like saying that ghosts can cast spells for free, because energy doesnt cost minerals/gas.
There's not price tag on locusts. First wave costs the price of the SH and then? With every wave you're lowering the price of the wave, in the end they become free. At the same time literally everything else(except brood lings ) costs energy OR material. From the SC2 perspective locusts are free as they don't cost energy or material.
Just giving my view, but how that's gonna solve draws with Terrans in the air
I mean, bullets/missiles aren't free, everything has unlimited ammunition in this game, only Protoss has to pay for Interceptors! I literally just thought of this, totally unplayable
You don't have to kill bullets/missiles to get to the unit launching them FFS, body blocking is a thing in this game, have you like ever tried walking under broodlords?!! Stop saying nonsense, remove their hp, make them bullets, it's fine. Edit> also changeling, infested marine, the turret of RAven... ONLY PROTOSS... do you even play this game? Edit 2> MULE
One: the statement "Totally Unplayable" is a pretty common comic meme meant to exaggerate there being something wrong with a game based on the completely necessary oversimplification of reality gaming requires.
Two: them being units and having unit interactions is separate from them being free and a different balance conversation altogether. You don't actually have a problem with them being free. People get under brood lords all the time, and that's when they die.
Three: None of your bloody examples require MINERALS to make from the unit making them. I am not the one here who clearly lacks both an understanding of the game and critical reading comprehension skills.
I wrote that these type of units cost energy or resources. Not that they cost only resources. Not getting why you attacking ME who wrote energy or resources for not costing minerals. And energy is resource too, if I spend 50 energy for a scan I don\t have a MULE. They have unit interaction while being free.
I skip memes because fuck memes.
What has this in common with stalemate wasn't still answered to me, but hey, why not. So please, read my posts fully, not just the parts you like. At least if you respond to me
On March 21 2019 21:53 UnLarva wrote: Imagine a chess-rule:
If white has 2 knights, bishop, rook, against Black king with 2 pawns at their starting positions, and its white's move and there are chance to force win and declare mate in x moves by white, the Black can move his King outside the board (even from under a check) to a black's own extra-board square -A-1 in which white cannot ever attack, and just wait there until white resigns, or black's two pawns are either taken or cannot make legal moves anymore, constituting draw-position.
That's roughly equivalent asymmetric rule that led to this occurrence of happenings in that SC2 game.
The last time I checked chess isn't an asymetrically balanced game while SC2 is. Flying buildsing are fine, fix the airspace. That will affect invincible drops and air units at the same time, which would be more beneficial IMO.
Imagine a chessboard with place where only SOME pieces can(let's say queens and kings) and imagine you don't have a queen and the enemy is hiding a queen and king there. That's the situation we have right now. Unaccessible place is the core reason and not just for stalemates(at least I get more pissed at immortal warp prisms/oracles/medevacs behind my mineral line, because they require air units to be safe... especially the WP)
I really like the fuel idea. Make float a ability with a timer that get's resetted when landing (because advanced terran technology can build fuel out of air and rock).
On March 21 2019 21:53 UnLarva wrote: Imagine a chess-rule:
If white has 2 knights, bishop, rook, against Black king with 2 pawns at their starting positions, and its white's move and there are chance to force win and declare mate in x moves by white, the Black can move his King outside the board (even from under a check) to a black's own extra-board square -A-1 in which white cannot ever attack, and just wait there until white resigns, or black's two pawns are either taken or cannot make legal moves anymore, constituting draw-position.
That's roughly equivalent asymmetric rule that led to this occurrence of happenings in that SC2 game.
This analogy is mind-bogglingly terrible. I don't even know where one should begin in trying to deconstruct this.
Do I mention that chess is a symmetrical game?
How about that you mention a forced mate in the chess example, when any 'forced mate' against a Terran would, ya know, include air superiority to kill floating buildings?
Also, annoying draws literally exist in Chess. You can have 8 Queens against a bare King and still draw.
On March 17 2019 16:27 Highrock1 wrote: I've always found Terran's ability to draw the game by floating away their buildings a very unsatisfying way for the game to end.
I disagree, I find it very exciting to watch terran players suicide all their units to destroy key units and infrastructure of their opponents to draw the game.
On March 17 2019 16:27 Highrock1 wrote: And one that is without parallel for the other races.
Yes, we have three races in starcraft which are distinctly different. Zerg can end games by slowly grinding you down with swarms of free units. Protoss can end games with massive amounts of instant splash damage. It creates interesting dynamics.
1. That is a perfectly fine opinion to have, different people find things interesting/annoying, it's really pointless to argue that aspect, if Blizz/ someone is interested of the general opinion, a poll could be done.
2. Races are different, yes, for the hundredth time, yes. Races have different racial mechanics. The game is asymmetrically balanced, and it was always intended that way, Yes. Nobody is arguing this, or saying we need to go back to warcfraft 1 game design. I dont understand why is it so hard to grasp, that this particular instance is an exception, and the other races lack anything comparable to it.
Zerg doesnt have free units. Infestors spawn units with energy, just like all the other casters. BL's and swarmhosts spawn short-lived units, they arent free, they're the method with which those units attack. There is plenty of inbuilt weaknesses if you rely on those units. Swarhmhosts/BLs cant attack or cast spells, they just spawn locusts/broodlings, which you define as "free". No, if a swarmhost manages to launch a single volley before it dies, than that locust cost exactly as much as a full swarmhost. If you manage to launch several, or even dozens it means you were very cost efficient, as the locusts cost a fraction of it. It's not that different compared to a siege tank that manages to shoot dozens of times during the course of the game. Sure it is not the same thing, but it's comparable. Terrans can repair everything. Protoss regenerates or can even fill up shields, but not effective HP. Zergs regenerate freely to full HP, but they do it very slowly. Only Zerg has burrowed (cloacked) units that can deal AOE. Terran is the only one that has ranged air units with cloak. Protoss is the only race with perma-cloacked units that can move around freely. Some of these are or can be stronger than their racial counterparts, that's not really important.
There are tons of race-specific tricks that dont have 1-1 exact matches. But they have something similar, and they all fit the RTS theme of being used either for offense, defense, crowd control (or economy). The " when behind, playing to draw" strategy doesnt really fit into this, and more importantly only one race can do it. Again, whether you enjoy watching this or not, is subjective, i believe majority of the community doesnt, but it's hard to tell without hard data.
The problem isnt even the fact that terran is favored in a base-race situation due to racial mechanics. This is (mostly) fine. Two opponents could overrun each other's bases, and Terran comes out ahead because he floats away his CCs and production buildings, the other race has to turn around eventually and make sure to confront the terran army before losing every building, while Terran enjoys a strategic advantage due to being able to defend a new position after the dust settles, even if he was left without any money or workers. It is theoretically possible that both parties are left with 0 workers and 0-49 minerals, and either no armies or very similar strength armies. In this case, the Terran automatically wins, as long as he could float away one CC, because even with 0 minerals, 0 workers, you can build up a new eco using energy for mules. This is a race-specific advantage (that is balanced out by the strengths of the other racial mechanics like injects or Chronoboost/recall) to change this aspect, the game would need to be drastically altered, the racial mechanic completely redesigned and re-balanced. One of the main reasons why Terrans dont draw more games is, that they can flat out win those hectic base-race scenarios, if they start out on even grounds. Nobody was arguing for nerfing the mules or the general relocation ability of terran, in this specific thread, as far as i could tell.
Conclusion> If the specific racial strength of the race helps it to win in a certain scenarios that is fine, as the other races also have comparable/similar racial strength helping them win in different ways. One race having the ability to force draws while the others dont is not fine (even if it is 0.x% of the games), especially because it would be so easy to do a clean fix, without having any unintended side-effects, or impacting the balance of the matchups.
Well the are called free units because you cant treat them as a unit attack as they have HP. A tank shot do not have HP. That being said, I like free units. They are a cool way to make zerg different and they are balanced
If locusts are "free-units" then Swarmhosts are the most useless units in the history of RTS since they cant attack or cast spells yet cost a lot of money and can be killed rather easily. For me, it only makes sense to think of swarmhosts together with the locust, since one cannot exist without the other. And because one of them costs money, the other isnt free either, cuz the cost is priced into the host. I just find it really strange to think of locusts/broodling as free, without taking into consideration that it is made by another unit which costs money, requires tech and can be killed.
It's like saying that ghosts can cast spells for free, because energy doesnt cost minerals/gas.
There's not price tag on locusts. First wave costs the price of the SH and then? With every wave you're lowering the price of the wave, in the end they become free. At the same time literally everything else(except brood lings ) costs energy OR material. From the SC2 perspective locusts are free as they don't cost energy or material.
Just giving my view, but how that's gonna solve draws with Terrans in the air
I mean, bullets/missiles aren't free, everything has unlimited ammunition in this game, only Protoss has to pay for Interceptors! I literally just thought of this, totally unplayable
You don't have to kill bullets/missiles to get to the unit launching them FFS, body blocking is a thing in this game, have you like ever tried walking under broodlords?!! Stop saying nonsense, remove their hp, make them bullets, it's fine. Edit> also changeling, infested marine, the turret of RAven... ONLY PROTOSS... do you even play this game? Edit 2> MULE
One: the statement "Totally Unplayable" is a pretty common comic meme meant to exaggerate there being something wrong with a game based on the completely necessary oversimplification of reality gaming requires.
Two: them being units and having unit interactions is separate from them being free and a different balance conversation altogether. You don't actually have a problem with them being free. People get under brood lords all the time, and that's when they die.
Three: None of your bloody examples require MINERALS to make from the unit making them. I am not the one here who clearly lacks both an understanding of the game and critical reading comprehension skills.
I wrote that these type of units cost energy or resources. Not that they cost only resources. Not getting why you attacking ME who wrote energy or resources for not costing minerals. And energy is resource too, if I spend 50 energy for a scan I don\t have a MULE. They have unit interaction while being free.
I skip memes because fuck memes.
What has this in common with stalemate wasn't still answered to me, but hey, why not. So please, read my posts fully, not just the parts you like. At least if you respond to me
On March 21 2019 21:53 UnLarva wrote: Imagine a chess-rule:
If white has 2 knights, bishop, rook, against Black king with 2 pawns at their starting positions, and its white's move and there are chance to force win and declare mate in x moves by white, the Black can move his King outside the board (even from under a check) to a black's own extra-board square -A-1 in which white cannot ever attack, and just wait there until white resigns, or black's two pawns are either taken or cannot make legal moves anymore, constituting draw-position.
That's roughly equivalent asymmetric rule that led to this occurrence of happenings in that SC2 game.
The last time I checked chess isn't an asymetrically balanced game while SC2 is. Flying buildsing are fine, fix the airspace. That will affect invincible drops and air units at the same time, which would be more beneficial IMO.
Imagine a chessboard with place where only SOME pieces can(let's say queens and kings) and imagine you don't have a queen and the enemy is hiding a queen and king there. That's the situation we have right now. Unaccessible place is the core reason and not just for stalemates(at least I get more pissed at immortal warp prisms/oracles/medevacs behind my mineral line, because they require air units to be safe... especially the WP)
Keep moving your goalposts all you want, things that only use energy have historically been referred to as free in all Starcraft 2 balance discussions, particularly in the Infestor era and when Ravens could flood the map (auto-turrets have unit interaction too). Interceptors are the only thing that require the expenditure of Minerals in order to even operate after having been built, to say that everything else costs minerals in regards to units in this context is a complete lie, so even if I missed what you said, it's because it was wrong.
Edit: Also, the idea that free units or anything on a timer are unfair compared to requiring energy were shut down by anyone rational enough to know that it's the same thing, a timer is no different than having to wait to have enough energy to use the ability, you could make SHs and BLs energy based if you want and achieve exactly the same thing.
None of the balance discussion bullshit people have been bringing up to apparently counter this draw mechanic has anything to do with it, which is entirely the problem, because you all keep bringing them up like they win your argument against the OP.
On March 22 2019 02:28 DieuCure wrote: Please give terran's buildings auto regeneration and shield, just to be fair !
Then lets give Protoss and Zerg buildings the ability to fly too, to be fair.
Or let Zerg burrow all their buildings in the event they think they might lose to someone who can't detect anymore.
Or let Protoss cloak all their buildings indiscriminately when they're worried they can't win the game anymore.
That would be fair.
His post was in reference to people calling for the removal of Terran's ability to lift, so your post makes no sense. He was already calling attention to the absurdity of these sorts of complaints.
Simplest fix, IMO, would be to make floating buildings stop counting towards the win condition after a short timer (maybe 1 minute?). No impact on standard games, Terran still gets an advantage in base trades being able to reposition key structures, but they lose the "opponent has no flying units" trump card. The timer is mainly so gold base strategies are still possible, and accidentally lifting your CC right away isn't an auto-loss.
Base trades are some of the most interesting games, but I think both Zergs and Protoss are reluctant to get into a base trade with a Terran because of the stalemate thing. Take that away and I think you'd actually end up with more base trade games, and base trades get more intense since a draw becomes dramatically less likely.
You might also have to apply the same logic to uprooted Spore/Spine Crawlers, but that's much less of an issue. But I do think base trades would get more interesting when all 3 races have to defend an immobile position.