|
Ive got a question. How come people who whine about Terran lift never address the concept that maybe they should just leave the game and be the bigger man? Seriously. Yeah i know its not 100 percent ideal. But nothing in life is. Terrans have been able to do this for like 12 years. It is something that is part of the game. You need to kill his buildings. He can float his buildings. You can kill his floating building with an air unit etc. If you dont build one, you lose. I dont see how this is something that people are bumping their heads against the wall about.
So seriously, to all these new players crying about Terran lift, what is so impossible for you that you cant just admit you didnt win and leave the game? I am not a Terran player. When i lose to lift i think to myself FUCK but really its my own fault for not planning and taking lift into consideration. Weve already heard the argument that he cant kill you either. Weve already heard the argument about how its a "broken mechanic". Weve heard all that stuff over and over in this forum and on bnet forums. But no one ever addresses why they cant just admit they didnt win and leave, saving themselves time and frustration.
Why is it impossible for you to be the bigger man?
|
On October 01 2010 06:38 Mellotron wrote:
Ive got a question. How come people who whine about Terran lift never address the concept that maybe they should just leave the game and be the bigger man? Seriously. Yeah i know its not 100 percent ideal. But nothing in life is. Terrans have been able to do this for like 12 years. It is something that is part of the game. You need to kill his buildings. He can float his buildings. You can kill his floating building with an air unit etc. If you dont build one, you lose. I dont see how this is something that people are bumping their heads against the wall about.
So seriously, to all these new players crying about Terran lift, what is so impossible for you that you cant just admit you didnt win and leave the game? I am not a Terran player. When i lose to lift i think to myself FUCK but really its my own fault for not planning and taking lift into consideration. Weve already heard the argument that he cant kill you either. Weve already heard the argument about how its a "broken mechanic". Weve heard all that stuff over and over in this forum and on bnet forums. But no one ever addresses why they cant just admit they didnt win and leave, saving themselves time and frustration.
Why is it impossible for you to be the bigger man?
Because you didn't lose? It's a stalemate, not a loss. It's your fault for being in a stalemate, but it doesn't mean you've lost.
I wouldn't get pissed for taking a loss during a stalemate because that's me, but it doesn't mean you've lost or anything. If something unobtrusive can resolve stalemates then that's a benefit for everyone.
|
On October 01 2010 06:38 Mellotron wrote:
Ive got a question. How come people who whine about Terran lift never address the concept that maybe they should just leave the game and be the bigger man? Seriously. Yeah i know its not 100 percent ideal. But nothing in life is. Terrans have been able to do this for like 12 years. It is something that is part of the game. You need to kill his buildings. He can float his buildings. You can kill his floating building with an air unit etc. If you dont build one, you lose. I dont see how this is something that people are bumping their heads against the wall about.
So seriously, to all these new players crying about Terran lift, what is so impossible for you that you cant just admit you didnt win and leave the game? I am not a Terran player. When i lose to lift i think to myself FUCK but really its my own fault for not planning and taking lift into consideration. Weve already heard the argument that he cant kill you either. Weve already heard the argument about how its a "broken mechanic". Weve heard all that stuff over and over in this forum and on bnet forums. But no one ever addresses why they cant just admit they didnt win and leave, saving themselves time and frustration.
Why is it impossible for you to be the bigger man?
if its a case of last surviving CC(or other building) vs large ground army w/o workers and money, my logic tells me the one floating should take the loss (still stalemate but if a winner had to be chosen).
reason:
winning conditions for terran: must rebuild base for any chance of winning
other's condition: must destroy remaining building
for terran to win, he must land but he can't since it'll be destroyed.
opposing player can only wait for the building to land.
terran has the choice of ending the game or not.
if terran's last building is not a CC, he has 0% of winning.
so for the game to progress, terran(floater)'s defeat is imminent, therefore he decides to stay afloat and prolong the game to stalemate.
again, its still a stalemate, but the current situation kind of forces a winner to be chosen and my vote will go to the one with ground force in this case.
|
On October 01 2010 06:22 Mellotron wrote:
From the OP:
"But I definitely think for the lower leagues (gold myself) that these "stalemates" can be very frustrating for players new to the game/trying to improve."
I dont want to minimize your discussion for humor or rudeness sake. But if that quote is really how you feel then there is no need for a draw button. Leave the game and take the loss. Who would actually sit there and, in the name of "improving", squabble over a handful of points with someone else? If you are really seeking improvement then just leave the game and go find more games. Why are you trying to change something thats not a problem for anyone except the people who take it to childish levels over something so small? How are you guys even ending up in this situation over and over? I imagine the number of times id have to have this happen to me before id start to get a little wise to it and either prevent it or just get over it.
If you are in gold league trying to improve i suggest improving your mentality first by realizing that you are there to play the game to get better at the mechanics. Wins and losses earned by anything other than seeking to improve those mechanics mean nothing. Points mean nothing. Your record means nothing. How you play consistently does. And you are consistently letting Terran lift while you refuse to build 1 air unit. Im not sure how wise any of that is.
MAN i wish Blizz would just tell people to deal with it. It really bothers me that they are listening to these people who have no ability to think ahead or plan. Come on are you really going to sit and wait for hours for the other guy to leave? How is this even happening?
But it is a problem affecting maybe not a majority of the community, but enough people to warrant a change. And I didn't mean that it hindered my improvement, but that it makes me feel very frustrated with the game. A match could be so close, but just because player A can create a stalemate, player B has to quit? It's a frustrating experience taking a lot of joy out of the game. Blizzard doesn't have to ignore problems in the lower 95% of the community just because some players have risen above those kind of issues.
And if you think points and records mean nothing, then good for you. But I for one enjoy seeing my record improve and I am trying to get into a higher rank so I can be taken seriously by the people who say rank doesn't matter.
And as far as saying you didn't want to "minimize my arguement", that's EXACTLY what you were doing. Why bother starting off by denying what you then take 3 paragraphs to do. I started this topic to bring up how Blizzard is looking into ways to fix these stalemate issues, not to complain about a stalemate that happened to me.
|
I think buildings should have a float timer (but a long one, like 20 or so minutes). The reason is, I often use buildings such as barracks to scout, and they are flying for pretty much the entire time.
Also add a draw button to prevent the
Assimilator VS pylon and cannon stalemate
|
A lot of these solutions are not elegant in anyway. Shoving a bunch of little conditionals into a simple mechanic like this would just make it messy and annoying, and there is no way that all possible scenarios could be taken into account.
The best solution is just to add some sort of mutual draw agreement. It's not a good solution, but it's the only that will at least work in some cases: if both players agree on the draw. It obviously will not work in all situations, such as when a Terran player is BMing with a floating building or something, or if one player simply refuses to draw, but it's a better option than none at all.
The way a player plays the game [e.g., changing one's strategy to avoid stalemates, or changing game mechanics (Terran liftoff timer, no floating space on maps)] should not be affected by way of implementing a completely irrelevant mechanic.
Implementing new mechanics by way of some ridiculous conditionals or by changing game mechanics is what game designers/programmers call "messy". It's not elegant. It's not practical. It's bad practice. It just won't work.
Not to mention, changing the game mechanics to fit the needs of a draw mechanic further imbalances the game, and everyone will then whine about that.
|
On September 30 2010 14:38 sob3k wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2010 13:24 mierin wrote:
Stalemates are just a part of the game. One of the most perfect stalemates I've ever seen is MasterAsia vs. TT1. that wasn't a stalemate, Masterasia won.
And why if I were Blizzard I'd be very hesitant and/or careful about introducing stalemates. How many games would players agree to a stalemate instead of being very thoughtful and creative like that game? That game is a reason against stalemates, cuz if you watch the chat they both seemed to initially believe it was, and if there was an option to draw, we wouldn't have that epic game.
Besides, stalemates like nearly anything to do with ranking, can likely be abused creatively.
|
On September 30 2010 13:22 StarSense wrote:
Practically every Blizzard map, unlike in BW, has open empty space around it for superfun floaty terran building time. New. Maps.
Yes but not all stalemates are due to a Terran lift-off and float around the map. Sometimes they happen without a Terran even being in the game. So, there lyes the question: What should be done?
And alsot, I agree about how stupid it is to complain about the Terran lift when you're the once who base traded with a Terran. Honestly when I think that it's going to be a base trade against Terran I stop and kill his army before proceeding. It's an ability everyone knows is there and they should all take that in to account.
|
Anyone know if blizzard has implemented somekinda draw - mechanic into the game ?
There was definitely talk about it at somepoint..timer or something.
Just played a game that ended in a stalemate, didn´t feel like waiting and seeing for myself so I gave the poor protoss a win.
|
Terran buildings should just start burning after floating for 20 minutes
|
On October 26 2010 11:21 phaded wrote:
Terran buildings should just start burning after floating for 20 minutes
Well Terrans are no longer the only race to cause stalemates. If a protoss and Zerg trade until they have barely anything left the last protoss unit can die to broodlings (supposing a creep tumor is down and no detection).
I have seen it happen ... then my last remaining drone performed the flawless nibble to victory.
|
It's so obvious, floating buildings shouldn't count as active structures. You need to have at least one building on the ground for it to count
|
On September 30 2010 14:47 trueg0x wrote:
terrans shouldnt loose in one of these stalemate conditions. you only have zealots and no nexis? that doesnt mean that you should win. it means it is a draw. Giving terran buildings a flying timer would mean that in those sorts of situations, terran would loose. There must rather be a system that draws the game rather than forcing a loss to a player. I think everyone here has agreed to that anyways.
Except the only reason you didn't lose was because you could place a building in a spot my zealots can't attack? Clearly you should have lost, but you didn't because your building has a retarded ability to grief people.
|
On September 30 2010 13:58 mucker wrote:
I hope they turn stalemates into a prisoner's dilemma. You reach stalemate conditions (no mining for 5 minutes or whatever) and a box pops up with two buttons, victory and concede. If both of concede, both gain half points. If both declare victory, both lose half points. If one concedes and one claims victor then conceder loses normal points, victor gains normal points.
Literally the best idea I have ever heard
|
so many people are quick to give their solutions to stalemates in this thread, but they fail because
A) There are 3 or 4 different kinds stalemate scenarios.
B) People who know each other could abuse drawing to avoid playing each other on ladder.
C) If draw gave both players +/- points people could abuse by boosting each other points the same as B, as well as BM idiot still stalemating because he doesn't want to lose points when he draws.
I really don't think that any system could possibly account for all the variables of stalemates, we would need an actual moderator to join games after X time to have a discussion with players/look at the map and decide if a draw would be acceptable. If this were possible, then both players could gain pts, or just void the game all together.
On October 26 2010 11:44 Kpyolysis32 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2010 13:58 mucker wrote:
I hope they turn stalemates into a prisoner's dilemma. You reach stalemate conditions (no mining for 5 minutes or whatever) and a box pops up with two buttons, victory and concede. If both of concede, both gain half points. If both declare victory, both lose half points. If one concedes and one claims victor then conceder loses normal points, victor gains normal points. Literally the best idea I have ever heard
lol, liking that idea actually. Maybe even just a coin flip option to decide winner/loser.
|
will people please STOP MENTIONING A DRAW BUTTON! the whole concept of that involves two people of integrity who will both agree to a certain mindset that 'yes, this is a draw.' Reality dictates that the terran is just being a 13 year old prick and floating his building to a corner, and will either spam the 'draw' button so he doesn't get a loss, or force the other person to leave so he gets the win. This issue is an obvious terran abuse and needs to be corrected.
I'd say if you have no command center on the ground, and only the ones floating in the air, then the timer should count down first to reveal the buildings, and then a secondary (2-5 minute) timer afterwards where if you don't land it, you lose.
|
I think the best solution would be that after 10 minutes of no one actually attacking anything the game just ends and no one gains or loses points. That way you won´t need to stay in a game too long IMO, and 10 minutes is enough to build economy and tech back with just one worker...
|
On October 26 2010 11:39 Wolfpox wrote:
It's so obvious, floating buildings shouldn't count as active structures. You need to have at least one building on the ground for it to count
I've won games on base trades because of the floaty building mechanic. This is the worse suggestion I've seen.
|
The way I see it, maps should just be designed so that floating buildings can't get out of range completely of any ground unit. Just put no-fly zones in the corners or something.
That way if you have nothing that can shoot air, its your own fault for disregarding the float mechanic.
But if you have a bunch of stalkers and you just can't reach the CC, that's not really all that fair, because it's still technically possible for you to win, if they were to come in range.
I think that would be an appropriate compromise with a relatively easy to implement solution.
|
You can have stalemates without floating buildings. For instance, I have nothing but a pylon and cannon left, and you have two zerglings and an extractor.
Best way to fix it imo, is to just allow people to offer draws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
