Reveald - Blizzard's answer to people placing random buildings around map when losing

You forget yourself, Mr Super Moderator. In addition to the crude ad hominem you have levied at me, I also note that your rebuttal excedes mine by over 200 words: do remind me, who was calling who long winded?

 

I was just trying to ensure I left no holes in my argument. You also ignored my question, which while being an ad hominem has yet to be proven unjustified. However this debate is now off topic, so please continue it in PMs, any posts furthering it will either be edited or deleted.

 

I am the kidn of player who never says GG and admits defeat. I am defeated when 100% of my forces are eradicated from the map. So essentialy this mechanic is Blizzard sending the words "GG" from you to your opponent. Blizzard does not use the words "GG" with the mechanic but it's basically the same thing.

So basically Blizzard is forcing me to GG or the game will GG for me. Kind of funny Blizzard is forcing players to GG. I know if this mechanic is actvated in a game the player is basically screwed and speeds up the other player winning by a lot. But for that 1 time out of a 100 where you can work out a way to get back in the game, you're screwed. Even if the the enemy can no longer see your buildings. They will remember where they are.

I can understand why Blizzard put the mechanic in the game. To stop the idiots placing weird pylons or other tiny buildings on corners of the map for no good reason. Mind you intelligent map design where the corners of the map are unable to have buildings placed there would fix the issue. Anyways it's another invent a mechanic to stop the many many idiots. And screw over a small few legit players.

In the end the legit players can learn and adapt to the mechanic. Not fair but life was never meant to be fair.
And also in the end many idiots doing this on purpose for kicks will have their loophome closed.
Like any change a few suffer for the greater good of many. So under that premise I think it's not a bad idea.

Mind you I think intelligent map design where there is no map corners to dump buildings would be a much better solution for all.

**********************

[edit] Keep it civil moderators. If you got issues with people PM them don't spam up the forum with it.

 

the problem with the good map design solution lies in player-made maps.

 

Looking at things from another point of view:

If you have a preconceived notion of "who should win" and that the rules sometimes don't agree with that, then that's the wrong way of interpreting rules. Who should win is exactly the person who does win.

Disputing the rules is futile. Just as is playing chess and insisting on playing on until all of the black pieces have been eliminated, arguing "Just because my king is gone doesn't mean I've lost. I may be able to win with my other pieces"

 

Your analogy does not really work. The aim of Chess is to checkmate the king. People will only knock over their own king (before a checkmate) and say GG if they are 100% sure they will lose. But a lot of the time it's not a certain defeat. But the aim of SC2 is to beat all of the opponent but Blizz is changing it into just beat all their CC/H/N. And Player made maps are the players fault. If play in a map that is not a Blizzard official one or a Blizzard approved player made one, not my fault. Good map makers will know this anyways and make maps that avoid this issue completely.

And I'm not against Blizzard using this to fix the issue. I'm just saying maybe there was a better way to fix it. Anyhow, majority rules. And it's clear that majority is not me.

 

Having to find someone whose already dead ruins the fun and wastes a good 5-10 minutes that could be spent on something more important. If your Nexuses are gone, you're dead anyways most likely. If you still have enough units to kill then that's fine and them seeing your buildings probably isn't going to matter too much anyways.

To me, you're wanting everyone to suffer for 25% of their games just so a few people can stay in a game longer in 2% of their games. Just doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

 

It wasn't an analogy. It was an example of how disputing the rules in a game is futile.



I think this rule has only once affected the outcome of my WC3 games.

It was a ladder game on Plunder Isle. I started in the lower half. I managed to fend off my opponent's hero rush, and we managed avoid each other for the next 5-10 minutes as we creeped half of the map each, securing one expansion each: I was on the mound, my opponent was in the corner. We both built up a small unit group, taking out each other's expansions at the same time, but neither of us returned to defend, and so each pressed on to attack the main base. It was a bit of a panic as to who would destroy the other's base first. Mine went down first, but we both had another building away from the main base that saved us both from defeat at that point, which was quite funny.

I used the gold I had left to start building another town hall in the middle of nowhere, which saved me from being revealed, but my opponent didn't, and I found his last building when he was revealed, allowing me to win. But it was very close.

 

I disagree. In chess, there's a condition called a draw. Nobody wins. You can't really have that in a videogame, at least not in the rts genre. I've always liked comparing Starcraft to chess, but not when it comes to the end of a match. :/

As for the mechanic itself: if it works for Warcraft 3, then why shouldn't it work for Starcraft 2? Stop crying about the mechanic while hoping it'll be removed. Come up with another solution instead.

Anyways, I think it's perfectly fair for a player's buildings to become visible if they can't win anymore. Sure there are exceptions and players might still be able to win in those cases. But if they're really that good, then why did they loose all of their mains in the first place? Kinda deserve to loose then. At least in my opinion. :/

Lastly: can anybody confirm that this will be active in ranked (ladder) matches? If it's only for casual games, then the serious players shouldn't have anything to worry about. (and if you think somebody is being an *** because of the hidden buildings thing, then why not simply ignore him/her?)

 

Well if that's what you think I meant you're wrong. And there's the suffering you say? In a short game people have no time to get out the the edge of the map to place things. And in long games, it's called flying units. Really not hard to look for a minute to find a building. Unless the new SC2 maps are so enormous that it takes a fast air unit 5 mins lap the map. But as we both know this idea of Blizzars is not about causing more or less player suffering. it's simply to close a annoying loophole some are abusing on purpose and others are unknowingly abusing.

And to Jasmine: You are assuming the CC/H/N is like a king. And when it is checkmated or destroyed, the rest of the pieces on the board or armies/buildings on the battfleid become useless. And I think your assumption might be right. I like your thinking there

***********
[offtopic]
And little note yes if you play by the rules the as you say the one who satsified all the conditions to win before the other wins. Mind you this is only a fair outcome if said rules are fair.
[/offtopic]

 

Well of course we can't have a mechanic that just benefits a few but then if we look at matches like.... Crap i can't remember the pro game match where a map revealing mechanic would have ruined the entire game into a disappointing anticlimax. Will include link when found.

But anyway I think a toggle option for this allowing players to have this mechanic on or off might be good, especially for the more competitive as while some pubbers do delay the game til pointlessness most competitive guys type GG and leave thus for leagues and tournament's benefit and some others a toggle option would be nice.

 

@ LK,

I think you may have been pwned. Not in the argument but in the following posts. I honestly don't KNOW whether this mechanic is a good idea or not yet. I don't think the CC being destroyed in itself should be a reason for you to be revealed. I kill opponents' CCs all the time and it's not GG yet.

It's too easy to kill these buildings for them to reveal. Period. And in LK's case I think IF he was revealed by the mechanic then it was unfair. He should have had the opportunity to destroy his opponent while his opponent needed to find his building himself to destroy him. There was an active threat on the battlefield which had not been destroyed. That makes the game still on.

@ Ych,

That, sir, is exactly why Blizzard has created this mechanic. You, sir, are a hider. I would be pissed too. I would have observers in every dam corner of that map to find you.

 

I think an easy modification would be if your opoonenet is revealed if he has no more units left capabale of doing damage (maybe with the exception for 1 or 2 workers) and is unable to produce any units or workers (whether it's because they lack minerals or buildings doesn't matter). Also, going a bit further using my definition I wouldn't have the player revealed at all I would just put up a one minute countdown timer after which all of the player's remaining buildings are just destroyed, if you wanted a visual you could various lasers raining out of the sky if the winner is Protoss, missles dropping out of the sky if the winner is Terran, and fleshy meteorites ffalling for the Zerg.

 

I'm quoting your entire post cause I think it's very well said. Brilliant. it's everything I said only you said it said 100x better. The first 2 paragraphs is exactly what I feel. With the reveal hapening when there is still an active threat on the map. A little unbalanced there.

And I think the last little paragraph you said is why Blizzard wanted this mechanic in the game. The burning question is, is this tactic a legimite way to play the game or just abusing a loophole? I think there are a lot of people on both sides of that arguement.

If it's a building in the corner of the map then sure that's a legimite call of the mechanic being unfair. But if it's a lone cloaked unit and all of their buildings are destroyed. Then that is just being an ***.

******************

To Kerwyn: You're idea is novel. Something different. Nice. But it does not answer the question to those who want to seek out and destroy everything and enjoy it. Mind you If you modified what you said to "once all units capabale of attacking and all buildings capable of creating units". Then once all of those are gone you are pretty much dead and can have your end game map wide nuke as you said.

But - Workers can attack and all of them would have to be dead too. And only one exception would be here. And that would be Carriers and any other units that indirectly kill. Carriers themselves do not kill, their little fighter ships do the killing. And other such units would be classed as able to attack for the purposes of this. And a second exception would be the units would have to be uncloaked. As in if you only attacking units you have are cloaked like for example a Dark Templar or any cloaked unit even if cloaked by another units ability then the mape wide nuke would come. This would stop the people with the one cloaked unit in the corner of the map.

So in short after all of these buildings/units are dead the enemy would have like a few pylons or an observer/Dark Templar like unit on the map. (same thing for other races too but you all get the point). With 3 pylons/cloaked units and nothing else on the map technically you are not GG but you can not win.

This does not answet my original question of the "seek and destroy" players. But it's the best way to have this mechanic we are all debating and not have it be unbalanced for some gamers.

 

Edit: After re-reading 'fully' I would agree with your comment of a short timer of defeat for the player being revealed, that is of course he can win over his enemy in time.

If I read your example as no buildings left, but attacking units still on the map allow the player to stay in the game then:

Image in your example, if you had 1 Dark Templar left, or for that matter any unit capable of hiding it's self, need it be burrowed, or cloaking banshee, and they know whether or not they can win with it; then they can easily decide to just keep it away from detectors for a exceedingly long period of time thus making it possible for the enemy to give up in due aggravation.

Might I add, I'm one of the many with out a beta, so it makes it difficult to voice what if any arguments, but...I honestly believe this topic has those defending the past, with out this detection feature in stead of focusing on avoiding losing your CCs/Hatcherys/Nexus being taken out- or, if you know you can't avoid losing them, you must quickly dispose his forces so he can't kill you after being exposed, or killing his base first.

These examples of detection ruining the game for one side, imo, are too rare of occurrences, and likely you or your opponent did something wrong if it falls to that as the breaking point in the match. (again, perhaps this is happening much, much more often then I'm believing them to be)

Less more examples continue to pour in due to players "exploiting" this feature, I feel it shouldn't be the focus point of how players win/lose as opposed to both players tactics until their final headquarters was destroyed.

 

You bring up some good points Rational, so here would be my new suggestion, if a player hasn't made any "productive action" in X amount of time then they are given a warning that in Y amount of time they will be revealed/destroyed. I put productive action in parenthese because I don't have a good definition of it yet (I was thinking something in general attacking your oponent, gathering minerals, building production buildings, building units...) and of course the two times would be up to balance or general consensus (as for revealing versus destroying that's rrally up to taste, I personally like the idea od destroying because it gives an excuse to come up with a graphically cool superweapon that goes to wipe out the rememants of your oponent, I would also suggest a surrender button that has the same effect).

On the note of old versus new, I would be in complete support of this mechanic had I not seen how easy it could potentially come into to play for the detriment for a player trying to win.

 

I've got mixed emotions about this mechanic. While I see why it would be good, I feel it should be changed a bit. As LordKerwyn said, a "Productive Action" would be good to base off of. I remember watching a match where both players bases were decimated. They both had DT's and were trying to find that last probe or whatever to win. It could have been a stalemate, but 1 DT blocked a ramp perfectly, allowing him to build and in the end win. If the vision mechanic was in place, that wouldn't have happened.

This is why I believe the "Productive Action" part should be placed. If the person has an army still, but no CC/Nexus/Hatchery, why should he be revealed? He could still easily win with some surprise attack, which can't happen while the enemy sees everything you are doing.

 

I used to abuse this sort of thing in Wc3 with bats.. I dont think its going to be a huge deal in SC2.

 

I think this should be an option that you can enable/disable in the pre-game lobby.

 

It seems sort of crappy that if you take down a main structure the game tells everyone so and so play is being revealed. Guess I know you didn't have any expos without having to actually look.