I ran into a situation the other day where the group I was playing with joined a game of premade experts and a couple on my team asked that the opponent Sedna not use the 30% High Priest bug, since we were going to play without a Sedna of our own. The other team didn't agree to this and it was their host, so everyone on my side left the lobby. In custom games it is host's game, his rules, no worries, but it would be cool if we could reach a common ground in pub games when it comes to glitches and broken mechanics. What I'd like to do if it's possible is put together a set of standards which exclude the easily identifiable exploits. You can put it in the title of the game or someone joining a game could ask "House Rules apply?" and if the answer is yes then he knows that his opponents won't be using the following: Disallowed per House Rules 7/29/091. Drop and re-equip hp and mana buff items for the bonus2. Sedna Healing Wind + Level 3 idol Priests/High Priests3. Horn of Battle4. Minions inside Enemy Citadel Exploit The flip side is that there are some things which *might* be imba or cheezy but aren't actually broken. These things will not be excluded from House Rules because the counters are broader:Allowed per House Rules 7/29/09 1. Duplicate DGs on the same team2. Backdoor flaglocking on Crucible3. Minion Blitzing4. Item feedingThese rules are absolutely up for debate, addition, and revision, but there are a few things I'd like you to consider before this turns into a "YES! NO!! You Dummy!!" thread: - it is possible to beat a team which is using most or all of the disallowed mechanics, but it becomes very difficult to do so if you are not at least as good as they are and playing very specific Demigods and builds. The rules are designed to open up playstyles and teambuilds, not undercut the people who know how to play. Conversely, it's important that we don't make rules about things that work as intended but need tweaks to improve balance - only those mechanics which can be widely acknowledged are broken should be excluded from play - creating arbitrary rules of play is less desirable than having a perfect game or having the devs remove the loopholes. Hopefully most of the issues will be resolved in 1.2, but until then there are enough mature and experienced players to make something like this work. Any attempts to turn this into a l33t vs scrub conversation will be missing the point. - No one is saying you have to play by these rules unless they are specifically referenced in the game title or by the host. But if you join a game with "HR" or "House Rules" in the title or the host calls it in lobby before the game then you have a list of things you know are allowed or not, and it doesn't all have to be spelled out every time. - Noobs and randoms probably don't even read these forums, so this list is for those of us who know how to play and want to play others who also know how to play. I'm not going to call House Rules in a random game and get pissed when LittleNewbie29 doesn't know what that means and you shouldn't either.
KK, if you guys have objections or additions bring them in
Thanks for reading,
Kestrel
The only things we really disagree on are semantics and bragging rights.
-edit- well come to think of it there's the time you said all premades are on a higher level than pugs, I don't agree with that still
Just a note, since it looks like one guy doesn't understand -Disallowed means you can't do it in the game. Allowed means you *can* do it in the game. @ Kokujin - no punishment necessary in a community as small as this one - if two teams of established players go so far as to set the rules beforehand and then one team breaks those rules I imagine no one with skill will want to play with them - solves itself @ woppin - either put HR or House Rules in the title or if you get enough people in a game whom you recognize as good enough to take advantage of the various mechanics listed then call it in lobby. It's shorthand for "don't do anything too shady that forces me into a very narrow playstyle" @ Shadow - the minions in citadel thing isn't directed @ you - it's a larger issue which ties into HoB - 4 players with minions HoB zerg into an opponent's citadel at level 7 - no counter currently exists to that except doing it faster @ Shadow and Dustbin - Spirit attacks on Crucible can be countered more effectively than zerging on other maps, imo. Still not ideal but not totally broken compared to how it used to be in Beta 2@ ScottishAlien - Backdooring for purposes of this convo refers to caplocking an opponent portal - specifically on Crucible it is possible to warp across the gap in back of a base and cap the portal with minimal exposure - Erebus has a natural advantage with this because he can bat swarm, but any general with Cloak of Night or any player with Warpstone can achieve the same end. The advantage can be mitigated by good players, which is why it doesn't qualify as Disallowed, imo The DoTA rule against Backdooring doesn't apply to Demigod, at least partially because a portal flag can be reclaimed, where as a destroyed barracks can notI'm tending to ignore both Crucible and Exile for purposes of these rules, as at this point I don't know of a lot of experienced players who play those maps against other experienced players. So if you are missing the crystal exploit on Exile that's why - we all know the map is broken as is. I'm also cutting out purely social behaviors like ragequitting or host quits, because they aren't game mechanics, they are personality traits
We play the game we have - which is why some ground rules, no matter how misguided or unpalatable they might be, can work some of the time between two like-minded teams who, again, don't want to be forced into narrowly countering broken mechanics, right here, right now... When the state of play changes favorably I will be the first guy at the table to yell "Anything goes!"Until that time this list serves as convenient shorthand for those who want to use it and nothing more
We play the game we have - which is why some ground rules, no matter how misguided or unpalatable they might be, can work some of the time between two like-minded teams who, again, don't want to be forced into narrowly countering broken mechanics, right here, right now... When the state of play changes favorably I will be the first guy at the table to yell "Anything goes!"
Until that time this list serves as convenient shorthand for those who want to use it and nothing more
@ Shadow and Dustbin - Spirit attacks on Crucible can be countered more effectively than zerging on other maps, imo. Still not ideal but not totally broken compared to how it used to be in Beta 2
No, it's uncounterable.
I also think concieding (not to mention rage quitting) should not be allowed. Be proffesional, fight to the death. The opposing team worked hard for the privilege of reducing your once proud citadel to rubble. Don't take that away from them.
I agree on disallowance of quitting.
But I heavily disagree on coencede. Imho you should concede if it's clear who wins.
I had several games where one side was clearly better in every possible way or in other words: where the outcome of the game was clear after 8- 15 minutes. Still they just ran on sight etc and didn't conceded.
E.g. I played a 2v2 where we killed them on any fight where they didnt run. We hold all 3 flags on Prison for ~80% of the time. But due to Demigods poor flag math (compared to WoW Battlegrounds) we were not to much in lead in warscore to buy catas or giants soon. They bought only running speed items to stale the match since they were not so bad that we could push their pace without catas.
Horrrible match and I hope inhouse Rules can prevent such bad sportsmanship.
In starcraft, warcraft etc. the pros don't wait till the last building goes down, they give up to save the winners time. Castling to stale the match is seen as bad manners.
This doesn't give you an advantage whatsoever? It doesn't matter at all if your character's autoattack targets 2 minotaur summons and some archers before the bishops? Your aoe might be more needed elsewhere (if it forces me to use my aoe on them where as I otherwise wouldn't, it makes a huge difference), I might not have enough mana for it, it might be on cooldown, let alone I might not be playing a character that has a strong enough aoe to oneshot the units I need to kill.
It doesn't give you an advantage if you're playing against people who know how to properly deal with minions.
Anyone that is quitting early in a game isn't learning a darn thing that can help them win later... sad really...
This is not Starcraft, nor Warcraft, and most players here aren't 'pros'. If you're going to model your behaviour after the elite and overly dedicated players of another game, that's your business. I only concede if all the members of my Team ask me to. I learn a lot more by seeing how the last few minutes play out - such as their DPS and Health, to see what Artifacts they've stacked which help me to piece together where my team and I went wrong - then I do by quiting one game to join another and repeat the same mistakes.
More + karma for zehdon
Very true words here..as a for instance... I never would have learned that the counter to Sedna for the UB is a combination of Ooze, spit and Bestial roar...
+ snare items and abilities too..
That's rather vague. Care to elaborate?
Your arguments against conceding are quite good.
But they are hardly arguments pro forbiden concede.
Because wraids idea was to forbid it totally.
And I really like this idea but disallowance of concede would not ony look very stupid on paper but would also stop me from ever playing after house rules even if all other rules are great.
Not conceding is btw only viable for other maps than prison.
Only on that maps are the problems of Demigods metagame visible. That the better player wins very easy and the win is determent quick.
On other maps (e.g. Cateract) its the map itself that stales the progress of the match and allowes extremly worse players to compete with far better ones. Granted if you couple that with the odd flag math and citadel upgrades and you got the possibiliies for comebacks but on prison are comebacks quite impüossible if it's clear whos better.
Or what I want to say in short: Coceding is very viable on Prison And I like that map!
Oh, don't get me wrong, I think concede is a great featue and in no way wish to see it removed. Believe me, I've had my ass handed to me a few times, and am very thankful I was able to bow out rather than wait for the opposing side to rip me a new one. As I said, if my team asks me, I'll concede. I don't want my actions ruining someone elses game experience. Having said that, I played with one player who's name I forgot who - after every death - would click the concede button. Every time he died, he'd rage on about how we're a terrible team and we should just quit. We actually won that game, and I discovered the best way to handle an Erebus Minion build out of it as well. Conceding is, in my opinion, for those moments where it's obvious that one team is just plain better than the other team and so much so that there is no contest. That's just my two cents.
@ViViDGear
funny, i saw much more comebacks on prison than on any other map, especially cataract is very bad for that. on cataract you can easaly seal there faith when you have an adnvanced war rank by running in an capping their portals. this isn't quite as easy on prison. on prison you can hold off against for long time until you evened most out and use the surprise against your opponents.
Being as there are no "pro" Demigod players, it's entirely logical.
The orginal argument:
p1. Players should act like pros.
p2. Pros let other players finish their citadel when they lose
Therefore players should let the victors finish citadels before conceding.
The rebuttal was an attack on the second premise.
His argument was
p1. Waiting for the last building to be destroyed in WCIII or SC is like waiting for the citadel to die in DG
p2. Professionals don't wait for the last building to be destroyed
Therefore if players should act like pros, they should not wait for the citadel to fall.
Then you responded that most players aren't pros which you amended to no players are pros. It's completely beside the point, it doesn't address anyone's presmises or conclusions. What does it have to do with players who want to act like pros?
You're a third party who may be right about what you're talking about (I think you are actually), but interjecting it here did not make sense.
-edit- I misread your post so hopefully you didn't read the first iteration of this post which was completely different.
I think it's relevent; the arguments here were linking professional, as in the higher skill leveled, players of Starcraft to Demigod in behaviour. My comment was basically reminding people that Demigod is not Starcraft and thus the behaviour of those players isn't relevent to this community, and since we have no universally accepted professional players of our own exactly what professional Demigod players do is still up for debate and definition by the community. Then I listed what I do, and why I do it, as I believe this to be the best method of increasing one's skills to a point where one could be considered professional.
What I meant by proffesional was not being a "pro" at the game. I simply meant that even though it will SUCK for you to get you ass handed to yourself constantly, and see yourself beaten it will still make your opponent happy for winning a complete game.
Honestly, tell me what would you prefer? Playing something and then winning after about 10 minutes or so because the opposing team conceded? Or constantly pushing the base, working hard and EARNING your final victory...
Proffesional means being a good sport and letting your winning opponent have fun even though you are not enjoying yourself that much so that when it's YOUR time to kick ass, you will also have fun and not have to cut the game short because your enemy got scared and quitted.
Hell, i've played plenty of games with last minute combacks (our towers destroyed, citadel under attack, they got giants before us etc). I think conceding kind of misses the point of a proffesional game. It might be ok if you are just looking casually for a good time, but when serious players want to go head to head in a serious competition, any sort of quitting or cutting the game short by conceding should not be encouraged. Just my opinion
i dont have fun continuing to play a match that is clearly lost for the others. if there is still room for a comeback it's a diffrent story. but often it is more then clear that there is absolutly no chance for it .
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
