Anti Stuck Poll

[supersexyy]

This is quite a straightforward poll and I believe these are the three main options. The mods have had a discussion over this for a while and we're quite split. Before someone asks, obviously the use of anti-stuck on stuck units will be permitted.

1. Yes - Remove the use of anti stuck

Pros

The anti stuck mechanic was not intended to be used this way
Leakers should be more severely punished
Discourages double building to a degree
The game is less dependent on latency

Cons

'Don't fix what isn't broke'
Players will anti out of habit
Some units (blood orcs etc) like to move randomly which may cause consistency issues

2. No - Only use anti to catch leaks

Pros

Leakers will be less detrimental to your team
Middle ground option - no real cons

Cons

3. No - (No rules on anti use)
Pros

Leakers will be less detrimental to your team
Enables tactical uses of anti stuck
Easy application of rules

Cons

I have posted the positives for each option.

Comments are good.

[dweiler]

Looking at the amount of pro's for 'yes' I know what Supersexyy has voted for

[supersexyy]

I knew you were going to say that. I can add pros for the other options, that's what comments are for.

[dweiler]

Haha, ok So I voted for "No - Only use anti to catch leaks", because it has proven to be stable and balanced. The other options have their own cons (like balance issues) which are not explored yet because we haven't played those modes, and I don't see any reason to jeopardize the balance of the game while there is nothing wrong with the current situation.

[eldryan]

I think only for leaks.

[iightfyre]

I voted for #2 - use anti stuck only to catch partners leaks - I think that's pretty much the way it is being used now and has proven to be fair in my opinion

[bit]

#1. antistuck is a cheat.

[BA_Fail]

I would of voted for #3 but its too broad, anti shouldn't be used on opponents side, so saying no rules is actually not what i'm looking for. Considering avoiding a blood orc delaying king is the only problem, the rules should stay the same but change the meaning of delaying king to purposely taking away units from king or something like that

I voted for #1 because its better to take it off completely rather than preventing certain instances and making too much rules.

[Feor]

I would of voted for #3 but its too broad

#3 is too general. I opted for #1 for this reason also ( was 50/50 to be honest ). Also for the lag that makes it impossible for me to ever antistuck in lihlbot.

For example that way someone could use antistuck on enemy wisps. ( unless the rule, only use in your own half remains as i guess ). But also would be possible to antistuck summons and bosses from attack.

I think #3 should be allowing to delay our units return to king for tactical purposes, or well someone could express it better than me.

[supersexyy]

Some common sense guys...... seriously....
I've reworded it, feel free to change your votes.

[dweiler]

Btw, I think abolishing anti-stuck will only lead to more double build. What if your ally is weak and can't stop leaking? You can't anti-stuck, so then you build at him.

For this the same goes as for anti-stucking - did the maker of the map intend us to build together in this way?? You can argue about that.

With that I'm just trying to say the 'maker didn't intend it like this'-argument is not very strong. Viagra wasn't intended to help erections but to lower your blood pressure and nobody cares that we don't use it for blood pressure anymore. In fact the way we use it now is better than its original intention, maybe the same goes for our use of anti-stuck

I do, however, like the 'latency' argument. There is some unfairness in the difference in latency cause by the fact that we play on Azeroth, so removing that is really fair!

[DonaldtheDuckie]

Its true that if your ally is weak and you cant anti stuck, then it might be good to build at him to help stop leaking, but that is how it is allready.

There should be less double building if as is removed alltogether the way see it as a result of the strength of stacking 1 side becomes less viable as it would inevitably lead to leaking on the other side.

[dweiler]

In fact, that is not how it is already, because now you can antistuck

And btw, I saw the first game of the finals yesterday and green (was it BA) kept leaking in that game, and because of the lagg they failed to antistuck (which already happens in reality 90% of the cases too). But still his team decided to build on one side, because it is way more valuable. And they still won to a team who did not (or less) leak, so the difference is not so huge. We see that in regular games too, anti-stuck almost never works after lvl 17, still building together is more valuable.

In my opinion, if you want to remove the anti-stuck because you want to abolish double building I would suggest you go for an option in which you do not throw the baby out with the bathwater: that is to abolish double building (I would be no fan of that anyway). To try and get rid of double building through this measure is both dangerous and not effective in my opinion.

[dweiler]

Oh, and one more thing. As you may notice some builds keep rounds easier if you build at the other than other's. For example, toks will keep rounds easier, just as elite archers. Both of those towers are already imba, if you can't anti-stuck you make them even more imba, because they tend to hold their own lane if you build on the other side too. I don't think we want more imbalance!!

Edit: sorry doublepost, I wasn't thinking.

Edit 2: toks and archers hold their lanes more easy because this gets compensated by their uselessness at bosses. But in fact, you always get 100% from the bosses, so their imbaness vs the other rounds doesn't get compensated, hence they become more imba than they already are !!!

[Krayyzie]

Voted yes

Second mode would probably be just as good ,but i agree with some people writing here about the latency issues... And thats the main reason why i vote 1 instead of 2.

Positives = Leakers gets into more trouble,which they should, and it will make it harder to income. Fair game when it comes to lag, compared to now when there´s a huge luck involved on the antis.

Negatives: Saving will get stronger, might be shorter games...(some might consider this positive also)