|
First off, my apologies if this was posted already but I did a search and couldn't find anything.
So I was flipping through the b.net forums and saw a topic about stalemates with a blue post indicator. The topic OP was the same story we've all seen a dozen times, "I'm currently in a game where he just has one building juuuust too far for my stalker to hit it". Here are the blue posts in the thread:
Link to Topic
As sort of an aside to this discussion, we know that stalemates can be incredibly frustrating, particularly if they carry on for extended periods of time. While some players might argue that stalemates are avoidable or that those who find themselves at such an impasse should just grin and bear the loss, we feel a bit differently and are currently looking into ways that we can help address prolonged stalemates if and when they occur. We don't have a clear time line for this endeavor, but we know it's a concern of the community and want to improve the player experience if we can.
While StarCraft II and chess are both strategy-based games that require careful planning, great timing, and the ability to anticipate an opponent's movements, they're not entirely comparable in this situation. With respect to stalemates in StarCraft II, it's not only a matter of defining "what is a stalemate" and when one has occurred, it's also one of deciding how to address that stalemate once it's been identified. Do both players tie? Does one win and the other lose? Are both players penalized? If so, how?
There's a lot of questions that need to be answered before we can move forward. If we're going to step in, we want to make sure that we do it right.
Now hopefully they can find a way to change this in a way that doesn't affect the high-end players, where this is seen less often. 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.
While there's no definite timeline given, Blizzard is at least AWARE of the issue, and looking for good solutions to implement at some point or another. I would like some kind of option that would give a Win-Loss-Draw ratio instead of just the Win-Loss used now. That of course opens up the problem of when to actually count a draw though O.o Wanted to fill in the TL community and maybe open discussion for draw ideas that would work well for lower levels, while not affecting higher levels (at least not drastically)
P.S. My first forum topic, woo!
Edit: Threw in a link to the topic on the b.net forums
|
Practically every Blizzard map, unlike in BW, has open empty space around it for superfun floaty terran building time. New. Maps.
|
Stalemates are just a part of the game. One of the most perfect stalemates I've ever seen is MasterAsia vs. TT1.
|
They should just add a timer on building hover. Make it five minutes or so and stalemates would pretty much be over. Of course they could still happen, but they'd be much less common to the point that they would only trivially matter.
|
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 though... He had no way to stop that zergling.
|
Maybe base it off who has, say an attack unit left. Or if neither does then overall value of whatever structures the players have left. Surely with the game already tracking most stats some of them could be used to determine. Thing would be how to devise a way to get both players to let the game go to the stats rather than one BM player just walking off and watching TV hoping for the cheap win.
|
I think everyone can agree that this is the most epic stalemate ever
+ Show Spoiler +
|
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.
I think they are talking about stalemates where the Terran would lift his buildings off into the corner.. -.-
|
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.
But even if it's a "perfect" stalemate, how using the current system do you decide which player is given a win and which is given a loss? If it's a perfect stalemate, then they are both at equally bad footing and one shouldn't win over the other.
|
void CheckTime()
{
if (gamelength > 60) //minutes
drawButton.enabled = true;
}
void CheckDraw()
{
if (Player1.drawButton.pressed && Player2.drawButton.pressed)
drawGame();
}
Blizzard should employ me...
|
make a time limit for terran buildings staying in the air
this would solve some but not all stalemates
|
On September 30 2010 13:31 tertle wrote:
void CheckTime()
{
if (gamelength > 60) //minutes
drawButton.enabled = true;
}
void CheckDraw()
{
if (Player1.drawButton.pressed && Player2.drawButton.pressed)
drawGame();
}
Blizzard should employ me...
Synchronization? Error catching? direct access to other class variables...
|
On September 30 2010 13:31 tertle wrote:
void CheckTime()
{
if (gamelength > 60) //minutes
drawButton.enabled = true;
}
void CheckDraw()
{
if (Player1.drawButton.pressed && Player2.drawButton.pressed)
drawGame();
}
Blizzard should employ me...
Of course! Programming a game as complex as SC2 is that easy! Creating new methods is actually that simple!
Also, even if it WAS that simple, there's plenty of games that go on longer than 60 minutes that aren't draw-worthy, so this would be bad, and show draw buttons when players don't want to end the game yet.
|
My ideas for Stalemate situations:
1. Add an "Offer Stalemate" button. You can offer a total of 3 stalemates (like Game Pauses) per match. Once all three are declined, you can't offer anymore. You can only accept a stalemate from your opponent, leave the game and take a loss, or outlast your opponent for the win.
2. If a Stalemate Offer is accepted, both players win 0 points and lose 0 points. In other words, no change is made to their scores. That way, players won't be spamming stalemates to gain points, and they'll realize that they have something to gain from accepting a stalemate, rather than possibly losing a "who will quit first" match and losing points.
3. As far as stalemates appearing on records is concerned, I do think that that they should appear as draws (W-L-D, rather than just a W-L record), although I also would recommend simply NOT having that stalemate show up in the record at all (if Blizzard just wanted to keep a simple W-L record, since it's neither a Win nor a Loss). Of course, SC1 had a W-L-D record, so I don't see why SC2 can't...
|
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.
|
LOL The Rock, you're so bad...
It seems like the only complete solution would be to have a forced draw. Otherwise some players might decline offered draws in favor of waiting out their opponent. I don't think it's fair to penalize certain races in a draw situation (e.g. by burning down floating T buildings), so a forced draw is the only way out of a situation like that. In the case of a draw obviously player ratings should be unaffected, as though no game was ever played.
I'm sure they could add a draw condition -- no unit damage in a certain period of time, no income, no new buildings, no workers building, etc.. that would be pretty appropriate in 99% of cases. Obviously for pro matches draws should be at the discretion of the officials.
|
does anyone have this stalemate replay? would love to watch it...
MasterAsia vs. TT1 mentioned before.
|
On September 30 2010 13:36 DeckOneBell wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2010 13:31 tertle wrote:
void CheckTime()
{
if (gamelength > 60) //minutes
drawButton.enabled = true;
}
void CheckDraw()
{
if (Player1.drawButton.pressed && Player2.drawButton.pressed)
drawGame();
}
Blizzard should employ me... Of course! Programming a game as complex as SC2 is that easy! Creating new methods is actually that simple! Also, even if it WAS that simple, there's plenty of games that go on longer than 60 minutes that aren't draw-worthy, so this would be bad, and show draw buttons when players don't want to end the game yet.
It's not like the "draw button" would necessarily just pop up in the middle of the screen. It could be added to the menu along with the surrender button.
As far as whether or not it is THAT simple, I think the main point is, if you look at what blizzard is capable of, how had do you think adding something as simple as a draw button would be for them?
|
If a player is not mining minerals for more than 5 minutes and has not used remaining army units/has no army units = that player loses.
If for some odd reason BOTH players are not mining minerals and BOTH have no attacking units/are not attacking = whichever player has the highest score wins (as seen on score screen).
If for some reason BOTH players are not mining minerals and BOTH have no attacking units and BOTH have the exact same score, no winner is given, bnet acts like match has never been played (this would NEVER happen)
in each case players will be given a count down timer.
problem solved. I doubt their professional programmers would have trouble implementing this.
|
Something I was thinking of, why would it be too unfair to put a timer/"fuel limit" on Terran buildings? Nothing too short, but a decent amount of time for them to scout. My logic is this: Zerg buildings can only build on creep (except hatchery of course but whatever), and if there is no creep under them they begin to slowly die. Protoss buildings can only be built in a power field, and if the field they are in is destroyed, they become unpowered and useless. So why is it that (some) Terran buildings can be built anywhere and still lift off for indefinite amounts of time?
I know a probable argument is "It wasn't imbalanced in SC1 so it can't be in SC2", but that doesn't mean that every game mechanic should just be left as Starcraft Dogma.
|
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.
Seriously Blizzard, why make things more difficult for yourselves? New. Maps.
At worst hopefully it would be some stupid timeout rule that only applies to ladder games and not custom ones.
|
Putting a timer on buildings is nonsensical as it still does not solve all stalemates (eg probe and cannon vs zealot and pylon. There's limitless possibilities that don't involve floating buildings)
|
On September 30 2010 13:36 DeckOneBell wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2010 13:31 tertle wrote:
void CheckTime()
{
if (gamelength > 60) //minutes
drawButton.enabled = true;
}
void CheckDraw()
{
if (Player1.drawButton.pressed && Player2.drawButton.pressed)
drawGame();
}
Blizzard should employ me... Of course! Programming a game as complex as SC2 is that easy! Creating new methods is actually that simple! Also, even if it WAS that simple, there's plenty of games that go on longer than 60 minutes that aren't draw-worthy, so this would be bad, and show draw buttons when players don't want to end the game yet.
Actually very few games ever go over 60min (the occasional goes over 60min game time) and it'd just enable a button in the menu without warning which requires both players to click to draw the game. No one is forcing a player to draw a game after 60min, just having the option is would at least fix stalemates would be nice. A lot easier tahn trying to use some complex method of detecting a tonne of variables such as floating buildings, no attackable units, no money for workers etc.
And for the record, game programming is actually really simple ignoring physics and lighting. It's just a long and tedious process. Obviously blizzard couldn't just shove what I wrote into a game, I was hardly going to proper code that would be useable by blizzard. I just thought it'd be a more interesting way to post my thoughts.
|
On September 30 2010 14:11 AJMcSpiffy wrote:
Something I was thinking of, why would it be too unfair to put a timer/"fuel limit" on Terran buildings? Nothing too short, but a decent amount of time for them to scout. My logic is this: Zerg buildings can only build on creep (except hatchery of course but whatever), and if there is no creep under them they begin to slowly die. Protoss buildings can only be built in a power field, and if the field they are in is destroyed, they become unpowered and useless. So why is it that (some) Terran buildings can be built anywhere and still lift off for indefinite amounts of time?
I know a probable argument is "It wasn't imbalanced in SC1 so it can't be in SC2", but that doesn't mean that every game mechanic should just be left as Starcraft Dogma.
Flying buildings should not count as buildings while in air, so if you lift off everything and your base gets blown up, you lose.
I mean, overlords are flying supply depots, but they don't count.... that's fair.
|
The only general solution to this problem is a forced draw after a 10-15 minute period of no mining and no combat. All the other proposed solutions in this thread have substantial drawbacks, and either should not be implemented, or should be implemented only in conjunction with an automatic timed draw system. Here are the problems with the other solutions presented.
1) Prevent floating buildings from flying permanently (via a fuel timer or whatever else).
Advantages: ends most vT stalemates.
Problems: Doesn't solve the problem, even for flying building-type stalemates, due to islands and unreachable terrain. Unfairly resolves draws against the terran player. Affects normal gameplay unnecessarily.
2) Add an offer draw button.
Advantages: Affects all stalemates, resolves draws fairly.
Problems: Griefing players can refuse to draw in hopes of holding out for a victory, use of "offer draw" button to distract could be a problem.
3) New maps without open areas around the edges.
Advantages: ends most vT stalemates.
Problems: all the same problems as solution 1. Also dramatically affects gameplay in terms of viability of harassing air units.
|
15 minute timer then a roll screen appears if buildings are detected floating. Your building has to sit on the ground for at least 30 seconds to remove the debuff. It gives both players a chance to win the match at the roll screen. No more stalemates!
|
EPIC FAIL Team Liquid, i came here to ask if im the only one having problems getting to the B.net website and cant log onto SC, but i cant make a new topic for 3 days, hows that make the person trying to get help feel? fucked over since this is the second source of info next to b.net fourms, epic fail TL
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On September 30 2010 14:34 Lezil wrote:
EPIC FAIL Team Liquid, i came here to ask if im the only one having problems getting to the B.net website and cant log onto SC, but i cant make a new topic for 3 days, hows that make the person trying to get help feel? fucked over since this is the second source of info next to b.net fourms, epic fail TL
That shit isn't worthy of a topic.
The system works!
|
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.
|
On September 30 2010 14:34 Lezil wrote:
EPIC FAIL Team Liquid, i came here to ask if im the only one having problems getting to the B.net website and cant log onto SC, but i cant make a new topic for 3 days, hows that make the person trying to get help feel? fucked over since this is the second source of info next to b.net fourms, epic fail TL
TL is not B.net technical support...
Also, it seems pretty obvious from the TOTAL lack of "Help! I can't access the B.net website!!" threads, that it's probably okay...
|
On September 30 2010 14:34 Lezil wrote:
EPIC FAIL Team Liquid, i came here to ask if im the only one having problems getting to the B.net website and cant log onto SC, but i cant make a new topic for 3 days, hows that make the person trying to get help feel? fucked over since this is the second source of info next to b.net fourms, epic fail TL
well since this is the second source of info next to b.net forums maybe you should have created an account earlier. also, if u're not the only one having trouble logging in then you WILL read about it here regardless of you making a thread or not  anyway WELCOME and try to stay nice it will be so much better for everyone, Don't forget to read the commandments.
|
On September 30 2010 14:40 nttea wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2010 14:34 Lezil wrote:
EPIC FAIL Team Liquid, i came here to ask if im the only one having problems getting to the B.net website and cant log onto SC, but i cant make a new topic for 3 days, hows that make the person trying to get help feel? fucked over since this is the second source of info next to b.net fourms, epic fail TL well since this is the second source of info next to b.net forums maybe you should have created an account earlier. also, if u're not the only one having trouble logging in then you WILL read about it here regardless of you making a thread or not anyway WELCOME and try to stay nice it will be so much better for everyone, Don't forget to read the commandments.
i come here all the time, i just havent had a reason to make an account up until now
|
Maybe have a Regame request? In the situation of a stalemate one player can request a draw and if the other accepts then they regame? Or maybe the same thing except with a Draw request. Dunno but i'm sure blizz will think of something good ^^
|
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.
|
I feel like the option to ask for a draw should only be enabled when NEITHER play has any actions registered for at least 10 seconds. This way people can't be asshats and try to spam the option or some shit. Both players agree not to make any actions, then select the option. OR, have it work like AoE2. You just had an "allied victory" button in the menu. You had to open the menu and select it, and if everyone had it on, the game would end. Make it so if you check that box, and your opponent checks the box, it'll end in draw.
Just avoid at ALL costs a popup or something that someone can spam to try to either screw with your micro (like pausing) or accidently cause you to hit "accept draw."
|
On September 30 2010 14:34 Lezil wrote:
EPIC FAIL Team Liquid, i came here to ask if im the only one having problems getting to the B.net website and cant log onto SC, but i cant make a new topic for 3 days, hows that make the person trying to get help feel? fucked over since this is the second source of info next to b.net fourms, epic fail TL
The rule exists so idiots like you cant make shitty threads like the one you just proposed to make.
|
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.
In real war, as well as many other RTS
Someone who has an army wins over someone who has no army, but buildings.
|
On September 30 2010 13:31 tertle wrote:
void CheckTime()
{
if (gamelength > 0) //minutes
drawButton.enabled = true;
}
void CheckDraw()
{
if (Player1.drawButton.pressed && Player2.drawButton.pressed)
drawGame();
}
Blizzard should employ me...
ftfy...
Seriously, "Offer draw" should be next to "Surrender" button, and it should be toggleable.
But it seems Blizzard will try to devise an algorithm to automatically detect all possible stalemate scenarios. That's not necessary, but it would be impressive. Also, it would shut down players that would not accept a draw when a stalemate occurs.
|
I don't see any use for a Terran building to be able to float for 30 minutes other than creating a stalemate in a match which they should have lost.
|
Yea i think this is mainly for those terran scrubs that fly around for hours, i think when the building is lifted off it should be counted as a unit and not a building, maybe give them X amount of time to land or something, but once that time is up, either declare a stale-mate, or the opponent auto win's.
|
I think they should just end the game in a draw after say 15-30 minutes of inactivity/basic "floating building" vs mass roach or w/e.
While some may argue they had the game won because they've got the roaches and such, technically they didn't win because they have nothing that can hit the floating buildings.
Sure as hell beats waiting it out for what could be hours.
|
On September 30 2010 15:12 Graham wrote:
While some may argue they had the game won because they've got the roaches and such, technically they didn't win because they have nothing that can hit the floating buildings.
Uh... ok
How about I have 10 battlecruisers
Now, all my buildings get destroyed
Why do I lose? I still have an army, that can hit both air and ground, and essentially do massive damage.
Yet, if my battlecruisers die, and one supply depot lives on an island, and the other guy does not have the ability to get air, but still has ground units, does it mean I should still be in the game?
No. It's a dumb mechanic. It should be removed.
|
On September 30 2010 15:19 Fa1nT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2010 15:12 Graham wrote:
While some may argue they had the game won because they've got the roaches and such, technically they didn't win because they have nothing that can hit the floating buildings.
Uh... ok How about I have 10 battlecruisers Now, all my buildings get destroyed Why do I lose? I still have an army, that can hit both air and ground, and essentially do massive damage. Yet, if my battlecruisers die, and one supply depot lives on an island, and the other guy does not have the ability to get air, but still has ground units, does it mean I should still be in the game? No. It's a dumb mechanic. It should be removed.
Yeah you should be in the game. You may have considered when attacking it was worth it because he had no ability to kill that depot. Quite simply, you shouldn't be going for base trades if you can't kill your enemy, and it's just plain stupid to expect your opponent to let you kill him. If the victory conditions are kill every building (NOT KILL ALL ARMY), then stop thinking you've won when you kill his army and not his buildings! Get a better gamesense and don't go for a base trade in the future if he can do this.
Say you are playing chess and you only have a black king left that gets stalemated despite the enemy having his queen, 2 rooks, and 4 pawns left on the field. Does the white person deserve to win? No, he's a fucking idiot for stalemating the enemy.
|
My solution: If no one is mining and no one has dealt damage for the last 10 min, a button pops up for both players with an offer to "refuse to surrender" to the opponent. The button has a 60 second timer, and if you don't press it you surrender automatically. This button keeps popping up randomly at intervals ranging from 2 - 10 minutes as long as no damage has been dealt and no one is mining. If the timer runs out and neither player has pressed it they both lose. The game will end in a draw only if the game timer overflows, causing the game to end.
With this method, a stalemate will still be engaging to the players involved. If you truly refuse to give up then you should have to prove it!
|
I agree that a pop-up with the "Opponent has offered a draw. Do you ACCEPT or DECLINE" would be distracting and could also be abused. (The opponent mass spams the "Offer Draw" until you accidentally accept.)
Instead of a pop-up, the statement "Opponent has offered a draw" could be displayed on-screen as though you had been messaged. Then you would have to go to the menu and accept.
However, in a true stalemate situation which may be hard to define, the win should be awarded to the player with an army over the player with no army. Perhaps if the game reaches a situation in which neither player can gather resources, and neither player can remedy that situation a stalemate countdown appears for some reasonable duration of time.
This could set up some really interesting situations...
|
On September 30 2010 15:25 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2010 15:19 Fa1nT wrote:On September 30 2010 15:12 Graham wrote:
While some may argue they had the game won because they've got the roaches and such, technically they didn't win because they have nothing that can hit the floating buildings.
Uh... ok How about I have 10 battlecruisers Now, all my buildings get destroyed Why do I lose? I still have an army, that can hit both air and ground, and essentially do massive damage. Yet, if my battlecruisers die, and one supply depot lives on an island, and the other guy does not have the ability to get air, but still has ground units, does it mean I should still be in the game? No. It's a dumb mechanic. It should be removed. You may have considered when attacking it was worth it because he had no ability to kill that depot. Quite simply, you shouldn't be going for base trades if you can't kill your enemy, and it's just plain stupid to expect your opponent to let you kill him
Your logic
BECAUSE of a bad mechanic, you should alter your strategy to REVOLVE around that mechanic so it does not fuk you over in the long run.
Why is it terrans are the only race allowed to base trade 90% of the time?
|
On September 30 2010 15:27 kingjames01 wrote:
However, in a true stalemate situation which may be hard to define, the win should be awarded to the player with an army over the player with no army.
Why? The object of the game is to destroy all of the opponent's buildings.
|
On September 30 2010 15:25 FabledIntegral wrote:
If the victory conditions are kill every building (NOT KILL ALL ARMY), then stop thinking you've won when you kill his army and not his buildings! Get a better gamesense and don't go for a base trade in the future if he can do this.
Say you are playing chess and you only have a black king left that gets stalemated despite the enemy having his queen, 2 rooks, and 4 pawns left on the field. Does the white person deserve to win? No, he's a fucking idiot for stalemating the enemy.
It's true what you say about knowing the victory conditions... However, it is defined in chess that to win, you must checkmate the king (or the other player concedes). Anything else, including stalemate, does not count as a victory. However, in Chinese chess, in addition to checkmate, if a player can force stalemate, then they also win.
My point here is that the achieving stalemate does not always have to be viewed in a negative sense. If Blizzard extended the rules to cover what happens in the case of a stalemate, as they've indicated they will do "soon", we'll all have to learn to incorporate that into our play.
|
One of the problems with an offer draw button is it would allow people to mutually agree to not play ladder matchups.
If you're a Zerg, and you hate playing Zerg, and there's a draw button, and you're both too anal to lose points, you could just mutually agree on a draw.
If both players have to agree to the draw button, then the douchebags who fly their buildings to the edge of the screen when they have nothing left may just keep their buildings there anyway and alt tab.
I'm not saying that adding a draw button is a bad idea. I'd prefer it over the current system. Even if you only get a draw scenario in 1/100 games, it's super annoying.
But it isn't as simple as just putting a button in. It's a careful balancing act of making something that actually solves the issue in a way that's fair to everybody and leaves no possibility for abuse in any form. And doing something knee jerk can cause confusion, more problems, and make your company look bad even if the intentions were good (ULTRALISKU FITIIIIIIIING)
You guys should probably believe them when they say it will take time to figure this one out.
|
On September 30 2010 15:33 Matrijs wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2010 15:27 kingjames01 wrote:
However, in a true stalemate situation which may be hard to define, the win should be awarded to the player with an army over the player with no army.
Why? The object of the game is to destroy all of the opponent's buildings.
Okay, that's true, so then I ask you, should anything be done in the situations where you are physically unable to reach your opponent's last building due to an inability to gather more resources?
|
Ive had plenty of stalemates where as zerg vs terran he rushes into my base meanwhile am killing his (scrap station he shot through the destructable rocks i went around). i killed his base with zerglings while he killed my base i rebuilt a few extractors killed his remaining army - after the broodlings killed most of his units but i managed to make his Command center red which burnt down both of us revealed but i still had 30 zerglings to his only buildings - neither of us could rebuild an army - This is my fault because i didnt engage his army instead of running around it? and the terran deserves to win that match because of that fact? i think not.
i still control the map (well exept for that island) i still had units that can attack he did not and could not have any.
should have been my win i still had army units. he did not.
|
|
|
|
|
On September 30 2010 16:04 raga4ka wrote:
Just add a draw option .
That won't solve the main problem: players purposely delaying the game for whatever reason (they have been cheesed or something like this). If they see a "do you want to draw button", what do you think they will answer?
|
On September 30 2010 16:15 nihlon wrote:That won't solve the main problem: players purposely delaying the game for whatever reason (they have been cheesed or something like this). If they see a "do you want to draw button", what do you think they will answer?
Delaying the game isn't that much of a problem. If 1 player has a worker + main and other player lifts off, sure you have to waste 10min building something to kill it but at least you'll have an outcome.
The problem is when both players are in a situation where neither can win, they need a draw option to allow the players to leave the game without getting a loss rather than having both players going afk for 9hours or whatever.
|
I think the players are the best party to decide when a stalemate has occurred and the computer is the best party to decide whether this is actually the case. Furthermore the solution should be simple and work in basically all situations. So why not do it like this:
At any time of the game a player can push the "Check Stalemate" button in the menu which starts a 2 (or whatever) minutes countdown. The player who issued the stalemate insta-loses if one of the following conditions is met within the countdown:
- Any player mines minerals or gas
- The player who issued the stalemate loses a unit
- The other player builds a unit (not sure whether that last one is necessary)
Otherwise the game ends after the countdown has finished and is either counted as a draw or alternatively the player with more points is awarded the win. (I would prefer the latter, since this would require the least changes to rankings and such, plus your game score finally serves a purpose).
I think that would work in basically all situations except the most exotic stalemates. The only abuse I could see would be griefing in team games, since one player could cause his team to lose immediately. An easy solution here would be that in team games only the player "loses" who issued the command and is kicked out of the game, while the rest of the team continues to play (so it would be just like surrendering).
|
I love stalemates, i have yet to experience one though(i really want to  ).
Let's hope Blizzard doesn't do something stupid, the best sollution to stalemates would be a "Request Draw"-button that have been spoken about before here on TL.
|
On September 30 2010 16:23 MiraMax wrote:
I think the players are the best party to decide when a stalemate has occurred and the computer is the best party to decide whether this is actually the case. Furthermore the solution should be simple and work in basically all situations. So why not do it like this:
At any time of the game a player can push the "Check Stalemate" button in the menu which starts a 2 (or whatever) minutes countdown. The player who issued the stalemate insta-loses if one of the following conditions is met within the countdown:
- Any player mines minerals or gas
- The player who issued the stalemate loses a unit
- The other player builds a unit (not sure whether that last one is necessary)
Otherwise the game ends after the countdown has finished and is either counted as a draw or alternatively the player with more points is awarded the win. (I would prefer the latter, since this would require the least changes to rankings and such, plus your game score finally serves a purpose).
I think that would work in basically all situations except the most exotic stalemates. The only abuse I could see would be griefing in team games, since one player could cause his team to lose immediately. An easy solution here would be that in team games only the player "loses" who issued the command and is kicked out of the game, while the rest of the team continues to play (so it would be just like surrendering).
What if theres one patch of mineral left, and it's guarded by Player A's cannons and Player B has 3-4 workers left. Player B can probably ninja mine one patch of mineral and cheese a win by getting the 5 minerals.
|
On September 30 2010 16:33 crazeman wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2010 16:23 MiraMax wrote:
I think the players are the best party to decide when a stalemate has occurred and the computer is the best party to decide whether this is actually the case. Furthermore the solution should be simple and work in basically all situations. So why not do it like this:
At any time of the game a player can push the "Check Stalemate" button in the menu which starts a 2 (or whatever) minutes countdown. The player who issued the stalemate insta-loses if one of the following conditions is met within the countdown:
- Any player mines minerals or gas
- The player who issued the stalemate loses a unit
- The other player builds a unit (not sure whether that last one is necessary)
Otherwise the game ends after the countdown has finished and is either counted as a draw or alternatively the player with more points is awarded the win. (I would prefer the latter, since this would require the least changes to rankings and such, plus your game score finally serves a purpose).
I think that would work in basically all situations except the most exotic stalemates. The only abuse I could see would be griefing in team games, since one player could cause his team to lose immediately. An easy solution here would be that in team games only the player "loses" who issued the command and is kicked out of the game, while the rest of the team continues to play (so it would be just like surrendering). What if theres one patch of mineral left, and it's guarded by Player A's cannons and Player B has 3-4 workers left. Player B can probably ninja mine one patch of mineral and cheese a win by getting the 5 minerals.
As I said, more exotic stalemates might not be covered, but I doubt that any rule could cover all instances. In your scenario Player B could still activate the stalemate counter and if he thinks to have more points he even has an incentive to. With minerals and gas mined, I was referring to "dropping off" gas or minerals at a command center. And if one player still has this ability, chances are he is ahead anyway.
|
No unit has caused another unit damage in 2 min.
No unit or building has been constructed in 2 min.
No resources have been mined in 2 min.
If all those conditions are met, you're in a stalemate condition. There could be an automatic draw offer at the 2 min. point and an enforced draw in another 3 min.
|
On September 30 2010 13:27 GGTeMpLaR wrote:I think everyone can agree that this is the most epic stalemate ever + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkPAJjQYv-Q
story?
|
While StarCraft II and chess are both strategy-based games that require careful planning, great timing, and the ability to anticipate an opponent's movements, they're not entirely comparable in this situation. With respect to stalemates in StarCraft II, it's not only a matter of defining "what is a stalemate" and when one has occurred, it's also one of deciding how to address that stalemate once it's been identified. Do both players tie? Does one win and the other lose? Are both players penalized? If so, how?
There's a lot of questions that need to be answered before we can move forward. If we're going to step in, we want to make sure that we do it right.
What the hell is wrong with blizzard? I just don't understand how they don't know it should be a no contest. What Starcraft tournment in the last 10 years would decide a draw by some arbitrary measure? Ladder should be no different from a tournment. If its a draw its as if the game was never played.
|
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.
Hmm keep in mind that giving up the massive open air only areas not only means that terran buildings can't retreat there but also means that banshees/mutas/phonenixes also lose a retreat area. (and other air units as well)
A "stalemate" caused by a terran flying buildings to the open air can really only be caused if the map is mined out. This situation rarely occurs.
You could say that but if you base race a terran he will fly his buildings away. And you won't be able to finish him off. But ask your self would this be any different if any race just brought a worker along with them everytime a major attack force left and then just constructed a random hatchery/cc/nexus/pylon/depo in order to stay in the game. If you are in the lead and you know you can slaughter all the ground troops he has left go ahead and send a probe/drone with your attack force so if the terran ends up trying to base trade you just build something kill his base then go back and kill his force yes its annoying that you have to rebuild so you can kill the floating buildings but he won't kill you. Keep my mind it has already been established that your army could beat the terran army. If it is not the case that your army would be able to beat the terran army the floating buildings is not the problem as he could of just as easily brought an scv with his force (it would be beneficial to do this anyway as most forces have mech units for repair if not you can build bunkers for your infantry).
Back to the OP
A true stalemate would be something like this (which keep mind has nothing to do with floating buildings)
Bases have been killed there is a depo and a terran force (no minerals for a rebuild) that consists of mainly siege tanks. The toss force has a force of mainly zealots and a pylon (likewise no money for a rebuild) The zealots don't want to charge a tanks that are in siege mode. The siege tanks don't want to go into siege mode for fear of getting raped by the zealots.
Just like with terran players being anal about not wanting land there buildings and the other races getting pissed being forced to get some AA to go kill it there would be just as many people that would be to anal to push accept on a stalemate for the situation I gave. (I would still rather have that option) I don't think it is possible to make it where the game notice that the game is in a stalemate other than doing something like this if neither player kills a unit harvests money within a certain time limit game ends in stalemate automatically. (This would be the only way IMO to get rid of the chance that someone would be too anal to push yes to accepting a stalemate.)
IMO we just need a vote to call a draw function. As for tournaments it would be up to the tournament officials to call the draw if the players can't agree.
|
or just leave it and watch tv
|
On September 30 2010 13:19 AJMcSpiffy wrote:
With respect to stalemates in StarCraft II, it's not only a matter of defining "what is a stalemate" and when one has occurred, it's also one of deciding how to address that stalemate once it's been identified. Do both players tie? Does one win and the other lose? Are both players penalized? If so, how?
If there's anything Team Fortress 2 has taught me over the years, it's that in the event of a stalemate everyone loses.
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
On September 30 2010 13:31 tertle wrote:
void CheckTime()
{
if (gamelength > 60) //minutes
drawButton.enabled = true;
}
void CheckDraw()
{
if (Player1.drawButton.pressed && Player2.drawButton.pressed)
drawGame();
}
Blizzard should employ me...
Who the fuck names fuctions with capitalized letters first.
EDIT: That is unless they are class factories but these are not.
|
As far as whether or not it is THAT simple, I think the main point is, if you look at what blizzard is capable of, how had do you think adding something as simple as a draw button would be for them?
Here's the problem.
The general reason for stalemates at the low level is because people are griefers. They know they can fly their buildings where the enemy can't attack them and just leave them there.
They do not want a draw. They want a win, and they're willing to leave their computer running until they get it. A draw button, the option to offer a draw and accept/reject it, will not stop griefers.
Blizzard's concern is not the difficulty of implementing any particular solution. It is in implementing the right solution, one that can deal with griefing while still preserving gameplay.
|
On September 30 2010 17:48 Ryhn wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2010 13:19 AJMcSpiffy wrote:
With respect to stalemates in StarCraft II, it's not only a matter of defining "what is a stalemate" and when one has occurred, it's also one of deciding how to address that stalemate once it's been identified. Do both players tie? Does one win and the other lose? Are both players penalized? If so, how?
If there's anything Team Fortress 2 has taught me over the years, it's that in the event of a stalemate everyone loses.
Indeed. If you can't win, you lose. I'll be interested to see how and when Blizzard actually responds. I'm not really holding my breath though.
|
On September 30 2010 13:25 Tsagacity 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 though... He had no way to stop that zergling.
the zealot would have won it if he'd attacked much sooner
|
On September 30 2010 13:31 tertle wrote:
void CheckTime()
{
if (gamelength > 60) //minutes
drawButton.enabled = true;
}
void CheckDraw()
{
if (Player1.drawButton.pressed && Player2.drawButton.pressed)
drawGame();
}
Blizzard should employ me...
Moar something like that :
void OnStaleMate(object sender,EventArgs e)
{
InGameMenu::ShowDrawButton();
}
void OnDrawClicked(object sender,EventArgs e))
{
Player p;
if(Game::GetPlayerId(0)==(Player)sender) p =Game::GetPlayerId(1);
if(Game::GetPlayerId(1)==(Player)sender) p =Game::GetPlayerId(0);
if(p.ShowDialog("Your opponent wants to draw")==DIALOG_OK) Game::DrawGame();
else sender.Write("Your opponent did't accept to draw.");
}
Event oriented :D
|
Most of these stalemates are caused by the floating Terran buildings. It has been mentioned plenty of times before but they really need a time limit on how long they can float. I would think 5 minutes would be plenty.
The one problem I still see with this is on maps with islands, Terran would still be able to float his buildings and land them on an island.
But, I don't really see this as that big of a deal. I have yet to experience a draw, and they are very rare. I have played about 600 matches total and haven't had one yet. So, it's not nearly as important as some of the other issues in the game right now.
|
On September 30 2010 13:35 Seide wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2010 13:31 tertle wrote:
void CheckTime()
{
if (gamelength > 60) //minutes
drawButton.enabled = true;
}
void CheckDraw()
{
if (Player1.drawButton.pressed && Player2.drawButton.pressed)
drawGame();
}
Blizzard should employ me... Synchronization? Error catching? direct access to other class variables...
On September 30 2010 18:23 Teton wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2010 13:31 tertle wrote:
void CheckTime()
{
if (gamelength > 60) //minutes
drawButton.enabled = true;
}
void CheckDraw()
{
if (Player1.drawButton.pressed && Player2.drawButton.pressed)
drawGame();
}
Blizzard should employ me... Moar something like that : void OnStaleMate(object sender,EventArgs e) { InGameMenu::ShowDrawButton(); } void OnDrawClicked(object sender,EventArgs e)) { Player p; if(Game::GetPlayerId(0)==(Player)sender) p =Game::GetPlayerId(1); if(Game::GetPlayerId(1)==(Player)sender) p =Game::GetPlayerId(0); if(p.ShowDialog("Your opponent wants to draw")==DIALOG_OK) Game::DrawGame(); else sender.Write("Your opponent did't accept to draw."); } Event oriented :D
You don't use object oriented programming or error catching for game engines as look ups and exceptions wastes cpu processing which could be better spent on things like AI.
Asynchronous events while convenient, are completely pointless in game engines where everything runs in a loop. It just makes garbage collection difficult, and again wastes processing.
Also there is a reason you guys don't work for blizzard. Its because you aren't using C++. 
(Take this lightly, its supposed to be written in a joking manner)
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
On September 30 2010 19:18 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2010 13:35 Seide wrote:On September 30 2010 13:31 tertle wrote:
void CheckTime()
{
if (gamelength > 60) //minutes
drawButton.enabled = true;
}
void CheckDraw()
{
if (Player1.drawButton.pressed && Player2.drawButton.pressed)
drawGame();
}
Blizzard should employ me... Synchronization? Error catching? direct access to other class variables... Show nested quote +On September 30 2010 18:23 Teton wrote:On September 30 2010 13:31 tertle wrote:
void CheckTime()
{
if (gamelength > 60) //minutes
drawButton.enabled = true;
}
void CheckDraw()
{
if (Player1.drawButton.pressed && Player2.drawButton.pressed)
drawGame();
}
Blizzard should employ me... Moar something like that : void OnStaleMate(object sender,EventArgs e) { InGameMenu::ShowDrawButton(); } void OnDrawClicked(object sender,EventArgs e)) { Player p; if(Game::GetPlayerId(0)==(Player)sender) p =Game::GetPlayerId(1); if(Game::GetPlayerId(1)==(Player)sender) p =Game::GetPlayerId(0); if(p.ShowDialog("Your opponent wants to draw")==DIALOG_OK) Game::DrawGame(); else sender.Write("Your opponent did't accept to draw."); } Event oriented :D You don't use object oriented programming or error catching for game engines as look ups and exceptions wastes cpu processing which could be better spent on things like AI. Asynchronous events while convenient, are completely pointless in game engines where everything runs in a loop. It just makes garbage collection difficult, and again wastes processing. Also there is a reason you guys don't work for blizzard. Its because you aren't using C++. (Take this lightly, its supposed to be written in a joking manner)
Lol, if you analyze this seriously, this has interface code randomly calling gameplay functions and gameplay code randomly altering interface, so this is wrong on many many levels.
Interface code should know nothing about how exactly draw conditions are handled and game code should never call interface functions directly. Hanging the game thread to wait until your ShowDialog returns is not a good idea either.
|
On September 30 2010 17:01 Angelbelow wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2010 13:27 GGTeMpLaR wrote:I think everyone can agree that this is the most epic stalemate ever + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkPAJjQYv-Q story?
Chalrenge vs TheRock. Basically map mind out and chalrenge Red toss kept defending vs everything rock threw at him and every attack actually made chalrenge stronger with the mind controls and after over an hour of the game, the ref steps in and declares game a draw.
|
On September 30 2010 13:25 hmunkey wrote:
They should just add a timer on building hover. Make it five minutes or so and stalemates would pretty much be over. Of course they could still happen, but they'd be much less common to the point that they would only trivially matter.
Well terran isnt the only race that causes them you know
theres been plenty like 2 cannons and a pylon vs like 6 lings or something stupid like that that no one can win
|
So i lost and raged once and wasted 20 minutes out of someones life by flying my building around.
And you know what? Afterwards i felt like shit and i apologized to the guy. I hurt myself by not being big enough to simply admit defeat when i had lost and ended up wasting my own, and my opponents time. That was the last time i created a stalemate.
My point is that a lot of stalemates could be avoided if we were more willing to accept defeat when we have lost. Also if we don't, we are in fact hurting ourselves (regardless of whether it ends up in a win or not) since we are wasting time we could have spent practicing, having fun or doing IRL stuff.
|
Who should win, wtf? I'm getting the feeling this is going to be another Ultralisk and Phoenix fix.
|
On September 30 2010 20:01 standalone wrote:
So i lost and raged once and wasted 20 minutes out of someones life by flying my building around.
And you know what? Afterwards i felt like shit and i apologized to the guy. I hurt myself by not being big enough to simply admit defeat when i had lost and ended up wasting my own, and my opponents time. That was the last time i created a stalemate.
My point is that a lot of stalemates could be avoided if we were more willing to accept defeat when we have lost. Also if we don't, we are in fact hurting ourselves (regardless of whether it ends up in a win or not) since we are wasting time we could have spent practicing, having fun or doing IRL stuff.
your example isnt a stalemate. if you had completely destroyed all his probes and he had not enough money to make an air unit to kill your floating CC, it would be a stalemate.
|
Isn't automatically detecting a stalemate very easy?
If for a certain period of time (say 5 or 10 minutes) not a single unit or building is made or lost, you can safely conclude that the game is a stalemate and a draw should be awarded.
A draw should impact the ratings, if I draw against a stronger opponent I should win some points and my opponent should lose some. Exactly like in chess where draws are very frequent.
|
yeah fix a problem that only affects 0.00000001% of games, way to go blizzard this is much better then addressing the glaring balance issues
10/10 blizzard = GOD
|
On September 30 2010 21:37 dbddbddb wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2010 20:01 standalone wrote:
So i lost and raged once and wasted 20 minutes out of someones life by flying my building around.
And you know what? Afterwards i felt like shit and i apologized to the guy. I hurt myself by not being big enough to simply admit defeat when i had lost and ended up wasting my own, and my opponents time. That was the last time i created a stalemate.
My point is that a lot of stalemates could be avoided if we were more willing to accept defeat when we have lost. Also if we don't, we are in fact hurting ourselves (regardless of whether it ends up in a win or not) since we are wasting time we could have spent practicing, having fun or doing IRL stuff. your example isnt a stalemate. if you had completely destroyed all his probes and he had not enough money to make an air unit to kill your floating CC, it would be a stalemate.
I see. My apologies for not properly understanding the topic i was commenting on. Feel free to disregard my previous comment as it's not relevant.
Thank you for the correction.
|
As a chess player, I think stalemate/draw games can be rather interesting in StarCraft... In BW I had countless experiences with draw games (or at least close ones). And I was always for a 'draw offer 'button. However, instead of both players losing/gaining 0 points, make it more like chess ( where the higher rated player loses a small amount of points, while the lower rated player gains a small amount of points.)
This shouldn't really be a problem, as stalemate/draw games aren't as common in SC as they are in chess xD
|
5 Min timer for flying buildings. Buildings the have flown over 4 mins have a landing "refuel"time of 2 mins before they can take off.
|
On September 30 2010 17:48 Ryhn wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2010 13:19 AJMcSpiffy wrote:
With respect to stalemates in StarCraft II, it's not only a matter of defining "what is a stalemate" and when one has occurred, it's also one of deciding how to address that stalemate once it's been identified. Do both players tie? Does one win and the other lose? Are both players penalized? If so, how?
If there's anything Team Fortress 2 has taught me over the years, it's that in the event of a stalemate everyone loses.
I believe that in chess, if you draw with someone ranked higher than you, you win some points, likewise, if you draw with someone ranked lower than you, you lose points. *shrug*
Edit: Ninja'd by TwilightStar.
|
Sounds like a problem that's easy to solve. A stalemate occurs when neither player can win the game. It does not matter if one player has 100000 Zerglings and no hatchery if the Terran has one floating Command Center, it's still a draw.
Draw's should give no points, neither negative or positive and should be a F10 menu choice that both players have to accept. Draws could be counted on your record just like Wins and Losses.
|
On September 30 2010 23:08 AveiMil wrote:
Sounds like a problem that's easy to solve. A stalemate occurs when neither player can win the game. It does not matter if one player has 100000 Zerglings and no hatchery if the Terran has one floating Command Center, it's still a draw.
Draw's should give no points, neither negative or positive and should be a F10 menu choice that both players have to accept. Draws could be counted on your record just like Wins and Losses.
If he has a floating CC, he should make sure there is an island base he can land on first
Technically he could win the game if he had 50 mins, and the Z player went afk.
I think that the only time there should be 0 points gained and 0 points lost is when both players are around the exact same ranking. Also, I agree on draws being counted on your record. ( same as in chess )
|
I agree that there should be an option to draw.
However it should always remain an option, stalemates are horribly avoidable.
|
On October 01 2010 00:05 RoarMan wrote:
I agree that there should be an option to draw.
However it should always remain an option, stalemates are horribly avoidable.
Yeah, Although I can see possible abuse coming from this system.. Maybe whenever a draw is accepted, someone looks at the replay to make sure it was a real draw, and not just abuse? (i dunno how this would work, though)
|
Not sure if this is a good idea. In all honesty, if players today are going to float their buildings to the corner in order to get a win, what makes you think they are going to press "Draw" instead of leaving their buildings in the corner?
Before people say "Well the game should force the draw", I completely disagree. I expect errors to occur and the game may be broken as a result.
|
On September 30 2010 15:31 Fa1nT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2010 15:25 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 30 2010 15:19 Fa1nT wrote:On September 30 2010 15:12 Graham wrote:
While some may argue they had the game won because they've got the roaches and such, technically they didn't win because they have nothing that can hit the floating buildings.
Uh... ok How about I have 10 battlecruisers Now, all my buildings get destroyed Why do I lose? I still have an army, that can hit both air and ground, and essentially do massive damage. Yet, if my battlecruisers die, and one supply depot lives on an island, and the other guy does not have the ability to get air, but still has ground units, does it mean I should still be in the game? No. It's a dumb mechanic. It should be removed. You may have considered when attacking it was worth it because he had no ability to kill that depot. Quite simply, you shouldn't be going for base trades if you can't kill your enemy, and it's just plain stupid to expect your opponent to let you kill him Your logic BECAUSE of a bad mechanic, you should alter your strategy to REVOLVE around that mechanic so it does not fuk you over in the long run. Why is it terrans are the only race allowed to base trade 90% of the time?
No shit? Are you kidding me? Yes you should alter your strategy based on trying to win. If your strategy does not enable you to win, alter it. Are you kidding me?
Any race can base trade, Terrans are just better at it. Stop whining because some races have inherent advantages over others, its' part of the game. Why are Zergs the only race allowed to spread creep for a speed bonus?
Spoiler of a relatively recent GSL game.
+ Show Spoiler +look at Cool vs NEXliveforever game 3. Base trade. Zerg had mutas, zerg won. He had no drones left if I recall to rebuild. Play smart, not like an asshat.
|
Issue? God I'm sick of reading posts like this. Even if the post is well written like the OP, it's still whining. Why? Because you failed to kill the opponent outright. Even if the opponent used cheese, or imbalance, you can't kill him. Just be the bigger man, take a loss (ruining your perfect record/account? I think not), and play another game. If it was due to 'imbalance', then pray (silently) that Blizzard 'fixes' it. If it is so widespread or so detrimental to the game, more people would care. But they don't.
|
On September 30 2010 22:21 TwilightStar wrote:
As a chess player, I think stalemate/draw games can be rather interesting in StarCraft... In BW I had countless experiences with draw games (or at least close ones). And I was always for a 'draw offer 'button. However, instead of both players losing/gaining 0 points, make it more like chess ( where the higher rated player loses a small amount of points, while the lower rated player gains a small amount of points.)
This shouldn't really be a problem, as stalemate/draw games aren't as common in SC as they are in chess xD
Yeah, I'd rather see this system too. A weaker player tying with a better player deserves some points, and vice versa: the better player deserves to lose some if he ties with a weaker player.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And I think we only need two changes to be made to resolve stalemate issues:
1) Terran buildings can't fly forever AND they have a 1-2minute (or whatever) cooldown after landing before they can fly again. This is to prevent Terran from hiding which is something the other races thankfully can't do.
2) Add a consensial offer-draw option. This is to resolve stalemates when players cannot take out each other due to static defenses being more powerful than remaining units.
|
The only problem here is the terran, like usual, flying building should cost 1 mineral and 1 gas. Building will start to take damage when the player no longer has mineral or gas.
|
Good mechanics shouldn't encourage players to be griefers. That's basically what the Terran lift off mechanic does. Honestly, it only seems to be in the game in the first place because it was in the first one. How many threads have we had a Terran player response to Zerg pleas for lurkers or scourge 'No, that would be overpowered in this game even though it was fine in the last one?' And yet Terran are themselves so much stronger than they used to be, with most of their old little BW goodies still intact. I see no reason why Terran should be able to make their bases immune to ground-targeting armies on a whim, and I don't see anyone other than Terran players interested in defending that kind of mechanic.
|
On October 01 2010 00:49 Karkadinn wrote:
Good mechanics shouldn't encourage players to be griefers. That's basically what the Terran lift off mechanic does. Honestly, it only seems to be in the game in the first place because it was in the first one. How many threads have we had a Terran player response to Zerg pleas for lurkers or scourge 'No, that would be overpowered in this game even though it was fine in the last one?' And yet Terran are themselves so much stronger than they used to be, with most of their old little BW goodies still intact. I see no reason why Terran should be able to make their bases immune to ground-targeting armies on a whim, and I don't see anyone other than Terran players interested in defending that kind of mechanic.
Not being able to lift buildings would wreck the lab-switching mechanic for one. Besides, terran being the most complete race should be an argument for completing the other 2 races (which each have an expansion coming) and not for reducing the varity of terran play.
|
On October 01 2010 00:52 Dental Floss wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2010 00:49 Karkadinn wrote:
Good mechanics shouldn't encourage players to be griefers. That's basically what the Terran lift off mechanic does. Honestly, it only seems to be in the game in the first place because it was in the first one. How many threads have we had a Terran player response to Zerg pleas for lurkers or scourge 'No, that would be overpowered in this game even though it was fine in the last one?' And yet Terran are themselves so much stronger than they used to be, with most of their old little BW goodies still intact. I see no reason why Terran should be able to make their bases immune to ground-targeting armies on a whim, and I don't see anyone other than Terran players interested in defending that kind of mechanic. Not being able to lift buildings would wreck the lab-switching mechanic for one. Besides, terran being the most complete race should be an argument for completing the other 2 races (which each have an expansion coming) and not for reducing the varity of terran play.
Well, to clarify, I'm not making an argument for removing the ability entirely. Like everyone else who isn't Terran, I'd just like to see the thing have a reasonable time limit. I realize it comes off rather the other way in the original post you're quoting and I apologize for that.
|
On October 01 2010 00:55 Karkadinn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2010 00:52 Dental Floss wrote:On October 01 2010 00:49 Karkadinn wrote:
Good mechanics shouldn't encourage players to be griefers. That's basically what the Terran lift off mechanic does. Honestly, it only seems to be in the game in the first place because it was in the first one. How many threads have we had a Terran player response to Zerg pleas for lurkers or scourge 'No, that would be overpowered in this game even though it was fine in the last one?' And yet Terran are themselves so much stronger than they used to be, with most of their old little BW goodies still intact. I see no reason why Terran should be able to make their bases immune to ground-targeting armies on a whim, and I don't see anyone other than Terran players interested in defending that kind of mechanic. Not being able to lift buildings would wreck the lab-switching mechanic for one. Besides, terran being the most complete race should be an argument for completing the other 2 races (which each have an expansion coming) and not for reducing the varity of terran play. Well, to clarify, I'm not making an argument for removing the ability entirely. Like everyone else who isn't Terran, I'd just like to see the thing have a reasonable time limit. I realize it comes off rather the other way in the original post you're quoting and I apologize for that.
Stop speaking for other people. You're doing a terrible job.
|
On September 30 2010 15:39 kingjames01 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2010 15:33 Matrijs wrote:On September 30 2010 15:27 kingjames01 wrote:
However, in a true stalemate situation which may be hard to define, the win should be awarded to the player with an army over the player with no army.
Why? The object of the game is to destroy all of the opponent's buildings. Okay, that's true, so then I ask you, should anything be done in the situations where you are physically unable to reach your opponent's last building due to an inability to gather more resources?
Yes. That game, after a predetermined period of time in which no damage is dealt and no resources harvested, should end in a draw. If neither player can destroy the other's buildings, neither player wins.
|
On September 30 2010 13:31 tertle wrote:
void CheckTime()
{
if (gamelength > 60) //minutes
drawButton.enabled = true;
}
void CheckDraw()
{
if (Player1.drawButton.pressed && Player2.drawButton.pressed)
drawGame();
}
Blizzard should employ me...
Due to the fact that you use global variables and do not use encapsulation I would say no.
|
On October 01 2010 01:05 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2010 00:55 Karkadinn wrote:On October 01 2010 00:52 Dental Floss wrote:On October 01 2010 00:49 Karkadinn wrote:
Good mechanics shouldn't encourage players to be griefers. That's basically what the Terran lift off mechanic does. Honestly, it only seems to be in the game in the first place because it was in the first one. How many threads have we had a Terran player response to Zerg pleas for lurkers or scourge 'No, that would be overpowered in this game even though it was fine in the last one?' And yet Terran are themselves so much stronger than they used to be, with most of their old little BW goodies still intact. I see no reason why Terran should be able to make their bases immune to ground-targeting armies on a whim, and I don't see anyone other than Terran players interested in defending that kind of mechanic. Not being able to lift buildings would wreck the lab-switching mechanic for one. Besides, terran being the most complete race should be an argument for completing the other 2 races (which each have an expansion coming) and not for reducing the varity of terran play. Well, to clarify, I'm not making an argument for removing the ability entirely. Like everyone else who isn't Terran, I'd just like to see the thing have a reasonable time limit. I realize it comes off rather the other way in the original post you're quoting and I apologize for that. Stop speaking for other people. You're doing a terrible job.
And you're fitting right in with Maeldun in adding hostility to a thread just for the sake of being hostile. Chill.
|
On September 30 2010 14:48 FabledIntegral wrote:
I feel like the option to ask for a draw should only be enabled when NEITHER play has any actions registered for at least 10 seconds. This way people can't be asshats and try to spam the option or some shit. Both players agree not to make any actions, then select the option. OR, have it work like AoE2. You just had an "allied victory" button in the menu. You had to open the menu and select it, and if everyone had it on, the game would end. Make it so if you check that box, and your opponent checks the box, it'll end in draw.
Just avoid at ALL costs a popup or something that someone can spam to try to either screw with your micro (like pausing) or accidently cause you to hit "accept draw."
Why is everyone imposing a conditional on the stalemate option? In your scenario, someone could just put a rock on his enter key. Every conditional has a way to backfire and not get activated. This is bad.
On September 30 2010 13:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
My ideas for Stalemate situations:
1. Add an "Offer Stalemate" button. You can offer a total of 3 stalemates (like Game Pauses) per match. Once all three are declined, you can't offer anymore. You can only accept a stalemate from your opponent, leave the game and take a loss, or outlast your opponent for the win.
2. If a Stalemate Offer is accepted, both players win 0 points and lose 0 points. In other words, no change is made to their scores. That way, players won't be spamming stalemates to gain points, and they'll realize that they have something to gain from accepting a stalemate, rather than possibly losing a "who will quit first" match and losing points.
3. As far as stalemates appearing on records is concerned, I do think that that they should appear as draws (W-L-D, rather than just a W-L record), although I also would recommend simply NOT having that stalemate show up in the record at all (if Blizzard just wanted to keep a simple W-L record, since it's neither a Win nor a Loss). Of course, SC1 had a W-L-D record, so I don't see why SC2 can't...
This is good, and probably the best method I've heard so far.
|
Making terran buildings not be able to fly forever won't fix it because:
They can land at islands on some maps.
An island expo (could be nexus, CC, or hatch) is still untouchable by ground troops.
Situations like 2 pylons and 3 cannons vs an assimilator and 5 zealots not resolved.
Adding a draw 'option' won't work because:
The anonimity of the internet turns people into douchebags; many will likely just sit there and not accept the draw hoping you'll leave.
Adding a timer won't work because:
Imagine a scenario where P has 1 pylon and 10 stalkers, and Z has 5 assimilators and 10 mutas. P is guarding his pylon, since if he moves out the mutas snipe his pylon and he loses. Z can't attack the pylon since the stalkers would just kill his mutas and then its an auto-loss. Splitting up the stalkers isn't an option as a smaller group would get sniped by mutas. Who wins this? What if P or Z is convinced *he* deserves the win since he held off a cheese and refuses to accept a draw?
I'm not sure what the best solution to this is, but of the popular ideas mentioned above, none comprehensively solve the draw problem, and all add a dynamic that could create a draw when one player is clearly at a disadvantage.
Solution: Restart the game after a period of 5 minutes after no buildings or units have been killed or produced, with the resources of all remaining buildings and units added to each player's starting resources. Like this, a player who had a clear advantage but wasn't able to kill a floating building or island assimilator will maintain his advantage but not have an auto-win. No draws will occur.
|
On October 01 2010 01:39 Reason.SC2 wrote:
Adding a timer won't work because:
Imagine a scenario where P has 1 pylon and 10 stalkers, and Z has 5 assimilators and 10 mutas. P is guarding his pylon, since if he moves out the mutas snipe his pylon and he loses. Z can't attack the pylon since the stalkers would just kill his mutas and then its an auto-loss. Splitting up the stalkers isn't an option as a smaller group would get sniped by mutas. Who wins this? What if P or Z is convinced *he* deserves the win since he held off a cheese and refuses to accept a draw?
Actually, a timer would work in that example. If neither player attacks for 10 minutes, the game ends in a draw. The only way it doesn't quickly end in a draw is if, for example, the Zerg player is convinced he should win, and thus continually micros one muta into range of the stalkers every nine minutes such that the muta takes one hit, resetting the timer. This could go on indefinitely because of Zerg health regen.
On the other hand, that requires the player who doesn't want a draw to actively continue playing, rather than allowing him to simply walk away and wait for the other player to concede. I think most people agree that the main problem here is stalemate situations in which a player can prevent the end of the game without even being at the keyboard, and the timer solution adequately solves all of those situations. No other solution does.
|
On September 30 2010 13:31 tertle wrote:
void CheckTime()
{
if (gamelength > 60) //minutes
drawButton.enabled = true;
}
void CheckDraw()
{
if (Player1.drawButton.pressed && Player2.drawButton.pressed)
drawGame();
}
Blizzard should employ me...
Someone passed his VB6.0 class with a B-. Grats dude.
|
best solution right now is the draw option.
just like in bw, you can ally for a draw.
sure there will be douchebags but i'm sure majority won't be so the draw option will solve many problems. if there are douches that just wants to play the test of endurance game, be reported to blizzard for bad manner? :/
if the draw option has been offered but declined, the computer will countdown 5 minutes if there's no mining, production, and damage until the game comes to a draw.
|
Draw option is good.
IN addition, I think blizz should borrow a page from chess. In chess, if there are no pawn movements or checks for fifty moves, or the same position occurs three times, the game is automatically drawn. Likewise, if no minerals are collected for x amount of time + no units are killed for x amount of time, game can be automatically drawn.
|
If in the game no resources were mined, no units were killed or built in the game for 10 minutes the game ends in a draw.
|
people saying "it's not that easy" about the draw button after an hour idea are just plain dumb
it is that easy if blizzard wanted to do it that way
|
What if you could sacrifice a combat unit for a worker on a xel'naga tower?
|
Solution: Restart the game after a period of 5 minutes after no buildings or units have been killed or produced, with the resources of all remaining buildings and units added to each player's starting resources. Like this, a player who had a clear advantage but wasn't able to kill a floating building or island assimilator will maintain his advantage but not have an auto-win. No draws will occur.
That seems like a solid plan. Can anyone think of any drawbacks to this?
|
The "5 minutes, no units made no units lost" draw condition seems best. If you have a way to win that's so slow it doesn't involve killing anything or building anything for five minutes, tough.
On September 30 2010 14:28 Fa1nT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2010 14:11 AJMcSpiffy wrote:
Something I was thinking of, why would it be too unfair to put a timer/"fuel limit" on Terran buildings? Nothing too short, but a decent amount of time for them to scout. My logic is this: Zerg buildings can only build on creep (except hatchery of course but whatever), and if there is no creep under them they begin to slowly die. Protoss buildings can only be built in a power field, and if the field they are in is destroyed, they become unpowered and useless. So why is it that (some) Terran buildings can be built anywhere and still lift off for indefinite amounts of time?
I know a probable argument is "It wasn't imbalanced in SC1 so it can't be in SC2", but that doesn't mean that every game mechanic should just be left as Starcraft Dogma. Flying buildings should not count as buildings while in air, so if you lift off everything and your base gets blown up, you lose. I mean, overlords are flying supply depots, but they don't count.... that's fair.
That would be AMAZING.
Accidentally lift CC at the start of the game --> INSTANT LOSS.
|
The only problematic "stalemates" in my eyes are the situations where a Terran LOST but lifted one building in a corner because he knows his opponent doesn't have any way to get him. It's called griefing.
Any other stalemates situations could be managed with a DRAW interface that pops when a game has an extended period with nothing happening.
But for the griefing Terrans, they just have to give a limited amount of fuel to Terran buildings. When they run out of fuel, they crater. Or just make some BS up saying that terran buildings' reactors are prone to overheat and slowly diminish a building's HP over time as long as it's in the air.
|
On October 01 2010 03:30 DamnCats wrote:Show nested quote +Solution: Restart the game after a period of 5 minutes after no buildings or units have been killed or produced, with the resources of all remaining buildings and units added to each player's starting resources. Like this, a player who had a clear advantage but wasn't able to kill a floating building or island assimilator will maintain his advantage but not have an auto-win. No draws will occur. That seems like a solid plan. Can anyone think of any drawbacks to this?
This is indeed a good idea, but I'm not sure how that many minerals would effect the early game. For example lets say T has a CC left and that's it, while the P has 10 stalkers that can't reach it and 1 pylon. Sure the P has a lot more minerals/gas to start, but both players are just going to tech as fast as they can anyway and mine as well. So by the time the T ran out of his 400 initial minerals, he would likely be midway through teching and will be mining heavily too. The P on the other hand will be in...almost the same position.
Also this would require some major testing. I don't know how fast Z can get ling's out or T can get reapers out with a 500 min/gas jumpstart, but I feel like it might be fast enough that P can't stop it, no matter how many minerals they start with. For ex.: The time to build a pylon/gate/core doesn't change except it starts at 6 supply instead of 9-10, but T is able build a barracks RIGHT AWAY and not worry about getting gas or anything.
|
An offer draw button would solve this issue.
|
On October 01 2010 01:38 junemermaid wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2010 14:48 FabledIntegral wrote:
I feel like the option to ask for a draw should only be enabled when NEITHER play has any actions registered for at least 10 seconds. This way people can't be asshats and try to spam the option or some shit. Both players agree not to make any actions, then select the option. OR, have it work like AoE2. You just had an "allied victory" button in the menu. You had to open the menu and select it, and if everyone had it on, the game would end. Make it so if you check that box, and your opponent checks the box, it'll end in draw.
Just avoid at ALL costs a popup or something that someone can spam to try to either screw with your micro (like pausing) or accidently cause you to hit "accept draw." Why is everyone imposing a conditional on the stalemate option? In your scenario, someone could just put a rock on his enter key. Every conditional has a way to backfire and not get activated. This is bad.
I assure you this would fix like 99% of the stalemates (which are insanely rare as it is). Almost in no situation would people not AGREE to a stalemate if it's a stalemate. Almost no person actually WANTS to sit there and waste time, the reason people do it now is because they don't want to lose.
|
I just did one in my whole life heheeh
|
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.
Just make floating building not to count as buildings when they are the are no other structures and 5 game minutes passed (to avoid the hole "lift up the CC by mistake and loose scenario) and that's it.
|
On October 01 2010 06:06 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2010 01:38 junemermaid wrote:On September 30 2010 14:48 FabledIntegral wrote:
I feel like the option to ask for a draw should only be enabled when NEITHER play has any actions registered for at least 10 seconds. This way people can't be asshats and try to spam the option or some shit. Both players agree not to make any actions, then select the option. OR, have it work like AoE2. You just had an "allied victory" button in the menu. You had to open the menu and select it, and if everyone had it on, the game would end. Make it so if you check that box, and your opponent checks the box, it'll end in draw.
Just avoid at ALL costs a popup or something that someone can spam to try to either screw with your micro (like pausing) or accidently cause you to hit "accept draw." Why is everyone imposing a conditional on the stalemate option? In your scenario, someone could just put a rock on his enter key. Every conditional has a way to backfire and not get activated. This is bad. I assure you this would fix like 99% of the stalemates (which are insanely rare as it is). Almost in no situation would people not AGREE to a stalemate if it's a stalemate. Almost no person actually WANTS to sit there and waste time, the reason people do it now is because they don't want to lose.
Agreed. The only reason this is such an issue is because with the current system, one person gets a loss, and no one wants to be that person. I like the stalemate option, but maybe after the option is presented there should be a forced stalemate if the match continues to be uneventful after another period of wait time. Like say ten minutes after the option is turned down, if no units have been trained/killed then it automatically stalemates.
|
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?
|
Here is, what i think, is the best solution:
Offer draw option, a on/off type of deal like bw ally instead of prompting a draw.
If both players turn on "draw" the game draws.
If one player turns on the draw however the other player doesn't, the game enters the "detect stalemate mode"
what this would do is, the game will detect for any units being produced, resources being gathered and units/buildings being damaged.
If all 3 of these are absent for 5-10 minutes, game ends in draw.
One thing that must be implemented is friendly damage. Lets say a player offers the draw but a protoss player (other one) refuses to draw. He can damage his own pylon and let the shield charge back up, bypassing the "draw mode". So a system would need to be implemented to know who is damaging who's building/unit.
I think this is the best solution.
|
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.
|
On September 30 2010 13:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
My ideas for Stalemate situations:
1. Add an "Offer Stalemate" button. You can offer a total of 3 stalemates (like Game Pauses) per match. Once all three are declined, you can't offer anymore. You can only accept a stalemate from your opponent, leave the game and take a loss, or outlast your opponent for the win.
2. If a Stalemate Offer is accepted, both players win 0 points and lose 0 points. In other words, no change is made to their scores. That way, players won't be spamming stalemates to gain points, and they'll realize that they have something to gain from accepting a stalemate, rather than possibly losing a "who will quit first" match and losing points.
3. As far as stalemates appearing on records is concerned, I do think that that they should appear as draws (W-L-D, rather than just a W-L record), although I also would recommend simply NOT having that stalemate show up in the record at all (if Blizzard just wanted to keep a simple W-L record, since it's neither a Win nor a Loss). Of course, SC1 had a W-L-D record, so I don't see why SC2 can't...
U dont understand that the dicks who lost and lift off building will never agree to a stalemate
|
If terran fly away cant you just make flying units and kill them?
|
famous blizzard words
"there is no time line for this..."
pretty lame, basically just saying, yeah we know stalemates happen, yeah they suck, no idea when we'll be fixing this
|
How about this.
- Terran buildings cant fly over anything but ground. (If you told it to land somewhere it'll fly there, islands for example.)
- Flying terran buildings should be able to be attacked by ground units. Just like SCVs can repair things in the air.
Problem solved?
|
Resurrecting an old thread since I had an idea about resolving stalemates. I was thinking about this today and came up with a possible solution (not sure if suggested before)
- Game will enter a stalemate resolution period after say 2-3 game minutes of no mining from either player.
- The Stalemate resolution will last 10-20 game minutes with a counter ticking down.Objective during this is to eliminate the other player.
- If after this timer expires and both players' buildings are left then both players get a loss (not draw). Points will be deducted depending on their MMR i.e. more favoured player gets docked more points.
- Timers get reset if either player mines for 1 game minute continuously.
Here is what this will accomplish.
- The enter and exit thresholds ensure that such a system doesn't kick in too early or exit too early.
- Loss for both means that there will be an effort (esp more favoured player) from both players to try and finish the game.
- Limited time means that player with better micro/tactics or one with more building hitpoints per opponent dps wins.
|
I would say that the main solution for the terran-lift stalemate would simply be to make any lifted off buildings exempt from the loss triggers, meaning that if the terran has no buildings on the ground, they lose.
Also for other stalemates, a more complex trigger could be used so that if both players lack the ability to produce or use units which attack ground, then it is a draw.
|
On November 21 2010 15:59 WickedBit wrote:
Resurrecting an old thread since I had an idea about resolving stalemates. I was thinking about this today and came up with a possible solution (not sure if suggested before)
- Game will enter a stalemate resolution period after say 2-3 game minutes of no mining from either player.
- The Stalemate resolution will last 10-20 game minutes with a counter ticking down.Objective during this is to eliminate the other player.
- If after this timer expires and both players' buildings are left then both players get a loss (not draw). Points will be deducted depending on their MMR i.e. more favoured player gets docked more points.
- Timers get reset if either player mines for 1 game minute continuously.
Here is what this will accomplish.
- The enter and exit thresholds ensure that such a system doesn't kick in too early or exit too early.
- Loss for both means that there will be an effort (esp more favoured player) from both players to try and finish the game.
- Limited time means that player with better micro/tactics or one with more building hitpoints per opponent dps wins.
This is the best idea in this thread by far. 20 minutes is way too long, but 10 minutes sounds good. 10 minutes where you must kill the opponent or lose. Nice.
|
Why is it that I read a comment about the Terran buildings floating to the corners and thought of the admin 'slap' from CS? Well at least they understand that there are stalemates in the games.
|
On November 21 2010 16:12 KevinIX wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2010 15:59 WickedBit wrote:
Resurrecting an old thread since I had an idea about resolving stalemates. I was thinking about this today and came up with a possible solution (not sure if suggested before)
- Game will enter a stalemate resolution period after say 2-3 game minutes of no mining from either player.
- The Stalemate resolution will last 10-20 game minutes with a counter ticking down.Objective during this is to eliminate the other player.
- If after this timer expires and both players' buildings are left then both players get a loss (not draw). Points will be deducted depending on their MMR i.e. more favoured player gets docked more points.
- Timers get reset if either player mines for 1 game minute continuously.
Here is what this will accomplish.
- The enter and exit thresholds ensure that such a system doesn't kick in too early or exit too early.
- Loss for both means that there will be an effort (esp more favoured player) from both players to try and finish the game.
- Limited time means that player with better micro/tactics or one with more building hitpoints per opponent dps wins. This is the best idea in this thread by far. 20 minutes is way too long, but 10 minutes sounds good. 10 minutes where you must kill the opponent or lose. Nice.
what if you have a probe a pylon and a cannon left(no nexus), and all they have are buildings that can't lift off and you are able to attack(so no hidden buildings on an island somewhere).. you will win that game, but you won't win in 10 or maybe even 20 minutes.. if they have tons of buildings)
to be fair, I would just leave if I had the probe so I don't really care, Im not going to sit there and auto attack their buildings with my probe for that long
|
On November 21 2010 16:08 CortoMontez wrote:
I would say that the main solution for the terran-lift stalemate would simply be to make any lifted off buildings exempt from the loss triggers, meaning that if the terran has no buildings on the ground, they lose.
Also for other stalemates, a more complex trigger could be used so that if both players lack the ability to produce or use units which attack ground, then it is a draw.
How about you have something that actually kills flying buildings.
Flying buildings is what makes terran terran and its been like that since bw. Offer draw is the only available solution.
|
when a T has flying buildings only a timer comes up similar to the reveal one w/ auto loss in 2 minutes unless you land
|
On November 21 2010 16:16 BraveGhost wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2010 16:12 KevinIX wrote:On November 21 2010 15:59 WickedBit wrote:
Resurrecting an old thread since I had an idea about resolving stalemates. I was thinking about this today and came up with a possible solution (not sure if suggested before)
- Game will enter a stalemate resolution period after say 2-3 game minutes of no mining from either player.
- The Stalemate resolution will last 10-20 game minutes with a counter ticking down.Objective during this is to eliminate the other player.
- If after this timer expires and both players' buildings are left then both players get a loss (not draw). Points will be deducted depending on their MMR i.e. more favoured player gets docked more points.
- Timers get reset if either player mines for 1 game minute continuously.
Here is what this will accomplish.
- The enter and exit thresholds ensure that such a system doesn't kick in too early or exit too early.
- Loss for both means that there will be an effort (esp more favoured player) from both players to try and finish the game.
- Limited time means that player with better micro/tactics or one with more building hitpoints per opponent dps wins. This is the best idea in this thread by far. 20 minutes is way too long, but 10 minutes sounds good. 10 minutes where you must kill the opponent or lose. Nice. what if you have a probe a pylon and a cannon left(no nexus), and all they have are buildings that can't lift off and you are able to attack(so no hidden buildings on an island somewhere).. you will win that game, but you won't win in 10 or maybe even 20 minutes.. if they have tons of buildings) to be fair, I would just leave if I had the probe so I don't really care, Im not going to sit there and auto attack their buildings with my probe for that long
Then you both deserve to lose.
|
Simple solution (or not): when both sides have not spent any time mining for 10 minutes, both players receive a tie. I can only see a stalemate happening if both sides aren't mining, otherwise one would eventually win. Also, this could be combined with if you are revealed and your opponent isn't and you both cannot mine for some time then both would receive a draw. I think there are times when both sides might not be mining but both sides also have an army that are protecting their final structures. Something along those lines, but more refined and has more "if" scenarios would be fine I think.
|
I know this is an unpopular opinion, and im sorry, but i cannot believe Blizzard is actually going to change the game because people cant avoid losing to lift. For all the "SC2 teaches me how to be a better player and avoid mistakes in the future etc etc" no one can learn to build an air unit or not base trade with Terrans?
Maybe ill start a website that recognizes and honors Terran lift wins even though they will no longer count on bnet. Hurry up, somebody register www.theartofterranlift-wins.com so these players who refuse to learn that terran can lift can be known wide and far as unable to create a single flying unit.
I know its juvenile, but Terran lifting to win is a tradition that should never ever die.
I cant believe people let this happen so much that Blizzard now has to change what has been the norm for over a decade just to accommodate them. I cant help but feel ashamed for them.
EDIT: Im sorry but i have to go further with this, although i know very well that no one will ever change their mind who has already made up their mind. For over a decade, the conditions of winning a 1v1 ladder game have been to destroy all of your opponents buildings. No one will say they didnt know that. It is a known fact. It is also known that Terrans can lift off their buildings and float them around. It is also a known fact that Terrans do this sometimes as a way to escape a loss, like an animal chewing off its own leg to escape a trap. Every single one of those facts are known to be true. To change the game now is changing the win conditions to suit those who are unskilled. I consider that a major failure on Blizzards part to change the game tradition down to the core deciding factor (to destroy all of your opponents buildings) just to keep quiet those who are well aware of those facts that are listed above, yet do nothing in their play to accommodate it. I know i must seem like im making a mountain out of a molehill here, and i am sure i will get flamed. But i consider it an insult that Blizzard would change what has been a highly characterized tradition in gameplay that has existed for that long, just to keep new players from having to learn how to play the game correctly. And to those players who are so upset i ask this one question... have you ever felt how great it is to have a Terran think he is going to get away with a lift-win on you and you thought ahead and built 1 single air unit and ruin his entire day by being one seemingly unimaginable step ahead of him? Its ten times better than some horrible draw mechanic giving you a free non-loss.
OK ok rant is over.
|
There are more stalemate options than terran lift oft with no anti air. It may be the most common, but if a change is made to draws it needs to be ambiguous of race.
Just make there be a draw button, and a draw nets a small loss or no effect. What percentage of games actually end in a draw?
|
On September 30 2010 13:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
My ideas for Stalemate situations:
1. Add an "Offer Stalemate" button. You can offer a total of 3 stalemates (like Game Pauses) per match. Once all three are declined, you can't offer anymore. You can only accept a stalemate from your opponent, leave the game and take a loss, or outlast your opponent for the win.
2. If a Stalemate Offer is accepted, both players win 0 points and lose 0 points. In other words, no change is made to their scores. That way, players won't be spamming stalemates to gain points, and they'll realize that they have something to gain from accepting a stalemate, rather than possibly losing a "who will quit first" match and losing points.
3. As far as stalemates appearing on records is concerned, I do think that that they should appear as draws (W-L-D, rather than just a W-L record), although I also would recommend simply NOT having that stalemate show up in the record at all (if Blizzard just wanted to keep a simple W-L record, since it's neither a Win nor a Loss). Of course, SC1 had a W-L-D record, so I don't see why SC2 can't...
Best idea of the day and the only one that seems viable. There's no real way to scam. Points out of this IdeA if implemented
|
On November 21 2010 16:50 Mellotron wrote:I know this is an unpopular opinion, and im sorry, but i cannot believe Blizzard is actually going to change the game because people cant avoid losing to lift. For all the "SC2 teaches me how to be a better player and avoid mistakes in the future etc etc" no one can learn to build an air unit or not base trade with Terrans? Maybe ill start a website that recognizes and honors Terran lift wins even though they will no longer count on bnet. Hurry up, somebody register www.theartofterranlift-wins.com so these players who refuse to learn that terran can lift can be known wide and far as unable to create a single flying unit. I know its juvenile, but Terran lifting to win is a tradition that should never ever die. I cant believe people let this happen so much that Blizzard now has to change what has been the norm for over a decade just to accommodate them. I cant help but feel ashamed for them. EDIT: Im sorry but i have to go further with this, although i know very well that no one will ever change their mind who has already made up their mind. For over a decade, the conditions of winning a 1v1 ladder game have been to destroy all of your opponents buildings. No one will say they didnt know that. It is a known fact. It is also known that Terrans can lift off their buildings and float them around. It is also a known fact that Terrans do this sometimes as a way to escape a loss, like an animal chewing off its own leg to escape a trap. Every single one of those facts are known to be true. To change the game now is changing the win conditions to suit those who are unskilled. I consider that a major failure on Blizzards part to change the game tradition down to the core deciding factor (to destroy all of your opponents buildings) just to keep quiet those who are well aware of those facts that are listed above, yet do nothing in their play to accommodate it. I know i must seem like im making a mountain out of a molehill here, and i am sure i will get flamed. But i consider it an insult that Blizzard would change what has been a highly characterized tradition in gameplay that has existed for that long, just to keep new players from having to learn how to play the game correctly. And to those players who are so upset i ask this one question... have you ever felt how great it is to have a Terran think he is going to get away with a lift-win on you and you thought ahead and built 1 single air unit and ruin his entire day by being one seemingly unimaginable step ahead of him? Its ten times better than some horrible draw mechanic giving you a free non-loss. OK ok rant is over.
So how is Terran supposed to win after lifting off his last building and floating into a corner? You're forgetting that even though they didn't wipe out your last building, you didn't wipe out all of their buildings either. And you have no way to kill them.
This isn't just about the non-terran being unable to win. Neither side is able to win. That's what makes it a stalemate. It makes sense that they'd address this.
The best way would be to just leave it up to the players and have an "offer stalemate" button that turns on after a game's been going on for over 45 minutes or something. If both players agree to it, the game ends and no points are gained or lost.
|
On September 30 2010 13:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
My ideas for Stalemate situations:
1. Add an "Offer Stalemate" button. You can offer a total of 3 stalemates (like Game Pauses) per match. Once all three are declined, you can't offer anymore. You can only accept a stalemate from your opponent, leave the game and take a loss, or outlast your opponent for the win.
2. If a Stalemate Offer is accepted, both players win 0 points and lose 0 points. In other words, no change is made to their scores. That way, players won't be spamming stalemates to gain points, and they'll realize that they have something to gain from accepting a stalemate, rather than possibly losing a "who will quit first" match and losing points.
3. As far as stalemates appearing on records is concerned, I do think that that they should appear as draws (W-L-D, rather than just a W-L record), although I also would recommend simply NOT having that stalemate show up in the record at all (if Blizzard just wanted to keep a simple W-L record, since it's neither a Win nor a Loss). Of course, SC1 had a W-L-D record, so I don't see why SC2 can't...
What if a stalemate has occurred and player 1 decides to be a dick and does not accept the draw. Now player 2 must take the loss when its really a draw. Also if two friends meet on the ladder and decide to trigger a stale mate in order to keep their ladder ranking high, next you know a community of friends will trigger stale mates obscuring the true ladder results. Next we have the hacker that will find a way of triggering a stale mate against the will of the other player.
Stalemate is a hard thing indeed to get right so blizzard should take as much time as needed to get it right
|
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.
Great example! Oh wait..... it wasn't a stalemate.
|
On November 21 2010 18:07 TedJustice wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2010 16:50 Mellotron wrote:I know this is an unpopular opinion, and im sorry, but i cannot believe Blizzard is actually going to change the game because people cant avoid losing to lift. For all the "SC2 teaches me how to be a better player and avoid mistakes in the future etc etc" no one can learn to build an air unit or not base trade with Terrans? Maybe ill start a website that recognizes and honors Terran lift wins even though they will no longer count on bnet. Hurry up, somebody register www.theartofterranlift-wins.com so these players who refuse to learn that terran can lift can be known wide and far as unable to create a single flying unit. I know its juvenile, but Terran lifting to win is a tradition that should never ever die. I cant believe people let this happen so much that Blizzard now has to change what has been the norm for over a decade just to accommodate them. I cant help but feel ashamed for them. EDIT: Im sorry but i have to go further with this, although i know very well that no one will ever change their mind who has already made up their mind. For over a decade, the conditions of winning a 1v1 ladder game have been to destroy all of your opponents buildings. No one will say they didnt know that. It is a known fact. It is also known that Terrans can lift off their buildings and float them around. It is also a known fact that Terrans do this sometimes as a way to escape a loss, like an animal chewing off its own leg to escape a trap. Every single one of those facts are known to be true. To change the game now is changing the win conditions to suit those who are unskilled. I consider that a major failure on Blizzards part to change the game tradition down to the core deciding factor (to destroy all of your opponents buildings) just to keep quiet those who are well aware of those facts that are listed above, yet do nothing in their play to accommodate it. I know i must seem like im making a mountain out of a molehill here, and i am sure i will get flamed. But i consider it an insult that Blizzard would change what has been a highly characterized tradition in gameplay that has existed for that long, just to keep new players from having to learn how to play the game correctly. And to those players who are so upset i ask this one question... have you ever felt how great it is to have a Terran think he is going to get away with a lift-win on you and you thought ahead and built 1 single air unit and ruin his entire day by being one seemingly unimaginable step ahead of him? Its ten times better than some horrible draw mechanic giving you a free non-loss. OK ok rant is over. So how is Terran supposed to win after lifting off his last building and floating into a corner? You're forgetting that even though they didn't wipe out your last building, you didn't wipe out all of their buildings either. And you have no way to kill them. This isn't just about the non-terran being unable to win. Neither side is able to win. That's what makes it a stalemate. It makes sense that they'd address this. The best way would be to just leave it up to the players and have an "offer stalemate" button that turns on after a game's been going on for over 45 minutes or something. If both players agree to it, the game ends and no points are gained or lost.
Did you just defend the players that lift off and float their buildings to a corner to avoid losing? Makes me wonder what you do in a baserace.
|
On September 30 2010 13:28 AJMcSpiffy wrote:
But even if it's a "perfect" stalemate, how using the current system do you decide which player is given a win and which is given a loss? If it's a perfect stalemate, then they are both at equally bad footing and one shouldn't win over the other.
Easy: terran loses. Well, if we're talking about a building lift situation at least. In a stalemate where neither person has combat units or neither player has the possibility of killing the other player, they both get no points.
|
I think Blizzard should note that 99% of these stalemates come from Terran using lifted off buildings.
Though, there also comes the problem (if there was a time limit on lifting off) where a Terran will just work around the system by landing and lifting off.
Adding a "Draw" option would be unfair for the player who isn't Terran, and would just promote Terran players doing this act to avoid a loss.
|
On November 21 2010 18:55 SovSov wrote:
I think Blizzard should note that 99% of these stalemates come from Terran using lifted off buildings.
Though, there also comes the problem (if there was a time limit on lifting off) where a Terran will just work around the system by landing and lifting off.
Adding a "Draw" option would be unfair for the player who isn't Terran, and would just promote Terran players doing this act to avoid a loss.
If they do this you can hit the building at least once and it will eventually start burning.
|
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. ...which wasn't a stalemate.
|
On November 21 2010 18:59 Potatisodlaren wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2010 18:55 SovSov wrote:
I think Blizzard should note that 99% of these stalemates come from Terran using lifted off buildings.
Though, there also comes the problem (if there was a time limit on lifting off) where a Terran will just work around the system by landing and lifting off.
Adding a "Draw" option would be unfair for the player who isn't Terran, and would just promote Terran players doing this act to avoid a loss. If they do this you can hit the building at least once and it will eventually start burning.
You need to hit the building more than once...trust me.
|
On November 21 2010 18:59 Potatisodlaren wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2010 18:55 SovSov wrote:
I think Blizzard should note that 99% of these stalemates come from Terran using lifted off buildings.
Though, there also comes the problem (if there was a time limit on lifting off) where a Terran will just work around the system by landing and lifting off.
Adding a "Draw" option would be unfair for the player who isn't Terran, and would just promote Terran players doing this act to avoid a loss. If they do this you can hit the building at least once and it will eventually start burning.
Not if it was an orbital command, it could land, call 4 mules, repair... What if one person is just on an island and the other not, no resources left, both attacking units but stuck on island, both non terran etc? People are over generalizing it's all terran...
|
why not have an auto-draw when there are no resources harvested/spent, and or no damage done for x amount of time? other people have suggested this before in threads like this. it seems to be the most reasonable to determine whether a game is a draw or not.
|
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.
Regardless of whether stalemates are part of the game or not, some way of preventing a never ending game has to be implemented.
|
No matter how you change the games, there will be games where there will be no winner. And draws and stalemates are different.
There are many cases where neither player will try to play for a win because if they do, they will end up losing. One example is Flash vs Jangbi on Blue Storm. That is never going to be a stalemate yet when both players play properly neither will ever lose. Trying to win means losing. No player should ever be forced to lose.
Some games are draws but one player misses his chance to draw. I think one game is Light vs Hwasin on that dark swarm map. That game was like 60 minutes the winner sieging and unsieging his tanks a fraction by a time to eventually being able to win. That was Persona. It was one of the most unique things in Starcraft ever yet it would have been prevented by a stalemate algorithm. AIs can't play so they can't know what is truly supposed to be a draw and what is not.
People's attitudes about draws really annoy me. Every once in a while I see some blog "In a game right now, neither of us can win. I think he went AFK. Who wins?" Then some other guy is like: "The person who leaves first loses." No! It is a draw. Doesn't matter who leaves first when the game is a draw. If it is truly a draw who the the SC games ended in a draw and a waiting game for ladder points starts.
Then a while ago I saw some noob on some generic forum say he had a SC2 that was almost a draw and that he was terran and lifted buildings. His opponent still had units and was curing/bming him. The guy was "I almost went afk because he was mad and he was curing me, but I lost so I landed my buildings so he could eliminate him." No! You didn't lose. It was a draw. Anda ll the other people were like: "Ooh you are so manner." as if not doing so would have been some form of cheating. Instead, that guy in his ignorance damaged the integrity of the game by losing on purpose. But yeah, those people are noobs. No idea why he actually had to physically land his building to actually be physically eliminated. Just know the game is a draw for sure and then leave if you don't want to wait for ladder points.
This is the same thing as chess noobs claiming the player that has no legal moves left ought to lose. No!. The rule of the game is very clear. A king has to be checkmated. How is having no legal moves a mate? How is it a win? People need to get smart.
In the end it is a balance issue. If Blizzard things T's lifting buildings is imba because it lets them draw games they ought to lose, don't let them count as buildings, like some other guy said. But as long as floating buildings are buildings, it is a draw and probably a stalemate.
It's hard to say when in RTS a draw should be a draw by stalemate. It is an extremely grey area. It is very rare where it becomes theoretically impossible for one player to lose. Like both need to lose all units and have no money. If both have only a pylon and a cannon, it is obviously a stalemate. Yet a floating building can theoretically be landed and killed off by that 1 zealot.
No algorithm can decide draws. A draw button is needed anyway. If not, Blizzard forces games that are draws in waiting games for ladder points. Problem is, one player can just refuse a draw. I think if you refuse a draw you should win and if you can't win within 60 minutes you should lose, where doing significant damage or significant mining should reset the 60 minutes. That's a good way to force players to draw.
And yes, draws can occur in every matchup. But I don't know of one in ZvZ.
|
I think there should be an option to offer a draw (max of 3 per player). If it is accepted neither player loses or gains any points. Also, if there is no combat or mining for 5/10 mins the game should end and the player with the more points overall is declared the victor. The addition of both of these functions will give players the option to agree that neither should gain or lose points instead of both players taking the risk to either gain or lose points. it means where games that were mostly one sided yet still end in a stalemate the player who played the best over all gets the win, even if he's the guy floating his buildings, and it also means that in more even games players are more likely to choose to draw than risk loosing the points.
|
Points are retarded. In SC BW in TvP terran almost always had less points as long as the game was close. This includes games they won. Every decent TvP where the T player won, you would see a consistent pattern of the P having more points.
SC2 point system isn't any different. It is stupid. Also, it would be like in chess counting the pieces points in the case of a stalemant. Don't add secondary winning conditions. It only damages the game. You win when you eliminate your opponent by destroying all buildings. If you can't you can't win, ever.
|
Havnt read the whole thread but I like the "fuel" idea to terran buildings. To my experience this is how most stalemates occurs. So the idea is:
If no mining has been done for 15 minutes, and no actions (A units hitting another unit) has been done for 15 minutes, Terran flying buildings leads to being slowly destroyed as its fuel runs out. That forces a terran to park it, which will then force the building to remain parked for x minutes because of low fuel count (Also, when this occus, the building at hand cannot use its energy because of the low fuel count). That will give the remaining player the chance to kill it off, and of course if the terran has no battling units, he has lost at this point.
A draw button should also be considered, as this idea wont work on Island maps.
EDIT: The time the building must stay parked should be a function of the time it has been in the air and no mining has been done/no battling has occured. Lets say, y=x. It has to stay parked the same amount of time as it has been in the air. Orbital commands must be forced to not be able to use energy at this point.
|
I have said this once and I will say it again. You need to have a timer on floating buildings. If they land before 4 mins - auto resets liftoff. If they land after 4 mins. 1 min cooldown period before lifting off again. If they dont land before 5 mins - start burning down.
|
I agree that Terran liftoff should be changed so that they can no longer force a "draw", but I also feel that it's important for the game to have an option to agree on a draw. Make it a checkbox in the Alliance page that sends no message, so you can't bother the other player with it and must actually agree.
Of course there will be people who stubbornly refuse to agree to a draw, and instead sit there until one player leaves. In this case I think it's fair to trigger a 5-minute "countdown to draw" timer when one player opts to draw, both players are being revealed and neither player causes any damage to the other for the duration. Just like the "being revealed" feature, it's an additional bit designed to stop games from ending in retarded ways.
|
I am all in favor of draws that occur naturally. Something like Pylon+Cannon vs 2 Zerglings is a situation that could happen in any matchup. (Tumor+Spine vs Zealot, Marine vs Bunker, etc).
Bailing out of a basetrade is NOT something that should ever be possible to any one race, but not the others. "Don't basetrade Terrans" is like saying "Don't get dropped by Terrans" - it's not something that you can avoid on your own.
|
Again, terran lifting buildings is an imbalance issue, not a stalemate/draw issue.
Please keep things in their proper threads.
|
Wow, this thread is full of prickwaving :D
"I can program, can u?"
"I am superior to you in programing, let me show you my skillz"
"That is inferior code, i am more l33t than you"
Where did the discussion about stalemates go?
Let all the races float their buildings around, see if terrans feel fuel for buildings is such a bad idea then. Yes i can see it now, being scouted by a floating spawning pool or perhaps a dash of a floating cybernetics core. excellent. *trollface*
|
I really don’t think limiting Terran lift off is in any way a good idea. If you miss land a CC in many of the suggestions here you're in trouble, or if you land a base and your opponent tries to deny it the base is screwed, and whilst I don’t play Terran I don’t think it'd be fair to take that ability away from a race balance POV.
Anyway here's my obligatory suggestion, which someone will no doubt realise is bad for some reason I didn't actually consider.
If no player has mined for 5 minutes then begin 5 minute countdown. If no one returns minerals to a cc/hatch/nexus in that time the player with the largest remaining army* wins. In the amazingly unlikely scenario they're exactly equal make it a double loss.
*In terms of the resource cost of them you see in the army tab in replays.
Pros I can think of:
Doesn't require any rebalancing of units.
Doesn't give any race an unfair advantage in ability to win through stalemate.
Doesn't require the addition of any new 'draw' mechanics or tracking.
5 minutes means players have an incentive to try to have a micro intense battle to eek out a win where possible, instead of doing their best to avoid each other and long winded posturing.
Cons I can think of:
Maybe some people would prefer more than 5 minutes to fight?
Still have to wait 10 minutes against T hiding in a corner.
Edit2: Fully mined out maps would need to be complete in 5 minutes, so this needs tweaking somehow.
Edit: Spelling.
|
Why not just add fuel to terran buildings? like 10 mins per game - realistically it would never impact on normal play - if your building is still airborne when you run out of fuel it explodes.
Easy fix to terrans being doucheholes.
Solution to stalemates - just add an offer draw button if nothing killed/mined/created by both players for 5 minutes, and enforce a stalemate if it lasts for 20 minutes?
|
On November 22 2010 00:59 Luckbox wrote:
Why not just add fuel to terran buildings? like 10 mins per game - realistically it would never impact on normal play - if your building is still airborne when you run out of fuel it explodes.
Easy fix to terrans being doucheholes.
Because that in no way addresses landing on islands or landing somewhere briely and taking off again for another 10 minutes.
|
On November 22 2010 00:48 Iyerbeth wrote:
I really don’t think limiting Terran lift off is in any way a good idea. If you miss land a CC in many of the suggestions here you're in trouble, or if you land a base and your opponent tries to deny it the base is screwed, and whilst I don’t play Terran I don’t think it'd be fair to take that ability away from a race balance POV.
Anyway here's my obligatory suggestion, which someone will no doubt realise is bad for some reason I didn't actually consider.
If no player has mined for 5 minutes then begin 5 minute countdown. If no one returns minerals to a cc/hatch/nexus in that time the player with the largest remaining army* wins. In the amazingly unlikely scenario they're exactly equal make it a double loss.
*In terms of the resource cost of them you see in the army tab in replays.
Pros I can think of:
Doesn't require any rebalancing of units.
Doesn't give any race an unfair advantage in ability to win through stalemate.
Doesn't require the addition of any new 'draw' mechanics or tracking.
5 minutes means players have an incentive to try to have a micro intense battle to eek out a win where possible, instead of doing their best to avoid each other and long winded posturing.
Cons I can think of:
Maybe some people would prefer more than 5 minutes to fight?
Still have to wait 10 minutes against T hiding in a corner.
Edit: Spelling.
that's unfair for someone who has a cannon left vs 2 zerglings
why should the guy be punished for making a cannon as opposed to a zealot
only solution is to have the offer draw button, all the other proposed methods are unfair
if opponent doesn't accept draw, then too bad, shit happens
|
Hmmm I have an Idea to stop stalemates....if you've ever played wow..you can ticket a GM to help you solve in game issues or glichs and what not..so why not have the ability to ticket a sc2 REF(gm) if the game has gone on for a certain amount of time have them enter into the ladder game as a..well ref...and be able to make a call on who won.
Yes?
No?
Maybe?
good idea?
bad idea?
also one of the issues I see with the *draw button* idea is that...say..a Terran floating where you cant hit him...can simply not accept the draw and not offer any..so limiting it or not wont change the fact that they're BM for floating in the first place
|
On November 22 2010 01:15 awu25 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2010 00:48 Iyerbeth wrote:
I really don’t think limiting Terran lift off is in any way a good idea. If you miss land a CC in many of the suggestions here you're in trouble, or if you land a base and your opponent tries to deny it the base is screwed, and whilst I don’t play Terran I don’t think it'd be fair to take that ability away from a race balance POV.
Anyway here's my obligatory suggestion, which someone will no doubt realise is bad for some reason I didn't actually consider.
If no player has mined for 5 minutes then begin 5 minute countdown. If no one returns minerals to a cc/hatch/nexus in that time the player with the largest remaining army* wins. In the amazingly unlikely scenario they're exactly equal make it a double loss.
*In terms of the resource cost of them you see in the army tab in replays.
Pros I can think of:
Doesn't require any rebalancing of units.
Doesn't give any race an unfair advantage in ability to win through stalemate.
Doesn't require the addition of any new 'draw' mechanics or tracking.
5 minutes means players have an incentive to try to have a micro intense battle to eek out a win where possible, instead of doing their best to avoid each other and long winded posturing.
Cons I can think of:
Maybe some people would prefer more than 5 minutes to fight?
Still have to wait 10 minutes against T hiding in a corner.
Edit: Spelling. that's unfair for someone who has a cannon left vs 2 zerglings why should the guy be punished for making a cannon as opposed to a zealot only solution is to have the offer draw button, all the other proposed methods are unfair if opponent doesn't accept draw, then too bad, shit happens
Well the line has to be drawn somewhere and I think shit happens isn't where it should be. The person who has two cannons left, which will be a very small minority of cases anyway, would have known beforehand the rule and if you lose to two zerglings because you dont have a single zealot left, then you lost to fair rules you knew beforehand. 2 cannons (or 10 cannons) are a lot less map control than a small force and since a lnie must be drawn somewhere to have an actual solution I believe that armies are the best way to measure it.
I realised another negative to my suggestion though (which will be editted in) in that a fully mined out map would need to be concluded in 5 minutes so even that's not perfect IMO, but I'm sure there should be some way to tweak it in to being fair that doesn't revolve around both players being decent and clicking a button and adding a whole new draws stat.
|
On November 22 2010 01:24 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2010 01:15 awu25 wrote:On November 22 2010 00:48 Iyerbeth wrote:
I really don’t think limiting Terran lift off is in any way a good idea. If you miss land a CC in many of the suggestions here you're in trouble, or if you land a base and your opponent tries to deny it the base is screwed, and whilst I don’t play Terran I don’t think it'd be fair to take that ability away from a race balance POV.
Anyway here's my obligatory suggestion, which someone will no doubt realise is bad for some reason I didn't actually consider.
If no player has mined for 5 minutes then begin 5 minute countdown. If no one returns minerals to a cc/hatch/nexus in that time the player with the largest remaining army* wins. In the amazingly unlikely scenario they're exactly equal make it a double loss.
*In terms of the resource cost of them you see in the army tab in replays.
Pros I can think of:
Doesn't require any rebalancing of units.
Doesn't give any race an unfair advantage in ability to win through stalemate.
Doesn't require the addition of any new 'draw' mechanics or tracking.
5 minutes means players have an incentive to try to have a micro intense battle to eek out a win where possible, instead of doing their best to avoid each other and long winded posturing.
Cons I can think of:
Maybe some people would prefer more than 5 minutes to fight?
Still have to wait 10 minutes against T hiding in a corner.
Edit: Spelling. that's unfair for someone who has a cannon left vs 2 zerglings why should the guy be punished for making a cannon as opposed to a zealot only solution is to have the offer draw button, all the other proposed methods are unfair if opponent doesn't accept draw, then too bad, shit happens Well the line has to be drawn somewhere and I think shit happens isn't where it should be. The person who has two cannons left, which will be a very small minority of cases anyway, would have known beforehand the rule and if you lose to two zerglings because you dont have a single zealot left, then you lost to fair rules you knew beforehand. 2 cannons (or 10 cannons) are a lot less map control than a small force and since a lnie must be drawn somewhere to have an actual solution I believe that armies are the best way to measure it. I realised another negative to my suggestion though (which will be editted in) in that a fully mined out map would need to be concluded in 5 minutes so even that's not perfect IMO, but I'm sure there should be some way to tweak it in to being fair that doesn't revolve around both players being decent and clicking a button and adding a whole new draws stat.
Really if you didnt play bw, people shouldnt be posting about stalemates in this thread. They were a part of bw and draws were actually called in several major tournaments and a regame occured. Any of these stupid rules just ruin the game. The odds of a stalemate happening are really small anyway. If you know terran can lift, dont spend all of your fucking resources on zealots and stalkers and throw down a stargate if you see it might end up being a base trade situation.
Just take the loss on the ladder, its only ladder, in a real tournament a draw would just be called anyway. Its pointless to sit around and wait for a few measly ladder points.
|
A game where it is impossible to draw is a bad game. Game theory-wise it is a huge problem. If both players play perfect they should be able to draw. What happens in a game where it is impossible to at least get a draw with perfect play? It's a paradox.
Draws are a sign of a consistent game. Stop trying to propose ideas for making draws impossible by arbitrarily letting one player win. It will lead to absurd situations where the game ought to be a draw but one player is forced to do crazy non-logical things that according to the normal rules would be throwing away the game.
Draws are fine. The question is how to make the game result a draw. I think both players need to agree to a draw for a game to be a draw. But a problem is one person can just refuse to draw. I think to refuse a draw in a potentially drawish game ending, which is actually not hard to determine by an algorithm, means you see a win. If you claim you can win, you better be able to win.
Really if you didnt play bw, people shouldnt be posting about stalemates in this thread.
I would agree with this. But the problem is that the people who will decide on this at Blizzard will not have played BW either. Let alone have experienced several draws in their own games. Remember that David Kim actually has very little power and his opinions, only shared by a few alpha testers who also had RTS experience, were ignored. Example is the cliffable maps, which David Kim opposed but were put in the game anyway.
|
On September 30 2010 14:53 Fa1nT wrote:Show nested quote +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. In real war, as well as many other RTS Someone who has an army wins over someone who has no army, but buildings.
Real war or other RTS? What are you talking about? Who said one team has no units? What if terran has 2 vikings and a barrack against 2 stalkers and a pylon? What if there's 4 roaches each and one extractor?
Stop picturing one specific situation and give out your suggestions or inputs based on this.
So many suggestions and ideas here are complete garbage, especially those who suggests that the float off mechanic should be changed.
Either you have a smart solution or you don't. I can't see a good way of implementing this and I see no use for it at all and it's so rare I really hope blizzard has other things in the workings rather then this.
If they have some kind of menu or button were you can propose/ accept draws blizzard will have more threads about "I Accidentally clicked draw when I was winning" then they have stalemates threads now.
If you find yourself in a draw then be happy something cool happened and leave the game
|
On September 30 2010 13:27 GGTeMpLaR wrote:I think everyone can agree that this is the most epic stalemate ever + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkPAJjQYv-Q
That game was ridiculously cool, i wish there was more stalemates in pro-starcraft :/
|
On November 22 2010 01:27 Sadist wrote:
If you know terran can lift, dont spend all of your fucking resources on zealots and stalkers and throw down a stargate if you see it might end up being a base trade situation.
That's nonsense. Such close games are close for a reason: both players are throwing everything into battle to still come out on top. To say that all races except one should make a move that could easily lose them the game altogether (remember, you don't draw unless it's unbelievably close), just in case the opponent might abuse a race-exclusive ability is absurd. Those 150/100 could have been two units that would have won the Protoss the game in the first place.
|
I like the idea of a timer starting up when no minerals have been mined. At the same time I don't think that is the best of ideas because quite often its possible to have one or both players not mining for extended periods especially in long games or stalemate scenarios, but both players have money in the bank and troops still. Having the game abruptly end would really suck. The workaround to this is quite simple I believe. Simply have it that after 5 minutes of game time no mining a small option comes up (near the top right corner) with a check box (maybe a one minute window to see and check the box(or not)) a notable visual/audio cue or both would need to happen to make sure it is seen.
Checking the box is telling the game that 'you wish to continue', as long as both players keep hitting the box, the game will continue. The box will re-appear every 5 minutes until the following condition is met. As soon as one person does not hit the box the game will end, the person who did not hit the box will be given either a 'draw' (neither a win nor a loss), and the person who did will be given a win but only if the winner's opponent was below their rank (league/# rank and points considered), else they will be given a draw as well. The reasoning behind these conditions is explained below.
First of all it will make sure that those Terran players we all know and loathe who hide a CC somewhere on the map and go AFK, or for that matter, anyone hiding or trying to force a stalemate by AFKing will be promptly dealt with. They will not check the box, and the player who is still there will hit the box, thus resulting in the end of the match. The stipulation regarding the opponent needing to be below one's rank for checking the box to result in a win is intended to prevent abuses of the system and trolls or noobies that get uber raged at a loss. Quite simply if such a player is encountered he or she will camp at the computer, for two or three hours if need be, not playing, and simply waiting every 5 minutes to hit the box in order to prevent the other player from getting a win or ending the game. Essentially meaning any reasonable player just wants to leave, but with minimal consequence or benefit to the asshole who just wont give up. In that situation the player that isn't hiding or forcing the stalemate will not check the box, and the game will end. More often than not the player that was forcing the extended stalemate will be of low rank, and therefore they will not receive a win for their trollmate (like it I figured I'd try it on for size troll + stalemate).
|
On November 22 2010 01:27 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2010 01:24 Iyerbeth wrote:On November 22 2010 01:15 awu25 wrote:On November 22 2010 00:48 Iyerbeth wrote:
I really don’t think limiting Terran lift off is in any way a good idea. If you miss land a CC in many of the suggestions here you're in trouble, or if you land a base and your opponent tries to deny it the base is screwed, and whilst I don’t play Terran I don’t think it'd be fair to take that ability away from a race balance POV.
Anyway here's my obligatory suggestion, which someone will no doubt realise is bad for some reason I didn't actually consider.
If no player has mined for 5 minutes then begin 5 minute countdown. If no one returns minerals to a cc/hatch/nexus in that time the player with the largest remaining army* wins. In the amazingly unlikely scenario they're exactly equal make it a double loss.
*In terms of the resource cost of them you see in the army tab in replays.
Pros I can think of:
Doesn't require any rebalancing of units.
Doesn't give any race an unfair advantage in ability to win through stalemate.
Doesn't require the addition of any new 'draw' mechanics or tracking.
5 minutes means players have an incentive to try to have a micro intense battle to eek out a win where possible, instead of doing their best to avoid each other and long winded posturing.
Cons I can think of:
Maybe some people would prefer more than 5 minutes to fight?
Still have to wait 10 minutes against T hiding in a corner.
Edit: Spelling. that's unfair for someone who has a cannon left vs 2 zerglings why should the guy be punished for making a cannon as opposed to a zealot only solution is to have the offer draw button, all the other proposed methods are unfair if opponent doesn't accept draw, then too bad, shit happens Well the line has to be drawn somewhere and I think shit happens isn't where it should be. The person who has two cannons left, which will be a very small minority of cases anyway, would have known beforehand the rule and if you lose to two zerglings because you dont have a single zealot left, then you lost to fair rules you knew beforehand. 2 cannons (or 10 cannons) are a lot less map control than a small force and since a lnie must be drawn somewhere to have an actual solution I believe that armies are the best way to measure it. I realised another negative to my suggestion though (which will be editted in) in that a fully mined out map would need to be concluded in 5 minutes so even that's not perfect IMO, but I'm sure there should be some way to tweak it in to being fair that doesn't revolve around both players being decent and clicking a button and adding a whole new draws stat. Really if you didnt play bw, people shouldnt be posting about stalemates in this thread. They were a part of bw and draws were actually called in several major tournaments and a regame occured. Any of these stupid rules just ruin the game. The odds of a stalemate happening are really small anyway. If you know terran can lift, dont spend all of your fucking resources on zealots and stalkers and throw down a stargate if you see it might end up being a base trade situation. Just take the loss on the ladder, its only ladder, in a real tournament a draw would just be called anyway. Its pointless to sit around and wait for a few measly ladder points.
Your whole post is just wrong, and largely elitist. First Starcraft 2 is not BW, and for that reason saying "Game X had Y feature so Game Z should too and you have to play Game X before you can have an opinion on feature Y" is just silly. If you want to play a game which has all the features of BW, Blizzard has handily made a game where you can do that, BW. This thread was sparked because Blizzard said it was looking for a solution to the stalemate problem, so if we were to be setting down who should and should not post about stalemates, you'd find yourself on the opposite side of the fence to the developers. I don’t agree with your statement though that any one view point should not post in this thread, but at any rate your idea is completely without merit. If you've not played Hello Kitty Online, don’t comment on Halo: Reach's weapons.
Moving on though yes it is probably, in the grand scheme of things, pointless to sit around and wait for a few measly ladder points, and in a tournament there might well be a draw called. That doesn't mean I should sit in my home playing for fun based on the rules in place if I had a referee behind me and should just accept an aspect of the game that detracts from the fun of playing it.
Finally, the only real point of view that is of any use to this thread that I can take from your post seems to be that you believe Terran should be able to base trade and sit in a corner for a guaranteed win as a racial ability, or that if after an hour or more of playing a stand alone game you reach a point where no one can go ahead, a winner should not be determined regardless of the state of the game. I don’t think that makes for a very fun game, and I believe if you completely retreat from the game with everything you have left it is surrendering the map in all but pressing it, but your belief to the contrary is certainly a valid point of view. Fortunately, Blizzard doesn't seem to agree with you.
|
On November 23 2010 00:47 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2010 01:27 Sadist wrote:On November 22 2010 01:24 Iyerbeth wrote:On November 22 2010 01:15 awu25 wrote:On November 22 2010 00:48 Iyerbeth wrote:
I really don’t think limiting Terran lift off is in any way a good idea. If you miss land a CC in many of the suggestions here you're in trouble, or if you land a base and your opponent tries to deny it the base is screwed, and whilst I don’t play Terran I don’t think it'd be fair to take that ability away from a race balance POV.
Anyway here's my obligatory suggestion, which someone will no doubt realise is bad for some reason I didn't actually consider.
If no player has mined for 5 minutes then begin 5 minute countdown. If no one returns minerals to a cc/hatch/nexus in that time the player with the largest remaining army* wins. In the amazingly unlikely scenario they're exactly equal make it a double loss.
*In terms of the resource cost of them you see in the army tab in replays.
Pros I can think of:
Doesn't require any rebalancing of units.
Doesn't give any race an unfair advantage in ability to win through stalemate.
Doesn't require the addition of any new 'draw' mechanics or tracking.
5 minutes means players have an incentive to try to have a micro intense battle to eek out a win where possible, instead of doing their best to avoid each other and long winded posturing.
Cons I can think of:
Maybe some people would prefer more than 5 minutes to fight?
Still have to wait 10 minutes against T hiding in a corner.
Edit: Spelling. that's unfair for someone who has a cannon left vs 2 zerglings why should the guy be punished for making a cannon as opposed to a zealot only solution is to have the offer draw button, all the other proposed methods are unfair if opponent doesn't accept draw, then too bad, shit happens Well the line has to be drawn somewhere and I think shit happens isn't where it should be. The person who has two cannons left, which will be a very small minority of cases anyway, would have known beforehand the rule and if you lose to two zerglings because you dont have a single zealot left, then you lost to fair rules you knew beforehand. 2 cannons (or 10 cannons) are a lot less map control than a small force and since a lnie must be drawn somewhere to have an actual solution I believe that armies are the best way to measure it. I realised another negative to my suggestion though (which will be editted in) in that a fully mined out map would need to be concluded in 5 minutes so even that's not perfect IMO, but I'm sure there should be some way to tweak it in to being fair that doesn't revolve around both players being decent and clicking a button and adding a whole new draws stat. Really if you didnt play bw, people shouldnt be posting about stalemates in this thread. They were a part of bw and draws were actually called in several major tournaments and a regame occured. Any of these stupid rules just ruin the game. The odds of a stalemate happening are really small anyway. If you know terran can lift, dont spend all of your fucking resources on zealots and stalkers and throw down a stargate if you see it might end up being a base trade situation. Just take the loss on the ladder, its only ladder, in a real tournament a draw would just be called anyway. Its pointless to sit around and wait for a few measly ladder points. Your whole post is just wrong, and largely elitist. First Starcraft 2 is not BW, and for that reason saying "Game X had Y feature so Game Z should too and you have to play Game X before you can have an opinion on feature Y" is just silly. If you want to play a game which has all the features of BW, Blizzard has handily made a game where you can do that, BW. This thread was sparked because Blizzard said it was looking for a solution to the stalemate problem, so if we were to be setting down who should and should not post about stalemates, you'd find yourself on the opposite side of the fence to the developers. I don’t agree with your statement though that any one view point should not post in this thread, but at any rate your idea is completely without merit. If you've not played Hello Kitty Online, don’t comment on Halo: Reach's weapons. Moving on though yes it is probably, in the grand scheme of things, pointless to sit around and wait for a few measly ladder points, and in a tournament there might well be a draw called. That doesn't mean I should sit in my home playing for fun based on the rules in place if I had a referee behind me and should just accept an aspect of the game that detracts from the fun of playing it. Finally, the only real point of view that is of any use to this thread that I can take from your post seems to be that you believe Terran should be able to base trade and sit in a corner for a guaranteed win as a racial ability, or that if after an hour or more of playing a stand alone game you reach a point where no one can go ahead, a winner should not be determined regardless of the state of the game. I don’t think that makes for a very fun game, and I believe if you completely retreat from the game with everything you have left it is surrendering the map in all but pressing it, but your belief to the contrary is certainly a valid point of view. Fortunately, Blizzard doesn't seem to agree with you.
I am an elitist. Ive played bw for 10 or 11 years give or take. I have a ton of experience. Ive played in a few ties myself, and seen countless more. This is a sequel. This isnt war 3 or random RTS. Ties happen. Units are irrelevent, buildings are what determine wins. If you KNOW TERRAN CAN FLY BUILDINGS you need to be able to have an air unit to kill them. Things like this happened in island games and on temple in bw occasionally. Whats the difference between the terran flying around and a protoss having a pylon on an island and nothing left and you cant get there? Seriously, it IS an intrinsict power of the race. But as ive shown with my protoss example it only doesnt happen to them. What if you had a hatchery on an island that was mined out? What if it was a depot? Your point is dumb. Even if blizzard did some BS like this for ladder games major tournaments would never follow it because its a horrible rule. Ties can also happen if both players deem it impossible to attack without losing. What do you do then? It happened in bw.
Lifting doesnt solve all "ties" and this unit crap is stupid. As stated before, the goal of the game is to kill all buildings. Units mean nothing. I can have a million units and you have 1 dt and win if i have no detection.
|
I just finished a PvT where I had a nexus, a few unpowered buildings, no money and no probes and 9dts and he had a flying rax and 2 dropships with very few MM.
After talking a while, we agreed to play rock paper scissors to decide who has to leave, i.e. type in our bet and both press return at a fixed gametime (it was 60:00...) here. I think this is a good way to solve a stalemate until blizzard implements a tie option.
I tock paper, he took scissors, I left and didn't feel bad at all. Instead I am happy that things like this can happen in SC2.
FYI I come from a FPS background, never played any competetive RTS before SC2, only played SC singleplayer back in '98. But I have always liked the habit of saying "gg" in RTS games. The gesture to humanly accept defeat requires sportsmanship and some dignity in contrast to a fully automated system that decides who has won and when exactly. I think this greatly affects the general attitude of a lot of online-players, because by typing gg you somewhat accept the outcome, no matter what, and by that you will grow as a player and as a person. This is exactly where RTS is ahead of FPS in terms of trying to be a real sport imo.
Maybe this is less an issue for very high level play where most people have a very clear mindset about losing and know each other personally anyways, but for the vast majority of anonymous gaming in the wide interwebz the gg is certainly a very good thing to have.
tl,dr:
1. solution to stalemates: agree on an exact timing (use gametimer) where both players write in the chat if they go for rock paper or scissor. Better than waiting forever.
2. typing gg is good for you! <3 the SC community
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
