|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
