EPTWhile 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.
Update on Blizzards ideas about Stalemates - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Graham
Canada1259 Posts
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. | ||
|
Fa1nT
United States3423 Posts
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. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On September 30 2010 15:19 Fa1nT wrote: 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. | ||
|
Fontong
United States6454 Posts
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! | ||
|
kingjames01
Canada1603 Posts
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... | ||
|
Fa1nT
United States3423 Posts
On September 30 2010 15:25 FabledIntegral wrote: 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? | ||
|
Matrijs
United States147 Posts
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. | ||
|
kingjames01
Canada1603 Posts
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. | ||
|
Ketara
United States15065 Posts
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. | ||
|
kingjames01
Canada1603 Posts
On September 30 2010 15:33 Matrijs wrote: 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? | ||
|
Scottymc
Australia134 Posts
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. | ||
|
raga4ka
Bulgaria5676 Posts
| ||
|
Fa1nT
United States3423 Posts
Funny pic related to this | ||
|
nihlon
Sweden5581 Posts
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? | ||
|
tertle
Australia328 Posts
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. | ||
|
MiraMax
Germany532 Posts
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). | ||
|
KinosJourney2
Sweden1811 Posts
 ).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. | ||
|
crazeman
664 Posts
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. | ||
|
MiraMax
Germany532 Posts
On September 30 2010 16:33 crazeman wrote: 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. | ||
|
GagnarTheUnruly
United States655 Posts
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. | ||
| ||
