|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
