|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
