|
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 +
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
