|
On September 30 2010 21:37 dbddbddb wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2010 20:01 standalone wrote: So i lost and raged once and wasted 20 minutes out of someones life by flying my building around.
And you know what? Afterwards i felt like shit and i apologized to the guy. I hurt myself by not being big enough to simply admit defeat when i had lost and ended up wasting my own, and my opponents time. That was the last time i created a stalemate.
My point is that a lot of stalemates could be avoided if we were more willing to accept defeat when we have lost. Also if we don't, we are in fact hurting ourselves (regardless of whether it ends up in a win or not) since we are wasting time we could have spent practicing, having fun or doing IRL stuff. your example isnt a stalemate. if you had completely destroyed all his probes and he had not enough money to make an air unit to kill your floating CC, it would be a stalemate.
I see. My apologies for not properly understanding the topic i was commenting on. Feel free to disregard my previous comment as it's not relevant.
Thank you for the correction.
|
As a chess player, I think stalemate/draw games can be rather interesting in StarCraft... In BW I had countless experiences with draw games (or at least close ones). And I was always for a 'draw offer 'button. However, instead of both players losing/gaining 0 points, make it more like chess ( where the higher rated player loses a small amount of points, while the lower rated player gains a small amount of points.)
This shouldn't really be a problem, as stalemate/draw games aren't as common in SC as they are in chess xD
|
5 Min timer for flying buildings. Buildings the have flown over 4 mins have a landing "refuel"time of 2 mins before they can take off.
|
On September 30 2010 17:48 Ryhn wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2010 13:19 AJMcSpiffy wrote:
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?
If there's anything Team Fortress 2 has taught me over the years, it's that in the event of a stalemate everyone loses.
I believe that in chess, if you draw with someone ranked higher than you, you win some points, likewise, if you draw with someone ranked lower than you, you lose points. *shrug*
Edit: Ninja'd by TwilightStar.
|
Sounds like a problem that's easy to solve. A stalemate occurs when neither player can win the game. It does not matter if one player has 100000 Zerglings and no hatchery if the Terran has one floating Command Center, it's still a draw.
Draw's should give no points, neither negative or positive and should be a F10 menu choice that both players have to accept. Draws could be counted on your record just like Wins and Losses.
|
On September 30 2010 23:08 AveiMil wrote: Sounds like a problem that's easy to solve. A stalemate occurs when neither player can win the game. It does not matter if one player has 100000 Zerglings and no hatchery if the Terran has one floating Command Center, it's still a draw.
Draw's should give no points, neither negative or positive and should be a F10 menu choice that both players have to accept. Draws could be counted on your record just like Wins and Losses.
If he has a floating CC, he should make sure there is an island base he can land on first
Technically he could win the game if he had 50 mins, and the Z player went afk.
I think that the only time there should be 0 points gained and 0 points lost is when both players are around the exact same ranking. Also, I agree on draws being counted on your record. ( same as in chess )
|
I agree that there should be an option to draw.
However it should always remain an option, stalemates are horribly avoidable.
|
On October 01 2010 00:05 RoarMan wrote: I agree that there should be an option to draw.
However it should always remain an option, stalemates are horribly avoidable.
Yeah, Although I can see possible abuse coming from this system.. Maybe whenever a draw is accepted, someone looks at the replay to make sure it was a real draw, and not just abuse? (i dunno how this would work, though)
|
Not sure if this is a good idea. In all honesty, if players today are going to float their buildings to the corner in order to get a win, what makes you think they are going to press "Draw" instead of leaving their buildings in the corner?
Before people say "Well the game should force the draw", I completely disagree. I expect errors to occur and the game may be broken as a result.
|
On September 30 2010 15:31 Fa1nT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2010 15:25 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 30 2010 15:19 Fa1nT wrote: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. 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?
No shit? Are you kidding me? Yes you should alter your strategy based on trying to win. If your strategy does not enable you to win, alter it. Are you kidding me?
Any race can base trade, Terrans are just better at it. Stop whining because some races have inherent advantages over others, its' part of the game. Why are Zergs the only race allowed to spread creep for a speed bonus?
Spoiler of a relatively recent GSL game. + Show Spoiler +look at Cool vs NEXliveforever game 3. Base trade. Zerg had mutas, zerg won. He had no drones left if I recall to rebuild. Play smart, not like an asshat.
|
Issue? God I'm sick of reading posts like this. Even if the post is well written like the OP, it's still whining. Why? Because you failed to kill the opponent outright. Even if the opponent used cheese, or imbalance, you can't kill him. Just be the bigger man, take a loss (ruining your perfect record/account? I think not), and play another game. If it was due to 'imbalance', then pray (silently) that Blizzard 'fixes' it. If it is so widespread or so detrimental to the game, more people would care. But they don't.
|
On September 30 2010 22:21 TwilightStar wrote: As a chess player, I think stalemate/draw games can be rather interesting in StarCraft... In BW I had countless experiences with draw games (or at least close ones). And I was always for a 'draw offer 'button. However, instead of both players losing/gaining 0 points, make it more like chess ( where the higher rated player loses a small amount of points, while the lower rated player gains a small amount of points.)
This shouldn't really be a problem, as stalemate/draw games aren't as common in SC as they are in chess xD
Yeah, I'd rather see this system too. A weaker player tying with a better player deserves some points, and vice versa: the better player deserves to lose some if he ties with a weaker player.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And I think we only need two changes to be made to resolve stalemate issues:
1) Terran buildings can't fly forever AND they have a 1-2minute (or whatever) cooldown after landing before they can fly again. This is to prevent Terran from hiding which is something the other races thankfully can't do.
2) Add a consensial offer-draw option. This is to resolve stalemates when players cannot take out each other due to static defenses being more powerful than remaining units.
|
The only problem here is the terran, like usual, flying building should cost 1 mineral and 1 gas. Building will start to take damage when the player no longer has mineral or gas.
|
Good mechanics shouldn't encourage players to be griefers. That's basically what the Terran lift off mechanic does. Honestly, it only seems to be in the game in the first place because it was in the first one. How many threads have we had a Terran player response to Zerg pleas for lurkers or scourge 'No, that would be overpowered in this game even though it was fine in the last one?' And yet Terran are themselves so much stronger than they used to be, with most of their old little BW goodies still intact. I see no reason why Terran should be able to make their bases immune to ground-targeting armies on a whim, and I don't see anyone other than Terran players interested in defending that kind of mechanic.
|
On October 01 2010 00:49 Karkadinn wrote: Good mechanics shouldn't encourage players to be griefers. That's basically what the Terran lift off mechanic does. Honestly, it only seems to be in the game in the first place because it was in the first one. How many threads have we had a Terran player response to Zerg pleas for lurkers or scourge 'No, that would be overpowered in this game even though it was fine in the last one?' And yet Terran are themselves so much stronger than they used to be, with most of their old little BW goodies still intact. I see no reason why Terran should be able to make their bases immune to ground-targeting armies on a whim, and I don't see anyone other than Terran players interested in defending that kind of mechanic.
Not being able to lift buildings would wreck the lab-switching mechanic for one. Besides, terran being the most complete race should be an argument for completing the other 2 races (which each have an expansion coming) and not for reducing the varity of terran play.
|
On October 01 2010 00:52 Dental Floss wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2010 00:49 Karkadinn wrote: Good mechanics shouldn't encourage players to be griefers. That's basically what the Terran lift off mechanic does. Honestly, it only seems to be in the game in the first place because it was in the first one. How many threads have we had a Terran player response to Zerg pleas for lurkers or scourge 'No, that would be overpowered in this game even though it was fine in the last one?' And yet Terran are themselves so much stronger than they used to be, with most of their old little BW goodies still intact. I see no reason why Terran should be able to make their bases immune to ground-targeting armies on a whim, and I don't see anyone other than Terran players interested in defending that kind of mechanic. Not being able to lift buildings would wreck the lab-switching mechanic for one. Besides, terran being the most complete race should be an argument for completing the other 2 races (which each have an expansion coming) and not for reducing the varity of terran play.
Well, to clarify, I'm not making an argument for removing the ability entirely. Like everyone else who isn't Terran, I'd just like to see the thing have a reasonable time limit. I realize it comes off rather the other way in the original post you're quoting and I apologize for that.
|
On October 01 2010 00:55 Karkadinn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2010 00:52 Dental Floss wrote:On October 01 2010 00:49 Karkadinn wrote: Good mechanics shouldn't encourage players to be griefers. That's basically what the Terran lift off mechanic does. Honestly, it only seems to be in the game in the first place because it was in the first one. How many threads have we had a Terran player response to Zerg pleas for lurkers or scourge 'No, that would be overpowered in this game even though it was fine in the last one?' And yet Terran are themselves so much stronger than they used to be, with most of their old little BW goodies still intact. I see no reason why Terran should be able to make their bases immune to ground-targeting armies on a whim, and I don't see anyone other than Terran players interested in defending that kind of mechanic. Not being able to lift buildings would wreck the lab-switching mechanic for one. Besides, terran being the most complete race should be an argument for completing the other 2 races (which each have an expansion coming) and not for reducing the varity of terran play. Well, to clarify, I'm not making an argument for removing the ability entirely. Like everyone else who isn't Terran, I'd just like to see the thing have a reasonable time limit. I realize it comes off rather the other way in the original post you're quoting and I apologize for that.
Stop speaking for other people. You're doing a terrible job.
|
On September 30 2010 15:39 kingjames01 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2010 15:33 Matrijs wrote: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. 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?
Yes. That game, after a predetermined period of time in which no damage is dealt and no resources harvested, should end in a draw. If neither player can destroy the other's buildings, neither player wins.
|
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... Due to the fact that you use global variables and do not use encapsulation I would say no.
|
On October 01 2010 01:05 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2010 00:55 Karkadinn wrote:On October 01 2010 00:52 Dental Floss wrote:On October 01 2010 00:49 Karkadinn wrote: Good mechanics shouldn't encourage players to be griefers. That's basically what the Terran lift off mechanic does. Honestly, it only seems to be in the game in the first place because it was in the first one. How many threads have we had a Terran player response to Zerg pleas for lurkers or scourge 'No, that would be overpowered in this game even though it was fine in the last one?' And yet Terran are themselves so much stronger than they used to be, with most of their old little BW goodies still intact. I see no reason why Terran should be able to make their bases immune to ground-targeting armies on a whim, and I don't see anyone other than Terran players interested in defending that kind of mechanic. Not being able to lift buildings would wreck the lab-switching mechanic for one. Besides, terran being the most complete race should be an argument for completing the other 2 races (which each have an expansion coming) and not for reducing the varity of terran play. Well, to clarify, I'm not making an argument for removing the ability entirely. Like everyone else who isn't Terran, I'd just like to see the thing have a reasonable time limit. I realize it comes off rather the other way in the original post you're quoting and I apologize for that. Stop speaking for other people. You're doing a terrible job.
And you're fitting right in with Maeldun in adding hostility to a thread just for the sake of being hostile. Chill.
|
|
|
|