For a long time now ZvZ has represented a problem for tournaments, especially offline events. We're all aware at this point that the game, at least around the European scene, has devolved to the point you can regularly get 2+ hour games ending in stalemates.
There have been attempts to deal with this in offline events. There have been coinflips at DreamHack which feel emotionally unsatisfying, there have been decisions made at admin's discretion which are always going to be subjective (and in the case of my decision recently, required more communication prior to the event occurring).
As a personal preference, one I've seen mirrored within the community, we would simply re-game until a definitive win was achieved by one player. However, due to time constraints that almost all events have (be it in terms of hourly pay of production staff or simply limitations of the venue) this cannot be done.
I'd like to find a way to make a decision that does end with a winner without it being unsatisfying for viewers/players (Coinflip) whilst not relying on the subjective decision of a tournament administrator like myself.
Do there exist any metrics by which we can declare a winner should there be, say, an hour of in-game time when no buildings are destroyed?
Blizzard should remove the kill count for SH, thus if only locusts are hitting each other for 5min without any other action (mining, build damage, etc), the draw countdown starts.
It would be nice if Blizzard themselves made the change, but I'm working on the assumption that won't happen (at least not in the near future). Rather than wait, and have potentially more tournaments struggle, it'd be nice if the community could come together to find our own solution to the problem.
Either use a specific map pool for ZvZ that strongly discourages host play, i.e. Alterzim style maps, or outright prohibit the unit in ZvZ. Alternatively, offer monetary incentives not to use it. Or simply make sure every ZvZ gets played first thing on a separate stream.
If you are looking for in game suggestions, or some kind of "cure", there are none. Having a set time limit and then pronouncing the winner based on available resources, supply, units lost or what have you is likely the only recourse if you are pressed for time.
On April 24 2014 23:49 Faust852 wrote: Blizzard should remove the kill count for SH, thus if only locusts are hitting each other for 5min without any other action (mining, build damage, etc), the draw countdown starts.
This would be the best solution, imo, mirroring how tank stalemates work in TvT. The Swarm Host is essentially a weird tank anyway.
On April 24 2014 23:49 Faust852 wrote: Blizzard should remove the kill count for SH, thus if only locusts are hitting each other for 5min without any other action (mining, build damage, etc), the draw countdown starts.
This would be the best solution, imo, mirroring how tank stalemates work in TvT. The Swarm Host is essentially a weird tank anyway.
That might work in extreme cases where someone retreated up a ramp and is camping with swarmhosts and spores. Overall though it won't help because you can always micro the swarm hosts by right clicking and then attack a structure. So there is like 1 spore dying every minute or so.
I'm on the fence. I think it's good that people are exploring end game zvz. Discouraging that with tournament rules doesn't sit well with me.
Ban Swarm Hosts and redesign Protoss ourselves Kappa.
Seriously, you can't do anything about it. Can't ban Swarm Hosts because they're an essential unit in the current metagame and the only counter Zerg has.
What if at the point a draw/stalemate was declared, you go to some other metric to decide the winner for example resources mined. I think resources mined would generally be quite a bit representative of how well one player dominated the map vs another.
If this possible tiebreaker condition was known from the beginning, it would be something extra to think about for a player who's considering turtling up and playing for a draw. It could also provide a way to give increased incentives for other objectives. For example a player may think: "I can't break my opponent, so I need to aggressively take and defend extra bases or aggressively deny him/her bases so I can be in good position to win via tiebreaker". In doing this it may force 1 side or the other to make some mistakes that can be capitalized on, helping the game to end without use of the tiebreaker.
I don't know if I explained my thought well enough, but just trying to help with the brainstorming.
I think judges are still the best solution. Real stalemates are rare. And for as long as there is no gamemechanic for it, any rule made by someone that is not blizzard is just as arbitrary as a judge or a board of judges calling when there is no clear intention or possibility of a player winning anymore.
Yeah, that's what I'd like, Bue. The problem I had this past weekend is that I simply didn't have enough time beforehand to decide on a concrete metric, and ended up in a situation where it came down to subjective interpretation from myself.
Rather than resources mined maybe if a player had a significant bank advantage (Say +40% min/gas) then the win could be given to him.
On April 25 2014 00:02 TRaFFiC wrote: I'm on the fence. I think it's good that people are exploring end game zvz. Discouraging that with tournament rules doesn't sit well with me.
Ideally we could just let it happen until it worked itself out. It's simply the physical limitations of tournaments (especially offline), that mean we can't let that happen. Simply put, events have to run in a timeframe if they're going to finish and/or be profitable and I'd rather the decision be the best one we can come up with as a community, over just what I think is right at the time.
Have a match timer. Default win at 60 minutes based on units killed to punish the bastard that turtles most. Or blizzard could fix what they break for a change.
i haven't been watching all that much sc2 lately but i haven't been under the impression that this happens a lot. am i wrong? i've seen a grand total of *1* long SH vs SH game, and it was Stephano vs Dimaga like 2 days ago in WCS EU qualifier, which still ended in a win for Stephano after a bit over an hour of game time.
On April 24 2014 23:49 Faust852 wrote: Blizzard should remove the kill count for SH, thus if only locusts are hitting each other for 5min without any other action (mining, build damage, etc), the draw countdown starts.
On April 25 2014 00:10 VTJRaen wrote: Yeah, that's what I'd like, Bue. The problem I had this past weekend is that I simply didn't have enough time beforehand to decide on a concrete metric, and ended up in a situation where it came down to subjective interpretation from myself.
Rather than resources mined maybe if a player had a significant bank advantage (Say +40% min/gas) then the win could be given to him.
On April 25 2014 00:02 TRaFFiC wrote: I'm on the fence. I think it's good that people are exploring end game zvz. Discouraging that with tournament rules doesn't sit well with me.
Ideally we could just let it happen until it worked itself out. It's simply the physical limitations of tournaments (especially offline), that mean we can't let that happen. Simply put, events have to run in a timeframe if they're going to finish and/or be profitable and I'd rather the decision be the best one we can come up with as a community, over just what I think is right at the time.
Well, that's why sc2 isn't ideal for TV. Because you don't know how long a series will take. I think overtime is just a part of e-sports.
That said, I do understand in some cases if the admin needs to make a ruling one way or the other so the tournament doesn't suffer. It has to be case by case. For the players, that's part of the challenge of playing in a tournament: time constraints.
In my opinion, we just need to wait for blizz. Swarmhosts don't need to be changed. Just add a Zerg unit which deals with them or make an existing one (vipers) better against them. They could even make a new unit only available in zvz.
Make locusts cost minerals to deploy (5? 10? idea taken from someone else in another thread; maybe they can be buffed slightly to make up for the mineral cost). The player camping in a base on top of a ramp will eventually run out.
I also liked the idea where BLords aren't affected by abduct (not sure how to make that work, though).
i thought roach vs roach was boring. but now it's this....
Why Zergs never trying to use Ultralisk+Baneling+Infestors against mass swarm hosts?
Banelings can clear giant wave of Locusts, giving ultras some time to reach SH themselfs, and more banes can clear newly created locusts so Ultralisks can kill all the Swarm Hosts.
And add small amount of fungals to Locusts and Swarm hosts, so they can't unburrow, move and they'll be weak to Ultras.