Deedless AI trucks delay end of game [2.3.7]

[Asgorath]

I was playing a match on Sk-GreatRift-T1 against 3 AI´s. After destroying their bases the game did not end because the AI hid some trucks in the top right corner of the map.
I had to detect and destroy them to finally win the game.

Therefore I suggest that a match ends automatically if some criterias are not fulfilled. I guess it would be a good choice to take over the "Stalemate Detection" from StarCraft II and do some slightly changes to adjust it to the function being described above and to make it detecting chanceless/deedless players/AI´s and end the game automatically.

Here is the original from StarCraft II:

Stalemate Detection has been added. This will end the game in a tie for all remaining players if no players have income, production, or destroyed structures for three consecutive minutes. A countdown timer will now appear when the game detects this scenario.

-> http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/1691054

Kind regards,
Asgorath

[Per]

Are you sure you want stalemate at this point? You should be winning, and the only thing stopping you is that some units are hidden away somewhere. I'd rather that we did what Starcraft (and some other games) do, require players to start with at least one building, and end the game for aplayer in loss if all buildings are lost (irrespective of units you have still in play).

[Zarel]

We could make it so you can see each other's units and buildings if you don't have a command center.

That would definitely make the command center useful. ^_^

[BunkerBlaster]

I'd rather that we did what Starcraft (and some other games) do, require players to start with at least one building, and end the game for aplayer in loss if all buildings are lost (irrespective of units you have still in play).

That would be fine if a building currently being built was counted.

We could make it so you can see each other's units and buildings if you don't have a command center.

You mean like what was done in one the the 2.3 betas where you not only saw units but also saw oil derricks at start of game?
I do think that would make the game more friendly to new players but I don't like the idea because it takes out the eliment of surprise and changes the game to much. If this is something you want to do maybe you can give the host the option?

[Asgorath]

Are you sure you want stalemate at this point?

No, I just wanted to change the criterias of StarCraft for stalemate into Warzone as criterias for a player to lose.

require players to start with at least one building

Personally I don´t like the idea for Warzone because some maps do have a very small base such as Sk-Clover and a starting-building could be placed inappropriate and take a lot of space.

and end the game for aplayer in loss if all buildings are lost (irrespective of units you have still in play)

Would be possible as well but in my case the AI still had a sensor-tower and a derrick. That´s why I intend to adjust StarCraft2 settings. It could look like this:
A player/AI loses a game automatically if all of the following criterias are fulfilled:
- no more income for 3 consecutive minutes
- no production for 3 consecutive minutes
- no buildings being built for 3 consecutive minutes
- no research for 3 consecutive minutes
- no attack done for 3 consecutive minutes (did not destroy/damage any structures of other players/AI)

Having no income and production and research almost implements the fact that there probably will be no more relevant buildings.

We could make it so you can see each other's units and buildings if you don't have a command center

It is in StarCraft2 as well. But before all of your buildings get uncovered you have like 120 seconds to rebuild it to keep your buildings hidden.

[Per]

Starcraft2's stalemate detection is not a good example. It is a last resort, and in none of the several hundred games I've played have I ever seen it in action. I am opposed to hidden mechanics based on complicated rules to end the game. The victory rules must be simple and clear.

[Zarel]

You mean like what was done in one the the 2.3 betas where you not only saw units but also saw oil derricks at start of game?
I do think that would make the game more friendly to new players but I don't like the idea because it takes out the eliment of surprise and changes the game to much. If this is something you want to do maybe you can give the host the option?

Well, only if you have no command center. Most of the time, you should have a command center, so you'd still be able to surprise your opponent.

Starcraft2's stalemate detection is not a good example. It is a last resort, and in none of the several hundred games I've played have I ever seen it in action. I am opposed to hidden mechanics based on complicated rules to end the game. The victory rules must be simple and clear.

Not to mention that Warzone has unlimited resources, so you can't get the kind of stalemates detected by StarCraft in the first place.

[zoid]

Maybe we could change the victory conditions to destroying all your opponent's trucks and factories but not units? Most of the time killing all trucks and factories will win you the game anyways, unless your opponent has a vastly superior force but got careless.

I've only had this happen in one game, however, where it took me 10 minutes to track down a hidden VTOL. If you solidify your position, scout with sensors, and research VTOLs, it doesn't take too long to finish the game. Most players would probably leave at that stage anyways.

[Per]

Maybe we could change the victory conditions to destroying all your opponent's trucks and factories but not units? Most of the time killing all trucks and factories will win you the game anyways, unless your opponent has a vastly superior force but got careless.

Works for me.

[Jorzi]

Tiberian sun has the checkable option "fast game" which means you lose if you have no buildings/construction vehicle. However, playing hide&seek can sometimes lead to interesting situations, which is why we usually leave it unchecked.

[Zarel]

Maybe we could change the victory conditions to destroying all your opponent's trucks and factories but not units? Most of the time killing all trucks and factories will win you the game anyways, unless your opponent has a vastly superior force but got careless.

The reason we don't do this is because it's too vulnerable to surprise attacks and such. Killing an army is difficult. Killing a few factories and a few trucks, less so. Especially if your huge army is off rampaging, such as in an 8-player game. Sure, it's bad strategy, but there should be a difference between "bad strategy" and "loss condition".

[Per]

In team games, your entire team would have to lose all their factories and trucks at once, though.

[Zarel]

I was thinking 8-player free-for-alls. There's less "huge army off rampaging" in 4v4 team games.

[Iluvalar]

I dont agree with that. Even if the player have no factory and no trucks left and he is 100% sure to lose. He still need to deliver a last fight to his aggressor. As much as he can before he quit. Quitting with units or defensive structures still in play is like giving them to the enemy. It's bad, it's like making an alliance in a no alliances game. As a result it's equivalent to cheating in favor off the player that make you lose.

But i agree with the conditions of Asgorath.

[zoid]

Maybe we could change the victory conditions to destroying all your opponent's trucks and factories but not units? Most of the time killing all trucks and factories will win you the game anyways, unless your opponent has a vastly superior force but got careless.

The reason we don't do this is because it's too vulnerable to surprise attacks and such. Killing an army is difficult. Killing a few factories and a few trucks, less so. Especially if your huge army is off rampaging, such as in an 8-player game. Sure, it's bad strategy, but there should be a difference between "bad strategy" and "loss condition".

The player without the trucks and factories should lose anyways if his opponent plays defense and wears down his units one by one. These victory conditions would also give losing players a little more of a chance, since they could always try a surprise attack on the enemy base.

We may not need to change the game at all, however. Most games don't end with a long hide-and-seek game anyways, and hidden units are fairly easy to track down.