Call for Ideas for Breaking Stalemates!
Many battles–especially with advanced players–end in a stalemate. This is usually because each player has decided that whomever attacks first will lose the battle and therefore each player waits for the other to attack, and the battles is basically stuck.
A Mutual Draw? (bad idea)
Several players have suggested we add a “draw” feature. This would enable the players to mutually agree on a tie (i.e. draw). It would not count as a win or a loss. However, I really hate this idea because:
- Players have invested a lot of time and don’t want to feel it was wasted!
- Stalemate endings are extremely boring and unsatisfying!
So, I really, really don’t like this idea.
Ideas
- Random Death or Desertion: Automatically ecognize that the battle is “stalled” and at the start of each stalled round, a random unit is killed or removed from each team. This forces them to try SOMETHING to avoid the random death.
- Mini-Game Decider: If a battle stalls, offer the players a mini-game (e.g. Rock-Paper-Scissors) to end the draw.
- Score Determines Winner: Automatically determine that the battle has been stalled too long (e.g. 2-3 rounds) and end the battle. The winner is determined by who has the most points. If the points are tied, we will use another deterministic factor (e.g. sum of all unit health) to determine the winner. etc. This would happen automatically!
Do you have ideas on how to end draws? Or feedback on the ideas above?
Advertisement
September 22, 2011 at 5:35 pm
i think that random death is a bit harsh. my idea is this: if no units have moved for three rounds, air support should be called in to break the tie. so each player will be able to control an aircraft to make a bombing run. the bombs will probably be aimed at each army’s strong points and hopefully encouragement enough to break a tie.
September 23, 2011 at 6:11 am
In my opinion
Score Determines Winner (By deplay-points)
is the best way to go. But keep it by 3 turns. Because I often have games where nobody attack around 3 turns BUT, we both move, gather our armies, try to flank or what ever.
best regards anton
September 25, 2011 at 1:00 am
I think the points you have against a draw are really “non-points”, as, if it is to “enable the players to mutually agree on a tie”, then the dissatisfaction and time wasted with a draw is definitely less than the dissatisfaction of continuing in a futile battle.
Also, how would you “automatically” determine a stalemate for your first proposed solution? No attacks or kills in 3 turns? I also think that the randomness could be even more frustrating. Losing a big premium on one side and the other side losing one infantry? More disappointing than the draw A bit more fair would be both sides losing or gaining X points worth of units, chosen randomly or by players’ choice. Also against the randomly eliminated unit(s) would be that someone with few number units with good position or strength would lose more than someone with an infantry swarm.
The problem with points being used to determine a winner is that the winner can be relatively easily determined before accepting,to end the match so the loser has already basically forfeited.
In the end I think allowing a player decided draw (requiring acceptance by a majority of the players in the case of multiplayer? or all players?) the best compromise.
September 25, 2011 at 9:47 am
The title of the post is: “Call for Ideas for Breaking Stalemates!” I threw a few ideas out there to get things going and recognize that none are perfect. But, stalemates are bad for the game and we’re gonna break them.
The key is be:
- fair (not random, makes sense)
- automatic (does not require players to initiate or approve!)
- decisive
- fun
So, unless a better idea is proposed–that is not too hard to implement–we’ll probably go with:
a) *automatic detection* of a stalled game based on lack of activity over a reasonable period of time,
b) plus, winner is determined via a scoring measurement (possibly “score”, but maybe there’s better ideas).
September 25, 2011 at 10:07 am
Fresh thoughts on this topic:
1. I believe that the BEST IDEA is to add a mini-game (“shoot out”) to address stalled games. This could range from a simple puzzle to an interactive shooting mechanic. But, this option is FAR MORE WORK than an automatic approach (e.g. score) and less likely to happen.
2. The ideal solution is to create a new game mechanic that discourages the “waiting” strategy. This would either invoke a penalty for “waiting” or an advantage for “not waiting.” This mechanic probably kicks in ONLY if the game is determined to be “stalled.” I’d love to hear some ideas for this!
3. New idea -> “Air Drop”: Once a stalled game is automatically recognized, drop a few Repair Stations and Infantry Deploy Stations on the map. Alert players that its coming (e.g. “Air Drop coming in 2 rounds”) and encourage some to prevent it by not stalling.
September 25, 2011 at 9:38 pm
I like the idea of not waiting to gain advantage. But what would the advantage be? i think a unit which does not wait should gain movement perhaps, that way it would be easier to reach further targets, but this could result in people moving their units around in circles just to gain the advantage, whatever it may be. maybe the advantage better come from waiting. units will then be stuck waiting for the advantage
another idea i had was a sudden death type mode.
or maybe games should be a limit on how many rounds can be played in a game. when the time is up and nobody has achieved the goal of that game it should be a tie
September 26, 2011 at 10:07 am
Just my 50 cents
I dislike the idea of a mini-game, had nothing to do with threshwars itself and is hard to code.
random new idea
Maybe after the game is stalled, there could be a “drop” of a few Thresh-units, this will attack both of the players and disbalance the situation again. it is fun i think, that there will be such a chaos on the “game-table” and it is “cool”. I mean you fight your enemy and suddenly there is a assault of the well known Thresh.
I know it has issues, its just a random idea
September 26, 2011 at 10:34 am
Wow, dropping a few Thresh units that attack all players that’s very cool! Unfortunately the player infrastructure of TW is quite brittle (ie. not very flexible) so adding a third team is probably quite difficult as the game is set rigidly to be two teams only. Fun idea though.
September 26, 2011 at 6:50 pm
i like this idea
October 3, 2011 at 6:02 am
I have thought about this problem myself for quite some time. Because often if you have an advantage you don’t want to lose it, or are afraid of making mistakes. I have read all of the suggestions and here are my thoughts:
Tie: I don’t hate it, but honestly I tend to agree with the OP, people put lots of time into games and don’t want it to be wasted. Also it makes a problem of people who are losing doing a mega turtle and forcing a draw.
Random kill: hate it more than any other idea. First off games of skill should never rely on random elements to win or lose. And lastly it means that elite armies will suffer while large amounts of cheap units are fine. And honestly there is already enough pressure to stream army selection without this.
Rock paper scissors: see “tie” as it is basically the same complaint.
Score determines winner: at first I liked this, but then I remembered that often tactical choices depend on losing units to gain ground. And so I don’t like the idea of penalizing a player for doing that. Often I win a gam with a huge negative score as my opponent wanted to kill units while I wanted to win the game. Also it means that someone who has had the deploy centres for a while and as such has been wave attacking an enemy (which is a valid tactic) will lose because they used their advantage to their advantage, which is also not fair.
Thresh drop: love it. It is hilarious and also very good at solving the problem, but… make sure the thresh is scattered to one player doesn’t get f’ed over due to bad luck. Other than that, as long as the dmg caused is equal to both parties I am happy.
Finally I have a suggestion: instead of solving to problem of stalemated with a new rule, try and stop them from happening in the first place. This is mostly done by map altering, but also by touching up units stats. First off add an odd number of deploy stations to the map, and map them not all right in the centre, also make them not in a choke point, but not in the open. This means you must advance to kill/capture, or risk being out massed. Other map tweaks are the removal of really tight choke points (only the really tight ones) and making large open areas not a big rectangle (rough up the edges so it forces players to avoid the “power line”). . Finally, tone down the defensive qualities of some units. The battle station is a much hated unit, I would not cry to see it go. Or at least a heavy nerf. The anti tank units should not have a greater range than large tanks as this stops people from attacking with tanks of any kind and resorting to time consuming move shoot move tactics.
Also the medium tank sucks ass now, this is not related to this topic but honestly it is now the second worst unit in the game (the tank killer is still a waste of space and needs a serious buff)
October 3, 2011 at 10:55 pm
nice post.
But the Threshdrop is to much coding i think.
The idea to “hunt the problem in it roots” is nice, and maybe some infantary deploy stations or repair stations could really solve the problem.
another question:
How often end games in a tie? I never had one.
October 4, 2011 at 10:11 am
No. But they often run up into the 40 30 turn count with no significant advances made. And everyone gets pissed at how boring it is. So something needs to be done.
P.S. Tank killers need a buff
November 1, 2011 at 8:11 am
Inspire yourself from company of heroes and make a new game mode where the objective is to control some points/sectors.
It forces players to be agressive if they want to win