|
Post by Rob (Roebidoebi) on May 11, 2012 3:47:41 GMT -5
I noticed that a Stalemate is given the moment both players run out of their decks regardless of what is on the table. This is a rather rash way of deciding that there will be no winner. I believe the rules regarding a Stalemate should be revised. And the memories in play should play a role as well. In the attached picture you can see that I was clearly losing when the Stalemate was given. This is not fair for my opponent. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on May 11, 2012 4:29:36 GMT -5
The devs have mentioned this as something intentional. Copy pastaing from other thread: I tend to agree, as you can't really go with the condition: "if both players can't draw and have no cards in hand", as there are more often than not situations when cards can no longer be played for a lack of target. Then the game will just sit in limbo until someone leaves. To add something like "both players can no longer play cards from hand" is very situational. I hold back agents and all your agent kills can't be played. The game hangs in limbo. I think as it is is the only way to conceivably have a fair stalemate condition. If a player loses because they can no longer draw as in MTG, draw decks become severely disadvantaged. Unless anyone has any suggestions, I don't see how it should be changed
|
|
|
Post by gamemaestro on May 11, 2012 11:54:53 GMT -5
I am fine with this rule as well. It happens very rarely, and it gives something for the losing player to strive for at the very end of a game. Hold on long enough and you'll stalemate. Right now, with no competitive structure, it really doesn't matter. If tournaments are implemented then it's a twist at the end. I can't imagine trying to code all the effectively subjective conditions to change it from the current black/white scenario to one that factors in who is really winning when both sequences are empty and whether it's truly a stalemate.
|
|
|
Post by Brontobeuf on May 11, 2012 18:59:00 GMT -5
It's virtually impossible to have an AI evaluate a board and say "this guy is winning" that works in 100% of the cases. I'm fine with this mechanism.
(moving the thread in Dear Devs btw)
|
|
|
Post by Rob (Roebidoebi) on May 12, 2012 3:59:06 GMT -5
Maybe just wait two turns? So you have two turn to finish of the opponent when both players empty their decks otherwise it's a Stalemate.
A warning message could be given in the top left area like "entering stalemate play, you have two more days to finish the game".
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on May 12, 2012 9:41:32 GMT -5
Too open for dispute, in my opinion. Why not 1 day? Why not 3? Why not sudden death and whoever scores first wins? I think it's all so grey and messy. The current way is clean and just ends what must already have been a long and drawn out game and discourages people playing decks that are gonna stalemate. Not that people (completely) don't these days
|
|
|
Post by UnCL0NED on May 12, 2012 14:01:12 GMT -5
I'm fine with this rule. If you're aware of this you can use this as another strategy to get a stalemate instead of losing the game. And it just adds some pressure. Just like chess with a clock. It happened to me yesterday: my opponent switched decks and I already knew in my own deck there were no winning conditions against his deck anymore... I just played it out till both decks were empty.
|
|