stampede drama in a tournament match

[ozone]

Yeah I musta been smoking something good when I watched that film the first time...

watched it again (not at 64x) and I guess you didnt suicide...my bust.

[Pyro]

The following is true. Consider two teams with 2 stampede units each.

Scenario #1:
Team 1 scores 1 unit, has 1 unit left.
Team 2 scores 2 units.
Team 1 kills team 2.

Scenario #2:
Team 2 scores 2 units.
Team 1 scores 1 unit, has 1 unit left.
Team 1 kills team 2.

In both cases, the two teams will have 2 points each. However, in Scenario #1, Team 1 wins, but in Scenario #2, Team 2 wins. In fact, in Scenario #2, if Team 1 did not score its 1 unit prior to killing team 2, it would have won with the current code.

So clearly, there is a bug in the current code.

I was talking to ozone about this. For some reason his theory sounded better today than it did yesturday. It seemed to have been stated or implied what was wrong with the stampede tie breaking code when we discussed it after running that test plugin. Ozone disagreed with what at the time seemed like the general consensus, however, not with the idea that there is a bug but with what the actual bug is.

Consider what we know and seen with various gametypes.

• When there is a tie at the end of the game, the one who reached that specific value (of points, flags, or balls) first, wins.
• Some gametypes allow the losing team to make a comeback as long as there is still time and there is still things to score. (flag rally, captures, etc)
• Some gametypes will end once the max value has been scored even if there is still time left. (flag rally, terries, etc)
• When there is still time left but only one team remains, whatever is still left to score or tag is given to the last remaining team. (stb, koth, stampede, etc)
• Some gametypes have no way to tie.

Now consider a few things about Stampede. Unit Trading can trade away Stampede units so that in some games, each team will not have to have the same number of them. If all other teams have scored in their Stampede units or lost them in battle except for one team, the game does not end. Why not end the game if one team has already reached the max? Does that mean the only team with stampede units remaining has no chance of victory whether they score their units or not? We all agree that if there was a tie at the end of the game (time ran out), but more than one team was still alive, the first team wins. By first team, I mean the first team who got to that score. What about if there was a tie, with no more stampede units remaining to score from any team, and there still was some time left on the clock? In that specific case, being the team still alive could be the tie breaker.

Before you start disagreeing with that idea, remember what I have already listed. In a game of Terries or Captures, you automatically win if you control all flags/balls even if there is still time in the game. You also win if you are the last team remaining. Maybe for Stampede, the same type of rules bungie did with all their gametypes should apply. You try to score the most to win. If there is a tie when time runs out, whoever scored it first wins. If you are the only team remaining while there is still time left, you break the tie and win even if the other team scored it first.

Doing it this way would fix the inconsistency currently shown while keeping it constant with all stampede maps so that even 1 stampede unit maps act the same way as regular ones. This would also stay true with all of Bungie's rules with all gametypes.

[killerking]

You said absolutely nothing about the current problem.

[Death's Avatar]

You said absolutely nothing about the current problem.

Er... the problem is that there is some behavior that is inconsistent. It needs to be decided which behavior is the consistent/correct one. This seems relevant.

[vinylrake]

Er... the problem is that there is some behavior that is inconsistent. It needs to be decided which behavior is the consistent/correct one. This seems relevant.

Oh sure... go and bring your stinkin' LOGIC into the discussion. WHO ASKED YOU?!?!??!

While I can see the logic behind the 'you have to be alive at the end of the game to win' stampede argument, I'd vote for not having to be alive to win. There are enough games that can be won by body count tactics alone, stampede has always been one of the wilder games (and less popular gametypes) precisely becauseit CAN'T be won by body count tactics alone. Please don't turn Stampede into another BC based game- there are already plenty of those, leave some games winnable by those of us who like to think outside the box - by those of us whose only hope of beating a superior team in Stampede is by out finessing/outthinking the other team with a strategy more complicated then "find and kill the other team".

[Baron LeDant]

If you're going to let the dead team win then you'll have to consider other gametypes too.

If there's a territories game where both teams have 3 flags (team 1 is 1st), and team 1 gets eliminated with 5 seconds left and team 2 has no units in position to tag another flag, should team 1 win instead of team 2?

And hey the survivors write the history and team 1 will have no-one to report their victory to the proper authorities.

Now everyone knows a dead team can win an FFA game (KOTH most commonly), but I think when it comes to 2 team games, one team being alive at the end should be the tie-breaker IMO instead of scoring first.

[Eddaweaver]

Simple solution: a "Must be Alive to Win" pregame option to toggle whether a dead team can win over an alive team or not.

[killerking]

What about if there was a tie, with no more stampede units remaining to score from any team, and there still was some time left on the clock? In that specific case, being the team still alive could be the tie breaker.

On most maps, that would mean I'd sink 1 thrall somewhere the enemy couldn't find it. On other maps, I'd get a spider or ghôl that would run for victory.
That means that when there are still 5 minutes left in the game, and the scores were equal, I'd win, right?
So that basically means you need to invest 1 or 2 points to win in case of a tie, but it doesn't add any strategic aspect (or more important, fun) to the game. That's why I think the team that scores first should always win.

[Myrd]

I agree. I think whether you are alive or not is irrelevant to the objective of this game type. Who gets their units in earlier (provided the same counts) should be the winner, period.

[Pyro]

On most maps, that would mean I'd sink 1 thrall somewhere the enemy couldn't find it. On other maps, I'd get a spider or ghôl that would run for victory.
That means that when there are still 5 minutes left in the game, and the scores were equal, I'd win, right?

That makes no sense. If you are tied and both teams were still alive, running won't help you. If there were no more stampede units left alive, the game would end.

[ozone]

The object is to get the most. Period.

Any additional thought to how a tie should work is personal opinion. There are some of us though that have been investigating this stuff in search of answers.

You talk about hiding a unit to win isnt right? Well what about letting the other team kill you? I mean youre using backwards logic. Basically your saying " you mean I had to stay alive to win?" . You have the game in hand... all you have to do is kill one more pig from the other team or get the game to end by time limit but the other team by ALSO getting the most has no chance to win. You are taking away from the gameplay. Not adding to it.

[ozone]

I just think your giving the guy that gets the first tying stamp targ in way too much.

That team already wins if the other team gets his pigs in.
That team already wins if time runs out.
That team already wins if they kill one more pig of the other team.

The other team? Nothing.

[vinylrake]

OK, if you want to look to other gametypes for 'precedence', but let's make it an accurate comparison so look at other game types whose goal involves targets - the acquisition of, tagging of, or elimination of targets.

That leaves us with: (and jump in and correct any incorrect descriptions. These are from memory so subject to error)

ASSASSIN: The winner is the person who eliminates the most enemy targets. In case of a tie in a multiplayer/multiteam game the winner is whoever eliminated the high-tie# of enemy targets earliest in the game.

BALLS ON PARADE : When time runs out, the player with the biggest set of balls wins. Game ends if one team gets all the targets. (I think ties in multiteam games go to whoever captured the tying # first)

CAPTURES: The winner is the team/player in possession of the most targets at the end of the game. Game ends if one team gets all the targets. again: think ties are determined by first team to get high-tie# of targets.

FLAG RALLY: The winner is the first player to tag all of the target flags. Game ends if one team gets all targets. Ties go to first team to tag high-tie# of targets.

HUNTING: The winner is the player/team to kill the most targets. I think game ends when all targets are killed (I assume winner of ties is first to kill high# wins)

SCAVENGER HUNT: The winner is the first player to tag all of the targets. Game ends as soon as one team gets all the targets.

STAMPEDE: The winner is the player/team with the most targets safe at the end of the game. Game ends if one team gets all the targets.

TERRITORIES: The winner is the team in control of the most flags at the end of the game. Game ends if one player gets control of all the targets. Winner of tie determined by who ccontrolled high-tie# of flags first.


So, in reading the descriptions of other target based games what jumped out at me is NOT that Stampede tie winners are determined differently than similar games (they are very similar), but that in other target games types where the goal is to get targets FIRST (Assassin, Flag Rally, Scavenger Hunt, Captures, Territories) when it is a 2 player/team game THE GAME ENDS when one team has acquired all the targets/goals. Even in the games where the rules describe the winner as the person with the most targets, it is possible to win by grabbing all or as many targets *first*, and if you get them ALL you win. In assassin the game is over as soon as one team kills all the enemy targets, Balls on Parade is over as soon as one team possesses all the balls, Captures? Ditto. Flag Rally? Ditto, Scavenger Hunt? Ditto, Territories? Ditto. Hunting? Not quite the same, but I think the game ends when all targets are killed so IF one team killed all the targets the game would end as soon as they did so.

That leaves Stampede being the odd duck. NOT because the winner of a tie game is based on who got the highest-tie# first, but because the game of stampede doesn't end when one team gets all their units home safe - and the other tag games all do end when one team achieves all the target/goals.

I think it would be more consistent with the way other target acquiring/killing games work, if Stampede ended as soon as one team has a guaranteed win, or at least the game should end IF one team gets all their targets 'safe'.

Changing Stampede to end when one player had a lock on the win would make it more consistent with the other target-based games.

[Myrd]

This would be a big change to how Stampede FFA works. In stampede, you could often get the scenario when a player gets all his pigs in. In FFA, this would allow other players to compete for 2nd, 3rd etc place, since the game doesn't end.

Also, as a counter example, KOTH. When I reach enough time such that no one else can beat me even if they held the flag from now on until the game end, the game does not end.

[ozone]

Well for me Im just glad we can have a debate without name calling and bad feelings.

Nice to see and be apart of.