Starcraft II (And other RTSs)- How should backstabbing be dealt with?

[Archon_Wing]

In many Real Time Strategy games you can form alliances with other players. There's also a "team game" mode where players are on teams. One issue in Starcraft was that a teammate could easily uncheck the alliance and attack you if they wanted to. In Warcraft III, I believe teams are locked which helps stop people from doing this. I assume Sc2 would have something like this.

But the problem is that a teammate doesn't have to unally you to cause you trouble. He/she could attack you with Area of Effect (AOE) spells. It's not viable to make allies invulnerable from AOE; indeed having your allies immune from nukes would break the game probaly. Also, a malicious teammate can place buildings or units to obstruct you. Manual targeting could work, but they could do it too, and if they have units like zerglings, you'd be at a disadvantage. Basically, you might have to be the one to do the unallying to fight back at something like that.

I am not really sure what to do with this. I think allowing unallying and using the Diablo II hostility system would help a bit--a blaring alarm and some delay before the hostility actually starts. Also, if an ally were to use a nuke, that would be indicated on the map to the nuker's allies.

Thoughts? Or is not trusting your allies simply just another part of the Starcraft universe?

[Frag]

I don't believe this type of issue is the strict providence of RTS's, rather those type of actions can and have occurred in most pvp-structures and the appropriate response seems to be the oldest one:

Find and play with people you and trust and have fun with.

Excepting that, you can simply keep track of those that do grief and attempt to avoid partying with them in the future. My advice is to accept that it might happen ahead of time, it helps with not letting it bother you. (e.g. Don't feed the trolls, we'll feed ourselves)

Peace,
~Frag B)

[Munkay]

An option allowing unchangeable alliances would be alright, provided that it's clearly marked in the pre-game room and everyone agrees (ie stays and clicks ready).

But aside from that, I do think it's part of human nature to have some ruined games. It happens. If you want to avoid those annoyances, as Frag said stick with people you know. Otherwise, be prepared for some games to go awry.

The good news in this case is that Blizzard has stated they are shooting for games around 20 minutes in length or shorter. Makes shrugging off a troll that much easier.

Cheers,

Munk

[Archon_Wing]

Yea, I do play with people I know much, but they're not always available.

But I suppose being backstabbed in my very first battle.net game way back when (It was a 2v2 where the other 3 knew each other) must make me annoyed. Of course, they actually failed to rush me, which is kind of funny.:D
I think it could be frustrating to beginners if they don't know what's going on. Something like a "xxx has unallied you" will work better.

I actually haven't seen that much backstabbing in team games for Starcraft, although sometimes I unally because they went afk early in the game and never came back, or they are actually hackers. So maybe I'm the real one that's been unallying more.

That being said, if I were to play the game competitively where records actually mean something, it'd probaly be in a 1v1 setting and any serious team gamer would always have a familiar ally. But still, I feel it's better for the casual players to have some heads up when dealing with griefers. I don't really think mandatory locked teams is that great for reasons mentioned above.

[Sir_Die_alot]

I think it will be a non issue and the basic ally mechanics will be the same as WC3.

[Xiuhcoatl]

Yea, I do play with people I know much, but they're not always available.

But I suppose being backstabbed in my very first battle.net game way back when (It was a 2v2 where the other 3 knew each other) must make me annoyed. Of course, they actually failed to rush me, which is kind of funny.:D
I think it could be frustrating to beginners if they don't know what's going on. Something like a "xxx has unallied you" will work better.

I actually haven't seen that much backstabbing in team games for Starcraft, although sometimes I unally because they went afk early in the game and never came back, or they are actually hackers. So maybe I'm the real one that's been unallying more.

That being said, if I were to play the game competitively where records actually mean something, it'd probaly be in a 1v1 setting and any serious team gamer would always have a familiar ally. But still, I feel it's better for the casual players to have some heads up when dealing with griefers. I don't really think mandatory locked teams is that great for reasons mentioned above.

Back when I used to play pvp SC/BW games on bnet without a full group of buddies we would use the UMS setting to avoid most jerks and backstabbers. Generally, people who want to ruin games want to see their stats go up and thus avoid UMS games. Melee and Top vs Bottom games are for people you trust or when you are feeling tolerant. <_<

[Artega]

Unless they're planning on introducing heroes into Starcraft (and I hope to <insert deity of choice here> they don't), AE damage is not an issue.

The only AE damage that hurt friendly units were the splash from siege tank's stationary forms and nukes. All other AE attacks, including Lurker spines and Infested Terran detonations, affected hostile targets only.

I don't think griefing is something anyone should be concerned about in an RTS, anyway.

[Archon_Wing]

Actually, the game treats allied players the same as enemy players. The only difference is that they aren't auto targeted. Lurker spines do hurt allied units. In fact, that's what saved me in a team game once, one enemies lurkers killed his friends.;)So reavers, corsairs, lurkers, and spells will affect allies. I've always thought that was kinda strange how lurker spines and reaver missiles can ignore your own units but kill everyone elses.;)

And no matter what, I'm just waiting for them to finish the game and expect at least. 6-7 patches to deal with imbalances.

[[vL]Kp]

All other AE attacks, including Lurker spines and Infested Terran detonations, affected hostile targets only.

Infested Terrans affected everyone, including units owned by the same player. I had several instances where one Infested Terran destroyed another because they got too close when targeting the same enemy, usually a structure.

[kandrathe]

If I were Blizzard -- one option I might try would be the "Petition Bad partner" where you could flag your partner as either being intentionally hostile, or ineffective. If one of your opponents accepted the petition the match would end with a draw. In any case, the match could be classified as questionable fairness, and like the EBAY rating system, if you had a large number of negative feedback then no one would want to partner with you in the future.

[Swiss Mercenary]

I think it will be a non issue and the basic ally mechanics will be the same as WC3.

Exactly. I've only been backstabbed twice in WC3, in about a thousand games... And really, it's no worse then a parter who's afk for the first 20 minutes of the match. :rolleyes: