The victory conditions and scoring for 1v1 could use an overhaul.

[94660549]

Basically, all good 1v1 games in my opinion, fighting games, starcraft, whatever, are virtually always open to both players winning if they play right as long as the game is on. But it's quite common in 1v1 games that you have either won, or lost, with several minutes left on the timer. Literally mathematically locked the result in because no tick could change it.

This creates a lot of dead time in games that doesn't need to be there. I mean Eugene doesn't even have the courtesy to explicitly inform players when the game is unwinnable or not even though that should be a pretty simple calculation.

It also removes the possibility of a lot of late come backs, one of the most fun parts of 1v1 games, and can suck all the excitement or interest out of the end game when that's when it should be peaking. Basically, either the game should end when it's over. Or, more interestingly, there should be another win condition, such as capping all zones for 10 seconds or something similar, so that you have to pay attention to the very end.

I've had games for example where I was completely run over and out of units, but timed out with more points and won(don't even try to make a contrarian argument about how that makes sense game wise). This takes care of cases like that, while not really affecting the majority of games that end in surrender. Although one big change resulting from that could be that players would be slightly more incentivised to press their advantage even when they have a positive tick. I don't know if that's a good thing or not, but it sounds like it honestly.