Take off and nuke the site from orbit,
Shrike3O
Join Date: 2002-11-03 Member: 6678Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2002-11-03 Member: 6678Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">A way to end STALEmates and keep players playing.</div>Spawning off another thread...
I'd like to suggest the addition of a server poll/vote as games go longer, starting at somewhere between 30-60 minutes and repeating every 10 minutes from there on, intended to end those stalemates that everyone is getting bored of without having everyone quit. This vote might require 2/3 majority YES to kick in.
Having a vote allows those long, hard-fought games where people are still having fun to continue... I can still remember NS1 games that lasted hours where everyone was having a good time, and there's no reason to disrupt those. In the event of a supermajority YES vote, a 5 or 10 minute timer is initiated. This gives a winning-but-not-quite-there-yet team a kick in the butt to actually complete the win, accompanied by the occasional overhead voice announcing "Tactical nuclear strike in... three... minutes" or "Coolant loss critical, core overload in... two... minutes," and the knowledge that their win is about to become officially a draw. It also might give the losing team a bit of a psychological reward... they were able to hold out long enough, despite being in a losing position, that the enemy can claim no more than a pyrrhic victory.
This might also serve to generate useful metrics about how much fun people are having in longer games, as it would be reported as a draw, rather than an Alien or Marine win. If the vast majority of long games are ending in a bright flash, lots of radioactivity, and a really big dip in local property values, it'll tell us that the long game needs some tweaks. If we're having hours-long games that nobody wants to nuke, something is obviously going well.
I'd like to suggest the addition of a server poll/vote as games go longer, starting at somewhere between 30-60 minutes and repeating every 10 minutes from there on, intended to end those stalemates that everyone is getting bored of without having everyone quit. This vote might require 2/3 majority YES to kick in.
Having a vote allows those long, hard-fought games where people are still having fun to continue... I can still remember NS1 games that lasted hours where everyone was having a good time, and there's no reason to disrupt those. In the event of a supermajority YES vote, a 5 or 10 minute timer is initiated. This gives a winning-but-not-quite-there-yet team a kick in the butt to actually complete the win, accompanied by the occasional overhead voice announcing "Tactical nuclear strike in... three... minutes" or "Coolant loss critical, core overload in... two... minutes," and the knowledge that their win is about to become officially a draw. It also might give the losing team a bit of a psychological reward... they were able to hold out long enough, despite being in a losing position, that the enemy can claim no more than a pyrrhic victory.
This might also serve to generate useful metrics about how much fun people are having in longer games, as it would be reported as a draw, rather than an Alien or Marine win. If the vast majority of long games are ending in a bright flash, lots of radioactivity, and a really big dip in local property values, it'll tell us that the long game needs some tweaks. If we're having hours-long games that nobody wants to nuke, something is obviously going well.
Comments
It wouldn't hurt having the option.
but I'd say 2/3 voting yes from EACH side.
However, it's still a good option to have.
A good thing to pair this up with is a second vote for changing to a new map after this one is over. I mean, after you've spent 60 minutes in the trenches of Summit, you might just want to have a change of scenery. Of course, same might want another go at the same map, so that'd obviously be a choice to vote on.