<!--quoteo(post=1889556:date=Dec 10 2011, 02:11 AM:name=Argathor)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Argathor @ Dec 10 2011, 02:11 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1889556"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think there is another issue relevant to this discussion which is...
I don't think it is, by default, a good thing to end those games. Progress often comes fastest when faced with adversity, science/technology improves fastest during war, etc.
If people who were losing, spent less time worry about losing and more time working out what they can do to improve their situation the general ability level would improve fast. The majority of players are still quite bad (aiming, tactics and strategy). If I am on a losing team, getting thrashed, at the very least playing improves my aim. I can also practice tricks like jumping/strafing to better avoid skulk/fade hits (the angle and timing are very important). These will not only improve my next game, but they keep me focused and enguaged so I often completely forget I am getting thrashed. If that isn't your thing, focusing on hunting a specific player that can be both entertaining and useful.
On top of this, offering people an 'easy escape' would encourage quitters. Something that has dangerous long-term gameplay implications for the NS2 community.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The analogy is flawed, in real life, when a ceiling is hit with science and technology, people <b>create</b> things to get past that point. In NS2, what would be created to get past that stalemate point is the Onos, JetPacks, Heavy Armour etc etc. How about I give you an analogy, which brings back to a more valid point made about gathering information?
I come to a wall, and the floor is made of mud. My only option is to dig through the mud, underneath the wall. I get most of the way, then suddenly someone shoves a door in the wall. All that time I spent effort in getting past that wall is now wasted. Wasted information, wasted time.
Your views on how to play the game is simply not shared by the vast majority either. You can boast all you like about how you like to do the whole self-improvement thing, but it only helps <b>you</b>, and sorry, but I doubt many people care that much.
You say you can change how you play, aim to get a better aim, aim on hunting a specific player. Sure, I do that, because I play this game competitively, this is common ground we share. But the average player, he could aim to get a better aim, aim on hunting a specific player. Or he could quit.
But how about starting a new round, so that we can play more fun games? Fun is good, and in this case, benefits the collection of data! As Dusteh said, it's not like you can just join another server at the moment.
And finally, offering people an "easy escape" as you misleadingly call it, won't promote "quitters". <b>Quitting</b> the game promotes quitters, and it promotes people not coming back. The cause of the quitting? Endlessly playing a stale game, to the point where people won't return until next patch or beyond, or ever, because they spend more time in the unbalanced portion of the game than they do in the fun and balanced part.
Again, as Dusteh says, a vote forfeit command similar to L4D would be amazing, I would just hope that it's made more visible than the eject comm one, so people know it's there to use. If anyone argues that you could get a team of trolls trying to vote to end the game, then the game was never worth playing in the first place.
Edit: And yes, why not improve your skill in an environment where everyone is happy, than playing where only you are happy, and potentially when the enemy is easier to kill cause he just doesn't care anymore?
ArgathorJoin Date: 2011-07-18Member: 110942Members, Squad Five Blue
<!--quoteo(post=1889559:date=Dec 10 2011, 01:28 AM:name=Smaug)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Smaug @ Dec 10 2011, 01:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1889559"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The analogy is flawed, in real life, when a ceiling is hit with science and technology, people <b>create</b> things to get past that point. In NS2, what would be created to get past that stalemate point is the Onos, JetPacks, Heavy Armour etc etc. How about I give you an analogy, which brings back to a more valid point made about gathering information?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It was flawed in that I was obviously too vague. War forces people to look for new ways to overcome problems. Some of these are by new discoveries/inventions and some of these are by using current tools in a different way. The last way is the one relevant to NS2.
There are many examples of such developments in NS2 gameplay. From gorge rushes to cloaked Lerk/Whip rushes to MAC traps. People learn to overcome problems with the tools they have available.
<!--quoteo(post=1889559:date=Dec 10 2011, 01:28 AM:name=Smaug)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Smaug @ Dec 10 2011, 01:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1889559"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your views on how to play the game is simply not shared by the vast majority either. You can boast all you like about how you like to do the whole self-improvement thing, but it only helps <b>you</b>, and sorry, but I doubt many people care that much.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't buy into the fact that NS2 players are part of the instant gratification CoD/BF group. If you like NS2 it is likely due to an awareness (and liking) of the strategical implications of an RTS/FPS and the teamplay dependency of this. From my experience quitters are a vocal minority, although I am sure UWE are better positioned to decide. A large portion of people dislike stalemates due to the horrible server performance that is often part of it.
<!--quoteo(post=1889559:date=Dec 10 2011, 01:28 AM:name=Smaug)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Smaug @ Dec 10 2011, 01:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1889559"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And finally, offering people an "easy escape" as you misleadingly call it, won't promote "quitters". <b>Quitting</b> the game promotes quitters, and it promotes people not coming back. The cause of the quitting? Endlessly playing a stale game, to the point where people won't return until next patch or beyond, or ever, because they spend more time in the unbalanced portion of the game than they do in the fun and balanced part.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Balanced part? What game are you playing? This game has been <b>heavily</b> alien favoured for at least the last 3-4 patches. No 'stage', be it start, middle or end, has been balanced. That is part of a beta and realistically will be a decent portion of release.
<!--quoteo(post=1889559:date=Dec 10 2011, 01:28 AM:name=Smaug)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Smaug @ Dec 10 2011, 01:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1889559"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Edit: And yes, why not improve your skill in an environment where everyone is happy, than playing where only you are happy, and potentially when the enemy is easier to kill cause he just doesn't care anymore?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think the assumption that your way is fun for everyone is dangerous. I know I am not the only one that finds the quitting attitude frustrating, especially when its a comm who simply sells up and <b>forces</b> a restart (because most people are happy).
Either way, this is mostly pointless, as we will have tier 3 soon and more means for ending matches. Will we still get stalemates? Probably, but most likely less frequently. Then you can simply man up! ;-)
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I know I am not the only one that finds the quitting attitude frustrating, especially when its a comm who simply sells up and forces a restart (because most people are happy).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> i agree on that. one benefit of having votes is, that the commander can find out if there are at least a few people left who want to play on. this might actually prevent him from selling IPs.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Either way, this is mostly pointless, as we will have tier 3 soon and more means for ending matches.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> i was well aware of tier 3 when creating this topic, it will not solve all issues though. i dont want to recap my previous posts, but one rather obvious example is a 2-3 player match which suddenly grows into a 10-14 player match (an extreme example, but this actually happens sometimes) whereas even the 2-3 might want a rematch.
<!--quoteo(post=1889568:date=Dec 10 2011, 03:13 AM:name=Argathor)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Argathor @ Dec 10 2011, 03:13 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1889568"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It was flawed in that I was obviously too vague. War forces people to look for new ways to overcome problems. Some of these are by new discoveries/inventions and some of these are by using current tools in a different way. The last way is the one relevant to NS2.
There are many examples of such developments in NS2 gameplay. From gorge rushes to cloaked Lerk/Whip rushes to MAC traps. People learn to overcome problems with the tools they have available.
I don't buy into the fact that NS2 players are part of the instant gratification CoD/BF group. If you like NS2 it is likely due to an awareness (and liking) of the strategical implications of an RTS/FPS and the teamplay dependency of this. From my experience quitters are a vocal minority, although I am sure UWE are better positioned to decide. A large portion of people dislike stalemates due to the horrible server performance that is often part of it.
Balanced part? What game are you playing? This game has been <b>heavily</b> alien favoured for at least the last 3-4 patches. No 'stage', be it start, middle or end, has been balanced. That is part of a beta and realistically will be a decent portion of release.
I think the assumption that your way is fun for everyone is dangerous. I know I am not the only one that finds the quitting attitude frustrating, especially when its a comm who simply sells up and <b>forces</b> a restart (because most people are happy).
Either way, this is mostly pointless, as we will have tier 3 soon and more means for ending matches. Will we still get stalemates? Probably, but most likely less frequently. Then you can simply man up! ;-)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You admit your analogy is flawed, yet, as any person who is good at making a bad counter-argument seem good, ignored to address a good point that I made, and continued to make out that you are infact correct. These "fun" things to find are usually drawn out by being so drained that you chuck any old strategy at the wall, and if it takes this kind of draining effort to come up with these strats, then I don't want to play this game. If people learn to overcome problems with the tools they have, <b>why the ###### hasn't anybody managed it yet?</b> I admit, I managed to go from 1 Command Station vs 4 Hives to 2 Command Stations vs 2 Hives in a pub once, but the unbelievable amount of effort I had to throw into that, and into upping the morale of my team, was incredibly draining due to the fact I knew I was making people hopeful that we would end up winning regardless of the odds, that I didn't play for a while after.
I don't buy into the fact that you enjoy un-fun games. You can imply that I enjoy "instant-gratification" games as much as you want, but just because you say that doesn't mean it's true. I do love Strategical games, it's why I play Dystopia and StarCraft 2 on a regular basis, as well as a plethora of other games, and I was a tester for Dystopia too, so I do have an understanding of how it all works. Do you read the forums much, because there has been so many topics about stalemates, and most agree they are terrible and make them want to leave the game. The vocal minority is the people who reply with "Oh you should've played better" to the ones that say "But I got the entire map, I can't take the last base". Games have a storyline, just like a book or a film. You don't get to the point in the story where the main character says "Hey, I just saved the entire continent from the baddies, but I can't kill the final boss because I can't get near him, oh well." Even though right now we can't get to the tech that gets us there, a conclusion to the match in its current state needs to be available, even if it means a concede button. What the hell is strategical about slamming your head against a brick wall until you fall unconscious (in this analogy, the brick wall is the unwinnable position that occurs when you simply can't take the final base, and falling unconscious is where you quit the server out of pure frustration). And you say it's moot that they're releasing onos and ###### soon, are they releasing absolutely everything else as well? What about the other situations made aware in this thread about good times to be able to use a concede button?
Yes, the balanced part, the part that people find fun. I forget that fun doesn't factor into games for you though, or so you keep implying. If you think the game is so unbalanced even at the very start of the game, to which you seem to be upset about, why do you play? Also, not that I am completely endorsing this, but UWE did recently release statistics that the win percentages of marines were pretty close to the 50% mark. I also recall only winning as marines when I played in pubs recently, but personal experiences are a pretty invalid point to argue when looking at the bigger picture. Framerate performance only truly happens past the point that the Stalemate occurs with recent patches, as people just start spamming buildings everywhere for the sake of it.
The "your way is dangerous" thing is pure rhetoric. How many people do you know that find it frustrating, cause I'm sure as hell they find stalemates even more so. And you say it's annoying when a comm sells up. So why are you arguing against something that would prevent that? An option where everyone on the team gets a say, the concede button, instead of the comm <b>maybe</b> asking for other people's opinions before selling up, and even then, he probably won't get an answer from his entire team (if he's lucky, one or two).
And thank you for the bait, but manning up has absolutely nothing to do with this, and even more so lets me know how weak you believe your arguments to be. I would also like to point out how ignored a lot of my points have been in this thread. I have made points and suggestions that benefit everyone from a logical mindset (eg. better & more important data accumulated; a way to make popularity of patches last longer; a way to stop servers emptying so quickly; more games being played), and no one gets hurt by it. All arguments against have been focussed on much more menial things, as well as driven by an emotional/quasi-philisophical mindsets (eg. "Because I find stalemates fun" - sorry, but the feeling of not going anywhere is hated by everyone and you are no exception; "Because I can hone my l33t sk1llz" - sorry, but you can do that at any point in the game). Honestly, I played Dystopia for years. I understand joining pubs for practicing aim and other things, but to do it because there's nothing better to do because the game cannot progress is simply wrong, even for a beta (and especially for a beta that includes any member of the public). Game devs make a game stop at the point where there is no point in testing stuff, and it should be no different for this.
If someone else would like to take the mantle for the implementation of this option, feel free, I doubt anyone would probably make this option available anyway as my voice doesn't seem to carry any weight on the forums, no matter what I say. I've made my point several times over now without any valid, logical argument. I'm out, pz.
Edit: And one personal thing I'd like to add before I exit. The people arguing that they want to fight to the last, wanna hone their skills. You can bugger off and do that in CoD/BF3. I play NS2 because I want to play with a team that actually matters, not because I want to show off my individual skill. I play CoD MW3 cause I want to just switch off and play something that isn't taxing. I know the difference. That's pretty off-topic, but others have brought it up as if comparing ns2 to cod/bf3 is a valid argument to this topic, as much as I know I shouldn't stoop to that level of discussion. I find thoughtless rhetoric deriving from things self-righteous people on the internet say really aggravating, such as the old "go back to CoD/BF3" comments, sorry.
<!--quoteo(post=1889516:date=Dec 9 2011, 03:13 PM:name=Techercizer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Techercizer @ Dec 9 2011, 03:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1889516"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's not going to stop a Com surrender, though. If enough people want to end the match, they can eject the Com and sell up. If the Com wants to end the match, he can sell up. We already have both of those systems in place.
If you have an entire map under your control, getting 240 res or 600 hive energy is incredibly easy. Just spend some of that accumulating resource on a massive overwhelming strike to obliterate the besieged team's final base. I find it interesting to hear you say that ARC rushes "never work", since I hear (and see) games ended with them all the time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We're talking about stalemates here. I don't think I've heard of ANY stalemates when marines have full map control and can't finish aliens, and if there was, the comm and players are complete failures. A marine comm can pretty much solo an 8 person alien team if he has full map control.
ArgathorJoin Date: 2011-07-18Member: 110942Members, Squad Five Blue
edited December 2011
I didn't answer all your points last night due to it being in the early hours of the morning for me and I wanted to get some sleep. I wasn't trying to offend you or side step your arguements. I picked out the parts I saw as most relevant/important. Quite frankly I am surprised you come across as so angry/frustrated/hostile and realise any sort of discussion is probably a complete waste of time, but against my better judgement I will reply...
<!--quoteo(post=1889578:date=Dec 10 2011, 03:03 AM:name=Smaug)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Smaug @ Dec 10 2011, 03:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1889578"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You admit your analogy is flawed, yet, as any person who is good at making a bad counter-argument seem good, ignored to address a good point that I made, and continued to make out that you are infact correct. These "fun" things to find are usually drawn out by being so drained that you chuck any old strategy at the wall, and if it takes this kind of draining effort to come up with these strats, then I don't want to play this game. If people learn to overcome problems with the tools they have, <b>why the ###### hasn't anybody managed it yet?</b> I admit, I managed to go from 1 Command Station vs 4 Hives to 2 Command Stations vs 2 Hives in a pub once, but the unbelievable amount of effort I had to throw into that, and into upping the morale of my team, was incredibly draining due to the fact I knew I was making people hopeful that we would end up winning regardless of the odds, that I didn't play for a while after.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Flawed isn't the same as wrong. My analogy was fine, it just wasn't specific enough for you. I listed those examples as they are both valid and well known, meaning that the majority of readers would understand the point. It was by no means an exhaustive list.
I will attempt to indulge you with a more specific and conventional example: The problem faced by alien early game rushes (summit- that if you rush vent/fc and the marines are simply waiting, it is a massacre) can be overcome by sending in one gorge just ahead of the skulks, meaning he not only soaks up some damage but can also heal nearby skulks as they rush the marines keeping them alive long enough to close the gap. This works incredibly well and can easily allow aliens to finish the game immediately even against organised teams.
There are many more examples of this.
<!--quoteo(post=1889578:date=Dec 10 2011, 03:03 AM:name=Smaug)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Smaug @ Dec 10 2011, 03:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1889578"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't buy into the fact that you enjoy un-fun games. You can imply that I enjoy "instant-gratification" games as much as you want, but just because you say that doesn't mean it's true. I do love Strategical games, it's why I play Dystopia and StarCraft 2 on a regular basis, as well as a plethora of other games, and I was a tester for Dystopia too, so I do have an understanding of how it all works. Do you read the forums much, because there has been so many topics about stalemates, and most agree they are terrible and make them want to leave the game. The vocal minority is the people who reply with "Oh you should've played better" to the ones that say "But I got the entire map, I can't take the last base". Games have a storyline, just like a book or a film. You don't get to the point in the story where the main character says "Hey, I just saved the entire continent from the baddies, but I can't kill the final boss because I can't get near him, oh well." Even though right now we can't get to the tech that gets us there, a conclusion to the match in its current state needs to be available, even if it means a concede button. What the hell is strategical about slamming your head against a brick wall until you fall unconscious (in this analogy, the brick wall is the unwinnable position that occurs when you simply can't take the final base, and falling unconscious is where you quit the server out of pure frustration). And you say it's moot that they're releasing onos and ###### soon, are they releasing absolutely everything else as well? What about the other situations made aware in this thread about good times to be able to use a concede button?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think simply using the word fun is over simplifying things. I get fun from occasional moments ingame (like anything I do as a skulk, or killing certain players, or getting strange kills) but the majority of my enjoyment comes from the satisfaction of either knowing I did my best (along with my team) to win and failed, or that I did my best to win in a difficult/ challenging game and won. I do not enjoy easy wins, or even moderately easy wins. I realise other people get enjoyment from different sources, im offering my side because it was not represented enough in this discussion. It is important to remember that you are not arguing for 'what is right' you are only arguing for 'what you think is right'.
You highlight an important point above, something that is worth further discussion. Aliens are far more likely to be in the position of controlling the whole map and not being able to finish the game. As aliens gain a good portion of their strength from a 2nd hive, they are much easier to kill off with only 1 hive. Your assumption is that alien teams that control all the map yet cannot finish the fight had enough skill to fairly occupy the map. That is incorrect. The imbalances in the game hand aliens (if skill on both teams is equal) most of the map, at which point the alien team (without any real skill/ability advantage) finds itself incapable of defeating the marine team, which is now concentrated into one area and must be faced directly.
You cited that fact that UWE stats have shown that alien and marine team wins were vaguely similar. Out of these games, mainly, two types were played: competitive and public. Competitive games have a pretty controlled environment for fairness. Public games have a whole host of factors that can effect the outcome. Anyone who plays competitively knows aliens have won virtually every game for the last few patches, barring a significant skill/ability lead it was extremely difficult to win as marine. Now public games have much more going on to be using them as a judge of balance. For a start, using personal experience, many of us in the competitive scene have been going marine the majority of public games, as we knew it was the weakness and we needed the practice.
The point of the above is that part of the current stalemate issues are caused by overall ingame balance, not a lack of tier 3 units/mechanics. Which is why their inclusion into the game will not definately remove/reduce stalemates. Thus it is something that can, and I hope will, be fixed in the coming patches.
<!--quoteo(post=1889578:date=Dec 10 2011, 03:03 AM:name=Smaug)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Smaug @ Dec 10 2011, 03:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1889578"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes, the balanced part, the part that people find fun. I forget that fun doesn't factor into games for you though, or so you keep implying. If you think the game is so unbalanced even at the very start of the game, to which you seem to be upset about, why do you play? Also, not that I am completely endorsing this, but UWE did recently release statistics that the win percentages of marines were pretty close to the 50% mark. I also recall only winning as marines when I played in pubs recently, but personal experiences are a pretty invalid point to argue when looking at the bigger picture. Framerate performance only truly happens past the point that the Stalemate occurs with recent patches, as people just start spamming buildings everywhere for the sake of it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I covered the enjoyment and balance issues above. Framerate problems happen at all points in the game, for portions of the community. There are still points in summit which induce low fps for me, although it is much improved from the last version. Servers currently struggle if any large scale action occurs, a shotgun rush of a hive. As well as any time more than a few buildings are placed on a full server. Couple this with the strange and seemingly unexplained input lag bug, it leaves a lot to be desired.
<!--quoteo(post=1889578:date=Dec 10 2011, 03:03 AM:name=Smaug)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Smaug @ Dec 10 2011, 03:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1889578"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The "your way is dangerous" thing is pure rhetoric. How many people do you know that find it frustrating, cause I'm sure as hell they find stalemates even more so. And you say it's annoying when a comm sells up. So why are you arguing against something that would prevent that? An option where everyone on the team gets a say, the concede button, instead of the comm <b>maybe</b> asking for other people's opinions before selling up, and even then, he probably won't get an answer from his entire team (if he's lucky, one or two).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Calling my arguement rhetoric because you are 'sure as hell' isn't very productive. Ill skip over that bit, as it would be fruitless discussing a difference of opinion.
On comm's selling the base. If the vote didn't go their way, any comm that would sell up now would probably still sell up if they lost the vote. Let me be clear, your suggestion does not <b>prevent</b> this at all, at best it makes it marginally less likely.
<!--quoteo(post=1889578:date=Dec 10 2011, 03:03 AM:name=Smaug)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Smaug @ Dec 10 2011, 03:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1889578"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And thank you for the bait, but manning up has absolutely nothing to do with this, and even more so lets me know how weak you believe your arguments to be. I would also like to point out how ignored a lot of my points have been in this thread. I have made points and suggestions that benefit everyone from a logical mindset (eg. better & more important data accumulated; a way to make popularity of patches last longer; a way to stop servers emptying so quickly; more games being played), and no one gets hurt by it. All arguments against have been focussed on much more menial things, as well as driven by an emotional/quasi-philisophical mindsets (eg. "Because I find stalemates fun" - sorry, but the feeling of not going anywhere is hated by everyone and you are no exception; "Because I can hone my l33t sk1llz" - sorry, but you can do that at any point in the game). Honestly, I played Dystopia for years. I understand joining pubs for practicing aim and other things, but to do it because there's nothing better to do because the game cannot progress is simply wrong, even for a beta (and especially for a beta that includes any member of the public). Game devs make a game stop at the point where there is no point in testing stuff, and it should be no different for this.
<b>If someone else would like to take the mantle for the implementation of this option, feel free, I doubt anyone would probably make this option available anyway as my voice doesn't seem to carry any weight on the forums, no matter what I say. I've made my point several times over now without any valid, logical argument. I'm out, pz.</b>
Edit: And one personal thing I'd like to add before I exit. The people arguing that they want to fight to the last, wanna hone their skills. You can bugger off and do that in CoD/BF3. I play NS2 because I want to play with a team that actually matters, not because I want to show off my individual skill. I play CoD MW3 cause I want to just switch off and play something that isn't taxing. I know the difference. That's pretty off-topic, but others have brought it up as if comparing ns2 to cod/bf3 is a valid argument to this topic, as much as I know I shouldn't stoop to that level of discussion. I find thoughtless rhetoric deriving from things self-righteous people on the internet say really aggravating, such as the old "go back to CoD/BF3" comments, sorry.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think it is best to not go further down the path of the above dicussion. It is only likely to get personal and cause more offence.
Thank you for taking the time to argue your point. I think having both sides of this arguement laid out is good for discussion on stalemates and gameplay in general.
I want a surrender/draw button ! It doesn't make any sense not to have one, imagine a chess game where the two players wants to play a new game but cannot because the chessboard says to them "No! You have to capture every pieces to end the game". I would response "GTFO!" to this chessboard.
<!--quoteo(post=1889725:date=Dec 11 2011, 12:40 PM:name=Yuuki)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Yuuki @ Dec 11 2011, 12:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1889725"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah but there is always one or two players staying in game and making last 20 minutes...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
2 vs 6.. or in public 2 vs 8/10/12/16 ... it won't last very long.
I don't think this is something that people should rely on developers to sort out. This sort of thing is etiquette, it is a community thing, the mind of a game player thing. Eventually, a stalemate will snap to a win or a loss for one team after a period of time. And if not, you can just do what we did in NS1, put a time limit on the game and if no one wins, no one wins. Alternatively with no time limit you just mass ready room quit then watch the very few players that are left get rolled.
Comments
I don't think it is, by default, a good thing to end those games. Progress often comes fastest when faced with adversity, science/technology improves fastest during war, etc.
If people who were losing, spent less time worry about losing and more time working out what they can do to improve their situation the general ability level would improve fast. The majority of players are still quite bad (aiming, tactics and strategy). If I am on a losing team, getting thrashed, at the very least playing improves my aim. I can also practice tricks like jumping/strafing to better avoid skulk/fade hits (the angle and timing are very important). These will not only improve my next game, but they keep me focused and enguaged so I often completely forget I am getting thrashed. If that isn't your thing, focusing on hunting a specific player that can be both entertaining and useful.
On top of this, offering people an 'easy escape' would encourage quitters. Something that has dangerous long-term gameplay implications for the NS2 community.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The analogy is flawed, in real life, when a ceiling is hit with science and technology, people <b>create</b> things to get past that point. In NS2, what would be created to get past that stalemate point is the Onos, JetPacks, Heavy Armour etc etc. How about I give you an analogy, which brings back to a more valid point made about gathering information?
I come to a wall, and the floor is made of mud. My only option is to dig through the mud, underneath the wall. I get most of the way, then suddenly someone shoves a door in the wall. All that time I spent effort in getting past that wall is now wasted. Wasted information, wasted time.
Your views on how to play the game is simply not shared by the vast majority either. You can boast all you like about how you like to do the whole self-improvement thing, but it only helps <b>you</b>, and sorry, but I doubt many people care that much.
You say you can change how you play, aim to get a better aim, aim on hunting a specific player. Sure, I do that, because I play this game competitively, this is common ground we share. But the average player, he could aim to get a better aim, aim on hunting a specific player. Or he could quit.
But how about starting a new round, so that we can play more fun games? Fun is good, and in this case, benefits the collection of data! As Dusteh said, it's not like you can just join another server at the moment.
And finally, offering people an "easy escape" as you misleadingly call it, won't promote "quitters". <b>Quitting</b> the game promotes quitters, and it promotes people not coming back. The cause of the quitting? Endlessly playing a stale game, to the point where people won't return until next patch or beyond, or ever, because they spend more time in the unbalanced portion of the game than they do in the fun and balanced part.
Again, as Dusteh says, a vote forfeit command similar to L4D would be amazing, I would just hope that it's made more visible than the eject comm one, so people know it's there to use. If anyone argues that you could get a team of trolls trying to vote to end the game, then the game was never worth playing in the first place.
Edit: And yes, why not improve your skill in an environment where everyone is happy, than playing where only you are happy, and potentially when the enemy is easier to kill cause he just doesn't care anymore?
It was flawed in that I was obviously too vague. War forces people to look for new ways to overcome problems. Some of these are by new discoveries/inventions and some of these are by using current tools in a different way. The last way is the one relevant to NS2.
There are many examples of such developments in NS2 gameplay. From gorge rushes to cloaked Lerk/Whip rushes to MAC traps. People learn to overcome problems with the tools they have available.
<!--quoteo(post=1889559:date=Dec 10 2011, 01:28 AM:name=Smaug)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Smaug @ Dec 10 2011, 01:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1889559"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your views on how to play the game is simply not shared by the vast majority either. You can boast all you like about how you like to do the whole self-improvement thing, but it only helps <b>you</b>, and sorry, but I doubt many people care that much.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't buy into the fact that NS2 players are part of the instant gratification CoD/BF group. If you like NS2 it is likely due to an awareness (and liking) of the strategical implications of an RTS/FPS and the teamplay dependency of this. From my experience quitters are a vocal minority, although I am sure UWE are better positioned to decide. A large portion of people dislike stalemates due to the horrible server performance that is often part of it.
<!--quoteo(post=1889559:date=Dec 10 2011, 01:28 AM:name=Smaug)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Smaug @ Dec 10 2011, 01:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1889559"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And finally, offering people an "easy escape" as you misleadingly call it, won't promote "quitters". <b>Quitting</b> the game promotes quitters, and it promotes people not coming back. The cause of the quitting? Endlessly playing a stale game, to the point where people won't return until next patch or beyond, or ever, because they spend more time in the unbalanced portion of the game than they do in the fun and balanced part.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Balanced part? What game are you playing? This game has been <b>heavily</b> alien favoured for at least the last 3-4 patches. No 'stage', be it start, middle or end, has been balanced. That is part of a beta and realistically will be a decent portion of release.
<!--quoteo(post=1889559:date=Dec 10 2011, 01:28 AM:name=Smaug)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Smaug @ Dec 10 2011, 01:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1889559"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Edit: And yes, why not improve your skill in an environment where everyone is happy, than playing where only you are happy, and potentially when the enemy is easier to kill cause he just doesn't care anymore?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think the assumption that your way is fun for everyone is dangerous. I know I am not the only one that finds the quitting attitude frustrating, especially when its a comm who simply sells up and <b>forces</b> a restart (because most people are happy).
Either way, this is mostly pointless, as we will have tier 3 soon and more means for ending matches. Will we still get stalemates? Probably, but most likely less frequently. Then you can simply man up! ;-)
i agree on that. one benefit of having votes is, that the commander can find out if there are at least a few people left who want to play on. this might actually prevent him from selling IPs.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Either way, this is mostly pointless, as we will have tier 3 soon and more means for ending matches.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i was well aware of tier 3 when creating this topic, it will not solve all issues though. i dont want to recap my previous posts, but one rather obvious example is a 2-3 player match which suddenly grows into a 10-14 player match (an extreme example, but this actually happens sometimes) whereas even the 2-3 might want a rematch.
There are many examples of such developments in NS2 gameplay. From gorge rushes to cloaked Lerk/Whip rushes to MAC traps. People learn to overcome problems with the tools they have available.
I don't buy into the fact that NS2 players are part of the instant gratification CoD/BF group. If you like NS2 it is likely due to an awareness (and liking) of the strategical implications of an RTS/FPS and the teamplay dependency of this. From my experience quitters are a vocal minority, although I am sure UWE are better positioned to decide. A large portion of people dislike stalemates due to the horrible server performance that is often part of it.
Balanced part? What game are you playing? This game has been <b>heavily</b> alien favoured for at least the last 3-4 patches. No 'stage', be it start, middle or end, has been balanced. That is part of a beta and realistically will be a decent portion of release.
I think the assumption that your way is fun for everyone is dangerous. I know I am not the only one that finds the quitting attitude frustrating, especially when its a comm who simply sells up and <b>forces</b> a restart (because most people are happy).
Either way, this is mostly pointless, as we will have tier 3 soon and more means for ending matches. Will we still get stalemates? Probably, but most likely less frequently. Then you can simply man up! ;-)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You admit your analogy is flawed, yet, as any person who is good at making a bad counter-argument seem good, ignored to address a good point that I made, and continued to make out that you are infact correct. These "fun" things to find are usually drawn out by being so drained that you chuck any old strategy at the wall, and if it takes this kind of draining effort to come up with these strats, then I don't want to play this game. If people learn to overcome problems with the tools they have, <b>why the ###### hasn't anybody managed it yet?</b> I admit, I managed to go from 1 Command Station vs 4 Hives to 2 Command Stations vs 2 Hives in a pub once, but the unbelievable amount of effort I had to throw into that, and into upping the morale of my team, was incredibly draining due to the fact I knew I was making people hopeful that we would end up winning regardless of the odds, that I didn't play for a while after.
I don't buy into the fact that you enjoy un-fun games. You can imply that I enjoy "instant-gratification" games as much as you want, but just because you say that doesn't mean it's true. I do love Strategical games, it's why I play Dystopia and StarCraft 2 on a regular basis, as well as a plethora of other games, and I was a tester for Dystopia too, so I do have an understanding of how it all works. Do you read the forums much, because there has been so many topics about stalemates, and most agree they are terrible and make them want to leave the game. The vocal minority is the people who reply with "Oh you should've played better" to the ones that say "But I got the entire map, I can't take the last base". Games have a storyline, just like a book or a film. You don't get to the point in the story where the main character says "Hey, I just saved the entire continent from the baddies, but I can't kill the final boss because I can't get near him, oh well." Even though right now we can't get to the tech that gets us there, a conclusion to the match in its current state needs to be available, even if it means a concede button. What the hell is strategical about slamming your head against a brick wall until you fall unconscious (in this analogy, the brick wall is the unwinnable position that occurs when you simply can't take the final base, and falling unconscious is where you quit the server out of pure frustration). And you say it's moot that they're releasing onos and ###### soon, are they releasing absolutely everything else as well? What about the other situations made aware in this thread about good times to be able to use a concede button?
Yes, the balanced part, the part that people find fun. I forget that fun doesn't factor into games for you though, or so you keep implying. If you think the game is so unbalanced even at the very start of the game, to which you seem to be upset about, why do you play? Also, not that I am completely endorsing this, but UWE did recently release statistics that the win percentages of marines were pretty close to the 50% mark. I also recall only winning as marines when I played in pubs recently, but personal experiences are a pretty invalid point to argue when looking at the bigger picture. Framerate performance only truly happens past the point that the Stalemate occurs with recent patches, as people just start spamming buildings everywhere for the sake of it.
The "your way is dangerous" thing is pure rhetoric. How many people do you know that find it frustrating, cause I'm sure as hell they find stalemates even more so. And you say it's annoying when a comm sells up. So why are you arguing against something that would prevent that? An option where everyone on the team gets a say, the concede button, instead of the comm <b>maybe</b> asking for other people's opinions before selling up, and even then, he probably won't get an answer from his entire team (if he's lucky, one or two).
And thank you for the bait, but manning up has absolutely nothing to do with this, and even more so lets me know how weak you believe your arguments to be. I would also like to point out how ignored a lot of my points have been in this thread. I have made points and suggestions that benefit everyone from a logical mindset (eg. better & more important data accumulated; a way to make popularity of patches last longer; a way to stop servers emptying so quickly; more games being played), and no one gets hurt by it. All arguments against have been focussed on much more menial things, as well as driven by an emotional/quasi-philisophical mindsets (eg. "Because I find stalemates fun" - sorry, but the feeling of not going anywhere is hated by everyone and you are no exception; "Because I can hone my l33t sk1llz" - sorry, but you can do that at any point in the game). Honestly, I played Dystopia for years. I understand joining pubs for practicing aim and other things, but to do it because there's nothing better to do because the game cannot progress is simply wrong, even for a beta (and especially for a beta that includes any member of the public). Game devs make a game stop at the point where there is no point in testing stuff, and it should be no different for this.
If someone else would like to take the mantle for the implementation of this option, feel free, I doubt anyone would probably make this option available anyway as my voice doesn't seem to carry any weight on the forums, no matter what I say. I've made my point several times over now without any valid, logical argument. I'm out, pz.
Edit: And one personal thing I'd like to add before I exit. The people arguing that they want to fight to the last, wanna hone their skills. You can bugger off and do that in CoD/BF3. I play NS2 because I want to play with a team that actually matters, not because I want to show off my individual skill. I play CoD MW3 cause I want to just switch off and play something that isn't taxing. I know the difference. That's pretty off-topic, but others have brought it up as if comparing ns2 to cod/bf3 is a valid argument to this topic, as much as I know I shouldn't stoop to that level of discussion. I find thoughtless rhetoric deriving from things self-righteous people on the internet say really aggravating, such as the old "go back to CoD/BF3" comments, sorry.
If you have an entire map under your control, getting 240 res or 600 hive energy is incredibly easy. Just spend some of that accumulating resource on a massive overwhelming strike to obliterate the besieged team's final base. I find it interesting to hear you say that ARC rushes "never work", since I hear (and see) games ended with them all the time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We're talking about stalemates here. I don't think I've heard of ANY stalemates when marines have full map control and can't finish aliens, and if there was, the comm and players are complete failures. A marine comm can pretty much solo an 8 person alien team if he has full map control.
<!--quoteo(post=1889578:date=Dec 10 2011, 03:03 AM:name=Smaug)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Smaug @ Dec 10 2011, 03:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1889578"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You admit your analogy is flawed, yet, as any person who is good at making a bad counter-argument seem good, ignored to address a good point that I made, and continued to make out that you are infact correct. These "fun" things to find are usually drawn out by being so drained that you chuck any old strategy at the wall, and if it takes this kind of draining effort to come up with these strats, then I don't want to play this game. If people learn to overcome problems with the tools they have, <b>why the ###### hasn't anybody managed it yet?</b> I admit, I managed to go from 1 Command Station vs 4 Hives to 2 Command Stations vs 2 Hives in a pub once, but the unbelievable amount of effort I had to throw into that, and into upping the morale of my team, was incredibly draining due to the fact I knew I was making people hopeful that we would end up winning regardless of the odds, that I didn't play for a while after.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Flawed isn't the same as wrong. My analogy was fine, it just wasn't specific enough for you. I listed those examples as they are both valid and well known, meaning that the majority of readers would understand the point. It was by no means an exhaustive list.
I will attempt to indulge you with a more specific and conventional example:
The problem faced by alien early game rushes (summit- that if you rush vent/fc and the marines are simply waiting, it is a massacre) can be overcome by sending in one gorge just ahead of the skulks, meaning he not only soaks up some damage but can also heal nearby skulks as they rush the marines keeping them alive long enough to close the gap. This works incredibly well and can easily allow aliens to finish the game immediately even against organised teams.
There are many more examples of this.
<!--quoteo(post=1889578:date=Dec 10 2011, 03:03 AM:name=Smaug)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Smaug @ Dec 10 2011, 03:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1889578"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't buy into the fact that you enjoy un-fun games. You can imply that I enjoy "instant-gratification" games as much as you want, but just because you say that doesn't mean it's true. I do love Strategical games, it's why I play Dystopia and StarCraft 2 on a regular basis, as well as a plethora of other games, and I was a tester for Dystopia too, so I do have an understanding of how it all works. Do you read the forums much, because there has been so many topics about stalemates, and most agree they are terrible and make them want to leave the game. The vocal minority is the people who reply with "Oh you should've played better" to the ones that say "But I got the entire map, I can't take the last base". Games have a storyline, just like a book or a film. You don't get to the point in the story where the main character says "Hey, I just saved the entire continent from the baddies, but I can't kill the final boss because I can't get near him, oh well." Even though right now we can't get to the tech that gets us there, a conclusion to the match in its current state needs to be available, even if it means a concede button. What the hell is strategical about slamming your head against a brick wall until you fall unconscious (in this analogy, the brick wall is the unwinnable position that occurs when you simply can't take the final base, and falling unconscious is where you quit the server out of pure frustration). And you say it's moot that they're releasing onos and ###### soon, are they releasing absolutely everything else as well? What about the other situations made aware in this thread about good times to be able to use a concede button?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think simply using the word fun is over simplifying things. I get fun from occasional moments ingame (like anything I do as a skulk, or killing certain players, or getting strange kills) but the majority of my enjoyment comes from the satisfaction of either knowing I did my best (along with my team) to win and failed, or that I did my best to win in a difficult/ challenging game and won. I do not enjoy easy wins, or even moderately easy wins. I realise other people get enjoyment from different sources, im offering my side because it was not represented enough in this discussion. It is important to remember that you are not arguing for 'what is right' you are only arguing for 'what you think is right'.
You highlight an important point above, something that is worth further discussion. Aliens are far more likely to be in the position of controlling the whole map and not being able to finish the game. As aliens gain a good portion of their strength from a 2nd hive, they are much easier to kill off with only 1 hive. Your assumption is that alien teams that control all the map yet cannot finish the fight had enough skill to fairly occupy the map. That is incorrect. The imbalances in the game hand aliens (if skill on both teams is equal) most of the map, at which point the alien team (without any real skill/ability advantage) finds itself incapable of defeating the marine team, which is now concentrated into one area and must be faced directly.
You cited that fact that UWE stats have shown that alien and marine team wins were vaguely similar. Out of these games, mainly, two types were played: competitive and public. Competitive games have a pretty controlled environment for fairness. Public games have a whole host of factors that can effect the outcome. Anyone who plays competitively knows aliens have won virtually every game for the last few patches, barring a significant skill/ability lead it was extremely difficult to win as marine. Now public games have much more going on to be using them as a judge of balance. For a start, using personal experience, many of us in the competitive scene have been going marine the majority of public games, as we knew it was the weakness and we needed the practice.
The point of the above is that part of the current stalemate issues are caused by overall ingame balance, not a lack of tier 3 units/mechanics. Which is why their inclusion into the game will not definately remove/reduce stalemates. Thus it is something that can, and I hope will, be fixed in the coming patches.
<!--quoteo(post=1889578:date=Dec 10 2011, 03:03 AM:name=Smaug)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Smaug @ Dec 10 2011, 03:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1889578"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes, the balanced part, the part that people find fun. I forget that fun doesn't factor into games for you though, or so you keep implying. If you think the game is so unbalanced even at the very start of the game, to which you seem to be upset about, why do you play? Also, not that I am completely endorsing this, but UWE did recently release statistics that the win percentages of marines were pretty close to the 50% mark. I also recall only winning as marines when I played in pubs recently, but personal experiences are a pretty invalid point to argue when looking at the bigger picture. Framerate performance only truly happens past the point that the Stalemate occurs with recent patches, as people just start spamming buildings everywhere for the sake of it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I covered the enjoyment and balance issues above. Framerate problems happen at all points in the game, for portions of the community. There are still points in summit which induce low fps for me, although it is much improved from the last version. Servers currently struggle if any large scale action occurs, a shotgun rush of a hive. As well as any time more than a few buildings are placed on a full server. Couple this with the strange and seemingly unexplained input lag bug, it leaves a lot to be desired.
<!--quoteo(post=1889578:date=Dec 10 2011, 03:03 AM:name=Smaug)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Smaug @ Dec 10 2011, 03:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1889578"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The "your way is dangerous" thing is pure rhetoric. How many people do you know that find it frustrating, cause I'm sure as hell they find stalemates even more so. And you say it's annoying when a comm sells up. So why are you arguing against something that would prevent that? An option where everyone on the team gets a say, the concede button, instead of the comm <b>maybe</b> asking for other people's opinions before selling up, and even then, he probably won't get an answer from his entire team (if he's lucky, one or two).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Calling my arguement rhetoric because you are 'sure as hell' isn't very productive. Ill skip over that bit, as it would be fruitless discussing a difference of opinion.
On comm's selling the base. If the vote didn't go their way, any comm that would sell up now would probably still sell up if they lost the vote. Let me be clear, your suggestion does not <b>prevent</b> this at all, at best it makes it marginally less likely.
<!--quoteo(post=1889578:date=Dec 10 2011, 03:03 AM:name=Smaug)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Smaug @ Dec 10 2011, 03:03 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1889578"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And thank you for the bait, but manning up has absolutely nothing to do with this, and even more so lets me know how weak you believe your arguments to be. I would also like to point out how ignored a lot of my points have been in this thread. I have made points and suggestions that benefit everyone from a logical mindset (eg. better & more important data accumulated; a way to make popularity of patches last longer; a way to stop servers emptying so quickly; more games being played), and no one gets hurt by it. All arguments against have been focussed on much more menial things, as well as driven by an emotional/quasi-philisophical mindsets (eg. "Because I find stalemates fun" - sorry, but the feeling of not going anywhere is hated by everyone and you are no exception; "Because I can hone my l33t sk1llz" - sorry, but you can do that at any point in the game). Honestly, I played Dystopia for years. I understand joining pubs for practicing aim and other things, but to do it because there's nothing better to do because the game cannot progress is simply wrong, even for a beta (and especially for a beta that includes any member of the public). Game devs make a game stop at the point where there is no point in testing stuff, and it should be no different for this.
<b>If someone else would like to take the mantle for the implementation of this option, feel free, I doubt anyone would probably make this option available anyway as my voice doesn't seem to carry any weight on the forums, no matter what I say. I've made my point several times over now without any valid, logical argument. I'm out, pz.</b>
Edit: And one personal thing I'd like to add before I exit. The people arguing that they want to fight to the last, wanna hone their skills. You can bugger off and do that in CoD/BF3. I play NS2 because I want to play with a team that actually matters, not because I want to show off my individual skill. I play CoD MW3 cause I want to just switch off and play something that isn't taxing. I know the difference. That's pretty off-topic, but others have brought it up as if comparing ns2 to cod/bf3 is a valid argument to this topic, as much as I know I shouldn't stoop to that level of discussion. I find thoughtless rhetoric deriving from things self-righteous people on the internet say really aggravating, such as the old "go back to CoD/BF3" comments, sorry.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think it is best to not go further down the path of the above dicussion. It is only likely to get personal and cause more offence.
Thank you for taking the time to argue your point. I think having both sides of this arguement laid out is good for discussion on stalemates and gameplay in general.
2 vs 6.. or in public 2 vs 8/10/12/16 ... it won't last very long.
I don't think this is something that people should rely on developers to sort out. This sort of thing is etiquette, it is a community thing, the mind of a game player thing. Eventually, a stalemate will snap to a win or a loss for one team after a period of time. And if not, you can just do what we did in NS1, put a time limit on the game and if no one wins, no one wins. Alternatively with no time limit you just mass ready room quit then watch the very few players that are left get rolled.