<!--quoteo(post=1900721:date=Feb 7 2012, 01:26 PM:name=TimMc)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TimMc @ Feb 7 2012, 01:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1900721"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sorry but that seems superfluous and stupid. If the team all want to quit, then I have no problem with the commander recycling. Or they could all just RR. Whats the point of making their deaths even quicker?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Usually, the reason a team would "want to quit" is because they no longer have any chance of winning - causing them to give up. Concede would give them a chance of winning, if they can survive a 2 minute onslaught by the aliens. If they prevail, they actually have a very good chance of winning, given their buffs. If the alien team is just wasting time building up but not attacking (which is often the case with sure-wins), then they will loose if they don't drop everything and attack.
<!--quoteo(post=1900553:date=Feb 7 2012, 04:57 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Feb 7 2012, 04:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1900553"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think HoN did a pretty neat little thing with this. Instead of finishing the game right away after the concede vote, they created the overrun scene where you still get to wreck your opponent all the way to the final survivor. Obviously it's not an epic last hold by no means, but it offers some kind of conclusion to people who want that while still keeping the 'ineffective' play time at minimal.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's a good thought though there are some holes in it...
HoN games each had their own instance.
You'd be holding up everyone else on the server while you have your moment of glory.
<!--quoteo(post=1900631:date=Feb 7 2012, 02:02 PM:name=TimMc)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TimMc @ Feb 7 2012, 02:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1900631"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I agree its a server specific issue, but I think there should admin options/tools to help with this.
+1 for halting recycling if commander is being voted against +1 for having server option for 'minimum IPs' +1 for having server option for area control % declaring victory after a timer<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I also support the first two suggestions. Don't like the idea of the area control percentage timer though.
Btw, recycling can also be fun. Once we had a beautiful base, but aliens controlled the majority of the map, also we had a great team who could hold that last area well. The commander realized we're going to lost so he was like "ok, sell our IPs and try to hold until we can" then sold our IPs. The really fun thing was that we could still hold up for about another 15 minutes by using only beaconing.
I have witnessed a marine comeback from a 2 hour game on NS_Baast in NS1. Marines can always comeback because thier tech improves better over time than the aliens. Its just hard.
Conceding/surrendering in any form (recycling, RR, team vote, team-stacking, quitting) is essentially just a band-aid fix for an inherent problem with the game(s): that what constitutes effective victory is not the same as the victory condition; that the outcome is decided before the games' rules acknowledge the outcome.
There are a few different ways to solve this elementary issue that I can think of:
1) make it so that the game is immediately ended by the winning team when the outcome is decided 1.1) to penalise the winning team for not immediately ending the game, reset the playing field (destroy the lead).
2) make it so that the outcome is never decided until the end. 2.1) no lead is ever too great to overcome, or any lead in one area is a lag in another.
3) make the victory conditions in the games' rules equal to the conditions of victory in the practical game. 3.1) define what constitutes a lead, and end the game based on the lead
2 is the easiest to approach conceptually (make comebacks possible up until the very last second), and I think it would also be the most compelling, but it requires a re-working of the entire game's balance and design philosophy.
i think this will be much lessened with limited res per node. no more turtling indefinitely. however, could get into the situation where it's base marines vs skulks at the end of a match, so long games may favor aliens (their static defense has infinite ammo).
As I see the problem in the late game: <ul><li>Marines don't need room to get advanced in tech (if they can hold their base and have a few upgrades at this time.)</li><li>But it is depressing when you die every time you leave the base.</li><li>After the third unsuccessful run on the marine base, it gets boring for the aliens too.</li></ul>
So we need a way to add more tension to this game phase, because we want to play this game phase, because it's the only time the last tier techs are effective playable. Solution: <ul><li>add a new building: Nuclear bomb</li><li>with a ridiculous long building time</li><li>it needs an advanced armory and a prototype lab to research it</li><li>the research time also has to be ridiculously long</li><li>after build is finished, the com can start a countdown to end the game with a big bang (and a "win" for the marines)</li><li>so the aliens can't turtle all the time and have to end it before the bomb goes up.</li></ul>
They tried the nuclear bomb thing in pre-1.0 NS. Every game ended up "marines hold on to 1 or 2 RTs, tech to nuke, win game".
Marine tech concentration should be on upgrades and equipment that players use, encouraging gameplay. I see VERY VERY few pub games on the beta servers right now where ANY pressure is applied to alien RTs. Most marine teams are timid and ineffective, ceding control of the map to skulks without a fight. If you balance around this style of gameplay, you're going to have some really horrible problems crop up as the playing population matures and learns to aim and cover each other. Talking about problems inherent in an unfinished endgame that extend from a poorly-played early game as if they're game design issues is just weird.
This happens a lot and I have also posted about this. Players who go commander just to grief the server by recycling stuff to spoil the game and comms who give up way too easily. Its common when Fades first appear to hear a comm say "they have Fades, game over". They then recycle everything so the marines lose. It must count for a lot of the alien wins atm. I have played a few games where the aliens have 90% of the map and they are at the front door of the marine base and marines have fought their way out and won.
A vote system would be ideal so the comm cannot recycle without the majority of marine players having to say yes by clicking an icon or something. Or make the IP's so they cannot be recycled.
I really like the idea that was brought up about not being able to recycle things if a kick vote was in progress. Something I'd like to add to that though.
An infantry portal CAN and SHOULD be able to be recycled if there's at least one infantry portal left. In other words, if I build two infantry portals, I should be able to recycle one. If there's 10, I should be able to recycle all the way up to 9. This way, if the game really is being grieved in such a manner, the commander can be ejected, another IP can more than likely be built, and players are still spawning (very slowly with one IP which might actually help the game go even faster).
Nothing of what has been suggested works. Griefing commanders will be here to stay, and the only way to combat them are for server-admins to take action (ban). Any attempt to make some sort of mechanic to automatically deal with them will certainly diminish the quality-gameplay and the commander's influence (not good, as he has already been nerfed quite a bit in NS2).
Per example: <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I really like the idea that was brought up about not being able to recycle things if a kick vote was in progress. Something I'd like to add to that though.
An infantry portal CAN and SHOULD be able to be recycled if there's at least one infantry portal left. In other words, if I build two infantry portals, I should be able to recycle one. If there's 10, I should be able to recycle all the way up to 9. This way, if the game really is being grieved in such a manner, the commander can be ejected, another IP can more than likely be built, and players are still spawning (very slowly with one IP which might actually help the game go even faster).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This means 1 eject-vote (and there's always a twit that presses eject, no matter how competent the commander is) disallows a commander from recycling an IP, while there are numerous situations where getting rid of an IP is justified. It detracts from the game. More-over, I'm inclined to say if the marines have had a griefing commander, maybe the best course of action is to let the round die, instead of prolonging what is often a default-loss for the rines in such a case.
Simply put: admin your server at all times, and many of these problems (mostly) go away.
Soul_RiderMod BeanJoin Date: 2004-06-19Member: 29388Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
edited February 2012
<!--quoteo(post=1902130:date=Feb 11 2012, 04:22 PM:name=player)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (player @ Feb 11 2012, 04:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1902130"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Simply put: admin your server at all times, and many of these problems (mostly) go away.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most of what you say on these forums makes sense player, but this to me is completely ridiculous.
I am going to write a game, but there are problems with things that can be easily exploited to the negative enjoyment of game players. I know, I'll tell the players to make sure it doesn't happen.
Will you buy my game? I doubt it.
I have been a game server host provider, hosting clan servers from a data centre. I have worked with some of the top gaming clans in the country, and some beginning clans who didn't have a clue.
You're server is running 24hours a day. If you are a popular regular server, with a good base, then sure this griefing can be prevented. But for a large percentage of servers out there, in all games, admins are at a minimum. People put up a server for people to play on and leave it alone. So you are telling me that the game is ok to be ruined continuously for these people, who have paid just as much for the game as anyone else, and that they should try and find a regular server which has good admins, and is probably always full.
The fact of the matter is the majority of gamers will be forced to play on servers that are not well administrated. I should not be able to ruin the game for 31 potential other players, just because of a griefing system in the game.
As I said, 1 condition to allow is only recycle the last IP if there is another CC available and built for a reloc tactic. That way the comm has to grief by getting the other comm chair built first. If he goes to all that effort, let him grief :) Someone will eject him, jump in the other chair, and game can be saved.
<!--quoteo(post=1902135:date=Feb 11 2012, 04:32 PM:name=Align)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Align @ Feb 11 2012, 04:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1902135"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's not like you'll survive long if the only structure you have left is 1 IP anyway, so none of these measures would help much.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It gives you enough to get the commander out of the chair and the next person who spawns in can take over. There is usually plenty of res, I mean the comm has just recycled the entire base.
It's more about denying players the chance to experience the higher tier lifeforms. What made me write this topic is that on the night of the Gorilla release, 2 separate comms recycled as soon as the aliens got the 3rd hive.
There were a lot of people who had never seen an onos, from both teams, and 2 games in a row they were denied. That upset a lot of people on the server (not me I'd been playing for hours so had seen them and played as them). My point is 1 person should not be able to decide to end the game early for 32 people, just because they got pissed.
I dare say part of what made NS1 interesting IS the fact that things could be ###### up by players. If you intend to make a game where griefing is almost impossible, I wouldn't say it isn't fun, but you will be making costly sacrifices in the domain of gameplay. I can appreciate NS2 trying to fix some those issues, but curtailing the power of the commander like this is not the way to do it.
I wouldn't want to play on servers with minimum admin-presence, and I'm sure there will always be servers available where there are plenty of admins about. Right now of course that is not the case, but that has more to do with the ludicrous system-requirements of servers.
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Soul_Rider)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Soul_Rider)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It gives you enough to get the commander out of the chair and the next person who spawns in can take over. There is usually plenty of res, I mean the comm has just recycled the entire base.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ya, except the return on those buildings is what, 50%? Plus all the running upgrades have been cancelled. Try and come back from that, it's best to let the round end right there and then.
I don't understand. So rather than mitigating the effect a griefer can have on the game, you would rather let the single griefer have their way with the entire game?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--sizeo:5--><span style="font-size:18pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->I<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--> wouldn't want to play on servers with minimum admin-presence, and I'm sure there will always be servers available where there are plenty of admins about.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The operative word here is "I". The game is not just built for you and like-minded people. Saying that all players should only play on well-administered servers is not a solution, it's a defeatist, possibly elitist, attitude. Many servers, <b>especially</b> in popular games, are setup-and-forget.
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
So I dislike the 'its a server/server admin issue' because it 1. Will lead to confusion for new players (i.e. Server A allows comm IP-recycle surrenders, but Server B does not) 2. Will be an extra and unnecessary headache for server admins to deal with (i.e. is a comm IP-recycle surrendering a match that has lasted 1 hours with marines holding only their base griefing/deserving of a kick/ban?)
I also have to agree with Soul_Rider that any game strongly dependent on player-run server adminning is doomed to failure. With respect to the NS2 comm, some server adminning will likely be necessary to prevent griefing because you can't grief proof the comm without gimping it into irrelevancy. However, you can make it much harder to grief and to help distinguish valid tactics/gameplay from griefing, making the life of a server admin much easier, without seriously impacting the comm. I think this situation is a good example of that.
A commander who wants to end the game will end the game no matter how many countermeasures you put in place. Everything you try to do will at some point have negative repercussions in legitimate scenarios. It's a player problem, not a game problem.
As I've said before, any form of surrendering is simply a band-aid fix for a more fundamental issue: the win condition according to the game rules differs from the win condition in practice, or, in other words, the game's theoretical end differs from the game's practical end. Either (the possibility of) comebacks are too few and far between, and/or the game rules lack appropriate victory conditions: both are problems with the game's design.
i never want to recycle, even if the odds are against you, its still possible to win.
i do however as the 2nd commander (first commander was inadequate) usually have to recycle and rebuild a small portion to the whole base for the majority of the scenerios because the first commander doesn't know how to organize and place the buildings efficiently to benefit the team. so i don't believe recycle should be removed but a solution should be added in to prevent the griefing marine commander.
sun tzu : To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself. (to elaborate, we lose because we let it happen, the moment you call it quits, you lost for sure, 100%)
General Douglas MacArthur : It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it
<!--quoteo(post=1902237:date=Feb 11 2012, 11:48 PM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Feb 11 2012, 11:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1902237"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As I've said before, any form of surrendering is simply a band-aid fix for a more fundamental issue: the win condition according to the game rules differs from the win condition in practice, or, in other words, the game's theoretical end differs from the game's practical end. Either (the possibility of) comebacks are too few and far between, and/or the game rules lack appropriate victory conditions: both are problems with the game's design.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't think making comebacks easier is a good solution. The winning team should be rewarded for securing a huge advantage over the course of the game, they shouldn't lose at that point unless they do poorly enough over a sustained period of time to undo that lead. And having an arbitrary win condition that ends the game automatically is just unsatisfying, no different than surrender except that it's forced on unwilling teams.
If there's a problem it's that it takes aliens too long to end the game. Breaking the base at that point(3+ hives versus one base) shouldn't even be a challenge. There's no reason for marines to be able to hold out at that point, even if the aliens aren't that well organized - it's just a waste of everyone's time.
<!--quoteo(post=1902136:date=Feb 11 2012, 10:35 AM:name=Soul_Rider)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Soul_Rider @ Feb 11 2012, 10:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1902136"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Most of what you say on these forums makes sense player, but this to me is completely ridiculous.
I am going to write a game, but there are problems with things that can be easily exploited to the negative enjoyment of game players. I know, I'll tell the players to make sure it doesn't happen.
Will you buy my game? I doubt it.
I have been a game server host provider, hosting clan servers from a data centre. I have worked with some of the top gaming clans in the country, and some beginning clans who didn't have a clue.
You're server is running 24hours a day. If you are a popular regular server, with a good base, then sure this griefing can be prevented. But for a large percentage of servers out there, in all games, admins are at a minimum. People put up a server for people to play on and leave it alone. So you are telling me that the game is ok to be ruined continuously for these people, who have paid just as much for the game as anyone else, and that they should try and find a regular server which has good admins, and is probably always full.
The fact of the matter is the majority of gamers will be forced to play on servers that are not well administrated. I should not be able to ruin the game for 31 potential other players, just because of a griefing system in the game.
As I said, 1 condition to allow is only recycle the last IP if there is another CC available and built for a reloc tactic. That way the comm has to grief by getting the other comm chair built first. If he goes to all that effort, let him grief :) Someone will eject him, jump in the other chair, and game can be saved.
It gives you enough to get the commander out of the chair and the next person who spawns in can take over. There is usually plenty of res, I mean the comm has just recycled the entire base.
It's more about denying players the chance to experience the higher tier lifeforms. What made me write this topic is that on the night of the Gorilla release, 2 separate comms recycled as soon as the aliens got the 3rd hive.
There were a lot of people who had never seen an onos, from both teams, and 2 games in a row they were denied. That upset a lot of people on the server (not me I'd been playing for hours so had seen them and played as them). My point is 1 person should not be able to decide to end the game early for 32 people, just because they got pissed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
in game name is Bear
i remember playing on the australian server one time as a commander which had a ironic twist to admining. i can't remember what build this was but it was before 192 for sure (no jetpacks/onos yet). in the map summit (don't know what version of summit anymore, as it got changed in some builds) we were holding out in right side of the map which is data control and i resorted to building alot of sentries for defence. something between 3-6. the server didn't have a sentrie limit and it was definitely suffient in protecting our base. the admin of that popular aussy server ended the game saying we only have one RT and we were gonna lose anyways. even though our team's fighting spirit was mixed (some wanted to end, some wanted to continue on) i believed we still had a chance of winning and the alien fade guy just decided to use some admin commands to end the game and even claimed their team deserved it. whenever i play on the aussy server now because 420/HBZ/team 156/inversion is full and i see him, i leave lol. and i think he is a play tester too.
A griefer comm can just as easily recycles all res nodes and spam useless buildings somewhere to spend all the res
I've also seen game start where someone goes comm, drops down 5 ips or 5 armouries, and exits chair.
there are just too many ways for a comm to 'end the game' so to speak.
I have to agree with the ppl who basically state we need to handle this in a 'player control' type of way as opposed to trying to limit every griefing possibility out there.
I still think a surrender vote option is the best way to go. Then there is no argument on whether or not the recycling of IP was a 'greifing' attempt, or just majority ppl wanted to end the game.
just like in MOBAs, the surrender votes are shown for all to see, can't argue much if you voted one way and 50+% voted the other.
<!--quoteo(post=1902250:date=Feb 12 2012, 12:52 AM:name=ogz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ogz @ Feb 12 2012, 12:52 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1902250"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A griefer comm can just as easily recycles all res nodes and spam useless buildings somewhere to spend all the res
I've also seen game start where someone goes comm, drops down 5 ips or 5 armouries, and exits chair.
there are just too many ways for a comm to 'end the game' so to speak.
I have to agree with the ppl who basically state we need to handle this in a 'player control' type of way as opposed to trying to limit every griefing possibility out there.
I still think a surrender vote option is the best way to go. Then there is no argument on whether or not the recycling of IP was a 'greifing' attempt, or just majority ppl wanted to end the game.
just like in MOBAs, the surrender votes are shown for all to see, can't argue much if you voted one way and 50+% voted the other.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree with this, if there was a surrender vote then there's no excuse for the commander to ever recycle the base. If he does then he's clearly forcing the end of the game on his team against their will and that provides easy grounds for him to be banned.
<!--quoteo(post=1902246:date=Feb 12 2012, 01:36 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zek @ Feb 12 2012, 01:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1902246"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't think making comebacks easier is a good solution. The winning team should be rewarded for securing a huge advantage over the course of the game, they shouldn't lose at that point unless they do poorly enough over a sustained period of time to undo that lead. And having an arbitrary win condition that ends the game automatically is just unsatisfying, no different than surrender except that it's forced on unwilling teams.
If there's a problem it's that it takes aliens too long to end the game. Breaking the base at that point(3+ hives versus one base) shouldn't even be a challenge. There's no reason for marines to be able to hold out at that point, even if the aliens aren't that well organized - it's just a waste of everyone's time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Making comebacks easier is always a good thing for any game. It means that the game is not decided until the end. Note that that doesn't necessarily mean that the lagging team should have the higher chance of winning, just that they have a good chance of undoing the leader's lead.
In fact, with the positive feedback loops that exist, a small early advantage gained develops into a large one as the game progresses, so saying that the team should be rewarded for 'securing a huge advantage' is all well and fine if not for the fact that it is usually lacking in the 'securing' bit.
I would personally prefer negative feedback loops to balance out the positive feedback loops or removing the positive feedback loops, so that comebacks become more <b>possible</b> (not necessarily more likely however), and so that it becomes the leader's game to lose: that is, not <b>consistently</b> playing <i>better</i> than the other team will undo your lead - and not seeking to end the game when you have a sufficient lead will only be detrimental.
I never once mentioned arbitrary win conditions (to be fair though, any win condition is arbitrary, but I know you meant it in a different manner), only that the win condition(s) in the game's rules need to better reflect the win condition(s) in reality.
swalkSay hello to my little friend.Join Date: 2011-01-20Member: 78384Members, Squad Five Blue
I like the commander being able to recycle the base on an obvious loss. I also like the "last stand situation" that comes out of it. "Okay guys, we lost this, I'm recycling, buy some weapons and lets have a last man standing." I wouldn't like to see that change. Griefers/bad comms will be ejected next time they log in anyway.
<!--quoteo(post=1902228:date=Feb 12 2012, 03:47 AM:name=Harimau)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Harimau @ Feb 12 2012, 03:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1902228"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The operative word here is "I". The game is not just built for you and like-minded people. Saying that all players should only play on well-administered servers is not a solution, it's a defeatist, possibly elitist, attitude. Many servers, <b>especially</b> in popular games, are setup-and-forget.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> An elitist-attitude no less, you're full of crap aren't you. The lack of dedicated-servers\proper admin-tools has been an ongoing grievance for many of the recent AAA-titles, and where NS2 has the ability to deviate, you instead want it to conform and dumb down gameplay in order to ensure that. Setup-and-forget has blandness written all over it. Like I said, if your game requires no administration of any kind, again I won't say it isn't fun (TF2 comes pretty close to such a concept), but it is not possible within the NS-universe without seriously screwing around with what made the game fun. Can't believe you would call the desire for a proper pub-community with regulars and admins an elitist attitude.
This particular problem doesn't even require that much effort from the side of the server-operator, just set-up a global ban-list servers can hook up to, and it'll only take a single admin-action to prevent A LOT of grief.
Thinking NS2 should compete against many AAA-titles is delusional, it won't be able to, instead it has to draw the audience left behind by those games (again, people who prefer proper communities around their servers). Let me ask you this, back in NS1, if you had the choice between Random Server #23, or a server filled with regulars and competent fair admins that keep ###### like racism\sexism and assorted other crap out of their server, which one would you honestly choose? You know you're probably in for a ###### game if nobody on the server gives a flying hoot about what you do or say.
Ok, it is a problem with grieving players. But we need to find a game mechanic, that will circumvent it without impairing the com game play possibilities.
So how about a reputation counter. Every successful eject vote will permanently lower the players reputation. (Important: With an message who states this fact, because of deterrent) Everyone who uses an occupied com station, with a player in it who has a lower reputation than the player using the com station, ejects this player and gets com himself.
You cannot remove the recycle feature out of the game. It is way to important. At least they made it so that you cant recycle the com chair now. That is one improvement. As far as far as grieving coms, thats why they had the eject feature. The community will be tight knit like in NS1 and the grieving coms will be singled out eventually and ejected immediately.
Comments
Usually, the reason a team would "want to quit" is because they no longer have any chance of winning - causing them to give up. Concede would give them a chance of winning, if they can survive a 2 minute onslaught by the aliens. If they prevail, they actually have a very good chance of winning, given their buffs. If the alien team is just wasting time building up but not attacking (which is often the case with sure-wins), then they will loose if they don't drop everything and attack.
The surrender option sounds good.
something the comm kicks off and people vote.
Although these are all ideas and i would rather see UWE work on getting the end game to end quicker.
It's a good thought though there are some holes in it...
HoN games each had their own instance.
You'd be holding up everyone else on the server while you have your moment of glory.
+1 for halting recycling if commander is being voted against
+1 for having server option for 'minimum IPs'
+1 for having server option for area control % declaring victory after a timer<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I also support the first two suggestions. Don't like the idea of the area control percentage timer though.
Btw, recycling can also be fun. Once we had a beautiful base, but aliens controlled the majority of the map, also we had a great team who could hold that last area well. The commander realized we're going to lost so he was like "ok, sell our IPs and try to hold until we can" then sold our IPs. The really fun thing was that we could still hold up for about another 15 minutes by using only beaconing.
There are a few different ways to solve this elementary issue that I can think of:
1) make it so that the game is immediately ended by the winning team when the outcome is decided
1.1) to penalise the winning team for not immediately ending the game, reset the playing field (destroy the lead).
2) make it so that the outcome is never decided until the end.
2.1) no lead is ever too great to overcome, or any lead in one area is a lag in another.
3) make the victory conditions in the games' rules equal to the conditions of victory in the practical game.
3.1) define what constitutes a lead, and end the game based on the lead
2 is the easiest to approach conceptually (make comebacks possible up until the very last second), and I think it would also be the most compelling, but it requires a re-working of the entire game's balance and design philosophy.
<ul><li>Marines don't need room to get advanced in tech (if they can hold their base and have a few upgrades at this time.)</li><li>But it is depressing when you die every time you leave the base.</li><li>After the third unsuccessful run on the marine base, it gets boring for the aliens too.</li></ul>
So we need a way to add more tension to this game phase, because we want to play this game phase, because it's the only time the last tier techs are effective playable.
Solution:
<ul><li>add a new building: Nuclear bomb</li><li>with a ridiculous long building time</li><li>it needs an advanced armory and a prototype lab to research it</li><li>the research time also has to be ridiculously long</li><li>after build is finished, the com can start a countdown to end the game with a big bang (and a "win" for the marines)</li><li>so the aliens can't turtle all the time and have to end it before the bomb goes up.</li></ul>
Marine tech concentration should be on upgrades and equipment that players use, encouraging gameplay. I see VERY VERY few pub games on the beta servers right now where ANY pressure is applied to alien RTs. Most marine teams are timid and ineffective, ceding control of the map to skulks without a fight. If you balance around this style of gameplay, you're going to have some really horrible problems crop up as the playing population matures and learns to aim and cover each other. Talking about problems inherent in an unfinished endgame that extend from a poorly-played early game as if they're game design issues is just weird.
A vote system would be ideal so the comm cannot recycle without the majority of marine players having to say yes by clicking an icon or something. Or make the IP's so they cannot be recycled.
Ta
Sal
An infantry portal CAN and SHOULD be able to be recycled if there's at least one infantry portal left. In other words, if I build two infantry portals, I should be able to recycle one. If there's 10, I should be able to recycle all the way up to 9. This way, if the game really is being grieved in such a manner, the commander can be ejected, another IP can more than likely be built, and players are still spawning (very slowly with one IP which might actually help the game go even faster).
Per example:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I really like the idea that was brought up about not being able to recycle things if a kick vote was in progress. Something I'd like to add to that though.
An infantry portal CAN and SHOULD be able to be recycled if there's at least one infantry portal left. In other words, if I build two infantry portals, I should be able to recycle one. If there's 10, I should be able to recycle all the way up to 9. This way, if the game really is being grieved in such a manner, the commander can be ejected, another IP can more than likely be built, and players are still spawning (very slowly with one IP which might actually help the game go even faster).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This means 1 eject-vote (and there's always a twit that presses eject, no matter how competent the commander is) disallows a commander from recycling an IP, while there are numerous situations where getting rid of an IP is justified. It detracts from the game. More-over, I'm inclined to say if the marines have had a griefing commander, maybe the best course of action is to let the round die, instead of prolonging what is often a default-loss for the rines in such a case.
Simply put: admin your server at all times, and many of these problems (mostly) go away.
Most of what you say on these forums makes sense player, but this to me is completely ridiculous.
I am going to write a game, but there are problems with things that can be easily exploited to the negative enjoyment of game players. I know, I'll tell the players to make sure it doesn't happen.
Will you buy my game? I doubt it.
I have been a game server host provider, hosting clan servers from a data centre. I have worked with some of the top gaming clans in the country, and some beginning clans who didn't have a clue.
You're server is running 24hours a day. If you are a popular regular server, with a good base, then sure this griefing can be prevented. But for a large percentage of servers out there, in all games, admins are at a minimum. People put up a server for people to play on and leave it alone. So you are telling me that the game is ok to be ruined continuously for these people, who have paid just as much for the game as anyone else, and that they should try and find a regular server which has good admins, and is probably always full.
The fact of the matter is the majority of gamers will be forced to play on servers that are not well administrated. I should not be able to ruin the game for 31 potential other players, just because of a griefing system in the game.
As I said, 1 condition to allow is only recycle the last IP if there is another CC available and built for a reloc tactic. That way the comm has to grief by getting the other comm chair built first. If he goes to all that effort, let him grief :) Someone will eject him, jump in the other chair, and game can be saved.
<!--quoteo(post=1902135:date=Feb 11 2012, 04:32 PM:name=Align)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Align @ Feb 11 2012, 04:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1902135"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's not like you'll survive long if the only structure you have left is 1 IP anyway, so none of these measures would help much.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It gives you enough to get the commander out of the chair and the next person who spawns in can take over. There is usually plenty of res, I mean the comm has just recycled the entire base.
It's more about denying players the chance to experience the higher tier lifeforms. What made me write this topic is that on the night of the Gorilla release, 2 separate comms recycled as soon as the aliens got the 3rd hive.
There were a lot of people who had never seen an onos, from both teams, and 2 games in a row they were denied. That upset a lot of people on the server (not me I'd been playing for hours so had seen them and played as them). My point is 1 person should not be able to decide to end the game early for 32 people, just because they got pissed.
I wouldn't want to play on servers with minimum admin-presence, and I'm sure there will always be servers available where there are plenty of admins about. Right now of course that is not the case, but that has more to do with the ludicrous system-requirements of servers.
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Soul_Rider)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Soul_Rider)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It gives you enough to get the commander out of the chair and the next person who spawns in can take over. There is usually plenty of res, I mean the comm has just recycled the entire base.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ya, except the return on those buildings is what, 50%? Plus all the running upgrades have been cancelled. Try and come back from that, it's best to let the round end right there and then.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--sizeo:5--><span style="font-size:18pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->I<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--> wouldn't want to play on servers with minimum admin-presence, and I'm sure there will always be servers available where there are plenty of admins about.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The operative word here is "I". The game is not just built for you and like-minded people. Saying that all players should only play on well-administered servers is not a solution, it's a defeatist, possibly elitist, attitude. Many servers, <b>especially</b> in popular games, are setup-and-forget.
1. Will lead to confusion for new players (i.e. Server A allows comm IP-recycle surrenders, but Server B does not)
2. Will be an extra and unnecessary headache for server admins to deal with (i.e. is a comm IP-recycle surrendering a match that has lasted 1 hours with marines holding only their base griefing/deserving of a kick/ban?)
I also have to agree with Soul_Rider that any game strongly dependent on player-run server adminning is doomed to failure. With respect to the NS2 comm, some server adminning will likely be necessary to prevent griefing because you can't grief proof the comm without gimping it into irrelevancy. However, you can make it much harder to grief and to help distinguish valid tactics/gameplay from griefing, making the life of a server admin much easier, without seriously impacting the comm. I think this situation is a good example of that.
i never want to recycle, even if the odds are against you, its still possible to win.
i do however as the 2nd commander (first commander was inadequate) usually have to recycle and rebuild a small portion to the whole base for the majority of the scenerios because the first commander doesn't know how to organize and place the buildings efficiently to benefit the team. so i don't believe recycle should be removed but a solution should be added in to prevent the griefing marine commander.
sun tzu : To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is
provided by the enemy himself. (to elaborate, we lose because we let it happen, the moment you call it quits, you lost for sure, 100%)
General Douglas MacArthur : It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it
I don't think making comebacks easier is a good solution. The winning team should be rewarded for securing a huge advantage over the course of the game, they shouldn't lose at that point unless they do poorly enough over a sustained period of time to undo that lead. And having an arbitrary win condition that ends the game automatically is just unsatisfying, no different than surrender except that it's forced on unwilling teams.
If there's a problem it's that it takes aliens too long to end the game. Breaking the base at that point(3+ hives versus one base) shouldn't even be a challenge. There's no reason for marines to be able to hold out at that point, even if the aliens aren't that well organized - it's just a waste of everyone's time.
I am going to write a game, but there are problems with things that can be easily exploited to the negative enjoyment of game players. I know, I'll tell the players to make sure it doesn't happen.
Will you buy my game? I doubt it.
I have been a game server host provider, hosting clan servers from a data centre. I have worked with some of the top gaming clans in the country, and some beginning clans who didn't have a clue.
You're server is running 24hours a day. If you are a popular regular server, with a good base, then sure this griefing can be prevented. But for a large percentage of servers out there, in all games, admins are at a minimum. People put up a server for people to play on and leave it alone. So you are telling me that the game is ok to be ruined continuously for these people, who have paid just as much for the game as anyone else, and that they should try and find a regular server which has good admins, and is probably always full.
The fact of the matter is the majority of gamers will be forced to play on servers that are not well administrated. I should not be able to ruin the game for 31 potential other players, just because of a griefing system in the game.
As I said, 1 condition to allow is only recycle the last IP if there is another CC available and built for a reloc tactic. That way the comm has to grief by getting the other comm chair built first. If he goes to all that effort, let him grief :) Someone will eject him, jump in the other chair, and game can be saved.
It gives you enough to get the commander out of the chair and the next person who spawns in can take over. There is usually plenty of res, I mean the comm has just recycled the entire base.
It's more about denying players the chance to experience the higher tier lifeforms. What made me write this topic is that on the night of the Gorilla release, 2 separate comms recycled as soon as the aliens got the 3rd hive.
There were a lot of people who had never seen an onos, from both teams, and 2 games in a row they were denied. That upset a lot of people on the server (not me I'd been playing for hours so had seen them and played as them). My point is 1 person should not be able to decide to end the game early for 32 people, just because they got pissed.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
in game name is Bear
i remember playing on the australian server one time as a commander which had a ironic twist to admining. i can't remember what build this was but it was before 192 for sure (no jetpacks/onos yet). in the map summit (don't know what version of summit anymore, as it got changed in some builds) we were holding out in right side of the map which is data control and i resorted to building alot of sentries for defence. something between 3-6. the server didn't have a sentrie limit and it was definitely suffient in protecting our base. the admin of that popular aussy server ended the game saying we only have one RT and we were gonna lose anyways. even though our team's fighting spirit was mixed (some wanted to end, some wanted to continue on) i believed we still had a chance of winning and the alien fade guy just decided to use some admin commands to end the game and even claimed their team deserved it. whenever i play on the aussy server now because 420/HBZ/team 156/inversion is full and i see him, i leave lol. and i think he is a play tester too.
I've also seen game start where someone goes comm, drops down 5 ips or 5 armouries, and exits chair.
there are just too many ways for a comm to 'end the game' so to speak.
I have to agree with the ppl who basically state we need to handle this in a 'player control' type of way as opposed to trying to limit every griefing possibility out there.
I still think a surrender vote option is the best way to go. Then there is no argument on whether or not the recycling of IP was a 'greifing' attempt, or just majority ppl wanted to end the game.
just like in MOBAs, the surrender votes are shown for all to see, can't argue much if you voted one way and 50+% voted the other.
I've also seen game start where someone goes comm, drops down 5 ips or 5 armouries, and exits chair.
there are just too many ways for a comm to 'end the game' so to speak.
I have to agree with the ppl who basically state we need to handle this in a 'player control' type of way as opposed to trying to limit every griefing possibility out there.
I still think a surrender vote option is the best way to go. Then there is no argument on whether or not the recycling of IP was a 'greifing' attempt, or just majority ppl wanted to end the game.
just like in MOBAs, the surrender votes are shown for all to see, can't argue much if you voted one way and 50+% voted the other.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with this, if there was a surrender vote then there's no excuse for the commander to ever recycle the base. If he does then he's clearly forcing the end of the game on his team against their will and that provides easy grounds for him to be banned.
If there's a problem it's that it takes aliens too long to end the game. Breaking the base at that point(3+ hives versus one base) shouldn't even be a challenge. There's no reason for marines to be able to hold out at that point, even if the aliens aren't that well organized - it's just a waste of everyone's time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Making comebacks easier is always a good thing for any game. It means that the game is not decided until the end. Note that that doesn't necessarily mean that the lagging team should have the higher chance of winning, just that they have a good chance of undoing the leader's lead.
In fact, with the positive feedback loops that exist, a small early advantage gained develops into a large one as the game progresses, so saying that the team should be rewarded for 'securing a huge advantage' is all well and fine if not for the fact that it is usually lacking in the 'securing' bit.
I would personally prefer negative feedback loops to balance out the positive feedback loops or removing the positive feedback loops, so that comebacks become more <b>possible</b> (not necessarily more likely however), and so that it becomes the leader's game to lose: that is, not <b>consistently</b> playing <i>better</i> than the other team will undo your lead - and not seeking to end the game when you have a sufficient lead will only be detrimental.
I never once mentioned arbitrary win conditions (to be fair though, any win condition is arbitrary, but I know you meant it in a different manner), only that the win condition(s) in the game's rules need to better reflect the win condition(s) in reality.
I also like the "last stand situation" that comes out of it.
"Okay guys, we lost this, I'm recycling, buy some weapons and lets have a last man standing."
I wouldn't like to see that change.
Griefers/bad comms will be ejected next time they log in anyway.
An elitist-attitude no less, you're full of crap aren't you. The lack of dedicated-servers\proper admin-tools has been an ongoing grievance for many of the recent AAA-titles, and where NS2 has the ability to deviate, you instead want it to conform and dumb down gameplay in order to ensure that. Setup-and-forget has blandness written all over it. Like I said, if your game requires no administration of any kind, again I won't say it isn't fun (TF2 comes pretty close to such a concept), but it is not possible within the NS-universe without seriously screwing around with what made the game fun. Can't believe you would call the desire for a proper pub-community with regulars and admins an elitist attitude.
This particular problem doesn't even require that much effort from the side of the server-operator, just set-up a global ban-list servers can hook up to, and it'll only take a single admin-action to prevent A LOT of grief.
Thinking NS2 should compete against many AAA-titles is delusional, it won't be able to, instead it has to draw the audience left behind by those games (again, people who prefer proper communities around their servers). Let me ask you this, back in NS1, if you had the choice between Random Server #23, or a server filled with regulars and competent fair admins that keep ###### like racism\sexism and assorted other crap out of their server, which one would you honestly choose? You know you're probably in for a ###### game if nobody on the server gives a flying hoot about what you do or say.
So how about a reputation counter.
Every successful eject vote will permanently lower the players reputation. (Important: With an message who states this fact, because of deterrent)
Everyone who uses an occupied com station, with a player in it who has a lower reputation than the player using the com station, ejects this player and gets com himself.