Marine base recycling...
Savant
Join Date: 2002-11-30 Member: 10289Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Join Date: 2002-11-30 Member: 10289Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
<div class="IPBDescription">Do we really need it?</div>People used to justify recycling the marine base as a means to concede. Now we have a concede vote in the interface, so I'd really like to see something done to prevent trolls and others from recycling marine bases en masse and causing the game to end. There is no justification for it at all.
Let's be clear here, I am NOT suggesting marines lose the ability to recycle. What I am saying is that there should be sensible limits. For example...
Is there ever a situation when if a marine team has two IPs, that you would want to recycle both of those IPs? Of course not. Disable recycling of IPs unless other IPs are built. For 6 player teams and lower, make it a 1 IP minimum. Anything above that is a 2 IP minimum. Same for armory. No reason to recycle an armory if you have no other armories on the map. So disable the ability to recycle an armory if it is the last one. If there are more than one, protect the advanced armory. Observatory, same thing. Should never need to recycle your last observatory. The rest? For sake of people doing weird tactics, we can let it go. If a troll decides to recycle a proto lab, he can be ejected before he does any significant damage. Same for phase gates and robotics labs etc.
Another possible option is to also limit how many structures can be recycled in a given period of time, but remove the limitation if a base is under attack. (so anything covered by the same power node could be recycled if one building was under attack.)
In any case, I'd like to see the game end by 'natural' means, or by concede. If one person - who happens to be in the comm chair - thinks the game is over, but the rest of the people on the team disagree, then they are free to F4 and find a new server. If a troll is in the comm chair, then the game shouldn't allow him to troll his team via recycling.
Let's be clear here, I am NOT suggesting marines lose the ability to recycle. What I am saying is that there should be sensible limits. For example...
Is there ever a situation when if a marine team has two IPs, that you would want to recycle both of those IPs? Of course not. Disable recycling of IPs unless other IPs are built. For 6 player teams and lower, make it a 1 IP minimum. Anything above that is a 2 IP minimum. Same for armory. No reason to recycle an armory if you have no other armories on the map. So disable the ability to recycle an armory if it is the last one. If there are more than one, protect the advanced armory. Observatory, same thing. Should never need to recycle your last observatory. The rest? For sake of people doing weird tactics, we can let it go. If a troll decides to recycle a proto lab, he can be ejected before he does any significant damage. Same for phase gates and robotics labs etc.
Another possible option is to also limit how many structures can be recycled in a given period of time, but remove the limitation if a base is under attack. (so anything covered by the same power node could be recycled if one building was under attack.)
In any case, I'd like to see the game end by 'natural' means, or by concede. If one person - who happens to be in the comm chair - thinks the game is over, but the rest of the people on the team disagree, then they are free to F4 and find a new server. If a troll is in the comm chair, then the game shouldn't allow him to troll his team via recycling.
Comments
i vote we remove it.
Whole base recycles are entirely sensible sometimes, not often, but sometimes. I don't really think trying to describe in code what constitutes a 'good time' to do it would work. What counts as 'under attack'? Does the same level of 'under attack' mean the same recycle mechanic is appropriate in all circumstances? What if you have a defence going, what if you have no defence? What's to stop someone recycling when there are two skulks in the base and the commander jumps out to help kill them? That is presumably one of the more likely scenarios it happens in anyway one would think.
Trying to mechanically counter griefing is futile, people will simply find another way to do it. What you need is a server with an admin on it, and to accept that a portion of all games will fail due to bad players.
BUT I don't think it should be the right of anyone alone to decide that. Vote concede is the best democratic option, F4ing is a good one (in turtle end game) because your team isn't affected (THAT MUCH, if enemy players aren't too op to die) by your own choice to end the game, recycling is kind of a "1 person/minority wants to concede"-option.
What really bugs me is when somebody commanded the whole game, marines are losing, com steps out the chair to defend the base, some other player hops into the chair, recycles everything, game is over... that's not right. NS2 is no "my team suxx, I'm the best = no part of that, I'm in rage, I'mma go to recycle when I got the chance"-game. When there are people in your team that still want to play, don't recycle! Go F4, change servers (your "noobish" teammates are bad for your health), idle ingame and drink an anti-stress tea, but don't end a team game with a solo decision.
(some games are voted conceded in mid game, that's also no fun for the winning enemy team)
Personally i wish the alien commander could recycle hives to end the games where they are locked into a single hive while some lame marines just fool around in their exos racking up kills instead of ending the game
i vote we remove it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
................
Let's be clear here, I am NOT suggesting marines lose the ability to recycle. What I am saying is that there should be sensible limits. For example...
Is there ever a situation when if a marine team has two IPs, that you would want to recycle both of those IPs? Of course not. Disable recycling of IPs unless other IPs are built. For 6 player teams and lower, make it a 1 IP minimum. Anything above that is a 2 IP minimum. Same for armory. No reason to recycle an armory if you have no other armories on the map. So disable the ability to recycle an armory if it is the last one. If there are more than one, protect the advanced armory. Observatory, same thing. Should never need to recycle your last observatory. The rest? For sake of people doing weird tactics, we can let it go. If a troll decides to recycle a proto lab, he can be ejected before he does any significant damage. Same for phase gates and robotics labs etc.
Another possible option is to also limit how many structures can be recycled in a given period of time, but remove the limitation if a base is under attack. (so anything covered by the same power node could be recycled if one building was under attack.)
In any case, I'd like to see the game end by 'natural' means, or by concede. If one person - who happens to be in the comm chair - thinks the game is over, but the rest of the people on the team disagree, then they are free to F4 and find a new server. If a troll is in the comm chair, then the game shouldn't allow him to troll his team via recycling.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Once again I agree with pretty much everything you say here. The Devs should hire you full time tbh.
Now we have concede as well as recycling and F4 I am seeing a lot less games finishing through, as you say, 'natural' means.
Played a game last night where the marine comm decided in his wisdom that because we only had 3 RTs and 1 chair in less than 4 minutes he would recycle. The rest of the team disagreed obviously. Seeing a few grievers jumping in comm and doing similar things.
This is another good reason why balancing the game using NS2Stats makes no sense as a lot of the marine defeats are due to the above.
Sal
Good Point. Probably have to add in a limit on recycling the last RT as well. Then add in the ability to recycle everything if there is no RT.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_ueY4REpCs" target="_blank">But this now starts to get silly...</a>
Not infrequently, that means deciding to concede for them.
A concede vote is all well and good but frankly, people don't always know what's good for them and many a time I've recycled, or someone else has recycled because the game is over and we don't see any point dragging it out. And everyone has been quite OK with that.
Not infrequently, that means deciding to concede for them.
A concede vote is all well and good but frankly, people don't always know what's good for them and many a time I've recycled, or someone else has recycled because the game is over and we don't see any point dragging it out. And everyone has been quite OK with that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you was voted commander or became commander by experience, skill or something else (in other words: real life army, business, etc) and if you knew your team, your team mates, their strengths and weaknesses I could agree with you.
On NS2 pubs you are mostly the fastest player to hop into the chair, and your team is mostly build by players whom you don't know and who often do what they want. You as a com can drop stuff for them to build and so on, but they don't accept you as their leader who they obey - most of the times. You can guide them through communication but - like I said - they never obey or do 100% what you want - or they even organize and plan attacks independently.
So, I cannot agree that you know what's good for them and what not. You think you know what's good for them but that's based on your own thoughts and emotions. "We lose anyways, so let's end this!" - that may be a point of view, but that's not the only point of view.
For instance, I played so many games in the past days which ended very early due to concede/recycle/F4 that I'd like to play one round to the end again - winning or losing.
Point is, I can tell when a game is going downhill, and when it's likely to end, and I don't see the point in dragging it out.
If people don't like that, they're free to eject me next time, otherwise they'll get over it, and everyone else will enjoy having an actual playable game and not a waste of time.
But that's the point, commanders are not democratically elected, and are in no way supposed to represent the beliefs of the team, they're supposed to make the game work, with or without the cooperation of their underlings. Sometimes the best way to make the game work is to end it and start again. With or without everyone else's consent or input.
Making that decision for every player in the match (not just your team) is just selfish.
Seriously the reason you have a commander is because the game does not function if you have to wait for players to reach consensus about things. If you had to vote on what tech to research, what buildings to place and where, and what strategy to use, the game would be a complete mess and waste of time.
Conceding is entirely inside that field of decision making. Why should anyone waste time putting it to a vote if you know full well that there is a great probability of you losing and that dragging it out is mostly going to involve a lot of dying for your team and pointless running around trying to force the end for the enemy team.
The game is over, you know it's over, if your team refuses or is unable to recognise that, that doesn't change the fact that it's over and you can do something about it.
It's like saying you should deliberately build three IPs as your first buildings or something just because your entire team are idiots and think that'd be a swell idea. You ignore them, you build them what they need to win and be able to play a proper game, because you're the commander, it is your <i>job</i> to know better than them.
That is one of the most terrifying thoughts I've heard suggested.
<!--quoteo(post=2067983:date=Jan 28 2013, 11:39 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jan 28 2013, 11:39 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=2067983"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's also the commander's job...
Seriously the reason you have a commander is because the game does not function if you have to wait for players to reach consensus about things. If you had to vote on what tech to research, what buildings to place and where, and what strategy to use, the game would be a complete mess and waste of time.
Conceding is entirely inside that field of decision making. Why should anyone waste time putting it to a vote if you know full well that there is a great probability of you losing and that dragging it out is mostly going to involve a lot of dying for your team and pointless running around trying to force the end for the enemy team.
The game is over, you know it's over, if your team refuses or is unable to recognise that, that doesn't change the fact that it's over and you can do something about it.
It's like saying you should deliberately build three IPs as your first buildings or something just because your entire team are idiots and think that'd be a swell idea. You ignore them, you build them what they need to win and be able to play a proper game, because you're the commander, it is your <i>job</i> to know better than them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wise words.
I can't help but wonder how many people who support base recycling are griefing in games too.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Seriously the reason you have a commander is because the game does not function if you have to wait for players to reach consensus about things.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Which is why we have a 'vote concede' option right? Oh wait...
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The game is over, you know it's over, if your team refuses or is unable to recognise that, that doesn't change the fact that it's over and you can do something about it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--><b>You are absolutely right. 100% unequivocally right. You *CAN* do something about it.</b>
You can press F4 and then disconnect from the server and leave the people to play what you consider a 'lost cause'. <b>THAT is what you can do about it. </b>
No one appointed the comm as server admin, not the least of which is the ALIEN team, since their game gets decided in this way too, and they sure as hell didn't give the opposing team that authority.
If vote concede wasn't in place, then I could see the need, although asking people to F4 usually worked just as well. However, now that we have a DEMOCRATIC system in place, people should respect it.
I mean just who the hell does someone think they are that they alone can arbitrarily decide to terminate a game 15 other people are playing? Can you imagine if in TF2 or CS if one person could just 'abort' the entire game because their eyes are so clouded with tears? Honestly, if a commander is QQing, get out of the chair. No one forced you in to it, and no one is forcing you to stay in it.
Let the people on the server decide their own fate, as is intended by the developers. (who have said this was not the purpose of recycle)
Only someone with an ego the size of a planet would have the audacity to assume that they know better than every other player on the server whether or not to end the game. If you don't like where the game is going, leave. Just F4 out and leave the 'chumps' to play their losing game. No one on the server needs the wisdom of someone whose first thought when they get behind is to quit the game.
It's like a kid playing checkers with his brother and when he sees he is losing he flings the board across the room like a baby. Honestly some people really need to grow up.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Played a game last night where the marine comm decided in his wisdom that because we only had 3 RTs and 1 chair in less than 4 minutes he would recycle. The rest of the team disagreed obviously.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->What slays me is that some people seem to think they are God's gift to gaming. The worst part about it is that it is so freaking selfish. I mean honestly, if you can't get enough people to vote concede, then doesn't that tell you that maybe people want to play? Let them play. Seriously... If a person doesn't agree they can find another server, since there are PLENTY.
If that was the point of being commander I would have to ask them permission before I spend any of the team's res on anything ever.
I really don't understand the arbitrary distinction between autocratic dictatorship you happen to agree with and autocratic dictatorship you disagree with.
You are entirely fine with the commander doing everything without any authority beyond 'I'm the one in the chair' as long as it's stuff you happen to agree with. When you disagree with it you complain <i>'but democracy!!!'</i>
Either you want a democratic system or you don't. If you want one command cannot function, if you don't, deal with the fact that the commander will not always make the decision you personally agree with.
It's like demanding the commander respect democracy because he won't give you a shotgun.
I really don't understand the arbitrary distinction between autocratic dictatorship you happen to agree with and autocratic dictatorship you disagree with.
You are entirely fine with the commander doing everything without any authority beyond 'I'm the one in the chair' as long as it's stuff you happen to agree with. When you disagree with it you complain <i>'but democracy!!!'</i>
Either you want a democratic system or you don't. If you want one command cannot function, if you don't, deal with the fact that the commander will not always make the decision you personally agree with.
It's like demanding the commander respect democracy when he won't give you a shotgun.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think there is a clear distinction between "shotguns or weapons 1" and "game continues or ends". Recycling because the commander has lost his patience is not a democratic decision; it is a tantrum.
I can't agree more. Selling is one of the worse offense in my book (and was often a ban offense in many NS1 servers).
Now that's conced is in play, there is no excuse to do that.
It is not difficult to see when the game will either end soon, or end up like that. In that instance it is perfectly rational and extremely sensible to recycle. If you cannot lead your team to victory, you can at least spare them the tedium of defeat.
As I keep saying, the point of the commander is to make the game work smoothly. Conceding is a part of that. The commander kind of is an admin in a lot of ways, or at least he's a lot like a GM in a tabletop game. He makes all the technical stuff in the background work. He orchestrates the function of the game, arranges it so that players get to fight each other and he makes the buildings appear when you want to build things and makes the support powers trigger when you need them. The ENTIRE POINT of the commander is to know what is best for you without you saying or possibly even thinking so. That's why the commander has things like beacon and the ability to give out guns/lifeforms and the ability to control expansion direction.
Having the ability to skip the mop up phase and prevent its slight tendency to turn into a server killing nightmare is a perfectly rational extension of that. That the more idiotic breed of player may decide to turn it into his own personal table flipper is not a flaw in the mechanic, any more than the commander mechanic in general is flawed due to players being able to command incredibly badly in general.
Bad players != bad mechanics.