Disadvantage of f4:
Can cause a game to end early due to increasingly imbalanced teams (in itself causes a snowball effect - 'why bother, it's 5 vs 8 now') - thus effectively a minority vote may only be required
Snowball effect due to number of votes being known
Uhhh, no? Unless the server has auto-balance disabled F4 doesn't do a damn thing to cause unbalanced teams, the overpopulated team will just spawn the same number of players as the team lacking players has.
So f4'ing does not contribute to an sides being uneven?
I want what you having!
F4 does unbalance teams...one has fewer players (which is normally how balanced teams are viewed).
Most servers have autobalance which draws a game out longer by trying to re-balance it (hint is in the name of "auto-balance").
You might want to educate yourself how auto-balance in this game works before you try to argue about it against others who do. The way auto-balance works in this game is when a threshold is reached, I believe default is when one team has 2 less players on it then the other, then the over-populated team will simply stop spawning players until both teams have the same number of players alive. As a player dies, then one of the guys waiting in queue will respawn, keeping the teams effectively balanced until more players join a team.
So no, auto-balance doesn't magically "re-balance it" it just makes it to where there's tons of players sitting there waiting to respawn and the game drags out just as it would, longer even, since there are less players active. So no, F4 does not work in ending games unless the ENTIRE team does it, this is an established, undebatable fact. That's one of the reasons they added concede into the game to achieve that purpose.
So in a 6 v 6 game (which everyone seems to love) if 1 person f4's your down 16% of the available numbers but this does not have any impact?
Even on a 24 player server its 8% fewer people on the ground.
Being on a team that has even 1 person raging and f4'ing does impact the team.
Concede needs work, but its head and shoulders above f4 and the auto-balance (which relied on players on other team dieing.)
I always felt auto-balance was simply a place-holder for a concede option to try to get over the issues that f4'ing brought about (where you would have multiple people raging).
I think concede is only half and should trigger some sort of end mini game (even if that mission is to try to hold a location for 2 min with 0 respawning (to protect targeting device for a big nuke)).
Marines could view it as somewhat of an honourable loss (if they could not repel the aliens they nuked em) and for aliens it could be time to launch a some globs (that will terraform where they land into a new hive and the alien infestation is not totally wiped out).
What? Most people enjoy 6 v 6!? At a quick glance on the server browser I saw 5 12 player servers, none populated (granted it's morning in the US). I still have no idea what point you're driving at, but I do love how you're trying to use percentages to avoid saying that with autobalance, at worse, you're down just 1 person in real terms, no matter how many people F4, lol.
Wrong your normally down at least 2 people..until someone on the winning side dies....this could take 30 seconds or 5 minutes.
! person down is still 8% on a 12 v 12 server...so it DOES impact balance as 1 side has fewer players (be it 1 or 3).
Not really, as I've not heard of any servers that have actually done it. And yes, actually, if most of the team did F4 it would end the game, but it never happened enough, obviously, as concede was still added to the game. I've played maybe 5 games where enough people actually F4'd to end a match prior to games. Most games went where you'd have 2-10 people eventually rage out and F4 or just leave the server a few at a time, to the point the game would still drag on to its natural conclusion.
Either way, no, you don't still have a point.
I don't understand how any of what you said invalidates my point at all. Just because you have little personal experience with a game ending because of f4ing doesn't mean it doesn't/didn't happen (obviously doesn't happen as often now that concede has been introduced).
Disadvantage of f4:
Can cause a game to end early due to increasingly imbalanced teams (in itself causes a snowball effect - 'why bother, it's 5 vs 8 now') - thus effectively a minority vote may only be required
Snowball effect due to number of votes being known
Uhhh, no? Unless the server has auto-balance disabled F4 doesn't do a damn thing to cause unbalanced teams, the overpopulated team will just spawn the same number of players as the team lacking players has.
So f4'ing does not contribute to an sides being uneven?
I want what you having!
F4 does unbalance teams...one has fewer players (which is normally how balanced teams are viewed).
Most servers have autobalance which draws a game out longer by trying to re-balance it (hint is in the name of "auto-balance").
You might want to educate yourself how auto-balance in this game works before you try to argue about it against others who do. The way auto-balance works in this game is when a threshold is reached, I believe default is when one team has 2 less players on it then the other, then the over-populated team will simply stop spawning players until both teams have the same number of players alive. As a player dies, then one of the guys waiting in queue will respawn, keeping the teams effectively balanced until more players join a team.
So no, auto-balance doesn't magically "re-balance it" it just makes it to where there's tons of players sitting there waiting to respawn and the game drags out just as it would, longer even, since there are less players active. So no, F4 does not work in ending games unless the ENTIRE team does it, this is an established, undebatable fact. That's one of the reasons they added concede into the game to achieve that purpose.
So in a 6 v 6 game (which everyone seems to love) if 1 person f4's your down 16% of the available numbers but this does not have any impact?
Even on a 24 player server its 8% fewer people on the ground.
Being on a team that has even 1 person raging and f4'ing does impact the team.
Concede needs work, but its head and shoulders above f4 and the auto-balance (which relied on players on other team dieing.)
I always felt auto-balance was simply a place-holder for a concede option to try to get over the issues that f4'ing brought about (where you would have multiple people raging).
I think concede is only half and should trigger some sort of end mini game (even if that mission is to try to hold a location for 2 min with 0 respawning (to protect targeting device for a big nuke)).
Marines could view it as somewhat of an honourable loss (if they could not repel the aliens they nuked em) and for aliens it could be time to launch a some globs (that will terraform where they land into a new hive and the alien infestation is not totally wiped out).
What? Most people enjoy 6 v 6!? At a quick glance on the server browser I saw 5 12 player servers, none populated (granted it's morning in the US). I still have no idea what point you're driving at, but I do love how you're trying to use percentages to avoid saying that with autobalance, at worse, you're down just 1 person in real terms, no matter how many people F4, lol.
Wrong your normally down at least 2 people..until someone on the winning side dies....this could take 30 seconds or 5 minutes.
! person down is still 8% on a 12 v 12 server...so it DOES impact balance as 1 side has fewer players (be it 1 or 3).
You're absolutely grasping at straws and nothing more, as is anyone arguing against concede in this thread.
Again, it's a feature that's 100% player controlled. If a concede vote goes through it basically means more people disagree with the idea that it's not a good feature. Yes, it can suck when people don't see things as you do, but that's life. As to needing tweaking, I'm really not sure why "concede" needs to be changed to "we give up, but in a few minutes" in order for people to get some sense of accomplishment as opposed to just starting another round right away that might go better for all parties.
Not really, as I've not heard of any servers that have actually done it. And yes, actually, if most of the team did F4 it would end the game, but it never happened enough, obviously, as concede was still added to the game. I've played maybe 5 games where enough people actually F4'd to end a match prior to games. Most games went where you'd have 2-10 people eventually rage out and F4 or just leave the server a few at a time, to the point the game would still drag on to its natural conclusion.
Either way, no, you don't still have a point.
I don't understand how any of what you said invalidates my point at all. Just because you have little personal experience with a game ending because of f4ing doesn't mean it doesn't/didn't happen (obviously doesn't happen as often now that concede has been introduced).
Either way, yes, I still have a point.
Your point, as I understood it, was that F4 filled the same role as concede but with fewer disadvantages. What I'm telling you, is that if that were true, the feature wouldn't have been added in the first place. This is backed up with my personal experience, which consists of running a 24 player server that's run full 24/7 since a few weeks after release, which I don't think is that inconsiderable. You can cling to this pipe dream that F4 was just as good at ending games as concede, but if that were the case there would have been no need for it in the first place. Also, if more players saw it your way, they wouldn't be using it either.
"If a concede vote goes through it basically means more people disagree with the idea that it's not a good feature."
-> You need 6 votes to concede on a 24 player server, right? That means only 25% of all players can force their will on the rest. If it would be such a good feature and everyone but a small amount of players would love it to the ground, then make it a democratic decision where at least 51% of all players have to vote for it to end a vote. If you are so sure that almost everyone likes it you could even go with 60 or 90%, but I bet this will never happen, because then rounds would be played till the end. Why? Because you will never gather 60% or even 51% of all votes if the round is not 500% one-sided.
Think about it, 25% decide about a concede vote. And 75% of all players are not even asked if they like it or not. There is no way to stop it for the other side. This is not a good base for a decision or argumentations.
So explain to me how you can get a majority of an entire server to pass a concede vote when the vote is specific to one side?
And as far as this underwhelming minority deciding the fate of so many people (I'm not going to bother debating in percentages since everyone who's done it so far to counter me in this thread has used it in the most utterly abysmal attempts at making things look worse then they actually are), so far in this thread I've counted 6 people, you included, who just don't like concede period. Most of the discussion has been people like me saying arguing against it is stupid or people thinking it needs tweaked in terms of how it ends games. So, if this were such a shitty feature, I'm sure there would be more then 6 people at this point raising hell on the forums about it.
Since there's not, I'm just going to assume anyone who doesn't like it is just coming here to bitch and whine.
it would be nice if concede wasn't instant... i.e. one team concede's but their is still 3-5mins prior to the team loosing so if its close to conclusion the winning team still gets to finish off.
So I just don't like it? And people try to make it look worse than it actually is? Have you even read half of what people are writing here or are you just defending your one-sided view in a very aggressive way? I argue wrong and in an abysal way? I just wanted to enlighten you a bit on how far fetched your arguments are. You are not even trying to invalidate my objection. And so far the people who defend conceding were the most insulting and whiny ones in this thread.
The problem is you don't really know how many people like it or not. You can claim to be the majority or not, that won't change a thing. And this thread is on the hot spot for days now. So it seems to be more interesting than "fades are op" etc.
How to pass a concede vote? Man I don't want to do that. I say give the rest of the server population the chance to vote against it or just not accept it and you will have less concedes. Less games ended too early and too fast. Right now the minority of players can force a concede. This is a bad mechanic. If you like it or not, there is the possibility that such a change could make the situation better: If the majority accepts, fine, concede. If the majority wants a normal ending, fine, accept it, you can't always win. No more conceding at the slightest sign of failure. No more people who think that their vote doesn't count. If you really believe that it is a good and accepted feature like it is now, then you can't argue against such a vote system, can you? Because since "the overwhelming majority" will vote for a concede, it can't harm your precious feature.
Disadvantage of f4:
Can cause a game to end early due to increasingly imbalanced teams (in itself causes a snowball effect - 'why bother, it's 5 vs 8 now') - thus effectively a minority vote may only be required
Snowball effect due to number of votes being known
Uhhh, no? Unless the server has auto-balance disabled F4 doesn't do a damn thing to cause unbalanced teams, the overpopulated team will just spawn the same number of players as the team lacking players has.
So f4'ing does not contribute to an sides being uneven?
I want what you having!
F4 does unbalance teams...one has fewer players (which is normally how balanced teams are viewed).
Most servers have autobalance which draws a game out longer by trying to re-balance it (hint is in the name of "auto-balance").
You might want to educate yourself how auto-balance in this game works before you try to argue about it against others who do. The way auto-balance works in this game is when a threshold is reached, I believe default is when one team has 2 less players on it then the other, then the over-populated team will simply stop spawning players until both teams have the same number of players alive. As a player dies, then one of the guys waiting in queue will respawn, keeping the teams effectively balanced until more players join a team.
So no, auto-balance doesn't magically "re-balance it" it just makes it to where there's tons of players sitting there waiting to respawn and the game drags out just as it would, longer even, since there are less players active. So no, F4 does not work in ending games unless the ENTIRE team does it, this is an established, undebatable fact. That's one of the reasons they added concede into the game to achieve that purpose.
So in a 6 v 6 game (which everyone seems to love) if 1 person f4's your down 16% of the available numbers but this does not have any impact?
Even on a 24 player server its 8% fewer people on the ground.
Being on a team that has even 1 person raging and f4'ing does impact the team.
Concede needs work, but its head and shoulders above f4 and the auto-balance (which relied on players on other team dieing.)
I always felt auto-balance was simply a place-holder for a concede option to try to get over the issues that f4'ing brought about (where you would have multiple people raging).
I think concede is only half and should trigger some sort of end mini game (even if that mission is to try to hold a location for 2 min with 0 respawning (to protect targeting device for a big nuke)).
Marines could view it as somewhat of an honourable loss (if they could not repel the aliens they nuked em) and for aliens it could be time to launch a some globs (that will terraform where they land into a new hive and the alien infestation is not totally wiped out).
What? Most people enjoy 6 v 6!? At a quick glance on the server browser I saw 5 12 player servers, none populated (granted it's morning in the US). I still have no idea what point you're driving at, but I do love how you're trying to use percentages to avoid saying that with autobalance, at worse, you're down just 1 person in real terms, no matter how many people F4, lol.
Wrong your normally down at least 2 people..until someone on the winning side dies....this could take 30 seconds or 5 minutes.
! person down is still 8% on a 12 v 12 server...so it DOES impact balance as 1 side has fewer players (be it 1 or 3).
You're absolutely grasping at straws and nothing more, as is anyone arguing against concede in this thread.
Again, it's a feature that's 100% player controlled. If a concede vote goes through it basically means more people disagree with the idea that it's not a good feature. Yes, it can suck when people don't see things as you do, but that's life. As to needing tweaking, I'm really not sure why "concede" needs to be changed to "we give up, but in a few minutes" in order for people to get some sense of accomplishment as opposed to just starting another round right away that might go better for all parties.
Not grasping at straws...indicating facts that your overlooking.
Autobalance does not kick in if your 1 player down...only 2 or more.
f4'ing hurts the team, if your down 1 player of 4 you are down players and as such will be at a massive disadvantage.
Concede vote never takes someone out of the game...they are still on the field.
The fact that concede comes instantly with no warning to the other side makes it feel like the game ends too abruptly.
I have been in many games where I was surprised that the other team conceded.
No one wants to draw games out meaninglessly (other than the joy of the turtle) and this finds a way to do just that.
Your conceding that you have lost...but want to try to play to avoid conceding a "bonus point".
Your belief that anyone who thinks concede is a whining little suck shows how little you appreciate other peoples opinions.
Where it not for people asking that we change from simply using f4 we would not have seen autobalance be built in...nor would we have had concede put in place.
It was through people putting up suggestions to improve how the end game mechanic works that has led us to the situation we have now.
Concede is better than the old f4 system no doubt...but to say you cant improve on it is ignorant.
There are multiple suggestions all extremely valid and would address some major issue people have.
Ideas like it triggering a seperate end game scenario or simply putting up a message letting both sides know once a vote has been started and what % of each team has supported it.
"If a concede vote goes through it basically means more people disagree with the idea that it's not a good feature."
-> You need 6 votes to concede on a 24 player server, right? That means only 25% of all players can force their will on the rest. If it would be such a good feature and everyone but a small amount of players would love it to the ground, then make it a democratic decision where at least 51% of all players have to vote for it to end a vote. If you are so sure that almost everyone likes it you could even go with 60 or 90%, but I bet this will never happen, because then rounds would be played till the end. Why? Because you will never gather 60% or even 51% of all votes if the round is not 500% one-sided.
Think about it, 25% decide about a concede vote. And 75% of all players are not even asked if they like it or not. There is no way to stop it for the other side. This is not a good base for a decision or argumentations.
Sorry but 50% of a side should be able to end the game..this stops a winning team refusing to vote and the game being a spawn camp-athon with people leaving the server raging.
But people are also leaving when the game ends three times in a row with an unexpected concede vote. 50% of a side makes it far too easy to concede. We can see a similar problem with the comm eject votes. If the percentage is too low, it will be abused. I am also often surprised when those votes start. Whatever it is, I just hope the devs will change something or give us the option to disable those votes on servers which admins don't want to use it.
But people are also leaving when the game ends three times in a row with an unexpected concede vote. 50% of a side makes it far too easy to concede. We can see a similar problem with the comm eject votes. If the percentage is too low, it will be abused. I am also often surprised when those votes start. Whatever it is, I just hope the devs will change something or give us the option to disable those votes on servers which admins don't want to use it.
I must have missed the part where conceding a lost match needed to be hard.
Also, good luck finding admins who would actually disable it. Unless one of the 6 people on this thread whining about it happens to be an admin you're probably shit out of luck, sorry.
Disadvantage of f4:
Can cause a game to end early due to increasingly imbalanced teams (in itself causes a snowball effect - 'why bother, it's 5 vs 8 now') - thus effectively a minority vote may only be required
Snowball effect due to number of votes being known
Uhhh, no? Unless the server has auto-balance disabled F4 doesn't do a damn thing to cause unbalanced teams, the overpopulated team will just spawn the same number of players as the team lacking players has.
So f4'ing does not contribute to an sides being uneven?
I want what you having!
F4 does unbalance teams...one has fewer players (which is normally how balanced teams are viewed).
Most servers have autobalance which draws a game out longer by trying to re-balance it (hint is in the name of "auto-balance").
You might want to educate yourself how auto-balance in this game works before you try to argue about it against others who do. The way auto-balance works in this game is when a threshold is reached, I believe default is when one team has 2 less players on it then the other, then the over-populated team will simply stop spawning players until both teams have the same number of players alive. As a player dies, then one of the guys waiting in queue will respawn, keeping the teams effectively balanced until more players join a team.
So no, auto-balance doesn't magically "re-balance it" it just makes it to where there's tons of players sitting there waiting to respawn and the game drags out just as it would, longer even, since there are less players active. So no, F4 does not work in ending games unless the ENTIRE team does it, this is an established, undebatable fact. That's one of the reasons they added concede into the game to achieve that purpose.
So in a 6 v 6 game (which everyone seems to love) if 1 person f4's your down 16% of the available numbers but this does not have any impact?
Even on a 24 player server its 8% fewer people on the ground.
Being on a team that has even 1 person raging and f4'ing does impact the team.
Concede needs work, but its head and shoulders above f4 and the auto-balance (which relied on players on other team dieing.)
I always felt auto-balance was simply a place-holder for a concede option to try to get over the issues that f4'ing brought about (where you would have multiple people raging).
I think concede is only half and should trigger some sort of end mini game (even if that mission is to try to hold a location for 2 min with 0 respawning (to protect targeting device for a big nuke)).
Marines could view it as somewhat of an honourable loss (if they could not repel the aliens they nuked em) and for aliens it could be time to launch a some globs (that will terraform where they land into a new hive and the alien infestation is not totally wiped out).
What? Most people enjoy 6 v 6!? At a quick glance on the server browser I saw 5 12 player servers, none populated (granted it's morning in the US). I still have no idea what point you're driving at, but I do love how you're trying to use percentages to avoid saying that with autobalance, at worse, you're down just 1 person in real terms, no matter how many people F4, lol.
Wrong your normally down at least 2 people..until someone on the winning side dies....this could take 30 seconds or 5 minutes.
! person down is still 8% on a 12 v 12 server...so it DOES impact balance as 1 side has fewer players (be it 1 or 3).
You're absolutely grasping at straws and nothing more, as is anyone arguing against concede in this thread.
Again, it's a feature that's 100% player controlled. If a concede vote goes through it basically means more people disagree with the idea that it's not a good feature. Yes, it can suck when people don't see things as you do, but that's life. As to needing tweaking, I'm really not sure why "concede" needs to be changed to "we give up, but in a few minutes" in order for people to get some sense of accomplishment as opposed to just starting another round right away that might go better for all parties.
Not grasping at straws...indicating facts that your overlooking.
Autobalance does not kick in if your 1 player down...only 2 or more.
f4'ing hurts the team, if your down 1 player of 4 you are down players and as such will be at a massive disadvantage.
Concede vote never takes someone out of the game...they are still on the field.
The fact that concede comes instantly with no warning to the other side makes it feel like the game ends too abruptly.
I have been in many games where I was surprised that the other team conceded.
No one wants to draw games out meaninglessly (other than the joy of the turtle) and this finds a way to do just that.
Your conceding that you have lost...but want to try to play to avoid conceding a "bonus point".
Your belief that anyone who thinks concede is a whining little suck shows how little you appreciate other peoples opinions.
Where it not for people asking that we change from simply using f4 we would not have seen autobalance be built in...nor would we have had concede put in place.
It was through people putting up suggestions to improve how the end game mechanic works that has led us to the situation we have now.
Concede is better than the old f4 system no doubt...but to say you cant improve on it is ignorant.
There are multiple suggestions all extremely valid and would address some major issue people have.
Ideas like it triggering a seperate end game scenario or simply putting up a message letting both sides know once a vote has been started and what % of each team has supported it.
"If a concede vote goes through it basically means more people disagree with the idea that it's not a good feature."
-> You need 6 votes to concede on a 24 player server, right? That means only 25% of all players can force their will on the rest. If it would be such a good feature and everyone but a small amount of players would love it to the ground, then make it a democratic decision where at least 51% of all players have to vote for it to end a vote. If you are so sure that almost everyone likes it you could even go with 60 or 90%, but I bet this will never happen, because then rounds would be played till the end. Why? Because you will never gather 60% or even 51% of all votes if the round is not 500% one-sided.
Think about it, 25% decide about a concede vote. And 75% of all players are not even asked if they like it or not. There is no way to stop it for the other side. This is not a good base for a decision or argumentations.
Sorry but 50% of a side should be able to end the game..this stops a winning team refusing to vote and the game being a spawn camp-athon with people leaving the server raging.
Being one player down on a 24 player server means next to nothing honestly. I don't know how badly it impacts smaller servers and frankly I don't care because I don't play them. And after being one player down and auto-balance kicks in, you're still pretty much dead even. The argument about "well only until someone dies", well sorry, if nobody on the marine team is dying, then the game is pretty much over anyway, that's just ludicrous.
It's not a fact that I'm overlooking, it's an opinion of yours that I'm overlooking. And yes, I find it hard to lend credence to opinions that buck against the pretty outspoken, overwhelming majority that pleaded for the concede option, and rightfully got it.
Remove concede, keep F4 (because it is a homage to the original NS1). Also remove invincibility after the game is won. As an Alien it makes me angry we cannot kill the Marine commander after we destroy the final command chair.
Disadvantage of f4:
Can cause a game to end early due to increasingly imbalanced teams (in itself causes a snowball effect - 'why bother, it's 5 vs 8 now') - thus effectively a minority vote may only be required
Snowball effect due to number of votes being known
Uhhh, no? Unless the server has auto-balance disabled F4 doesn't do a damn thing to cause unbalanced teams, the overpopulated team will just spawn the same number of players as the team lacking players has.
So f4'ing does not contribute to an sides being uneven?
I want what you having!
F4 does unbalance teams...one has fewer players (which is normally how balanced teams are viewed).
Most servers have autobalance which draws a game out longer by trying to re-balance it (hint is in the name of "auto-balance").
You might want to educate yourself how auto-balance in this game works before you try to argue about it against others who do. The way auto-balance works in this game is when a threshold is reached, I believe default is when one team has 2 less players on it then the other, then the over-populated team will simply stop spawning players until both teams have the same number of players alive. As a player dies, then one of the guys waiting in queue will respawn, keeping the teams effectively balanced until more players join a team.
So no, auto-balance doesn't magically "re-balance it" it just makes it to where there's tons of players sitting there waiting to respawn and the game drags out just as it would, longer even, since there are less players active. So no, F4 does not work in ending games unless the ENTIRE team does it, this is an established, undebatable fact. That's one of the reasons they added concede into the game to achieve that purpose.
So in a 6 v 6 game (which everyone seems to love) if 1 person f4's your down 16% of the available numbers but this does not have any impact?
Even on a 24 player server its 8% fewer people on the ground.
Being on a team that has even 1 person raging and f4'ing does impact the team.
Concede needs work, but its head and shoulders above f4 and the auto-balance (which relied on players on other team dieing.)
I always felt auto-balance was simply a place-holder for a concede option to try to get over the issues that f4'ing brought about (where you would have multiple people raging).
I think concede is only half and should trigger some sort of end mini game (even if that mission is to try to hold a location for 2 min with 0 respawning (to protect targeting device for a big nuke)).
Marines could view it as somewhat of an honourable loss (if they could not repel the aliens they nuked em) and for aliens it could be time to launch a some globs (that will terraform where they land into a new hive and the alien infestation is not totally wiped out).
What? Most people enjoy 6 v 6!? At a quick glance on the server browser I saw 5 12 player servers, none populated (granted it's morning in the US). I still have no idea what point you're driving at, but I do love how you're trying to use percentages to avoid saying that with autobalance, at worse, you're down just 1 person in real terms, no matter how many people F4, lol.
Wrong your normally down at least 2 people..until someone on the winning side dies....this could take 30 seconds or 5 minutes.
! person down is still 8% on a 12 v 12 server...so it DOES impact balance as 1 side has fewer players (be it 1 or 3).
You're absolutely grasping at straws and nothing more, as is anyone arguing against concede in this thread.
Again, it's a feature that's 100% player controlled. If a concede vote goes through it basically means more people disagree with the idea that it's not a good feature. Yes, it can suck when people don't see things as you do, but that's life. As to needing tweaking, I'm really not sure why "concede" needs to be changed to "we give up, but in a few minutes" in order for people to get some sense of accomplishment as opposed to just starting another round right away that might go better for all parties.
Not grasping at straws...indicating facts that your overlooking.
Autobalance does not kick in if your 1 player down...only 2 or more.
f4'ing hurts the team, if your down 1 player of 4 you are down players and as such will be at a massive disadvantage.
Concede vote never takes someone out of the game...they are still on the field.
The fact that concede comes instantly with no warning to the other side makes it feel like the game ends too abruptly.
I have been in many games where I was surprised that the other team conceded.
No one wants to draw games out meaninglessly (other than the joy of the turtle) and this finds a way to do just that.
Your conceding that you have lost...but want to try to play to avoid conceding a "bonus point".
Your belief that anyone who thinks concede is a whining little suck shows how little you appreciate other peoples opinions.
Where it not for people asking that we change from simply using f4 we would not have seen autobalance be built in...nor would we have had concede put in place.
It was through people putting up suggestions to improve how the end game mechanic works that has led us to the situation we have now.
Concede is better than the old f4 system no doubt...but to say you cant improve on it is ignorant.
There are multiple suggestions all extremely valid and would address some major issue people have.
Ideas like it triggering a seperate end game scenario or simply putting up a message letting both sides know once a vote has been started and what % of each team has supported it.
"If a concede vote goes through it basically means more people disagree with the idea that it's not a good feature."
-> You need 6 votes to concede on a 24 player server, right? That means only 25% of all players can force their will on the rest. If it would be such a good feature and everyone but a small amount of players would love it to the ground, then make it a democratic decision where at least 51% of all players have to vote for it to end a vote. If you are so sure that almost everyone likes it you could even go with 60 or 90%, but I bet this will never happen, because then rounds would be played till the end. Why? Because you will never gather 60% or even 51% of all votes if the round is not 500% one-sided.
Think about it, 25% decide about a concede vote. And 75% of all players are not even asked if they like it or not. There is no way to stop it for the other side. This is not a good base for a decision or argumentations.
Sorry but 50% of a side should be able to end the game..this stops a winning team refusing to vote and the game being a spawn camp-athon with people leaving the server raging.
Being one player down on a 24 player server means next to nothing honestly. I don't know how badly it impacts smaller servers and frankly I don't care because I don't play them. And after being one player down and auto-balance kicks in, you're still pretty much dead even. The argument about "well only until someone dies", well sorry, if nobody on the marine team is dying, then the game is pretty much over anyway, that's just ludicrous.
It's not a fact that I'm overlooking, it's an opinion of yours that I'm overlooking. And yes, I find it hard to lend credence to opinions that buck against the pretty outspoken, overwhelming majority that pleaded for the concede option, and rightfully got it.
Sorry but 1 team having 11 active players...the other only 10 does have an impact on 24 player servers (assuming equal skills), you may believe thats opinion all you want.
This is pretty black and white...11 is more than 10 so the side that has 11 has an advantage.
I suggest you stop and look at what people are suggesting as not all change is bad, in fact I believe hugh has mentioned a few times he would like to somehow work a nuke into the game (this could be a way for that to happen).
Concede has its faults...same way autobalance has its faults. You can try and deny these facts but your only fooling yourself.
We need to improve on how concede is as it currently does not feel right, having it trigger a short term minigame would be a good solution.
Your point, as I understood it, was that F4 filled the same role as concede but with fewer disadvantages. What I'm telling you, is that if that were true, the feature wouldn't have been added in the first place. This is backed up with my personal experience, which consists of running a 24 player server that's run full 24/7 since a few weeks after release, which I don't think is that inconsiderable. You can cling to this pipe dream that F4 was just as good at ending games as concede, but if that were the case there would have been no need for it in the first place. Also, if more players saw it your way, they wouldn't be using it either.
Well you didn't understand my point then. I merely tried to break the f4 vs concede debate down, listing advantages and disadvantages for both concede and f4, trying to be as impartial as possible. If anything, my personal viewpoint is that concede is a lot better than f4, as I've stated in many many threads where a concede system was called for (prior to UWE introducing it) that were filled with comments saying "but we already have f4" and "no. f4 is better".
My point about snowballing dwindling team size, if anything, is a point AGAINST f4. Which is why I listed it in the disadvantages section.
Disadvantage of f4:
Can cause a game to end early due to increasingly imbalanced teams (in itself causes a snowball effect - 'why bother, it's 5 vs 8 now') - thus effectively a minority vote may only be required
Snowball effect due to number of votes being known
Uhhh, no? Unless the server has auto-balance disabled F4 doesn't do a damn thing to cause unbalanced teams, the overpopulated team will just spawn the same number of players as the team lacking players has.
So f4'ing does not contribute to an sides being uneven?
I want what you having!
F4 does unbalance teams...one has fewer players (which is normally how balanced teams are viewed).
Most servers have autobalance which draws a game out longer by trying to re-balance it (hint is in the name of "auto-balance").
You might want to educate yourself how auto-balance in this game works before you try to argue about it against others who do. The way auto-balance works in this game is when a threshold is reached, I believe default is when one team has 2 less players on it then the other, then the over-populated team will simply stop spawning players until both teams have the same number of players alive. As a player dies, then one of the guys waiting in queue will respawn, keeping the teams effectively balanced until more players join a team.
So no, auto-balance doesn't magically "re-balance it" it just makes it to where there's tons of players sitting there waiting to respawn and the game drags out just as it would, longer even, since there are less players active. So no, F4 does not work in ending games unless the ENTIRE team does it, this is an established, undebatable fact. That's one of the reasons they added concede into the game to achieve that purpose.
So in a 6 v 6 game (which everyone seems to love) if 1 person f4's your down 16% of the available numbers but this does not have any impact?
Even on a 24 player server its 8% fewer people on the ground.
Being on a team that has even 1 person raging and f4'ing does impact the team.
Concede needs work, but its head and shoulders above f4 and the auto-balance (which relied on players on other team dieing.)
I always felt auto-balance was simply a place-holder for a concede option to try to get over the issues that f4'ing brought about (where you would have multiple people raging).
I think concede is only half and should trigger some sort of end mini game (even if that mission is to try to hold a location for 2 min with 0 respawning (to protect targeting device for a big nuke)).
Marines could view it as somewhat of an honourable loss (if they could not repel the aliens they nuked em) and for aliens it could be time to launch a some globs (that will terraform where they land into a new hive and the alien infestation is not totally wiped out).
What? Most people enjoy 6 v 6!? At a quick glance on the server browser I saw 5 12 player servers, none populated (granted it's morning in the US). I still have no idea what point you're driving at, but I do love how you're trying to use percentages to avoid saying that with autobalance, at worse, you're down just 1 person in real terms, no matter how many people F4, lol.
Wrong your normally down at least 2 people..until someone on the winning side dies....this could take 30 seconds or 5 minutes.
! person down is still 8% on a 12 v 12 server...so it DOES impact balance as 1 side has fewer players (be it 1 or 3).
You're absolutely grasping at straws and nothing more, as is anyone arguing against concede in this thread.
Again, it's a feature that's 100% player controlled. If a concede vote goes through it basically means more people disagree with the idea that it's not a good feature. Yes, it can suck when people don't see things as you do, but that's life. As to needing tweaking, I'm really not sure why "concede" needs to be changed to "we give up, but in a few minutes" in order for people to get some sense of accomplishment as opposed to just starting another round right away that might go better for all parties.
Not grasping at straws...indicating facts that your overlooking.
Autobalance does not kick in if your 1 player down...only 2 or more.
f4'ing hurts the team, if your down 1 player of 4 you are down players and as such will be at a massive disadvantage.
Concede vote never takes someone out of the game...they are still on the field.
The fact that concede comes instantly with no warning to the other side makes it feel like the game ends too abruptly.
I have been in many games where I was surprised that the other team conceded.
No one wants to draw games out meaninglessly (other than the joy of the turtle) and this finds a way to do just that.
Your conceding that you have lost...but want to try to play to avoid conceding a "bonus point".
Your belief that anyone who thinks concede is a whining little suck shows how little you appreciate other peoples opinions.
Where it not for people asking that we change from simply using f4 we would not have seen autobalance be built in...nor would we have had concede put in place.
It was through people putting up suggestions to improve how the end game mechanic works that has led us to the situation we have now.
Concede is better than the old f4 system no doubt...but to say you cant improve on it is ignorant.
There are multiple suggestions all extremely valid and would address some major issue people have.
Ideas like it triggering a seperate end game scenario or simply putting up a message letting both sides know once a vote has been started and what % of each team has supported it.
"If a concede vote goes through it basically means more people disagree with the idea that it's not a good feature."
-> You need 6 votes to concede on a 24 player server, right? That means only 25% of all players can force their will on the rest. If it would be such a good feature and everyone but a small amount of players would love it to the ground, then make it a democratic decision where at least 51% of all players have to vote for it to end a vote. If you are so sure that almost everyone likes it you could even go with 60 or 90%, but I bet this will never happen, because then rounds would be played till the end. Why? Because you will never gather 60% or even 51% of all votes if the round is not 500% one-sided.
Think about it, 25% decide about a concede vote. And 75% of all players are not even asked if they like it or not. There is no way to stop it for the other side. This is not a good base for a decision or argumentations.
Sorry but 50% of a side should be able to end the game..this stops a winning team refusing to vote and the game being a spawn camp-athon with people leaving the server raging.
Being one player down on a 24 player server means next to nothing honestly. I don't know how badly it impacts smaller servers and frankly I don't care because I don't play them. And after being one player down and auto-balance kicks in, you're still pretty much dead even. The argument about "well only until someone dies", well sorry, if nobody on the marine team is dying, then the game is pretty much over anyway, that's just ludicrous.
It's not a fact that I'm overlooking, it's an opinion of yours that I'm overlooking. And yes, I find it hard to lend credence to opinions that buck against the pretty outspoken, overwhelming majority that pleaded for the concede option, and rightfully got it.
Sorry but 1 team having 11 active players...the other only 10 does have an impact on 24 player servers (assuming equal skills), you may believe thats opinion all you want.
This is pretty black and white...11 is more than 10 so the side that has 11 has an advantage.
I suggest you stop and look at what people are suggesting as not all change is bad, in fact I believe hugh has mentioned a few times he would like to somehow work a nuke into the game (this could be a way for that to happen).
Concede has its faults...same way autobalance has its faults. You can try and deny these facts but your only fooling yourself.
We need to improve on how concede is as it currently does not feel right, having it trigger a short term minigame would be a good solution.
Not really, no. Again, you're telling me I'm debating "facts" when I'm in fact just debating your opinion. In MY opinion concede is perfectly fine as is and does not have these "faults" that you keep mentioning.
If the other team has worked for it's victory then you should at least give them the joy of enjoying their upgrades. You'd want the same. Fighting the "impossible" just makes you better at entry level (i.e. a better skulk/vanilla marine).
Actually, I wouldn't. I seek a difficult, but fair, challenge when playing NS2. Also, the "throw them into the deep end to teach them to swim" mentality generally leads more to frustration than learning. There is a reason why most educational programs are designed to start people off with the basics and work them up to the more complex and difficult.
Allow me to modify my position slightly:
In cases where the enemy team is making serious attempts to achieve victory by seeking the victory goal (destruction of hive/comm chair) then they earn the right to demolish you en route to it. A spirited defence spurs a sense of a team uniting against adversity, a defining characteristic of this game which many others lack.
Concede is great. Barring the occasional troll turtle, there is zero reason to keep playing a game that is lost. The 0.0001 percent chance that the other team could suffer 7 simultaneous strokes does not excuse wasting everyone`s time.
I came to these forums today ESPECIALLY to seek for people going with the same thoughts. Today was the day it really threw me off NS2 to the point of not wanting to play it any time soon with having it played 45 hours this week. Today, I was commanding the aliens, and just the first guy going Onos, the marines having two bases. The phasegate gets down in their second base and immediately it was a concede. WTF. What fun is playing a game either completely dominating as a marine, or just giving it up. I've had insane good games pre-concede buttons where the marines got insane comebacks, both being IN the marine team, and against. I do not care for a lose or a win, I care for an engaging round.
Btw I also must state that marines hardly win anything when going with complete strangers. If there is no talking at all, the aliens are guaranteed to win obviously, but that's quite the common case in pub servers. The marine team needs to be exceedingly good, and the alien team kinda rubbish before the marines can win. I'd say it is because the OPness of bile bombs. Sentry batteries are no good and exo's get torn down easely, while an Onos requires good teamwork and usually just Onos vs. Exo means a win for the Onos.
I like it but i feel there should be more conditions before it becomes an option. (ie: other team has 2:1 ratio of RTs, 3 hives to 1 command station, etc) Too many pubs just concede after losing a hive or lose a major position on the map - stuff you are able to come back from, but have to work it smart and effectively to do it.
However, it is a nice alternative to watching marines turtle for an extra 10-15 minutes postponing the inevitable.
In cases where the enemy team is making serious attempts to achieve victory by seeking the victory goal (destruction of hive/comm chair) then they earn the right to demolish you en route to it. A spirited defence spurs a sense of a team uniting against adversity, a defining characteristic of this game which many others lack.
Except that the victory occurred long before the victory goal was achieved. What you and other gamers sympathetic to this idea seem to desire is a better reward for winning than a "victory" banner. I'm ok with that, which is why I think having concede disable important game functions on the losing side (e.g. can't spawn, no res flow, etc) would be a better solution than having it cause an instant loss.
Disadvantage of f4:
Can cause a game to end early due to increasingly imbalanced teams (in itself causes a snowball effect - 'why bother, it's 5 vs 8 now') - thus effectively a minority vote may only be required
Snowball effect due to number of votes being known
Uhhh, no? Unless the server has auto-balance disabled F4 doesn't do a damn thing to cause unbalanced teams, the overpopulated team will just spawn the same number of players as the team lacking players has.
So f4'ing does not contribute to an sides being uneven?
I want what you having!
F4 does unbalance teams...one has fewer players (which is normally how balanced teams are viewed).
Most servers have autobalance which draws a game out longer by trying to re-balance it (hint is in the name of "auto-balance").
You might want to educate yourself how auto-balance in this game works before you try to argue about it against others who do. The way auto-balance works in this game is when a threshold is reached, I believe default is when one team has 2 less players on it then the other, then the over-populated team will simply stop spawning players until both teams have the same number of players alive. As a player dies, then one of the guys waiting in queue will respawn, keeping the teams effectively balanced until more players join a team.
So no, auto-balance doesn't magically "re-balance it" it just makes it to where there's tons of players sitting there waiting to respawn and the game drags out just as it would, longer even, since there are less players active. So no, F4 does not work in ending games unless the ENTIRE team does it, this is an established, undebatable fact. That's one of the reasons they added concede into the game to achieve that purpose.
So in a 6 v 6 game (which everyone seems to love) if 1 person f4's your down 16% of the available numbers but this does not have any impact?
Even on a 24 player server its 8% fewer people on the ground.
Being on a team that has even 1 person raging and f4'ing does impact the team.
Concede needs work, but its head and shoulders above f4 and the auto-balance (which relied on players on other team dieing.)
I always felt auto-balance was simply a place-holder for a concede option to try to get over the issues that f4'ing brought about (where you would have multiple people raging).
I think concede is only half and should trigger some sort of end mini game (even if that mission is to try to hold a location for 2 min with 0 respawning (to protect targeting device for a big nuke)).
Marines could view it as somewhat of an honourable loss (if they could not repel the aliens they nuked em) and for aliens it could be time to launch a some globs (that will terraform where they land into a new hive and the alien infestation is not totally wiped out).
What? Most people enjoy 6 v 6!? At a quick glance on the server browser I saw 5 12 player servers, none populated (granted it's morning in the US). I still have no idea what point you're driving at, but I do love how you're trying to use percentages to avoid saying that with autobalance, at worse, you're down just 1 person in real terms, no matter how many people F4, lol.
Wrong your normally down at least 2 people..until someone on the winning side dies....this could take 30 seconds or 5 minutes.
! person down is still 8% on a 12 v 12 server...so it DOES impact balance as 1 side has fewer players (be it 1 or 3).
You're absolutely grasping at straws and nothing more, as is anyone arguing against concede in this thread.
Again, it's a feature that's 100% player controlled. If a concede vote goes through it basically means more people disagree with the idea that it's not a good feature. Yes, it can suck when people don't see things as you do, but that's life. As to needing tweaking, I'm really not sure why "concede" needs to be changed to "we give up, but in a few minutes" in order for people to get some sense of accomplishment as opposed to just starting another round right away that might go better for all parties.
Not grasping at straws...indicating facts that your overlooking.
Autobalance does not kick in if your 1 player down...only 2 or more.
f4'ing hurts the team, if your down 1 player of 4 you are down players and as such will be at a massive disadvantage.
Concede vote never takes someone out of the game...they are still on the field.
The fact that concede comes instantly with no warning to the other side makes it feel like the game ends too abruptly.
I have been in many games where I was surprised that the other team conceded.
No one wants to draw games out meaninglessly (other than the joy of the turtle) and this finds a way to do just that.
Your conceding that you have lost...but want to try to play to avoid conceding a "bonus point".
Your belief that anyone who thinks concede is a whining little suck shows how little you appreciate other peoples opinions.
Where it not for people asking that we change from simply using f4 we would not have seen autobalance be built in...nor would we have had concede put in place.
It was through people putting up suggestions to improve how the end game mechanic works that has led us to the situation we have now.
Concede is better than the old f4 system no doubt...but to say you cant improve on it is ignorant.
There are multiple suggestions all extremely valid and would address some major issue people have.
Ideas like it triggering a seperate end game scenario or simply putting up a message letting both sides know once a vote has been started and what % of each team has supported it.
"If a concede vote goes through it basically means more people disagree with the idea that it's not a good feature."
-> You need 6 votes to concede on a 24 player server, right? That means only 25% of all players can force their will on the rest. If it would be such a good feature and everyone but a small amount of players would love it to the ground, then make it a democratic decision where at least 51% of all players have to vote for it to end a vote. If you are so sure that almost everyone likes it you could even go with 60 or 90%, but I bet this will never happen, because then rounds would be played till the end. Why? Because you will never gather 60% or even 51% of all votes if the round is not 500% one-sided.
Think about it, 25% decide about a concede vote. And 75% of all players are not even asked if they like it or not. There is no way to stop it for the other side. This is not a good base for a decision or argumentations.
Sorry but 50% of a side should be able to end the game..this stops a winning team refusing to vote and the game being a spawn camp-athon with people leaving the server raging.
Being one player down on a 24 player server means next to nothing honestly. I don't know how badly it impacts smaller servers and frankly I don't care because I don't play them. And after being one player down and auto-balance kicks in, you're still pretty much dead even. The argument about "well only until someone dies", well sorry, if nobody on the marine team is dying, then the game is pretty much over anyway, that's just ludicrous.
It's not a fact that I'm overlooking, it's an opinion of yours that I'm overlooking. And yes, I find it hard to lend credence to opinions that buck against the pretty outspoken, overwhelming majority that pleaded for the concede option, and rightfully got it.
Sorry but 1 team having 11 active players...the other only 10 does have an impact on 24 player servers (assuming equal skills), you may believe thats opinion all you want.
This is pretty black and white...11 is more than 10 so the side that has 11 has an advantage.
I suggest you stop and look at what people are suggesting as not all change is bad, in fact I believe hugh has mentioned a few times he would like to somehow work a nuke into the game (this could be a way for that to happen).
Concede has its faults...same way autobalance has its faults. You can try and deny these facts but your only fooling yourself.
We need to improve on how concede is as it currently does not feel right, having it trigger a short term minigame would be a good solution.
Not really, no. Again, you're telling me I'm debating "facts" when I'm in fact just debating your opinion. In MY opinion concede is perfectly fine as is and does not have these "faults" that you keep mentioning.
Sorry but being down 1 or more players does give the other side an advantage, thats not opinion its fact.
You claim the concede is fine as is ignores the large number of people who are wanting to tweak it so its not such a surprise when it happens.
I have been on alien teams and have had the team talking about concede...only minutes later the other team conceded and left us all scratching our heads in the RR.
There are many options and ways with which concede could be improved to better integrate and avoid a lot of the aspects that people are criticizing.
They really need to increase default vote percentage for concede.
3 hive aliens. Shade have goes down. All upgrades are safe. Team concedes??
Even better example: I am commanding marines, we have flight (main), cross and sub. They got atrium and data. We build PG at glass hallway and start pushing data. That's when I notice gorge bombing our main. Being a poor comm, I noticed it too late, started beacon but power went down before marines would teleport. I am alone at our main base (upgrades/AA/proto, no backups for that anywhere else) facing gorge and a lerk and WHAM - marines win. PG in front of their hive room was enough to force them to surrender. Despite the fact, that two guys from their team just actually won the game for them, they surrendered.
Another situation: game starts, I run to chasm and cut freshly planted harvester, they kill me, but I go back and cut it right as it was planted, then I run to turbine and kill another harv. 'Marines win'. Eh, that easy?
Concede is fine when you are down to 1 base+1rt vs whole map+all tech points, but dammit, when you still have access to jetpacks or bile bombs? I don't get it. God dammit, we've won a game after reslock once (even funnier that we had 41 res when our last harv was killed and comm dropped 2nd hive (after it was killed sometime ago) before he would notice this). Most of us went gorge with our last res and we attacked both of their tech points together. If aliens would get reslocked now, I bet it's insta concede.
Also, there should be a way to cancel your own vote, just in case you realize that not everyone on your team is a huge sucker like you and those people actually did some pretty impressive stuff after you thought the game is over (i.e. shade near 4th hive killed 'omg gg concede how could you let that happen noobz team').
Except that the victory occurred long before the victory goal was achieved. What you and other gamers sympathetic to this idea seem to desire is a better reward for winning than a "victory" banner. I'm ok with that, which is why I think having concede disable important game functions on the losing side (e.g. can't spawn, no res flow, etc) would be a better solution than having it cause an instant loss.
This is where i disagree. No one wants to be forced to hang around so they can be target practice.
What people need to remember is *why* people concede. In almost all cases it's because they feel they are in a game they can no longer win. (let's exclude trolls and such) So if something happens in the game that makes a team feel they can no longer win, then this is a psychological issue spurred by game mechanics.
In other words, as you aptly noted, "the victory occurred long before the victory goal was achieved". That's the bottom line here, and that is also the problem - not concede. Concede is a *symptom* of the problem. In NS2 there is very little forgiveness. All it takes is something like a power node going down in a base for you to lose that tech point and effectively lose the game. Or aliens lose a hive to a surprise marine rush. Either one often is a game ender.
If people want to eliminate the use of concede, then they need to give people on the (soon to be losing) team a reason to keep playing. That's why I floated an idea a while back that would allow a team (who is down to their last tech point and 2 or fewer res nodes) after 10+ minutes to trigger a 'game end' condition. In short, the team that is winning gets 10 minutes to 'finish off' the other team, or they lose the game. If you have a team beat back to a single tech point after 10 minutes, then this shouldn't be an issue. However, what this does is give people a reason to PLAY. Instead of wanting to concede because they know the game is a loss, let them fight to the last man to survive for that 10 minutes to try and pull off an upset. Give people a reason to play and they will play.
If they change concede to make it harder to concede then people will just revert to what they did before and hit F4. The bottom line is that you can't force people to play a losing game. If they aren't allowed to concede then they'll just leave, which often ends up emptying the server.
People need to look at the problem and not the symptom if they want to discourage the use of concede.
Except that the victory occurred long before the victory goal was achieved. What you and other gamers sympathetic to this idea seem to desire is a better reward for winning than a "victory" banner. I'm ok with that, which is why I think having concede disable important game functions on the losing side (e.g. can't spawn, no res flow, etc) would be a better solution than having it cause an instant loss.
This is where i disagree. No one wants to be forced to hang around so they can be target practice.
What people need to remember is *why* people concede. In almost all cases it's because they feel they are in a game they can no longer win. (let's exclude trolls and such) So if something happens in the game that makes a team feel they can no longer win, then this is a psychological issue spurred by game mechanics.
In other words, as you aptly noted, "the victory occurred long before the victory goal was achieved". That's the bottom line here, and that is also the problem - not concede. Concede is a *symptom* of the problem. In NS2 there is very little forgiveness. All it takes is something like a power node going down in a base for you to lose that tech point and effectively lose the game. Or aliens lose a hive to a surprise marine rush. Either one often is a game ender.
If people want to eliminate the use of concede, then they need to give people on the (soon to be losing) team a reason to keep playing. That's why I floated an idea a while back that would allow a team (who is down to their last tech point and 2 or fewer res nodes) after 10+ minutes to trigger a 'game end' condition. In short, the team that is winning gets 10 minutes to 'finish off' the other team, or they lose the game. If you have a team beat back to a single tech point after 10 minutes, then this shouldn't be an issue. However, what this does is give people a reason to PLAY. Instead of wanting to concede because they know the game is a loss, let them fight to the last man to survive for that 10 minutes to try and pull off an upset. Give people a reason to play and they will play.
If they change concede to make it harder to concede then people will just revert to what they did before and hit F4. The bottom line is that you can't force people to play a losing game. If they aren't allowed to concede then they'll just leave, which often ends up emptying the server.
People need to look at the problem and not the symptom if they want to discourage the use of concede.
I agree that concede should trigger something perhaps other than the game instantly ending.
The evacuation model is probably the best concept that could work for both sides.
Marines have to hold on so a nuke can be dropped on their locator beacon whiping out that alien infestation..and themselves.
Aliens would have to wait for the hive to implode and send terraforming seeds off into space...to land on other TSA planets, ships etc.
Something along these lines would fit well in both gameplay and lore, you lose and decide to concede...you have to hold out for ~5 minutes with 0 upgrades for the losing side (its not meant to be easy).
Disadvantage of f4:
Can cause a game to end early due to increasingly imbalanced teams (in itself causes a snowball effect - 'why bother, it's 5 vs 8 now') - thus effectively a minority vote may only be required
Snowball effect due to number of votes being known
Uhhh, no? Unless the server has auto-balance disabled F4 doesn't do a damn thing to cause unbalanced teams, the overpopulated team will just spawn the same number of players as the team lacking players has.
So f4'ing does not contribute to an sides being uneven?
I want what you having!
F4 does unbalance teams...one has fewer players (which is normally how balanced teams are viewed).
Most servers have autobalance which draws a game out longer by trying to re-balance it (hint is in the name of "auto-balance").
You might want to educate yourself how auto-balance in this game works before you try to argue about it against others who do. The way auto-balance works in this game is when a threshold is reached, I believe default is when one team has 2 less players on it then the other, then the over-populated team will simply stop spawning players until both teams have the same number of players alive. As a player dies, then one of the guys waiting in queue will respawn, keeping the teams effectively balanced until more players join a team.
So no, auto-balance doesn't magically "re-balance it" it just makes it to where there's tons of players sitting there waiting to respawn and the game drags out just as it would, longer even, since there are less players active. So no, F4 does not work in ending games unless the ENTIRE team does it, this is an established, undebatable fact. That's one of the reasons they added concede into the game to achieve that purpose.
So in a 6 v 6 game (which everyone seems to love) if 1 person f4's your down 16% of the available numbers but this does not have any impact?
Even on a 24 player server its 8% fewer people on the ground.
Being on a team that has even 1 person raging and f4'ing does impact the team.
Concede needs work, but its head and shoulders above f4 and the auto-balance (which relied on players on other team dieing.)
I always felt auto-balance was simply a place-holder for a concede option to try to get over the issues that f4'ing brought about (where you would have multiple people raging).
I think concede is only half and should trigger some sort of end mini game (even if that mission is to try to hold a location for 2 min with 0 respawning (to protect targeting device for a big nuke)).
Marines could view it as somewhat of an honourable loss (if they could not repel the aliens they nuked em) and for aliens it could be time to launch a some globs (that will terraform where they land into a new hive and the alien infestation is not totally wiped out).
What? Most people enjoy 6 v 6!? At a quick glance on the server browser I saw 5 12 player servers, none populated (granted it's morning in the US). I still have no idea what point you're driving at, but I do love how you're trying to use percentages to avoid saying that with autobalance, at worse, you're down just 1 person in real terms, no matter how many people F4, lol.
Wrong your normally down at least 2 people..until someone on the winning side dies....this could take 30 seconds or 5 minutes.
! person down is still 8% on a 12 v 12 server...so it DOES impact balance as 1 side has fewer players (be it 1 or 3).
You're absolutely grasping at straws and nothing more, as is anyone arguing against concede in this thread.
Again, it's a feature that's 100% player controlled. If a concede vote goes through it basically means more people disagree with the idea that it's not a good feature. Yes, it can suck when people don't see things as you do, but that's life. As to needing tweaking, I'm really not sure why "concede" needs to be changed to "we give up, but in a few minutes" in order for people to get some sense of accomplishment as opposed to just starting another round right away that might go better for all parties.
Not grasping at straws...indicating facts that your overlooking.
Autobalance does not kick in if your 1 player down...only 2 or more.
f4'ing hurts the team, if your down 1 player of 4 you are down players and as such will be at a massive disadvantage.
Concede vote never takes someone out of the game...they are still on the field.
The fact that concede comes instantly with no warning to the other side makes it feel like the game ends too abruptly.
I have been in many games where I was surprised that the other team conceded.
No one wants to draw games out meaninglessly (other than the joy of the turtle) and this finds a way to do just that.
Your conceding that you have lost...but want to try to play to avoid conceding a "bonus point".
Your belief that anyone who thinks concede is a whining little suck shows how little you appreciate other peoples opinions.
Where it not for people asking that we change from simply using f4 we would not have seen autobalance be built in...nor would we have had concede put in place.
It was through people putting up suggestions to improve how the end game mechanic works that has led us to the situation we have now.
Concede is better than the old f4 system no doubt...but to say you cant improve on it is ignorant.
There are multiple suggestions all extremely valid and would address some major issue people have.
Ideas like it triggering a seperate end game scenario or simply putting up a message letting both sides know once a vote has been started and what % of each team has supported it.
"If a concede vote goes through it basically means more people disagree with the idea that it's not a good feature."
-> You need 6 votes to concede on a 24 player server, right? That means only 25% of all players can force their will on the rest. If it would be such a good feature and everyone but a small amount of players would love it to the ground, then make it a democratic decision where at least 51% of all players have to vote for it to end a vote. If you are so sure that almost everyone likes it you could even go with 60 or 90%, but I bet this will never happen, because then rounds would be played till the end. Why? Because you will never gather 60% or even 51% of all votes if the round is not 500% one-sided.
Think about it, 25% decide about a concede vote. And 75% of all players are not even asked if they like it or not. There is no way to stop it for the other side. This is not a good base for a decision or argumentations.
Sorry but 50% of a side should be able to end the game..this stops a winning team refusing to vote and the game being a spawn camp-athon with people leaving the server raging.
Being one player down on a 24 player server means next to nothing honestly. I don't know how badly it impacts smaller servers and frankly I don't care because I don't play them. And after being one player down and auto-balance kicks in, you're still pretty much dead even. The argument about "well only until someone dies", well sorry, if nobody on the marine team is dying, then the game is pretty much over anyway, that's just ludicrous.
It's not a fact that I'm overlooking, it's an opinion of yours that I'm overlooking. And yes, I find it hard to lend credence to opinions that buck against the pretty outspoken, overwhelming majority that pleaded for the concede option, and rightfully got it.
Sorry but 1 team having 11 active players...the other only 10 does have an impact on 24 player servers (assuming equal skills), you may believe thats opinion all you want.
This is pretty black and white...11 is more than 10 so the side that has 11 has an advantage.
I suggest you stop and look at what people are suggesting as not all change is bad, in fact I believe hugh has mentioned a few times he would like to somehow work a nuke into the game (this could be a way for that to happen).
Concede has its faults...same way autobalance has its faults. You can try and deny these facts but your only fooling yourself.
We need to improve on how concede is as it currently does not feel right, having it trigger a short term minigame would be a good solution.
Not really, no. Again, you're telling me I'm debating "facts" when I'm in fact just debating your opinion. In MY opinion concede is perfectly fine as is and does not have these "faults" that you keep mentioning.
Sorry but being down 1 or more players does give the other side an advantage, thats not opinion its fact.
You claim the concede is fine as is ignores the large number of people who are wanting to tweak it so its not such a surprise when it happens.
I have been on alien teams and have had the team talking about concede...only minutes later the other team conceded and left us all scratching our heads in the RR.
There are many options and ways with which concede could be improved to better integrate and avoid a lot of the aspects that people are criticizing.
There's no "large number of people" wanting to tweak it. It's maybe 20, at tops and probably overguestimated because I don't care to go back through and count, people on these forums saying that MAYBE it could be better a certain way. This is out of the couple thousand that actually play the game. That's it. Just because it's YOUR opinion doesn't make it the majority opinion.
I don't see the point in having the game continue for any period of time after concede goes through. Sure, there are things you could do that would be neat. But everyone is going to play them over and over again. After you play it a couple times, most people will get bored because the gameplay is over and alt-tab or whatever.
Comments
Wrong your normally down at least 2 people..until someone on the winning side dies....this could take 30 seconds or 5 minutes.
! person down is still 8% on a 12 v 12 server...so it DOES impact balance as 1 side has fewer players (be it 1 or 3).
I don't understand how any of what you said invalidates my point at all. Just because you have little personal experience with a game ending because of f4ing doesn't mean it doesn't/didn't happen (obviously doesn't happen as often now that concede has been introduced).
Either way, yes, I still have a point.
You're absolutely grasping at straws and nothing more, as is anyone arguing against concede in this thread.
Again, it's a feature that's 100% player controlled. If a concede vote goes through it basically means more people disagree with the idea that it's not a good feature. Yes, it can suck when people don't see things as you do, but that's life. As to needing tweaking, I'm really not sure why "concede" needs to be changed to "we give up, but in a few minutes" in order for people to get some sense of accomplishment as opposed to just starting another round right away that might go better for all parties.
Your point, as I understood it, was that F4 filled the same role as concede but with fewer disadvantages. What I'm telling you, is that if that were true, the feature wouldn't have been added in the first place. This is backed up with my personal experience, which consists of running a 24 player server that's run full 24/7 since a few weeks after release, which I don't think is that inconsiderable. You can cling to this pipe dream that F4 was just as good at ending games as concede, but if that were the case there would have been no need for it in the first place. Also, if more players saw it your way, they wouldn't be using it either.
-> You need 6 votes to concede on a 24 player server, right? That means only 25% of all players can force their will on the rest. If it would be such a good feature and everyone but a small amount of players would love it to the ground, then make it a democratic decision where at least 51% of all players have to vote for it to end a vote. If you are so sure that almost everyone likes it you could even go with 60 or 90%, but I bet this will never happen, because then rounds would be played till the end. Why? Because you will never gather 60% or even 51% of all votes if the round is not 500% one-sided.
Think about it, 25% decide about a concede vote. And 75% of all players are not even asked if they like it or not. There is no way to stop it for the other side. This is not a good base for a decision or argumentations.
And as far as this underwhelming minority deciding the fate of so many people (I'm not going to bother debating in percentages since everyone who's done it so far to counter me in this thread has used it in the most utterly abysmal attempts at making things look worse then they actually are), so far in this thread I've counted 6 people, you included, who just don't like concede period. Most of the discussion has been people like me saying arguing against it is stupid or people thinking it needs tweaked in terms of how it ends games. So, if this were such a shitty feature, I'm sure there would be more then 6 people at this point raising hell on the forums about it.
Since there's not, I'm just going to assume anyone who doesn't like it is just coming here to bitch and whine.
The problem is you don't really know how many people like it or not. You can claim to be the majority or not, that won't change a thing. And this thread is on the hot spot for days now. So it seems to be more interesting than "fades are op" etc.
How to pass a concede vote? Man I don't want to do that. I say give the rest of the server population the chance to vote against it or just not accept it and you will have less concedes. Less games ended too early and too fast. Right now the minority of players can force a concede. This is a bad mechanic. If you like it or not, there is the possibility that such a change could make the situation better: If the majority accepts, fine, concede. If the majority wants a normal ending, fine, accept it, you can't always win. No more conceding at the slightest sign of failure. No more people who think that their vote doesn't count. If you really believe that it is a good and accepted feature like it is now, then you can't argue against such a vote system, can you? Because since "the overwhelming majority" will vote for a concede, it can't harm your precious feature.
Not grasping at straws...indicating facts that your overlooking.
Autobalance does not kick in if your 1 player down...only 2 or more.
f4'ing hurts the team, if your down 1 player of 4 you are down players and as such will be at a massive disadvantage.
Concede vote never takes someone out of the game...they are still on the field.
The fact that concede comes instantly with no warning to the other side makes it feel like the game ends too abruptly.
I have been in many games where I was surprised that the other team conceded.
No one wants to draw games out meaninglessly (other than the joy of the turtle) and this finds a way to do just that.
Your conceding that you have lost...but want to try to play to avoid conceding a "bonus point".
Your belief that anyone who thinks concede is a whining little suck shows how little you appreciate other peoples opinions.
Where it not for people asking that we change from simply using f4 we would not have seen autobalance be built in...nor would we have had concede put in place.
It was through people putting up suggestions to improve how the end game mechanic works that has led us to the situation we have now.
Concede is better than the old f4 system no doubt...but to say you cant improve on it is ignorant.
There are multiple suggestions all extremely valid and would address some major issue people have.
Ideas like it triggering a seperate end game scenario or simply putting up a message letting both sides know once a vote has been started and what % of each team has supported it.
Sorry but 50% of a side should be able to end the game..this stops a winning team refusing to vote and the game being a spawn camp-athon with people leaving the server raging.
I must have missed the part where conceding a lost match needed to be hard.
Also, good luck finding admins who would actually disable it. Unless one of the 6 people on this thread whining about it happens to be an admin you're probably shit out of luck, sorry.
Being one player down on a 24 player server means next to nothing honestly. I don't know how badly it impacts smaller servers and frankly I don't care because I don't play them. And after being one player down and auto-balance kicks in, you're still pretty much dead even. The argument about "well only until someone dies", well sorry, if nobody on the marine team is dying, then the game is pretty much over anyway, that's just ludicrous.
It's not a fact that I'm overlooking, it's an opinion of yours that I'm overlooking. And yes, I find it hard to lend credence to opinions that buck against the pretty outspoken, overwhelming majority that pleaded for the concede option, and rightfully got it.
This is pretty black and white...11 is more than 10 so the side that has 11 has an advantage.
I suggest you stop and look at what people are suggesting as not all change is bad, in fact I believe hugh has mentioned a few times he would like to somehow work a nuke into the game (this could be a way for that to happen).
Concede has its faults...same way autobalance has its faults. You can try and deny these facts but your only fooling yourself.
We need to improve on how concede is as it currently does not feel right, having it trigger a short term minigame would be a good solution.
Well you didn't understand my point then. I merely tried to break the f4 vs concede debate down, listing advantages and disadvantages for both concede and f4, trying to be as impartial as possible. If anything, my personal viewpoint is that concede is a lot better than f4, as I've stated in many many threads where a concede system was called for (prior to UWE introducing it) that were filled with comments saying "but we already have f4" and "no. f4 is better".
My point about snowballing dwindling team size, if anything, is a point AGAINST f4. Which is why I listed it in the disadvantages section.
Not really, no. Again, you're telling me I'm debating "facts" when I'm in fact just debating your opinion. In MY opinion concede is perfectly fine as is and does not have these "faults" that you keep mentioning.
Allow me to modify my position slightly:
In cases where the enemy team is making serious attempts to achieve victory by seeking the victory goal (destruction of hive/comm chair) then they earn the right to demolish you en route to it. A spirited defence spurs a sense of a team uniting against adversity, a defining characteristic of this game which many others lack.
in short, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Btw I also must state that marines hardly win anything when going with complete strangers. If there is no talking at all, the aliens are guaranteed to win obviously, but that's quite the common case in pub servers. The marine team needs to be exceedingly good, and the alien team kinda rubbish before the marines can win. I'd say it is because the OPness of bile bombs. Sentry batteries are no good and exo's get torn down easely, while an Onos requires good teamwork and usually just Onos vs. Exo means a win for the Onos.
However, it is a nice alternative to watching marines turtle for an extra 10-15 minutes postponing the inevitable.
Sorry but being down 1 or more players does give the other side an advantage, thats not opinion its fact.
You claim the concede is fine as is ignores the large number of people who are wanting to tweak it so its not such a surprise when it happens.
I have been on alien teams and have had the team talking about concede...only minutes later the other team conceded and left us all scratching our heads in the RR.
There are many options and ways with which concede could be improved to better integrate and avoid a lot of the aspects that people are criticizing.
3 hive aliens. Shade have goes down. All upgrades are safe. Team concedes??
Even better example: I am commanding marines, we have flight (main), cross and sub. They got atrium and data. We build PG at glass hallway and start pushing data. That's when I notice gorge bombing our main. Being a poor comm, I noticed it too late, started beacon but power went down before marines would teleport. I am alone at our main base (upgrades/AA/proto, no backups for that anywhere else) facing gorge and a lerk and WHAM - marines win. PG in front of their hive room was enough to force them to surrender. Despite the fact, that two guys from their team just actually won the game for them, they surrendered.
Another situation: game starts, I run to chasm and cut freshly planted harvester, they kill me, but I go back and cut it right as it was planted, then I run to turbine and kill another harv. 'Marines win'. Eh, that easy?
Concede is fine when you are down to 1 base+1rt vs whole map+all tech points, but dammit, when you still have access to jetpacks or bile bombs? I don't get it. God dammit, we've won a game after reslock once (even funnier that we had 41 res when our last harv was killed and comm dropped 2nd hive (after it was killed sometime ago) before he would notice this). Most of us went gorge with our last res and we attacked both of their tech points together. If aliens would get reslocked now, I bet it's insta concede.
Also, there should be a way to cancel your own vote, just in case you realize that not everyone on your team is a huge sucker like you and those people actually did some pretty impressive stuff after you thought the game is over (i.e. shade near 4th hive killed 'omg gg concede how could you let that happen noobz team').
What people need to remember is *why* people concede. In almost all cases it's because they feel they are in a game they can no longer win. (let's exclude trolls and such) So if something happens in the game that makes a team feel they can no longer win, then this is a psychological issue spurred by game mechanics.
In other words, as you aptly noted, "the victory occurred long before the victory goal was achieved". That's the bottom line here, and that is also the problem - not concede. Concede is a *symptom* of the problem. In NS2 there is very little forgiveness. All it takes is something like a power node going down in a base for you to lose that tech point and effectively lose the game. Or aliens lose a hive to a surprise marine rush. Either one often is a game ender.
If people want to eliminate the use of concede, then they need to give people on the (soon to be losing) team a reason to keep playing. That's why I floated an idea a while back that would allow a team (who is down to their last tech point and 2 or fewer res nodes) after 10+ minutes to trigger a 'game end' condition. In short, the team that is winning gets 10 minutes to 'finish off' the other team, or they lose the game. If you have a team beat back to a single tech point after 10 minutes, then this shouldn't be an issue. However, what this does is give people a reason to PLAY. Instead of wanting to concede because they know the game is a loss, let them fight to the last man to survive for that 10 minutes to try and pull off an upset. Give people a reason to play and they will play.
If they change concede to make it harder to concede then people will just revert to what they did before and hit F4. The bottom line is that you can't force people to play a losing game. If they aren't allowed to concede then they'll just leave, which often ends up emptying the server.
People need to look at the problem and not the symptom if they want to discourage the use of concede.
I agree that concede should trigger something perhaps other than the game instantly ending.
The evacuation model is probably the best concept that could work for both sides.
Marines have to hold on so a nuke can be dropped on their locator beacon whiping out that alien infestation..and themselves.
Aliens would have to wait for the hive to implode and send terraforming seeds off into space...to land on other TSA planets, ships etc.
Something along these lines would fit well in both gameplay and lore, you lose and decide to concede...you have to hold out for ~5 minutes with 0 upgrades for the losing side (its not meant to be easy).
There's no "large number of people" wanting to tweak it. It's maybe 20, at tops and probably overguestimated because I don't care to go back through and count, people on these forums saying that MAYBE it could be better a certain way. This is out of the couple thousand that actually play the game. That's it. Just because it's YOUR opinion doesn't make it the majority opinion.