It's just a game design failure. They wouldn't want to concede if there was a hope of a comeback.
In almost every competitive game which involves limited resources directly effect a players chance of winning, it is common place for players to concede when they get too far behind.
Here are some examples:
Checkers,
Chess,
Go,
Starcraft 1,2
Dota, Lol etc
and
Natural Selection
It is a waste of time to play a game when the win/lose outcome is already decided.
Most drastic come backs in NS happen because the winning team gets lazy, or their top players get bored and quit. Notice that sudden comebacks basically never happen in competitive play.
I wish more players understood they can do this rather than quit the game. I still see a team lose b/c half of their players physically tossed their computers across the room and gave up on life (or so I assume b/c they certainty were not in the server any longer)
we was loosing a game for 110 minutes then tables turned after a successfull marine push and we took down hives and took back mapcontrol so after 138 minutes in the game we actually won in the end, after having 1 base and at some point even 0 ip´s. The aliens in the lobby said it was the best and most exciting game they ever played in 3 months and every one agreed. Many times along the way it could go either way for the teams.
gGmes now is if you stand your ground and protect Rts successfully or do one great push the opponent will give up. most games stop exactly after 10 minutes mark now and if the game is not exactly 50/50 you will have to restart the game again, kill harvesters or rts or defend your own, tech up save tres and it will be all for nothing if you do a good job all over again. I mean if marines lead with 51% map control or kill an rt or even get a shift somewhere crucial like lets say nanogrid and aliens have 49% of success maby even 2 hives up they go like well lets concede this time and hopefully that shift will not go down next game. but wait if marines DONT kill that shift next game and aliens has 51% advantage while marine have 49% is that enough reason for us to concede then? how would it feel like well they killed our arms lab lets just concede guys i mean everything looses its reason. Its enough to take down an upgrade to se like 3 people conceeding. I hate cod becouse matches are like 5-10 minutes and love the longer games where the action and tension builds up in the late game when you as alien can push back strong but marines are so high tech you have to still be careful not to make any misstakes. The stakes are always higher and both teams are pushing with constant battle going on where ever you got. every 10 year old loves cod becouse they can come home from school pick up the controller and kill everything in sight instantly but Natural selection is not the same type of game and is more about the team and the tactics, so once you finally have established ground or get the economy going for your team the enemy surrender just as in a crappy cod game. And no its not only the french this time surrendering, this goes on at every server so when you are finally about to get to the actual action part of the game, maby about to evolve into the onos you saved up for or shotgun jetpack some aliens the team surrenders. The hard work for the leading team is a waste and is all for nothing.
Imagine this:
1. Docking, marines have Terminal, Cafe and Locker, all upgrades, CCs everywhere. Aliens have crag/shade. Aliens rush locker, power down. Marines concede.
2. Veil, marines have Control, Pipe and Cargo. Cargo is lost. Aliens have shift hive and just dropped cargo. Marines see onos in pipe (no cara yet obviously). They just _see_ it. Three people vote concede.
Imagine this:
1. Docking, marines have Terminal, Cafe and Locker, all upgrades, CCs everywhere. Aliens have crag/shade. Aliens rush locker, power down. Marines concede.
2. Veil, marines have Control, Pipe and Cargo. Cargo is lost. Aliens have shift hive and just dropped cargo. Marines see onos in pipe (no cara yet obviously). They just _see_ it. Three people vote concede.
Wtf is that guys? Wtf?
1. Chances are locker was taken by a huge force, including multiple Onos. If, throughout the game, marines concetrated mainly on holding those three tech points, rather than destroying alien harvesters and protecting their own extractors, the aliens could reach Onos level lifeforms before prototechnology and before both level 3 upgrades were researched. In such a situation, defeat is almost ensured.
2. Even in a 6v6, which is a very small game by pub standards, 3 people is only 50%. I am quite sure that 80% is required for concede.
I think nearly everyone can at least agree on the following:
Some games are conceded way too early
Some games without concede draw on way too long
If the only point you have to make about concede is one of the two above items, perhaps you might wish to reread one of these threads before posting so as to spur some additional ideas you could contribute to the discussion.
Imagine this:
1. Docking, marines have Terminal, Cafe and Locker, all upgrades, CCs everywhere. Aliens have crag/shade. Aliens rush locker, power down. Marines concede.
If they only had IP's in locker, the comm beacons, the power goes down, and most of the marines die, its over for them regardless of map control. I've seen this (or some variation) happen multiple times. Sadly, past a certain point, the comm becomes a liability rather than a benefit.
Imagine this:
1. Docking, marines have Terminal, Cafe and Locker, all upgrades, CCs everywhere. Aliens have crag/shade. Aliens rush locker, power down. Marines concede.
If they only had IP's in locker, the comm beacons, the power goes down, and most of the marines die, its over for them regardless of map control. I've seen this (or some variation) happen multiple times. Sadly, past a certain point, the comm becomes a liability rather than a benefit.
I made this mistake twice last night. First time I had to get out of the chair, clear the base by myself and build the power back on. We went on to win that one. [No idea how I pulled that one off. But I wasn't letting my base die!]
Second time I didn't learn my lesson and there was nothing I was doing against an Onos... Would have been good to concede there, but its broken. Couldn't concede because we were dead. Exos wasted another five minutes of the game even though it was obviously over. Just because we had two more chairs doesn't mean we are going to win.
So like, how many of you people that are against concede support base recycling?
Seems like some of the people who want the game to recycle IPs when conceding also dislike it when the commander recycles the base.
It's just a game design failure. They wouldn't want to concede if there was a hope of a comeback.
In almost every competitive game which involves limited resources directly effect a players chance of winning, it is common place for players to concede when they get too far behind.
Here are some examples:
Checkers,
Chess,
Go,
Starcraft 1,2
Dota, Lol etc
and
Natural Selection
And all the games you listed have a common characteristic. They're all 2 player games, or consist of 1 player making decisions for all peices. So when you concede a game of chess, your rook isnt going to get irritated at you. Except NS2, you can irritate your game pieces because they are human.
And all the games you listed have a common characteristic. They're all 2 player games, or consist of 1 player making decisions for all peices. So when you concede a game of chess, your rook isnt going to get irritated at you. Except NS2, you can irritate your game pieces because they are human.
This is right, because one player can concede the game regardless of what his team thinks.
@gnoarch doesn't matter, the current concede system will never satisfy all players. A democratic decision still leaves some, possibly a large minority, irritated, at their fellow players rather than the game.
And all the games you listed have a common characteristic. They're all 2 player games, or consist of 1 player making decisions for all peices. So when you concede a game of chess, your rook isnt going to get irritated at you. Except NS2, you can irritate your game pieces because they are human.
Except SC1/2 can be played up to 4v4 and Dota1/2/LoL can be played up to 5v5 iirc. Conceding is a regular and accepted feature of strategy games (e.g. RTSs, TBSs, MOBAs, etc) where NS1/2 is no different, except in possibly making it more acceptable to the fps players.
I understand where @Caboose is getting at, but the problem is that it's much more likely for someone to quit playing or move to another server if the state of the game is frustrating and there's nothing they can do to end it than it is for someone to do the same when the round ends because of concede. Even if they'd find it anti-climactic, there's a new round just around the corner so there's no need to start finding a new server.
And of course the fact that everyone and their mother has already stated: you can't force people to play, vote concede is the lesser evil.
It's just a game design failure. They wouldn't want to concede if there was a hope of a comeback.
In almost every competitive game which involves limited resources directly effect a players chance of winning, it is common place for players to concede when they get too far behind.
Here are some examples:
Checkers,
Chess,
Go,
Starcraft 1,2
Dota, Lol etc
and
Natural Selection
And all the games you listed have a common characteristic. They're all 2 player games, or consist of 1 player making decisions for all peices. So when you concede a game of chess, your rook isnt going to get irritated at you. Except NS2, you can irritate your game pieces because they are human.
Okay, what about this, which is basically the same thing as a concede vote. Plenty of team sports there.
Seeing a lot of tangents avoiding obvious truths.
While concede ends a game that the conceders no longer want to play (hurray, they get what they want), it screws over everyone else who wanted to continue playing the game as intended, same team and opposing (self-entitlement anyone? Indulgent) . This is a fact. Since concede is not used appropriately 100 percent of the time, this is, what I thought was obviously, a flaw.
Please do not tag this post negatively because you are pro-concede. Looks poorly on you. Learn as many variables on the topic at hand before jumping to conclusions, not after folks.
The mechanic inherently caters to bad, ego-centric players who believe there is no fun unless they can win the game, boo-hoo. As someone who does not play out winning games thanks to these sort of people, I have no sympathy for the often abused mechanic,and believe it needs a rework.
And what would your idea for the rework be? As it stands (and as has been stated multiple times), vote concede is the lesser evil over people quitting the game because of frustrating conditions. It's a compromise. You would fare better to actually give some constructive ideas instead of naming people understanding this need of a compromise "bad, ego-centric players who believe there is no fun unless they can win the game". And is there nothing ego-centric about wanting to rub your victory on the face of the losing team and boosting your KDR against inferior opponents?
Seeing a lot of tangents avoiding obvious truths.
While concede ends a game that the conceders no longer want to play (hurray, they get what they want), it screws over everyone else who wanted to continue playing the game as intended, same team and opposing (self-entitlement anyone? Indulgent) . This is a fact. Since concede is not used appropriately 100 percent of the time, this is, what I thought was obviously, a flaw.
Please do not tag this post negatively because you are pro-concede. Looks poorly on you. Learn as many variables on the topic at hand before jumping to conclusions, not after folks.
The mechanic inherently caters to bad, ego-centric players who believe there is no fun unless they can win the game, boo-hoo. As someone who does not play out winning games thanks to these sort of people, I have no sympathy for the often abused mechanic,and believe it needs a rework.
So people shouldn't tag 'disagree' even if they disagree with you?
Concede is not misused in 100% of cases, however you view concede. In those cases where marines are 'farming': egg locking aliens and not actually taking the hive (with all aliens dead and waiting in the spawn queue), then concede is very much needed. The irony here is that you can't concede in this case, because you're dead all of the time - hence F4 becomes the only viable option (and I hate F4!).
Pub games, PUGs and Comp games are all very different scenarios, but in PUGs and comp games, conceding occurs all the time. In pubs, very often concede is used too soon - for example I had a game recently where on veil we had been battling hard against aliens, we were on the back foot, but made 2 big pushes on cargo having secured pipeline, and that left aliens with only sub - after our successful clearing out of cargo on the second attempt. At this point, someone on our team decided to concede. Eh? Moments later, the aliens conceded after a failed base rush and we won it.
Do I begrudge the aliens conceding that game? Absolutely not. We had just won it, taken down nano, cargo and pipe, and had them pinned into 1 hive and 1 RT vs jetpacks with exos on the way. They decided that they had one chance to try to oust us from control, and when that didn't work, they conceded that we had won. You appear to be arguing that they shouldn't have conceded that game. Do I understand you correctly? Were the aliens 'bad, ego-centric players'? I honestly do not agree with this sentiment if that's what you're arguing.
Seeing a lot of tangents avoiding obvious truths.
While concede ends a game that the conceders no longer want to play (hurray, they get what they want), it screws over everyone else who wanted to continue playing the game as intended, same team and opposing (self-entitlement anyone? Indulgent) . This is a fact. Since concede is not used appropriately 100 percent of the time, this is, what I thought was obviously, a flaw.
Please do not tag this post negatively because you are pro-concede. Looks poorly on you. Learn as many variables on the topic at hand before jumping to conclusions, not after folks.
The mechanic inherently caters to bad, ego-centric players who believe there is no fun unless they can win the game, boo-hoo. As someone who does not play out winning games thanks to these sort of people, I have no sympathy for the often abused mechanic,and believe it needs a rework.
You have unrealistic expectations if you think anything is used appropriately 100% of the time.
Seeing a lot of tangents avoiding obvious truths.
While concede ends a game that the conceders no longer want to play (hurray, they get what they want), it screws over everyone else who wanted to continue playing the game as intended, same team and opposing (self-entitlement anyone? Indulgent) . This is a fact. Since concede is not used appropriately 100 percent of the time, this is, what I thought was obviously, a flaw.
Please do not tag this post negatively because you are pro-concede. Looks poorly on you. Learn as many variables on the topic at hand before jumping to conclusions, not after folks.
The mechanic inherently caters to bad, ego-centric players who believe there is no fun unless they can win the game, boo-hoo. As someone who does not play out winning games thanks to these sort of people, I have no sympathy for the often abused mechanic,and believe it needs a rework.
So people shouldn't tag 'disagree' even if they disagree with you?
Concede is not misused in 100% of cases, however you view concede. In those cases where marines are 'farming': egg locking aliens and not actually taking the hive (with all aliens dead and waiting in the spawn queue), then concede is very much needed. The irony here is that you can't concede in this case, because you're dead all of the time - hence F4 becomes the only viable option (and I hate F4!).
Pub games, PUGs and Comp games are all very different scenarios, but in PUGs and comp games, conceding occurs all the time. In pubs, very often concede is used too soon - for example I had a game recently where on veil we had been battling hard against aliens, we were on the back foot, but made 2 big pushes on cargo having secured pipeline, and that left aliens with only sub - after our successful clearing out of cargo on the second attempt. At this point, someone on our team decided to concede. Eh? Moments later, the aliens conceded after a failed base rush and we won it.
Do I begrudge the aliens conceding that game? Absolutely not. We had just won it, taken down nano, cargo and pipe, and had them pinned into 1 hive and 1 RT vs jetpacks with exos on the way. They decided that they had one chance to try to oust us from control, and when that didn't work, they conceded that we had won. You appear to be arguing that they shouldn't have conceded that game. Do I understand you correctly? Were the aliens 'bad, ego-centric players'? I honestly do not agree with this sentiment if that's what you're arguing.
Seeing a lot of tangents avoiding obvious truths.
While concede ends a game that the conceders no longer want to play (hurray, they get what they want), it screws over everyone else who wanted to continue playing the game as intended, same team and opposing (self-entitlement anyone? Indulgent) . This is a fact. Since concede is not used appropriately 100 percent of the time, this is, what I thought was obviously, a flaw.
Please do not tag this post negatively because you are pro-concede. Looks poorly on you. Learn as many variables on the topic at hand before jumping to conclusions, not after folks.
The mechanic inherently caters to bad, ego-centric players who believe there is no fun unless they can win the game, boo-hoo. As someone who does not play out winning games thanks to these sort of people, I have no sympathy for the often abused mechanic,and believe it needs a rework.
You have unrealistic expectations if you think anything is used appropriately 100% of the time.
I made an exaggeration to the point my argument could not be refuted, since my other, less in your face super obvious explanations were also not understood. Yet somehow, again, the point was missed.
Seeing a lot of tangents avoiding obvious truths.
While concede ends a game that the conceders no longer want to play (hurray, they get what they want), it screws over everyone else who wanted to continue playing the game as intended, same team and opposing (self-entitlement anyone? Indulgent) . This is a fact. Since concede is not used appropriately 100 percent of the time, this is, what I thought was obviously, a flaw.
Please do not tag this post negatively because you are pro-concede. Looks poorly on you. Learn as many variables on the topic at hand before jumping to conclusions, not after folks.
The mechanic inherently caters to bad, ego-centric players who believe there is no fun unless they can win the game, boo-hoo. As someone who does not play out winning games thanks to these sort of people, I have no sympathy for the often abused mechanic,and believe it needs a rework.
So people shouldn't tag 'disagree' even if they disagree with you?
Concede is not misused in 100% of cases, however you view concede. In those cases where marines are 'farming': egg locking aliens and not actually taking the hive (with all aliens dead and waiting in the spawn queue), then concede is very much needed. The irony here is that you can't concede in this case, because you're dead all of the time - hence F4 becomes the only viable option (and I hate F4!).
Pub games, PUGs and Comp games are all very different scenarios, but in PUGs and comp games, conceding occurs all the time. In pubs, very often concede is used too soon - for example I had a game recently where on veil we had been battling hard against aliens, we were on the back foot, but made 2 big pushes on cargo having secured pipeline, and that left aliens with only sub - after our successful clearing out of cargo on the second attempt. At this point, someone on our team decided to concede. Eh? Moments later, the aliens conceded after a failed base rush and we won it.
Do I begrudge the aliens conceding that game? Absolutely not. We had just won it, taken down nano, cargo and pipe, and had them pinned into 1 hive and 1 RT vs jetpacks with exos on the way. They decided that they had one chance to try to oust us from control, and when that didn't work, they conceded that we had won. You appear to be arguing that they shouldn't have conceded that game. Do I understand you correctly? Were the aliens 'bad, ego-centric players'? I honestly do not agree with this sentiment if that's what you're arguing.
You obviously did not understand my message.
Indeed I did not, perhaps you would consider rewording it more clearly? I probably wasn't the only one who misunderstood you.
Seeing a lot of tangents avoiding obvious truths.
While concede ends a game that the conceders no longer want to play (hurray, they get what they want), it screws over everyone else who wanted to continue playing the game as intended, same team and opposing (self-entitlement anyone? Indulgent) . This is a fact. Since concede is not used appropriately 100 percent of the time, this is, what I thought was obviously, a flaw.
Please do not tag this post negatively because you are pro-concede. Looks poorly on you. Learn as many variables on the topic at hand before jumping to conclusions, not after folks.
The mechanic inherently caters to bad, ego-centric players who believe there is no fun unless they can win the game, boo-hoo. As someone who does not play out winning games thanks to these sort of people, I have no sympathy for the often abused mechanic,and believe it needs a rework.
You have unrealistic expectations if you think anything is used appropriately 100% of the time.
I made an exaggeration to the point my argument could not be refuted, since my other, less in your face super obvious explanations were also not understood. Yet somehow, again, the point was missed.
Stop the ridicule ( if you disagree it looks poorly on you), stop exaggerating and make real points and people would be more inclined to have rational discourse.
Please elaborate, as a normal human being having a conversation would. Otherwise I'm going to miss the old 'troll' button.
You are trolling me, I insulted no one, what derogatory value you interpreted from my posts applies in only how you believe it does.
Essentially, I pointed out an inherent flaw in the mechanic which imo occurs so often as to be on average worse for the game, rather than better. This is intangible though, just as saying the feature does more good than bad. So the polar approaches taken in this thread generally are too one-sided, and ignore the other side's comprehension. Take it all in before reaching the concrete conclusions people are somehow imagining to be the truth.
My posts generally contain information not present in the thread, and responses that do not comprehend my points, where the person simply hates on me for not sharing their minimal view, add up. Amazing how easy it is for people to respond in a negative fashion to posts they believe deserve it, right or wrong (self-justification). But like concede, usually wrong in my experience. I am not the troll, those who attack me are when I the play devil's advocate, or share missed concepts.
Sometimes information does not agree with what you think. When this occurs, do not get angry and attack the person, take their presented perspective and improve your understanding of the topic at hand. Its arrogant and ignorant to think you completely understand something over someone else. Especially when they present something that cannot be disproven, and you have to find issue with their post in some other area because you did not like the tone you interpreted it in (it hurt your feelings?) . This is beside the point of forums you see. I also miss the troll button, but given this forum's population it was removed due to abuse by the self-entitled, and again and again I see the purpose behind the action.
I agree with everything you say about being hateful and disagreeing just because of hurt feelings instead of facts, but to me it seems you are the one doing this, not us. You are the one whose posts have a very negative, almost hostile feel to them, not us. Us refuting your argument led to you refuting our way of argumenting rather than trying to refute our arguments. Sounds like exactly what you described. My 'troll' comment was for your "You clearly did not understand me" -comment, because you made no effort in trying to tell Roobubba in what way he misunderstood you. It had nothing to do with your original point, and everything to do with your way of not even trying to give us a chance.
You still haven't said anything of new value to the thread. Yes, it's already been established that concede is not perfect, and that many people are left wanting after a concede-decision. This is nothing new. You should come up with suggestions, solutions, or at the very least make your point with less in-your-face attitude, and you'll get your point across far better and more acceptably.
Essentially, I pointed out an inherent flaw in the mechanic which imo occurs so often as to be on average worse for the game, rather than better. This is intangible though, just as saying the feature does more good than bad. So the polar approaches taken in this thread generally are too one-sided, and ignore the other side's comprehension. Take it all in before reaching the concrete conclusions people are somehow imagining to be the truth.
This sounds like we're on the very same boat here. Both your and my opinions about concede are anecdotal, just like in my experience concede has saved a huge amount of games gone sour, and in your opinion it has ruined a huge amount of games that were still fresh. Neither one of us is better off in way of being correct, but you're the one with the hostile attitude and "don't disagree with me or it will make you look bad" -remarks.
I want you to answer one thing: are you bitter with the way the feature of conceding works, or are you bitter with people wanting to end a game which in their opinion has become frustrating? Because if it's the former, then you should come up with its flaws and make some constructive suggestions. If it's the latter, then I'm sorry but there's nothing you can do to fix it, since you can't force people to play if they don't want to.
My issue has always been that the concede feature allows players to prematurely end games, and anyone who would like to continue playing (often the majority of players on the server) is denied. Its not a matter of me saying the minority is forced to play, its that the majority is forced to concede. Fair reasoning I believe.
Everyone is focusing on the concerns of conceders, ignoring everyone else is near-sighted.
If an algorithm were to determine that victory is impossible, not just difficult, and it called the game, I'd be fine with that. I've lost too many winnable games because the game became a challange and my team gave up. I've also won a few that I'd not have thought I would, because the other team conceded unnessicerilly.
I understand why people concede, but i enjoy a challenge, so i rarely do. My favorite games are the ones where the conceders try to make everyone give up, and fall short by one vote, rage quit, and free their slots for people who want to play. I've also won a few of those.
I also, not always though, f4 and switch teams if I'm on the winning team and auto balance turns on for that reason on the other team.
My issue has always been that the concede feature allows players to prematurely end games, and anyone who would like to continue playing (often the majority of players on the server) is denied. Its not a matter of me saying the minority is forced to play, its that the majority is forced to concede. Fair reasoning I believe.
Yes, this is entirely correct, and does pose a problem. But if conceding is made too hard, people will just simply F4. And that will both ruin the round AND make it last longer than its supposed to because of the following reasons:
1) Auto team-balance punishes the opposite team, which forces people who still want to play to be not able to play on an individual level (and people who actually change teams because of team-balance are one in a hundred, too much investment in NS2 compared to other FPS-games), and it also slows down the winning team's efforts to end the game
2) If auto team-balance doesn't work (such a stomp that no one on the winning team dies after people on the losing team have gone to the ready room), then it ruins the last of chances for the losing team to make a comeback. Much more so than conceding would, since those who vote concede can still contribute to the team, and by no means does the vote always result in a concede. As anecdotal evidence goes, I've seen much more rounds where 2-3 people have gone for vote concede, but because the other players didn't comply, concede didn't happen and the round continued as normal. If those players had gone F4, the round would have most probably been ruined.
Comments
In almost every competitive game which involves limited resources directly effect a players chance of winning, it is common place for players to concede when they get too far behind.
Here are some examples:
Checkers,
Chess,
Go,
Starcraft 1,2
Dota, Lol etc
and
Natural Selection
It is a waste of time to play a game when the win/lose outcome is already decided.
Most drastic come backs in NS happen because the winning team gets lazy, or their top players get bored and quit. Notice that sudden comebacks basically never happen in competitive play.
gGmes now is if you stand your ground and protect Rts successfully or do one great push the opponent will give up. most games stop exactly after 10 minutes mark now and if the game is not exactly 50/50 you will have to restart the game again, kill harvesters or rts or defend your own, tech up save tres and it will be all for nothing if you do a good job all over again. I mean if marines lead with 51% map control or kill an rt or even get a shift somewhere crucial like lets say nanogrid and aliens have 49% of success maby even 2 hives up they go like well lets concede this time and hopefully that shift will not go down next game. but wait if marines DONT kill that shift next game and aliens has 51% advantage while marine have 49% is that enough reason for us to concede then? how would it feel like well they killed our arms lab lets just concede guys i mean everything looses its reason. Its enough to take down an upgrade to se like 3 people conceeding. I hate cod becouse matches are like 5-10 minutes and love the longer games where the action and tension builds up in the late game when you as alien can push back strong but marines are so high tech you have to still be careful not to make any misstakes. The stakes are always higher and both teams are pushing with constant battle going on where ever you got. every 10 year old loves cod becouse they can come home from school pick up the controller and kill everything in sight instantly but Natural selection is not the same type of game and is more about the team and the tactics, so once you finally have established ground or get the economy going for your team the enemy surrender just as in a crappy cod game. And no its not only the french this time surrendering, this goes on at every server so when you are finally about to get to the actual action part of the game, maby about to evolve into the onos you saved up for or shotgun jetpack some aliens the team surrenders. The hard work for the leading team is a waste and is all for nothing.
May I put it that way ?:
It is a waste of time to play a game when one side has the feeling the outcome is already decided and can't be convinced to fight anymore.
1. Docking, marines have Terminal, Cafe and Locker, all upgrades, CCs everywhere. Aliens have crag/shade. Aliens rush locker, power down. Marines concede.
2. Veil, marines have Control, Pipe and Cargo. Cargo is lost. Aliens have shift hive and just dropped cargo. Marines see onos in pipe (no cara yet obviously). They just _see_ it. Three people vote concede.
Wtf is that guys? Wtf?
I feel this statement to be even more true than what Katana- wrote.
1. Chances are locker was taken by a huge force, including multiple Onos. If, throughout the game, marines concetrated mainly on holding those three tech points, rather than destroying alien harvesters and protecting their own extractors, the aliens could reach Onos level lifeforms before prototechnology and before both level 3 upgrades were researched. In such a situation, defeat is almost ensured.
2. Even in a 6v6, which is a very small game by pub standards, 3 people is only 50%. I am quite sure that 80% is required for concede.
- Some games are conceded way too early
- Some games without concede draw on way too long
If the only point you have to make about concede is one of the two above items, perhaps you might wish to reread one of these threads before posting so as to spur some additional ideas you could contribute to the discussion.Second time I didn't learn my lesson and there was nothing I was doing against an Onos... Would have been good to concede there, but its broken. Couldn't concede because we were dead. Exos wasted another five minutes of the game even though it was obviously over. Just because we had two more chairs doesn't mean we are going to win.
Seems like some of the people who want the game to recycle IPs when conceding also dislike it when the commander recycles the base.
And all the games you listed have a common characteristic. They're all 2 player games, or consist of 1 player making decisions for all peices. So when you concede a game of chess, your rook isnt going to get irritated at you. Except NS2, you can irritate your game pieces because they are human.
This is right, because one player can concede the game regardless of what his team thinks.
Oh, wait!
And of course the fact that everyone and their mother has already stated: you can't force people to play, vote concede is the lesser evil.
Okay, what about this, which is basically the same thing as a concede vote. Plenty of team sports there.
While concede ends a game that the conceders no longer want to play (hurray, they get what they want), it screws over everyone else who wanted to continue playing the game as intended, same team and opposing (self-entitlement anyone? Indulgent) . This is a fact. Since concede is not used appropriately 100 percent of the time, this is, what I thought was obviously, a flaw.
Please do not tag this post negatively because you are pro-concede. Looks poorly on you. Learn as many variables on the topic at hand before jumping to conclusions, not after folks.
The mechanic inherently caters to bad, ego-centric players who believe there is no fun unless they can win the game, boo-hoo. As someone who does not play out winning games thanks to these sort of people, I have no sympathy for the often abused mechanic,and believe it needs a rework.
And what would your idea for the rework be? As it stands (and as has been stated multiple times), vote concede is the lesser evil over people quitting the game because of frustrating conditions. It's a compromise. You would fare better to actually give some constructive ideas instead of naming people understanding this need of a compromise "bad, ego-centric players who believe there is no fun unless they can win the game". And is there nothing ego-centric about wanting to rub your victory on the face of the losing team and boosting your KDR against inferior opponents?
So people shouldn't tag 'disagree' even if they disagree with you?
Concede is not misused in 100% of cases, however you view concede. In those cases where marines are 'farming': egg locking aliens and not actually taking the hive (with all aliens dead and waiting in the spawn queue), then concede is very much needed. The irony here is that you can't concede in this case, because you're dead all of the time - hence F4 becomes the only viable option (and I hate F4!).
Pub games, PUGs and Comp games are all very different scenarios, but in PUGs and comp games, conceding occurs all the time. In pubs, very often concede is used too soon - for example I had a game recently where on veil we had been battling hard against aliens, we were on the back foot, but made 2 big pushes on cargo having secured pipeline, and that left aliens with only sub - after our successful clearing out of cargo on the second attempt. At this point, someone on our team decided to concede. Eh? Moments later, the aliens conceded after a failed base rush and we won it.
Do I begrudge the aliens conceding that game? Absolutely not. We had just won it, taken down nano, cargo and pipe, and had them pinned into 1 hive and 1 RT vs jetpacks with exos on the way. They decided that they had one chance to try to oust us from control, and when that didn't work, they conceded that we had won. You appear to be arguing that they shouldn't have conceded that game. Do I understand you correctly? Were the aliens 'bad, ego-centric players'? I honestly do not agree with this sentiment if that's what you're arguing.
You have unrealistic expectations if you think anything is used appropriately 100% of the time.
You obviously did not understand my message.
I made an exaggeration to the point my argument could not be refuted, since my other, less in your face super obvious explanations were also not understood. Yet somehow, again, the point was missed.
Please elaborate, as a normal human being having a conversation would. Otherwise I'm going to miss the old 'troll' button.
Indeed I did not, perhaps you would consider rewording it more clearly? I probably wasn't the only one who misunderstood you.
Stop the ridicule ( if you disagree it looks poorly on you), stop exaggerating and make real points and people would be more inclined to have rational discourse.
You are trolling me, I insulted no one, what derogatory value you interpreted from my posts applies in only how you believe it does.
Essentially, I pointed out an inherent flaw in the mechanic which imo occurs so often as to be on average worse for the game, rather than better. This is intangible though, just as saying the feature does more good than bad. So the polar approaches taken in this thread generally are too one-sided, and ignore the other side's comprehension. Take it all in before reaching the concrete conclusions people are somehow imagining to be the truth.
My posts generally contain information not present in the thread, and responses that do not comprehend my points, where the person simply hates on me for not sharing their minimal view, add up. Amazing how easy it is for people to respond in a negative fashion to posts they believe deserve it, right or wrong (self-justification). But like concede, usually wrong in my experience. I am not the troll, those who attack me are when I the play devil's advocate, or share missed concepts.
Sometimes information does not agree with what you think. When this occurs, do not get angry and attack the person, take their presented perspective and improve your understanding of the topic at hand. Its arrogant and ignorant to think you completely understand something over someone else. Especially when they present something that cannot be disproven, and you have to find issue with their post in some other area because you did not like the tone you interpreted it in (it hurt your feelings?) . This is beside the point of forums you see. I also miss the troll button, but given this forum's population it was removed due to abuse by the self-entitled, and again and again I see the purpose behind the action.
I agree with everything you say about being hateful and disagreeing just because of hurt feelings instead of facts, but to me it seems you are the one doing this, not us. You are the one whose posts have a very negative, almost hostile feel to them, not us. Us refuting your argument led to you refuting our way of argumenting rather than trying to refute our arguments. Sounds like exactly what you described. My 'troll' comment was for your "You clearly did not understand me" -comment, because you made no effort in trying to tell Roobubba in what way he misunderstood you. It had nothing to do with your original point, and everything to do with your way of not even trying to give us a chance.
You still haven't said anything of new value to the thread. Yes, it's already been established that concede is not perfect, and that many people are left wanting after a concede-decision. This is nothing new. You should come up with suggestions, solutions, or at the very least make your point with less in-your-face attitude, and you'll get your point across far better and more acceptably.
This sounds like we're on the very same boat here. Both your and my opinions about concede are anecdotal, just like in my experience concede has saved a huge amount of games gone sour, and in your opinion it has ruined a huge amount of games that were still fresh. Neither one of us is better off in way of being correct, but you're the one with the hostile attitude and "don't disagree with me or it will make you look bad" -remarks.
I want you to answer one thing: are you bitter with the way the feature of conceding works, or are you bitter with people wanting to end a game which in their opinion has become frustrating? Because if it's the former, then you should come up with its flaws and make some constructive suggestions. If it's the latter, then I'm sorry but there's nothing you can do to fix it, since you can't force people to play if they don't want to.
Everyone is focusing on the concerns of conceders, ignoring everyone else is near-sighted.
I understand why people concede, but i enjoy a challenge, so i rarely do. My favorite games are the ones where the conceders try to make everyone give up, and fall short by one vote, rage quit, and free their slots for people who want to play. I've also won a few of those.
I also, not always though, f4 and switch teams if I'm on the winning team and auto balance turns on for that reason on the other team.
Yes, this is entirely correct, and does pose a problem. But if conceding is made too hard, people will just simply F4. And that will both ruin the round AND make it last longer than its supposed to because of the following reasons:
1) Auto team-balance punishes the opposite team, which forces people who still want to play to be not able to play on an individual level (and people who actually change teams because of team-balance are one in a hundred, too much investment in NS2 compared to other FPS-games), and it also slows down the winning team's efforts to end the game
2) If auto team-balance doesn't work (such a stomp that no one on the winning team dies after people on the losing team have gone to the ready room), then it ruins the last of chances for the losing team to make a comeback. Much more so than conceding would, since those who vote concede can still contribute to the team, and by no means does the vote always result in a concede. As anecdotal evidence goes, I've seen much more rounds where 2-3 people have gone for vote concede, but because the other players didn't comply, concede didn't happen and the round continued as normal. If those players had gone F4, the round would have most probably been ruined.