Main problem with concede is that it discourages people from attacking. As soon as someone thinks it's over, they vote concede, stop being useful (if they were before) and keep preaching "game over man, game over". I mean, you can always fight back no matter how bad situation is. Not as a marine maybe, but aliens... all they have to do is bring one structure down and game is won.
It's easily fixed by implementing simple Win/Loss/Leave statistics. This will discourage *many* players from leaving the server as soon as they get their ass kicked for the first time or conceding right after they spot first onos/exo.
As an example, W/L/L percentage could be shown in score tab for people in ready room only (so it won't clutter ingame scoreboard).
i really doubt anyone conceding cares about wins or losses. They care about having a fun game, or more specifically, not continuing to play the miserable game they are currently playing.
@McCheese:
Exactly, and my argument is: instead of focusing on mechanics how to end the game as painless as possible, UWE should focus on making the game less painful.
For example, I dislike the trend of the marine lmg fireing faster with every version of ns. In old ns1 times, the lmg was a tracking weapon. If you were only good at twitch aiming, you needed a shotgun. Right now, the lmg fires so fast, holding down the mousebutton is only neccesary when shooting buildings, and that's not really enjoyable. On the other side, it can feel like instagib if someone shoots your skulk while you are not moving (as in biting an extractor). As of now, I even feel the lmg is a bit op. Op in a sense of I dont really feel the need for a weapon "upgrade" neccessary when playing marines most of the time. Sure, shotguns are great for killing fades but having a lmg is always a good choice (unlike gl or flamethrower).
@McCheese:
Exactly, and my argument is: instead of focusing on mechanics how to end the game as painless as possible, UWE should focus on making the game less painful.
Few games if any have ever managed to make losing fun. I think NS2 does a pretty good job since at least losing as marine is considered as fun by some.
One potential flaw with the system is that it isn't the majority of the server that is involved. Its typically only 40% of the server. I think it would be preferable if a concede required the majority of the server to vote in favour of it, with no less than 30% and no more than 85% of the votes coming from one team.
For example:
In a 12 man game (6v6), 7 votes would be required to end the game, with no more than 5 votes being counted from one team, and at least 2 members of the other team voting to concede as well.
In a 16 man game (8v8), 9 votes would be required to end the game, with no more than 6 votes being counted from one team, and at least 3 members of the other team voting to concede as well.
In a 24 man game (12v12), 13 votes would be required to end the game, with no more than 10 votes being counted from one team, and at least 4 members of the other team voting to concede as well.
This means the following:
1. Even if 100% of the players in a team vote to concede, the game will not end until the required number of people in the opposing team vote to allow the concede.
2. If, somehow, 50% of one team vote to concede, and 51% of the other team also vote to concede, the game will end, with whichever team had the higher percentage of concede votes declared as the losers.
This won't work. Typically, by the time one team has decided to concede, it is because the other team is not finishing the game. This can be for a variety of reasons including poor teamwork, poor sportsmanship (teching to have all the top tech before finishing the game), or simply an insufficient grasp of the tactics necessary to deliver the coup de grâce. Under these circumstances, especially the first two which are certainly more prevalent that the last, I would never expect to see a concede vote go through. When a team lacks the sportsmanship to finish a game they have already won, but prefer to continue "shooting fish in a barrel" why would they suddenly decide to let the other team off the hook?
One potential flaw with the system is that it isn't the majority of the server that is involved. Its typically only 40% of the server. I think it would be preferable if a concede required the majority of the server to vote in favour of it, with no less than 30% and no more than 85% of the votes coming from one team.
For example:
In a 12 man game (6v6), 7 votes would be required to end the game, with no more than 5 votes being counted from one team, and at least 2 members of the other team voting to concede as well.
In a 16 man game (8v8), 9 votes would be required to end the game, with no more than 6 votes being counted from one team, and at least 3 members of the other team voting to concede as well.
In a 24 man game (12v12), 13 votes would be required to end the game, with no more than 10 votes being counted from one team, and at least 4 members of the other team voting to concede as well.
This means the following:
1. Even if 100% of the players in a team vote to concede, the game will not end until the required number of people in the opposing team vote to allow the concede.
2. If, somehow, 50% of one team vote to concede, and 51% of the other team also vote to concede, the game will end, with whichever team had the higher percentage of concede votes declared as the losers.
This won't work. Typically, by the time one team has decided to concede, it is because the other team is not finishing the game. This can be for a variety of reasons including poor teamwork, poor sportsmanship (teching to have all the top tech before finishing the game), or simply an insufficient grasp of the tactics necessary to deliver the coup de grâce. Under these circumstances, especially the first two which are certainly more prevalent that the last, I would never expect to see a concede vote go through. When a team lacks the sportsmanship to finish a game they have already won, but prefer to continue "shooting fish in a barrel" why would they suddenly decide to let the other team off the hook?
In a case where 100% of the winning team all share that lack of sportsmanship, I agree it would be a painful experience, but in such a case I doubt it would be the first painful experience had in the round. However I think it is very rare for every player on a team to behave that way. This is why only 30% of a team is required to allow a concede.
Though I agree, it is overly reliant on the good nature of players, though the current system could be said to be overly affected by the bad nature of players.
Typically those games don't end because every alien goes rambo skulk and tries to backdoor a techpoint. The marines have to react or they risk dragging out the game even longer.
I'm not saying losing has to be fun, I'm saying that you should have fun until the point you lost and the game is over. I'm not playing a lot of FPS as of late but in pretty much each teambased shooter, the last man standing doesnt just qq, cry and type concede because his team lost the round. It happens in MOBAs like Dota 2, but these games end automatically if players go afk/idle therefore giving up. As long as they put up a fight, even if they lose horribly, the game progresses. In order to prevent single players from destroying the fun for his team by giving up, these people get reported and recognized by the system so next time they play, they can play with people with a similar mindset (usually ending in really bad teamwork).
As of your talk about sportsmanship, i dont think you know what it means. It simply takes rooky marines a few minutes to kill the last hive, partly because the aliens keep up the fight. If they would hide on top of their hive/in some vent, the marines run out of things to shoot at some point.
The problem of concede is, that the etiquette in an FPS/RTS is not clear. It is ok in RTS, it is not in FPS.
As of your talk about sportsmanship, i dont think you know what it means. It simply takes rooky marines a few minutes to kill the last hive, partly because the aliens keep up the fight. If they would hide on top of their hive/in some vent, the marines run out of things to shoot at some point.
The question of sportsmanship comes into play when the winning side chooses to contain the losing side while they continue to build superfluous resource extractors and research tech they won't use and do not need rather than marching into the last tech point and finishing the game. Granted this happens more so on the marine side than the alien side, but it is still grossly unsportsmanlike to engage in such a behavior. I have even been on teams where the commander has actively discouraged players from killing the final tech point; and been on alien teams where people scream "don't kill the IP, let them spawn so we can kill them". In such cases, concede is required.
If you do not agree that the above illustrated behavior is a gross display of poor sportsmanship, there isn't much left to discuss.
So basicly it boils down to.. "Do we find it fun to play, if not concede".
Looking at all the arguements, this seems the most logical reason yet.
Problem indeed is that depending on the persons this can be at any techpoint, making concede link to them a moot point also.
hmm.. have to think about that.
I think you have to ask the question "At what point to the majority of people find the game un-fun to play?" and "At what point does the likelihood of a comeback drastically drop off?"
I think the most common ground between the two is "less than two techpoints and less than 2 controlled extractors". I am on the fence about how long a round has to be before allowing a concede vote. I would not want the game to turn into "Failed Rush -> Concede; wash, rinse, repeat" by allowing a concede vote to happen too early.
The question of sportsmanship comes into play when the winning side chooses to contain the losing side while they continue to build superfluous resource extractors and research tech they won't use and do not need rather than marching into the last tech point and finishing the game. Granted this happens more so on the marine side than the alien side, but it is still grossly unsportsmanlike to engage in such a behavior. I have even been on teams where the commander has actively discouraged players from killing the final tech point; and been on alien teams where people scream "don't kill the IP, let them spawn so we can kill them". In such cases, concede is required.
If you do not agree that the above illustrated behavior is a gross display of poor sportsmanship, there isn't much left to discuss.
Certainly, that is bad sportsmanship if it drags on for lets say 5 minutes like this. However if conced was only implemented for those severe cases, I say the cure is worse than the disease. After all people could always F4 or leave the server.
The problem is that the game encourages the bad behaviour: Killing free units doesnt help you winning the game but that doesnt mean that the players who are dying over and over wont get demotivated. The game does not punish you for building lots of respawn facilities, they are even required in larger servers and turn the game into a zergfest.
People point out how important pressure is and how there is action all the time. Even the pro players get exhausted after a long round. I think this permanent action is toxic for the game. Once one side has the advantage, the other will permanently get killed and that's where the qq is coming from.
The problem of concede is, that the etiquette in an FPS/RTS is not clear. It is ok in RTS, it is not in FPS.
An excellent point.
In shooters, you demonstrate your skill every time you pull the trigger. Playing on even though your side can't possibly win the match is still fun because you are still engaging in a protracted contest of skills.
In strategy games, once the game reaches a point where one side cannot possibly win and the other side cannot possibly lose, then skill is no longer a factor. Accordingly, playing on is no fun.
When playing a lost game, shooters can keep playing the same game and still be playing a game. Strategy players playing a lost game aren't playing a game, they are merely engaging in activity; if they want to keep playing games, they have to stop playing the lost game and start a new one.
I submit that, at least for most players, NS2 has much more in common with strategy games (such as chess or go) than with shooters (or other continuous demonstrations of skill, such as football or basketball). Accordingly, most NS2 players will quite reasonably want to quit a game whose outcome has become a forgone conclusion rather than playing on to see how well they can keep shooting and biting the opposing team. I think this is the more reasonable viewpoint (insofar as any such viewpoint can be called "reasonable" rather than merely an opinion) because of the way NS2 gameplay is structured. There is a clear objective which defines the winners and losers of the game - destroy the hives or chairs. While shooting well and killing enemies is an important part of the game, it's only important to the degree to which it contributes to achieving the objective. And if one team gets too far behind in its strategic progress towards that objective, then shooting well and killing enemies in fact becomes utterly meaningless. You can have a team full of the best shots in the world, but if you're on W1/A1 and one chair when the aliens have half the map and a team full of Onos, then you're going to lose no matter how well you aim.
Shooting and killing is not the objective in NS2, and is not even meaningful near the end of a game. Thus, demonstrating your skill at shooting and killing once the game's outcome is no longer in doubt is not fun.
At least, not for most people. At least, not for me.
Certainly, that is bad sportsmanship if it drags on for lets say 5 minutes like this. However if conced was only implemented for those severe cases, I say the cure is worse than the disease. After all people could always F4 or leave the server.
And this is where the crux of the problem is. This course of action leads to empty servers and lopsided games. The concede vote keeps the server populated and actually allows for the start of a new round. There is no down side other than the winning team not getting to shoot fish in a barrel. I and several others have made suggestions for a "mini-end game" that would be triggered by a concede vote to give the winners a chance to slaughter the other team; but most people on the other side of the discussion seem to only want to be able to endlessly kill in a meaningless encounter over a forgone conclusion; and anyone that doesn't like it can just quit the server. And that does not seem very sportsmanlike to me.
The downside is the defeatist attitude people get and how it destroys team morale and good games. I don't know where you are playing but I have never seen the winning team playing with the losers only to spawnkill. I have seen my share of turtles on both sides; every time the turtlers manage to drag out the game it is because they did not give up and kept fighting.
I'm not interested in bunkering in a base and building walls of armories, when my commander tries that, i drop my weapons and try to make friends with some onos who might let me ride on his back. That way I'm having way more fun than the bunkerers who keep dying or the quitters who cry about how much the commander/the teammates screwed up.
If concede has to stay, I'm all for this mini end game. You could copy 1:1 what happened in ns1 when you took out the last hive/ip. Maybe add a wallhack for the winners.
The downside is the defeatist attitude people get and how it destroys team morale and good games. I don't know where you are playing but I have never seen the winning team playing with the losers only to spawnkill. I have seen my share of turtles on both sides; every time the turtlers manage to drag out the game it is because they did not give up and kept fighting.
I'm not interested in bunkering in a base and building walls of armories, when my commander tries that, i drop my weapons and try to make friends with some onos who might let me ride on his back. That way I'm having way more fun than the bunkerers who keep dying or the quitters who cry about how much the commander/the teammates screwed up.
If concede has to stay, I'm all for this mini end game. You could copy 1:1 what happened in ns1 when you took out the last hive/ip. Maybe add a wallhack for the winners.
See, I agree with you that the defeatist attitude ruins games, which is why I advocate for tighter restrictions for when a concede vote is allowed (fewer than 2 techpoints, and/or fewer than two extractors, and at least 10 mins of game time). I am also in agreement that bunkering into marine start with armory walls and spamming grenades over them is pointless. I also go try and be a pet for the aliens. The only difference is I vote to concede first. Trying to ride an onos or pet a gorge can only be entertaining for so long. Not voting to concede is giving tacit approval for actions I do not agree with (turtling for turtling's sake). I think the mini game would be a great addition.
Comments
It's easily fixed by implementing simple Win/Loss/Leave statistics. This will discourage *many* players from leaving the server as soon as they get their ass kicked for the first time or conceding right after they spot first onos/exo.
As an example, W/L/L percentage could be shown in score tab for people in ready room only (so it won't clutter ingame scoreboard).
Exactly, and my argument is: instead of focusing on mechanics how to end the game as painless as possible, UWE should focus on making the game less painful.
For example, I dislike the trend of the marine lmg fireing faster with every version of ns. In old ns1 times, the lmg was a tracking weapon. If you were only good at twitch aiming, you needed a shotgun. Right now, the lmg fires so fast, holding down the mousebutton is only neccesary when shooting buildings, and that's not really enjoyable. On the other side, it can feel like instagib if someone shoots your skulk while you are not moving (as in biting an extractor). As of now, I even feel the lmg is a bit op. Op in a sense of I dont really feel the need for a weapon "upgrade" neccessary when playing marines most of the time. Sure, shotguns are great for killing fades but having a lmg is always a good choice (unlike gl or flamethrower).
Few games if any have ever managed to make losing fun. I think NS2 does a pretty good job since at least losing as marine is considered as fun by some.
This won't work. Typically, by the time one team has decided to concede, it is because the other team is not finishing the game. This can be for a variety of reasons including poor teamwork, poor sportsmanship (teching to have all the top tech before finishing the game), or simply an insufficient grasp of the tactics necessary to deliver the coup de grâce. Under these circumstances, especially the first two which are certainly more prevalent that the last, I would never expect to see a concede vote go through. When a team lacks the sportsmanship to finish a game they have already won, but prefer to continue "shooting fish in a barrel" why would they suddenly decide to let the other team off the hook?
In a case where 100% of the winning team all share that lack of sportsmanship, I agree it would be a painful experience, but in such a case I doubt it would be the first painful experience had in the round. However I think it is very rare for every player on a team to behave that way. This is why only 30% of a team is required to allow a concede.
Though I agree, it is overly reliant on the good nature of players, though the current system could be said to be overly affected by the bad nature of players.
I'm not saying losing has to be fun, I'm saying that you should have fun until the point you lost and the game is over. I'm not playing a lot of FPS as of late but in pretty much each teambased shooter, the last man standing doesnt just qq, cry and type concede because his team lost the round. It happens in MOBAs like Dota 2, but these games end automatically if players go afk/idle therefore giving up. As long as they put up a fight, even if they lose horribly, the game progresses. In order to prevent single players from destroying the fun for his team by giving up, these people get reported and recognized by the system so next time they play, they can play with people with a similar mindset (usually ending in really bad teamwork).
As of your talk about sportsmanship, i dont think you know what it means. It simply takes rooky marines a few minutes to kill the last hive, partly because the aliens keep up the fight. If they would hide on top of their hive/in some vent, the marines run out of things to shoot at some point.
The problem of concede is, that the etiquette in an FPS/RTS is not clear. It is ok in RTS, it is not in FPS.
The question of sportsmanship comes into play when the winning side chooses to contain the losing side while they continue to build superfluous resource extractors and research tech they won't use and do not need rather than marching into the last tech point and finishing the game. Granted this happens more so on the marine side than the alien side, but it is still grossly unsportsmanlike to engage in such a behavior. I have even been on teams where the commander has actively discouraged players from killing the final tech point; and been on alien teams where people scream "don't kill the IP, let them spawn so we can kill them". In such cases, concede is required.
If you do not agree that the above illustrated behavior is a gross display of poor sportsmanship, there isn't much left to discuss.
Looking at all the arguements, this seems the most logical reason yet.
Problem indeed is that depending on the persons this can be at any techpoint, making concede link to them a moot point also.
hmm.. have to think about that.
I think you have to ask the question "At what point to the majority of people find the game un-fun to play?" and "At what point does the likelihood of a comeback drastically drop off?"
I think the most common ground between the two is "less than two techpoints and less than 2 controlled extractors". I am on the fence about how long a round has to be before allowing a concede vote. I would not want the game to turn into "Failed Rush -> Concede; wash, rinse, repeat" by allowing a concede vote to happen too early.
Certainly, that is bad sportsmanship if it drags on for lets say 5 minutes like this. However if conced was only implemented for those severe cases, I say the cure is worse than the disease. After all people could always F4 or leave the server.
The problem is that the game encourages the bad behaviour: Killing free units doesnt help you winning the game but that doesnt mean that the players who are dying over and over wont get demotivated. The game does not punish you for building lots of respawn facilities, they are even required in larger servers and turn the game into a zergfest.
People point out how important pressure is and how there is action all the time. Even the pro players get exhausted after a long round. I think this permanent action is toxic for the game. Once one side has the advantage, the other will permanently get killed and that's where the qq is coming from.
In shooters, you demonstrate your skill every time you pull the trigger. Playing on even though your side can't possibly win the match is still fun because you are still engaging in a protracted contest of skills.
In strategy games, once the game reaches a point where one side cannot possibly win and the other side cannot possibly lose, then skill is no longer a factor. Accordingly, playing on is no fun.
When playing a lost game, shooters can keep playing the same game and still be playing a game. Strategy players playing a lost game aren't playing a game, they are merely engaging in activity; if they want to keep playing games, they have to stop playing the lost game and start a new one.
I submit that, at least for most players, NS2 has much more in common with strategy games (such as chess or go) than with shooters (or other continuous demonstrations of skill, such as football or basketball). Accordingly, most NS2 players will quite reasonably want to quit a game whose outcome has become a forgone conclusion rather than playing on to see how well they can keep shooting and biting the opposing team. I think this is the more reasonable viewpoint (insofar as any such viewpoint can be called "reasonable" rather than merely an opinion) because of the way NS2 gameplay is structured. There is a clear objective which defines the winners and losers of the game - destroy the hives or chairs. While shooting well and killing enemies is an important part of the game, it's only important to the degree to which it contributes to achieving the objective. And if one team gets too far behind in its strategic progress towards that objective, then shooting well and killing enemies in fact becomes utterly meaningless. You can have a team full of the best shots in the world, but if you're on W1/A1 and one chair when the aliens have half the map and a team full of Onos, then you're going to lose no matter how well you aim.
Shooting and killing is not the objective in NS2, and is not even meaningful near the end of a game. Thus, demonstrating your skill at shooting and killing once the game's outcome is no longer in doubt is not fun.
At least, not for most people. At least, not for me.
And this is where the crux of the problem is. This course of action leads to empty servers and lopsided games. The concede vote keeps the server populated and actually allows for the start of a new round. There is no down side other than the winning team not getting to shoot fish in a barrel. I and several others have made suggestions for a "mini-end game" that would be triggered by a concede vote to give the winners a chance to slaughter the other team; but most people on the other side of the discussion seem to only want to be able to endlessly kill in a meaningless encounter over a forgone conclusion; and anyone that doesn't like it can just quit the server. And that does not seem very sportsmanlike to me.
I'm not interested in bunkering in a base and building walls of armories, when my commander tries that, i drop my weapons and try to make friends with some onos who might let me ride on his back. That way I'm having way more fun than the bunkerers who keep dying or the quitters who cry about how much the commander/the teammates screwed up.
If concede has to stay, I'm all for this mini end game. You could copy 1:1 what happened in ns1 when you took out the last hive/ip. Maybe add a wallhack for the winners.
See, I agree with you that the defeatist attitude ruins games, which is why I advocate for tighter restrictions for when a concede vote is allowed (fewer than 2 techpoints, and/or fewer than two extractors, and at least 10 mins of game time). I am also in agreement that bunkering into marine start with armory walls and spamming grenades over them is pointless. I also go try and be a pet for the aliens. The only difference is I vote to concede first. Trying to ride an onos or pet a gorge can only be entertaining for so long. Not voting to concede is giving tacit approval for actions I do not agree with (turtling for turtling's sake). I think the mini game would be a great addition.