Forgiveness
Savant
Join Date: 2002-11-30 Member: 10289Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Join Date: 2002-11-30 Member: 10289Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Note to those with short attention spans: This is not a thread about balance, please stay on topic.
Forgiveness.
In video game terms it's the ability for a player to recover from a setback. Simple example... If a player is playing a game and dies, if the game is over for him that means the game has no forgiveness. The player has to play a perfect game, since death means the game is over.
One of the things that I have been troubled with in NS2 is the apparent lack of forgiveness in many aspects of the game. As can be expected, when the game begins, each decision made by the players will influence the outcome of the game. That's all fine and good. The problem is that the game can reach a point where one team has been dealt a setback that they can't recover from.
Now in of itself, that's not a problem. If one team reaches a point where they can no longer win, then you could say that they have lost the game. The problem is that the game hasn't ended. So players are faced with the prospect of playing a game that they can't win.
This is a problem.
One of the most basic elements of any game - no matter what type - is that a player must have a chance to win the game. This is not an option. No one wants to play a game they can't win. Even if the chance is small, a person needs to have the belief that there is a chance for them to win the game.
In NS2 there are many occasions - on either side - when a team can reach a point where they have been dealt a setback they can't recover from. This is where forgiveness comes into play. In an ideal situation, no team should be dealt a setback they can't recover from - unless that setback ends the game.
Now since the game does have to end, such conditions must exist. So if the marines lose their only command chair or if the aliens to lose their only hive, the game ends. There is no forgiveness since this is a game ending condition.
This should mean - ideally - that up until this point, a team should have a chance to recover from any setback. The chance doesn't need to be large, but it needs to be of a measure that is beyond what most players would consider 'hopeless'.
I play NS2 often and I find myself watching and listening to how the players react to certain setbacks. What I've found is that there are many cases when a team will lose a tech point, and it puts them into an unrecoverable situation. This doesn't happen every time though. Sometimes it's only a minor setback because while your team just lost one tech point, they may have gained another. Or they may be in a position to easily retake that point. However, in cases where they are not in a position to recover, the players become defeatist and look to concede the game.
Which brings me to concede. While it serves a purpose, concede only addresses the symptoms of a problem, and not the problem itself. Again, in an ideal game, the game should end when one team has been dealt a setback they cannot recover from. In NS2 that doesn't always happen.
In short, I feel NS2 suffers from a lack of forgiveness.
Players should never feel like they need to concede the game. If losing a tech point effectively means a team has lost the game, then the game should end. If a team losing their first three harvesters/extractors at the beginning of the game will not be able to recover from that, then the game should end. If losing your commander half-way through is fatal, then the game should end. Etc.
Another example... Power nodes are particularly bad at putting a marine team in a lost situation just by a single alien destroying that structure. Despite it being a team game, one player has effectively ended the game since there is usually little forgiveness from losing that power node.
This lack of forgiveness is something that I really think needs to be addressed.
In my personal opinion, I think most players would accept other circumstances where the game ends - if they knew what those circumstances were. For example, if losing your second tech point effectively means a lost game, then players would accept losing that game if they knew in advance what the penalty for losing that tech point was. They would then be much more vigilant in this regard.
I feel NS2 should be looking to reduce or eliminate the lack of forgiveness that exists in the game as it stands. In the example of a tech point, they could make tech points harder to capture, but the capture of ANY tech point ends the game. Or they could make tech points easier to capture, which would mean more turnovers, and a better chance for a team to make a comeback. However, this might lead to longer games.
In the end, if a game is conceded, that usually means the players have become defeatist and the game has become unenjoyable. Without enough forgiveness in the game, it can often mean players don't have a fun experience.
gg?
Not always.
Forgiveness.
In video game terms it's the ability for a player to recover from a setback. Simple example... If a player is playing a game and dies, if the game is over for him that means the game has no forgiveness. The player has to play a perfect game, since death means the game is over.
One of the things that I have been troubled with in NS2 is the apparent lack of forgiveness in many aspects of the game. As can be expected, when the game begins, each decision made by the players will influence the outcome of the game. That's all fine and good. The problem is that the game can reach a point where one team has been dealt a setback that they can't recover from.
Now in of itself, that's not a problem. If one team reaches a point where they can no longer win, then you could say that they have lost the game. The problem is that the game hasn't ended. So players are faced with the prospect of playing a game that they can't win.
This is a problem.
One of the most basic elements of any game - no matter what type - is that a player must have a chance to win the game. This is not an option. No one wants to play a game they can't win. Even if the chance is small, a person needs to have the belief that there is a chance for them to win the game.
In NS2 there are many occasions - on either side - when a team can reach a point where they have been dealt a setback they can't recover from. This is where forgiveness comes into play. In an ideal situation, no team should be dealt a setback they can't recover from - unless that setback ends the game.
Now since the game does have to end, such conditions must exist. So if the marines lose their only command chair or if the aliens to lose their only hive, the game ends. There is no forgiveness since this is a game ending condition.
This should mean - ideally - that up until this point, a team should have a chance to recover from any setback. The chance doesn't need to be large, but it needs to be of a measure that is beyond what most players would consider 'hopeless'.
I play NS2 often and I find myself watching and listening to how the players react to certain setbacks. What I've found is that there are many cases when a team will lose a tech point, and it puts them into an unrecoverable situation. This doesn't happen every time though. Sometimes it's only a minor setback because while your team just lost one tech point, they may have gained another. Or they may be in a position to easily retake that point. However, in cases where they are not in a position to recover, the players become defeatist and look to concede the game.
Which brings me to concede. While it serves a purpose, concede only addresses the symptoms of a problem, and not the problem itself. Again, in an ideal game, the game should end when one team has been dealt a setback they cannot recover from. In NS2 that doesn't always happen.
In short, I feel NS2 suffers from a lack of forgiveness.
Players should never feel like they need to concede the game. If losing a tech point effectively means a team has lost the game, then the game should end. If a team losing their first three harvesters/extractors at the beginning of the game will not be able to recover from that, then the game should end. If losing your commander half-way through is fatal, then the game should end. Etc.
Another example... Power nodes are particularly bad at putting a marine team in a lost situation just by a single alien destroying that structure. Despite it being a team game, one player has effectively ended the game since there is usually little forgiveness from losing that power node.
This lack of forgiveness is something that I really think needs to be addressed.
In my personal opinion, I think most players would accept other circumstances where the game ends - if they knew what those circumstances were. For example, if losing your second tech point effectively means a lost game, then players would accept losing that game if they knew in advance what the penalty for losing that tech point was. They would then be much more vigilant in this regard.
I feel NS2 should be looking to reduce or eliminate the lack of forgiveness that exists in the game as it stands. In the example of a tech point, they could make tech points harder to capture, but the capture of ANY tech point ends the game. Or they could make tech points easier to capture, which would mean more turnovers, and a better chance for a team to make a comeback. However, this might lead to longer games.
In the end, if a game is conceded, that usually means the players have become defeatist and the game has become unenjoyable. Without enough forgiveness in the game, it can often mean players don't have a fun experience.
gg?
Not always.
Comments
typical "solution" = surrender/resign/concede
Adding a bunch more victory or defeat mechanisms to NS2 doesn't solve a problem, it just makes games alot more likely to end without letting the players decide on that moment.
Adding more depth to the strategy involved in NS2 would open more avenues for a comeback from a disadvantaged player, which is more important in my opinion than giving the losing side more defeat conditions. How are you going to promote more comeback matches if any risk a losing side is willing to make may end with instant defeat?
In multiplayer games, one side or one player will always gain an advantage over the other. Losing engagements or expansions, being out teched or having a poorer economy. The better side should in general snowball small steps like these into a win. I think the actual problem you want to look at is that in NS2 the game is decided in the first few minutes of the game.
You don't lose a game in ns2 due to 1 single setback you lose to it to multiple setbacks.
The question you should be asking is, HOW do i stop this?
Well, Marines will generally lose if they lose to many early engagements and aren't able to apply enough pressure to minimize alien expansion. NOW, How do you stop this? ok, What is your team weakness? if its poor map rotating then you probably want to get phase gates, if your map rotating is good and your players have a general idea about positioning, then go upgrades. That is just 1 solution to this.
Aliens, Most games i lose as alien in competitive matches is because we are forced to defend and then we get stuck in that frame mind, As aliens you also need to play aggressive. You need to fight marines on marine turf as much as possible. There isn't much more to it than that. You lose to many engagements early and marines are able to dictate your expansion then its game over.
A team that has a very weak early game shouldn't be able to come back, that's the cycle of life.
For marines I agree power nodes are a shitty mechanic, I still wish they'd try some other approaches with them.
In recent days, I was involved in several epic battles. Given that the teams were equal, I was witness to some team action which seriously affected the round and changed the course of the battle. Without these team action the result could be a totally different. That's why I love challenging games with equal teams - in a hot battle point of no return is clear and clean for all players.
ps sorry for bad english
That is, if you have 1 tech point and the other team has three, or four tech points, the game should end after 30 seconds of this being the game state.
I don't want perfect never-ending games. I just want a game to end when there is no longer any reasonable chance to win.
That's not the question at all though. This isn't about losing a game. There are many ways one loses a game, and many ways to prevent that. That's strategy and far beyond the scope of this thread.
My post is about being in a position where the game is not over, yet a team no longer has any real chance to win.
How they got to that point isn't the real issue though. Obviously they have had setbacks. My issue is this...
If it is over, end the game.
That's it. If the setbacks a teams has faced are 'fatal' then end the game. Toss up the Aliens Win or Marines Win screen and end it. Instead we have a system where people are either forced to play a lost game, or if they are lucky they can get enough people to use the concede function. Both options are hardly ideal. The losing team is demoralized and the winning team feels 'cheated' out of their win.
Every game has to have a winner and a loser. I'm not calling that into question. What I'm saying is that once the 'loser' has been determined, end the game. Either that or change the game so that a team doesn't feel they have no hope to stage a comeback when dealt a setback.
x -> vote concede
/thread
While I agree it's no fun to play a "lost" game, defining what is in fact a lost game is very difficult beyond killing the final chair/hive within the game logic itself. I've played several games that would have been considered "lost" (and several players did vote to concede) that a turnaround was managed in some way, and ended up a win.
Yes statistically speaking if either team loses three RT's at the round start they will probably lose the overall game, but not always. Same with losing a techpoint or another key position, or losing a pack of exos/oni. But I've still seen rallying victories over those circumstances.
The key consideration here is there is no way for the game to determine a win/loss scenario better then it currently is that I can see. Everything else is subjective, and while not perfect, concede is really the only way to provide that "decision" to the players. (beyond just F4/leaving the server) If a majority feels it's lost, there is a method to finally say so and end the game.
I'm not sure what could be changed in the game itself to help this, but that kinda comes back to player attitude doesn't it? Comebacks near universally require a lot of teamwork, and those players have to want to win. If the desire/teamwork isn't there, it won't matter what methods are available, people will still give up and not try.
Wait what are you asking for? Your original post said that the game is not forgiving enough and that there should always be a chance to comeback. Now you are saying that you want the game to end when there is no longer any reasonable chance to win. That is the opposite of forgiveness. So which exactly are you asking?
Now to respond to your original post. I think the game is perfectly balanced in terms of forgiveness. There is no problem. If you have a weak team your moment of loss will come early and you will never recover that's just how it is, that's common sense. A weak team does not need a million comeback chances just to draw out games and make them last forever. That's what marine turtleing is, an extreme example of forgiveness for loosing all map control. A good team on the other hand always has a "chance" just like you say you should have. This is a combat strategy game. Some one has to loose and loose comes from decisive moments. That moment could be the first 40secs as their base gets rushed.
Why should a shitty team that has lost all map control and is taken down to a single room and tech point have the chance to comeback and wipe the opposing team clean? How fair is that to the winning team?
Now my question is you want the game to end when there is no reasonable chance to win. How could game AI possibly ever predict that?
For example, we can imagine the implementation of this system by the example Conquest mode in FPS games.
"Ticket loss, also referred to as ticket bleeding, is the state where a team constantly loses reinforcement tickets due to the opposing team holding more flags. The more the opposing team have flags than the first team, the faster the latter loses tickets. This is a strategy employed by many teams in order to avoid lengthy periods of fighting, although if the other team re-captures lost flags, the ticket loss may be incurred on the opposing team." (C) battlefield.wikia.com/wiki/Conquest
Under these conditions it is easy to calculate when the team is passes point of no return. We have numbers and we have time. Easy to calculate. But even with this possibility - the game on conquest rounds is still continues, for many years, in many games ...
In ns2 i can't imagine how we can "calculate", and how "artificial intelligence of the game" will be able to calculate the chances for us? what if some players still get "hope" and plans?
ps sorry for bad english
I'd suggest that 99 times out of a hundred most people would rather end the game and start a new one.
Is there? Simple example.
At present the alien team can take out the power in marine base, and kill all marines, but the game doesn't end unless they destroy the command chair. Despite the fact that there is literally no chance for the marine team to recover from this, the game continues.
Why? Once we answer that question, expand the circle outwards.
Yes. Both are issues that can be addressed. As has been noted, if the game was totally forgiving then it would never end. There has to be a limit to forgiveness. However, in NS2 when that limit is reached the game doesn't end.
It's not, and I don't think it should be recoverable.
However, how fair is it to the LOSING team to stand around for target practice while they wait for the other team to get their act together? If the game is over, END IT. If losing that second tech point has reduced your chance to win to under 5%, is it worth it to play? I think most players would say no.
NS2 is a complex game, but it's not that complex that winning conditions can't be predicted. We could sit here and rattle off circumstances whereby a team has lost the game (or should lose) - yet despite this the game carries on.
So either let the team stage a comeback (with more forgiveness) or end the game.
I agree. Nothing is perfect. However, of late more games end in concede that end by destruction of the last tech point. Think about it. How many games do you lose by losing the last tech point compared to a concede?
I'm just saying I think there should be less games conceded. Conceded games indicate a lack of forgiveness in the gameplay. So if more forgiveness can't be added, then end the game when a team is past the point of no return.
There is concede which is fool proof system which will end the game if your team's chances of winning are basically 0.
I don't see what your getting at.
In short, what I feel the game should have less of is concede - since concede means that the game has failed to resolve itself in a natural fashion. One team has found themselves in a position where they feel they have no hope of winning.
I think UWE would be able to use spmonitor to dig deeper. See what common elements there are.
While I used the 'lost tech point' as an example, let's examine that. Have spmonitor see how many games are conceded after a team loses a tech point.
If that number is high, then perhaps something should be done to alter forgiveness, or to expedite the end of the game.
Bottom line: I don't know too many people who jump for joy when they need to concede a game. I also don't know too many people who are happy when the other team concedes. That's something that should change.
Having said that, in public gather play, I find the forgiveness to be about right - because the teams are both switched on from the start. None of this 'I'll command... game starts... oh wait I gotta go' nonsense that you get in pubs left right and centre. There is too much of that kind of nonsense on pubs, and it ruins many, many games because one team gets a little behind right at the start, and that snowball just leads to the inevitable loss some 10 minutes later that everyone has been able to predict (but would get slammed for suggesting concede - on pubs this is).
Slowing down the early economies might be one way to achieve it, though I haven't put a lot of thought into how one might go about that, or what the knock-on consequences might be.
"Forgiveness" in a skill based game where you pile up positional and material advantages is inversely proportional to skill. While beginners may lose a rook or multiple minor pieces and still turn the game around, experienced players usually resign after losing a minor piece, or after reaching a theoretically lost position. "The rest is just a matter of technique" - a phrase you often read in commentaries and reviews of the game. It means a point in the game was reached where any solid, adequately skilled player must be able to win.
The same goes with NS2, though unlike chess, it's not a deterministic game. And I believe there is no way around it. You either want the game to be skill - based and competitive, and then the above applies, or you introduce "forgiveness" in the form of luck elements, and then the game will no longer favor the more skilled player.
Your job to convince them that there are still chances, if you feel there are any that is.
If you makes errors while the other team is incisive, you are not forgiven.
I like your chess parallel (I used to be in a chess club and one of the things I loved to do was expositions where I'd play 10-20 boards against the public in a mall (as a means to drum up interest in the club) and you could see just by the way they played how at a given point there was no hope for them to win. However in their case they didn't *know* that, which is why they continued to play. Yet with skilled players, as you aptly noted, they will know when they are beat - since they know the level of skill on the other team means it would take a blunder of monumental proportions for the outcome to change - and that just isn't going to happen.
I don't want to see skill factored out by introducing more luck elements. As it stands now the luck element of which starting location you have can have a marked effect on the outcome of the game.
I'm more thinking that it might be better to have the build-up on each side foundational. Simple example, if a marine team secures a second tech point, once they drop that second CC the game is over if *either* chair is destroyed. This means marine progression will reach a point where - if they falter - the game is over. I know people will try and apply this example to the game NOW, but you cant do that. Tech points fall all the time since there is no penalty for losing it. (aside from the last one)
So if a team knew that losing a tech point would lose the game, I think you would see the gameplay change so that such events are far less likely. As such, which it does happen, it will end the game. People will know that it will end the game, and they will be satisfied with the outcome. While certain things may need to be tweaked for this to be viable (like power nodes) the reality is that this might put more forgiveness in the game since people would pay more attention to that second tech point. As such, they're not going to lose it - and the game - prematurely. See what I mean?
I'm not suggesting that we can determine every possible outcome - that isn't realistic. However, I do think we can lessen the number of conceded games - which would certainly increase player enjoyment. As I said above, very few people enjoy conceding a game. Unlike chess, people in NS2 want to play the game out to its natural conclusion, and that's just not happening right now.
What if marines relocated due to an early base rush -- the game just ends?
This is why you can't "simply" end the game based off preconceived conditions in NS2. Letting players decide by voting to concede is the absolute best solution possible.
That being said I think anything randomly given would come off cheap like supply crates being jacked by the enemy team, or bowser taking all your stars and giving them to princess peach all because you rolled the dice unfortunately.
So bring in a hail Mary strategy that you've earned the option for.
Again I like the new idea in sewlek's balance mod of the commander able to provide power to one structure at a time for a cost. Its risky but could pay off.
What about things like allowing alien commander to reposition and repurpose his structures to better suit a shift in strategy? Sewlek's balance mod as well.
What about allowing aliens to change their upgrades for a price to better suit changes on the battlefield? (I'm trying to convince him)
Cheaper gorge tunnels that spread infestation for your skulk rush/forward egg drop? Sewlek's balance mod again.
Things like these add to the game, where you feel like you could still have a possibility of winning.
I'm actually open to anything (balanced - but that goes without saying) which will stop people from saying "gg" as soon as they lose a tech point or the like. People have become very defeatist in the game, and concede isn't the answer. It's a band-aid that doesn't fix the underlying problem.
try it yourself and design something concrete that works better than concede... see how many people get angry lol
that said, I do think they just need to reduce the time between "99% chance of victory" and "ending the game"
for example, like the whole ability for marines to turtle when aliens have the whole map is just bad
I agree. Returning to my chess analogy, chess has greater problem than resigning, resigning does not bother any player. It's the draw offer. Professional players unwilling to risk often play 15 or so theoretical moves and then offer and accept draw. This leads to boring tournaments void of fighting games people love so much.
There were many proposals, like draw cannot be accepted before 30 moves, or that an arbiter must approve each draw offer, or trying to introduce 3 points for win and 1 point for draw, or banning draws altogether, and nothing ever worked well.
You cannot orders players to play when they don't want to. Never, ever. And similarly, you anger them when they take an ongoing game they want to play from them. That's why selling base by a commander is rude and bad. That's why any form of "deus ex machina" ending is bad.
Resigning will always be a part of skill-based games. It's the dice or card based games where you can play till the end and hope for the kiss of the Lady Luck.
Again, it's not concede - in of itself - that is the problem. Concede is a symptom of a problem, when more games end in concede than end by a team reaching an end-game objective. Do your own little poll. When you play a game, make a note of whether it ended by one team killing the other team's final tech point, or did it end by concede.
Games that end with a pile of aliens (or marines) putting together a large end-game push to finish it are pretty rare. Usually the game is conceded before then. While the game may be lost, and while those on the losing team don't want to play a game they can't win, would it not be better to try and narrow the gap between when a team concedes and when the opponent can reach the end-game objective?
In chess it's usually considered 'bad manners' to play out the game to the final move if it is clear you have no chance of winning. If you have a king and a few pawns, while your opponent has a queen/rook remaining, you're not winning that game. Tip over your king and accept defeat gracefully. However, NS2 is not chess. The asymmetric aspects of NS2 make the kind of balance found in chess impossible to attain.
Frankly, 'concede' is not a very commonly used mechanic in online games. Does it exist elsewhere? Sure, but it's the exception, not the rule.
My point is not to take concede out of the game. It's a very useful mechanic. My point is that we should be endeavouring to make it so that it doesn't need to be used nearly as often as it is now.