When it comes to ending the game each side has a way.
Alien - Go for the power node.
Due to this i have, as a single gorge when both hives were being assaulted and i knew they wouldnt last long, attacked the power node in main. I downed it without enzyme or help. Just bilebomb. We won that game.
Marines - As comm i recycle the ips and everything else not vital for a last stand. Drop a lot of guns and say "have at it". Better to die in a blaze of glory. My point in this is th marine comm is the most powerful player when it comes to ending games. They can do it with one button "recycle". Marines dont have a magical Achilles heel to shoot for so it is up to them to give up. Aliens steam roll slowly unlike a winning marine game which ends fast.
Mechanics imo are fine. Player knowledge and knowing when it isnt possible to win is what is lacking. Aliens always have a chance though small (as we have seen in comp match upsets). Marines do not.
Concede is the option that is there when you feel like you've lost. If you personally don't think you've lost then press Alt and say, "Guys, this isn't over we have A3/W3." - "Let's get out there and get some RTs back and get back in this game!"
"Hey, we've got 3 Pres Fades coming up, let's see if we can crack this hold and get a 2nd hive!"
There are options, you just have to utilize them and understand how to win when you're on the back foot.
If I had all the answers I wouldn't be posting in here now would I.
The 'how' is up for debate. I'm not tied to any particular idea - my example above was just that, an example. It's the principle of it that I brought up for discussion.
Already we've seen MANY threads where people complain about concede. While the answer is *not* to remove concede, (please do know I am not advocating for that) there should be other means to reduce the need to use concede. Either through more forgiveness, or through other means.
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.
Actually, its pretty much the rule for RTS games.
I guess this is where it depends on how you look at it. I look at NS2 as a FPS first and a RTS second. I've heard the developers say that too. So my remark was primarily with respect to FPS games. Apologies for not making that clear.
Very interesting read about the slippery slope. I've wondered for a long time how ns2 could mitigate the rather extreme slippery slope that it has. Perhaps a limited recovery of some res from destroyed buildings over time could help...
For example, any building that's destroyed (either team) adds half of its value back to the tres pool, but delayed over say the next 20s - a short term boost to the economic ticks.
It could be justified in terms of eg nanites recycling or organic recovery (decomp).
As a mechanic, it's a minor change but could help to slow down the slippery slope. I think it would mean that game ending tech should be a little better than it currently is to compensate, but that should extend the early and mid games quite well.
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.
Again, I will use my chess analogy. In chess, vast majority of the decisive games are concluded by one player resigning. Seeing checkmate on the board is an absolute rarity, mostly either due to one side hoping the other will run out of time, or due to a blunder which is extremely rare on higher levels. I am sure most of the players don't perceive this as a problem. Beginners are encouraged to play to the very end to brush up endgame technique. Masters don't find it worthwhile and resign in time. Since the moment when playing further is no longer desirable is subjective, no "rule" can artificially specify it. Nor is anyone looking for the way to change the rules to eliminate this phenomenon from the game.
Again, NS2 seems completely the same case for me. Beginners can play the turtling positions just to practice combat, experienced teams will resign. I have not yet seen any competitive game that would suffer from prolonged endgame. An advantage is usually swiftly capitalized on and brutally pressed to victory.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
edited March 2013
But if experiencing an actual victory never occurs anymore..
And i don't mean just seeing the splash screen of your team's victory when no one even entered their base - all thanks to concede.. it just feels very anticlimactic compared to TF2 (since it's been used before as an example of a fight to the bitter end)
And btw, i'd disagree regarding trivializing, by saying games like TF2, again, feel like hard fought victories when it comes down to the wire and after plenty of back and forth.. if anything its more impactful imo.
I guess this is where it depends on how you look at it. I look at NS2 as a FPS first and a RTS second. I've heard the developers say that too. So my remark was primarily with respect to FPS games. Apologies for not making that clear.
Concede is rare in FPS games but universal in RTS games, as ScardyBob (and many others in similar threads before) has noted.
In my opinion, the reasoning behind "RTS so concede is fine" is much more appropriate to NS2 than is the reasoning behind "FPS so concede is bad". I explained why in more detail in this comment. Please read that, and assume I just now said the same thing here.
I think my reasoning holds true even given the developer's stance that NS2 is "an FPS first and an RTS second".
Again, I will use my chess analogy. In chess, vast majority of the decisive games are concluded by one player resigning. Seeing checkmate on the board is an absolute rarity, mostly either due to one side hoping the other will run out of time, or due to a blunder which is extremely rare on higher levels.
While you are absolutely right in your observation about chess - with respect - this isn't chess. With chess the outcome is predictable based on the pieces on the field. In NS2 that is not the case.
Concede is rare in FPS games but universal in RTS games, as ScardyBob (and many others in similar threads before) has noted.
And as I noted, this is not an RTS. Let me quote straight from the Charlie himself:
From NS1 I learned that the best intermarriage of the two genres is closer to FPS than half-way between the two. It has to be a great FPS first, with RTS elements playing a secondary role.
(emphasis mine)
I don't know how much more clear this can be. Trying to treat NS2 as an RTS first is not how the game was designed and it is not how the game is played. So can we please keep this in mind with the responses?
But if experiencing an actual victory never occurs anymore..
But the point is that you DO experience it, at least I do, every time after half an hour of laborious commanding, those big letters announcing victory bring a moment of triumphant relief. Similarly in chess, when an opponent nods after a long time of pondering, and silently extends his hand to shake yours, even though the casual observers don't always understand the reasons.
Similar analogy exists in fencing. There is no need to vulgarly cut down one's opponent, a bloodless demonstration of one's skill is often enough, and all the more satisfying. The losing side must be of course capable of understanding, as shown in the following short scene:
But if experiencing an actual victory never occurs anymore..
But the point is that you DO experience it, at least I do, every time after half an hour of laborious commanding, those big letters announcing victory bring a moment of triumphant relief.
So are you suggesting you *prefer* to win a game by the other team conceding than with a final base push? Really?
I would think that if you polled the player base, you would be in the minority on that.
It's really hard to allow for severe comebacks in a game like NS2 without trivializing victories.
Could you explain what you mean here? This seems like an important point, and it seems like one I would disagree with, but I'm not entirely certain I grasp your meaning.
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.
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.
If players don't want to play a game they can type exit in console.
I think my reasoning holds true even given the developer's stance that NS2 is "an FPS first and an RTS second".
With respect, the problem is that you're not the developer of the game, he is. Your reasoning is based on a flawed premise. Whether you feel this is an RTS game is irrelevant, it is not. The creator and developer has said that as well. Trying to base an opinion that opposes that basic principle is a flaw in logic.
This game is an FPS first, and in FPS games concede is a very rare mechanic.
While I am not advocating to have concede removed, it should be a RARE event, and not a common one like it is now.
those big letters announcing victory bring a moment of triumphant relief. Similarly in chess, when an opponent nods after a long time of pondering, and silently extends his hand to shake yours, even though the casual observers don't always understand the reasons.
I'll take blowing up the enemy base any day, thank you.
Destroying everything is a climactic, and fulfilling victory.
I absolutely love it when an alien team can stomach a whole 30 seconds more for us to enter, siege, GL, GT, EXO our way to the fireworks show that we've earned.
Or vice versa BBing and coordinating our final attack on rine base.
I miss it actually. And while i understand people dont A) have the patience nor inclination to wait for their death move fast enough to actually finish the game.. i feel like a better design would definitely be a fight to the bitter end - always hopeful of pulling off that hail mary pass.
The typical mood that inspires conceding is more often than not one of begruding lament, impatience, with a complete lack of morale and worth, thus not worth your time.
Imagine if that didnt happen.. you'd smile that much more at that victory screen, knowing you earned it against all odds and challenges worse than what we currently face.
I feel the snowballing in the game is an issue currently - and i find the frequency and use of concede to be a good indicator of this.
Every single esport or multiplayer game in general has the option for a player to leave the game early when they have either given up, or realised the game is over.
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.
In Quake duel, players occasionally leave the game early. That's FPS and that's leaving the choice upto the players. Most stick around until the end even though the match is over. It is true that there isn't a concede option in most team FPS games, because most FPS team games are based off round wins where each round teams start on the same footing or slightly disadvantaged. Those games don't function in the same way a NS2 game does so using them as a direct comparison to NS2 and not allowing anyone to bring up the RTS aspect of this game is silly.
Concede isn't an actual problem...how it's used occasionally is, or how long a winning team takes to actually end a game can also be a problem.
I'm disappointed that what seemed like a promising topic from the OP has turned into yet another discussion about concede, as if there were anything to say that hasn't already been said.
@Savant has some good points about forgiveness, or as Sirlin refers to it in that article, "perpetual comeback". However, I think Savant is going about it backwards. He's seeing that games are effectively over at some point before they actually end, and then contemplating how we might change the game such that the games are actually over at the point that they are effectively over. I maintain that this is not merely impossible (for reasons such as the ones mentioned by GORGEous), but is in fact a bad idea to pursue even if it were a tractable problem. Besides the issue of "taking away their toys" as alluded to by Kamamura, there's also the point that changing the victory conditions of a game necessarily changes its gameplay, as discussed by yours truly. Games being decided before the game actually ends is a problem adequately and appropriately solved by concession, and while it can sometimes leave a disappointing taste in one's mouth, a short "victory lap" as suggested many times would do wonders to mollify those hungry for a more satisfying conclusion to a concluded game.
A better solution for Savant's concerns than rejiggering the victory conditions is making the endgame slippery slope much more slippery and slopey.
One common feature of RTS games (including NS2) is that the games become a foregone conclusion before the victory conditions have been achieved. This is the problem Savant is concerned with. But another common feature, less appreciated, is that the games become a foregone conclusion before the players know that it's a foregone conclusion. Spectators can tell that it's over long before the players themselves ever do. This is a feature we can capitalize upon.
If the game were more of an anyone-can-win back-and-forth struggle up until the endgame, and then the endgame allowed the winning side to rapidly develop an overwhelming advantage, by the time the players were able to discover who actually had the advantage, the game would be mere moments away from a natural (and climactic) conclusion. Accordingly, the losing team might be less eager to concede and more willing to put up a heroic but doomed last stand for the minute or two that it would entail.
The two main things that UWE needs to do to accomplish that are:
Reduce the slippery slope in the early and mid game, and
Increase the slippery slope at the endgame.
Nothing really new here. It's been said many times in these forums, including right here in this thread by ChrisAUS and Roobubba. I'd love to see some brainstorming around specifically those topics; I don't recall seeing much of that, although I don't spend much time reading the Ideas and Suggestions forum. This is where Savant's ideas about forgiveness really should be focused, in my opinion. How can we get the early game to be more forgiving, so that games are not decided exclusively by a handful of early-game mistakes and yet still not ended until much later on?
With respect, the problem is that you're not the developer of the game, he is. Your reasoning is based on a flawed premise. Whether you feel this is an RTS game is irrelevant, it is not. The creator and developer has said that as well. Trying to base an opinion that opposes that basic principle is a flaw in logic.
With respect, the argument I put forward in the post I linked to is not in conflict with anything the developer of the game has said.
Now, if you can find me a quote from Charlie that says "[Conceding] should be a RARE event, and not a common one like it is now" - or even implies anything remotely like it - then I'll happily and humbly eat my hat. But I'd be surprised, considering that SOMEBODY thought concede was a good enough idea to, you know, add to the game.
I'll take blowing up the enemy base any day, thank you.
Destroying everything is a climactic, and fulfilling victory.
I absolutely love it when an alien team can stomach a whole 30 seconds more for us to enter, siege, GL, GT, EXO our way to the fireworks show that we've earned.
Or vice versa BBing and coordinating our final attack on rine base.
I miss it actually. And while i understand people dont A) have the patience nor inclination to wait for their death move fast enough to actually finish the game.. i feel like a better design would definitely be a fight to the bitter end - always hopeful of pulling off that hail mary pass.
The typical mood that inspires conceding is more often than not one of begruding lament, impatience, with a complete lack of morale and worth, thus not worth your time.
This is exactly the point I was getting at. When things 'go south' many people start saying "it's over" or "gg" - and then they sorta stop playing as someon puts up a concede vote. Usually the vote fails the first time, so people mope around while everyone gets impatient and annoyed because a couple people haven't given up yet.
Usually the only time the game ends in a base rush is if the other team is very quick about it. IOW, they hit one point and then hit the last one right after it. Even then I have seen games end just as the opposing team was ready to storm our base. I wince at that since it's really cheap imho.
Let's be clear, I am totally opposed to people being expected to be used for target practice while they twiddle their thumbs waiting for the other team to get their act together. However, I just think that the lack of forgiveness - or the perceived lack of forgiveness - is an issue that needs to be addressed. (I say 'perceived', since in some games things aren't as bad as people make them out to be.)
The concede option has effectively removed the end-game from NS2. Once things go south in the mid-game, people concede before things even get to the end-game. I miss the end game.
I think allowing player options for individual skill to shine would be better than compensating for it through RTS elements. the game is heavily RTS focused and I definitely would not agree with the sentiment "FPS first and RTS second". regardless of what the original design goals were, I think it is very far from that.
a good example is mechanics based on vision obscurity. these only serve to "equalize" the playing field through the use of RTS mechanics. there is not that much difference between cyst rupturing an excellent player and a good player. skill-based movement is essentially nonexistent as well - it feels like there is very little difference between an excellent skulk and a good skulk, or an excellent onos and a good onos. it's all involved in the decisionmaking process which is influenced by the RTS aspect.
in Quake it is incredibly rare for players to concede prior to the timelimit, because the possibility to outskill your opponent always exists. opportunities can constantly be made through positioning and tactics. it doesn't feel this way in NS2 for a lot of parts of the game, especially the mid to late game. I highly enjoy the early game aspect of NS2 (or how it could be, with equivalent tier 1 marines vs. aliens) and how advantages can be gained through skill. in the mid to late game it feels like a mathematical busywork execution of the rest of the game, unless there is a large skill discrepancy between the tier 2 matchups (shotgun marine vs. fades).
But if experiencing an actual victory never occurs anymore..
And i don't mean just seeing the splash screen of your team's victory when no one even entered their base - all thanks to concede.. it just feels very anticlimactic compared to TF2 (since it's been used before as an example of a fight to the bitter end)
And btw, i'd disagree regarding trivializing, by saying games like TF2, again, feel like hard fought victories when it comes down to the wire and after plenty of back and forth.. if anything its more impactful imo.
TF2 is a terrible comparison to NS2 because the games are entirely different. TF2 is an arena based mirror game with capture points and death matches. Payload, for example, is nothing like marines trying to assault a hive or build a phase gate. Capture the flag is nothing like a base rush. Nothing in TF2 has even a shred of RTS element in it. And the RTS elements of NS2 make these down-to-the-wiry back and forths much more rare. The early game victories don't make players stronger, they just mean you're 1 step closer to winning than you were before. In NS2, even marginally better teams will gain huge advantages via snowballing. Snowballing is something that pure FPS don't have to worry to nearly as much as a hybrid like NS2.
The two main things that UWE needs to do to accomplish that are:
Reduce the slippery slope in the early and mid game, and
Increase the slippery slope at the endgame.
Overall, this was a really good post.
I have to take exception to these potential fixes. When I read these, I get the feeling that these ideas would lead to increasing the power in the end game tech. I think that the end game tech is the worst part about NS2. It's a time when structures, arcs, and abilities (bonewall, nanoshield, meds, etc) are spammed to no end. In pubs, "end game" typically means exos trains and onos herds. I shudder to imagine an NS2 where the focus has been shifted to late game.
Just some food for thought, what if the game was structured with a quicker pace? The worst part about the snowball is that you can see it coming for 10 minutes or more and there's not a damn thing you can do, you can't even concede for the first 10 minutes of the game. If games played out faster, faster builds, faster res ticks, faster research, that snowball effect wouldn't last as long. The game would still be decided in the first 2 minutes, but then you could research endgame tech and actually end the game within the next 5, instead of letting teams hold out without hope for 15.
I think that the end game tech is the worst part about NS2. It's a time when structures, arcs, and abilities (bonewall, nanoshield, meds, etc) are spammed to no end. In pubs, "end game" typically means exos trains and onos herds. I shudder to imagine an NS2 where the focus has been shifted to late game.
I think there must be ways to improve the late-game decisiveness without aggravating "endgame unit" spam. I'm at a loss as to what those ways might be just at the moment, but surely they exist. Maybe UWE can figure it out before I do.
@Savant: While it may be true that concede is not appropriate for most FPS games, once you add in any kind of strategy it basically becomes good manners to concede when all is lost.
Personally I like the concede mechanic as-is, but I can also see the issue of anti-climatic victory splash screen in certain games. Some players on this forum have suggested that NS2 should adopt the TF2 model of "victory humiliation," where the winning team gets a chance to mop up the losing team in a small amount of time.
In NS2, it could be simply done as:
1) Victory Splash screen
2) Losing team loses all buildings (to get rid of turtling whips, sentries, walls, commander support, etc)
3) 1 minute hard limit until everyone is forced back to the ready room.
Concede is a pain in the arse mind, It takes way more than 50% of the team to vote which is bonkers. Easier to f4, which is idiotic because concede was meant for that purpose.
I think allowing player options for individual skill to shine would be better than compensating for it through RTS elements. the game is heavily RTS focused and I definitely would not agree with the sentiment "FPS first and RTS second". regardless of what the original design goals were, I think it is very far from that.
a good example is mechanics based on vision obscurity. these only serve to "equalize" the playing field through the use of RTS mechanics. there is not that much difference between cyst rupturing an excellent player and a good player. skill-based movement is essentially nonexistent as well - it feels like there is very little difference between an excellent skulk and a good skulk, or an excellent onos and a good onos. it's all involved in the decisionmaking process which is influenced by the RTS aspect.
in Quake it is incredibly rare for players to concede prior to the timelimit, because the possibility to outskill your opponent always exists. opportunities can constantly be made through positioning and tactics. it doesn't feel this way in NS2 for a lot of parts of the game, especially the mid to late game. I highly enjoy the early game aspect of NS2 (or how it could be, with equivalent tier 1 marines vs. aliens) and how advantages can be gained through skill. in the mid to late game it feels like a mathematical busywork execution of the rest of the game, unless there is a large skill discrepancy between the tier 2 matchups (shotgun marine vs. fades).
Agreed.
Playing smart based on the RTS elements of this game pays off more than being a good FPS player at the moment. There's no times like in NS1 where a singular player can shine because of skill setting him apart at an FPS level. (he can somewhat but nowhere near the same as Quake, NS1, Tribes, old skill based FPS games)
I think the abilities that require no skill but essentially "nerf" players (cyst rupture, jetpack smoke, other obsurcing effects), the lack of a good skill based movement system are definitely the key elements that are making that so.
Additionally, I feel that the RTS aspect of the game is lacking a ton of depth even though it's meant to be the lesser element. And I think the more and more information they refuse to give to Commanders via the UI, take away from the Commanders, the worse it will be.
Comments
Alien - Go for the power node.
Due to this i have, as a single gorge when both hives were being assaulted and i knew they wouldnt last long, attacked the power node in main. I downed it without enzyme or help. Just bilebomb. We won that game.
Marines - As comm i recycle the ips and everything else not vital for a last stand. Drop a lot of guns and say "have at it". Better to die in a blaze of glory. My point in this is th marine comm is the most powerful player when it comes to ending games. They can do it with one button "recycle". Marines dont have a magical Achilles heel to shoot for so it is up to them to give up. Aliens steam roll slowly unlike a winning marine game which ends fast.
Mechanics imo are fine. Player knowledge and knowing when it isnt possible to win is what is lacking. Aliens always have a chance though small (as we have seen in comp match upsets). Marines do not.
Concede is the option that is there when you feel like you've lost. If you personally don't think you've lost then press Alt and say, "Guys, this isn't over we have A3/W3." - "Let's get out there and get some RTs back and get back in this game!"
"Hey, we've got 3 Pres Fades coming up, let's see if we can crack this hold and get a 2nd hive!"
There are options, you just have to utilize them and understand how to win when you're on the back foot.
Etc.
The 'how' is up for debate. I'm not tied to any particular idea - my example above was just that, an example. It's the principle of it that I brought up for discussion.
Already we've seen MANY threads where people complain about concede. While the answer is *not* to remove concede, (please do know I am not advocating for that) there should be other means to reduce the need to use concede. Either through more forgiveness, or through other means.
Actually, its pretty much the rule for RTS games.
For example, any building that's destroyed (either team) adds half of its value back to the tres pool, but delayed over say the next 20s - a short term boost to the economic ticks.
It could be justified in terms of eg nanites recycling or organic recovery (decomp).
As a mechanic, it's a minor change but could help to slow down the slippery slope. I think it would mean that game ending tech should be a little better than it currently is to compensate, but that should extend the early and mid games quite well.
Again, I will use my chess analogy. In chess, vast majority of the decisive games are concluded by one player resigning. Seeing checkmate on the board is an absolute rarity, mostly either due to one side hoping the other will run out of time, or due to a blunder which is extremely rare on higher levels. I am sure most of the players don't perceive this as a problem. Beginners are encouraged to play to the very end to brush up endgame technique. Masters don't find it worthwhile and resign in time. Since the moment when playing further is no longer desirable is subjective, no "rule" can artificially specify it. Nor is anyone looking for the way to change the rules to eliminate this phenomenon from the game.
Again, NS2 seems completely the same case for me. Beginners can play the turtling positions just to practice combat, experienced teams will resign. I have not yet seen any competitive game that would suffer from prolonged endgame. An advantage is usually swiftly capitalized on and brutally pressed to victory.
And i don't mean just seeing the splash screen of your team's victory when no one even entered their base - all thanks to concede.. it just feels very anticlimactic compared to TF2 (since it's been used before as an example of a fight to the bitter end)
And btw, i'd disagree regarding trivializing, by saying games like TF2, again, feel like hard fought victories when it comes down to the wire and after plenty of back and forth.. if anything its more impactful imo.
In my opinion, the reasoning behind "RTS so concede is fine" is much more appropriate to NS2 than is the reasoning behind "FPS so concede is bad". I explained why in more detail in this comment. Please read that, and assume I just now said the same thing here.
I think my reasoning holds true even given the developer's stance that NS2 is "an FPS first and an RTS second".
And as I noted, this is not an RTS. Let me quote straight from the Charlie himself: (emphasis mine)
I don't know how much more clear this can be. Trying to treat NS2 as an RTS first is not how the game was designed and it is not how the game is played. So can we please keep this in mind with the responses?
But the point is that you DO experience it, at least I do, every time after half an hour of laborious commanding, those big letters announcing victory bring a moment of triumphant relief. Similarly in chess, when an opponent nods after a long time of pondering, and silently extends his hand to shake yours, even though the casual observers don't always understand the reasons.
Similar analogy exists in fencing. There is no need to vulgarly cut down one's opponent, a bloodless demonstration of one's skill is often enough, and all the more satisfying. The losing side must be of course capable of understanding, as shown in the following short scene:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=BMWsOyOHaaA
Tell me, wouldn't it be better for him to concede? ;-)
I would think that if you polled the player base, you would be in the minority on that.
Let me quote myself, from the very post you were responding to:
If players don't want to play a game they can type exit in console.
This game is an FPS first, and in FPS games concede is a very rare mechanic.
While I am not advocating to have concede removed, it should be a RARE event, and not a common one like it is now.
Destroying everything is a climactic, and fulfilling victory.
I absolutely love it when an alien team can stomach a whole 30 seconds more for us to enter, siege, GL, GT, EXO our way to the fireworks show that we've earned.
Or vice versa BBing and coordinating our final attack on rine base.
I miss it actually. And while i understand people dont A) have the patience nor inclination to wait for their death
The typical mood that inspires conceding is more often than not one of begruding lament, impatience, with a complete lack of morale and worth, thus not worth your time.
Imagine if that didnt happen.. you'd smile that much more at that victory screen, knowing you earned it against all odds and challenges worse than what we currently face.
I feel the snowballing in the game is an issue currently - and i find the frequency and use of concede to be a good indicator of this.
In Quake duel, players occasionally leave the game early. That's FPS and that's leaving the choice upto the players. Most stick around until the end even though the match is over. It is true that there isn't a concede option in most team FPS games, because most FPS team games are based off round wins where each round teams start on the same footing or slightly disadvantaged. Those games don't function in the same way a NS2 game does so using them as a direct comparison to NS2 and not allowing anyone to bring up the RTS aspect of this game is silly.
Concede isn't an actual problem...how it's used occasionally is, or how long a winning team takes to actually end a game can also be a problem.
@Savant has some good points about forgiveness, or as Sirlin refers to it in that article, "perpetual comeback". However, I think Savant is going about it backwards. He's seeing that games are effectively over at some point before they actually end, and then contemplating how we might change the game such that the games are actually over at the point that they are effectively over. I maintain that this is not merely impossible (for reasons such as the ones mentioned by GORGEous), but is in fact a bad idea to pursue even if it were a tractable problem. Besides the issue of "taking away their toys" as alluded to by Kamamura, there's also the point that changing the victory conditions of a game necessarily changes its gameplay, as discussed by yours truly. Games being decided before the game actually ends is a problem adequately and appropriately solved by concession, and while it can sometimes leave a disappointing taste in one's mouth, a short "victory lap" as suggested many times would do wonders to mollify those hungry for a more satisfying conclusion to a concluded game.
A better solution for Savant's concerns than rejiggering the victory conditions is making the endgame slippery slope much more slippery and slopey.
One common feature of RTS games (including NS2) is that the games become a foregone conclusion before the victory conditions have been achieved. This is the problem Savant is concerned with. But another common feature, less appreciated, is that the games become a foregone conclusion before the players know that it's a foregone conclusion. Spectators can tell that it's over long before the players themselves ever do. This is a feature we can capitalize upon.
If the game were more of an anyone-can-win back-and-forth struggle up until the endgame, and then the endgame allowed the winning side to rapidly develop an overwhelming advantage, by the time the players were able to discover who actually had the advantage, the game would be mere moments away from a natural (and climactic) conclusion. Accordingly, the losing team might be less eager to concede and more willing to put up a heroic but doomed last stand for the minute or two that it would entail.
The two main things that UWE needs to do to accomplish that are:
Nothing really new here. It's been said many times in these forums, including right here in this thread by ChrisAUS and Roobubba. I'd love to see some brainstorming around specifically those topics; I don't recall seeing much of that, although I don't spend much time reading the Ideas and Suggestions forum. This is where Savant's ideas about forgiveness really should be focused, in my opinion. How can we get the early game to be more forgiving, so that games are not decided exclusively by a handful of early-game mistakes and yet still not ended until much later on?
Now, if you can find me a quote from Charlie that says "[Conceding] should be a RARE event, and not a common one like it is now" - or even implies anything remotely like it - then I'll happily and humbly eat my hat. But I'd be surprised, considering that SOMEBODY thought concede was a good enough idea to, you know, add to the game.
Usually the only time the game ends in a base rush is if the other team is very quick about it. IOW, they hit one point and then hit the last one right after it. Even then I have seen games end just as the opposing team was ready to storm our base. I wince at that since it's really cheap imho.
Let's be clear, I am totally opposed to people being expected to be used for target practice while they twiddle their thumbs waiting for the other team to get their act together. However, I just think that the lack of forgiveness - or the perceived lack of forgiveness - is an issue that needs to be addressed. (I say 'perceived', since in some games things aren't as bad as people make them out to be.)
The concede option has effectively removed the end-game from NS2. Once things go south in the mid-game, people concede before things even get to the end-game. I miss the end game.
a good example is mechanics based on vision obscurity. these only serve to "equalize" the playing field through the use of RTS mechanics. there is not that much difference between cyst rupturing an excellent player and a good player. skill-based movement is essentially nonexistent as well - it feels like there is very little difference between an excellent skulk and a good skulk, or an excellent onos and a good onos. it's all involved in the decisionmaking process which is influenced by the RTS aspect.
in Quake it is incredibly rare for players to concede prior to the timelimit, because the possibility to outskill your opponent always exists. opportunities can constantly be made through positioning and tactics. it doesn't feel this way in NS2 for a lot of parts of the game, especially the mid to late game. I highly enjoy the early game aspect of NS2 (or how it could be, with equivalent tier 1 marines vs. aliens) and how advantages can be gained through skill. in the mid to late game it feels like a mathematical busywork execution of the rest of the game, unless there is a large skill discrepancy between the tier 2 matchups (shotgun marine vs. fades).
TF2 is a terrible comparison to NS2 because the games are entirely different. TF2 is an arena based mirror game with capture points and death matches. Payload, for example, is nothing like marines trying to assault a hive or build a phase gate. Capture the flag is nothing like a base rush. Nothing in TF2 has even a shred of RTS element in it. And the RTS elements of NS2 make these down-to-the-wiry back and forths much more rare. The early game victories don't make players stronger, they just mean you're 1 step closer to winning than you were before. In NS2, even marginally better teams will gain huge advantages via snowballing. Snowballing is something that pure FPS don't have to worry to nearly as much as a hybrid like NS2.
Overall, this was a really good post.
I have to take exception to these potential fixes. When I read these, I get the feeling that these ideas would lead to increasing the power in the end game tech. I think that the end game tech is the worst part about NS2. It's a time when structures, arcs, and abilities (bonewall, nanoshield, meds, etc) are spammed to no end. In pubs, "end game" typically means exos trains and onos herds. I shudder to imagine an NS2 where the focus has been shifted to late game.
I think there must be ways to improve the late-game decisiveness without aggravating "endgame unit" spam. I'm at a loss as to what those ways might be just at the moment, but surely they exist. Maybe UWE can figure it out before I do.
Personally I like the concede mechanic as-is, but I can also see the issue of anti-climatic victory splash screen in certain games. Some players on this forum have suggested that NS2 should adopt the TF2 model of "victory humiliation," where the winning team gets a chance to mop up the losing team in a small amount of time.
In NS2, it could be simply done as:
1) Victory Splash screen
2) Losing team loses all buildings (to get rid of turtling whips, sentries, walls, commander support, etc)
3) 1 minute hard limit until everyone is forced back to the ready room.
Concede is the quickest way to restart the round with a chance of getting fairer teams the next time around
anything that drags bad games out will mean more wasted time before we can play a "real game"
maybe I'm just too old, but achieving victory is about the decisions and plays made during the process, not seeing something blow up at the end
Agreed.
Playing smart based on the RTS elements of this game pays off more than being a good FPS player at the moment. There's no times like in NS1 where a singular player can shine because of skill setting him apart at an FPS level. (he can somewhat but nowhere near the same as Quake, NS1, Tribes, old skill based FPS games)
I think the abilities that require no skill but essentially "nerf" players (cyst rupture, jetpack smoke, other obsurcing effects), the lack of a good skill based movement system are definitely the key elements that are making that so.
Additionally, I feel that the RTS aspect of the game is lacking a ton of depth even though it's meant to be the lesser element. And I think the more and more information they refuse to give to Commanders via the UI, take away from the Commanders, the worse it will be.