I think you should to move on to another game Savant, don't try to change the NS brand into another call of duty.
I not trying to change the game, I'm trying to change it BACK to when it was fun and had an endgame. The addition of concede has sucked a lot of fun out of the game.
There is no fun in killing people who can't fight back, and it isn't fun being killed without any means to defend yourself.
Thats why concede exists in "snowbally" games and thats why it is here to stay.
True. Concede should be limite to 10 minutes passed, one or less RT owned and one Tech point owned. And let the dead players vote, ffs.
"Pushed into a situation where they concede" = they were outplayed.
I totally believe that. If 12 years old rookies left 120 seconds into the match and I had to face alone three Marines, this is my fault, I have been outplayed. If my commander has no microphone and haven't placed a single cyst in 8 minutes, I have clearly been outplayed.
That's totally true and I admire you for having the balls to post such a bold statement.
"Pushed into a situation where they concede" = they were outplayed. Cop the loss like a man. A losing team shouldn't be rewarded with a quick escape, running away with their tail between their legs. A team I was playing against today used the concede function whilst still being in command of almost half the map!
We're playing for fun, you can't force people to play if they don't want to. Hell with the new players around ATM that don't understand concede I'll go make myself a cup of tea if the game's clearly over but the team won't conceded.
You believe that a game should finish when a few players think they can no longer win.
I believe that a game should finish when a team can actually no longer win.
Theoretically a team has a chance of winning right up till the current game over screen, but those chances are so abysmally small that most people wouldn't want to play against them.
I don't think the concede function in and of itself is a bad thing (for example, I think there are some situations where a concession can dissolve a stalemate). But concede is being used far too readily.
Sometimes. Some games are conceded when they could of still won, but it would of been stupidly hard to actually pull it off and too stressful to organize with a load of scrubs. I've concede a few games where if I was with some regular players I would of kept going.
I totally believe that. If 12 years old rookies left 120 seconds into the match and I had to face alone three Marines, this is my fault, I have been outplayed. If my commander has no microphone and haven't placed a single cyst in 8 minutes, I have clearly been outplayed.
What kind of sh!tty servers are you playing on? You realise there's servers with more than 4 players, right? Also, are you aware there's an option to kick a bad commander?
That's totally true and I admire you for having the balls to post such a bold statement.
Seriously? This is a discussion, and I'm saying my opinion. Please keep comments like this to yourself.
Emoo, I know you can't force people to keep playing, which is why I'm sure the concede feature won't be removed (nor do I believe it should be removed). I do, however, think it should be tweaked. I think there's a lot of people out there who would agree. I think it should only be dire circumstances in which a concession is permissible - perhaps it's after a certain length of game time has passed, perhaps you need to have only one or two structures remaining; I don't know. All I'm saying is, it should be an absolute last resort measure, and I don't believe it should be happening as often as it is.
What kind of sh!tty servers are you playing on? You realise there's servers with more than 4 players, right? Also, are you aware there's an option to kick a bad commander?
I play on every kind of server. I was speaking figuratively; saying I'm against 3, doesn't mean we're 4 on the server, but maybe 8 or 12. It's a ratio thing, with the Alien leaving tread, it's very often a two to one in Marine's favor.
Kicking commander is a vote; rookies that couldn't make it to the Marine side have no idea how to vote or why. Also, kicking a commander is nice and all but, who will command then ? You're pretty much screwed if it goes down to kicking your commander, the game is already lost.
I'll admit there are situations where a green commander wants to royally feck the entire process, and I would have no issue with a concession in these circumstances. What I do have a problem with, is when a 40+ minute game ends in a concession because one team starts to get the upper hand. Step out from under your white flag for a moment and recognise that most concessions in NS2 aren't in the situations you prescribed. I don't have the stats, but in my experience, most concessions occur in regular, fair games where one team was clearly outplayed by the other. If you're in a team with 1/3 the players of your opponents, or your commander is a douche; fine; concede. If you simply got decimated, deal with it.
Stop comparing the concede functionality of non-team games to NS2. Concede has no drawbacks in a 1v1. NS2 is not 1v1. Also the reason ELO ranking would not apply to it.
Also, please consider the possibility of losing games as fun and challenging. More importantly, ending the game prematurely takes away the fun for these people, and generally the entire winning team. Also realize you should be losing about half the time. Food for thought, that is generally left uneaten.
I'll admit there are situations where a green commander wants to royally feck the entire process, and I would have no issue with a concession in these circumstances. What I do have a problem with, is when a 40+ minute game ends in a concession because one team starts to get the upper hand. Step out from under your white flag for a moment and recognise that most concessions in NS2 aren't in the situations you prescribed. I don't have the stats, but in my experience, most concessions occur in regular, fair games where one team was clearly outplayed by the other. If you're in a team with 1/3 the players of your opponents, or your commander is a douche; fine; concede. If you simply got decimated, deal with it.
Being outplayed refers to a situation with both side having the same chances. So no, most concedes aren't for outplayed reasons. Most are because one side has no commander, no player or only real bad ones. I'm rarely outplayed, yet I'm forced to concede quite often if I want an interesting game during my game session.
I contend that if you give people something to play for, then they will play. [...] People don't like quitting.
Sadly, I have to disagree again. Have you ever played L4D? The rage quitting is endemic and pervasive. People quit map one, after missing their first "death charge", before the other team has even had a chance to get ahead. This is the state of your average gamer these days. Gaming, especially the "mod scene", is Not What It Used To Be™. Games are infinitely more accessible today than even the latter days of NS1. You had a different average gamer back when NS1 was born. You had to have some computer knowledge and had to understand how to actually install a Mod. It took effort, therefore attracted a different person. Heck, When I started gaming in leagues, you not only had to install Quake, you had to patch in CTF and then patch in the mod. I'm not saying that makes me a better person or anything like that. What I am saying is it took a certain level of perseverance. Today, it's click a button install the game, expect to be a "bawse" right out of the box and quit every game that is a challenge to you until you find yourself on the right side of the team stack. Then taunt your opponent for conceding.
I pre-ordered this game sight unseen simply on faith and the history of NS1. I want to be wrong. I want the good games of yore. (Heck I just want to play right now, but my infant son is taking all my time.) But I don't see it. I agree far too many games get conceded but I don't agree that the majority of the burden for the concede falls on the game; and no amount of coding is going to teach good sportsmanship.
I find myself very frustrated and unsatisfied when the opposing team concedes. Sometimes you invest forty, maybe fifty minutes in a game, only to have the losing team flip the board before you're able to enjoy your victory. I'd like to see a team that uses concede sent into spectator mode to watch you destroy their remaining structures. Perhaps the winning team gets twenty or thirty seconds to celebrate/decimate. I know it's not going to happen, but I can dream. As others have said, it is rare to see a round last to endgame these days due to concede, and it's very disappointing.
Yes but how much of the "40-50 minutes" was spent egg-locking the aliens or otherwise containing them while you finished researching everything possible instead of marching into the last hive and shooting it down?
If you're in a team with 1/3 the players of your opponents, or your commander is a douche; fine; concede. If you simply got decimated, deal with it.
This is my point, if my team is getting decimated I have a few choices.
1) Keep playing, keep getting decimated. Oh how much fun!
2) Concede the game. Game ends, we lose ok well done other team, lets play again.
3) Fail to concede, go AFK and make tea while the team is slowly ground to dust.
You can't make me keep playing. I don't care if by playing well you think you deserve the chance to annihilate every building and player left. If you try and force me into that situation I'll simply walk away from the computer, you can have your fun shooting stationary units.
Now given that, I do agree that a lot of games have been conceded early, I'm also not against small tweaks to concede I'm sure it could be better. But remember the golden rule, you can't force anyone to play.
Yet how many people can remember pre-concede games where it went down to the wire, with a glorious end-game battle that leaves the ready room buzzing afterwards?
This is all anecdotal. In my experience, I've seen way more frustrated people yelling "finish it already, stop prolonging", going alt-tab, going f4 or leaving the server altogether when the other team is taking too long to finish a game gone sour.
I'm not talking about people who get frustrated, since those same people aren't all that thrilled when people concede - in case you haven't noticed.
Never *once* have I been in a game - that one side conceded - where people were hyped about the game they just had. In my experience, people are usually grouchy after a concede, or they are complaining about team stacking, or just complaining about how it was a bad game in general.
You try and counter with prolonged games, but that's not the issue here since no one is advocating to remove concede. Your response is based on a flawed premise. There are TOO MANY game that end in concede. This is not how the game should be played.
Like I said, the bulk of players are here for FPS elements, and concede will only drive them away.
Has no one looked at the stats? Right now NS2 is down at the ~80th spot in the top 100, and steadily dropping. While some here care more for quitting games, player count continues to drop. NS2 now has fewer players playing than Farming Simulator 2013.
Seriously? And you want to tell me that concede is a good thing? Right now NS2 is barely ahead of Simcity 4 - a game that's a decade old.
Time to wake up and smell the FPS folks. People who play FPS don't like concede. And while it has it's place in a hybrid game like this, it should be a narrow element that is rarely used - not the de facto end of the game like it is now. Yeah turtles may not be too fun, but last time I checked when there was no concede the player count was MANY times higher than it was now. Say what you will about it, but the numbers speak for themselves.
Has no one looked at the stats? Right now NS2 is down at the ~80th spot in the top 100, and steadily dropping. While some here care more for quitting games, player count continues to drop. NS2 now has fewer players playing than Farming Simulator 2013.
Seriously? And you want to tell me that concede is a good thing? Right now NS2 is barely ahead of Simcity 4 - a game that's a decade old.
To be fair, there is a bit of cross over with this other small indie game that was just released that could be seriously hitting the player base. I bet a good portion of the NS2 players are currently playing that other game.
Yet how many people can remember pre-concede games where it went down to the wire, with a glorious end-game battle that leaves the ready room buzzing afterwards?
This is all anecdotal. In my experience, I've seen way more frustrated people yelling "finish it already, stop prolonging", going alt-tab, going f4 or leaving the server altogether when the other team is taking too long to finish a game gone sour.
I'm not talking about people who get frustrated, since those same people aren't all that thrilled when people concede - in case you haven't noticed.
Never *once* have I been in a game - that one side conceded - where people were hyped about the game they just had. In my experience, people are usually grouchy after a concede, or they are complaining about team stacking, or just complaining about how it was a bad game in general.
You try and counter with prolonged games, but that's not the issue here since no one is advocating to remove concede. Your response is based on a flawed premise. There are TOO MANY game that end in concede. This is not how the game should be played.
Like I said, the bulk of players are here for FPS elements, and concede will only drive them away.
Has no one looked at the stats? Right now NS2 is down at the ~80th spot in the top 100, and steadily dropping. While some here care more for quitting games, player count continues to drop. NS2 now has fewer players playing than Farming Simulator 2013.
Seriously? And you want to tell me that concede is a good thing? Right now NS2 is barely ahead of Simcity 4 - a game that's a decade old.
Time to wake up and smell the FPS folks. People who play FPS don't like concede. And while it has it's place in a hybrid game like this, it should be a narrow element that is rarely used - not the de facto end of the game like it is now. Yeah turtles may not be too fun, but last time I checked when there was no concede the player count was MANY times higher than it was now. Say what you will about it, but the numbers speak for themselves.
I've seen many Marine sides fighting on instead of conceding. I never see that as an Alien.
Again and again, why ? One word: fun. You still have fun shooting stuff as a Marine, even when on your last stand, because you can actually kill stuff: the bad lerk, the bad onos, bad fade. Turn that situation around: ensieged aliens. You get no fun there. You get egg-locked, you get shotgun spawn killed, you spawn as the weakest lifeform in the game, you have no element of surprise to help fighting the Marine. No fun, nothing to surprise you: you'll die again and again without being able to damage any Marine.
Something's wrong about Alien and it's the fun factor of playing Skulk (because Lerk/Fade/Onos are fun), which is non-existent and seems to be to me the root of close to every community related concerns we talk about.
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
Five pages in and you guys are still debating as if concede was endangered of being removed.. why?
From the outset this thread was about coming up with ideas on simply how to make the game fun up until the very last second -and so far I've only seen three ideas, one of which was my own.
Maybe savant should have kept it shorter and more clear Idk, or maybe people just didn't get it. Either way this has been a world record of a off topic thread. Shame, it had promise.
From the outset this thread was about coming up with ideas on simply how to make the game fun up until the very last second -and so far I've only seen three ideas, one of which was my own.
Remove tech point scaling. Aliens especially are gimped big time once there pushed down to 1 hive.
Tech points need to give a bonus but they need to be decoupled from ALL technology (including khammander egg drops, chamber selection, protolabs, etc).
If you can balance the game on this then tech points no longer become the be all or end all of each game, aliens pushed to one base could still make a come back, as could marines and even if they weren't able to come back at least aliens wouldn't just get insta-killed by W3/A3 marines.
My understand is the balance mods biomass system is kinda like this, but I haven't played that yet to comment any further on it.
I've made a few suggestions, although it really depends on which way you go with it.
One of the simplest and easiest to balance would be to just make all tech permanent. In short, if - at the time - you have the per-requisites to research it, then once it is complete you keep that tech for the remainder of the game. While it may mean rebuilding a chamber or structure, the tech itself would stay accessible.
So if aliens have two hives, and they lose one, they retain the tech they had from the second hive. Same for marines. What does this change?
Well it makes it so that teams only get stronger, not weaker. The game objectives don't change. You still have to eliminate all tech points controlled by the other team, but losing a tech point doesn't leave you so weak that you are no longer competitive. So if aliens had three hives, and they lose two, they can *still* drop an Onos egg. Since they attained a third hive, they have satisfied that condition. If marines had two tech points, and they lost one, they could still buy jetpacks and EXOs if the tech was researched.
In this way the strength of both teams builds until one team overpowers the other. Personally I don't think the opposition team needs to be weakened for a team to win. The tools are there. If anything it makes map control all the more important since it will come down to who can AFFORD to buy those toys.
If you were playing marines now, and you lost your CC, you may feel like conceding since you can't get EXOs and the opponents have Onos. Well if you could still get EXOs then you would probably still want to play. That's not to say it makes the marines too strong either. The marines are down to their last CC - so while they can try and push out, they still have to protect their last point or they will lose the game. So they are not 'weak', but they ARE closer to losing.
On the flipside, there would be no more 'one-hive Onos' worries, so long as aliens matured a second hive at some point. So that Onos would still be a force to be reckoned with, and the other lifeforms wouldn't lose their upgraded weapon traits.
Five pages in and you guys are still debating as if concede was endangered of being removed.. why?
From the outset this thread was about coming up with ideas on simply how to make the game fun up until the very last second -and so far I've only seen three ideas, one of which was my own.
Maybe savant should have kept it shorter and more clear Idk, or maybe people just didn't get it. Either way this has been a world record of a off topic thread. Shame, it had promise.
Part of the problem is find a coding answer to peoples poor sportsmanship. How many organized games (pug and league play combined) end in concedes? Is that percentage in any way reflective of the pub scene? My guess is "few" and "hardly". The casual factor in gaming today takes out part of the drive to compete. This lends it's self to more people giving up because "they just want to play". I don't think that, necessarily, this is a horrible thing. However, you can't start drastically changing the game to the point where it becomes Hello Kitty Island Adventure, where everyone gets a trophy and no one has to lose. Bottom line is too many people can't stand losing, they stack the team portal for which ever side has the perceived strength, concede at the first big lost engagement because "teams are stacked" or "[X player] is a hacker". Too many people are only interested in a steamroll win and concede so it doesn't happen to them.
Historically, the best games I ever participated in where on the CoFR server back in the day. Everyone went random most games, and win or lose it was fun. People used to put the time into a game to get good; they took their lumps and learned from it. I don't feel that happens anymore. And I don't think all the coding in the world will change it.
All that said, more forgiveness in small doses is good and I agree that the game has always been unforgiving. I also agree that even since NS1 Marines are more fun to lose on for whatever reason. Somehow something needs to be done to make it more fun to lose on the alien side. What that could possibly be is not an easy answer; maybe try out a mini game on the alien side when losing. Something along the lines of a bacterial explosion that will infest the station if the Marines don't push in and take out the hive in [x time period]. Also, perhaps a small resource return for players when they die as a higher life form linked to the amount of time they were alive as that life form (think of it as the alien answer to recycling dropped weapons) such as Life form cost / time spent alive. This way it allows people to play more as higher life forms and rewards the people who are better at the life form and gets you back into the game faster as that life form.
I'm not sure if this has been talked somewhere in here, but I guess it's worth mentioning.
The way NS1 worked in smaller games, a lot of the fights were decided when the 2nd hive was about to go up. The marines moved in to prevent the 2nd hive, the aliens set up a defence. If the hive survived, the aliens often snowballed into a comfortable victory. If the hive went down, marines were usually able to set up themselves for a win.
Where it comes interesting for NS2 is how the 2nd hive forced an engagement with both possibilities to decisively win over a game or to make a huge comeback. In early game you were able to gain big advantages that contributed to the 2nd hive engagements greatly, but you rarely felt safe and secure until the initial 2nd hive fights were over.
Usually even when you were losing the initial early game, it was still worth fighting to get somewhat of a foothold for the 2nd hive race. Basically the whole game was still worth fighting until the engagement decided it for good.
---
In general I don't think forcing decisive is necessarily a good way to desing gameplay or so and I think the NS1 gameplay was often too much about the 2nd hive, but it also has benefits that are worth understanding in it, especially looking where NS2 apparently is right now.
As a 40 year old gamer I have to tell you that all this "Kids today are poor sports" stuff is bunk. People have always rage quit games. Even board games. I had some friends when I was a kid that went through controllers super fast because they kept throwing them in frustration.
I will make the same suggestion I have been making on this and it is one I firmly believe will mitigate a lot of the whining about concede. Once a team concedes, stop their spawning and start a minute timer (or so), where the other team has a chance to hunt them down. Like the end of a TF2 match where the losing team can't attack but they can run and hide like cowards. That way the winning team gets the satisfaction of finishing them off. I played on a server with a mod that did this and it seemed to make ending the game more fun for all involved.
Something's wrong about Alien and it's the fun factor of playing Skulk (because Lerk/Fade/Onos are fun), which is non-existent and seems to be to me the root of close to every community related concerns we talk about.
Simply this. Late game skulks are cannon fodder and power node/rt munchers. Charlie doesnt want magic numbers like back in NS1 where every lifeform would get a passive upgrade per hive. So un-upgraded skulks in the first 30 seconds of the game are the same 20min + un-upgraded skulks late game. Take the vanilla marine, with A3/W3 right at spawn their machine gun is the best onos killer when it comes to marine weaponry (baring exos).
One of the simplest and easiest to balance would be to just make all tech permanent. In short, if - at the time - you have the per-requisites to research it, then once it is complete you keep that tech for the remainder of the game. While it may mean rebuilding a chamber or structure, the tech itself would stay accessible.
So if aliens have two hives, and they lose one, they retain the tech they had from the second hive. Same for marines. What does this change?
Well it makes it so that teams only get stronger, not weaker. The game objectives don't change. You still have to eliminate all tech points controlled by the other team, but losing a tech point doesn't leave you so weak that you are no longer competitive. So if aliens had three hives, and they lose two, they can *still* drop an Onos egg. Since they attained a third hive, they have satisfied that condition. If marines had two tech points, and they lost one, they could still buy jetpacks and EXOs if the tech was researched.
In this way the strength of both teams builds until one team overpowers the other. Personally I don't think the opposition team needs to be weakened for a team to win. The tools are there. If anything it makes map control all the more important since it will come down to who can AFFORD to buy those toys.
If you were playing marines now, and you lost your CC, you may feel like conceding since you can't get EXOs and the opponents have Onos. Well if you could still get EXOs then you would probably still want to play. That's not to say it makes the marines too strong either. The marines are down to their last CC - so while they can try and push out, they still have to protect their last point or they will lose the game. So they are not 'weak', but they ARE closer to losing.
This would be horrible. What would be the point to the game? There would be NO strategy in what you should kill and Marine's would have an OVERWHELMING advantage. Marine's can turtle on one base already for long periods of time. As an alien i am relieved when we take out the 2nd CC which is usually at the cost of a hive (base trading with aliens always ends bad for marines). Name a single sport that gives points to the loser... If you lose the tech point, you should lose everything immediately. I still disagree with keeping upgrades/abilities as aliens when they are destroyed until you die, but that is another post.
Bottom line you are trying to balance the game on "What is fun". What is fun for you is NOT fun for me. I think we have a good blend of RTS and FPS. I do not want to play CoD 3 Aliens. I play NS2 BECAUSE of the RTS element. Do NOT reward people for losing. What is gone is gone and should have been defended. Personally i think this game isnt harsh enough and gives too many opportunities to come back. As long as aliens have hives greater than or equal to CCs they should always win through base trades. Power nodes allow 1 player out of 18 to end the game (as i have done in many losing games). 4 skulks rushing a power node can almost kill it before a distracted comm realizes what is happening and a beacon can even go off, then add in enzyme. It takes roughly 6.6 seconds for 4 skulks to kill a healthy powernode, 3 seconds to beacon.
Tactical Gamer servers have an interesting mode. Once concede has been selected the opposing team has 120 seconds to attack while being invulnerable. It is satisfying walking into the last hive and wrecking house and killing all the defenseless lifeforms. Much like TF2 when you win the round and you can go around killing your opponent.
My suggestion - RFK back or at least TRes for Kill. It rewards those good at the FPS side by allowing them to continue buying their tech. Marine's dont feel the hurt as much as aliens since vanilla marines are always useful. Lose the fade or onos with only 4 PRES and you are done. Doomed to skulk for the rest of the game. TRes for kills would allow the comm to spend the res as s/he saw fit by purchasing things for the team or rewarding the good player. Right now i die a lot as skulk because i am over aggressive. I go 20-7 quickly but since i died so much i am last to fade/onos. Quite hurtful imo to not gain PRes when you are dead and i generally have 3x the kills of the person below me (not to mention score from building and destroying buildings. Im not all rambo all the time).
I really think I'm onto something with my suggestion in this thread. Might have to go ahead and post a specific thread about it as it got swamped in the load about concede...
The key point here is to make the early game more competitive such that fewer games' outcomes can be accurately predicted at minute 3. That should be the only goal of this thread, given the op.
In answer to the question someone had about number of comp or pug games ending in concede, I'd put it at somewhere over 90% if you include base rushes. Not 'very few!' The reason is that they know when they're beaten much earlier than public teams, because they understand the quality of their opponents and the situation of the game. However, I don't think this is seen as a problem in comp play...
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.
This imo, as i said above, would be counter intuitive and ridiculous. If you want res back recycle at the right time... you know, before it is destroyed. Why would you give anything back to the team losing the structure? It only delays a losing team from losing and covers up the fact that the structure should have been defended in the first place.
It would be like in baseball if a team got a grand slam the non scoring team would get a point for letting it happen so they wont quit the game and walk off the field.
In answer to the question someone had about number of comp or pug games ending in concede, I'd put it at somewhere over 90% if you include base rushes. Not 'very few!' The reason is that they know when they're beaten much earlier than public teams, because they understand the quality of their opponents and the situation of the game. However, I don't think this is seen as a problem in comp play...
Fair enough, but the point still stands that concede isn't the problem; it's the inability of the pub team to organize or prioritize. Not that they toy with the other team until they concede or that they simply concede at the first sign of adversity.
I wouldn't include base rushes however, because that to me really smells of expediency toward starting another round, and not "we have no chance let's just end this".
Oh agreed completely! Reducing the severity of the slippery slope should go some way to helping teams feel they have more of a chance after a single setback, while not rewarding loss (just punishing it less harshly than at present). Furthermore, this doesn't add more emphasis on the rts element, which I agree with Gliss would be a mistake for ns2.
One of the simplest and easiest to balance would be to just make all tech permanent. In short, if - at the time - you have the per-requisites to research it, then once it is complete you keep that tech for the remainder of the game. While it may mean rebuilding a chamber or structure, the tech itself would stay accessible.
This would be horrible. What would be the point to the game?
The same as it is now - to destroy all of your opponents tech points.
There would be NO strategy in what you should kill and Marine's would have an OVERWHELMING advantage.
Let's tone down the hyperbole please. Please explain in literal terms how letting marines or aliens have their tech would give them an advantage? If the marines are too strong at two CCs then let's tie a few things to a third CC (like dual minis for example). At least back up your claims with more than rhetoric please.
Name a single sport that gives points to the loser... If you lose the tech point, you should lose everything immediately.
Why? Just 'because'?
What's the objective of the game? It's to destroy any and all of the opponents tech points. The rest is irrelevant. You can win the game without taking out any of the other structures. Furthermore, taking out the marines second tech point doesn't make EXOs on the field magically explode.
Look at TF2 for a simplistic comparison. In any mode, the team assaulting deals setbacks to the team defending. For control points, a defending team may lose a control point and that will put them that much closer to losing the game. However, it doesn't weaken the defending team. Despite this, the assaulting team is still quite able to win without that handicap - which is what it is a handicap.
Power nodes allow 1 player out of 18 to end the game (as i have done in many losing games).
Which is arguably one of the worst elements of this game. You're not helping your case here.
Tactical Gamer servers have an interesting mode. Once concede has been selected the opposing team has 120 seconds to attack while being invulnerable. It is satisfying walking into the last hive and wrecking house and killing all the defenseless lifeforms.
Yeah, because people play this game to become target dummies. This is why I don't play on TG servers. When I saw that how they implemented concede it was a complete and total turn off. It's bad enough that the game has degraded to the point where one team has no chance to win, it's worse to make that team sit around and be killed. You won, no need to spike the ball.
That's the kind of crap I want to see removed from the game. We don't need people conceding and standing around to die, we need people PLAYING THE GAME.
Not that they simply concede at the first sign of adversity..
You and me are playing different pub games, then, buddy
2nd hive killed even though you own 5 harvesters? Still see vote concede occurring..
But again.. anyone in here is doing this thread an injustice by bringing up concede, its really not the subject as the OP has gone blue in the face saying, already.
Not that they simply concede at the first sign of adversity..
You and me are playing different pub games, then, buddy
2nd hive killed even though you own 5 harvesters? Still see vote concede occurring..
But again.. anyone in here is doing this thread an injustice by bringing up concede, its really not the subject as the OP has gone blue in the face saying, already.
"They" in that sentence was referring to PuG/League players not pubs. I probably could have worded that better...
There would be NO strategy in what you should kill and Marine's would have an OVERWHELMING advantage.
Let's tone down the hyperbole please. Please explain in literal terms how letting marines or aliens have their tech would give them an advantage? If the marines are too strong at two CCs then let's tie a few things to a third CC (like dual minis for example). At least back up your claims with more than rhetoric please.
So your suggestion is to keep tech even after the CC is destroyed yet you want to tie a few things to a third CC? What would that even do? As you stated earlier you want full tech'd out endgame warfare where everyone is equal and stands a chance. Just give everyone all the tech in the beginning. I mean the fun is in the tech right? Forget earning it through teamwork and strategy. Just add the command alltech before each game and let the teams have at it.
As i said in another post aliens have a harsh endgame. Lose the nonrefundable lifeforms and lose the game (generally). So by your logic all lifeforms should be free since it is fun. Just put a lifeform cap and let everyone fight it out.
Funny you tell me to back up what i am saying when you dont do the same. More hypocrisy please?
This is what i mean. Marine's tech is based heavily around TRes and upgrades/structures. Aliens tech is heavily based around PRes and lifeforms. The alien comm could give you every upgrade, 1000 whips, and 6 hives. Without lifeforms the marines will steam roll them. Either make lifeforms free (which would be quite dumb) or make it so aliens can bring the marines back down to their level by destroying their bases. If you take out the marine's forward bases down to one base you have only w3/a3 to contend with. Still hard almost impossible for aliens to contend with without lifeforms but at least they have a chance. Keep that tech around no matter what is destroyed and once lifeforms on the alien side are all dead marines win. So no matter if aliens are on one hive or 6 lifeforms are what matters. Not tech. So your keep tech around only benefits marines. Think your idea through BEFORE you suggest it. I thought it was a no brainier and didnt need an extended explanation.
Name a single sport that gives points to the loser... If you lose the tech point, you should lose everything immediately.
Why? Just 'because'?
What's the objective of the game? It's to destroy any and all of the opponents tech points. The rest is irrelevant. You can win the game without taking out any of the other structures. Furthermore, taking out the marines second tech point doesn't make EXOs on the field magically explode.
Look at TF2 for a simplistic comparison. In any mode, the team assaulting deals setbacks to the team defending. For control points, a defending team may lose a control point and that will put them that much closer to losing the game. However, it doesn't weaken the defending team. Despite this, the assaulting team is still quite able to win without that handicap - which is what it is a handicap.
Ya, because TF2 has asymmetrical sides... oh wait, They dont. TF2 also has that RTS element... oh wait, it doesnt. In TF2 you can upgrade your base class... oh wait... nope. GREAT comparison. What you want is another game, not NS2. I give the devs a lot of credit balancing this game as much as they have. the "snowball" effect is on purpose. All RTS games have this and this is where you are spinning your wheels here. NS2 is not a pure FPS, get over it, and if you dont like concedeing i recommend getting more skilled yourself to offset the less skilled players on your team. In many games i act as field commander hitting strategic points because i have years of experience in this game. I share my knowledge to help my team out. NS2 is more about knowing HOW to win than actual execution. The execution can be sloppy in non-comp play because the other side might be less organised than you, but have the k:d to push through. I can end a bad, losing game, in 7 seconds with 3 others with me. Sounds to me like the games you have played have lacked that needed element in any battle, Leadership.
Power nodes allow 1 player out of 18 to end the game (as i have done in many losing games).
Which is arguably one of the worst elements of this game. You're not helping your case here.
wth are you even saying? I hate the powernode system, but it allows more miraculous come backs which you yourself want. It adds that element of an alien team always able to take out a base fast with the right prep. The base unit with 0 upgrades can take out a marine base alone. How much more plain of a win button do you need.
Tactical Gamer servers have an interesting mode. Once concede has been selected the opposing team has 120 seconds to attack while being invulnerable. It is satisfying walking into the last hive and wrecking house and killing all the defenseless lifeforms.
Yeah, because people play this game to become target dummies. This is why I don't play on TG servers. When I saw that how they implemented concede it was a complete and total turn off. It's bad enough that the game has degraded to the point where one team has no chance to win, it's worse to make that team sit around and be killed. You won, no need to spike the ball.
That's the kind of crap I want to see removed from the game. We don't need people conceding and standing around to die, we need people PLAYING THE GAME.
You are a confused, misguided, and frustrating person. You complain that concedes arent satisfying, though given the chance to end it within 120 and decimating the team you call in a total turn off. Ya, i would much rather an abrupt end to the game with a splash screen saying i won... You call me out saying i dont back up what i say when i start the damn comment with "In my opinion" and you dont back anything up yourself. You argue saying concede isnt a big deal, then turn around and argue for its removal. To top it off you are arguing for what is fun... can we get more subjective than that?
No need to "spike the ball"... you mean end it fast and not draw it out for 15 more minutes so people can start over, learn from their mistakes hopefully, and have a better game? oh ya, shame on them.
Another reason you might have crap games is probably because you play primarily on servers with no community or regulars. So games are always thrown out of balance to begin with there wouldnt be a mechanic in the world that could solve that. Fun games happen between two equal teams. TG as a community allows you to befriend people, know who your skilled players are, and set the teams up to be as even as possible.
If you want the game to allow more errors, even if the other team is not commiting errors itslef and do exploit yours, then you have no choice but lower the effect of your actions on game.
Wich mean at least a couple of things :
1) Diluting immediate initiatives effects
2) Game will last longer
All RTS games have this and this is where you are spinning your wheels here. NS2 is not a pure FPS, get over it, and if you dont like concedeing i recommend getting more skilled yourself to offset the less skilled players on your team.
...
And in those RTS games with concede the game ends there. No "HAW HAW ME GONNA TRASH YOUR BASE NOW" crap. Concede needs to work the same way in this game, if a teams concede it's because they're done playing, end the game.
As for the rest, well your concentrating way too much on the concede and not enough on why teams concede. The game ought to be fun for both sides down the final blow. As it is today we are a long long way off that goal (especially for the alien side). Unless we reach that goal we will continue to see games finished by concede rather than by killing the last hive/command chair.
Comments
True. Concede should be limite to 10 minutes passed, one or less RT owned and one Tech point owned. And let the dead players vote, ffs.
I totally believe that. If 12 years old rookies left 120 seconds into the match and I had to face alone three Marines, this is my fault, I have been outplayed. If my commander has no microphone and haven't placed a single cyst in 8 minutes, I have clearly been outplayed.
That's totally true and I admire you for having the balls to post such a bold statement.
We're playing for fun, you can't force people to play if they don't want to. Hell with the new players around ATM that don't understand concede I'll go make myself a cup of tea if the game's clearly over but the team won't conceded.
Theoretically a team has a chance of winning right up till the current game over screen, but those chances are so abysmally small that most people wouldn't want to play against them.
Sometimes. Some games are conceded when they could of still won, but it would of been stupidly hard to actually pull it off and too stressful to organize with a load of scrubs. I've concede a few games where if I was with some regular players I would of kept going.
What kind of sh!tty servers are you playing on? You realise there's servers with more than 4 players, right? Also, are you aware there's an option to kick a bad commander?
Seriously? This is a discussion, and I'm saying my opinion. Please keep comments like this to yourself.
Emoo, I know you can't force people to keep playing, which is why I'm sure the concede feature won't be removed (nor do I believe it should be removed). I do, however, think it should be tweaked. I think there's a lot of people out there who would agree. I think it should only be dire circumstances in which a concession is permissible - perhaps it's after a certain length of game time has passed, perhaps you need to have only one or two structures remaining; I don't know. All I'm saying is, it should be an absolute last resort measure, and I don't believe it should be happening as often as it is.
I play on every kind of server. I was speaking figuratively; saying I'm against 3, doesn't mean we're 4 on the server, but maybe 8 or 12. It's a ratio thing, with the Alien leaving tread, it's very often a two to one in Marine's favor.
Kicking commander is a vote; rookies that couldn't make it to the Marine side have no idea how to vote or why. Also, kicking a commander is nice and all but, who will command then ? You're pretty much screwed if it goes down to kicking your commander, the game is already lost.
And I mine. Which is stating people only lose because they're getting outplayed is dumb and oblivious of what really happens on public servers.
Also, please consider the possibility of losing games as fun and challenging. More importantly, ending the game prematurely takes away the fun for these people, and generally the entire winning team. Also realize you should be losing about half the time. Food for thought, that is generally left uneaten.
Being outplayed refers to a situation with both side having the same chances. So no, most concedes aren't for outplayed reasons. Most are because one side has no commander, no player or only real bad ones. I'm rarely outplayed, yet I'm forced to concede quite often if I want an interesting game during my game session.
Sadly, I have to disagree again. Have you ever played L4D? The rage quitting is endemic and pervasive. People quit map one, after missing their first "death charge", before the other team has even had a chance to get ahead. This is the state of your average gamer these days. Gaming, especially the "mod scene", is Not What It Used To Be™. Games are infinitely more accessible today than even the latter days of NS1. You had a different average gamer back when NS1 was born. You had to have some computer knowledge and had to understand how to actually install a Mod. It took effort, therefore attracted a different person. Heck, When I started gaming in leagues, you not only had to install Quake, you had to patch in CTF and then patch in the mod. I'm not saying that makes me a better person or anything like that. What I am saying is it took a certain level of perseverance. Today, it's click a button install the game, expect to be a "bawse" right out of the box and quit every game that is a challenge to you until you find yourself on the right side of the team stack. Then taunt your opponent for conceding.
I pre-ordered this game sight unseen simply on faith and the history of NS1. I want to be wrong. I want the good games of yore. (Heck I just want to play right now, but my infant son is taking all my time.) But I don't see it. I agree far too many games get conceded but I don't agree that the majority of the burden for the concede falls on the game; and no amount of coding is going to teach good sportsmanship.
Yes but how much of the "40-50 minutes" was spent egg-locking the aliens or otherwise containing them while you finished researching everything possible instead of marching into the last hive and shooting it down?
This is my point, if my team is getting decimated I have a few choices.
1) Keep playing, keep getting decimated. Oh how much fun!
2) Concede the game. Game ends, we lose ok well done other team, lets play again.
3) Fail to concede, go AFK and make tea while the team is slowly ground to dust.
You can't make me keep playing. I don't care if by playing well you think you deserve the chance to annihilate every building and player left. If you try and force me into that situation I'll simply walk away from the computer, you can have your fun shooting stationary units.
Now given that, I do agree that a lot of games have been conceded early, I'm also not against small tweaks to concede I'm sure it could be better. But remember the golden rule, you can't force anyone to play.
Never *once* have I been in a game - that one side conceded - where people were hyped about the game they just had. In my experience, people are usually grouchy after a concede, or they are complaining about team stacking, or just complaining about how it was a bad game in general.
You try and counter with prolonged games, but that's not the issue here since no one is advocating to remove concede. Your response is based on a flawed premise. There are TOO MANY game that end in concede. This is not how the game should be played.
Like I said, the bulk of players are here for FPS elements, and concede will only drive them away.
Has no one looked at the stats? Right now NS2 is down at the ~80th spot in the top 100, and steadily dropping. While some here care more for quitting games, player count continues to drop. NS2 now has fewer players playing than Farming Simulator 2013.
Seriously? And you want to tell me that concede is a good thing? Right now NS2 is barely ahead of Simcity 4 - a game that's a decade old.
Time to wake up and smell the FPS folks. People who play FPS don't like concede. And while it has it's place in a hybrid game like this, it should be a narrow element that is rarely used - not the de facto end of the game like it is now. Yeah turtles may not be too fun, but last time I checked when there was no concede the player count was MANY times higher than it was now. Say what you will about it, but the numbers speak for themselves.
To be fair, there is a bit of cross over with this other small indie game that was just released that could be seriously hitting the player base. I bet a good portion of the NS2 players are currently playing that other game.
I've seen many Marine sides fighting on instead of conceding. I never see that as an Alien.
Again and again, why ? One word: fun. You still have fun shooting stuff as a Marine, even when on your last stand, because you can actually kill stuff: the bad lerk, the bad onos, bad fade. Turn that situation around: ensieged aliens. You get no fun there. You get egg-locked, you get shotgun spawn killed, you spawn as the weakest lifeform in the game, you have no element of surprise to help fighting the Marine. No fun, nothing to surprise you: you'll die again and again without being able to damage any Marine.
Something's wrong about Alien and it's the fun factor of playing Skulk (because Lerk/Fade/Onos are fun), which is non-existent and seems to be to me the root of close to every community related concerns we talk about.
From the outset this thread was about coming up with ideas on simply how to make the game fun up until the very last second -and so far I've only seen three ideas, one of which was my own.
Maybe savant should have kept it shorter and more clear Idk, or maybe people just didn't get it. Either way this has been a world record of a off topic thread. Shame, it had promise.
Remove tech point scaling. Aliens especially are gimped big time once there pushed down to 1 hive.
Tech points need to give a bonus but they need to be decoupled from ALL technology (including khammander egg drops, chamber selection, protolabs, etc).
If you can balance the game on this then tech points no longer become the be all or end all of each game, aliens pushed to one base could still make a come back, as could marines and even if they weren't able to come back at least aliens wouldn't just get insta-killed by W3/A3 marines.
My understand is the balance mods biomass system is kinda like this, but I haven't played that yet to comment any further on it.
One of the simplest and easiest to balance would be to just make all tech permanent. In short, if - at the time - you have the per-requisites to research it, then once it is complete you keep that tech for the remainder of the game. While it may mean rebuilding a chamber or structure, the tech itself would stay accessible.
So if aliens have two hives, and they lose one, they retain the tech they had from the second hive. Same for marines. What does this change?
Well it makes it so that teams only get stronger, not weaker. The game objectives don't change. You still have to eliminate all tech points controlled by the other team, but losing a tech point doesn't leave you so weak that you are no longer competitive. So if aliens had three hives, and they lose two, they can *still* drop an Onos egg. Since they attained a third hive, they have satisfied that condition. If marines had two tech points, and they lost one, they could still buy jetpacks and EXOs if the tech was researched.
In this way the strength of both teams builds until one team overpowers the other. Personally I don't think the opposition team needs to be weakened for a team to win. The tools are there. If anything it makes map control all the more important since it will come down to who can AFFORD to buy those toys.
If you were playing marines now, and you lost your CC, you may feel like conceding since you can't get EXOs and the opponents have Onos. Well if you could still get EXOs then you would probably still want to play. That's not to say it makes the marines too strong either. The marines are down to their last CC - so while they can try and push out, they still have to protect their last point or they will lose the game. So they are not 'weak', but they ARE closer to losing.
On the flipside, there would be no more 'one-hive Onos' worries, so long as aliens matured a second hive at some point. So that Onos would still be a force to be reckoned with, and the other lifeforms wouldn't lose their upgraded weapon traits.
I'd love to see it tried.
Part of the problem is find a coding answer to peoples poor sportsmanship. How many organized games (pug and league play combined) end in concedes? Is that percentage in any way reflective of the pub scene? My guess is "few" and "hardly". The casual factor in gaming today takes out part of the drive to compete. This lends it's self to more people giving up because "they just want to play". I don't think that, necessarily, this is a horrible thing. However, you can't start drastically changing the game to the point where it becomes Hello Kitty Island Adventure, where everyone gets a trophy and no one has to lose. Bottom line is too many people can't stand losing, they stack the team portal for which ever side has the perceived strength, concede at the first big lost engagement because "teams are stacked" or "[X player] is a hacker". Too many people are only interested in a steamroll win and concede so it doesn't happen to them.
Historically, the best games I ever participated in where on the CoFR server back in the day. Everyone went random most games, and win or lose it was fun. People used to put the time into a game to get good; they took their lumps and learned from it. I don't feel that happens anymore. And I don't think all the coding in the world will change it.
All that said, more forgiveness in small doses is good and I agree that the game has always been unforgiving. I also agree that even since NS1 Marines are more fun to lose on for whatever reason. Somehow something needs to be done to make it more fun to lose on the alien side. What that could possibly be is not an easy answer; maybe try out a mini game on the alien side when losing. Something along the lines of a bacterial explosion that will infest the station if the Marines don't push in and take out the hive in [x time period]. Also, perhaps a small resource return for players when they die as a higher life form linked to the amount of time they were alive as that life form (think of it as the alien answer to recycling dropped weapons) such as Life form cost / time spent alive. This way it allows people to play more as higher life forms and rewards the people who are better at the life form and gets you back into the game faster as that life form.
The way NS1 worked in smaller games, a lot of the fights were decided when the 2nd hive was about to go up. The marines moved in to prevent the 2nd hive, the aliens set up a defence. If the hive survived, the aliens often snowballed into a comfortable victory. If the hive went down, marines were usually able to set up themselves for a win.
Where it comes interesting for NS2 is how the 2nd hive forced an engagement with both possibilities to decisively win over a game or to make a huge comeback. In early game you were able to gain big advantages that contributed to the 2nd hive engagements greatly, but you rarely felt safe and secure until the initial 2nd hive fights were over.
Usually even when you were losing the initial early game, it was still worth fighting to get somewhat of a foothold for the 2nd hive race. Basically the whole game was still worth fighting until the engagement decided it for good.
---
In general I don't think forcing decisive is necessarily a good way to desing gameplay or so and I think the NS1 gameplay was often too much about the 2nd hive, but it also has benefits that are worth understanding in it, especially looking where NS2 apparently is right now.
I will make the same suggestion I have been making on this and it is one I firmly believe will mitigate a lot of the whining about concede. Once a team concedes, stop their spawning and start a minute timer (or so), where the other team has a chance to hunt them down. Like the end of a TF2 match where the losing team can't attack but they can run and hide like cowards. That way the winning team gets the satisfaction of finishing them off. I played on a server with a mod that did this and it seemed to make ending the game more fun for all involved.
Simply this. Late game skulks are cannon fodder and power node/rt munchers. Charlie doesnt want magic numbers like back in NS1 where every lifeform would get a passive upgrade per hive. So un-upgraded skulks in the first 30 seconds of the game are the same 20min + un-upgraded skulks late game. Take the vanilla marine, with A3/W3 right at spawn their machine gun is the best onos killer when it comes to marine weaponry (baring exos).
This would be horrible. What would be the point to the game? There would be NO strategy in what you should kill and Marine's would have an OVERWHELMING advantage. Marine's can turtle on one base already for long periods of time. As an alien i am relieved when we take out the 2nd CC which is usually at the cost of a hive (base trading with aliens always ends bad for marines). Name a single sport that gives points to the loser... If you lose the tech point, you should lose everything immediately. I still disagree with keeping upgrades/abilities as aliens when they are destroyed until you die, but that is another post.
Bottom line you are trying to balance the game on "What is fun". What is fun for you is NOT fun for me. I think we have a good blend of RTS and FPS. I do not want to play CoD 3 Aliens. I play NS2 BECAUSE of the RTS element. Do NOT reward people for losing. What is gone is gone and should have been defended. Personally i think this game isnt harsh enough and gives too many opportunities to come back. As long as aliens have hives greater than or equal to CCs they should always win through base trades. Power nodes allow 1 player out of 18 to end the game (as i have done in many losing games). 4 skulks rushing a power node can almost kill it before a distracted comm realizes what is happening and a beacon can even go off, then add in enzyme. It takes roughly 6.6 seconds for 4 skulks to kill a healthy powernode, 3 seconds to beacon.
Tactical Gamer servers have an interesting mode. Once concede has been selected the opposing team has 120 seconds to attack while being invulnerable. It is satisfying walking into the last hive and wrecking house and killing all the defenseless lifeforms. Much like TF2 when you win the round and you can go around killing your opponent.
My suggestion - RFK back or at least TRes for Kill. It rewards those good at the FPS side by allowing them to continue buying their tech. Marine's dont feel the hurt as much as aliens since vanilla marines are always useful. Lose the fade or onos with only 4 PRES and you are done. Doomed to skulk for the rest of the game. TRes for kills would allow the comm to spend the res as s/he saw fit by purchasing things for the team or rewarding the good player. Right now i die a lot as skulk because i am over aggressive. I go 20-7 quickly but since i died so much i am last to fade/onos. Quite hurtful imo to not gain PRes when you are dead and i generally have 3x the kills of the person below me (not to mention score from building and destroying buildings. Im not all rambo all the time).
The key point here is to make the early game more competitive such that fewer games' outcomes can be accurately predicted at minute 3. That should be the only goal of this thread, given the op.
In answer to the question someone had about number of comp or pug games ending in concede, I'd put it at somewhere over 90% if you include base rushes. Not 'very few!' The reason is that they know when they're beaten much earlier than public teams, because they understand the quality of their opponents and the situation of the game. However, I don't think this is seen as a problem in comp play...
This imo, as i said above, would be counter intuitive and ridiculous. If you want res back recycle at the right time... you know, before it is destroyed. Why would you give anything back to the team losing the structure? It only delays a losing team from losing and covers up the fact that the structure should have been defended in the first place.
It would be like in baseball if a team got a grand slam the non scoring team would get a point for letting it happen so they wont quit the game and walk off the field.
Fair enough, but the point still stands that concede isn't the problem; it's the inability of the pub team to organize or prioritize. Not that they toy with the other team until they concede or that they simply concede at the first sign of adversity.
I wouldn't include base rushes however, because that to me really smells of expediency toward starting another round, and not "we have no chance let's just end this".
Let's tone down the hyperbole please. Please explain in literal terms how letting marines or aliens have their tech would give them an advantage? If the marines are too strong at two CCs then let's tie a few things to a third CC (like dual minis for example). At least back up your claims with more than rhetoric please. Why? Just 'because'?
What's the objective of the game? It's to destroy any and all of the opponents tech points. The rest is irrelevant. You can win the game without taking out any of the other structures. Furthermore, taking out the marines second tech point doesn't make EXOs on the field magically explode.
Look at TF2 for a simplistic comparison. In any mode, the team assaulting deals setbacks to the team defending. For control points, a defending team may lose a control point and that will put them that much closer to losing the game. However, it doesn't weaken the defending team. Despite this, the assaulting team is still quite able to win without that handicap - which is what it is a handicap.
Which is arguably one of the worst elements of this game. You're not helping your case here.
Yeah, because people play this game to become target dummies. This is why I don't play on TG servers. When I saw that how they implemented concede it was a complete and total turn off. It's bad enough that the game has degraded to the point where one team has no chance to win, it's worse to make that team sit around and be killed. You won, no need to spike the ball.
That's the kind of crap I want to see removed from the game. We don't need people conceding and standing around to die, we need people PLAYING THE GAME.
2nd hive killed even though you own 5 harvesters? Still see vote concede occurring..
But again.. anyone in here is doing this thread an injustice by bringing up concede, its really not the subject as the OP has gone blue in the face saying, already.
"They" in that sentence was referring to PuG/League players not pubs. I probably could have worded that better...
So your suggestion is to keep tech even after the CC is destroyed yet you want to tie a few things to a third CC? What would that even do? As you stated earlier you want full tech'd out endgame warfare where everyone is equal and stands a chance. Just give everyone all the tech in the beginning. I mean the fun is in the tech right? Forget earning it through teamwork and strategy. Just add the command alltech before each game and let the teams have at it.
As i said in another post aliens have a harsh endgame. Lose the nonrefundable lifeforms and lose the game (generally). So by your logic all lifeforms should be free since it is fun. Just put a lifeform cap and let everyone fight it out.
Funny you tell me to back up what i am saying when you dont do the same. More hypocrisy please?
This is what i mean. Marine's tech is based heavily around TRes and upgrades/structures. Aliens tech is heavily based around PRes and lifeforms. The alien comm could give you every upgrade, 1000 whips, and 6 hives. Without lifeforms the marines will steam roll them. Either make lifeforms free (which would be quite dumb) or make it so aliens can bring the marines back down to their level by destroying their bases. If you take out the marine's forward bases down to one base you have only w3/a3 to contend with. Still hard almost impossible for aliens to contend with without lifeforms but at least they have a chance. Keep that tech around no matter what is destroyed and once lifeforms on the alien side are all dead marines win. So no matter if aliens are on one hive or 6 lifeforms are what matters. Not tech. So your keep tech around only benefits marines. Think your idea through BEFORE you suggest it. I thought it was a no brainier and didnt need an extended explanation.
Ya, because TF2 has asymmetrical sides... oh wait, They dont. TF2 also has that RTS element... oh wait, it doesnt. In TF2 you can upgrade your base class... oh wait... nope. GREAT comparison. What you want is another game, not NS2. I give the devs a lot of credit balancing this game as much as they have. the "snowball" effect is on purpose. All RTS games have this and this is where you are spinning your wheels here. NS2 is not a pure FPS, get over it, and if you dont like concedeing i recommend getting more skilled yourself to offset the less skilled players on your team. In many games i act as field commander hitting strategic points because i have years of experience in this game. I share my knowledge to help my team out. NS2 is more about knowing HOW to win than actual execution. The execution can be sloppy in non-comp play because the other side might be less organised than you, but have the k:d to push through. I can end a bad, losing game, in 7 seconds with 3 others with me. Sounds to me like the games you have played have lacked that needed element in any battle, Leadership.
wth are you even saying? I hate the powernode system, but it allows more miraculous come backs which you yourself want. It adds that element of an alien team always able to take out a base fast with the right prep. The base unit with 0 upgrades can take out a marine base alone. How much more plain of a win button do you need.
You are a confused, misguided, and frustrating person. You complain that concedes arent satisfying, though given the chance to end it within 120 and decimating the team you call in a total turn off. Ya, i would much rather an abrupt end to the game with a splash screen saying i won... You call me out saying i dont back up what i say when i start the damn comment with "In my opinion" and you dont back anything up yourself. You argue saying concede isnt a big deal, then turn around and argue for its removal. To top it off you are arguing for what is fun... can we get more subjective than that?
No need to "spike the ball"... you mean end it fast and not draw it out for 15 more minutes so people can start over, learn from their mistakes hopefully, and have a better game? oh ya, shame on them.
Another reason you might have crap games is probably because you play primarily on servers with no community or regulars. So games are always thrown out of balance to begin with there wouldnt be a mechanic in the world that could solve that. Fun games happen between two equal teams. TG as a community allows you to befriend people, know who your skilled players are, and set the teams up to be as even as possible.
Wich mean at least a couple of things :
1) Diluting immediate initiatives effects
2) Game will last longer
...
And in those RTS games with concede the game ends there. No "HAW HAW ME GONNA TRASH YOUR BASE NOW" crap. Concede needs to work the same way in this game, if a teams concede it's because they're done playing, end the game.
As for the rest, well your concentrating way too much on the concede and not enough on why teams concede. The game ought to be fun for both sides down the final blow. As it is today we are a long long way off that goal (especially for the alien side). Unless we reach that goal we will continue to see games finished by concede rather than by killing the last hive/command chair.