It bothers me when people want to concede because they can't win engagements with skulks when there are people just getting to about 18 pres, or 32 pres, or 50 pres. When those lifeforms come out it is often game changing.
It bothers me when people want to concede because they can't win engagements with skulks when there are people just getting to about 18 pres, or 32 pres, or 50 pres. When those lifeforms come out it is often game changing.
Really depends on how much res the enemy has, and if that guy with 32 res can fade carry the team against people with 33 jpshotties.
My concede has more to do with where you're losing the engagements, and what the res situation is like. Have you held 3 rts the entire game, and been harassing effectively, or have you been on 2 rts fighting for your third with the marines on the rest?
Mendasp you missed something in there about a second force shuffle after all the badges end up on the same team.
Or how half of one team just leaves for no reason, then all rookies join the other team. "What do you mean stacked? We did shuffle!"
I call that the "Why can't I spawn syndrome"
If there's one thing that persistently annoys me in this game, it's that when teams are number-imbalanced nobody ever goddamn switches, especially if it's a close game. Which is completely understandable, but sadly it does lead to a few messed up games every now and then.
And when I try to negate this effect personally, in a completely even game it'll go-
*meatmachine swaps teams*
*someone from original team leaves*
*div 1 pro mlg joins original team and starts completely wrecking*
*all of a sudden marines have jetpacks and GLs*
*meatmachine loses and cries*
Mendasp you missed something in there about a second force shuffle after all the badges end up on the same team.
Or how half of one team just leaves for no reason, then all rookies join the other team. "What do you mean stacked? We did shuffle!"
I call that the "Why can't I spawn syndrome"
If there's one thing that persistently annoys me in this game, it's that when teams are number-imbalanced nobody ever goddamn switches, especially if it's a close game. Which is completely understandable, but sadly it does lead to a few messed up games every now and then.
And when I try to negate this effect personally, in a completely even game it'll go-
*meatmachine swaps teams*
*someone from original team leaves*
*div 1 pro mlg joins original team and starts completely wrecking*
*all of a sudden marines have jetpacks and GLs*
*meatmachine loses and cries*
But but but I just want the fruits of my labour. I did all of this and that to put the other team behind, and now I have to join the other team? Wouldn't I have been just sowing the seeds of my own destruction? I'd much rather see my own team wrecked due to being stuck in the imbalance spawn queue!
I get that on a whole we would probably get a better experience if people switch teams when there is imbalance, but I just can't bring myself to do it when I have already been on the team for a long time and the majority of the game.
But but but I just want the fruits of my labour. I did all of this and that to put the other team behind, and now I have to join the other team? Wouldn't I have been just sowing the seeds of my own destruction? I'd much rather see my own team wrecked due to being stuck in the imbalance spawn queue!
See it the other way around: Help your team to be ahead of your opponent, then switch and try to come back from that. I am actually doing that quite a lot to try and create a little challange for myself. Just make sure not to win to often. Because if you lose nobody cares, but if you win you are either:
1. the winning team joiner (people often don't understand that you helped that team quite a lot to actually win an almost lost game)
2. the stacker (if you have a high enough hive skill it will often lead to the team skills changing quite a bit when you change the team)
3. the evil guy who let his team down and made them lose (although the game was pretty much over and shouldn't be lost even with you switching teams)
1. the winning team joiner (people often don't understand that you helped that team quite a lot to actually win an almost lost game)
The other problem with this is that often you are the driving force behind your team winning, if not by kills, by organization. And switching out will not only give that asset to the enemy, but will deprive the currently winning team of it.
All in all, switching teams just doesn't work in ns2. So much work and effort goes into each round that to just jump sides is very disruptive. I'd rather just rush the team to end the game, instead of trying to salvage a trainwreck of people leaving.
But but but I just want the fruits of my labour. I did all of this and that to put the other team behind, and now I have to join the other team? Wouldn't I have been just sowing the seeds of my own destruction? I'd much rather see my own team wrecked due to being stuck in the imbalance spawn queue!
See it the other way around: Help your team to be ahead of your opponent, then switch and try to come back from that. I am actually doing that quite a lot to try and create a little challange for myself. Just make sure not to win to often. Because if you lose nobody cares, but if you win you are either:
1. the winning team joiner (people often don't understand that you helped that team quite a lot to actually win an almost lost game)
2. the stacker (if you have a high enough hive skill it will often lead to the team skills changing quite a bit when you change the team)
3. the evil guy who let his team down and made them lose (although the game was pretty much over and shouldn't be lost even with you switching teams)
Oh, that's true. I'm not actually good enough to turn around a game though.
WyzcrakPot Pie AficionadoJoin Date: 2002-12-04Member: 10447Forum Moderators, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
Keep the team populations equal and let the rest happen as it will. So few players want to be down by two. Winning is overrated.
In the context of NO ONE ELSE on the up-by-two team switching, same goes for Commanders. I'm a Commander. When I'm on a team that's up by two, I casually and simply say: "I'll switch if no one else wants to." I commonly get responses like "but but lol but you're Commander," and then my teammates realize that my offer to switch teams was conditional on the absurd context of NO ONE ELSE switching. Yes, it's absurb that a Commander should switch teams, but absurd calls for absurd, and it's of course absurd that absolutely NO ONE on an up-by-two team would volunteer to switch in a timely manner. So, if my entire team's actions demonstrate that staying on an up-by-two team is critically important to them, then I happily leave them to that pursuit and join the undersized team without hesitation.
The exceptional arguments ("the game was almost over", "we were going to win no matter what", "switching won't change anything", etc) just reinforce the idea that the larger team can afford the switch, Commander or not, and the smaller team typically appreciates the gesture very much, even if they acknowledge circumstantial competitive irrelevance.
So maybe I lose. It's fine. Winning is overrated. Preserving some kind of competitive status quo and/or rushing finality along don't take priority when the other team is down by two. Quickly and effectively providing the other team the remedy I want next time I'm down by two takes priority. That means keeping the team populations equal and letting the rest happen as it will.
Keep the team populations equal and let the rest happen as it will. So few players want to be down by two. Winning is overrated.
In the context of NO ONE ELSE on the up-by-two team switching, same goes for Commanders. I'm a Commander. When I'm on a team that's up by two, I casually and simply say: "I'll switch if no one else wants to." I commonly get responses like "but but lol but you're Commander," and then my teammates realize that my offer to switch teams was conditional on the absurd context of NO ONE ELSE switching. Yes, it's absurb that a Commander should switch teams, but absurd calls for absurd, and it's of course absurd that absolutely NO ONE on an up-by-two team would volunteer to switch in a timely manner. So, if my entire team's actions demonstrate that staying on an up-by-two team is critically important to them, then I happily leave them to that pursuit and join the undersized team without hesitation.
The exceptional arguments ("the game was almost over", "we were going to win no matter what", "switching won't change anything", etc) just reinforce the idea that the larger team can afford the switch, Commander or not, and the smaller team typically appreciates the gesture very much, even if they acknowledge circumstantial competitive irrelevance.
So maybe I lose. It's fine. Winning is overrated. Preserving some kind of competitive status quo and/or rushing finality along don't take priority when the other team is down by two. Quickly and effectively providing the other team the remedy I want next time I'm down by two takes priority. That means keeping the team populations equal and letting the rest happen as it will.
Never heard of team balance? Even if you're 2 or more down/up, spawnable team population is equal.
The only time this matters is at the start of the game, as the early game is so crucial (due to snowball effect) and because no-one has died yet (and thus entered the team balance queue).
The rest of the time, if people are more willing to wait in the team balance queue every time they die than they are to change teams, let them do so. It doesn't matter at all because switching absolutely isn't correcting a player advantage/disadvantage, because due to this feature, there is none. It's the people that won't switch that suffer (due to having to wait in queue), not the other team.
An 8v6 game is effectively 6v6. If one person swaps, it becomes 7v7 game - exactly as balanced.
A 9v6 game is effectively 6v6 aswell. If one person swaps, it becomes 8v7 - the team that received the new player is actually worse off (assuming equally skilled players).
WyzcrakPot Pie AficionadoJoin Date: 2002-12-04Member: 10447Forum Moderators, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
The team balance feature is a design reaction to players who are unreliable for effectively solving an obvious problem. The feature doesn't obviate selflessness. For what it's worth, my switching is consistently well received.
Oh yeah by all means switch teams. Someone needs to eventually and it's good of you to step up and actually do it. Often I will also be the person to do this fairly promptly as well unless the game's about to end, someone's joining the server, or if doing so will create a skill imbalance.
Was only explaining being 2-down/up isn't a huge issue and barely has any consequences at all. If anybody loses out, it's the people in the team that isn't switching, as they're the ones who get stuck in the spawn queue.
Keep the team populations equal and let the rest happen as it will. So few players want to be down by two. Winning is overrated.
In the context of NO ONE ELSE on the up-by-two team switching, same goes for Commanders. I'm a Commander. When I'm on a team that's up by two, I casually and simply say: "I'll switch if no one else wants to." I commonly get responses like "but but lol but you're Commander," and then my teammates realize that my offer to switch teams was conditional on the absurd context of NO ONE ELSE switching. Yes, it's absurb that a Commander should switch teams, but absurd calls for absurd, and it's of course absurd that absolutely NO ONE on an up-by-two team would volunteer to switch in a timely manner. So, if my entire team's actions demonstrate that staying on an up-by-two team is critically important to them, then I happily leave them to that pursuit and join the undersized team without hesitation.
The exceptional arguments ("the game was almost over", "we were going to win no matter what", "switching won't change anything", etc) just reinforce the idea that the larger team can afford the switch, Commander or not, and the smaller team typically appreciates the gesture very much, even if they acknowledge circumstantial competitive irrelevance.
So maybe I lose. It's fine. Winning is overrated. Preserving some kind of competitive status quo and/or rushing finality along don't take priority when the other team is down by two. Quickly and effectively providing the other team the remedy I want next time I'm down by two takes priority. That means keeping the team populations equal and letting the rest happen as it will.
Never heard of team balance? Even if you're 2 or more down/up, spawnable team population is equal.
The only time this matters is at the start of the game, as the early game is so crucial (due to snowball effect) and because no-one has died yet (and thus entered the team balance queue).
The rest of the time, if people are more willing to wait in the team balance queue every time they die than they are to change teams, let them do so. It doesn't matter at all because switching absolutely isn't correcting a player advantage/disadvantage, because due to this feature, there is none. It's the people that won't switch that suffer (due to having to wait in queue), not the other team.
An 8v6 game is effectively 6v6. If one person swaps, it becomes 7v7 game - exactly as balanced.
A 9v6 game is effectively 6v6 aswell. If one person swaps, it becomes 8v7 - the team that received the new player is actually worse off (assuming equally skilled players).
and, you sometimes get the situation where, you're stuck in spawn queue while a rookie that literally can't die, because he literally can't find the enemy is actively dragging your team down . Being in team balance is actually an active nerf sometimes. And is legitimately better than a one man difference. I prefer 8 v 6 vs 7 v 6.
thing that drives me nuts the most about auto-bal is when it first comes on and throws off regular spawning queue. suddenly you have a potentially long gap between expected spawners being able to respond to rts getting hit, usually naturals.
but yes.. personally if i've contributed to a spanking and the round is in the bag and auto bal comes on... i'll switch. If it's a back-and-forth though and i've contributed to a comeback or somethin and auto-bal comes on, well that's the other team's problem. I've earned that win.
thing that drives me nuts the most about auto-bal is when it first comes on and throws off regular spawning queue. suddenly you have a potentially long gap between expected spawners being able to respond to rts getting hit, usually naturals.
but yes.. personally if i've contributed to a spanking and the round is in the bag and auto bal comes on... i'll switch. If it's a back-and-forth though and i've contributed to a comeback or somethin and auto-bal comes on, well that's the other team's problem. I've earned that win.
God this is annoying. I've seen a few players f4, and subsequently their team is able to execute an otherwise unsuccessful rush. Players who would have otherwise spawned and been near a phase or spawn were unbeknownst to the rest of the team/comm put into the autobalance queue - allowing a base rush to be successful.
Suddenly and unexpectedly not being able to rely on the regular spawning queue is definitely something that can lose you the game, or simply lose you some ground (e.g. through rts going down like in your example).
Comments
Or how half of one team just leaves for no reason, then all rookies join the other team. "What do you mean stacked? We did shuffle!"
I call that the "Why can't I spawn syndrome"
Really depends on how much res the enemy has, and if that guy with 32 res can fade carry the team against people with 33 jpshotties.
My concede has more to do with where you're losing the engagements, and what the res situation is like. Have you held 3 rts the entire game, and been harassing effectively, or have you been on 2 rts fighting for your third with the marines on the rest?
If there's one thing that persistently annoys me in this game, it's that when teams are number-imbalanced nobody ever goddamn switches, especially if it's a close game. Which is completely understandable, but sadly it does lead to a few messed up games every now and then.
And when I try to negate this effect personally, in a completely even game it'll go-
*meatmachine swaps teams*
*someone from original team leaves*
*div 1 pro mlg joins original team and starts completely wrecking*
*all of a sudden marines have jetpacks and GLs*
*meatmachine loses and cries*
But but but I just want the fruits of my labour. I did all of this and that to put the other team behind, and now I have to join the other team? Wouldn't I have been just sowing the seeds of my own destruction? I'd much rather see my own team wrecked due to being stuck in the imbalance spawn queue!
I get that on a whole we would probably get a better experience if people switch teams when there is imbalance, but I just can't bring myself to do it when I have already been on the team for a long time and the majority of the game.
See it the other way around: Help your team to be ahead of your opponent, then switch and try to come back from that. I am actually doing that quite a lot to try and create a little challange for myself. Just make sure not to win to often. Because if you lose nobody cares, but if you win you are either:
1. the winning team joiner (people often don't understand that you helped that team quite a lot to actually win an almost lost game)
2. the stacker (if you have a high enough hive skill it will often lead to the team skills changing quite a bit when you change the team)
3. the evil guy who let his team down and made them lose (although the game was pretty much over and shouldn't be lost even with you switching teams)
The other problem with this is that often you are the driving force behind your team winning, if not by kills, by organization. And switching out will not only give that asset to the enemy, but will deprive the currently winning team of it.
All in all, switching teams just doesn't work in ns2. So much work and effort goes into each round that to just jump sides is very disruptive. I'd rather just rush the team to end the game, instead of trying to salvage a trainwreck of people leaving.
Oh, that's true. I'm not actually good enough to turn around a game though.
In the context of NO ONE ELSE on the up-by-two team switching, same goes for Commanders. I'm a Commander. When I'm on a team that's up by two, I casually and simply say: "I'll switch if no one else wants to." I commonly get responses like "but but lol but you're Commander," and then my teammates realize that my offer to switch teams was conditional on the absurd context of NO ONE ELSE switching. Yes, it's absurb that a Commander should switch teams, but absurd calls for absurd, and it's of course absurd that absolutely NO ONE on an up-by-two team would volunteer to switch in a timely manner. So, if my entire team's actions demonstrate that staying on an up-by-two team is critically important to them, then I happily leave them to that pursuit and join the undersized team without hesitation.
The exceptional arguments ("the game was almost over", "we were going to win no matter what", "switching won't change anything", etc) just reinforce the idea that the larger team can afford the switch, Commander or not, and the smaller team typically appreciates the gesture very much, even if they acknowledge circumstantial competitive irrelevance.
So maybe I lose. It's fine. Winning is overrated. Preserving some kind of competitive status quo and/or rushing finality along don't take priority when the other team is down by two. Quickly and effectively providing the other team the remedy I want next time I'm down by two takes priority. That means keeping the team populations equal and letting the rest happen as it will.
Never heard of team balance? Even if you're 2 or more down/up, spawnable team population is equal.
The only time this matters is at the start of the game, as the early game is so crucial (due to snowball effect) and because no-one has died yet (and thus entered the team balance queue).
The rest of the time, if people are more willing to wait in the team balance queue every time they die than they are to change teams, let them do so. It doesn't matter at all because switching absolutely isn't correcting a player advantage/disadvantage, because due to this feature, there is none. It's the people that won't switch that suffer (due to having to wait in queue), not the other team.
An 8v6 game is effectively 6v6. If one person swaps, it becomes 7v7 game - exactly as balanced.
A 9v6 game is effectively 6v6 aswell. If one person swaps, it becomes 8v7 - the team that received the new player is actually worse off (assuming equally skilled players).
Was only explaining being 2-down/up isn't a huge issue and barely has any consequences at all. If anybody loses out, it's the people in the team that isn't switching, as they're the ones who get stuck in the spawn queue.
and, you sometimes get the situation where, you're stuck in spawn queue while a rookie that literally can't die, because he literally can't find the enemy is actively dragging your team down
but yes.. personally if i've contributed to a spanking and the round is in the bag and auto bal comes on... i'll switch. If it's a back-and-forth though and i've contributed to a comeback or somethin and auto-bal comes on, well that's the other team's problem. I've earned that win.
God this is annoying. I've seen a few players f4, and subsequently their team is able to execute an otherwise unsuccessful rush. Players who would have otherwise spawned and been near a phase or spawn were unbeknownst to the rest of the team/comm put into the autobalance queue - allowing a base rush to be successful.
Suddenly and unexpectedly not being able to rely on the regular spawning queue is definitely something that can lose you the game, or simply lose you some ground (e.g. through rts going down like in your example).