Is it over or not?
Savant
Join Date: 2002-11-30 Member: 10289Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Join Date: 2002-11-30 Member: 10289Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
<div class="IPBDescription">Games need to end when there is no hope of winning.</div>One of the things that I hate to see is a game that everyone knows is 'lost', but yet it still takes a lot of time before the game actually ends. This is often the case with marines, since they are better able to defend against a main base assault.
Bottom line is that the game should really be over when there is no hope of winning. Either that or there should be 'last ditch' efforts that a team can use to come from behind. Right now things are very linear. Once you reach a certain point, if a 'certain thing' does (or does not) happen, the game is essentially over.
So why are people being forced to play a losing game for another 10+ minutes?
Frankly this is where I think a 'surrender' option would be helpful. Let the comm call a vote, if more than 50% of players approve, the game is over and the other team wins. Then everyone gets to move on to the next game. I really dislike the 'recycle it all' option, since sometimes that happens when things are NOT over. I also think the team should have a say.
Ideally I would rather have an option that forced the other team to end the game within a certain time period. For example, if Aliens have 3 hives and X number of harvesters, the Marines could choose a 'suicide' option. This triggers a countdown timer and if Aliens don't finish the marines within so many minutes a bomb goes off and the Marines win. Or vice versa.
Let's just end the game when it is 'over', instead of forcing people to play a game they know they are going to lose anyway.
Bottom line is that the game should really be over when there is no hope of winning. Either that or there should be 'last ditch' efforts that a team can use to come from behind. Right now things are very linear. Once you reach a certain point, if a 'certain thing' does (or does not) happen, the game is essentially over.
So why are people being forced to play a losing game for another 10+ minutes?
Frankly this is where I think a 'surrender' option would be helpful. Let the comm call a vote, if more than 50% of players approve, the game is over and the other team wins. Then everyone gets to move on to the next game. I really dislike the 'recycle it all' option, since sometimes that happens when things are NOT over. I also think the team should have a say.
Ideally I would rather have an option that forced the other team to end the game within a certain time period. For example, if Aliens have 3 hives and X number of harvesters, the Marines could choose a 'suicide' option. This triggers a countdown timer and if Aliens don't finish the marines within so many minutes a bomb goes off and the Marines win. Or vice versa.
Let's just end the game when it is 'over', instead of forcing people to play a game they know they are going to lose anyway.
Comments
Most of the games I've played where I know we've lost will take at least 20 minutes of fighting for the unwinnable. This is where ideas like "res for kills" despite probably doing more harm than good, would either avoid or solve these snowball effects much quicker. Right now if the map is under a certain team's domain, especially in a public match, it's all done for.
Seriously, last night on Docking, I was playing on the Marine side and we had all but one tech point and plenty of resources flowing in. Aliens held fast and did an amazing two-front push that shifted the momentum entirely. Nobody had the Pres to get back up to speed in time, and we had a new commander swap in and forget to drop weapons/exos until it was too late.
I also blame myself heavily because I was actually on top of the last enemy hive with the flamethrower. I got the hive down to 25%, and decided to wuss out and go back to an armory because I was at 50% health. When I got back to the armory, Locker rooms and Departures got pushed, and I blindly rushed in to save Locker rooms and died to an Onos. -_-
If I had stayed on top of the hive we would have won...
** anyway, my point is, I think this rash of "OMG WE R LOSING, F4 NOW" can be a bit off sometimes.
The bottom line is that the people PLAYING should get to decide. If most people playing believe the game is lost, then instead of the server emptying out and the other team sitting dead waiting while the team balance option kicks in, why not END IT? Honestly, it's just a game. There will be another right after it.
I do *NOT* want it to be something the commander decides alone, as can be done now with recycling. Let the players decide. If the majority feel they are done, then why continue to play? If anyone can tell me of a time when Marines won after losing all their res nodes and being driven back to their main base, I'd like to hear it.
There is no shame in 'tipping over your king' if the game is lost.
People seem to only want to play when they are winning, and are not able to have fun (or believe they cant) when their team isnt doing well, despite that they are still right in the game, in the fight and playing. If anything, this surrender business needs to be removed and the auto balance function needs to be more aggressive.
People seem to only want to play when they are winning, and are not able to have fun (or believe they cant) when their team isnt doing well, despite that they are still right in the game, in the fight and playing. If anything, this surrender business needs to be removed and the auto balance function needs to be more aggressive.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's attitudes like yours that drag games on for another 2 hours when it was over an hour and a half ago
The bottom line is that the people PLAYING should get to decide. If most people playing believe the game is lost, then instead of the server emptying out and the other team sitting dead waiting while the team balance option kicks in, why not END IT? Honestly, it's just a game. There will be another right after it.
I do *NOT* want it to be something the commander decides alone, as can be done now with recycling. Let the players decide. If the majority feel they are done, then why continue to play? If anyone can tell me of a time when Marines won after losing all their res nodes and being driven back to their main base, I'd like to hear it.
There is no shame in 'tipping over your king' if the game is lost.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like the poster above mentioned, giving easy surrender options is essentially the devs supporting unfavorable behavior. At some point certain people would ask themselves why play a multiplayer game with 2 competing sides in the first place. Such options would be disastrous given how much balancing and additions to gameplay are required.
They're not. F4 when the game has ended, and encourage your team to do so. If an admin forces you to play, leave the server and don't come back.
Problem solved.
Rage quiters and long lasting, already lost games are two different problems. This thread is about the second. Please keep it this way.
There are many things that can be done to decrease the effectiveness of marine base turtles. For example: Armories should not repair armor. Weapon- and Armor-Upgrades should be bound to Techpoints. With 1 CC you only get Level1 upgrades.
There are many more ways that can reduce the likelihood of turtles. But even right now, it is possible to end every marine turtle, when the aliens would learn to make coordinate pushes. 2 Gorges that bile bomb into the base, 1 or 2 Lerks that fly in and spore everything and the rest of the teams being onos that either, defend the gorges from marines or just rush the powernode or the CC. This ends every game. But sadly most players think aliens = singleplayer. That is the main problem of this long lasting games right now.
Boom hive attacks, one down, two down.... aliens f4'd we won. (when f4 would end game)
A hollow but satifying victory over the moaners I think.
Personally I like the end game battles, kinda thrilling.
There are many things that can be done to decrease the effectiveness of marine base turtles. For example: Armories should not repair armor. Weapon- and Armor-Upgrades should be bound to Techpoints. With 1 CC you only get Level1 upgrades.
There are many more ways that can reduce the likelihood of turtles. But even right now, it is possible to end every marine turtle, when the aliens would learn to make coordinate pushes. 2 Gorges that bile bomb into the base, 1 or 2 Lerks that fly in and spore everything and the rest of the teams being onos that either, defend the gorges from marines or just rush the powernode or the CC. This ends every game. But sadly most players think aliens = singleplayer. That is the main problem of this long lasting games right now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That suggestion would completly ###### up marines, even more then right now. And it's pointless, as you point out, lack of team work on alien side is to blame, as team, even if not intentional, is happening on the marine side when everyone is sitting in base.
Base breaker like "alien arcs" could help, whips with bombard can do this to some degree, but only if the marines "spare" them :P
What are you talking about? all major competitive games have it... cs:go, hon, lol, the list goes on. Perhaps 60% is a bit low, it should be more towards 70%-80% the fact of the matter is people should always be given the option to surrender. I've been in many games where we've essentially lost during the first 10min of play, but the game will still drag on to the 30min or so mark.
Think of it like this, in an sc2 match when a player know's he's beat beyond recovery, he ggs and leaves, in tournaments they often stay till the last minute but in pubs or on the ladder, that rarely happens.
The reason why ns2 games can drag like this is due to the game mechanics. Notice how this rarely happens when the aliens are losing, cause the aliens need the extra hives and extractors to compete, on the other hand marines can camp like champs, it will take at least 2+ onos before they're taken down
If the fight was even up till the time you lost a base then you should play till the end
I've seen a lot of hives go down late game when aliens owned the whole map
Good pressure still trumps map control
Just keep f4 as meaning that you have given up and don't want to continue.
i don't really like the idea of making a surrender vote... it appears that i can see a game is over way before most pub players, and i don't always fancy getting gored by an onos 25 additional times before the match ends.
if the game is won/lost already, there's only so much fun you can have because you know the outcome is already decided and it's kinda like reinstalling elder scrolls oblivion only to realise that it's boring and uninstalling after 10 min because you've already played it for 100 hours.
leave the F4 system imo.
if game doesn't end, then your team doesn't want to surrender ? it's simple as that... then you are left with 3 options, leave the game, join the game and try to have fun in losing team or wait in readyroom.
I understand however your frustration, i have been in similiar position where marines buys armories to block onoses, spams granades etc makes everything in their power to prolong the game, in those situations it's just better to chance servers.
lol indeed... what about if the alien winrate gets past 75%, then every game should instantly end in an alien victory - to stop people wasting their time.
In RTS games there are snowball effects. If a commander and his team does a lot of mistakes and the opposing team capitalizes on it. The game will turn heavily in their favour.
This is how strategy games work. You try to outwit your opponent and make him do mistakes you can capitalize upon.
To players who think the snowballing effect in games is "boring" and so on. Why are you playing a multiplayer game?
Someone has to win and the players who play better and do less mistakes should be awarded that win.
Now someone's probably thinking "but there's always a chance!". Yes, there is. But when for example the marine commander has tried his third last ditch hive assault on the other side of the map for example. It's just getting silly. Like someone on the first page said. It's just a match, there will be another one right after it. Why linger in this one?
The most interesting and exciting parts of the game is when theres a back and forth of small victories going on. Not when you're locked into your base and have 1-2 RTs/Harvesters.
This is my opinion and I bet that a lot of players share it.
I would like to see a vote for concede being included as well. This would really ease down on the feeling of being a ######bag when having to make the choice for other
people on the server. It just doesn't feel right. On the other hand I can't really be arsed to explain in detail to everyone, every game, why it's already lost.
If a majority does not want to concede, the game will not be conceded.
A vote to concede would be very good, for everyone.
The more you understand the game and what's going on, the more you can appreciate winning the battles that actually lead to the enemy team being turtled up.
Personally, I don't find any satisfaction in attacking the enemy home base again and again until it finally crumbles. It's predictable and not stimulating at all.
EDIT; Either the understanding of the game's crucial moments isn't there or the person in question just likes to farm useless kills in the base. More fair to mention both.
Was one side at a great advantage until they screwed up? Did the entire opposing team just sit on their res? Were you not aggressive enough?
In original NS there were certainly situations where one team would screw up a massive advantage and end up with a lot of resources but no way to really apply them in the face of fully teched up opponents. There were also situations where simple inexperience led to a ton of stacked res.
For Marines this is easy to understand. Many RTS games reward a turtling strategy, and many Marine Commanders suddenly get a lot more "competent" when forced to defend their base. All the res that should have been spent on expansion instead get spent on the base. Marines who couldn't hit a barn door suddenly become crack shots because there's no way to miss an Onos plus Skulks all running through one doorway.
Encouraging players to quit doesn't teach them to learn from their mistake, and I would agree that forcing them to finish a game doesn't teach them to learn from their mistake either. However, it's a chance for more experience with weapons, coordination, learning how to work the interface.
If you're on the attacking side, consider how you let the other guys get into a turtling position. It seems counterintuitive, but letting the defenders out often gives you a better way in. Let them spend res, kill them when they leave their shell. Bleed them that way. Has anyone read The Art of War? Don't put their backs against a wall, always give them a way out. If you cannot risk letting them leave their spawnpoint, you must expect to have to deal with massive amounts of blocking.
Next round, rush the enemy. If they're all sitting on their resources then they're vulnerable to a rush, and even if the rush fails you're going to force them to spend resources. Don't beat them back inch by inch, because at some point they'll start turtling. When the signs are right, rush them. Take out the spawns, the upgrades. It's all about pressure. Otherwise you're just prolonging the endgame.
TL:DR Earlygame be more aggressive against turtling opponents, don't let them harvest res, and you will shorten your endgame. Lategame be less aggressive, let them spend their res, and you will shorten your endgame.
I hate the quitters who want to f4 out of a game. The last stands, even if you know your team is going to lose is still fun. Trying to take as many of those ######s down with you is enjoyable for me. Itdoes take away the satisfaction from the winning team if you f4, and all that res for exos or onos that you saved and not getting to use their full power is disappointing.
Increase the amount of Res that Restowers earn @ 25 %.
Then :
Let every respawn cost resources. Like 0,5 - 1,0 res for every respawn.
The turteling team with only one 1 restower will simply get out of money to respawn more rines/aliens and the base could get easily overruned.
Alternative:
Just add costs for respawning if one team got only one RT. <--- I think this is best :>
This is all a problem that stems from humans.
On one side it's the players inability to know when the game is lost. If you're stuck in one base with 1-2 RTs and the opposing side has the rest of the map, you've lost.
If you win that game, it is <i>entirely</i> due to your opponents incompetence.
On the other side it's peoples different view of what is fun.
One type of player finds fun and excitement in besting their opponent and going for the win. For this player a GG from the opposing side is just as rewarding as killing all of the structures for a win. In fact, most of the time an earlier GG is preferred for this type of person because he will know that the game has been won way before the buildings of the last base was destroyed.
The other type of player finds fun in different kinds of things. Things like teamwork, playing with their friends, standing your ground even though the match seems lost.
This type of player will not understand the other player's wish for a GG and the other type of player will not understand the casual type of player's wish to continue.
I want to touch on another branch of this discussion. Something Necrosis said.
He mentioned that quitting out before the game "actually" ends doesn't teach players anything.
I think that's entirely wrong. Ending the game when the game really isn't able to turn around anymore makes it much more clear than having the team fight a battle they can't win under the impression that it isn't lost. I personally extend this and tell them over voice chat why the game was lost, what the opponents did well and what we as a team did bad.
This is in my opinion the best way to get an understanding of the actual game. While standing in your base shooting mindless leaping skulks and trying to catch the odd fade off guard might give you a better understanding of incredibly basic things such as pointing and clicking at opponents, it really doesn't teach you anything that will win you a game.
You'll learn the basic things in all of the phases of a match and guess what, there's one coming up right after you GG out of the one you're losing now!