The reason there are loads of conceded games is not because of the game mechanics, it's because concede was implemented into the game.
And i think that right there is where I, and I believe most others here, will disagree.
Let's use logic though. First off you can't concede a game if there is no concede function to use.
But the reality is that the 'ease of use' factor can't be denied here. It's exceptionally easy to "press and hold X then click vote concede" - which is what I hear people instructing others to do every single game. That never happened with F4, since once you hit F4 you can't talk with your team anymore. So what usually happened before was that people would start drifting off, either via F4 or disconnect, and then only when half the opposing team is stuck dead in team-balance mode would people realize it. Then you would get people quitting the opposing team instead of switching.
Concede made 'giving up' quick and easy. If you give people a tool, they'll use it. All you need do is ask yourself how games ended before concede. Did people quit every game? No.
Has anything changed between then and now? No. Nothing in the game mechanics has changed as a means to address the 'slippery slope'. All that has happened is that concede was put in place so that people wouldn't have to suffer through it.
I'm not sure what games others are playing, but I have yet to be in a game where anyone was happy about having to concede. Usually people are annoyed and demoralized at a game they feel they can no longer win, so they throw up their hands in frustration.
I'd love to see developer stats on this. How many games actually end 'normally' versus how many end via concede. I think we both know the latter number will be quite high.
That brings me back to the topic of forgiveness. With so little forgiveness in the game, people feel there is no chance to make a comeback. That's why they are conceding. They aren't quitting because they have somewhere else to be. They quit because they feel they can no longer win. Concede hasn't changed that. Concede hasn't made it any easier for teams to make a comeback. All it has done is make it easier to quit.
I personally feel this is damaging the game, and the damage may become irreparable if it isn't addressed.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
edited April 2013
I know, sorry, but It had to be done. That quote sums up the reason why the thread shouldn't continue imo.
I thought he had a point at first with trying to come up with solutions for the mechanics.. but if he truly doesn't think the game mechanics lead to players not having fun anymore and thus conceding - or F4ing or using whatever means they can to not play anymore - then I see no point to this thread?
Its just another "Concede is ruining things" thread, isn't it?
Or did i read something incorrectly?
The same thing happened with f4 constantly, the only difference being that not every game ended when people ef foured, because those two stubborn bastards insisted on going afk in the team instead of in the ready room, so you would still need to sit through minutes of forgone gameplay. You seem to suggest that this was the better alternative?
And you can talk with your teammates when you're in the ready room. Have you never experienced the constant spam of white players trying to get people to either stop stacking or conceding?
The argument of ease of use with concede is ridiculous since pressing f4 is only one button, pressin x and choosing concede makes for a much more complex maneuver.
Nobody is happy about having to concede, but people would be much more unhappy for having to concede, but not having the means to do so.
if he truly doesn't think the game mechanics lead to players not having fun anymore and thus conceding - or F4ing or using whatever means they can to not play anymore - then I see no point to this thread?
I'm obviously having trouble getting my point across here. While I could blame my head cold, I'm scratching my head trying to figure out why we keep going around in circles.
This thread is NOT about concede. Concede is the **SYMPTOM** and not the problem. Furthermore the introduction of concede only exacerbated the problem instead of addressing it.
Let me take it from the top.
There exists a point in the game, when people on one team will almost invariably feel like the game is over and they have no hope to make a comeback. For all intents and purposes to them the game is lost - yet the game keeps going, making people choose between playing a game they are no longer having fun playing or quitting.
**THAT** is the issue I want to address.
As I said, all concede has done is make it easier to quit. It hasn't addressed ANY of the underlying reasons why the game gets to a point where a team feels they are no longer competitive. Concede hasn't 'ruined NS2', but it hasn't helped one iota either. All it has done is make the game easier to quit.
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 problem comes when you dont know why you lost or worse how you could have even had a chance to win. A lot of game mechanics are hidden to the foot soldier
Rising Opinion Incoming:
In NS1 i always felt i had a chance through the RFK option. The more i killed and better i did the more tech/lifeforms i always had. NS2 it is tough to know when i die as a fade in 2 seconds because i tried to kill Inv.Joe 1 on 1 i have to wait for my res to slowly trickle back. We could at least have TRes for kills so the comm has to choice to benefit the team or buy you stuff.
My second point is recognizing you have lost and giving up is fine. It is when people rage quit because they dont understand what could have been done better and wont grow as players. How can the devs make mechanics more transparent for either side of the chair?
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
Savant, respectfully, I see you contradicting yourself too much.. (just see the sentence i quoted you and compare it to your last post) I'm at a lost and will just step out of the thread, goodluck to ya tho.
this is just silly. doesn't every game ever conceived have certain rules which must be learned by the players? for example if you're 30-0 down in a game of soccer, the players know and accept that the game is over. the fact that the game must be played out for the full 90 minutes (plus added on time) is only for the sake of simplicity outside of professional level - where 90 minutes is the length of the 'show' which the spectator paid to see.
in team fortress 2, if the players don't understand that you lose the game if you let an uncontested enemy stand on the capture point for a couple of seconds, does that have 'forgiveness'? no, the round is lost in literally 1-2 seconds.
please explain how you intend to make the game more 'forgiving', eliminating the need for a concede vote, without DUMBING DOWN.
please explain how you intend to make the game more 'forgiving', eliminating the need for a concede vote, without DUMBING DOWN.
To be fair, the OP did not have ready answers apart from a few suggestions, but this thread was supposed to be the forum to conceive these ideas at.
I, personally, don't see any problem with the forgiveness or the lack thereof in this game, since I play to win. Most of the fun I get from this game comes from trying to win, not from just taking part. And as such, I don't mind at all that the game can end up in a situation where the other team cannot win, since a victory/loss by forfeit is completely a-ok with me.
The reason there are loads of conceded games is not because of concede, it is due to certain game mechanics that create too steep a slippery slope, little room for comebacks, not much "forgiveness", too much snowballing....
The reason there are loads of conceded games is not because of concede, it is due to certain game mechanics that create too steep a slippery slope, little room for comebacks, not much "forgiveness", too much snowballing....
Yup. So make the slippery slope a bit shallower, and see where it leads us. I hope it would make the early and mid games much more interesting. One way is to lessen the economical damage that is currently done when anything is destroyed. It would still be a slippery slope: all current actions would still be good things to do. It would just be a little less punishing per action than at present.
So what is the ideal forgiveness slope? FPS has no slope, its an almost horizontal line, both sides always equal with just differences in positioning and power weapons giving one an edge. RTS creates a downward slope as the game goes on. But the best games of RTS have a long horizontal slope in the beginning where either side still has a good chance of coming back. Its boring if the first engagement decides the rest of the game. So is that the issue with NS2, there isn't a long enough horizontal period before the slope kicks in? Or do you think the slope at the end is just too steep because this is a FPS so shouldn't fully follow the RTS model?
So what is the ideal forgiveness slope? FPS has no slope, its an almost horizontal line, both sides always equal with just differences in positioning and power weapons giving one an edge. RTS creates a downward slope as the game goes on. But the best games of RTS have a long horizontal slope in the beginning where either side still has a good chance of coming back. Its boring if the first engagement decides the rest of the game. So is that the issue with NS2, there isn't a long enough horizontal period before the slope kicks in? Or do you think the slope at the end is just too steep because this is a FPS so shouldn't fully follow the RTS model?
it has to be based on assumptions. e.g. a marine is expected to kill a skulk in 1v1 most of the time; or a lerk is expected to kill a (non shotgun) marine most of the time.
the slippery slope turns into a chasm when you have marines who can't solo a skulk, skulks who can't kill a marine in a 2-3 versus 1 situation, marines who can't kill a lerk in a 2-3 versus 1 situation, or players who continually contest a useless and/or heavily defended room while behind in resource income.
i still don't see how this can be changed other than 'dumbing down' skill or strategy. make skulks easier to kill in 1v1? make resources less important? raising the skill ceiling may achieve the opposite and instead of having stonewall defeat within 5 minutes, you could have stonewall defeat within 2 minutes.
If we can all agree that early game is weighted towards marines until higher lifeforms come out, we can then say that the reason teams have a problem is RT aggression. Lose too many RTs in the early game and you are ultimately doomed due to the tech race, not to mention map control.
I think we can narrow the slippery slope down to this:
There is no way in NS2 to catch up on res other than gaining more territory and dropping more RTS (have money to make money) which is impossible if you are pushed back to 1-2 rts at your starting point.
This is made worse by marines being able to drop full ammo and heal stations wherever they want, unconnected to anything other than the power in the room. The best aliens can match early game is crags (if they went that hive) and all the cysts it takes to get there. Quite an investment. You would think this would be countered by faster alien movement and early game alien only accessible areas (vents), but marines are faster at expanding (since they can jump rooms to advance their position) to key spots.
Some ideas:
- RFK/TFK (this might help but would probably just make the slope worse)
- Improve skulk movement and control (this might help skulks with those much needed engagements early game or to respond to rt aggression and might be in the works already)
- New ability: Overcharge/Splice Overcharge - Clickable ability on Extractors to increase production for a short time. Causes 50% more damage dealt to itself but increases res production 50%. A light electric field can be seen around the Extractor when this ability is active. Splice - Alien commander can "splice" a Harvester. Permanently adding two "bulbs" (the round thing at the top of the RT) increases res gain 50%. Cost would be 20 res or so. The cost would balance the 50% perm increase in res. Basically make it so the cost cant be recouped unless the rt stays up for a good amount of time. It will be a target by the other team for sure.
Maybe making the above abilities need 2 tech points would be best. That way a turtling team cant abuse this. This would allow a 2 hive, 2 CC team to make some ground back at a risk.
Metal ManJoin Date: 2011-11-13Member: 132717Members
Yes Savant does seem to contradict himself every few posts but I still have to agree (I think) with the points he is trying to make.
The game reaches a point where it is near-impossible to win, yet the game keeps going on. Concede is a way to stop this from happening but it is NOT the solution. It forces teams to give up, lose hope, or bitch out. But what is the point of playing if it starts to get incredibly difficult while losing all of its fun factor?
So it sounds like you either want a forced concede (such as ending the game automatically when 2 tech points are taken or something similar) OR you don't find the aspects of base exchanges appealing or logical. I am definitely in agreement with the latter mainly due to the Power Node system.
Realistically it seems difficult to find a middle-ground for a forced concede. The game wins when either team is eliminated. There are no capital cities or other game-ending mechanics (besides total destruction) that seem to work in this game. Savant you seem to be looking for this throughout the thread but I still haven't seen another appealing option for victory. However, maybe the teams can choose to designate a CC or hive as a capital building similar to many RTS games. Maybe for a cost you can redesignate your capital structure. Not loving my ideas I mentioned but they don't seem impossible to implement and could allow teams to thrive for a more unique means of victory.
But honestly I think this is the wrong approach and something needs to be changed with the power node system. I think this is the key reason why the game becomes frustrating at a certain point, leading to a snowballing defeat. It works so well with the aesthetics of NS2 but I just don't like it and I'm sure many of you would agree.
Savant is this more or less what you are getting at?
The game reaches a point where it is near-impossible to win, yet the game keeps going on. Concede is a way to stop this from happening but it is NOT the solution. It forces teams to give up, lose hope, or bitch out. But what is the point of playing if it starts to get incredibly difficult while losing all of its fun factor? ... Savant is this more or less what you are getting at?
Although I'm reticent to try again in here, yeah that's the basic gist of it. What I quoted is what I have been saying for a while, unfortunately I get sidetracked with these debates over the merits of concede when - as you aptly note - it only addresses the symptom and not the problem.
As for answers, I'm open to anything that can end games without concede being the primary means of doing so. I'd like to see concede be the exception and not the rule. I'd like to see people fight a pitched battle at the end of the game and everyone roll into the ready room when it is over raving about the great game they had - instead of now where they moan about how they got rolled, or how the teams were stacked, or any of the other complaints people make when they had a lousy game and they want something to blame.
We have Onos and EXOs and in many games we don't even see them anymore. Or if we do it's only to have the team see that one side has Onos or EXO and then they concede. When quitting a game becomes the main means by which it ends, that is not something that bodes well for the game.
(btw, I've had a cold for the past week, so apologies if my responses are a bit disjointed.)
The problem is that any actions taken to improve the forgiveness would have to be very carefully thought out and done in a very controlled way. The forgiveness pendulum swings very easily; taking too far the other way will lead to equally un-winnable games. Personally, the current state is preferable to games where each side is so powerful, yet incapable of delivering the coup de grâce because the other team can recover too easily would be worse.
Perhaps some sort of refund on destroyed structures, as initially suggested Roobubba, or as I suggested on higher lifeforms, could work.
I don't like RFK at all, it puts too much power in a single player's hands and leads to draw out last stands for Marines.
What about some sort of "momentum mechanic" which gives an attacking team a little more punch based off of how quickly they are taking out the other team?
@MMZ_Torak then make it Team res for kill. That would give you the momentum you desire and reward the team instead of the person.
Maybe have a rookie mode that can be toggled on servers that give back 25% of res on destroyed lifeforms/structures/exos.
What you all want is directly associated to pub servers and more importantly new players. Dont degrade everyone's experience to help out the ignorant or unskilled have an unfair chance over people who have put their time in and enjoy earning a dominant victory.
If we can all agree that early game is weighted towards marines until higher lifeforms come out, we can then say that the reason teams have a problem is RT aggression. Lose too many RTs in the early game and you are ultimately doomed due to the tech race, not to mention map control.
I think we can narrow the slippery slope down to this:
There is no way in NS2 to catch up on res other than gaining more territory and dropping more RTS (have money to make money) which is impossible if you are pushed back to 1-2 rts at your starting point.
This is made worse by marines being able to drop full ammo and heal stations wherever they want, unconnected to anything other than the power in the room. The best aliens can match early game is crags (if they went that hive) and all the cysts it takes to get there. Quite an investment. You would think this would be countered by faster alien movement and early game alien only accessible areas (vents), but marines are faster at expanding (since they can jump rooms to advance their position) to key spots.
Some ideas:
- RFK/TFK (this might help but would probably just make the slope worse)
- Improve skulk movement and control (this might help skulks with those much needed engagements early game or to respond to rt aggression and might be in the works already)
- New ability: Overcharge/Splice Overcharge - Clickable ability on Extractors to increase production for a short time. Causes 50% more damage dealt to itself but increases res production 50%. A light electric field can be seen around the Extractor when this ability is active. Splice - Alien commander can "splice" a Harvester. Permanently adding two "bulbs" (the round thing at the top of the RT) increases res gain 50%. Cost would be 20 res or so. The cost would balance the 50% perm increase in res. Basically make it so the cost cant be recouped unless the rt stays up for a good amount of time. It will be a target by the other team for sure.
Maybe making the above abilities need 2 tech points would be best. That way a turtling team cant abuse this. This would allow a 2 hive, 2 CC team to make some ground back at a risk.
many competitive teams have been stuck on ~2 alien RT's versus ~5 marine, and are still able to use timely lerk/fades to kill the game before marines have good upgrades, jetpacks and shotguns. that early pressure from marines is pretty much essential to not instalose the game.
also, the early pressure without phase/mines strategies are highly vulnerable to base rushing. it's so horrible to watch an early 3-4 marine push and aliens throwing skulks at them like confetti; instead of sending 2-3 skulks into the main base which should at the very least force a beacon.
this is my pet peeve in public servers... there's far too much defending; "guys they have 5 exos in deposit, we need to defend deposit!" - derp. you even see people blatantly wasting time trying to siege a pointless room just because there are random aliens/marines there.
@tarquinbb totally agree and i think it comes down to it isnt transparent enough that marines must be aggressive early game to win period. The only things that saves marines who dont push is aliens who dont coordinate. Inexperience all around which is the main reason for terrible games. Not game mechanics.
@tarquinbb totally agree and i think it comes down to it isnt transparent enough that marines must be aggressive early game to win period. The only things that saves marines who dont push is aliens who dont coordinate. Inexperience all around which is the main reason for terrible games. Not game mechanics.
This still wouldn't resolve the fun aspect of the game that if marines fail to correctly play the way they are suppose to early in the game, its pretty much done and over ....regardless if its transparent or not.
The question then is ....is this ok? Maybe we all do absolutely love this aspect of the game.
Its only a problem with the game mechanics if we say its a problem.
@outlawdr cant balance the game on fun. See the tazer idea years ago. That was a "fun" idea. I find this game fun as it is as marines. Aliens imo needs better skulk movement and once that is fixed it will be fun for me also.
To all The others - A rookie mode is what you need. Aka everyone can be fades, onos, exos, and jp shotguns all the time... oh wait. There is something. Combat mode. Go play that and leave my Vanilla NS2 alone.
The problem is that any actions taken to improve the forgiveness would have to be very carefully thought out and done in a very controlled way. The forgiveness pendulum swings very easily; taking too far the other way will lead to equally un-winnable games.
And again I am in full agreement with you here Torak. I wasn't suggesting anything rash at all.
You can go two ways with this.
You make the game more forgiving, which then allows for more back-and-forth battles, as well as more territory exchange. The plus side is that you get people who always feel they can stage a comeback, but on the minus side games could drag on much longer.
Or you can make the game less forgiving. While it seems counter-intuitive, it could work. You make the game so the slope is even more slippery, which means once one team reaches a certain point the game comes to an end very quickly with no hope for a comeback. However, since the end comes so fast, people never resign since it finishes quickly. No one is demoralized since the game ended fast.
I'm not really tied to any particular concept or idea. It could be something as simple as changing the game slightly. Another example.
Let's say that the end game is not destroying all the opponent's tech points. Instead we make it so that the game becomes a progression. Each side has to secure three tech points to win, and there is a maximum 5 on any map. The original tech point that a team starts with can't be destroyed.
This takes the battle out of the spawns and pushes it towards the 'middle' of the map. (figuratively speaking of course) The battle now is not over the original tech point, but to prevent the opponent from claiming a tech point. Both sides are on the assault against one another trying to achieve the same objective. (to get three tech points)
To make it so that the one side has a chance to prevent the other side from securing the final tech point, we make it so that the tech point has to 'build'. (think same as hive needing to mature, but this would now apply to the command chair - there would be a 'charge time' before the chair would be considered active) During this time the enemy would throw everything it could at the other team, since it knows if the tech point is attained it's game over.
The game progresses upwards to a peak, and until the very last second, the other team is STILL viable. For this example two tech points would be 'max tech'. So aliens would have two-hive Onos. (again, we balance this all out)
Do you see what I'm talking about in terms of progression to a peak? Until one side reaches the peak, both sides are still in it. Yet at present we have a point where the game peaks early but doesn't end. So people are left waiting, and then they eventually quit.
Yet at present we have a point where the game peaks early but doesn't end. So people are left waiting, and then they eventually quit.
When did this become fact? You paint this picture as if it is every game. I would say 1% of the games i play weekly end like this. That is when a certain mechanic beginning with a c is used ending with an oncede. Dont want to get you started on the c word.
When I'm playing marines and aliens own the entire map, I like to think NS suddenly turned into a wave based tower defense. Block up the doors with the armory and start your stop watches. HORDE MODE ACTIVATED
Comments
But the reality is that the 'ease of use' factor can't be denied here. It's exceptionally easy to "press and hold X then click vote concede" - which is what I hear people instructing others to do every single game. That never happened with F4, since once you hit F4 you can't talk with your team anymore. So what usually happened before was that people would start drifting off, either via F4 or disconnect, and then only when half the opposing team is stuck dead in team-balance mode would people realize it. Then you would get people quitting the opposing team instead of switching.
Concede made 'giving up' quick and easy. If you give people a tool, they'll use it. All you need do is ask yourself how games ended before concede. Did people quit every game? No.
Has anything changed between then and now? No. Nothing in the game mechanics has changed as a means to address the 'slippery slope'. All that has happened is that concede was put in place so that people wouldn't have to suffer through it.
I'm not sure what games others are playing, but I have yet to be in a game where anyone was happy about having to concede. Usually people are annoyed and demoralized at a game they feel they can no longer win, so they throw up their hands in frustration.
I'd love to see developer stats on this. How many games actually end 'normally' versus how many end via concede. I think we both know the latter number will be quite high.
That brings me back to the topic of forgiveness. With so little forgiveness in the game, people feel there is no chance to make a comeback. That's why they are conceding. They aren't quitting because they have somewhere else to be. They quit because they feel they can no longer win. Concede hasn't changed that. Concede hasn't made it any easier for teams to make a comeback. All it has done is make it easier to quit.
I personally feel this is damaging the game, and the damage may become irreparable if it isn't addressed.
That quote sums up the reason why the thread shouldn't continue imo.
I thought he had a point at first with trying to come up with solutions for the mechanics.. but if he truly doesn't think the game mechanics lead to players not having fun anymore and thus conceding - or F4ing or using whatever means they can to not play anymore - then I see no point to this thread?
Its just another "Concede is ruining things" thread, isn't it?
Or did i read something incorrectly?
And you can talk with your teammates when you're in the ready room. Have you never experienced the constant spam of white players trying to get people to either stop stacking or conceding?
The argument of ease of use with concede is ridiculous since pressing f4 is only one button, pressin x and choosing concede makes for a much more complex maneuver.
Nobody is happy about having to concede, but people would be much more unhappy for having to concede, but not having the means to do so.
You are detached from reality.
I proposed one method that might work for this, I'm sure there are more. Can you come up with some ideas?
Post below!
This thread is NOT about concede. Concede is the **SYMPTOM** and not the problem. Furthermore the introduction of concede only exacerbated the problem instead of addressing it.
Let me take it from the top.
There exists a point in the game, when people on one team will almost invariably feel like the game is over and they have no hope to make a comeback. For all intents and purposes to them the game is lost - yet the game keeps going, making people choose between playing a game they are no longer having fun playing or quitting.
**THAT** is the issue I want to address.
As I said, all concede has done is make it easier to quit. It hasn't addressed ANY of the underlying reasons why the game gets to a point where a team feels they are no longer competitive. Concede hasn't 'ruined NS2', but it hasn't helped one iota either. All it has done is make the game easier to quit.
Is that any clearer?
Rising Opinion Incoming:
In NS1 i always felt i had a chance through the RFK option. The more i killed and better i did the more tech/lifeforms i always had. NS2 it is tough to know when i die as a fade in 2 seconds because i tried to kill Inv.Joe 1 on 1 i have to wait for my res to slowly trickle back. We could at least have TRes for kills so the comm has to choice to benefit the team or buy you stuff.
My second point is recognizing you have lost and giving up is fine. It is when people rage quit because they dont understand what could have been done better and wont grow as players. How can the devs make mechanics more transparent for either side of the chair?
in team fortress 2, if the players don't understand that you lose the game if you let an uncontested enemy stand on the capture point for a couple of seconds, does that have 'forgiveness'? no, the round is lost in literally 1-2 seconds.
please explain how you intend to make the game more 'forgiving', eliminating the need for a concede vote, without DUMBING DOWN.
To be fair, the OP did not have ready answers apart from a few suggestions, but this thread was supposed to be the forum to conceive these ideas at.
I, personally, don't see any problem with the forgiveness or the lack thereof in this game, since I play to win. Most of the fun I get from this game comes from trying to win, not from just taking part. And as such, I don't mind at all that the game can end up in a situation where the other team cannot win, since a victory/loss by forfeit is completely a-ok with me.
Amen
;-)
it has to be based on assumptions. e.g. a marine is expected to kill a skulk in 1v1 most of the time; or a lerk is expected to kill a (non shotgun) marine most of the time.
the slippery slope turns into a chasm when you have marines who can't solo a skulk, skulks who can't kill a marine in a 2-3 versus 1 situation, marines who can't kill a lerk in a 2-3 versus 1 situation, or players who continually contest a useless and/or heavily defended room while behind in resource income.
i still don't see how this can be changed other than 'dumbing down' skill or strategy. make skulks easier to kill in 1v1? make resources less important? raising the skill ceiling may achieve the opposite and instead of having stonewall defeat within 5 minutes, you could have stonewall defeat within 2 minutes.
I think we can narrow the slippery slope down to this:
There is no way in NS2 to catch up on res other than gaining more territory and dropping more RTS (have money to make money) which is impossible if you are pushed back to 1-2 rts at your starting point.
This is made worse by marines being able to drop full ammo and heal stations wherever they want, unconnected to anything other than the power in the room. The best aliens can match early game is crags (if they went that hive) and all the cysts it takes to get there. Quite an investment. You would think this would be countered by faster alien movement and early game alien only accessible areas (vents), but marines are faster at expanding (since they can jump rooms to advance their position) to key spots.
Some ideas:
- RFK/TFK (this might help but would probably just make the slope worse)
- Improve skulk movement and control (this might help skulks with those much needed engagements early game or to respond to rt aggression and might be in the works already)
- New ability: Overcharge/Splice
Overcharge - Clickable ability on Extractors to increase production for a short time. Causes 50% more damage dealt to itself but increases res production 50%. A light electric field can be seen around the Extractor when this ability is active.
Splice - Alien commander can "splice" a Harvester. Permanently adding two "bulbs" (the round thing at the top of the RT) increases res gain 50%. Cost would be 20 res or so. The cost would balance the 50% perm increase in res. Basically make it so the cost cant be recouped unless the rt stays up for a good amount of time. It will be a target by the other team for sure.
Maybe making the above abilities need 2 tech points would be best. That way a turtling team cant abuse this. This would allow a 2 hive, 2 CC team to make some ground back at a risk.
The game reaches a point where it is near-impossible to win, yet the game keeps going on. Concede is a way to stop this from happening but it is NOT the solution. It forces teams to give up, lose hope, or bitch out. But what is the point of playing if it starts to get incredibly difficult while losing all of its fun factor?
So it sounds like you either want a forced concede (such as ending the game automatically when 2 tech points are taken or something similar) OR you don't find the aspects of base exchanges appealing or logical. I am definitely in agreement with the latter mainly due to the Power Node system.
Realistically it seems difficult to find a middle-ground for a forced concede. The game wins when either team is eliminated. There are no capital cities or other game-ending mechanics (besides total destruction) that seem to work in this game. Savant you seem to be looking for this throughout the thread but I still haven't seen another appealing option for victory. However, maybe the teams can choose to designate a CC or hive as a capital building similar to many RTS games. Maybe for a cost you can redesignate your capital structure. Not loving my ideas I mentioned but they don't seem impossible to implement and could allow teams to thrive for a more unique means of victory.
But honestly I think this is the wrong approach and something needs to be changed with the power node system. I think this is the key reason why the game becomes frustrating at a certain point, leading to a snowballing defeat. It works so well with the aesthetics of NS2 but I just don't like it and I'm sure many of you would agree.
Savant is this more or less what you are getting at?
As for answers, I'm open to anything that can end games without concede being the primary means of doing so. I'd like to see concede be the exception and not the rule. I'd like to see people fight a pitched battle at the end of the game and everyone roll into the ready room when it is over raving about the great game they had - instead of now where they moan about how they got rolled, or how the teams were stacked, or any of the other complaints people make when they had a lousy game and they want something to blame.
We have Onos and EXOs and in many games we don't even see them anymore. Or if we do it's only to have the team see that one side has Onos or EXO and then they concede. When quitting a game becomes the main means by which it ends, that is not something that bodes well for the game.
(btw, I've had a cold for the past week, so apologies if my responses are a bit disjointed.)
Perhaps some sort of refund on destroyed structures, as initially suggested Roobubba, or as I suggested on higher lifeforms, could work.
I don't like RFK at all, it puts too much power in a single player's hands and leads to draw out last stands for Marines.
What about some sort of "momentum mechanic" which gives an attacking team a little more punch based off of how quickly they are taking out the other team?
Maybe have a rookie mode that can be toggled on servers that give back 25% of res on destroyed lifeforms/structures/exos.
What you all want is directly associated to pub servers and more importantly new players. Dont degrade everyone's experience to help out the ignorant or unskilled have an unfair chance over people who have put their time in and enjoy earning a dominant victory.
RFK still favors turtles, and turtles favor Marines. We do not need anything to give more power to the Marine Turtle.
many competitive teams have been stuck on ~2 alien RT's versus ~5 marine, and are still able to use timely lerk/fades to kill the game before marines have good upgrades, jetpacks and shotguns. that early pressure from marines is pretty much essential to not instalose the game.
also, the early pressure without phase/mines strategies are highly vulnerable to base rushing. it's so horrible to watch an early 3-4 marine push and aliens throwing skulks at them like confetti; instead of sending 2-3 skulks into the main base which should at the very least force a beacon.
this is my pet peeve in public servers... there's far too much defending; "guys they have 5 exos in deposit, we need to defend deposit!" - derp. you even see people blatantly wasting time trying to siege a pointless room just because there are random aliens/marines there.
RFK does nothing for forgiveness though. RFK helps the winning team exceedingly more than it would help the losing team.
This still wouldn't resolve the fun aspect of the game that if marines fail to correctly play the way they are suppose to early in the game, its pretty much done and over ....regardless if its transparent or not.
The question then is ....is this ok? Maybe we all do absolutely love this aspect of the game.
Its only a problem with the game mechanics if we say its a problem.
To all The others - A rookie mode is what you need. Aka everyone can be fades, onos, exos, and jp shotguns all the time... oh wait. There is something. Combat mode. Go play that and leave my Vanilla NS2 alone.
You can go two ways with this.
You make the game more forgiving, which then allows for more back-and-forth battles, as well as more territory exchange. The plus side is that you get people who always feel they can stage a comeback, but on the minus side games could drag on much longer.
Or you can make the game less forgiving. While it seems counter-intuitive, it could work. You make the game so the slope is even more slippery, which means once one team reaches a certain point the game comes to an end very quickly with no hope for a comeback. However, since the end comes so fast, people never resign since it finishes quickly. No one is demoralized since the game ended fast.
I'm not really tied to any particular concept or idea. It could be something as simple as changing the game slightly. Another example.
Let's say that the end game is not destroying all the opponent's tech points. Instead we make it so that the game becomes a progression. Each side has to secure three tech points to win, and there is a maximum 5 on any map. The original tech point that a team starts with can't be destroyed.
This takes the battle out of the spawns and pushes it towards the 'middle' of the map. (figuratively speaking of course) The battle now is not over the original tech point, but to prevent the opponent from claiming a tech point. Both sides are on the assault against one another trying to achieve the same objective. (to get three tech points)
To make it so that the one side has a chance to prevent the other side from securing the final tech point, we make it so that the tech point has to 'build'. (think same as hive needing to mature, but this would now apply to the command chair - there would be a 'charge time' before the chair would be considered active) During this time the enemy would throw everything it could at the other team, since it knows if the tech point is attained it's game over.
The game progresses upwards to a peak, and until the very last second, the other team is STILL viable. For this example two tech points would be 'max tech'. So aliens would have two-hive Onos. (again, we balance this all out)
Do you see what I'm talking about in terms of progression to a peak? Until one side reaches the peak, both sides are still in it. Yet at present we have a point where the game peaks early but doesn't end. So people are left waiting, and then they eventually quit.
When did this become fact? You paint this picture as if it is every game. I would say 1% of the games i play weekly end like this. That is when a certain mechanic beginning with a c is used ending with an oncede. Dont want to get you started on the c word.