I have never had a concede go through unless i agreed with it. Problem is you. You and your team must have been pretty bad to concede with 3 hives.
Cute. I was marine comm.
Concede never goes through unless you approve it? Hmmm... Is this the 'risingsun' mod I've heard about which gives you veto power over the other players on the server? If people want to concede, you're not going to stop them no matter what you say. It's their choice. Not yours.
I used the word "Agreed" but you use the word "approve"... Nice change to make yourself sound better. My point isnt that i am some sort of pub god, the point is through earning player's respect through my kill count that game i was allowed to lead them. My plans dont always work but i fight while there is still a chance. When there is little to no chance in winning i call the concede myself and persuade others to do so also. When others try to concede when it is ridiculous i nip it in the butt and explain how we can win. Then i LEAD them to that hard fought victory. Games i take a back seat and let others lead go well also. When no one is talking or leading/too many leaders we lose. Teamwork > All in pubs. I am good enough to counter the other teams pub all star and i adapt my play to help the team. I fill any roll except gorge who's combat effectiveness heavily relies on others. I am NOT the best but i can be good enough to lead a team to victory and have done so.
p.s. Getting a little uncomfortable at how many times the word Cute has been directed my way. I'm married man, sorry ">
Remove concede so we can F4 again, because it was obviously better.
/sarcasm. No. I'd rather see 10-15 min concedes, than see a 30 min turtle or frag fest turn up. Secondly, in my opinion only the balanced games are fun. I'm talking about the ones where you play for 30 minutes to an hour and it could be any team's game. Those are the ones that are not worth conceding.
Note: If a game is truly one-sided, then I do my best to end it quickly by killing power nodes or killing eggs, etc because dragging on a game just seems like poor sportsmanship.
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
I'd agree with that modifier of "most" , sure..
But expecting said motivating leader on each team every round seems far less likely to me.
I don't think anyone has out right said "remove concede!" in this thread have they? Everyone is just pointing at the symptom. So why all the sarcasm and talk of it?
I liked that idea of conceding preventing spawning, but would add a time limit of 60 seconds to destroy the base. ( with the whole team alive to defend it for a moral victory)
Ideally I'd like less impact /slippery slope scenarios from rts elements.. To keep skilful hail Mary pass a viable option.
People concede at the drop of the hat, including in situations where it is not warranted.
who was it not warranted by? it appears to me that when you say a situation where it is not warranted actually means in a situation where it isnt warranted by the winning team, or really just you.
Are you kidding me? This isn't about me, it's about 7 people who may have 3 hives and who concede against a marine team with one tech point. Do you consider a concede vote in that circumstance warranted? Because THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. I could ramble off other examples where a team was clearly not in a losing position yet they all quit via concede.
People should be conceding when they are actually in a no-win situation. They shouldn't be when they still have a very good chance to turn the game around and win it.
the games you describe have one constant fact, you are playing. I use a mic to rally and inform my team.
Good luck with that. Unfortunately the time when you need to rally the team is BEFORE they have conceded. Once they have voted to concede it's a bit late.
you can't fix stupid, pick a better example please, this one doesn't add anything to your point.
I don't think anyone has out right said "remove concede!" in this thread have they?
Correct, but what is the threads objective? Concede's function and meaning is that the team has conceded victory, therefore, the game is over.
How could you change a forfeit behavior? People can disconnect, F4, or concede if they don't wish to continue the game. There is no incentive to play longer than necessary.
No I agree, But like I just wrote above : fix the incentive??
I wouldn't even know how to 'fix' that. Make losing not feel so bad? Idk? Either way a lot of games are going to feel pretty shitty and sometimes you want to just flat out concede because maybe you had too many rookies making those rookie mistakes, or maybe comm was new and he couldn't keep up?
There are going to be times you want and need to concede, so how would you keep a play want to continue the fight?
I only have one example in mind: I remember when I used to play League of Legends there was a new gametype called 'Dominion' and the losing team I believe had faster respawn timers to make a "comeback". Maybe it could exist within rookie servers?
I don't like the concede mechanic either. I just don't think it makes the game any better having it in there. Every time i win a game where the opposition concedes it does feel lame - i've even seen teams give up after the first skirmish occurred on a map. Conversely, if I'm on the losing side and everyone votes concede i just feel like my team is a bunch of pussies with no fight in them. I'd rather lose and die trying than just give up.
I especially don't like being verbally bullied/hounded/harassed by the people that have thrown in the towel, when i refuse to vote concede. Fuck u, i'm playing until the bitter end!
Lots of people in these threads (note the plural) seem to blame the so-called 'conceders' (as if this was some sort of a political agenda or a faction) for not realising that they still have a fighting chance and conceding against beatable odds.
In my own personal experience, people who nag about conceding are usually the ones who just don't grasp the game and the status of the round well enough to understand that the game is already over.
I'm not pointing fingers, but you have to accept the fact that the majority of the team that wanted to concede might well have a greater understanding of the game than you do and not always the other way around.
Hey OP, I'd suggest you go to RedDog's YouTube channel and check out the ENSL match recently played between Unchain the Wolves and 8to6. It should convince you that conceding is a very important and necessary part of this game.
As I have posted elsewhere, vast majority of chess games end with resignation of one side, an actual checkmate is rarely seen on the board.
Chess is a turn-based game, and any comparison of chess to an FPS is weak at best.
Concede does not belong in an FPS. While it needs to stay in to address games that stagnate, concede should NOT be the way the game "normally ends". Games should be ending with one team overwhelming the other team in battle - and I'm not talking about a team being forced to play a game they can't win either. That's part of the problem.
In a game like TF2 a team in an assault/defend map remains competitive until the last point is captured. On a payload map it isn't over until the cart drops into the hole. Until that last action, both sides keep playing and BOTH sides feel like they are playing for something. Neither side feels the game is over since it ISN'T over until someone wins.
The point at which games are being conceded has been steadily lowered. What used to only happen very late in the end-game, is now happening in the mid-game. It would likely happen in the early game if not for the timer preventing it.
This isn't chess. It's time people stopped treating it that way.
bah, I know that I'm repeating myself for like the third or fourth time and you know it savant, but you really need to understand that this is a fps game mixed with rts elements and I believe it is going to stay that way until NS3, therefore there is no way that we'll be able to see truly epic comebacks (like, recovering against 4 fades when you have no upgrades) without major changes.
And the thing is: I enjoy the game as it is, early engagements should be important and imo skulks vs marines are the "face" of the NS brand, not exo vs onos, end game tech in paper sounds awesome, but it makes me facepalm so hard when like almost everyone in my team (both as marines and aliens) have are saving for onos/exos all the while we are losing mid game so badly.
There's many ways to approach the problem.. I don't get the out right defense of this issue as being unable to be fixed?
NOOO. The RTS aspect is a big selling point for a lot of people. It is the most important part of the game as far as I'm concerned. You could get all the kills in the world but if you're letting your stuff die, you should lose. There should absolutely be skill involved in the FPS part, not saying there shouldn't be. But the snowball effect should stick. You should be punished for dying, and rewarded for killing. It's what makes the game worth playing.
edit: Relating it to topic: Look at Dota and League, the reason people watch is the skilled players & TEAMS get rewarded for winning their engagements, and it usually results in a "gg" once two lanes are broken (at least in Dota, don't watch enough League to know). Technically the game isn't over, and there is still technically a small chance to win. But the losing team deems it unwinnable.
Also in pub situations, at least for me, I don't trust 95% of the people on my team to do the exact stuff that is necessary to pull out that 5% chance of victory. So once your probability gets low enough, past where you trust a pub can turn a game around, that's where I concede.
Lots of people in these threads (note the plural) seem to blame the so-called 'conceders' (as if this was some sort of a political agenda or a faction) for not realising that they still have a fighting chance and conceding against beatable odds.
In my own personal experience, people who nag about conceding are usually the ones who just don't grasp the game and the status of the round well enough to understand that the game is already over.
I'm not pointing fingers, but you have to accept the fact that the majority of the team that wanted to concede might well have a greater understanding of the game than you do and not always the other way around.
That's exactly the sort of thing that gets ironed out in playtesting, and any numbers i would provide here and now would be very off.
But i do feel there is middle ground to be found.
Currently upgrades can sometimes feel more like game enders instead of what they should be : Upgrades.
This game is FPS first, from design choice to obvious implementation of mechanics, to pure numbers (22 players playing FPS, 2 playing RTS )
In any other FPS any upgrade you receive is ... subtle to minor at best.
Imagine any FPS like CS, BF3CODBLOPS getting weapons 3 and armor 3. It wouldn't remotely be fun for the other side.
I think that's whats going on.
Not to say weapons 3 should be %5 more damage instead... but currently i think many of the values in the RTS aspects are beyond what skill can make up for sometimes.
Tier 3 tech being somewhat exempt from this as they are rarely seen (because of said lack of fun experienced on the losing side) and these days only provide game ending mechanics.
Disclaimer: IMO.
I see nothing wrong with skipping the end game. Why should a losing team (of casual public game players) waste their free time playing a losing battle? Just so the winning team feels good about a Victory?
If you feel a conceded victory is hollow that's your problem. But really who cares, its not like that's the only game you can play. Play another round! There's more than once chance to have an "glorious" victory. I don't know where people get the thought that every victory should be orgasmic.
If i'm on the losing team i vote for concede when its clearly obvious what the outcome will be in 10, 15, 20 minutes. To me a conceded is essentially me saying, "GG, *virtual handshake*, well played, lets start another game shall we?"
In a game like TF2 a team in an assault/defend map remains competitive until the last point is captured. On a payload map it isn't over until the cart drops into the hole. Until that last action, both sides keep playing and BOTH sides feel like they are playing for something. Neither side feels the game is over since it ISN'T over until someone wins.
Savant you fail to realize on a payload map the clearly superior team will win SOONER... aka the round doesn't drag on. I've pushed the cart from start to finish in a few minutes against poor teams.
In NS2 the superior team will push the upgrade/map control/economic "payload", but not necessarily end the game sooner.
That's exactly the sort of thing that gets ironed out in playtesting, and any numbers i would provide here and now would be very off.
But i do feel there is middle ground to be found.
Currently upgrades can sometimes feel more like game enders instead of what they should be : Upgrades.
This game is FPS first, from design choice to obvious implementation of mechanics, to pure numbers (22 players playing FPS, 2 playing RTS )
In any other FPS any upgrade you receive is ... subtle to minor at best.
Imagine any FPS like CS, BF3CODBLOPS getting weapons 3 and armor 3. It wouldn't remotely be fun for the other side.
I think that's whats going on.
Not to say weapons 3 should be %5 more damage instead... but currently i think many of the values in the RTS aspects are beyond what skill can make up for sometimes.
Tier 3 tech being somewhat exempt from this as they are rarely seen (because of said lack of fun experienced on the losing side) and these days only provide game ending mechanics.
Disclaimer: IMO.
I'm not against any kind of changes, I think this game is good as it is, but I know there are people who don't like snowballing effects specially in a FPS game and maybe we can try to do something, but as I said before it's very difficult to balance this game.
What about nerfing weapon upgrades to 7/13/20%, lowering the res cost and raising the research time?
Of course we might have to tweak alien base hp/upgrades too, just a random idea (and probably not a good one) that crossed my mind.
on a payload map the clearly superior team will win SOONER... aka the round doesn't drag on.
Which is PRECISELY what I want in NS2. I want the superior team to win SOONER. That way the superior team reaches the end-game and ENDS it without the other team feeling like they are standing around for target practice - and without the winning team being unable to kill the final objective.
People like having the game end with a 'big finish'. (so long as it doesn't drag.) I've been in hotly contested games that we lost because of a small error, but the way it ended was such we were still competitive and trying to win.
Some of the best games I've been in have seen the alien and marine teams at each other's tech points, taking them out, while a skeleton crew tries to hold them off, and we're each down to one tech point - firing on the hive/cc and one team gets it down in seconds before the other does. Those games are amazing to play, and everyone hits the ready-room excited and talking about how they had one of the best games they ever played.
No quitting (through any means) + action packed end-game = fun & exciting game
That big finish comes because both sides are still viable and in attack mode. Its because they are equally matches on their res, having equal upgrades and tech available, and could actually fight. So they did. When one side falls behind on their res, they get stuck in defense mode and that's why the game takes so long to end. The marine turtle is a great example of this. They can't get out of the base anymore because of the aliens, but that also means the aliens cant get into the base because everyone is defending. If marines could still attack and have a chance at winning, it would give the aliens a better chance to get in and end it themselves instead of marines playing tower defense for 20 minutes.
Comments
I used the word "Agreed" but you use the word "approve"... Nice change to make yourself sound better. My point isnt that i am some sort of pub god, the point is through earning player's respect through my kill count that game i was allowed to lead them. My plans dont always work but i fight while there is still a chance. When there is little to no chance in winning i call the concede myself and persuade others to do so also. When others try to concede when it is ridiculous i nip it in the butt and explain how we can win. Then i LEAD them to that hard fought victory. Games i take a back seat and let others lead go well also. When no one is talking or leading/too many leaders we lose. Teamwork > All in pubs. I am good enough to counter the other teams pub all star and i adapt my play to help the team. I fill any roll except gorge who's combat effectiveness heavily relies on others. I am NOT the best but i can be good enough to lead a team to victory and have done so.
p.s. Getting a little uncomfortable at how many times the word Cute has been directed my way. I'm married man, sorry
Go find a room and don't come out until there is only one of you remaining.
By gorge, make a button above awesome thanks.
that's the only thing removing concede accomplishes
/sarcasm. No. I'd rather see 10-15 min concedes, than see a 30 min turtle or frag fest turn up. Secondly, in my opinion only the balanced games are fun. I'm talking about the ones where you play for 30 minutes to an hour and it could be any team's game. Those are the ones that are not worth conceding.
Note: If a game is truly one-sided, then I do my best to end it quickly by killing power nodes or killing eggs, etc because dragging on a game just seems like poor sportsmanship.
@NickePony Your fantasies aside, do you believe good leadership can prevent most bad games/premature concedes?
But expecting said motivating leader on each team every round seems far less likely to me.
I don't think anyone has out right said "remove concede!" in this thread have they? Everyone is just pointing at the symptom. So why all the sarcasm and talk of it?
I liked that idea of conceding preventing spawning, but would add a time limit of 60 seconds to destroy the base. ( with the whole team alive to defend it for a moral victory)
Ideally I'd like less impact /slippery slope scenarios from rts elements.. To keep skilful hail Mary pass a viable option.
you can't fix stupid, pick a better example please, this one doesn't add anything to your point.
How could you change a forfeit behavior? People can disconnect, F4, or concede if they don't wish to continue the game. There is no incentive to play longer than necessary.
Disagree?
talk about mixing metaphors... are you suggesting they "love" each other to death, cage match style?
I wouldn't even know how to 'fix' that. Make losing not feel so bad? Idk? Either way a lot of games are going to feel pretty shitty and sometimes you want to just flat out concede because maybe you had too many rookies making those rookie mistakes, or maybe comm was new and he couldn't keep up?
There are going to be times you want and need to concede, so how would you keep a play want to continue the fight?
I only have one example in mind: I remember when I used to play League of Legends there was a new gametype called 'Dominion' and the losing team I believe had faster respawn timers to make a "comeback". Maybe it could exist within rookie servers?
No idea.
I especially don't like being verbally bullied/hounded/harassed by the people that have thrown in the towel, when i refuse to vote concede. Fuck u, i'm playing until the bitter end!
Lol, the winning side doesnt concede
In my own personal experience, people who nag about conceding are usually the ones who just don't grasp the game and the status of the round well enough to understand that the game is already over.
I'm not pointing fingers, but you have to accept the fact that the majority of the team that wanted to concede might well have a greater understanding of the game than you do and not always the other way around.
bah, I know that I'm repeating myself for like the third or fourth time and you know it savant, but you really need to understand that this is a fps game mixed with rts elements and I believe it is going to stay that way until NS3, therefore there is no way that we'll be able to see truly epic comebacks (like, recovering against 4 fades when you have no upgrades) without major changes.
And the thing is: I enjoy the game as it is, early engagements should be important and imo skulks vs marines are the "face" of the NS brand, not exo vs onos, end game tech in paper sounds awesome, but it makes me facepalm so hard when like almost everyone in my team (both as marines and aliens) have are saving for onos/exos all the while we are losing mid game so badly.
There's many ways to approach the problem.. I don't get the out right defense of this issue as being unable to be fixed?
edit: Relating it to topic: Look at Dota and League, the reason people watch is the skilled players & TEAMS get rewarded for winning their engagements, and it usually results in a "gg" once two lanes are broken (at least in Dota, don't watch enough League to know). Technically the game isn't over, and there is still technically a small chance to win. But the losing team deems it unwinnable.
Also in pub situations, at least for me, I don't trust 95% of the people on my team to do the exact stuff that is necessary to pull out that 5% chance of victory. So once your probability gets low enough, past where you trust a pub can turn a game around, that's where I concede.
But the question is: How? and how much?
If you lessen too much the game loses its "uniqueness", it is the selling point for me.
But i do feel there is middle ground to be found.
Currently upgrades can sometimes feel more like game enders instead of what they should be : Upgrades.
This game is FPS first, from design choice to obvious implementation of mechanics, to pure numbers (22 players playing FPS, 2 playing RTS )
In any other FPS any upgrade you receive is ... subtle to minor at best.
Imagine any FPS like CS, BF3CODBLOPS getting weapons 3 and armor 3. It wouldn't remotely be fun for the other side.
I think that's whats going on.
Not to say weapons 3 should be %5 more damage instead... but currently i think many of the values in the RTS aspects are beyond what skill can make up for sometimes.
Tier 3 tech being somewhat exempt from this as they are rarely seen (because of said lack of fun experienced on the losing side) and these days only provide game ending mechanics.
Disclaimer: IMO.
I see nothing wrong with skipping the end game. Why should a losing team (of casual public game players) waste their free time playing a losing battle? Just so the winning team feels good about a Victory?
If you feel a conceded victory is hollow that's your problem. But really who cares, its not like that's the only game you can play. Play another round! There's more than once chance to have an "glorious" victory. I don't know where people get the thought that every victory should be orgasmic.
If i'm on the losing team i vote for concede when its clearly obvious what the outcome will be in 10, 15, 20 minutes. To me a conceded is essentially me saying, "GG, *virtual handshake*, well played, lets start another game shall we?"
Savant you fail to realize on a payload map the clearly superior team will win SOONER... aka the round doesn't drag on. I've pushed the cart from start to finish in a few minutes against poor teams.
In NS2 the superior team will push the upgrade/map control/economic "payload", but not necessarily end the game sooner.
I'm not against any kind of changes, I think this game is good as it is, but I know there are people who don't like snowballing effects specially in a FPS game and maybe we can try to do something, but as I said before it's very difficult to balance this game.
What about nerfing weapon upgrades to 7/13/20%, lowering the res cost and raising the research time?
Of course we might have to tweak alien base hp/upgrades too, just a random idea (and probably not a good one) that crossed my mind.
People like having the game end with a 'big finish'. (so long as it doesn't drag.) I've been in hotly contested games that we lost because of a small error, but the way it ended was such we were still competitive and trying to win.
Some of the best games I've been in have seen the alien and marine teams at each other's tech points, taking them out, while a skeleton crew tries to hold them off, and we're each down to one tech point - firing on the hive/cc and one team gets it down in seconds before the other does. Those games are amazing to play, and everyone hits the ready-room excited and talking about how they had one of the best games they ever played.
No quitting (through any means) + action packed end-game = fun & exciting game
That's what I want to see.
This is not tied to concede ir f4 or quit.