Possible change for surrender.
Stripetails
Join Date: 2013-01-30 Member: 182644Members, NS2 Playtester
Join Date: 2013-01-30 Member: 182644Members, NS2 Playtester
Just a thought that came when thinking about how surrenders really work. A fight isn't over if a surrender is offered, the enemy has to accept that surrender for something to end that way, otherwise they still attack!
I know that many people dislike surrender because they feel cheated out of a glorious and explosive victory, but it is a very good option to have in the case of a team being outplayed, having a troll com, etc.
So, when a team gets a successful surrender vote, a message is displayed for the enemy commander (or team) telling them that their enemy wishes to surrender. It is then up to them whether or not to accept the surrender.
If a surrender vote is denied a timer could be set before another vote is allowed, say 3 minutes, and then another two minutes, with the third vote ending the game without needing to be accepted? (Could be extended or changed, just a thought!)
This would still allow surrenders to end the game early, and give the enemy team more reason to push, instead of spawn camping/poking for who knows how long as they'd have a deadline. It may even have a few awesome consequences such as a team denying a surrender, only to lose because of a miraculous attack! Oh such rage there would be.
I know that many people dislike surrender because they feel cheated out of a glorious and explosive victory, but it is a very good option to have in the case of a team being outplayed, having a troll com, etc.
So, when a team gets a successful surrender vote, a message is displayed for the enemy commander (or team) telling them that their enemy wishes to surrender. It is then up to them whether or not to accept the surrender.
If a surrender vote is denied a timer could be set before another vote is allowed, say 3 minutes, and then another two minutes, with the third vote ending the game without needing to be accepted? (Could be extended or changed, just a thought!)
This would still allow surrenders to end the game early, and give the enemy team more reason to push, instead of spawn camping/poking for who knows how long as they'd have a deadline. It may even have a few awesome consequences such as a team denying a surrender, only to lose because of a miraculous attack! Oh such rage there would be.
Comments
That's a possibility, though it can also be said that there are many games that are so evenly matched that they could swing either way. A team wanting to surrender isn't necessarily the end of a game as is, quite often I see teams lose a tech point or even two and start a surrender vote, only to have it turn around into a victory for their side. One of the reasons that surrender was added was to prevent teams from camping spawns without the intentions to end the game, but rather draw it out and farm kills. For Example: Three fades in the base, two onos, all marine being spawn camped or two/three marines at the hive egg locking the entire team while being dropped ammo.
The idea is to give both sides the chance to decide if they want the game to end in a surrender. Let's say the Marines are pushed back to one CC, or even the Aliens. They vote to surrender and the surrender isn't accepted, they now have 3 minutes before a second vote could be called up. The enemy team, having seen the surrender option now knows that the enemy are on the ropes, and knows that they have 3 minutes to push to end, if they can't end the game after three minutes a second vote could be called, if it's accepted, the game ends, if not, the timer starts again, for a lesser amount of time. After that time the surrender goes through whether the enemy team wants it or not.
If it were done in the way mentioned above you'd be looking at five extra minutes of game time plus the time it takes to vote.
But the idea of being on the losing team and being forced to wait through 5 minutes of stomp because the enemy team just wants to flaunt their victory for as long as possible is terrible. F4/server change, because the team you are playing against are being idiots.
I am of course only talking from a PUB point of view, maybe in competitive play it would be different.
1)
More of a sudden death. Once a team surrenders, spawning is disabled for their team so it basically becomes a free win for the other team.
Of course there is always that one player who will hide when their entire team can't respawn, but trolling like this will happen with any system
2)
The simple "Take them with us" surrender
All structures and players explode, dealing heavy damage to anything near them, but loose regardless of what they destroy (explode in fire for marines, gas for aliens)
3)
In a perfect world the Last Stand mod would be incorporated into a sudden death mode where the team that surrenders is given a timer that they have to survive with whatever tools they have left but can't spawn.
For live games: Alert banner saying "Enemy team is trying to escape!" and a timer appears (something like 3 min)
- Surrendering team's structures outside of the TechPoint they've held the longest is destroyed
-- This way they have their most "fortified" Base
- All surrendering players are moved back to their last TechPoint
- The "winning" team then has to kill all enemy players or only 1 last structure in 3 min
-- This gives losing teams a chance at a "Moral Victory"
Down side: Forces players to stay in a round longer if all they want is to start a new one
Sorry, but when a team surrenders, they are admitting defeat in order to get a new game started where they can either change teams or try the same team again. Both 1 and 3 force the teams to stay in the game longer (kinda defeats the purpose of surrender since you can't start a new game immediately) and 2 just kinda seems pointless.
Surrender is fine how it is. If you want to get extra epeen while playing a video game by beating a defeated team into the ground, go play some other game.
It's not about epeen. Stop being hostile.
Its about making the experience more dramatic and satisfying for everyone involved. Personally, I feel that just making everything explode would serve this purpose just fine.
The other two are more just ideas to be different. Stopping spawning only serves to make the other team feel like they actually won, and the last stand idea...well thats just an idea.
Remember no matter what game you play, its just as important to have the winners feel good about winning as it is to have the losers not come away hating the game.
The current implementation of concede denies the satisfaction of winning. And if you really believe that getting satisfaction from winning is not important...why do you even play games?
That being said I don't concede all to terribly often, sometimes it's fun to turtle.
you could consider reducing the time limit until conceding becomes available as well... for instance:
After 4/5 minutes of play, concede becomes available. Surrendering will not end the game instantly, it will however destroy any IP's/EGGS (of the surrendering team) and cannot be replaced (instant egg lock/no IPs and cannot re-build them).
This means the winning team still gets the victory they deserve, spawn camping and stomps happen less often and new games are guaranteed to start quicker... everybody wins.
Is it not obvious that they would rather not and just get going to the next game? What is the point of forcing a bunch of people to get slaughtered or go to the Ready Room? To make them just leave whenever a game is over since they have to wait three minutes or so to get playing again? I could go hide as a Marine or Alien during your suggestion and make the game last another five god damn minutes while they go kill the base.
Just let the god damn game end.
You're trying to treat the symptom. The cause is the inability for come-backs once you're past a certain threshold, often early in the game. And that is usually caused by team stacking.
So instead thinking of ways to fiddle with concede, instead think on ways to make the game fun to play 'till the point where conceding would be just as quick as letting the opposing team kill your base. How you do that, well, that's a question for someone more intelligent than I.
I am sorry that playing the game isn't enough for you. I doubt this discussion can go anywhere, as you just don't approach games the same way as I do. Good day to you.
Picture this:
The game has just started to get interesting, aliens have started using higher lifeforms and marines are getting upgrades and shotguns. their phase gates are up. no stomp/egg lock has happened, its becoming a challenge. This is what a good game is all about, getting the upgrades, getting the big guns out and seeing which team is better in a very close, hard battle... but no, that is denied to you, because your enemy decided it wasn't "fun" to have a challenge... unless you're clearly winning by 12 minutes in its no fun in their mind, so their was no point playing... they concede and then join up for another game... which inevitably leads to the same outcome of them quitting because they didn't rofl-stomp you early game.
I recently had a game that at 13 minutes 3 of my team mates wanted to concede (they proceeded to spam concede in chat etc for 10 minutes and at one point even F4'ed for a couple of minutes), the rest of us refused. at 42 minutes we finally won a very hard fought battle. THAT was a FUN game.
If one team is being stomped or camped then of course my kind of surrender idea would not work out. people would F4 or just exit the server because that is no fun for anyone. I just hate it when a game starts getting really good and challenging and the enemy bails. that is also no fun for anyone...In situations like that, I wish the surrender system was different... But more often than not, no matter what system is in place, it won't be good enough to please everyone 100% of the time.
The point of surrendering is to start a new game. Yes, sometimes people surrender too early, but trying to force people to get smashed so the other team can have "fun" is not fun. Stop trying to think of solutions for something that isn't a problem. The problem, as @EgoGamer said, is that, in this game, come-backs are neigh on impossible, barring the occasional base rush that might work. That is the problem that needs to be solved, not the fact that surrenders don't give the winning team the chance to stomp more face or that they end the game too soon.
If you fix the problem with come-backs, then people (usually, you can't always say anything will happen) will stop surrendering so early (again, I don't see this happening all to often, but w/e) since they actually have a chance.
Could actually be fun to surrender, for both teams!
None the less, as has been mentioned, this would be a 'solution' for a symptom, not the cause. I am quite convinced that it won't be easy to solve the root of this problem though. It'll take quite some changes to make a comeback possible. Especially considering it's quite a small line you'd be walking there. Comebacks should be possible, but not too easy (as that would result in the endless stalemates).
So, who can make this mod!?
Also, if you're conceding more than half your losing games? L2p.
Concede sucks for players who like the game for what it is, it's great for people who get butt hurt when they feel a game isn't going their way. Which type of person are you.
What do you mean by 'like the game for what it is'? You like to get stomped? You like to draw out the game when the the outcome is obvious?
This isn't Counter-Strike, where even one player can cause a major upset and pull the game back from the brink. In the current build once one team gets a major advantage (extended map control, killing off a bunch of higher lifeforms/equipment, taking out a techpoint late-game) the game is done.
Personally I consider it good manners to concede at that point, but to each his own. I've yet to see a concede which I didn't agree with.
Winning/losing differ in feeling depending on pride.
Who knows, maybe you've just played more than I have...