Can we just not have anymore sh!t games please. Anyone on board with that? Thank you very much and have a nice day folks.
This is slightly open ended question, dependent on servers you are on, what time of day you are playing and who you are playing with... But in consensus the quality of games as a whole has been lower in the past couple of years, most likely culprit is people all too willing to press the concede button.
Can we just not have anymore sh!t games please. Anyone on board with that? Thank you very much and have a nice day folks.
This is slightly open ended question, dependent on servers you are on, what time of day you are playing and who you are playing with... But in consensus the quality of games as a whole has been lower in the past couple of years, most likely culprit is people all too willing to press the concede button.
I find it frustrating when people want to fight on when the battle is looooonnnngg over, and people wanting to concede when there's still a good fighting chance. It's weird! It's the exact opposite of what it should be.
Only way to make that happen is to run your own server and then just ban the people who are sh!tting up the game. If I had money I would gladly run my own server and do just that. Then again, if I had money I would probably have a demanding job that didn't allow me to play NS2 all that much in the first place. I suppose that's life.
Can we just not have anymore sh!t games please. Anyone on board with that? Thank you very much and have a nice day folks.
This is slightly open ended question, dependent on servers you are on, what time of day you are playing and who you are playing with... But in consensus the quality of games as a whole has been lower in the past couple of years, most likely culprit is people all too willing to press the concede button.
I find it frustrating when people want to fight on when the battle is looooonnnngg over, and people wanting to concede when there's still a good fighting chance. It's weird! It's the exact opposite of what it should be.
Yeah the real trick is knowing WHEN enough is enough and when it's time to call it a day, unfortunately only the most experienced players are able to notice the small tell tale signs when a game is already snowballed
WyzcrakPot Pie AficionadoJoin Date: 2002-12-04Member: 10447Forum Moderators, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
We try on TGNS to break the association between a concede vote and giving up. We encourage people to "vote and play", keeping talk of conceding off of voicecomms for as long as we can. We ask regulars to keep trying their hardest while voting as much as the game will let them. The goal (a lofty one, to be sure) is to keep the voicecomm energy focused on the gameplay, with each player giving his best until the game is well and truly over, with the hopes of the mid-game play, even among "quitters", having less whining/complaining/postmortem and more trying.
I'm sure other communities do this, but I'd encourage it more broadly across the title. It has had a positive effect on our gameplay at TGNS, FWIW.
I still think that in stead of concede, it should be "self-Destruct". So that every player and structure from what ever team "concedes" explodes and does damage to any enemy near them.
Go out in a blaze of glory, rather than simply end! its a lot more climactic!
Well, there's always the possibility of a last-second rush for the aliens. No such luck with marines, though.
While aliens get more opportunities to do that than marines do, I have seen quite a few of those with marines.
It depends on the situation, but I have rarely if ever seen a case where marines successfully defend and counter against 3/4-hive aliens with complete map control.
As soon as you push out with your ninja phase, your entire base gets wrecked. Then, if you successfully defend against the bile/onos rush, it takes too long for you to repair everything and deal with inevitable lost equipment in the push. Unless it's a situation where aliens were stomping early and a bunch of skilled late-joiners go on marines, I can't see it happening, especially not with the frequency that aliens can pull it off.
The goal (a lofty one, to be sure) is to keep the voicecomm energy focused on the gameplay, with each player giving his best until the game is well and truly over, with the hopes of the mid-game play, even among "quitters", having less whining/complaining/postmortem and more trying.
While I applaud the positive attitude and therefore positive environment that is supplied by this method - I'd rather address the difficulty of being able to comeback, and thus the frequency that concede is needed, than to rely on social engineering or having to suppress a natural human response / reaction.
It'd be much more of a win / win.. you'd see far less demotivation, more tension in a round, and people can continue to react naturally without feeling like they are dampening other's enjoyment. (I always hate raining on a Rookie's parade when they just want to shoot things, but I'd rather start a better round.)
aeroripperJoin Date: 2005-02-25Member: 42471NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
They're a few things that could help with the concede issue:
1) Move concede to the built in voting system so newer players don't have to figure out shine's M > Surrender.
2) Changing the weighting system so those who do not cast a vote will automatically give their vote away to the highest winning ratio at the end of the vote. I.E. "vote ended, adding in absentia votes, vote passed!". Or just have a non vote count much less than a full vote to the threshold ratio.
I enjoy efficiently organized last hurrahs when all is lost. I don't enjoy silence for 5-10 minutes while the other team is dominating the whole map, and finally getting a concede vote going when most of the aliens are in the spawn queue. That is the worst.
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
The downside to #1 is it further increases the demotivational atmosphere, and makes it much more obscuring for something that happens so frequently.
#2 isn't needed if #1 is done, and even if it were that would have to be communicated clearly to non voters, like you suggested. Otherwise it would be quite unintuitive considering how voting is done pretty much everywhere else on this planet.
Again though, both of these would just be addressing the symptom instead of the cause..
I think using the in-game vote is a good idea actually. Instead of having to shout "hold x and vote concede" for 5 minutes you just say "press f1" for 30 seconds. If the vote fails you can't vote again for a little while anyway, so everybody actually plays the game after that brief interruption.
As far as it being "too obscure" from that menu, only one person has to find it anyway, and an all rookie game isn't going to concede normally regardless.
As far as "how voting is done virtually everywhere else on this planet", non-votes are almost never counted as "no" votes.
The surrender menu shouldn't be the only thing to exist.
We don't have many things that can make people understand they must help somewhere. Only microphones. So much for microphones when some people play with no sound or mute every one.
The only thing so far that is able to signal to your teammates something is parasite and "ping map" on alien side. Other than that there is nothing to tell your teammates to target something. The commander can give way-points but no field unit can give information on what's going on except using voice.
They surrender fast when they see nothing can be done (vets included), because they all know perfectly that on public servers it's kind of really hard to get people to understand or to coordinate.
Starting from this side would probably be better than trying to change the surrender vote. Surrender should be the last think to think about in game, but it's not because nothing helps people coordinate.
As far as "how voting is done virtually everywhere else on this planet", non-votes are almost never counted as "no" votes.
They also aren't counted as Yes votes.
Another system would be to only count participating votes as the total, instead of treating every body as silently participating in one way or another.
One downside to this implementation is the vote tally can only complete once the timer is up and no sooner, in case there are late voters.
The other larger downside to this is that if the vote is obscure or non obvious in any way (during action / combat) then 2 users who want to change the map mid round might just get their way...
Counting non voters as a no vote means a strong portion of the players must really advocate for change, instead of just a few attentive ones... essentially preventing vote spam issues (the reason why many servers disable vote systems)
The goal (a lofty one, to be sure) is to keep the voicecomm energy focused on the gameplay, with each player giving his best until the game is well and truly over, with the hopes of the mid-game play, even among "quitters", having less whining/complaining/postmortem and more trying.
While I applaud the positive attitude and therefore positive environment that is supplied by this method - I'd rather address the difficulty of being able to comeback, and thus the frequency that concede is needed, than to rely on social engineering or having to suppress a natural human response / reaction.
It'd be much more of a win / win.. you'd see far less demotivation, more tension in a round, and people can continue to react naturally without feeling like they are dampening other's enjoyment. (I always hate raining on a Rookie's parade when they just want to shoot things, but I'd rather start a better round.)
I always thought that was the intent of the concede vote. If the vote hasn't passed, you haven't conceded/lost, so you should still try your best.
I don't think anyone has said this yet, but I'd like to get this in first. Removing concede will not lead to people carrying on and trying for a comeback, the alternative to concede is F4 (ready room) or server browsing as it always has been before concede was implemented and currently is before the time threshold for concede is reached. Hell, people still do that while trying to concede.
Iron, I had this horrid experience of neither being able to get out of base for 10+ minutes nor get a concede vote passed. At the end of the round, the rookies on my team exclaimed that it was the best game they had so far.
It would be interesting experiment to allow commander to either concede the game himself or only allowing him to cast the vote with less positive votes needed to success. This because commander should have the best overview of the game and casted vote would have more weight.
I know for sure I don't like to vote for concede as a field player if I am 1pres away from fade although I might think the game is lost and fade timing won't most likely bring it back. (lerks dead or something)
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
You're missing my point @Aeglos
I was suggesting to fix the high frequency of scenarios where concede is needed.
You wouldn't F4 when your team still has a decent chance of winning would you?
That's just shifting the line though. It will make for more enjoyable games on balance, but there will still come a point when defeat is inevitable, at which point it will still come into play. My point was mainly that concede is a great mechanic and people blaming bad games on concede are wrong. Concede improves the game.
I know you aren't directing it at me personally, but I wouldn't F4 at all, unless it is a team F4 before concede timer. Team balance just drags the game out and is much more horrid. Its not so bad when you can get the 30 second auto concede, but some people tend to cancel that out or worse, you are one short of the auto concede. Also, even if my team wasn't in that bad a position, but is obviously out skilled, I would also concede after a setback. Marines who shoot 10% aren't winning any games even if you give them unlimited pres.
Marines who shoot 10% aren't winning any games even if you give them unlimited pres.
Not to undermine your point, you just caught my interest. I don't think I can shoot under 20% on purpose at this point, but let's say I could. I think I could win some games with 10% accuracy and unlimited pres. It's certainly interesting. I want to try lol
Comments
This is slightly open ended question, dependent on servers you are on, what time of day you are playing and who you are playing with... But in consensus the quality of games as a whole has been lower in the past couple of years, most likely culprit is people all too willing to press the concede button.
I find it frustrating when people want to fight on when the battle is looooonnnngg over, and people wanting to concede when there's still a good fighting chance. It's weird! It's the exact opposite of what it should be.
Yeah the real trick is knowing WHEN enough is enough and when it's time to call it a day, unfortunately only the most experienced players are able to notice the small tell tale signs when a game is already snowballed
I'm sure other communities do this, but I'd encourage it more broadly across the title. It has had a positive effect on our gameplay at TGNS, FWIW.
Go out in a blaze of glory, rather than simply end! its a lot more climactic!
While aliens get more opportunities to do that than marines do, I have seen quite a few of those with marines.
It depends on the situation, but I have rarely if ever seen a case where marines successfully defend and counter against 3/4-hive aliens with complete map control.
As soon as you push out with your ninja phase, your entire base gets wrecked. Then, if you successfully defend against the bile/onos rush, it takes too long for you to repair everything and deal with inevitable lost equipment in the push. Unless it's a situation where aliens were stomping early and a bunch of skilled late-joiners go on marines, I can't see it happening, especially not with the frequency that aliens can pull it off.
It'd be much more of a win / win.. you'd see far less demotivation, more tension in a round, and people can continue to react naturally without feeling like they are dampening other's enjoyment. (I always hate raining on a Rookie's parade when they just want to shoot things, but I'd rather start a better round.)
1) Move concede to the built in voting system so newer players don't have to figure out shine's M > Surrender.
2) Changing the weighting system so those who do not cast a vote will automatically give their vote away to the highest winning ratio at the end of the vote. I.E. "vote ended, adding in absentia votes, vote passed!". Or just have a non vote count much less than a full vote to the threshold ratio.
I enjoy efficiently organized last hurrahs when all is lost. I don't enjoy silence for 5-10 minutes while the other team is dominating the whole map, and finally getting a concede vote going when most of the aliens are in the spawn queue. That is the worst.
#2 isn't needed if #1 is done, and even if it were that would have to be communicated clearly to non voters, like you suggested. Otherwise it would be quite unintuitive considering how voting is done pretty much everywhere else on this planet.
Again though, both of these would just be addressing the symptom instead of the cause..
As far as it being "too obscure" from that menu, only one person has to find it anyway, and an all rookie game isn't going to concede normally regardless.
As far as "how voting is done virtually everywhere else on this planet", non-votes are almost never counted as "no" votes.
We don't have many things that can make people understand they must help somewhere. Only microphones. So much for microphones when some people play with no sound or mute every one.
The only thing so far that is able to signal to your teammates something is parasite and "ping map" on alien side. Other than that there is nothing to tell your teammates to target something. The commander can give way-points but no field unit can give information on what's going on except using voice.
They surrender fast when they see nothing can be done (vets included), because they all know perfectly that on public servers it's kind of really hard to get people to understand or to coordinate.
Starting from this side would probably be better than trying to change the surrender vote. Surrender should be the last think to think about in game, but it's not because nothing helps people coordinate.
Another system would be to only count participating votes as the total, instead of treating every body as silently participating in one way or another.
One downside to this implementation is the vote tally can only complete once the timer is up and no sooner, in case there are late voters.
The other larger downside to this is that if the vote is obscure or non obvious in any way (during action / combat) then 2 users who want to change the map mid round might just get their way...
Counting non voters as a no vote means a strong portion of the players must really advocate for change, instead of just a few attentive ones... essentially preventing vote spam issues (the reason why many servers disable vote systems)
I don't think anyone has said this yet, but I'd like to get this in first. Removing concede will not lead to people carrying on and trying for a comeback, the alternative to concede is F4 (ready room) or server browsing as it always has been before concede was implemented and currently is before the time threshold for concede is reached. Hell, people still do that while trying to concede.
Iron, I had this horrid experience of neither being able to get out of base for 10+ minutes nor get a concede vote passed. At the end of the round, the rookies on my team exclaimed that it was the best game they had so far.
I know for sure I don't like to vote for concede as a field player if I am 1pres away from fade although I might think the game is lost and fade timing won't most likely bring it back. (lerks dead or something)
I was suggesting to fix the high frequency of scenarios where concede is needed.
You wouldn't F4 when your team still has a decent chance of winning would you?
I know you aren't directing it at me personally, but I wouldn't F4 at all, unless it is a team F4 before concede timer. Team balance just drags the game out and is much more horrid. Its not so bad when you can get the 30 second auto concede, but some people tend to cancel that out or worse, you are one short of the auto concede. Also, even if my team wasn't in that bad a position, but is obviously out skilled, I would also concede after a setback. Marines who shoot 10% aren't winning any games even if you give them unlimited pres.
Not to undermine your point, you just caught my interest. I don't think I can shoot under 20% on purpose at this point, but let's say I could. I think I could win some games with 10% accuracy and unlimited pres. It's certainly interesting. I want to try lol