If the other team has worked for it's victory then you should at least give them the joy of enjoying their upgrades. You'd want the same. Fighting the "impossible" just makes you better at entry level (i.e. a better skulk/vanilla marine).
If losing was still fun in some way, concede might be less frequent. Waiting to spawn for wave after wave as an alien as your base is camped, or not being able to leave your base for 5 mins while you turtle as marine are both terrible. I feel that whenever someone says their end game was cut short by concede, they forget that an equal number of players on the other side have to sit and get farmed while the winning side get coordinated enough to end it. If anything these concedes show the end game tech wasn't needed at all to win that game, and waiting for that tech is just drawing out the game.
I would wager that most conceded games are lost games because 1 side heavily out-skills the other. It isn't like the teams are evenly matched and the win could still go to either team. This is a pub, where getting even teams is more than likely not going to happen. The losing team isn't going to magically get better in the course of the game they are getting crushed in, and they probably aren't going to listen any better as the game progresses if that is the problem, either.
I have seen great come backs and turn arounds on my server on many occasions.
I'm normally not shy of throwing in the towel when seeing that there's no coming back, but last game I played people actually started a vote to concede when we were still on 4 harvesters and two hives. Sure marines were putting some pressure, but we held on. Suddenly they see marines have jetpacks and they're like "gg, it's over now". Had to argue with them about continuing because I just saved up for onos. Ended up assaulting the marine base cause I figured I had to try something fast before they all quit. Then suddenly I'm the guy who wasted his onos. xD
What if a new player with above average skills joins the losing team? From my experience, this can lead to a comeback or at least the game gets drawn out until the already winning game gets their endgame tech.
This is the one of the bad aspects of no RFK: once you are winning, screwing up is hard. The winning team can throw trains of oni/exos away without any consequences. -> No room for comebacks.
If the other team has worked for it's victory then you should at least give them the joy of enjoying their upgrades.
No. This is what used to (and still can) kill servers completely. One team with full upgrades slowly expanding their forward bases etc rather than swiftly taking the enemies final tech point.
Who likes playing vanilla skulk vs W3A3 SG Jet packers?
Who likes playing vanilla marine against fully upgraded fades and onos?
Also I'm not really sure what's so great about stomping vanilla opponents with full tech? I find it pretty boring.
Is it something that pleases those who normally struggle to get a K:D of over 1 in a balanced game? They finally get their moment of power?
For me I like the game when it's unclear who is going to win. The best games are those which neither team can quite get a territory advantage over the other. Decided games = boring.
Once the game has been decided and nothing is left but turtle mode, concede is valid. Before we had concede everyone would just F4 which was far worse. Games would be prolonged with people on the winning team unable to spawn, people in the ready room raging for those who are left to F4 etc. Concede solved a lot of that.
TL:DR If the community did not want concede, it wouldn't be used, but it is used, and therefore wanted, so keep it!
If the other team has worked for it's victory then you should at least give them the joy of enjoying their upgrades. You'd want the same. Fighting the "impossible" just makes you better at entry level (i.e. a better skulk/vanilla marine).
Actually, I wouldn't. I seek a difficult, but fair, challenge when playing NS2. Also, the "throw them into the deep end to teach them to swim" mentality generally leads more to frustration than learning. There is a reason why most educational programs are designed to start people off with the basics and work them up to the more complex and difficult.
A concede option is a good thing when the alternative is to quit the server and go someplace else. Concede is just getting a new round when the current one is obviously lost.
You could string it out, and hope some of their good players get frustrated and leave thus giving you a chance, but that seems a lot more cheap than simply conceding that you're beaten.
Fortunately, lots of servers already have a plugin that lets you concede. The fact that it came out as a plugin this fast should indicate that it's a good contender for being in the actual game instead of a server option but at the end of the day it doesn't make much difference. If you like concede functions, play on servers that have it. If you think it's cheap, don't.
I don't find it a courtesy when the opposing team concedes in a pub. (Because that's all this thread applies to)
I feel robbed of my end game typically, and that they gave up too easily (more so, lately)
If this becomes the de facto standard, tier 3 tech will become a rare thing.
I do like the"sudden death" suggestions tossed around.. just have to find a solution that can't be exploited easily.
I prefer concede to people f4'ing though.
I think a counter or a warning for both sides that a concede vote has been initiated would be good.
The evac option I think sounds good, could apply to both sides though you might need to make free lifeform upgrades to avoid any low res issues (more likely to hinder aliens as marines can pick up dead mens guns).
Whether its just sitting in your last tech point with a homing beacon for a nuke or biological bomb or escape craft, this would make those early pub concedes less abrupt.
Perhaps have this option being server side toggle so it can be switrched off for comp games.
Advantages of concede:
Requires a maximum vote
No snowball effect due to number of votes not being known
Disadvantages:
"If you build it they will come" - the introduction of the feature has possibly promoted it's use to the point it's overused.
Doesn't take you out of the game like f4 does (f4 in this sense, requires more of a commitment)
Advantages of f4:
Takes you out of the game until the game is over (discourages overuse due to possibly having to screw around in the readyroom for a while)
Disadvantage of f4:
Can cause a game to end early due to increasingly imbalanced teams (in itself causes a snowball effect - 'why bother, it's 5 vs 8 now') - thus effectively a minority vote may only be required
Snowball effect due to number of votes being known
Just to divert the train of thought in another direction for a moment.
The idea of a "concede" or the gg call works well in Starcraft 2. This is because, due to the emphasis on statistics, and how basically every game is logged in the ladder, winning is the important thing. I've seen people join a game, and have their opponent disconnect, and just be happy that they got the win, which is pretty weird.
So, when you put enough emphasis on winning, people will be only too happy when their opponent concedes, and someone who is inevitably going to lose will be only too happy to move onto the next game for a potential win.
Unfortunately NS2 doesn't have this dynamic (I'm glad it doesn't) so conceding will always be in a bit of a strange place.
A concede option is a good thing when the alternative is to quit the server and go someplace else. Concede is just getting a new round when the current one is obviously lost.
You could string it out, and hope some of their good players get frustrated and leave thus giving you a chance, but that seems a lot more cheap than simply conceding that you're beaten.
Fortunately, lots of servers already have a plugin that lets you concede. The fact that it came out as a plugin this fast should indicate that it's a good contender for being in the actual game instead of a server option but at the end of the day it doesn't make much difference. If you like concede functions, play on servers that have it. If you think it's cheap, don't.
Concede is a built in option now lol. My server is modless and it has it.
You should only be able to concede if you have 1 TP/hive. The concede option should only appear a minute or two after losing the 2nd base to give the other team a chance to finish.
Disadvantage of f4:
Can cause a game to end early due to increasingly imbalanced teams (in itself causes a snowball effect - 'why bother, it's 5 vs 8 now') - thus effectively a minority vote may only be required
Snowball effect due to number of votes being known
Uhhh, no? Unless the server has auto-balance disabled F4 doesn't do a damn thing to cause unbalanced teams, the overpopulated team will just spawn the same number of players as the team lacking players has.
Disadvantage of f4:
Can cause a game to end early due to increasingly imbalanced teams (in itself causes a snowball effect - 'why bother, it's 5 vs 8 now') - thus effectively a minority vote may only be required
Snowball effect due to number of votes being known
Uhhh, no? Unless the server has auto-balance disabled F4 doesn't do a damn thing to cause unbalanced teams, the overpopulated team will just spawn the same number of players as the team lacking players has.
So f4'ing does not contribute to an sides being uneven?
I want what you having!
F4 does unbalance teams...one has fewer players (which is normally how balanced teams are viewed).
Most servers have autobalance which draws a game out longer by trying to re-balance it (hint is in the name of "auto-balance").
Just to divert the train of thought in another direction for a moment.
The idea of a "concede" or the gg call works well in Starcraft 2. This is because, due to the emphasis on statistics, and how basically every game is logged in the ladder, winning is the important thing. I've seen people join a game, and have their opponent disconnect, and just be happy that they got the win, which is pretty weird.
So, when you put enough emphasis on winning, people will be only too happy when their opponent concedes, and someone who is inevitably going to lose will be only too happy to move onto the next game for a potential win.
Unfortunately NS2 doesn't have this dynamic (I'm glad it doesn't) so conceding will always be in a bit of a strange place.
In NS2, it's not about the loss, but how you lose.
No one likes to be facerolled, people rarely "seal the deal", they wait for higher tech and procced to one shot stuff until all there is left is the hive/cc.
That's really frustrating for the enemy team, how can you people not see it? That's why servers often die, the winning team keeps farming kills instead of going for the objective.
Disadvantage of f4:
Can cause a game to end early due to increasingly imbalanced teams (in itself causes a snowball effect - 'why bother, it's 5 vs 8 now') - thus effectively a minority vote may only be required
Snowball effect due to number of votes being known
Uhhh, no? Unless the server has auto-balance disabled F4 doesn't do a damn thing to cause unbalanced teams, the overpopulated team will just spawn the same number of players as the team lacking players has.
So f4'ing does not contribute to an sides being uneven?
I want what you having!
F4 does unbalance teams...one has fewer players (which is normally how balanced teams are viewed).
Most servers have autobalance which draws a game out longer by trying to re-balance it (hint is in the name of "auto-balance").
You might want to educate yourself how auto-balance in this game works before you try to argue about it against others who do. The way auto-balance works in this game is when a threshold is reached, I believe default is when one team has 2 less players on it then the other, then the over-populated team will simply stop spawning players until both teams have the same number of players alive. As a player dies, then one of the guys waiting in queue will respawn, keeping the teams effectively balanced until more players join a team.
So no, auto-balance doesn't magically "re-balance it" it just makes it to where there's tons of players sitting there waiting to respawn and the game drags out just as it would, longer even, since there are less players active. So no, F4 does not work in ending games unless the ENTIRE team does it, this is an established, undebatable fact. That's one of the reasons they added concede into the game to achieve that purpose.
Disadvantage of f4:
Can cause a game to end early due to increasingly imbalanced teams (in itself causes a snowball effect - 'why bother, it's 5 vs 8 now') - thus effectively a minority vote may only be required
Snowball effect due to number of votes being known
Uhhh, no? Unless the server has auto-balance disabled F4 doesn't do a damn thing to cause unbalanced teams, the overpopulated team will just spawn the same number of players as the team lacking players has.
So f4'ing does not contribute to an sides being uneven?
I want what you having!
F4 does unbalance teams...one has fewer players (which is normally how balanced teams are viewed).
Most servers have autobalance which draws a game out longer by trying to re-balance it (hint is in the name of "auto-balance").
You might want to educate yourself how auto-balance in this game works before you try to argue about it against others who do. The way auto-balance works in this game is when a threshold is reached, I believe default is when one team has 2 less players on it then the other, then the over-populated team will simply stop spawning players until both teams have the same number of players alive. As a player dies, then one of the guys waiting in queue will respawn, keeping the teams effectively balanced until more players join a team.
So no, auto-balance doesn't magically "re-balance it" it just makes it to where there's tons of players sitting there waiting to respawn and the game drags out just as it would, longer even, since there are less players active. So no, F4 does not work in ending games unless the ENTIRE team does it, this is an established, undebatable fact. That's one of the reasons they added concede into the game to achieve that purpose.
So in a 6 v 6 game (which everyone seems to love) if 1 person f4's your down 16% of the available numbers but this does not have any impact?
Even on a 24 player server its 8% fewer people on the ground.
Being on a team that has even 1 person raging and f4'ing does impact the team.
Concede needs work, but its head and shoulders above f4 and the auto-balance (which relied on players on other team dieing.)
I always felt auto-balance was simply a place-holder for a concede option to try to get over the issues that f4'ing brought about (where you would have multiple people raging).
I think concede is only half and should trigger some sort of end mini game (even if that mission is to try to hold a location for 2 min with 0 respawning (to protect targeting device for a big nuke)).
Marines could view it as somewhat of an honourable loss (if they could not repel the aliens they nuked em) and for aliens it could be time to launch a some globs (that will terraform where they land into a new hive and the alien infestation is not totally wiped out).
Just to divert the train of thought in another direction for a moment.
The idea of a "concede" or the gg call works well in Starcraft 2. This is because, due to the emphasis on statistics, and how basically every game is logged in the ladder, winning is the important thing. I've seen people join a game, and have their opponent disconnect, and just be happy that they got the win, which is pretty weird.
So, when you put enough emphasis on winning, people will be only too happy when their opponent concedes, and someone who is inevitably going to lose will be only too happy to move onto the next game for a potential win.
Unfortunately NS2 doesn't have this dynamic (I'm glad it doesn't) so conceding will always be in a bit of a strange place.
In NS2, it's not about the loss, but how you lose.
No one likes to be facerolled, people rarely "seal the deal", they wait for higher tech and procced to one shot stuff until all there is left is the hive/cc.
That's really frustrating for the enemy team, how can you people not see it? That's why servers often die, the winning team keeps farming kills instead of going for the objective.
The real question is why are people still reluctant to concede when this is happening and its such a painfully dull experience?
Just to divert the train of thought in another direction for a moment.
The idea of a "concede" or the gg call works well in Starcraft 2. This is because, due to the emphasis on statistics, and how basically every game is logged in the ladder, winning is the important thing. I've seen people join a game, and have their opponent disconnect, and just be happy that they got the win, which is pretty weird.
So, when you put enough emphasis on winning, people will be only too happy when their opponent concedes, and someone who is inevitably going to lose will be only too happy to move onto the next game for a potential win.
Unfortunately NS2 doesn't have this dynamic (I'm glad it doesn't) so conceding will always be in a bit of a strange place.
In NS2, it's not about the loss, but how you lose.
No one likes to be facerolled, people rarely "seal the deal", they wait for higher tech and procced to one shot stuff until all there is left is the hive/cc.
That's really frustrating for the enemy team, how can you people not see it? That's why servers often die, the winning team keeps farming kills instead of going for the objective.
The real question is why are people still reluctant to concede when this is happening and its such a painfully dull experience?
Ignorance of such a mechanic being built into the game, domestic blindness every time they evolve...dont know but I found that telling people how to concede was required.
Not many games have a concede feature...dont know I have ever seen them built into another mp FPS game by default before.
Just to divert the train of thought in another direction for a moment.
The idea of a "concede" or the gg call works well in Starcraft 2. This is because, due to the emphasis on statistics, and how basically every game is logged in the ladder, winning is the important thing. I've seen people join a game, and have their opponent disconnect, and just be happy that they got the win, which is pretty weird.
So, when you put enough emphasis on winning, people will be only too happy when their opponent concedes, and someone who is inevitably going to lose will be only too happy to move onto the next game for a potential win.
Unfortunately NS2 doesn't have this dynamic (I'm glad it doesn't) so conceding will always be in a bit of a strange place.
In NS2, it's not about the loss, but how you lose.
No one likes to be facerolled, people rarely "seal the deal", they wait for higher tech and procced to one shot stuff until all there is left is the hive/cc.
That's really frustrating for the enemy team, how can you people not see it? That's why servers often die, the winning team keeps farming kills instead of going for the objective.
The real question is why are people still reluctant to concede when this is happening and its such a painfully dull experience?
Ignorance of such a mechanic being built into the game, domestic blindness every time they evolve...dont know but I found that telling people how to concede was required.
Not many games have a concede feature...dont know I have ever seen them built into another mp FPS game by default before.
Just to divert the train of thought in another direction for a moment.
The idea of a "concede" or the gg call works well in Starcraft 2. This is because, due to the emphasis on statistics, and how basically every game is logged in the ladder, winning is the important thing. I've seen people join a game, and have their opponent disconnect, and just be happy that they got the win, which is pretty weird.
So, when you put enough emphasis on winning, people will be only too happy when their opponent concedes, and someone who is inevitably going to lose will be only too happy to move onto the next game for a potential win.
Unfortunately NS2 doesn't have this dynamic (I'm glad it doesn't) so conceding will always be in a bit of a strange place.
In NS2, it's not about the loss, but how you lose.
No one likes to be facerolled, people rarely "seal the deal", they wait for higher tech and procced to one shot stuff until all there is left is the hive/cc.
That's really frustrating for the enemy team, how can you people not see it? That's why servers often die, the winning team keeps farming kills instead of going for the objective.
The real question is why are people still reluctant to concede when this is happening and its such a painfully dull experience?
Ignorance of such a mechanic being built into the game, domestic blindness every time they evolve...dont know but I found that telling people how to concede was required.
Not many games have a concede feature...dont know I have ever seen them built into another mp FPS game by default before.
Why complicate it....just show it as a tip when loading up the game...most people can work it out from there.
Then we need to make it not simply end the game but have something similar to what I and others have suggested;
A x minute countdown where the conceding team can not respawn (unless dead prior to concede starting..then only 1 time) but must hold their last tech point whilst either a nuke is dropped of the hive explodes sending parasitic terra-forming pods off into space.
So you dont lose totally but you do still lose...also allows the winning team a few minutes of upper hand (assuming all upgrades for both sides are "recycled" as part of the process).
You might want to educate yourself how auto-balance in this game works before you try to argue about it against others who do. The way auto-balance works in this game is when a threshold is reached, I believe default is when one team has 2 less players on it then the other, then the over-populated team will simply stop spawning players until both teams have the same number of players alive. As a player dies, then one of the guys waiting in queue will respawn, keeping the teams effectively balanced until more players join a team.
So no, auto-balance doesn't magically "re-balance it" it just makes it to where there's tons of players sitting there waiting to respawn and the game drags out just as it would, longer even, since there are less players active. So no, F4 does not work in ending games unless the ENTIRE team does it, this is an established, undebatable fact. That's one of the reasons they added concede into the game to achieve that purpose.
I am aware autobalance exists, and am not misinformed about the subject. I believe my point about a snowball effect on dwindling team numbers still is valid though. The team with less players don't have to deal with experiencing first-hand the effect of autobalance like the majority team does. They may be fighting less players, but they can still see the other team has significantly more players on their side if they press tab, which whilst you may believe this is redundant when there are an equal number of 'active' players on the field, I believe it still has a psychological effect - the 'why bother?' is still at play and snowballs until a majority has f4ed. So in effect, an initial minority participation in f4ing CAN cause the game to come to an early close. Sure, it requires the rest to follow suit, so in the end a majority has to f4, the initial minority f4 is still what starts it, and essentially decides the concede for everybody else. Vote concede doesn't have this problem.
"So no, F4 does not work in ending games unless the ENTIRE team does it, this is an established, undebatable fact."
I was under the impression that if the majority of the team f4ed it automatically ended the game. I.e. if the game goes to 3 v 7, the match will be over. Can somebody confirm this? I'm sure i've had games end because too many people f4ed, yet there were still people playing - i.e. where the entire team did not f4, but the majority did.
Also, I wasn't aware autobalance could be disabled server-side as you previously stated - this just strengthens my point.
Just to divert the train of thought in another direction for a moment.
The idea of a "concede" or the gg call works well in Starcraft 2. This is because, due to the emphasis on statistics, and how basically every game is logged in the ladder, winning is the important thing. I've seen people join a game, and have their opponent disconnect, and just be happy that they got the win, which is pretty weird.
So, when you put enough emphasis on winning, people will be only too happy when their opponent concedes, and someone who is inevitably going to lose will be only too happy to move onto the next game for a potential win.
Unfortunately NS2 doesn't have this dynamic (I'm glad it doesn't) so conceding will always be in a bit of a strange place.
In NS2, it's not about the loss, but how you lose.
No one likes to be facerolled, people rarely "seal the deal", they wait for higher tech and procced to one shot stuff until all there is left is the hive/cc.
That's really frustrating for the enemy team, how can you people not see it? That's why servers often die, the winning team keeps farming kills instead of going for the objective.
The real question is why are people still reluctant to concede when this is happening and its such a painfully dull experience?
Ignorance of such a mechanic being built into the game, domestic blindness every time they evolve...dont know but I found that telling people how to concede was required.
Not many games have a concede feature...dont know I have ever seen them built into another mp FPS game by default before.
Why complicate it....just show it as a tip when loading up the game...most people can work it out from there.
Then we need to make it not simply end the game but have something similar to what I and others have suggested;
A x minute countdown where the conceding team can not respawn (unless dead prior to concede starting..then only 1 time) but must hold their last tech point whilst either a nuke is dropped of the hive explodes sending parasitic terra-forming pods off into space.
So you dont lose totally but you do still lose...also allows the winning team a few minutes of upper hand (assuming all upgrades for both sides are "recycled" as part of the process).
Add in "in game" requirements to allow this to happen (minimal base tech/map control) and I think we have a winner.
Just to divert the train of thought in another direction for a moment.
The idea of a "concede" or the gg call works well in Starcraft 2. This is because, due to the emphasis on statistics, and how basically every game is logged in the ladder, winning is the important thing. I've seen people join a game, and have their opponent disconnect, and just be happy that they got the win, which is pretty weird.
So, when you put enough emphasis on winning, people will be only too happy when their opponent concedes, and someone who is inevitably going to lose will be only too happy to move onto the next game for a potential win.
Unfortunately NS2 doesn't have this dynamic (I'm glad it doesn't) so conceding will always be in a bit of a strange place.
In NS2, it's not about the loss, but how you lose.
No one likes to be facerolled, people rarely "seal the deal", they wait for higher tech and procced to one shot stuff until all there is left is the hive/cc.
That's really frustrating for the enemy team, how can you people not see it? That's why servers often die, the winning team keeps farming kills instead of going for the objective.
The real question is why are people still reluctant to concede when this is happening and its such a painfully dull experience?
Ignorance of such a mechanic being built into the game, domestic blindness every time they evolve...dont know but I found that telling people how to concede was required.
Not many games have a concede feature...dont know I have ever seen them built into another mp FPS game by default before.
Why complicate it....just show it as a tip when loading up the game...most people can work it out from there.
Then we need to make it not simply end the game but have something similar to what I and others have suggested;
A x minute countdown where the conceding team can not respawn (unless dead prior to concede starting..then only 1 time) but must hold their last tech point whilst either a nuke is dropped of the hive explodes sending parasitic terra-forming pods off into space.
So you dont lose totally but you do still lose...also allows the winning team a few minutes of upper hand (assuming all upgrades for both sides are "recycled" as part of the process).
Add in "in game" requirements to allow this to happen (minimal base tech/map control) and I think we have a winner.
I'm in it, too. That way using endgame features would be fun for the winning team
and a reasonable goal for the loosing team maintains the moral.
You might want to educate yourself how auto-balance in this game works before you try to argue about it against others who do. The way auto-balance works in this game is when a threshold is reached, I believe default is when one team has 2 less players on it then the other, then the over-populated team will simply stop spawning players until both teams have the same number of players alive. As a player dies, then one of the guys waiting in queue will respawn, keeping the teams effectively balanced until more players join a team.
So no, auto-balance doesn't magically "re-balance it" it just makes it to where there's tons of players sitting there waiting to respawn and the game drags out just as it would, longer even, since there are less players active. So no, F4 does not work in ending games unless the ENTIRE team does it, this is an established, undebatable fact. That's one of the reasons they added concede into the game to achieve that purpose.
I am aware autobalance exists, and am not misinformed about the subject. I believe my point about a snowball effect on dwindling team numbers still is valid though. The team with less players don't have to deal with experiencing first-hand the effect of autobalance like the majority team does. They may be fighting less players, but they can still see the other team has significantly more players on their side if they press tab, which whilst you may believe this is redundant when there are an equal number of 'active' players on the field, I believe it still has a psychological effect - the 'why bother?' is still at play and snowballs until a majority has f4ed. So in effect, an initial minority participation in f4ing CAN cause the game to come to an early close. Sure, it requires the rest to follow suit, so in the end a majority has to f4, the initial minority f4 is still what starts it, and essentially decides the concede for everybody else. Vote concede doesn't have this problem.
"So no, F4 does not work in ending games unless the ENTIRE team does it, this is an established, undebatable fact."
I was under the impression that if the majority of the team f4ed it automatically ended the game. I.e. if the game goes to 3 v 7, the match will be over. Can somebody confirm this? I'm sure i've had games end because too many people f4ed, yet there were still people playing - i.e. where the entire team did not f4, but the majority did.
Also, I wasn't aware autobalance could be disabled server-side as you previously stated - this just strengthens my point.
Not really, as I've not heard of any servers that have actually done it. And yes, actually, if most of the team did F4 it would end the game, but it never happened enough, obviously, as concede was still added to the game. I've played maybe 5 games where enough people actually F4'd to end a match prior to games. Most games went where you'd have 2-10 people eventually rage out and F4 or just leave the server a few at a time, to the point the game would still drag on to its natural conclusion.
Disadvantage of f4:
Can cause a game to end early due to increasingly imbalanced teams (in itself causes a snowball effect - 'why bother, it's 5 vs 8 now') - thus effectively a minority vote may only be required
Snowball effect due to number of votes being known
Uhhh, no? Unless the server has auto-balance disabled F4 doesn't do a damn thing to cause unbalanced teams, the overpopulated team will just spawn the same number of players as the team lacking players has.
So f4'ing does not contribute to an sides being uneven?
I want what you having!
F4 does unbalance teams...one has fewer players (which is normally how balanced teams are viewed).
Most servers have autobalance which draws a game out longer by trying to re-balance it (hint is in the name of "auto-balance").
You might want to educate yourself how auto-balance in this game works before you try to argue about it against others who do. The way auto-balance works in this game is when a threshold is reached, I believe default is when one team has 2 less players on it then the other, then the over-populated team will simply stop spawning players until both teams have the same number of players alive. As a player dies, then one of the guys waiting in queue will respawn, keeping the teams effectively balanced until more players join a team.
So no, auto-balance doesn't magically "re-balance it" it just makes it to where there's tons of players sitting there waiting to respawn and the game drags out just as it would, longer even, since there are less players active. So no, F4 does not work in ending games unless the ENTIRE team does it, this is an established, undebatable fact. That's one of the reasons they added concede into the game to achieve that purpose.
So in a 6 v 6 game (which everyone seems to love) if 1 person f4's your down 16% of the available numbers but this does not have any impact?
Even on a 24 player server its 8% fewer people on the ground.
Being on a team that has even 1 person raging and f4'ing does impact the team.
Concede needs work, but its head and shoulders above f4 and the auto-balance (which relied on players on other team dieing.)
I always felt auto-balance was simply a place-holder for a concede option to try to get over the issues that f4'ing brought about (where you would have multiple people raging).
I think concede is only half and should trigger some sort of end mini game (even if that mission is to try to hold a location for 2 min with 0 respawning (to protect targeting device for a big nuke)).
Marines could view it as somewhat of an honourable loss (if they could not repel the aliens they nuked em) and for aliens it could be time to launch a some globs (that will terraform where they land into a new hive and the alien infestation is not totally wiped out).
What? Most people enjoy 6 v 6!? At a quick glance on the server browser I saw 5 12 player servers, none populated (granted it's morning in the US). I still have no idea what point you're driving at, but I do love how you're trying to use percentages to avoid saying that with autobalance, at worse, you're down just 1 person in real terms, no matter how many people F4, lol.
Comments
If the other team has worked for it's victory then you should at least give them the joy of enjoying their upgrades. You'd want the same. Fighting the "impossible" just makes you better at entry level (i.e. a better skulk/vanilla marine).
I have seen great come backs and turn arounds on my server on many occasions.
This is the one of the bad aspects of no RFK: once you are winning, screwing up is hard. The winning team can throw trains of oni/exos away without any consequences. -> No room for comebacks.
No. This is what used to (and still can) kill servers completely. One team with full upgrades slowly expanding their forward bases etc rather than swiftly taking the enemies final tech point.
Who likes playing vanilla skulk vs W3A3 SG Jet packers?
Who likes playing vanilla marine against fully upgraded fades and onos?
Also I'm not really sure what's so great about stomping vanilla opponents with full tech? I find it pretty boring.
Is it something that pleases those who normally struggle to get a K:D of over 1 in a balanced game? They finally get their moment of power?
For me I like the game when it's unclear who is going to win. The best games are those which neither team can quite get a territory advantage over the other. Decided games = boring.
Once the game has been decided and nothing is left but turtle mode, concede is valid. Before we had concede everyone would just F4 which was far worse. Games would be prolonged with people on the winning team unable to spawn, people in the ready room raging for those who are left to F4 etc. Concede solved a lot of that.
TL:DR If the community did not want concede, it wouldn't be used, but it is used, and therefore wanted, so keep it!
You could string it out, and hope some of their good players get frustrated and leave thus giving you a chance, but that seems a lot more cheap than simply conceding that you're beaten.
Fortunately, lots of servers already have a plugin that lets you concede. The fact that it came out as a plugin this fast should indicate that it's a good contender for being in the actual game instead of a server option but at the end of the day it doesn't make much difference. If you like concede functions, play on servers that have it. If you think it's cheap, don't.
I prefer concede to people f4'ing though.
I think a counter or a warning for both sides that a concede vote has been initiated would be good.
The evac option I think sounds good, could apply to both sides though you might need to make free lifeform upgrades to avoid any low res issues (more likely to hinder aliens as marines can pick up dead mens guns).
Whether its just sitting in your last tech point with a homing beacon for a nuke or biological bomb or escape craft, this would make those early pub concedes less abrupt.
Perhaps have this option being server side toggle so it can be switrched off for comp games.
Advantages of concede:
Requires a maximum vote
No snowball effect due to number of votes not being known
Disadvantages:
"If you build it they will come" - the introduction of the feature has possibly promoted it's use to the point it's overused.
Doesn't take you out of the game like f4 does (f4 in this sense, requires more of a commitment)
Advantages of f4:
Takes you out of the game until the game is over (discourages overuse due to possibly having to screw around in the readyroom for a while)
Disadvantage of f4:
Can cause a game to end early due to increasingly imbalanced teams (in itself causes a snowball effect - 'why bother, it's 5 vs 8 now') - thus effectively a minority vote may only be required
Snowball effect due to number of votes being known
The idea of a "concede" or the gg call works well in Starcraft 2. This is because, due to the emphasis on statistics, and how basically every game is logged in the ladder, winning is the important thing. I've seen people join a game, and have their opponent disconnect, and just be happy that they got the win, which is pretty weird.
So, when you put enough emphasis on winning, people will be only too happy when their opponent concedes, and someone who is inevitably going to lose will be only too happy to move onto the next game for a potential win.
Unfortunately NS2 doesn't have this dynamic (I'm glad it doesn't) so conceding will always be in a bit of a strange place.
Concede is a built in option now lol. My server is modless and it has it.
Uhhh, no? Unless the server has auto-balance disabled F4 doesn't do a damn thing to cause unbalanced teams, the overpopulated team will just spawn the same number of players as the team lacking players has.
So f4'ing does not contribute to an sides being uneven?
I want what you having!
F4 does unbalance teams...one has fewer players (which is normally how balanced teams are viewed).
Most servers have autobalance which draws a game out longer by trying to re-balance it (hint is in the name of "auto-balance").
I'm not entiiiirely sure what that would accomplish, but it sounds like a good start for spitballing.
In NS2, it's not about the loss, but how you lose.
No one likes to be facerolled, people rarely "seal the deal", they wait for higher tech and procced to one shot stuff until all there is left is the hive/cc.
That's really frustrating for the enemy team, how can you people not see it? That's why servers often die, the winning team keeps farming kills instead of going for the objective.
You might want to educate yourself how auto-balance in this game works before you try to argue about it against others who do. The way auto-balance works in this game is when a threshold is reached, I believe default is when one team has 2 less players on it then the other, then the over-populated team will simply stop spawning players until both teams have the same number of players alive. As a player dies, then one of the guys waiting in queue will respawn, keeping the teams effectively balanced until more players join a team.
So no, auto-balance doesn't magically "re-balance it" it just makes it to where there's tons of players sitting there waiting to respawn and the game drags out just as it would, longer even, since there are less players active. So no, F4 does not work in ending games unless the ENTIRE team does it, this is an established, undebatable fact. That's one of the reasons they added concede into the game to achieve that purpose.
So in a 6 v 6 game (which everyone seems to love) if 1 person f4's your down 16% of the available numbers but this does not have any impact?
Even on a 24 player server its 8% fewer people on the ground.
Being on a team that has even 1 person raging and f4'ing does impact the team.
Concede needs work, but its head and shoulders above f4 and the auto-balance (which relied on players on other team dieing.)
I always felt auto-balance was simply a place-holder for a concede option to try to get over the issues that f4'ing brought about (where you would have multiple people raging).
I think concede is only half and should trigger some sort of end mini game (even if that mission is to try to hold a location for 2 min with 0 respawning (to protect targeting device for a big nuke)).
Marines could view it as somewhat of an honourable loss (if they could not repel the aliens they nuked em) and for aliens it could be time to launch a some globs (that will terraform where they land into a new hive and the alien infestation is not totally wiped out).
The real question is why are people still reluctant to concede when this is happening and its such a painfully dull experience?
Not many games have a concede feature...dont know I have ever seen them built into another mp FPS game by default before.
Not knowing the feature exists is the primary reason I suggested explicitly assigning each team a score based on all the tech they possessed. If players were explicitly asked, during times at which they are probably losing quite badly, whether or not they wanted to continue, chances are they would vote to concede.
In theory anyway.
Why complicate it....just show it as a tip when loading up the game...most people can work it out from there.
Then we need to make it not simply end the game but have something similar to what I and others have suggested;
A x minute countdown where the conceding team can not respawn (unless dead prior to concede starting..then only 1 time) but must hold their last tech point whilst either a nuke is dropped of the hive explodes sending parasitic terra-forming pods off into space.
So you dont lose totally but you do still lose...also allows the winning team a few minutes of upper hand (assuming all upgrades for both sides are "recycled" as part of the process).
Some people are either ignorant to the fact that they have lost or straight up want to play NS2: Horde Mode.
I am aware autobalance exists, and am not misinformed about the subject. I believe my point about a snowball effect on dwindling team numbers still is valid though. The team with less players don't have to deal with experiencing first-hand the effect of autobalance like the majority team does. They may be fighting less players, but they can still see the other team has significantly more players on their side if they press tab, which whilst you may believe this is redundant when there are an equal number of 'active' players on the field, I believe it still has a psychological effect - the 'why bother?' is still at play and snowballs until a majority has f4ed. So in effect, an initial minority participation in f4ing CAN cause the game to come to an early close. Sure, it requires the rest to follow suit, so in the end a majority has to f4, the initial minority f4 is still what starts it, and essentially decides the concede for everybody else. Vote concede doesn't have this problem.
"So no, F4 does not work in ending games unless the ENTIRE team does it, this is an established, undebatable fact."
I was under the impression that if the majority of the team f4ed it automatically ended the game. I.e. if the game goes to 3 v 7, the match will be over. Can somebody confirm this? I'm sure i've had games end because too many people f4ed, yet there were still people playing - i.e. where the entire team did not f4, but the majority did.
Also, I wasn't aware autobalance could be disabled server-side as you previously stated - this just strengthens my point.
Add in "in game" requirements to allow this to happen (minimal base tech/map control) and I think we have a winner.
I'm in it, too. That way using endgame features would be fun for the winning team
and a reasonable goal for the loosing team maintains the moral.
Not really, as I've not heard of any servers that have actually done it. And yes, actually, if most of the team did F4 it would end the game, but it never happened enough, obviously, as concede was still added to the game. I've played maybe 5 games where enough people actually F4'd to end a match prior to games. Most games went where you'd have 2-10 people eventually rage out and F4 or just leave the server a few at a time, to the point the game would still drag on to its natural conclusion.
Either way, no, you don't still have a point.
What? Most people enjoy 6 v 6!? At a quick glance on the server browser I saw 5 12 player servers, none populated (granted it's morning in the US). I still have no idea what point you're driving at, but I do love how you're trying to use percentages to avoid saying that with autobalance, at worse, you're down just 1 person in real terms, no matter how many people F4, lol.