I'm not exactly sure where you're going with this post, even when you've made your point rather clear. What I mean is that the thread is about forgiveness or the lack thereof in NS2, but I'm not sure whether you advocate for making the game more forgiving or having the game end due to met conditions in a case when, as of now, the game would only become 'impossible' for the other team to win. You seem to be going for the latter one, but I fail to see how this is any different from a discussion about what to do with the concession feature.
I would understand if you were advocating for making the game more forgiving, which I would disagree on, but that would be a matter of taste and preference. However, I cannot agree with you on the idea of making more artificial ending conditions to prevent the game dragging on when the other side has clearly lost, since this would only accomplish loss of strategic depth: it would make comebacks from said situations impossible instead of unlikely. Especially on public servers, comebacks have happened even from the most ridiculous position because of an opposing team not knowing how to utilise an advantage. That's why it's the players' (notice the plural) decision to make whether to try to overcome the odds or not, not the game's. In competitive games these comebacks rarely if ever happen, but conceding isn't a problem there, since in competitive games people play to win, not to indulge themselves in hopeless/fool-proof end-game combat.
In my honest opinion, in any game, on any platform, with any player base, the less winning conditions (and to some extent the fewer rules) the game has, the better. Strategies are best when they are emergent and not dictated by the game itself. By creating more victory conditions you're effectively giving the game the power to say "you shouldn't to that even though it would give you an advantage, since you could lose even while having that advantage because of condition x". In my extreme opinion, even the victory condition of killing the last hive or the last CC is detrimental to the game, even though it's a victory condition of such a fundamental level that I can easily live with it.
However, these are all points already made in other threads about vote concede, but even though your topic is about 'forgiveness', you yourself as well as others have (either consciously or unconsciously) taken the discussion towards ending conditions and the satisfaction of winning a game. I would like to see this thread gain a consensus on what we're actually talking about.
I have to take exception to these potential fixes. When I read these, I get the feeling that these ideas would lead to increasing the power in the end game tech. I think that the end game tech is the worst part about NS2. It's a time when structures, arcs, and abilities (bonewall, nanoshield, meds, etc) are spammed to no end.
That's why they call it the end-game, since these units are meant to bring the game to an end.
It doesn't have to be something like losing the game after losing a single tech point - the example I used above. Here's another example.
Loss of a tech point does NOT lose you your tech researched via that tech point. If aliens have 3 hives, then they keep their upgrades. Same for marines. This means losing a tech point doesn't necessarily weaken a team - but it does put them closer to a loss. (since losing all your tech points means you lose the game whether you have full tech or not) An option like this would end the 'gg syndrome' where people start to give up over losing a tech point. They may be much closer to losing the game - but they are still COMPETITIVE. That's what is lacking right now.
I'd even be game to test having marines need a third comm chair to research dual-miniguns - to encourage marines to push out more.
While this will make it harder to win - to a limited extent - it will also mean greater chance of comebacks. The game will become far more focused on map control, since map control will win the game. (Or more aptly, tech point control will win the game) Again, this is just yet another simple off-the-top-of-my-head example, but do you see the point I'm making? While my earlier example was less forgiveness, this is more forgiveness.
In a game like this it will become more important to assault tech points earlier and more often since taking those tech points will prevent the opposition from teching up - which can't be reversed. So unlike where it is now - that teams often don't care about the other tech points the other team has - now this will matter.
So you want the game to babysit teams that cant muster enough teamwork to end a game? With exception of marine turtle on certian maps and techpoints.
A single mistake wont loose you the game, not even failure to beacon on power node rush. That's 3 or more mistakes. Failure to awareness both on alien movement and base, as well as not having backup spawns or the like.
If you want the power node gone, thats just gonna enhance the marines resistance to aliens try to end the game.
@ SAVANT: until you lose your last chair, you should be able to recover. It will take team coordination and it also comes down to choice... do you take back the room you just lost or do you go and take one of their other locations?
I played a game yesterday where Aliens looked pathetic. Marines had 90% of the level. We were so excited we had this one and all the tech we got out that we failed to realize we didn't putout out any infantry portals. Aliens realized this before we did and totally wiped us out in a minute or two. Had they not been so vigilant we totally had that game.
I'm not saying your idea is bad, I just don't see how it would be incorporated. Right now I think it is good that some teams know when they are beat and concede... start a new game, try again. It's like chess
I highly enjoy the early game aspect of NS2 (or how it could be, with equivalent tier 1 marines vs. aliens) and how advantages can be gained through skill. in the mid to late game it feels like a mathematical busywork execution of the rest of the game, unless there is a large skill discrepancy between the tier 2 matchups (shotgun marine vs. fades).
Do you mean that, based on the skill in the 1st few minutes of the round, the game is basically over unless the other team has a huge advantage in the tier 2 matchups? Because that's how it seems to play out for most comp matches I've watched. The only comeback potential that doesn't rely on the winning team stuffing up is the Alien lifeform explosion.
Individual skill does need to play a part in the outcome of a game, I don't think anyone here would argue that with you, but at the moment there is no depth to how the game plays out. There are very rare comeback scenarios, there are very limited strategic ways to play the game out and without a range of options you basically have teams all playing the same general style as eachother?
@Savant
I'm sorry if you feel i unfairly dismissed your discussion as pointless, but you forget that there are always two sides to the same coin. You forget that adding more RTS 'forgiveness' muddies gameplay definition and creates a viscous cycle of increasingly overpowered/volatile gameplay. If the ability to come back, up untill the end state (last CC/hive death) is all that matters, how do you come back from the come back? How do you come back from the come back of the come back? Where there is a winner there must be a loser, and you should remember this when you start talking about forgiveness and fun in the same sentence. Is it fun to play as the better team, but lose to a 'forgiving' powernode snipe?
This isn't to say you are completely off the mark though - atleast you managed to recognize the right symptoms that plague live ns2, so bonus points for effort. Think about how ns2 plays and realise that a large part of ns2's dynamic power deciding mechanism (FPS, not RTS) is currently being diluted by things like fast spawn times. The problem is not that the losing team has an unhealthy lack of I forgive you options, but rather that things tend to infact be too forgiving. Some of this stuff already addressed in balance mod.
Honestly though, i find most of this to be a problem with your mental outlook. There are only very few true setback pitfalls in ns2, e.g. early egglock, base rush, powernode snipe. If you want to come back, get a fade/lerk and play well. Get a shotgun and play well. There is always a chance (no matter how small) the commander might jump out, kill all 5 skulks, build an IP, and have the team be good enough to end up winning.
@Chris
I think it's more helpful to think about it like this. Games with winner/loser end states require mechanisms that push the game state towards such outcomes. In ns2 these are divided into either FPS, or RTS power. FPS play (dynamic progression) allows RTS play to lock in power (static progression) and give it back to FPS play. FPS play also defends the power locked in by RTS play.
For simplicity, power progression is passed along something like this,
FPS(1) -> RTS -> FPS(2).
(I would also talk more about unhealthy RTS power feedback looping in ns2, but that would be tldr).
What gliss and many others are correctly getting at is that the only real solution to a lack of 'forgiveness' is in fact to empower and reward FPS effort (most tangibly represented as ground player 'skill' among other things) relative to RTS. Buffing or adding things on the RTS side in order to achieve the same goal tends to lead only to artificial and predictable gimmicks, longer ping pong stalemates, and less long term fun due to player disempowerment. Simply adding or buffing RTS power is the hallmark suggestion of people who don't truly understand ns2 gameplay.
e.g. Fast spawns empower RTS and disempower FPS by causing FPS power to artificially approach the respective RTS power. (Imagine what happens if we slowly keep increasing spawn rates to infinity). The end result being the team with more RTS power tending to more likely eventually brickwall the other team into a win with less risk.
What you are seeing in current competitive match ups is infact this RTS power-transfer multiplier in the middle being both too immediate and too powerful, hence the cost increases in the balance mod. So while it may seem on the surface like FPS power is too determining and unforgiving, its only so because of the RTS side. The less relevant you make static power progression (RTS) relative to dynamic power progression (FPS), the more sensible comeback opportunity you get, and with less unforgiving brickwalling.
Yes there needs to be a healthy level of RTS power, but right now we have relatively too much of it.
@ SAVANT: until you lose your last chair, you should be able to recover. It will take team coordination and it also comes down to choice... do you take back the room you just lost or do you go and take one of their other locations?
I don't disagree with you here. The issue is that if you lose that tech point you become weaker - so recovering from that lost tech point just became a lot harder.
@SavantYou forget that adding more RTS 'forgiveness' muddies gameplay definition and creates a viscous cycle of increasingly overpowered/volatile gameplay. If the ability to come back, up untill the end state (last CC/hive death) is all that matters, how do you come back from the come back? How do you come back from the come back of the come back?
Perhaps I can use another example to show you what I mean.
Let's consider control point style maps where you have 5 control points, and the goal of your team was to capture all 5 to win the game. (Like in the TFC games of old) In those cases, not only did you have to keep an offensive push on, you also had to keep a defensive presence the points you captured to prevent recaptures. However, *regardless* of whether you controlled 1 point or 4 points, the strength of your team vis-à-vis the opposing team wasn't lessened by having fewer control points. Those points become a means to an end. You need them to win, but losing one doesn't sink your team.
That's the kind of thing I look at. Instead of a lost tech point causing the team to lose that tech, could the tech point instead be a game objective, instead of a team objective? To win the game a team needs to either control all tech points *OR* destroy all opposing hives/CCs on those tech points. You still have expansion and tech progression, but loss of a tech point doesn't weaken a team like it does now where people say "gg" once it happens. The team may be losing, but they are still competitive. While they can't *increase* their tech level (after losing a hive/CC) they don't lose what they have attained.
This means the game becomes one where time is of the essence to prevent expansion of the opposing team, since once they expand there is no going back. Teams will need to be more aggressive instead of sitting back and then independently teching up. Right now there is no detriment to allowing the opposing team to get their second Hive/CC. Since you are able to secure your own hive/cc it doesn't impact your strength, and your assumption is that if you can sneak in an attack you can take out that hive/cc and weaken them before they can respond. What if that didn't weaken them though?
This is forgiveness. Despite the loss of a tech point the team doesn't lose their tech. The loss of the tech point does put them one step closer to losing the game, but it doesn't make them feel like they have no hope of recovery at the same time.
Can you see where I'm going here? There are many ways you can take this, my example above is just another example of how we could reduce the number of conceded games, without making it too easy to comeback. (and thus have a game that never ends)
(I am not trying to be one of the "Hold x > concede" people)
But what is wrong with a concede happening at any point the team feels they have lost. I enjoy a good solid victory. But when you have proven your teams' skill and ability to the point that 8-12 human beings unanimously agree that you are far superior and that they can not defeat you, why wouldn't you feel victorious? You have changed their state of mind. You have taken away their ability to fight. That is a part of actual battle. Conceding is how the Civil War ended. I smile when I see the other team concede. Assuming that every battle must end in military defeat isn't even realistic in the real world. And that is why unforgiving moments can happen at any point in the game. Game started, comm got out of chair, nothing was built for 3min, why would you want to try and come back?
edit: I think you are making the definition of forgiveness only apply to a possible chance of victory, which I think you can't assume. Forgiveness keeps you from loosing in the standard way (Everyone dies and your base explodes in darkness).
Problem is there's 0 chance for come backs in NS2, that's the problem with conceding in NS2 and how NS2 plays out in general. It's like some horrible co_ and ns_ combination, NS 1 co_ suffered the same problem NS2 does, the team that won the first 3-4 engages generally edged ahead of the other team forever more.
I don't agree with much of anything the balance mod is doing, lest of all dragging the fucking game out even longer with longer respawn, more expensive upgrades, etc. Honestly the only thing I think needs changing is upgrade time for almost everything, could be doubled or 1.5x but that's about it, everything comes off more snowball-y than what we have. Increasing upgrade times means tres will inevitably pool, allows comms to spend more tres on players like welders, mines, sg or 2 or lerks/fades. When each upgrade implies a waiting period it at least puts a little more emphasis on 'tactical decision making', right now people don't get welders unless something is fucked, "comm need welder" click armoury press s, 20 seconds later welders are up, brainless on both accounts. Pub games still don't get mines until well after lerks are out, almost renders them pointless, shotguns are nearly always reactionary to higher alien life forms or rushed way too early.
Make shit more expensive punishes the losing team even more, suddenly 2 RTs is not enough for aliens, 3 is barely getting by. Making things more expensive also implies you're doing something drastic to change the current combat, if aliens suddenly had to sit on a minimum of 3 RTs and needed 4 to be comfortable I have no idea what you could do to accommodate that.
Of course NS1 never had this exact problem thanks to RFK, savant/PTs would probably know more than anybody else about why that was removed, I can't think of a single good reason myself tho.
Just to reiterate what I said before which seems to have gone mostly unnoticed:
To my mind, the key issue under discussion here is NOT concede, it's NOT games where one team is steamrolled by a clearly better team.
Instead, can anything be done to allow early games to be better contested between two not-too-dissimilarly-skilled teams? The problem is that of the slippery slope. One way to minimise this problem is to make the slope slightly shallower, so the team that gets behind at minute 1 doesn't lose say 90% of the games that they do currently.
My suggestion (based off the slippery slope document linked to by ScardyBob):
Slow down the early game a touch by recovering a portion of the res from destroyed buildings. This res is then pumped back into the economy over eg 20s.
This should slightly slow down the slippery slope (numbers could be tweaked to change the slope quite easily), but not eliminate it. The better team can still get ahead, but, depending on the numbers, it could make the very early game more forgiving without too much of an impact on the late game.
I think Savant has garnered too many anti-fanboys.
I agree, conceding games early in NS2 sucks compared to a nail biting game that comes down to the wire at the final base.
Come on, how can anyone argue against that? So why not try to implement features that will lessen early concedes and allow for more gripping games?
Call it forgiveness, comebacks, snowballing, slippery slope, whatever....I agree that the game currently prompts players to concede too often and too early.
But what is wrong with a concede happening at any point the team feels they have lost. I enjoy a good solid victory. But when you have proven your teams' skill and ability to the point that 8-12 human beings unanimously agree that you are far superior and that they can not defeat you, why wouldn't you feel victorious? You have changed their state of mind. You have taken away their ability to fight. That is a part of actual battle.
First off, no one is advocating for the removal of concede, it's just that it happens all the time now. Games rarely actually play themselves out.
As for people agreeing that they have been beaten, I have two points on that.
First we could take this to the next logical level and say that just by looking at the players on each team that X team has better than Y team, so let's concede before we start since they are the better team. Doesn't this defeat the entire purpose...?
Which brings me to point two, this is a GAME. It's not a real live war where lives are at stake. People play to have FUN, and there is a lot of FUN to be had in the end-game. The problem is that we hardly see the end-game anymore since people concede before it gets there. There is no fun in that.
Concede has a purpose in the game, but it is fact replacing the actual endgame. People should be playing to WIN, not playing to have the other team concede.
I'm worried that simply one factor of any RTS is that every second counts. This is true even when other players are thrown into the mix.
One idea I just had out of nowhere, that may basically indicate that once a team has fallen behind, they lose much more quickly, would be a secondary goal outside of conquest.
Idea 1: In a normal game, add an alternative way of winning that's only achievable by a team that is relatively ahead in resources and technology, not actually requiring them to push into the enemy base. An example might be capturing and holding a "power core" somewhere on the map for a certain amount of time. This area would not allow buildings to be made, and would have a number of entry points to make it difficult to defend, so a team would need good players and powerful weapons to hold onto it long enough (and, you may be required to have two tech points)
Idea 2: An alternate game mode in which one team is attacking the other; the attacking team given certain advantages starting out. However, the defending team has no need of taking over the whole map - they only need to survive a certain number of minutes.
But what is wrong with a concede happening at any point the team feels they have lost. I enjoy a good solid victory. But when you have proven your teams' skill and ability to the point that 8-12 human beings unanimously agree that you are far superior and that they can not defeat you, why wouldn't you feel victorious? You have changed their state of mind. You have taken away their ability to fight. That is a part of actual battle.
First off, no one is advocating for the removal of concede, it's just that it happens all the time now. Games rarely actually play themselves out.
As for people agreeing that they have been beaten, I have two points on that.
1.) First we could take this to the next logical level and say that just by looking at the players on each team that X team has better than Y team, so let's concede before we start since they are the better team. Doesn't this defeat the entire purpose...?
2.) Which brings me to point two, this is a GAME. It's not a real live war where lives are at stake. People play to have FUN, and there is a lot of FUN to be had in the end-game. The problem is that we hardly see the end-game anymore since people concede before it gets there. There is no fun in that.
3.) Concede has a purpose in the game, but it is fact replacing the actual endgame. People should be playing to WIN, not playing to have the other team concede.
There's a difference.
1.) I completely agree, it would defeat the purpose. I was just trying to say that its a natural process and that I don't think there will ever really be a way to get around it whether its concede, f4, or drawing out a slow death. Ideally a match is played from start to determined end. The only thing I can think that is implemented in other games is a abandonment penalty. But I don't think that should ever be done in NS2.
2.) I totally agree again. But it is a game that mimics real life so you are going to have similar behavior patterns. Weaker forces being snowballed to death, strong forces loosing map control and entrenching (marine turtling).
3.) I agree again. And honestly I see no place for concede. The only reason concede is even in this game is because nobody wants to be the first one back to the ready room and have to twiddle their thumbs for 15 more minutes. Their social tendencies want everyone to agree with them and receive the consequence equally at the same time. I think concede enables helplessness.
It feels to me you are arguing against the RTS element of NS2, this is how any form of RTS game works. You deal or gets dealt with often minor setbacks witch ultimately leads to a loss. Often you can deal with it and come back from it and if you can't that's not the games fault and the game shouldn't compensate for players making mistakes (excluding imbalance ofc).
"One of the most basic elements of any game - no matter what type - is that a player must have a chance to win the game."
Everyone has a chance to win the game, unless you make to many mistakes which should lead to a loss even if it's via concede. You wouldn't want to take the opportunity of eventually making a unlikely come-back away from a team. Lets take CS (I'm assuming you guys know how Counter-Striek works) for example, 4 CTs dies, the bomb gets planted and all 5 Ts are alive, it's highly unlikely that the CT should manage to recover from that dreaded loss of 4 team mates, but it's plausible. It's a sure GG in Ts favor but that doesn't mean you have to add a in-game mechanic to pre GG that round right?
"in cases where they are not in a position to recover, the players become defeatist and look to concede the game."
To get to such a situation a team would have to make many mistakes to begin with, and too many mistakes should equal a loss. And as I just said, if you're in such a situation it's not the game that put you in it.
GG'ing out of a game isn't anti-climactic to me at all. If you get out played and you loose your moral, that's part of the game. Getting demoralized means the other side probably is much better then you, that doesn't mean you didn't enjoy the round just that you realized there's no point in trying more since they've capitalized on all the advantages they've gotten and ensured a win.
It feels to me you are arguing against the RTS element of NS2, this is how any form of RTS game works.
That's all well and good, but NS2 is not an RTS game, it's an FPS game with secondary RTS elements. That comes straight from the *creator* of this game, and the quote is further upthread. It feels to me that some people seem to want to put their ideals on the game based on flawed perceptions of what NS2 actually is. Yes NS2 has RTS elements, but it is not a RTS game. It was not designed as an RTS game. It's a FPS game first and foremost, and frankly a great majority of players will NEVER set foot in the command chair. I met people in NS1 who had played since beta and never commanded. They played NS1 as an FPS and so did most everyone else.
I'm not arguing against the RTS elements of NS2, nor do I dismiss the role RTS has in NS2. The bottom line is that this is a FPS first, and it must be treated as such. Concede is foreign to FPS games, and we've had plenty of threads where people just plain object to how this is working out. How many... I'm glad you asked. Here's just a small selection of what I could dig up: (in no particular order)
I can get more, but I think I have made my point. While a small minority of people may like giving up mid-game, a good number of people like to play games out. While no one likes a turtle, we don't even get close to that anymore.
Again I will say I am not advocating for the removal of concede. It has a use in the game. The problem is that instead of an end-game, people are just conceding games. That may be fine in an RTS, but this is not an RTS.
it doesn't matter whether you think it's a FPS or a RTS
the game has resources/upgrades/technologies which make the game one-sided once one of the teams gets an advantage
the reason concede isn't as common in FPS games is because you at least have a chance to play a bit better and turn things around. you can't do that in NS2.
but even in FPS games, when the teams suck people will just quit.
stop thinking of conceding as some special action. it's just a UI for people to restart the game with the hopes of getting better teams the next time around.
I'm not arguing against the RTS elements of NS2, nor do I dismiss the role RTS has in NS2. The bottom line is that this is a FPS first, and it must be treated as such. Concede is foreign to FPS games, and we've had plenty of threads where people just plain object to how this is working out
While true, I think NS2 adds in enough RTS elements to make conceding a necessary component, even as it impacts the FPS portion. Many FPS games get around this issue by just having a time limit to achieve the objective. Without that, I could easily see CS1.6 or TF2 matches turning into slogs just as long as we see in NS2 with the losing team never really having a chance for a comeback.
The only other successful alternative I've seen is a 'ticket' system like what Empiresmod or Battlefield does. It effectively puts a limit on how long a match can be drawn out, but it relates to the relative deathrates of each team. I'm quite fond of this system and would love to see it in NS2 as an alternative to concede.
There's a surprising lack of creativity in here from those sticking with the "concede" mentality...
Had to quote this for emphasis.
Yes NS2 has RTS elements, but so what?
Its not some unbreakable law of nature. We can always change things so conceding happens less often. Change things so that 'slippery slope' is level enough throughout most of the game, and teams feel like they can comeback. Once the game has been essentially decided the slop jacks up to promptly end the game...quicker than it takes to vote a concede.
For example (just an example to stimulate this idea)..A team's first res tower extracts more res than other res towers. Adjacent res towers to main base extract less, and all other res towers even less. If a team is beaten back to one base and a few adjacent res nodes, its bad, but not as bad as it is currently..and hopefully its not so bad that a concede is necessary. The team still has a good amount of res flow, and the enemy team has denied and acquired a smaller portion of their res than usual (but still an advantage nonetheless).
Next tie certain tech to requiring 2 res towers. For marines, this could mean shotguns, obs, welder and turrets. If marines have nothing but their last base and 1 res tower, they either quickly get a second res tower, or its soon going to be game over for marines with no shotguns, obs or welders (and no turret nests to extend it even more). This jacks up the slope and quickly snowballs to end a game that by all accounts is over. I'm positive much better ideas on how to do this are out there.
The first 3 mins have too much importance imo. Lots of games become very uneven or completely unwinnable within that time which is probably just 1 or 2 engagements for most players in the game
In pubs I think concede ends up being a vote of confidence in the current teams. This team sucks, we're losing, let's restart with better teams.
No amount of forgiveness in the game can really offset this mentality.
There are opportunities for risky comebacks if you can get players to fall in line. I typically advocate ninja PG or all out base rush. It either works and we're back in the game or the game ends rather quickly.
It's a FPS game first and foremost, and frankly a great majority of players will NEVER set foot in the command chair. I met people in NS1 who had played since beta and never commanded. They played NS1 as an FPS and so did most everyone else.
You are completely misunderstanding what the RTS component of NS2 is. It's not the commander's UI.
What puts the "RTS" in "NS2 is an FPS-RTS hybrid" is resource management. You cannot achieve the victory condition through superior FPS skill alone. The team that's better at killing other players will probably win the game, but it's not the killing of the other players that wins it for them. Instead, FPS skill is used to acquire resources. Victory goes to the team that does the best job of acquiring and spending resources.
So, in fact, every player is participating in the RTS component of NS2, not just the commander. They may not all realize it, and if the commander is doing a good job staying on top of the strategic big picture then they may not have to realize it. But they're playing an RTS just the same (more precisely and pedantically the RTS component of an FPS-RTS hybrid in which the FPS component is "first" as you feel compelled to keep pointing out that the developers have said).
The TEAM is playing an RTS. (MpaptRTScoaFPS-RTShiwtFPSci"f"ayfctkpottdhs.)
Which is why it's perfectly appropriate for the team to want to stop playing when it becomes clear that they no longer have any chance of winning the game. They're not just giving up, they're acknowledging that they've lost. In a strategy game, when you no longer have any chance of winning, you have lost, even if the victory conditions have not yet been fulfilled. It's true in chess, go, StarCraft, and Natural Selection.
For example (just an example to stimulate this idea)..A team's first res tower extracts more res than other res towers. Adjacent res towers to main base extract less, and all other res towers even less. If a team is beaten back to one base and a few adjacent res nodes, its bad, but not as bad as it is currently..and hopefully its not so bad that a concede is necessary. The team still has a good amount of res flow, and the enemy team has denied and acquired a smaller portion of their res than usual (but still an advantage nonetheless).
Next tie certain tech to requiring 2 res towers. For marines, this could mean shotguns, obs, welder and turrets. If marines have nothing but their last base and 1 res tower, they either quickly get a second res tower, or its soon going to be game over for marines with no shotguns, obs or welders (and no turret nests to extend it even more). This jacks up the slope and quickly snowballs to end a game that by all accounts is over. I'm positive much better ideas on how to do this are out there.
That would basically be easy mode to guarantee that both teams reach the more boring phase of the game where they get Onos and Exos and don't require more skill. It would also discourage them from building far away RTs since they are not worth the cost and risk compared to just defending your base RTs and it wouldn't open the opportunity to turn the fight over by outpacing the enemy team with a tech advantage early on that snowballs and eventually wins the game (or still gets turned around). This suggestion basically boils down to expecting a C&C match to drag on until both teams have their superweapons built and just go firing them at each other without ever having started res denial and pressure attacks before.
If you can't hurt the enemy economy enough to finish them off at some point and end the game and just want people to have a chance to tech up without much repercussions to losing stuff, Combat mode might be better suited for you.
Idea 1: In a normal game, add an alternative way of winning that's only achievable by a team that is relatively ahead in resources and technology, not actually requiring them to push into the enemy base. An example might be capturing and holding a "power core" somewhere on the map for a certain amount of time. This area would not allow buildings to be made, and would have a number of entry points to make it difficult to defend, so a team would need good players and powerful weapons to hold onto it long enough (and, you may be required to have two tech points)
Please don't try to mess with the essence of the RTS/FPS hybrid by adding some arbitrary objective that teams are forced to focus on and at least deny the enemy to use it. This would destroy variety of tactics and replayability more than anything else. In a normal match, the entire map is open for your strategic decisions, you claim territory and advantages where you feel you need them to win the game. Not where the game itself dictates you to secure a location to instantly turn the game around without actually ever engaging the enemy base.
What puts the "RTS" in "NS2 is an FPS-RTS hybrid" is resource management. You cannot achieve the victory condition through superior FPS skill alone.
Alone? No, But FPS skill is by far the overwhelming majority of skill needed in this game. I honestly don't understand what you are trying to accomplish here. There is your vision of what the game is, and there is Charlie's vision of what the game is. You and he seem to disagree. He created and developed the game. So I'm going to stick with his vision that this is "FIRST AND FOREMOST" an FPS game. The RTS elements are secondary. If you disagree you are not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with Charlie.
You're taking this way off track, and frankly I don't know what you expect to accomplish. You can't win a debate trying to tell me that what the game creator says is wrong and that I should accept your view instead.
With respect, that just ain't gonna happen.
For the most part, this game is an FPS. Players go out and shoot opponents. Yes there is an underlying RTS element that needs to be serviced, but the team with the better FPS skills is the team that will win, not the team with better RTS skills. You can be an expert and figuring out how to expand and what building to drop next etc - but if your players don't live long enough to build those buildings those RTS skills don't mean jack.
Furthermore, most people play the game as an FPS.
Concede is a RTS-centric measure that is out of place in an FPS game. However, I do feel it has its place in a game like this - despite us never needing it in NS1. In spite of that, concede is NOT how games should be ending in an FPS. People play FPS games to FIGHT and not to FORFEIT.
God forbid should people actually want to FPS in an FPS game - lest they offend the sensibilities of those who play the game as an RTS and quit at the drop of a hat.
I'm sorry, but the pendulum has swung too far. Without concede there were some long drawn out games, but at least people got to play the endgame. Now seeing the endgame is a rarity. Its time to swing that pendulum back to the center.
That would basically be easy mode to guarantee that both teams reach the more boring phase of the game where they get Onos and Exos and don't require more skill. It would also discourage them from building far away RTs since they are not worth the cost and risk compared to just defending your base RTs and it wouldn't open the opportunity to turn the fight over by outpacing the enemy team with a tech advantage early on that snowballs and eventually wins the game (or still gets turned around). This suggestion basically boils down to expecting a C&C match to drag on until both teams have their superweapons built and just go firing them at each other without ever having started res denial and pressure attacks before.
If you can't hurt the enemy economy enough to finish them off at some point and end the game and just want people to have a chance to tech up without much repercussions to losing stuff, Combat mode might be better suited for you.
I think you dug a little too deep into my example, but I'll bite.
It all boils down to how much comeback potential or snowballing you want in the game. Its not an off/on switch where you either have an RTS or combat mode (FPS). There is a gradient here. At one end you have something like combat mode. At the other end the first team to destroy a res tower wins the game long before the game "ends". These are the extremes and are easy enough to argue against, and I want neither. NS2 is somewhere in the middle, but I would argue a bit too close to the latter side. I'm suggesting that we push it a bit more to the other side. Simple as that. My suggestion is vague enough that you can add whatever values you want to either make it as great or horrible as you want it to be, so try not to get too bogged down on it.
This is a FPS game with RTS elements, I'm not really sure what the OP is trying to achieve here.
Take mobas for example like league of legends or dota2, eventually one team is going to outfarm the other, that happens because one team got outplayed or outpicked, and that is the players fault, not the game.
The most prominent issue here is that in most FPS-games, your ability to fight does not decrease even if your team would be losing, so you can still enjoy it just as much as you could before (and maybe even more if you enjoy last stands), but in NS the battle quickly becomes frustrating when the other team is far ahead. I find it hard to believe that the majority of the player base enjoy fighting against fades and oni with low-tech marines or against jetpacks with egg-fresh skulks. Concede quickly becomes valid because it would reset the situation and make it equally fun for everyone to fight, even if we did embrace the whole "FPS first, RTS second" aspect you're vouching for.
Which brings me to how you stick way too much to Charlie's words. Like @CrazyEddie here stated, the RTS doesn't come from the commander's UI, but from what the players are trying to achieve. Combat is just a means to an end when vying for map control, res control or the denial thereof from the opposing team, and as such every single player is playing an RTS-game, even if the FPS elements are in the foreground. I really doubt anyone is playing NS2 or played NS1 because they want to shoot at things, since there are so many games out there which do it so much better without having to worry about the fighting getting frustrating because of some unfair advantage. You seem to be using Charlie's design principles (which might even be somewhat outdated) as a crutch argument against anyone saying that this game's RTS elements are important.
I'm sorry, but the pendulum has swung too far. Without concede there were some long drawn out games, but at least people got to play the endgame.
Why do you refuse to see the other side of the coin, the players who get frustrated by endless prolonging and pointless combat? After all, concede is a vote, which shows that people would be more frustrated by the pointless end-game than they are by ending the round prematurely via concession. I understand your point of 'forgiveness', which is making the end-game more likely in a balanced, thrilling and exciting environment with both teams having the possibility of winning the game, but please stop blaming it on concede. You're just turning your own thread into another "I want to kill defenseless enemies so pls limit concede" -discussion, which I know isn't your point. Concede exists to make ending the game more convenient and less detrimental to the losing team's capabilities of making a comeback. Get back on track and attack the reasons for people conceding, not the feature itself.
The most prominent issue here is that in most FPS-games, your ability to fight does not decrease even if your team would be losing, so you can still enjoy it just as much as you could before (and maybe even more if you enjoy last stands), but in NS the battle quickly becomes frustrating when the other team is far ahead. I find it hard to believe that the majority of the player base enjoy fighting against fades and oni with low-tech marines or against jetpacks with egg-fresh skulks.
They don't - but they WANT to. Give people something to play for and they will play. When there is no hope to win then there is no reason to play. That's the lack of forgiveness I was talking about.
Which brings me to how you stick way too much to Charlie's words.
I'm still scratching my head here at people who try and suggest that Charlie doesn't know what he's talking about when he created the freaking game. Honestly folks, it's time to end the denial of NS2 as a FPS and accept the fact that this is how the game is primarily played.
We did need (concede) NS1, people just learned to live without it. Early f4ing was a big problem back then, concede is the better implementation.
I'm not sure what servers you played on, but most servers had the 'no F4 mod' installed which prevented you from going to the ready room for just that reason. (but also to prevent team stacking too)
I'm sorry, but the pendulum has swung too far. Without concede there were some long drawn out games, but at least people got to play the endgame.
Why do you refuse to see the other side of the coin, the players who get frustrated by endless prolonging and pointless combat?
I *do* see it - but I see it differently. You see concede as a means to an end, I see concede as the symptom of a problem. Instead of "endless prolonging and pointless combat" or 'concede' - how about making late game combat MEANINGFUL.
You're just turning your own thread into another "I want to kill defenseless enemies so pls limit concede" -discussion, which I know isn't your point.
I'm doing no such thing and I have repeatedly said I feel concede has a place in the game. I don't want to change concede. Concede isn't the problem. Forgiveness is the problem. Yet when I berate the fact that games never reach the endgame anymore, all I get is "RTS this" and "RTS that" - when that has nothing to do with this.
Concede is a poor means to fix flawed game mechanics. Despite this, I still don't think it needs to be yanked, it just needs to be made obsolete through changes to the game that make people want to PLAY the game. (wow, what a concept!)
While the forums here may be full of people who enjoy quitting the game at the drop of a hat, players in the game are none too happy when they have to concede because the game has become pointless.
I don't want to hear about how everyone who plays an RTS loves conceding games. Frankly, every time I hear it I find myself feeling concede is a bad idea. So far I still think it should stay in, but if we can't fix the game so people can actually play and enjoy themselves for the ENTIRE GAME, then this game isn't going to last.
Has no one looked at how many people are playing now? Has no one noticed how few populated servers there has been of late? Time to wake up and smell the FPS, since that's what is going to carry this game. People don't play because they like welding stuff - or building extractors - or any of the other inane RTS elements, they play because they want to use these cool weapons/units to kill opponents. Why do you think one of the first mods made for this game was combat mode? (aka strip out all RTS in the game so people can have fun.)
Frankly I'm shaking my head at how people could be arguing against putting more fun into the game - since that is what this is about - FUN. Concede is not fun - large scale conflicts with end-game tech on both sides is fun.
Concede is a bad solution to a bad problem. While it has its place in the game, its use should be the exception and not the rule.
Comments
I'm not exactly sure where you're going with this post, even when you've made your point rather clear. What I mean is that the thread is about forgiveness or the lack thereof in NS2, but I'm not sure whether you advocate for making the game more forgiving or having the game end due to met conditions in a case when, as of now, the game would only become 'impossible' for the other team to win. You seem to be going for the latter one, but I fail to see how this is any different from a discussion about what to do with the concession feature.
I would understand if you were advocating for making the game more forgiving, which I would disagree on, but that would be a matter of taste and preference. However, I cannot agree with you on the idea of making more artificial ending conditions to prevent the game dragging on when the other side has clearly lost, since this would only accomplish loss of strategic depth: it would make comebacks from said situations impossible instead of unlikely. Especially on public servers, comebacks have happened even from the most ridiculous position because of an opposing team not knowing how to utilise an advantage. That's why it's the players' (notice the plural) decision to make whether to try to overcome the odds or not, not the game's. In competitive games these comebacks rarely if ever happen, but conceding isn't a problem there, since in competitive games people play to win, not to indulge themselves in hopeless/fool-proof end-game combat.
In my honest opinion, in any game, on any platform, with any player base, the less winning conditions (and to some extent the fewer rules) the game has, the better. Strategies are best when they are emergent and not dictated by the game itself. By creating more victory conditions you're effectively giving the game the power to say "you shouldn't to that even though it would give you an advantage, since you could lose even while having that advantage because of condition x". In my extreme opinion, even the victory condition of killing the last hive or the last CC is detrimental to the game, even though it's a victory condition of such a fundamental level that I can easily live with it.
However, these are all points already made in other threads about vote concede, but even though your topic is about 'forgiveness', you yourself as well as others have (either consciously or unconsciously) taken the discussion towards ending conditions and the satisfaction of winning a game. I would like to see this thread gain a consensus on what we're actually talking about.
It doesn't have to be something like losing the game after losing a single tech point - the example I used above. Here's another example.
Loss of a tech point does NOT lose you your tech researched via that tech point. If aliens have 3 hives, then they keep their upgrades. Same for marines. This means losing a tech point doesn't necessarily weaken a team - but it does put them closer to a loss. (since losing all your tech points means you lose the game whether you have full tech or not) An option like this would end the 'gg syndrome' where people start to give up over losing a tech point. They may be much closer to losing the game - but they are still COMPETITIVE. That's what is lacking right now.
I'd even be game to test having marines need a third comm chair to research dual-miniguns - to encourage marines to push out more.
While this will make it harder to win - to a limited extent - it will also mean greater chance of comebacks. The game will become far more focused on map control, since map control will win the game. (Or more aptly, tech point control will win the game) Again, this is just yet another simple off-the-top-of-my-head example, but do you see the point I'm making? While my earlier example was less forgiveness, this is more forgiveness.
In a game like this it will become more important to assault tech points earlier and more often since taking those tech points will prevent the opposition from teching up - which can't be reversed. So unlike where it is now - that teams often don't care about the other tech points the other team has - now this will matter.
A single mistake wont loose you the game, not even failure to beacon on power node rush. That's 3 or more mistakes. Failure to awareness both on alien movement and base, as well as not having backup spawns or the like.
If you want the power node gone, thats just gonna enhance the marines resistance to aliens try to end the game.
I played a game yesterday where Aliens looked pathetic. Marines had 90% of the level. We were so excited we had this one and all the tech we got out that we failed to realize we didn't putout out any infantry portals. Aliens realized this before we did and totally wiped us out in a minute or two. Had they not been so vigilant we totally had that game.
I'm not saying your idea is bad, I just don't see how it would be incorporated. Right now I think it is good that some teams know when they are beat and concede... start a new game, try again. It's like chess
Do you mean that, based on the skill in the 1st few minutes of the round, the game is basically over unless the other team has a huge advantage in the tier 2 matchups? Because that's how it seems to play out for most comp matches I've watched. The only comeback potential that doesn't rely on the winning team stuffing up is the Alien lifeform explosion.
Individual skill does need to play a part in the outcome of a game, I don't think anyone here would argue that with you, but at the moment there is no depth to how the game plays out. There are very rare comeback scenarios, there are very limited strategic ways to play the game out and without a range of options you basically have teams all playing the same general style as eachother?
I'm sorry if you feel i unfairly dismissed your discussion as pointless, but you forget that there are always two sides to the same coin. You forget that adding more RTS 'forgiveness' muddies gameplay definition and creates a viscous cycle of increasingly overpowered/volatile gameplay. If the ability to come back, up untill the end state (last CC/hive death) is all that matters, how do you come back from the come back? How do you come back from the come back of the come back? Where there is a winner there must be a loser, and you should remember this when you start talking about forgiveness and fun in the same sentence. Is it fun to play as the better team, but lose to a 'forgiving' powernode snipe?
This isn't to say you are completely off the mark though - atleast you managed to recognize the right symptoms that plague live ns2, so bonus points for effort. Think about how ns2 plays and realise that a large part of ns2's dynamic power deciding mechanism (FPS, not RTS) is currently being diluted by things like fast spawn times. The problem is not that the losing team has an unhealthy lack of I forgive you options, but rather that things tend to infact be too forgiving. Some of this stuff already addressed in balance mod.
Honestly though, i find most of this to be a problem with your mental outlook. There are only very few true setback pitfalls in ns2, e.g. early egglock, base rush, powernode snipe. If you want to come back, get a fade/lerk and play well. Get a shotgun and play well. There is always a chance (no matter how small) the commander might jump out, kill all 5 skulks, build an IP, and have the team be good enough to end up winning.
@Chris
I think it's more helpful to think about it like this. Games with winner/loser end states require mechanisms that push the game state towards such outcomes. In ns2 these are divided into either FPS, or RTS power. FPS play (dynamic progression) allows RTS play to lock in power (static progression) and give it back to FPS play. FPS play also defends the power locked in by RTS play.
For simplicity, power progression is passed along something like this,
FPS(1) -> RTS -> FPS(2).
(I would also talk more about unhealthy RTS power feedback looping in ns2, but that would be tldr).
What gliss and many others are correctly getting at is that the only real solution to a lack of 'forgiveness' is in fact to empower and reward FPS effort (most tangibly represented as ground player 'skill' among other things) relative to RTS. Buffing or adding things on the RTS side in order to achieve the same goal tends to lead only to artificial and predictable gimmicks, longer ping pong stalemates, and less long term fun due to player disempowerment. Simply adding or buffing RTS power is the hallmark suggestion of people who don't truly understand ns2 gameplay.
e.g. Fast spawns empower RTS and disempower FPS by causing FPS power to artificially approach the respective RTS power. (Imagine what happens if we slowly keep increasing spawn rates to infinity). The end result being the team with more RTS power tending to more likely eventually brickwall the other team into a win with less risk.
What you are seeing in current competitive match ups is infact this RTS power-transfer multiplier in the middle being both too immediate and too powerful, hence the cost increases in the balance mod. So while it may seem on the surface like FPS power is too determining and unforgiving, its only so because of the RTS side. The less relevant you make static power progression (RTS) relative to dynamic power progression (FPS), the more sensible comeback opportunity you get, and with less unforgiving brickwalling.
Yes there needs to be a healthy level of RTS power, but right now we have relatively too much of it.
Perhaps I can use another example to show you what I mean.
Let's consider control point style maps where you have 5 control points, and the goal of your team was to capture all 5 to win the game. (Like in the TFC games of old) In those cases, not only did you have to keep an offensive push on, you also had to keep a defensive presence the points you captured to prevent recaptures. However, *regardless* of whether you controlled 1 point or 4 points, the strength of your team vis-à-vis the opposing team wasn't lessened by having fewer control points. Those points become a means to an end. You need them to win, but losing one doesn't sink your team.
That's the kind of thing I look at. Instead of a lost tech point causing the team to lose that tech, could the tech point instead be a game objective, instead of a team objective? To win the game a team needs to either control all tech points *OR* destroy all opposing hives/CCs on those tech points. You still have expansion and tech progression, but loss of a tech point doesn't weaken a team like it does now where people say "gg" once it happens. The team may be losing, but they are still competitive. While they can't *increase* their tech level (after losing a hive/CC) they don't lose what they have attained.
This means the game becomes one where time is of the essence to prevent expansion of the opposing team, since once they expand there is no going back. Teams will need to be more aggressive instead of sitting back and then independently teching up. Right now there is no detriment to allowing the opposing team to get their second Hive/CC. Since you are able to secure your own hive/cc it doesn't impact your strength, and your assumption is that if you can sneak in an attack you can take out that hive/cc and weaken them before they can respond. What if that didn't weaken them though?
This is forgiveness. Despite the loss of a tech point the team doesn't lose their tech. The loss of the tech point does put them one step closer to losing the game, but it doesn't make them feel like they have no hope of recovery at the same time.
Can you see where I'm going here? There are many ways you can take this, my example above is just another example of how we could reduce the number of conceded games, without making it too easy to comeback. (and thus have a game that never ends)
But what is wrong with a concede happening at any point the team feels they have lost. I enjoy a good solid victory. But when you have proven your teams' skill and ability to the point that 8-12 human beings unanimously agree that you are far superior and that they can not defeat you, why wouldn't you feel victorious? You have changed their state of mind. You have taken away their ability to fight. That is a part of actual battle. Conceding is how the Civil War ended. I smile when I see the other team concede. Assuming that every battle must end in military defeat isn't even realistic in the real world. And that is why unforgiving moments can happen at any point in the game. Game started, comm got out of chair, nothing was built for 3min, why would you want to try and come back?
edit: I think you are making the definition of forgiveness only apply to a possible chance of victory, which I think you can't assume. Forgiveness keeps you from loosing in the standard way (Everyone dies and your base explodes in darkness).
I don't agree with much of anything the balance mod is doing, lest of all dragging the fucking game out even longer with longer respawn, more expensive upgrades, etc. Honestly the only thing I think needs changing is upgrade time for almost everything, could be doubled or 1.5x but that's about it, everything comes off more snowball-y than what we have. Increasing upgrade times means tres will inevitably pool, allows comms to spend more tres on players like welders, mines, sg or 2 or lerks/fades. When each upgrade implies a waiting period it at least puts a little more emphasis on 'tactical decision making', right now people don't get welders unless something is fucked, "comm need welder" click armoury press s, 20 seconds later welders are up, brainless on both accounts. Pub games still don't get mines until well after lerks are out, almost renders them pointless, shotguns are nearly always reactionary to higher alien life forms or rushed way too early.
Make shit more expensive punishes the losing team even more, suddenly 2 RTs is not enough for aliens, 3 is barely getting by. Making things more expensive also implies you're doing something drastic to change the current combat, if aliens suddenly had to sit on a minimum of 3 RTs and needed 4 to be comfortable I have no idea what you could do to accommodate that.
Of course NS1 never had this exact problem thanks to RFK, savant/PTs would probably know more than anybody else about why that was removed, I can't think of a single good reason myself tho.
To my mind, the key issue under discussion here is NOT concede, it's NOT games where one team is steamrolled by a clearly better team.
Instead, can anything be done to allow early games to be better contested between two not-too-dissimilarly-skilled teams? The problem is that of the slippery slope. One way to minimise this problem is to make the slope slightly shallower, so the team that gets behind at minute 1 doesn't lose say 90% of the games that they do currently.
My suggestion (based off the slippery slope document linked to by ScardyBob):
Slow down the early game a touch by recovering a portion of the res from destroyed buildings. This res is then pumped back into the economy over eg 20s.
This should slightly slow down the slippery slope (numbers could be tweaked to change the slope quite easily), but not eliminate it. The better team can still get ahead, but, depending on the numbers, it could make the very early game more forgiving without too much of an impact on the late game.
I agree, conceding games early in NS2 sucks compared to a nail biting game that comes down to the wire at the final base.
Come on, how can anyone argue against that? So why not try to implement features that will lessen early concedes and allow for more gripping games?
Call it forgiveness, comebacks, snowballing, slippery slope, whatever....I agree that the game currently prompts players to concede too often and too early.
As for people agreeing that they have been beaten, I have two points on that.
First we could take this to the next logical level and say that just by looking at the players on each team that X team has better than Y team, so let's concede before we start since they are the better team. Doesn't this defeat the entire purpose...?
Which brings me to point two, this is a GAME. It's not a real live war where lives are at stake. People play to have FUN, and there is a lot of FUN to be had in the end-game. The problem is that we hardly see the end-game anymore since people concede before it gets there. There is no fun in that.
Concede has a purpose in the game, but it is fact replacing the actual endgame. People should be playing to WIN, not playing to have the other team concede.
There's a difference.
One idea I just had out of nowhere, that may basically indicate that once a team has fallen behind, they lose much more quickly, would be a secondary goal outside of conquest.
Idea 1: In a normal game, add an alternative way of winning that's only achievable by a team that is relatively ahead in resources and technology, not actually requiring them to push into the enemy base. An example might be capturing and holding a "power core" somewhere on the map for a certain amount of time. This area would not allow buildings to be made, and would have a number of entry points to make it difficult to defend, so a team would need good players and powerful weapons to hold onto it long enough (and, you may be required to have two tech points)
Idea 2: An alternate game mode in which one team is attacking the other; the attacking team given certain advantages starting out. However, the defending team has no need of taking over the whole map - they only need to survive a certain number of minutes.
1.) I completely agree, it would defeat the purpose. I was just trying to say that its a natural process and that I don't think there will ever really be a way to get around it whether its concede, f4, or drawing out a slow death. Ideally a match is played from start to determined end. The only thing I can think that is implemented in other games is a abandonment penalty. But I don't think that should ever be done in NS2.
2.) I totally agree again. But it is a game that mimics real life so you are going to have similar behavior patterns. Weaker forces being snowballed to death, strong forces loosing map control and entrenching (marine turtling).
3.) I agree again. And honestly I see no place for concede. The only reason concede is even in this game is because nobody wants to be the first one back to the ready room and have to twiddle their thumbs for 15 more minutes. Their social tendencies want everyone to agree with them and receive the consequence equally at the same time. I think concede enables helplessness.
"One of the most basic elements of any game - no matter what type - is that a player must have a chance to win the game."
Everyone has a chance to win the game, unless you make to many mistakes which should lead to a loss even if it's via concede. You wouldn't want to take the opportunity of eventually making a unlikely come-back away from a team. Lets take CS (I'm assuming you guys know how Counter-Striek works) for example, 4 CTs dies, the bomb gets planted and all 5 Ts are alive, it's highly unlikely that the CT should manage to recover from that dreaded loss of 4 team mates, but it's plausible. It's a sure GG in Ts favor but that doesn't mean you have to add a in-game mechanic to pre GG that round right?
"in cases where they are not in a position to recover, the players become defeatist and look to concede the game."
To get to such a situation a team would have to make many mistakes to begin with, and too many mistakes should equal a loss. And as I just said, if you're in such a situation it's not the game that put you in it.
GG'ing out of a game isn't anti-climactic to me at all. If you get out played and you loose your moral, that's part of the game. Getting demoralized means the other side probably is much better then you, that doesn't mean you didn't enjoy the round just that you realized there's no point in trying more since they've capitalized on all the advantages they've gotten and ensured a win.
Imo
I'm not arguing against the RTS elements of NS2, nor do I dismiss the role RTS has in NS2. The bottom line is that this is a FPS first, and it must be treated as such. Concede is foreign to FPS games, and we've had plenty of threads where people just plain object to how this is working out. How many... I'm glad you asked. Here's just a small selection of what I could dig up: (in no particular order)
Concede and the satisfaction factor
A suggestion to change the concede function
No Concede Mod
Share your WTF Concede moments
Establishing a Time Limit on activating the concede option
Potential Concede Tweaks?
Adding new win-conditions to prevent F4/concede
multi techpoint & concede
Allow server owners to disable vote concede.
Your opinion on concede
How to make concede better?
Who was the 'genius' behind Concede?!
I can get more, but I think I have made my point. While a small minority of people may like giving up mid-game, a good number of people like to play games out. While no one likes a turtle, we don't even get close to that anymore.
Again I will say I am not advocating for the removal of concede. It has a use in the game. The problem is that instead of an end-game, people are just conceding games. That may be fine in an RTS, but this is not an RTS.
It's time to bring the end-game back to NS2.
the game has resources/upgrades/technologies which make the game one-sided once one of the teams gets an advantage
the reason concede isn't as common in FPS games is because you at least have a chance to play a bit better and turn things around. you can't do that in NS2.
but even in FPS games, when the teams suck people will just quit.
stop thinking of conceding as some special action. it's just a UI for people to restart the game with the hopes of getting better teams the next time around.
The only other successful alternative I've seen is a 'ticket' system like what Empiresmod or Battlefield does. It effectively puts a limit on how long a match can be drawn out, but it relates to the relative deathrates of each team. I'm quite fond of this system and would love to see it in NS2 as an alternative to concede.
Had to quote this for emphasis.
Yes NS2 has RTS elements, but so what?
Its not some unbreakable law of nature. We can always change things so conceding happens less often. Change things so that 'slippery slope' is level enough throughout most of the game, and teams feel like they can comeback. Once the game has been essentially decided the slop jacks up to promptly end the game...quicker than it takes to vote a concede.
For example (just an example to stimulate this idea)..A team's first res tower extracts more res than other res towers. Adjacent res towers to main base extract less, and all other res towers even less. If a team is beaten back to one base and a few adjacent res nodes, its bad, but not as bad as it is currently..and hopefully its not so bad that a concede is necessary. The team still has a good amount of res flow, and the enemy team has denied and acquired a smaller portion of their res than usual (but still an advantage nonetheless).
Next tie certain tech to requiring 2 res towers. For marines, this could mean shotguns, obs, welder and turrets. If marines have nothing but their last base and 1 res tower, they either quickly get a second res tower, or its soon going to be game over for marines with no shotguns, obs or welders (and no turret nests to extend it even more). This jacks up the slope and quickly snowballs to end a game that by all accounts is over. I'm positive much better ideas on how to do this are out there.
No amount of forgiveness in the game can really offset this mentality.
There are opportunities for risky comebacks if you can get players to fall in line. I typically advocate ninja PG or all out base rush. It either works and we're back in the game or the game ends rather quickly.
You are completely misunderstanding what the RTS component of NS2 is. It's not the commander's UI.
What puts the "RTS" in "NS2 is an FPS-RTS hybrid" is resource management. You cannot achieve the victory condition through superior FPS skill alone. The team that's better at killing other players will probably win the game, but it's not the killing of the other players that wins it for them. Instead, FPS skill is used to acquire resources. Victory goes to the team that does the best job of acquiring and spending resources.
So, in fact, every player is participating in the RTS component of NS2, not just the commander. They may not all realize it, and if the commander is doing a good job staying on top of the strategic big picture then they may not have to realize it. But they're playing an RTS just the same (more precisely and pedantically the RTS component of an FPS-RTS hybrid in which the FPS component is "first" as you feel compelled to keep pointing out that the developers have said).
The TEAM is playing an RTS. (MpaptRTScoaFPS-RTShiwtFPSci"f"ayfctkpottdhs.)
Which is why it's perfectly appropriate for the team to want to stop playing when it becomes clear that they no longer have any chance of winning the game. They're not just giving up, they're acknowledging that they've lost. In a strategy game, when you no longer have any chance of winning, you have lost, even if the victory conditions have not yet been fulfilled. It's true in chess, go, StarCraft, and Natural Selection.
That would basically be easy mode to guarantee that both teams reach the more boring phase of the game where they get Onos and Exos and don't require more skill. It would also discourage them from building far away RTs since they are not worth the cost and risk compared to just defending your base RTs and it wouldn't open the opportunity to turn the fight over by outpacing the enemy team with a tech advantage early on that snowballs and eventually wins the game (or still gets turned around). This suggestion basically boils down to expecting a C&C match to drag on until both teams have their superweapons built and just go firing them at each other without ever having started res denial and pressure attacks before.
If you can't hurt the enemy economy enough to finish them off at some point and end the game and just want people to have a chance to tech up without much repercussions to losing stuff, Combat mode might be better suited for you.
Please don't try to mess with the essence of the RTS/FPS hybrid by adding some arbitrary objective that teams are forced to focus on and at least deny the enemy to use it. This would destroy variety of tactics and replayability more than anything else. In a normal match, the entire map is open for your strategic decisions, you claim territory and advantages where you feel you need them to win the game. Not where the game itself dictates you to secure a location to instantly turn the game around without actually ever engaging the enemy base.
You're taking this way off track, and frankly I don't know what you expect to accomplish. You can't win a debate trying to tell me that what the game creator says is wrong and that I should accept your view instead.
With respect, that just ain't gonna happen.
For the most part, this game is an FPS. Players go out and shoot opponents. Yes there is an underlying RTS element that needs to be serviced, but the team with the better FPS skills is the team that will win, not the team with better RTS skills. You can be an expert and figuring out how to expand and what building to drop next etc - but if your players don't live long enough to build those buildings those RTS skills don't mean jack.
Furthermore, most people play the game as an FPS.
Concede is a RTS-centric measure that is out of place in an FPS game. However, I do feel it has its place in a game like this - despite us never needing it in NS1. In spite of that, concede is NOT how games should be ending in an FPS. People play FPS games to FIGHT and not to FORFEIT.
God forbid should people actually want to FPS in an FPS game - lest they offend the sensibilities of those who play the game as an RTS and quit at the drop of a hat.
I'm sorry, but the pendulum has swung too far. Without concede there were some long drawn out games, but at least people got to play the endgame. Now seeing the endgame is a rarity. Its time to swing that pendulum back to the center.
I think you dug a little too deep into my example, but I'll bite.
It all boils down to how much comeback potential or snowballing you want in the game. Its not an off/on switch where you either have an RTS or combat mode (FPS). There is a gradient here. At one end you have something like combat mode. At the other end the first team to destroy a res tower wins the game long before the game "ends". These are the extremes and are easy enough to argue against, and I want neither. NS2 is somewhere in the middle, but I would argue a bit too close to the latter side. I'm suggesting that we push it a bit more to the other side. Simple as that. My suggestion is vague enough that you can add whatever values you want to either make it as great or horrible as you want it to be, so try not to get too bogged down on it.
the game loses all its depth and most of its fun by that point...
honestly, some people might be better off playing a mod that de-emphasizes the RTS aspect
Take mobas for example like league of legends or dota2, eventually one team is going to outfarm the other, that happens because one team got outplayed or outpicked, and that is the players fault, not the game.
Which brings me to how you stick way too much to Charlie's words. Like @CrazyEddie here stated, the RTS doesn't come from the commander's UI, but from what the players are trying to achieve. Combat is just a means to an end when vying for map control, res control or the denial thereof from the opposing team, and as such every single player is playing an RTS-game, even if the FPS elements are in the foreground. I really doubt anyone is playing NS2 or played NS1 because they want to shoot at things, since there are so many games out there which do it so much better without having to worry about the fighting getting frustrating because of some unfair advantage. You seem to be using Charlie's design principles (which might even be somewhat outdated) as a crutch argument against anyone saying that this game's RTS elements are important.
We did need it NS1, people just learned to live without it. Early f4ing was a big problem back then, concede is the better implementation.
Why do you refuse to see the other side of the coin, the players who get frustrated by endless prolonging and pointless combat? After all, concede is a vote, which shows that people would be more frustrated by the pointless end-game than they are by ending the round prematurely via concession. I understand your point of 'forgiveness', which is making the end-game more likely in a balanced, thrilling and exciting environment with both teams having the possibility of winning the game, but please stop blaming it on concede. You're just turning your own thread into another "I want to kill defenseless enemies so pls limit concede" -discussion, which I know isn't your point. Concede exists to make ending the game more convenient and less detrimental to the losing team's capabilities of making a comeback. Get back on track and attack the reasons for people conceding, not the feature itself.
Concede is a poor means to fix flawed game mechanics. Despite this, I still don't think it needs to be yanked, it just needs to be made obsolete through changes to the game that make people want to PLAY the game. (wow, what a concept!)
While the forums here may be full of people who enjoy quitting the game at the drop of a hat, players in the game are none too happy when they have to concede because the game has become pointless.
I don't want to hear about how everyone who plays an RTS loves conceding games. Frankly, every time I hear it I find myself feeling concede is a bad idea. So far I still think it should stay in, but if we can't fix the game so people can actually play and enjoy themselves for the ENTIRE GAME, then this game isn't going to last.
Has no one looked at how many people are playing now? Has no one noticed how few populated servers there has been of late? Time to wake up and smell the FPS, since that's what is going to carry this game. People don't play because they like welding stuff - or building extractors - or any of the other inane RTS elements, they play because they want to use these cool weapons/units to kill opponents. Why do you think one of the first mods made for this game was combat mode? (aka strip out all RTS in the game so people can have fun.)
Frankly I'm shaking my head at how people could be arguing against putting more fun into the game - since that is what this is about - FUN. Concede is not fun - large scale conflicts with end-game tech on both sides is fun.
Concede is a bad solution to a bad problem. While it has its place in the game, its use should be the exception and not the rule.