I think what's going on is team imbalance and every game has that issue. Team balance doesn't fix it in any game I've ever played. I just accept that while playing a video game I may not have a balanced game. In bf3 or whatever fps game I am playing I typically will disconnect and find a different server to play on if the team stacking seems consistent, and well, same applies in NS2.
Point is I'm okay with concede, F4, disconnecting and finding another game because the game isn't going well and I just hope that next game is more balanced. I prefer long & even matches over the stomps, no matter which team is getting stomped.
I'm not sure how you could change the situation unless you somehow make people happy to play through the game every step of the way. I find that somewhat hard to accomplish. No matter the game, I've always had 'this' issue.
- Dota & Dota-based games
- MMORPG pvp battles
- FPS titles
- RTS, not as much I suppose?
At least some servers limit concede vote to occur when down to only 1 base.
on a payload map the clearly superior team will win SOONER... aka the round doesn't drag on.
Which is PRECISELY what I want in NS2. I want the superior team to win SOONER. That way the superior team reaches the end-game and ENDS it without the other team feeling like they are standing around for target practice - and without the winning team being unable to kill the final objective.
People like having the game end with a 'big finish'. (so long as it doesn't drag.) I've been in hotly contested games that we lost because of a small error, but the way it ended was such we were still competitive and trying to win.
Some of the best games I've been in have seen the alien and marine teams at each other's tech points, taking them out, while a skeleton crew tries to hold them off, and we're each down to one tech point - firing on the hive/cc and one team gets it down in seconds before the other does. Those games are amazing to play, and everyone hits the ready-room excited and talking about how they had one of the best games they ever played.
No quitting (through any means) + action packed end-game = fun & exciting game
That's what I want to see.
so you like concede? Concede allows games to end sooner.
Aliens will concede in 60 seconds
Aliens will concede in 59 seconds
Aliens will concede in 58 seconds
.....
.....
.....
Aliens will concede in 3 seconds
Aliens will concede in 2 seconds
Aliens will concede in 1 seconds
diplay victory message
This would light a fire under the butt of the winning team ... if you desire your glorious victory by complete destruction then you have 60 seconds to get it, if you dont, then you can chill for 60 seconds and bask in the afterglow of winning anyway. You could probably also disable respawns of the losing team, so its harder (but not impossible) for the losing team to prevent the winning team from taking the last hives/cc's, thus trolling them by taking away some of their satisfaction (could be quite challenging and fun).
No game does the end of rounds better than TF2. That's almost an objective fact. While TF2 doesn't have a concede feature as a result of not being nearly as strategic (and therefore remains competitive down to the very end), I still think NS2 could take a leaf out of TF2's book on this one.
When a team concedes, it begins a 30-second "victory" period for the winners. During this time period:
- The winning team moves at a faster pace than normal
- The winning team deals double damage
- The losing team moves at a slower pace than normal
- The losing team is unable to attack
- The losing team is unable to respawn
- All of the losing team's structures stop working
This ends the game quickly, while also giving the winning team the chance to end things on more satisfying terms.
I had a game where they wanted to kill the last hive (cave spawn, did you guess?) with sentries.
What about 5 exos sitting in base with the power out and no IP's?
No game does the end of rounds better than TF2. That's almost an objective fact. While TF2 doesn't have a concede feature as a result of not being nearly as strategic (and therefore remains competitive down to the very end), I still think NS2 could take a leaf out of TF2's book on this one.
When a team concedes, it begins a 30-second "victory" period for the winners. During this time period:
- The winning team moves at a faster pace than normal
- The winning team deals double damage
- The losing team moves at a slower pace than normal
- The losing team is unable to attack
- The losing team is unable to respawn
- All of the losing team's structures stop working
This ends the game quickly, while also giving the winning team the chance to end things on more satisfying terms.
Tactical Gamer's server has this exact thing. Once the concede is called the forfeiting team cant attack anymore and you have 90 seconds to destroy them uninterrupted.
No game does the end of rounds better than TF2... snip snippp snip
Yeah, no... when rounds end in TF2 I just stand still waiting for the next game. Similarly, in NS2 when the game has come down to 1 base, 1 rt, or whatever then I just stand still more or less. All of the ideas presented so far just sounds like the end results should be the winning team killing the hive/CC. Personally, I just accept the victory screen.
No game does the end of rounds better than TF2. That's almost an objective fact. While TF2 doesn't have a concede feature as a result of not being nearly as strategic (and therefore remains competitive down to the very end), I still think NS2 could take a leaf out of TF2's book on this one.
When a team concedes, it begins a 30-second "victory" period for the winners. During this time period:
- The winning team moves at a faster pace than normal
- The winning team deals double damage
- The losing team moves at a slower pace than normal
- The losing team is unable to attack
- The losing team is unable to respawn
- All of the losing team's structures stop working
This ends the game quickly, while also giving the winning team the chance to end things on more satisfying terms.
interesting, i always thought 'humiliation' rounds were only for the noobs (2500 hours of tf2). no challenge = no fun = waste of time.
the only thing i'd like from TF2 is the domination/nemesis system - and more reliable credit for assists.
I can see where some of the arguments against concede come from. People like to be rewarded for their efforts; It triggers something in your brain that makes you feel good. It's the reason why achievements in games have become so widespread, and is even why the term 'Gamification' exists. Being denied that gratification is frustrating.
It's one of the reasons people stack teams over and over, they want that hit again and again. (I know it's not the only reason, people like to play with friends too) I'd be willing to bet those same people are the ones who throw in the towel early on an entirely winnable game.
Concede isn't the problem. People have always quit matches they thought they were losing. It's just that before concede they would simply leave, auto-teams would kick in and, as has been pointed out, before long you'd have an empty server.
What you're really asking for is a change in the attitude of the player-base. And with that I wish you luck, because that sure is something I wouldn't want to tackle.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
edited April 2013
So hijacking-err steering this thread onto course
Those not posting ideas/defending concede,
Again (from last page) no one is :
Asking for concede to be removed
Asking to change the player base /mindset
Expecting those who like concede to so stick around a lost game.
Suggesting anything that wouldn't merely increase fun for all players (unless stomping is fun for you)
So why is that those types of posts are still popping up despite people consistently saying otherwise?? I feel some must be reading the title only and posting, or are just stuck on this point :-\
Good job to those people who see room for improvement offering ideas. Next step we should brainstorm solutions with collaborating effort from the other side of the fence so we can get the ball rolling instead of the highly familiar and highly repetitive gaggle that becomes every concede thread.. Almost every single week.
My suggestion can be found previously in here. Any takers on the slippery rts?
:-)
No game does the end of rounds better than TF2. That's almost an objective fact. While TF2 doesn't have a concede feature as a result of not being nearly as strategic (and therefore remains competitive down to the very end), I still think NS2 could take a leaf out of TF2's book on this one.
When a team concedes, it begins a 30-second "victory" period for the winners. During this time period:
- The winning team moves at a faster pace than normal
- The winning team deals double damage
- The losing team moves at a slower pace than normal
- The losing team is unable to attack
- The losing team is unable to respawn
- All of the losing team's structures stop working
This ends the game quickly, while also giving the winning team the chance to end things on more satisfying terms.
interesting, i always thought 'humiliation' rounds were only for the noobs (2500 hours of tf2). no challenge = no fun = waste of time.
the only thing i'd like from TF2 is the domination/nemesis system - and more reliable credit for assists.
I've played plenty of TF2 myself, been playing regularly since 2008, and it hasn't stopped being enjoyable for me. It's a very short period at the end of the round, I hardly see that as a big problem. Also, it isn't like TF2 is really trying to market it as a serious competitive shooter. Most people play TF2 to have fun, and that's what it provides. And yes, I know that there is a very active competitive scene but it's never seemed like Valve makes any effort to cater to that side of the community.
My suggestion can be found previously in here. Any takers on the slippery rts?
:-)
You mean the suggestion to have a TF2-esque victory period after a team concedes? Don't see the harm in it.
Could have a quick sound-bite, like "Command brought in the big guns!" and give every marine a dual Exosuit with increased movement speed. Or "CLEANSE the INTRUDERS." and give aliens permanent attack and movement speed increase to the sound of the old Primal Scream. Would make a little more sense story-wise, I very much doubt the Kharra take prisoners. =P
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
No I mean lessening the impact rts elements have on the slippery slope outcome of a game and thus the lack of hope for a comeback which leads to a concede.
No game does the end of rounds better than TF2. That's almost an objective fact. While TF2 doesn't have a concede feature as a result of not being nearly as strategic (and therefore remains competitive down to the very end), I still think NS2 could take a leaf out of TF2's book on this one.
When a team concedes, it begins a 30-second "victory" period for the winners. During this time period:
- The winning team moves at a faster pace than normal
- The winning team deals double damage
- The losing team moves at a slower pace than normal
- The losing team is unable to attack
- The losing team is unable to respawn
- All of the losing team's structures stop working
This ends the game quickly, while also giving the winning team the chance to end things on more satisfying terms.
Would much rather try it out with a simple format first: Concede causes a 60 second timer until the opposing team wins, but they can win sooner if they, well, win sooner. That way, marines for an example, could rush the last hive/hives, giving the aliens a chance to counter-attack, and all sorts of risky shenanigans would take place. (Mostly just rushing.) Something that could allow the aliens to deny the early win with a last stand or by a counter-attack killing the marine CC's first.
To differentiate a "real win" from a concede win you could just have a TINY extra sparkling/lens flare/whatever lol -effect in the "Marines win!" -text, so you'd kinda have a small incentive to make those last seconds count.
Something like that.
EDIT: Or maybe a humiliating little cyst growing on the "Marines win!" text, if the aliens manage to hold for the countdown... "YEAH YOU WON BUT KHARAA PREVAILED" ...hmmh. :P
I feel some must be reading the title only and posting
If anyone was actually reading these threads before posting, they wouldn't be posting. Because everything has been said already. Repeatedly. Over and over. Again. Repeatedly.
So I can only conclude that nobody is reading these threads.
So a team would need to be suitably sufficient from one hive/CC and a handful of RTs, which would suggest the return of RFK or the ability to donate resources. Neither idea I'm too fond of.
Either that or you lessen the res flow, making the higher tier tech longer to bring to bear and keeping both teams on an equal footing tech-wise for longer. But then would people really want longer games?
These are two thought that immediately spring to mind, but I'll give it a think IronHorse.
So a team would need to be suitably sufficient from one hive/CC and a handful of RTs, which would suggest the return of RFK or the ability to donate resources. Neither idea I'm too fond of.
Either that or you lessen the res flow, making the higher tier tech longer to bring to bear and keeping both teams on an equal footing tech-wise for longer. But then would people really want longer games?
These are two thought that immediately spring to mind, but I'll give it a think IronHorse.
Or there's my suggestion of returning a portion of res from destroyed structures, which should make the slippery slope shallower, without punishing the winning team, just rewarding them a little less than currently.
i think what might help the situation a little is if the game kept map score. it's a bit strange how every game ends with a total reset. you rarely have the same team in consecutive rounds and noone has a clue who 'won' when the map ends. it's like playing football but not keeping track of score.
the game should automatically swap teams at the end of the round, and the team score should be highlighted at the top of the score board. then if you win by default/concede; you still get a 'map point' and still preserve some glory by going on to 'win' the map.
it's like the game expects the teams to be horribly stacked with the 'obligatory ready room automatic team shuffler 9000'. well, what if the teams are really good? it makes absolutely no sense to mess about with the teams. you could have the most epic game ever, then it's over and the teams shuffle and back to mediocrity again.
there's already a random vote mod to unstack the teams; there's no need for ready room between rounds to spoil everything.
No I mean lessening the impact rts elements have on the slippery slope outcome of a game and thus the lack of hope for a comeback which leads to a concede.
i think most people concede because of perceived team stack, which is usually the case. good players in pub ns2 are from the planet krypton; unlike good players in pub tf2 which are still depending quite heavily on teammates to not suck.
altering the game mechanics won't really change that. the good players will still be unstoppable; running riot and destroying all RT's.
So a team would need to be suitably sufficient from one hive/CC and a handful of RTs, which would suggest the return of RFK or the ability to donate resources. Neither idea I'm too fond of.
Either that or you lessen the res flow, making the higher tier tech longer to bring to bear and keeping both teams on an equal footing tech-wise for longer. But then would people really want longer games?
These are two thought that immediately spring to mind, but I'll give it a think IronHorse.
Or there's my suggestion of returning a portion of res from destroyed structures, which should make the slippery slope shallower, without punishing the winning team, just rewarding them a little less than currently.
I been thinking structures should be the expendable part of the res. The upgrades are more important to keeping a competitive match. Those need to not go away/be easy to replace. Buildings should be investments in map control that can be destroyed. You have more experience than me, and my on and off bias against RTS may be showing there. I will defer to your judgement.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
edited April 2013
Nice @kalopsia ! TY @Roobubba : i like it.. it lessens the double impact it previously had.. but i'm trying to think of the downside /flaw to it.. there has to be one we haven't considered. @EgoGamer : No none of those would help :-/ Keep brainstorming tho @tarquinbb : i keep re considering perfectly balanced teams as a solution.. technically a perfectly balanced team with (here's the rub) perfectly balanced game mechanics SHOULD lead to equal map control and thus leveling up.
In this perfect world theoretical scenario neither side wins, though. So say one side is slightly better.. as soon as they begin to gain an advantage the losing team feels like all hope is lost despite an even playing field in skill - because their skill cannot makeup for the difference in tech between the two sides. Basically, its a "first to slip up once, loses" scenario that can be very binary.
Possible solutions could include lessening RTS impacts across the board.. or something simpler resource wise that allows for hail mary come backs, like power surge or Roobubba's idea.
Or maybe make it easier to remove the other team's tech. (like 3 CC's for W3)
IDK.. but while balanced teams definitely would make games more pleasant, it just will not solve the lack of desire to continue playing on the side to begin losing first.
No I mean lessening the impact rts elements have on the slippery slope outcome of a game and thus the lack of hope for a comeback which leads to a concede.
NS2 plays very methodically and linear because of the power node/infestation mechanic. Once the snowball stars rolling, there is very little chance for a comeback and the excitement of maybe sneaking a ninja phase gate or making a comeback from the NS1 days are gone.
Bottom line: UWE made their bed with that decision and now they must lie in it.
it's difficult to tell whether it's 'first to slip up once, loses'... surely it would have to be a pretty large slip up?
i think there's already a substantial time window for recovery before the game snowballs out of control. the issue is just that rookies are totally unaware of this hidden stopwatch of doom, and waste time fannying around in totally useless rooms instead of going where they're needed.
perhaps something which could really help would be greater potential to recover from the brink. for example significantly reducing the cost of buildings - especially hive, command station, IP's and RT's. then you don't have to turtle defend, you could use your aggression to snipe a new base location and start again. the commander can put those excess resources towards tres weapon/egg drops for the team - which is a massively underutilized feature.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
edited April 2013
Well structure costs are one thing, but could potentially never been utilized with passive upgrades that work continuously like W3, so you'd have to address all those other areas as well (this was the "overall adjustment" i was referring to earlier) else it would be highly situational and map dependent, via alt routes like vents etc to even get to those structures and bypass incoming W3 marines.
Basically.. it would require a LOT of work to make this change. Many areas to consider.
Ideas like power surges, egg hatching on the hive, and Roo's idea lend to more simplistic implementations with game wide effects.
Well structure costs are one thing, but could potentially never been utilized with passive upgrades that work continuously like W3, so you'd have to address all those other areas as well (this was the "overall adjustment" i was referring to earlier) else it would be highly situational and map dependent, via alt routes like vents etc to even get to those structures and bypass incoming W3 marines.
Basically.. it would require a LOT of work to make this change. Many areas to consider.
Ideas like power surges, egg hatching on the hive, and Roo's idea lend to more simplistic implementations with game wide effects.
if your entire team is trapped and egglocked by w3 marines; i'm not sure what those simplistic implementations are meant to achieve. to use a chess term, when you're forced into a 'check' situation you have to successfully defend or lose, there's no alternative (because you won't have the resources and/or time to re-establish a base.)
as for my suggestion, the only necessary adjustments would be to give aliens an equally good chance at recovery. for example enabling egg spawning at growing hives to compensate for the extra long build time, or linking marine upgrades to number of command stations (bt mod).
i had a thrilling game about a week ago on veil. the aliens destroyed marine control base with a coordinated attack, then went and cleared up the pipeline base (which was well defended with IP's etc). but the game wasn't over, and apparently a marine had managed to get back into control and rebuild everything including IP's - their entire team and one-base tech was alive and online. they almost managed to take back pipeline too, but lost the battle and alien were victorious. if marines had taken pipeline back they would have got jetpacks back and easily had a chance to win the game from that point.
anyway, my point is that viable relocation should be part of the game. it's one of the oldest suggestions, and it's relevant to this discussion as the ability to come back from the dead will cause hesistation amongst the premature conceders.
How about a vote for the non conceding teme to ALLOW a concede. maybe like 30% vote?
I'm not 100% sure about that. I will use my example again, the marines wanted to kill our last hive with TURRETS. If we couldn't concede without their permission...
You could say there is a double-dip loss when your team loses engagements early in the game. Not only are your team dead but the other folk are now ripping into your RTs without contest and you're now playing defence, and once you stop applying pressure... well the game is pretty much decided.
Yes, this is obvious but it helps my though process.
So I think Roobubba's idea is pretty sound there. Perhaps take the point further and borrow an idea from MOBAs; Allow Commanders to deny their structures, (The act of damaging your own buildings/units to prevent the enemy getting the credit for the kill), returning the full cost.
It adds another skill level for Comms and means that Harvester you just plopped down in front of a marine may be salvaged if you can time it right.
Comments
I think what's going on is team imbalance and every game has that issue. Team balance doesn't fix it in any game I've ever played. I just accept that while playing a video game I may not have a balanced game. In bf3 or whatever fps game I am playing I typically will disconnect and find a different server to play on if the team stacking seems consistent, and well, same applies in NS2.
Point is I'm okay with concede, F4, disconnecting and finding another game because the game isn't going well and I just hope that next game is more balanced. I prefer long & even matches over the stomps, no matter which team is getting stomped.
I'm not sure how you could change the situation unless you somehow make people happy to play through the game every step of the way. I find that somewhat hard to accomplish. No matter the game, I've always had 'this' issue.
- Dota & Dota-based games
- MMORPG pvp battles
- FPS titles
- RTS, not as much I suppose?
At least some servers limit concede vote to occur when down to only 1 base.
so you like concede? Concede allows games to end sooner.
Aliens will concede in 59 seconds
Aliens will concede in 58 seconds
.....
.....
.....
Aliens will concede in 3 seconds
Aliens will concede in 2 seconds
Aliens will concede in 1 seconds
diplay victory message
This would light a fire under the butt of the winning team ... if you desire your glorious victory by complete destruction then you have 60 seconds to get it, if you dont, then you can chill for 60 seconds and bask in the afterglow of winning anyway. You could probably also disable respawns of the losing team, so its harder (but not impossible) for the losing team to prevent the winning team from taking the last hives/cc's, thus trolling them by taking away some of their satisfaction (could be quite challenging and fun).
When a team concedes, it begins a 30-second "victory" period for the winners. During this time period:
- The winning team moves at a faster pace than normal
- The winning team deals double damage
- The losing team moves at a slower pace than normal
- The losing team is unable to attack
- The losing team is unable to respawn
- All of the losing team's structures stop working
This ends the game quickly, while also giving the winning team the chance to end things on more satisfying terms.
What about 5 exos sitting in base with the power out and no IP's?
This is why I like concede. Very much so.
Tactical Gamer's server has this exact thing. Once the concede is called the forfeiting team cant attack anymore and you have 90 seconds to destroy them uninterrupted.
~disconnect
Yeah, no... when rounds end in TF2 I just stand still waiting for the next game. Similarly, in NS2 when the game has come down to 1 base, 1 rt, or whatever then I just stand still more or less. All of the ideas presented so far just sounds like the end results should be the winning team killing the hive/CC. Personally, I just accept the victory screen.
interesting, i always thought 'humiliation' rounds were only for the noobs (2500 hours of tf2). no challenge = no fun = waste of time.
the only thing i'd like from TF2 is the domination/nemesis system - and more reliable credit for assists.
It's one of the reasons people stack teams over and over, they want that hit again and again. (I know it's not the only reason, people like to play with friends too) I'd be willing to bet those same people are the ones who throw in the towel early on an entirely winnable game.
Concede isn't the problem. People have always quit matches they thought they were losing. It's just that before concede they would simply leave, auto-teams would kick in and, as has been pointed out, before long you'd have an empty server.
What you're really asking for is a change in the attitude of the player-base. And with that I wish you luck, because that sure is something I wouldn't want to tackle.
Those not posting ideas/defending concede,
Again (from last page) no one is :
Asking for concede to be removed
Asking to change the player base /mindset
Expecting those who like concede to so stick around a lost game.
Suggesting anything that wouldn't merely increase fun for all players (unless stomping is fun for you)
So why is that those types of posts are still popping up despite people consistently saying otherwise?? I feel some must be reading the title only and posting, or are just stuck on this point :-\
Good job to those people who see room for improvement offering ideas. Next step we should brainstorm solutions with collaborating effort from the other side of the fence so we can get the ball rolling instead of the highly familiar and highly repetitive gaggle that becomes every concede thread.. Almost every single week.
My suggestion can be found previously in here. Any takers on the slippery rts?
:-)
I've played plenty of TF2 myself, been playing regularly since 2008, and it hasn't stopped being enjoyable for me. It's a very short period at the end of the round, I hardly see that as a big problem. Also, it isn't like TF2 is really trying to market it as a serious competitive shooter. Most people play TF2 to have fun, and that's what it provides. And yes, I know that there is a very active competitive scene but it's never seemed like Valve makes any effort to cater to that side of the community.
You mean the suggestion to have a TF2-esque victory period after a team concedes? Don't see the harm in it.
Could have a quick sound-bite, like "Command brought in the big guns!" and give every marine a dual Exosuit with increased movement speed. Or "CLEANSE the INTRUDERS." and give aliens permanent attack and movement speed increase to the sound of the old Primal Scream. Would make a little more sense story-wise, I very much doubt the Kharra take prisoners. =P
Would much rather try it out with a simple format first: Concede causes a 60 second timer until the opposing team wins, but they can win sooner if they, well, win sooner. That way, marines for an example, could rush the last hive/hives, giving the aliens a chance to counter-attack, and all sorts of risky shenanigans would take place. (Mostly just rushing.) Something that could allow the aliens to deny the early win with a last stand or by a counter-attack killing the marine CC's first.
To differentiate a "real win" from a concede win you could just have a TINY extra sparkling/lens flare/whatever lol -effect in the "Marines win!" -text, so you'd kinda have a small incentive to make those last seconds count.
Something like that.
EDIT: Or maybe a humiliating little cyst growing on the "Marines win!" text, if the aliens manage to hold for the countdown... "YEAH YOU WON BUT KHARAA PREVAILED" ...hmmh. :P
If anyone was actually reading these threads before posting, they wouldn't be posting. Because everything has been said already. Repeatedly. Over and over. Again. Repeatedly.
So I can only conclude that nobody is reading these threads.
Repeatedly.
Either that or you lessen the res flow, making the higher tier tech longer to bring to bear and keeping both teams on an equal footing tech-wise for longer. But then would people really want longer games?
These are two thought that immediately spring to mind, but I'll give it a think IronHorse.
Or there's my suggestion of returning a portion of res from destroyed structures, which should make the slippery slope shallower, without punishing the winning team, just rewarding them a little less than currently.
the game should automatically swap teams at the end of the round, and the team score should be highlighted at the top of the score board. then if you win by default/concede; you still get a 'map point' and still preserve some glory by going on to 'win' the map.
it's like the game expects the teams to be horribly stacked with the 'obligatory ready room automatic team shuffler 9000'. well, what if the teams are really good? it makes absolutely no sense to mess about with the teams. you could have the most epic game ever, then it's over and the teams shuffle and back to mediocrity again.
there's already a random vote mod to unstack the teams; there's no need for ready room between rounds to spoil everything.
i think most people concede because of perceived team stack, which is usually the case. good players in pub ns2 are from the planet krypton; unlike good players in pub tf2 which are still depending quite heavily on teammates to not suck.
altering the game mechanics won't really change that. the good players will still be unstoppable; running riot and destroying all RT's.
I renamed the thread title so hopefully we receive more constructive input.
I been thinking structures should be the expendable part of the res. The upgrades are more important to keeping a competitive match. Those need to not go away/be easy to replace. Buildings should be investments in map control that can be destroyed. You have more experience than me, and my on and off bias against RTS may be showing there. I will defer to your judgement.
@Roobubba : i like it.. it lessens the double impact it previously had.. but i'm trying to think of the downside /flaw to it.. there has to be one we haven't considered.
@EgoGamer : No none of those would help :-/ Keep brainstorming tho
@tarquinbb : i keep re considering perfectly balanced teams as a solution.. technically a perfectly balanced team with (here's the rub) perfectly balanced game mechanics SHOULD lead to equal map control and thus leveling up.
In this perfect world theoretical scenario neither side wins, though. So say one side is slightly better.. as soon as they begin to gain an advantage the losing team feels like all hope is lost despite an even playing field in skill - because their skill cannot makeup for the difference in tech between the two sides. Basically, its a "first to slip up once, loses" scenario that can be very binary.
Possible solutions could include lessening RTS impacts across the board.. or something simpler resource wise that allows for hail mary come backs, like power surge or Roobubba's idea.
Or maybe make it easier to remove the other team's tech. (like 3 CC's for W3)
IDK.. but while balanced teams definitely would make games more pleasant, it just will not solve the lack of desire to continue playing on the side to begin losing first.
NS2 plays very methodically and linear because of the power node/infestation mechanic. Once the snowball stars rolling, there is very little chance for a comeback and the excitement of maybe sneaking a ninja phase gate or making a comeback from the NS1 days are gone.
Bottom line: UWE made their bed with that decision and now they must lie in it.
i think there's already a substantial time window for recovery before the game snowballs out of control. the issue is just that rookies are totally unaware of this hidden stopwatch of doom, and waste time fannying around in totally useless rooms instead of going where they're needed.
perhaps something which could really help would be greater potential to recover from the brink. for example significantly reducing the cost of buildings - especially hive, command station, IP's and RT's. then you don't have to turtle defend, you could use your aggression to snipe a new base location and start again. the commander can put those excess resources towards tres weapon/egg drops for the team - which is a massively underutilized feature.
Basically.. it would require a LOT of work to make this change. Many areas to consider.
Ideas like power surges, egg hatching on the hive, and Roo's idea lend to more simplistic implementations with game wide effects.
if your entire team is trapped and egglocked by w3 marines; i'm not sure what those simplistic implementations are meant to achieve. to use a chess term, when you're forced into a 'check' situation you have to successfully defend or lose, there's no alternative (because you won't have the resources and/or time to re-establish a base.)
as for my suggestion, the only necessary adjustments would be to give aliens an equally good chance at recovery. for example enabling egg spawning at growing hives to compensate for the extra long build time, or linking marine upgrades to number of command stations (bt mod).
i had a thrilling game about a week ago on veil. the aliens destroyed marine control base with a coordinated attack, then went and cleared up the pipeline base (which was well defended with IP's etc). but the game wasn't over, and apparently a marine had managed to get back into control and rebuild everything including IP's - their entire team and one-base tech was alive and online. they almost managed to take back pipeline too, but lost the battle and alien were victorious. if marines had taken pipeline back they would have got jetpacks back and easily had a chance to win the game from that point.
anyway, my point is that viable relocation should be part of the game. it's one of the oldest suggestions, and it's relevant to this discussion as the ability to come back from the dead will cause hesistation amongst the premature conceders.
I'm not 100% sure about that. I will use my example again, the marines wanted to kill our last hive with TURRETS. If we couldn't concede without their permission...
Yes, this is obvious but it helps my though process.
So I think Roobubba's idea is pretty sound there. Perhaps take the point further and borrow an idea from MOBAs; Allow Commanders to deny their structures, (The act of damaging your own buildings/units to prevent the enemy getting the credit for the kill), returning the full cost.
It adds another skill level for Comms and means that Harvester you just plopped down in front of a marine may be salvaged if you can time it right.