People don't concede often enough imo. The majority of pub players can't find their minimap, let alone realize how hopeless playing out a lost round is. It's time to move on and hope for a more balanced game next time.
Speaking of 'don't concede enough ', these are four screenshots from four matches that I have played today (I only played four and didn't cherry pick anything)
People don't concede often enough imo. The majority of pub players can't find their minimap, let alone realize how hopeless playing out a lost round is. It's time to move on and hope for a more balanced game next time.
Speaking of 'don't concede enough ', these are four screenshots from four matches that I have played today (I only played four and didn't cherry pick anything)
I can't remember the last time I've seen game end by normal winning conditions.
So you had 4 games where they ended in concedes... And we are suppose to care??? Point Palagi was bringing up is new players don't know a lost cause when they see one. If they don't know when it's best to concede and start anew they never will. Just because you too can not see when a game is lost or just enjoy the last stand nature of losing doesn't mean everyone feels the same way. In fact the discussions in this very post proves you're the vast minority.
I almost never experience this snowballing effect you are talking about. In fact, in most utterly lost games I and some other players have to convince the team to concede, often with one or two failed attempts to concede before.
I agree that pubs don't concede often enough, but sometimes in the wrong situation.
Removing the chat display for concede would reduce the amount of concedes by (my guess) 90%, resulting in a lot more unplayable turtles/stomps/overly long games.
Lol, you wouldn't like me, if I'm playing and can tell a game is lost (but will go on forever) by 5 minutes I just F4. Not gonna spend 40 minutes waiting to lose, and if somehow we pull a random victory out of it, it wasn't worth the 30 minutes spent playing a losing game. Winning is cool, but it doesn't make up for the game being a shit experience.
i thought you were talking about 'early' concedes... screenshots of a general concede could just as easily be a fantastic game which came to a natural ending and all players just decided to restart naturally.
i have witnessed early conceding a few times, and it's certainly annoying - but it's usually done by 'savvy' people anyway and therefore hiding the vote progress wouldn't make any difference.
if my team is conceding early it means they're not trying - at which point i would rather know so that i'm aware that my continued efforts would be wasted.
Lol, you wouldn't like me, if I'm playing and can tell a game is lost (but will go on forever) by 5 minutes I just F4. Not gonna spend 40 minutes waiting to lose, and if somehow we pull a random victory out of it, it wasn't worth the 30 minutes spent playing a losing game. Winning is cool, but it doesn't make up for the game being a shit experience.
That's the type of people I am talking about: "We don't own enemy from the very start -> rage quit/concede/F4". Then instead of actually being useful and helping your team, you spend rest of the match in ready room, making your team down by one player and not letting someone who actually wants to play to a join server. You just take an easy path and concede/quit, instead of trying. 5 minutes is nothing. Bonus points for preaching 'please quit everyone' from Ready room and making reset votes every minute.
So you had 4 games where they ended in concedes
No, I have 9 out of 10 games that end in concedes.
if they don't know when it's best to concede and start anew they never will
It's obvious, if you don't want to go on - you vote and keep your opinion to yourself. No need to force it on everyone.
And by the way, @Side1Bu2Rnz9 didn't you notice that your are a victim of this effect I am talking about? You clicked disagree on every post others voted to disagree, and voted agree on most posts majority agreed on. So right now, you disagree that this feature should be removed and then you agree that this feature should be removed, then you disagree again. Looks like somebody just followed the crowd.
This clearly proves all of my points: 1. snowballing effect exists (others did, so will I) 2. Nobody is actually reading posts in this thread.
i thought you were talking about 'early' concedes... screenshots of a general concede could just as easily be a fantastic game which came to a natural ending and all players just decided to restart naturally.
i have witnessed early conceding a few times, and it's certainly annoying - but it's usually done by 'savvy' people anyway and therefore hiding the vote progress wouldn't make any difference.
if my team is conceding early it means they're not trying - at which point i would rather know so that i'm aware that my continued efforts would be wasted.
Yes, I am talking about early concedes, those that are caused by one single loss that is not even critical.
That was a response to "people don't concede enough". When they clearly concede more than enough.
3 of 4 of those concedes were legit actually, and yet one of those was made too early, as marines didn't own much on map, they just managed to get elevator, while our main was shipping. As you can see below, I am going gorge in totally empty warehouse, and the guy in the vent asking comm to drop a hive (notice same name in vent and voice chat), we have enough res for that. But guess what, our second hive at ET was killed 15 seconds ago and it was followed by yellow wall of concede.
@xen32 are you even reading the comments I agree with? I agree with the people that bring up opinions that say you're wrong and that the feature of displaying concede votes should stay. I disagree with opinions like yours that say these names and concedes should be hidden. I don't look to see how many agrees or disagrees a post has nor do I give 2 shits. Maybe if you read those posts you would know this. Or maybe you did read it but you comprehension of these posts is so fucked up you thought they were agreeing with you.
This brings up to points that clearly disprove your points. 1. You don't read posts in this thread and only look at agrees or disagrees. 2. You're an idiot.
Lol, you wouldn't like me, if I'm playing and can tell a game is lost (but will go on forever) by 5 minutes I just F4. Not gonna spend 40 minutes waiting to lose, and if somehow we pull a random victory out of it, it wasn't worth the 30 minutes spent playing a losing game. Winning is cool, but it doesn't make up for the game being a shit experience.
As i said there are serveral games which are realy lost, but how boring could this game become if noone try to comeback/turn the tide. This is like soccer with 3:1 for the enemy team and there are only 10 minutes left. The perspective does not look very well, but there is a little chance to reach the goal. And at least you lose while your team tried his best. Or you want to give up the last 10 minutes and let the opposite team finish you with 10:1. Especially the games where the losing team wins at the end are the interesting ones or where the winning team getting really in trouble though they have the upper hand.
When i play a game i am always in contact with the team by using the microphone. It is very moralizing if there are 1-2 players in the team, who comment on the current events and focus the team on objectives. Who suggest possibilties and compliment team members. After 10-20 mins of conversation this team dont want to concede cause they are merged as a group. If these 1-2 guys, who continously commentating the game, losing the hope for a win or maybe a chance to damage the enemy side then the whole team getting demoralized. But if there is noone, who is trying to form a group by using the headset, the team will concede very fast if they getting problem of map control.
The basic of good games is nearly balanced teams at the beginning. The reason which forcing this game into an awesome match is when both teams have players who are leading the group by their voices.
Lol, you wouldn't like me, if I'm playing and can tell a game is lost (but will go on forever) by 5 minutes I just F4. Not gonna spend 40 minutes waiting to lose, and if somehow we pull a random victory out of it, it wasn't worth the 30 minutes spent playing a losing game. Winning is cool, but it doesn't make up for the game being a shit experience.
That's the type of people I am talking about: "We don't own enemy from the very start -> rage quit/concede/F4".
What if I told you:
Games can be lost within the first three minutes.
When you lose 4 extractors in the first few minutes, for example.
If your team loses (almost) literally every engagement.
When your comm sucks.
@xen32 are you even reading the comments I agree with? I agree with the people that bring up opinions that say you're wrong and that the feature of displaying concede votes should stay. I disagree with opinions like yours that say these names and concedes should be hidden. I don't look to see how many agrees or disagrees a post has nor do I give 2 shits. Maybe if you read those posts you would know this. Or maybe you did read it but you comprehension of these posts is so fucked up you thought they were agreeing with you.
This brings up to points that clearly disprove your points. 1. You don't read posts in this thread and only look at agrees or disagrees. 2. You're an idiot.
I made you rage on purpose, because I see that your are not stable and can't really be constructive. There is no point in continuing discussion with you.
Lol, you wouldn't like me, if I'm playing and can tell a game is lost (but will go on forever) by 5 minutes I just F4. Not gonna spend 40 minutes waiting to lose, and if somehow we pull a random victory out of it, it wasn't worth the 30 minutes spent playing a losing game. Winning is cool, but it doesn't make up for the game being a shit experience.
As i said there are serveral games which are realy lost, but how boring could this game become if noone try to comeback/turn the tide. This is like soccer with 3:1 for the enemy team and there are only 10 minutes left. The perspective does not look very well, but there is a little chance to reach the goal. And at least you lose while your team tried his best. Or you want to give up the last 10 minutes and let the opposite team finish you with 10:1. Especially the games where the losing team wins at the end are the interesting ones or where the winning team getting really in trouble though they have the upper hand.
When i play a game i am always in contact with the team by using the microphone. It is very moralizing if there are 1-2 players in the team, who comment on the current events and focus the team on objectives. Who suggest possibilties and compliment team members. After 10-20 mins of conversation this team dont want to concede cause they are merged as a group. If these 1-2 guys, who continously commentating the game, losing the hope for a win or maybe a chance to damage the enemy side then the whole team getting demoralized. But if there is noone, who is trying to form a group by using the headset, the team will concede very fast if they getting problem of map control.
The basic of good games is nearly balanced teams at the beginning. The reason which forcing this game into an awesome match is when both teams have players who are leading the group by their voices.
The problem with this analogy is that in soccer the winning team doesn't have jet packs, exo suits and the ability to steam roll you while your not only behind but stuck to running around with no goalie. There's always a chance in soccer because the winning team gets no benefits for winning other than a score buffer zone. Though I agree that some games can turn around if the team actually works together the vast majority of the time it's too little too late and I'd rather start a fresh match than watch my team slowly die.
@xen32 are you even reading the comments I agree with? I agree with the people that bring up opinions that say you're wrong and that the feature of displaying concede votes should stay. I disagree with opinions like yours that say these names and concedes should be hidden. I don't look to see how many agrees or disagrees a post has nor do I give 2 shits. Maybe if you read those posts you would know this. Or maybe you did read it but you comprehension of these posts is so fucked up you thought they were agreeing with you.
This brings up to points that clearly disprove your points. 1. You don't read posts in this thread and only look at agrees or disagrees. 2. You're an idiot.
I made you rage on purpose, because I see that your are not stable and can't really be constructive. There is no point in continuing discussion with you.
So you're a troll... You're right there is no point in talking to you. And just because I threw in two cuss words doesn't mean I raged... Lol I'm just sometimes amazed by the stupidity of some people on the Internet.
Lol, you wouldn't like me, if I'm playing and can tell a game is lost (but will go on forever) by 5 minutes I just F4. Not gonna spend 40 minutes waiting to lose, and if somehow we pull a random victory out of it, it wasn't worth the 30 minutes spent playing a losing game. Winning is cool, but it doesn't make up for the game being a shit experience.
That's the type of people I am talking about: "We don't own enemy from the very start -> rage quit/concede/F4".
What if I told you:
Games can be lost within the first three minutes.
When you lose 4 extractors in the first few minutes, for example.
If your team loses (almost) literally every engagement.
When your comm sucks.
If you think the game is lost after this, please keep your opinion to yourself. No need to spread depression through entire team.
I am not against concede, I am against everyone knowing that there are people on your team who already gave up.
Lol, you wouldn't like me, if I'm playing and can tell a game is lost (but will go on forever) by 5 minutes I just F4. Not gonna spend 40 minutes waiting to lose, and if somehow we pull a random victory out of it, it wasn't worth the 30 minutes spent playing a losing game. Winning is cool, but it doesn't make up for the game being a shit experience.
That's the type of people I am talking about: "We don't own enemy from the very start -> rage quit/concede/F4".
What if I told you:
Games can be lost within the first three minutes.
When you lose 4 extractors in the first few minutes, for example.
If your team loses (almost) literally every engagement.
When your comm sucks.
If you think the game is lost after this, please keep your opinion to yourself. No need to spread depression through entire team.
I am not against concede, I am against everyone knowing that there are people on your team who already gave up.
What else should I do? If I leave, you complain about ragequit. If I go spec/readyroom you complain that I block a slot.
What is left?
You can't demand that I play a game to the end which I don't find enjoyable.
If anything they need to make it EASIER to concede... not HARDER..
In my experiences with NS2 it is fairly rare to get a team that will actually concede when it is over.
Many pub games are over inside the 10 minute mark, with one team holding the entire map, and the other team struggling to hold 1 or 2 resource points. Yet there's often another 10-15 minutes of pointless one sided fighting as the winning team camps the losing team's main base.
Aliens especially have very little "turtling" ability, and I've seen many games where the Marines just sit outside the base spawn killing aliens when they hatch from eggs, waiting for their commander to roll the totally unnecessary arc train.
It's already hard enough to get people to concede when it's over. Some people are naïve enough to think they can still win, some people simply refuse to ever concede, and some people have fun dying over and over again fighting a losing battle.
It's no fun playing a game that is already over (most of the time I just go hide somewhere and wait) hiding the concede voting would just make those horrible games last longer than they already do.
Personally, I often ask our comm first, whether he wants to concede or not.
Imo, it's his call in the 1st place...especially if he tried his best.
That's my main reason for wanting a visible concede-vote.
I want to see what / if our comm votes.
If he gives up, then who am I to disagree.
But if he still has a resque plan, or finds a way to motivate the team to die a glorious death, I won't give up either.
Yes, fat chance we will loose in the end, but the enemy will have to really fight for it, and it' a gg for everyone.
And I think it's also usefull to check the scoreboard-rank of the teamplayer who starts the vote.
Did he carry the battle most of the time, as one of our top fighters? His vote weighs usually more than some green noob who was lucky to even find the concede button.
All examples that will eventually lead to a snowball effect, but if it's initiated by our comm (or an experienced guy who convinces him), then I'm ok with that.
But if I disagree, I will make sure my voice is heard, and channel my rage into another effort to regain some ground.
Okay, let's finally be constructive in here. Can some one please tell me what is clear downside of no seeing who already voted to concede?
Please answer THIS question, and try not go to unrelated topics like 'games decided in 3 minutes', which has nothing to do with with messeges showing or not showing.
Okay, let's finally be constructive in here. Can some one please tell me what is clear downside of no seeing who already voted to concede?
Please answer THIS question, and try not go to unrelated topics like 'games decided in 3 minutes', which has nothing to do with with messeges showing or not showing.
The downside is that it will make the team less likely to concede. We've answered that for you dozens of times now.
Anyway, in the near 700 hours I've played the game, I don't think I have seen my team concede ONCE when I didn't want them to or didn't feel the game was over. Plenty of times the vote has come up, but not a single time has it passed when it shouldn't have.
:? concede is fine, you either have players that use it as soon as they lose something on the map, or players that as stated, cant find there minimap let alone concede.
This snowballing effect were one concedes and the rest follows, if that's the case then you where never winning anyway.
Okay, let's finally be constructive in here. Can some one please tell me what is clear downside of no seeing who already voted to concede?
Please answer THIS question, and try not go to unrelated topics like 'games decided in 3 minutes', which has nothing to do with with messeges showing or not showing.
I almost never experience this snowballing effect you are talking about. In fact, in most utterly lost games I and some other players have to convince the team to concede, often with one or two failed attempts to concede before.
I agree that pubs don't concede often enough, but sometimes in the wrong situation.
Removing the chat display for concede would reduce the amount of concedes by (my guess) 90%, resulting in a lot more unplayable turtles/stomps/overly long games.
Okay, I stand corrected, games will never end if people won't see who voted.
But there is still a problem and you can't disagree on this one:
There should be an option to cancel your concede vote. Once you voted, there is no way back. And you could change your mind since then.
Any arguments against this one?
Okay, I stand corrected, games will never end if people won't see who voted.
But there is still a problem and you can't disagree on this one:
There should be an option to cancel your concede vote. Once you voted, there is no way back. And you could change your mind since then.
Any arguments against this one?
So far I never, ever encountered this problem, so I don't think it's an issue.
...
You really want to find a problem with concede, don't you?
Okay, I stand corrected, games will never end if people won't see who voted.
But there is still a problem and you can't disagree on this one:
There should be an option to cancel your concede vote. Once you voted, there is no way back. And you could change your mind since then.
Any arguments against this one?
Your concede vote cancels itself after some minutes ... (I don't know after how many, but you have to revote after a few minutes)
Okay, I stand corrected, games will never end if people won't see who voted.
But there is still a problem and you can't disagree on this one:
There should be an option to cancel your concede vote. Once you voted, there is no way back. And you could change your mind since then.
Any arguments against this one?
So far I never, ever encountered this problem, so I don't think it's an issue.
...
You really want to find a problem with concede, don't you?
It is flawed.
And if you want to, you may never use it. It's an option.
@B3rT I know it cancel after some time, but what if you want to fix your mistake real quick, things suddenly went better and you are 1 vote away from losing?
The problem with this analogy is that in soccer the winning team doesn't have jet packs, exo suits and the ability to steam roll you while your not only behind but stuck to running around with no goalie. There's always a chance in soccer because the winning team gets no benefits for winning other than a score buffer zone. Though I agree that some games can turn around if the team actually works together the vast majority of the time it's too little too late and I'd rather start a fresh match than watch my team slowly die.
So maybe i should change my analogy a little bit: The soccer team which shoots one goal ends the game. One team is pushed back in its own field and close to lose the game. One skulk could shoot a long pass for the main base power with support of a drifter and a gorge and force the other team back to its own goal.
The longer i try to transform NS2 into soccer the weirder it gets. NS2 is like playing with 10 balls on 5 goals with laser guns and jetpacks
But i still think it is better to fight till end unless you have no higher life forms/gear, less than 3RTs for a long time and no chance(maybe duration of 5mins) till you get new life forms or high tech gear like exos/jetpacks. If you have 2 CCs or 2 Hives you should struggle. This refers to games which goes longer than 8/10mins. If you are getting dominate the whole first 8 mins then you can F4^^
On topic: I dont think you need to hide the concedes. As i said the issue are caused by the players. They need to struggle like before they introduced the concede button. But anyway the concede is killing the atmosphere a little bit in end games. When you finally getting blown up the second base of a team after a 60min game then it instantly concede =(
Yeah, I rarely if ever see a team concede when they still have a chance of winning.
Ok, is anyone actually reading in here? This post is not about removing concede vote.
This thread is about making concede votes harder to pull off because the OP doesn't like his enemies quitting when he's stomping them. Simple enough. Concede needs to happen MORE often, not less.
I guess you didn't read anything either.
I believe most people are reading all your comments but they have a complete different experience in game than you. I very rarely ever see a mass concede happen before it is ready. Like many have said before, I find it typically impossible to get my team to "snowball into conceding" when they have already lost. Hiding the vote would just make this more impossible to coordinate. I can't tell you how many times in a lost game I hear "just need one more concede vote please" and sadly it doesn't happen. What servers are you playing on where people are starting concede votes prematurely?
Stop pretending people aren't reading your comments. It's just you keep bringing up a "problem" no one else here seems to experience so they end up talking about other stuff (like a 7 min concede option, etc).
So you have four screenshots of games ending in a surrender (by the way, you don't mention when the surrender happened) and you hold that up as evidence that a) concedes happen too often at times when they are not appropriate, and b) this problem is occurring precisely because people are notified when someone votes to concede?
Sorry, at best that's really flimsy anecdotal evidence and at worst it's no argument at all. Not going to convince me, or anyone else for that matter.
As i said there are serveral games which are realy lost, but how boring could this game become if noone try to comeback/turn the tide. This is like soccer with 3:1 for the enemy team and there are only 10 minutes left. The perspective does not look very well, but there is a little chance to reach the goal. And at least you lose while your team tried his best. Or you want to give up the last 10 minutes and let the opposite team finish you with 10:1. Especially the games where the losing team wins at the end are the interesting ones or where the winning team getting really in trouble though they have the upper hand.
As someone who loves studying game design/theory, this analogy bothers me. I can tell you that it doesn't really make sense to compare soccer to NS2 in terms of surrender/concession.
1. Soccer has a built in time limit - the game will end, no matter what has happened, when 90 minutes have elapsed (plus however many extra are awarded by the officials). NS2 does not have a built in time limit, and will go on indefinitely until a victory condition has been reached. Therefore there is no need for soccer to have a concede option, because the game is designed to end after a certain amount of time no matter what.
2. NS2 is a zero-sum game. What this means is that whenever a team wins engagements or takes control of the map, they are also earning an inherent advantage in future conflicts. They are awarded additional resources, which they can use to upgrade their units to be more powerful. Soccer is not a zero-sum game - a team that is down 10-1 is not any less likely to score a goal than a team that is winning 2-0. It isn't like the losing team is required to run slower, or play with a man down, or anything like that. So the chances of comeback in soccer are always more feasible than they are in NS2.
Instead of soccer, I would suggest comparing NS2 to chess. Like NS2, chess does not have a built in time limit - the game will continue until a certain victory condition is achieved. And like NS2, a player that wins "engagements" is also increasing his chances of winning future "engagements:" by removing his opponent's pieces from the board, the winning player is giving himself an advantage in all future conflicts, thus increasing his chances of winning and decreasing the chances of a comeback occurring. And lo and behold, chess games almost always end in a concession at the highest level. Great chess players will eventually realize that they have no chance of coming back, and rather than continue to carry out a game that has been lost for more time, they give up and move on to the next.
Comments
Speaking of 'don't concede enough ', these are four screenshots from four matches that I have played today (I only played four and didn't cherry pick anything)
So you had 4 games where they ended in concedes... And we are suppose to care??? Point Palagi was bringing up is new players don't know a lost cause when they see one. If they don't know when it's best to concede and start anew they never will. Just because you too can not see when a game is lost or just enjoy the last stand nature of losing doesn't mean everyone feels the same way. In fact the discussions in this very post proves you're the vast minority.
I agree that pubs don't concede often enough, but sometimes in the wrong situation.
Removing the chat display for concede would reduce the amount of concedes by (my guess) 90%, resulting in a lot more unplayable turtles/stomps/overly long games.
i thought you were talking about 'early' concedes... screenshots of a general concede could just as easily be a fantastic game which came to a natural ending and all players just decided to restart naturally.
i have witnessed early conceding a few times, and it's certainly annoying - but it's usually done by 'savvy' people anyway and therefore hiding the vote progress wouldn't make any difference.
if my team is conceding early it means they're not trying - at which point i would rather know so that i'm aware that my continued efforts would be wasted.
That's the type of people I am talking about: "We don't own enemy from the very start -> rage quit/concede/F4". Then instead of actually being useful and helping your team, you spend rest of the match in ready room, making your team down by one player and not letting someone who actually wants to play to a join server. You just take an easy path and concede/quit, instead of trying. 5 minutes is nothing. Bonus points for preaching 'please quit everyone' from Ready room and making reset votes every minute.
No, I have 9 out of 10 games that end in concedes.
It's obvious, if you don't want to go on - you vote and keep your opinion to yourself. No need to force it on everyone.
And by the way, @Side1Bu2Rnz9 didn't you notice that your are a victim of this effect I am talking about? You clicked disagree on every post others voted to disagree, and voted agree on most posts majority agreed on. So right now, you disagree that this feature should be removed and then you agree that this feature should be removed, then you disagree again. Looks like somebody just followed the crowd.
This clearly proves all of my points: 1. snowballing effect exists (others did, so will I) 2. Nobody is actually reading posts in this thread.
Yes, I am talking about early concedes, those that are caused by one single loss that is not even critical.
That was a response to "people don't concede enough". When they clearly concede more than enough.
3 of 4 of those concedes were legit actually, and yet one of those was made too early, as marines didn't own much on map, they just managed to get elevator, while our main was shipping. As you can see below, I am going gorge in totally empty warehouse, and the guy in the vent asking comm to drop a hive (notice same name in vent and voice chat), we have enough res for that. But guess what, our second hive at ET was killed 15 seconds ago and it was followed by yellow wall of concede.
This brings up to points that clearly disprove your points. 1. You don't read posts in this thread and only look at agrees or disagrees. 2. You're an idiot.
As i said there are serveral games which are realy lost, but how boring could this game become if noone try to comeback/turn the tide. This is like soccer with 3:1 for the enemy team and there are only 10 minutes left. The perspective does not look very well, but there is a little chance to reach the goal. And at least you lose while your team tried his best. Or you want to give up the last 10 minutes and let the opposite team finish you with 10:1. Especially the games where the losing team wins at the end are the interesting ones or where the winning team getting really in trouble though they have the upper hand.
When i play a game i am always in contact with the team by using the microphone. It is very moralizing if there are 1-2 players in the team, who comment on the current events and focus the team on objectives. Who suggest possibilties and compliment team members. After 10-20 mins of conversation this team dont want to concede cause they are merged as a group. If these 1-2 guys, who continously commentating the game, losing the hope for a win or maybe a chance to damage the enemy side then the whole team getting demoralized. But if there is noone, who is trying to form a group by using the headset, the team will concede very fast if they getting problem of map control.
The basic of good games is nearly balanced teams at the beginning. The reason which forcing this game into an awesome match is when both teams have players who are leading the group by their voices.
What if I told you:
Games can be lost within the first three minutes.
When you lose 4 extractors in the first few minutes, for example.
If your team loses (almost) literally every engagement.
When your comm sucks.
I don't think there is a point in arguing with you as long as you take this approach to the disucssion.
edit: Fixed quotes.
I made you rage on purpose, because I see that your are not stable and can't really be constructive. There is no point in continuing discussion with you.
The problem with this analogy is that in soccer the winning team doesn't have jet packs, exo suits and the ability to steam roll you while your not only behind but stuck to running around with no goalie. There's always a chance in soccer because the winning team gets no benefits for winning other than a score buffer zone. Though I agree that some games can turn around if the team actually works together the vast majority of the time it's too little too late and I'd rather start a fresh match than watch my team slowly die.
So you're a troll... You're right there is no point in talking to you. And just because I threw in two cuss words doesn't mean I raged... Lol I'm just sometimes amazed by the stupidity of some people on the Internet.
If you think the game is lost after this, please keep your opinion to yourself. No need to spread depression through entire team.
I am not against concede, I am against everyone knowing that there are people on your team who already gave up.
What else should I do? If I leave, you complain about ragequit. If I go spec/readyroom you complain that I block a slot.
What is left?
You can't demand that I play a game to the end which I don't find enjoyable.
In my experiences with NS2 it is fairly rare to get a team that will actually concede when it is over.
Many pub games are over inside the 10 minute mark, with one team holding the entire map, and the other team struggling to hold 1 or 2 resource points. Yet there's often another 10-15 minutes of pointless one sided fighting as the winning team camps the losing team's main base.
Aliens especially have very little "turtling" ability, and I've seen many games where the Marines just sit outside the base spawn killing aliens when they hatch from eggs, waiting for their commander to roll the totally unnecessary arc train.
It's already hard enough to get people to concede when it's over. Some people are naïve enough to think they can still win, some people simply refuse to ever concede, and some people have fun dying over and over again fighting a losing battle.
It's no fun playing a game that is already over (most of the time I just go hide somewhere and wait) hiding the concede voting would just make those horrible games last longer than they already do.
Imo, it's his call in the 1st place...especially if he tried his best.
That's my main reason for wanting a visible concede-vote.
I want to see what / if our comm votes.
If he gives up, then who am I to disagree.
But if he still has a resque plan, or finds a way to motivate the team to die a glorious death, I won't give up either.
Yes, fat chance we will loose in the end, but the enemy will have to really fight for it, and it' a gg for everyone.
And I think it's also usefull to check the scoreboard-rank of the teamplayer who starts the vote.
Did he carry the battle most of the time, as one of our top fighters? His vote weighs usually more than some green noob who was lucky to even find the concede button.
All examples that will eventually lead to a snowball effect, but if it's initiated by our comm (or an experienced guy who convinces him), then I'm ok with that.
But if I disagree, I will make sure my voice is heard, and channel my rage into another effort to regain some ground.
Please answer THIS question, and try not go to unrelated topics like 'games decided in 3 minutes', which has nothing to do with with messeges showing or not showing.
The downside is that it will make the team less likely to concede. We've answered that for you dozens of times now.
Anyway, in the near 700 hours I've played the game, I don't think I have seen my team concede ONCE when I didn't want them to or didn't feel the game was over. Plenty of times the vote has come up, but not a single time has it passed when it shouldn't have.
This snowballing effect were one concedes and the rest follows, if that's the case then you where never winning anyway.
edit: typo
But there is still a problem and you can't disagree on this one:
There should be an option to cancel your concede vote. Once you voted, there is no way back. And you could change your mind since then.
Any arguments against this one?
So far I never, ever encountered this problem, so I don't think it's an issue.
...
You really want to find a problem with concede, don't you?
Your concede vote cancels itself after some minutes ... (I don't know after how many, but you have to revote after a few minutes)
It is flawed.
And if you want to, you may never use it. It's an option.
@B3rT I know it cancel after some time, but what if you want to fix your mistake real quick, things suddenly went better and you are 1 vote away from losing?
It's a nice option to have.
So maybe i should change my analogy a little bit: The soccer team which shoots one goal ends the game. One team is pushed back in its own field and close to lose the game. One skulk could shoot a long pass for the main base power with support of a drifter and a gorge and force the other team back to its own goal.
The longer i try to transform NS2 into soccer the weirder it gets. NS2 is like playing with 10 balls on 5 goals with laser guns and jetpacks
But i still think it is better to fight till end unless you have no higher life forms/gear, less than 3RTs for a long time and no chance(maybe duration of 5mins) till you get new life forms or high tech gear like exos/jetpacks. If you have 2 CCs or 2 Hives you should struggle. This refers to games which goes longer than 8/10mins. If you are getting dominate the whole first 8 mins then you can F4^^
On topic: I dont think you need to hide the concedes. As i said the issue are caused by the players. They need to struggle like before they introduced the concede button. But anyway the concede is killing the atmosphere a little bit in end games. When you finally getting blown up the second base of a team after a 60min game then it instantly concede =(
I believe most people are reading all your comments but they have a complete different experience in game than you. I very rarely ever see a mass concede happen before it is ready. Like many have said before, I find it typically impossible to get my team to "snowball into conceding" when they have already lost. Hiding the vote would just make this more impossible to coordinate. I can't tell you how many times in a lost game I hear "just need one more concede vote please" and sadly it doesn't happen. What servers are you playing on where people are starting concede votes prematurely?
Stop pretending people aren't reading your comments. It's just you keep bringing up a "problem" no one else here seems to experience so they end up talking about other stuff (like a 7 min concede option, etc).
Sorry, at best that's really flimsy anecdotal evidence and at worst it's no argument at all. Not going to convince me, or anyone else for that matter.
As someone who loves studying game design/theory, this analogy bothers me. I can tell you that it doesn't really make sense to compare soccer to NS2 in terms of surrender/concession.
1. Soccer has a built in time limit - the game will end, no matter what has happened, when 90 minutes have elapsed (plus however many extra are awarded by the officials). NS2 does not have a built in time limit, and will go on indefinitely until a victory condition has been reached. Therefore there is no need for soccer to have a concede option, because the game is designed to end after a certain amount of time no matter what.
2. NS2 is a zero-sum game. What this means is that whenever a team wins engagements or takes control of the map, they are also earning an inherent advantage in future conflicts. They are awarded additional resources, which they can use to upgrade their units to be more powerful. Soccer is not a zero-sum game - a team that is down 10-1 is not any less likely to score a goal than a team that is winning 2-0. It isn't like the losing team is required to run slower, or play with a man down, or anything like that. So the chances of comeback in soccer are always more feasible than they are in NS2.
Instead of soccer, I would suggest comparing NS2 to chess. Like NS2, chess does not have a built in time limit - the game will continue until a certain victory condition is achieved. And like NS2, a player that wins "engagements" is also increasing his chances of winning future "engagements:" by removing his opponent's pieces from the board, the winning player is giving himself an advantage in all future conflicts, thus increasing his chances of winning and decreasing the chances of a comeback occurring. And lo and behold, chess games almost always end in a concession at the highest level. Great chess players will eventually realize that they have no chance of coming back, and rather than continue to carry out a game that has been lost for more time, they give up and move on to the next.