Concede shouldn't be allowed until 7-8 minutes in which is roughly when fades appear for most games. At that point, fades can pull back a losing game or help finish a closed out one. The majority of games before this timer aren't set in stone, sometimes its just overwhelmingly one-sided which end pretty quickly anyway but most can be won within correct play and tech.
Fades at 8 minutes seem a fairly even game and I don't think anyone should be conceding those aliens or marines. When people want to concede early, its because TEAMS ARE UNBALANCED and the other team doesn't want to commit to ending the game to ensure a safe win.
Also, "most" and "majority" doesn't mean much. Is it closer to 51%, 75% or 99%? Regardless, games that should be conceded before 8 minutes happen often enough and limiting concede just leads to people asking for F4s. I swear, concede haters never played NS1 or NS2 before concede. The issue is not the mechanic. It is people giving up. I enjoy concede a lot more than having half my team afk/in ready room/browsing other servers. It already happens with concede and it will just get worse without it.
I am all for making concede more "exciting" and/or reducing its need but removing it is a major step backwards.
@IronHorse
Why do you hate aliens so? Always marine buffs and alien nerfs with you.
If its a woefully imbalanced game skillwise then it will end pretty quickly usually. The only issue with this I see is that aliens tend to have a harder time closing out a winning game until fades arrive. If people want to F4, you can't stop them unless you use a matchmaking style system.
If aliens sustain 3 res which is seen as bad by most pubbers then that's usually the time. Even if you are a bit low on res, fades are likely only a minute or two away. You'll probably lose a lot of engagements just before then but you will still get them out in due time eventually unless you literally are locked to 1 res node which at that point, you can concede if you can't get to 35 res.
I'm not a concede hater, I'd rather have it than not but concede isn't really the issue here, its the community. Limiting it to 7-8 minutes wouldn't be needed or proposed if people understood the flow of the meta and the potential of comeback mechanics like fades and onos. The amount of times I see people asking for a concede when people are 1-2 res from a higher lifeform is absurd. Hell, you see it a lot just before lerks come out.
If its a woefully imbalanced game skillwise then it will end pretty quickly usually. The only issue with this I see is that aliens tend to have a harder time closing out a winning game until fades arrive. If people want to F4, you can't stop them unless you use a matchmaking style system.
People want to F4 because they can't concede. You don't F4 if the concede vote passes, which was the whole point of implementing concede. Also, changing the word used from "most/majority" to "usually" doesn't address my point that it still happens that you can't concede when the game is practically over because of an arbitrary time decided and that it happens enough to cause frustration and that it is a made up statistic which has no basis in numbers.
If aliens sustain 3 res which is seen as bad by most pubbers then that's usually the time. Even if you are a bit low on res, fades are likely only a minute or two away. You'll probably lose a lot of engagements just before then but you will still get them out in due time eventually unless you literally are locked to 1 res node which at that point, you can concede if you can't get to 35 res.
3 res is bad? That's about the average. Do you expect 6 minutes fades or something? When you see 6 minutes fades it is about time for the marines to concede unless they can score lifeform kills quickly. And yes, when I'm on 1.5 average res nodes I want to concede before 8 minutes unless marines have no res either.
I'm not a concede hater, I'd rather have it than not but concede isn't really the issue here, its the community. Limiting it to 7-8 minutes wouldn't be needed or proposed if people understood the flow of the meta and the potential of comeback mechanics like fades and onos. The amount of times I see people asking for a concede when people are 1-2 res from a higher lifeform is absurd. Hell, you see it a lot just before lerks come out.
It is 8 minutes default as far as I know. Which means you are either making stuff up or your server admin has the good sense to lower the timer for concede. Anyway, if the concede vote passes in that situation, I wouldn't have faith in my team to make the comeback so its probably for the best.
Oh, and there are concede haters around here. You can do a search for past threads.
Warning messages when your team is falling behind on the RT graph or Kill graph and then maybe a AUTO concede feature using some of the cinematic methods mentioned above when mathematically it is almost impossible to come back and win the game in the next 20 minutes.
IMO people don't use concede enough and the % of votes required should be lower. I dont know why people want to keep playing only to die repeatedly and loose when they finally have enough onos to finish you off.
plot income (y axis) vs. time (x-axis) with 1 line for aliens and another (different color) for marines
indicate important events like whenever one team loses too many expensive things (eg. fades) in a short time period
below it, show a timeline of what build order each side used (mainly the technologies researched)
add some UI to toggle between different y-axis plots: damage dealt to players, cost of alive lifeforms vs. cost of weapons+equipment, percentage of time spent on offense
plot income (y axis) vs. time (x-axis) with 1 line for aliens and another (different color) for marines
indicate important events like whenever one team loses too many expensive things (eg. fades) in a short time period
below it, show a timeline of what build order each side used (mainly the technologies researched)
add some UI to toggle between different y-axis plots: damage dealt to players, cost of alive lifeforms vs. cost of weapons+equipment, percentage of time spent on offense
You already see that if you press Q thanks to ns2stats.
I admit that the concede option can be useful but it is used too often because the game mechanics are broken in that aspect. The concede option is like a crutch for an amputee.
You can improve the crutch as much as you want it would never replace your leg. Players shouldn't feel the need for that crutch. Ironhorse is right, the best thing to do is to improve the game not the concede option.
One thing I think could do the trick:
-Make a respawn cost 1 teamres (or so)
This way as soon as one team is in a really bad situation then it would just naturally collapse. No more endless agony. The game would be over before the end of the concede vote. So you would not need a concede option anymore.
I admit that the concede option can be useful but it is used too often because the game mechanics are broken in that aspect. The concede option is like a crutch for an amputee.
You can improve the crutch as much as you want it would never replace your leg. Players shouldn't feel the need for that crutch. Ironhorse is right, the best thing to do is to improve the game not the concede option.
One thing I think could do the trick:
-Make a respawn cost 1 teamres (or so)
This way as soon as one team is in a really bad situation then it would just naturally collapse. No more endless agony. The game would be over before the end of the concede vote. So you would not need a concede option anymore.
To be tested...
Why not both? Both options are not mutually exclusive. They can be worked on at different points in development and seamlessly come together later on. I actually believe that rebalancing the game so that ever 4/5 games is fun, not 1/5 games as it is now would be further improved upon with a more fun concede option. They would work better together.
FrozenNew York, NYJoin Date: 2010-07-02Member: 72228Members, Constellation
One of my least favorite changes to game that I've seen is that there is no penalty for dying outside of losing map presence. Obviously it's important, but shutting down alien res flow for precious seconds is extremely important. It recalculates every decision made by aliens. I'll so often die instead of go to heal because of this. Before the changes I would always go heal instead of yolo parasiting.
I admit that the concede option can be useful but it is used too often because the game mechanics are broken in that aspect. The concede option is like a crutch for an amputee.
You can improve the crutch as much as you want it would never replace your leg. Players shouldn't feel the need for that crutch. Ironhorse is right, the best thing to do is to improve the game not the concede option.
One thing I think could do the trick:
-Make a respawn cost 1 teamres (or so)
This way as soon as one team is in a really bad situation then it would just naturally collapse. No more endless agony. The game would be over before the end of the concede vote. So you would not need a concede option anymore.
To be tested...
Again, I'd like to repeat. The problem is not conceding but giving up. At best you can change the game such that you minimise it but there will always be a point where people will give up. Even in your suggestion (which is terrible by the way), people will likely give up before reaching the point where they have 0 team res.
^ You break the spirit of your enemy. Seems like a valid game to pretend you are stronger until they concede or give up and not expand anymore.
Conceding seems valid too. When you lose queen in chess for no reason, you concede. You do not play till you have only pawns left. Not after you have like >100 h experience and get bored of finishing dead opponent/surviving desperately.
Don't know where you people play. Where and when I play concede is underused. Healthy use of concede could reclaim like a minute or more of your life on average every round. Maybe that's my thing, that I enjoy the moment when the opponent is bested and how and not the moment when the last hive blows in my face.
There is the voting barrier you have do climb already. Even few players that disagree can stop the concede and lay out their alternative plan over the mic. For sure, something like "Guys why are you conceding, we have like 5 % chance to win??!", is not very effective pep-talk. And sure, people should still try if the vote fails and the non-conceders are reasonable. And it is alright to F4, if they are unreasonable (let's say turtle scenario).
What I am trying to say is, it sort of works. It's alright to lose, it's alright to give up, it's alright to concede. Most of us are adults here. It can be dangerous and unresponsible and contraproductive to change actual gameplay, because of frequency of concedes. If you make the endgame quicker, just because of it (and not because it is more fun), the compulsive conceders will just try to concede even sooner.
@Benson Oh I didn't mean punish those who use it! I meant punish that specific player only if they do things like spam it every round. (Or atleast give them a warning that they're using it to much.) Yes,that has happened before,atleast on the servers I go on
It bothers me that teams lately have been giving up so easily <:/
Again, I'd like to repeat. The problem is not conceding but giving up.
What? No..
Why would anyone possibly want to attempt an obviously futile effort?? Many late game scenarios require far far too much effort and very little room for a successful comeback in public rounds.
The frequency alone of concede's usage highlights this universally accepted fact, across NS2's community. Why you are ignoring it and suggesting that there's somehow always a possibility of turning it around and it's simply people demotivating themselves instead of facing a practical reality - is so naive for a veteran to say that it is downright disingenuous.
Some rounds need to end sooner, or else you're just going to have players leave the server because no one enjoys participating in an inevitable outcome for 10 frustrating and unnecessary minutes.
Lastly, why you would suggest attempting to somehow change the mindset of an entire community over addressing the problem through result driven design changes is beyond me..
Edit: I apologize for derailing, that quote there just upset me. I've got nothing else to add to the thread and will step out
It would be fun if concede gave the team another objective instead of winning; forcing a draw. When a team concedes at least half the players needs to reach certain semi-random areas on the map (sewage tunnel or ventilation system entrance, loading dock, tram station etc) before a short timer runs out. The conceding team will probably be mowed down 9 times out of 10, but it would still be a lot less anticlimatic than when the game just suddenly stops in its tracks.
This thread has taken a turn I did not anticipate. I would appreciate it if we got back onto the topic of ideas for a better concede. Discussing to concede or not to concede can go to one of those old threads. Let this one keep generating ideas.
^ Seems legit to investigate need for concede itself, if we are to suggest improvements that will be popular.
Let's see then: a) play a better animation b) start some kind of mini-game c) do nothing and speed up the start of the next round. Didn't we exhaust all possible ideas?
Okay few more then (I am just making random stuff up now ):
d) play back some interesting parts of the round (fade/lerk kills, techpoint takeovers)
e) make some space for inter-player discussion with interactive pen (like in hockey)
f) any of the above and start loading next map in the background (sneaky!)
g) swap the teams (and see if the opposing team could recover the game the other team conceded)
h) let the conceded team revert to a time in the round they think they made mistake and see if they can do better this time
i) give the conceded team best players from the winning team + those who did not vote concede and rest in the other team (and see who was right about conceding/not conceding)
PS:
j) something to allow losing team to force a draw. Maybe something to destroy the map itself. For marines place nukes at structural points of course . Aliens and infestation could perhaps turn cancerous and try to spread it to whole map vs FT marines.
k) something to unite the teams. Maybe something cooperative or PvsE. Marines + Aliens versus Predat... (cough cough intelectual rights lawsuit comming) .... versus Zombies let's say
i) give the conceded team best players from the winning team + those who did not vote concede and rest in the other team (and see who was right about conceding/not conceding)
This made me think, if the route of a minigame is used, the players that did not vote to concede get to keep their upgrades and equipment for the minigame.
Either that or they die immedately.
Changing the player's role in the minigame/end scene could help people to not concede so readily without needing to adjust much else
^ Seems legit to investigate need for concede itself, if we are to suggest improvements that will be popular.
It is a valid question, but it does not need to be answered in this thread. It is one of those topics with multiple threads about it that all became countless pages long.
It would be fun if concede gave the team another objective instead of winning; forcing a draw. When a team concedes at least half the players needs to reach certain semi-random areas on the map (sewage tunnel or ventilation system entrance, loading dock, tram station etc) before a short timer runs out. The conceding team will probably be mowed down 9 times out of 10, but it would still be a lot less anticlimatic than when the game just suddenly stops in its tracks.
I've seen suggestions like this floating round for a while. I don't think any sort of concede "endgame" should change the official outcome of a match. If you concede, you have officially lost no matter the outcome of some potential post-concede minigame. However, the minigame could potentially grant the conceders a "moral victory" (and perhaps if they lose, a "humiliation"), which they can gloat about in the readyroom afterwards - but for all intents and purposes, they have lost, and this fact shouldn't be altered.
The is exactly what I would want in a concede. The winning team won, but gives the losing team a chance for a moral victory. I would hope it would create memorable moments which people laugh about at a later time.
BeigeAlertTexasJoin Date: 2013-08-08Member: 186657Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Diamond, Reinforced - Shadow, Subnautica Playtester, Pistachionauts
Hey guys! We'll be testing out a feature soon that makes the conceding team automatically uninstall ns2 from their steam library. We hope this will encourage more players to fight on until the bitter end.
Hey guys! We'll be testing out a feature soon that makes the conceding team automatically uninstall ns2 from their steam library. We hope this will encourage more players to fight on until the bitter end.
Omg so it was you who's been making my games vanish from my SSD!
Hey guys! We'll be testing out a feature soon that makes the conceding team automatically uninstall ns2 from their steam library. We hope this will encourage more players to fight on until the bitter end.
Again, I'd like to repeat. The problem is not conceding but giving up.
What? No..
Why would anyone possibly want to attempt an obviously futile effort?? Many late game scenarios require far far too much effort and very little room for a successful comeback in public rounds.
The frequency alone of concede's usage highlights this universally accepted fact, across NS2's community. Why you are ignoring it and suggesting that there's somehow always a possibility of turning it around and it's simply people demotivating themselves instead of facing a practical reality - is so naive for a veteran to say that it is downright disingenuous.
Some rounds need to end sooner, or else you're just going to have players leave the server because no one enjoys participating in an inevitable outcome for 10 frustrating and unnecessary minutes.
Lastly, why you would suggest attempting to somehow change the mindset of an entire community over addressing the problem through result driven design changes is beyond me..
Edit: I apologize for derailing, that quote there just upset me. I've got nothing else to add to the thread and will step out
Have I ever made the point in all my posts on this topic that you should not concede or that you always have a chance of turning it around? You are clearly cherry picking to try and prove a point. Context matters. I'm saying that concede is a symptom, giving up is the cause. Whether they choose to F4/quit/afk/concede is besides the point. However you balance the game, there will be a point that people will give up. You cannot deny that and you cannot address that.
You are free to carry on your crusade on nerfing aliens increasing comeback mechanics but please don't do it at the expense of others.
Hey guys! We'll be testing out a feature soon that makes the conceding team automatically uninstall ns2 from their steam library. We hope this will encourage more players to fight on until the bitter end.
Or maybe uninstall it from everyone who.... No, just everyone.
Hey guys! We'll be testing out a feature soon that makes the conceding team automatically uninstall ns2 from their steam library. We hope this will encourage more players to fight on until the bitter end.
Or maybe uninstall it from everyone who.... No, just everyone.
It would be fun if concede gave the team another objective instead of winning; forcing a draw. When a team concedes at least half the players needs to reach certain semi-random areas on the map (sewage tunnel or ventilation system entrance, loading dock, tram station etc) before a short timer runs out. The conceding team will probably be mowed down 9 times out of 10, but it would still be a lot less anticlimatic than when the game just suddenly stops in its tracks.
I've seen suggestions like this floating round for a while. I don't think any sort of concede "endgame" should change the official outcome of a match. If you concede, you have officially lost no matter the outcome of some potential post-concede minigame. However, the minigame could potentially grant the conceders a "moral victory" (and perhaps if they lose, a "humiliation"), which they can gloat about in the readyroom afterwards - but for all intents and purposes, they have lost, and this fact shouldn't be altered.
It would be quite unheard of, yes, but why not? It will even give the game more strategic depth because the team that's winning needs to secure the obvious "retreat points" before pushing further, which sometimes gives the loosing team enough breathing room to mount a comeback. With that said, conceding succesfully shouldn't be easy. It should be balanced so that it ends with a loss most of the times. Its main purpose should be to end the game quickly in a way that isn't anticlimatic.
Ok, not a perfect example but still somewhat relevant. In DOTA 2 competitive, teams can choose to concede early if they feel a game is unwinnable just like NS2. The only thing they add in is that the throne/ancient explodes, an epic soundtrack is added and an announcer shouting "Dire/Radiant Victory".
Now I think this is something that can translate well into NS2 without being some stupid minigame gimmick that just comes across as dumb from an outsider perspective. All I would recommend is that the final hive or if they have 2 or more CCs/hives explode an announcer says "Alien/Marine Victory!" We already have a good track for the ending.
It's not over the top, it looks appropriate and it isn't tiring or annoying. I can't even imagine how annoying it would get after hundreds of games. Granted it isn't spectacular but it doesn't need to be, the nature in of itself is a concede. It only needs to provide satisfying audio-visual feedback that you lost or won.
Ok, not a perfect example but still somewhat relevant. In DOTA 2 competitive, teams can choose to concede early if they feel a game is unwinnable just like NS2. The only thing they add in is that the throne/ancient explodes, an epic soundtrack is added and an announcer shouting "Dire/Radiant Victory".
Now I think this is something that can translate well into NS2 without being some stupid minigame gimmick that just comes across as dumb from an outsider perspective. All I would recommend is that the final hive or if they have 2 or more CCs/hives explode an announcer says "Alien/Marine Victory!" We already have a good track for the ending.
It's not over the top, it looks appropriate and it isn't tiring or annoying. I can't even imagine how annoying it would get after hundreds of games. Granted it isn't spectacular but it doesn't need to be, the nature in of itself is a concede. It only needs to provide satisfying audio-visual feedback that you lost or won.
This might be a more realistic suggestion. It is both fast and "fun" and would require less coding time than multiple minigames.
Comments
If its a woefully imbalanced game skillwise then it will end pretty quickly usually. The only issue with this I see is that aliens tend to have a harder time closing out a winning game until fades arrive. If people want to F4, you can't stop them unless you use a matchmaking style system.
If aliens sustain 3 res which is seen as bad by most pubbers then that's usually the time. Even if you are a bit low on res, fades are likely only a minute or two away. You'll probably lose a lot of engagements just before then but you will still get them out in due time eventually unless you literally are locked to 1 res node which at that point, you can concede if you can't get to 35 res.
I'm not a concede hater, I'd rather have it than not but concede isn't really the issue here, its the community. Limiting it to 7-8 minutes wouldn't be needed or proposed if people understood the flow of the meta and the potential of comeback mechanics like fades and onos. The amount of times I see people asking for a concede when people are 1-2 res from a higher lifeform is absurd. Hell, you see it a lot just before lerks come out.
People want to F4 because they can't concede. You don't F4 if the concede vote passes, which was the whole point of implementing concede. Also, changing the word used from "most/majority" to "usually" doesn't address my point that it still happens that you can't concede when the game is practically over because of an arbitrary time decided and that it happens enough to cause frustration and that it is a made up statistic which has no basis in numbers.
3 res is bad? That's about the average. Do you expect 6 minutes fades or something? When you see 6 minutes fades it is about time for the marines to concede unless they can score lifeform kills quickly. And yes, when I'm on 1.5 average res nodes I want to concede before 8 minutes unless marines have no res either.
It is 8 minutes default as far as I know. Which means you are either making stuff up or your server admin has the good sense to lower the timer for concede. Anyway, if the concede vote passes in that situation, I wouldn't have faith in my team to make the comeback so its probably for the best.
Oh, and there are concede haters around here. You can do a search for past threads.
IMO people don't use concede enough and the % of votes required should be lower. I dont know why people want to keep playing only to die repeatedly and loose when they finally have enough onos to finish you off.
show people a post-game report
plot income (y axis) vs. time (x-axis) with 1 line for aliens and another (different color) for marines
indicate important events like whenever one team loses too many expensive things (eg. fades) in a short time period
below it, show a timeline of what build order each side used (mainly the technologies researched)
add some UI to toggle between different y-axis plots: damage dealt to players, cost of alive lifeforms vs. cost of weapons+equipment, percentage of time spent on offense
You already see that if you press Q thanks to ns2stats.
You can improve the crutch as much as you want it would never replace your leg. Players shouldn't feel the need for that crutch. Ironhorse is right, the best thing to do is to improve the game not the concede option.
One thing I think could do the trick:
-Make a respawn cost 1 teamres (or so)
This way as soon as one team is in a really bad situation then it would just naturally collapse. No more endless agony. The game would be over before the end of the concede vote. So you would not need a concede option anymore.
To be tested...
Why not both? Both options are not mutually exclusive. They can be worked on at different points in development and seamlessly come together later on. I actually believe that rebalancing the game so that ever 4/5 games is fun, not 1/5 games as it is now would be further improved upon with a more fun concede option. They would work better together.
Again, I'd like to repeat. The problem is not conceding but giving up. At best you can change the game such that you minimise it but there will always be a point where people will give up. Even in your suggestion (which is terrible by the way), people will likely give up before reaching the point where they have 0 team res.
Conceding seems valid too. When you lose queen in chess for no reason, you concede. You do not play till you have only pawns left. Not after you have like >100 h experience and get bored of finishing dead opponent/surviving desperately.
Don't know where you people play. Where and when I play concede is underused. Healthy use of concede could reclaim like a minute or more of your life on average every round. Maybe that's my thing, that I enjoy the moment when the opponent is bested and how and not the moment when the last hive blows in my face.
There is the voting barrier you have do climb already. Even few players that disagree can stop the concede and lay out their alternative plan over the mic. For sure, something like "Guys why are you conceding, we have like 5 % chance to win??!", is not very effective pep-talk. And sure, people should still try if the vote fails and the non-conceders are reasonable. And it is alright to F4, if they are unreasonable (let's say turtle scenario).
What I am trying to say is, it sort of works. It's alright to lose, it's alright to give up, it's alright to concede. Most of us are adults here. It can be dangerous and unresponsible and contraproductive to change actual gameplay, because of frequency of concedes. If you make the endgame quicker, just because of it (and not because it is more fun), the compulsive conceders will just try to concede even sooner.
It bothers me that teams lately have been giving up so easily <:/
Why would anyone possibly want to attempt an obviously futile effort?? Many late game scenarios require far far too much effort and very little room for a successful comeback in public rounds.
The frequency alone of concede's usage highlights this universally accepted fact, across NS2's community. Why you are ignoring it and suggesting that there's somehow always a possibility of turning it around and it's simply people demotivating themselves instead of facing a practical reality - is so naive for a veteran to say that it is downright disingenuous.
Some rounds need to end sooner, or else you're just going to have players leave the server because no one enjoys participating in an inevitable outcome for 10 frustrating and unnecessary minutes.
Lastly, why you would suggest attempting to somehow change the mindset of an entire community over addressing the problem through result driven design changes is beyond me..
Edit: I apologize for derailing, that quote there just upset me. I've got nothing else to add to the thread and will step out
Let's see then: a) play a better animation b) start some kind of mini-game c) do nothing and speed up the start of the next round. Didn't we exhaust all possible ideas?
Okay few more then (I am just making random stuff up now
d) play back some interesting parts of the round (fade/lerk kills, techpoint takeovers)
e) make some space for inter-player discussion with interactive pen (like in hockey)
f) any of the above and start loading next map in the background (sneaky!)
g) swap the teams (and see if the opposing team could recover the game the other team conceded)
h) let the conceded team revert to a time in the round they think they made mistake and see if they can do better this time
i) give the conceded team best players from the winning team + those who did not vote concede and rest in the other team (and see who was right about conceding/not conceding)
PS:
j) something to allow losing team to force a draw. Maybe something to destroy the map itself. For marines place nukes at structural points of course
k) something to unite the teams. Maybe something cooperative or PvsE. Marines + Aliens versus Predat... (cough cough intelectual rights lawsuit comming) .... versus Zombies let's say
This made me think, if the route of a minigame is used, the players that did not vote to concede get to keep their upgrades and equipment for the minigame.
Either that or they die immedately.
Changing the player's role in the minigame/end scene could help people to not concede so readily without needing to adjust much else
It is a valid question, but it does not need to be answered in this thread. It is one of those topics with multiple threads about it that all became countless pages long.
I've seen suggestions like this floating round for a while. I don't think any sort of concede "endgame" should change the official outcome of a match. If you concede, you have officially lost no matter the outcome of some potential post-concede minigame. However, the minigame could potentially grant the conceders a "moral victory" (and perhaps if they lose, a "humiliation"), which they can gloat about in the readyroom afterwards - but for all intents and purposes, they have lost, and this fact shouldn't be altered.
Omg so it was you who's been making my games vanish from my SSD!
Very funny. Has this thread ran out of ideas now?
Have I ever made the point in all my posts on this topic that you should not concede or that you always have a chance of turning it around? You are clearly cherry picking to try and prove a point. Context matters. I'm saying that concede is a symptom, giving up is the cause. Whether they choose to F4/quit/afk/concede is besides the point. However you balance the game, there will be a point that people will give up. You cannot deny that and you cannot address that.
You are free to carry on your crusade on nerfing aliens increasing comeback mechanics but please don't do it at the expense of others.
Or maybe uninstall it from everyone who.... No, just everyone.
Lol I love this guy, hes sucha wierdo
It would be quite unheard of, yes, but why not? It will even give the game more strategic depth because the team that's winning needs to secure the obvious "retreat points" before pushing further, which sometimes gives the loosing team enough breathing room to mount a comeback. With that said, conceding succesfully shouldn't be easy. It should be balanced so that it ends with a loss most of the times. Its main purpose should be to end the game quickly in a way that isn't anticlimatic.
Now I think this is something that can translate well into NS2 without being some stupid minigame gimmick that just comes across as dumb from an outsider perspective. All I would recommend is that the final hive or if they have 2 or more CCs/hives explode an announcer says "Alien/Marine Victory!" We already have a good track for the ending.
It's not over the top, it looks appropriate and it isn't tiring or annoying. I can't even imagine how annoying it would get after hundreds of games. Granted it isn't spectacular but it doesn't need to be, the nature in of itself is a concede. It only needs to provide satisfying audio-visual feedback that you lost or won.
This might be a more realistic suggestion. It is both fast and "fun" and would require less coding time than multiple minigames.