What happened to the "no contest" surrender from NS1?

StergearyStergeary Join Date: 2010-07-05 Member: 72252Members, Reinforced - Shadow
in NS2 General Discussion
I recall that in NS1, if a team had 4 or more players than the other team, they automatically won the game. This allowed teams to F4 to concede games when it was clearly over, but this isn't the case in NS2 and forfeiture requires that the ENTIRE team F4. Why wasn't this feature added back in? It also allows games to auto-end if one side is stacked.
Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome

Comments

  • DJPenguinDJPenguin Useless Join Date: 2003-07-29 Member: 18538Members
    I'd totally get 3 others to abuse this if a known rager is on my team and we're about to win.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • antacidantacid Join Date: 2007-08-07 Member: 61821Members, NS2 Playtester
    This is the most easily abusable and concept ever.

    What if a server has like 16 players for each team, and for 2 seconds 3 people leave at the same time to do something else while other people come in?
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • LocklearLocklear [nexzil]kerrigan Join Date: 2012-05-01 Member: 151403Members, NS2 Playtester, NS2 Map Tester, WC 2013 - Shadow
    Yeah, no.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • RegnarebRegnareb Join Date: 2007-08-26 Member: 62008Members, NS2 Playtester
    Never saw this in NS1... at least there was not such thing in the last version, the 3.2, and it would be horrible.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • TweadleTweadle Join Date: 2005-02-03 Member: 39686Members, NS2 Map Tester
    Clearly not as big a problem as people are making it out to be if people don't realise it actually exists in 3.2...
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • SopsSops Join Date: 2003-07-03 Member: 17894Members, Constellation
    <!--quoteo(post=1983214:date=Sep 26 2012, 04:00 AM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Sep 26 2012, 04:00 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1983214"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Clearly not as big a problem as people are making it out to be if people don't realise it actually exists in 3.2...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    +1

    I don't recall it ever being a problem in NS.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • BacillusBacillus Join Date: 2006-11-02 Member: 58241Members
    I think there's a server variable that controls the playercount difference triggering the surrender. In late 3.2 at least Able.ns had it set somewhere around 10 rather than the default of 4.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • Laosh'RaLaosh'Ra Join Date: 2011-12-09 Member: 137232Members
    could be something like 4 more players on the winning side but also at least twice (or even more) the amount on the winning side as a second condition which has to be true, too?
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • YoungTrotskyYoungTrotsky Join Date: 2007-03-09 Member: 60307Members
    In NS1 there is a cvar "mp_autoconcede", by default it is set to 4. If o e team becomes bigger by this number they win and everyone is returned to readyroom fir a new round. It was possible to disable or change the number but that is up to individual server mods. This is kind of what we're discussing in the F4 topic in this forum. I personally think this is a good feature and should be put into NS2 as it allows a team to concede defeat when they feel the other team deserves the win but the end-game is dragging on. Please see my topic for what I and others have been saying about the issue of F4ing. Cheers.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • ChickenOfWarChickenOfWar Join Date: 2003-04-09 Member: 15352Members
    Lol bunch of kiddies that never played NS1 in here. It worked great in NS1 and its the one feature I really miss in NS2
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • AsimovAsimov Join Date: 2010-07-30 Member: 73352Members
    I'd love to see this put into NS2.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • ScardyBobScardyBob ScardyBob Join Date: 2009-11-25 Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
    Would prefer a surrendervote, but this would work too.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • NolSinklerNolSinkler On the Clorf Join Date: 2004-02-15 Member: 26560Members, Constellation
    Yes, this.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • noncomposmentisnoncomposmentis Join Date: 2004-11-13 Member: 32773Members
    I think a silent surrender vote would be more appropriate. It would be easy to stick it on the v menu with eject. That way no one has to leave the server or stand around in the ready room waiting.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • ellnicellnic Join Date: 2010-07-19 Member: 72559Members, Reinforced - Shadow
    I don't like it. Even if my team quits I will still stay till the end as I find the End game the most fun, EXPECIALLY if its the team I am on is the losing side. What really pis**s me off is when com's recycle IP's. There should be a restriction to stop this. I'd much rather the oppisite team win with a fight rather than just giving up
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • countbasiecountbasie Join Date: 2008-12-27 Member: 65884Members
    I liked it in NS1. It was perfect for ending a game when the sleeping or AFK part of the losing team didn't surf on the f4 wave. I think I never saw an abuse of that function. And I've seen a lot of crap in NS1 lately...
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • JibrailJibrail Join Date: 2009-04-16 Member: 67200Members
    edited September 2012
    I don't know if it had to be 4players leaving or more but I def want this back, there are times when a team decide to F4 and then we allways have to wait for some troll to just stand still in base and wait for marines to kill all hives, this at times cause some players to leave.

    as for people saying it will be abused I really dont think so I played NS1 for a looong time and never saw that happen, maybe have it so that when only 2-4players are left vs 10 on the other side the game would end, and this wont activate untill a certain time of that round have passed to avoid ending the game because people are stacking one side in the RR
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • NurEinMenschNurEinMensch Join Date: 2003-02-26 Member: 14056Members, Constellation
    This is something that should be in the hands of the server admin so each server community can have it the way they like it.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
  • NeoRussiaNeoRussia Join Date: 2012-08-04 Member: 154743Members
    Have a surrendervote instead, but for every player missing have it count as a positive vote.
    Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
Sign In or Register to comment.