>>>SURRENDER OPTION NEEDED<<<<
StryfeKing
Join Date: 2012-11-01 Member: 165581Members
Join Date: 2012-11-01 Member: 165581Members
Too many games last an hour to two hours longer than they should...
Ive joined games where teams are down to one hive/command station have 0 resources and the other team has full exos/onos and just farm kills or are just clueless on how to end the game.
Ive had games where 6/8 want the game to end and two do not and constantly stop the hive/command station death and then prolong the game HOURS longer than it should.
Please install and surrender option, I dont care what the ratio to surrender needs to be but it has to be in this game.
Ive joined games where teams are down to one hive/command station have 0 resources and the other team has full exos/onos and just farm kills or are just clueless on how to end the game.
Ive had games where 6/8 want the game to end and two do not and constantly stop the hive/command station death and then prolong the game HOURS longer than it should.
Please install and surrender option, I dont care what the ratio to surrender needs to be but it has to be in this game.
Comments
but sometimes people just wantto fight.
I had a very fun game with 4 or 5 gorges securing the last hive. hydras and clogs OP =D took them 20-30 minutes to breach us with Full upgrades (dual exo, GL, JP, 3/3)
greetings
but i guess the more people that F4 the faster the other team wins (unless they are useless lol)
but i guess the more people that F4 the faster the other team wins (unless they are useless lol)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh. We need to reimplement that server variable then. NS1 there was the autoconcede variable.
*edit* I can see this option being trolled, though.
really this is the first time i heard this in 10 years.
I don't understand the resistance for a concede vote praising the ready room system. Obviously it's not sufficient otherwise it wouldn't be continuously brought up.
I don't understand the resistance for a concede vote praising the ready room system. Obviously it's not sufficient otherwise it wouldn't be continuously brought up.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with this guy. I don't know the community's position on surrender when it comes to these forums, but the people in game generally want one.
I like seeing how long I can hold out; how many Onos' I can kill with a rifle, but sometimes you just want the round to end.
So perhaps, stick in a feature whereby if 50% of the team surrender, it;s a done deal.
"BUT JUST PRESS F4". I've tried telling people to do so, and then doing it myself, but people don't follow. It's like the democrats and republicans. Truthfully most people don't want either party in power, but people vote for them because they think that is their only option - they don't trust other people to take the "risk" of a third party. In this analogy, that is f4.
So stick in a simple surrender plugin, so people can do it without worrying nobody else will.
Precisely. As Marine the comm has full control as to when to give up. He can unilaterally, and with no vote, sell everything at any time. In essence this is equivalent to the Marine comm having a surrender button, so why not just actually code it?
Have the same surrender button coded for the Alien comm and away we go.
The Marine commander has full control about surrendering atm. No need for vote, why not apply that philosophy for both races with a specific surrender option button for both comms only?
Having that surrender option explicitely available for both comms makes everyone aware that the final decission is on the Comm´s hand, which is where I think it should be. And if a given player doesnt agree with his comm not surrendering then that player can always hit F4 so no one is forced to do anything they dont like. If a majority of a comm´s team players hits F4 then the result will be eventually the same anyways. No vote needed.
A surrender option is <i>really</i> important and shouldn't be that hard to implement. A simple message in the chat that says something like "(Whatever Player) tried to surrender. Type /surrender to surrender, 5 Votes Needed".
As soon as aliens lose their second Hive that they tried to rush in the first few minutes of the game, they surrender - "failed our high risk, high reward strategy, so let's give up and restart the round, effectively nullifying the risk part".
Same as marines tend to surrender as soon as they notice that aliens got a third Hive up without getting really contested in areas where the marines would like to do so. Even though the marines actually have a second Command Station and can get Exos.
The result is that many matches end already before they can even get really going. Getting lategame tech on the field is rare, you don't get to use all the cool stuff and instead play round after round with mostly default weapons and low res lifeforms.
While having a surrender vote makes it easier to stay in the game if not everyone agrees, it makes it generally more easy to concede defeat than just pressing F4 from a psychological perspective. And if a surrender vote doesn't pass, there are still many people who will F4 to end it then.
There is no reason not to formalize whats already here, provide feedback to the user, and make it easier for rookies to come to terms with how games play. I can only assume people are trolling who argue against it. The only issue is taking up dev time, which is a non issue as its such a small change.
qft.
It works if the majority want to surrender - as it forces a concede under this scenario.
However, if the majority DON'T want to surrender, then there's no reason why those who want to keep on playing should be punished into playing with imbalanced teams. Whilst the f4ers might not want to be forced to play a losing game, if they're a minority, they shouldn't force the game to end for the others wanting to play by creating an even bigger imbalance in a losing game. Chances are if the majority don't want to f4, then good teamwork could (not 'will') turn the tables, and f4ing deprives them of that opportunity. The minority effectively decide it for the majority in this situation, which should never happen.
The only benefit of f4ing (over a surrender system) is if you think your opinion is worth more than everybody elses and want the power for you and 1 or 2 of your buddies to put a stop to a game in progress when everybody else wants to continue. You might not want to be 'forced' into continue a losing game (and you won't if the majority agrees), but there is another side of that coin - "not wanting the game to be forced to a close". And there's no reason why one should be more important than the other. The only 'fair' thing to do is leave it to a majority vote.
What we need is <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=126741" target="_blank">Super Weopons!</a>
It works if the majority want to surrender - as it forces a concede under this scenario.
However, if the majority DON'T want to surrender, then there's no reason why those who want to keep on playing should be punished into playing with imbalanced teams. Whilst the f4ers might not want to be forced to play a losing game, if they're a minority, they shouldn't force the game to end for the others wanting to play by creating an even bigger imbalance in a losing game. Chances are if the majority don't want to f4, then good teamwork could (not 'will') turn the tables, and f4ing deprives them of that opportunity. The minority effectively decide it for the majority in this situation, which should never happen.
The only benefit of f4ing (over a surrender system) is if you think your opinion is worth more than everybody elses and want the power for you and 1 or 2 of your buddies to put a stop to a game in progress when everybody else wants to continue. You might not want to be 'forced' into continue a losing game (and you won't if the majority agrees), but there is another side of that coin - "not wanting the game to be forced to a close". And there's no reason why one should be more important than the other. The only 'fair' thing to do is leave it to a majority vote.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And what prevents the minority of surrender vote from F4 after the vote fails? Because that is exactly what is happening currently. A surrender vote doesn't change one bit about the circumstances that you will lose players as soon as some feel that the match has been decided, regardless of what the majority of their team wants.
You're absolutely right - it won't stop people from F4ing or even just disconnecting from the server. It's better than nothing though. At least if there are admins on, after a surrender vote fails, if people f4 they can be told not to idle the ready room and to join up, as the majority has spoken.
Hell, why not prevent people f4ing altogether (i.e. only have readyroom when you connect and when a game finishes or a new map). Or, prevent people f4ing after a vote fails (the surrender side). Or, merely prevent the people who voted for the surrender from f4ing. Although those measures don't prevent disconnecting/reconnecting. Personally I'd rather keep f4 in anyway, and just have admins deal with anybody being a baby about a failed surrender vote.