Pretty much what Vay (and several others) have said. If people want to quit, they will quit. If you take away concede, people will end games by F4'ing back to the ready room. If you get rid of concede and F4'ing, people will simply leave the server.
The real problem here is not that there is a concede function in the game that is preventing people from fighting long back-and-forth matches. The problem is that the game, as currently designed, comes with an extremely heavy snowballing effect where a game will often be essentially determined long before the final hive or CC is actually destroyed. Comebacks are possible, but only to a point. You eventually get to a state of the game where one team so far outstrips the other that it is virtually impossible for the losing team to come back. Nobody wants to play a game when they know for a fact that they will lose. They would rather end that game, accept the loss, and start a new one where they can actually hope to win.
Instead of trying to remove or tweak the concede system, people should instead try to come up with ways to make the snowballing less extreme and comebacks more likely.
Pretty much what Vay (and several others) have said. If people want to quit, they will quit. If you take away concede, people will end games by F4'ing back to the ready room. If you get rid of concede and F4'ing, people will simply leave the server.
The real problem here is not that there is a concede function in the game that is preventing people from fighting long back-and-forth matches. The problem is that the game, as currently designed, comes with an extremely heavy snowballing effect where a game will often be essentially determined long before the final hive or CC is actually destroyed. Comebacks are possible, but only to a point. You eventually get to a state of the game where one team so far outstrips the other that it is virtually impossible for the losing team to come back. Nobody wants to play a game when they know for a fact that they will lose. They would rather end that game, accept the loss, and start a new one where they can actually hope to win.
Instead of trying to remove or tweak the concede system, people should instead try to come up with ways to make the snowballing less extreme and comebacks more likely.
Spot on.
This was the whole premise behind my 'how steep should the slippery slope be' thread a little while back, but that wasn't able to come up with any consensus on ways forward. I still think my suggestion of recouping a percentage of res from lost buildings over time would be less punishing for the losing team, and reduce the severity of the current situation. Trouble is, it requires testing...!
"Oh, nice, a thread to discuss about how to make concede better. I always thought there were ways to make it more fun, I think I'll share some of my ideas..." *click*
"...CONCEDE BLAH BLAH PEOPLE JUST F4 GARBLE GARBLE EVERYONE QUITS RUINS GAMEGHARBLE WHARBLE!!!"
"OH GOD MAKE IT STOP" *squirts powerade on the screen until it goes black*
Instead of trying to remove or tweak the concede system, people should instead try to come up with ways to make the snowballing less extreme and comebacks more likely.
When things like this are suggested (lessening the impact of RTS elements) people go bananas .. saying that it would remove the asymmetric gameplay that they love and the importance of tech would be lowered to the point of "non impacting"
OR.. they say it creates stalemates (comeback mechanics like paying for power on one device can lengthen a lost game just as much as it can create more comebacks)
Let people concede from the first moment and only require over 50% of the team to do so. If a team thinks a games over then let them make the choice, don't take it from them.
Instead of trying to remove or tweak the concede system, people should instead try to come up with ways to make the snowballing less extreme and comebacks more likely.
When things like this are suggested (lessening the impact of RTS elements) people go bananas .. saying that it would remove the asymmetric gameplay that they love and the importance of tech would be lowered to the point of "non impacting"
OR.. they say it creates stalemates (comeback mechanics like paying for power on one device can lengthen a lost game just as much as it can create more comebacks)
Soooo... I wonder what the solution would be?
We don't have to be so elaborate. Powernode is such a mechanic. So, do you like powernode-like mechanics, and would you like to have more of them? I'd hazard we're better off without.
Just make concede more fun. Imagine if aliens conceded, the game would turn into a last-stand at the hive location (but closed off), marines having all tech, aliens leap skulks, players would spawn every 5 seconds and aliens would get more points the longer the hive stood. Like a minigame to end the game. A good deal of shooting too.
Altho maybe everyone would want to concede then... Derp.
Instead of trying to remove or tweak the concede system, people should instead try to come up with ways to make the snowballing less extreme and comebacks more likely.
When things like this are suggested (lessening the impact of RTS elements) people go bananas .. saying that it would remove the asymmetric gameplay that they love and the importance of tech would be lowered to the point of "non impacting"
OR.. they say it creates stalemates (comeback mechanics like paying for power on one device can lengthen a lost game just as much as it can create more comebacks)
I've just reread a great deal of the previous discussions around both conceding and snowballing, and I don't agree with your characterization of people's responses at all. Many people have asked for making snowballing less extreme and making comebacks more likely. In fact, I don't actually recall anyone arguing against either of those. Some specific proposals have been criticized on grounds of reducing asymmetry or increasing stalemates, but that's hardly the same as what you've said here.
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
edited May 2013
The problem that concede is trying to address is that there is a long lag between when the game is effectively won (victory conditions) and the game actually ends (ending conditions). The outcome of the majority of matches I have played or watched have been decided long before the last hive/command station/player was killed. The ways you can address this are:
- Concede/Surrender
When the match is lost, you concede. This is pretty much the accepted method in most strategy games.
- Increase the Snowball Effect
Effectively, you make it once one team has met the victory conditions they gain insurmountable advantage that leads to a quick end of the game.
- Limit the benefit of 'winning'
One reason comebacks are so rare is that one team can gain a large lead very quickly.
The trouble is usually in the implementation as each approach has negative consequences that can impact other parts of the game.
Instead of trying to remove or tweak the concede system, people should instead try to come up with ways to make the snowballing less extreme and comebacks more likely.
When things like this are suggested (lessening the impact of RTS elements) people go bananas .. saying that it would remove the asymmetric gameplay that they love and the importance of tech would be lowered to the point of "non impacting"
OR.. they say it creates stalemates (comeback mechanics like paying for power on one device can lengthen a lost game just as much as it can create more comebacks)
I've just reread a great deal of the previous discussions around both conceding and snowballing, and I don't agree with your characterization of people's responses at all. Many people have asked for making snowballing less extreme and making comebacks more likely. In fact, I don't actually recall anyone arguing against either of those. Some specific proposals have been criticized on grounds of reducing asymmetry or increasing stalemates, but that's hardly the same as what you've said here.
within NS2's mechanics, it is impossible to empower the losing team (i.e. give them the ability to comeback) without also giving them the ability to extend the round length (i.e. turtle more)
the only games this works in have non-RTS victory conditions (eg. one of the teams must accomplish X before the Y minute mark and the other team must prevent that from happening)
the only thing NS2 has is what all RTS games have - time-based asymmetry
the relative strength of each team changes suddenly in a staggered manner (eg. completion of research, lifeform explosions)
these extremes, along with the luck of combat, are what keep the game playable when the teams aren't perfect
teams can come back from behind by capitalizing on windows of opportunity.
the only difference between the losing and winning team is how big that window is.
concede happens when that window is gone
to "fix" it, you have to actually create a window for the losing team instead of just narrowing the gap.
doing that is impossible within the mechanics of the standard game
if you added mechanics like time-based victory conditions, then there could be a solution
Instead of trying to remove or tweak the concede system, people should instead try to come up with ways to make the snowballing less extreme and comebacks more likely.
When things like this are suggested (lessening the impact of RTS elements) people go bananas .. saying that it would remove the asymmetric gameplay that they love and the importance of tech would be lowered to the point of "non impacting"
OR.. they say it creates stalemates (comeback mechanics like paying for power on one device can lengthen a lost game just as much as it can create more comebacks)
I've just reread a great deal of the previous discussions around both conceding and snowballing, and I don't agree with your characterization of people's responses at all. Many people have asked for making snowballing less extreme and making comebacks more likely. In fact, I don't actually recall anyone arguing against either of those. Some specific proposals have been criticized on grounds of reducing asymmetry or increasing stalemates, but that's hardly the same as what you've said here.
within NS2's mechanics, it is impossible to empower the losing team (i.e. give them the ability to comeback) without also giving them the ability to extend the round length (i.e. turtle more)
the only games this works in have non-RTS victory conditions (eg. one of the teams must accomplish X before the Y minute mark and the other team must prevent that from happening)
the only thing NS2 has is what all RTS games have - time-based asymmetry
the relative strength of each team changes suddenly in a staggered manner (eg. completion of research, lifeform explosions)
these extremes, along with the luck of combat, are what keep the game playable when the teams aren't perfect
teams can come back from behind by capitalizing on windows of opportunity.
the only difference between the losing and winning team is how big that window is.
concede happens when that window is gone
to "fix" it, you have to actually create a window for the losing team instead of just narrowing the gap.
doing that is impossible within the mechanics of the standard game
if you added mechanics like time-based victory conditions, then there could be a solution
Nothing is impossible. Instead of giving the losing team a strength they can turtle with, you could instead give the winning team a weakness that can be exploited. In fact, NS2 already has one step in the right direction with Exos. Exos are powerful late game tech that a marine team often uses to win, but they create a weakness that the alien team can exploit by not being able to be beaconed. Of course, Exos also contribute to marine turtles, but that's actually a different problem than what you are suggesting, since they actually empower a formerly winning team in a turtle.
Now, in practice the Exo as it is obviously doesn't solve the problem or else we wouldn't be having this discussion, but it does mitigate it somewhat with losing aliens. We need a similar mechanic for aliens, some way for the marines to exploit an alien push to possibly make a comeback, and of course we need to emphasize this sort of weakness for marines as well, possibly creating more exploitable holes and trying to ensure that risky tactics actually NEED to be used to win.
Comebacks aren't the only thing that needs to be changed though, another factor causing the game to be decided in the first few minutes is that early victories do much more damage to the losing teams economy. One way to work on this would be to diminish the effect of early techs and buildings. For example, if during the first minutes of a match RTs only generated a fraction of their resources, and that fraction increased over the duration of the match (NOT the RT lifetime). That way, losing an RT later into the game for a short period would have a larger economic impact than losing one early in the game, and conversely building one a bit quicker than the other team would have relatively little impact by the end. (Note, there was a similar suggestion in the slippery slope thread, but that suggested basing it off of RT lifetime instead of round time, which would have the reverse of the desired effect).
What would be nice is another vote to ask for a little help to comeback : You're loosing hard, no way to get back, you can't concede before you try that new option : "ask for help" => opposing team can vote to say if they are okay to give you an advantage to let you hope a comeback, if they are opposed to this idea the concede vote unlocks. Now I don't know what the little advantage could be (an onos egg is too much early on and pratically worthless later / maybe pres and tres ?). People who want to finish that game knowing they have the edge won't be against spicing things up maybe. But now that I think of it, this sound shitty for a competitive game ><
I cannot believe this thread is still going. All of these points have already been covered in other threads previously listed by so many others in this topic.
before concede I used to have a book right beside my keyboard and when my whole team died within the first minutes and we were at still 1 rt after 2 or 3 minutes (the two we built got eaten) I would F4 and read. Right after I persuaded friends to buy NS2 we got into a game where we got raped for 15 minutes without the possibility to concede. They never played NS2 again.
The problem is basically end game for the losing team is extremely unfun, and most people will just F4 anyway. The idea should be to make the end game fun and at least give the losing team a chance at _something_. Maybe they should move the last stand mod into the game itself, and a "conceding" team can call for a last stand. This allows them to at least claim a draw if they succeed.
If marines concede, aliens are frozen for 30 seconds, and marines get to drop final buildings and all the marines get a bunch of pres to buy weapons. The commander is booted out, and the armory no longer heals (but perhaps gives ammo). They then have 2 minutes to hold off the aliens and get removed from the map and it's a draw. They have no respawns obviously. Aliens spawn rate is instant (so you can basically suicide attack), and they gain pres quickly. (so by the end most aliens can be an onos).
If aliens concede, same deal, all aliens get enough pres for at least a higher lifeform? (maybe), and they can't go further away than X meters from the last hive. Marines spawn instantly to the closest TP and gain pres quickly. You get the idea.
It would need some tweaking to balance, but it may be fun and at least give the losing team something to do to pull out at least a draw. _shrug_
As it is now though, concede can't go away, so it's fine either way.
Comments
They want to stomp the enemy team so badly, but can't quite understand the other team doesn't enjoy being a punching bag.
"...CONCEDE BLAH BLAH PEOPLE JUST F4 GARBLE GARBLE EVERYONE QUITS RUINS GAMEGHARBLE WHARBLE!!!"
"OH GOD MAKE IT STOP" *squirts powerade on the screen until it goes black*
Just make concede more fun. Imagine if aliens conceded, the game would turn into a last-stand at the hive location (but closed off), marines having all tech, aliens leap skulks, players would spawn every 5 seconds and aliens would get more points the longer the hive stood. Like a minigame to end the game. A good deal of shooting too.
Altho maybe everyone would want to concede then... Derp.
within NS2's mechanics, it is impossible to empower the losing team (i.e. give them the ability to comeback) without also giving them the ability to extend the round length (i.e. turtle more)
Nothing is impossible. Instead of giving the losing team a strength they can turtle with, you could instead give the winning team a weakness that can be exploited. In fact, NS2 already has one step in the right direction with Exos. Exos are powerful late game tech that a marine team often uses to win, but they create a weakness that the alien team can exploit by not being able to be beaconed. Of course, Exos also contribute to marine turtles, but that's actually a different problem than what you are suggesting, since they actually empower a formerly winning team in a turtle.
You're loosing hard, no way to get back, you can't concede before you try that new option : "ask for help" => opposing team can vote to say if they are okay to give you an advantage to let you hope a comeback, if they are opposed to this idea the concede vote unlocks.
Now I don't know what the little advantage could be (an onos egg is too much early on and pratically worthless later / maybe pres and tres ?).
People who want to finish that game knowing they have the edge won't be against spicing things up maybe.
But now that I think of it, this sound shitty for a competitive game ><
Right after I persuaded friends to buy NS2 we got into a game where we got raped for 15 minutes without the possibility to concede. They never played NS2 again.
If marines concede, aliens are frozen for 30 seconds, and marines get to drop final buildings and all the marines get a bunch of pres to buy weapons. The commander is booted out, and the armory no longer heals (but perhaps gives ammo). They then have 2 minutes to hold off the aliens and get removed from the map and it's a draw. They have no respawns obviously. Aliens spawn rate is instant (so you can basically suicide attack), and they gain pres quickly. (so by the end most aliens can be an onos).
If aliens concede, same deal, all aliens get enough pres for at least a higher lifeform? (maybe), and they can't go further away than X meters from the last hive. Marines spawn instantly to the closest TP and gain pres quickly. You get the idea.
It would need some tweaking to balance, but it may be fun and at least give the losing team something to do to pull out at least a draw. _shrug_
As it is now though, concede can't go away, so it's fine either way.