Stalemates are NOT fun, but end up being the "normal"

2

Comments

  • ezekelezekel Join Date: 2012-11-29 Member: 173589Members, NS2 Map Tester
    edited September 2013
    If the game doesn't end, the players simply lack the coordination/skill to end it; play it out or feel free to surrender if you're losing your 'fun' factor.
  • RadmanRadman Join Date: 2013-04-05 Member: 184656Members
    Teams have the skill to win the game, but not the skill and coordination to end it?

    It's like someone complaining about a bug in the game, and addressing it like a l2p issue.
  • MavickMavick Join Date: 2012-11-07 Member: 168138Members
    I didn't read through the entirety of the responses, but one thing I'll say to the OP is this:

    Long, strategic back and forths are a staple of Natural Selection going back to the first game. It's what this game is about, combining the strengths of both RTS and FPS to make epic games that make you think instead of just click.

    Your opinion is valid, just bear in mind that what you like or don't like might not necessarily line up with the design goals of this game.
  • SpoogeSpooge Thunderbolt missile in your cheerios Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 67Members
    edited September 2013
    Mavick wrote: »
    Long, strategic back and forths are a staple of Natural Selection going back to the first game. It's what this game is about, combining the strengths of both RTS and FPS to make epic games that make you think instead of just click.

    This, along with dealing with underpopulated servers, is where Combat came from. Some people wanted a stripped down PewPewPew with NS elements that could be completed in less than 15mins.

    This current iteration isn't perfect but the increase in epic battles tells me that it's definitely pointed in the right direction.

    I think once the next NSL season picks up and the pros start exposing some of the more powerful tactics of this build to the pub world, game length will start to decrease again.
  • NeokenNeoken Bruges, Belgium Join Date: 2004-03-20 Member: 27447Members, NS2 Playtester, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Silver, Subnautica Playtester
    Pub servers are still riding on the waves of greens. Once the newer players gain more experience, games will start to end faster, either by skill, or by concede.
  • MasterEvilAceMasterEvilAce Join Date: 2002-11-29 Member: 10268Members, Reinforced - Shadow
    Spooge wrote: »
    Mavick wrote: »
    Long, strategic back and forths are a staple of Natural Selection going back to the first game. It's what this game is about, combining the strengths of both RTS and FPS to make epic games that make you think instead of just click.

    This, along with dealing with underpopulated servers, is where Combat came from. Some people wanted a stripped down PewPewPew with NS elements that could be completed in less than 15mins.

    This current iteration isn't perfect but the increase in epic battles tells me that it's definitely pointed in the right direction.

    I think once the next NSL season picks up and the pros start exposing some of the more powerful tactics of this build to the pub world, game length will start to decrease again.
    I've played more NS1 than NS2. NS2 was pretty easy to reach an end-game state. NS1 had a huge emphasis on map control and resource towers. In NS2 you can hardly feel the impact of owning the majority of RT's. If you own 7 RTs, and the enemy owns 1, you should be on your way to an easy victory, unless they are able to take control of them back over.

    There is NO reason for a game to drag out 30 minutes longer than it needs to, even when you own the majority of the map. That is what I'm complaining about.
  • MestaritonttuMestaritonttu Join Date: 2004-07-29 Member: 30229Members, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold
    Slight derail:

    Concede needs to be an option after 5min instead of 10.

    5min is enough to stop stupid "lost 1 rt gonna quit" concedes. Even if a couple pointless early concedes would happen, there's DAILY games I experience when the game hits a 1 hive/base turtle before 2min is up.

    Before you outright disagree, be sure to play a few games and note how far the game is already at 5min. It's not a short time.

    AND BY THE WAY: CHANGE THE NAME TO "SURRENDER" FOR SKULKS SAKE. %-(
  • IronHorseIronHorse Developer, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributor Join Date: 2010-05-08 Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
    Had an amazing 70 min game last night on bio.. traded bases multiple times.. even with a team of greens, it still felt like we were making progress (even though it felt like herding cats) and were having a great "back and forth" game.

    The comm seemed to know how to contaminate their base.. just not echo whips into it.
    This seems to be the only case of why these games go on any longer than 30 minutes now.
  • sotanahtsotanaht Join Date: 2013-01-12 Member: 179215Members
    if stalemates aren't fun why don't people (on either side) concede or leave the server? Face it... people like shooting things. At a stalemate the high level of coordination and macro for commanders is lost. Commanders can focus on micro and players can shoot and shoot and shoot.

    If its truly frustrating or boring for Most of the players they would concede or quit.

    People do quit, often. In fact, I just now left one such game. You aren't going to get people to concede when they haven't clearly lost though, so these things just keep going as fresh people join and the original folks get fed up and leave.
  • CaptivaCaptiva Join Date: 2013-09-01 Member: 187588Members
    I watched a YouTube video yesterday. I think it was in Russian, but the game was over an hour long, and as soon as the tide swung in the aliens favor, the marines started spamming the concede button... but they kept playing.

    10 min later they started spamming it again, but the commander kept going, and so did they, and then they ended up winning.

    I think too many players are looking for insta victories, and regardless of if the game is really lost or not, they start hitting the concede button. Or quit out to early.

    I would much rather play a good 45 min game, then 3 quick 15 min games.
    Seems like some people think this is Call of Duty, and forget it is also a strategy game that can take a little time.
  • sotanahtsotanaht Join Date: 2013-01-12 Member: 179215Members
    I think it really depends on why the game is going for so long. If it's going back and forth with each team gaining and losing bases regularly it's probably still fun. That sort of thing feels like it could be anyones game. Really though, that's not the image that comes to mind when you use the word "stalemate". When I think of a stalemate, I think of both teams sitting on the same basses forever and beating back wave after wave of enemies with no real progress going on either side. That sort of game is pretty terrible actually.
  • CaptivaCaptiva Join Date: 2013-09-01 Member: 187588Members
    I could see if after nearly 2 hours you had the same 2 bases the whole game then it could get a little boring...
    Even then it is good practice and the teams would have to be fairly evenly matched for that to happen, but so far for me nothing even close to that has happened to me even in longer games. Almost always there is a minimum back and forth.

    When most people are talking about stalemates, I think they are mainly referring to just not being able to finish off the marines very quickly.
  • 2cough2cough Rocky Mountain High Join Date: 2013-03-14 Member: 183952Members, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Supporter
    There is NO reason for a game to drag out 30 minutes longer than it needs to, even when you own the majority of the map. That is what I'm complaining about.

    You're complaining about your team not being able to coordinate. I've played and commed many games (b 253 on) in which stalemates are broken thru coordinated team efforts. Or maybe the other team is just coordinating better. And if you cant crush a marine turtle w/ like 9 to 1 rts, and a 2 - 3 tech pt advantage after thirty mins, maybe your team deserves to lose. The abilities and tech are there at your disposal, if they come back, that's a hell of a win for them. And an epic long back n forth. You can concede or you can leave. Some people call it "raging."
  • soccerguy243soccerguy243 Join Date: 2012-12-22 Member: 175920Members, WC 2013 - Supporter
    sotanaht wrote: »
    if stalemates aren't fun why don't people (on either side) concede or leave the server? Face it... people like shooting things. At a stalemate the high level of coordination and macro for commanders is lost. Commanders can focus on micro and players can shoot and shoot and shoot.

    If its truly frustrating or boring for Most of the players they would concede or quit.

    People do quit, often. In fact, I just now left one such game. You aren't going to get people to concede when they haven't clearly lost though, so these things just keep going as fresh people join and the original folks get fed up and leave.

    then there isn't a problem. If people play... let them play. There's already a mechanic to quit. If a team can't win... that's their own fault not the game.

  • simbasimba Join Date: 2012-05-06 Member: 151628Members
    A game where both teams are relatively well balanced, and it takes a long time for it to end? This is a complaint? What? I don't think this is a problem with the game, just the players that round for one side being unable to end it.
  • McBernsMcBerns Join Date: 2013-08-04 Member: 186563Members
    Perhaps include a stalemate option to servers that when the time limit reaches 60 mins, then the game is a draw, and everyone is put into the ready room.
  • MasterEvilAceMasterEvilAce Join Date: 2002-11-29 Member: 10268Members, Reinforced - Shadow
    simba wrote: »
    A game where both teams are relatively well balanced, and it takes a long time for it to end? This is a complaint? What? I don't think this is a problem with the game, just the players that round for one side being unable to end it.
    Again, i'm not upset about hour long games that are neck and neck, dead even the entire time. Those are fun, and filled with action. The issue is when one team has already won, and has an issue being able to close out the game. Whether or not this is a "pub" issue or not, it's still a problem in my opinion. It gets to the point where players start leaving, or your team (that's winning) wants to vote to concede just to end it. Again, when a team owns 90% of the map, the game SHOULD be over, and it should be over quickly.
  • soccerguy243soccerguy243 Join Date: 2012-12-22 Member: 175920Members, WC 2013 - Supporter
    simba wrote: »
    A game where both teams are relatively well balanced, and it takes a long time for it to end? This is a complaint? What? I don't think this is a problem with the game, just the players that round for one side being unable to end it.
    Again, i'm not upset about hour long games that are neck and neck, dead even the entire time. Those are fun, and filled with action. The issue is when one team has already won, and has an issue being able to close out the game. Whether or not this is a "pub" issue or not, it's still a problem in my opinion. It gets to the point where players start leaving, or your team (that's winning) wants to vote to concede just to end it. Again, when a team owns 90% of the map, the game SHOULD be over, and it should be over quickly.

    How badly do you need to see the <your team> wins logo? Seems like you're so emotionally invested when its just a game. Both teams know who won or lost. Even if the winning team decides to end the game by conceding; who cares?

    Vote for a reset, vote for a map change, vote concede, F4 and spectate to take a break, change servers, play another game. If the votes fail - then the people on the server have spoken.
  • LumbyLumby Join Date: 2013-09-09 Member: 188037Members
    Just got out of a 1.5 hour long stalemate game. It's really not that fun when people hop in planning to play for 30-50 minutes and get sucked into something twice as long. Sure it was a close game, but it was a close game for over an hour. Seems like they need a way make it easier to win as time progresses. Maybe increasing death-timers like League of Legends or decreasing the amount of resources RT's give out once you get past the 60 minute mark.
  • RedSwordRedSword Join Date: 2006-12-07 Member: 58947Members, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Supporter
    edited September 2013
    IronHorse wrote: »
    Had an amazing 70 min game last night on bio.. traded bases multiple times.. even with a team of greens, it still felt like we were making progress (even though it felt like herding cats) and were having a great "back and forth" game.

    Lol a horse herding cats. It's hard to picture.


    But I'd also like a faster concede button, rather F4ing and waiting for the base to get killed.
  • MasterEvilAceMasterEvilAce Join Date: 2002-11-29 Member: 10268Members, Reinforced - Shadow
    edited September 2013
    How badly do you need to see the <your team> wins logo? Seems like you're so emotionally invested when its just a game. Both teams know who won or lost. Even if the winning team decides to end the game by conceding; who cares?

    Vote for a reset, vote for a map change, vote concede, F4 and spectate to take a break, change servers, play another game. If the votes fail - then the people on the server have spoken.

    It has nothing to do with emotions or seeing my team win. There's a lot more here than just the game ending. When a game goes on for so long, people leave, new people join to take their place. Eventually over the course of long games, you end up not exactly playing with the same team of people that you started the game with. I always find it difficult to "catch up to speed" when I join a game in progress. When people drop out due to long games, and others fill the space, it ends up being a bit harder to get on the same page, because you don't know how the fight has gone.

    In these situations (and not even when people have left and new blood joins), it's extremely hard to get a vote to concede to go through. If even just a small subset of your team votes NO, then it doesn't go through. Very rarely will you EVER be able to get a winning team to concede. Having the game ACTUALLY END means a NEW game can begin, instead of dragging out this stalemate game that nobody is really enjoying anymore... and believe me, I've talked to teammates before and a lot of them have just given up and stopped caring due to this.

    Last but not least, I have to assume that a vote to concede counts as a loss for your team, even if you were technically winning. This is just going to skew UWE statistics, imo.

    Some of you guys keep arguing with me, essentially telling me to deal with it or concede. Why are stalemates a GOOD thing? Why are huge lulls in action a GOOD thing? What defines "winning"? We control 90% of the map, and we still haven't "won." A flaw in the design of the game is causing a majority control of land and resources to not really mean anything at all. Why even bother taking so much map control when it doesn't inherently lead to an end? It seriously devalues all of the work up to that point when one team is able to turtle out the game. The game NEEDS to acknowledge successes by one team, and lead the game to an end, so the next one can begin. As stated earlier, we already know "which team won." So why does the game not allow the game to actually come to a fulfilling conclusion for BOTH teams, so we can start a new game?

    This isn't just a rare occurrence. This is happening in the majority of my games that last beyond 15-20 minutes.
  • MavickMavick Join Date: 2012-11-07 Member: 168138Members
    Actually, people have told you why they are a good thing. The main reason is that any game with any kind of strategic element to it would just downright suck balls if it were just one quick rollercoaster of one team dominating everything within 30 minutes. In fact, I can guarantee I would never had gotten interested in the first game had it been that way. Granted, there certainly are games where that's the case, but there's a fair amount of games where comebacks are what make this game golden.

    It seems like your argument is largely based on map control. To me that seems like just far too simplistic of a determining factor for victory in a game like this. There's a lot more to this game then just who holds the most land must win. And that's obviously a fact or you probably wouldn't be posting about it. Maybe take a look at your tactics for ending games and passing on the ones that seem successful to other players on your team(s).

  • HeatSurgeHeatSurge Some Guy Join Date: 2012-09-15 Member: 159438Members, Reinforced - Supporter
    edited September 2013
    Unfortunately, this is always a bigger problem after sales. 100% of the time, it's because both teams are terrible, both commanders are, or both.

    The problem occurs because as the game progresses, both teams get more structures. The more structures there are, the less people are able to deal with them. The problem is exacerbated on marine side because in this game, marines require quite a bit more teamwork than aliens. For marines, structure spam (crags/whips/gorge+hydras/shifts) require either GLs or ARCs. GLs are a useless 1v1 weapon, and ARCs don't damage players, so both must be supported to break the structure spam. In other words, structure spam instantly tests teamwork on marine side. With inexperienced people, teamwork usually isn't present.

    On alien side, it's quite a bit easier, because you can either target a weak structure like an obs or a PG, or you can just go gorge and bile bomb everything, so it doesn't require as much teamwork as on marines, although as a single gorge you're not as likely to be successful against a decent team of marines.

    That being said, bad players or commanders are the primary reason for this. Bad players or commanders don't want to attack, but rather want to defend because it's either easier or because that's what you do in RTS in single player or the "tower defense" - type games that have become somewhat popular over the last 5 years.

    Also, there's a tendency for good players to leave once they get a feel for how bad the team is, so often even games which look good in the beginning are lost (slowly, because of the spiraling effect of RTS) when the good players become frustrated or don't want to waste their time and just leave, and then the bad players who join can't pick up the slack.

    These horrible games which go beyond 20-25 min should mostly disappear in about a week or two - until the next sale.
  • NailoNailo Join Date: 2013-05-06 Member: 185138Members, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Supporter
    ^ heatsurge and mavick are dead-on. Also, that "flaw" that you keep referring to is inherit in this game because it is determined by the players, not the game itself.
  • OnosFactoryOnosFactory New Zealand Join Date: 2008-07-16 Member: 64637Members
    "Imho that was quite a selfish move "

    Dude --- Vote ?
  • _Necro__Necro_ Join Date: 2011-02-15 Member: 81895Members, Reinforced - Shadow
    RaZDaZ wrote: »
    Exactly. How hard is it for ONE alien player to organise a coordinated push? Every time I've done this in pub games I've closed out marine last stands where otherwise they would go on and on and on and on. Having 4 hives be an automatic close out is not the answer because the answer is simply have more coordination and communication on your team.

    Instead of complaining about not being able to finish out the game, put your mic on and step up to the plate. If the team isn't listening AT ALL then the marine team was most likely a lot worse and your team is not worth the effort. Just leave the game and hop into another one. It's actually amazing what alien teams can do with just one person communicating tactics but it seems that this rarely happens on most pub servers.

    Absolutely! It is so damn easy to coordinate a final push when you would just start to use your damn mic.
    Most people think aliens are rambo mode. That is wrong. Use teamwork or you will lose against most marine teams as soon as the green-wave is gone.
  • MoFoMoFo Join Date: 2013-09-09 Member: 188047Members
    I agree, seen way too many games that are over at the 10-15 minute mark, yet it takes another half hour minimum for the winning team to take out the hive/chair.

    I think a really good solution would be some sort of auto-win type setup. Maybe if one team gets control of all but 1 or 2 RT's for a set amount of time the losing team should be forced to auto-concede.

    The ONLY thing about this game I hate is waiting for games that are already over to actually end. It's almost always at least an extra 10 minutes of utter boredom.
  • soccerguy243soccerguy243 Join Date: 2012-12-22 Member: 175920Members, WC 2013 - Supporter
    edited September 2013
    How badly do you need to see the <your team> wins logo? Seems like you're so emotionally invested when its just a game. Both teams know who won or lost. Even if the winning team decides to end the game by conceding; who cares?

    Vote for a reset, vote for a map change, vote concede, F4 and spectate to take a break, change servers, play another game. If the votes fail - then the people on the server have spoken.

    It has nothing to do with emotions or seeing my team win. There's a lot more here than just the game ending. When a game goes on for so long, people leave, new people join to take their place. Eventually over the course of long games, you end up not exactly playing with the same team of people that you started the game with. I always find it difficult to "catch up to speed" when I join a game in progress. When people drop out due to long games, and others fill the space, it ends up being a bit harder to get on the same page, because you don't know how the fight has gone. Don't know how the fight has gone? You mean the fight that has the marines at 1 base, you have all the res nodes and abilities? Regardless, Literally nothing wrong with this. People joining a server and playing until they are bored or go find another match. Why do you want to force people to play the early game... how often do players get to enjoy the late game abilities (esp for aliens)?

    In these situations (and not even when people have left and new blood joins), it's extremely hard to get a vote to concede to go through. If even just a small subset of your team votes NO, then it doesn't go through. Very rarely will you EVER be able to get a winning team to concede. Having the game ACTUALLY END means a NEW game can begin, instead of dragging out this stalemate game that nobody is really enjoying anymore... and believe me, I've talked to teammates before and a lot of them have just given up and stopped caring due to this. So the democratic approach didn't work... then let the people play. Else if a server admin decides otherwise... well... they are the admin. If you're so bored or don't care why do you stay in the server?

    Last but not least, I have to assume that a vote to concede counts as a loss for your team, even if you were technically winning. This is just going to skew UWE statistics, imo. In all my hours (300+, which might be on the low end comparatively) i've never seen a winning team concede. Though no doubt it can and does happen, like you say, it won't skew the stats that much.

    Some of you guys keep arguing with me, essentially telling me to deal with it or concede. Why are stalemates a GOOD thing? Why are huge lulls in action a GOOD thing? What defines "winning"? We control 90% of the map, and we still haven't "won." A flaw in the design of the game is causing a majority control of land and resources to not really mean anything at all. Why even bother taking so much map control when it doesn't inherently lead to an end? It seriously devalues all of the work up to that point when one team is able to turtle out the game. The game NEEDS to acknowledge successes by one team, and lead the game to an end, so the next one can begin. As stated earlier, we already know "which team won." So why does the game not allow the game to actually come to a fulfilling conclusion for BOTH teams, so we can start a new game? I never said stalemates are GOOD. Its just not as BAD as you say. The game doesn't have to acknowledge anything... its up to you and the players. Majority control of land and resources DOES inherently lead to an end. Its teamwork and coordination that will let you win. You know you've won, they know you've won, let the players shoot and enjoy lifeforms they rarely go (I rarely go onos cause I gorge up when others go fade, etc etc). I've said it before, if you can't get the players to vote reset, or concede, enough players are enjoying what is happening. If new players come in to a match 60+ into a game and want to start a new match they will vote or start a vote.

    This isn't just a rare occurrence. This is happening in the majority of my games that last beyond 15-20 minutes. I can count the number of times i've had 60+ minute games one hand. Though i only have 300+ hours.

    TLDR; Don't end games based on map control. Use the voting and let the players in game decide, if you don't like it tough - enough people in the server do. Perhaps a "force game end" vote where 75% of the server cries uncle.

    see comments in red.
  • Blarney_StoneBlarney_Stone Join Date: 2013-03-08 Member: 183808Members, Reinforced - Shadow
    It's also important to keep in mind that new players, in addition to not knowing how to end stalemates, also don't know how to recognize that they've lost. And even if they do recognize that they've lost, many of them don't know how to concede.

    I'm guessing in a few weeks these new players will either be gone or experienced enough to know these things. During times where new players aren't as prominent, games rarely last more than 25-35 minutes because either the winning team finishes the job or the losing team concedes.
  • CaptivaCaptiva Join Date: 2013-09-01 Member: 187588Members
    I don't understand what is so great about a New game?

    If the old game is still going and the same people are going to be playing the new one, then why would it matter?

    The only real issue I see is if you are one of only a few original people left playing and most of the other originals quit and the game keeps getting a constant supply of new players.
    But that still requires the teams to have stayed evenly matched the whole time.

    Either way seems like one team just isn't good/winning enough or they would end it. I have played lots of games recently, and aliens can end them quick if they have the res and the skill.
    I agree with other posters that things will even out more when a lot of the new players like me get a little better.
Sign In or Register to comment.