"Stacked teams" are kind of a joke tbh. It's usually just one standout player that people really have a problem with, and whatever team they're on is the "stacked" team.
"Stacked teams" are kind of a joke tbh. It's usually just one standout player that people really have a problem with, and whatever team they're on is the "stacked" team.
That one player is always the one with the badges, even when its not.
I have seen plenty of times where we had a concede vote 2-5 times in a long game, and ended up having this epic victory.
In my experiences it is extremely rare for this to happen, and most of the time when it does the comeback is only possible for one of two reasons... 1) The top players on the winning team had to leave, or 2) Someone who is ridiculously good (aka godlike) joined the losing team.
...or GT.
Some examples: we are stomped hard on tram, literally nothing left to lose outside of main hive. I walk right into marine base, luckily, obs is placed so it sees big part of tunnel, so lower entrance to shipping is uncovered. So, I walk in right into marine base and drop GT right on CC. Aliens pop out of it and it's GG, no second base.
I've got tons of examples like this. Even if marines have more than one base, other bases are usually just beacon bases or have one IP, in either case recovering after main base with all the stuff is devastated is incredibly hard.
Just yesterday my marine team was... un... not winning nor losing, but it was getting worse for us with every minute and we almost conceded (one vote away). You know, team gave up already and didn't do anything but defend our two bases. So I made a robo, pumped a few MAC and sent them to pipe junction (summit) via various routes. One MAC made it and built a PG. As everyone was at base, we had no problem gathering without beacon, when enough people went through, I've sent MAC to maintenance access to build another PG, while marines took data hive down. Beacon and we have another ninja PG, sub was destroyed in same faction. Suddenly, biomass 9 aliens became one hive aliens. It was much easier from this point and we did won.
We once were rushed by aliens early game on veil, me and my friend happened to establish nano (aliens planned rush so nothing at nano), when somebody saw 7 skulk approaching, I just asked comm to drop cargo CC. Our team was like 'gg, stop wasting time'. While aliens were chewing control, we built CC, IP and extractor at cargo + we had nano pumping res whole that time. Cargo CC allowed for good map control early game, knowing about cargo vulnerability to bile, we made sub CC as soon as possible. Long story short, win.
I had thousand of stories were one team did a huge comeback. Key: pub games. Nobody's perfect. Even tho they have advantage in res / tech, they still can be beaten (comm mistake / overly concentrated team attention at one single place, etc)
Some examples: we are stomped hard on tram, literally nothing left to lose outside of main hive. I walk right into marine base, luckily, obs is placed so it sees big part of tunnel, so lower entrance to shipping is uncovered. So, I walk in right into marine base and drop GT right on CC. Aliens pop out of it and it's GG, no second base.
I've got tons of examples like this. Even if marines have more than one base, other bases are usually just beacon bases or have one IP, in either case recovering after main base with all the stuff is devastated is incredibly hard.
I think these are 2 completely different things.
What defines a "good match"?
Is it either:
* Winning a match
* Or having nice even fights (perhaps a long game)
In your example with the gorge tunnel, the aliens may have won, but the game was painful for them in the first place. So in terms of fun I would say, the marines had the better game.
By saying an early vote concede would eliminate the chance of comeback due to base rushes, I believe it doesnt really matter. People will still remember the game as totally stacked.
TL;DR: When teams are stacked, it's irrelevant who actually wins the game.
the only way to combat stacked round is not playing it at all, there are other servers to play with. let these stackers play against noobs. then noobs will leave not play NS2 in the future. the game will die off slowly and people will play other gamers
Vote concede should be removed. F4 works fine. If anything I bet it would actually make games better since its not as easy to quit. You actually have to stand buy your decision of not wanting to play the round by actually not playing. Instead of easily hitting vote concede then continue to face palm yourself in game untill everyone else realizes its over.
Ns1 never had this issue where teams were stupid stacked and people actually waited 10 mins to end the round, they just used their brain and f4ed as a team.
F4 should be removed. Disconnecting/Switching the server works fine.
Seriously, please ask yourself:
1. uwe implemented "vote concede" - just for fun - no players were requesting such a feature.
2. uwe implemented "vote concede" - for a reason - players were requesting such a feature.
in my opinion: answer 2 - there is reason for it, because f4ing was not working as well as expected.
comparing ns1 vs ns2 - i am just saying - times are different.
-ns1: mod / not every had internet / core gamers only / no sales platform promotion / no cheap sales promotion (its free)
-ns2: game / everybody has internet / core gamers + casual players / sales platform promotion (steam + bundle offers) / cheap sales promotion (to get casual players buying it)
F4 should be removed. Disconnecting/Switching the server works fine.
Seriously, please ask yourself:
1. uwe implemented "vote concede" - just for fun - no players were requesting such a feature.
2. uwe implemented "vote concede" - for a reason - players were requesting such a feature.
in my opinion: answer 2 - there is reason for it, because f4ing was not working as well as expected.
comparing ns1 vs ns2 - i am just saying - times are different.
-ns1: mod / not every had internet / core gamers only / no sales platform promotion / no cheap sales promotion (its free)
-ns2: game / everybody has internet / core gamers + casual players / sales platform promotion (steam + bundle offers) / cheap sales promotion (to get casual players buying it)
Uhm... just no. You'll get people reconnecting instead, and it will have no impact on the end result. Really, people just need to work as a team: if the game is over, by all means get the whole team to try an all-in, base-rush, some high risk high reward strategy etc as a last-ditched attempt, but if/when that fails, it's time to concede. But the key here is 'get the whole team to...' - typically if you're in this scenario, the team has not been functioning well as a unit up until that point and you're unlikely to get unity at the end (although it can happen, I've seen it a handful of times).
This is probably the point that leads to a lot of problems in this community.
For me a good match is where my team or even just me outsmarts the enemy team in the early game.
A few examples what I mean by that:
As a marine:
- staying in a good position holding a big area of the map alone or with a buddy so my teammates can cap and we don't have skulks resbiting
- baiting and trapping lifeforms early (playing sneaky)
- running deep into alien territory (when parasited or just going for upgrades) pulling half alien team so my teammates can pressure harvesters
- find good timings for pushes (when I see most aliens are responding to another threat)
- poking harvesters and falling back to a good position once I know skulks are coming for me
As an alien:
- going around marines for early res biting behind their lines without getting killed
- ambushing recappers or the marines pushing rts before they get into good positions
- not falling for baits, not overengaging, picking smart engagements
In conclusion:
- trying to achive as much as possible with one marine/alien life without dying instead of spawning->engaging->dying (this of course works best on relatively small sized servers - that's why I do not play on servers with more than 20 slots normally - and not in the lategame where there is sentries in every single room or aliens on 3 hives and so on...)
So all in all winning games fast by outsmarting the enemy is what I love about this game and what makes me have fun.
I realize that this is exactly the point people keep complaining about. Because when it works out for me/my team the opponent players feel like they are getting stomped. I know most players don't like this kind of games. Maybe because for them it feels they have less influence on the games outcome or they just want big immersive groupfights with granades, flamethrowers, exos, umbra and 3 onos. But for me there is nothing I dislike more than hour long games where in the end both teams have all the tech available and it basically comes down to "can the marines kill the hive without losing their arcs?" or "is the gorge rush gonna be spotted?". I am simply not having fun in that kind of endgame especially on large playercount servers where it simply comes down to luck/performance/netcode wether marines or aliens win the game deciding 12v12 engagement and if I lose my lifeform/jetpack in that. Every now and then I enjoy a long game with a lot of back and forth but most of the time I just want to play the tactical/strategic/outsmarting game.
Edit:
This besically translates to a lot of other popular games like Age of Empires, StarCraft, Dota, ...
When I first started playing this games I built giant bases researching everything (or farming in Dota and buying endgame items) and then went into one big fight in the end.
The more I played the games the earlier I started applying pressure. When opponents play the "building everything game" they get stomped but if they know how to react and counter my pressure it becomes the "outsmarting-game", then it is all about timings, poking and picking the smart engagements. Even the staying alive aspect is similar. The RTS player who just builds units over and over again and sends them to die in stupid fights will starve and have no res for tech, while a smart player who picks good engagements and tries not to lose his units stupidly will win eventually.
I am NOT talking about imba 500apm micro here! That becomes importand if you want to play on a very high level.
Even with decent 50-100apm you can reach a decent level in a lot of RTS games if you just understand how the game works.
And this is exactly why a lot of competitive NS2 players kept telling people to understand the game and play smart.
But unfortunately the answers to that mostly were whine about stacked games and pro players stomping with their imba aim.
Sorry for the OT but this kind of refelcts my feeling about NS2 right now and I just kept writing...
I find games fun when the outcome isn't determined in the first 3min... but that's just me. Otherwise, why even have higher tech... and it keeps people playing. Why play a game when you're just waiting to lose that early? Just my opinion...
that's why it's fun to succeed with the epic turnarounds.
The only way to turn around a stacked game is if the people on the teams substantially change (i.e. good people switch over, bad people drop out and are replaced with good at the same time good people on the other team are replaced with bad). This rarely if ever happens because in NS2 people tend to stay the entire round and on the same team. And if it does happen, sometimes I've had ridiculously stupid games where e.g. the alien team is horrible, but someone (or a few people) who substantially won the game quit, so now even though aliens start slightly losing the sheer stupid amount of res and structures is nearly impossible to defeat. I've had games (around release time, admittedly, when it's noob vs noob) where I've redropped a hive 6-7 times. In the same room, a few minutes apart - marines were mostly confined to their starting room except random acts of "entire-team-work" where almost the entire team in a massive bundle makes it 1 or 2 rooms away only to die.
Anyway, the point is turnarounds really aren't turnarounds. You most certainly don't achieve a turnaround with the same team against the same team (assuming it's pretty well-stacked), so effectively you lost the original game anyway. Might as well start clean.
Comments
That one player is always the one with the badges, even when its not.
Because moving surrender from 5 min to 10 min was a good idea.
...or GT.
Some examples: we are stomped hard on tram, literally nothing left to lose outside of main hive. I walk right into marine base, luckily, obs is placed so it sees big part of tunnel, so lower entrance to shipping is uncovered. So, I walk in right into marine base and drop GT right on CC. Aliens pop out of it and it's GG, no second base.
I've got tons of examples like this. Even if marines have more than one base, other bases are usually just beacon bases or have one IP, in either case recovering after main base with all the stuff is devastated is incredibly hard.
Just yesterday my marine team was... un... not winning nor losing, but it was getting worse for us with every minute and we almost conceded (one vote away). You know, team gave up already and didn't do anything but defend our two bases. So I made a robo, pumped a few MAC and sent them to pipe junction (summit) via various routes. One MAC made it and built a PG. As everyone was at base, we had no problem gathering without beacon, when enough people went through, I've sent MAC to maintenance access to build another PG, while marines took data hive down. Beacon and we have another ninja PG, sub was destroyed in same faction. Suddenly, biomass 9 aliens became one hive aliens. It was much easier from this point and we did won.
We once were rushed by aliens early game on veil, me and my friend happened to establish nano (aliens planned rush so nothing at nano), when somebody saw 7 skulk approaching, I just asked comm to drop cargo CC. Our team was like 'gg, stop wasting time'. While aliens were chewing control, we built CC, IP and extractor at cargo + we had nano pumping res whole that time. Cargo CC allowed for good map control early game, knowing about cargo vulnerability to bile, we made sub CC as soon as possible. Long story short, win.
I had thousand of stories were one team did a huge comeback. Key: pub games. Nobody's perfect. Even tho they have advantage in res / tech, they still can be beaten (comm mistake / overly concentrated team attention at one single place, etc)
I think these are 2 completely different things.
What defines a "good match"?
Is it either:
* Winning a match
* Or having nice even fights (perhaps a long game)
In your example with the gorge tunnel, the aliens may have won, but the game was painful for them in the first place. So in terms of fun I would say, the marines had the better game.
By saying an early vote concede would eliminate the chance of comeback due to base rushes, I believe it doesnt really matter. People will still remember the game as totally stacked.
TL;DR: When teams are stacked, it's irrelevant who actually wins the game.
*sacrifices a goat to the CDT gods to enhance their progress*
Ns1 never had this issue where teams were stupid stacked and people actually waited 10 mins to end the round, they just used their brain and f4ed as a team.
F4 should be removed. Disconnecting/Switching the server works fine.
Seriously, please ask yourself:
1. uwe implemented "vote concede" - just for fun - no players were requesting such a feature.
2. uwe implemented "vote concede" - for a reason - players were requesting such a feature.
in my opinion: answer 2 - there is reason for it, because f4ing was not working as well as expected.
comparing ns1 vs ns2 - i am just saying - times are different.
-ns1: mod / not every had internet / core gamers only / no sales platform promotion / no cheap sales promotion (its free)
-ns2: game / everybody has internet / core gamers + casual players / sales platform promotion (steam + bundle offers) / cheap sales promotion (to get casual players buying it)
Uhm... just no. You'll get people reconnecting instead, and it will have no impact on the end result. Really, people just need to work as a team: if the game is over, by all means get the whole team to try an all-in, base-rush, some high risk high reward strategy etc as a last-ditched attempt, but if/when that fails, it's time to concede. But the key here is 'get the whole team to...' - typically if you're in this scenario, the team has not been functioning well as a unit up until that point and you're unlikely to get unity at the end (although it can happen, I've seen it a handful of times).
This is probably the point that leads to a lot of problems in this community.
For me a good match is where my team or even just me outsmarts the enemy team in the early game.
A few examples what I mean by that:
As a marine:
- staying in a good position holding a big area of the map alone or with a buddy so my teammates can cap and we don't have skulks resbiting
- baiting and trapping lifeforms early (playing sneaky)
- running deep into alien territory (when parasited or just going for upgrades) pulling half alien team so my teammates can pressure harvesters
- find good timings for pushes (when I see most aliens are responding to another threat)
- poking harvesters and falling back to a good position once I know skulks are coming for me
As an alien:
- going around marines for early res biting behind their lines without getting killed
- ambushing recappers or the marines pushing rts before they get into good positions
- not falling for baits, not overengaging, picking smart engagements
In conclusion:
- trying to achive as much as possible with one marine/alien life without dying instead of spawning->engaging->dying (this of course works best on relatively small sized servers - that's why I do not play on servers with more than 20 slots normally - and not in the lategame where there is sentries in every single room or aliens on 3 hives and so on...)
So all in all winning games fast by outsmarting the enemy is what I love about this game and what makes me have fun.
I realize that this is exactly the point people keep complaining about. Because when it works out for me/my team the opponent players feel like they are getting stomped. I know most players don't like this kind of games. Maybe because for them it feels they have less influence on the games outcome or they just want big immersive groupfights with granades, flamethrowers, exos, umbra and 3 onos. But for me there is nothing I dislike more than hour long games where in the end both teams have all the tech available and it basically comes down to "can the marines kill the hive without losing their arcs?" or "is the gorge rush gonna be spotted?". I am simply not having fun in that kind of endgame especially on large playercount servers where it simply comes down to luck/performance/netcode wether marines or aliens win the game deciding 12v12 engagement and if I lose my lifeform/jetpack in that. Every now and then I enjoy a long game with a lot of back and forth but most of the time I just want to play the tactical/strategic/outsmarting game.
Edit:
This besically translates to a lot of other popular games like Age of Empires, StarCraft, Dota, ...
When I first started playing this games I built giant bases researching everything (or farming in Dota and buying endgame items) and then went into one big fight in the end.
The more I played the games the earlier I started applying pressure. When opponents play the "building everything game" they get stomped but if they know how to react and counter my pressure it becomes the "outsmarting-game", then it is all about timings, poking and picking the smart engagements. Even the staying alive aspect is similar. The RTS player who just builds units over and over again and sends them to die in stupid fights will starve and have no res for tech, while a smart player who picks good engagements and tries not to lose his units stupidly will win eventually.
I am NOT talking about imba 500apm micro here! That becomes importand if you want to play on a very high level.
Even with decent 50-100apm you can reach a decent level in a lot of RTS games if you just understand how the game works.
And this is exactly why a lot of competitive NS2 players kept telling people to understand the game and play smart.
But unfortunately the answers to that mostly were whine about stacked games and pro players stomping with their imba aim.
Sorry for the OT but this kind of refelcts my feeling about NS2 right now and I just kept writing...
The only way to turn around a stacked game is if the people on the teams substantially change (i.e. good people switch over, bad people drop out and are replaced with good at the same time good people on the other team are replaced with bad). This rarely if ever happens because in NS2 people tend to stay the entire round and on the same team. And if it does happen, sometimes I've had ridiculously stupid games where e.g. the alien team is horrible, but someone (or a few people) who substantially won the game quit, so now even though aliens start slightly losing the sheer stupid amount of res and structures is nearly impossible to defeat. I've had games (around release time, admittedly, when it's noob vs noob) where I've redropped a hive 6-7 times. In the same room, a few minutes apart - marines were mostly confined to their starting room except random acts of "entire-team-work" where almost the entire team in a massive bundle makes it 1 or 2 rooms away only to die.
Anyway, the point is turnarounds really aren't turnarounds. You most certainly don't achieve a turnaround with the same team against the same team (assuming it's pretty well-stacked), so effectively you lost the original game anyway. Might as well start clean.
What you feel like doing when you get a bad team.