General observation...

WebtranceWebtrance US Join Date: 2013-11-08 Member: 189165Members, Reinforced - Shadow Posts: 63 Advanced user
Can we just not have anymore sh!t games please. Anyone on board with that? Thank you very much and have a nice day folks.
Stark

Comments

  • YojimboYojimbo England Join Date: 2009-03-19 Member: 66806Members, NS2 Playtester, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Silver, Reinforced - Shadow Posts: 1,248 Advanced user
    Webtrance wrote: »
    Can we just not have anymore sh!t games please. Anyone on board with that? Thank you very much and have a nice day folks.

    This is slightly open ended question, dependent on servers you are on, what time of day you are playing and who you are playing with... But in consensus the quality of games as a whole has been lower in the past couple of years, most likely culprit is people all too willing to press the concede button.
    Today's rookies are tomorrow's vets.

    “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

    George Carlin.
    coolitic
  • MephillesMephilles Germany Join Date: 2013-08-07 Member: 186634Members, NS2 Map Tester Posts: 958 Advanced user
    if you have any ideas on how to achieve that I'll be very interested to hear them
    return to zero
    DC_DarklingNordiccoolitic
  • BeigeAlertBeigeAlert Texas Join Date: 2013-08-08 Member: 186657Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Diamond, Reinforced - Shadow, Subnautica Playtester, Pistachionauts Posts: 2,829 admin
    Yojimbo wrote: »
    Webtrance wrote: »
    Can we just not have anymore sh!t games please. Anyone on board with that? Thank you very much and have a nice day folks.

    This is slightly open ended question, dependent on servers you are on, what time of day you are playing and who you are playing with... But in consensus the quality of games as a whole has been lower in the past couple of years, most likely culprit is people all too willing to press the concede button.

    I find it frustrating when people want to fight on when the battle is looooonnnngg over, and people wanting to concede when there's still a good fighting chance. It's weird! It's the exact opposite of what it should be.
    twiliteblue
  • FarewelltoarmsFarewelltoarms gainesville fl Join Date: 2013-03-03 Member: 183603Members Posts: 66 Fully active user
    Only way to make that happen is to run your own server and then just ban the people who are sh!tting up the game. If I had money I would gladly run my own server and do just that. Then again, if I had money I would probably have a demanding job that didn't allow me to play NS2 all that much in the first place. I suppose that's life.
  • YojimboYojimbo England Join Date: 2009-03-19 Member: 66806Members, NS2 Playtester, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Silver, Reinforced - Shadow Posts: 1,248 Advanced user
    BeigeAlert wrote: »
    Yojimbo wrote: »
    Webtrance wrote: »
    Can we just not have anymore sh!t games please. Anyone on board with that? Thank you very much and have a nice day folks.

    This is slightly open ended question, dependent on servers you are on, what time of day you are playing and who you are playing with... But in consensus the quality of games as a whole has been lower in the past couple of years, most likely culprit is people all too willing to press the concede button.

    I find it frustrating when people want to fight on when the battle is looooonnnngg over, and people wanting to concede when there's still a good fighting chance. It's weird! It's the exact opposite of what it should be.

    Yeah the real trick is knowing WHEN enough is enough and when it's time to call it a day, unfortunately only the most experienced players are able to notice the small tell tale signs when a game is already snowballed
    Today's rookies are tomorrow's vets.

    “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

    George Carlin.
    BeigeAlerttwiliteblueBensoncoolitic
  • WheeeeWheeee Join Date: 2003-02-18 Member: 13713Members, Reinforced - Shadow Posts: 4,262 Fully active user
    Well, there's always the possibility of a last-second rush for the aliens. No such luck with marines, though.
    QUOTE (EEK)
    Don't assume that because I said something it means I actually was thinking that the core of the sun was going to be replaced with hot dogs.
    IronHorse
  • WyzcrakWyzcrak Pot Pie Aficionado Join Date: 2002-12-04 Member: 10447Forum Moderators, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue Posts: 920 mod
    We try on TGNS to break the association between a concede vote and giving up. We encourage people to "vote and play", keeping talk of conceding off of voicecomms for as long as we can. We ask regulars to keep trying their hardest while voting as much as the game will let them. The goal (a lofty one, to be sure) is to keep the voicecomm energy focused on the gameplay, with each player giving his best until the game is well and truly over, with the hopes of the mid-game play, even among "quitters", having less whining/complaining/postmortem and more trying.

    I'm sure other communities do this, but I'd encourage it more broadly across the title. It has had a positive effect on our gameplay at TGNS, FWIW.
    TGNS Portal | NS2 side-by-side game viewer
    IronHorse wrote: »
    TG's win or lose mod that replaces the concede function is the best of both worlds and should be official.
    SupaFredBeigeAlert
  • BensonBenson Join Date: 2012-03-07 Member: 148303Members, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow Posts: 1,296 Advanced user
    I still think that in stead of concede, it should be "self-Destruct". So that every player and structure from what ever team "concedes" explodes and does damage to any enemy near them.

    Go out in a blaze of glory, rather than simply end! its a lot more climactic!
    If we are to be damned, let us be damned for what we really are. - Capt. Jean Luc Picard
    BeigeAlertYojimboaeroripper
  • cooliticcoolitic Right behind you Join Date: 2013-04-02 Member: 184609Members Posts: 1,684 Advanced user
    Wheeee wrote: »
    Well, there's always the possibility of a last-second rush for the aliens. No such luck with marines, though.

    While aliens get more opportunities to do that than marines do, I have seen quite a few of those with marines.
    When life gives you lemons, throw it back and demand chocolate.


  • WheeeeWheeee Join Date: 2003-02-18 Member: 13713Members, Reinforced - Shadow Posts: 4,262 Fully active user
    coolitic wrote: »
    Wheeee wrote: »
    Well, there's always the possibility of a last-second rush for the aliens. No such luck with marines, though.

    While aliens get more opportunities to do that than marines do, I have seen quite a few of those with marines.

    It depends on the situation, but I have rarely if ever seen a case where marines successfully defend and counter against 3/4-hive aliens with complete map control.

    As soon as you push out with your ninja phase, your entire base gets wrecked. Then, if you successfully defend against the bile/onos rush, it takes too long for you to repair everything and deal with inevitable lost equipment in the push. Unless it's a situation where aliens were stomping early and a bunch of skilled late-joiners go on marines, I can't see it happening, especially not with the frequency that aliens can pull it off.
    QUOTE (EEK)
    Don't assume that because I said something it means I actually was thinking that the core of the sun was going to be replaced with hot dogs.
    NordicIronHorse
  • 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 Posts: 8,191 admin
    Wyzcrak wrote: »
    The goal (a lofty one, to be sure) is to keep the voicecomm energy focused on the gameplay, with each player giving his best until the game is well and truly over, with the hopes of the mid-game play, even among "quitters", having less whining/complaining/postmortem and more trying.
    While I applaud the positive attitude and therefore positive environment that is supplied by this method - I'd rather address the difficulty of being able to comeback, and thus the frequency that concede is needed, than to rely on social engineering or having to suppress a natural human response / reaction.

    It'd be much more of a win / win.. you'd see far less demotivation, more tension in a round, and people can continue to react naturally without feeling like they are dampening other's enjoyment. (I always hate raining on a Rookie's parade when they just want to shoot things, but I'd rather start a better round.)
    QUOTE (Techercizer @ Feb 3 2012, 10:47 AM) »
    Every time you ask for troubleshooting without providing system info, ATI adds a rendering bug for an upcoming game.

    When you feel you need to be rude or angry about a game, just read these links and remember what role you are playing:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect
    http://www.eldergame.com/2008/06/taming-the-forum-tiger/
  • aeroripperaeroripper Join Date: 2005-02-25 Member: 42471NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation Posts: 2,415 mod
    They're a few things that could help with the concede issue:

    1) Move concede to the built in voting system so newer players don't have to figure out shine's M > Surrender.

    2) Changing the weighting system so those who do not cast a vote will automatically give their vote away to the highest winning ratio at the end of the vote. I.E. "vote ended, adding in absentia votes, vote passed!". Or just have a non vote count much less than a full vote to the threshold ratio.

    I enjoy efficiently organized last hurrahs when all is lost. I don't enjoy silence for 5-10 minutes while the other team is dominating the whole map, and finally getting a concede vote going when most of the aliens are in the spawn queue. That is the worst.
  • 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 Posts: 8,191 admin
    The downside to #1 is it further increases the demotivational atmosphere, and makes it much more obscuring for something that happens so frequently.

    #2 isn't needed if #1 is done, and even if it were that would have to be communicated clearly to non voters, like you suggested. Otherwise it would be quite unintuitive considering how voting is done pretty much everywhere else on this planet.

    Again though, both of these would just be addressing the symptom instead of the cause..
    QUOTE (Techercizer @ Feb 3 2012, 10:47 AM) »
    Every time you ask for troubleshooting without providing system info, ATI adds a rendering bug for an upcoming game.

    When you feel you need to be rude or angry about a game, just read these links and remember what role you are playing:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect
    http://www.eldergame.com/2008/06/taming-the-forum-tiger/
    SupaFredcoolitic
  • sotanahtsotanaht Join Date: 2013-01-12 Member: 179215Members Posts: 1,020 Fully active user
    edited August 2015
    I think using the in-game vote is a good idea actually. Instead of having to shout "hold x and vote concede" for 5 minutes you just say "press f1" for 30 seconds. If the vote fails you can't vote again for a little while anyway, so everybody actually plays the game after that brief interruption.

    As far as it being "too obscure" from that menu, only one person has to find it anyway, and an all rookie game isn't going to concede normally regardless.

    As far as "how voting is done virtually everywhere else on this planet", non-votes are almost never counted as "no" votes.
    d4rkAlf
  • UncleCrunchUncleCrunch Mayonnaise land Join Date: 2005-02-16 Member: 41365Members, Reinforced - Onos Posts: 1,542 Advanced user
    The surrender menu shouldn't be the only thing to exist.

    We don't have many things that can make people understand they must help somewhere. Only microphones. So much for microphones when some people play with no sound or mute every one.

    The only thing so far that is able to signal to your teammates something is parasite and "ping map" on alien side. Other than that there is nothing to tell your teammates to target something. The commander can give way-points but no field unit can give information on what's going on except using voice.

    They surrender fast when they see nothing can be done (vets included), because they all know perfectly that on public servers it's kind of really hard to get people to understand or to coordinate.

    Starting from this side would probably be better than trying to change the surrender vote. Surrender should be the last think to think about in game, but it's not because nothing helps people coordinate.

    ChubbChubbs ???

    Reach me on NS2 forums in :
    Map: Outer Rim Ark and Outer Rim Ark Edge
  • 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 Posts: 8,191 admin
    edited August 2015
    sotanaht wrote: »
    As far as "how voting is done virtually everywhere else on this planet", non-votes are almost never counted as "no" votes.
    They also aren't counted as Yes votes.

    Another system would be to only count participating votes as the total, instead of treating every body as silently participating in one way or another.
    One downside to this implementation is the vote tally can only complete once the timer is up and no sooner, in case there are late voters.
    The other larger downside to this is that if the vote is obscure or non obvious in any way (during action / combat) then 2 users who want to change the map mid round might just get their way...

    Counting non voters as a no vote means a strong portion of the players must really advocate for change, instead of just a few attentive ones... essentially preventing vote spam issues (the reason why many servers disable vote systems)
    QUOTE (Techercizer @ Feb 3 2012, 10:47 AM) »
    Every time you ask for troubleshooting without providing system info, ATI adds a rendering bug for an upcoming game.

    When you feel you need to be rude or angry about a game, just read these links and remember what role you are playing:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect
    http://www.eldergame.com/2008/06/taming-the-forum-tiger/
    coolitic
  • AeglosAeglos Join Date: 2010-04-06 Member: 71189Members Posts: 622 Advanced user
    IronHorse wrote: »
    Wyzcrak wrote: »
    The goal (a lofty one, to be sure) is to keep the voicecomm energy focused on the gameplay, with each player giving his best until the game is well and truly over, with the hopes of the mid-game play, even among "quitters", having less whining/complaining/postmortem and more trying.
    While I applaud the positive attitude and therefore positive environment that is supplied by this method - I'd rather address the difficulty of being able to comeback, and thus the frequency that concede is needed, than to rely on social engineering or having to suppress a natural human response / reaction.

    It'd be much more of a win / win.. you'd see far less demotivation, more tension in a round, and people can continue to react naturally without feeling like they are dampening other's enjoyment. (I always hate raining on a Rookie's parade when they just want to shoot things, but I'd rather start a better round.)
    I always thought that was the intent of the concede vote. If the vote hasn't passed, you haven't conceded/lost, so you should still try your best.

    I don't think anyone has said this yet, but I'd like to get this in first. Removing concede will not lead to people carrying on and trying for a comeback, the alternative to concede is F4 (ready room) or server browsing as it always has been before concede was implemented and currently is before the time threshold for concede is reached. Hell, people still do that while trying to concede.


    Iron, I had this horrid experience of neither being able to get out of base for 10+ minutes nor get a concede vote passed. At the end of the round, the rookies on my team exclaimed that it was the best game they had so far. :/

  • vartijavartija Join Date: 2007-03-02 Member: 60193Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Onos, WC 2013 - Shadow Posts: 99 Advanced user
    It would be interesting experiment to allow commander to either concede the game himself or only allowing him to cast the vote with less positive votes needed to success. This because commander should have the best overview of the game and casted vote would have more weight.

    I know for sure I don't like to vote for concede as a field player if I am 1pres away from fade although I might think the game is lost and fade timing won't most likely bring it back. (lerks dead or something)
  • 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 Posts: 8,191 admin
    You're missing my point @Aeglos ;)
    I was suggesting to fix the high frequency of scenarios where concede is needed.
    You wouldn't F4 when your team still has a decent chance of winning would you?
    QUOTE (Techercizer @ Feb 3 2012, 10:47 AM) »
    Every time you ask for troubleshooting without providing system info, ATI adds a rendering bug for an upcoming game.

    When you feel you need to be rude or angry about a game, just read these links and remember what role you are playing:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect
    http://www.eldergame.com/2008/06/taming-the-forum-tiger/
  • AeglosAeglos Join Date: 2010-04-06 Member: 71189Members Posts: 622 Advanced user
    That's just shifting the line though. It will make for more enjoyable games on balance, but there will still come a point when defeat is inevitable, at which point it will still come into play. My point was mainly that concede is a great mechanic and people blaming bad games on concede are wrong. Concede improves the game.

    I know you aren't directing it at me personally, but I wouldn't F4 at all, unless it is a team F4 before concede timer. Team balance just drags the game out and is much more horrid. Its not so bad when you can get the 30 second auto concede, but some people tend to cancel that out or worse, you are one short of the auto concede. Also, even if my team wasn't in that bad a position, but is obviously out skilled, I would also concede after a setback. Marines who shoot 10% aren't winning any games even if you give them unlimited pres.
    Wob
  • FrozenFrozen New York, NY Join Date: 2010-07-02 Member: 72228Members, Constellation Posts: 1,479 Advanced user
    Aeglos wrote: »
    Marines who shoot 10% aren't winning any games even if you give them unlimited pres.

    Not to undermine your point, you just caught my interest. I don't think I can shoot under 20% on purpose at this point, but let's say I could. I think I could win some games with 10% accuracy and unlimited pres. It's certainly interesting. I want to try lol
    mattji104
Sign In or Register to comment.