How could we make concede less anticlimactic? Then a discussion on end game mechanics.

124

Comments

  • 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
    Since Nordic changed the title of this thread I am going to contribute again (hehe)

    @Zek
    I think that's a big mistake, to be honest.
    While I have considered the same thing before and agree that it would make the game more forgiving to learn, it also creates more linear tech progression (non contestable progression and upgrades).. in other words gaining map control leads to advantages but loss of map control does not come with disadvantages. This creates a scenario where the first team to reach X point has the advantage that cannot be contested by the losing team - one of the main causes of snowballing.

    Instead, you can tie tech to maintaining map control (marines don't have this and its why turtles end up with A3/W3/JPs/Exos in 1 base) and lastly make late game tech more viable and accessible for both teams to create a fragile and unpredictable end game scenario, while also addressing the early game alien disadvantage. Taking down a hive or killing an Onos is huge in facilitating a comeback, just like aliens biting all the res on the map; we just need more tools / ways to accomplish these type of things that can work in an uncoordinated and low skilled pub environment.


    TLDR : Non contestable tech progression minimally assists comeback scenarios and instead largely drags out games that should have already ended.
  • NordicNordic Long term camping in Kodiak Join Date: 2012-05-13 Member: 151995Members, NS2 Playtester, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Silver, Reinforced - Shadow
    edited December 2015
    When the conversation strayed from my intended purpose I could either fight it or facilitate the discussion people want. I changed the title so it better fits what this thread became.
  • ZekZek Join Date: 2002-11-10 Member: 7962Members, NS1 Playtester, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
    edited December 2015
    IronHorse wrote: »
    Since Nordic changed the title of this thread I am going to contribute again (hehe)

    @Zek
    I think that's a big mistake, to be honest.
    While I have considered the same thing before and agree that it would make the game more forgiving to learn, it also creates more linear tech progression (non contestable progression and upgrades).. in other words gaining map control leads to advantages but loss of map control does not come with disadvantages. This creates a scenario where the first team to reach X point has the advantage that cannot be contested by the losing team - one of the main causes of snowballing.

    Instead, you can tie tech to maintaining map control (marines don't have this and its why turtles end up with A3/W3/JPs/Exos in 1 base) and lastly make late game tech more viable and accessible for both teams to create a fragile and unpredictable end game scenario, while also addressing the early game alien disadvantage. Taking down a hive or killing an Onos is huge in facilitating a comeback, just like aliens biting all the res on the map; we just need more tools / ways to accomplish these type of things that can work in an uncoordinated and low skilled pub environment.


    TLDR : Non contestable tech progression minimally assists comeback scenarios and instead largely drags out games that should have already ended.

    Well like I said it would take really big sweeping rebalancing to make such a change. Certainly there would have to be buffs to game-ending tech for both teams to compensate for more powerful defenders. I think there are other ways to incentivize map control though without tying it so directly to player fighting capabilities, which is the main thing that makes comebacks so difficult. For example, you can focus more of the power spike on comm abilities like ARCs and Contamination - things that can allow a dominant team to end the game quickly, while still leaving them vulnerable to counter-attacks on one of their many bases. Plus respawn timers (number of IPs allowed, alien egg spawn rate, etc) can be adjusted per tech point to give the attacking team a larger advantage. Players with higher tech would certainly have to take much longer to respawn.
  • 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
    edited December 2015
    Agree completely to that idea @Zek
    It would also help lessen the "OP individual" issue.

    A possibly more elegant way (and more impactful) than maintaining tech could be @Grissi 's idea to just increase the res flow and balance around that. You would have to adjust starting res for timings.
    It could possibly sidestep the "dragging out the round despite being already over" issue, by providing the winning team more res to help finish and yet not require the losing team to have already accrued tech in order to come back.

    This combined with your idea and more accessible/viable late game tech could really make the difference.

  • FearlessJamesFearlessJames Join Date: 2015-12-09 Member: 209849Members
    Hmmm,what if for aliens they could evolve a new type of egg? BOILED EGGS! HA HA-erm okay i'll get serious.

    Eggs that would act like personal upgrades (ex.carapace,aura) but instead of aiding them in combat,it would allow them to hatch and spawn out of eggs that would keep their life form upon death! (and maybe a few other things!) Of course it would need to have downsides. Those,I dunno. :blush:
  • 3X4L73X4L7 Join Date: 2014-06-13 Member: 196510Members
    Can the Commanders' vote to concede have more weight? Would that be terrible? A percent or number...1 to stay the same.
  • ZdrytchXZdrytchX Australia Join Date: 2016-02-06 Member: 212662Members
    I was referred here from reddit.
    Here's what admit defeat from vanilla Tremulous looks like (tbere are better ones out there though this is sufficient for a suggestion):


    NS2 requires command structures to be destroyed to lose. So perhaps when a concede happens, have everyone poisoned like in that video, and have the hive's eggs or infantry portals destroyed, and the commander booted out of the command unit. When all players die the game ends. A little more dramatic eh?
  • joshhhjoshhh Milwaukee, WI Join Date: 2011-06-21 Member: 105717Members, NS2 Playtester, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow, Subnautica Playtester
    3 words... Troll. Vent. Gorges.
  • zoljazolja Join Date: 2003-06-06 Member: 17057Members
    Ok if you want to make endgame fun, do what was done in NS1. Right now the game ends when CC or Hive dies--ta-da! How anti-climatic...as was said. In NS1 you would need to kill all the live players to end the game. This makes for some fun(ny?) hide-n-seek mechanics. In fact, I remember winning a game in NS1 with NO COMMSTATION. That actually sounds like a fun achievement! And yes, who can forget troll vent gorges :D (too bad gorges cant create structures in NS2)

    As for concede, it would be a good way to enable some last ditch effort to win/tie when game is hopeless. Arguably one that is more FUN than just F4ing or ragequitting. To do that it would need to have these components:

    1. Make it very improbable for the conceding team to win, but NOT impossible to win/TIE(I've seen 1 in all my 2k hours of gaming): why do it then compared to alternatives?
    2. Give some sort of considerable advantage to the conceding team for a limited amount of time at a great cost: turn the tables a little bit
    3. Encourage winning team to attack and end the game: winning teams don't want to lose advantage
    4. Not be exploitable in close games: team just lost a major battle, concedes and ties/wins the game would be bad!
    5. Be final: no more respawning after death, all structures are recycled/die/converted into something upon concede but all players are spawned and able to participate
    6. Be time-constrained: who wants a 10 minute endgame? Make it last a few minutes at most.
    7. Be interesting: make it variable, not boring


    Some ideas: recycle all structures(#5) (no concede and sneaky tunnel/pg) and (#2)drop onos/lerk/fade/gorge eggs or exos/jps/weapons randomly(#7) according to some variation of: (modifier *)recycled structures value + team res + pooled personal res. Admittedly this can make a team somewhat way overpowered(#2), but now opposing team only has to kill them once(#1, #3) and end the game but if they don't in a certain amount of time(#6) the game ends in a tie(#1)(you can do some sort of autodestruct mechanic here).

    Anyway, yes endgames need to be less anticlimatic and no these aren't the only ideas but ideas that would make concede/allin more viable than F4/ragequit. If I missed anything on the list please be sure to say and I will add.
  • VetinariVetinari Join Date: 2013-07-23 Member: 186325Members, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Silver
    First, let me say I think a game that ends with a proper push to finish off the enemy team is anticlimactic at all. In fact, having to hunt down every single player afterwards would make it that for me - after all we have already won, the rest is just a chore.

    Besides, 90% of concedes happen because one team just plain sucks/is worse than the other team/can't use it's potential. Or, in other words, because the current round is no fun for this team and it's unlikely than this is going to change. The reason people concede is because they want to rebalance teams and get a new round going asap so they can have fun. Often, getting everybody to vote is hard enough, even if the enemy has been sitting on the resource advantage for ten minutes but I'm trailing off... in short, you do not want to prolong this any further than you have to.

    Concede mechanics are fine. Look at alien endgame mechanics if anything; It's my impression that aliens win the vast majority of pub games that last longer than, say, 25 minutes.
  • ruprechtruprecht Join Date: 2013-03-16 Member: 184022Members
    I do not see the point in seeing your odds of winning go to zero, joining your teammates in conceding, then having to play for additional minutes in some cat and mouse hunt or watching a timer click down while the your opponent "wins". Most of the time I concede then hit F4 if the shuffle permits.

    The fun is playing, with a chance of winning. Not playing when you have already lost.

    Someone mentioned an in game kill graph. Great idea. This can show newer players how imbalanced things are and the inevitability of a loss.

    In addition, a graph that shows team resources lost in battle (i.e., the sum on buildings, upgrades, weapons lost during the game) would also be a great tool to show the need to concede.

    I have seen, and been a part of, a lot of great late game comebacks, but when it's over it's over even if the game isn't.
  • sotanahtsotanaht Join Date: 2013-01-12 Member: 179215Members
    The TGNS "Win or Lose" is pretty fun. I don't play over there often, but I won a game yesterday via "surprise conceding". We conceded during our last-ditch base-rush, the timing was such that neither team actually knew who conceded for a few seconds, and the marines just happened to beacon as it went off. So here they are, beaconed to their base with an onos and several smaller lifeforms around their chair, doing what you do during a beacon except every kill counts down the timer and our hive is on the other side of the map.

    They did get their shit together and kill the hive, but it was too late. The timer counted down to alien victory 1 second before the hive died.
  • FrozenFrozen New York, NY Join Date: 2010-07-02 Member: 72228Members, Constellation
    edited March 2016
    See this thread: http://forums.unknownworlds.com/discussion/139693/absolute-win-conditions

    And this mod @Scatter made to utilize it: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=575813555

    My biggest issue is the cc/hive killing race when you get both teams killing the others last location. I don't think a 15+ minute game should be won by 2 seconds difference, it should become a sudden death.
  • zoljazolja Join Date: 2003-06-06 Member: 17057Members
    The point in conceding as many have noted is that, either real of perceived, the team has a very small chance to win. However you have to admit that this chance is never absolutely 0. There is always an outside chance of a base rush and potential loss, since the whole mechanic of "winning" is to take out all the command structures of the other team. This is due to the endgame mechanics.

    The endgame mechanics are also somewhat convoluted. Conceding just magically ends the game sidestepping endgame mechanics aka destruction of command structures. This is inconsistent. You also have to consider ragequitters ending the game. If too many players from the other team quit the game, it ends in 30 seconds. This is also inconsistent. Also conceding and ragequitting endgame mechanics are inconsistent with each other.

    You can now see clearly why new players would ask "What happened?"
  • sotanahtsotanaht Join Date: 2013-01-12 Member: 179215Members
    There comes a point where even if the team does manage to win it wouldn't really be deserved. Either the opposing team suffers sudden-onset terminal stupidity, loses their best players to real life, or some pros suddenly join your team. In any of those cases, it's a pretty hollow win.
  • MaxPowerMaxPower Join Date: 2013-09-08 Member: 187992Members, Reinforced - Shadow
    Here are two concede scenarios specific to NS2, which I thought may be a fun alternative to the current screen that says your team wins or loses.

    Marines Vote Concede:
    The Command Station has a small and powerful nuclear reactor (this is the future, remember?) that becomes steadily more powerful after the round begins. After 7ish minutes, the Command Station is now able to draw in power from the entire installation/map, resulting in a massive map-wide power surge. This permanently destroys all power nodes on map and begins a self-destruct sequence. All rooms on map go to red lights, and alarms go off ( Think Alien and Aliens). The Command Station is now a bomb set to reach critical mass in 2 minutes(give or take), and the commander may not assist players(medpacks / ammo packs, etc.) or eject. The marine commander is busy monitoring energy levels and inputting commands necessary for the explosion to finally trigger. "Kill 'em all, it's the only way to be sure."

    Two possible outcomes:
    1. Surviving Marines successfully defend their command station after 2 minutes (no power, no assistance, MACs and ARCs power down), resulting in an explosion that destroys all life on the installation. (Draw)
    2. Aliens destroy the command station before it can reach a critical mass explosion, and the Aliens claim their new home. (Aliens Win)


    Aliens Vote Concede
    Realizing that the Khaara cannot adapt to their desired home more quickly than the intruders, the Khaara begin a new evolutionary path. This requires a new way of sustainable life, and an enormous amount of biomass. Of course, the Hive intends to start over as a massive explosion of genetic material and infectious, microscopic organisms. After the hive absorbs enough oxygen from the atmosphere (takes about 7 minutes), the hive may choose to have all infestation recede and absorb back into the Hive (Hive no longer heals), and the Hive begins to grow larger. As the Hive grows, it shrieks continuously as it struggles to contain all the biomass it needs for its final explosion. All eggs, cysts, and structures, (including Gorge-made?), begin to wither as their biomass return to the hive. The alien khaamander is busy overseeing the absorption of biomass, and may not eject or assist with the other aliens in any way. After 2 minutes, the Hive explodes in new life, and all previous life (both aliens and marines) on the installation are immediately consumed by waves of microscopic organisms.

    Two possible outcomes:
    1. Surviving Aliens successfully defend the Hive after 2 minutes (no structures, no hive heal, no eggs, no drifter support, no hive powers(bonewall, etc.)), resulting in an explosion that consumes all life on the installation. (Draw)
    2. Marines destroy the hive before it can reach the maturity it needs for its explosion to yield new, microscopic life. (Marines Win)
  • TheriusTherius Join Date: 2009-03-06 Member: 66642Members, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Supporter
    There is absolutely no point in denying victory for a dominating team just because they cannot fulfill an objective in an arbitrary time limit. Keep the proposed mechanics with pure satisfaction and fun in mind with no effect on the actual outcome.
  • Deck_Deck_ Join Date: 2014-07-20 Member: 197526Members
    edited March 2016
    Frozen wrote: »
    See this thread: http://forums.unknownworlds.com/discussion/139693/absolute-win-conditions

    And this mod @Scatter made to utilize it: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=575813555

    My biggest issue is the cc/hive killing race when you get both teams killing the others last location. I don't think a 15+ minute game should be won by 2 seconds difference, it should become a sudden death.

    I've countered this point before, but why not again. This game should come down to killing a CC or Hive and if there is a 2 second difference, so be it. It takes strategy and putting yourself in the right position to get to that point. Plus these games don't happen that often. This game should never end in a sudden death match mode, that goes against everything this game is. I don't get why you still want to see that happen. I guess you just really don't like it when a team wins by a couple seconds.
    zolja wrote: »
    The point in conceding as many have noted is that, either real of perceived, the team has a very small chance to win. However you have to admit that this chance is never absolutely 0. There is always an outside chance of a base rush and potential loss, since the whole mechanic of "winning" is to take out all the command structures of the other team. This is due to the endgame mechanics.

    The endgame mechanics are also somewhat convoluted. Conceding just magically ends the game sidestepping endgame mechanics aka destruction of command structures. This is inconsistent. You also have to consider ragequitters ending the game. If too many players from the other team quit the game, it ends in 30 seconds. This is also inconsistent. Also conceding and ragequitting endgame mechanics are inconsistent with each other.

    You can now see clearly why new players would ask "What happened?"

    Yes conceding magically ends the game, but it's the best alternative so far to really drawn out bad games. This has always been an issue, since NS1 - but NS1 didn't have a concede option so people just pushed F4. I remember there was at least one server that wouldn't allow you to push F4 - so you could play your long turtle games if you wanted. NS is a great game but a lot of games go in a general direction without much hope of a comeback. The concede makes for less drawn out turtle games. The best solution to fix this issue is to find ways to add comeback routes for a team, but you shouldn't handicap the team that put themselves in a winning position. That might be the issue that isn't really fixable...how do you give a team a decent chance at a comeback without hindering the other team that earned their current advantage?

    The only thing I can think of is to have more important/game defining moments that can shift the balance of the round even if one team has an advantage. Let's say the developers find ways to add more game defining moments to a round. We are still left with the issue...if one team won all the big moments earlier and they are the better team, aren't they probably going to win the battles later on? I think it's the nature of how this game works. You could handicap the team with the advantage, but that is more like mario kart style gaming. Give them the blue shell option. Seems to go against good competitive gameplay.

    There are positives and negatives to having a concede option, but I think the positives outweigh the negatives. What is the better option? Are you suggestion we should bring back long, drawn out turtle games? If someone provides a better alternative then perhaps they will try it.

  • zoljazolja Join Date: 2003-06-06 Member: 17057Members
    Deck_ wrote: »
    how do you give a team a decent chance at a comeback without hindering the other team that earned their current advantage?

    My suggestion is give the conceding team an advantage based on pres + tres + recycled structures value but destroy all structures hence no respawn and endgame. However this would be inconsistent with current endgame mechanics. Some have suggested some autodestruct sequence as well. If autodestruct succeeds you have 3 choices win lose or tie for the conceding team. I'm guessing the win option would be unpaletable to most people but a lose would make no difference to the conceding team. Probably make the game a tie if the autodestruct suceeds.
    Deck_ wrote: »
    There are positives and negatives to having a concede option, but I think the positives outweigh the negatives. What is the better option? Are you suggestion we should bring back long, drawn out turtle games? If someone provides a better alternative then perhaps they will try it.

    I'm not saying remove concede, at least make the endgame mechanics consistent with each other. If the goal is to destroy the hive/command stations make it destroyed if the game ends.

    Turtle games happen regardless. If the team stuck and surrounded in their base is really worse than the other team and the winning team is just dragging their feet, making the game into a tie if they don't destroy the command structure in 1 minute would provide a decent enouragement to end the game, don't you agree?
  • Deck_Deck_ Join Date: 2014-07-20 Member: 197526Members
    edited March 2016
    zolja wrote: »
    My suggestion is give the conceding team an advantage based on pres + tres + recycled structures value but destroy all structures hence no respawn and endgame. However this would be inconsistent with current endgame mechanics. Some have suggested some autodestruct sequence as well. If autodestruct succeeds you have 3 choices win lose or tie for the conceding team. I'm guessing the win option would be unpaletable to most people but a lose would make no difference to the conceding team. Probably make the game a tie if the autodestruct suceeds.

    I'm not saying remove concede, at least make the endgame mechanics consistent with each other. If the goal is to destroy the hive/command stations make it destroyed if the game ends.

    Turtle games happen regardless. If the team stuck and surrounded in their base is really worse than the other team and the winning team is just dragging their feet, making the game into a tie if they don't destroy the command structure in 1 minute would provide a decent enouragement to end the game, don't you agree?


    How would this autodestruct sequence work?

    So basically you want the tactical gamer's style of ending a round or something similar. Where these is new set of conditions that need to play out over a short period of time so you can have the satisfaction of watching the hive blow up or seeing the command station blow up. I guess I don't see it as a major issue if they added this, but it always feels strange to be thrown into mini-game mode just so people can have a more fulfilling ending that ends up feeling cheap to me. It feels like you're being forced into victory/defeat mode instead of just a natural concede/end game.

    I understand why people don't like the quick ending, but it's like you need the visual fulfillment through a different set of conditions that don't feel like a normal ns2 game. Yes NS2 has abrupt endings when one team gives up or is getting destroyed. It's because the team thinks it's a battle they can't win, and it needs a certain number of votes for a reason. That's a real end to a battle, surrender...not a quick game mode (which isn't NS2 any longer) just so people can watch a hive go poof. I just think it comes off as silly.

    Maybe it could be more clear on your screen that the game will end if one team surrenders which means enough people vote to concede. It could look different on your screen, especially to a rookie player. I don't like the mini-game mode idea though. If it was so good, I think more servers would adopt the tactical gamer style ending, but they don't. If servers don't have access to it, ask tactical gamer for a mod or some modder to make one so that server admins can add it to their server if they want. I would prefer it not to be in the main game though.
  • IronsoulIronsoul Join Date: 2011-03-12 Member: 86048Members
  • simbasimba Join Date: 2012-05-06 Member: 151628Members
    Maybe what's needed is just a more user friendly way of conceding. How unintuitive is the current way to vote concede? You have to TEACH new players how to do it, which is ridiculous!

    If it's easier to find and select a "surrender option" THEN once 20-30% of the team has voted to surrender, something displays on the screen saying "Your team has started a vote to surrender" and a button to either concede or not.
  • VetinariVetinari Join Date: 2013-07-23 Member: 186325Members, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Silver
    simba wrote: »
    Maybe what's needed is just a more user friendly way of conceding. How unintuitive is the current way to vote concede? You have to TEACH new players how to do it, which is ridiculous!

    If it's easier to find and select a "surrender option" THEN once 20-30% of the team has voted to surrender, something displays on the screen saying "Your team has started a vote to surrender" and a button to either concede or not.

    There is, actually, one thing that needs to be changed about the concede function:
    Call it "surrender".

    It confuses the hell out of rookies. It confused the hell out of me back then. ("What does 'concede' mean?" - it's not like it's a common english word, and you can't just look it up in the middle of a match. You're not making it easy for non-native speakers. And yes, I've repeatedly had to explain to rookies that "concede" means "surrender".)
  • 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
    @F0rdPrefect
    When-He-Expresses-Utter-Disbelief.gif

    That surprises me. It's been part of modern english since the late 15th century..
    However, I'll concede that you have a point, statistically.
    So... +1 I guess.
  • VetinariVetinari Join Date: 2013-07-23 Member: 186325Members, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Silver
    IronHorse wrote: »
    @F0rdPrefect
    When-He-Expresses-Utter-Disbelief.gif

    That surprises me. It's been part of modern english since the late 15th century..
    However, I'll concede that you have a point, statistically.
    So... +1 I guess.

    I know - but as your graphs show, it's not exactly a common word. And if your game is commonly played in english, you should design such a crucial feature around the possibility that not everyone speaks perfect english.
  • NordicNordic Long term camping in Kodiak Join Date: 2012-05-13 Member: 151995Members, NS2 Playtester, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Silver, Reinforced - Shadow
    Playing in NA, I have been asked what concede means. I am sure there are the silent players who never think to ask. I can't imagine in Europe where English is not native. When given the choice between two words that mean almost the same thing, why not choose the more common one? Shine calls it surrender. Shine is just a mod, but why not keep it consistent?
  • NovoReiNovoRei US Join Date: 2014-11-18 Member: 199718Members
    edited March 2016

    There is, actually, one thing that needs to be changed about the concede function:
    Call it "surrender".

    It confuses the hell out of rookies. It confused the hell out of me back then. ("What does 'concede' mean?" - it's not like it's a common english word, and you can't just look it up in the middle of a match. You're not making it easy for non-native speakers. And yes, I've repeatedly had to explain to rookies that "concede" means "surrender".)

    Concede actually makes perfect sense. When you surrender you are ceding control over units, territory, resources, etc, but you are still there.

    Aliens itself don't/can't "surrender" or "capitulate". It's the alien's players that concede the match.

    Besides, this is a typical problem with current native English speakers where "one word can only have one meaning". Not so much with non-native speakers I must say.
  • VetinariVetinari Join Date: 2013-07-23 Member: 186325Members, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Silver
    NovoRei wrote: »

    There is, actually, one thing that needs to be changed about the concede function:
    Call it "surrender".

    It confuses the hell out of rookies. It confused the hell out of me back then. ("What does 'concede' mean?" - it's not like it's a common english word, and you can't just look it up in the middle of a match. You're not making it easy for non-native speakers. And yes, I've repeatedly had to explain to rookies that "concede" means "surrender".)

    Concede actually makes perfect sense. When you surrender you are ceding control over units, territory, resources, etc, but you are still there.

    Aliens itself don't/can't "surrender" or "capitulate". It's the alien's players that concede the match.

    Besides, this is a typical problem with current native English speakers where "one word can only have one meaning". Not so much with non-native speakers I must say.

    I'm not saying it doesn't make sense - just that it's making it (unnecessarily) harder for newbies.
  • FrozenFrozen New York, NY Join Date: 2010-07-02 Member: 72228Members, Constellation
    See this thread: http://forums.unknownworlds.com/discussion/139693/absolute-win-conditions

    And this mod @Scatter made to utilize it: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=575813555

    Can do something similar where conceding blows up your remaining hives/ccs
  • SaltlickSaltlick Join Date: 2013-01-03 Member: 177347Members, Reinforced - Shadow
    When I was younger, PC gaming added some interesting new words to my vocabulary. If players don't know what concede means, let them learn. If you really want to make it easier for players to figure out how to concede, make it easier to discover. Put the button near the scoreboard, add the necessary timers, maybe a tooltip if you really need to.
Sign In or Register to comment.