Did The Addition Of Uneven Team End Game Spoil Ns?
CaLFiN
Join Date: 2002-11-04 Member: 6909Members
Join Date: 2002-11-04 Member: 6909Members
<div class="IPBDescription">What do you think?</div> I know this is a bit late in saying it, maybe... But I was thinking about it today.
In 1.0x, do you think the addition of the game ending when the teams were uneven spoilt NS?
The reason I think this is because it has became a common excuse to F4 within 5 minutes of the teams being uneven, instead of sticking it out or waiting for new people to join the server.
I also feel that this is responsible for why people F4 when they are losing. If the team agrees to F4 then the game will end because the teams are unbalanced. If the game didn't end people might be more inclined to stick it out for a bit longer or give it a try.
It seems quite lazy and selfish to me. Just because a group of people can't be bothered finishing a game they end it.
Do you think this is a problem with F4 or do you think that team balancing started this "lazy" behaviour from players?
In 1.0x, do you think the addition of the game ending when the teams were uneven spoilt NS?
The reason I think this is because it has became a common excuse to F4 within 5 minutes of the teams being uneven, instead of sticking it out or waiting for new people to join the server.
I also feel that this is responsible for why people F4 when they are losing. If the team agrees to F4 then the game will end because the teams are unbalanced. If the game didn't end people might be more inclined to stick it out for a bit longer or give it a try.
It seems quite lazy and selfish to me. Just because a group of people can't be bothered finishing a game they end it.
Do you think this is a problem with F4 or do you think that team balancing started this "lazy" behaviour from players?
Comments
But, a better fix (that I'm sure was on the S&I forums a bazillion times) IMO would have been a dynamic res system. Where the team with more players gets res <i>hella</i> slow. Much more complex, but surely no harder to playtest than "res for kills."
Or, come to think of it, even a simple voting system would probably be better than "insta-lose".
But did it spoil the game in general? I'd say no. The game is USUALLY hopeless for the smaller team. Maybe there is a lame marine is hiding somewhere after the last ip goes down. Annoying as hell in a fast game where aliens didn't drop sens early. (Well, sometimes it was entertaining, but not in 2.0 for some reason.)
Lets just clarify - we're talking about people F4ing to end the game, not leaving the game to have dinner, or going to the bathroom. We're not talking about stacked teams from game start either.
So, with that in mind, the problem is evidently with the F4 player brigade. Now granted, I F4 when the aliens are camping at base and deliberately NOT mashing RTs, so I can understand that. But spamming F4 just because you're going to LOSE is just sheer poor sportsmanship.
A vote is no better - people would just spam vote "end game" instead of F4.
Don't you still play alien in 2.0 ?...
Other point is, while most people think f4 causes the team unbalance... it's usually people leaving the game. Only when the cc is rushed and goes down for good do I ever see a team f4. Otherwise the guys in the the readyroom are team stackers who never entered the game in the first place.
( Quoted cause it's the the closest one I saw. )
In a way, it is a vote system. Let's say that in a 7 vs 7 game, and it's been going on for 3 hours. The winning side would ALWAYS vote yes, because, well, they are winning. But the losing side, when a certain number of players f4, then it's like a vote. Though it should be something more along the lines of 'half the players vs. opposite team are missing' instead... But I think that's the way it is.
Though it does get annoying when it's a REALLY good game going but, oops! Lag spikes, players leave, poo. It should be maybe 5 minute wait...
There is also an alternative for the humans 'vote'. Vote eject the comm, sell the IPs, buy shottys, aliens win.
My config is read only, you arent unbinding any of my keys.
yeah, it's people like you that makes me glad I have a few good servers already scouted out. And sad that I can't risk "John Q. Public" servers due to people with less brains than a CS'er (used metaphorically).
Personally, no, F4 doesn't ruin the game. If it's over and they want to give up, fine. If it's not over and they want to give up.. it wasn't my place to vote anyway. If I know it's over and I give up.. that kinda sucks. If it's over and I know I'll be sitting here for 30 minutes bored off of my butt, I'll F4, along with other reasons, but this one fit nicely into the scenario.
My config is read only, you arent unbinding any of my keys. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Read only or not, for the duration of the time on anyone server your config can be changed (hense why you can change your name), it just wont be saved afterwords, and mate, im sure the majority of people here have a read only config.
So let's say 2.1 fixes the end game stalemates, people won't have to F4 to finish the game early. People will most likely F4 when they have a rubbish team, give up when a few players leave, etc... My point was that the team balancing caused people to do this, instead of carrying on.
If it's a 7 vs 7 game, and you have a rubbish comm, it would take 3 of you to agree to F4 to end it. If it was never invented, 7 people would have to agree to F4 to end the game... So people might be more inclined to play to the next round.
I haven't really got a good solution in mind* for it, but that wasn't really the idea of the post. I was just wondering if the inclusion of team balancing has changed how people play.
* It could be interesting to play on a 2.1 server without team balance and F4 enabled
* It could be interesting if the last player(s) who joined get switched to the opposing team if they become uneven.
But, a better fix (that I'm sure was on the S&I forums a bazillion times) IMO would have been a dynamic res system. Where the team with more players gets res <i>hella</i> slow. Much more complex, but surely no harder to playtest than "res for kills."
Or, come to think of it, even a simple voting system would probably be better than "insta-lose".
But did it spoil the game in general? I'd say no. The game is USUALLY hopeless for the smaller team. Maybe there is a lame marine is hiding somewhere after the last ip goes down. Annoying as hell in a fast game where aliens didn't drop sens early. (Well, sometimes it was entertaining, but not in 2.0 for some reason.) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Errrr.... wrong.
If I was 7-3 aliens the and even if the 7 team gets less res, what the hell...? Lets say the 3 aliens all get to go onos... 7 LA marines with some good weapons will anhilate the onos.
Unbalanced teams aren't unfair because of res, but because more players on any team = more power. Simple as that, really.
Think we should disable that too.