Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Re: "Cost" of end-game rush & early surrender

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: "Cost" of end-game rush & early surrender

    I couldn't find the other topic, so screw it!

    I wanted to talk a little about "cost" of a base rush or early surrender. A lot of people will agree that base rushes when the other team has more res, more upgrades, and/or is winning engagements are often winless. Arguments against base rushing and early surrendering have been:

    - Waste of time.
    - Arguments over whether we should surrender or not.
    - Cost outweigh the benefits.
    - Often lack of teamwork
    - Not fun

    However, I would like to bring up the argument of "fun". Now a lot of people will say that base rushing or continuing to play isn't fun. Personally, I don't get all of my enjoyment out of the game out of winning every round, I don't know how everyone else feels, but a jetpack rush, or a skulk rush can feel amazing, especially if you have been dominated the whole game. To me, fun outweighs the "waste of time" argument, because I came here to waste time playing a video game anyways, and if I can encourage people to do a jetpack rush, or do a skulk rush, even if we lose, there's always that possibility of overcoming the enemy, at least for a short while, and I've made some attempt at teamwork (which might spill into other games). And that is part of the game, you will see moments where aliens are dominating and then all of a sudden the marines employ a different tactic, or get a phase gate, and bam! the aliens are in trouble.

    I get a lot of enjoyment out of these games that are different and out of the ordinary, so to me, if I've wasted 8 minutes on 4 different games, and lost all 4, it doesn't matter, because I know I've at least tried something, and those games it didn't work, but maybe next time it'll work. The other thing is that it gives me the ability to improve on other skills, such as sneaking around the map, overcoming a deficit in upgrades/res/kills and teamwork. It can be extremely frustrating, just as much as equally rewarding. That said, even if I am frustrated, I'd rather try something, if someone has an idea, than give up, because I might learn something. If everyone is surrendering without a word, then I'll surrender if i feel like we won't win, however, I do like when someone brings up an idea, or I get an idea. "Hey, let's go kill this hive" "OK", or "Hey, lets put a phase gate here". It makes for fun variations for end games.

    I've been noticing a lot of early on conceding, and when I do ask why, I get the one of the above three arguments. One of the games I played recently, a player conceded and we ended up killing 2 unbuilt hives. We were dominating for a while, and then the tides changed again, and we lost. While we lost, had we all conceded early on, I would have missed out on 15 minutes of intense fighting over resources, phase gates, and hives, and probably would have played 2 games where we do the same old dance.

    To me winning is fun, but it is not everything. If we do end up losing, we end up killing one hive, or two hives, or we get some teamwork going, or at a more individual level, I learned a new route to Pipeline or Cargo without alerting the aliens, it's all worth it.

    Part of the reason we have "Win or Lose" is to allow the other team the opportunity of continuing gameplay, and having the enjoyment of killing the other teams hive. It feels like by discouraging end-game base rushes, or encouraging surrendering early can hinder on the team's fun, teamplay or learning, at the cost of time saved, at the benefit of the individual's fun, or gain in time.

    I guess my point is, if we're not supposed to encourage surrendering ("It's over", "Surrender"), why is discouraging end-game rushes, and/or people who want to continue to play despite a disadvantage accepted? Everything has a "cost", of course, but what is valuable to some might not be as important to others.

    TLDR;
    Benefits of end-game rush/avoiding early surrender:
    - fun
    - encourages teamwork
    - encourages learning new skills
    - trains how to overcome a deficit
    HaX^

  • #2
    Re: "Cost" of end-game rush & early surrender

    Your TLDR doesn't cite "might win" as a benefit, but that's what always headlines the advertisement: "don't give up hope YET -- we haven't done XYZ". This predicates the argument FOR XYZ on the LIKELIHOOD that XYZ will turn the competitive tide to a compelling degree. On average (far above average, in my observation), it WILL NOT. And yet that's how it's sold, in contrast to your TLDR.

    Everything has exceptions, but I "never" hear "we've lost, but let's spend a minute doing XYZ before we surrender". I hear "we might stay in the game if we XYZ". I can respect the former, as it's honest and recognizes reality: "who cares if we lose? -- this'll be fun few minutes of silliness/organization/practice/whatever." That I can get behind. But all I hear, over and over again, is "don't surrender yet, we can still XYZ, and that stands a decent chance of turning things around." Well, I've done XYZ in this exact scenario HUNDREDS OF TIMES now -- for what anecdotal data is worth, it stands a very poor chance, in fact, of turning things around.

    Folks remember the times it worked, and they forget the many, many, many more times it didn't work and the VAST amounts of time invested in those certain failures.

    If I'm trying to convince you to do something because it's /likely/ to succeed (which is what I'm doing when I say "this is LIKELY to help us survive/win/comeback/stayinit/whatever"), then I should have to /answer/ to the reality that it has failed MANY more times than it has succeeded. MANY MORE. So, I struggle to see anything other than three options when I hear these pleas for "don't give up -- there's competitive hope you're overlooking!!":

    ) this person doesn't know how wrong they are regarding likelihood, which compromises the credibility of their claim that XYZ will solve anything competitively

    ) this person knows how unlikely their proposition is, which means they're disingenuous (or blindly optimistic, to put a better spin on it) insofar as they're telling the team "this is so likely to aid us competitively that it warrants our trying it AGAIN".

    ) this person doesn't genuinely /care/ how likely it is to change anything, which means, I guess, that they either have infinite time or they're religious about surrendering ("surrendering is a sin -- I never do it, ever") -- two thirsts that are difficult to quench

    Anyone seeing the hopelessness of the competitive game and championing a few minutes of tacticpractice/silliness/rushingforfun/etc despite that is much more likely to peak my interest. But this talk of "wait! this might work!" is repetitive, lacks far more ingenuity (most of the time) than is polite to point out, and generally disinterests me.
    Steam Community? Add me. | Free Remote, Encrypted Backup

    Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Zephyr: Apophis is clearly a highly sophisticated self-aware AI construct that runs on a highly modified toaster oven in Wyzcrak's basement.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: "Cost" of end-game rush & early surrender

      Two personal traits that make it especially difficult for me to buy into the countless "let's just try one more thing /in the interest of competition/" calls to action, especially from folks who seem to call for them unconditionally (the religious types I talk about above):

      ) I'm far more interested in NS2's strategic offering than I am in its tactical sparkles, so running around and killing MORE and MORE things while effectively changing NOTHING about who controls what on the map is a THOROUGHLY selfless pursuit for me most of the time. Without NS2's strategy, there are far better FPS experiences to be had.

      ) I'm competitively apathetic to a fault. I'm often just so OK with losing, despite undeniable POSSIBILITY (however unlikely) of victory, especially if the strategy suspense is gone.

      I try to empathize with those more dependent on winning, or on shooting/killing, but it's really hard.
      Steam Community? Add me. | Free Remote, Encrypted Backup

      Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Zephyr: Apophis is clearly a highly sophisticated self-aware AI construct that runs on a highly modified toaster oven in Wyzcrak's basement.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: "Cost" of end-game rush & early surrender

        I've seen most of these scenarios, and most of the competitive responses that folks typically propose, a.... sufficient... number of times now. Not everyone has. So what bores me is "fun" to someone else, and that's an important thing to recognize.

        It's just that it's never sold as "this will be fun, so let's do it even though we've clearly lost". It's sold as "this has a chance of helping us competitively, so it's fun, and you should find it fun, too -- so don't give up... come have FUN".

        I think I'd be much more interested if folks de-coupled the competitive strength of the endeavor from the merit of the endeavor itself: "let's blow another 6 minutes in the name of training", "let's blow another 6 minutes because we haven't lerk-balled in a while", "let's blow another 6 minutes JUST TO SEE if we can keep our base node alive despite ARCs and shotguns -- half gorges and half lerks -- GO!!!" -- anything approaching this and sold in the context of "guys, this game is obviously over competitively, but we have OTHER opportunities for enjoying ourselves for the next few minutes", even if those other opportunities /resemble/ things we do when we ARE still trying to win (which we're NOT, but e.g. JPing a hive, holding naturals, etc), would be wayyy more credible, to me.
        Steam Community? Add me. | Free Remote, Encrypted Backup

        Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Zephyr: Apophis is clearly a highly sophisticated self-aware AI construct that runs on a highly modified toaster oven in Wyzcrak's basement.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: "Cost" of end-game rush & early surrender

          Originally posted by Wyzcrak
          Your TLDR doesn't cite "might win" as a benefit, but that's what always headlines the advertisement
          And that is a good point. People do advertise it as "we might win", and maybe that's not the most valid reason for doing it. But, it's like the lottery, some people believe in that really hard, despite the odds, and like I said, it is not the only reason for doing end-game rushes or continuing play despite a deficit.

          Originally posted by Wyzcrak View Post
          ) I'm far more interested in NS2's strategic offering than I am in its tactical sparkles, so running around and killing MORE and MORE things while effectively changing NOTHING about who controls what on the map is a THOROUGHLY selfless pursuit for me most of the time. Without NS2's strategy, there are far better FPS experiences to be had.
          More often than not, you are not changing anything when doing an end-game rush, and that is something that we both agree on. However, wouldn't you agree that rushes in a general sense, not just end-game rushes, as well as overcoming a deficit are part of the NS2 strategic offering?

          Originally posted by Wyzcrak View Post
          ) I'm competitively apathetic to a fault. I'm often just so OK with losing, despite undeniable POSSIBILITY (however unlikely) of victory, especially if the strategy suspense is gone.
          I would argue the strategy suspense is gone when all of the games end in the same way, the strategy being "play until your team is overwhelmed, then surrender". I find that there is a lot of value in trying to climb an uphill battle for all of the reasons mentioned above (plus, the "We might win"). It does not pay off in victories, or kills most of the time, but in the long run, you're a better player for it, because you've learned some valuable skills, you've had fun, you've worked as a team, you've learned a new mid game strategy, or you've learned a map.

          Originally posted by Wyzcrak View Post
          I try to empathize with those more dependent on winning, or on shooting/killing, but it's really hard.
          I'm not sure what you mean by that, are you saying you empathize with those who are wanting to surrender? Do you feel like people shouldn't surrender so quickly then? Or the reverse?

          Originally posted by Wyzcrak
          I think I'd be much more interested if folks de-coupled the competitive strength of the endeavor from the merit of the endeavor itself: "let's blow another 6 minutes in the name of training", "let's blow another 6 minutes because we haven't lerk-balled in a while", "let's blow another 6 minutes JUST TO SEE if we can keep our base node alive despite ARCs and shotguns -- half gorges and half lerks -- GO!!!" -- anything approaching this and sold in the context of "guys, this game is obviously over competitively, but we have OTHER opportunities for enjoying ourselves for the next few minutes", even if those other opportunities /resemble/ things we do when we ARE still trying to win (which we're NOT, but e.g. JPing a hive, holding naturals, etc), would be wayyy more credible, to me.
          I think I understand what you are getting at, and a lot of the times what is sold as training/competitive is mostly done as fun, and perhaps that should be considered. Realistically though, it is hard to determine what is "fun" for everyone and what is not. There is a finer line for what is competitive, but I would argue that even attempting silly gorge hydra rushes can have their merits. For example, consider these scenarios:
          - the chair is surrounded by mines, and we can't skulk or lerk our way to it, because not enough res. You can drop your hydras and spitball the mines
          - we don't have enough for fade/skulk mix, in which case, a gorge/skulk mix would work good, but we want to keep the gorges alive, so you get a lot of gorges that healspray each other while the hydras attack.
          - we already have multiple gorges, we can drop tunnels in their base and get back there faster, their chair is at half health and dropping hydras and spitballing it will get the marines off of our hive, possibly causing a beacon.

          All of these scenarios might not have an effect on an end-game, but they could have an effect on mid-game, so while these scenarios are ridiculous in that context, they can be very effective and even considered competitive in other situations, because they were unexpected. Tunnel/phase placement, attacks from unexpected lifeforms, strategies to keep each other alive, these are all part of the NS2 strategy, and are fun to attempt, even if the end-result is a loss and some time wasted.

          I think the problem isn't necessarily how it is sold ("It'll be fun", "It'll train you for later", "We've got nothing to lose"), its' that everyone will have a different reason for why or why not do it. The value is there, it is just different for everyone, everyone except those who just want to surrender early or not do a base rush because they didn't win, or are losing engagements. But, if for whatever reason they might have, if people do want to do an end-game rush, or continue playing, then I don't think that should be discouraged. Just as much as we don't discourage people from surrendering, we shouldn't be discouraging end-game rushes, or attempts at overcoming a deficit.
          Last edited by HaX^; 03-11-2015, 01:50 PM.
          HaX^

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: "Cost" of end-game rush & early surrender

            Excellent post. Thank you. I really hope it helps me cater more to these needs, or better yet to establish them for myself.

            ( regarding the bit you didn't understand above: I was just saying that I /try/ to see things from the viewpoint of folks who want to keep playing -- /competing/, even -- despite what I see as a hopelessly lost game... )
            Steam Community? Add me. | Free Remote, Encrypted Backup

            Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Zephyr: Apophis is clearly a highly sophisticated self-aware AI construct that runs on a highly modified toaster oven in Wyzcrak's basement.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: "Cost" of end-game rush & early surrender

              I find it especially ingratiating when people who call for a last-minute base rush offer no coherent plan and expect the rest of the team to plan and organize that rush. Rather than "before we concede, let's group up in W and hit the X in Y through Z", we get "hey don't concede yet, we can still do a base rush." While neither proposition is likely to succeed, having a coherent plan at least raises the odds, and someone who calls for a base rush and doesn't have one comes off sounding like they're begging you to try, but not really trying themselves.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: "Cost" of end-game rush & early surrender

                If multiple members decide to not surrender and do a base rush, as irritating as it is to you, I don't see why they should be reprimanded for wanting to play just as much as those who are wanting to surrender should not be reprimanded. Your wanting to surrender should not have more merit than their wanting to continue to play. I do agree that there should be some sort of plan of action, but that takes time, and is also a group effort, not necessarily an individual one, as the individual might not have the best intel, or the best idea.

                Put it this way, if you were mid-game, you would have multiple people offering ideas on what to attack, offering intel, asking to rush, right? Why should end game gameplay be any different?

                I guess my point is, it can be frustrating to have players at the end of the game who want to continue gameplay and don't have any ideas or intel, but it is equally frustrating to ask for the game to continue and get shot down because the argument you made for continuing the game isn't valid to one person, and it's like I said, people have different reasons for wanting to continue gameplay.

                If there are more than two people on your team and you can't agree on a surrender, then gameplay should keep on going, and, as a team, you should figure out what the next step is, otherwise, this overwrites the concept that surrendering is a team decision rather than an individual decision, the argument being that if not enough of your team has surrendered to cause a Win or Lose, then that means that your team has made a decision to continue gameplay, regardless of what the endgame plan is and your individual feelings are. That may mean that you end up getting demolished by an angry line of 3 onoses, but so be it!
                HaX^

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: "Cost" of end-game rush & early surrender

                  People who are voting to concede usually don't have ideas on what to attack or rush, or they wouldn't have voted to concede. There aren't a lot of options left at that point. Arguing that people are wrong to concede because there's still "a chance" without giving them any more information than they had when they selected "concede" is condescending because you're assuming that they didn't think their decision through.

                  I absolutely agree that all players should continue to share information on enemy positions and structures right up until the game ends, but it's often the case that someone who's voted to concede simply can't find any opportunities to turn things around. They might be desperately trying to defend their structures, or fruitlessly trying to harass enemy res; nothing they're seeing or hearing is telling them that the game is winnable, so you need to give them something if you want to change their minds. If you just want to play the game out for the fun of it, that's fine, and if you have a plan that could genuinely turn the game around, that's also fine, but don't make some half-assed attempt to convince people there's still a chance if you have no reason to think there is.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: "Cost" of end-game rush & early surrender

                    Maybe the best solution is not to argue about it either way. Rather than argue about whether or not there's a chance, if we can't agree on a concede, argue about what the strategy should be next instead of discrediting each other's thoughts for why or why not we still have a chance and invalidating each others beliefs.

                    I've been running an experiment for the last few days by sort of running the ideas when things look a little bleak, and I've lost some games, but the games I've lost were more intense in the sense that I actually was able to tell my team "Hey, let's meet up in X", and they would meet up there, and we would attack their base, or attack their res together. If people weren't meeting up I'd call them out by name or location. After we lost those games, I continued to get people together by calling the shots, and we would win multiple games (even despite calls to balance teams at the end of the game, because it was "stacked").

                    Obviously this isn't something that will work all the time, and it does take leadership and coordination, but I don't necessarily think it's something that I would have had to do, anyone on my team could have stepped up and offered ideas. What I have found though is that usually when people surrender early on in the game, there is a lot of negativity on the next round if the teams are the same. Rather than focus on what the team can do, they make an unconscious decision to play poorly. By encouraging teamwork in end game results, it's sort of like a brain hack. I'm trying to put everyone in the "maybe this team won't suck so bad if we work as a team" mode, and so far it has been successful. I'll keep trying and report results back.
                    Last edited by HaX^; 03-13-2015, 10:59 AM.
                    HaX^

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: "Cost" of end-game rush & early surrender

                      One of my aims in my "silent and secure WinOrLose voting" thread from four months ago was to keep people from distracting from gameplay by discussing the vote and its motivations and justifications. Four months ago, the message targeted those wanting to quit, as they were the "loud" ones.

                      Despite message miscommunication drama initially, we HAVE lessened the /impulsive/ "I want to quit" in the voicecomms, and gameplay *is* better for it! :)

                      As votes have become more silent, it's common now that the first people we hear from on voicecomm REGARDING THE VOTE is those who want the game to CONTINUE. They impulsively say "Don't quit!", as they're threatened by votes and intimidated by their own struggles to articulate a compelling reason to continue (it's hard, sometimes!).

                      So let's apply the same "keep the meta off voicecomm" standard to those wanting to /continue/ gameplay: don't talk ABOUT THE VOTE, and don't tell people to stop voting -- just TALK ABOUT THE GAME. Tell what play should come next. Coordinate the next push. Point out the overlooked advantage. Share strategic vision. LEAD!!! To disincentivize the threatening voter, give KNOWLEDGE about WHY gameplay should continue. People WANT to play -- give them a REASON!

                      You know.... I see a similarity in this issue to folks complaining pre-game about balance. Anyone can yell "lol stacks", but ask someone to fix it and they can't be bothered. Folks have similar disrespect for teammates /impulsively/ saying "Keep playing!" without showing the first RESPECTABLE effort to articulate HOW or WHY.
                      Steam Community? Add me. | Free Remote, Encrypted Backup

                      Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Zephyr: Apophis is clearly a highly sophisticated self-aware AI construct that runs on a highly modified toaster oven in Wyzcrak's basement.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: "Cost" of end-game rush & early surrender

                        Originally posted by Wyzcrak View Post
                        So let's apply the same "keep the meta off voicecomm" standard to those wanting to /continue/ gameplay: don't talk ABOUT THE VOTE, and don't tell people to stop voting -- just TALK ABOUT THE GAME. Tell what play should come next. Coordinate the next push. Point out the overlooked advantage. Share strategic vision. LEAD!!! To disincentivize the threatening voter, give KNOWLEDGE about WHY gameplay should continue. People WANT to play -- give them a REASON!
                        Example:

                        "Don't concede yet! We've held 3 rts and they've had nothing for most of the game -- we're at a res advantage" (bad, mentions vote, it provides information but no leadership)
                        vs.
                        "We've held 3 rts and they've had nothing for most of the game -- we're at a res advantage. Let's keep pushing on that." (good, doesn't mention vote, provides information AND leadership)
                        remi.D

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: "Cost" of end-game rush & early surrender

                          Exactly!
                          Steam Community? Add me. | Free Remote, Encrypted Backup

                          Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Zephyr: Apophis is clearly a highly sophisticated self-aware AI construct that runs on a highly modified toaster oven in Wyzcrak's basement.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: "Cost" of end-game rush & early surrender

                            Going back to the original post, the only reason I might personally like one last push, is to try to do something like a team. Whether it be a shotgun rush or a skulk ball, eek a little teamwork out of a match. That said I agree with keeping concede out of the chat as much as possible.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: "Cost" of end-game rush & early surrender

                              I am continuing to see added benefit in attempting teamwork at the end of the game, and I'm noticing more and more attempts from other people on the server, and while communication is not perfect (ex: I make attempts to group up outside a certain place, but don't specify where to meet), it is a work in progress, and I am noticing later concedes, some wins, 1 draw ("Good Call Comm" :P), some losses, and less arguing about whether we should concede or not concede, and overall teamwork has improved. I don't think I've had to use "let's not concede", I don't think I've had to use those words at all.
                              HaX^

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X