Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Vote NOT to concede

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

  • Vote NOT to concede

    Would anyone besides me be interested in seeing the concede system change from voting TO concede to voting NOT TO concede?

    It occurred to me tonight that it would probably be more efficient that way. Maybe I'm delusional.

    Mom
    Games lubricate the body and the mind. - Benjamin Franklin
    Ever since the beginning, to keep the world spinning, it takes all kinds of kinds. -Miranda Lambert

    You're a 34, Mom. Thirty. Four.
    Forever Perplexed

  • #2
    Re: Vote NOT to concede

    How would that work exactly?
    HaX^

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Vote NOT to concede

      The opposite way, essentially. Mom starts a concede. Players vote NOT to concede. If majority doesn't vote against, game concedes

      If not interested in such a drastic measure, then cut the vote in half:

      Mom votes to concede. If 2/3 other players don't vote to concede, status quo. If 2/3 players do vote to concede, remaining members must vote against the concede.

      I'm not a big fan of not discussing the concede. I think some people are just ignoring screen text. Being that I, and many others I'm sure, have limited time, it works more in the favor of the majority if we can weed out people who aren't paying attention and wasting time.

      Mom
      Games lubricate the body and the mind. - Benjamin Franklin
      Ever since the beginning, to keep the world spinning, it takes all kinds of kinds. -Miranda Lambert

      You're a 34, Mom. Thirty. Four.
      Forever Perplexed

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Vote NOT to concede

        I'd also be okay with not forcing a majority on NOT conceding. As in, Mom and 5 others vote to concede, 2 people vote not to concede, game continues.

        Mom
        Games lubricate the body and the mind. - Benjamin Franklin
        Ever since the beginning, to keep the world spinning, it takes all kinds of kinds. -Miranda Lambert

        You're a 34, Mom. Thirty. Four.
        Forever Perplexed

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Vote NOT to concede

          So, would you want players to choose Yes or NO?

          or

          The vote of a players whom did not vote counts as a concede vote
          Ie:
          1 out of 10 players starts the vote to concede
          no one else votes

          = 9 none votes :. 9 Yes votes + 1 Yes vote = 10 votes to concede

          To push player to vote NO if they wish to continue as is.

          Basically - Once a vote starts [if] you want to continue play (Vote NO)[else] the game will concede.

          I believe the idea of Concede was to end a game fast as neither side had the advantage,so one team would force the hand of the other team to finish them off or loose.

          I also believe that the current setup is passive and does not interfere with the game play unless someone starts the vote and others respond to the vote meaning no vote game continues.

          Swapping this the other way will force player to act to keep the game running.

          I do not have a personal opinion on the subject as I have not played for a long time.

          I like the current setup, but would not have any issues with a new setup so long as it for fills the original reason for having it in the first place.

          (6..~)Z Z z z....

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Vote NOT to concede

            The traditional way of doing abstain would be something more like, a person votes yes or no, or if they fail to vote, they count as 1/3 of a vote yes, and 2/3 of a vote no.

            What does this mean? If we have an 8 player game, 5 people vote yes to concede and no player votes no, the game will have 6 votes to concede at timer end and the round will end.

            If 5 people vote yes and 1 person votes no, then the round continues, as you would always round down the yes votes for the purpose of counting.

            Doing things this way, You need at least 5 people voting to conceded and the remaining 3 players not casting a vote for a passive concede. 4 players will yield only 5 yes votes, not enough to do so in an 8 player game. You need to make it clear, but if 5 people want to give up and 3 people don't care enough to vote either way, then them majority would win and the round ends.
            Current game name : Lost, Phantom Thief

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Vote NOT to concede

              Originally posted by Eternaly_Lost View Post
              The traditional way of doing abstain would be something more like, a person votes yes or no, or if they fail to vote, they count as 1/3 of a vote yes, and 2/3 of a vote no.

              What does this mean? If we have an 8 player game, 5 people vote yes to concede and no player votes no, the game will have 6 votes to concede at timer end and the round will end.

              If 5 people vote yes and 1 person votes no, then the round continues, as you would always round down the yes votes for the purpose of counting.

              Doing things this way, You need at least 5 people voting to conceded and the remaining 3 players not casting a vote for a passive concede. 4 players will yield only 5 yes votes, not enough to do so in an 8 player game. You need to make it clear, but if 5 people want to give up and 3 people don't care enough to vote either way, then them majority would win and the round ends.
              Yes please, do want.
              I imagine you could change the surrender button in the M menu to open a Yes/No menu after a concede vote has been started to accommodate this.

              While we're on the topic of conceding and different ways to count votes/non-votes, I wonder if the Commander's vote should be weighted any differently as they have a better view of the overall situation/teamwork and could better predict where the match is headed. Maybe give the comm an extra third? Which would make 5 yes (w/ comm), 1 no, and 2 abstains a successful concede but so not without the comm.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Vote NOT to concede

                Originally posted by vts
                Basically - Once a vote starts [if] you want to continue play (Vote NO)[else] the game will concede.
                Yes. This was my original idea.

                Originally posted by vts
                I believe the idea of Concede was to end a game fast as neither side had the advantage,so one team would force the hand of the other team to finish them off or loose.
                I believe the idea of concede TODAY is to move the game on when all is lost, or *seemingly* lost. We keep seeing these trends: play game, set up location, lose location, concede. Then there's a lull because on an 8 man team, 4 people think/know it's over, 2 people aren't sure/want to continue, and 2 guys are like "meh, I'll see what happens".

                I feel like if we switched to a system of VOTE TO CONTINUE rather than VOTE TO END, we would see at least a faster cycle of new games, if not a shift in the trend.

                Based on what Lost said, I'd be willing to consider a solution that keeps the status quo, but considers people who do not vote at all as yes votes. (Yes to concede, given the status quo).

                Originally posted by vts
                I also believe that the current setup is passive and does not interfere with the game play unless someone starts the vote and others respond to the vote meaning no vote game continues.

                Swapping this the other way will force player to act to keep the game running.
                I was very torn when I read this. I was all about my solution until you said that it is going to slap people in the face. I thought about that before, but the iteration of it tore me. After some thought, I feel confident that I'm okay with this. I'm all for anything that makes unreg's say "What just happened?" because any avenue of interaction like this always leads to social bonding and further understanding of our community. This feeling has traditionally been my own, however, and our moderation tends to trend in a less intrusive way, which is understandable. Either way, I feel like we could move these games forward faster.

                Mom
                Games lubricate the body and the mind. - Benjamin Franklin
                Ever since the beginning, to keep the world spinning, it takes all kinds of kinds. -Miranda Lambert

                You're a 34, Mom. Thirty. Four.
                Forever Perplexed

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Vote NOT to concede

                  I'm not sure I'd be OK with this. A lot of times, I just don't see the concede votes, either because I'm in a lot of action, I'm focused on communicating with my mic, I'm busy commanding, or the chat text is going to quickly.

                  One thing that might make it slightly better, if you could only do this once per round. If you vote NOT to concede, and start that process, and the vote succeeds in continuing the game, you're not allowed to be the first one to vote NOT to concede again during that round.

                  I do like the idea in the sense that it sort of stops the "Why are we conceding?" question, but I'm not 100% sure it would work. I feel like giving people fractions of a vote would probably be the wrong way to go about it.
                  HaX^

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Vote NOT to concede

                    Hmm. Speaking more generally, Lost's idea of having an active yes or no vote, as well as a passive vote/s/ if you abstain is interesting. Honestly, I think it could definitely be worth doing a trial period, but I do have concerns.

                    One issue as noted in this thread was sometimes people complain about why people are voting to concede; the philosophy of this server as I've understood it is to silently vote to concede if you want to, but otherwise it is never acknowledged, neither in the team's overall play or communication (i.e no one talks about it). Having people have to actively vote no if they don't want to concede I think is likely to encourage more complaining and discussions about why people want/don't want to concede. I know some people mentioned they're not a fan of the "not talking about conceding" policy, which might be another discussion to directly have.

                    That said, again I would definitely be up for a trial run of this or something like this, I could be wrong about my predictions and I can see it's potential.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Vote NOT to concede

                      So, we're stuck between a rock and a hard place.

                      At this point, we have X people who go, "game is over". Then we have Y people who miss that. Then we have Z people who are undecided.

                      The whole time, we're encouraged to just vote and not talk about conceding.

                      I've went with this logic for quite some time, finding myself, often, frustrated. We get 5/6 votes, and I'm like... is this guy just not noticing it, or does he REALLY think we can win with 1 hive against Exos? There should be some discussion here.

                      The question still remains. How can we move these games on faster when there is a clear defeat and we have holdouts? Again, I refer to this statement:

                      Originally posted by Mom
                      I believe the idea of concede TODAY is to move the game on when all is lost, or *seemingly* lost. We keep seeing these trends: play game, set up location, lose location, concede. Then there's a lull because on an 8 man team, 4 people think/know it's over, 2 people aren't sure/want to continue, and 2 guys are like "meh, I'll see what happens".
                      I'm all for status quo, don't get me wrong. But I feel like I could see an extra game each night that I can play if we moved these lull sessions on faster. And I'd imagine we'd all enjoy an extra game a night.

                      Mom
                      Games lubricate the body and the mind. - Benjamin Franklin
                      Ever since the beginning, to keep the world spinning, it takes all kinds of kinds. -Miranda Lambert

                      You're a 34, Mom. Thirty. Four.
                      Forever Perplexed

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Vote NOT to concede

                        Here the thing,

                        If you have 5 players voting to concede, and 3 people not paying attention enough that all abstain from voting no. I feel like the game should end. A concede vote happens in the text chat area and you should pay attention. Make it clear when it hits the point that not voting is going to cause an surrender if they don't vote no, then it their fault.

                        If you see a concede vote and you don't want it to end, just vote no and be done with it. A vote is long enough that you can get a second to cast it somewhere in there, especially if you are losing. Treat the default as, people that are not completely committed either way as 1/3rd yes and 2/3rd no, is exactly what they are saying they are by not voting. 5 people that want the game to end, and 3 people that don't care enough to say they don't want it to end or they want it to end. Let the 5 people that want it over in that case cause the surrender.

                        Just one person voting no would cause it to fail and the game to continue.
                        Current game name : Lost, Phantom Thief

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Vote NOT to concede

                          Interesting ideas here. I'm concerned that this is maybe over complicating the whole process. If the concede mod displayed text on the screen (imagine like picking players in captains or roles on scoreboard) as opposed to text, do you think it could help the issue? My hope is that would help with the people who miss the vote. I often miss a vote because i am either busy playing or i did not notice that the vote ended and a new one has begun. So I don't vote because I think I already have.

                          I'm also curious as to how foreign this would be to new players, as in another thing we need to explain about our server and our concede method (WoL).

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Vote NOT to concede

                            Ideally, folks strongly opposed to a majority's expressed desire to end the game should be convincing that majority on the merits of continued play ("here are our remaining competitive strengths...", or even the selfish but honest "it's no longer about our team winning, guys -- it's about me and this lerk I'm enjoying", but not just "don't vote!"). The worst, as you say, is when folks just silently don't vote despite a majority of the team having voted, especially multiple times (the "I didn't see the vote" excuse is sometimes sincere).

                            I'm less worried about it in small games where just a few players can form a majority and games aren't that great to begin with, but we needn't let majority-voted large games drag on when the full-ish server's new game (especially for any spectators waiting to play) hangs in the balance.

                            For larger votes, I'll change the vote code to dynamically lower the "vote pass" threshold to simple majority (as opposed to the normal higher threshold) in the context of multiple very recent (last couple of minutes, roughly) large and failed majority votes. That is, if large votes are failing quickly with majority votes, the next large vote (happening only because the majority's forecast hasn't been changed through anyone's persuasion or lack thereof) will pass with a simple majority. If abstainers are too busy to address the majority's repeated dissatisfaction, the abstainers' lack of overall participation can begin to enable what the majority wants.

                            I'll announce here when I roll out that change.
                            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


                            • #15
                              Re: Vote NOT to concede

                              Works for me. Thanks!

                              Mom
                              Games lubricate the body and the mind. - Benjamin Franklin
                              Ever since the beginning, to keep the world spinning, it takes all kinds of kinds. -Miranda Lambert

                              You're a 34, Mom. Thirty. Four.
                              Forever Perplexed

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X