Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

concede behavior

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

  • concede behavior

    Just wondering how others feel about this:
    Would it be better to not show how many people have initiated a concede vote, until there is one more vote left?

    I feel that the concede vote is a little distracting, sometimes.

  • #2
    My apologies, can you clarify what your suggestion would look like? Is it that there would be a first "concede vote has been initiated" message, but no subsequent messages about additional votes until there is one vote left? Or is the suggestion that there will be literally no indication at all of a concede vote in progress until one vote remains? I just wanted to clarify before responding with my own opinion.

    Comment


    • #3
      Hmmm, I hadn't thought out that far, but you bring up valid points. I was thinking either to have number of concede votes currently tallied for the current concede timer shown without the name of the person voting concede, or as your latter suggestion entails, literally no indication of a concede vote until the last necessary vote is cast. In this way, I am curious to know how others think it would do to players who don't normally play on TGNS - they would know that TGNS has a specific concede option versus the "hey everyone let's concede" mentality that seems to dominate other servers.

      Comment


      • #4
        Generally speaking, I want to know if the comm wants to concede. Most everyone else can take a flying leap. I could go without the person-by-person messages and just get an update every X seconds, or just a single update when there are Y seconds left or something.
        [volun2]
        NS Game Officer. TF2 Admin. BF2 Admin / Scripter. PM with issues.
        Tempus: Pokerface is nailing it right on the head. Everyone who is arguing against him is simply arguing against reality.
        <anmuzi> it is not permitted to have privacy or anonymity
        <LazyEye> yeah when I play on TG the server digs though my trash

        Arm yourself with knowledge: TG NS TF2 BF2

        Comment


        • #5
          I've limited the vote status broadcasts to only "the vote's almost over" (not that literal text -- the same text we've always seen at that moment). Otherwise, you see only a private notification acknowledging your vote.

          The influence of various surrender vote notification designs is socially more complex than we realize at first glance, and we've had this discussion many times -- always without pleasing everybody, so hopefully we can expedite this iteration by actually trying changes and punctuating feedback.
          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


          • #6
            I'm not Happy! I propose we do a countdown every 500 ms of how much concede time there is left, as well as tell the whole team which sad sack didn't vote to end our misery! /s
            HaX^

            Comment


            • #7
              I would like to see that concede vote shows up when two people cast their vote close together. I feel like there are a lot of people of that have their own opinion on when and where to concede in the game. And if i had a nickel for everytime one person was spamming the concede and we ending up winning id have a few dollars by now. Making it set to two people or even three conceding then having the concede show to the rest of the team could curb that.

              I like how concede is set up now on TGNS now. In terms of that its never talked about or forced upon. But i see what your saying smiley it distracts me on how games i know are winnable there are players to comfortable of winning outright, spamming conceding. While the rest of the team does their best to win the game but knowing somebody's heart just isn't in it. This might be especially confusing to non-primers who don't know the rules around conceding.

              The best games on TGNS for me are the games you fight for. Many times, especially on TGNS; where everyone knows each other for the most part its often times disheartening to see a teammate cast a shadow of defeat by conceding on a perfectly winnable game. So ill repeat, lets make it so the rest of the team doesn't even see a conceding teammates vote until two teammates do it in close timing together.

              Comment


              • #8
                Baby steps. Change today is that vote isn't advertised to entire team until it's almost over. We could change that advertisement in the future such that it only appears for votes having multiple participants.
                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


                • #9
                  My two cents (which I will keep shorter than usual). I prefer to see exactly how many concede votes are in and exactly when they are made (because timing of a concede, both in terms of the way a round is going and in terms of win or lose is critical in terms of conceding). However, I really don't want to see WHO is conceding, because THAT information does not help inform me about the TEAM'S views. Often times during a stalemate, an alien who loses their lifeform concedes for example. I do not care about that individual's silent reasoning for wanting to give up because we all know losing a higher lifeform sucks and can be detrimental to a game. If they vocalize it, that's a different story, but if they are silently conceding (which is the TGNS way and the way I prefer it to be in most cases except for extreme team imbalance) I care much more about WHEN and I really don't want to ever see WHO.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    First, some observations about the current experiment. I think the experiment has shown how much of a team effort a successful concede vote is; the team needs the ability to coordinate in order to pass a concede vote, and the less information about the concede vote that is offered by the system, the more players themselves have to coordinate via direct communication. So as far as the original post's concern of the concede vote being distracting, I think the experiment turned out to have the opposite of the desired effect. But honestly, I'm not sure if there's much that can be done to fix that specific concern.

                    All that said, I'm more partial to showing names when people vote concede. There's a lot of psychology that goes into when people are motivated to vote concede, and part of that is when someone sees 4 or 5 people vote concede all within two seconds. Part of that motivation can also be when certain other people vote concede whose opinion they may rely on versus perhaps when a different person votes concede whose opinion they may not value as highly. Now one could very well argue that letting your vote be influenced by a specific person's vote may or may not be a good thing, though I feel that's up to the individual players to decide for themselves how to use that information.

                    Basically, I personally think the old system we had worked about as well as any concede system could.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I think the problem with showing people's names is that then we get into communicating why we are conceding "BLA, why did you concede?", and then you're clogging up communication and wasting time explaining why you wish to concede. I think we could reach a good compromise by showing when people concede within x seconds of each other. On a team of 5, 2 people concede in 30 seconds? Display 2/5. A 3rd concedes 20 seconds after the last concede? Show 3/5.
                      HaX^

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I think its finally time to start a new experiment on concede voting.

                        I have been noticing games that seem to drag on unnecessarily. And it just wasn't like that prior to the change. Most of the primers know not to talk about the concede vote. But this new change has been breaking primers frustration. Its especially confusing to rookies and non-primers. Since they must be wondering why nobody else on their team is conceding like other servers. Which creates turtle games. I think we gave it a good go. Time for something new.

                        My solution for the problem is not showing the names of concede voters and showing concede vote to the team starting at the 2nd consecutive concede vote. Or something like that

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I agree that I think it's time for a new experiment/update. I also have noticed more games that have dragged on longer than they seemed to have prior to this change.

                          While I personally am still in favor of the old system of showing names and every concede vote as it happens (I think the benefits outweighs any "risks"/problems, especially when those issues only really come up when the server is mostly non-primers, and at least in my experience is still pretty rare even then), but at this point I think any additional information provided, even if only a little, would be very beneficial. At the very least showing the final vote count when a concede vote ends will at least help indicate what the team in general is thinking.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The issue really stems around the "you've started a concede vote too recently, when another team mate starts a concede vote you may vote" or whatever the message is.

                            Because we can't know when another team member starts a vote, we can't do what that message said.

                            Solutions:

                            Show a message when a concede vote starts. (but not who started it)

                            Make that instead act like pre-opting for captains, where they automatically vote for concede when the vote is started by another member.

                            Remove this limitation now that the message doesn't show.



                            The biggest thing to remember about concede votes, most people only vote on their own initiative when they are dead. Since otherwise they are too busy.

                            I'm thinking other things that could happen to make conceding easier when the team agrees on it:

                            Move the about to expire message up or add another message at the halfway point.

                            7 seconds is too short considering people might not see the message until its just about to fade out, and then have to wait until they aren't actively doing something to concede.

                            Make new votes extend the timer. (a good algo is actually timeleft = max(timeleft, min(config.vote_time/2, timeleft/2)). ie, half of the remaining time but never causing it to go back past the halfway point if it's already crossed it, (this is a good aglo to use any time you use actions to extend timers, it doesn't extend it during the first half of the timer, and the closer it is to expiring, the less it adds.))

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Status on this?

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X