PDA

View Full Version : New "End Of Match" scoring - July 16th 2015



Saikocat
16th Jul 2015, 14:48
Hi everyone,

With today's patch (July 16th, 2015) we're introducing a new adjustment to the End Of Match scoring, based on feedback we've received from players. With this adjustment, you'll now find that a match ends once the guaranteed win point has been reached. If a team reach the number of kills/points needed in round 2 to guarantee a win, the match will end rather than continue on.

For example, in round 1, the Vampire team get 30 kills and the Human team get 10. On the second round, the then-Human team will only need to get 11 kills to guarantee a win, and it's no longer possible for the other team to win at that stage. Rather than continue, the match will now end at that point.

This is a new adjustment, so we're very eager to hear what you think of it. This is the introduction of this change, so it will be improved going forward, pending feedback and how everyone gets on with it. Currently, this will be enabled for all modes.

Please do share your thoughts on this once you've tried it out. Thank you!

Varulven
16th Jul 2015, 15:23
Frustration reduction.... really nice! :thumb:

Da_Wolv
16th Jul 2015, 15:39
Nice!

I do want to add some pre-emptive criticism:
I would not make it end immediately, but when a 5-Point difference has been reached.
That way, close and exciting matches can still be played out.

otherwise, I welcome this change at least for pubs.


Question: Does this also affect Private matches? Because for the competitive scene this is an absolute bummer!
The option should exist to turn it off for Private Matches

Saikocat
16th Jul 2015, 15:42
It could go through some changes, so feedback like that is of course very welcome, Da_Wolv, thanks! :)
We'll be keeping a close eye on feedback about this to see what changes need to be made.

It is enabled in Private Matches at the moment as well.

Louves
16th Jul 2015, 15:50
Question: Does this also affect Private matches? Because for the competitive scene this is an absolute bummer!
The option should exist to turn it off for Private Matches

I completely agree. Especially for scrims this is a terrible change.

riccetto80
16th Jul 2015, 16:19
Is nice change!

But what really needed is end on first round match who are going like 20/3 25/5, this are REALLY frustrating and must end even before the end of first round.

for example set a "domination win" where a team win immediate if they have +15 dead more or the other team, for example as soon a team have 17/2 or 20/5 or 23/8 they win directly the first round and the match too.

the match is win by way of "domination", directly, this will save us from the most frustrating match.

4nkkah
16th Jul 2015, 16:38
Haven't tested this yet, but like a few others have already said, I'm not completely happy about this.
Instead of a sudden ending, I recommend that the losing enemy get's a pop-up screen asking for surrender. If >50% vote yes, then the game can end, but if not, they can keep playing. But should the losing team change their mind after this initial vote, there needs to be a button to vote again or to cast the vote.

Problems this might (read: will) cause would be that if a player voted for surrender and his teammates didn't and the game continues, that one surrendering player might not play in that match anymore, creating friction inside the team. The players who want to continue to play have the opportunity to surrender too, but if both sides are hardheaded... Yeah.

Or just give the losing team an option to _start_ a surrender vote after the scores go over the losing/winning amount.


We'll see I guess. Need to test this.

p.s. Alchemist cannon ammo mod affix fixed yet?

Recine
16th Jul 2015, 16:40
It's bad decision. Now we will earn less gold/xp. Just add "surrender vote" option in game.

NychkaX
16th Jul 2015, 16:52
I think you should address the problem and not the symptoms. Improve the matchmaking system so that there will be less such unbalanced matches. Or even better attract new players to the game, because right now it's kinda dead http://steamcharts.com/app/200110 .
Sometimes when you are already losing in final score, you can get an awesome quad kill or smth else. It will still be a loss but not so frustrating as sudden loss.
Implement a surrender vote, give ppl a choice.

Zombiekatze
16th Jul 2015, 17:03
I'm also not fond of the new system, now it feels like I don't really get to play one round at all. There can still be close second rounds when the other team clicks better as vamps or humans than the other side.

RazielWarmonic
16th Jul 2015, 17:26
I, for one, welcome this change and think it was needed for ESL games, especially ones that have been casted.

Secator
16th Jul 2015, 18:28
This introduction good only for League Rankings. Please leave unaltered TDM. :)

nos_tlo
16th Jul 2015, 19:20
After playing a couple of games with the new feature of automatically ending the match once a certain xp limit is reached, it adversely affects Nosgoth.

While I understand the reasoning behind it to end games where one side is getting massacred, it takes away time for people to not just level up their characters, but to also get a feel for the game and grow some thick skin. Everyone takes their lickings in Nosgoth.

It removes the chance for a comeback. Even if the match itself is lost, there is a fun and pride factor involved when it's a close game and your team is making that comeback and wins the match. With this new system, it basically removes that element and intense play from the match. We all have our bad rounds, but to be punished for it the following round by automatically ending the game once a certain score or xp is reached is wrong and in my opinion a waste of time. Instead of learning from your mistakes and giving it another go in a fresh round, that opportunity is removed completely. As a user above put bluntly,


I'm also not fond of the new system, now it feels like I don't really get to play one round at all. There can still be close second rounds when the other team clicks better as vamps or humans than the other side.

The idea of some kind of vote for the losing team to decide whether they want to end the match is an entirely better alternative then what is currently implemented right now.

Hope this helps, and I'm optimistic in my belief that my opinion is shared and is similar to a sizeable portion of the Nosgoth community.

pRoLiK3
16th Jul 2015, 19:36
I'm also not fond of the new system, now it feels like I don't really get to play one round at all. There can still be close second rounds when the other team clicks better as vamps or humans than the other side.

At first i thought this was a good idea to reduce the frustration in games in which you are getting absolutely stomped, but after a few rounds (and in one of them we got owned in the first round but had a comeback as vamps in the second) I have to agree with Zombiekatze. It doen't feel like it used to and sadly not in a good way. In Flashpoints I find the sudden end even more annoying (aside from losing so much exp), I had 3 games so far and if the first team only gets one point and the opposing one two in the second round, the whole game takes only about 10 minutes. I feel like I'm spending more time in the lobby than ingame. I was even trying to convince my teammates to let the humans get a point once in a while, just so the game takes longer and we could enjoy it properly.

Giving the losing team a surrender vote option like it was mentioned here before is a much better way to solve this problem.

Guardian1uk
16th Jul 2015, 20:06
Hi everyone,

With today's patch (July 16th, 2015) we're introducing a new adjustment to the End Of Match scoring, based on feedback we've received from players. With this adjustment, you'll now find that a match ends once the guaranteed win point has been reached. If a team reach the number of kills/points needed in round 2 to guarantee a win, the match will end rather than continue on.

Having played a flashpoint match where this kicked in....
joined part way through the first round, first round ended 1-5 to the other team, second round, game ended suddenly on 4-2...

I have been in matches in the past where a teams ended up 3v4 been loosing for a short time, had a 4th join and gone onto finish the match and win.

This idea caters to the console MEMEMEMEMEMEMEME crowd, the same kind of crowd which in WoW play as DPS, keeps saying "FASTER!!!" to the tank and if their not happy with the pace of the tank they then start pulling for the whole group leaving said tank/healer scrambling to pick up the peices.

Remove the auto end the match due to a "set point" score differance and replace with the more common and a hell of a better idea of giving the players the ability to surender, that thing that most other competative games give the players, so it is the PLAYERS CHOICE to end a round/match early.

svampkorre
16th Jul 2015, 20:26
Nosgoth is all about the *competition*!

However:
This could possibly turn players overly competitive which, as we all know (despite the praise our community recieves on a near daily basis), inevitably results in flaming, BM, and regular vitriol spewed in the heat of the moment.

While a cutoff could certainly save time and frustration, it should be optional - at least in unranked matches. Lest players turn on each other and make the community as toxic as that of a MOBA, which could potentially scare off players, new and old alike.

As for the possibility of leavers during the vote-to-end period: longer disable-time. Stick with your team!

DearGrin
16th Jul 2015, 21:31
1) flashpoint.
Firtst round as vampires win 5:1
Second round as human we captured 2 points and - LOOSE 2:4
Overall win.
It is not correct. It affects statistic win\loose and not fair in general.

2) Good interesting games when teams are equal - this patch spoiled it all. One mistake and the game finishes. No chance left.

3) "frustrating" games... usually half of the loosing team changes in the second round. And newcommers sometimes can make a comeback, or at least make the second round interesting. Again no chance left.

4) The same problem with the second round. A newcommer plays 3 minutes, gets defeat and again looking for a match. This is annoying.

5) Achievements. Some need just more time, more frags and so on. Shorten the match - shorten the chance to get some.

Resume: I will not play Nosgoth untill the patch will be reworked (at least roll back while looking for a solution) as the game lost a huge chunk of competitive struggle.

LOFO1993
16th Jul 2015, 22:23
Regarding ending the game as soon as someone mathematically wins... it's not necessarely a completely terrible idea imho, but it would be much better to find some middle ground, and keep it as an extra, rathen than a constant.


For example: if one team is absolutely bashing the other team, it can be fine. I don't know, when you go past like 15-20 point of difference beyond catching up, you get a special kind of victory, like "slaughter", or "wipe out". That could work, alleviate a bit steamrollings the likes of 30-3 + 4-30 and give them a bit of a "meaning".


BUT, if the game ends the second you mathematically win, it is gonna mess up a lot of stuff, like achievements, leveling up classes and so on and so forth. And it's just gonna either ruin games, or accomplish nothing at all.

- If the game is very close, and you win by 1 or 2 kills, it's not gonna make any difference whatsoever. So it's basically useless.

- If the game is completely one-sided, the system I described above works just as well, or even better (because it actually akowledgedges your major victory and makes you feel rewarded for it, instead of just feeling like an "OK kids, time's up, go back home now". You might even reward that with better drop ratings for the winning team or something).

- If the match is a likely victory, but not an obvious one, it's just gonna take away minutes of gameplay that nobody guarantees are terrible or one-sided. For example, if the first round ended 30-19, I don't want the game to freeze the second we reach 20. We might be 21-20 for the other team, so yes, we have won, but we're still playing for something, it's not a "bad game" to forcefully end as soon as possible.


I really don't want people around me to start thinking "hey, we're winning a bit too harshly, might just sit down for a while so I get some more time to level up my Prophet next round". I don't see the good of that. Actually, I really don't see the good of this idea at all, if not for extreme cases that could easily be treated separately.

The real problem right now is not that games drag on for too long, it's that half the time they're very unbalanced. With this change you don't solve the real issue, but mess up everything else.


EDIT: Also, please consider that right now even finding a game can take a LOT of time, and I don't think arbitrarely reducing the play time even more is going to do much good.

GenocidePete
16th Jul 2015, 22:27
Hopefully the developers don't revert this system based on the silly arguments shown here. What scenario are you people imagining in which a "close game" was ended prematurely? Either your team was getting owned and the game ended early, or your team was catching up and the game played out to near-completion anyway. There is no issue here and no point in continuing a game that will very likely result in the losing team continuing to lose badly.

Players will forfeit a bit of time gaining experience while waiting for a new match to start, but if you're playing to level up rather than have good, competitive games, I'd say you're playing for the wrong reason. If exp is truly a big issue, the winning team could receive an exp bonus reward.

CS:GO has been extremely successful and employs the same style of system, yet no one complains about it. I'm sure most of us wouldn't want to continue a steamroll game simply to gain more experience points.

BloodyMaria
16th Jul 2015, 22:41
I don't like the new system. Firts, it does not give a chance to gain exp and try something new in games, that are already lost - try the new class, ability, weapon etc. Before this update I could do it in matches that are already lost, 'cause I had nothing to lose. Second, it breaks win/lose statistics for humans and vamps separately. Moreover it seems that this new system created even more leavers than before.
I wish to fight until the end even if the battle is already lost. Please, return this oppotunity.

CraneL
16th Jul 2015, 22:56
I detest this change. There's something to be gained playing a lost round. It gives us the freedom to try new builds without worrying about costing our teammates victory. It also gives us more experience playing so we can figure out what mistakes we're making. There's no reason to prematurely end the match just because one side has secured victory. If you're going to do this what's the point of even playing a second round? Oftentimes a first round 30:10 means a loss in the second round.

I DO NOT PLAY THIS GAME TO WIN. I PLAY IT TO HAVE FUN. The game is inherently fun, so stop making it harder for us to play it! Queue times are already obnoxiously long; once I'm in a match I want to enjoy the match, not have it prematurely end because my teammates were stupid in the first round.

WWidow
16th Jul 2015, 23:22
Hopefully the developers don't revert this system based on the silly arguments shown here. What scenario are you people imagining in which a "close game" was ended prematurely? Either your team was getting owned and the game ended early, or your team was catching up and the game played out to near-completion anyway. There is no issue here and no point in continuing a game that will very likely result in the losing team continuing to lose badly.

Players will forfeit a bit of time gaining experience while waiting for a new match to start, but if you're playing to level up rather than have good, competitive games, I'd say you're playing for the wrong reason. If exp is truly a big issue, the winning team could receive an exp bonus reward.

CS:GO has been extremely successful and employs the same style of system, yet no one complains about it. I'm sure most of us wouldn't want to continue a steamroll game simply to gain more experience points.

I totally agree with this. The match ends when one team has already won and there is no more chance to win or even get the draw for the other team. So there is no close and exciting battle for victory - one team has already won.

Nightmare_Jay
17th Jul 2015, 00:02
The new system kills all interest!
It lets to play only one whole round of two and just on one side. If earlier it was possible to fight to the end even if not for the victory in the whole game but for winning the round then now it breaks all the most interesting place. Because of this, I don't even want to continue to play further regardless of whether my team won or lost.
In addition, I played five matches, and four of them my team played as humans. It means that instead of playing for those and for others, we are again and again play for the humans. Because of this experience is unevenly distributed. If earlier humans and vampires come out with roughly equal the amount, now we can see a clear advantage to the side that was lucky to play a full round.
And once again about the experience. Experience in a round is now much smaller, which is also a significant disadvantage.
This is especially frustrating in the flashpoint mode where a victory is required only 6 instead of 30 points. We only started to play and the match is already ending!

As a result, don't like the new system and it realy discourage the desire to continue to play, as long as there is such a system. I do not play to win, I do not even play for the experience, I play to play and have fun! And now, this system prevents me.
I think it was a bad idea and I'd like to see all back as it was before.

GenocidePete
17th Jul 2015, 00:29
People generally put far more effort into complaining on forums than extolling a game's virtues. I imagine the devs are probably aware of this, but I hope they don't put too much stock into the feedback received here. This was a wise change.

CraneL
17th Jul 2015, 00:56
People generally put far more effort into complaining on forums than extolling a game's virtues. I imagine the devs are probably aware of this, but I hope they don't put too much stock into the feedback received here. This was a wise change.

I agree that people often complain more than they praise, but that doesn't mean the complaints should be ignored. Oftentimes the complaints are designed to provide constructive feedback.

Prematurely ending rounds is absolutely **not** a wise change. Look at Nightmare Jay's experience of having to play one side far more than the other side. It's ridiculous. For anyone who wants to play both sides equally as we used to be able to do, the best strategy is to not play to win during Round 1. Instead, we are encouraged, if not forced, to play worse if we're winning so that the first round ends 30:29 or 29:30. That way we get to play the other side for the full round like we're supposed to be able to.

What is the point of playing a game that encourages you to play badly? What is the point of playing a game that encourages you to train yourself to play badly?

I love Nosgoth. I've been playing it almost daily since Closed Beta and think it is one of the best F2P multiplayer games out there. This is why it is so important for people to give constructive criticism when the dev team makes mistakes. I don't want the game to end up dead because it was mismanaged and butchered.

nos_tlo
17th Jul 2015, 01:33
I agree that people often complain more than they praise, but that doesn't mean the complaints should be ignored. Oftentimes the complaints are designed to provide constructive feedback.

Prematurely ending rounds is absolutely **not** a wise change. Look at Nightmare Jay's experience of having to play one side far more than the other side. It's ridiculous. For anyone who wants to play both sides equally as we used to be able to do, the best strategy is to not play to win during Round 1. Instead, we are encouraged, if not forced, to play worse if we're winning so that the first round ends 30:29 or 29:30. That way we get to play the other side for the full round like we're supposed to be able to.

What is the point of playing a game that encourages you to play badly? What is the point of playing a game that encourages you to train yourself to play badly?

I love Nosgoth. I've been playing it almost daily since Closed Beta and think it is one of the best F2P multiplayer games out there. This is why it is so important for people to give constructive criticism when the dev team makes mistakes. I don't want the game to end up dead because it was mismanaged and butchered.

All of this.

As someone who's played the game since the closed beta, I agree that it is the most fun F2P online game out there. The gameplay is solid, and because it's solid it's fun. I play this game to have fun, and although I have to wait a considerable amount of time to find a lobby then wait for people to join the lobby, this feature effectively cuts the amount of time I actually spend playing the game by a significant margin.

We aren't complaining, we're providing feedback in a constructive manner with fair points just like the Dev's asked us for. I hope they remove this feature or implement the optional surrender. Because what is active now simply detracts from the fun of playing the game.

TheIcyOne
17th Jul 2015, 01:39
I would say that while in theory this is a good idea that could relieve tension.. it doesn't work with the current model that Nosgoth runs for statistics. This game is primarily a round based game, winning the game doesn't mean you'll win the round.

Second round could require you to score 21 to win, but if you opponent had 25 already.. or even is behind you with like 18 they could still win the round which goes toward their statistics in game. Now if they implemented some kind of trigger on the gap, like.. fifteen kill difference during the round, then maybe that would be worthwhile. Perhaps even a surrender option as suggested by other would be preferable.

yopavlo
17th Jul 2015, 02:03
I see the point of the new end match scoring but it really takes a lot out of the game for me.

1. I like playing human class better and this really shortens the time I get to play one class over another.
2. The matches lose the fun of trying to make a big comeback in the second half.
3. It just feels really abrupt when the game ends so suddenly.

Just wanted to give some feedback on this new change. While overall, this game is awesome, I really hope this feature gets retracted or at least a vote system.

GenocidePete
17th Jul 2015, 02:03
I agree that people often complain more than they praise, but that doesn't mean the complaints should be ignored. Oftentimes the complaints are designed to provide constructive feedback.

Prematurely ending rounds is absolutely **not** a wise change. Look at Nightmare Jay's experience of having to play one side far more than the other side. It's ridiculous. For anyone who wants to play both sides equally as we used to be able to do, the best strategy is to not play to win during Round 1. Instead, we are encouraged, if not forced, to play worse if we're winning so that the first round ends 30:29 or 29:30. That way we get to play the other side for the full round like we're supposed to be able to.

What is the point of playing a game that encourages you to play badly? What is the point of playing a game that encourages you to train yourself to play badly?

I love Nosgoth. I've been playing it almost daily since Closed Beta and think it is one of the best F2P multiplayer games out there. This is why it is so important for people to give constructive criticism when the dev team makes mistakes. I don't want the game to end up dead because it was mismanaged and butchered.
Your plan to PROLONG your playtime is to spend a chunk of that time intentionally playing in a manner that isn't enjoyable to you? That seems a bit self-defeating, does it not?

Yes, this system will force people to play as the side they're worse with more often than not, and that could be an issue at lower levels where it seems easier to excel as a vampire than as a human. If this were deemed too problematic, a couple of decent options are available: we could use the old system in the new recruit bracket, or we could confine the new system to league play and either apply it to the entire league or to the mid/upper tiers. This would allow the less experienced players get their full vampire fix in while letting the rest of us have higher quality games.

The main question we must ask is this: Is it more unenjoyable to have a higher playtime as the team that one is bad at playing, or is it more unenjoyable to sit through a twenty-five minute beatdown with an awful team? I would definitely say that the latter is worse.

Toadzillasenpai
17th Jul 2015, 02:43
Its a competitive game and i really dont get it, why everyone is crying so hard.
Prematurely ending rounds IS ABSOLUTELY a wise change. It doesnst make sense to play a already lost game in a competitive game.
You play it mainly for the win (and ofc fun)! I dont know much about flashpoint or other gamemodes, but for TDM this is a good change!
And yes ... i get the point with the missing exp and that you cant play every side till the end (humans or vamps).

So please... stop **** blindly on this change and make constructive critic ! (a few people have it already..)

My suggestions are :

1. The premature ending system should atleast stay to 100% for League system (Solo or whatever queue)
2. Give casualplayers their oldsystem on TDM like a fun mode (Unranked)
3. Give us a setting option for privat matches... so we can decide , if we want to play the old system or the new premature ending system (For Scrims or Trainings).

Some other thoughts:

- This will splitt the playerbase, but on the other side nosgoth shouldn´t balancing itself for this low playerbase. I think most people aren´t thinking for the future and only see the current state.

- Please dont forget that this game is first of all a COMPETITIVE game and nosgoth should balance itself around the main gamemode (current TDM)! I know i repeat myself ... but it doesnt make sense on the competitive side to play a game which is already lost. This is only dragging out time, that could better spended on a new round where you can win ( competitive view) . Yes for playing just for fun it would make sense, but the main objective isn´t a J4F game, but rather a comeptitive game! Keep that in mind ! :mad2:

I hope you got my point...

Please calm a bit down and be gentle :)

(keep every grammatical error for yourself.. latenight despair post ftw ! :/ )

PS: i love genocidepete for his 10/10 posts... they are really intelligent and long-sighted!

GenFeelGood
17th Jul 2015, 03:24
I'm a bit mixed on this change. I've seen people asking for it for a long time and I understand the thinking behind it; but I play to play (win or lose) and I'm sure I'm not alone.

Perhaps once that mark (where victory/defeat in the match is a certainty) has been passed, the players could be allowed to individually leave on their own and without penalty?

AdmiralPPR
17th Jul 2015, 07:36
Its a competitive game and i really dont get it, why everyone is crying so hard.
Prematurely ending rounds IS ABSOLUTELY a wise change. It doesnst make sense to play a already lost game in a competitive game.
You play it mainly for the win (and ofc fun)! I dont know much about flashpoint or other gamemodes, but for TDM this is a good change! ...

+1 (whole post actually)

I was playing FP yesterday without reading the patch notes and I was totally astounded that the match ended right after the necessary score was reached... and I felt a moment of joy not had in months of Nosgoth patches.

One of the best changes in the history of Nosgoth in my opinion! It was so annoying to stay in a lost game (especially in Flashpoint)...

And I really don't know how so many of you want to stay in the game for your personal honor. Which game are you playing? In 90% of those games I played, someone just left the game, switched to his twink character for exp or just didn't play eager enough anymore...

I'd say it will take some time to get used to it for some, but it is the only logical thing to do in a competitive game.

But yeah it should be switchable for private matches...

riccetto80
17th Jul 2015, 09:47
People generally put far more effort into complaining on forums than extolling a game's virtues. I imagine the devs are probably aware of this, but I hope they don't put too much stock into the feedback received here. This was a wise change.

No, i try the system and people who write here have right.

The community was upset about match where you are being stomped, match where you are 1 vs 4 and no one join and there are only a waste of time, things like this.

this system dont do almost anything about this kind of match, a stomp will be anyway till round 2, a match ruined from leavers will continue anaway till round 2, when need to finish in round 1 as soon is clear there is no turning back and the math is terrible unbalanced.

much better will be a vote system to surrender, soa team can manage this kind of match on its own.

today i play a match who was very close, and the suddend finish of it was bad, i wanted to see the match till the end, was a good match and fun gameplay, but this new system cut it as soon a team had the win "mathematical", so cut also the fun of the few match who are competitive, making the match finish sooner :(

Da_Wolv
17th Jul 2015, 10:07
Perhaps once that mark (where victory/defeat in the match is a certainty) has been passed, the players could be allowed to individually leave on their own and without penalty?
Great! That's a genious idea!
That way the winning team can just sit there for however long it takes and wait until it goes back to lobby...

(In case that wasn't obvious enough - #Sarcasm)

ZittoN_
17th Jul 2015, 10:35
Great! That's a genious idea!
That way the winning team can just sit there for however long it takes and wait until it goes back to lobby...

(In case that wasn't obvious enough - #Sarcasm)

No but the TEAM that lost can get an option/vote for surrender or finish the game. It's honestly damn boring that it just ends. winning or losing, you miss out on a lot.

Victim130
17th Jul 2015, 10:58
I personally think this is a bad idea. Win or lose, it doesn't matter. What really matters is the player's experience. (IE: Learning from their mistakes.). "But I hate learning, I just want to play casually!" You might be thinking, well leveling up and gaining gold is everyone's interest. We'll now get less of that on a loss.

I'd like to see a surrender option vs this current one. You could also remove the 30 cap and make it always possible to win. 20 minute matches aren't that long compared to many other games.

Just my suggestions though, take them for what you will.

Da_Wolv
17th Jul 2015, 11:23
No but the TEAM that lost can get an option/vote for surrender or finish the game. It's honestly damn boring that it just ends. winning or losing, you miss out on a lot.

Yes - that would be great. (For real this time)

GenocidePete
17th Jul 2015, 11:37
well leveling up and gaining gold is everyone's interest. We'll now get less of that on a loss.
What? You understand that if games are shorter, you'll earn MORE gold, yes? The gold bonus for one's score is trivial in comparison to the 50/75 from the game ending. You'll get resources and weapon drops faster as well. Don't worry, bud, you're still locked inside your Skinner Box with the new system.

Vampmaster
17th Jul 2015, 11:48
What? You understand that if games are shorter, you'll earn MORE gold, yes? The gold bonus for one's score is trivial in comparison to the 50/75 from the game ending. You'll get resources and weapon drops faster as well. Don't worry, bud, you're still locked inside your Skinner Box with the new system.

The same doesn't go for XP though. That part depends mostly on kills and assists, which will be less with shorter games.

GenocidePete
17th Jul 2015, 11:53
The same doesn't go for XP though. That part depends mostly on kills and assists, which will be less with shorter games.
If the game is short, that means one side is dominating the other, which also means that only one side is reaping the XP benefits of a longer game. These arguments fail on every level.

Deyusx
17th Jul 2015, 12:12
Hi everyone,

With today's patch (July 16th, 2015) we're introducing a new adjustment to the End Of Match scoring, based on feedback we've received from players. With this adjustment, you'll now find that a match ends once the guaranteed win point has been reached. If a team reach the number of kills/points needed in round 2 to guarantee a win, the match will end rather than continue on.

For example, in round 1, the Vampire team get 30 kills and the Human team get 10. On the second round, the then-Human team will only need to get 11 kills to guarantee a win, and it's no longer possible for the other team to win at that stage. Rather than continue, the match will now end at that point.

This is a new adjustment, so we're very eager to hear what you think of it. This is the introduction of this change, so it will be improved going forward, pending feedback and how everyone gets on with it. Currently, this will be enabled for all modes.

Please do share your thoughts on this once you've tried it out. Thank you!

====THIS IS A VERY BAD IDEA=====

if the 1 Team as vampire go rampage and kills 30-11,in the second round as humans they need 11-0 and win the match???at 7-8.00 time?i played many matches when in the last seconds SECONDS we win or succeded a DRAW when the score was 10-19 at 2.00 time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i dont get how players say frustration from what frustration?from the 1 round where as Vampire u get 15-3 kills and at 2 round u realize u **** big time as human(or at least more than the other team did)???
i tell u about my frustration:
1st from bot players/afk players/noob players
2st entering in matches allready played by others, allways in the loosing team bcz that guy left the match
so i hate playing 3 vs 4
or in a pt where 1 mate just sit and do nothing
CONCLUSION
the match 20 minutes is so much time to play each version VAMPIRE/HUMANS to see who is better?
if the 1 round the enemy team as vampire get FULL 10 minutes I want my team to get the same time as vampire as well--simply not fair 1 team as vampire to get full time and reach high kill score than rest easy as humans second round for 3-6 kills left.
i to i have the felling staying more in lobby than playing the game bcs all the above bot/afk/noob players,i dont mind loosing a round as human simply bcz the enemy is much good,staying togeter asssiting each other and still loosing IM FINE with that,but when i see my team 1 go to west other east and the 3rd is afk OMG
Implement surrender button that give the loosing team 1 kill point or think something to balance the 3 vs 4 matches give advantage for the 3 players team that loosing team power,time etc.until the whole team is set again.

Zarxiel93
17th Jul 2015, 13:14
I continue to not enter in the lobby even with this patch :S

WWidow
17th Jul 2015, 13:39
OMFG...readin all this people here complaining about their lost xp makes me want to bump some heads against a wall.
If you guys want more XP, start playin better, get more dmg, get more assists, get more kills - it's so easy. And since last patch you can do 3 matches in the same amount of time you would only have been able to play 2 matches before.

The guys cryin for XP here, are the same guys eatin while full hp just for the xp...
And I'm sorry to tell you, this game is not about winning as vamps or humans, it's about winning as both of them. Who cares about your damn statistics? Psyonix should remove the whole player statistics...they are just cancer to the community. People start to think more about their stats than the match they are playin.

Wolf_the_Legend
17th Jul 2015, 14:10
First: Good change, it rly helps to end imbalenced matches far quicker. Close matches will still take 20min to end :thumb:


btw ... Some guys never want to surrender ... what it leads to idling ppl who wait for thous 2 guys to finish "there match" ... so nice :/



====THIS IS A VERY BAD IDEA=====

if the 1 Team as vampire go rampage and kills 30-11,in the second round as humans they need 11-0 and win the match???at 7-8.00 time?i played many matches when in the last seconds SECONDS we win or succeded a DRAW when the score was 10-19 at 2.00 time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You can still get the win / draw / loose in the second round with the new system ... :rolleyes:

lucinvampire
17th Jul 2015, 14:19
I’m in two minds about this change; I think for some instances its good but for others not so much.


Just add "surrender vote" option in game.

I'd prefer a surrender option for the loosing team, this then gives them the option and it’s not just an instant boot.

I’m not so happy with the long wait now to return to the lobby, it’s like ha you lost now wait a minute and stare at your failing scores :p


Maybe there should just be zero XP and zero gold for any loss. That would solve all of these problems and get rid of any one who can't play to the required standard.

...welp that's me gone then :lol:

Vampmaster
17th Jul 2015, 14:28
...welp that's me gone then :lol:

Me too, but "substandard" teams are the underlying rationale behind most of the complaints.

riccetto80
17th Jul 2015, 15:13
the talk about xp/gold are ridiculous for 2 reason:

1- you play for fun, you are not, i hope, a korean online farmer who grind xp and gold as work, to have food to eat the evening, lol...
2- if they will keep this "end of match" solution, they will adjust xp and gold, if really you earn less for match

but i repeat i think ia "surrender" vote can be much better of this solution, will solve more issue and will give more options to players

CraneL
17th Jul 2015, 15:46
I wouldn't mind the premature round end being a League-only feature. After all, League is supposed to be competitive. But in unranked matches I'd rather play a full round, even if that means suffering through a stomp. Winning or losing isn't as important to me as playing. And as I said earlier, a great time to try new builds and tactics out is when my team is getting absolutely destroyed, since obviously what I was doing before wasn't working and it doesn't matter if the new idea fails, because we are already completely screwed.

Edit: Why am I marked as a new player on this forum? I've been playing the game for almost a year now.

GenFeelGood
17th Jul 2015, 15:48
Great! That's a genious idea!
That way the winning team can just sit there for however long it takes and wait until it goes back to lobby...

(In case that wasn't obvious enough - #Sarcasm)

I'm talking score wise, when that kill threshold is met in the second round. Time should never be a factor in allowing players to leave.

Example
Team A beats Team B at 30/17 in round 1 and in round 2 Team A score 18 kills, which means they have won the match no matter what number of kills Team B scores in round 2. From that point, any who want to leave from either team have the option to do so without penalty or lose of reward, while those who wish to continue playing* (for fun and what ever xp there is left to be had) may do so.

Ysanoire
17th Jul 2015, 16:15
So I haven't had the chance to try the new system yet as I'm away from my computer, but I wanted to post my thoughts anyway.

I have really wanted this change a LOT for a long time. This is a GOOD change. So I've been reading most comments here wide eyed wondering what the hell their authors are talking about.

Playing a match after the outcome has been decided is boring boring boring and POINTLESS. Thank you for not forcing me to do it anymore.

Just to quickly touch on some of the "arguments" which were mentioned:

1. "less xp"
You may be getting slightly less xp for a match, but you get to start a new match sooner where you can earn more xp in a game that actually has a point. Also as Pete pointed out, if a match is very imbalanced only one side gets their delicious xp, the other is walking away with nothing. On the other hand, more games = more gold, more chances for drops. In the end, shorter games give you more.

2. "I get to play one side less"
Sometimes you'll start as vamps, other times you'll start as humans, it'll balance out in the long run.

3. "waah my stats"
WHO CARES?

4. "where's my chance for a comeback"?
Oh, you want to lose 60-50 instead of 50-38? That is SOOOO much better. I don't remember ever having a game where people were like "oh, we just lost, I HAVE SUDDENLY FOUND THE STRENGTH TO TURN IT ALL AROUND". Makes no sense.

And someone would have to explain to me how the new system is bad for scrims/tournament/private matches, cause the way I see it it's even more needed there.

Tl;dr: change good, stop crying.

CraneL
17th Jul 2015, 16:58
Change not good, and I'm not crying, I'm raging hardcore.

This is complete and utter ****. I've uninstalled Nosgoth, my favorite multiplayer game hands down, and have no plans to return until the developers fix this horrible game-ruining change.

riccetto80
17th Jul 2015, 17:08
Change not good, and I'm not crying, I'm raging hardcore.

This is complete and utter ****. I've uninstalled Nosgoth, my favorite multiplayer game hands down, and have no plans to return until the developers fix this horrible game-ruining change.
http://i.imgur.com/9vMdzWf.jpg

lol

Toadzillasenpai
17th Jul 2015, 18:40
I still dont get this blind rage...
Guys please reflect the whole thing before you gonna ragepost some imprudently things.
This isn´t gonna help anyone. Im really tryin to be polite, but your restricted posts are making me a" little bit" angry.
So please , think before you post something and concern other opinions aaaaaand for gods sake find a middle way!!:mad2:

Toadzi out :)

BloodyMaria
17th Jul 2015, 19:02
Speaking for me and my friends, there IS a difference to us between losing the game with the score 38-60 and 50-60 - the second one is not do frustraiting. Moreover, I we play not only to win, but to PLAY, and sometimes there is real fun in fighting, do the best you can until the end if you have descent rivals. And if it was 27-30 the previous match I would like to fight to win at east the second, not to lose when it comes 28. Or you never had a situation, when it was 29-29 and there stayed just one critical kill?
Another argument is a man who comes instead of a leaver. Sometimes you need time to get into stride, and a man who may need it, comes and... return to lobby almost immideatly.
Yes, you can find a new game earlier, but if you want to continue this one?.. If you want to truy at least win the second round?
Yes, this system will be good for leagues, where you fight only to win the match generally. But in other case players should have their choise. After I tested this new system I even don't want to play anymore though I was impatinatly waiting for a new flashpoint test. I was playing since late alpha but now... I don't know will I continue to play if the system won't be reversed.

cmstache
17th Jul 2015, 19:06
I've always been in the school of it being a bad idea myself. Anytime a match is forced to end it's a bad thing. There's no better time to practice new load-outs, level new weapons, try new classes, etc. as when you're playing a lost game. I'd be in favor of a 3/4 vote for surrender, but I can't say I agree with a forced game end, in any occasion, esports or not.

Bazielim
17th Jul 2015, 19:08
I still dont get this blind rage...
Guys please reflect the whole thing before you gonna ragepost some imprudently things.
This isn´t gonna help anyone. Im really tryin to be polite, but your restricted posts are making me a" little bit" angry.
So please , think before you post something and concern other opinions aaaaaand for gods sake find a middle way!!:mad2:

Toadzi out :)
Indeed. I'd like to take this juncture to remind everyone of the terms of use (http://forums.eu.square-enix.com/announcement.php?f=101&a=1). There are rules about treating opinions with respect and so on, but the one I would like to draw attention to is #3, because it seems to be getting overlooked a lot recently. So for the benefit of everyone, profanity is not permitted on the forums and neither are variations on profane words. I understand that people can get frustrated from time to time but if you see this symbol appear in your posts **** , then it may be worth reconsidering your wording.

svampkorre
17th Jul 2015, 19:22
Everyone who keep pointing out this is good from a competitive viewpoint seem to not notice one very important thing:

Nosgoth isn't gaining new players.

Yes, making the game more efficient by cutting away idle time in matches already decided mathematically is a fantastic idea. For a game that has more than 1000~ players during peak hours.
Looking at the number of players since the start of the year up until now: barely a tenth of players remain (again, at peak hours). We all know Nosgoth is slowly bleeding out. Partly because of things like this.

This change tells me Nosgoth overestimates itself in being a popular competitive game with a large and active fanbase.
If this new system isn't looked at with great scrutiny through some reality goggles, this might be what eventually kills Nosgoth. "But there is a scene!" Which one? ESL? Please. Some ESL-teams don't play the game except for tourney days.

Stop throwing things like "git gud" or "whiner/rager" at each other and please look at this objectively. Nosgoth might die from this.
Unless whoever is in charge of marketing has a brilliant plan to actually market Nosgoth for once.

Also, you might not want to play with casuals, but I guarantee you that casuals make up more than 75% of the players.

TL;DR In case my point wasn't clear: The abrupt end could deter new players, and if there is one thing Nosgoth needs, it's new players. After Nosgoth has a substantial playerbase, this could be a permanent thing, though.

Ysanoire
17th Jul 2015, 19:25
Speaking for me and my friends, there IS a difference to us between losing the game with the score 38-60 and 50-60 - the second one is not do frustraiting.

My example was 50-38 - i.e. where you spend additional couple of minutes to MAYBE catch up by 2 kills. Or not. Because you can just as well lose by more in the "overtime".



And if it was 27-30 the previous match I would like to fight to win at east the second, not to lose when it comes 28. Or you never had a situation, when it was 29-29 and there stayed just one critical kill?

I have. And the last kill ended the round and decided its outcome, irrevocably. The round didn't drag on after that so maybe someone can get some consolation kills.


Another argument is a man who comes instead of a leaver. Sometimes you need time to get into stride, and a man who may need it, comes and... return to lobby almost immideatly.

Well, for me being dropped into a certain loss is bad enough without having to wait 5 minutes to collect my defeat. Just adds insult to injury. Not to mention that if the game ended once it was decided maybe I wouldn't have to be dropped into a lost match because it would have already ended.


I've always been in the school of it being a bad idea myself. Anytime a match is forced to end it's a bad thing. There's no better time to practice new load-outs, level new weapons, try new classes, etc. as when you're playing a lost game. I'd be in favor of a 3/4 vote for surrender, but I can't say I agree with a forced game end, in any occasion, esports or not.

I can sort of understand that argument because Elder God knows I don't get enough opportunities to level up my vanguard, but often enough you can tell a game is a fail or easy win long before it actually ends; I am fine with trying new stuff in those cases. It's not enough of a reason for me to keep that idle time.

Wolf_the_Legend
17th Jul 2015, 20:02
TL;DR In case my point wasn't clear: The abrupt end could deter new players, and if there is one thing Nosgoth needs, it's new players. After Nosgoth has a substantial playerbase, this could be a permanent thing, though.

If anything is deterring new players than it is getting stompt 10-60 for 20 minutes ... :rolleyes:

CraneL
17th Jul 2015, 20:12
Everyone who keep pointing out this is good from a competitive viewpoint seem to not notice one very important thing:

Nosgoth isn't gaining new players.

Yes, making the game more efficient by cutting away idle time in matches already decided mathematically is a fantastic idea. For a game that has more than 1000~ players during peak hours.
Looking at the number of players since the start of the year up until now: barely a tenth of players remain (again, at peak hours). We all know Nosgoth is slowly bleeding out. Partly because of things like this.

This change tells me Nosgoth overestimates itself in being a popular competitive game with a large and active fanbase.
If this new system isn't looked at with great scrutiny through some reality goggles, this might be what eventually kills Nosgoth. "But there is a scene!" Which one? ESL? Please. Some ESL-teams don't play the game except for tourney days.

Stop throwing things like "git gud" or "whiner/rager" at each other and please look at this objectively. Nosgoth might die from this.
Unless whoever is in charge of marketing has a brilliant plan to actually market Nosgoth for once.

Also, you might not want to play with casuals, but I guarantee you that casuals make up more than 75% of the players.

TL;DR In case my point wasn't clear: The abrupt end could deter new players, and if there is one thing Nosgoth needs, it's new players. After Nosgoth has a substantial playerbase, this could be a permanent thing, though.

Exactly. When getting to play both sides of an asymmetrical war is a game's major selling point, what will newcomers think if they are forced to play one side more than the other?

As for stomps deterring new players, that just means matchmaking needs to be improved. It's to be expected that newcomers to any skill-based game will have to suffer through a period where they just aren't that good. If the game is fun enough, they'll stick around, get better, and have more fun. But they will never get better if they don't get to play the game, and this new change makes it so that you can miss out on almost half a match.

OctagonalMunch
17th Jul 2015, 20:20
Please, bring back old system to the common Deathmatch. It's not about win or lose, it's about the fun of process.

Wolf_the_Legend
17th Jul 2015, 20:35
When getting to play both sides of an asymmetrical war is a game's major selling point, what will newcomers think if they are forced to play one side more than the other?
[...]
But they will never get better if they don't get to play the game, and this new change makes it so that you can miss out on almost half a match.

1. there is a 50/50 chance you play one race or the other ... so you going to play them equally long ...

2. but they get to play far more games in the same time ^^

Psyonix_Ryan
17th Jul 2015, 20:38
Just so you all know, we are following the community reaction to this and other changes. We've heard both sides of this debate, a point that is made clear by the implementation of the new scoring system in the first place.

We understand that some of you aren't happy with the change while others seem happy about it. No matter what side of the issue you fall on, please, for the sake of the community, keep it civil. As Bazielim has pointed out, we do have a terms of use (http://forums.eu.square-enix.com/announcement.php?f=101&a=1) in place because we want to keep the discussions in the community as free from toxicity as possible. It is easy to get caught up in the heat of the moment about something that matters to you, and even easier to do so when you are online behind a keyboard.

With that said, feel free to continue to talk about the change amongst yourselves. Feel free to express your opinion, try to be constructive, and always be nice.

Deyusx
17th Jul 2015, 21:21
Speaking for me and my friends, there IS a difference to us between losing the game with the score 38-60 and 50-60 - the second one is not do frustraiting. Moreover, I we play not only to win, but to PLAY, and sometimes there is real fun in fighting, do the best you can until the end if you have descent rivals. And if it was 27-30 the previous match I would like to fight to win at east the second, not to lose when it comes 28. Or you never had a situation, when it was 29-29 and there stayed just one critical kill?
Another argument is a man who comes instead of a leaver. Sometimes you need time to get into stride, and a man who may need it, comes and... return to lobby almost immideatly.
Yes, you can find a new game earlier, but if you want to continue this one?.. If you want to truy at least win the second round?
Yes, this system will be good for leagues, where you fight only to win the match generally. But in other case players should have their choise. After I tested this new system I even don't want to play anymore though I was impatinatly waiting for a new flashpoint test. I was playing since late alpha but now... I don't know will I continue to play if the system won't be reversed.

u sayed all much better than me-sorry my bad english i love turning a LOSE into a WIN in the lasts seconds
FIX AFK
FIX BOOT
MAKE 2 kind of death match if so many likes the 30 kills win
just to know i played today 4 h 1 of actual play and 3 in lobby because of afk 3 vs 4 matches the waiting after i leave why penalty 3 minutes or so i dont get it,and why we enter first time when match is almost over,i enetered today humans me vs vampire,score:1-12 time left 3 minutes WHYYYY???
MAKE SOMETHING AT LEAST TO FLAG AFK players so we never do party with them PARTY BANN BUTTON

xNarcissusx
17th Jul 2015, 21:29
Can this at least be removed from Flashpoint and any upcoming Capture the body test? I believe you have these for it to be possible to actually test the modes and give feedback on them. But this seems hard to do when you start 4/5 matches as vampire and basically win 6:0. This gives roughly two minutes for you to try out the human side.

Also I would love to hear how this justifies the statistics for round wins/losses. For the people saying that the stats doesn't matter then remove them from being saved. There is absolutely no point in storing this data if you are forcing me losses by not letting me play the full round. Especially in flashpoint where you sometimes only need 1 cap to win match but lose the round 5:1 regardless.

Personally I think there is no way to satisfy everyone. Now for TDM this wont matter too much, the reason is it will work as planned for imbalanced matches while it will have less of an impact on more even matches say where the first round ends 30-28.

GenocidePete
17th Jul 2015, 22:19
Also I would love to hear how this justifies the statistics for round wins/losses. For the people saying that the stats doesn't matter then remove them from being saved. There is absolutely no point in storing this data if you are forcing me losses by not letting me play the full round. Especially in flashpoint where you sometimes only need 1 cap to win match but lose the round 5:1 regardless.
In TDM, if you had fewer points than your opponent when the second round ended, then you've earned your loss for the round. The length of the round is arbitrary; it's not as though one side has a greater advantage than the other in a longer round.

Unfortunately, I don't know enough about flashpoint to comment conclusively on that. If a round win goes to a team that was able to defend or capture a certain number of points, then yes, that needs to be addressed under the new system. If that's not how it works, you again have no argument.

svampkorre
17th Jul 2015, 22:49
If anything is deterring new players than it is getting stompt 10-60 for 20 minutes ... :rolleyes:

Yes, I should have put in there that I feel this should be OPTIONAL as in my first post in the thread.
By OPTIONAL I mean there should be a vote. Abrupt ending wont be good as the only possible outcome.
To make myself perfectly clear: Should. Be. Optional. ":rolleyes:"

xNarcissusx
17th Jul 2015, 22:58
In TDM, if you had fewer points than your opponent when the second round ended, then you've earned your loss for the round. The length of the round is arbitrary; it's not as though one side has a greater advantage than the other in a longer round.

Now if only we lived in a perfect world where we didn't need to join already started matches. If you get thrown into a match that is 0:10 in 2nd round, and then you managed to turn it into a 10:10, then it becomes 10:11 and match ends, you get a lost round without being able to know when the match would end.

Though I must say that TDM has nothing to do with my post. You took what I said out of context when you quoted me and removed the sentence: Can this at least be removed from Flashpoint and any upcoming Capture the body test? I just wanted to entertain the idea you had, that I have no argument




Unfortunately, I don't know enough about flashpoint to comment conclusively on that. If a round win goes to a team that was able to defend or capture a certain number of points, then yes, that needs to be addressed under the new system. If that's not how it works, you again have no argument.

Well for us that have played Flashpoint and knows vampires start with 6 points each round and lose a point when humans capture, as well as humans gaining a point. You would see that if you shut the humans out in the first round you can ONLY capture ONCE thus ending the second round as a 1:5 loss, but win the match 7:5. This actually means that it is impossible to win both rounds if you start as a vampire. Best possible scenario is a draw and a win.

Grisamentum
18th Jul 2015, 05:34
Reducing the play time in a game no one is playing is far from a wise decision.
I queue for 15 minutes & get to play for 12? I'm queuing for longer than I'm playing. It's a joke. How is that going to attract new players? Are you going to mention that on the homepage? Queue time is longer than play time?
I don't care if I win & I don't care if I'm getting pounded every spawn. I play Nosgoth for fun, not to win. In Leagues it's a good idea but for TDM it's terrible. In Leagues there's an incentive to win such as keys or that Hunter skin. You don't get anything for winning in TDM so why have it for that?

It's not an issue of XP or gold. You want people to play your game, shortening play time isn't the way to do it. A surrender option is a much better idea.

Gugulug5000
18th Jul 2015, 07:39
My analysis of this thread:
Some people want to keep playing a lost match
Some people don't
Solution: Surrender vote, that way people can choose.

Seems pretty clear to me. The losing team should be the one to vote to end the match (since stomping your enemies tends to be more fun than being stomped), possibly with the winning team voting in the event of a tie. I am curious about how this affects league rankings though, since your standing in your league is determined by who you played and how much you lost by (with the matches ending as soon as it is no longer possible to win, every match will be a loss by 1).

riccetto80
18th Jul 2015, 09:41
I am curious about how this affects league rankings though, since your standing in your league is determined by who you played and how much you lost by (with the matches ending as soon as it is no longer possible to win, every match will be a loss by 1).

first round 25-5 second round 6-0

the loss is 26, not 1...

Ysanoire
18th Jul 2015, 10:24
TL;DR In case my point wasn't clear: The abrupt end could deter new players, and if there is one thing Nosgoth needs, it's new players. After Nosgoth has a substantial playerbase, this could be a permanent thing, though.

Deter new players? Not sure why that would be the case, most people outside this game are used to matches ending when the outcome has been decided. Someone mentioned CSGO before - just imagine having to play full 30 rounds in that game after one team already got 16 points. I don't know of any fully developed game that would have a match continue after the outcome is determined.

It just shows that Psyonix took too long implementing this rule, everyone is used to playing until 30 kills.


Can this at least be removed from Flashpoint and any upcoming Capture the body test? I believe you have these for it to be possible to actually test the modes and give feedback on them. But this seems hard to do when you start 4/5 matches as vampire and basically win 6:0. This gives roughly two minutes for you to try out the human side.

I think not having this new rule is possibly even more irritating in FP, especially if you fail first round as humans and then you have to wait forever for the opposing team to capture their points, dragging the game out even longer, even though they won after the first capture 30 seconds into the match. So. Bloody. Annoying.


I am curious about how this affects league rankings though, since your standing in your league is determined by who you played and how much you lost by (with the matches ending as soon as it is no longer possible to win, every match will be a loss by 1).

Noone has ever indicated that the score has any influence on your league points, and I doubt it's true. So no, it doesn't affect league rankings. And wut? Matches will be lost by however many more kills the other team got, not 1.

Gugulug5000
18th Jul 2015, 10:47
first round 25-5 second round 6-0

the loss is 26, not 1...


Noone has ever indicated that the score has any influence on your league points, and I doubt it's true. So no, it doesn't affect league rankings. And wut? Matches will be lost by however many more kills the other team got, not 1.

Disregard my previous, stupid comment. Working excessive amounts of overtime with little sleep is a recipe for disaster. I swear I passed Calculus 2 in college.

As for the ranking being determined by the difference in score vs the strength of your opponents, I swear I saw that somewhere on the forums (perhaps I'm just still groggy). Either way, with my dumb comment corrected, my previous curiosity about the matter is no longer relevant.

Ysanoire
18th Jul 2015, 10:51
There's one way it'll influence the rankings - you'll be able to climb faster :P

Nightmare_Jay
19th Jul 2015, 20:52
First of all I'd like to say, that my English is quite poor ant can't correspond to exact meaning. And I'd like to excuse for my knowledge, and I'd like to beg for pardon.

As I have told before, I don't like the new system at all. I'd want to explain. I'd want to say, that it's my personal opinion, and it may not correspond to yours, but it's not an occasion for abuse.

The overall feeling of the end of the match is... Now I'm talking exclusively about TDM.
The match ends suddenly with the new system. I.e. you've have just been playing, and at the next second you without any notice, the match ends. Not always you have an option to follow up the score, especially if the match is quite intensive. Before there was a sound that warn about the end of the match, that give players a sign that there're the last seconds of match. If the score is near 30, and you know it, you have wait for the end of the match yet. Now the players are pulled out from the middle of the match without any notice. It's not a minus from the technical side, but it's not comfortable for me.

Further.
Let's suppose that my team has won.
Previously, when the battle has been playing till the final seconds of the round, it caused the next reaction: "Great! We have done it!"
The victory of the new system is like this: "Oh, we won? Really? Ok, I'll sign it in my match statistics."
So, there is no feeling of victory, despite the team has won. Rather it’s the feeling that the job is done but not till the end.
Besides, when your team scored 60 points, it is much nicer than just a victory.

And now let's say that my team has lost.
Before, even if we saw that the score is against us, we still could continue to fight. “Ok, we have lost, but we’ll still try to kill as many enemies as possible!”
Now you feel like: “Hey, return me to the match, I've not finished yet!”

Here again I want to say that I don't play to win. But as you see it lost a significant part of the fun for me.

The next point I’d like to draw attention.
As I told before, now it is possible to play only one round from two properly for the one side. I do agree that on average I turn to play roughly the same number of matches for vampires and humans. But it is in the statistics only, and in reality, it should be noted that very often I have to play the first round for the same side over and over again. And I don’t want to play only for humans or vampires, I don’t want statistics, I want to play for the both sides by turn and right now.
I suppose that this rule ruins the system of two matches when everybody is to play for both sides.

Fourthly.
Such a system doesn’t correspond to flashpoint mode and ruins win/lost statistics for humans and vampires. Eventually if vampires’ team gets 6 points in the first round they need just to catch one spot in the second round playing for humans to win. As a result, after the match we get a 7-5 score in favor of one team. But after the second round the score is 1-5 in favor of the other team. It can’t reflect reality at all. So if the match doesn't finish untimely, the final score could be absolutely another. The first team may win both rounds. But the defeat, which not their fault, is written into their statics.
Yes, I remember that nobody cares about the statistics. But it is a clear indicator of system working improperly.

Fifthly.
Use of this system in new recruit mode also seems doubtful for me. Players are just learning how to play there. Balance in matches is often broken, but it gives an opportunity to learn how to play against a stronger opponent. And what can they learn now? How to die?

Finally I’d like to say, that despite all the above, the new system has a right to exist. But only in leagues where all are trying to do their best for victory and everything else is secondary.

P.S. I’m playing from alpha, not every day but quite regularly. I was looking forward for the return of Flashpoint. But right now, there is no desire to play at all. More precisely, there is a desire. But when I remember the new system, I think that it is better to play anything else.

BloodyMaria
19th Jul 2015, 21:25
Btw, I want to say a word about the sense to continue the match that is already lost. I watched the final round of the World Chapionship of fencing, Russia-Italy. It was the team fencing and the last Russian lady fencer could not win already, because one of her teammates lost with a bad score. But anyway she tried her best. What was the sense of that? Not to loose personally, I guess.
Nosgoth is the game with unique unbalanced gameplay - I mean that one side fight generally in melle and the other one on a distance. And I had many matches, espesually on the low lvls, when we lost as humans but won as vampires. And I think we were not only ones. So the sense is to win at least for one side.
Moreover, the new system slows the growth of the skill of newcomers, as Nightmare_Jay said. But I want to explain how.
Let's imagine, that there is the first match the ppl playing. They need time to study out the mechanics of both sides. Yes, there are the tutorials, but to play agains the bots and alive ppl is too different things. If another team is already more skillful, there can be a lose with low score. And the quick end of the next match.
And now, the second game. Let's imagine, that the first time our noobies had started as humans and now - as vamps. They had no time to understand how to play as vamps and so they lose again - with the same score. Would they want to continue to play? We study on our mistakes, but to do so we must have an oppotunity to make some.
And, finally, you can say, that it is my personal opinion. You can also say, that it is not reasonable. Even so, I won't change my mind, because I don't like it and this won't change. I can stop to play if I don't like something, but I'm not the only one... is it a good thing for a game?
And I don't understand, why it's so hard to wait a couple of minutes till the match ends. You will die from this 'cause you wasted your time for a lost game? Why can't you just play and be happy killing the enemy that is hard to kill? It is aslo a victory - however small it is.

Wolf_the_Legend
19th Jul 2015, 23:35
at one point I have to agree:

the new system should trigger some audio (+maybe visuals), if the match is going to end soon. (like it does when the time is running out, at 1 minute and after 10 seconds) or when you scored the 27th point your avatar says something, but mid fight I dont hear it that often tbh.

so maybe something like:
5 kills remaining
3 kills remaining
2 kills remaining
1 kill remaining

I'm sure you guys have some better audio cues than those I just mentioned^^, but u get the point I guess.
Also the scoreboard should "pop out" somehow every kill, if only 5 kills left.

SonixSquad
20th Jul 2015, 00:41
at one point I have to agree:

the new system should trigger some audio (+maybe visuals), if the match is going to end soon. (like it does when the time is running out, at 1 minute and after 10 seconds) or when you scored the 27th point your avatar says something, but mid fight I dont hear it that often tbh.

so maybe something like:
5 kills remaining
3 kills remaining
2 kills remaining
1 kill remaining

I'm sure you guys have some better audio cues than those I just mentioned^^, but u get the point I guess.
Also the scoreboard should "pop out" somehow every kill, if only 5 kills left.


I like this idea although I would rather it not be announced like in an Unreal/Quake vocal fashion. Lets keep the immersion but visually announce it somehow. Maybe a GONG sound for the remaining 10 kills to hint at the urgency, but not an announcer please.
There are audio cues based on your selected characters but they are very subtle and most probably miss them.

Regarding the earlier than before match ending change, I am okay with it in Ranked although I think in Unranked there needs to be some other mechanic in place to help keep matches fun and balanced and to help sto players feeling like they need to quit. What can we do that will encourage them to stay in a losing match?

I have made some suggestions in this thread (http://forums.eu.square-enix.com/showthread.php?t=157855), which go some way to addressing balancing when a match is one sided. Please take a look.
:naughty:

Saikocat
20th Jul 2015, 09:59
I like this idea although I would rather it not be announced like in an Unreal/Quake vocal fashion. Lets keep the immersion but visually announce it somehow. Maybe a GONG sound for the remaining 10 kills to hint at the urgency, but not an announcer please.
There are audio cues based on your selected characters but they are very subtle and most probably miss them.

A more obvious end/announcement is certain something we're looking at, this was just the first release of this change to see how everyone gets on.

All the constructive feedback is really useful though, keep it coming folks! Whether you're happy or unhappy about the change, we want to hear from you, we *want* feedback on this :)
Just remember to keep it constructive, so no abuse, no arguing with each other, just healthy feedback.

Zombiekatze
20th Jul 2015, 10:27
After getting used to it for a while I have to revaluate my opinion. With most of matches tending to be quite close it's not that much of a problem with the match-time and doesn't feel that different, at least for me. And I know you've collected feedback about the xp-issues too so we'll see.

I agree with the announcement/indicator sort of thing to show when the match ends. :)

Vampmaster
20th Jul 2015, 10:31
Hi everyone,

With today's patch (July 16th, 2015) we're introducing a new adjustment to the End Of Match scoring, based on feedback we've received from players. With this adjustment, you'll now find that a match ends once the guaranteed win point has been reached. If a team reach the number of kills/points needed in round 2 to guarantee a win, the match will end rather than continue on.

For example, in round 1, the Vampire team get 30 kills and the Human team get 10. On the second round, the then-Human team will only need to get 11 kills to guarantee a win, and it's no longer possible for the other team to win at that stage. Rather than continue, the match will now end at that point.

This is a new adjustment, so we're very eager to hear what you think of it. This is the introduction of this change, so it will be improved going forward, pending feedback and how everyone gets on with it. Currently, this will be enabled for all modes.

Please do share your thoughts on this once you've tried it out. Thank you!

What if gaining a 15 point lead in the first round causes to to move onto the second round and another 15 points lead on the second round causes the game to end? That way you still get to spend the same amount of time as both teams. Also, maybe the score shown should be over the full match rather than just the current round. I mean, you finish the round at 12 to 17, for example, and the score continues from that in the second round.

Actually, with that method, the target of 30 kills per round could be removed altogether. If you're still pretty close at something like 55 to 57 and still have plenty time left you could just keep playing beyond the 60 point limit until the timer runs out or one team gains a substantial lead.

Screwby-Dew
20th Jul 2015, 12:35
What if gaining a 15 point lead in the first round causes to to move onto the second round and another 15 points lead on the second round causes the game to end?

In my opinion that's not a good idea, come back can happen in Nosgoth, they do not happen often but it is still doable.

Vampmaster
20th Jul 2015, 12:53
In my opinion that's not a good idea, come back can happen in Nosgoth, they do not happen often but it is still doable.

My suggestion does the exactly same thing as the recent patch, except splits the two rounds more evenly.

CraneL
20th Jul 2015, 16:58
I have to agree with Nightmare Jay and BloodyMaria. Not giving us a chance to fight back and salvage some sort of dignity in the second round is frustrating. It feels like we're being forced to be unsportsmanlike. In almost every competitive game or sport, people are expected to keep fighting to the end, not give up disgracefully.

GenFeelGood
20th Jul 2015, 19:27
Which is why I think that we should be allowed to leave individually after that kill threshold has been crossed in the second round. You could choose to continue on for the fun of it and any extra xp there is to be had, or you could choose to cash out without penalty or lose of reward in order to start looking for the next match sooner.

GenocidePete
20th Jul 2015, 21:10
Btw, I want to say a word about the sense to continue the match that is already lost. I watched the final round of the World Chapionship of fencing, Russia-Italy. It was the team fencing and the last Russian lady fencer could not win already, because one of her teammates lost with a bad score. But anyway she tried her best. What was the sense of that? Not to loose personally, I guess.
A world championship tournament is analogous to a casual game of Nosgoth, eh? Seems reasonable.

"I know you killed my king, but let's keep playing our chess game for the fun of it!" ~ Silly Nosgoth players

RainaAudron
20th Jul 2015, 21:32
A more obvious end/announcement is certain something we're looking at, this was just the first release of this change to see how everyone gets on.

I don´t get people saying there is no way to know the end of the round is near - the music is faster paced and it says the humans/vamps are close to victory,why would be more clues needed? :/

CraneL
20th Jul 2015, 22:21
A world championship tournament is analogous to a casual game of Nosgoth, eh? Seems reasonable.

"I know you killed my king, but let's keep playing our chess game for the fun of it!" ~ Silly Nosgoth players

1. So just because something isn't 'important' it's ok to be sore losers? Because that's what ending the game early says. It panders to people whose egos are too fragile to handle a loss. And your implication counters the best compromise I've heard of so far, which is that ending a match early should be reserved for the competitive Leagues scene (where people should be *more* able to handle losses), while unranked matches should go back to the old system (or at most, have a surrender vote).

2. Nosgoth is not chess, and if it were your analogy would still be faulty. Checkmate is like reaching 60 kills in Nosgoth -- it's the end of a match --, while the new system is like forcing someone to resign as soon as the opponent has gained a decisive advantage. Yes, many people resign, but many also keep playing because they enjoy the game. I've played plenty of lost games through to the bitter end simply because chess is a fun game to play, win or lose. And the same goes for Nosgoth, or at least it should. Resigning is not mandatory in chess, and that is my biggest problem with the new system in Nosgoth. We are *forced* to resign even if we want to keep playing.

P.S. It's a minor technicality, but kings don't get captured or killed in chess; the game ends when they can't escape.

GenocidePete
20th Jul 2015, 23:03
1. So just because something isn't 'important' it's ok to be sore losers? Because that's what ending the game early says. It panders to people whose egos are too fragile to handle a loss. And your implication counters the best compromise I've heard of so far, which is that ending a match early should be reserved for the competitive Leagues scene (where people should be *more* able to handle losses), while unranked matches should go back to the old system (or at most, have a surrender vote).
Yes, the importance of a WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP TOURNAMENT makes it more of a special case than a random game of Nosgoth. You're comparing an event for which one has trained years in anticipation to a computer game that can be fired up at any time and completed within 25 minutes. There is also the matter of personal accomplishment and having one's team ranked in comparison to others, even if the team can't actually win first place. These things are not analogous.

It has nothing to do with sore losers and egos, and I wouldn't want to continue a game that I've won any more than a game that I've lost.


2. Nosgoth is not chess, and if it were your analogy would still be faulty. Checkmate is like reaching 60 kills in Nosgoth -- it's the end of a match --, while the new system is like forcing someone to resign as soon as the opponent has gained a decisive advantage. Yes, many people resign, but many also keep playing because they enjoy the game. I've played plenty of lost games through to the bitter end simply because chess is a fun game to play, win or lose. And the same goes for Nosgoth, or at least it should. Resigning is not mandatory in chess, and that is my biggest problem with the new system in Nosgoth. We are *forced* to resign even if we want to keep playing.
Checkmate in Nosgoth is not when 60 kills have been reached, it's when a team reaches a kill count that becomes impossible for the other team to surpass. Once this has happened, a team has clearly and irrevocably won the match, and any continued play beyond that is superfluous, like continuing to play chess after the king has been killed.


P.S. It's a minor technicality, but kings don't get captured or killed in chess; the game ends when they can't escape.
Your technicality is irrelevant to the situation I described, as the king WOULD be killed/captured in that scenario.

s0ulman
21st Jul 2015, 01:10
So with that change, what you lose is:
- Money and XP.
- A chance to win the 2nd round, even if you will still lose the match.
- The ability to try out new builds and tactics in an already lost match without being scolded by your team for it.
- The ability to actually LEARN HOW TO PLAY. This change literally takes away from new players the time to learn how to suck less. Instead it is yelling at them: "YOU SUCK! YOU DON'T GET TO PLAY! YOU GET TO SIT IN THE LOBBY FOR ANOTHER 20 MINUTES!" Encouraging, eh?
- The choice to keep playing even if you won't win just for the fun of it. The choice to go down with your head high, so to say.

What you gain is:
- Extra few minutes of NOT playing the game once in a while.

Doesn't look like a good change to me.

The voting idea seems better. If the match cannot be won, enable a vote to end it for the losing team. If 50% of the team vote yes - the match is finished.

A situation where automatically finishing the round would actually be a good idea is when there are NO PLAYERS LEFT in the enemy team, because they all left. This change doesn't solve this problem (and this IS a problem).

Ysanoire
21st Jul 2015, 12:13
And I don't understand, why it's so hard to wait a couple of minutes till the match ends. You will die from this 'cause you wasted your time for a lost game? Why can't you just play and be happy killing the enemy that is hard to kill? It is aslo a victory - however small it is.

I don't understand, why it's so hard to wait a couple minutes for the new match? You will die from this 'cause you wasted your time on searching for a game? Why can't you just play the next game and be happy killing the enemy and actually take responsibility for the outcome? It's also a victory.

I noticed you like emotional arguments; I can produce those too.


A world championship tournament is analogous to a casual game of Nosgoth, eh? Seems reasonable.

Whether it's a serious event or not shouldn't matter, but real life sports are also different from e-sports. There are hardly ever situations where an outcome is decided as opposed to "unlikely". I don't know how scoring in fencing works so I can't comment on that. In football you play the full length of the match because there is never a point where you can just ASSUME one team can't do it anymore, you have to let it play out to the end.


"I know you killed my king, but let's keep playing our chess game for the fun of it!" ~ Silly Nosgoth players

This.


1. So just because something isn't 'important' it's ok to be sore losers? Because that's what ending the game early says. It panders to people whose egos are too fragile to handle a loss. And your implication counters the best compromise

2. Nosgoth is not chess, and if it were your analogy would still be faulty. Checkmate is like reaching 60 kills in Nosgoth -- it's the end of a match --

The analogy is very good. The objective in nosgoth is NOT to get 60 kills. It's to get more kills than the other team. Therefore the moment that objective is secured is the END of the game. Not an 'early' end, it's THE end, the only end that matters. It's exactly like chess where the game ends once the objective (killing the king) has been secured (there are no moves that would save the king). And it doesn't matter how many moves were made and how many pieces died before that moment, the game can take 2 minutes or 6 moves and nobody will complain that it ended 'too early'. The 'sore loser' argument makes no sense, the game is just as poinless whether you're winning or losing (unless you're farming xp).



So with that change, what you lose is:
- Money and XP.
- A chance to win the 2nd round, even if you will still lose the match.
- The ability to try out new builds and tactics in an already lost match without being scolded by your team for it.

Those arguments have already been discussed.


- The ability to actually LEARN HOW TO PLAY. This change literally takes away from new players the time to learn how to suck less. Instead it is yelling at them: "YOU SUCK! YOU DON'T GET TO PLAY! YOU GET TO SIT IN THE LOBBY FOR ANOTHER 20 MINUTES!" Encouraging, eh?

You say that as if there's a limited number of games a person can play before they get kicked out of it or something. New people can keep playing and practicing IN THE NEW GAME. I'm not sure why people seem to completely ignore the fact that there is always the next game.
Some people find it discouraging to get stomped, which they have to endure even longer when the game doesn't end when it should. At least their mmr is adjusted as soon as the match ends which lets them get into a more suitable game. And if you get less xp per game, they stay in NR for more games.

Ghuldarkar
21st Jul 2015, 15:47
I quite agree with BloodyMaria's point of the fencer who still gave his all. I find that in the non league games a sudden early end will only further the people who think in terms of "gg, we lost, i'm outta here" and reduces the fun of the people who just like to play a bit. A team might even have just a bad round and then say to themselves "okay let's pull ourselves together" and actually do good in the second round. This is especially often in games like FP and CTB where you can easily have a lucky streak and get 3 points in succession, basically winning the game if the other team doesn't get equally lucky next. Even then you can have a close match next. The new feature is also a bit ridiculous in FP/CTB matches where the leading team has to defend in the second round since they would be dominating the game massively without an early end. It actually made me want to go human in FP first simply because of that reason.

Another scenario would be a CTB where the vampires get no point in the first round, but the other team would score 1 point early in their round. With the new system this would end maybe after 2 minutes of gameplay, but before it was very possible that they might only get this one lucky point and the match will end just 1-0 after a long, intense and fun fight by both teams.

My idea would be to either have a surrender vote or make it so that the match only ends automatically when the winning team also has a significant advantage already. Say we have a TDM which was 30-15 in the first round, but the second round is 16-15. With the new system the game ends, but I think that this match should go on, it would be a great feeling of achievement when you can still beat or tie a team that mopped the floor with you first. In cases like that i'd rather only have the match end when team a wins first and then in second round leads by 6-10 kills.
For FP I'd rather have the remaining time cut short drastically to maybe 1 minute left (perhaps two, with no gain of time instead), while still keeping the normal rules. This would enable the leading team to still score, while giving the other team a realistic chance to stop them.
For CTB we could go another body with the last minute mode enabled immediatly (the one where you get a chance to score one final time that always happens in the first round).
These ideas could be a realistic compromise between the people who'd like to end early and the ones who still have fighting spirit in them.

Zombiekatze
21st Jul 2015, 16:15
I don´t get people saying there is no way to know the end of the round is near - the music is faster paced and it says the humans/vamps are close to victory,why would be more clues needed? :/

In my case it would be helpful when I enter a match that's already in the second round and I have no idea what happened during the first round. If I'm not mistaken the indicator on the minimap-score-bar isn't there when you enter during a second round but feel free to correct me on that. :)
For regular matches the current indicators are sufficient.

RainaAudron
21st Jul 2015, 16:19
In my case it would be helpful when I enter a match that's already in the second round and I have no idea what happened during the first round. If I'm not mistaken the indicator on the minimap-score-bar isn't there when you enter during a second round but feel free to correct me on that. :)
For regular matches the current indicators are sufficient.

I see, yeah, it would be useful if it was displaying both rounds scores.

Guardian1uk
21st Jul 2015, 18:08
Tbt think most would prefer a surrender option, not a system that automatically decides to end a match early due to one side "winning".
Basicly it boils down to giving the players the choice and option, not something thats "forced" onto players, which a surrender option makes more sense on, that way if players WANT to end the match early they can do so via the surrender vote otherwise they can continue to play until the actual end of the match IE end of time.
As others have noted you can have a absolutely bad first round then in the second round swing it back around, in the past (pre change) I've been in matches where when all was said and done it ended up being 1-3 points differance in it, so the second round it's swung the other way, however lets say start of the second round the "winning" team from the first round gets the first sting of kills, the system would decide to end the match early as they've reached the match point early.
Generaly at the start the team which starts as vampires tends to win, so in essense whoever gets to be vampires first and likely to be the ones who end up winning under the new system.
The new system does need reverting back and a surrender option put in, the new system could be something you add as one of the "options" for different modes of ranked play, but for the newbies in the rookie matches the new system should definately be disabled, as others have noted rookie players make mistakes and learn from them and also how to play from making mistakes ending a match early gives them little change/time to actually learn.
As I stated else where this "new system" is designed to cater to the mass casual console market of players.

Ysanoire
21st Jul 2015, 18:34
I find that in the non league games a sudden early end will only further the people who think in terms of "gg, we lost, i'm outta here" and reduces the fun of the people who just like to play a bit.

I think it's the opposite, actually. I think people are more inclined to leave if they know that not only is their match lost, but they'll have to sit there for x minutes and wait for the end without being able to do anything. If you lost 30-4 and instead of ending the match on 5 kills you have to wait for the other team to get 30...
But I don't think it's a big factor either way. People who want to leave will leave. People who would stay will still stay.


In my case it would be helpful when I enter a match that's already in the second round and I have no idea what happened during the first round. If I'm not mistaken the indicator on the minimap-score-bar isn't there when you enter during a second round but feel free to correct me on that. :)

Yes, you're right and I agree you should be able to view the score from 1st round at any time.



Generaly at the start the team which starts as vampires tends to win, so in essense whoever gets to be vampires first and likely to be the ones who end up winning under the new system.


The likelihood of team x or y winning is EXACTLY the same as it was under the old system because the new system only kicks in after the win. Stop trying to make it look like the new rule disadvantaged someone.

Ghuldarkar
21st Jul 2015, 19:33
I think it's the opposite, actually. I think people are more inclined to leave if they know that not only is their match lost, but they'll have to sit there for x minutes and wait for the end without being able to do anything. If you lost 30-4 and instead of ending the match on 5 kills you have to wait for the other team to get 30...
But I don't think it's a big factor either way. People who want to leave will leave. People who would stay will still stay.

The likelihood of team x or y winning is EXACTLY the same as it was under the old system because the new system only kicks in after the win. Stop trying to make it look like the new rule disadvantaged someone.

Maybe I should clarify, I think that this furthers the kind of mentality in the overall population, mostly by slightly discouraging the players who'd like to fight a losing, but good match. I'm also all for a surrender when it's 30-4 or such ridiculous numbers, but I'm really not someone who just gives up and gets all mopey and wants to just get on with it when I just lost the match due to points. I'm sure you know me as an all in guy, especially in Flashpoint ;).

Also it's just obvious that this is not changing in any way the winner of a game, but the argument that it's detrimental to new players is really what we should look out for, since those matches are often dominated by vampires and thus can really impact their playing and learning time, especially against an enemy that is better. And one can learn the most from those encounters, like the way they play or the way they position themselves and attack. If they keep fighting against equal people too much they will get a bit stuck.

dontfingerfreddy
21st Jul 2015, 19:42
one of the things I immediately loved about this game upon first playing was the fact that it was a play through match game, that your points weren't what ended the match, you could just play through and in the end if you lost, you just got 25 less gold, not less play time. as an avid player of nosgoth, I find this early match ending rather weak. myself, and many other enjoy playing games all the way through for the xp and for the fun of it. wins and losses are only a matter of a small handful of gold and nothing else. gold which compared to the xp needed for mysterious weapons takes much less time to accumulate and is really only good for forge's once you have all the abilities you desire permanently acquired. even when its a miss matched game, if you play right, your damage points and game play can still gather a hefty amount of xp, when having a score dictate when your match is over it restricts our ability to gather as much xp for elite or evolved skins, for mysterious weapons leveling and overall, the fun of putting up a good fight to the very last second of the 20 minute match. please consider changing this option as for us adults who play this game endlessly it is frustrating that we get very little chance to prove that it's not whether you win or lose that matters, but how you compose yourself in battle and the amount of damage you cans till dish out despite being a smidgen or a mile away from victory.

Audhumbla
21st Jul 2015, 20:24
As for the ranking being determined by the difference in score vs the strength of your opponents, I swear I saw that somewhere on the forums (perhaps I'm just still groggy). Either way, with my dumb comment corrected, my previous curiosity about the matter is no longer relevant.

Just an FYI: League points are based on the difference between the team MMRs, and on the match result (win/loss/draw or abandoned). The actual score or stats in the match don't factor in to it.

Ghuldarkar
21st Jul 2015, 20:25
Maybe we could have a surrender vote that pops up the next time the losing players die and nobody will respawn until the vote is cast.
If it says 3:1 for surrender the match will end. This choice should then be switchable in the loadout screen in case you'd like to surrender later.

GenocidePete
21st Jul 2015, 22:50
Tbt think most would prefer a surrender option, not a system that automatically decides to end a match early due to one side "winning".
Basicly it boils down to giving the players the choice and option, not something thats "forced" onto players, which a surrender option makes more sense on, that way if players WANT to end the match early they can do so via the surrender vote otherwise they can continue to play until the actual end of the match IE end of time.
No, I would not want a surrender option, because that automatically forces the sensible majority to waste time with it every single game. If they wish to continue wrestling each other once the match is won, they can have a manual vote that goes on in the background to continue their pointless game, but the default should be to end when a winner is determined. Choice is not always a good thing: sometimes choice is a massive waste of time (as with a surrender option), and sometimes players don’t know what’s best for them or the health of the game they play.

As others have noted you can have a absolutely bad first round then in the second round swing it back around, in the past (pre change) I've been in matches where when all was said and done it ended up being 1-3 points differance in it, so the second round it's swung the other way, however lets say start of the second round the "winning" team from the first round gets the first sting of kills, the system would decide to end the match early as they've reached the match point early.
This point is baffling, as it should be obvious that there is nothing stopping a poorly-performing team from making a comeback in the second round save for their lack of talent. You’re imagining a virtually nonexistent scenario in which a team goes 4-29 then performs miraculously in the second round and nearly wins. This almost never happened prior to the new system: if a team was performing terribly, they generally continued to perform terribly in the second round, and I’m sure the statistics would corroborate this.

Generaly at the start the team which starts as vampires tends to win, so in essense whoever gets to be vampires first and likely to be the ones who end up winning under the new system.
This “fact” defies reason, which is probably why you've provided no argument for it. If your team had the ability to accomplish a 3:1 K:D ratio, it will still accomplish that ratio regardless of what happened in the first round, because neither the humans nor the vampires gain an advantage based on how much time has elapsed in a round.

As I stated else where this "new system" is designed to cater to the mass casual console market of players.
I have no idea how you came to this conclusion. I am an extremely competitive gamer, the only consoles I own are an NES and SNES, and I wholly support the new system because it makes sense.

Also it's just obvious that this is not changing in any way the winner of a game, but the argument that it's detrimental to new players is really what we should look out for, since those matches are often dominated by vampires and thus can really impact their playing and learning time, especially against an enemy that is better. And one can learn the most from those encounters, like the way they play or the way they position themselves and attack. If they keep fighting against equal people too much they will get a bit stuck.

I agree that it may be best to allow the full two rounds to play out in the new recruit bracket, as I do suspect that much of the initial fun of the game derives from playing as the vampires.

As for opportunities to learn, however, you must admit that a scenario in which one is outmatched is likely to be more frustrating and boring than informative. Psychology tells us that most people prefer challenges that are difficult but surmountable, and getting destroyed by a superior team doesn’t fit the bill. As well, the word “equal” lacks nuance here. If two players have the same MMR, it doesn’t necessarily mean that their skillsets are the same. They may win just as often against similar opponents, but why they win could be entirely different: one person may have a better understanding of where to make a stand while the other is better at aiming. There is still plenty of room to learn against equally-skilled opponents, and I think it’s safe to say that people will be more receptive during a struggle rather than a massacre.

Ghuldarkar
21st Jul 2015, 23:36
No, I would not want a surrender option, because that automatically forces the sensible majority to waste time with it every single game. If they wish to continue wrestling each other once the match is won, they can have a manual vote that goes on in the background to continue their pointless game, but the default should be to end when a winner is determined. Choice is not always a good thing: sometimes choice is a massive waste of time (as with a surrender option), and sometimes players don’t know what’s best for them or the health of the game they play.

This point is baffling, as it should be obvious that there is nothing stopping a poorly-performing team from making a comeback in the second round save for their lack of talent. You’re imagining a virtually nonexistent scenario in which a team goes 4-29 then performs miraculously in the second round and nearly wins. This almost never happened prior to the new system: if a team was performing terribly, they generally continued to perform terribly in the second round, and I’m sure the statistics would corroborate this.


Why should the game cater to people like you that want to go to the next match as fast as possible (ignoring the fact that you often wait several minutes until you get another match again) and not compromise and allow those who want to finish to finish and those who would like to keep playing because they actually like to play and not only have fun when winning? Just make a vote once the losing people die while they're dead.
Next you're assuming all of us who argue for having the match played out completely do want all those massacres to play out while in fact to us in those situations we welcome the early end. What we're talking about are matches where you clearly lose, but not by too much, say 10-15 points difference in the end. Maybe the first round goes 30-12 but the second round would go more like 28-30, in which case the system is keeping us from having a challenging but enjoyable round. And now don't tell me this never happens, because just yesterday I had team mates who were incredibly bad as vampires but rather decent as humans.

This also applies to the argument of learning. I'm obviously not talking about a match where one team is massacred, but you can still learn from a match where you lose both rounds by 10-15 points. The reason a team might lose with a somewhat balanced mmr would be that they use tactics which give them an advantage against the loadouts and tactics of the losers. You're not getting this experience as much when you always have close battles, because those are more reminiscent of a standoff and similar strategies, which makes you less flexible if that's your main opponent in the game. And "New Recruit" lvl 15 is definitely not nearly enough to learn anything apart from the very basics of this game, because if you're good, you will soon massacre other noobs and learn nothing while quickly gaining exp and being locked out of New Recruit.

CraneL
22nd Jul 2015, 02:12
No, I would not want a surrender option, because that automatically forces the sensible majority to waste time with it every single game. If they wish to continue wrestling ... .

Sensible majority? I can just as easily say the sensible majority doesn't want to be forced to stop playing, because we don't know anything about the game's global statistics. A 3:1 surrender vote would let us know what the local majority wants in any given game.
And the absence of expletives doesn't make your post any more civil.
If you hate playing after you've lost so much, ragequit and take your lockout penalty. It



This “fact” defies reason
...
I am an extremely competitive gamer...

You may be an "extremely competitive gamer" (it shows in how polite you are), but all that means is you're the kind of gamer who is no fun to play with. The new system only makes sense in competitive Leagues or ESL where toxic people like you can spend the most time doing what you love best: Not playing the game.

I don't see any good points in your post, but Ghuldarkar counters your weak points well. I take issue with preserving the correct way to play the game for New Recruits only; what about those of us who enjoy playing the game win or lose who want to keep playing?

You know you have nothing meaningful to contribute when you have to rely on insulting others in lieu of offering valid arguments.

GenocidePete
22nd Jul 2015, 03:50
You know you have nothing meaningful to contribute when you have to rely on insulting others in lieu of offering valid arguments.
Except that every part of that paragraph, including the one you quoted, was part of an argument.
If the change to round mechanics were reverted to its previous, lesser form, I would not rage and I would continue to play. You, however, have uninstalled the game in a tantrum due to this change, so you'll forgive me if your comments about toxicity and poor arguments fall on deaf ears.

Grisamentum
22nd Jul 2015, 07:25
You say that as if there's a limited number of games a person can play before they get kicked out of it or something. New people can keep playing and practicing IN THE NEW GAME. I'm not sure why people seem to completely ignore the fact that there is always the next game.

People have a limited amount of free time with which to do the things they want/enjoy. Why am I having to explain this to you? Don't you have contact with other human beings?

@Saikocat
This is the only change to Nosgoth that's seriously made me consider uninstalling the game. I prefer playing vampires & I'm not willing to spend 20 minutes waiting for a match where I play humans first for 10 minutes & vampires for 3 cos we got whacked in the first round, then having to wait another 10, 15, 20+ minutes for another match.
Playing Nosgoth these days means doing something else for half an hour while you wait for a match then playing the game for 15 minutes. When the playerbase is so low & waiting times are so long it's not a good idea to reduce the match length like this. In Leagues I can understand it since there is an obvious benefit to winning but in TDM I don't see the point.
I don't play just to win & just because your team does win doesn't mean you personally played well. I've had loads of games when another team member or even myself was carried & played terribly. I don't see why winning is so important - you don't get anything from it & if other people are carrying you, you don't get any personal satisfaction from winning.
I'd rather play well & have fun but lose than play badly & win.

I've played so many games where neither side could play humans as well as they could play vampires. Each round whoever played vamps would score 30 or near enough & humans would get 10 at best or less than that.
I still have matches like that regularly & with the newest patch it means that the 2nd round is always cut short.
Either change the system back to what it was or compromise with a surrender option.

Cessy000
22nd Jul 2015, 09:13
as i already stated .. my team and me think the new ending is ****.. we want to play full distance.. ( statement written for 9 players )

FireWorks_
22nd Jul 2015, 11:37
These topics were discussed in many long threads before. The only thing that most players could agree on was: Shut down abandoned matches. Well, give an optional surrender vote but the SE decision went to something forced which seems ok too.
In matches where players are constantly leaving due to [expected enemy|score|dog barking] to game should be ended, no matter the score. The match is just over with 2 leavers in a team. My personal record was 7 different(!) players connecting to the match and leaving again. Needless to say everyone else in the match is wasting his time in these matches.

End games with 2+ leavers on a team. As minimum, shut it down if there is nobody on the enemy team anymore.



PS: A pause function would be very helpful in many situations. Wait while reconnect, or let a stranger fill the slot and create the illusion of a fairer game.

Bazielim
22nd Jul 2015, 13:01
Just a friendly reminder of the terms of use (http://forums.eu.square-enix.com/announcement.php?f=156&a=1) while I'm here - keep it clean and constructive and free of insults, thank you.

BloodyMaria
22nd Jul 2015, 13:32
I had not wanted to post in this theme anymore, but I've changed my opinion while reading the thread. Now I tried to think deeply about why this system is feeling so bad for me.
I've played competitive games since 2010, and there were different systems of ending the game. But the main difference is there never were TWO matches.
I've tlod about Nosgoth unbalanced gameplay already and I want you to pay your atention to it. Because of it the two matches, espesually in FP and CTB, where different teams have different tasks feel like two different games. And the current system makes me feel that the one of this games is unfinished.
Ppl who like the current system are always talking about a huge difference in score during the first round, but the more time you playing - the closer the score and the chanse to win one round, lose the second, but still win a game increase.
Moreover, I told about the thing that some ppl need time to show their best. I am the one of them. Because of different circumstances sometimes I do not play a month or longer and I need time to remember how to play after that. With the new system the number of games I have to play for that increased roughly twice.
I'm not sure that surrender vote would solve the problem but for me is would be mutch better than what we have now.
And again, in two rounds the game let us play two different sides. Two different takticks. And for me it's like two different games one of witch is unfinished.
And another argument, that already had been discussed: when and where should we try new builds now? There is no AI traning for that. I know that this was already mentioned, but I haven't seen the answer. And before that change I could try new builds not only in games that already lost, but in those that are already or almost won. Sometimes I did so to give our enemies a chanse to lose with a better score than they would have if I continue to play for my main class.
I think that the leagues is the best decidion of this problem. The ppl who play only to win should do it there, and unranked games should be returned to the old system.

P. S. I'm sorry about mistakes - with my bad internet connection it's hard to use online dictionary.

CraneL
22nd Jul 2015, 15:28
Except that every part of that paragraph, including the one you quoted, was part of an argument.
If the change to round mechanics were reverted to its previous, lesser form, I would not rage and I would continue to play. You, however, have uninstalled the game in a tantrum due to this change, so you'll forgive me if your comments about toxicity and poor arguments fall on deaf ears.

A bad argument.

Uninstalling was a form of protest, since in my experience complaining isn't sufficient. I'm with Grisamentum on this; this is the only change that has made the game so unplayable that I even considered uninstalling it. And if anyone else finds that this change has made the game not worth playing, go ahead and uninstall it too. I miss this game a lot, but I don't see any point returning to it until they fix it.

Actually, I won't forgive you for completely ignoring my point. Try to remember what you wrote before Bazielim cleaned up your post. Then keep thinking about it until you realize why I called you toxic. And then bear in mind that this game isn't going to survive if it only caters to the most overly competitive, toxic players, because few people want to join a gaming community full of salty players.

Ghuldarkar
22nd Jul 2015, 16:56
BloodyMaria is absolutely right. CTB and FP are quite different from TDM and an instant early end may make some sense in TDM but much less so in CTB and FP. The main difference is that one team is very defensive and the other very offensive. Furthermore these games have a shorter length (5 minutes if the vampires dominate on flashpoint) and are much more action packed. There is no roof camping in these modes and that is why many people prefer them and have fun no matter if they're being absolutely massacred or have a close match. The nature of these modes also makes it possible that the next match with the exact same teams can go the other way simply because they adapted their strategies.

The other point is also a big bugbear for me. Luckily I am almost lvl 25 with all classes and am quite decent with all of them, but how should someone who is good with 1-2 classes be able to learn something new, like for example sentinel which is hard to learn at the beginning? I always live by the motto to try something new and crazy when things are not working out, instead of furiously trying to apply my old tactics against opponents that are too strong. How can you try something new and crazy now? The only possibility is when your team absolutely dominates the opponent.
I don't know how you all generally learned new classes, but I decided to give them a shot the first 2-4 deaths in a match to get a little practise in before I'd switch to something I'm competent in, especially when it's already a lost match, because I can say "well we lost anyway, let's do something crazy for the rest of the match". It's how I got good at this game, to be honest :/.

Last but not least we should all really consider, that nobody is talking about these matches where it's 30-2. We all don't like matches where you cannot even show your face without it being transformed into swiss cheese. It's obvious that those are the reason for this system and not even the opponents of the early end want those, and if you want to keep having those you should really refrain from the discussion, because you've probably nothing constructive to contribute.

Ysanoire
23rd Jul 2015, 21:05
People have a limited amount of free time with which to do the things they want/enjoy. Why am I having to explain this to you? Don't you have contact with other human beings?

Yeah.... that's exactly why they shouldn't be forced to waste their time in a game whose result has already been decided.

Re the waiting times: shorter games => better player rotation => faster matchmaking.


Maybe I should clarify, I think that this furthers the kind of mentality in the overall population, mostly by slightly discouraging the players who'd like to fight a losing, but good match. I'm also all for a surrender when it's 30-4 or such ridiculous numbers, but I'm really not someone who just gives up and gets all mopey and wants to just get on with it when I just lost the match due to points. I'm sure you know me as an all in guy, especially in Flashpoint ;).

I do :) and I also hope you don't know me as someone who fosters the quitter mentality. But I just can't agree with you on this point because I think it's only reasonable to expect people to give their best until the game is decided, not beyond that point. For me having the longer game is a bit like wanting everyone to drive safely, but having speed limits of 10 km/h everywhere: of course people are gonna speed; some will know what the safe speed is, but some will drive as fast as they can because **** these stupid rules.

Okay, I suppose I've written enough on this topic so I'm just gonna sum up my stance:

I don't want to play past the point that marks the end now because I think it's pointless. It was annoying me in the past and I always thought it should be cut. I understand that it may feel abrupt to have a game end sooner, but it's not a good enough reason for me to keep playing. I've played thousands of games now, so I can't really value a "good game" so much that I want to keep and keep playing it after it's been won/lost.

Ghuldarkar
24th Jul 2015, 00:21
I don't want to play past the point that marks the end now because I think it's pointless. It was annoying me in the past and I always thought it should be cut. I understand that it may feel abrupt to have a game end sooner, but it's not a good enough reason for me to keep playing. I've played thousands of games now, so I can't really value a "good game" so much that I want to keep and keep playing it after it's been won/lost.

Would you also have FP and CTB stopped immediatly? Or maybe have the time cut short drastically (say to 1 minute in FP and to the last stance extra time in CTB) after the winning point? Do you support a surrender vote to make the players decide if they want to keep playing or not?

Ysanoire
24th Jul 2015, 09:41
Yes, I'd like FP to end upon win too. I haven't thought about CtB. I would say the same rule applies, but I haven't really devoted too much thought into the question in this instance.

I'm against the surrender option as well. I think it'd be wasted development time just to find out that everyone votes yes anyway. But if it made everyone happy I guess I don't mind the one click.

I think if a surrender option is implemented it should:
- be always available from the start
- be in leagues
- require unanimous vote
- be used for ending matches that have something wrong with them, like 3v4s, technical difficulties, other miscellaneous stuff.

LOFO1993
24th Jul 2015, 20:01
I played some games with the new "short ending", and I have to say my mind didn't change at all from my first impressions. It didn't make the game hugely worse for me, but it made it worse nonetheless.


I think we can agree this change generated mainly two different reactions from people:

1- Those who like the new system
2- Those who like the abstract idea of closing a game earlier in some circumstances, but not like this (i.e. want voting added, and/or this system to be in place for ranked games only)

The point is, who actually is in which camp and why. If this thread and the Steam forums are anything to go by:

- The vast majority of those in the first group basically see the game as a 100% competitive experience, they want it to work as a perfect win or loss clockwork and have no interest in playing even a minute if it can't determine who wins a match.

- The second group, on the contrary, are willing to try and win the game, but would still rather play more and finish the round even if the overall result is already determined, because they enjoy actually playing.


I am part of this second group, and as such I can assure you the game does feel a bit worse for me now. As I said, it's not a dramatic change (most of the times), but in a span of a couple of hours I already encountered some situations where games were shut down prematurely and they were absolutely not "unplayable".

I really hope this system will be at least mitigated a bit in the future. Use it for ranked games, it fits there, the whole point of that mode is to have people climbing the leaderboard. But I'm not happy at all with you forcing it on absolutely everything and everybody, just to please the minority of super-competitive guys (and again, if this thread and the Steam forums are anything to go by, at the end of the day they seem to be the minority).


If this brought other benefits to the table, if it were a "necessary sacrifice" in order to fix some other big issue, I could understand it. But, as many people already pointed out, overall it's gonna do more harm than good: less "safe time" to practise with weak classes, less chances for new players to see how a good working team plays and therefore improve themselves, and just less playtime for everybody if you must fit your play sessions in a rigid schedule.

I honestly fail to see the rationale that went behind this. Was it such an issue to play for 1 or 2 minutes when the result was already set? And if what troubled you were one-sided games, doesn't voting, or even ending the game sooner only in case of a big score difference, seem the most rational and balanced approach to fix it?

GenocidePete
24th Jul 2015, 23:15
just to please the minority of super-competitive guys (and again, if this thread and the Steam forums are anything to go by, at the end of the day they seem to be the minority).
But these forums aren't something to go by, are they? This is a small, non-random sample of players, many of whom clearly have an incentive to come and post against a change that they did not like; nothing about this is scientific or useful in gauging the overall opinion of the player base. The arguments provide the only value to be had from this thread, and while there has been a valid point brought up that it may be good for newbs to be able to play a full second round as the vampires, the vast majority of the arguments against the change have been ridiculous and irrational. I doubt we'll be seeing the new system change in any significant way, and that's for the best.

LOFO1993
24th Jul 2015, 23:24
But these forums aren't something to go by, are they? This is a small, non-random sample of players, many of whom clearly have an incentive to come and post against a change that they did not like; nothing about this is scientific or useful in gauging the overall opinion of the player base. The arguments provide the only value to be had from this thread, and while there has been a valid point brought up that it may be good for newbs to be able to play a full second round as the vampires, the vast majority of the arguments against the change have been ridiculous and irrational. I doubt we'll be seeing the new system change in any significant way, and that's for the best.

Of course it's not scientific evidence, but it's still a fair representation of at least the most involved part of the player base.


Anyway, you're not proving that the other way around is true either (and, with your assertion, it's simply impossible to do). So we may as well just say we have no clue how many players of any kind are there really, and we have no way to find out. Fine.


So, explain me what justifies this change on an overall scale.

You said "the vast majority of the arguments against the change have been ridiculous and irrational". Explain me why, I read a lot of dismissing in the thread, but no real counter-arguments.

And after you do that, explain me what are the the benefits of this change APART FROM THOSE ONLY PERCEIVED BY THE PEOPLE IN THE FIRST GROUP - who we just established are impossible to quantify, and as such should have neither more nor less of a right to dictate the way the game should go for everybody.


I understand YOU and some other people like it more this way. However, that's not enough of a reason to make it a good change, especially when you see a lot of other people don't, AND there are objective, collective drawbacks to it.

GenocidePete
25th Jul 2015, 00:05
I've already offered counterarguments to most of the major points that have been levied against the change; you can read them and respond as you will. I believe the only arguments I haven't addressed are the claims that the new system is bad because it cuts down on overall playtime and that it doesn't allow for people to "test new builds."

As to the first point, individual games will be shorter than they were previously, but the quality of those games will be higher, because lopsided matches will have a shorter duration than fair matches, and all games will be spurred on by the motivation to win. I understand that some of you just like to wrastle each other for the sake of it, but this is a game, and games are generally more fun when there is an objective. Will we have to spend a bit more time in the lobby than we would otherwise? Sure, but this amount of time has been exaggerated, and I would take quality playtime over quantity any day of the week.

This complaint about not being able to test builds is just bizarre. This is an unranked TDM game; we have all of the opportunity in the world to try different things with minimal consequence. This complaint also makes the tacit admission that people don't care once the game has been won, which goes toward my previous point of quality vs quantity.

BloodyMaria
25th Jul 2015, 09:27
This complaint about not being able to test builds is just bizarre. This is an unranked TDM game; we have all of the opportunity in the world to try different things with minimal consequence. This complaint also makes the tacit admission that people don't care once the game has been won, which goes toward my previous point of quality vs quantity.

But the fact that it is not ranked match will not save you against your evil playmates if they lose 'cause you were trying something new. Hopefully I never saw comments like "Delete the game!" adressed to me, but I know people who did. It is not the most pleasant thing in the world. And I've learned how to play mostly like Ghuldarkar, hopefully I'm already 25 lvl with all my classes. But you know what? I can't play as a prophet anymore, because it passed long time sinse I've played it and I just don't remember how to do that and have no oppotunity to remember.
Also, yesterday I played TDM and CTB. I honestly did not want to return to the game, but I have to test new headphones.
As for CTB, for me it have no more interests with the new system. I'm not sure, why, looks like I need some time to think about that, but it was still very dissapointing.
And now about TDM. In TDM this system looks better, than in FP or CTB, but there is still some some unpleasant aspects that ruin the pleasant game. Though I have to admit it is mutch better since there is a signal that warns about 3 kills left. But now about this aspects.
Yes, sometimes we won a round because we did that last kill that was needed to end the match, but I had a couple of matches that were pretty strange. And I'm talking about these games, that were already won. As an example, we had a game where we need only 14 kills to win in a second round. In one hand, it was the oppotunity to test new builds, classes etc., but in fact the sence of the second round was like we were not even trying to do the best we can. The sence was like: "Oh, we won already, the game should end soon. Y-yawn... okay, let's kill some vamps... oh, they are killing us? Really? Anyway, they don't stand a chance".
You can call me silly again, but that's the way some other people and me think and feel, and I don't think that there is a thing that would change this. Again, for me two rounds in this game is like two games, but I don't think that make them apart indeed is a good idea. And please accept that if people don't feel and think like you do it's not always mean that they are silly. They are differemt from you, and that is all.
And about new system overwall: before this change we could regulate the difficulty of the game for the both sides: those who play better could choose class they play not so good to give a chance and a fair fight to an opponent; but they were still srtong, letting newcomers too rise their skill in a hard descend fight. As for me, now it is like "Win, win, win the first round, so we won't care about the second. The second round? Ya-awn, we already did everything during the first one". And about new builds again - the new system lets to try something new, but for a very, very short time. And that is very dissapointing to me.
Maybe for you the things are different. But for me it is so, and I would be happy if the old system would be returned. Until than, I'm not sure I would play regulary and I don't want to play FP and CTB anymore, thought I liked it mutch more than TDM before.
I guess most peolpe who liked the new system think about their opponents who don't want to give up even if the game lost something like that: "Surrender! It's pointless, I'm wasting time with you!" (I don't mention anyone personally so please don't be angry for that). But as many people I know and myself a real respect to the opponent is acceptance of his choise - to give up or to fight until the end. I wish we can respect and underatsnd each other. I understand those who like the new system, their argument are reasonable. But there are always two sides of a coin; someone likes one thing, someone likes another. I think that making leagues with the new system and return the old one for unranked games is the only decidion that will satisfy everyone.

LOFO1993
25th Jul 2015, 11:13
As to the first point, individual games will be shorter than they were previously, but the quality of those games will be higher, because lopsided matches will have a shorter duration than fair matches, and all games will be spurred on by the motivation to win. I understand that some of you just like to wrastle each other for the sake of it, but this is a game, and games are generally more fun when there is an objective. Will we have to spend a bit more time in the lobby than we would otherwise? Sure, but this amount of time has been exaggerated, and I would take quality playtime over quantity any day of the week.

So, once again, you're offering me reasons that ONLY CATER TO THE FIRST GROUP OF PEOPLE. Which we have already established have neither more nor less reasons to be listened to compared to the first group.

"Games are generally more fun when there is an objective": First, this is subjective. Second, there IS an objective in playing even after the victory is set, for some people; what you really mean is you see an overall victory as the only possible "objective", and as such everything else should be canned.


This complaint about not being able to test builds is just bizarre. This is an unranked TDM game; we have all of the opportunity in the world to try different things with minimal consequence. This complaint also makes the tacit admission that people don't care once the game has been won, which goes toward my previous point of quality vs quantity.

So, you think having a couple of people completely **** it up for the duration of the whole match to practice new classes is fine, because it's just "an unranked TDM game", but playing a whole 1 or 2 minutes more when the victory has already been decided will supposedly make people play bad for a whole 1 or 2 minutes, and therefore has to be removed?

In other words, are you really saying you're OK with somebody forcing themselves to play bad a whole round, as long as they are "struggling towards a victory", but you can't stand the idea of people actually playing even after that, just because you don't see a reason to?


On a side note, I still don't see a single universal, objective benefit for this system.

CraneL
27th Jul 2015, 13:54
LOFO1993 sums it up well. There are two groups here; extremely competitive players who only care about winning, and less competitive players who care more about having fun playing the game.

I don't see why the developers would cater to the people who want to spend less time playing the game (the competitive group) instead of those of us who actually enjoy playing the game.

Speaking of the developers, could you chime in? Have you made any decisions about whether to keep, alter, or cut this new mechanic? All we've heard so far is that you're paying attention to our feedback.

cmstache
27th Jul 2015, 14:15
Generally speaking, (as I tend to be somewhere in the middle of the groups) any time a player is forced to, or not do something it's causes problems. A optional surrender vote is far and away the best way to approach this. If a majority wants to stop, stop, if not, then play it out. There will always be issues, but letting the specific set of players decide will most likely be the best route.

That being said, I don't speak for the developers. What they decide will possibly be different. I'm pretty sure that opinions either way are being forwarded here, because it's a pretty large change they've been watching.

GenocidePete
27th Jul 2015, 14:25
Generally speaking, (as I tend to be somewhere in the middle of the groups) any time a player is forced to, or not do something it's causes problems. A optional surrender vote is far and away the best way to approach this. If a majority wants to stop, stop, if not, then play it out. There will always be issues, but letting the specific set of players decide will most likely be the best route.
Does a "surrender" vote make sense when a winner and loser have already been determined? If there must be a vote option, why not have a background vote to finish the round after one team has already won the match? This should accomplish the goal of those complaining here, no?

CraneL
27th Jul 2015, 18:48
GenocidePete, phrasing matters. We're asking for the compromise to be an opt-in surrender option, while you're suggesting an opt-out option.

These are not the same.

There've been plenty of studies on opt-in vs. opt-out, and the consensus seems to be that you use opt-out if you want to shadily manipulate people into doing what you want, while opt-in policies encourage people to make their own choices. Since a lot of the problem with the new system is that it eliminates our choice, your suggestion isn't enough of an improvement. It's a shady way to co-opt an honest attempt at compromise and turn it into something that would mostly benefit your side.

GenocidePete
27th Jul 2015, 22:10
GenocidePete, phrasing matters. We're asking for the compromise to be an opt-in surrender option, while you're suggesting an opt-out option.

These are not the same.
Obviously. My post would be purposeless if there weren't a distinction.

There've been plenty of studies on opt-in vs. opt-out, and the consensus seems to be that you use opt-out if you want to shadily manipulate people into doing what you want, while opt-in policies encourage people to make their own choices. Since a lot of the problem with the new system is that it eliminates our choice, your suggestion isn't enough of an improvement. It's a shady way to co-opt an honest attempt at compromise and turn it into something that would mostly benefit your side.
You wish to force people to "opt out" of playing a game that's already finished, while I want people to "opt in" to extending the game. By your own logic, you wish to enact a shady, manipulative policy.

Farnbeak
28th Jul 2015, 09:26
There's so much subjective logical manipulation and irrationality in this thread, that I have overcome all the laziness and decided to come express my opinion myself.

I do like the current new system for TDM and I think it should stay as it is (I do like it in FP too, but the old system worked ok as well; I do not play CTB, so I won't comment on that)

I do like to play the game and experiment with it, wins and losses generally do not matter for me.

First off I'd like to dismiss a couple of intuitive misconceptions people keep repeating around this thread:

1) You do not get less PLAYTIME with the new system.

Some matches got shorter -> You're back into lobby/matchmaking faster, you are available as a player again - > LESS QUEUE TIME for everyone -> You are in a game faster -> You play more individual games in a chosen time interval
Its exactly the SAME PLAYTIME as before. Its a rigid equation.

Hence, the same experience to level anything you want, but more gold actually.


2) You CAN play any class/items and EXPERIMENT ANYTIME you want. Thinking otherwise is not about current game rules (there's nothing to restrict you) and has nothing to do with the old/new match ending system, its about your totally subjective self-imposed rules. Its totally ok to have those, for example in regard of 'fair play'. But its 100% your choice to have those exact set of rules and you can change or modify them anytime.

What makes me wonder here is that those same people who claim to play because they like the game and do not care much for the wins/losses, actually modify their behavior so much that they can only experiment and even as some claim it - 'learn the game and new classes' ONLY after the game result is decided!
Guys, just promise me you will try and not play your main classes/favourite setups on secondary classes for a week. This will bring the full joy of Nosgoth back to you, and you will actually LEARN a lot and get that best sort of dopamine encouragement from your brain ;)
And, yeah, it will have nothing to do with the formal rules of the game, bacause they haven't changed :)


3) You don't learn well or enjoy it when you are underskilled for a challenge.

(Psychology - I won't bother giving the many obvious links about challenge level -> learning results, but just one on the popular Flow theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)). A quick citation: "One must have a good balance between the perceived challenges of the task at hand and their own perceived skills. One must have confidence in one's ability to complete the task at hand".
One of the guys (LOFO1993) also challenged the point about having a clear objective, so here's one for you - "One must be involved in an activity with a clear set of goals and progress. This adds direction and structure to the task").

A bit more Nosgoth specific stuff on LOFO1993's point "less chances for new players to see how a good working team plays":
As a new player you don't get to see what makes a good opponents' team actually good, except the initiate sync timing if there is one. Most cases you won't even get the chance to see and understand what makes your own team, especially yourself, worse. You will get to see that the guy on the left got grabbed first so 'he is bad', and 'nobody covered me' or 'I got focused' and other stuff that gives you very little meaningful opportunities to actualy learn. Also you will get a tonn of frustration that will make you reluctant to analyze and learn. The best opportunities to learn are those close calls which give you a very intrinsical feeling of "I have almost..", "If i could have done that exact action" and "If I have come from the other side, then i'd have that last hit" that stick deep into you with no extra effort from your conscience.


to LOFO1993 specifically:
4) There are no 2 'camps' of people, and trying to derivate some psychological traits and preferences from a simple YES/NO ballot is not only some utopian oversimplification, but demagogy by definition. It gets even worse when you add exaggerations on top of that camp system while arbitrary pointing out some minority ("minority of super-competitive guys" etc.).
I do not wish to deconstruct this point by point, as I believe you can understand why this does not add up to the constructive discussion we are supposed to have here :thumb:

Although I will point out that in any discussion thread it is more common to see people up for a change, thats what discussions here are for. Very few people who enjoy the new status quo will pay their time to actually reinforce it here, most will just enjoy it playing the game as it is now.


LOFO1993,
You have also stated that "I read a lot of dismissing in the thread, but no real counter-arguments" - all of the points (except the 4th) in my post are to be found and repeated in many shorter forms in this thread (By GenocidePete and Ysanoire at least, if you care to find it).

"AND there are objective, collective drawbacks to it"[change]. I think I have elaborated on all of the 3 drawbacks you summarised in your post and i doubt the 'objective' part. So I would like your responce on those :)

"On a side note, I still don't see a single universal, objective benefit for this system"
Then here's 4 for you:
:worship: LESS QUEUE TIME, more playtime in close matches, more GOLD, less leavers.

P.s. Less queue time is always in capital letters because its one of the 3 evil whales of Nosgoth :poke:: Too long to find a match; MM is bad ( playercount too low); Game needs opimisation.

LOFO1993
28th Jul 2015, 11:13
1) You do not get less PLAYTIME with the new system.

Some matches got shorter -> You're back into lobby/matchmaking faster, you are available as a player again - > LESS QUEUE TIME for everyone -> You are in a game faster -> You play more individual games in a chosen time interval
Its exactly the SAME PLAYTIME as before. Its a rigid equation.

Hence, the same experience to level anything you want, but more gold actually.

Yes, if you can just start playing and go on as long as you like, you are going to play pretty much the same overall amount of minutes. But if you play less or more overall has everything to do with the way matches joint inside your playtime.

I thought a bit more deeply on this point, and I think the new system has a chance of making you play more the longer your play session is, but it also has a concrete chance of making you play less for short sessions.

If I have one hour of spare time, I could play 2 matches before, and I'm gonna play 2 matches now (because, even if the first 2 games end up quicker thanks to the new system, when I have 10 minutes spare I can't tell how long the third game is gonna last, and I'm not starting one). But those 2 matches last less, so I am playing less.


The new system does bring more gold, that's actually true; but I really don't think the difference is really sensible (what, you get one more game out of 4 or 5, so 50 gold minus 3/4 gold you could have earned in the portions of games that were cut? So it's very roughly 35 gold more every 2 hours or so, when you're alrady making in the hundreds).



2) You CAN play any class/items and EXPERIMENT ANYTIME you want. Thinking otherwise is not about current game rules (there's nothing to restrict you) and has nothing to do with the old/new match ending system, its about your totally subjective self-imposed rules. Its totally ok to have those, for example in regard of 'fair play'. But its 100% your choice to have those exact set of rules and you can change or modify them anytime.

What makes me wonder here is that those same people who claim to play because they like the game and do not care much for the wins/losses, actually modify their behavior so much that they can only experiment and even as some claim it - 'learn the game and new classes' ONLY after the game result is decided!
Guys, just promise me you will try and not play your main classes/favourite setups on secondary classes for a week. That'll bring the full joy of Nosgoth back to you, and you will actually LEARN a lot and get that best sort of dopamine encouragement from your brain ;)
And, yeah, it will have nothing to do with the formal rules of the game, bacause they haven't changed :)

Here you're either putting up a strawman or you don't get the mentality at all.

As one of "those people", it's not true that I just don't care if I win or lose , and I don't think anybody said anything different. Of course I'm trying to win when I play. The difference is my first goal, even before "winning", is playing well. Which generally leads to winning, but is not dependant on it.


I do usually play different classes than my first choices, because I've already levelled those up to the max. I still suck at a couple of classes, so this point could be relevant to me, but I fare pretty decently with several classes, so I don't really care personally.

The problem is, this is a team game. If your team is terrible, not only you are not gonna win, but you're also prevented from accomplishing anything at all - the "playing well" I was talking about before.

So please, don't tell me I'm secretly a WAAC trying to hide behind some twisted thinking - because I'm definitely not. All I'm saying is I don't want people around me to be incentivised to play even worse than you already happen to see; not because I want so bad to win, but because I want to have at least a chance to make a step without being obliterated - and I think when conversely the other team is in that situation it's not much better, even thought that is a granted victory for me.


With the old system, at least everybody knew they had a "dedicated" time for errors. When the game was already won or almost won, and just a couple of minutes were left, you could say "you know what, let's play some Sentinel for my last two or three lives".

So you had a chance of using your "bad" class without interfering too much with the enjoyment of the game for your team, those who really wanted to win had nothing to complain about and the enemy team could even a couple of minutes of a break, in case of utter stomping. It was a natural way to make the game lighter once it was "officially" over, it didn't really do any harm to anybody playing, but it had several advantaged.

Now that's gone by definition, no matter what the people playing actually want to do.


Hence, a surrender vote would be better in this regard, because it would still eliminate the frustration but give the players a choice between the old and the new system.



3) You don't learn well or enjoy it when you are underskilled for a challenge.

(Psychology - I won't bother giving the many obvious links about challenge level -> learning results, but just one on the popular Flow theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_%28psychology%29). A quick citation: "One must have a good balance between the perceived challenges of the task at hand and their own perceived skills. One must have confidence in one's ability to complete the task at hand". One of the guys (LOFO1993) also challenged the point about having a clear objective, so here's one for you - "One must be involved in an activity with a clear set of goals and progress. This adds direction and structure to the task").

A bit more Nosgoth specific stuff on LOFO1993's point "less chances for new players to see how a good working team plays":
As a new player you don't get to see what makes a good opponents' team actually good, except the initiate sync timing if there is one. Most cases you won't even get the chance to see and understand what makes your own team, especially yourself, worse. You will get to see that the guy on the left got grabbed first so 'he is bad', and 'nobody covered me' or 'I got focused' and other stuff that gives you very little meaningful opportunities to actualy learn. Also you will get a tonn of frustration that will make you reluctant to analyze and learn. The best opportunities to learn are those close calls which give you a very intrinsical feeling of "I have almost..", "If i could have done that exact action" and "If I have come from the other side, then i'd have that last hit" that stick deep into you with no extra effort from your conscience.

The people you're describing, who think everybody else is bad and they're never doing the wrong thing, are usually beyond redemption, so to speak, no matter how much they play or in what situation, because they can't read a situation critically enough. So, I franky don't care about them, and I don't think they will learn much even when they are winning or in a close game.


Assuming one's not that kind of person, I'm of the idea every kind of situation you encounter can teach you something. Playing against a very good Sentinel player for a game makes you understand their attack pattern, seeing how a Deceiver goes in and out during a fight is something you can try and emulate, and you learn a lot of tricks and tactics when somebody performs them around you or on you.

Of course if you're getting stomped over and over and over it's not gonna be a positive experience overall, and that should be prevented... but the way a match ends doesn't fix that, it just hides it. Instead of getting stomped, you don't play at all, which can in no way be more educational.


I franky don't even understand what you're talking about with the first paragraph or why you're quoting that stuff. Of course 99% of the people feel better when they manage to accomplish something - but that's completely off-topic, and this is an online game, so by definition somebody is always gonna win and somebody is always gonna lose. This is not at stake here, as it's not the fact matches start off already unbalanced more often than not.

If you want to tackle the issue of unbalanced matches and stompings by altering a running match, then why not introducing a vote for surrender? Doesn't that fix the issue just as well, but doesn't also interfere with a number of other things in the game?



to LOFO1993 specifically:
4) There are no 2 'camps' of people, and trying to derivate some psychological traits and preferences from a simple YES/NO ballot is not only some utopian oversimplification, but demagogy by definition. It gets even worse when you add exaggerations on top of that camp system while arbitrary pointing out some minority ("minority of super-competitive guys" etc.).
I do not wish to deconstruct this point by point, as I believe you can understand why this does not add up to the constructive discussion we are supposed to have here :thumbsup:

Although I will point out that in any discussion thread it is more common to see people up for a change, thats what discussions here are for. Very few people who enjoy the new status quo will pay their time to actually reinforce it here, most will just enjoy it playing the game as it is now.

And this is, once again, not what I said or why I said it.


I never tried to incapsulate everybody, or derive their psicology or anything, from "a simple YES/NO ballot". You're talking as if, based on what someone prefers on an online game, I tried to over-analyse someone's personality, or motives, or even try do undermine them. I really don't think I did that, I certainly didn't want to do that, and if what I wrote gives that impression I expressed myself poorly.

I'm working on simple logic to understand what detriment this change has on the perception of the game to the players.


A change is applied: EVERYBODY is going to either have a positive, negative or neutral reaction to that, or not have a reaction at all. This is tautologic.

Those who have a neutral reaction to the issue ("I like the new system as much as the old one"), or don't care about it at all ("I don't care"), are clearly as fine with one or the other. So more power to them, but whatever is done now won't affect their enjoyment of the game. That's why I didn't even consider them in my initial reasoning.

Those who have either a good or bad response to one of the two systems, on the contrary, have their perception of the game affected. This, in theory, should matter in deciding which one is better. But, I already agreed in a former post that we can't really count how many people are liking the new or the old system more.


So, trying to stay logical and rational, I completely abandoned the partial impression of either "groups" (which is a term I use with a mathematical, not social, meaning), no matter what they were, and moved to the overall effects the new system brings to the game.

Which is what we should be discussing, really, if this discussion has any reason to exist at all.




LOFO1993,
You have also stated that "I read a lot of dismissing in the thread, but no real counter-arguments" - all of the points (except the 4th) in my post are to be found and repeated in many shorter forms in this thread (By GenocidePete and Ysanoire at least, if you care to find it).

"AND there are objective, collective drawbacks to it"[change]. I think I have elaborated on all of the 3 drawbacks you summarised in your post and i doubt the 'objective' part. So I would like your responce on those :)

"On a side note, I still don't see a single universal, objective benefit for this system"
Then here's 4 for you: LESS QUEUE TIME, more playtime in close matches, more GOLD, less leavers.

P.s. Less queue time is always in capital letters because its one of the 3 evil whales of Nosgoth :poke:: Too long to find a match; MM is bad ( playercount too low); Game needs opimisation.

And I think I have responded to your elaborations. Hope that helps.


Less queue time: Possibly, but I think overall it's not gonna do much of a difference. The lenght of a match also dictates how often someone is queuing, so in abstract that should make more people available during queuing, but the time difference we're talking about here is really not that big.

And a surrender vote would still end prematurely most of the games that are giving the biggest boost to queueing, so it would be basically the same thing.

More playtime in close matches: Again, I'm not really sold on this one. In long sessions it's possible to fit one more match with the times you saved from other games, but you would have been playing anyway for that same amount of time. Look at it as two chains running in parallel, but one has slightly smaller rings. Rings are games, and nodes are queues. At a given time the chains stop, and if a joint is sitting on the end line the chain slides forward by one ring. Smaller rings do mean a higher chance of hitting the hard node, but the different in lenght here is very small.

And, again, you can save almost the same amount of time with a surrender vote.

More gold: This is true. But the difference is really small, and it could be achieved by increasing gold drops without having to alter game times. So this is more a side effect due to how gold is dropped at the time being, and is not an intrinsic benefit to how the ending system works.

And, for the third time, a surrender vote would still produce a very similar result.

Less leavers: This is true.

But once again, a surrender vote would produce the same identical result.



So, as you see, I'm not convinced this system is better than a surrender vote in any possible way, except for a matter of seconds of queuing and single digits of leavers. While the latter, if implemented, would still give people a choice on what to do and when do it, producing more happy players overall.



By the way, this happened the other day. We were playing Drag the Body, and we were winning. One more corpse to the altar, and the game was prematurely over, due to the current system. One of my teammates explicitly asked us to keep the body steady somewhere so that the others had some more time to kill some Humans before the game was over.

Make of that what you prefer.

xNarcissusx
28th Jul 2015, 11:36
1) You do not get less PLAYTIME with the new system.

Some matches got shorter -> You're back into lobby/matchmaking faster, you are available as a player again - > LESS QUEUE TIME for everyone -> You are in a game faster -> You play more individual games in a chosen time interval
Its exactly the SAME PLAYTIME as before. Its a rigid equation.




There is absolutely no evidence to support either claim on this. You either assume that the wait time between matches is the same as it was before or that it's been decreased. Lobbies still frequently get stuck at 7/8, matches are still hugely unfair which causes most people to leave the lobby after the first match anyway which almost inevitably forces you to requeue or get stuck in a lobby alone. Yes as you say you get back into the lobby/queue faster, but that doesn't mean you find a new match faster than before. The average people in the queue will very likely be the exact same, after all the number of players haven't increased. Matches might end a minute or two earlier but that only speeds up your queue time if they don't all remain on the same server otherwise you will still be searching, or if you are on the server and no one left.

I haven't personally noticed any difference between queue times now and a month ago. Does that mean there is no change? How should I know not like I paid enough attention to it before to run any comparisons. It all depends on when you play, and what day it is, what event is going on.

Grisamentum
29th Jul 2015, 12:46
1) You do not get less PLAYTIME with the new system.

Some matches got shorter -> You're back into lobby/matchmaking faster, you are available as a player again - > LESS QUEUE TIME for everyone

Unless people leave & you have to wait for more players.


-> You are in a game faster

Unless people leave & you have to wait for more players.


-> You play more individual games in a chosen time interval

Unless you're waiting in the lobby for more players since people left.


Its exactly the SAME PLAYTIME as before.

But it's not shared equally between both races. I played 2 games in a row last week where I started as humans. I got 10 minutes as humans both times, obviously, & as vampires I got 1 minute 30 & 2 minutes 30. What if I'd kept playing? Would I have had 30 minutes as humans & 10 minutes as vamps altogether? That's unbalanced. The gameplay only works if it is balanced & likewise if players are getting more time as one race over another (considering people often have a favourite) they'll probably start playing less.


Its a rigid equation.

It is until you add real people to it. People that will quit the game because they're losing or because of one of the many bugs the game still has or because they got put on a server too far away & their ping made the game unplayable & they left. Or because they have other things to do in their lives.
You're equation works if you have a bunch of bots playing the game. Not human beings.
I waited 30 minutes to get into a game last night then another 15 for the next match. The new system has not fixed anything, I just get to play my favourite side less.

GenocidePete
29th Jul 2015, 20:52
But it's not shared equally between both races. I played 2 games in a row last week where I started as humans. I got 10 minutes as humans both times, obviously, & as vampires I got 1 minute 30 & 2 minutes 30. What if I'd kept playing? Would I have had 30 minutes as humans & 10 minutes as vamps altogether?
Aww, the poor thing wasn't allowed to get annihilated for ten more minutes against a clearly superior team. I guess we should all endure terrible games for his sake. Vampires are his favorite, after all.

cmstache
29th Jul 2015, 21:03
Actually, he has a valid point. With humans in particular, the only way to get better is to practice. The new system doesn't give that.

cmstache
29th Jul 2015, 22:03
Unless you start as vampires, win by 6 because the other team knows how to play, then play for 6 minutes instead of 10 as humans that you need practice with and get wrecked because you don't get practice. Get the loop?

Ygdrasel
29th Jul 2015, 22:20
Aww, the poor thing wasn't allowed to get annihilated for ten more minutes against a clearly superior team. I guess we should all endure terrible games for his sake. Vampires are his favorite, after all.

If you don't want to endure 'terrible games' for the sake of others improving, you can always leave yourself...

xNarcissusx
29th Jul 2015, 22:35
Aww, the poor thing wasn't allowed to get annihilated for ten more minutes against a clearly superior team. I guess we should all endure terrible games for his sake. Vampires are his favorite, after all.

Actually he could have been winning those matches. He never said that he lost the rounds as human, just that he likes to play vampires more. He might have actually wanted to "annihilate" people for 10 more minutes.

GenocidePete
29th Jul 2015, 22:39
Unless you start as vampires, win by 6 because the other team knows how to play, then play for 6 minutes instead of 10 as humans that you need practice with and get wrecked because you don't get practice. Get the loop?
Let's pretend there exists a team that is so terrible at playing as the humans that they can't get a single kill in the first round. How much playtime are they going to get in the second round as a vampire? Virtually none. Every time this team begins as the humans, they'll get almost no playtime as the vampires. But when they start as the vampires, their second round will be a bit longer because they've scored some kills in the first round. This, obviously, results in more net playtime as the humans -- which they're worse with -- than as the vampires.


Actually he could have been winning those matches. He never said that he lost the rounds as human, just that he likes to play vampires more. He might have actually wanted to "annihilate" people for 10 more minutes.

True, but either way, someone was getting annihilated in his scenario. Even if he were having fun doing the annihilating, how likely is it that everyone else was enjoying it as well? My point remains even if the results are reversed.

Ygdrasel
29th Jul 2015, 22:49
Let's pretend there exists a team that is so terrible at playing as the humans that they can't get a single kill in the first round. How much playtime are they going to get in the second round as a vampire? Virtually none. Every time this team begins as the humans, they'll get almost no playtime as the vampires. But when they start as the vampires, their second round will be a bit longer because they've scored some kills in the first round. This, obviously, results in more net playtime as the humans -- which they're worse with -- than as the vampires.

And far less time with the vampires, which will annoy players who prefer them (regardless of their skill with them).

Any system that forces something is going to be opposed just by human nature anyway so this was a bad way to go right off the bat, forcing matches to end like that. A surrender vote would be far more acceptable while achieving the same result.

Though in general, I remain of the mentality that if one's fun is somehow totally ruined just by losing (presumably those being 'annihilated' who would want the match ended earlier) or winning 'too much' (seriously?), they shouldn't engage in any manner of competitive thing ever. But that's just me.

GenocidePete
29th Jul 2015, 23:25
And far less time with the vampires, which will annoy players who prefer them (regardless of their skill with them).

Any system that forces something is going to be opposed just by human nature anyway so this was a bad way to go right off the bat, forcing matches to end like that. A surrender vote would be far more acceptable while achieving the same result.

Though in general, I remain of the mentality that if one's fun is somehow totally ruined just by losing (presumably those being 'annihilated' who would want the match ended earlier) or winning 'too much' (seriously?), they shouldn't engage in any manner of competitive thing ever. But that's just me.
Far less time? Based on what, the unrealistic scenario I described? For the vast majority of people, the difference in playtime won't be great.

The terrible arguments never cease. If a team loses 59:60, it is a fundamentally different experience than losing 0:60. Would it be all right for me to say that the former is generally more fun than the latter without a master debater telling me that it's subjective? It's not just a matter of losing, it's a matter of there being little or no contest between two teams. Such cases should not be prolonged.

And no, a surrender vote does not accomplish the same thing as an automatic score-based end. The ability to surrender introduces several issues to a game:

1. People are more likely to feel resignation when a game isn't going well if the option to quit is available.
2. Surrender votes often take time.
3. Surrender votes require a certain level of consensus that is often difficult to achieve and can result in frustration when the vote fails.

There should be a surrender option only if someone leaves the game and hasn't returned after X time has elapsed (with various tweaks to prevent griefing). Aside from that, no, it's not an adequate solution. As I've said before, if it truly is the case that most Nosgoth players wish to play the two full rounds, implement a system that allows players to vote for the option in the background during a match.

Grisamentum
30th Jul 2015, 06:25
Aww, the poor thing wasn't allowed to get annihilated for ten more minutes against a clearly superior team. I guess we should all endure terrible games for his sake. Vampires are his favorite, after all.

Clearly superior? Why would you make that assumption? I never said what the score was in the first round. Also I've played loads of games where both sides won with 30 kills or near enough as vampires but were nowhere near as good as humans...it's a common occurrence. Some people can't aim to save their lives & are hopeless as humans but are way better as vampires. You sound like you don't even play the game.

And you don't have to endure anything, btw. You can ragequit your game if your team aren't winning for you, Gen. LOL

CraneL
30th Jul 2015, 15:01
I keep seeing the higher net playtime argument, but LOFO1993 already provided a counterexample that disproves the argument:



If I have one hour of spare time, I could play 2 matches before, and I'm gonna play 2 matches now (because, even if the first 2 games end up quicker thanks to the new system, when I have 10 minutes spare I can't tell how long the third game is gonna last, and I'm not starting one). But those 2 matches last less, so I am playing less.


Moving on.



And no, a surrender vote does not accomplish the same thing as an automatic score-based end. The ability to surrender introduces several issues to a game:

1. People are more likely to feel resignation when a game isn't going well if the option to quit is available.
2. Surrender votes often take time.
3. Surrender votes require a certain level of consensus that is often difficult to achieve and can result in frustration when the vote fails.


1. People are far more likely to feel disheartened when a game isn't going well if it's guaranteed to end early. Sometimes there's not even any point to playing the second round because it's just going to end quickly anyway.
2. Know what else takes time? Respawning. People can just vote when they're respawning.
3. Flying Spaghetti Monster forbid that a vote require consensus! It's much better and much less frustrating for decisions to be thrust upon us that we had no say in. It spares us the frustration of losing a vote. (/s. I shouldn't have to point out this is sarcasm, but the quality of the arguments on the other side makes me think it can't hurt to be clear.)

You know what else results in frustration? The game forcing us to surrender when we don't want to!



And you don't have to endure anything, btw. You can ragequit your game if your team aren't winning for you, Gen. LOL


Yes. If people don't want to play after the outcome has been decided, they can just leave. But those of us who want to keep playing have no similarly instantaneous and simple recourse.

If the developers were trying to decrease the incidence of people ragequitting, they chose a bad way to do it. Now instead of some people ragequitting, the game effectively forces everyone to ragequit. I don't want to be lowered to the ragequitters' level, and it takes some of the fun out of the game.

Ysanoire
30th Jul 2015, 16:24
Any system that forces something is going to be opposed just by human nature anyway so this was a bad way to go right off the bat (...),


You mean like being FORCED to play a game beyond the point where it is meaningful? Totally.

I oppose this argument because its only merit lies in the assumption that the default is what we're used to. For me it's not the default, the default is what makes more sense.


I keep seeing the higher net playtime argument, but LOFO1993 already provided a counterexample that disproves the argument:

Except it doesn't disprove it because it's just as possible that you'd play 3 games under the new system where you'd previously play 2 games and have 10 minutes spare.

Ygdrasel
30th Jul 2015, 16:33
You mean like being FORCED to play a game beyond the point where it is meaningful? Totally.

I don't think you understand what the word "forced" means. You can LEAVE if you see the game as a lost cause. The option EXISTS. Nothing FORCES you to stay. (Though if the only meaning for you lies in the 'win' or 'lose' at the very end of it, I have no idea why you're playing a game or, indeed, doing anything at all.)

Meanwhile, in this system, those who DON'T want to leave have no choice because it's automatic. NO option exists. THAT is force.


Far less time? Based on what, the unrealistic scenario I described?

1. People are more likely to feel resignation when a game isn't going well if the option to quit is available.
2. Surrender votes often take time.
3. Surrender votes require a certain level of consensus that is often difficult to achieve and can result in frustration when the vote fails.

So...Let me see if I understand this. You invented this scenario to make the point of "They'll play more total time as [x]!" and it was perfectly fine but I use the very same scenario toward the equally valid opposite conclusion and it's unrealistic?

Okay. Yeah. Sure.

1. Okay. Ignoring for now that that is quite subjective, it also rather illustrates the point. This system does not allow players the freedom to CHOOSE resignation. You say, and pardon my paraphrase, "But they'll feel more resigned!" - And you would solve this by forcing resignation upon them regardless? Brilliant. Or maybe it's that other thing, nonsensical?

2. Everything takes time. Cooking takes time - shall we stop eating? Pregnancies take time - shall we let the species die? Waiting in lobbies takes time. Playing the game takes time. Have you already quit Nosgoth because it requires time? "It takes time" is a completely meaningless argument.

3. Know what else results in frustration? Being forcibly ousted. If surrender consensus is not achieved, guess what? The guys who wanted surrender suck it up and play through. If it is achieved, guess what? The guys who wanted to continue suck it up and enter a new game. That's how voting works. If you win, you move on. If you lose, you move on. And it's hardly an oppressive Herculean task to reach consensus anyway. It's only four people. Three by majority rules. Not even remotely a big deal. Again a meaningless argument.

Ysanoire
30th Jul 2015, 16:44
The option that punishes you with a cooldown and takes your rewards away? Yeah, it exists, but I don't know why you'd compare it with a normal way to end a match. The ability to keep playing the game ALSO exists in the form of a new game.

CraneL
30th Jul 2015, 18:56
The option that punishes you with a cooldown and takes your rewards away? Yeah, it exists, but I don't know why you'd compare it with a normal way to end a match. The ability to keep playing the game ALSO exists in the form of a new game.

If you're ok with the round ending early, for you, what's wrong with having a cooldown and missing out on your rewards? It's a small price to pay for not having to waste time playing a match that's already been decided, right? Because based on your side's responses, playing a round that has already been decided must be terrible enough to justify ruining the game for everyone else.

We had a fine, normal way to end the match. The devs scrapped it to cater to people who only care about winning or losing, not actually playing the game. In the process they kind of ruined it for the rest of us. Pardon me for thinking you guys should be left out high and dry so that those of us who actually enjoy the game whether or not we're winning can enjoy the game again. If we stick with your solution then everyone is effectively forced to ragequit.

But I'm not suggesting we revert to the old system. I'm suggesting enabling the option to vote for surrender at the point where the new system would end the match, thereby giving everyone a chance to get what they want.

Of course you'd oppose a compromise; you already have the system you want.




Not very likely. Those people will leave the game. Not in every case, but I promise you, very often.
Then you've got a 3v4 again what everyone is crying about and agrees on that it's worse than starting a new match.

I think forcing the round to end is worse than 3v4, especially since it's not too difficult to get a replacement player quickly.



But it really looks like the discussion here has come to an end. People offered their arguments and now it just seems like a bitter battle of who can ignore or twist around the other one's arguments more.


You have a point there. I wish the developers would enter the fray and put an end to things.

Ygdrasel
30th Jul 2015, 19:24
The option that punishes you with a cooldown and takes your rewards away? Yeah, it exists, but I don't know why you'd compare it with a normal way to end a match. The ability to keep playing the game ALSO exists in the form of a new game.

New games in Nosgoth can take hours to even assign you to a lobby on account of matchmaking being the worst pile of garbage ever. Never mind the lobby actually filling up in less than twenty minutes (at best). A button exists that says "Leave". This button is accessible during active matches. Seems like a fairly normal method to end things. And I don't know why you'd compare forced arbitrary match ends with a normal way to end a match either. There are only three "normal" ways to end a match for the whole team: One team reaches the win condition (30 kills or whatever it may be). Time runs out. One team surrenders to the other. And of course the 'Leave' button to end it for individuals.

"HEY YOU WANNA KEEP PLAYING, WELL TOO BAD *END*" is not even normal at a stretch.

Regardless, starting a new game is not an option to keep playing the CURRENT game to a proper end which is the option players should have available to them, hence a vote.

Your rewards are a tradeoff for leaving before you're meant to leave. If that trade is too steep, stay until the end. If you're losing too much to enjoy playing, use the remainder of a match to learn and improve for the next one. If you're winning too much to enjoy playing, well...That's ridiculous. Even the very process of winning bores you? In a competitive game? No sense in it. Sore losers and sore winners alike are just tedious.

Bazielim
30th Jul 2015, 22:00
Okay guys, can we try to keep it on-topic and civil please?
Going off-topic and personal isn't really acceptable

Bazielim
31st Jul 2015, 12:24
Okay this thread is getting little too heated and personal for the moment,
until further notice topic closed so we can all cool off.

CraneL
11th Aug 2015, 19:43
Alright, the forum's finally been reopened. Any developers want to step in and give us some news? Maybe share your perspective?

Cordirius
13th Aug 2015, 14:48
Its nice, but having surrender vote i think is better ... some matches you wanna fight it till the end and some others u just wanna stop playing and even breathing :)

Saikocat
13th Aug 2015, 15:36
A surrender vote option is something we're looking at adding, yep.


Alright, the forum's finally been reopened. Any developers want to step in and give us some news? Maybe share your perspective?

At the moment we've made some tweaks to the UI so make the scoring clearer, and this may change more, but I don't have any other significant news to share just yet (other than the above). Do keep the constructive feedback coming though!

CraneL
13th Aug 2015, 21:39
A surrender vote option is something we're looking at adding, yep.


YES!