Page 6 of 6 First First ... 23456

Thread: New "End Of Match" scoring - July 16th 2015

New "End Of Match" scoring - July 16th 2015

  1. #126
    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. 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

    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:
    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 : Too long to find a match; MM is bad ( playercount too low); Game needs opimisation.
    Last edited by Farnbeak; 28th Jul 2015 at 09:49.

  2. #127
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    318
    Originally Posted by Farnbeak
    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).


    Originally Posted by Farnbeak
    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.


    Originally Posted by Farnbeak
    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. 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?


    Originally Posted by Farnbeak
    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

    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.


    Originally Posted by Farnbeak
    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 : 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.
    Last edited by LOFO1993; 28th Jul 2015 at 17:48.

  3. #128
    Originally Posted by Farnbeak
    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.

  4. #129
    Originally Posted by Farnbeak
    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.

    Originally Posted by Farnbeak
    -> You are in a game faster
    Unless people leave & you have to wait for more players.

    Originally Posted by Farnbeak
    -> You play more individual games in a chosen time interval
    Unless you're waiting in the lobby for more players since people left.

    Originally Posted by Farnbeak
    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.

    Originally Posted by Farnbeak
    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.
    Orange liches from Blood Omen in Nosgoth asap pls

  5. #130
    Originally Posted by Grisamentum
    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.

  6. #131
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Greensboro, NC
    Posts
    2,091
    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.
    Sausage-Member of 200g-My Twitch Stream, Livesignature image

  7. #132
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Greensboro, NC
    Posts
    2,091
    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?
    Sausage-Member of 200g-My Twitch Stream, Livesignature image

  8. #133
    Originally Posted by GenocidePete
    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...

  9. #134
    Originally Posted by GenocidePete
    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.

  10. #135
    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.

    Originally Posted by xNarcissusx
    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.
    Last edited by Bazielim; 29th Jul 2015 at 22:51. Reason: merged consecutive posts

  11. #136
    Originally Posted by GenocidePete
    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.
    Last edited by Ygdrasel; 29th Jul 2015 at 22:56.

  12. #137
    Originally Posted by Ygdrasel
    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.

  13. #138
    Originally Posted by GenocidePete
    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
    Orange liches from Blood Omen in Nosgoth asap pls

  14. #139
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    16
    I keep seeing the higher net playtime argument, but LOFO1993 already provided a counterexample that disproves the argument:

    Originally Posted by LOFO1993
    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.

    Originally Posted by GenocidePete
    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!

    Originally Posted by Grisamentum
    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.

  15. #140
    Originally Posted by Ygdrasel
    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.

    Originally Posted by CraneL
    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.

  16. #141
    Originally Posted by Ysanoire
    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.

    Originally Posted by GenocidePete
    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.
    Last edited by Ygdrasel; 30th Jul 2015 at 17:02.

  17. #142
    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.

  18. #143
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    16
    Originally Posted by Ysanoire
    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.



    Originally Posted by xSanBro
    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.

    Originally Posted by xSanBro
    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.

  19. #144
    Originally Posted by Ysanoire
    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.
    Last edited by Ygdrasel; 30th Jul 2015 at 19:30.

  20. #145
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Heathrow, London
    Posts
    758
    Okay guys, can we try to keep it on-topic and civil please?
    Going off-topic and personal isn't really acceptable
    signature image
    Join us and help write the history of Nosgoth at the Legacy of Kain Wiki encyclopedia

  21. #146
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Heathrow, London
    Posts
    758
    Okay this thread is getting little too heated and personal for the moment,
    until further notice topic closed so we can all cool off.
    signature image
    Join us and help write the history of Nosgoth at the Legacy of Kain Wiki encyclopedia

  22. #147
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    16
    Alright, the forum's finally been reopened. Any developers want to step in and give us some news? Maybe share your perspective?

  23. #148
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    1
    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

  24. #149
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    1,424
    A surrender vote option is something we're looking at adding, yep.

    Originally Posted by CraneL
    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!
    Square Enix Europe Community Manager
    Nosgoth Community : Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Twitch

  25. #150
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    16
    Originally Posted by Saikocat
    A surrender vote option is something we're looking at adding, yep.
    YES!

Page 6 of 6 First First ... 23456