I have to agree, people that quit just cause you breached there front line are annoying. Whenever I play, I always stay till the end. I mean, last game i had, I was near wiped out... started a new base, that got overrun and my come was blowen, I escaped with 1 k-bot and wandered round for 5 mins avoiding peoples defenses untill i found a spot in teh middle no-one was in range of, started a new base, and got 3 solers, 2 mexs, 1 LLT, 2 defenders, a radar, and almost a whole kbot lab, befor i was finaly taken out for good.
That was more entertaining than just quiting at he first post for everyone involed, including me and I was losing!
People should stay.
Also... dont start me off on allies who quit without telling you...
aGorm
Do Not Quit When You Start Losing
Moderator: Moderators
In one 2vs2 game in castels, my base was wiped out by a krogoth. It blew up most everything by the time it died. The only thing he didn't get was a clokeable-fusen, a construction or few and a few mexes. I rebuild my base and boy was he supprised when I reserected his krogoth and used it to wipe out his base. I guess he didn't see a reason to defend agnst someone who was "dead". That sure made a diffierence to my ally. 
That game also taught me that about 5 pewees can make a huge diffierence in a krogoth duel.
On the other hand I will admit that it makes a big diffierence if you have an ally.
That game also taught me that about 5 pewees can make a huge diffierence in a krogoth duel.On the other hand I will admit that it makes a big diffierence if you have an ally.
Some people can be really annoying though. They can kill all your allies, then sit and build nukes/big berthas and tons of defence for 30mins when it's obvious it'll only take a meagre force to kill you off.
I don't generally quit in 1vs1's because you'd be surprised how often people come back against impossible odds, but neither do I intend to sit around for 40 minutes while someone plays with me like a cat with a ball of wool. I'll give the guy 10 mins to finish things off and then I'm out of there.
I don't generally quit in 1vs1's because you'd be surprised how often people come back against impossible odds, but neither do I intend to sit around for 40 minutes while someone plays with me like a cat with a ball of wool. I'll give the guy 10 mins to finish things off and then I'm out of there.
-
Gillmor_TA
- Posts: 20
- Joined: 20 May 2005, 06:01
I like to wage war aslong as its posible to do so, if all my production and war units are destroyed i usuly save my enemy the trouble of hunting mexis inless there is an ally who could use the stuff, I think its fun and chalanging to wage gurilla warfare with your small band of veterin troops, one game i actuly rebuilt my base in front of my enemys inside his jammers, but in the end i got killed 
when I lose all of my construction units (mobile and immobile), I am absolutely done for, and I think it'd be best if either give them away to an ally in a team game, or in a duel, give them away to the opponent, a prize for his troubles 
. Giving stuff away in an FFA is uncool though, it's best just to self-d it all.
. Giving stuff away in an FFA is uncool though, it's best just to self-d it all.-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
This is the point I was trying to make before... Some people seem to intentionally make it a lame experiance to be on the losing team vastly beyond the simple displeasure of being bested by a better player. More relevent to team games where a failing ally can cost you alot of relitive power, and since the strong high skilled players tend to get a sense of urgancy when it comes to finishing someone off. But it's extreamly boring to play a losing game where someone locks you behind a line of 30 some odd annihilators and then decides to finish you off with buzzsaws, and I don't have the time to facilitate that for them.Molloy wrote:Some people can be really annoying though. They can kill all your allies, then sit and build nukes/big berthas and tons of defence for 30mins when it's obvious it'll only take a meagre force to kill you off.
I don't generally quit in 1vs1's because you'd be surprised how often people come back against impossible odds, but neither do I intend to sit around for 40 minutes while someone plays with me like a cat with a ball of wool. I'll give the guy 10 mins to finish things off and then I'm out of there.
-
Warlord Zsinj
- Imperial Winter Developer
- Posts: 3742
- Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59
Replying on the situation when someone is 'toying' with you before they kill you...
yes, sometimes people do strike a fatal blow to you, and then spend their new-found time to build up and attack you in some spectacular manner, but that is not always the case. It has happened often enough for me that I have stricken someone else the fatal blow, but having lost so much of my forces in the process that I have to get a "second wind" before proceeding with the mop-up. Sometimes attacks do come down to the wire like that, and by no fault of yours or the opponents, the game can be essentially over but last for many minutes more. In these cases, it is probably best to concede victory
yes, sometimes people do strike a fatal blow to you, and then spend their new-found time to build up and attack you in some spectacular manner, but that is not always the case. It has happened often enough for me that I have stricken someone else the fatal blow, but having lost so much of my forces in the process that I have to get a "second wind" before proceeding with the mop-up. Sometimes attacks do come down to the wire like that, and by no fault of yours or the opponents, the game can be essentially over but last for many minutes more. In these cases, it is probably best to concede victory
-
PauloMorfeo
- Posts: 2004
- Joined: 15 Dec 2004, 20:53
«Oponents should not quit, no matter how displeasing the game might be beeing to them, because i have more fun if they stay while i blow they're stuff.»
Are you guys listening to what you're saying? Is your personal fun so much more important than the oponent's personal fun that it is unthinkable that him abandoning the fight be acceptable!?
Are you guys listening to what you're saying? Is your personal fun so much more important than the oponent's personal fun that it is unthinkable that him abandoning the fight be acceptable!?
My philosophy:
As long as I have something to build with, I'll build.
As long as I have something to fight with, I'll fight.
I also see that when I'm losing as a good opportunity to experiment in directions with risky strategies I may not normally try. I mean, what have I got to lose? Heh. No, seriously, when I'm losing, but still fighting hard, I often learn more about what is effective, etc, than if I were to just pull the plug.
Belmakor
As long as I have something to build with, I'll build.
As long as I have something to fight with, I'll fight.
I also see that when I'm losing as a good opportunity to experiment in directions with risky strategies I may not normally try. I mean, what have I got to lose? Heh. No, seriously, when I'm losing, but still fighting hard, I often learn more about what is effective, etc, than if I were to just pull the plug.
Belmakor
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
-
ChrisCowart
- Posts: 3
- Joined: 24 Feb 2006, 01:00
I think its OK to leave when your opponents are mopping up your resources/factories. I agree that its somewhat bad to leave, especially as host and without warning.
In my opinion, there should be some sort of feature like "silent surrender" where you can leave but your enemies aren't aware of it so both sides can be satisfied. It sounds like a silly idea, but if both sides are satisfied, isn't that the ultimate goal in any situation? The winning side would still get to crush every last standing unit and the losing side would be out trying to get another game going.
The reason I believe this solution would be appropriate is because some TA games can be obscenely long and I can't understand why a losing player would have to wait another 5-20 minutes for their opponent to Krogoth through his base.
Here are some quick ideas I have on this "silent surrender":
1) Game time must be greater than 10 minutes
2) Allies will be informed of the "silent surrenderer" and may silently assume control of their units
3) The "silent surrenderer" may be replaced by an AI (this is questionable, but will allow atleast some challenge for the winning players)
4) The "silent surrenderer" must be under attack by atleast one unit from an enemy
If possible, it would be good that if the host left, the user with the next fastest connection would assume control as the host (this may be determined by applying a metric to each user's ping throughout the game, maybe just an average).
Once again, it seems like a silly idea, but keep in mind that the goal of such a feature would be to keep everyone happy. The winning team would say "Man! We crushed EVERYTHING! HAHA! We did good boys!" and the loser would say "Glad I didn't have to wait for that garbage."
Of course, there are inherent problems with this "silent surrender" feature. Obviously, if someone leaves the game silently, then the attackers don't know he left, which could pose a problem if people leave "silently" instead of normally. A solution to this might be that if the person has an ally, they must agree to let them silently leave in defeat.
In my opinion, there should be some sort of feature like "silent surrender" where you can leave but your enemies aren't aware of it so both sides can be satisfied. It sounds like a silly idea, but if both sides are satisfied, isn't that the ultimate goal in any situation? The winning side would still get to crush every last standing unit and the losing side would be out trying to get another game going.
The reason I believe this solution would be appropriate is because some TA games can be obscenely long and I can't understand why a losing player would have to wait another 5-20 minutes for their opponent to Krogoth through his base.
Here are some quick ideas I have on this "silent surrender":
1) Game time must be greater than 10 minutes
2) Allies will be informed of the "silent surrenderer" and may silently assume control of their units
3) The "silent surrenderer" may be replaced by an AI (this is questionable, but will allow atleast some challenge for the winning players)
4) The "silent surrenderer" must be under attack by atleast one unit from an enemy
If possible, it would be good that if the host left, the user with the next fastest connection would assume control as the host (this may be determined by applying a metric to each user's ping throughout the game, maybe just an average).
Once again, it seems like a silly idea, but keep in mind that the goal of such a feature would be to keep everyone happy. The winning team would say "Man! We crushed EVERYTHING! HAHA! We did good boys!" and the loser would say "Glad I didn't have to wait for that garbage."
Of course, there are inherent problems with this "silent surrender" feature. Obviously, if someone leaves the game silently, then the attackers don't know he left, which could pose a problem if people leave "silently" instead of normally. A solution to this might be that if the person has an ally, they must agree to let them silently leave in defeat.
-
Warlord Zsinj
- Imperial Winter Developer
- Posts: 3742
- Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59
I don't think that is a good solution, because it rather defeats the purpose of playing a human opponent. I want to crush my opponent, not some very basic AI controlling it's movement. My opponent will also prove far more of a challenge than an AI. What's more is that half the point of this thread is that many people will quit while they still have a chance of coming back; a "silent" leaving cannot come back for a player; it is just the same as leaving, but not wasting the victor's time.
I don't think that solution fixes the issues raised by this thread.
I don't think that solution fixes the issues raised by this thread.
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
IMO a win is a win and I don't really care if a person leaves before I finish them off, as long as it doesn't effect thier allies adversely. Depending on the situation I usually don't wait around until someone marches into my base and finishes off my last stragling structure either. Conceding defeate is a function implimented into spring, and any accessable in game function IMO is fair game to be used by people in the game.
I generally wouldn't mind playing a march through game if the condition was stipulated before hand, but it's not assumed as I see it. SJ mentioned the chess analogy, "forcing the winning player to mop up is inpolite". This is just as true to spring because the games can take literal ages to mop up.
I generally wouldn't mind playing a march through game if the condition was stipulated before hand, but it's not assumed as I see it. SJ mentioned the chess analogy, "forcing the winning player to mop up is inpolite". This is just as true to spring because the games can take literal ages to mop up.
-
Warlord Zsinj
- Imperial Winter Developer
- Posts: 3742
- Joined: 24 Aug 2004, 08:59
Please understand the difference between "finishing off the last structure", which certainly could be self destructed, and "quitting when things start to look bad for you".
The chess analogy works assuming we are all grand masters. When two excellent players get going, it is quite clear when the death blow has been struck; both players know it, and hence the losing player can concede honourably.
This is not the case in Spring, where the person who quits in such an instance will be someone who really doesn't know better, and quits without consideration for his opponent, but only himself.
If it was simply a matter of "honourable concessions", then there would be no need to complain, and I don't believe anyone would have any issue about it. This is not what this thread is about. Expecting someone to finish off every last structure wastes everyones time - but quitting before the game has been truly decided, or when victory disappears from sight is certainly not honourable.
Not only does the nature of TA and Spring ensure that victory is never 100% certain until the "victory" screen appears, but, imagine spending the last half hour struggling with your opponent, while secretly building up a hidden force under jamming cover. Your enemy launches his do-or-die strike at you, using all of his forces, and leaving his base dangerously undefended. With your weakened forces at your home base, you now have to throw back his assault while vastly outnumbered, and launch your hidden strike at the moment when it would be too late for him to retreat his forces to defend. Your front line takes a battering, but just as he commits his full forces (aircraft and all) for the death blow, you hit him with your hidden units. All of a sudden, he sees a large number of dots appear from under jammer coverage, and realises he has made a major blunder. He quits.
Sure, you've won. But you won't get any satisfaction out of the fact. It is different to forcing your victorious enemy to search out your final metal extractor. Completely different.
The chess analogy works assuming we are all grand masters. When two excellent players get going, it is quite clear when the death blow has been struck; both players know it, and hence the losing player can concede honourably.
This is not the case in Spring, where the person who quits in such an instance will be someone who really doesn't know better, and quits without consideration for his opponent, but only himself.
If it was simply a matter of "honourable concessions", then there would be no need to complain, and I don't believe anyone would have any issue about it. This is not what this thread is about. Expecting someone to finish off every last structure wastes everyones time - but quitting before the game has been truly decided, or when victory disappears from sight is certainly not honourable.
Not only does the nature of TA and Spring ensure that victory is never 100% certain until the "victory" screen appears, but, imagine spending the last half hour struggling with your opponent, while secretly building up a hidden force under jamming cover. Your enemy launches his do-or-die strike at you, using all of his forces, and leaving his base dangerously undefended. With your weakened forces at your home base, you now have to throw back his assault while vastly outnumbered, and launch your hidden strike at the moment when it would be too late for him to retreat his forces to defend. Your front line takes a battering, but just as he commits his full forces (aircraft and all) for the death blow, you hit him with your hidden units. All of a sudden, he sees a large number of dots appear from under jammer coverage, and realises he has made a major blunder. He quits.
Sure, you've won. But you won't get any satisfaction out of the fact. It is different to forcing your victorious enemy to search out your final metal extractor. Completely different.