Return to Lobby?

[prometheus]

Situation:
Difference in points between the teams is greater than the possible amount of points remaining in the campaign.

Losing team initiates a Return to Lobby vote, in essence, conceding the game.

Do you:
A) Accept their resignation or B) force them to play the rest of the game while they are in the knowledge that it is absolutely hopeless.

Now, I am pro-A, so lets run down the reasons:

Reasons for A
Nothing to accomplish
If there is some chance of winning, I'm absolutely against turning in the game because if it so happens that we do pull through that is a very rewarding experience. If there is no chance of winning, playing the final level is very frustrating because you have essentially nothing to accomplish.

The person that wants to leave probably will anyways
You can't force people to play the game. ~, "exit". By immediately exiting people aren't forced to dwell on "you're gonna lose" for a round and are less likely (in my experience) to be fed up and leave. Those that do want to stick around can and be re-randomized for another game.

Reasons for B
The game is "not over"
What does this mean? The competition, and ergo the game, is effectively over by virtue of there being no ambiguity as to the outcome. Some have likened it to a football game where one team is down by lots in the 4th quarter, but unlike football, a) we are not being paid to entertain, and b) there isn't much of a limit to the amount of points you can score.

[Gizanked]

I am against a return to lobby based off of point differential in around 99% of the situations. I play, because i like to PLAY THE GAME with friends. I could probably go on about this, and I can see why people do it, i just don't like it

[Stevo]

I don't care about points. Escaping should be the goal.

[TheCarpe]

Guess you had someone else get on your case for doing this again, huh?

We discussed this at length before, and I still stand by what I said then. The game is over when the rescue vehicle leaves, or the survivor team is dead in the finale. Before that happens, it's a premature end of game and while you may not enjoy that last round, you're essentially thumbing your nose at the opposing team by denying them the ability to see through the victory they earned, as well as potentially leaving behind teammates willing to see it to it's conclusion. Believe what you like about people "feeling" like they won because the points were high enough, ending or dismantling the game before it's reached it's natural conclusion is immensely unsatisfying.

As with the last time we discussed this, I'm sorry if you take offense or feel differently, but to me it seems very selfish.

[Princess]

Nah man, when someone says GG that's it. That's the end of the game. Since L4D1/2 are competitions, if one team wants to bail that should be it. I don't see how that diminishes the winning team's accomplishments or enjoyment or anything.

Least that's proper etiquette how I was raised on RTS's. Seems more rude to not call GG, since you're effectively making them play out the rest of the already decided game.

[TheCarpe]

[quote="Princess";p="226814"]Nah man, when someone says GG that's it. That's the end of the game. Since L4D1/2 are competitions, if one team wants to bail that should be it. I don't see how that diminishes the winning team's accomplishments or enjoyment or anything.

Least that's proper etiquette how I was raised on RTS's. Seems more rude to not call GG, since you're effectively making them play out the rest of the already decided game.[/quote]

I do say GG win or lose. When the game is over. When the rescue vehicle comes or the party dies. That is when the game is over.

I play RTS's too. I stick around pumping out units till my last man and building fell, hopeless or not. I don't like it when games end before their natural conclusion. I'm there to play, winning is a bonus.

[Princess]

That's a different meaning of GG. An GG ingame is like tapping out if your friend has got you in a headlock. It's like, yeah, I recognize I lost. No need to drag this out. Let's go again and get another GG going.

[TheCarpe]

I dunno, it's like people who play TF2, who fight hard for 15-20 minutes and claim the game sucked because they lost their final cap point in the final moments. No it didn't. You enjoyed the game. You just didn't like the ending. We all enjoy the game, that's why we play it. Winning is nice, but it's not everything.

[Princess]

That's very different, especially in the case you gave. If they lost in the last few minutes it was a close game.

This is closer to a chess match where you blunder and lose your queen and two rooks and only take out their knights and a couple pawns. It's like, sure, maybe you can win, but c'mon, wouldn't you rather chalk it up as a loss, say GG, and put the pieces back in order for another game?

[TTHREAZ]

If Versus was played like a Campaign and the game was continuous, then yes, escaping is the goal. However, since each round is played with a fresh start, save for the accumulated point total of each team, this is not the case.

Since the Winter Olympics are upon us, I was reading up on Curling the other day and noticed a piece that I base my opinion of concession on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curling#Conceding_a_game

When a team feels it is impossible or near impossible to win a game, they will usually shake hands with the opposing team to concede defeat. This may occur at any point during the game, but usually happens near the final end. When a game is completed by playing all ends, both teams also shake hands. Hands are also shaken before the game, accompanied by saying "Good curling!" to the opposing team. In the Winter Olympics, a team may concede after finishing any end during a round-robin game, but can only concede after finishing eight ends during the knockout stages.

Unlike other sports, there is no negative connotation associated with conceding in curling. In fact, in many competitions, a team is required to concede when it is mathematically impossible for them to tie a game. In more social situations, it is often considered a breach of etiquette (or at least looked down upon) to keep playing when the game is well out of reach.

I know there are people on both sides and nobody is right. However, it's going to be a lose-lose situation for people caught in this scenario. You're going to have people who want to continue playing no matter what that are going to be unhappy if the game is conceded. On the other side, you're going to have people who would rather not continue (perhaps start a fresh game, maybe) that are going to be unhappy because they feel that there is no more point of playing since the game is out of reach.

True, there are no trophies in Versus games. Cash does not spit out of your DVD tray upon winning the match. However, the main point is to have fun and not everyone is going to have fun all the times. Hopefully, you can get a good, close game going. If not, something needs to be done to rectify the situation.

[TheCarpe]

[quote="Princess";p="226818"]That's very different, especially in the case you gave. If they lost in the last few minutes it was a close game.

This is closer to a chess match where you blunder and lose your queen and two rooks and only take out their knights and a couple pawns. It's like, sure, maybe you can win, but c'mon, wouldn't you rather chalk it up as a loss, say GG, and put the pieces back in order for another game?[/quote]

We can make analogies all day but the fact remains that L4D2 is not chess, nor is it football or an RTS. It's a game who's object is to get the survivors of a zombie apocalypse to safety, or die trying. Makes me wish it based it more on speed than points or something, to keep people from getting so SRS BSNS about it.

I could keep going but I'm getting the feeling I should bite my tongue at this point. You don't have to agree with me, and I don't have to like it.

I play till the bitter end. No matter what. I'm there to play, winning is a bonus.

[Princess]

I think THREAZZ summed it up. I'd pretty much agree with everything he says. The first paragraph dictates my views on the point of a VS. match too.

[Plinko]

If you're playing with friends (both teams), I think you should stick it out. If you're playing with some random pubbers and people want to tap out if they think the game is out of hand, so be it. You can't make people stick through a losing game.

If you bail on friends that wanted to finish, they're going to remember that, though. That's a price you have to pay.

[Buzzy Beetle]

Apologies if I sound immensely condescending... I have an incredibly strong and biased view of PvP in L4D/L4D2, I've tried to make this as even-handed as I could.


<soapbox>
Considering that you are relying upon a mere three other people to help you out instead of... say... eleven other people means that the discrepancies in skill become all the more glaring flaws in a versus or scavenge match. This can mean that even the slightest oversight by auto-assign on the lobby can mean the difference between a team of players that are relatively competent vs. a team of players who know all the nuances from playing it very frequently.

Because teams are 4v4 the differences between the two are like night and day. Being able to spot a roll is not terribly difficult and, in my opinion, aught to be met with either the open suggestion to return to lobby or an in-game player switch discussion. I would be naive if I thought that's how it works all the time.

In the player vs. player worlds of either Left 4 Dead or Left 4 Dead 2 I am a minor dabbler. Not being at the front of the curve playtime-wise at either game's launch has easily put me into the category of a player who adds no benefit but at least has a brain to think (eg. not a bot) and because of the large amount of time needed to be set aside to play a versus (IIRC around 2 hours from start to finish for both teams) to join a game of seven other similar-skilled players is a challenge to collaborate outside of the game's launch. Those who play improve and those who don't play don't. This is when skill discrepancies start.

Now, if you're in there for some good fun times with your friends and to enjoy the game prioritizing the experience over the objective then all the power to you. If you're in there prioritizing the objective over the experience that is all fine and well as well (though if I may be so bold I am thinking it is safe to assume that you've either played the game an extensive amount and/or are a relatively competitive player) but if you notice regular player drops than perhaps teams may be a bit uneven.

Personally, the reason why I have been so incredibly adamant against playing Vs/Scavenge games is from being jaded - memories of being on the rolled team time and time again. I am not the player that can make all the difference in the world and it is continually frustrating, but that is how the game is supposed to be - there is no such thing as a one-man army.

But I digress. One thing that I would suggest is that if you are seeing incredibly imbalanced teams why not move to manually have players teamswitch to even things out? I trust that the more regular L4D and L4D2 players can identify themselves from those who are not; perhaps organize things to be a bit more fun and challenging for both teams? Compromise holds the potential for everyone to win, at least hypothetically, though can things really and truly be declared a loss if you went down fighting tooth and nail, drew blood, and lost by the skin of your teeth?

Remember, there are real people behind those textures and hitboxes. It aught to fall to all players to assure everyone is having a good time. Pre-emptive leaving is a good indicator that something is amiss. If you are not on the team that is behind and your opponents just aren't putting up that much of resistance, it might be a good time to discuss salvaging what's left. Not everyone has or wishes to dedicate another 2 hours to simply rinse and repeat.

</soapbox>

[prometheus]

I dunno, it's like people who play TF2, who fight hard for 15-20 minutes and claim the game sucked because they lost their final cap point in the final moments. No it didn't. You enjoyed the game. You just didn't like the ending. We all enjoy the game, that's why we play it. Winning is nice, but it's not everything.

Those people are morons. That's why going into the final round down 1000 to 1899 is something to be thrilled about in L4D2.

Why TF2 is different:
- Huge teams
- Much more constant action with fewer breaks
- If you're playing first-to-three caps or whatever, and it's 2-0, it's still an open game as to who will win

Even within L4D2, scavenge games only go as far as they need to. Lets say the first team gets one can, do you want your turn as Survivors to end only when you get all 16 or die trying? Or totally blow away the first two/three rounds and keep playing the rest?

More times than not the reason for being trounced to such an extent is due to team balance. Sometimes it is obvious in the first map and there have been matches on TV servers that get aborted early and mixed up again. I'm not sure if there is a way to change teams part-way though, however.