INF: End game when it's impossible for blue to win

[Snowden]

Depending on the server configuration, there are situations in INF where it's impossible for blue to win, yet the game continues until time runs out--delaying the inevitable. Example: Red has 90 points, blue has 20 points, and there is 2 minutes left in the game. It would be impossible for blue to accumulate 70 points in only 2 minutes. Award red the win and move on to the next map.

[SpitfirE]

I think some teams would be deprived of win.

For example, Bravo has 88/90 points, there is 10 seconds on the clock. However, Alpha have captured the flag, and are mere inches from the white flag. They could lose a cap/game because of it. Many games end in a cap near the end to ensure a win.

<SpitfirE>

[Snowden]

The suggestion is only to end the game when it is IMPOSSIBLE for Bravo to win. (It's always possible for Alpha to win.) In the example you gave, it's possible for Bravo to win, so the game would continue.

[Sytrus]

Agree'd. This is one thing that I would like.

[Laser Guy]

I think it's a gd idea too. f12

[Mastadi]

@guys who don't understand
If there isn't enough time for Bravo Team to get enough points to win (Alpha's MUST have more points for this to happen) the game automaticaly ends.  If Bravo's are winning, the game shall end when they reach time/point limit. If the Bravo's are loosing, but there's still enough time to get enough points (Like, if there's five minutes left and the score is 59 for bravos and 60 for alpahas), the game continues

@topic
I think you should be able to turn it on and off in server options. Maybe same thing for HTF?

[F3nyx]

Good idea.

[LtKillroy]

no, only because it is fun to run around for two minutes on blue with complete disregard of the flag and just get tons of kills. i guess if this was server side or something it could work, and, sometimes it is annoying when you can't win and you just want to get on with it. Maybe make it a vote or an admin option.

[ChromedGun]

F11.

2 minutes man, 2 minutes! Can't you hang around for 2 god **** minutes? If this is put into the game it will be abused somehow. Besides, what would the limit be? Limit on the lead in x minutes? Nah man, tables can turn very fast. Even if they are like 70 points behind or whatever they can still whoop the other team's ***es. Like Killroy said, you can still earn plenty of kills in the time, get some revenge or whatever. Sure, it's hard to (impossible to?) accumulate 70 points in 2 minutes, even if you surf with minigun at the same time as your team boosts you with nades, m79 and spas, you won't make it.

This feature would probably just be annoying for the losing team. "Wtf? Even the game gave up on us!".

EDIT: Just tried inf, appearantly the bravos weren't catching any flags. So yah, I was just confused. I agree, it is completely impossible for the bravos to get the points needed. Still, who would reject a 2 minutes fragfest? I wouldn't.

[echo_trail]

SO what if they have no chance of winning? What makes soldat fun is the endless slaughter, and the awesome mixture of blood, gore and violence. This, gentlemen, is still very much possible, even if either side is irreversably ahead.

I don't think it's needed, especially because I allready see it being abused the hell out of. Nothing's more annoying when peops change map in the middle of a match, and I really think this would make exactly that happen quite a lot more often.

Beating the living shit out of a team is an honourable thing. The victory should not be shortened by the emmidiate change to another map. Besides, my best moments in soldat has always been when all hope has seemed faded, and yet the very last portion of will refuses to give in. And so you make on final stroke at the enemy, and you succeed.
Even if you did not win the match, you're left with that imcredible feeling of having resisted.. Or maybe I'm just talking. That's how I feel anyway.

In short: Sorry mate, I don't support.

[BondJamesBond]

It would be annoying knowing the match could just spontaneously end at any moment.

[Zegovia]

Anything can happen during that short time, ANYTHING!!

[Snowden]

2 minutes man, 2 minutes! Can't you hang around for 2 god **** minutes?

It's just an example. It actually takes about five and a half minutes to score 70 points under the standard rate.

SO what if they have no chance of winning? What makes soldat fun is the endless slaughter, and the awesome mixture of blood, gore and violence. This, gentlemen, is still very much possible, even if either side is irreversably ahead.

no, only because it is fun to run around for two minutes on blue with complete disregard of the flag and just get tons of kills.

You sound like you've never heard of Deathmatch. In Infiltration, the goal for blue team is to defend the black flag; the goal for red team is to steal the black flag and bring it to the white flag. If blue has failed their goal and red has accomplished theirs, the round should end.

Beating the living **** out of a team is an honourable thing. The victory should not be shortened by the emmidiate change to another map.

Blowouts aren't honorable. They're boring. The best victories are those that came down to the wire, and how long do you get to celebrate those before the map changes? Five seconds?

This feature would probably just be annoying for the losing team. "Wtf? Even the game gave up on us!".

It would be annoying knowing the match could just spontaneously end at any moment.

You know what's more annoying? Fighting for half a round under the illusion that you could come back and win, only to discover it was mathematically impossible and you wasted your time.

Once a team has won the game, the round should end. In baseball, when the home team has won, they don't play the bottom of the 9th inning for shits and giggles. In basketball, when a team has won 4 games to 1 in a 7-game series, they don't play the extra 2 games for shits and giggles. This is no different.

[echo_trail]

SO what if they have no chance of winning? What makes soldat fun is the endless slaughter, and the awesome mixture of blood, gore and violence. This, gentlemen, is still very much possible, even if either side is irreversably ahead.

no, only because it is fun to run around for two minutes on blue with complete disregard of the flag and just get tons of kills.

You sound like you've never heard of Deathmatch. In Infiltration, the goal for blue team is to defend the black flag; the goal for red team is to steal the black flag and bring it to the white flag. If blue has failed their goal and red has accomplished theirs, the round should end.

How can you even compare it to Deathmatch? Just because I state the ultimate goal is massive slaughter to the other team doesn't make it equal to deathmatch. Sure it's the goal in DM as well, but as is it in any other gamemode in soldat.

Beating the living **** out of a team is an honourable thing. The victory should not be shortened by the emmidiate change to another map.

Blowouts aren't honorable. They're boring. The best victories are those that came down to the wire, and how long do you get to celebrate those before the map changes? Five seconds?

I disagree. Wether or not it's boring very much depends on your team. If they're all lone wolfs, giving the "final rush" no structure whatsoever in terms of strategy, then yes, it's boring as hell. But if you manage to pull it together and actually go about it as a team, it won't matter what the score is, 'cause it's very much inferior to the feeling of actually accomplishing something as a whole.

Seems to me like you're one to really worry about your teams score, and I'll agree to that, at least to some extend. I like one of them good battles where both teams are really excellent, and you've really gotta pull your shit together if you wanna beat it. Then capping matters to me..
Otherwise it doesn't at all, 'cause any moron can have a lucky break with the flag in the ordinary servers. The flag will usually remain unprotected, and so it's as much about chance as it is skill.

What I'm trying to say, is that you should only consider flagcapturing a valid factor in more advanced games, such as CW's or in the better servers.

[Hiro]

Yeah. Good idea. Not point wasting time.

[Snowden]

How can you even compare it to Deathmatch? Just because I state the ultimate goal is massive slaughter to the other team doesn't make it equal to deathmatch. Sure it's the goal in DM as well, but as is it in any other gamemode in soldat.

By stating the ultimate goal of Infiltration is massive slaughter to the other team, you're equating Infiltration to Deathmatch/Teammatch. The goals of each game mode are stated plainly in the official manual. Infiltration maps aren't even designed for massive slaughter.

I disagree. Wether or not it's boring very much depends on your team. If they're all lone wolfs, giving the "final rush" no structure whatsoever in terms of strategy, then yes, it's boring as hell. But if you manage to pull it together and actually go about it as a team, it won't matter what the score is, 'cause it's very much inferior to the feeling of actually accomplishing something as a whole.

You've already accomplished your goal by blowing out the team. Playing five minutes of garbage time doesn't enhance your accomplishment.

[blackdevil0742]

Most Inf games have 10mins wich is more that enough..but I support your idea if it was tweaked in some way.

[SDFilm]

I sort of support it, though it might turn away some players that would wonder why the game suddenly stops, plus it is a bit of an anti-climax instead of fighting it to the last.

[echo_trail]

How can you even compare it to Deathmatch? Just because I state the ultimate goal is massive slaughter to the other team doesn't make it equal to deathmatch. Sure it's the goal in DM as well, but as is it in any other gamemode in soldat.

By stating the ultimate goal of Infiltration is massive slaughter to the other team, you're equating Infiltration to Deathmatch/Teammatch. The goals of each game mode are stated plainly in the official manual. Infiltration maps aren't even designed for massive slaughter.

I disagree. Wether or not it's boring very much depends on your team. If they're all lone wolfs, giving the "final rush" no structure whatsoever in terms of strategy, then yes, it's boring as hell. But if you manage to pull it together and actually go about it as a team, it won't matter what the score is, 'cause it's very much inferior to the feeling of actually accomplishing something as a whole.

You've already accomplished your goal by blowing out the team. Playing five minutes of garbage time doesn't enhance your accomplishment.

Who playes according to the manual these days? No one. If you do, Woah!, but no one else does. And I'm not equating it to DM or TDM. If anything it's PM based on the fact that you're running to teams up against eachother, and that very different from all vs. all or 4 teams versus eachother, you get what I mean?

Anyway, you know my opinion. No use sitting here debating the definition of various gamemodes. I'm just saying I'd probably find it annoying.

[mxyzptlk]

Maybe if the blue team votes that it is indeed helpless, the game would end.

[MEANone]

I totally don't support this idea. It totally ruins the whole uniformity of the game. When you start a new map, you know you are going to be committed to the game for
however much the time limit is. Stopping the game in the middle of a map is taking away from the uniformity of that.



You guys were giving those examples of baseball and basketball but what about a war? In a war you don't just forfeit because you're outnumbered or have too many casualties. In general INF, you cant use any of these excuses. Yeah, you might flee or forfeit but thats only to save the rest of your men. Even if you're hopelessly outnumbered or outskilled you still fight till the very last man.

[mxyzptlk]

You guys were giving those examples of baseball and basketball but what about a war? In a war you don't just forfeit because you're outnumbered or have too many casualties. In general INF, you cant use any of these excuses. Yeah, you might flee or forfeit but thats only to save the rest of your men. Even if you're hopelessly outnumbered or outskilled you still fight till the very last man.

It's called surrender. If all is hopeless, you don't want to keep fighting. Just surrender. I support Vote-surrender.

[a-4-year-old]

I don't care about an inevitable loss, I just want to keep killing people.

[urraka]

I don't see the point of this discussion, if a team wins the round should end, it doesn't matter a s*** how awesome you can feel killing people for nothing after you lost. If you just want to kill people, go play a deathmatch.
I even consider this time wasting a bug of the game.

[Mr. Domino]

Once a team has won the game, the round should end. In baseball, when the home team has won, they don't play the bottom of the 9th inning for ****s and giggles. In basketball, when a team has won 4 games to 1 in a 7-game series, they don't play the extra 2 games for ****s and giggles. This is no different.

Apples and oranges. You are comparing a single round of Soldat to an entire series of games. If you would be consistent and compare it to a single game of basketball, football, etc., you'd see that every game will have times when the victory is so assured that the final bits of time remaining are rendered meaningless. In all games, the game goes on regardless. The nice thing about Soldat is that if the players want to move on, they can just vote on a new map. Encoding such an "automatically advance if the score is such and such with some certain amount of time remaining" option really isn't necessary.

[Snowden]

The comparisons are consistent. The relevant feature they share is this: it is mathematically impossible for the losing team to come back and win, so continuing to play is pointless. In an individual game of basketball or football, the game must go on because in those games it is mathematically possible for the losing team to come back and win, however improbable it may be.

Most players wouldn't know whether they wanted to move on until it's too late, so voting would be completely ineffective. Not everyone has the foresight to realize that with only 5 minutes remaining, it is mathematically impossible to score 70 points under the standard rate. When the game is winding down, however, they might figure out. At that point they might realize that they just wasted half a round fighting under the illusion that they could come back and win, when in reality it was mathematically impossible to begin with.

[mxyzptlk]

Like I said, Vote-surrender would work for this.

[Snowden]

You can't surrender when you've already lost.

[mxyzptlk]

Erm, yes, surrender is admitting defeat, so you kinda have to have already lost.

[Snowden]

No. You surrender when it's still possible to win, but find winning improbable. In this case, a win is impossible. When a win is impossible, the team in question has lost the game, plain and simple. Saying "I surrender" after you've already lost is like saying "I quit" after your boss already fired you. It's completely nonsensical.

[mxyzptlk]

But some people would still want to fight, even after the battle is lost. Thus, the vote.

[urraka]

Oh man you can't argue with people like this. If you want to fight, even if the battle is lost, play the next match. I see two possibilities here, in case you want to continue with the fight even if u lost:
1- You are a really bad and sad loser.
2- You are retarded.

[mxyzptlk]

or
3- Your pride hurts and you want revenge.

[urraka]

Then you admit my first possibility

[mxyzptlk]

Now, I wouldn't go against a vote, I'm just trying to help you visualise, people wouldn't like the game to end, even if they have already lost, if they think that they can still win.

[iDante]

no, its not like that perro. You are forgetting that this is a game and that sometimes people want to keep playing even if its lost. Not because they are lame or bad losers, just cause its more fun to play a lost game then start over and get going on a new map. For that reason I say no to this whole idea. Plus its too complicated.

[urraka]

I know it can be fun to go on playing, but it's a game mode with rules, and if a team wins the match, it should end, plus it won't happen all the time... it would only happen if the flag is captured fast. I mean, people wouldn't even notice the difference about this if it was changed.

[ChromedGun]

F12 for vote-surrender though, if you can't be arsed for bull****.

[General Meevious]

F11. I demand my gloating time. The time after Bravo realizes that the flag no longer matters is lots of fun, which ever team you're on.

[LtKillroy]

I'll tell you what. Instead of implementing a vote, just vote a new map.  Game ends, new map, all happy. This already exists in this form, stop arguing. As for the people who say it should end no matter what, compromise a little and just vote a map and say "At 6 points a second, we can't win, f12"

[imacheater2k7]

Maybe a message would appear telling players that the game will soon end, and the Bravo players could vote to keep playing if they wanted to.

F12