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

[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"