OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   
Title: [A] Teams All Welcome #1 (32p)
Host: Nobody
Game version: Zero-K v1.11.1.0
Engine version: 105.1.1-1485-g78f9a2c
Started: 14 days ago
Duration: 31 minutes
Players: 9
Bots: False
Mission: False
Watch Replay Now
Manual download

Team 1
Chance of victory: 50.3%

Team 2
Chance of victory: 49.7%


Show winners

Filter:    Player:  
so much effort, then they early resign. Tiring.

When game isn't going favourably, a whiff of air that smells a bit off makes some people resign.

The "whiff" remark is about how easily some people get triggered into trying to resign in general, not just about this specific game.
In this case the assaulting group from the blue team was likely going to fizzle given the lack of raider/riot/AA and the variety of nearby distractions and threats to it...but now we'll never know.

The resign polls themselves are demoralizing for the team and distract people from actually dealing with the situations. Premature resign is an issue that's been getting worse.
+4 / -0

14 days ago
hm, on the other hand, your team couldn`t win for 24 min despite having higher income and at one point 20k more army than the enemy team... With that in mind, I would say tanks in your base and losing most of your army are more than a "whiff of air that smells a bit off".
Although they could have really waited for the nuke.
+2 / -0
Here's a pic from the final moments, like 10s before the resign got through

west still had somewhat better eco, the detri had about 50K hp left so it'd take a while to die, and there were a bunch of units coming that'd likely kill the assaulting units of the blue side (which were only somewhat damaged halberds and cyclops).

The army value graph showed ~30k for red vs about ~45k for blue but a big chunk of it was on that skirmisher ball and on the other group further back with impalers that was poking at stuff on north hill. None of those were in position to help the enemy assault.
I threw the nuke out of desperation to try and catch the enemy skirmisher ball (unlikely covered by anti)
+0 / -0

13 days ago
there were some weird resign attempts on our side before.

panic resigning does NOT avoid a losing fate, it makes it definitive...
+2 / -0

13 days ago
Hey, I am not saying you are wrong that it is not over.
Why do people usually not listen to my resign-votes? Because I do them so reliable that one gets the impression they don`t mean much. I call resign too early usually. Your votes on resign have the opposite problem.
This is how it looked around 61% of the game-time:

If you call going from my pic to yours a "whiff of air that smells a bit off", it simply gives the impression that you have no realistic grasp of whats going on. Thus, people don`t take your opinion serious. Maybe something like "we suffered a serious throwback, but we have a nuke and still enough forces left to turn the situation around" would sound more convincing, idk.


+0 / -0
I've edited the first post for clarity.

About the difference in situations since mid game to the end, there was some investment in economy on my side, which was spread out away from the contact area, krow raids north and south which didn't go very well for us but still did some damage and inhibited their economy growth....and we still had the half built detri, it doesn't disappear and they'd have to spend time mowing down 50k HP. They could kill the nuke launcher, but i got to fire the nuke just before the end. I also had a half-built bertha on the hill.

Basically you're arguing "If a team couldn't win when they were ahead, they won't win when they're behind (or just not ahead...)". A simple counter-argument is to ask how did such team get "ahead" in the first place? There's back and forth in battles, people make plenty of mistakes and suboptimal decisions on both sides, and there's investments that come at a cost but pay off later.

The exact same people along the same battle can play to very different outcomes by just randomly making choices (adjusting unit composition or not, what to build, where/when to attack, etc.)

+1 / -0
Basically you're arguing "If a team couldn't win when they were ahead, they won't win when they're behind (or just not ahead...)".

That is not directly my point, and this is indeed questionable. My point is that losing big chunks of your army after a long stalemate can be very demotivating. People simply have different levels of resistance to unpleasant stimuli. That is a central claim of psychology. It is regarded as a fundamental aspect of your personality, and changing it is not done by simply flicking a switch. You seem to have quite a high tolerance, but you cannot expect everyone around you to have the same.
Even if this sounds weird to you, asking people to continue a game against their will is kind of like asking you to drive a knife into your arm. It's repulsive, even if you don`t die from it.
Accept it or not, but just as you are forced to life with the skill-level of your allies, you are also forced to life with their level of morale.
+0 / -0
11 days ago
People simply have different levels of resistance to unpleasant stimuli.
The stimuli are not very objective though. At extreme I have seen many people starting a resign vote when they lost their commander, even if team was winning by far.

When playing team games team morale is very important. That's why it's a team game. What I dislike about current resign vote is that it can prevent some reaction from players that still believe it can be won. I feel that you have no time in a small game to start explaining why you can win. By the time you start typing "we have a detri" people already resigned. Even if having a detri at 80% would given them a pleasant stimuli. Currently the only way to fix this is to communicate earlier the "big project" (everybody help this! let's do this and we win! etc). Not sure if some other technical solution could also help.
+0 / -0