PDA

View Full Version : [Suggestion] Surrender



Syst3mzero
22nd Dec 2013, 02:59
At some point I hope you resolve the issue that the game is needlessly long and pointless all too often.
heres a scenario for you

Scenario 1, round 1 score 40-10

In this scenario if the team that scored 40 in the first round gets more than 10 kills in the second round then they win no matter what the other team does.


Scenario 2, round 1 score 30-15

In the second scenario team 2 can score a maximum of 55 kills so once again if the fist team makes 26 kills they have won no matter what team 2 now does.

So at the point you can no longer effect the outcome of the game why are we forced to continue the fight? shouldn't the match end when you HAVE BEEN defeated already?

There is zero entertainment value in fighting against actually impossible odds.

Imagine you and your house-mate or partner are playing rock, paper, scissors (or rock, paper, scissors, lizard, spock) to see who has to wash the pots and you agree on best of 3, you win the first 2 rounds why would you play the third round knowing it wouldn't effect the outcome?

Oroibahazopi
22nd Dec 2013, 12:26
Agree.

Tube_Reaver
22nd Dec 2013, 13:33
Also agree. However it is TDM, so I expect when other game modes release it won't be this way.

A suggestion would be to remove the kill (score) limit, and keep it solely on a timer.

This will slightly alleviate the situation, and give the losing team a chance to catch up, however only in certain situations. I mean if you are 50-5 when the timer runs out for round one, you'll be hard pressed to win the game overall.

RainaAudron
22nd Dec 2013, 16:16
But isn´t the point of team deathmatch to win over the other team? I think the score should remain. There can be other modes which do not require score though. And if the game is pointless for you, you can always disconnect.

Hugbringer
22nd Dec 2013, 21:50
Perhaps a compromise between the two? Instead of it being solely who reaches 40 first, perhaps just a high score between both matches within a certain time limit.

I see many of my matches reaching the time limit before the 40 count unless it is a complete shut-out. So a 10 minute clock with the most kills summed between both games?

So yeah, it might still look like a shut-out; though perhaps the psychological desire to still 'have a chance' would still be there? Regardless I'm sure people would still rage quit in any circumstance, so this might all be for naught in the end.

Tube_Reaver
22nd Dec 2013, 21:59
Perhaps a compromise between the two? Instead of it being solely who reaches 40 first, perhaps just a high score between both matches within a certain time limit.

I see many of my matches reaching the time limit before the 40 count unless it is a complete shut-out. So a 10 minute clock with the most kills summed between both games?

So yeah, it might still look like a shut-out; though perhaps the psychological desire to still 'have a chance' would still be there? Regardless I'm sure people would still rage quit in any circumstance, so this might all be for naught in the end.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but that's what I meant originally. As in you win via the sum of your kills during both rounds, but there's no 40 kill score limit per round.

cmstache
23rd Dec 2013, 14:47
I've always thought that you should get 50 gold for losing, 100 gold for winning, and an extra 25 (or so) gold per round for scoring 40 wins. In a tight game, even breaking 30 is sometimes hard.

RainaAudron
23rd Dec 2013, 16:14
Oh, I see, sorry, didn´t get it. Yeah, that´s a pretty good idea.

Hugbringer
24th Dec 2013, 13:34
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but that's what I meant originally. As in you win via the sum of your kills during both rounds, but there's no 40 kill score limit per round.

Upon re-reading it, you did say pretty much the same thing I did. You were clear, I just had a sudden case of 'Selective Reading' while glancing down the thread. I'm positively riddled with 'Selective Reading-itis' :)

So I suppose I indirectly support the idea, though am not nearly as concerned as the OP.

Syst3mzero
24th Dec 2013, 19:13
But isn´t the point of team deathmatch to win over the other team? I think the score should remain. There can be other modes which do not require score though. And if the game is pointless for you, you can always disconnect.

Yeah I think you are confused, my maths provides you with a winner.
what it does it stops the game at which the losing team CAN'T win anymore no matter what they do.

before you reply please work out the maths for yourself that way you will see I'm correct.

RainaAudron
24th Dec 2013, 19:43
Excuse me? I´ve already replied above about that, so please look before you post, thanks.

Syst3mzero
24th Dec 2013, 20:56
Excuse me? I´ve already replied above about that, so please look before you post, thanks.

actually you made a statement which could have related to a number of posts, if you wish to communicate clearly the best way is to make it clear who you are replying to by quoting the post you are replying to.

please be clear before you post and refrain from getting angry at those who have been clear.

Jewer
25th Dec 2013, 02:36
Actually, there was one game where we had a higher total number of kills, but still lost. The first round the enemy team had 40 kills. So based on that, I don't believe the current system just checks the total sum of kills. The totaled number is only used to break a draw; both teams reached 40 kills, or neither did.

If this is the case, it'd be extremely rare to have these 'pointless' game sessions. But, I completely agree as soon as you're mathematically eliminated, the game should end. This only ever applies if the first time reached the 40 kill threshold though. Even if they went 39-0, a next round score of 40-39 would win.

I'd like to hear an official response from a dev to clarify this; a one time incident could have been an unintended bug.

jestdoit
25th Dec 2013, 05:36
The bug isn't that uncommon. I've had a number of games where we were up on total kills yet we still somehow lost (and the other way around).

Syst3mzero
28th Dec 2013, 11:47
Actually, there was one game where we had a higher total number of kills, but still lost. The first round the enemy team had 40 kills. So based on that, I don't believe the current system just checks the total sum of kills. The totaled number is only used to break a draw; both teams reached 40 kills, or neither did.

If this is the case, it'd be extremely rare to have these 'pointless' game sessions. But, I completely agree as soon as you're mathematically eliminated, the game should end. This only ever applies if the first time reached the 40 kill threshold though. Even if they went 39-0, a next round score of 40-39 would win.

I'd like to hear an official response from a dev to clarify this; a one time incident could have been an unintended bug.

unclear! a next round score of 40-39 would would win? what? which team do you think has won because it should obviously be the team that scored 79 as opposed to 39?
however the game became pointless long before that. if the first round was 39-0 then as soon as the team that scored 39 in the first round scored 2 in the second round the game became mathematically impossible for the other team to draw or win and continuing the game was pointless as this =41 kills and the second team could score 40 maximum.

Jewer
29th Dec 2013, 03:45
For clarification:

Team A scores 39 kills and 0 deaths first round.
Team B scores 40 kills and 39 deaths second round.

Team B wins because they hit the 40 kill goal in a round, and Team A did not.

Win condition simply constitutes reaching 40 kills in a single round.
Draw condition is when neither team reaches 40 kills, or both teams reach 40 kills. Draws are broken by total kill count.

I am by no means saying this is how the system SHOULD be. I am under the impression that is how it CURRENTLY is. I'm basing this on a one time incident, however, so could be entirely mistaken.
The only way to know for sure is to have multiple games where Team A has more total kills without ever hitting 40 kills in a round, and with Team B reaching the 40 kill threshold in one of the rounds.

Like I stated previously, I am completely in favor of games ending the moment it becomes mathematically impossible to win. I simply wanted to bring attention to the fact that the win condition may not be what most people think it is.

Oroibahazopi
29th Dec 2013, 03:48
I'm pretty sure that's a bug along the lines of instead of testing game a + game b it's only testing game b

RainaAudron
29th Dec 2013, 10:57
The winner is the one with more kills for both rounds, even though it sometimes says you lost, like oroi says, it is a score bug.

Syst3mzero
29th Dec 2013, 15:51
For clarification:

Team A scores 39 kills and 0 deaths first round.
Team B scores 40 kills and 39 deaths second round.

Team B wins because they hit the 40 kill goal in a round, and Team A did not.



Yeah That is a bug, its reasonably common.

Jewer
29th Dec 2013, 21:48
Alright good to know. Thanks everyone for clearing that up for me.

cmstache
31st Dec 2013, 01:27
I've always thought that you should get 50 gold for losing, 100 gold for winning, and an extra 25 (or so) gold per round for scoring 40 wins. In a tight game, even breaking 30 is sometimes hard.



This also encourages them to keep fighting, even if you gain less it lets you directly affect the amount of gold the opponents get to some degree.

Psyonix_Corey
7th Jan 2014, 17:58
Actually, there was one game where we had a higher total number of kills, but still lost. The first round the enemy team had 40 kills. So based on that, I don't believe the current system just checks the total sum of kills. The totaled number is only used to break a draw; both teams reached 40 kills, or neither did.

If this is the case, it'd be extremely rare to have these 'pointless' game sessions. But, I completely agree as soon as you're mathematically eliminated, the game should end. This only ever applies if the first time reached the 40 kill threshold though. Even if they went 39-0, a next round score of 40-39 would win.

I'd like to hear an official response from a dev to clarify this; a one time incident could have been an unintended bug.

This is a bug. The winner of a TDM match is the team with the most cumulative kills across both rounds.

We'll talk about changing the logic to end the game immediately if a team is mathematically eliminated.

Syst3mzero
7th Jan 2014, 18:25
This is a bug. The winner of a TDM match is the team with the most cumulative kills across both rounds.

We'll talk about changing the logic to end the game immediately if a team is mathematically eliminated.

sweet!

Psyonix_Corey
7th Jan 2014, 19:42
The match winner bug is fixed for an upcoming build.

Could use some feedback from you guys on a couple options for handling the scenario you're talking about:

Scenario 1: Mathematical Elimination
Strict mathematical elimination. If your team cannot numerically win the match in round 2 due to current scores, the game ends immediately.
Pros:
- Players aren't stuck in losing matches they cannot possibly win.
- Ends imbalanced matches early so neither team is forced to keep playing when it's not competitive
Cons:
- Teams get shortchanged match time with the faction they didn't play in Round 1. If you are feeling like playing Vamps but are Human first and Round 2 ends after 5 minutes, you lose a lot of time playing Vampire.

Scenario 2: No Score Limits
We could remove the 40 point threshold and allow teams to score as many points as possible in a round. This would remove the case where you become strictly mathematically eliminated, but lopsided matches would still be effectively "eliminated" because there wouldn't be time to score enough points realistically.
Pros:
- Good teams could have a great round and have a comeback win (that might have been eliminated mathematically in the 40-point system)
Cons:
- Lopsided matches take even longer, as both teams have to play the full duration instead of just until the good team hits 40 kills

Scenario 3: No Score Limits WITH SURRENDER
Same as Scenario 2 but we introduce a Surrender option similar to League of Legends that allows a losing team to vote to surrender after a minimum time has passed.
Pros:
- Allows comeback victories like in #2 but allows losing teams an "out" in lopsided matches
Cons:
- Can create a culture where pessimistic players vote surrender as soon as the match turns against them, shortening matches on average and potentially cheating players out of their second round with the other faction

I'm not sure where I stand with the above options yet. I'm not sure a Surrender option makes sense when our rounds are 12 minutes long given the odd behaviors it creates in the community (as seen in LoL). I like the idea of a team being able to overcome "mathematical elimination" in Scenarios 2 & 3 but I don't know if that one case is worth the potential problems.

The best option may be to move away from cumulative scoring, but if we went to a more binary Win/Loss system (win round 1, lose round 2, etc.) there's not a simple tiebreaker that feels fair to me. If we weren't an asymmetrical game I would want to have a simpler Best of 3 system but it gets really messy when you need to give both teams a chance with both factions to break a tie.

Tube_Reaver
7th Jan 2014, 20:48
Hi

My vote goes to Scenario 2

Reasoning:

Scenario 1: It can work, however it is an issue if say you play a game, and statistically lose the first round as humans, but you want to play vampire, so you miss out playing vampire even for fun. Not the best choice.

Scenario 2: This is the better system to pick from. Matches take longer but it is not as a big of a downside compared to the other 2 suggestions. When you queue up, you are queuing up with the intention of staying for 2 full rounds, as you don't know if you'll reach the 40 score limit each and every round every time. Also The comeback win is VERY satisfying, and enjoyed by both teams, as it means the gets really intense near the end.

Scenario 3: I am against this, as you said it can create a pessimistic culture, I play League of Legends, and more than 50% of the games you have at least 1 or 2 people who give up early on and demand the rest surrender or he/she goes afk/trolls/feeds.
Also there have been times were I wanted to surrender but my friends would be like "no no, don't worry we can pull through" and we manage to win in the end.

-A single player not doing well (or just getting outplayed by the enemy team)
- A player who is doing well yet the rest of his team are not that great
Both of the above will quickly go for the Surrender option than rather try to improve themselvesor help their team improve (respectively)

jestdoit
7th Jan 2014, 20:55
I'm in favor of scenario 1. I'd rather get in a new game sooner, than drag out lopsided matches.

Oroibahazopi
7th Jan 2014, 22:13
Can't decide between 1 and 3, so maybe a hybrid where it's 3 unless the points difference reach some threshold.

Say a total points difference of 40 or 50 would end the match immediately, but otherwise there would not be a fixed maximum number of kills per round.

So say first round went 40-10, the next round would end if team A got 10 kills right away with no losses. Otherwise, the match would continue as normal for the total time period. Though surrender is always an option if people are just too exasperated.

It could matter if teams are ranked by number of kills per match rather than just w/l.

Syst3mzero
8th Jan 2014, 19:17
Well I like scenario 1.
I also don't mind scenario 2.
Scenario 3 breeds weak play so I don't like that.

Strike5150
9th Jan 2014, 14:03
I think there are two issues here:

1. Some players want gold and are not interested in wasting their time playing a losing match.
2. Some players like to have fun and for them fun does not include getting completely destroyed.

Issue number 1 can easily be solved by making the rewards a little more balanced, currently there is a whopping 50g extra for winning. Thats waaayyy to much, it should be much closer, and the actual difference from best to worst player/team should really not be more than 20g?

Issue number 2 will be solved all on its own as the alpha/beta gets bigger. More players means we will have better matched teams and the stomping won't happen as much if at all anymore.

So while those scenarios all look great I really don't think we need them, however if I had to choose I think I would go with option 2. I really like that you get to play both vampire AND human in the same match. Also because this will greatly improve the ability of the devs to balance the game. It means that vampires and humans don't NEED to be 100% balanced as long as we each have to play both sides.

lucinvampire
9th Jan 2014, 14:21
I’m not really that sure about this in that I don’t think any of the scenarios are perfect…but if it is a fix for now until matching is made function then…

Scenario 1 – if there is no possible – what-so-ever way to win a game then that’s ok I suppose.

Scenario 2 – yeah this is just going to make the winning team win by more.

Scenario 3 – surrender is just encouraging people to quit when things aren’t in their favour and get people mardy.

If I have to make a choice – I’d go with scenario 1 :D

FireWorks_
31st Jul 2014, 18:41
Id like to propose to implement an option to close games, that are broken in some way or another.

There are enough issues: technical, player related, design choices. All lead to matches, that are not fun to play to the end by anybody. The feedback section of the forums are full of it.

While some of the problems might be ironed out over time, some will still exist even after the great saviour matchmaking patch (GSMMP). Situations like X crashes, Y joins and Z exits cause he wants to play with X and requeus with him. The imbalance in the meantime due to lack of players leads to a score where most players dont even want to stay. The lobby is broken and all players getting stuck in are annoyed and cant effectivly join a new match til some poor guy bites the bullet (teergrubing).


My idea (pls post yours!) would be to have a surrender vote.
Any player can call team A or B to surrender. (Empty teams are instantly surrendered)
If the majority of players on that team agrees, the match ends. XP is awarded as always, Gold gets awarded aliquot to the playtime to prevent abuse. The Gold for score is only awarded half (or even none?) to prevent impetus to farming weaker teams.

The vote shall only be able to be called when certain conditions are met:
Match is decided (30-6; after 7kills in round 2)
Team has less than 4 players.

I dont think it would be good to have it called at any score in the first round. Ive seen 14-30;30-13 matches that would have people ragequit/surrender early.


tl;dr
ending vote pls
relief us of lobbies we dont want to play.

reltats
1st Aug 2014, 09:02
At first I was like: why not suck it up?; but then I was like: Wait he has a really good point and a really good idea on how to fix it. I second this idea.
I would say it would be fine for the first round to have a vote to surrender option as well, Ive had a game where we won the first 30-4 and one we lost 7-30. being down players in the first is just as annoying. But if you forfeit the first round it should just move to the second round instead of ending the game
Only other thing I would say is, each person can only call the vote once to prevent spamming.

Razaiim
1st Aug 2014, 11:33
I think the option to forfeit should only be given when the score has reached an unwinnable state in the 2nd round. Personally I stay in the game unless it's so one sided that I die when ever I make a move.

Phytik
26th Aug 2014, 17:24
Ohai Ladies and Gentlemen.
If the second round started and there are 3 or 4 new people in one team, these new people are allowed to surrender the game.

Orchal
21st Feb 2015, 17:41
(Did not found a Thread about it in the quick search)

Nosgoth has a very large amount of leavers, so my suggestion is a kind of "give up" vote, so the other side just wins if 3 or 4 of 4 players vote for "give up" so we don't have so many games where people join into an almost over game and just lose for joining.

Gelden
21st Feb 2015, 18:16
You might be on to something. I was thinking about a greater penalty to leavers to deter them from doing so but I really couldn't think of what that penalty should be. Your way lets the players decide by votes if the game is going no-where.

One issue is when a player comes in later he cannot see the score from the 1st round (if he joins in the 2nd). He doesn't even know what round it is and so does not know what he's playing for. We need a clear indication on the scoreboard of the score from 1st round so voters can be more aware what they're voting for.

GenFeelGood
21st Feb 2015, 18:44
Imagine how annoying it would be to be holding your own or even winning in a fight; and you get stopped by a pop up to vote on giving up, meanwhile the enemy player (whose isn't paused to cast a vote) has finished killing you in the meantime. Imagine how annoying it would be if most of your team is in the fight but one teammate keeps initiating the vote and the team suffers as a result.

If a player doesn't want to continue then just let them leave, if they aren't interested in continuing then how much can they really continue to contribute anyway?

Edit
The only instance where I feel an end game feature is needed is when the whole other team quits.

EcoPanda
21st Feb 2015, 19:39
They can make it where you can only start a vote every 5 min and your game won't pause when voting. Like in LOL it can just be a little pop up box at the corner of your screen with yes or no.