/surrender option


(KeMoN) #1

While you are putting everything you have into implementing a proper anti-cheat, could you give us a /surrender option in the meantime?

If there is a hacker present we have the choice between wasting 20 minutes in a slaughterhouse or receive a penalty when leaving. If the whole team agrees that it is pointless then why not give us the option to actually surrender.

I know this is being brought up over and over again, but that should just emphasize how important it is.

Cheers


(BomBaKlaK) #2

It’s already hard to keep players involved in a match during match making (lot of ragequit during the first round …)
So I see the problem, we got the same vs a cheater yesterday, but for me the problem is the anticheat !


(KeMoN) #3

Well if that one rage-quitter is going to vote [YES] and everyone else [NO], then the vote will fail anyway.
This is simply about the majority of the team and not only one individual player seeing no point in a game, because they are for example playing against one or more cheaters.
This would more or less be a democratic rage-quit without penalty :smiley:


(BomBaKlaK) #4

Yeah why not


(Szakalot) #5

yup, we need a surrender vote


#6

[QUOTE=BomBaKlaK;534846]It’s already hard to keep players involved in a match during match making (lot of ragequit during the first round …)
[/QUOTE]

Perhaps if the “matchmaking” actually involved some kind of matchmaking, the ragequit rate wouldn’t be as high.
Solo people being put against 5 man premades, global elite players being put in a team of plebs straight off the tutorial island, one sided stomp matches 99% of the time. It’s kind of obvious why stuff like this happens.


(KeMoN) #7

Still waiting!


(Szakalot) #8

sometimes its clear in the first 3-4 min of the match that one team does not stand a chance. one player has enough turning an impossible 5v5 situation into an even more impossible 4v5 (thats right, MORE IMPOSSIBLE!). Typically at this point people start to mass-leave, with the victors having to stick around on an empty server.


(FireWorks) #9

The abandoned matches should have a way of optional closing, say a vote.

But a 5v5 spawnrape is no reason for me to close the match. Ok the target is not winning anymore, but for the love of god let the people try out different strategies to get out of the choke etc. You can learn a lot while eating dirt. At least I do.

Tbh I dont know how you would do with a match ruined by a cheater, but I believe it is worth the sacrifice.

A general vote? No.
Closing abandonned matches fast, sure.


(Szakalot) #10

[QUOTE=FireWorks;539073]The abandoned matches should have a way of optional closing, say a vote.

But a 5v5 spawnrape is no reason for me to close the match. Ok the target is not winning anymore, but for the love of god let the people try out different strategies to get out of the choke etc. You can learn a lot while eating dirt. At least I do.

Tbh I dont know how you would do with a match ruined by a cheater, but I believe it is worth the sacrifice.

A general vote? No.
Closing abandonned matches fast, sure.[/QUOTE]

if the vote requires everyone in the team to agree, this would not affect you. You like to play against the odds, try out strategies, etc.

a lot of people don’t. These people shouldn’t have to be forced to play if they have no fun. They lose, they get frustrated, they don’t get back into comp ever again, comp scene gets smaller, its even harder to find balanced games.


(FireWorks) #11

[QUOTE=Szakalot;539076]if the vote requires everyone in the team to agree, this would not affect you. You like to play against the odds, try out strategies, etc.

a lot of people don’t. These people shouldn’t have to be forced to play if they have no fun. They lose, they get frustrated, they don’t get back into comp ever again, comp scene gets smaller, its even harder to find balanced games.[/QUOTE]

Fun is different for different people.

Some players will get smacked all their dirty bomb career, just cant make it easy enough for them without separating them from the majority of players. And if they are separated and finally get opponents of their own skill, they will have trouble with their incompetent teammates.

The desperation for hunting new players has to know some borders, sorry.

What positive effects are you hoping for? More players in the player pool? Some will still be outskilled by the opponents they find if a better team is searching at their time. The game gets forfeited after 5mins and everyone is back to the waiting game. The good players might reQ again and frustrate/forfeit the next group and so on.
The playtime/waiting ratio just sinks and you distribute the “omg i met these OP guys” feeling over more players than without the forfeit. Then you get 10-15 instead of 5players with “omg matchmaking is so ****ty in this game”.
Matchmaking will never be great, in any game. You gotta get the most fun out of the time you play for yourself. The game cant make you IFUN buttons.

End totally trashed games early, but not much you can do at this site. Working on other parts of the MM system will net you more overall fun. I enjoy the quick MM times currently… and gave up other games where I had 5-10min Qs for 10mins of artificially shortend matches.


(Kl3ppy) #12

Also make sure that you wont phase the opponent in the next match again.


(Szakalot) #13

[QUOTE=FireWorks;539081]Fun is different for different people.

Some players will get smacked all their dirty bomb career, just cant make it easy enough for them without separating them from the majority of players. And if they are separated and finally get opponents of their own skill, they will have trouble with their incompetent teammates.[/quote]

If everyone on the server is equally incompetent, I don’t see how that causes anyone to have trouble.

What positive effects are you hoping for?

faster adjustment of player ranks (better players will get promoted faster, bad players will sink in ranks faster)
less frustration
not having to sit on an empty server

The playtime/waiting ratio just sinks and you distribute the “omg i met these OP guys” feeling over more players than without the forfeit.

there is a problem with this statement. What you are saying is that a bunch of good players will absolutely stomp less teams (cause they play less games).

a) they stomps will be much more punishing. Getting your face rekt for 15min, without being able to leave the spawn is a very frustrating experiencing for most players (yeah, not for you; i get that, most players hate it)
b) the good player’s rank will stay at a level that will keep them matched against those weaker players. End result will be the same.

Conversely, a couple of quick forfeits and the band of good players will start meeting tougher opponents.

Then you get 10-15 instead of 5players with “omg matchmaking is so ****ty in this game”.
Matchmaking will never be great, in any game. You gotta get the most fun out of the time you play for yourself. The game cant make you IFUN buttons.

I’d wager instead of those 5 players who got frustrated by a stomp, you will have 10-15 instead who got their rank adjusted to their actual skill level, and will keep on playing happily. The game can’t make ‘IFUN’ buttons, but it can address the major causes of frustration, like matching up >gold players and >gold premades against unranked/silvers.

I also don’t expect as many forfeits as you claim. In the end, forfeits will most likely be used when a player drops/ragequits, since expecting 5 soloqueues to agree on a forfeit is a tough call. The people that stick around now, even when outmatched; will also stick around and not vote forfeit. The people that will f1 forfeits are the ones who would presently ragequit, saving the trouble for everyone.


(FireWorks) #14

[QUOTE=Szakalot;539085]If everyone on the server is equally incompetent, I don’t see how that causes anyone to have trouble.
[/QUOTE]
Judging from other games, this is actually pretty tricky. Your teammates will always be “idiots” and ruin the game for you, no matter how good you actually do in your role.
Its the dilemma we have in other discussions about the 3 mercs limit. You cant fulfill enough roles required yourself. You need some help by the team at some point and you wont get it. You perceive them as complete donks.
If you mix 2 bad players on a team of 3 relativly good ones (each side) you get a match of dirty bomb, if its only 10donk you mayhem.

Most matchmakings do mix them. Players with sick winning streaks get put on teams with sick losing streaks. Its frustrating to carry these “noobs” but their frustrating losing hopefully finds an end.

faster adjustment of player ranks (better players will get promoted faster, bad players will sink in ranks faster)
less frustration
not having to sit on an empty server

You do sit longer in a Q staring at the MM counter.
We already agreed on closing empty team servers.

there is a problem with this statement. What you are saying is that a bunch of good players will absolutely stomp less teams (cause they play less games).

a) they stomps will be much more punishing. Getting your face rekt for 15min, without being able to leave the spawn is a very frustrating experiencing for most players (yeah, not for you; i get that, most players hate it)
b) the good player’s rank will stay at a level that will keep them matched against those weaker players. End result will be the same.

Conversely, a couple of quick forfeits and the band of good players will start meeting tougher opponents.

The best players will always stomp. No way around it until you split them. They will Q together so you cant sink them by mixing with noobs.
To find a match for better players, youd need the same amount of better players to match them. Not even mentioning team modifiers! If you dont find these players, the waiting time extends to unbearable amounts. This is the point where games die. They want to play, not Q endlessly.

I’d wager instead of those 5 players who got frustrated by a stomp, you will have 10-15 instead who got their rank adjusted to their actual skill level, and will keep on playing happily. The game can’t make ‘IFUN’ buttons, but it can address the major causes of frustration, like matching up >gold players and >gold premades against unranked/silvers.

I also don’t expect as many forfeits as you claim. In the end, forfeits will most likely be used when a player drops/ragequits, since expecting 5 soloqueues to agree on a forfeit is a tough call. The people that stick around now, even when outmatched; will also stick around and not vote forfeit. The people that will f1 forfeits are the ones who would presently ragequit, saving the trouble for everyone.

This is what I meant: You gotta do as good as you can with your matching algorhythm. But in the end you better put bad matches together than let people not play at all.


(Szakalot) #15

[QUOTE=FireWorks;539094]Judging from other games, this is actually pretty tricky. Your teammates will always be “idiots” and ruin the game for you, no matter how good you actually do in your role.
Its the dilemma we have in other discussions about the 3 mercs limit. You cant fulfill enough roles required yourself. You need some help by the team at some point and you wont get it. You perceive them as complete donks.[/quote]

I see what you are saying, but surely a bad player has smaller expectations of friendlies? They don’t know that being revived within a second of dying is a thing, I’d expect the entire match to go slower.

If you mix 2 bad players on a team of 3 relativly good ones (each side) you get a match of dirty bomb, if its only 10donk you mayhem.

Most matchmakings do mix them. Players with sick winning streaks get put on teams with sick losing streaks. Its frustrating to carry these “noobs” but their frustrating losing hopefully finds an end.

I see two problems with this:
a) it all depends on how good the best players in each team are. An excellent player will stomp the newbies and kill the majority of the decent opponents. A good player will also stomp the newbies, but not manage as well with the better opponents.
b) newbies still get stomped. Even if they manage to get some random kills, they will not feel as impactful on the server, as if they were matched against similarly skilled opponents.

You do sit longer in a Q staring at the MM counter.

again, I don’t predict these forfeit votes to be as common, and I’d rather wait a bit longer and have good games, than get crappy games quickly.

The best players will always stomp. No way around it until you split them. They will Q together so you cant sink them by mixing with noobs.
To find a match for better players, youd need the same amount of better players to match them. Not even mentioning team modifiers! If you dont find these players, the waiting time extends to unbearable amounts. This is the point where games die. They want to play, not Q endlessly.

You gotta do as good as you can with your matching algorhythm. But in the end you better put bad matches together than let people not play at all.

I find this logic a little backwards. If you let people play bad games, they will stop playing. So no good games can emerge. Imo the reason comp failed at its start was the problem of premades smashing through everyone, often closed-beta clans would group and destroy unranked player. And cheaters of course.

I understand that when all else fails, its better to make bad games, ratehr than not let people play at all. But Imo that only makes sense if you don’t frustrate the hell out of the weaker players, which is the case atm.

It sounds like SD are considering some type of competitive seasons, which would hopefully mean ranks restart; where you get a rank based on soloqueue vs soloqueue games


(FireWorks) #16

You raise a lot of valid points but it just shows the delicate challenge of balancing. For now, I havent met a single system working perfectly… Mostly cause it is an illusion.

To me these premades are the problem to be solved for MM. But I dont know if annoying them out of MM by forfeiting all their matches is a good way. I know, you say not too many games will be forfeited but I have doubts in this environment. Its not arranged scrims afterall where people expect to be beaten.

Either you break them up (which sucks too) or you raise the player count to millions where everyone can find equally skilled players at all times (which is a bit hard too)… or find a better way…


(Smooth) #17

Just to let you know, Surrender Votes in competitive games are currently being worked on.


(spookify) #18

I hope there are specific rules in place also sort of like LOL…

Vote Call:
Can only Surrender after 5 minutes.
Can only Surrender with full team present (Passes 4/5)
Can call vote when player leaves (5 minute abandon player warning appears) and vote will pass with only 3 Yes’s.

Match Still Counts!!! Meaning you loss and loss Elo!!!


(FireWorks) #19

[QUOTE=spookify;539321]I hope there are specific rules in place also sort of like LOL…

Vote Call:
Can only Surrender after 5 minutes.
Can only Surrender with full team present (Passes 4/5)
Can call vote when player leaves (5 minute abandon player warning appears) and vote will pass with only 3 Yes’s.

Match Still Counts!!! Meaning you loss and loss Elo!!![/QUOTE]

Yep, this looks like the bare minimum.


(Smooth) #20

It requires >66% of the remaining connected players (so 4/5, 3/4, 2/3 etc.) to pass and if all players on a team disconnect the match will auto-surrender after 60s.

Surrenders also wont be possible for the first 3 minutes of a match and individual players can only call a Surrender Vote once every 3 minutes.

All of these are server-side configurable options :slight_smile: