no surrenders?

[TheMessiah 430]

Surrender option for players in missions was never discussed before(at least i dont remember)so im curious what people think about it.In my opinion theres much more cons. than pros.(especially now can become the pandora box)but wanna see what players think about it in comments and voting..

Edited April 26, 2020 by TheMessiah

[Frosi 722]

Absolutely not, good players already have a hard enough time getting opposition, giving the people that hackusate everyone better than them a surrender option is just going to ruin more and more missions and make the game even less playable for 4 player groups. 

 

In an ideal world there wouldn't be a need for a surrender option because the matchmaking (post 2.1) is good enough to match players of equal skill. A surrender option would be a "bandaid" until District Phasing / Matchmaking improvements that could be exploited and make the game even less enjoyable.

[ok 419]

26 minutes ago, Frosi said:

Absolutely not, good players already have a hard enough time getting opposition, giving the people that hackusate everyone better than them a surrender option is just going to ruin more and more missions and make the game even less playable for 4 player groups. 

 

In an ideal world there wouldn't be a need for a surrender option because the matchmaking (post 2.1) is good enough to match players of equal skill. A surrender option would be a "bandaid" until District Phasing / Matchmaking improvements that could be exploited and make the game even less enjoyable.

"if enemy surrenders we won't be able to steamroll them" basically, what difference does it make if they go afk or if they surrender

In an ideal world, RTW would still have been the owners and this game would have been above GTA V in terms of active players, yet here we are

[vsb 6174]

is surrendering done on an individual basis or is it a group thing?

is it a vote system like team leader request?

will players lose threat for surrendering?

more or less threat than a normal mission loss?

are players who vote not to surrender compensated in any way?

will there be a cooldown/limit on how many times a player can surrender?

how does that cooldown/limit work when a player is solo and bouncing from group to group?

will there be prerequisites (e.g. a certain number of stages lost, or a certain number of enemy kills) before a team can surrender?

 

its hard to really discuss the idea with you giving absolutely no details but i'm generally against mechanics that allow players to leave matches whenever they want, why bother readying up if you aren't going to play?

 

 

Edited April 27, 2020 by 404
typo

[NotZombieBiscuit 3146]

No mercy, no quarter, no surrender.

[Fortune Runner 796]

With phasing this would be less of a problem , so no thank you.

 

57 minutes ago, NotZombieBiscuit said:

no quarter

how about a pound

[KnifuWaifu 499]

Maybe not a vote system since that can be used in a negative way but letting individual players leave a mission that's in progress would be nice - but then come the update the game will load faster making alt-f4 a more viable option but again as said come update we'll hopefully have better matchmaking and phasing, so hopefully no need for that all.

 

Yeah I agree surrender option would be too much of a band aid solution to what can be fixed via better means.

[TheMessiah 430]

4 hours ago, 404 said:

is it a vote system like team leader request?

yes

4 hours ago, 404 said:

will there be a cooldown/limit on how many times a player can surrender?

probably once per mission

 

Anyway i think is bad idea for many reasons-some players/groups will be always discriminated,progression will suffer big time and so on and so on.Basically system like that will destroy the game.The new matchmaking will solve many issues and we dont need "surrender" options for missions

Edited April 26, 2020 by TheMessiah

[MACKxBOLAN 434]

NO, No, and no.

 First thing you will hear is 'Dethreat Accusations'.

Not to talk smack about the Devs, But if the Code writers could do this, there would be mistakes, and that would put the whole game system in jeopardy.

 Last but not least; Have you ever tried to do the Surrender Emote under fire. The time it takes to type out the command.

Chat Kills and at the most embarrassing times. 

[jimmyneutral 3]

afk'ing is surrendering in a griefed form. officializing a surrender option speeds up the process of what would have been you closing your game and relaunching to actually play the game.

 

whether theres a surrender option or not, the end result is still the same people deliberately not playing versus you, the difference made is convenience.

[Dezire 107]

57 minutes ago, jimmyneutral said:

afk'ing is surrendering in a griefed form. officializing a surrender option speeds up the process of what would have been you closing your game and relaunching to actually play the game.

 

whether theres a surrender option or not, the end result is still the same people deliberately not playing versus you, the difference made is convenience.

It shouldn’t be convenient to p*ssy out, there’s a reason the cointoss exploit was patched.

Edited April 27, 2020 by Dezire

[jimmyneutral 3]

26 minutes ago, Dezire said:

It shouldn’t be convenient to p*ssy out, there’s a reason the cointoss exploit was patched.

im not in favor of it anymore than you are, thats not the point being made.

 

the point is that 'sandbagging' a mission will occur regardless, whether its due to suspicion of the enemy cheating or that theyre 'too difficult' to oppose. its a positive addition for forfeiting to be conventionalized so that the players who actually want to play can avoid being griefed by afk'ers, again, because it happens regardless.

[Mitne 724]

I am for that idea but only under three circumstances.

No is treated as veto for that vote. If even one teammate votes no, voting for surrender is cancelled.

And NO bonuses for surrender. And you can only surrender in finale (so "winning" team gets something out of it).

 

Then we can talk, otherwise I see room for abuse.

Edited April 27, 2020 by Mitne

[vsb 6174]

11 minutes ago, jimmyneutral said:

the point is that 'sandbagging' a mission will occur regardless, whether its due to suspicion of the enemy cheating or that theyre 'too difficult' to oppose. its a positive addition for forfeiting to be conventionalized so that the players who actually want to play can avoid being griefed by afk'ers, again, because it happens regardless.

legitimizing it will only encourage more players to use the mechanic, using "it already happens" is a pretty poor justification imo

[jimmyneutral 3]

12 minutes ago, Mitne said:

I am for that idea but only under three circumstances.

No is treated as veto for that vote. If even one teammate votes no, voting for surrender is cancelled.

And NO bonuses for surrender. And you can only surrender in finale (so "winning" team gets something out of it).

 

Then we can talk, otherwise I see room for abuse.

voting for the option to forfeit introduces a new method of griefing via, again, sandbagging a mission and now voting against your team forfeiting, which defeats the purpose of a forfeit option in itself.

 

its implied that forfeiting yields no gain in progression unless a ***yet to be determined*** amount of mission participation took place.

2 minutes ago, 404 said:

legitimizing it will only encourage more players to use the mechanic, using "it already happens" is a pretty poor justification imo

and the more it happens, the more quickly you'll reach players who want to play against you as much as you want to play against them.

[Mitne 724]

2 minutes ago, jimmyneutral said:

voting for the option to forfeit introduces a new method of griefing via, again, sandbagging a mission and now voting against your team forfeiting, which defeats the purpose of a forfeit option in itself.

 

its implied that forfeiting yields no gain in progression unless a ***yet to be determined*** amount of mission participation took place.

I don't care about griefers. I care about situation where we got finale for 10 minutes with enemy team bunkered in some cheesy spot with item or VIP and just sniping us down whenever we try to approach.

That's situation where you should just give up and look for normal mission.

But hey, like that we can kill any new feature. Cause you know griefers.

Maybe we should take away Balkan Kolva, cause griefers too.

Edited April 27, 2020 by Mitne

[jimmyneutral 3]

1 hour ago, Mitne said:

I don't care about griefers. I care about situation where we got finale for 10 minutes with enemy team bunkered in some cheesy spot with item or VIP and just sniping us down whenever we try to approach.

That's situation where you should just give up and look for normal mission.

yeah its pretty clear to me now that you dont care about griefers or how to cushion the impact they have.

 

Merged.

 

i think were neglecting the fact that you cant change a players intentions or behavior for things of this nature. obviously among lesser experienced players, there is the stigma that this game has a high percentage of cheaters, and id like to think weve all played this game a fair amount to know at which rate you encounter these players where when they die to you once, they ultimately end up driving to the end of the district while you either restart your game or chore your way through that abandoned five stager. when i say it happens regardless, i quite literally mean that the difference between an official forfeit option and no official forfeit option would be marginal.

[VanilleKeks 744]

I can understand a surrender function in a game that requires a relatively long time investment per game, such as MOBAs. No one wants to play another 45 minutes dragging out the inevtibable. In APB? Most missions don't take that long. If you really want to, you can just spam in chat and get kicked to the lobby, or leave the game. This sounds more like a more convenient way to skip any form of challenge, since you don't give up your district slot.

 

Not a fan.

[jimmyneutral 3]

7 minutes ago, VanilleKeks said:

I can understand a surrender function in a game that requires a relatively long time investment per game, such as MOBAs. No one wants to play another 45 minutes dragging out the inevtibable. In APB? Most missions don't take that long. If you really want to, you can just spam in chat and get kicked to the lobby, or leave the game. This sounds more like a more convenient way to skip any form of challenge, since you don't give up your district slot.

 

Not a fan.

tolerance of duration is variable, what you mentioned about inevitable losses is far more concrete. time/duration shouldnt be the factor in what determines whether or not a feature like this is positive because again, from that lesser experienced player's perspective, that soon-to-be loss is just as inevitable as the MOBA players match.

[VanilleKeks 744]

2 minutes ago, jimmyneutral said:

tolerance of duration is variable, what you mentioned about inevitable losses is far more concrete. time/duration shouldnt be the factor in what determines whether or not a feature like this is positive because again, from that lesser experienced player's perspective, that soon-to-be loss is just as inevitable as the MOBA players match.

Time HAS to play a role in order to ensure that players atleast try. The individual tolerance is not important here, apart from determining an average which you can use. That's why League has a 15min minimum requirement for an early surrender. If you do not lock that function behind a timer, you will have people surrendering after the first team wipe. Taking the easy way out is far more common than you actually having an unwinnable match.

 

Considering what Frosi said, the chances of you having an unwinnable match will be lesser in the future. I see it all the time, people die once and then AFK the entire stage. Sure, not having to wait out the timer would be beneficial for both sides in this situation, but I just have a feeling that this will be horribly abused. 

[jimmyneutral 3]

13 minutes ago, VanilleKeks said:

Time HAS to play a role in order to ensure that players atleast try. The individual tolerance is not important here, apart from determining an average which you can use. That's why League has a 15min minimum requirement for an early surrender. If you do not lock that function behind a timer, you will have people surrendering after the first team wipe. Taking the easy way out is far more common than you actually having an unwinnable match.

 

Considering what Frosi said, the chances of you having an unwinnable match will be lesser in the future. I see it all the time, people die once and then AFK the entire stage. Sure, not having to wait out the timer would be beneficial for both sides in this situation, but I just have a feeling that this will be horribly abused. 

placing a forfeit option behind a time restriction ultimately results with a quitter afk'ing for that time restriction, then proceeding to forfeit. no difference is made, this is obvious to you based on what youve said at the end of your reply. of course not regarding all games or communities, but specifically for APB, it could range from something as simple as recognizing an enemy player's name, indicating that the mission is infact an 'unwinnable match', which is ground for 'taking the easy way out'. obviously this issue is behavioral, meaning that you cant treat it with the assumption that people are behaving according to the structure.

 

your previous post, you mentioned that, 'if you really want to, you can spam out of district or close your game'. thats what we already are doing when our opposition determines that theyd rather afk. streamlining this as a proper option funnels you against players actually willing to play you more quickly.

 

the main point here is that im not advocating quitting, im pointing out that a notable amount of players do quit for their own valid/invalid reasons, and theres no mechanic that can with certainty make them play, so there needs to be a mechanic that lets willing players conveniently get themselves out of a would-be abandoned mission.

[Ai-Zhú 46]

23 hours ago, NotZombieBiscuit said:

No mercy, no quarter, no surrender.

Cringe.

[ExoticZ 131]

No, no and NO!

 

On 4/26/2020 at 11:52 AM, Frosi said:

Absolutely not, good players already have a hard enough time getting opposition, giving the people that hackusate everyone better than them a surrender option is just going to ruin more and more missions and make the game even less playable for 4 player groups. 

 

In an ideal world there wouldn't be a need for a surrender option because the matchmaking (post 2.1) is good enough to match players of equal skill. A surrender option would be a "bandaid" until District Phasing / Matchmaking improvements that could be exploited and make the game even less enjoyable.

^this

[jimmyneutral 3]

54 minutes ago, VanilleKeks said:

Time HAS to play a role in order to ensure that players atleast try. The individual tolerance is not important here, apart from determining an average which you can use. That's why League has a 15min minimum requirement for an early surrender. If you do not lock that function behind a timer, you will have people surrendering after the first team wipe. Taking the easy way out is far more common than you actually having an unwinnable match.

 

Considering what Frosi said, the chances of you having an unwinnable match will be lesser in the future. I see it all the time, people die once and then AFK the entire stage. Sure, not having to wait out the timer would be beneficial for both sides in this situation, but I just have a feeling that this will be horribly abused. 

regarding abuse of a forfeit system, i could only assume you mean farming rating/money. ive mentioned earlier that, of course, parameters need to be set and adjusted accordingly to best reward players appropriately based on overall mission participation when a mission ends due to a forfeit.

5 minutes ago, ExoticZ said:

No, no and NO!

 

^this

'Absolutely not, good players already have a hard enough time getting opposition, giving the people that hackusate everyone better than them a surrender option is just going to ruin more and more missions and make the game even less playable for 4 player groups.'

 

realize that Frosi omits or is somehow completely unaware of the fact that players who 'hackusate everyone better than them' AFK against said players, forcing you to either wait the 5-10 minutes depending on whether youre attacking or defending or restart your game, because they arent.

 

why the fuck would you want to sit in an abandoned mission any longer than you have to? so long as there are enough players with the notion of cheater pollution in mind, this is going to happen.

Edited April 27, 2020 by jimmyneutral
aaa

[arkup 13]

 

when the game was first released it would tell you who you were going up against

and give you the option to take the fight or not with a yes / no option pre-match

guess it didn't work for obvious reasons , some players rarely got a match because of it 

Edited April 28, 2020 by arkup