Surrendering

[SvN91]

Something needs to be done with the surrender vote. Right now people rage-surrender even with two or three buildings left and it often requires only 7-8 yes votes for it to happen. It's not only annoying when your own team surrenders but also when you play on the winning team. The satisfaction of winning by destroying the last enemy building is gone.

The surrender vote should require a lot more yes votes from the team before the voting goes trough.

[Agent]

Increasing the required number of 'yes' votes is definitely not desirable. A surrender vote already requires more than a simple majority of 'yes' votes.

Surrendering brings a hopeless game to a close and saves everybody involved a significant amount of time. The process of dismantling a team's remaining base can go on for hours, frustrating everybody on both teams who just want to play the game. Instead of wasting time on a hopeless battle that drives players away, surrendering gets players back into the action on a new and level playing field. Surrendering isn't bad.

[Canucck]

I think every server should have a mandatory surrender after a specified amount of time, say 30-40min. Determining who surrenders should be based on points imo, the team with the least amount of points after this time period will automatically surrender.

[Redline]

I think every server should have a mandatory surrender after a specified amount of time, say 30-40min. Determining who surrenders should be based on points imo, the team with the least amount of points after this time period will automatically surrender.

Lol what. AoW?

[DoctorB0NG]

I think every server should have a mandatory surrender after a specified amount of time, say 30-40min. Determining who surrenders should be based on points imo, the team with the least amount of points after this time period will automatically surrender.

Lol what. AoW?

Thatsthejoke.jpeg

[Wrench]

The satisfaction of winning by destroying the last enemy building is gone.

so you like beat the enemy into the dirt..

its like: HEY WE SURRENDER!! WHITE FLAG..... PLEASE?!

and the enemy team: pew pew pew *ions or nukes raining*

[boxes]

When a team surrenders their buildings simultaneously blow up

[Xtractor]

suggestion:if a team surrender every players of that team will have a -X points penality for surrending in their score (ladder).

So ppl will think twice before surrender when there is an real possibility to win

[SvN91]

Increasing the required number of 'yes' votes is definitely not desirable. A surrender vote already requires more than a simple majority of 'yes' votes.

Surrendering brings a hopeless game to a close and saves everybody involved a significant amount of time. The process of dismantling a team's remaining base can go on for hours, frustrating everybody on both teams who just want to play the game. Instead of wasting time on a hopeless battle that drives players away, surrendering gets players back into the action on a new and level playing field. Surrendering isn't bad.

The majority of surrendervotes happen when the winning team is 30 seconds from destroying the last buildings OR when a hottie/tech unexpectedly destroys one building and the team becomes butthurt.

so you like beat the enemy into the dirt..

its like: HEY WE SURRENDER!! WHITE FLAG..... PLEASE?!

and the enemy team: pew pew pew *ions or nukes raining*

yes, that is the most fun part, or alternatively defending the base to the bitter end

[HaTe]

suggestion:if a team surrender every players of that team will have a -X points penality for surrending in their score (ladder).

So ppl will think twice before surrender when there is an real possibility to win

This is what I already suggested as well. The surrender vote is nice to have, but there should be incentive to not use it every single time there is a 1 building disadvantage.

[Ryz]

Right now it's even hard to surrender...

When a team surrenders it's usually due... *insert a shitload of teamhampering options and fails and not getting the team to do anything together.* I mean losing when having the feeling you are still fighting together is also cool, isn't it? We once defended the HON for 30 minutes on AOW only to lose the last minute!

But in these games where there is no teamwork it still /even takes 'hours' to even get the poll for surrender having enough votes. Why? Cause the same people ignoring teamchat (insert random other word like ignoring vote for mineban / q spotted c4 / enemy in base / beacon / building being perma damage / base defences triggered / vehicles being handed over to the enemy / and so on) do not care about the vote. The fact is that a lot of Renegade-X games are very, very single sided and that, if you don't switch to the other team, there's a high chance that you end up in a team where only 2 or 3 players are even reachable, while the other team has all the 'successes.' You almost never archieve this when sides are only a bit balanced.

So no, I am fine with the way surrender is right now, cause sometimes it takes up to 10 votes for people even notice it (among teamchat).

What would be cool is a different kind of countdown timer. So that a team can surrender ONLY after the enemy has done NO damage to your base for 'x- minutes' cause I understand it sucks when the opposing team surrenders in the middle of a flame rush in which you would have won anyways. This also works the other side, cause I've had many games where one side would lose the BAR / HON or WF / STRIP in a game before the recent OBY / AGT changes (or bugs) and the other side would just switch from being in 'destroy base' modus till 'killfarm and lets last this forever modus.'

[Ryz]

suggestion:if a team surrender every players of that team will have a -X points penality for surrending in their score (ladder).

So ppl will think twice before surrender when there is an real possibility to win

This is what I already suggested as well. The surrender vote is nice to have, but there should be incentive to not use it every single time there is a 1 building disadvantage.

A pentally doesn't work. Isn't the team already enough disgraced by the loss? I mean, as I tried to state above, many people do not matter about a loss, but they do about a effortless loss where 3/4th of the team is either unreachable or teamhampering. You know the difference when you play.. Evenings where the server stays full (besides the weekends with more people playing) are usually pretty balanced games, Evenings where the server empties are usually games where one side wins with everything still standing, while the enemy team is still trying to determine where their mines are, of why the enemy has more vehicles from 'the own' team than the own team has...

Edited April 7, 2016 by Guest

[Xtractor]

suggestion:if a team surrender every players of that team will have a -X points penality for surrending in their score (ladder).

So ppl will think twice before surrender when there is an real possibility to win

This is what I already suggested as well. The surrender vote is nice to have, but there should be incentive to not use it every single time there is a 1 building disadvantage.

and mb a generous bonus points for a team that win with less buildings

[Darkraptor]

The only problem with surrendering is that you can't do it in the first 15 minutes of the game.

Sometimes you are in such a noob team and did lost 2-3 major buildings in the first 15 Minutes. Aktually its now GG because you have no more chance to turn this game. But GG doesnt work. So you have to fight without any reason and the only thing you can do is to left the game .

[TK0104]

Surrender deals with endless games on Field, Under, Goldrush and other maps

[HaTe]

suggestion:if a team surrender every players of that team will have a -X points penality for surrending in their score (ladder).

So ppl will think twice before surrender when there is an real possibility to win

This is what I already suggested as well. The surrender vote is nice to have, but there should be incentive to not use it every single time there is a 1 building disadvantage.

A pentally doesn't work. Isn't the team already enough disgraced by the loss? I mean, as I tried to state above, many people do not matter about a loss, but they do about a effortless loss where 3/4th of the team is either unreachable or teamhampering. You know the difference when you play.. Evenings where the server stays full (besides the weekends with more people playing) are usually pretty balanced games, Evenings where the server empties are usually games where one side wins with everything still standing, while the enemy team is still trying to determine where their mines are, of why the enemy has more vehicles from 'the own' team than the own team has...

I think a slight incentive would work for players that care about their ladder rankings. Which should come into play more once Agent is able to implement his code to rework the ladder (and if it gets implemented into the launcher/game too).

[Quinc3y]

I like the surrender option, for the reasons Agent mentioned. I actually don't like the 15 minutes rule, because often the game is decided already in the first minutes.

Although I agree that sometimes teams get emotional and surrender too fast (today on Under GDI locked Nod in base for 30 minutes & was having full control of the game, then I managed to sneak and kill GDI PP and they surrendered immediately...), but it's the fault of the surrendering team and not of the option itself.

It is the role of a player in a losing team to encourage his/her teammates that "we can still win" and show a plan how to win the game.

[HaTe]

I like the surrender option, for the reasons Agent mentioned. I actually don't like the 15 minutes rule, because often the game is decided already in the first minutes.

Although I agree that sometimes teams get emotional and surrender too fast (today on Under GDI locked Nod in base for 30 minutes & was having full control of the game, then I managed to sneak and kill GDI PP and they surrendered immediately...), but it's the fault of the surrendering team and not of the option itself.

It is the role of a player in a losing team to encourage his/her teammates that "we can still win" and show a plan how to win the game.

Having played (well) over 1000 hours of Renegade since 2002, i can tell you that convincing public players to do just about anything is nearly impossible. Nonetheless stand against a team with a disadvantage when they can simply call it quits and move onto the next map without penalty. Several Renegade marathon servers had a !poll gameover command that was able to be initiated after 30-60+ minutes. Both teams got to vote and it needed something like 75% to pass. The satisfaction of winning is largely diminished by winning vs a surrender as well. It's a good option to have to fall back on, but it should not be treated as a "we have a disadvantage, surrender immediately" command like it is now. There should at the very least be incentive not to.

I would like to see a medal / achievements script, personally. Having "Comeback medals" be a thing where a team that was down at least 1 building at any time in the game ended up winning the game would be a nice incentive and neat overall.

[Xtractor]

I like the surrender option, for the reasons Agent mentioned. I actually don't like the 15 minutes rule, because often the game is decided already in the first minutes.

Although I agree that sometimes teams get emotional and surrender too fast (today on Under GDI locked Nod in base for 30 minutes & was having full control of the game, then I managed to sneak and kill GDI PP and they surrendered immediately...), but it's the fault of the surrendering team and not of the option itself.

It is the role of a player in a losing team to encourage his/her teammates that "we can still win" and show a plan how to win the game.

Having played (well) over 1000 hours of Renegade since 2002, i can tell you that convincing public players to do just about anything is nearly impossible. Nonetheless stand against a team with a disadvantage when they can simply call it quits and move onto the next map without penalty. Several Renegade marathon servers had a !poll gameover command that was able to be initiated after 30-60+ minutes. Both teams got to vote and it needed something like 75% to pass. The satisfaction of winning is largely diminished by winning vs a surrender as well. It's a good option to have to fall back on, but it should not be treated as a "we have a disadvantage, surrender immediately" command like it is now. There should at the very least be incentive not to.

I would like to see a medal / achievements script, personally. Having "Comeback medals" be a thing where a team that was down at least 1 building at any time in the game ended up winning the game would be a nice incentive and neat overall.

Id played some old ren games that took hours .i dont remember my top longuest one playing a marathon but I guest iwas over 7 hours ..

Its not something I want to do again but fk it was a good experience no other game could do.

I like your idea having kind od reward for the comebacks.

What also can be done is Special drops after X time minutes of play to the losing team, not too much but just enought to be a good reason to hold till that time to try something else before surrending .

[Ryz]

Just played a game where we were winning, but than the team broke down. We had their WF and ref killed and our buildings where still standing. Slowly they managed to sneak in our base and kill building after building, while some players didn't play, others teamhampered and gave vehicles away (maybe not on purpose, but they weren't paying attention time after time).

What could have been a loss, turned out to be a game lasting forever. Sometimes they only action I could note from people is voting no, cause there was really NOTHING else they did. It proves again that getting a surrender 'passed' is hard enough...

[HaTe]

Just played a game where we were winning, but than the team broke down. We had their WF and ref killed and our buildings where still standing. Slowly they managed to sneak in our base and kill building after building, while some players didn't play, others teamhampered and gave vehicles away (maybe not on purpose, but they weren't paying attention time after time).

What could have been a loss, turned out to be a game lasting forever. Sometimes they only action I could note from people is voting no, cause there was really NOTHING else they did. It proves again that getting a surrender 'passed' is hard enough...

Yeah but in your example, the GDI team may have attempted a surrender after losing ref and WF and it did not pass....and they came back and won (comeback medal..).

About 50% of my games end in surrender from one of the teams, so I really don't think that should be considered a "hard" vote to pass (even if 9/10's of them fail in a game, the 1 that ends it is the one that really counts anyway). I'd also like to note that a !poll gameover in Renegade had a cooldown rate established with it of about 5-10 minutes depending on the server.

[Agent]

I think a slight incentive would work for players that care about their ladder rankings. Which should come into play more once Agent is able to implement his code to rework the ladder (and if it gets implemented into the launcher/game too).

To clarify, I'm not adding any penalty for surrendering.

Also: her*

[Xtractor]

Than get all the infantries from the surrendering team at the closing outro ,line up and hands in back eyes cover and they will be all fusillier :0))

we take no prisonners

[MrSeriousOak]

Than get all the infantries from the surrendering team at the closing outro ,line up and hands in back eyes cover and they will be all fusillier :0))

we take no prisonners

Then give the people who voted no guns to fight back? I am usually a no-voter on these surrender votes.

[Ryz]

Just played a game where we were winning, but than the team broke down. We had their WF and ref killed and our buildings where still standing. Slowly they managed to sneak in our base and kill building after building, while some players didn't play, others teamhampered and gave vehicles away (maybe not on purpose, but they weren't paying attention time after time).

What could have been a loss, turned out to be a game lasting forever. Sometimes they only action I could note from people is voting no, cause there was really NOTHING else they did. It proves again that getting a surrender 'passed' is hard enough...

Yeah but in your example, the GDI team may have attempted a surrender after losing ref and WF and it did not pass....and they came back and won (comeback medal..).

I guess the only few 'active' players on GDI left and new people joined... Glad GDI won after all, but in between Nod having a chance of winning and losing there was 30 minutes off really nothing... Yeah we lost a building due a solo action, but nobody cared... We didn't launch an attack, except one a few min for the end, we didn't defend. I had no clue what people where doing and the game was absolutly the opposite from what it should be...

[Darkraptor]

Than get all the infantries from the surrendering team at the closing outro ,line up and hands in back eyes cover and they will be all fusillier :0))

we take no prisonners

Then give the people who voted no guns to fight back? I am usually a no-voter on these surrender votes.

Aktually thats the reason to vote for "Yes" because you dont have any guns to fight back (HoN/Rack, Airf/Wf destroyed).

[HaTe]

I think a slight incentive would work for players that care about their ladder rankings. Which should come into play more once Agent is able to implement his code to rework the ladder (and if it gets implemented into the launcher/game too).

To clarify, I'm not adding any penalty for surrendering.

Also: her*

a reward for finishing the game outright is what i'm suggesting...not a penalty

[HaTe]

I think a slight incentive would work for players that care about their ladder rankings. Which should come into play more once Agent is able to implement his code to rework the ladder (and if it gets implemented into the launcher/game too).

To clarify, I'm not adding any penalty for surrendering.

Also: her*

a reward for finishing the game outright is what i'm suggesting...not a penalty. Once the ladder is more than just based on "score," there's actually an already built-in slight incentive into your code to keep playing anyway (more players = higher multiplier and more time = higher multiplier). However, this also encourages the winning team to just camp and force a surrender even more. The more they drag out the game, the more ladder points they get. Marathon in Renegade had this as well, which is why the poll gameover was implemented for a vote for both teams rather than just the losing one (similar to the switchmap vote).

[RoundShades]

I think the solution to this, is doing something to make games end in a timely fashion.

In Field and Under's case, maybe map modification, maybe base defense nerfs against infantry so they are less overwhelming.

In the general game's case, maybe a gradual higher lethality based on score. If damage to structures happened gradually based on score, then damage done to structures by hand would still count, as a team with a lost building could still win if they score enough to damage the enemy's buildings also. If score didn't damage structures, but rather increased damage done against structures, then 35k score into a game, 8 gunners would do the damage of 10, then at 40k score into the game, 6 gunners would do the damage of 10, eventually it would be easier to kill a structure than to keep it alive, and you had to earn it by score, and both teams can earn it gradually so a losing team can have more of a chance late-game to kill a structure as well.

[Ryz]

Even if you nerve the base defences (more) you still have those people camping. We played Under yesterday and every base entrance for infantery was locked by at least one person sitting there in a vehicle all game. Not to mention the fact that, as on every game with base defence, at least 4 or 5 people stop playing to start killfarming / sniping all game. I always notice this on base defence maps and I think it's one of the reason they get 'more stalemate.'

[MrSeriousOak]

Than get all the infantries from the surrendering team at the closing outro ,line up and hands in back eyes cover and they will be all fusillier :0))

we take no prisonners

Then give the people who voted no guns to fight back? I am usually a no-voter on these surrender votes.

Aktually thats the reason to vote for "Yes" because you dont have any guns to fight back (HoN/Rack, Airf/Wf destroyed).

I would still pick up my nearest rock (what if we could actually do that :OO) and go caveman style on you buggers!

[XD_ERROR_XD]

Even if you nerve the base defences (more) you still have those people camping. We played Under yesterday and every base entrance for infantery was locked by at least one person sitting there in a vehicle all game. Not to mention the fact that, as on every game with base defence, at least 4 or 5 people stop playing to start killfarming / sniping all game. I always notice this on base defence maps and I think it's one of the reason they get 'more stalemate.'

easier infiltration does not mean more infiltration. Let me sum this one up:

Easy infiltration routes = more camping = More difficult to infiltrate.

Hard infiltration routes = less camping = Less difficult to infiltrate.

...If only matters were this simple. So let me put some detail in this formula:

Easy infiltration routes + Easy access = No way in hell you're getting through.

Easy infiltration routes + Remote access = It will be camped by designated miners, defenders, etc. Timing and Mind games becomes important.

Hard infiltration routes + Easy access = More crowded but less defended. Enemies are less likely to see you coming from here. A smart person however would realise you'd be attempting this route once the AGT starts firing at his tunnel entrance, and will camp it.

Hard infiltration routes + Remote access = Barely occupied, many people will not even know about this infiltration route's existence. It will be possible to take this route multiple times without being camped.

Now we've got a lot more detailed idea of how infiltration routes work! But we're still not there. Let's make it even more complex!

1 Easy infiltration route + Easy access = No way in hell you're getting through. More people will go through the same tunnel/take the same route.

Multiple easy infiltration routes + Easy access = Still crowded, but gives more opportunity for the solo sneaker to time his attacks. Attack 3 times from route 1, make the defender thinks he's going there again and then take the second one. May work, but unlikely.

1 Easy infiltration route + Remote access = You're only getting through if the enemy has the majority of his troops located somewhere else.

Multiple easy infiltration routes + Remote access = Relatively easy access to enemy base from multiple angles, hard to defend from, this could end up in a huge campfest in high playercount battle or massive building destruction. This is not desirable.

1 Hard infiltration route + Easy access = Would still be defended, as it's the only place where you can infiltrate their base from. As it's going to be crowded, forget it unless you're playing in a server with less than 10 people.

Multiple hard infiltration routes + Easy access = Very unlikely to be both mined at the same time. Multiple routes means the area is less crowded. Could be attempted.

1 Hard infiltration route + Remote access = Enemy is less likely to go here. Unless the route has been taken multiple times or the enemy knows of the route, it will most likely not be mined. Could be attempted, but only the first couple of attempts may work.

Multiple hard infiltration routes + Remote access = A skilled sneaker's paradise. Easy to play mindgames with the enemy, Nobody else is going to attempt all the routes it is very unlikely all entrances are camped, or would be mined. Could be attempted for a long period of time.

Now, for all that i said above, you have to take into consideration that you might not be the only one to get into that tunnel or take that route. Snipers love remote places where they can shoot, or crowded areas where they can fire lots. This once again attracts attention and makes sneaking by yourself even more difficult.

Take all these possibilites mentioned above into consideration when trying to make a map sneak-able.

[HaTe]

I just think that you need the ability to hide to when sneaking in. Like behind rocks or elevated terrain. Under's issue is that every entrance is pretty much wide open, making it easy to spot any potential infiltration (that and vehicle rushes aren't highly effective because of poor physics, but that's just a given at this point). XMountain only has 3 real entrances, yet allows for sneaking quite effectively still, which is what makes it fun (and a pain in the ass to defend).

As it stands, the game just screams "We're up a building, now let's just camp until they surrender."

It's not a fun gameplay style for either team, but is effective for one of them. That's where we're at right now.

[Xtractor]

Stuff

Remote/easy/hard acess :Are you refering these as infantry only?

[XD_ERROR_XD]

Stuff

Remote/easy/hard acess :Are you refering these as infantry only?

Yeah. Some stuff was left out because i didn't want to make it too lengthy of a post.

[Xtractor]

making a the perfect map seem impossible but thanksfor raising some flags ..hopping to read your pro and cons for my map in progress (Alaska) hope to see less surrendering for it

[SvN91]

What could have been a loss, turned out to be a game lasting forever. Sometimes they only action I could note from people is voting no, cause there was really NOTHING else they did. It proves again that getting a surrender 'passed' is hard enough...

When the games becomes stalemate and nothing good happens for both teams the Change map vote is the best way of ending it. And people are often voting f1 for it after a long game. Nobody wants to surrender however.

[Xtractor]

What if Surrendering wasn't permit until one only building is left ?

[Ryz]

What if Surrendering wasn't permit until one only building is left ?

Than we would play field with WF and BAR down, but still the AGT to defend the ref which brings you money which you can't spend...

On stalemate maps the building which usually survives (at least in my experience) is the Obelisk / AGT. I think that, while surrendering isn't always fun for the winning team, that it's a necessary thing. Played 3 / 4 games in a row yesterday with 1/3rd of team either afk, teamhampering (we stole enemy vehicles, parked them in base and someone killed them), stupidity (handing over vehicles), overmining, starting to camp around a group of stanks so we all got spotted, repairing harvester in front of REF when the building is getting perma damage, shooting a building we were infiltrating while mentioned 15 times not to, not shooting a building which needed one hit to get destroyed cause the driver was too busy hunting ONE engineer and so on.

There was just no way these games would lead to anything so the only option, besides a map change vote, is surrender...

[Xtractor]

Good points Ryz