Delete or change Surrender vote

[CONTRA49]

Please change the way the Surrender vote works, or remove it completely. People keep choosing to surrender after like 10 minutes of gameplay, or after they lose like 2 of 5 buildings. It's pathetic. Do they have ADD or something and can't play a longer game? Is it too difficult for these noobs? Are they afraid they're going to lose no matter what happens? At least finish the fucking game so you give the other team the satisfaction of actually winning by blowing your shit up. Be a good sport for fucks sake. You might steal some tanks or have some cool infantry fights or something, who knows, but you'll never know if you keep giving up.

Maybe make a stat that shows how many times a player votes to surrender, and give them a coward emblem when they play. End up spending more time choosing and loading a map than actually playing because of these cowards.

[Ryz]

Personally I think that the way it works is ok for most of the games, but what I think is would be great that surrender either:

- doesn't have effect immediately when you do the vote in x minutes after a building has been been lost (and the enemy knows this, so HAS to strike)
- is not available x-minutes after building is lost

What I hate is when one team is steamrolling the enemy base and killing all buildings, but the other team surrenders earlier in the middle of the assault. On the other hand I hate it when I am in a team with a lot of afks (or people doing random shit) in a long, long, long game where nothing happens from both sides. Than one team loses HON / BAR and the other team goes for full sniping mode, stalling the game for way longer, while not doing any attacks to achieve the thing the game is about: win from the enemy team by base destruction. In these cases I think it is ok to have a surrender vote.

 

 

[TheOlsenTwins]

Yeah, maybe cant surrender 5 minutes after building loss...

[vandal33]

Happens where a team loses a building early in the game and nearly all of them were either leaving game or trolling until the surrender is available. It's better if people just surrender since majority has agreed. It's quite boring playing when a team of kill-whoring snipers just prolonging the game, especially for new players. When most of the team members wanted to forfeit, the winning team should be proud they wrecked the enemy till they admit defeat, except kill whores who just kill or blow things up for satisfaction.

 

By the way, strong first post, you must be a nice person.

[CONTRA49]

-removed-

If you can't kill or counter some snipers then you're a terrible player. There's always options available, always tactics you can use, always rushes you can put together. Being shit at the game is no excuse not trying.

[boxes]

37 minutes ago, CONTRA49 said:

-removed-

If you can't kill or counter some snipers then you're a terrible player. There's always options available, always tactics you can use, always rushes you can put together. Being shit at the game is no excuse not trying.

Please keep discussion on these forums civil and on topic. Attacking other users will not be tolerated. 

[CONTRA49]

Moderator keeps deleting my posts...

[Ryz]

Maybe cause everybody is trying to have a discussion based on facts and you come with "If you can't kill or counter some snipers, then you're a terrible player."

Surrender isn't about this. But there are in fact a lot of games where the 'winning team' stops with their victory march in order to killwhore with up to half the team (had this) snipers. Maybe you can counter those, what is hard when they spawn kill you on field when you leave bar for example, but that's not what this is about. It's more or less about the game becoming stale. 

Doesn't only happen in this case, but there are a lot of games where team A has the adventage over team B, but doesn't use it and just let the game 'flow on' without any really attempts to advance it. 

In this case surrender = great
In the case where the team is allready doing a lot of damage they should be able to finish it

That's why I recommend to have the surrender vote only when a base has not any building kills for 'x-minutes,' 15 looks like a decent amount of time to me. 

 

[KrypTheBear]

5 hours ago, CONTRA49 said:

-removed-

If you can't kill or counter some snipers then you're a terrible player. There's always options available, always tactics you can use, always rushes you can put together. Being shit at the game is no excuse not trying.

Kek. Try countersniping in a round of 3 dedicated enemy snipers that make you just wish you never plugged that keyboard of yours in (e.g. Minji, Jeff or Dienoob/WhatEverTheHellYourCurrentNameIs). </offtopic>

I agree. The surrender option shouldn't be available immediately after a building is lost. A team should be given the option to still conduct infiltration (perhaps an infiltration is going on just the second a building was destroyed?) until like two to three minutes afterwards, just to give solo-op players a chance to turn the tables. If they don't succeed during the time, a team should then be able surrender by vote. 

[Madkill40]

I chose vote surrender on Complex as GDI when we lost our Weps and Bar, not noticing the Ion on the Strip which was about to go off.

I'm glad the Surrender failed because with just the refinery GDI beat Nod back and via base destruction, thus winning.

[CONTRA49]

I maintain that most people who surrender are shit at this game and give up too easily. 3 snipers? That's it? Keep rushing them with basic infantry until they die, or you have enough money for a vehicle to harass them off the field.

1 hour ago, Madkill40 said:

I chose vote surrender on Complex as GDI when we lost our Weps and Bar, not noticing the Ion on the Strip which was about to go off.

I'm glad the Surrender failed because with just the refinery GDI beat Nod back and via base destruction, thus winning.

Thank you for proving my point. There is always a chance to turn the game in your favour, you just have to try.

[Madkill40]

19 minutes ago, CONTRA49 said:

Thank you for proving my point. There is always a chance to turn the game in your favour, you just have to try.

Well, if it wasn't for the Ion Cannon we would have died anyway but you are welcome for the point. 

 

Team communication is good to combat early surrenders. 

[yosh56]

8 hours ago, CONTRA49 said:

I maintain that most people who surrender are shit at this game and give up too easily. 3 snipers? That's it? Keep rushing them with basic infantry until they die, or you have enough money for a vehicle to harass them off the field.

Thank you for proving my point. There is always a chance to turn the game in your favour, you just have to try.

3 snipers (all of them with at least 25% accuracy on the regular), smart enough to carry repair tools, and a on top of the bunker on XMountain so vehicles can't hit them, and running up there just means you die on the ladder. Kek, so 'easy'. Oh right, and their team is busy just whoring at the front of the base. 

 

And no actually, if the other team is just camping their ass off even while winning there isn't always a chance. Not until enough people just get bored, which is honestly the last thing you should be HAVING to do in a game. 

[Quinc3y]

I'm all in favour of the surrender system. Maybe the voting could be longer tho, because sometimes people miss it.

But what is worth mentioning here is that the veterancy system is reponsible for more surrenders.

Right now the winning team becomes stronger as the game progresses, making comebacks much harder. Especially if a team loses a building in the early game - then, with the increased veterancy gain that was introduced recently, the team that destroyed that building will all be veteran almost immediately.

When you are a building down and the enemy team has their whole base left, the only real chance for a comeback is to sneak in. That's because you can't overpower them and you can't commit too many players in the losing team to a rush, because the enemy - which has the veterancy advantage - will crush your base when you're rushing.

These are the downsides of veterancy, which all in all I'm positive about. Maybe decreasing its gain rate would make games more interesting.

Not to mention that some choke-point maps are almost unwinnable without HoN/Barracks. Try winning Xmountain when you can't buy specialized infantry and the enemy has their whole base. Or even Walls.

[Madkill40]

Lowering what the other team gains is a bit of a step back.

Maybe the failing team gets a morale boost and gains extra veterancy points for the next 5 minutes, at least giving them the opportunity and idea of what to do.

The strong desire to just kill the enemy teams' soldiers and vehicles after the destruction of a building should be engaged, and rewarded with veterancy points boost for 5 minutes starting from the moment either a GDI or Nod building is destroyed.  

Edited September 22, 2016 by Madkill40

[KrypTheBear]

10 hours ago, Quincy said:

 

Spoiler

I'm all in favour of the surrender system. Maybe the voting could be longer tho, because sometimes people miss it.

But what is worth mentioning here is that the veterancy system is reponsible for more surrenders.

Right now the winning team becomes stronger as the game progresses, making comebacks much harder. Especially if a team loses a building in the early game - then, with the increased veterancy gain that was introduced recently, the team that destroyed that building will all be veteran almost immediately.

When you are a building down and the enemy team has their whole base left, the only real chance for a comeback is to sneak in. That's because you can't overpower them and you can't commit too many players in the losing team to a rush, because the enemy - which has the veterancy advantage - will crush your base when you're rushing.

These are the downsides of veterancy, which all in all I'm positive about. Maybe decreasing its gain rate would make games more interesting.

Not to mention that some choke-point maps are almost unwinnable without HoN/Barracks. Try winning Xmountain when you can't buy specialized infantry and the enemy has their whole base. Or even Walls.

I think lowering the veterancy advantage will make players in public matches less focussed on objectives, which makes whoring for armor-breaks less a thing, but also will prevent a bit of team-play in the pubs. It has it's advantages but also it's disadvantages. I think leaving that as is should be fine. 

I'd be all in for a delayed promotion, like you don't get your promotion immediately, instead you'd have a 5-10 minutes timer, where every player with sufficient points ranks up. This way you'd avoid this instant feeling of "Yep, we're fucked twofold" for the enemy team.

If a map is unwinnable after a single building responsible for supplying your team with units falls then the map isn't properly balanced. Whiteout may be not the best map, but it's an example of both infantry and vehicle power (primarily vehicles, but losing your weps/strip doesn't make you lose the game immediately, you still can wipe MArts and MRLS with infantry, unlike Walls where losing HoN/Bar makes the game significantly harder, near impossible to win). Maybe it's just me, but the Geeds always had the vehicle advantage while Nod always had the infantry advantage. I mean, every Techie and Engy gets scared shitless when you just hear 3 Mammoths fire simultaneously against a building, while every Geed yellows their pants when they see an SBH running past them. And yet owning the infantry building gives you the edge, cause Techies/Hotties, cause high-tier inf, cause snipers. 

 

19 hours ago, CONTRA49 said:

Spoiler

I maintain that most people who surrender are shit at this game and give up too easily. 3 snipers? That's it? Keep rushing them with basic infantry until they die, or you have enough money for a vehicle to harass them off the field.

Thank you for proving my point. There is always a chance to turn the game in your favour, you just have to try.

 

Banging my head against a wall until it breaks is a way to break a wall but it's not a good one. "Keep rushing them with basic inf until they die". Kekklemore. And yeah, implying implications. Most people who surrender just don't want to waste their fucking time you know. If you see 8 Flame Tanks murdering your Weps and Bar simultaneously, losing 5 FTs nonetheless, remaining 3 pulling back then yeah. Surrender. Cause you don't win that one do you. That doesn't mean people who surrender are necessarily shit, it's just "Hey, let's move on to the next match and not fuck up this badly". 

[RoundShades]

Don't know what's the fuss with arguing, but surrender is a system that's pretty frequently used and cherished. Why take something away from people who like it?

Also, it's a vote, so "taking it away" is undemocratic. We don't claim to be democratic here, but we are functional, and it functions.

To have surrender deleted, you'd have to convince people not to use surrender. Calling them names, doesn't change the fact that they play the game, and in PUGs, we use surrenders to avoid wasting time so we can play more matches, it definitely helps the target player.

If a team surrendered, it's because at the very least, they were in a stalemate, and in a stalemate, everyone's the loser. That's why people will simply vote change-map if neither team is willing to surrender but both teams combined have a lot of people willing to.

[vandal33]

On 9/21/2016 at 9:45 PM, CONTRA49 said:

 

Thank you for proving my point. There is always a chance to turn the game in your favour, you just have to try.

That doesn't mean the surrender should be deleted, it's just a situation where you don't need to surrender. There are real situations where the surrender is needed. 

The quote saying "glad the surrender failed" doesn't really proof it should be removed. That game had a chance of turning the table and more players voted no, it shows how the surrender feature is working without screwing up games when the majority still wants to play. As long as the required percentage of voting yes is high (75% or more), it shouldn't ruin the match since a vast majority agreeing to forfeit is needed.

[Madkill40]

The only thing that's lame about surrender is when the losing team are bad sports and make the game finish right before the last building is to be destroyed.

But that's just a team with rotten players playing, not the Surrender options fault. 

[KrypTheBear]

3 minutes ago, Madkill40 said:

The only thing that's lame about surrender is when the losing team are bad sports and make the game finish right before the last building is to be destroyed.

But that's just a team with rotten players playing, not the Surrender options fault. 

Uhhhh... I don't see the difference. If the game is about to finish anyways, why prolong the inevitable?

[Madkill40]

20 minutes ago, KrypTheBear said:

Uhhhh... I don't see the difference. If the game is about to finish anyways, why prolong the inevitable?

Why, satisfaction of sheer destruction and a victory well earned my dear Watson. 

[TheOlsenTwins]

Maybe something can be done to make Votes in general stand out more? E.g. a notification sound or a larger font? Or also longer times for important votes like surrender or map change votes?

Quite often many people overlook votes...

[vandal33]

8 hours ago, Madkill40 said:

Why, satisfaction of sheer destruction and a victory well earned my dear Watson. 

I personally don't mind this. But I know it can be frustrating when your opponent forfeiting right before you beat him, like playing chess with my brother, he always flips the table (not literally) admitting defeat every time when I was about to check-mate him instead of letting me end the "proper" way.

People will surrender when they're about to lose in this game but since the majority of the opponents prefer that way, I guess we just have to accept it and move on. It's just personal taste whether we think this is a frowned-upon thing or not, if many people voted it to pass, then I guess it's fine. Maybe this habit of voting to surrender right before losing will stop once they realize how annoying it is, if they keep on doing it, then it means many people in the community are fine with it. Some people (including the ones on winning team) prefers fast ending instead of delaying the same results.

 

[Madkill40]

Hence...

11 hours ago, Madkill40 said:

But that's just a team with rotten players playing, not the Surrender options fault. 

 

[Calvin]

It's not fun when people surrender after 1 building loss, maybe we can change it into 3 buildings? or longer period of time, I honestly don't mind tho.

(edit) Or maybe change it so you can only surrender when you lose the BAR and WF the 2 buildings that can win you the game. 

 

Edited September 24, 2016 by My Aim Sucks

[RoundShades]

3 hours ago, My Aim Sucks said:

It's not fun when people surrender after 1 building loss, maybe we can change it into 3 buildings? or longer period of time, I honestly don't mind tho.

(edit) Or maybe change it so you can only surrender when you lose the BAR and WF the 2 buildings that can win you the game. 

 

In Under, the loss of a structure can in fact bait a 50 minute eventual loss and waste of time achieving said result. A surrender is in fact preferable to 50 minutes of unbreakable turtling.

[yosh56]

2 hours ago, YagiHige said:

In Under, the loss of a structure can in fact bait a 50 minute eventual loss and waste of time achieving said result. A surrender is in fact preferable to 50 minutes of unbreakable turtling.

 

Dunno... Under's a map that probably sees more heroic units than any other... Veterancy is the shining star of that map... and I'm not just saying that because my 54/10 streak with a heroic APC that one time >_>... Also heroic grenadier rush <3 < 3

 

Game definitely has more late game options now. 

[RoundShades]

6 minutes ago, yosh56 said:

 

Dunno... Under's a map that probably sees more heroic units than any other... Veterancy is the shining star of that map... and I'm not just saying that because my 54/10 streak with a heroic APC that one time >_>... Also heroic grenadier rush <3 < 3

 

Game definitely has more late game options now. 

This is why I say 50 minutes, and not 7 hours. 7 hours was a distinct possibility before. Now, hour is rare but almost definitely never triple-digit minutes.

[DrSilence]

I'm against removal or changing how it works for now.
(except the opinions about make it more visible or adding some time delay ~3-5 min. between each surrender vote) 

Reason:
Instead of moving forward to the next round, more players will simply exit the game if they are "forced" to keep the round alive.
From my point of view, you guys should not discuss about what to change about the vote system, instead look about the reasons why one team is trying to surrender. Is it saving time on an already lost game, to many AFKs in on the team, missing team play and just trying to survive or whatever. 

Pls keep in mind that every successful surrender vote is the will of that team. 

Cheers,

Edited September 24, 2016 by DrSilence

[Kaiser739]

I agree some amendmends should be made regarding the surrender votes.

Here are my ideas:

- A team should only be able to surrender when it has lost 2-3 buildings (depending on map).
- At least 30 minutes should be played before surrendering becomes an option.
- Remove the ability to spam votes so a team can only vote to surrender like every 10 minutes. Make it a team-wide cooldown, not player based.

"Losing" teams will be forced to at least try to put up a fight under these conditions. At the moment, a lot of games are ended by surrenders even though comebacks could actually well be made but people simply don't bother.

Edited September 24, 2016 by EKT-Kaiser

[Profane Pagan]

For those arguing the surrender takes away the triumph of victory, I would advice to simply change the end message from "X team has surrendered" or something to "X team is victorious."

 

Edited September 24, 2016 by Profane Pagan

[Handepsilon]

11 hours ago, My Aim Sucks said:

It's not fun when people surrender after 1 building loss, maybe we can change it into 3 buildings? or longer period of time, I honestly don't mind tho.

(edit) Or maybe change it so you can only surrender when you lose the BAR and WF the 2 buildings that can win you the game. 

 

I'm more inclined with using score difference to determine the ability to surrender rather than building losses, but that's just me

[Henk]

12 hours ago, My Aim Sucks said:

It's not fun when people surrender after 1 building loss, maybe we can change it into 3 buildings? or longer period of time, I honestly don't mind tho.

(edit) Or maybe change it so you can only surrender when you lose the BAR and WF the 2 buildings that can win you the game. 

 

How does this work on Snow?

[Fffreak9999]

3 hours ago, EKT-Kaiser said:

I agree some amendmends should be made regarding the surrender votes.

Here are my ideas:

- A team should only be able to surrender when it has lost 2-3 buildings (depending on map).
- At least 30 minutes should be played before surrendering becomes an option.
- Remove the ability to spam votes so a team can only vote to surrender like every 10 minutes. Make it a team-wide cooldown, not player based.

"Losing" teams will be forced to at least try to put up a fight under these conditions. At the moment, a lot of games are ended by surrenders even though comebacks could actually well be made but people simply don't bother.

 

1)  2-3 (Buildings Lost) - Some maps only have 2 or 3 buildings, making this unrealistic

2) At least 30 mins (AOW Matches by default are 40 mins) No point adding time restrictions (And Mara would also be affected by this at game level)

3) Remove the ability to spam votes: This would be more efficient, but 10 mins is too long, 5 mins is more realistic.

[boxes]

The reason why most of these map change and surrender votes pass is because the people on the team who are playing the game often don't notice the vote menu popping up, while the ones standing around waiting for the base to blow up obviously do. Somebody mentioned earlier to make votes more obvious is the first step imo. 

[Madkill40]

When a team surrenders they should mass suicide.

[boxes]

On 9/24/2016 at 9:12 AM, CampinJeff said:

The reason why most of these map change and surrender votes pass is because the people on the team who are playing the game often don't notice the vote menu popping up, while the ones standing around waiting for the base to blow up obviously do. Somebody mentioned earlier to make votes more obvious is the first step imo. 

<CT> Total Players: 32 | GDI: 16 | Nod: 15 | N/A: 1
<CT> [Vote] A vote for "Surrender" passed (Votes Yes: 5 | Votes No: 2).

(name):WTF??

(name):what happened

~

^Is basically what I mean. 7 people voted in a 16 player team, and a surrender vote passes because the 9 other players didn't notice the vote happening.

[Ryz]

The fact that only 7 people voted, says more about the rest than about the vote. I've had games where we had 2 (!) SBH's spies and where I tried to reach them with teamchat / PM's over 50 times. I can understand some people are quite busy with other stuff but a vote is easily spotted. There will just always be players not reading stuff. Same goes for the mineban, some people get banned cause they don't read and do not start reading untill there is a ban. 

One thing I can think of is make votes fill your entire screen (and minimize them as soon as you press F1). Same goes for PM's. There should be a (commanders?) option to send a more urgent message which really draws attention. 

[Henk]

Instead of a timer there could also be a system where the vote stays up until x% of the team has voted. But this could also mean the vote can stay up for a long time if nobody votes.

So to fix that, maybe the surrender vote and change map votes could be up until either x% has voted, or until y minutes have passed.

Not sure what would be a good amount of time, but just longer than the normal surveys

[Madkill40]

A vote for a surrender should disappear when everybody on the team has voted Yes or No, there would be no allowance for changing your vote within this time.

The Surrender vote in this case, for the sake of trolls or protest-voters, will only actually last 5 minutes or until all players vote, whichever option has the highest votes then that option wins.

There, surrender vote fixed. 

Anyone who votes and regrets what they voted for will at least learn not to do that in real life, so at least the game will teach people a lesson about politics.

[CONTRA49]

I stopped following this after my last reply because my blood was boiling off. But I just wanted to add that just now, in a full server, maybe not 20 minutes into the game on Field, GDI surrendered after losing only 1 (ONE) fucking building. It was the Barracks. Like what the literal fuck. Why bother playing? There were people aimbotting with Laser Chain Gunner in the previous 2 matches. 35 kills to 5 deaths, constant headshots, 195 ping. I tried to get them vote kicked but nobody gave a shit. Then these babies lose 1 building and they can't find the will to play? What the fuck is wrong with you?

[Fffreak9999]

10 minutes ago, CONTRA49 said:

I stopped following this after my last reply because my blood was boiling off. But I just wanted to add that just now, in a full server, maybe not 20 minutes into the game on Field, GDI surrendered after losing only 1 (ONE) fucking building. It was the Barracks. Like what the literal fuck. Why bother playing? There were people aimbotting with Laser Chain Gunner in the previous 2 matches. 35 kills to 5 deaths, constant headshots, 195 ping. I tried to get them vote kicked but nobody gave a shit. Then these babies lose 1 building and they can't find the will to play? What the fuck is wrong with you?

I highly doubt that anyone was aimbotting they would attract a much higher attention of moderators, and depending on the player who it was there is probably a much likelier possibility of them just playing that class a lot and they are good players.

But if you have suspicions of someone why not Modrequest?

[CONTRA49]

No fucking way, he was aimbotting. Nobody spins 360 degrees around constantly firing and getting all headshots with LCG. It doesn't happen without aimbot. I've seen it so many times. I'll Modrequest next time I see it.

[Guest Gliven]

or this 

 

[Fffreak9999]

@Gliven that command will not work on CT servers due to the Admin version of that command running on every match, recording full demo files of every match.

But in return we only need to know the match and time, and what server to look at.

[CONTRA49]

I don't remember the exact time, but it was a couple matches before the timestamp on my aimbotter post. Under was the first map, Tunnels was the second. On the CT Marathon server.

[Madkill40]

11 hours ago, CONTRA49 said:

I don't remember the exact time, but it was a couple matches before the timestamp on my aimbotter post. Under was the first map, Tunnels was the second. On the CT Marathon server.

It is uncommon to have the same map played more than once within 2 hours, a window of time would help greatly otherwise we'd have to look at every Under and Tunnels demo within a 24 hour period, which could be over 10 demos to sift through. 

[Guest Gliven]

16 hours ago, Fffreak9999 said:

@Gliven that command will not work on CT servers due to the Admin version of that command running on every match, recording full demo files of every match.

But in return we only need to know the match and time, and what server to look at.

Neato, good to know

[CONTRA49]

4 hours ago, Madkill40 said:

It is uncommon to have the same map played more than once within 2 hours, a window of time would help greatly otherwise we'd have to look at every Under and Tunnels demo within a 24 hour period, which could be over 10 demos to sift through. 

Take the timestamp of my post (4:44 PM EST 03-Oct-16), subtract 2 or 3 hours. Look for Under and Tunnels.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................profit.

[boxes]

There were no consecutive games of Under and Tunnels on the Marathon server, but there was on AOW. Assuming you meant that, we'll take a look