Delete or change Surrender vote

[CONTRA49]

Could have been AOW, but I swear it was Marathon. I remember other people complaining about changing maps/surrendering cause people didn't want long games even though they were on marathon. I could be mistaken though. 

Edit: And thank you.

Edited October 5, 2016 by CONTRA49

[boxes]

Not necessary by any means, nor do I know how hard it would be to implement, but I feel surrenders should simply make the enemy team all Heroic while everyone on the losing team goes back to recruit. People do have a point in that surrendering is the most unexciting way to end a game, as it removes the climax, making the winners unsatisfied and the losers shrug their shoulders. 

[Madkill40]

A long game is good usually when the buildings are all still alive, forcing yourself to endure disabilities for too long can become grueling.

[j0g32]

How about a global "surrender" - calling for a tie break instead?

This would (if at all) only be used to end stalemates. The scores of both teams are still displayed but the leading team is not declared winner to reflect that neither side was able to claim significant victory.

Maybe only after a mutual tie break was rejected by both teams, either team can surrender.

What do you think?

 

P.s. but then the "leading" team would always reject a tie break call...

[TheOlsenTwins]

17 minutes ago, j0g32 said:

How about a global "surrender" - calling for a tie break instead?

This would (if at all) only be used to end stalemates. The scores of both teams are still displayed but the leading team is not declared winner to reflect that neither side was able to claim significant victory.

Maybe only after a mutual tie break was rejected by both teams, either team can surrender.

What do you think?

 

P.s. but then the "leading" team would always reject a tie break call...

Isnt that a Change Map Vote?

[ex_member]

...

Edited September 22, 2018 by ex_member

[vandal33]

I don't see anything broken with the current system. As for a tie break vote, worth implementing it but we can all just wait for the time to end.

[KrypTheBear]

On 23.10.2016 at 4:52 AM, CampinJeff said:

Not necessary by any means, nor do I know how hard it would be to implement, but I feel surrenders should simply make the enemy team all Heroic while everyone on the losing team goes back to recruit. People do have a point in that surrendering is the most unexciting way to end a game, as it removes the climax, making the winners unsatisfied and the losers shrug their shoulders. 

Honestly, why not this? 
Or disable building repair, if that's somehow implementable.

56 minutes ago, dr.schrott said:

I would disable starting the surrender or map change survey for players below 300 points and disable voting capability in surrender and map change survey for players below 150 points ??

We had yesterday a round of (I'm pretty sure it was) Tomb, where the best player of the opposing team had like 187 points. Surrender vote was possible at that time, and they had already lost everything but the Barracks. Making the surrender vote go like that would just prolong the inevitable in such cases, especially since you still need a minimum amount of "Yes" voters. 

[j0g32]

@TheOlsenTwins

Well, what's the point of Surrender vote then anyway.

The intention of Surrender was to cut stalematy gameplay, but now it seems to be abused to obtain a restart of the match whenever a team experiences a disadvantage...

 

Okay, so how about not 50% of votes, but 50% of the whole team has to vote in favour of surrender?

 

And then nuke/ion the base, or some animation where everything blows up and all infantry raise their hands, and vehicles blow up.

I think this is what happened in some of the orig. C&C RTS when you surrendered in multiplayer ?!

Or some endgame cutscenes like in Battlefield Bad Company 2 (Vietnam) would be neat too

Just to briing back this satisfaction of winning

 

[Henk]

What I dislike about surrender is that in most cases the game will be over soon enough, a lot of times the enemy surrenders right when you were rushing their last structure, just let the winning team finish it, it takes away so much satisfaction.

@CampinJeffs Idea is a great solution for this in my opinion. You don't surrender directly but it'll be over quickly this way, and it would be fun to see the difference in strength when it's all Heroics vs all Recruits

[Madkill40]

A surrendered team should be forced into mass suicide or Jeff's idea to Heroic the winning team and recruit the surrendering team.

'Surrender' whilst it has a practical purpose still allows the Losers a way to win by ruining the victory of the winning team, just petty players practically piercing penis. 

[yosh56]

Quote

Not necessary by any means, nor do I know how hard it would be to implement, but I feel surrenders should simply make the enemy team all Heroic while everyone on the losing team goes back to recruit. People do have a point in that surrendering is the most unexciting way to end a game, as it removes the climax, making the winners unsatisfied and the losers shrug their shoulders. 

^

 

And conveniently, the vet system is already written to support being demoted =p

[TheOlsenTwins]

4 hours ago, Madkill40 said:

A surrendered team should be forced into mass suicide or Jeff's idea to Heroic the winning team and recruit the surrendering team.

'Surrender' whilst it has a practical purpose still allows the Losers a way to win by ruining the victory of the winning team, just petty players practically piercing penis. 

So to sum this thread up: Add more time and visibility to Map-related votes and change the surrender into something more rewarding for the winners:

So while setting the winning team to Heroic and the losing team to recruit why not also defuse all proxies of the surrendering team, disable their purchase terminals and give every player of the winning team 5000 creds or something ;-)

[RoundShades]

Just throwing this out there, but just disable structure healing for the surrendered team. All damage is permanent, nothing else matters, a team will eventually win and very quickly, if structures cannot be repaired at all. OR, if it's easier coding, remove repair guns for surrendered team, same effect.

[Handepsilon]

1 hour ago, YagiHige said:

Just throwing this out there, but just disable structure healing for the surrendered team. All damage is permanent, nothing else matters, a team will eventually win and very quickly, if structures cannot be repaired at all. OR, if it's easier coding, remove repair guns for surrendered team, same effect.

And 0 credits too probably c:

But to make the winning team not abusing the advantage and prolong the match anyways, give them a time limit to finish off the opponent, like 1 or 2 minutes

And for newly joined players during surrendered match, transfer them to the winning team or spectator immediately. I don't know about you but if I were to join a match and then found out that I'm on a team that has surrendered, I would be urged to just disconnect rather than wait the other team to destroy me.

[RoundShades]

4 minutes ago, Handepsilon said:

And 0 credits too probably c:

But to make the winning team not abusing the advantage and prolong the match anyways, give them a time limit to finish off the opponent, like 1 or 2 minutes

Well, you add almost 2 minutes, by having the buildings take automatic gradual damage 1% a second (along with disabling healguns).

You know, another way it can be done, is force-switching everyone on surrendering team, so all 40 can destroy the base together, and then switch the teams back right at score screen.

[Handepsilon]

2 minutes ago, YagiHige said:

You know, another way it can be done, is force-switching everyone on surrendering team, so all 40 can destroy the base together, and then switch the teams back right at score screen.

Sounds less punishing tho

[RoundShades]

3 minutes ago, Handepsilon said:

Sounds less punishing tho

Players hate dying when the game's already decided, waiting idly for games to change, and being kicked when down.

Players are less likely to depopulate a game, if they at least get to participate in helping end the game.

Not sure which is easier to code; Team-switching for surrender, or friendly-fire-enabled for surrender. Bet if friendly fire was enabled for a team, it'd end in 30 seconds because they'd just c4 their own MCTs, and they'd be able to shoot each other but I don't see too much harm in that. Does the engine ignore kills/deaths to friendly fire? I was under the impression it already did.

[Handepsilon]

1 minute ago, YagiHige said:

Does the engine ignore kills/deaths to friendly fire? I was under the impression it already did.

Better, I think. It decreases your score in UT iirc.

[voltex]

No, adding all this other crap to it  would just turn people away from surrendering in which case you might as well remove the surrender option. They've either lost their will to fight or their teamwork is so bad most of the team didn't even notice the surrender vote, just let them take the loss.

Besides when most players have surrendered or a least know they have lost they just stand around and do nothing anyways, and nerfing the hell out of the surrendering team to let the other just roll in and kill them would just prolong  a game their already sick of and I don't know how other players can get satisfaction out of killing an enemy that isn't even going to put up a fight or isn't even capable of it. You've won the game, just accept it.

If it must be changed then I would suggest having the surrendering teams building all be killed with an ion/nuke or  the surrendering team be incapable for voting on the next map, or both. Also making a surrender/map change or any kind of vote more noticeable would greatly help.

 

[Agent]

Votes do need an animation to increase visibility and player participation. I'm thinking the text would start in the middle and slowly rise to the top where it rests. It'd be best if this were done in Flash so that it's the same size for everybody as well. If surrender votes still appear to be bothersome after such a change, perhaps we should adjust the votes needed to pass the vote.

We do not need to associate any gimmicks with surrender votes. At most, a 5-10 second time span where vehicles are abandoned and the enemy puts their hands in the air. That's it. We don't need to change how surrender votes function at their core.

[Guest Gliven]

but...but....i need mah gimmicks! How about when you surrender your teams buildings get sold and disappear and you only get 1 life left.

[j0g32]

When a team surrenders, all vehicles and buildings should blow up in the Endgame Flyover.

if possible let all play a surrender animation - put their hands up.

[RoundShades]

12 hours ago, voltex said:

No, adding all this other crap to it  would just turn people away from surrendering in which case you might as well remove the surrender option. They've either lost their will to fight or their teamwork is so bad most of the team didn't even notice the surrender vote, just let them take the loss.

That's what people are asking to delete or remove, in this thread. I don't know why. If not a surrender option, there needs to be a button, in the pause menu, where you can leave the game if it's not going anywhere and you no longer wish to play it, but that's the exit button, and we'd rather not make people quit a server, rather than resolve the darned game. They're going to leave if they can't resolve it, and "git gud" hasn't resolved it yet. Thus, until someone has a "resolution", surrender works, quit crying?

[vandal33]

Have to say the surrender thingy isn't broken. If the majority of team votes for it, then it is working well. Even if I am on the winning team, I prefer the game to end if those enemies want to admit defeat. There's no satisfaction in blowing up stuffs against a team who stopped trying. Surrendering is better than having them troll around, AFKing or leaving games.

 

 

[Ska-Ara]

hope you guys find a good way to prevent useless surrendering.. last round boomer just want to surrender cuz we didnt get out of the base (enemys was heavily camping us with vehicle).

thats a surrendering just cuz we have a bad situation.. at this moment we didnt lost ANY building.

just nonesense to surrender at this time

[Agent]

Boomer throws unnecessary surrender votes very frequently. They generally get voted down.

[Ska-Ara]

so its a nice example of ppl which shouldnt spam surrenders.

 

hope we find a good way for it