Voting to change map right before the enemy wins

[crazfulla]

What are people's thoughts on this?

Just played a match on Field X where Nod had decisively, effectively won. All GDI had left was the Refinery and AGT. 2 mins and the game would have been over anyway. GDI  decided to ragequit and yeah, changed the map.

To me this comes accross as rude and selfish. The excuse was the usual "Map is too big", however it is just a variant of an original Westwood map. So in reality that claim has little merit. The only meaningful change (in small numbers) is the addition of a Power Plant for each team, and some other geographical changes (such as access to the Airstrip). The outer vehicle route... is kinda inconsequential in small numbers because it takes too long to reach the enemy base.

People had a chance to vote for a different map at the end of the previous match, but they didn't. Half of the server voted for Field X. They also could have changed the map a lot sooner, I think the match went for about half an hour (during which GDI was dominating the field). But NOOOO. When GDI eventually lost 3 buildings (PP WF abnd Bar) in the space of about 2 minutes to an infantry rush... they get salty and start making up excuses to deny Nod the win. There is no logical reasoning for this right as the match was about to end other than to spite others.

IMO the ability to vote to change the map should not be allowed if a team has lost 2 or more structures, or if the match has lasted more than say 15 minutes. They always had the ability to surrender, which the GDI team did on the previous map. But in this case they deliberately opted not to use that option. They actually wanted to deny Nod the win that they had earned.

In case anyone reads this who was in this match... It wasn't Nod's fault if you were too busy killing our harvester over and over to defend your own base. Take some responsibility. Stop acting like a spoiled child. Show some respect for your opponents. And maybe try learning from your mistakes so you don't lose next time.

Yeah, that's what really grinds my gears.

Edited May 18, 2020 by crazfulla

[Mystic~]

I think I would be annoyed to see a map change carried through right before a decisive victory. Maybe the developers can think of a conditional rule, whereby either map vote is disabled, or map vote automatically calls for a surrender instead, which should have been the proper course of action in that sceanario. I would personally prefer that surrender auto-destructs the teams own base instead of making the other team all become heroic as sometimes its an antagonising wait to be finished off where as map vote change is instant and you can just get on with the next game. Some sort of Sudden Death mode to end long stalemate games could be making everyone Heroic if it has to be this way and in the game. Auto destruct would also be time saving, instant, and look impressive if it came with a base super weapon like the ped beacons do.

[Fffreak9999]

Map change is meant to be instant and available at any time, and award the teams no victory.

Surrender is meant for what you want. (As to the comment from Mystic saying: I would personally prefer that surrender auto-destructs the teams own base instead of making the other team all become heroic.)

This used to be the functionality of Surrender, but we implimented the change as it felt like you were cheating the enemy team out of a victory by ending it early, even if the credit was still awarded. We can easily adjust this on a per server basis as well, since Server Owners can adjust the Surrender duration, and can choose to drop it to 0, automatically ending the round with the enemy victory.

 

We are not likely to change the functionality of change map votes.

Consider this:
PUG Match: We use Change Map to end the existing map (due to Warm up or some other reason)
So lets take into account the criteria you specified below:

Quote

IMO the ability to vote to change the map should not be allowed if a team has lost 2 or more structures, or if the match has lasted more than say 15 minutes

1. 2 or More Structures Lost - Not likely to occur in a warmup, but could occur due to a slow lockbuildings command.

2. 15 Minutes or more - The warmup map often is on-going for more than an hour.

 

So based on your criteria, We would be unable to use change map voting to switch to the next round without going through surrender, un-necessarily extending gameplay (or forcing an admin to use a command).

 

Also Change map is a [Global] vote which means that the vote is effective for both teams to vote for, or against, unlike the surrender vote which is [Team].

If your team all votes "No", then the vote stands no chance to pass, as the required votes would be far greater than the enemy team has players able to vote.

 

Also lets take into account the following: The vast majority of "Change Map" votes do not succeed.

[dtdesign]

12 hours ago, Fffreak9999 said:

Also Change map is a [Global] vote which means that the vote is effective for both teams to vote for, or against, unlike the surrender vote which is [Team].

If your team all votes "No", then the vote stands no chance to pass, as the required votes would be far greater than the enemy team has players able to vote.

I think the real problem here is that people sometimes simply miss the vote. They do not vote for/against it, because they did not notice it being there in the first place. This happens quite a few times with map change votes, where a lot of people are surprised of the sudden end screen, because they did not notice it.

It happened twice to me where I was in such an intense fight and so focused on what happens on the battlefield, that I did not take any notice of it whatsoever. Once the tunnel vision kicks in, the vote simply slips over your head and may just pass because of that.

That said, I think there are essentially two ways to address this:

1. Change the display of votes to stand out more, potentially more aggressive for votes that have a serious impact, for example, votes to surrender or change the map.
   Cons: This could be too distracting and thus be game breaking to some degree.
2. Require a minimum quorum for votes to be able to pass. A change map vote with 10/10 YES should not be able to pass on a full 64 player server, like, ever. This could be a mixture of requiring a majority and a certain amount of votes cast depending on the type. A surrender vote could require at least 1/3 of the team to vote, while a map change requires, say, 1/3 of each team to vote.
   Cons: Votes are already borderline intransparent, including the ability to flip your decision back and forth like an idiot. Increasing the complexity ("We had 20/20 Yes Votes, why was it rejected?!") could seriously confuse people.

[Atomsk]

I was playing as well, on GDI, and hated that I missed that vote. Would never be my choice. With the world blaring at you when the enemy is pushing into base, I often miss votes and I hate it when someone sneaks in a surrender or map change vote. Take your defeat standing on your feet, goddamnit