You know what would massively help this mode? - A "Surrender"-Option.

[Justforvisit.3709]

With so many matches being massively onesided nowadays it's really annoying, when you're on the winning team, at least you're winning, but stomping the opponents into oblivion hardly is any fun or challenge.

But it gets really annoying when you're on a losing streak, since it feels more and more like massively wasted time you have to sit through, when the opponent team is already leading be 350:25

So, how about implenting a "Surrender"-System, that lets your team quit the match immedeatly so no more time is wasted.

And to make it safe from abuse, it could be made in a way that the option only becomes available as soon as one team is 250 to 300 points behind AND at least 4 / 5 players on your team have to vote for it, but if they do, instantly ending the match and accepting the loss.

Wouldn't that be great for anybody and save anybody massive time?

[Bazsi.2734]

2 hours ago, Justforvisit.3709 said:

And to make it safe from abuse, it could be made in a way that the option only becomes available as soon as one team is 250 to 300 points behind AND at least 4 / 5 players on your team have to vote for it, but if they do, instantly ending the match and accepting the loss.

Making resign available all the time is obviously not good, (#RedResign) putting too many restrictions on it on the other hand makes it pointless:

Onesided stomps last around 7-8 minutes. A huge point lead(+players recognising how hopeless it is) would be after the 5 minute mark. If everyone is fast and disciplined about clicking surrender, you'd still only save like... seconds. Games do not last long enough for a surrender option to make sense.

[iminxi.8514]

A simple participation reward would suffice. As it stands being on the losing team literally means you have wasted 10 minutes of your life.

[Luthan.5236]

Would be good. I sometimes find myself having to stay at spawn to "surrender" and there are always people considering afk ... not understandnig that it is a tactical decision made to improve the rewards: Not dragging out the already lost game to be able to play another one faster. (They cry "omg afk report report".)

Problem: This could be exploited. People definitely would find a way to just farm - with this. Join, immediate surrender, join - next time enemy team surrenders, and so on.

Maybe instead of 3 out of 5 a restriction for 4 out of 5 people to vote + the match duration for at least a few mins ... would help? (Lower than that - no rewards of finished early by surrender.) Problem again: People would still try to barely manage to meed the requirements ... then "surrender farm" if it seems feasible/possible.

And if the restrictions were too hard it would not really be useful. Still annoying - or leading to wait at spawn to not prolong it.

Imo the better option would be to increase the rewards for the losing team. At least dynamically make them adapt to the score difference. (Not only few additional pips for close loss.) We had other threads about this. Then it would be fun/encouraging even if it is a safe loss - still trying to get some points for more rewards. If it is 450 vs 500 give almost the same rewards as for the winner.

[shion.2084]

8 hours ago, Luthan.5236 said:

Would be good. I sometimes find myself having to stay at spawn to "surrender" and there are always people considering afk ... not understandnig that it is a tactical decision made to improve the rewards: Not dragging out the already lost game to be able to play another one faster. (They cry "omg afk report report".)

Problem: This could be exploited. People definitely would find a way to just farm - with this. Join, immediate surrender, join - next time enemy team surrenders, and so on.

Maybe instead of 3 out of 5 a restriction for 4 out of 5 people to vote + the match duration for at least a few mins ... would help? (Lower than that - no rewards of finished early by surrender.) Problem again: People would still try to barely manage to meed the requirements ... then "surrender farm" if it seems feasible/possible.

And if the restrictions were too hard it would not really be useful. Still annoying - or leading to wait at spawn to not prolong it.

Imo the better option would be to increase the rewards for the losing team. At least dynamically make them adapt to the score difference. (Not only few additional pips for close loss.) We had other threads about this. Then it would be fun/encouraging even if it is a safe loss - still trying to get some points for more rewards. If it is 450 vs 500 give almost the same rewards as for the winner.

It may seem odd, and I’m from an older time.  But the point of a sportsman like competition should not be the reward.   If you commit to do a thing, you see it through.

I also don’t sit with my team on the bench at half time if things didn’t go well first half… I play it out and give my best.

 

It’s not a matter of rewards to some, it’s a simple personal commitment to see a thing through that you start…. Yes even if you’re going to lose.

[Morwath.9817]

For some reason people are afraid to die in games...

[RatherUnexpected.5603]

Or, alternatively... maybe we should be encouraging good sportsmanship?

If the match is a write-off for whatever reason, you can always get something out of it. There's always some little trick to be learned, or practiced; there is always a benefit to playing things out, and fighting as hard as you can, even when the odds are stacked against you. Apart from anything else, I've seen matches flip to a ridiculous degree when one side grew too complacent and got 3/0'd at a critical moment; I've seen the match graph go from a steady climb to a dead plateau, just because the losing team didn't give up.

Conversely, I have seen matches that should have been a close loss with the possibility of a comeback... turn to utter desolation because one whiny, petulant child started saying "Just let them win, guys" in chat, and effectively turned the game into a 4v5 by either idling at the spawn, or really not trying.

Fight because it's fun. Compete with yourself, not the enemy. And consider your losses to be educational, and a test of your own character. Because if you can't get stomped from time to time without feeling somehow hurt, there are things you need to resolve within yourself.

No, a surrender option wouldn't "save time". It would simply galvanize the existing childish tempers and woeful attitudes found in PVP.

To be clear, of course, that's not to say the game doesn't have big problems with underlying design philosophies whose flaws manifest as wildly erratic balancing issues. But you don't fix the boon/condition cycling design faults and overabundance of AOE by giving people a way to throw a tantrum and take the ball home.

[Luthan.5236]

What's good sportsmanship then? Some people might prefer to have the match end faster. (=losing quicker instead of trying to prolong it when the loss is clear) In games like chess it is considered good manners (amongst pros - afaik) to resign instead of trying to drag it out ... when you know it's lost.

Turning the match around happens. But only if the people can adapt ot the situation. And some maps favor this a bit more - with their mechanics. (Temple the top buff can mean a lot ... ticking points twice.)

Most of the time it is
a) people not willing to try something new (and not trying to do teamwork) - repeatedly respawning and running into 1 vs x to die
and/or b) guy crying in chat (prompting others to type to talk back - instead of play)

where you know it is safe to "surrender" (= wait at spawn) If you notice people trying something different (even if they are not trying to communicate in chat) + no one is crying ... then it feels okay to try more. Depends also a lot on the mood/situation. Imaging coming from a huge loss streak ending up in a 200 vs 0 or just barel above 0 (on the 0 team) after the start ... maybe having had a few losses at that day already (not the first match) - of course harder to get into the mood to try hard. At best: Just moving to not appear afk and give others excuses to complain.

[Khalisto.5780]

At 250 pnts advantage, but this cant happen before they 0 all rewards you get from losing and double it when you win. Pips, money, reward proggress and whatever else you get from playing pvp

[Kuma.1503]

Another thing that would help. Put in better anti-spawn camping measures so players can recuperate in blowout games. 

Teleporters in spawn (These can be put towards the alternate exit so they're a time investment to use). 

Brief invulnerability when leaving spawn that breaks when attacking

ect. 

[Cuks.8241]

1 hour ago, Khalisto.5780 said:

At 250 pnts advantage, but this cant happen before they 0 all rewards you get from losing and double it when you win. Pips, money, reward proggress and whatever else you get from playing pvp

I always advocate this. No pips for loss, make up with extra pips for win. 

But if you want to encourage players to not quit you can add 1 pip for reaching 200 points and we already have 2 pips for reaching 400 points which could be turned 1 for reaching 300 and 1 for 400. And you also have 1 pip for top stats which is also fine for promoting play. 

So if you give a good try and lose there are still 4 pips for grabs but if you just turn over and lose you get 0.

[Bunbury.8472]

https://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Red_Resign

do you guys really want spvp dead?

[N A T E.3108]

Gw1 had it forever. It was called /resign. It was perfect and it helped combat full length 3-4v5 games due to leavers. No idea why they can't have it here. 

[Jake.7526]

bad idea, most shitters will surrender after they die once or they see a 100 point difference when in reality it is winnable. Worse case is you wait 5minutes for a game thats lost to end. 

[RatherUnexpected.5603]

On 6/26/2023 at 4:14 PM, Luthan.5236 said:

What's good sportsmanship then? Some people might prefer to have the match end faster.

Good sportsmanship is a fairly robust and logical set of principles that are supposed to be taught to children, because they apply throughout life. The basic logic is thus:

Try your best, even if you are fairly confident that you will lose. Why? Because if it wasn't a sure loss, you are the reason for the loss; you didn't try your best. You defeated yourself, before the match was over. And if you were right in your assessment, and it was a loss? It wasn't a complete loss; you played to the best of your ability, you pushed up against the challenge, and were improved by it. Nobody meets a challenge head-on without becoming stronger; that's just a fact of how we learn, and how we problem solve. The more data we have, the more experience, not only the better are we at resolving similar problems in the future, but the more capable we are of managing our expectations and emotions when we encounter similar issues.

To paraphrase a certain fictitious captain, how we face death is at least as important as how we face life.

Then we have the question of being a graceful winner/loser: One should strive ever to accept defeat with grace and treat it as a learning experience, safe in the knowledge (again) that you tried your best and cannot be faulted in this regard, and similarly, strive ever to be a good sport about your victories. Not to smack talk. Not to rub your opponent's face in it. Not to fill yourself with a measure of pride that will always come before the inevitable fall - a fall rendered all the more bitter by the fact that your opponent, after you mouthed off so much, is likely to rub your face in it.

On a grander scale, being a good, graceful winner/loser is vital to civil discourse, emotional stability, and society as a whole. If you can lose, and accept that loss, it means you can accept reality, and move on when life throws you to the ground, instead of spending the rest of your days fermenting a bitter regret or life-long grudge that will be as a poison in your veins. If you can win, and remain grounded - to know that you won not just because of skill, but because circumstance favoured you - then you will always remain at peak efficiency, never growing complacent, always aware that you have room to improve. Similarly, if you find yourself defeating an enemy who is no match for you, good sportsmanship dictates that you do not relish in that which was not a challenge; that you do not smugly proclaim your obvious superiority, but accept that if it was "EZ", if it was not a test of your skills, then you lower and demean yourself by gloating about it. If you stole candy from a baby, this is not something to brag about.

And, to be clear, accepting a loss is not the same as predicting a loss; proclaiming a loss, and throwing in the towel before the loss has actually occurred.

"...In games like chess it is considered good manners..."

Chess is a game where a great deal of certainty can be achieved. A game with great complexity, but a decidedly finite and easily mappable trajectory for a given match. It is a game whose rules frequently lead to victory via deadlock. 

There is nothing even close to such certainty present in a chaotic realtime PVP session. As such, the more accurate comparison would be... someone deciding to quit a game of chess after one piece has been taken. I don't think chess pros are in the habit of doing this. And indeed, this is what most of us have actually seen when it comes to those players who proclaim "let them win, guys": The moment one person either sits it out, or stops trying, the game becomes a 4v5, and the probability of loss escalates dramatically.

I would go so far as to suggest that if everyone always kept trying, most matches - even those where skill and class balance issues tilted the odds heavily - would be a lot closer and a lot more enjoyable. In fact, if you play Battlefield, Battlefront, Battlebit, or Planetside for that matter, where the combat is so chaotic and ludicrous that people don't particularly care if their team wins or loses, you'll find that the fighting is thrilling and compelling... right up until the last ticket is consumed. This was even true in the old days of the original Alterac Valley, where matches would go on for hours.

[Chromazene.4807]

[deleted]

Edited January 14 by Enduronex.4865

[SlayerXX.7138]

Surrender worthy games are under 8 minutes. Not worth it to put a surrender option, that can bring other Problems in the game, for saving a couple of minutes.
If your whole team really wants to surrender, your opponents are generally willing to speed up the process by spawn camping you:).

[Chromazene.4807]

[deleted]

Edited January 14 by Enduronex.4865