test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
PvP - Mercy Limit, Forfeit, Both or No Change
drscone
Member Posts: 309 Arc User
There are always going to be one sided matches in 5v5 PvP and having experienced both sides in such games I can't think of any redeeming qualities that they have. Other games use ways of terminating such games fairly, but NW forces you to stick it out to the grim end. What do you think of these options :
1) A Mercy Limit. Once one team gets a certain number of points ahead, they win. Typically this would be set to a large value - 500 points or more in a 1000 point game. Comebacks from such a deficit are not impossible but they are extremely unlikely and outweighed by the vast number of games which are clearly going to end in only one way.
2) Forfeit. This is a votable option for the losing team (well either team I suppose, but one assumes the winning side won't make use of it). If everyone on the team votes yes, the game ends and glory is allocated appropriately. The side that is winning gets full victory glory and a credit towards towards their daily.
3) Both! Why not? Mercy limits tend to make forfeits less common, but they're not exclusive options
4) None of the above. I like things as they are.
1) A Mercy Limit. Once one team gets a certain number of points ahead, they win. Typically this would be set to a large value - 500 points or more in a 1000 point game. Comebacks from such a deficit are not impossible but they are extremely unlikely and outweighed by the vast number of games which are clearly going to end in only one way.
2) Forfeit. This is a votable option for the losing team (well either team I suppose, but one assumes the winning side won't make use of it). If everyone on the team votes yes, the game ends and glory is allocated appropriately. The side that is winning gets full victory glory and a credit towards towards their daily.
3) Both! Why not? Mercy limits tend to make forfeits less common, but they're not exclusive options
4) None of the above. I like things as they are.
Tele Savalas, Dwarf Thaumaturge CW
Putting the Buff into Debuff since 2013 \o/ (Does that even make sense)?
Post edited by drscone on
0
Comments
And make sure it can not be exploited. I suggest not a vote, but an action.
3 or more persons not leaving the spawn area for 45s will call the match forfeit, no glory for the campsitters.
This would make it possibnle that the majority can dictate when a match has ended.
There are always a few suicidal maniacs in a team that think a 100:600 can still be turned around (which might be true), same as there are indeed persons that survived a parachute jump without said chute opening, but I don't want to be there to witness either.
so a MAJORITY (not as in the current kick plan where 2 are enough) can dictate the outcome of the match. NOT an unanimous vote.
If you can not subdue to the majority, do not join a PuG in a TEAM game.
Jugger Conq GF
....
Should I even say that all those one sided matches is a waste of time? I don't get fun from both situations at all.
Besides the suggestion would smoothen the glory grind.
WTB Class Reroll please
Won't this cause a bunch of people to camp more so they end the match at 500-0 (half the time) so they can do their dailies faster?
I could see things ending up "3...2...1...FIGHT........The Enemy has Forfeited. You Won"
Don't really see this as a problem, actually. Let the people just doing PVP for the daily get it out of the way quickly. Then you can waste less time in crappy matches with bad players.
I voted neither.
I don't like giving up, or giver-up-ers.
I don't want to institute systems that embrace imbalance and forfeit.
I'd prefer the system to be improved.
Someone suggested making encounters/dailies/at-wills operate completely differently in PvP (much like they work differently in and out of stealth, etc)
This would be good, as the devs could balance PvP without worrying about breaking PvE - seeing as balancing both together seems impossible as they're different games.
I say fix it, don't embrace the broke.
I don't see it as "embracing the brokenness", I see it as giving players on a hopelessly losing team another option to move on instead of having to wait around for the match to end.
I voted neither because I think my idea is better and easy to implement.
From a completely selfish reason, don't hate on me for it:
When we queue as a 5 men premade, we usually get other full premades to fight. This ends up in games that take from 40 minutes to almost 2 hours. One game!
So after 2-3 of these games, I really want to be queued against a weak adversary so I can either AFK and chat, or stomp them if they insist on attacking us.
Basically, i just want some relaxation after 2 hours of intense tension.
If there would be a 30 minute limit to a game as it was suggested before, I wouldn't mind forfeiting games as an option for those that want it.
But as things are now, serious, balanced games are extremely long and I just want to relax from time to time, while also getting some glory.
Haha love it!(and we all feel the same way.)
Also I could do a mercy rule =/ like if it's say 1000 to 0 the game just ends. That would be nice.
GG has a time limit, so it can be done.
About the OP idea, if there's a way to prevent teams to forfeit all the time to get the daily done fast then I'm all for it.
A team that forfeits should not receive glory or count for the daily. so people would surrender only when they know it's just better to queue for another match.
Putting a time limit would ruin any chance of high end matches sir. The games are frequently 1-2 hours long. Ending it at 30mins would also massively impact who wins. It would be a shame to lose by 1 point because the time hit.
When I see that match is definitely lost why I should stay on respawn and wait for loss and try to not fall asleep if I can vote for surrender?
/FF should be able to use only if there are some conditions that need to be completed. My suggestions:
Enemy control all 3 points at least 3-5 minutes and you team didn't manage to capture at least one point (you can change time period)
Your team has 4 or less active players (because of disconnect) - too stupid, but I cannot do cross text
Match lasts at least 10 minutes (in League of Legends you can vote for surrender mostly after 20 minutes from the beginning).
Two days ago I lost 11 matches in a row and mostly I had to wait till enemy will win with 1k points (I made to eat breakfast/dinner/supper, watch Game of Thrones or do something another). Sometimes fighting till the end is going to be pointless, because you only give more points to enemy for kill/assist and in teamfights 5 vs 5 team #1 becomes hunters who kill whole party #2 and any person from party #1 died (or maybe one). You also cannot even try to capture point (and if you try, it takes more time for capturing than being killed when you try capture), because you cannot leave respawn point. Leaving dominate gives you 30 minutes queue block so you usually idle in game or alt+tab game and do something productive until enemy will win.
The problem with the system now is that the length of the game varies and it is increased largely by the effort the losing team puts in. And it can increase significantly, theoretically there is no limit. This creates a situation, for anyone except BiS gear players, punishes them for trying to win if they are on the losing team in most cases. It does this by lowering glory/time.
I've been an advocate of a change to the system that reduces the time matches take. Arena Domination are 5v5 matches with 3 control points, they should be in the 5-15 minute range.
There are a few ways lowering match times can be done:
Points always accruing: contested nodes generate points for one or both teams.
Time limit: after a time limit the game ends.
Points for kill: killing generates points.
Mercy limit: Once the point differential reaches a limit, the game ends. (credit to drscone)
Forfeit: Allows forfeiture of the match. (credit to drscone)
Just keep is mind these are each options that could be done separately or together in some combination, they aren't all required. But it's been my opinion that players shouldn't be punished for not giving up.
I guess to each their own though. I think open world pvp coming in mod 3 is much better to have groups fighting over hours. I even think that pvp matches should be quicker than now. Like the previous poster said. between 5 and 15 mins. Make point gaining faster.
Edit: Also if you're getting stomped that bad, the maximum you have to wait is 10-15 minutes, the shortest being about 5 and a half minutes.
For the games that last an incredibly long time, one easy way to fix it would be: when currently in control of a node, having a greater number of players from your team allows you to gain points. With that being said, I'm never a fan of rewarding lack of effort.
Oh we hate it, but you pugs complained so much about dying too fast. Now we have Tenacity and it takes FOREVER to clear a point. Adding a time limit does not solve this problem. Every time I hear you guys talk about diminishing returns on CC all I hear "let's make premades take 4 hours."
Anyway, stop assuming you know how high end pvp works and that we "want to play 2 hour matches". We don't, but thanks to people who can't play this game worth a dang, we are pretty much stuck with it for now.
A "defeatist attitude" is different than acknowledging the defeat *that has already occurred*.
How would you separate PVP and PVE more than they currently are?
(before module 3)
Simple. For each character, have a flag that is either "PVP only" or "PVE only". Only those characters with the PVP flag can queue for PVP. Only those characters with the PVE flag can queue for PVE content. So, no Domination for PVE players, and no dungeons for PVP players, but they don't need dungeons anyway for their gear.
I've said this in a match before, but until the opposing team has 1000 points; the loss hasn't occurred.
One of the ongoing jokes in our guild is anytime someone says "I can't do [insert anything]", we respond with "Well not with that attitude". You fight, you scrap, you claw, and if you come out the loser you can at least say well I did my best.
I know quite a few pvp spec'd characters that do just fine in PVE, HR's, DC's, CW's all do incredibly well in PVE. As long as they know what skills to use. Heck, I know some senti GWF's that have PVP, and PVE gear, and do just fine as DPS in MC/VT/CN. Spec while important, isn't as important as knowledge of your class and how you should gear for either side.
That's nice. I don't view it that way. If the score is 500-0, then your team is gonna lose. At that point you are doing a disservice to both teams to prolong the inevitable.
Sure, some players can do well in both PVP and PVE. That is rare though. I've seen more than a handful of PVP CWs come into dungeons and try to use Ray of Enfeeblement and Icy Rays on everything (d'oh!).
But I agree that spec is *less* important for PVE, but it is incredibly important for PVP. So, why wouldn't you want to keep the PVE players out of your PVP matches?
Conversely it gives a strong side bragging rights when they do beat another decent side by triggering the mercy limit. It's a feature which I think makes games MORE competitive, not less.
Forfeit is something that a lot of games have, but rarely gets used. You just don't tend to find 4 or 5 players that all want to quit. It might not be what you expect, but that's what happens in reality.
Personally I'd like to see both options in place, but I think the mercy limit would have the most impact.
<edit> * I mean the game has that feature, not that most matches end in that fashion. </edit>
No, because you're bettering yourself for future games. That's when the most learning occurs
Because, almost every good PVP player I know started with PVE including their spec and then wanted to get better at PVP. You're hindering their learning of their class by not allowing them to experience both aspects of the game.
Anyway, I'll stop responding to this now since I really don't see me convincing you or you convincing me that either of us are right. But you asked to hear why we'd say neither and that is my reasoning behind it.