Forfeit match

zeusom · June 2015

PvP needs a forfeit vote option for Domination, where the party leader can select Forfeit match and if all players present on a team vote YES to forfeit match, the other team wins and the match ends. So much time is wasted standing around in a match waiting for the points to tick up to 1000.

Adding a forfeit vote option would also help speed up the queue system because more players would be queued up for new match instead of standing around waiting for one to end.

pherrow · June 2015

zeusom wrote: »

PvP needs a forfeit vote option for Domination, where the party leader can select Forfeit match and if all players present on a team vote YES to forfeit match, the other team wins and the match ends. So much time is wasted standing around in a match waiting for the points to tick up to 1000.

Adding a forfeit vote option would also help speed up the queue system because more players would be queued up for new match instead of standing around waiting for one to end.

How bout the option to select "forfeit" is given to all party members. Given the lack of knowledge of available features or possibly a language barrier, party lead only might be a hindrance in some matches.

overdriver13 · June 2015

Yes we need this.

beckylunatic · June 2015

Not being able to forfeit a blatantly one-sided fight coupled with quitter penalty is a huge problem. One reason I stopped PvPing ever is because it's unpleasant to be trapped somewhere being a punching bag.

Some form of party consensus would be necessary, and I think the ability to rescind a forfeit vote if party chat leans towards giving it the old college try.

Maybe make it not activate until a reasonable time into the match. 5 minutes? Enough to get an idea but not so long as to be a big time sink waiting for it to kick in.

ayroux · June 2015

zeusom wrote: »

PvP needs a forfeit vote option for Domination, where the party leader can select Forfeit match and if all players present on a team vote YES to forfeit match, the other team wins and the match ends. So much time is wasted standing around in a match waiting for the points to tick up to 1000.

Adding a forfeit vote option would also help speed up the queue system because more players would be queued up for new match instead of standing around waiting for one to end.

Rather have a system of increasing the returns exponentially based on the number of nodes controlled.

Thus controlling 3 nodes rather than 2 would yield MUCH more than the increase from 1 node to 2 nodes.

Currently its 1 point per seconds of node capped

Why not make it like this:

Points = #nodes * #nodes

Meaning if you have 1 node its: 1 * 1 = 1 point per second.

2 nodes: 2*2 = 4 points per second.

3 nodes: 3*3 = 9 points per second.

Meaning if you get a 3 cap the game will literally take 1/3rd of the time it normally would to finish.

In GG this would speed things up as well and make controlling and KEEPING nodes much more impactful. It would also make contesting the nodes a bigger deal as well.

5*5 = 25 points per second..... Would really speed games up ALOT and would probably increase activity. as well since pvp games would not drag on as much....

You could EVEN add a "flavor" to this and change the formula:

Points per second = #nodes owned * #nodes uncontested.

So what THIS means is if you OWN "mid" but then also own home node. However only ONE of those two nodes is not contested.... It would actually end up giving you TWO points rather than ONE point. Meaning OWNING nodes - even if contested is THAT much more important.

fantasycharacter · June 2015

zeusom wrote: »

PvP needs a forfeit vote option for Domination, where the party leader can select Forfeit match and if all players present on a team vote YES to forfeit match, the other team wins and the match ends. So much time is wasted standing around in a match waiting for the points to tick up to 1000.

Adding a forfeit vote option would also help speed up the queue system because more players would be queued up for new match instead of standing around waiting for one to end.

I like "concede" or "surrender" more.

Would like the option to do this maybe 1/2 way or 2/3?

quspiv · June 2015

I agree as long as it requires 5x yes to forfeit. As it is most of these unbalanced matches are time waste. Also do something with negation enchant in pvp. It's beyond broken.

beckylunatic · June 2015

nothing to see here

beckylunatic · June 2015

fantasycharacter wrote: »

I like "concede" or "surrender" more.

Fair enough.

I still cringe at "leaver penalty". What was wrong with quitter? Makes everyone sound like a bunch of grade three-ers instead of third graders.

nwoun1 · June 2015

My question is: What's the difference between not having a leaver penalty at all and a leaver penalty with a forfeit option?

I get PVPers like to hold onto the penalty because it's the one bit of improvement they could get in a gazillion modules, but giving teams the option to forfeit is just another way of saying that quitting should be possible after all. In the end it makes no difference whether people just leave or sit in the spawn or voting to forfeit. So why let the devs use their precious time to code something redundant.

nwoun1 · June 2015

ayroux wrote: »

Rather have a system of increasing the returns exponentially based on the number of nodes controlled.

Thus controlling 3 nodes rather than 2 would yield MUCH more than the increase from 1 node to 2 nodes.

Currently its 1 point per seconds of node capped

Why not make it like this:

Points = #nodes * #nodes

Meaning if you have 1 node its: 1 * 1 = 1 point per second.

2 nodes: 2*2 = 4 points per second.

3 nodes: 3*3 = 9 points per second.

Meaning if you get a 3 cap the game will literally take 1/3rd of the time it normally would to finish.

In GG this would speed things up as well and make controlling and KEEPING nodes much more impactful. It would also make contesting the nodes a bigger deal as well.

5*5 = 25 points per second..... Would really speed games up ALOT and would probably increase activity. as well since pvp games would not drag on as much....

You could EVEN add a "flavor" to this and change the formula:

Points per second = #nodes owned * #nodes uncontested.

So what THIS means is if you OWN "mid" but then also own home node. However only ONE of those two nodes is not contested.... It would actually end up giving you TWO points rather than ONE point. Meaning OWNING nodes - even if contested is THAT much more important.

This might make sense in certain situations, but generally speeding up matches is not a good idea for plethora reasons.

If you want to guide players to do stuff that actually contributes to winning it should come from the points system. Capping nodes should give 300/x, where x are the players capping the node or be distributed by how much a given player contributed to capping. Meaning arriving late gives close to nothing. Contesting should give score etc.

pherrow · June 2015

nwoun1 wrote: »

My question is: What's the difference between not having a leaver penalty at all and a leaver penalty with a forfeit option?

I get PVPers like to hold onto the penalty because it's the one bit of improvement they could get in a gazillion modules, but giving teams the option to forfeit is just another way of saying that quitting should be possible after all. In the end it makes no difference whether people just leave or sit in the spawn or voting to forfeit. So why let the devs use their precious time to code something redundant.

The difference is, when people can quit any given moment, they leave if its not an easy match. Sure, if they are getting stomped, leave. As it was before the leaver penalty, folks would leave if it looked like they actually had to try, even a little. So with a choice to concede, I will not be in favor if it is close....a close match is a fun match (to me, at least). Stomp fest, sure...everyone goes their separate ways and Q's up again.

beckylunatic · June 2015

It's conceptually different because it requires consensus and isn't just one person <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> over the rest of the team.

nwoun1 · June 2015

pherrow wrote: »

The difference is, when people can quit any given moment, they leave if its not an easy match. Sure, if they are getting stomped, leave. As it was before the leaver penalty, folks would leave if it looked like they actually had to try, even a little. So with a choice to concede, I will not be in favor if it is close....a close match is a fun match (to me, at least). Stomp fest, sure...everyone goes their separate ways and Q's up again.

beckylunatic wrote: »

It's conceptually different because it requires consensus and isn't just one person <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> over the rest of the team.

It won't work that way. People will camp "not-so-easy" matches and start initiating the forfeit vote until it gets through. There's no difference whether one player quits, sits in the spawn or decides it would be better to forfeit. In all scenarios you're left undermanned and slowly your team will concede one after another because it makes no sense.

overdriver13 · June 2015

The end solution to leavers is a separate que that is ranked and one that isn't. You quit a match (not DC for three minutes) and it goes right on your board stats as a badge of shame and bans you from quing for ranked matches for three days. They keep making what we have now as the official PvP and are apparently going to be running tourneys from it (according to the leaky tob NPC)
A horrible idea.

Nothing changes in PvP until those that care are separated from those that don't. Until then it is some kind of survival of the most opportunistic at best and a sham at worst.

denvald · June 2015

Don't remove leaver penalty if you quit alone you drag your team down.

IF your whole team wants to quit then forfeit.

ohsvetlana · June 2015

ayroux wrote: »

Rather have a system of increasing the returns exponentially based on the number of nodes controlled.

Thus controlling 3 nodes rather than 2 would yield MUCH more than the increase from 1 node to 2 nodes.

Currently its 1 point per seconds of node capped

Why not make it like this:

Points = #nodes * #nodes

Meaning if you have 1 node its: 1 * 1 = 1 point per second.

2 nodes: 2*2 = 4 points per second.

3 nodes: 3*3 = 9 points per second.

Meaning if you get a 3 cap the game will literally take 1/3rd of the time it normally would to finish.

In GG this would speed things up as well and make controlling and KEEPING nodes much more impactful. It would also make contesting the nodes a bigger deal as well.

5*5 = 25 points per second..... Would really speed games up ALOT and would probably increase activity. as well since pvp games would not drag on as much....

You could EVEN add a "flavor" to this and change the formula:

Points per second = #nodes owned * #nodes uncontested.

So what THIS means is if you OWN "mid" but then also own home node. However only ONE of those two nodes is not contested.... It would actually end up giving you TWO points rather than ONE point. Meaning OWNING nodes - even if contested is THAT much more important.

How about if exploiters were banned, that would fix alot of PvP problems, IJS

zeusom · June 2015

nwoun1 wrote: »

It won't work that way. People will camp "not-so-easy" matches and start initiating the forfeit vote until it gets through.

People camp anyways.. there will always be senseless campers.
If there are campers, your team likely will lose and have to wait it out anyway.

It would be best if Forfeit/Surrender vote cannot be initiated unless your team is down at least 100 points.

kvet · June 2015

As long as Glory rewards are proportionally given. That means, if a team stomps you to dust in 1 minute and it's already 500 to 10 and the team Surrenders, the winners only get 1/2 the glory they would have otherwise. YES, it will mean surrendering early will give the losers nothing most of the time (but in 1000 to 10, you probably would have gotten nothing anyway).

Why would this be good?

It give the clearly more powerful team an incentive to NOT smash the other team into the dust as fast as possible and instead giving that team some space in a clearly won match to actually get some points and making the time worth something. If you allow the losing team to earn points and therefore not simply surrender after 30 seconds, the match won't be a waste of time for everyone.

misharona · June 2015

My concern is I'm fighting for a node, fighting furiously for my life and--PRANG--a box pops up asking me if I want to forfeit...

If that happens too many times, it may inspire me not to qeue up again...

No offense intended to the OP but I'd rather see effort being put forward to fixing the match-making rather than a way for me to concede a contest.

kvet · June 2015

could be that, once the score difference gets more than some amount, say 500 points in DOM and 1000 in GG different, a party member can initiate a vote to surrender. The box ONLY APPEARS when you re-spawn at the campfire and goes away as a NO vote if you leave the fire without voting yes.

misharona · June 2015

kvet wrote: »

could be that, once the score difference gets more than some amount, say 500 points in DOM and 1000 in GG different, a party member can initiate a vote to surrender. The box ONLY APPEARS when you re-spawn at the campfire and goes away as a NO vote if you leave the fire without voting yes.

That would work!

mynwacct · June 2015

nwoun1 wrote: »

My question is: What's the difference between not having a leaver penalty at all and a leaver penalty with a forfeit option?

I get PVPers like to hold onto the penalty because it's the one bit of improvement they could get in a gazillion modules, but giving teams the option to forfeit is just another way of saying that quitting should be possible after all. In the end it makes no difference whether people just leave or sit in the spawn or voting to forfeit. So why let the devs use their precious time to code something redundant.

So just sit there and wait or go down on floor and get wrecked? These statements show a lack of understanding in mmo's, and i am not saying you per say, but most other games have some option to surrender or concede such as Hearthstone and even DC universe. I don't think anything is wrong with not wanting get embarrased or feel harrased by some of the bullies in pvp or just a pre-made that you had the unfortunate timing to get, but this suggests just sitting there and waiting for the match to end? There SHOULD BE AN OPTION TO SURRENDER PERIOD! Any better ideas please post them here.

Execute, Guild Leader, XJ-13

ayroux · June 2015

ohsvetlana2 wrote: »

How about if exploiters were banned, that would fix alot of PvP problems, IJS

Great constructive post. Its sure to get alot of DEV attention. If they did this YOU would get banned LOL!

zeusom · June 2015

misharona wrote: »

My concern is I'm fighting for a node, fighting furiously for my life and--PRANG--a box pops up asking me if I want to forfeit...

Yep -- Concede match vote dialogue box needs to be like loot roll boxes so as NOT to interrupt combat (Shift+1 = Yes, Shift+2 = No----does not disable combat interface when it pops. If the Concede match vote box works like vote kick box, popping and interrupting fighting, that could be awful and used as troll waepon.

Only the party leader should be able to initiate. Not that they are special, but if all 5 mates can initiate a kick then the likelihood of vote initiation spam/abuse is basically 5x more. Sure, you won't be able to get a PL to initiate sometimes because of language or just idiot, but mostly will work fine.

Forfeit match

Comments