Idea for Surrenders

I am sure everyone has had that game that goes a decent way in and either the other team, or your team votes to surrender and it is frustrating.

What about some sort of surrender threshold? Like in Meltdown, if your team gets above 150, you can no longer surrender? Or maybe if the other team gets to 250 points ahead you can then surrender or something like that? Or perhaps prevent surrender once one team crosses the 400 mark denoting “late game”?

This would still allow people to avoid games that their team is getting destroyed on, but possibly prevent some of the more frustrating surrenders that happen in a more late game situation or within closer games that comebacks can still happen in.

Here is an idea. If you think surrender is an option in a game, think again and don’t play. The objective is to win NOT to give up. This is the first PVP game (that I know of) where there even is a surrender option. You probably have never experienced the joy of getting baseraped in Battlefield? With all those surrender folks on YOUR team trying to defect to the baseraping team. Good times.


They are extremely common, just not for games that make it to consoles. MOBA style games (like this) always have one, as do most RTS style games. They are common in games with an in-game progression system with resources and snowballing features that can restrict your ability to even put up a fight vs the enemy because they are just crushing you with experience before skill gets involved.

Surrender is a great option to have when both teams are experienced with the game enough to know when they are outmatched and defeat is inevitable… but if people just use it when it looks like they aren’t going to win then it can be a problem. The thing is, with a group of 3 you can never be surrendered for.

When playing alone, people will want to quit, if you don’t let them surrender when they are getting their butts handed to them they will just leave the game… which means they have to turn the game off with a sour taste in their mouth… which means less returning to the game… which means population dips drastically.

In all my games since the incursion patch, the only surrender votes that have gone through were when the final sentry was below half health and many games people wanted to play out to the bitter end. Which is great, it means GBX is balancing the modes well. If you want to not get surrendered for by your teammates, find 2 other people on the forums whining about the same thing and group up. I really doubt that it’s happening THAT much that you can’t play because you’re always being surrendered for… and if it is, it might be you. Take a look at your playstyle and how much you are helping your team without giving away XP by dying.


I’d have to disagree with these points.

Whilst invariably I won’t surrender (I will vote against this more often than not) there are occasions where surrendering is perfectly justified.

Yesterday I played a game of Meltdown on Cold Snap. Even before we got to the line-up screen (just after people have selected characters and we see the two team) someone had already disconnected from our team. Immediately we were at a disadvantage 4 v 5 but we played on. The score got to around 135 - 260 and someone on the team called for surrender. I, along with the rest of the team, rejected this in favour of playing on. Shortly after the surrender vote failed, the player who called the vote disconnected, leaving us 3 v 5. We were then getting annihilated at that point, unsurprisingly as the opposition had 2 more players. The next call for surrender was then passed.

Whilst I agree that there are times when calling for surrender is completely unnecessary (such as the first surrender in the above match) there are times when it is justified.


League of legends , you can surrender once the 20 min mark is over.


I suggested to one of my friends the other night that surrender should be based on the score differential. Doesn’t matter what the individual scores are, if at any point in the match your opponent is X amount of points ahead of you, then you can surrender.

1 Like

Lol baserape so hard on battlefield with a clan

This is the first PVP game (that I know of) where there even is a surrender option.

You’ve never played a MOBA before as every MOBA I know of has a surrender option. Given that matches are 30 minutes long, this makes sense. In a game like CoD there may not be a surrender option but matches are a lot shorter too. If my team is being curb-stomped but there’s still 20 minutes on the clock, no need to drag things out.

So yes, it makes perfect sense for there to be a surrender option and people whining about it really just need to lose their egos.

There should be a timer, no surrenders before like 5 or 10 minutes. That is the only restriction there should be on surrenders and this would be in line with how other MOBAs operate as well.

It used to be 5 minutes but was dropped down to 3 minutes IIRC.

I think one possible option would be to reward extra to those who stick around. I can see if you’re just getting rekt with no hope but I see so many games where it was possible to come back but people voted to surrender anyway just because initially the match didn’t go in their favor.

I think it could be a viable option depending on the amount of rewards you get for staying vs spending more Q time due to frequent surrenders.

What do yall think? :relaxed:

It’s not a bad idea, but I think the surrender option is really there to try to avoid ragequits. If there is any situation where someone can gain more by ragequitting than by surrendering, they will do it. So I think you would get people just abandoning their teams and it wouldn’t count as a surrender so they can still get the additional rewards.

If the devs implement any kind of downside to surrendering, then people will stop using it and just drop out instead.

My understanding is you do get more XP and credits for sticking around. So there is some incentive to stick in there rather than surrender.

1 Like

Now explain to me the difference between surrender and ragequit?

Yes I haven’t played any MOBAS before but from the occasional RTS PVP games I never had the impression that losing would drag out that much. Now when I do play RTSes or BB PVP I am in for the long haul. That is I expect to win after reaching break even point. Now if my team surrenders before that I have no chance to win. Also with surrender you basically promote zerg rushing and deathmatch style gameplay. Might as well fire all your support units and go all damage dealer + tank and just bum rush your opponent into submission.

But Battlefield can be very much compared to this. Matches are at least 30 minutes long and map superiority means access to more vehicles than what the losing team has in their base. So I do understand snowballing and dragging out and no hope of coming back from that. Except there is always a chance to come back from that.

Don’t screw around with surrenders while the matchmaking allows premades against pubs. I don’t care about your “le never surrender” catchphrase that keeps you going and waste 5 min more while you get stomped. I don’t like wasting my time and be a prisoner.

1 Like

Ragequitting would be an individual on the team just dropping out on their own, as opposed to a majority of the team agreeing to surrender. If surrendering inhabits any kind of penalty, even just a perceived penalty, then people won’t even give their team the benefit of a surrender vote. They will just ragequit and leave their team outnumbered in a match where they were, presumably, already behind.

The way I see it, the one calling for surrender already ragequitted but is asking for permission to leave and make others join him. So his ragequit snowballs.

Most people who call for a surrender in this game stay while the vote is going and keep playing I’ve seen. It’s basically just saying “Ok, we’re completely outmatched and I’d rather be playing a more even match, anyone agree?”. If it fails then the team wants to fight on, if it passes it means the majority of players wanted to find a better game.

In these types of games, close matches are more fun. I felt the same way in battlefield and the majority of my quits were winning baserapes. If I wanted to blow people up as they spawned in and had no chance of fighting back I’d play a pve game.

This seems to be an ego thing with you, you’re forgetting that the majority of people playing videogames see the point of them to have fun and not fight to the last man like you. That’s why the majority of games with surrender options ALSO have ranking systems so that people get matched up within their league and skill levels, not just whoever seems to be queue’ing at the moment.

1 Like

It has nothing to do with ego. I have no problems losing. I think people who surrender have an ego problem. Like they cherry pick their winnings but as soon as they might be losing they give up. Also what good is winning if the opponent folds easily?

Oh and even when you are losing badly there is still room to learn something and improve your performance. You can try risky things or things you wouldn’t do when playing it save cause you got nothing left to lose. The more time you stay in a losing match the more you can actually learn. When things go according to plan or you are being carried you will not learn so much.

You did read my previous post, didn’t you?

What is there to learn from being utterly thrashed because you are 3 v 5 due to two people in your team disconnecting?

Situations like this are pointless playing to the bitter end. There’s nothing to learn as far as I can see from being thrashed by being 2 players down. It’s not a satisfying experience for the losing team and for the winning team it’s a worthless, hollow victory (yes, I’ve been on the winning side of a game where the opposition had 2 quitters and I was glad they surrendered rather than dragged it out).

1 Like

Even if you don’t have disconnects, being completely stomped is not a learning experience.

@MarXmaN My point about the ragequit is that if the surrender option is taken away, or people are penalized for it then they will just intentionally disconnect. So what’s the difference?

Games last maybe longer than the waiting in queue.