Is it to easy to Surrender...? And other stuff... The ramblings of a disgruntled, old gamer

As I sat down to type a gripe about how easy it is to quit… The conversation in my head expanded, as it usually does, to encompass much, much more.

Let me start by saying that I really really enjoy this game. I’ve invested hours upon, upon hours, upon hours playing it. I’ve mastered 5 characters, and intend on mastering more…

One of the things I hate, and is number one on my list of things to ramble about, is quitters.

Losing sucks… Nobody likes it, myself included. Especially, when you start a match a person down due to disconnection and/or being AFK. That said, maybe I’m going to have the unpopular opinion here, but I feel like it is still entirely too easy to surrender in this game.

Because of the ease of which people can opt to try and give-up, I feel like I spend almost as much time waiting for a game, as I do actually spending time playing the game.

Again, nobody likes losing… But making 400-600 credits in a loss, because I was actually able to play a game from start to finish, makes losing much easier to swallow. Additionally, I get the benefit of being able to play the game I paid for. Not wait in queue to find another team. On top of all that, I’ve actually been on a couple of short-handed teams that have pulled out the win, despite playing the entire game down a player, and have even outscored the opposing team when down 3 to 5 the entire match (it was loss in game, but a moral victory for me).

I know I’m not the only person bugged by this, because of this post here. @dyingtolive310 and @GUNZERKUS have both made mention of this in the past.

That leads me into my second point… Why is scoring a secondary method for choosing a victor, and not a primary? I understand the notion of the “win” going to the team that completes the objective first e.g. a team that kills both sentries first. But in a game where the match goes to timer, I feel like it should come down to team score. As I sit and thing about it though… That would only really apply to the Incursion game mode, but I digress… This point is more open to debate, and I’d love to hear others input on it, as I know this part of my post isn’t really black-and-white.

Lastly, I want to ask a serious question that ties into both of rabmlings above… Why is drop-in/drop-out play not a thing?

In a game where you’re instantly down a factor of 20% (not accounting for player skill, of course) of your fighting capacity if someone fails to load in, or decides to quit for whatever reason, why was the matchmaking not designed with the capability to balance the teams, mid-game?

The first online game that I played, and remember this being a capability was Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, meaning that the possibility will have been around for at least a decade, later this year. Maybe even longer.

I think I understand what Gearbox was trying to do, by forcing people to re-join the same game that they just left, and I honestly love that consideration was given to that… But it does nothing to combat those that quit, because the game isn’t going their way, so they just wait it out until the match is done, and during that time, the other players A) Vote to surrender (the most common and annoying occurrence) or B) Suffer short-handed the entire match, and usually end up losing. Of the three things I’ve typed about in this post, this is the one that really bugs me the most, because it would actually directly address the other two, and is probably the one thing, in my mind, that keeps a really, really good game, from being great.

Anyway… I’ll get off my soapbox.

For those of you whom I know want it…

tl;dr:

  1. I ramble about people quitting early, and how annoying it is.
  2. I ramble about team score being a secondary factor for winning, not a primary.
  3. I ramble about drop-in/drop-out play not being a thing in this game.

Again, please comment. I would honestly love to hear other peoples thoughts on this stuff. I know I’m not alone in my thinking, but am I in the minority?

3 Likes

I really think that the vote to surrender option should be locked until 10 or 15 minutes of the match has been played if it’s a 5v5. The system should also recognize whether or not the match is lopsided (i.e., someone is afk/left the match/dodged at character select) and allow the team to vote earlier in the match. I think that having a surrender option is good for the game, but it really does need to be looked over since 5 minutes in with a fair 5v5 is too early to be able to initiate a vote.

I’ll have to side against making team score the primary means to a win in any of the three game modes. The point of those modes is to complete the objectives and I feel that the mechanics of wins/losses due to game score and team score are just fine. I would, however, want something similar to a death match game mode where team score is the main factor to win.

Dropping in/out of matches could help fix some issues with PvP, but you need to be aware that when a game has meaningful choices such as our helix options and gear load outs then developers have the tendency to stay away from this mechanic. Personally, if given the choice, I might try it out if I want to join a friend’s game or something of the sort, but otherwise I’d definitely opt for my own fresh match since I get to choose my gear and helix upgrades and be able to play optimally.

3 Likes

I really like the point you make about adding a Team Deathmatch type game-mode. That’s a solution that I hadn’t considered, but should have.

Elaborate a little more on your point about the game having “meaningful choices” and the dev’s tendency to stay away from the drop-in mechanic. I’m not sure I’m picking up what you’re putting down.

Also, thanks to @tha_shogun_12 for this post that further solidifies my stance on not quitting.

1 Like

I guess the better way to paint this is by splitting it up into three pieces.

-How do they decide to throw you into a match that has already started? Do you queue as your favorite character and hope that someone drops out that is playing the character that you want to play? Or do you just queue and if there’s an open slot you get thrown into a match and get forced to play whichever battleborn the quitter picked with their gear load out and helix choices?

-Helix choices are extremely important to how one plays their character. Suppose that Gearbox finds a working solution to the previous problem. Say you want to use Oscar Mike and you get matched into a team that has Oscar Mike available. The person that quit chose the right helix at level 1 and 2 and you normally choose the left two (insta-boom grenade+napalm). Would you enjoy playing as Oscar Mike as much since one of your main abilities feels absolutely gimped? I certainly wouldn’t.

-How would they handle gear load outs? Would you use the previous player’s load out even if you don’t own that gear? Would it refund you their shards and let you choose your load out? What if they had shard generating gear, now you have more shards than you should. If you could choose your load out, have they found a solution to the first problem I listed? If you can queue as your favorite battleborn, then you can choose a load out (but it might not mesh with the helix choices that have been made). If you can’t choose your battleborn, how do you pick a loadout?

Since the game modes are primarily about the objectives, it would be counterproductive to make score a primary consideration. The team that makes the most progress on the objective, the main point of the map, should be the one to walk away victorious.

Also, someone calling themselves an “old gamer” but then saying that CoD4 was their first online game makes me chuckle. Man, now I feel like an old gamer.

1 Like

Thanks for clarifying.

I think that in piece 1, the simple solution is that you get to pick out of what characters are still available.

Will that always be “fair”? No, probably not. But with respect to how character choosing goes now, a person with a slower connection, or in cases like mine where I have NAT issues what sometimes effects how quickly I load into a game (from a purely speed perspective I average 90 mbps down with a sub 30ms ping), character choosing already isn’t “fair”.

Points 2 and 3 can be solved pretty simply, in my mind… Gearbox probably has the capability to run analytics on meta data from the game. Take for instance this edition of Battleborn Battleplan. Specifically, the number of shards that were collected.

Now, maybe I’m being a bit presumptive, but I have this notion that if that kind of data is available, then Gearbox could possibly determine the average rate at which EXP is accrued during the course of a game.

With all of this in mind, in a drop-in environment, you allow a person to choose whatever character they want (from what’s left), with whatever gear load-out that fits their play style, and a pre-determined amount of experience so they’re not starting “from scratch” and can hit the ground running.

It may not be a perfect solution, but I feel like it’d be better than what’s currently in place.

As always, I welcome other peoples thoughts on the idea.

1 Like

To clarify, that’s only the first one I played online. I’ve been gaming since the Atari :grin:

I don’t think the game makes it too easy to surrender, I think the game doesn’t do enough to even the odds when a side is down a player or two.

Basically, the game makes it very painful to not surrender.

1 Like

I agree with your posts except for the second, im afraid that would take away some of the strategy from incursion or lean it towards a team death mode.

As for jumping into a game that is already started, that’d be awesome. They could have a solo queue for ppl to fill these slots alone. It would be similar to a solo rider line at a ski resort. This could speed up some matchmaking, especially with the way “rematches” are included now.

A couple more things that came to mind. How do they handle D/C’s? What if someone wants to rejoin? Also, would this indirectly promote leaving matches?

I personally feel that they just need to have a stricter policy on leavers. Right now people only get punished by having to wait until the match is over. I was solo queued into a match with a premade 4 vs a premade 5, my teammates didn’t like that so they left in character select. Their punishment? Just waiting for my game to load and say that there aren’t enough people to play so the match has ended. We should have a more dynamic system that punishes according to the player’s negative tendencies.
As for surrenders, as I mentioned earlier, another dynamic system that doesn’t allow surrenders for 10-15 minutes unless if some other issue has occurred. Or perhaps only allow players to instantiate surrenders so many times per matches played. (e.g., [Player 1] plays 2 matches. [Player 1] granted 1 surrender (or something to that extent))

1 Like

That’s a valid point.

That said, someone earlier mentioned adding a Team Deathmatch style game-mode, that I thought was an awesome idea.

You’re absolutely right, it could. That said, I could stomach someone leaving, IF I knew that someone else would be able to drop-in, in their place.

I’m curious, what kind of system would you promote? I agree that something “harsher” is needed, but I don’t have any constructive ideas on how to go about it.

1 Like

Just looking at the popular game League of Legends for this. They implemented a “Leaver Buster” system that, if I remember correctly, throws leavers in a queue with other leavers which is substantially slower. I think that people also have to wait 5 minutes if they dodge the match at matchmaking. It might not work for BattleBorn since our community is smaller, but it’s a point to consider.

As for this game, the more matches that someone leaves the longer they need to wait to be able to queue again.

Actually, thinking back to League of Legends, they also implemented a reward system for players that don’t grief others or dodge queue’s. If GearBox could promote healthy game play with rewards then it might help remedy the problem. As a very crude example they could give weekly rewards such as a rare lootbox or bonus credits to those who play the game and don’t leave matches and don’t get negative feedback from a lot of players (I think they’re implementing a way to report players and I feel that they should make a system that would support positive/negative feedback as well). If the player earns a few weekly rewards they are granted an epic or legendary loot box or more credits or gear.

3 Likes

That’s a fantastic idea!

I especially like the notion of an in-game rating system.

As it stands, I report most quitters via the XBL reporting system, but that information probably doesn’t make its way back to Gearbox.

I know the the feeling on incursion it is so rare for me to play a full 30 minute game. We went up against a team that surrendered in 5 or 7 minutes I can’t remember. My team and I groaned because that was the third game in a row that quit.
What I always say is they should give us a bit more of a reward if they surrender, and if a player quits then give them a time penalty until they can come back in not just the 30 minutes.
The harshest thing I can think of to do ( and I seriously doubt it would be in the game ) would be to BRAND these players as people who quit quite often. Via little symbol on their name while we’re in the he lobby. Maybe that would encourage them to stick to games tI’ll the end.
Anytime I play a game and we beat a team by a large amount of a lead on all 3 game modes .I try to remember to send a msg to the entire team and thank them for staying through the whole thing.
To me nothing feels more amazing than winning a game with a short team but it definitely infuriates me when a team member leaves.

1 Like

What about a player rating system that shows in the matchmaking screen where the CR is now. It would take care of two problems.

  1. People would stop leaving because they get put in a game with people with a higher CR

  2. It encourages being a good teammate to get a high rating. Because low ratings would basically brand you as a quitter

3 Likes

I agree with most of the post, but drop in/drop out matchmaking doesn’t really work at all in a moba style game, because the state of each game is based so heavily on how the game had gone earlier.

That’s the most recent post on the drop in out system, so let’s go from there. If there were to be a drop in system, its goal should be to keep the game as similar as it was before the person left, so as to avoid losses by unfair chance. For example, if a poor Whiskey Foxtrot player left the game and was replaced immediately by an Alani, the team that lost their player might be at an advantage now, because Alani is typically much more effective than a poorly played WF. Furthermore, if the WF’s team was losing, they’d have less XP and probably shards than the average team, so joining in with an average amount of resources would put that Alani above the rest of her team, and the WF that she replaced, and possibly with better gear too.

The WF leaving, in that case, would actually be a good thing for the team from which he left, and that’s bad. The goal is not to make games balanced after someone leaves, but to prevent them leaving in the first place, for which the “Leaver Buster” from League mentioned by iamfes earlier works well. Otherwise, a drop in system would force a player to play the character that was left, with the same gear and shards and the same exp, and so someone might be dropped into a losing game after a long queue (especially frustrating if there’s no separate queue or opt out button for it) with a character they don’t like and gear they don’t know, or they could pick a character beforehand and sit in the ‘replacement’ queue for 3 hours, which nigh nobody would do.

1 Like

I’ve been on both ends of surrenders and personally I feel that surrenders are only justifiable if one team gets absolutely steamrolled by the other. In fact, I usually only come across early surrenders because of this.

You have to consider a few factors regarding this though:

Solos vs premades, which imo shouldn’t still be happening.

When your team gets pushed from the start and remain so for the next five to ten minutes, mostly due to their better team compositions/skill.

Like the OP said, nobody likes losing, but you can almost always tell from the six minutes in if you’ll end up losing anyway. And if that’s the case, most people would rather enjoy a new game where they stand a chance to win, rather than spend the next 24 minutes delaying the inevitable. Sure comebacks are possible, and I have experienced some before, even won a 4v5 from the start, but these are extremely rare cases. This is partly due to the game itself, which makes it harder to come back, such as going down 50-100 in incursion. At least in meltdown the grinders move further back, which helps the losing team somewhat. It’s even more demoralizing when you see their team out levelling you by then.

I really think Gearbox should fix their matchmaking first, and increase comeback chances (by not destroying your turrets and supply stations when your sentry goes down is a good start) before fixing the surrender mechanic. Currently it takes three sensible players to know when to surrender or not, which is enough for me.

6 Likes

if you change the surrender mechanic in any way, people will just leave the game. if you want to make it harder for people to surrender, they will quit. you will be playing games 1v5. if one quits and the result is pretty noticeable, a second person will quit pretty quickly, and so on and so forth.

2 Likes

The surrenders will subside over time.

Right now, new players join matches and witness early surrenders, so it’s learned behavior. “That’s just how BB is.”

But it’ll only take 1 or 2 dramatic comebacks to break that habit. Hell, I just had a great incursion match today that probably taught a few players not to surrender.

The other team was SUPER aggressive at the start. Pushed all the way up to our doorstep, and rotated in and out of the tunnel and sniper nest. Well coordinated, Ghalt and Gali pulling people, chain stunning, body blocking, it was a rough start.

And sure enough, surrender vote at ~5 minutes in, with the score still 100-100.

But the vote failed. And we pressed on.

In the end, we won the match. It was an amazing game. 72-67 or something like that. And every single sentry HP was hard earned. Well played on both sides. And hopefully taught a few people to hold on and keep fighting.

Never give up. Never surrender.

1 Like