#24

I would rather them fix thh mechanics that make/let people quit than try and fix the game after someone has quit.

Drop in play just cant work in MOBA style games. There is just too much to try and get the player on even level. Plus the vast majority of times you would be put in on the losing team. I dont want to join games where my team is already losing.

They really need to make the leaver penalty much harsher. Losing credits and a reduction in credits earned for the next X games would be a good incentive IMO.

3 Likes
#25

People would just quit more often due to bad games though. With CR on the screen you can at least somewhat guess what kind of team you get.

E.g. if I see 2 people with CR under 15 it’s time to leave match making and rejoin. The chance of them knowing what’s going on is simply too low and I’m not going to bet on whether the opposing team will have the same composition.

#26

Quitting before a match is fine during a match or during character selection is when people get annoyed and replacing the CR on screen with ratings you get from other players would make people at least hesitate about leaving or going AFK, if you leave you get bad ratings and when people can see your bad ratings your basically branded a quitter(which nobody wants) and honestly I’ve seen lvl 15 guys that outplayed lvl 80 guys so CR has nothing to do with skill, its just time put into the game. You can play a game for a long time and still not be very good. Or you can play mostly pve and when you jump into a pvp everybody gets scared of your CR and leaves even though the lower lvl peple have played more pvp.

I know my idea isn’t perfect wed probably have trolls giving everybody bad ratings if they have a bad game, but from my experience with the game and this community I dont think that would be a huge problem

1 Like
#27

I’d be more interested in the actual “ELO” number but I doubt that’ll happen or whether it’d even be relevant with the way the game currently seems to match.

Bad ratings are way too easy to abuse but something like dota 2’s commendation system would be nice. “Bad” ratings (e.g. leaving) should be given via a system, never by other people.

#28

It was just an idea I dont know if it would work due to the reason you stated it could be abused but I think it could be a good way to promote being a good teammate if your teammates like you and you do everything it takes to win they will give you a high score. I dont know maybe they should do something like change the ELO system to include how many times you quit.

#29

The best solution regarding quitters is something like what Overwatch did and I posted about in another thread, but I’ll repeat it here.

Interestingly Overwatch has implemented a penalty system for persistent leavers, which I saw via an article about it in Eurogamer.

which goes on to link to a post on the Overwatch forums from their Community Manager.

Post on leaver penalty

The penalty is for persistent leavers (so you’re OK if you have just quit a game or two) and is based on your last 20 games. If the threshold for games played vs games completed percentage falls below a certain threshold, you’ll get a warning about this. If you continue to leave games after that, you incur a 75% EXP penalty on all future games until your games played vs games completed percentage rises above the threshold.

I think something like this could be implemented for Battleborn. It doesn’t penalise one-offs (emergencies, internet issues etc) but deals with the persistent quitters. I’d suggest for Battleborn that not only a 75% command rank penalty but also the same for character rank AND credits/coins.

Reducing the number of quitters will reduce the surrenders, though still more needs to be done to that afterwards (e.g. no surrenders if the point difference is say less than 200 in Meltdown and less than 60 in Incursion; those who vote for surrender get an XP and coin penalty e.g. 75% penalty on what they have earned in that game).

1 Like
Quitting matches
Leavers and AFKers will be the final nail if the coffin
#30

I have to confess that I’m highly intreagued by this concept, or the one that’s been mentioned for DOTA (or LoL… I don’t remember which).

If that type of system could be implemented, I feel that could mostly work. It doesn’t address the issue of the current game at hand, that this happens to, but would address the frequency with which they happened in general.

I’d really love to hear a Dev’s thoughts on the subject, even if it’s only to say “We are/are not looking at fixing this, at this time.”

Gearbox, do I have any takers…? :grin:

#31

The surrender option is easily my least favorite game “feature” - I can think of legitimate uses for it, but of the surrenders that have come up in games I’ve played, I’m not sure how many involve such a thing. Most of the surrenders I’ve seen haven’t come prefaced by any sort of explanation aside from “we can’t win” and generally not even that.

I’d probably be less hostile toward surrender votes that hinged of something like “sorry guys, time to feed the baby” or “time for work, gotta go” than my more usual suspicions that it’s not a the steamroll hoped for, so time to look for an easier win elsewhere.

Heck, I’d also be considerably more likely to entertain the notion if the person calling for the vote prefaced it with something like a suggestion that we could really use a different class mix; let’s surrender; take advantage of the 20 second rematching option; and try with a different assortment that might work better . That would be an unusual level of interaction for the matches I’ve been involved in, but while I haven’t run into a lot of mike or text traffic in game, I also haven’t run into anything I would describe as abusive or inappropriate, so that’s nice.

Sometimes a game has gone really badly and that’s disappointing - I get that - but if it’s huge mismatch, it’s also going to end sooner rather than later.

2 Likes
#32

I really think that once you have opened up the vote for a surrender, you should be locked out of opening another vote for the rest of the match.

Mofos making me waste my nullify ever five minutes when we’re up 30 points, grumble grumble…

2 Likes
#33

Still think this feature should be removed! Its so toxic lol Ill be playing a game and the score will be 100-100 and my team will decide to surrender because its at a stalemate. Not cool. Either remove it or make more restrictions. What makes it worse is when the person who decides to surrenders doesn’t get enough votes, most of the time, they will decide to leave the match! BTW hope there are some penalizations for that but if someone does leave the ai should just take over. Thats hell of a lot better than missing a teammate.

2 Likes
#34

I haven’t played a game in the last week where there wasn’t a surrender to resolve the game. Not one time. I’m done with this. This was a great game ruined by a community of sore losers. I’m not waiting for over five minutes to get on a server with people who won’t play a complete game anymore. That goes for when I’m on a winning side, too. The game clock is set to 30 minutes and I haven’t played a single game that got close to 20 because people throw in the towel constantly.

That being said, they shouldn’t have had the option in the first place. Gearbox, why was the surrender function EVER considered? The more I think about it, the less sense it makes. If you wanted people to not quit, punish early quitters some other way than punishing the rest of the team by being a man down. Or allow people to enter mid-game, something, ANYTHING other than a surrender vote. The way it is now sucks the fun out of it, win or lose.

#35

Yes, because getting annihilated is so much fun and people should be forced to suck it up.

Having said that, I played three incursion matches last night and two ran the full 30, one win, one loss.

#36

Oh yeah, 62-100 is a complete blowout. Completely defeatist argument but I don’t know what else I expected out of you guys.

#37

I dont see what exactly your problem is.

For the surrender vote to go through, the majority of your team needs to vote for it.
So are you demanding that when the majority of your team thinks it a loss in the making and would rather not waste any more time in this match, they have to you ride it out against their will only because you want so?

It cant get more democratic then a majority vote. Dont be a selfish person and demand your whole team should bend to your will.

Same goes when the enemy team forfeits. Its their right to do so and you should enjoy your win. No need to be a sour winner and getting upset that the enemy team does not feel like being your lambs for slaughter continuously for 30 mins when the teams are stacked.

6 Likes
#38

As an “old” gamer myself (I’m not really that old but I’m a father and husband), I like the surrender option. If I’m in a match where my team is getting stomped, I really don’t want to waste my time finishing it. I have a very limited time to play so the more of it I can spend having fun in a well-balanced match (win or lose), the happier I am. Personally, I am just not seeing the issues with surrenders everyone else is seeing. I only call/vote for a surrender when it is clear that we are just being dominated by the other team. Most of the games where my team wins, the other team usually only surrenders when it’s become clear they can’t stop us (i.e. we’ve got their first sentry down and have spent the rest of the match in their base area). I’ve had very few games where a surrender was called and I don’t think it should have been.

I was actually on a team that managed to win despite us being down a man from the start of the match. Again, the key to me is, are we playing well? That match was really hard but we were playing well so we stuck it out. Other matches my team is just getting stomped and we surrender and I see that we managed to land zero kills. So yeah, surrender is fine IMO.

I’m really not sure about your complaint on score, if the match goes down to timer than score is used to determine the victory. Are you saying that if the Sentry health was 36-50, rather than the team with higher Sentry health winning, it should go to the team with higher score? If that’s what you’re saying I have to disagree. If GBX did that than Incursion would turn into TDM and people would stop trying to push the minions and get the Sentry. Because right now my team could win even if we only managed to get 1 more point of damage in on your Sentry, it keeps the focus on the Sentry where it should be.

As for drop-in drop-out, you can’t do it because we level up in this game. So if someone drops out halfway through the match, whether a rage quit or because of internet issues, how can someone drop in to replace them? What level should that new person be at?

1 Like
#39

Anymore, it’s not about the win, or the loss. It’s just about playing the game. With so may surrenders, I feel like I’ve payed for Battleborn, to sit in queue.

Judging by some of the comments in this thread, I’m not the only one.

Additionally, “well-balanced” matches are created by skill first, and then tempered by character and gear selection. The first comes with actually playing the game. Sticking it out, even in a loss situation, and learning. Not sitting in queue because it wasn’t a “good” game, or the blow-out that some people seem to want.

The second two come with just playing the game, and time. No skill necessary, if you have enough time.

1 Like
#40

You can preach all day long about proper game etiquette or you can acknowledge the more glaring matchmaking issues . Not everyone is on the same skill level or could be so why keep forcing it?

#41

It is about playing the game you say. And playing the game is about fun. The majority of one side is not having fun anymore if they surrender.
But they should better swallow their frustration and keep playing, so AVR can have his way. Is that what you are demanding?

Also you paint a picture that all your surrenders you encounter are so terribly premature. Well, I have more then 150 PvP matches so far and I count the times when I wondered why the surrender is happening already at one hand. And even then I did not complain! Play with friends if you are allergic to it or accept that playing with randoms comes with all kinds of things you might not find ideal.

The surrender option is there for a good reason, even if its abused sometimes (which is debatable in my opinion, since how can you abuse something, that requires a majority vote).

Not much to learn if the enemy team plays three leagues above your own. Things which would worked out great in even matches, will fail miserably.
And to restore your faith in humanity, I can assure you that all who vote for surrender want an even match as much as you do, and not just a onesided matches in their favour as you are implying.

3 Likes
#42

Only surrenders I see now are when one team gets completely stomped on. Or they have a afk/leaver and surrender needs to be there for these situations.

#43

Yesterday I played 3 matches in a row where the other team surrendered literally seconds after the first sentry fell (meaning they had called the surrender vote prior to it falling). These matches weren’t complete stomps. Yes, we had a push advantage at the time but that’s how it goes with Incursion matches. Later on I played other Incursion matches (we won some, we lost some) where there was no surrender.

I’ve played matches where the team that has lost the first sentry has come back and won the match (I’ve been on both sides of this several times). It really is too early calling a surrender when just the first sentry is destroyed.

1 Like