Make Surrenders require a unanimous vote rather than a 3/5 vote

Battleborn Battleborn Competitive Multiplayer Discussion
#3

There have been occasions where a player has gone afk for the entire game and a 5/5 surrender requirement would mean the vote would always fail. I think 4/5 would be better, or maybe 1 less than the number in a team to take into account any disconnects (so 4/5, 3/4, 2/3 etc).

There are other aspects to surrendering that need sorting/fixing. Sometimes the surrender vote never appears - I’ve had 2 or 3 games where we’ve lost by surrendering and I never saw the call to surrender option (as on those occasions I’d have voted against as we weren’t losing that badly).

The devs also need to fix surrender votes so they can’t be called when a team is only a few points away from a win and to prevent surrender votes being called when there’s only a few points difference between the team scores.

3 Likes
#4

perhaps have it so the earlier in a match the more votes required, and measure that by both time and score difference? as in 100-100 means 5/5 vote, 2 mins in 5/5, but 100-2 might only take 3, or 20 mins in might only take 3… seems the most fair to me. definitely tired of the load/matchmaking to 4 minute match time ratio.

1 Like
#5

Simply put it would lead to one thing. Those three who want surrender would bail. meaning the 2 people who wanna play are now in a 5 V 2 game.Not gonna work. Just chill out till Ranked hits then drop in there. I’m willing to bet the hyper competitive folks will all gather at ranked and your surrender rate will drop drastically.

1 Like
#6

I think the problem with that is surrendering shouldn’t happen on the brink of losing either. It robs both teams of exp for saving merely seconds, sometimes, of time. I think if they were to ever implement scaling surrender votes it would have to be based upon average team level difference because that is the true indicator of a snowballing match, and only snowballing matches should be surrendered, otherwise surrendering is a hindrance to experiencing fun with the game. With the changes that came to incursion, comebacks are much more possible and snowballing is less likely to happen. None the less people are still surrendering too early when the game could’ve have ended up close.

#7

As much as I disagree with surrendering ( few exceptions) I like the way it is now. If the majority of your team wants to surrender, it’s more than fair.

2 Likes
#8

100-2? Please. If you’re losing that bad, just take it. All you’re doing by surrendering at that stage is losing half your own rewards.

2 Likes
#9

i agree to taking it, im all about not surrendering unless its a clear waste of time and has pushed to a point where only the timer is holding you back. its poor sportsmanship to give up as soon as you see its looking bad, its selfish and rude to your teamates, and the other team who honestly waited in queue as long as you did to play a whole match; not a match until people get their feelings hurt.

but the 100-2 was merely an example of how it should perhaps scale to alleviate the volume half-games surrenders. i think there is probably some better way to scale it, i dont know that my example was the best, but i think it should definitely have a look at. i know i am tired of the 2 minute wimp out.

#10

Meltdown, 256-24. Is probably a better scale.

#11

You’re always gonna have a troll that will vote against to be a dick. I don’t even initiate a vote I’ll just leave. It’s probably not gonna last much longer so why bother even waiting to see the votes. I’ll even leave if it’s 2 or more people under level 10. Command rank or not I’m not wasting my time while they feed the enemy team kills

#12

clearly the less dick thing to do… take your lumps like a man, if you dont like losing stop queuing cus its the nature of a competitive game that you wont win every one of them. and its hte nature of a multiplayer online game that if you dont make your team, you have to deal with a randomly put together one.

1 Like
#13

No, this is a terrible idea.

1 Like
#14

Eh I think 4/5 is fair. Mostly because almost every game is winnable if you keep trying, it’s only when people give up that it becomes a total stomp fest. More than once me and a friend were able to bring it back hard enough to win in the end. If nothing else a surrender vote shouldn’t even be able to be called until the 12 minute mark.

1 Like
#15

Until Gearbox fixes the stupid matchmaking, surrender needs to be available from the start.

1 Like
#16

Or if you’re unlucky like some of us seem to be, you won’t win any because you’re matched with 2s and 3s versus 80s.

#17

Why is it a terrible idea, it would help if you state your opinions instead of insulting my suggestion. Even doing so in addition to your insult would have been more helpful.

#18

Even then it’s better to just let the game play out so that the low level players can get some experience playing; whenever I get put in a match like that I just dick around and have fun with it, trying out new stuff.

#19

Yes please, a unanimous vote undoubtedly would make the game better, nothing worse than losing by losing only marginally or waiting for players to level up but instead people would rather surrender. It is insanely annoying

#20

Make it be unanimous, divide the match rewards that quitters would receive between everybody else on both teams, give everybody who doesn’t vote for surrender on each team a bonus in credits and experience to make up for the rewards lost, and add more restrictions to the option to vote to surrender. Also, quitting needs to come with a steeper penalty if the player doesn’t return to finish the match.

#21

I do not like this idea at all - a simple majority is fine with me.

I really,really dislike surrenders. Many of the ones I’ve seen strike me as bit ridiculous, but if you change it to a unanimous vote that means four people can be held hostage by a single player.

Since I’m there to play the game ( not hang out in queues) and there are a variety of objectives I can further other than a win or loss, odds are good I’m going to ignore a call for surrender. That may be lazy or monstrous - I don’t care - but with a simple majority, as long as three of the five players do feel they want an out, they still have one and I can continue my awful ways without the distraction of random surrender vote interruptions.

1 Like
#22

if you change the surrender mechanic in any way, at least one player will just leave. if 3 were willing to surrender, then 3 will leave. if you really want to play 2v5, then i suppose i wish you the best of luck. just being a little blunt, but this has been beaten into the ground already.

1 Like