Need More Restrictions for Vote to Surrender

No one said that the surrender mechanic should be completely removed. We just need more restrictions to it, that’s all. When both of your sentries have full health or when both your and the enemy sentries have taken damage and the enemy sentries have total of 1 more health point than your sentries and someone starts calling for a surrender is just stupid.

Biggest reason for a surrender mechanic is the fact that you get locked out of gaming until that match ends… but then, who quits out of matches anyway?

I don’t care for the surrender mechanic too much. Last few sessions I’ve had though I have noticed a decline in surrender votes on Xbox. Even when the matches are one sided. I think more people are realizing it’s better to finish the match and gain more XP than to quit. Also that the tides can turn rather quickly. I don’t think the surrender mechanic needs anything done to it at this point.

Kind of already mentioned here: Randoms Surrendering The problem is less with the surrender mechanic and more the people surrendering. Games should be playable with randoms and Gearbox seems to have more issues than most companies with randoms ruining a game. From illegal weapons in all the Borderlands and now PvE and PvP here. From the surrendering to running down shared lives. I was in a match yesterday that vote surrendered right away because they didn’t get the map they voted for.

Just had a thought as far as shared lives. Give everybody their own store of lives, and if somebody’s runs out they can request one from a teammate. If they blew through all of their lives like an idiot then you can tell them that no, they can’t have any of yours. If they ran out despite playing well then you can give them one.

2 Likes

That’s the simple solution and used in games like Super Smash Brothers, but it does 1) begs the question of who gets the lives when they pop-up 2) reduce incentive to revive teammates because they no longer are taking your lives away so “no need to bother reviving them to save their lives they shouldn’t have died”. Duplicating lives when one is picked up effectively makes each life worth up to 5 lives and making it who gets it first promotes screwing over your team so you get the extra life over your teammates. As for requesting lives, it begs the question whom you request the live from and why would they give you the life. If somebody is actually trying and just isn’t good at the game people likely won’t share lives with them and then they can end up sitting dead for 30-40 minutes depending on the team unless they quit mid-match and that’s hardly a solution as a game doesn’t want to make lepers out of those who aren’t as good as others to the point they can’t even play the game. It’s one thing for their to be a clear division between the casuals and core when playing versus it’s another to say that the casuals need not bother playing the game at all. The game is clearly trying to promote teamwork and an individual live system takes away incentives for playing as a team. With that said the core players (better players) shouldn’t be punished on the harder difficulty by individuals that shouldn’t be playing the harder difficulty simply because they aren’t able to contribute on the harder mode, while they should be able to play they should have realistic expectations of their own ability. Try checking the troll players thread though as it’s kind of touched on there: Let’s talk about troll players and proper reactionary measures

In the beta there were more restrictions and people were quitting much more often. To attempt to fix this, they made it easier to surrender in the day one patch, and it does seem like people leave less often. Unfortunately, most people refuse to stay in a match they’re losing, so they’ll first try to surrender and often times, if that doesn’t work, they’ll just leave.

@Dweller Really? They surrendered cause of the map? Wow Thats just dumb. I can say thats never happened to me thankfully. If my crew gave up because of map choice I’d likely scream. Same if the other guys just left and gave us a win. I’d take it but still say they were foolish.

I think my View on this has changed significantly of late. Given the crazy good matches I’ve been having - fully half go to time in Meltdown and almost all are barely 4 point wins- I’m wondering if either A) matchmaking has enough data now that I’m just facing equally skilled opponents, or B) players just got into the groove now and are going for wins anyway.

Out of like 12 matches yesterday only one was a really lop sided surrender, the rest of my losses were either simply because we didn’t vote to surrender - or it was vetoed and we stayed in game for the double xp- or we just stayed close enough to barely loose. A few we even almost rolled back.

I would not restrict it more but maybe something like each player can only call for it once. Then it locks out for a certain time table. I know right now one dude can spam it every what 5 minutes? I’m not for that. I ask for surrender Once, if the team vetoes it I hunker down and do what I can to help us, most times we still loose but I’m not gonna abandon my team, I used to but I suppose I just hated myself for base sitting and the xp it cost me. so now I just stay active. Shard farm, build, support. I know we are gonna loose but I was vetoed so rather then spam or pout I do my thing and work for xp. Sometimes we even pull it out. Heck we had one match where we pulled a 200 point defecit around even after some crybaby left. Their leaving made the team soo very mad, somebody flipped a switch and we just went into a rampage mode. I think the other team was like " WTH we were crushing them"

The only thing I would totally be on for is some kind of punishment for people who deliberately leave matches. Not dissconnects in general cause sometimes they are booted by like the server, or have internet issues and they really want back in asap. - It does happen, we had a Thorn that left while we were loosing, everyone was irked but after about 4 minutes they came back and were profusely apologizing over the chat. Saying their wifi cut out and they fell horrible. we forgave em, he got to work and helped us roll back to a time out loss by score.

The people who Intentionally leave a game though? Something needs to affect them. Either reduced XP if they rejoin after the match or like some kind of punishment if they try to start another private game or something. I dunno how possible it is but those folks just irk me lately. we vetoed your surrender so you just pitch a fit and leave? come on now.

Heck we had one guy do it and they came back to find us winning. he was like " WTH your winning?" The whole team told em to get lost in chat, our Gali was really ticked saying " we don’t need you quitter, go back to the menu and chill while we finish this" I’m not one to bash players but in that instance, yeah I didn’t stop my teams venom. It was justified. We vetoed you because we were only 20 points down, thats like one minion wave. Easily fixed.

I’m operating under that assumption seeing as they all voted for Overgrowth while the other team and I voted for Echelon. My team ended up surrendering right when the match started and the player ranks were about even so it shouldn’t have been a case of rank intimidation. The only two reasons that I see remaining for such a case is the aforementioned pettiness of not getting what they wanted or they formed party of 4 just to troll.

The main frustrating thing about surrenders for me is that the winning team gets significantly less xp. If anything, they should get more xp for doing so well, and they definitely shouldn’t get less xp just because the other team refuses to finish the match. I’ve been in a match on incursion where the enemy team surrendered when we were at 496 points. Just because they wouldn’t play for the 30 extra seconds it would’ve taken for the match to end, we lost xp.

Either or thats just dumb of them. so you didn’t get the map, big whoop. the Troll is even worse.

That’s why one of the suggestions was to not let people put up the vote if one team was within 50 points of winning. Too many sore losers surrender as you’re about to win just to keep you from getting to 500. It’s also a no-brainer that you shouldn’t be able to try to surrender if the score is so close that your team still has a good chance of winning, AND that you shouldn’t be able to spam the vote. Or at least have have some type of deterrent against it, something that will make people reconsider. As it is right now three people can decide that an entire game full of 10 people is going to end prematurely. It’s ridiculous.

3 Likes

The core problem with most surrender functions is they aren’t tied to logical things.

For example in Capture, it is time based and not based on Rate of Capture + Time Held + Number of Deaths on team + Time in match.

You can tell very quickly when a Capture match has snowballed past the point of return well before the surrender button activates.

Conversely on Incursion and Meltdown, some games are surrendered despite it being close and without regard to comeback mechanics on those maps. Again, looking at Time alone as the only factor to having the Surrender button unlock.

This goes to a point I’ve long tried to get Devs to listen to, the concept of Conditional Surrenders. Where you use multiple factors to decide the when a Surrender option should go active. Devs CAN USE THIS to pick criteria to monitor, and see under what CONDITIONS the surrender was both activated and voted on. This is USEFUL data in deciding future balance passes.

Spamming the vote, especially when your team have already declined it a few times is something that shouldn’t be allowed to happen. The devs should also look into a way of punishing players who vote to surrender, but when it fails, decide to just dick around at base, wasting time because they didn’t get their way. I’m thinking in addition to time outs, how about you deduct say 30/50 coins from them? Those things are hard enough to come by. Is there a way to monitor when a player isn’t playing for real then allowing the remaining teammates to vote to kick? Of course, then we’d be a teammate down, but maybe there should be a system in place where missing teammates can be replaced.

And yeah, the opposite team rage surrendering when you’re within sight of 500 is pathetic and easily fixable.

Of course, as of yesterday, we’ve now a new problem where teammates quit when they don’t get to play Alani…

These issues are breaking the game for me as far as I’m concerned.

What’s the matter is that the two idiots on the team then continuously SPAMMED vote to surrender for the remainder of the match until the remaining three teammates three-handed the match to an almost win. They did nothing to help, stayed in the base and dicked around while the vote kept annoyingly appearing onscreen every few seconds it seemed. This might not bother you but it bothered me, as it bothered my teammates. If a vote to surrender is put up and fails, then it shouldn’t be allowed up again, not from the same person anyway. Maybe each teammate gets one chance to put up a vote for surrender per match. That’s it. So this childish spamming can’t continue.

Bruuuuuuuuh…s me and my homie just played a full game of incursion it came down to time (we kicked ass) but from the first few minutes this dude on the enemy team voted to surrender. I swear he tried every chance he could and the team just kept telling him no. I believe I have a 6th sense in I started joking “man it’s been about 30 seconds since a surrender” stuff like that and EVERY time I made one of those jokes less then 5 seconds later… [gamertag has voted to surrender] it was funny. Straight up though about 10 surrenders from this guy tis not okay

Yeah, it’s annoying, but the problem is not the Surrender option (Since it did it’s job, and didn’t pass since you three didn’t want to surrender)
The problem were the two players. With or without the surrender option, they would have acted the same.

The surrender mechanic probably needs to be tweaked a bit to at least not let the same person initiate a surrender vote quite so often, but overall I agree that the fundamental issue of a player not wanting to continue to play will simply quit or not play well if forced to continue. Thus, removing or locking down the surrender system too much will not help. We would just see more people disconnecting or playing to lose.

I do find it disturbing how quickly people wish to surrender. I get it when it is pretty clear you are going to lose and it is not even fun because you are being stomped, but I have been in matches where it was pretty close and, more importantly, fun, and a surrender vote was called and succeeded. Heck, I once didn’t even notice a surrender vote was going on and when the match ended in defeat I thought the game had bugged out. I had to wait to see the reason was a surrender, and was shocked because we were barely losing, as in losing by so little as to be negligible.

Some of this is on Gearbox, some of it is on the players’ attitudes, and some of it is on not having hundreds of thousands of concurrent players. The better the matchmaking system is and the more players it can pull from, the more balanced the matches are. For example, if the game is making matches and only 20 players are queued, it is going to have a pretty tough time balancing that. What are the odds that you can make 4 teams of 5 and each player will be of roughly the same skill in each of those two matches across both teams? Almost zero. However, with 2,000 players queued, the odds shoot up dramatically because now the skill curve is very smooth. Odds are there are players queued with you that are virtually identical in skill, because now the game is making 400 teams, meaning it can get very granular.

This is why I hope Battleborn keeps a respectable player base. If it ever dwindles too low you better hope you are an above average player because there will not be many average or below average players to be matched against.

I think surrendering should be an option in only extreme circumstances (the only one I can think of right now is too many players D/C). But that is only if the other underlying issues are addressed, namely matchmaking and quitters.

Why? because time limits. Unlike most other MOBAs that can last forever, Incursion is over at 30 min, win or lose. I understand people like to surrender if they are facerolled, but it happens. And with enough players and decent matchmaking it should be rare.

What I would like to see is a measure that matches chronic surrenders with others. Again this only works if the player base is big enough. It also wouldn’t be a permanent change, only temporary. If you stop calling/voting for surrenders you get moved back into the, let’s call them “stubborn lot” queue.

It (if all the other issues are fixed) addresses both sides. People who are “screw this noise” don’t have to put up with stressful games, and can play with like-minded people. People who never want to give up, also play with like minded folks. (And quitters should have severe and lasting penalties in general).

Agreed. Surrender should only show up if you are down a person.

Every time a team loses the first turret they call for a surrender.
And if the team doesn’t surrender, then the person that called the surrender leaves anyway
Making sure the team will lose.

I am getting sick and tired of this.
I want the surrender option gone or heavy restrictions put on it.

1 Like