New Surrender Rule is Good, Misses the Point

Battleborn Battleborn Competitive Multiplayer Discussion
#5

But it will help some! Maybe even give them an incentive to stick around for a few minutes longer.

Yes. At least I assumed that’s how the post would come across.

It is also a solution I don’t personally want and one that obviously would not be implemented in competitive game modes if they get to a point where they can put them back in.
But I also want this game to maintain a healthy and sustainable player base and stop bleeding new players who are frustrated by constantly getting rolled in PvP. So I need to choose what I want more. So that’s why I’m offering this as a possible solution as it may even spark off an idea from some one else with a cleaner way to implement it.

2 Likes
#6

I am confused on why you would suggest something that you do not want.

Any and ALL fixes should only help a team that is losing and do nothing to punish a team for winning and competing the way the game is meant to be played. This post was meant more to suggest ideas to give a losing team hope and a chance rather than thinking surrendering is a good idea.

#7

Well this is what I would do. They need a noob bracket for PvP. Players under 20 should only play with other under 20 players. That way new guys are not just becoming stat boosters for those of us who have been here from the beginning.

I also think that the gaining XP due to events and updates is going to have the side effect of giving players artificial rank. This is a complex game with a lot of nuance. When people see those ranks they assume a certain amount of experience but due to these boosts they are throwing people in the deep end that may only know how to tred water.

Regarding your idea

I also think that instead of boosting player level maybe the minions get hardened when the first sentry goes down. Also increase the spawn time of the winning teams thrall. That would at least buy the losing team some time. Maybe do something with the spawn time based on level. The higher the level the longer the spawn if you die…

I dunno, it probably would just drag out the inevitable. I don’t think you can fix everything though. I think this game is on an unavoidable path of niche hardcore players. It just isn’t new player friendly.

It funny I had a debate on here the week this game came out on this forum that this would happen. That it’s not as accessible as overwatch. The other guy disagreed. I think won that one.

1 Like
#8

I largely agree with you. I call for surrenders because I’m not having fun and besides, I have enough experience with the game to know when we’re unlikely to win a match. I’ve had surrender calls rejected before and my track record is pretty good, we usually go on to lose. Epic comebacks happen sometimes sure, but they’re really rare.

So I don’t like the idea of punishing folks for surrendering. Now punishing leavers and quitters is great, they ruin the game for everyone. So I’m all for punishing them but I don’t like punishing folks for a valid surrender.

Some more comeback mechanics in the game would be nice. In a traditional MOBA the more they push into your territory, the more vulnerable they become. It’s a lot farther for them to run to safety and you have more paths to gank them by. That’s just not the case in BB and comebacks tend to be pretty hard, especially on Monuments. Your best bet is to capture Mid-Thralls and even then you have to hope no one notices them because if even like 2 of their guys show up to fight the mid-Thralls then they’re going to stop them cold. On Overgrowth the mid-Thralls are largely useless.

I’d love to see a buff to mid-Thralls or maybe even an option to spend shards to upgrade them.

#9

Because I want this game to succeed far better than it is right now. I want to keep new players interested in the game. Do you remember how hellish PvP was about a month ago when we had an average of around 400-500 players online? Games took forever find. Even more unbalanced than they are right now.
I’ll suggest anything I can at this point if it helps improve or spawns off another idea from someone else with the same end result.
Far too many people (not directed at you!) are too quick to knock down other ideas and offer nothing but complaints yet don’t even offer any possible solution for fear of how people will react to it. Just because I personally don’t want a solution I’m offering, doesn’t mean others won’t find it to be a good idea.

1 Like
#10

sure, it would raise levels and probably help them get to some better helix because we all know some characters really only start getting good after a certain point. The other team would still continue to dominate because they would just continue out leveling the other team while they get murdered.

#11

To an extent. A level 7 has a hell of a better chance of taking down a level 10 than a level 3 or 4 does. Nobody likes losing; I think that’s a given. But losing, let’s say, Meltdown 500 to 400 doesn’t quite sting as much as having to surrender 300 to 50 because the other team is 4 levels ahead of you already.

#12

What’s the new surrender rule? I’m not seeing anything about it under news.

Also, I’d say absolutely not to anymore handicaps, at least for Meltdown. Having them to too great of an extent ruins the game. If they make a big enough difference that they allow the losing team to come back and win then they’ve stolen a win from the team who actually earned it. If they DON’T allow them to win then all they do is draw out a match that they’re going to lose anyway and make things more frustrating for the team who’s being punished for being in the lead. That said, Capture and Incursion could possibly use a deterrent against farming, but nothing that’s going to do much more than slow the winning team down a bit.

In the end though, I’ll still vote to remove the surrender option. I really don’t care whether or not three specific players in the match aren’t having fun because they’re losing. In a PvP match one side is going to win and one is going to lose, and I find it strange that a game that has deterrents in place against ragequitting is willing to give the power to force the entire team to ragequit and end the match for everybody to just three players in a match. If its removal drives away players them I have zero problem with that. I’ll gladly spend more time searching for matches if it means that the players who quit every match aren’t playing anymore and we can actually start finishing matches instead of 80% of matches ending prematurely.

2 Likes
#13

Well Sir,

I like it.

That’s EXACTLY what it feels like when my team surrenders and I think we can turn it around. I assume that ability has been around on PC games for awhile but as a life long console player it just feels dirty.

I would love to see the demographics of the rage quitters and surrender voters. I have a feeling a bulk of them are PC and or under 28. I hate to stereotype but it feels like a generational or platform thing.

1 Like
#14

Then don’t.

#15

Having your team quit is definitely the worst, but at least with enough players in a group you can keep it from happening. What you can’t stop is the enemy team deciding that that’s it, you’re done playing this match. Oh, you’re enjoying the match? You need more experience for your character rank? You need more time to do lore? Well too ■■■■■■■ bad! Three of them out of the 10 players in the match can’t be bothered to just finish the game, so they’re taking their ball and going home and every body in the match has to be done playing now.

At the very least they need to properly compensate people on both sides who never voted to surrender to make up for the credits and experience that they’re missing out on, because right now getting three sore losers on one team means that nobody in the match gets to level up the way they should be able to. I’d even say to take away all of the rewards that the quitters WOULD have gotten had they not voted to surrender and divide that between the remaining players on top of their bonus for not quitting.

3 Likes
#16

OK hear me out…

Console players never had the option to surrender in games. So it’s a weird option for us.

Older player grew up playing NES, Genesis, N64 etc. There was not auto saves in games. You were lucky if you got a password or a save spot. It forced you to keep playing even when it kind of lost its fun BC otherwise you would have to start over. Now, the second you get tired of playing on a lot of games you can just hit save on the menu or the game saves for you. No harm no foul. Maybe that is carrying over into PvP.

I’m just saying there are some different gaming experiences that MAY factor into this differing opinions.

2 Likes
#17

oh yeah. I’m not saying it wouldn’t help. I just think that’s not the kind of thing that would make an impactful difference.

#18

this. What is it with the title of this thread? I didn’t heard of a change about surrender.

#19

I think they are talking about the decreased potential XP. If you stay in a losing match you get more than if you surrendered

#20

Was that changed?by how much then?
Maybe I can use that info to convince my side to not surrender if it’s juicy enough~

#21

Currently the only real advantage in any of the game modes is snowballing exp wise.

#22

Here ya go sir

1 Like
#23

There needs to be some kind of mechanic that helps a team make a comeback so long as they are capable of holding decent ground.
I also believe respawn times should be more highly based on team score and sentry damage. I believe it’s more affected by player score and timer than team score.
This also then falls into the fact that the score system needs a rework. Kills and assists should only be a portion of score.
They should also add a forced multi-player tutorial that teaches you the importance of building structures, collecting shards…and a heavy focus on the EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TELEPORT BACK TO BASE mechanic.

1 Like
#24

oooh, thanks a lot, didn’t see that thread.