Surrender is literally killing PC play

It’s more than enough time. Few weeks ago we were in the exact same situation. 50-100. There were only 2 minutes left in the game. We killed 4 enemy battleborn, pushed to kill the sentry with the middle thralls, quickly killed the sentry, then killed the one remaining battleborn and quickly pushed for the last sentry and we won 50-0. Incursion late-game is all about momentum. You have to be very very careful, because if you die - you are making your team much much more vulnerable than when you die at lvl 3 or lvl 5. And if you lose 3 players and they are on a 40-50 second respawn cooldown - you are done, even tho you were winning for the past 25 minutes. <------ That’s why surrendering is such a stupid thing, because if you play it cool, you can always have a chance (ok, ok, maybe ~70%, not always) to comeback.

I think most of the time ppl surrender, because they don’t have much experience with all the characters. They don’t know if a character has a good late game or a good early game or in-between. If your team comp consists of mostly late bloomers (Toby, El Dragon i.e.) - you will have a much much bigger chance to win even tho you lost your sentry in the first ~8-10 minutes.


Frankly, I tend to never Surrender, NEVER, even when I am surrender’s proponent (which make me thinking I’m a little too hard on myself ;))

I mean, when ones team enters the fight 4vs5 or even 3vs5 or have a AFK, the surrender is pretty legit (yet they have to wait until a certain point in match, which is A loss of time). But when team’s losing 1 sentry, or even few points of his HP, that’s really ridiculous (no hard feeling Vin Diesel).

At times I tend to notice that many [of the remaining] players on PC are all about score, score and lore, and nothing else matters (copyright protected). I tend to ask such ppl why they do it (like" err teamwork?"): simply stand still, not contribute to team effort, not heal when clearly asked, not react to ping, not keep fighting when sentry is down, and finally, surrender.
I tend to get an answer in the fashion “want fun”, or “need lore challenge” or “loss of time”. And I tend to throw “GFU” on these ppl. And I don’t regret it. I’d even want to blacklist them (why, oh why I can’t blacklist those loosers!). And I’m even more pissed when I do alike (like goin’ to the bathroom while matchmaking, nothing on purpose).

But then I get some fantastic PuG match, where nobody quits (no matter the CR), nobody babycries (except fps, lags - that’s legit), and everyone is doing his part as much as one can, no matter how bad it goes. And all that’s before become history. Screw points, screw stats, and lore, it’s all about those games… I still want my blacklist though :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like

“Hope this surrender thing doesn’t inspire other developers or the entitled generation are about to enter ludicrous speed.”

That happened several years ago already sir. Many games have surrender for legit reasons. They are technical and design related. You may be the type of player who is way more tolerant of the negative feedback in a moba-ish game. A lot of players still get ticked off easier if a game seems too landslidey so early, or other issues occur. Especially in a game where dying or having minions pushed up on a sentry can have some serious results. (In current games, minions getting close enough to a sentry can let a team destroy it quite fast with the right comp hitting the sentry weak points.) I don’t think it’s right to expect all players to have a strictly specific temperament when playing battleborn since we are all different people I guess? Taking out the surrender option in this or other games would just piss people off, cause them to stop playing, or stress them out even more. There is way more I want to say about this topic. I could write a thesis lol.

I will say again that more balancing needs to be done to keep players from feeling discouraged so fast. There are characters and mechanics that players still find to be “broken” even if it’s a player doing well with a very hard to use character. Also I obviously talked about incursion…Meltdown may not be as worse as long as players know how to focus on pushing MINIONS, and not just getting kills =). And capture has potential to give players of different skill levels a chance with how defending gives you points. But I can see it being intimidating on pc with the aim and coordination players can have.

Edit: Gosh, no need to call people losers.

1 Like

The only time surrender is worth it is when your stuck with a mix matched team of average to below average players and ofcourse, your matched against an premade 5 man CR100 worthy of song pub stomping team.
Then you wait the alloted time a surrender, an avoid giving up as many deaths as possible.


There’s way way more I want to say in this reply but,

I would say getting rid of the sentry weak spots could be another idea but as I said before, several things need to be tweaked in this game still. As you said, dieing makes teams vulnerable late game. You have to be more careful. What happens if players feel like they messed up too many times. Surrender! =D. And there are late game characters who can die extremely easily still. As someone who plays El Dragon 90% of the time…EEEHH?! It can still be a struggle. He will always be a main target for the entire team.

The no surrender movement is ramping up atm though. I don’t mind it really. More games last longer lol. People are terribly rude about it though.

1 Like

Just yesterday I had a team of 5 randoms and in the first match we were down 130-300 on meltdown and one dude started a vote to surrender, all other guys voted against it and we won 500-350. After the match I even wrote that lets not surrender next time if something goes wrong at the start. And guess what, the same guy once again voted to surrender when we were 254-312, and this time when we once again voted against - he just teleported back to the base and sat there for the rest of the match. This is the most rage inducing thing I can imagine. We could have won this time too, because we were starting to push the minions and kill other battleborn.

But hey, one kid has to ruin everything for 9 other players. I couldn’t play this game after that match, was done for the night. I would love to have an option to not be able to get teamed up with the people I choose not to.


Either way, it’s a waste of your time, dogg.

One day you’ll have a competitive mode. One day…

dunno why you even keep playing a game that has 30 minute waits for matches

just wait for gbox to fix it or just stop playing


Just surrendered an incursion game because some kid didnt want to play against pendles and quit. We started strong… but after being a man down it was better to get into another match.

Yeah normally I do not support posts like this but in this case it’s true. If I had to wait up to 30 Minutes to find one game, I would have quit a long time ago.

I think we’ve had this discussion like 100 times already, I’m against stricter rules regarding surrender. To be honest I would prefer to have the “Surrender” option even earlier than 6 minutes into the game. From my experience - around 300 games I believe - you can tell how the game turns out within the first 3-5 minutes.

1 Like

It’s because not every single match I play takes 30 minutes to find. I was using 30 minutes as an example of times where early surrendering REALLY kills your interest in continuing to play. Most matches I find take anywhere from 2-10 minutes, which I find bearable as I truly do love and enjoy the game. Yes, even enough love to endure the occasional 30 minute wait.

And sorry, but clearly 300 matches haven’t been enough for you to realise that ‘3-5 minutes’ is nowhere near enough time to determine the outcome of the match. Unless you literally only play Capture or something (in which case you have my sympathy), Incursion and Meltdown will offer much opportunity for late blooming characters to make mighty comebacks.

Characters like El Dragón, Boldur, Attikus, etc, all take quite a bit of minion killing/station building to really hit their sweet spots, but once you do, you feel it.

The reason I feel surrender should be removed entirely is that it has no place in a video game. Why on earth even buy the game if you don’t want to play it? If the match is honestly too much for you to take, then press Pause and select Quit. There is no need whatsoever to drag the rest of your team mates down with a Surrender. People sat and waited for the wonky matchmaking to find 9 players to begin with and just because things aren’t instantly going your way, just because you aren’t instantly winning, you want to give up?

Screw that. On a platform as dead as PC, I would much rather be playing and losing than searching. I didn’t buy the digital deluxe version of Match Searcher Simulator 2k16, I bought Battleborn.

And besides, the earlier you surrender the less credits and experience you get, so not only are you robbing a full lobby of a match, you’re also robbing them of extra currencies and levels.

Seriously, just stop and think about it for a second. Out of 10 people total, it only takes 3 of them to end an entire match. Sorry, but 3 out of 10 ain’t a majority. If those 3 can’t take it, they can leave.

It also creates an unbelievably toxic approach to losing matches by a lot of players. I recall certain players who will literally insta-surrender the moment we’re a man down, I’ve even witnessed the opposite team attempting surrender because they were getting killed a lot despite actually winning the match score-wise, please even attempt to explain that to me.

Then you’ve got the guys that don’t get their way and instead run around the map doing nothing or simply sit in spawn. So it becomes clear that the Surrender is not for their benefit but to grief those who want to play, because if they legitimately did not want to play, then they would simply leave, but no, they have to ruin it for the other players.

Surrender is a joke, and it needs to go.


If you could quit and start up a new match then yes, surrender would have no purpose.

But since you cannot, rather than sufffer through a stomping that wont seem to end we have the ability to end it.

I hate the idea of people leaving, but I think you’re spot on here. I made a post a few months back about changes to the surrender vote, that it should be unanimous, and I got shut down then but look at the situation of BB now.

I’ve seen it so many times in so many ridiculous ways, people who die once quit out or sit in base and spam surrender, literally ONE death. Sentry gets destroyed, or two people die and the sentry gets assaulted, surrender. Stalemate in mid, even if we’re up on score, surrender. Enemy team hits 250 first on Meltdown, you know when we have a chance to shut them out and make a comeback which is how Meltdown was intended to be played, surrender. 99-100 surrenders, earliest possible time surrenders because they enemy team controls mid on Incursion, a few bad performances do not define the outcome of a match, many players are too worried about their precious K:D stat to look at the enemy’s stats or the overall score. Early surrenders have been killing this game on all platforms, for a long time.

I have a video of a victorious 4v5 via surrender, not only were we a man down but we were red barring. Yet I’ve seen the same thing, man down but winning, surrender anyway, or just quit as soon as the match starts because someone left during character select.

This is a paradoxical statement, the biggest contributing factor to long wait times is a small playerbase, not playing isn’t going to fix that rather the contrary.

I’m quite certain you can.

When you leave and attempt to search again just press no or cancel on the prompt which let’s you rejoin the match you left.

It’s actually a very under appreciated feature being able to jump back in again should you lose connection or your PC crash, etc, but as I said, it gives you a one time opportunity to join again and should you not accept it it will let you search normally again.

Perhaps this is why surrender is such an issue? Do people assume that they’re stuck with that match until it ends? Maybe if they knew they could quit, cancel the join again prompt and search again they would just quit instead of ending my matches prematurely.

Well, U probably quit not often.
No, one does not simply quit PvP match and search for another. PvE, yes, one can choose to not re-connect to a game one left, PvP is different…and thus I strongly encourage remaining team members to not end match porematurely just because we’re on man short: let those quitters suffer :wink:

I feel like there are a few things I disagree strongly with here.

The issue here is that you talk as if all players are one bunch, which is not the case here.
There are 2 teams, and if one of them lacks the will to continue the match, they can opt a vote to surrender, where the team’s majority decide the vote.
Furthermore, if 3 out of 10 players want the match to end, that is still 30% of all the players. That is still a significant amount, even if they are not a majority. If such a big of participants are not enjoying the match, a surrender is a reasonable solution.

I do not see how surrenders causes a more (or less) toxic approach to losing. (more on that below)
The insta-surrender is a problem, I will agree with that point.
As for people who surrender even while winning, if you take a look at the people surrendering, they are more often than not the weakest link in a team. They are feeding and doing bad and that is why they want to surrender. Is it a good reason? No. They should realise they are winning and the team is doing good. But it is the most common reason I have seen.

I feel like there is some misunderstanding as to why surrenders happen.
People surrender because numbers start to fall out of their favour and they do not understand the game properly.
That is a big issue with the game overall. I have seen people who are CR 100 (which means they probably spent above 100 hours in the game) and still have no clue how to play the objective, the importance of falling back when low and other general basic understandings of the game. As long as people do not understand the game, they will call surrenders early, because they do not understand how they would win.

Even worse… Removing them will solve absolutely nothing. Why do I think so? Simple, because right now, if you are not enjoying a game, you can opt to surrender (when possible) and if your teammates agree you will end a match you are not enjoying while still reaping in some of the rewards.
However, when that option disappears, people will just leave the game.
So now you have people leaving the game instead. Good riddance, right? Who wants them around anyways?
Well… If they leave a game, that game is now MORE unbalanced, and might cause a cascade where the entire enemy team leaves and… now you essentially have a surrender.
If they do not all leave, they will now be even less likely to turn it around and more likely to get stomped and frustrated and want to leave.

So removing the surrenders will have no significant effect on the game.
We NEED to get people to understand the game better.

And the community needs to help new players as much as they can.
5man premade facing a bunch of low-levels? Cancel the match before you start it.
Got stuck in one? Well, go easier on them. You should not let them win, but maybe do not stomp them into the ground.

Since they population is so low on PC, I recognise a lot of people. And I also see them obliterate new players into the ground. To me, THAT is what is making people surrender.
So come on, people.
You know if you are doing this. You know it is not helping.
Make life a tiny bit easier for new players. Help them get into the game.
This game needs players who understands what is going on.
It is not easy to help people learn, but it is easy to not completely crush new people for the heck of it.

TL;DR : Removing surrender will solve nothing. People need to understand the game better.


I had such case yesterday: one digit CR’er asked for Boldur in a team, for his Lore Challenge. When nobody agreed (because “bolder’s crap”) he simply disconnected (typical lore w.). And we stomached the match, till the bitter end, and we were fine with that, at least I was.
“Cuz quitter”. But I’m less concerned about 1 hussy and more about remainig 3 fine gamers. If ppl are committed to the game so much they rather play 4vs5 match than press quit, they deserve a surrender parachute.
So, either this option stays …or “the jumper” project.

1 Like

Or just remove the surrender and if the player chooses to “press esc and click quit” - then he would have an insta-message, that he will not be able to start another match for… let’s say 30-60 minutes. I think this would actually make people think more about their actions and the outcome of their decision.

BUT there is another thing, what to do with the players who just sit there at the base and wait till the end of the match? Here comes the “Report” button (which is so useless right now that no one even bothers to report anything anymore). That button should work and if 4 other teammates (or 3) votes to “hey, this guy is destroying our fun” he would be banned from joining other games for another ~30-60 minutes and he would be kicked from the team for the rest of the match. This feature was in Quake Live since the beginning and only once (in 3 years of playing) I saw someone to abuse this.
Of course there was no ban there, but the kick worked flawlessly. And I think a timed ban should exist in Battleborn, because no one wants to play with these kind of players.

hashtag: makereportbuttongreatagain

I know it’s 2 separate teams, but it’s still 10 people who want to play a match.

For the 2 members of the surrendering team, they had a 5 minute jog around a map.

For the 5 members of the non-surrendering team, they had a 5 minute jog around a map.

None of these players experienced what they sat and searched for: A MATCH.

How can you say that 30% is a significant amount of unhappy players yet ignore the 2 players of the surrendering team (which would be 40% of that team by the way) who could do nothing to stop the other 3 ruining their match?

If the opposite team wanted a good match but found their opposition wimping out early, then that’s 70% of the players who are unhappy.

Either way you cut it the minority has the power in this game, and that’s a little backwards.


Few issues here again.

30% of any population is a significant number.
But I feel like you are getting hung up on the total amount of players here (10).
We are still talking about two teams and their internal desire to continue the game, so we will always talk about 5. Unless you are proposing that the enemy team also gets to decide if they may surrender?
But that would be preposterous, because the enemy team would most likely not want to surrender, since they are in a game they most likely will win.

If a team wants to surrender, this implies the match was not a good one. Or at least that some people perceive it to be bad.
If a match is bad, should we really let the WINNING team decide if it should continue?
You know more than well that a winning team is VERY unlikely to let the enemy team surrender.

Partially correct.
It is a significant minority of players in the entire game.
But it is a majority of the surrendering team’s votes.

Making the surrender a global majority just will not work.

Your argument, however. Would make a surrender impossible.
So a player would just leave. This would turn the game into a 4v5, making the game unbalanced. Not impossible to win, but very hard.
Assuming ANOTHER player now leaves it becomes a 3v5. In a proper setup, the losing team now has no real chance of winning.
But wait, only 1-2 players did something to affect the outcome of the game. Not 3.
Yes, you just made an even smaller minority have a bigger effect on the game.

And since you seemed to have missed my biggest point, I will reluctantly reiterate myself.

You are argumenting the wrong thing. It is not about “surrender or no surrender?”. It is about “why do people surrender?”.
Surrender option is not what is ruining the game. It is just a very good indication that the game has severe issues, especially with the player’s understandings of it.

1 Like