Allow teams to conceed in pvp matches

[Aeywyn]

We all know there are problems with the current pvp.

 

These problems cause players to leave or go afk.

 

The idea of being able to kick people from the group is extremely risky and if it gets abused, will put the final nail in the coffin.

 

 

However.... what about if teams were able to conceed?

 

This would allow teams that have no hope of winning to give up, collect their current medals and move on to the next match.

 

Nobody would get kicked, nobody would have to leave or go afk and the winning side wouldnt mind because they would win faster... everybody wins.....

 

This seems to me like by far the best option.

[Aeywyn]

Oh yeah and it would also remove the issue of being dumped into losing warzones where you have no hope of winning.

[Raansu]

This would be abused pretty hardcore...

[Shlamorel]

This would be abused pretty hardcore...

 

I agree.

 

Also, teams would start arguging amongst themselves whether they should conceed or not.

 

Player 1: "Let's conceed and get this over with and start a new match"

 

Player 2: "We can still win! Don't give up!"

 

Player 1 (in spite): "Fine, I'll just stand over here and not help while you feed kills to the other side."

 

I understand the frustration of losing, but giving up, IMO, will only turn people on each other within their own faction. On top of that, there are rewards that come along even with a loss. Medals provide bonuses, but you still get valor, experience, commendations, and credits even when you lose. I never understood why one would quit a losing warzone; you may as well just finish and collect some rewards then collect none at all.

Edited February 25, 2012 by Shlamorel

[Aeywyn]

I delibertately didnt go into how it would work in practice.. but yeah it would have to be majority voting.

 

So a) it couldnt be 'abused hardcore'

 

b) If i remember rightly, WAR had a way of conceeding and it didnt end up in arguments. If the match is going so badly that 50% / 75% of people dont want to play anymore.... any random delusional people will not win the argument.

 

c) Any other system just encourages people to go afk.... as i type this im sitting on a capped point and not even looking at the match because i know for a certainty that my team has zero chance of winning.

 

Any system can be abused, the alternatives would be worse.

[Harrasment]

Simply....coz after 10 wz loss that was started 4 vs 8 with this idiotic matchup system, ppl start to get bored and is not fkin funnier when the opposite team farm ur team and u stand in a corner watching asking urself if a monkey could develop this pvp system than Bw >_>"

[Shlamorel]

c) Any other system just encourages people to go afk.... as i type this im sitting on a capped point and not even looking at the match because i know for a certainty that my team has zero chance of winning.

 

Punishing those who quit/afk/leave early/desert the warzone is the best solution, IMO, and that is what they are implementing in 1.2.

 

Here's the possible outcomes in a system where afkers and quitters are punished (e.g., can't queue for another warzone for 15 minutes):

 

Player A thinks his team has no chance, so he will either:

 

a.) quit and get some form of punishment

b.) not quit but not help his team out of spite

c.) not quit but decide "well I'm stuck in here anyway, I may as well try to help my team win and get some bonus valor"

 

The only option that directly harms other players is (b), but this would not harm those who want to keep trying to win. Why? If we implemented your suggestion, then that person who wanted to try anyway would simply be forced out of the warzone. In other words, given the alternative, they get their way and the person who wants to quit doesn't get their way.

 

In short, the upcoming changes do not promote afking as you suggest. Afking in this case would be the least desirable outcome. The player will either quit the match and take the punishment, or help out because they are stuck in the warzone. They can choose to not help at all and just sit around like a bump on a log, but if they literally afk they'll get booted (theoretically, in the upcoming changes BW is suggesting). Even if they just run around doing absolutely nothing, they are doing nothing but harm to themselves (i mean hey, they may as well try to go get some medals or something, right?)

 

I think the only fair way is to leave it up to the individual players- if they want to concede, they can do so by leaving the warzone individually. I personally like the changes BW are implementing to support this type of punishment.

 

I do, however, want to point out that my disagreement is completely respectful; I know others share your perspective. I simply do not.

Edited February 25, 2012 by Shlamorel

[Harrasment]

Honestly, and i talk from a my PoV.

 

If i play an huttball, i get the ball and try to score; got zerged and see that all my teammates are running in circle like ******* tryng to smash everythin that have a red name....thats make me wanna farm my 9 medals and than stay afk. Why should i try to help a team that clearly dont want to win?

 

If i play a Voidstar and we have a huge inc of enemies to 1 door and all my team come to the door leaving the other unguarded and atfer some second u see the bomb alarm, u can think ok maybe he died and havent got the time to respawn. 2nd door same story.

I can point u another case, this time i stay at the 2nd door for avoid what i wrote above.....3 sec and my team get the bomb planted there.

Again i farm my medal than afk, coz i dont see why i need to try to win a match where my team doesnt want to.

 

I can tell to u another one.

U get 2 base in Civil war and after u die boring guardin the right turret alone u see whole ur team move to the 3rd base tryng to 3cap, loose the mid base and loose the wz.

Again....farm medal than afk.

 

At the end i think they should add something for let players leave a doomed wz with something inseatd of nothing, but on the other hand they shouldnt add it coz it will be abused.

Simply theres no answer, is all on players hand....if u get in a team that dont wanna try to win ur condamed to farm medals than afk or leave =)

[Aeywyn]

Punishing those who quit/afk/leave early/desert the warzone is the best solution, IMO, and that is what they are implementing in 1.2.

 

Here's the possible outcomes in a system where afkers and quitters are punished (e.g., can't queue for another warzone for 15 minutes):

 

Player A thinks his team has no chance, so he will either:

 

a.) quit and get some form of punishment

b.) not quit but not help his team out of spite

c.) not quit but decide "well I'm stuck in here anyway, I may as well try to help my team win and get some bonus valor"

 

The only option that directly harms other players is (b), but this would not harm those who want to keep trying to win. Why? If we implemented your suggestion, then that person who wanted to try anyway would simply be forced out of the warzone. In other words, given the alternative, they get their way and the person who wants to quit doesn't get their way.

 

I think the only fair way is to leave it up to the individual players- if they want to concede, they can do so by leaving the warzone individually. I personally like the changes BW are implementing to support this type of punishment.

 

I do, however, want to point out that my disagreement is completely respectful; I know others share your perspective. I simply do not.

 

 

There are several flaws in your points.

 

1) It isnt 'player A' it is TEAM A thinks they all have no chance. So it is not about an individual being selfish, it is a whole GROUP of people who signed up to do something fun but then end up being forced to have a miserable gaming experience... if you arent having fun in a game... you eventually quit the game.

 

2) Currently the usual options are actualy:

 

a) help your team even though you know you it will be boring and miserable because there is no fun in taking part if there is no chance of winning.

 

b) do something else that is less boring and either .... still gets you some reward (aka going afk) or doesnt but frees you of the slight guilty concience (aka dropping out).

 

There are no GOOD options, just unhappy ones. If a player logs in to de-stress / enjoy themselves and find that all their choices are unhappy ones... they will stop logging in / joining pvp queues.... (apologies for stating the obvious).

 

 

The idea of punishing people who leave or go afk will simply make the decision to give up on the game easier for those people.

 

They were willing to give things a chance, they were even willing to sit through a no-hope pvp match occasionally, they want to continue playing with their guild mates... but now, with even more issues added to remove their fun.... well.... do they have the common sense to go out and do something else that is enjoyable with their life? ..... hmm

 

As i type this it has occured to me that I sound like im about to quit the game... perhaps... I dont intend to ... but there is only so long that any person will carry on spending their precious, free time playing games that arent fun.

[svartalfimposter]

Player 1: "Let's conceed and get this over with and start a new match"

 

Player 2: "We can still win! Don't give up!"

 

Player 1 (in spite): "Fine, I'll just stand over here and not help while you feed kills to the other side."

 

This happens anyway.

[Valeruh]

I want a surrender vote option after a set amount of time (e.g. 7min) AND a votekick option (afk, flame) AND a punishment for leaving a wz early....

 

I feel like this way everyone gets the most out of it!

[Natharon]

Weak, so teams getting farmed get an out for being bad? They have an out, they bail, so you want the same give up feature, but you want all the medals and valor you had before leaving? I didn't know pvp stood for player versus *****.

[Aetou]

I'd support the ability to concede if it was only usable in certain circumstances.

 

(1) Your team has been in the situation where the Shutdown Sequence has begun, even if it has been aborted due to somebody else subsequently joining. Generally, those sorts of matches are genuinely unwinnable because the other side has taken a large lead and you're undergunned. I've been part of more than a few remarkable comebacks but the choice of ending a game in those circumstances would be fair.

 

(2) The game is in a position where it is realistically impossible for one side to win. 450-100 in ACW, 4-0 in Hutball, and so on.

 

In both cases, I'd want two thirds of the team to be required to vote for the game to end before it actually does.

[Viree]

On top of that, there are rewards that come along even with a loss. Medals provide bonuses, but you still get valor, experience, commendations, and credits even when you lose. I never understood why one would quit a losing warzone; you may as well just finish and collect some rewards then collect none at all.

 

The rewards you talk about are practically irrelevant. If people want valor they go to Ilum, it's easier, way more reliable and a lot quicker. If they want credits they'll do something else like daily quests which can take a few minutes for 10k. And there's very little to no incentive to actually farm warzone credits when it takes you 800 per champ bag, which has only 7 champ commendations, and you need 67 of them for a single main item (and more for weapons). You could spend all week doing that and still not get a single item. It'd take you literally months to gear up that way.

 

So what are you left with? Well, it's obvious: PvP Daily/Weeklies. People want Warzone wins so they can get their champ bag and then log off or go do something that isn't frustrating as hell. So when they join a match that is already obviously lost (as around 1/2 matches are), there's no incentive at all to stay. You can cry all you like about how people are cowards or bad or whatever else but the reality is they're just being time efficient. There's zero reason for these people to stay in an unambiguously losing warzone.

 

This is also why the 'penalize leavers' suggestion is so mind numbingly idiotic. I'm appalled that BioWare are actually implementing it, it's sad to see they're as half-witted as those suggesting it. The reason behind this is simple; They're already fixing Daily quests, this will in itself stop most of the warzone leavers (as that is generally the only reason they leave; thus adding a penalty on top will only penalize those who need to leave for legit reasons)

[Finreal]

1.2 will add a quiters debuff simmilar to WAR.

 

This means that we can expect simmilar WZ experiences to WAR. Instead of quiting, players will find a place to stand just on the edge of the spawn area where they won't be kicked from the scenario and stand there for 15 mins.

 

Guild Vent:

 

Guildy 1. Screw those easy moders. Make them wait for 15 mins, we're helping our realm by trapping them in here so they can't farm with thier premade.

 

Guildy 2. Starting my anti-AFK macro and alt tabbing to check out the net. Give me a shout when we're out of this.

 

Wait and see.

 

These unbalanced WZs should be balanced by buffs and monster play for the teams that are woefully ill-equiped to face premades or teams that out gear them significantly. People need incentives to work. Getting farmed doing dailys feels like work.

[Shlamorel]

This happens anyway.

 

Correct, so what does the proposed change by the OP accomplish?

 

I'm all for ideas that will make positive changes to the PvP.

[Shlamorel]

The rewards you talk about are practically irrelevant. If people want valor they go to Ilum, it's easier, way more reliable and a lot quicker. If they want credits they'll do something else like daily quests which can take a few minutes for 10k. And there's very little to no incentive to actually farm warzone credits when it takes you 800 per champ bag, which has only 7 champ commendations, and you need 67 of them for a single main item (and more for weapons). You could spend all week doing that and still not get a single item. It'd take you literally months to gear up that way.

 

So what are you left with? Well, it's obvious: PvP Daily/Weeklies. People want Warzone wins so they can get their champ bag and then log off or go do something that isn't frustrating as hell. So when they join a match that is already obviously lost (as around 1/2 matches are), there's no incentive at all to stay.

 

I don't disagree with you at all on that. For people only wanting to gear up quickly, I can see your opinion 100%. For someone like me, who PvP's for fun (the gear is a side-effect), I just enjoy PvPing and beating the opposing faction.

 

You can cry all you like about how people are cowards or bad or whatever else but the reality is they're just being time efficient. There's zero reason for these people to stay in an unambiguously losing warzone.

 

Since you quoted me I'm assuming this is pointed towards me, so I must ask: where did I cry or say people are cowards? Again, i agree that people wanting to be time efficient and gear up as quickly as possible won't want to stay in a losing warzone... but you can still get medals (valor) and such. By leaving, the player loses access to all the rewards gained in that warzone.

 

This is also why the 'penalize leavers' suggestion is so mind numbingly idiotic. I'm appalled that BioWare are actually implementing it, it's sad to see they're as half-witted as those suggesting it.

 

It helps to express your opinions without attacking others. Name calling doesn't really help anyone discuss the game/ share ideas in a productive way .

[Shlamorel]

 

This means that we can expect simmilar WZ experiences to WAR. Instead of quiting, players will find a place to stand just on the edge of the spawn area where they won't be kicked from the scenario and stand there for 15 mins.

 

I don't believe there is any such place to stand in the existing warzones, is there?

 

Anywhere that is out of range of the afk autboot is in range of attacks/pulls from enemy players, though I could be wrong.

[Shlamorel]

There are several flaws in your points.

It isnt 'player A' it is TEAM A thinks they all have no chance. So it is not about an individual being selfish, it is a whole GROUP of people who signed up to do something fun but then end up being forced to have a miserable gaming experience... if you arent having fun in a game... you eventually quit the game.

 

My apologies if I missed it in your original post that you were referring to an entire team option to surrender. I don't remember reading it but perhaps I overlooked it.

 

Either way, I agree with you - if an entire team chooses to I see no problem with it. I was merely speaking about a majority/individual level.

 

Also, the last part of your post was quite confusing for me to understand but that may be because it's early and I'm not all awake yet .

[Mofotrey]

"Don't giva up Jar Jar, wesa thinken of someting." - Captain Tarpols

"My give up. My give up!" - Jar Jar Binks

 

 

So what you're really saying is that you want a Jar Jar option.

[MiaRB]

please NO!!!!!!!! why even bother doing WZs if you dont like or even want to pvp. better to punish quitters by keeping them out of WZs all together.

[Emrakkia]

I think there is some merit to the OPs idea, if implemented properly.

[Gonewild]

Spamming a concede vote every few seconds and interrupting the game would be more annoying than deserters.

[Crujido]

Wow lol.

 

That would be horrible.

 

No thanks.

[Viree]

Since you quoted me I'm assuming this is pointed towards me, so I must ask: where did I cry or say people are cowards? Again, i agree that people wanting to be time efficient and gear up as quickly as possible won't want to stay in a losing warzone... but you can still get medals (valor) and such. By leaving, the player loses access to all the rewards gained in that warzone.

My apologies, this was not really directed towards you persay but just generally towards the rather large proportion of players who are advocating the Leaver Penalty as though it will solve all their problems.

 

Regarding leavers, yes they lose access to those things if they leave... but I've already explained why that really doesn't matter. Occasionally if I join a WZ that is losing drastically and there's like 1 minute left I might stay, just to get the default 20 commendations, but beyond that there's no point; it's more time efficient (both in obtaining wins and valor/comms/credits) to simply exit out and find a new warzone that isn't failing.

 

The only thing a penalty will do is make the entire experience more frustrating than it already is, and how anyone cannot see this is seriously beyond me.

 

Also, I don't just play PvP to get gear. I do enjoy PvP when you have a good match. But the simple fact is there's no enjoyment to be had when the teams are so profoundly skewed in the other sides favor; getting farmed outside of your spawn point... you would need to be a masochist with a lot of time to have fun doing that.

 

On top of that, even though I have fun in PvP sometimes I just want to get my daily done - and when I want to do that there's no realistically efficient way to do it, especially when half the games you join are already bound to lose, and another half that you join from the beginning will lose anyway. I have mostly champion gear now, and I can routinely top the charts for both teams with medals/dmg (if I focus on it, I don't; objective are more important).

 

And yet I still spent close to 5 hours in Warzones yesterday and only managed to get a single win. No matter how much fun you might find PvP, having to spend more time on a 3 win daily than you would on an entire raid is massively disheartening, which is exactly why they're changing it.

 

It helps to express your opinions without attacking others. Name calling doesn't really help anyone discuss the game/ share ideas in a productive way .

 

Well I'm sorry but people really are stupid if they can't see something so obvious. That goes for BioWare as well. If you don't like that feel free to disregard my insults. They shouldn't offend you when I'm a complete stranger anyway.