New Game Option, Vote to concede!!!

[DaShuk]

So em... I leave games that can't be won and i need to win but i am not interested in winning? Wow...

 

 

 

So now you are telling us we should learn to play as a team by ourselfs?

Last game i left yesterday:

 

Game started, 1 whent for pylon, 1 enemy whent there to so my ENTIRE TEAM had to go over there to kill that 1 MAN... We lost mid and all orbs... Then THEY ALL LEFT THE PYLON. Of course it got capped.

Of course i left at that point.

 

Sorry bud but there is no way i am wasting my time there. You NEED to find a team that has half a brain. Its IRRELEVANT how good YOU are if the team is full of muppets. This is a TEAM game..

You can't:

1-Defened pylon and go mid to grab orbs and kill the entire team by yourself.

2-You can't guard BOTH doors at the same time so you NEED other players that can think, look at the door and report.

3-You CAN'T defened a turret and go grab another by yourself.

You can keep adding here for each WZ.

 

You can be my guess and get that "experience" but personaly i don't feel like punching my monitor out of rage when i see complete tards in my games... i prefer to just leave the game.

 

Now don't get me wrong 1 man can make a difference but can't win a game by himself. If the other team has good players and your team is full of muppets you can't do ****. You get FARMED.

 

A system that promotes win needs to be part of ranket games where you can CHOOSE your team... Why is it my fault for having *******es in my team like in my above example? I get this **** every day (not the exact thing) when i do my daily. People that can't look at doors, people that defened in a stupid way (close to the pylon, to far from turret(not stealth) and so on), people that don't have augments etc...

 

This is pretty much it in a nutshell. While WZs were a bit of a mixed bag from 10-54, I can tell within the first 2-3 minutes of a match at 55 whether or not it's a lost cause just based on team make-up and seeing how they initially react. You can tell right away that you have no chance to win no matter how good YOU actually play because for the most part, especially in PuGs, people just don't understand basic strategy. I can't tell you how many times I sit there and laugh while watching my team trying to cap 2 guns in Novare Coast when we already have one. They don't get the basic strategy of only needing 2 of 3, so instead of sending one big mass to the center gun they sent two teams of 3 and spread out which means we don't cap any turrets. You can try to chat and suggest what they do but no one listens, at least not in pick ups. In Huttball it's 2-3 to nothing within the first 4 minutes, no one is going to "try hard" after that and half the team usually quits. I'm sorry but you are not winning a Hutt Ball match with a 5 person team and you are not coming back by yourself no matter how hard you "try."

[ErikGW]

We had a few enemy teams "vote to concede" by ragequitting after we planting the first bomb in voidstar or scored 3 times in 3 minutes in huttball last night.

 

It was lame but at least the queues were fast for the next match.

[ZooMzy]

I am so sick of horrible match making, yet I am against quitting a match.

 

This is where I feel your credibility is no longer something people can take seriously. This feature is unneeded simply because the way the devs set the PvP game mode up:

 

There is nothing stopping you from leaving a WZ besides your own personal ego. You can not control the way someone else plays, nor can they determine the way you play. Meaning that a vote to concede option is useless, simply because you do not need a "majority over minority" option in something that already allows you to play the way you want to play.

 

Elaboration: What about the 2 out of 8 in your count that are wanting to play through the game mode, no matter how bad they are getting stomped, and get forced out of a WZ because the majority doesn't like losing badly? What you consider BS matches and what other people consider BS matches can be two entirely different things, meaning that your suggestion would mostly likely be infringing on the play style of another. Until the queue forces you to stay in WZs by lockout timers or some other form of actual punishment, this idea is pointless.

 

And before you mention comms and valor as punishment, remember that those two things are lost rewards for leaving a match, not actual punishment. Entirely different concept.

[madtycoon]

I just wish civil war would end sooner when one team is 3 capping. Being on either side in that situation isn't fun and having to sit there for the crazy amount of time it takes for a team to win or lose with a 3 cap is boring.

[ErikGW]

I just wish civil war would end sooner when one team is 3 capping. Being on either side in that situation isn't fun and having to sit there for the crazy amount of time it takes for a team to win or lose with a 3 cap is boring.

 

Civil war damages a finite number per turret, 10 per tick. This means having 2 turrets gives 20 damage per rotation. Three turrets gives 3 per rotation. So triple capping wins 50% faster than only capping 2.

 

And because CW is tick based, it's always theoretically possible to win.

 

When the enemy team gives up and sits to medal farm, it's time to leroy charge them for lolz.

[Zunayson]

Because it's famous. Ranked teams aren't, it's just a bunch of guys behind computers with headsets on.

 

There is a threshold of skill gap past which no one learns anything. A top soccer team will kick you, IDK, 30, 45 goals? You won't even get to touch the ball, you'll just run around watching it kicked past you. It won't be a game at all, it will be shooting practice for them and running around the field watching Barcelona practice for you.

 

The skill gap in SWTOR PvP isn't quite as dramatic, ultimately you're both gamers in a very casual MMORPG. Still, it gets far too wide to get anything experience from getting kicked by double premades.

 

The analogy is bad.

 

A competition aims to change a small set of factors (what we call skill), while keeping all other factors the same (this is why teams are the same number, fields are symmetrical, etc.)

 

In boxing, weight is NOT a skill. It is considered an unfair factor that needs to be the same (or roughly). So that's why you cannot have light and heavy.

 

Barcelona's team can totally go against a team of randoms. It's obviously not going to be a match, but that's because the team of Barcelona is better. That's why they're on the team.... they're the best in the area, so they got on.

 

The skilled players will and should get the opportunity to beat up on baddies. Else, even if you DID try to separate the people into goods vs goods and bads vs bads, some goods will still be better, and you'd be whining about still losing.

 

This is because skilled players, even when given all other same factors (team numbers, side of the field, weight, etc.), are still coming out on top due to their differences in SKILL (and each competition has this category vary - strength, speed, endurance, intelligence, strategy, reflex, the list goes on and on).

 

People are different, some people suck at things and are not cut out for certain things. Don't try to give everyone those stupid participation medals.

 

TL;DR you're wrong and I am right.

Edited August 31, 2013 by Zunayson

[Heal-To-Full]

The skilled players will and should get the opportunity to beat up on baddies.

Set it up in Outlaw's den or something.

 

Else, even if you DID try to separate the people into goods vs goods and bads vs bads, some goods will still be better, and you'd be whining about still losing.

No.

First of all, I don't have anything to whine about, there's no "still".

 

Second, "No" once again.

The problem is never losing. Tight matches are fun whether they are won or lost.

The problem is being in matches that essentially win themselves or matches that can't be won in any way. Such matches are boring for either side.

[Drudenfusz]

Set it up in Outlaw's den or something.

Maybe you could take your own advise, go and setup your perfect balanced league or whathaveyou yourself in Outlaw's Den, and let the rest of us just enjoy our warzones!

[NathanielStarr]

Well really PvP should be cross sever and their should be ranking with matchmaking. But that would cut into their profits from server transfers so they aren't going to do that.

[Chimerako]

Someone answer these question for me. If I am in a match with 7 other players and hypothetically my dps is lets say 450k while being focused the entire match and the next closest player on my team was at 200k with the rest falling between 175k and 100k. And i'm not playing a FOTM class...Is the premade really the problem? Why am I able to do well even against the dreaded premades. Do you really need vent to know what to do in these wz? I mean seriously... besides premades are cute. Grow a pair stop being a baby and finish the match. Maybe if you played as much as you whine you would be better.

[Raazmir]

Someone answer these question for me. If I am in a match with 7 other players and hypothetically my dps is lets say 450k while being focused the entire match and the next closest player on my team was at 200k with the rest falling between 175k and 100k. And i'm not playing a FOTM class...Is the premade really the problem? Why am I able to do well even against the dreaded premades. Do you really need vent to know what to do in these wz? I mean seriously... besides premades are cute. Grow a pair stop being a baby and finish the match. Maybe if you played as much as you whine you would be better.

 

This dude knows whats up.

[gallerygoo]

I have to say, if conceding seems a good idea to you, then maybe you are not that much into PvP after all. I want my opponents work for their victory, and I prefer it when I am in the clear better team that my opponent at least try to make it a challenge and not leave or concede just because they think they will lose. That mentality, that conceding should be an option is only one losers have. I don't want that in PvP! It's like going to team sports event and seeing one team conceding there, that just does not happen, they always try their best even though they might not have a chance in hell.

 

I see it often enough that losers quite huttball after the opposing team got their first point, I don't want those losers hanging around hoping that enough people will concede, better have them gone and hope the replacement is someone who can actually play.

 

I have to say we might be opposing factions from the way your pic looks but I think we see eye to eye on this subject. Bravo Drudenfusz, and FOR THE EMPIRE!!!!

[TUXs]

No...and trust me, there have been MANY matches I would have gladly conceded...but this is a bad idea.

[Savej]

You're just in it for the comms? Even when I know my team's going to lose I can still get in some fun fights, maybe learn something new and put my character's name at the top of something (obj pts, dmg, solo kills, whatever). It gets impossible to have fun when 3+ ppl are deliberately not trying and that's something this game rewards too much but i have no solution ideas for that.

[Uber_the_Goober]

I am so sick of horrible match making, yet I am against quitting a match. I propose the game gets a Vote to Concede match option. Say if 6/8 vote then the match ends. This would end the matches that you know are doomed one cycle in.

 

The premades could still farm all they want. This would just make it so people don't have to sit through 5-10 min of ****** games.

 

"Vote to Concede match"!!!!

 

common Bioware that's got to be easier to implement than any sort of matchmaking.

 

Right click warzone icon on minimap. Select "Leave Warzone".

 

Presto Blammo, you have just conceded.

[psandak]

No...and trust me, there have been MANY matches I would have gladly conceded...but this is a bad idea.

 

This^

 

I agree with another poster it is a bad analogy but...

You see in team sports they divisions and stuff... They don't put Barcelona vs some random people on the street...How about we put a Heavyweight boxer vs a Lightweight ?

 

Actually this happens quite often in college sports. Some nothing school wants some national exposure and chooses to play against a top 10 team. And guess what, every now and then the underdog surprises EVERYONE. Not to mention that sometimes those massive underdogs go on to become national powerhouses:

 

Boise State Football

Gonzaga Basketball

Denver University Hockey

 

To name a few.

 

On the personal experience side, I have had two times in my life playing recreational soccer where my team was bad but we kept on playing:

 

The first happened when I was a child: PAL soccer league, my team did not have enough players to field a full 11 most games (13 total players when the typical team had 15-17). Sometimes our opponents were kind enough to only field as many players as we had, other teams fielded 11 regardless of our numbers. Either way, our opponents always had a distinct advantage (more subs or players we could not cover). One week we almost had to forfeit because only seven players showed and eight was the hard minimum. Luckily an eighth player showed up at the last minute. That season we went 0-10, but we always played our hardest

 

The second happened more recently. A bunch of co-workers got together and joined a recreational indoor soccer league. The first week we knew we were in trouble: Our team consisted of late 20s to early 50s just wanting to get some exercise and hang out together; the rest of the leagues teams were 20-somethings. In fact, one team was a number of college kids who were on their college team. We got our BUTTS KICKED EVERY WEEK, but we continued to participate. We managed to win one game that season but only because the other team had no subs and our entire team showed up (double the number on the field).

 

The point is that wanting to win is important, but knowing how to lose gracefully is just as important. And rage quitting and conceding are not ways to lose gracefully.

 

• So what if you lose badly in the first round of an Arena match? You have a minute to discuss the situation and CHANGE tactics in between rounds. Take advantage of it; don't just yell at your teammates and quit.
  
• So what if your opponents score a quick two goals in Huttball? I have personally been part of several comebacks down 4-0.
  
• I have been privy to MANY instances where someone rage quit a WZ, I come in and my side is winning and I ask the question, "WTH caused someone to quit?" The response has invariably been, "we were losing."
  

Edited January 27, 2014 by psandak

[xSynysterxG]

What they really need to implement in this game is a lock out timer for those who quit the Warzones, just like they have for group finder operations.

It annoys the crap out of me when a team caps a turret in Civil War, or gets a bunker in Novaire and people just book it.

On the other hand, it is hilarious to see them quit and then 30 seconds later "Such and such has joined the ops group" Lol, well welcome back, sport!

But yeah, seriously, put a lock out timer on the quitters, they're annoying and need to be punished for their childish ways.

[LeHovah]

You win some, you lose some; stop whining.

 

Just join a premade or something lol