PvP needs a mercy rule

[TX_Angel]

http://www.cleveland.com/sports/index.ssf/2016/02/ohio_high_school_basketball_co.html

 

"In wake of 108-1 girls basketball score, should Ohio pass a 'mercy rule' for high school basketball?"

 

"Unlike football, where the Ohio High School Athletic Association has a regulation in place to run the clock after a large point differential is reached, basketball does not, adding to the rise of lopsided victories."

 

---

 

There are times when PvP is a blast, when it is a close match and everyone is playing hard. Those are fun, win or lose...

 

What ISN'T fun is when the score is 600 to 0 when playing the snow/mid/grass turrets, or when it is 100% to 0% on shielded turrets. It isn't fun for the losers and it shouldn't be fun for the winners. Anyone who takes joy and glee from complete shutouts has personal issues IMHO...

 

I would like to see a mercy button in PvP. If one side is just shutting out the other, let people click it. If more than 50% of the members of the team click it, then the match ends early.

[peter_plankskull]

http://www.cleveland.com/sports/index.ssf/2016/02/ohio_high_school_basketball_co.html

 

"In wake of 108-1 girls basketball score, should Ohio pass a 'mercy rule' for high school basketball?"

 

"Unlike football, where the Ohio High School Athletic Association has a regulation in place to run the clock after a large point differential is reached, basketball does not, adding to the rise of lopsided victories."

 

---

 

There are times when PvP is a blast, when it is a close match and everyone is playing hard. Those are fun, win or lose...

 

What ISN'T fun is when the score is 600 to 0 when playing the snow/mid/grass turrets, or when it is 100% to 0% on shielded turrets. It isn't fun for the losers and it shouldn't be fun for the winners. Anyone who takes joy and glee from complete shutouts has personal issues IMHO...

 

I would like to see a mercy button in PvP. If one side is just shutting out the other, let people click it. If more than 50% of the members of the team click it, then the match ends early.

 

Out of all the PVP oriented games I played... I have never seen anything like this and probably wouldn't want to. If they are skilled enough to completely lock the players in a spawn trap and making it impossible for the other team to break it, they should be rewarded. Yeah... its downright dirty, unsportsmanlike, and cruel, but they did have the skill to rule the match... and should be rewarded so.

 

The ONLY way I can see this happening is first of all... the enemy team stomping the other has some sense of moral decency... and you get a sizeable reward when the other team submits. it leaves the team getting curb stomped happy, as they get to leave from that stomping, and the curb stomping team gets rewarded properly and can move onto the next match spending less time and getting more rewards.

[Djiini]

Not sure why you're complaining about wasting time in a game mode that is nothing but a time waster, really.

 

But it isn't a bad idea.

[TX_Angel]

Out of all the PVP oriented games I played... I have never seen anything like this and probably wouldn't want to. If they are skilled enough to completely lock the players in a spawn trap and making it impossible for the other team to break it, they should be rewarded. Yeah... its downright dirty, unsportsmanlike, and cruel, but they did have the skill to rule the match... and should be rewarded so.

 

The only place in the world where shutouts are acceptable is in professional sports where players are being paid.

 

Coaches can and DO get fired for this when it happens at the school level. It is considered unsportsmanlike behavior and is not acceptable for amateur play.

 

---

 

Let me put this another way. If you belonged to a tennis or bowling club and you went to Thursday Tennis or Bowling nights, and it was as often as not a complete shutout with one side stomping the crap out of the other, how long do you think the losing players would keep coming back?

 

There comes a point where a healthy PvP enviroment in the game requires that teams either be balanced properly, or shutouts get shutdown or avoided or there needs to be some level of mercy for those involved. Otherwise you'll end up with people with personal problems stomping newbies and taking great joy in it and lots of lower skilled players simply not coming back to play anymore.

 

How many people here keep saying, "we need cross server queues"? I see a post almost every week. Well, if there was a more sportsmanlike attitude and design to the game, we might not need that. Instead you have stomp fests that aren't fun and most people don't want to be part of it.

[-Wes-]

While I like the idea of this in theory, it would be a mess in practice. People would likely abuse it to no end, etc., particularly if there were no penalties for pressing the button. Warzone rewards, achievements, etc., are all based, in large part, on time. If we could suddenly end the warzone whenever we wanted, it would have to come with some sort of penalty, and I think that there would need to be concurrence from more than just half of one team (perhaps all of one team and half of another?).

 

We've all been on the short end of a blow out, and I'm sure that many of us have been on the other side, too. You're right... it's not fun (or, at least, not *as* fun as a really challenging zone). I feel your frustration on this one; it would be really great to have some sort of option that struck a reasonable balance between all (stick it out) or nothing (leave early).

 

My guildies and I like to try to balance things out as much as possible if things look too lop-sided, so we'll often switch factions in the hopes of getting more competitive zones, even if that means we stand a better chance of losing!

Edited February 23, 2016 by -Wes-

[TX_Angel]

Not sure why you're complaining about wasting time in a game mode that is nothing but a time waster, really.

 

But it isn't a bad idea.

 

I suppose you could say the girls in the high school game in the article I linked were just "wasting their time".

 

Here is another story on it:

 

http://www.wkyc.com/sports/high-school/gilmour-girls-basketball-defeats-neo-prep-108-1/46795423

 

If you read the comments below that, you'll see several people say the head coach at Gilmore is known for running up the score, they were ahead 71 points at halftime. Likely someone said something to him to "cool it", thus the "only" 107 point win.

[peter_plankskull]

The only place in the world where shutouts are acceptable is in professional sports where players are being paid.

 

Coaches can and DO get fired for this when it happens at the school level. It is considered unsportsmanlike behavior and is not acceptable for amateur play.

 

---

 

Let me put this another way. If you belonged to a tennis or bowling club and you went to Thursday Tennis or Bowling nights, and it was as often as not a complete shutout with one side stomping the crap out of the other, how long do you think the losing players would keep coming back?

 

There comes a point where a healthy PvP enviroment in the game requires that teams either be balanced properly, or shutouts get shutdown or avoided or there needs to be some level of mercy for those involved. Otherwise you'll end up with people with personal problems stomping newbies and taking great joy in it and lots of lower skilled players simply not coming back to play anymore.

 

How many people here keep saying, "we need cross server queues"? I see a post almost every week. Well, if there was a more sportsmanlike attitude and design to the game, we might not need that. Instead you have stomp fests that aren't fun and most people don't want to be part of it.

 

I guess its the way we grew up and other factors on life is why we have different opinions. When I get beat down I simply want to get up and try again, always have, in sports, and in video games. When I get beat by someone better, I want to do better, not simply just call it quits and move on. I always have that hope that until its the very end, we have a small chance at winning and a comeback, and I'm going to take it.

 

I'm not saying that there aren't games with a surrender like feature, just the games I played don't have them.

 

It's also impossible for the game to be fully properly balanced. Some players are bound to be better than others, and I think they should be rewarded if so. If your talking about OP sorcs then that's different... as it doesn't involve player skill... so forgive me if I misinterpret it.

[TX_Angel]

I guess its the way we grew up and other factors on life is why we have different opinions. When I get beat down I simply want to get up and try again, always have, in sports, and in video games. When I get beat by someone better, I want to do better, not simply just call it quits and move on.

 

I understand, and there is nothing wrong with wanting to get better. But sometimes you're just outmatched.

 

If the other side is better, you are going to lose.

 

I'm not the best at PvP. I do ok, I win my share of matches. But sometimes I end up in a PUG that has zero chance. No healers, no tanks, wrong classes. The other side is made up of fully geared people who are experts.

 

It becomes pointless. I find that I simply stop trying when it becomes obvious that there is no chance. Some people just camp somewhere, usually 1 or 2 people keep fighting to the end and yell at everyone else, "why are you idiots guarding, keep fighting", to which someone replies, "the match is lost, we're just waiting for it to end".

 

It isn't fun, and if it happens too often, people stop playing. That isn't good for anyone.

Edited February 24, 2016 by TX_Angel

[masterceil]

No. I say this as a pub-side player (most of you know what that means...).

 

You don't like getting your face rearranged, leave the warzone. If enough people do that, it closes out anyway. No need for special functionality as described.

 

As an aside, I think rules against running up the score (in video games or IRL) are asinine, and a symptom of the general PC BS that our society has fallen to -.-

[TX_Angel]

You don't like getting your face rearranged, leave the warzone. If enough people do that, it closes out anyway. No need for special functionality as described.

 

So you're saying that the losing highschool basketball team should have walked off the court?

 

Are you suggesting that some percentage of PvP players just quit playing? Do you think that would be healthy for the game?

 

As an aside, I think rules against running up the score (in video games or IRL) are asinine, and a symptom of the general PC BS that our society has fallen to -.-

 

That isn't a recent thing, regardless of what you might thing. Basic human decency has existing long before your lifetime.

[E-Zekiel]

I would be okay with that if it was done with a vote. I wouldn't like it if it was automatic. Sometimes comebacks can be huge. Sometimes I want to go for it and the sentiment is shared. Sometimes I don't, and that sentiment is shared.

[masterceil]

So you're saying that the losing highschool basketball team should have walked off the court?

 

Are you suggesting that some percentage of PvP players just quit playing? Do you think that would be healthy for the game?

 

Yes, if they were that desperate, they should have just sat on the sidelines and watched the clock or gone home. Who cares if the final score was 107-1 or 350-1? A loss is a loss, and people need to get over it.

 

If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. I don't want people that refuse to even try playing warzones with me, on either side of the battlefield. If you're not going to put in the work or don't want to get beat up, don't join the effin' game. This is Star Wars, not Care Bears. I don't work hard at this game to get 3500+ HPS in a warzone just to have it artificially 'balanced' so the scrubbiest of scrubs can run with the big dogs then cry about it. I want to earn my victory, or even my defeat.

 

I've been in matches that went 100-0% in NC, or three double-caps in a row in Hypergate. Usually on the losing side. I sigh, shake my head, and requeue. If you don't want to do the same, then... yeah, get tf out my warzone.

 

That isn't a recent thing, regardless of what you might thing. Basic human decency has existing long before your lifetime.

 

Existed, sure, but wasn't codified. I'd have no problem with local media slamming that winning basketball team for their "unsportsmanlike" behaviour. But there should not be official rules and regulations saying you can't do it.

Edited February 24, 2016 by masterceil

[iacon]

I am of two minds on this one. I have to admit that from time to time it is fun to completely overrun the other side. However, with that being said, it gets old and boring really fast. Close fights between two teams of comparable ability is the most fun even when you lose. But, it is not fun to be on the receiving end especially if it is match after match for a dozen warzones.

 

One issue with having a mercy rule is that there is not only one sort of situation where one team overruns the other. You could have:

1. PUG vs PUG group where one group is just terrible and the other one got lucky and has a decent composition.
   
2. Premade, fully geared, PVP guild team that overruns the other side from the start and it is very obvious there is no chance to beat them.
   
3. Stacked FOTM groups where you have a plethora of one class or two that bulldoze through the other team which has a mix of classes.
   

 

I don't have an issue with a hard fought match and those kinds of matches are very satisfying when victorious, however, the problem many people have is with situation 2 and situation 3. There is usually little to no sportsmanship involved and stomping the other side is the only goal; sprinkled with some taunting and insulting gpt good measure. If there was a way to filter out these two types of situations it would improve the way PVP is viewed and increase the enjoyability factor. And therein lays the difficulty in implementing this kind of rule.

Edited February 24, 2016 by iacon

[TX_Angel]

Yes, if they were that desperate, they should have just sat on the sidelines and watched the clock or gone home. Who cares if the final score was 107-1 or 350-1? A loss is a loss, and people need to get over it.

 

Then I feel sorry for you...

 

Existed, sure, but wasn't codified. I'd have no problem with local media slamming that winning basketball team for their "unsportsmanlike" behaviour. But there should not be official rules and regulations saying you can't do it.

 

Don't be shocked if the coach is fired over it.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/01/26/girls-basketball-coach-fired-after-100-0-win.html

 

That happened in 2009 here in Texas. Coach was fired over it.

[MichiNeko]

Doesn't Huttball have something like a mercy rule already? Once one team makes 6 goals the match is over. They aren't allowed to keep scoring goal after goal until the timer runs out. One sided matches in arenas aren't too painful either. After 2 quick losses you can leave.

 

I do agree though that in Civil War one sided matches are harder to bear, although I think Hypergates is the worst for team imbalances. Maybe lowering the requirements for a win would be helpful?

 

I do like Novare Coast as it is though. I've seen many matches where one team started to dominate the other and get within a few percent of winning only to have the other team steal a node back and even out the score. I've seen underdog teams come back and win there too, and those were some of the most exciting warzones I've been in.

[DenariusJay]

Doesn't Huttball have something like a mercy rule already? Once one team makes 6 goals the match is over. They aren't allowed to keep scoring goal after goal until the timer runs out. One sided matches in arenas aren't too painful either. After 2 quick losses you can leave.

 

I do agree though that in Civil War one sided matches are harder to bear, although I think Hypergates is the worst for team imbalances. Maybe lowering the requirements for a win would be helpful?

 

I do like Novare Coast as it is though. I've seen many matches where one team started to dominate the other and get within a few percent of winning only to have the other team steal a node back and even out the score. I've seen underdog teams come back and win there too, and those were some of the most exciting warzones I've been in.

 

I agree with what you said. The Cival war and the pylon one (is that hypergate?) are just ludicrous when the teams are clearly one sided. But I have been in comebacks in Navare Coast and also been on the other end where we get a good start and the other team comebacks. Something about that WZ where comebacks seem more realistic,, unlike that pylon one. That one is f'n worst if the Imps have the premades going

[-Wes-]

While I don't disagree with the sentiment that zones like Hypergate and Civil War are the toughest to tolerate on a one-sided contest, Civil War stands alone as the only one where underdog teams literally have no chance of winning (past a certain point).

 

I've been on plenty of Novare and, particularly, Hypergate zones where one team managed to pull an upset on the other just because of well-timed strategic play. But, in Civil War, once you get below that 50% (of the other team's score) mark, you cannot win without a sustained three-cap situation, and that's nearly impossible to pull off (especially if you're getting stomped in the first place).

 

Perhaps the devs could build in a few default win situations, such as a 600-300 scenario in CW, or instant-end at 700-0 in Hypergate (it will already end at 600, even if one team achieves that score after the second round). But, in most cases, the match is artificially shortened by one team dominating anyway, so there's really not a need to make it even shorter.

[Nothing_Shines]

You know what's worse than losing a fight on your own? Having your dad call the other guy's dad and complain about it. Get up, get better, get stronger, get yours back. Someone else can't give you self-respect. You have to build it on your own.

 

If you get completely dominated in a video game and are so emotionally fragile that you need the game to save face for you when that happens, then you should be very afraid of what real life is going to do to you.

 

You know which coaches should be fired? The ones that sucked so hard they couldn't teach their teams how to play effectively. Were the other coaches jerks if they pushed their teams to just run up the score? Who cares? As long as the losing team played as hard as they possibly could to win, they have nothing to be ashamed of. Their coach is the loser in that scenario. If they just shrug and give up when things get too hard then they're all losers. Like the people who just sit down and afk during rough WZs or who leave the match the instant they aren't on the dominant team. Losers.

 

This is coming from someone who sucks the big one at PVP and has been on the losing side of complete blowouts more often than not. Very rarely is my team winning because I was MVP. I only PVP for conquest. I do my best, but win or lose, it's only ten-fifteen minutes of my time. Getting three-capped on NC or losing your node on Hyper repeatedly doesn't make the fight longer, anyway, it speeds up your defeat.

[LonelyWookiee]

I like the idea. I PVP and I'm good at it but many times it's a complete shutout which leaves a bitter feeling. It's one thing to lead by a margin but at some point you're just sitting there waiting for the clock.

[HelinCarnate]

I guess its the way we grew up and other factors on life is why we have different opinions. When I get beat down I simply want to get up and try again, always have, in sports, and in video games. When I get beat by someone better, I want to do better, not simply just call it quits and move on. I always have that hope that until its the very end, we have a small chance at winning and a comeback, and I'm going to take it.

 

I'm not saying that there aren't games with a surrender like feature, just the games I played don't have them.

 

It's also impossible for the game to be fully properly balanced. Some players are bound to be better than others, and I think they should be rewarded if so. If your talking about OP sorcs then that's different... as it doesn't involve player skill... so forgive me if I misinterpret it.

 

Exactly this. I am the same way. Way back with the game City of Heroes (pre issue 13 pvp nerfs) was my first venture into PvP. I got beat bad constantly when I first started. I changed things up and sucked less, but still got my hindquarters handed to me repeatedly. I started talking to the people that were the best at killing me and got tips on how to build my character (totally different set up in that game for pvp vs pve) and how to improve. After a bit of effort I was the one people were coming to for tips because they couldn't figure out how some giant guy in a pink bunny outfit and wifebeater shirt killed them so fast.

[HelinCarnate]

While I don't disagree with the sentiment that zones like Hypergate and Civil War are the toughest to tolerate on a one-sided contest, Civil War stands alone as the only one where underdog teams literally have no chance of winning (past a certain point).

 

I've been on plenty of Novare and, particularly, Hypergate zones where one team managed to pull an upset on the other just because of well-timed strategic play. But, in Civil War, once you get below that 50% (of the other team's score) mark, you cannot win without a sustained three-cap situation, and that's nearly impossible to pull off (especially if you're getting stomped in the first place).

 

Perhaps the devs could build in a few default win situations, such as a 600-300 scenario in CW, or instant-end at 700-0 in Hypergate (it will already end at 600, even if one team achieves that score after the second round). But, in most cases, the match is artificially shortened by one team dominating anyway, so there's really not a need to make it even shorter.

 

Have to agree about the Civil War. I have pulled a ninja when everyone else gave up and ended up winning Hypergate before. I have see 4-0 huttball games end with the score 4-5 before and seen Novare at 100 -2 end up at 0-2. You just don't see those comebacks in Civil War. I have seen some times with the clock running out where one team needs all 3 to win for a few seconds and they pull it off, but those are close games the whole way through normally.

[HelinCarnate]

While I like the idea of this in theory, it would be a mess in practice. People would likely abuse it to no end, etc., particularly if there were no penalties for pressing the button. Warzone rewards, achievements, etc., are all based, in large part, on time. If we could suddenly end the warzone whenever we wanted, it would have to come with some sort of penalty, and I think that there would need to be concurrence from more than just half of one team (perhaps all of one team and half of another?).

 

We've all been on the short end of a blow out, and I'm sure that many of us have been on the other side, too. You're right... it's not fun (or, at least, not *as* fun as a really challenging zone). I feel your frustration on this one; it would be really great to have some sort of option that struck a reasonable balance between all (stick it out) or nothing (leave early).

 

My guildies and I like to try to balance things out as much as possible if things look too lop-sided, so we'll often switch factions in the hopes of getting more competitive zones, even if that means we stand a better chance of losing!

 

I agree here. In practice it would be abused. If you want to leave a losing game, you already can with no penalty. Those that want to stay can stay. People would hit the give up button as soon as they knew it would be a loss and both sides would end up with fewer rewards.

[Soul_of_Flames]

There should be a mercy rule, but not the way you described.

 

It can't be player initiated because then it will just be exploited. But it also can't be automated, in case of false-positive situations where you can actually turn it around but the game doesn't see it that way.

 

Perhaps like this:

If one team is curb-stomping the other, an automated mercy rule should go into effect. Saying that if the losing team doesn't score within the next 30 seconds, the game would end. However, while this mercy rule is in effect, the losing team would have the option to decline by vote.

 

This rule would go into effect differently on each WZ, obviously. But the point here is that it should be up to the losing team to be able to accept the rule, but not up to them to initiate it.

Edited February 24, 2016 by Soul_of_Flames

[MrBorsh]

The biggest loser of the PvP match is not the one who loses, but the one who quits. Quitting aka surrendingering will never make you a better PvPer. Those who do PvP often, know that there are often situations where Republic or Imperials will constantly win. That means that if Imperials win once, they are more likely to win the rest of the warzones which will transpire that hour. Why wouldn't they? If you win a match, then you will queue up for another one knowing that it's a good wave of players in PvP right now.

 

If you'd click a button to surrender and end the match early and then queue up again, then it will just be a dejavu.

[annabethchase]

Let me put this another way. If you belonged to a tennis or bowling club and you went to Thursday Tennis or Bowling nights, and it was as often as not a complete shutout with one side stomping the crap out of the other, how long do you think the losing players would keep coming back?

 

at least a season, possibly years. As long as I'm getting to play and improving my skills by getting to test myself against better players sometimes and other games having a decent shot at winning, then I'm fine. That's what happens in most rec leagues in my town every season and they all do fine.