PvP needs a mercy rule

[Manathayria]

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.

 

That would actually be nice.

 

For those saying 'but then everyone gets less rewards' if it's a full out curb stomp - the losing side isn't getting 'more' rewards by staying in. If a mercy rule went into play like this the winning team gets their full rewards - and gets into another fight faster. The losing team will get fewer rewards because of medals not racking up, but they're probably getting less anyway if they're being dominated that hard.

 

Both teams that way get out faster and into a new match faster - which means for the time spent they 'should' be getting the same overall rewards. Especially if it counts the 'winning' team's members as all capping at the 8 medals even if not all of them received full medals by the time the mercy rule came into play.

 

That said - I would only consider the mercy rule as making sense in unranked - not ranked. Consider the earlier comparison between the little league/unprofessional teams vs pro teams.

[TX_Angel]

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.

 

Oh sure, to be fair, learning is part of it... but not all matches are a learn 2 play issue... PvP in SWTOR is part learning to play, and part being the right class, the right spec, and in the right gear. It also depends on who you're matched with, you can be the best player in the world, but if you have 6 newbies in PvE gear, it isn't likely to matter if the other team is 6 experts in PvP gear.

 

Skill only makes up for so much.

[TX_Angel]

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.

 

Fair enough... but that isn't what happens in SWTOR... all too often, you DON'T have a decent shot at winning.

 

Now some of that is due to bad matchmaking (premade guilds against PUGs for example), but some of it is due to gear, class combinations, etc.

 

Skill only makes up for so much.

[masterceil]

Then I feel sorry for you...

 

Don't, I came to terms with my sociopathy years ago.

 

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.

 

Oh, don't get it twisted, I thoroughly believe that in this day and age of crying about bullies and people losing their poo over the most ridiculous stuff that even in sports-uber-alles Texas a coach would get fired for actually leading a winning team. I'm just annoyed that it happens. Spare the rod, etc...

 

Get up, get better, get stronger, get yours back.

 

Snipped for brevity, but I like your whole post. I had a longer one of my own written up before, but lost it in a tragic alt-left incident and had to put up this one real quick before leaving for work. Thanks for also speaking up in a similar light. I don't care how much you suck at PvP, you're good people : )

[Anzel]

This is easily fixed by only allowing players who are grouped to queue against other groups.

 

Matching a full group against 8 single players is a recipe for disaster and almost always ends in total disaster. I just leave. I'm already maxed on gear, Valor, etc. I get nothing from being in an unbalanced WZ.

[Unperson]

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.

 

In all my time playing this game (and I've been here since before RotHC), I've seen the Warzone Shutdown Sequence complete maybe once or twice. The queuing system seems to prioritize filling up spots in a soon-to-fail WZ over launching new ones, which means that not only WZs very rarely get shut down due to players leaving, but also that players keep getting thrown into hopelessly lopsided, ongoing games. Unlike GF, the PVP queue doesn't have a checkbox to let you choose if you want to participate in matches that have already started.

 

Internet tough talk aside, this just isn't fun. I'm not sure a mercy rule is needed, but matchmaking in regs would go a long way to avoid the scenario described in the OP.

Edited February 24, 2016 by Unperson

[TUXs]

This is a very good suggestion. I've been in enough lopsided fights that I think this would certainly be a nice option. Blowouts ruin PvP...they happen and I commend the other team for being able to get one...but there needs to be an ability to throw in the towel. It would benefit PvP.

[DomiSotto]

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.

 

In GSF a person can self-destruct repeatedly, speeding up the match and denying the opposition the inflated kill count/records.

 

I'd support the 'fall on your own sword' option in ground PvP as well.

 

Then the folks have the choices in what preserves their dignity the most. Exiting the match without the consolation prize; fighting to the last or, finally, the honorable suicide denying what little they can deny to the other team.

Edited February 24, 2016 by DomiSotto

[TX_Angel]

Don't, I came to terms with my sociopathy years ago.

 

Congrats? Err... I'm sorry? Err.. I can help?

 

I honestly have to admit my first mental response was, "well ok then, you're self-aware..." But then I thought, "wait a minute, how do we fix this?", and I reminded myself that not everyone wants help.

 

*hands you a cookie*

 

Oh, don't get it twisted, I thoroughly believe that in this day and age of crying about bullies and people losing their poo over the most ridiculous stuff that even in sports-uber-alles Texas a coach would get fired for actually leading a winning team. I'm just annoyed that it happens. Spare the rod, etc...

 

I personally see a difference between losing with grace and learning, vs. having your rear end handed to you in a sling.

 

I don't mind losing in a game, be it basketball or SWTOR PvP. What I don't like is when there was no chance and it is just a curb stomp.

 

100 to nothing is not a basketball game, it is one team being a bunch of bullies to the other team. At some point, it either needs to be called, or the winning team needs to start passing the ball to the losing team and encourage them to get better and score a few. This is not professional sports with millions of dollars on the line, this is amateur night with a bunch of kids playing. (and don't kid yourself, a LOT of kids play SWTOR)

 

---

 

In business, in pro sports, and even in war, give it all you've got and win. But even in those cases, when the other team cries mercy, give it to them. Even in war, when one side surrenders, you're not supposed to shoot them.

 

It is inhumane, as is beating up a bunch of high school kids playing basketball, or kids playing an online game that is completely lopsided.

[Storm-Cutter]

Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. - We're pretty much talking regs here anyways. - You get valor, credits, +1 to the daily/weekly/conqest AND comms for losing. - It's not like they cut off your arms and reset everything to zero.

 

If we are winning, I enjoy the win, if we're being stomped, it's a chance to turn the tide, but if we're dead-cert beaten, it's time to have some fun and try out different stuff. You certainly learn a lot about your DCDs when you're on the back foot, for instance.

 

Matches tend to end quicker if one team dominates anyways, ( score 6 in HB, extra cap, more orbs etc.)

 

The matchmaking /faction balance and the classes may be a bit skewed, the CC might be a tad overdone, some classes a bit OP, but the game modes are pretty much ok as is. - That's what should be concerning the devs (if any remain, that is.)

 

"Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back!"

Edited February 24, 2016 by Storm-Cutter

[TX_Angel]

This is a very good suggestion. I've been in enough lopsided fights that I think this would certainly be a nice option. Blowouts ruin PvP...they happen and I commend the other team for being able to get one...but there needs to be an ability to throw in the towel. It would benefit PvP.

 

Part of what started this thread for me is that my own son plays basketball. He is 10 years old and has been playing for a few years now for a local kids league.

 

He is decent, not the best player on the team, but his team is one of the best in the local league. When they play, if the score ever gets more than 20 points apart, they turn off the scoreboard and just let the kids play, knowing that it is clear who won. I also like the fact that my son's coach tells the kids "when we're winning, let the other kids shoot baskets without blocking them, be a good sport".

 

The last three years we took first place in our league (and they do had out trophies that say 1st place), but we did that while being good sports about it, while not being bullies and beating up on the other kids and running up the score.

 

So the 108 to 1 game that I linked to has special meaning to me. I honestly think that at some point they should have started passing the ball to the other team and let them shoot without being blocked. Perhaps intentionally play a girl down, play it 4 against 5, give the other team a chance. The game isn't being played for money, freedom, life, or anything other than to have fun. It is more important to be a decent human being than it is to win 108 to 1 against another team that clearly isn't your equal.

[DomiSotto]

Do not humiliate someone with pity.

 

Being honorable is not an easy thing. One can always pick out the genuine sportsmanship and respect for grit from condescension and bullying, no matter if that takes form of stomping or fighting with one hand tied behind one's back.

Edited February 24, 2016 by DomiSotto

[TUXs]

Do not humiliate someone with pity.

While that's a noble thing to say, it doesn't make for good gaming.

 

We're not asking for pity, like making the other team allow us to get closer or allowing more people to be allowed to fight, just the ability to call it when it's an obvious loss.

[DomiSotto]

That is why I am in favor of the third option, the same one we have in GSF. Fall on your own sword. Finishes the game quick without deserting, still get the comms, and stops the other team from inflating their numbers. It's a pretty cool RP choice. Edited February 24, 2016 by DomiSotto

[GetPloughed]

I don't see the point here, warzones are timed, and if one team is dominating the game is much shorter.

 

This isn't WSG in WoW years ago when you can cap two flags and then sit in the other sides graveyard and farm them until you get bored.

 

If you get 3 capped in warzones, the game is ending shortly anyways, do you really need a quit button?

[DomiSotto]

Basically, all the warzones are open for farming, if the other team choses not to 3 cap, score 6, etc till the very end. Edited February 24, 2016 by DomiSotto

[TUXs]

I don't see the point here, warzones are timed, and if one team is dominating the game is much shorter.

 

This isn't WSG in WoW years ago when you can cap two flags and then sit in the other sides graveyard and farm them until you get bored.

 

If you get 3 capped in warzones, the game is ending shortly anyways, do you really need a quit button?

 

You've never been farmed in Huttball for 10min have you? Or Voidstar?

[AlienEyeTX]

I have two problems with this concept:

 

1) This rule would be exploited for daily/weekly/companion missions.

 

2) Rare though it may be, I have seen turn arounds and comebacks from the brink of elimination in the node games. Yes, that makes the game longer, but I'd rather have a team try and take longer for a win than to give up and quit.

 

Besides, when a team loses hope and quits trying, the game ends fairly quickly anyway. If you hate getting blown-out, just quit the WZ. You don't deserve credit for a match played if you want to leave early... even if the entire team agrees.

[Jamtas]

I don't know about that rule. One of my favorite PVP memories was a Novare match where we were down 100% to 10% and had "that person" telling the entire team they sucked and quit the match, we then proceeded to get our #2 cap and then got a replacement in and held on to win after falling down 100% to 2% to win 2% to 0%

 

Mercy rule would have eliminated that win. Comebacks are rare, but when they do happen they are something to savor.

 

...that and have the rest of the team join in whispering/fleet chat the rage quitter how they were the weak link and team won after his exit.

[TX_Angel]

Do not humiliate someone with pity.

 

Being honorable is not an easy thing. One can always pick out the genuine sportsmanship and respect for grit from condescension and bullying, no matter if that takes form of stomping or fighting with one hand tied behind one's back.

 

Last night in PvP, I was in an arena and we completely stomped the other side (kinda hard to avoid in an arena when the fight lasts 45 seconds).

 

For the second round, I let the other side kill me. They still lost, I was the only death on my team.

 

I then typed in PvP chat "nice try guys, it gets better, keep working at it and get that PvP gear".

 

I was trying to be a gracious winner rather than a bully. So I do practice what I preach. (for whatever that is worth)

[TX_Angel]

Do not humiliate someone with pity.

 

Side note: It isn't pity, it is compassion... Care and love for your fellow human beings, which I honestly think we need more of in this world, but maybe that's just me.

[Lexhorn]

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.

 

I fully endorse this, very good idea!!

[DataBeaver]

Another MMO I played had node capping PvP matches. The playfield was shaped like a three-pointed star, with nodes at the end of each branch and at the center. Every five seconds your team would get points according to how many nodes you controlled. The branch nodes were worth one point each, center node two points. If you controlled all nodes, the tick rate would go up to once per second. The first team to reach 500 points won. This made it possible for the other team to make a comeback, but they'd better hustle for it. A totally one-sided match would be over in two minutes, while a very close one could last up to twenty.

[Master-Nala]

I've seen Civil War come back from a 3 cap situation maybe 3-5 times since 2011. It's either a crushing loss or a memorable win. That said, I would be willing to give up the chance for those if Civil War ended after the currently losing team needs to 3 cap to win.

 

Novare, I've seen enough games where the other team comes back from being way down to think that a mercy option isn't needed or advisable.

 

Huttball effectively has one.

 

Arenas effectively have one.

 

Voidstar technically has one, it just needs to be smarter. In Round 2, once you exceed the progress of the attackers in Round 1, it's over. But the corollary isn't also true. It takes a minimum amount of time to blow the doors and gates and once a team can't win, the game should end.

 

For example, let's say in Round 1 the attackers captured the datacore in 4 minutes. So in Round 2, once the other team cannot possible capture the datacore (e.g. when there's less than 2 min and they haven't even gotten past first door) it should end.

Edited February 24, 2016 by Master-Nala

[Stoofa]

There is an idea there - but just too open to abuse.

Team of 4, "mercy" number of times in a row, weekly completed in 10 minutes.

I too do not understand the joy of slaughtering opponents. I've been on both sides of it - if I'm on a team that is obviously stronger I tend to just hang around one of our own nodes, not going to chase people down for cheap thrills. If you're on the end of a slaughtering not a lot you can do really - stealth players can go off and hide I guess

I don't do arenas - I just quit those as soon as they pop. I never wanted to do them, they are in 99% of cases one-sided and as BW refuse to use separate queues for them I'm afraid I just quit - I do so quickly though, hopefully it's time enough for a backfill.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Stoofa