PvP needs a mercy rule

[AlienEyeTX]

Nice nutshell version, this. There are people in my guild that are awful at PVP. Can never win a duel, don't even know what "void star" means. These same people know the mechanics for every FP and op, inside and out, because that's what they do, and nobody holds it against them.

 

When I was a kid, the losing team at a sports event didn't get "second place" trophies. We understood that second place was first loser, and that we'd need to try a little harder to get that number one spot next time. First time I knew "second place trophies" were a thing is when I was about 15 and my kid brother's karate class was doing it. Shook my head then, and I still do it now.

 

We're raising a generation of entitled kids who grow up thinking they should always get something just for showing up. Millenials at my job literally got upset when we were short-staffed one day and offered "only" one 'swag' buck (on-site currency to buy company accessories like shirts or hats) to everybody that met the bare minimum quota - the closest my job had come to giving out participation prizes. This was for literally meeting the bare minimum of our standard of work, the department was giving out a total of about sixty dollars if everyone just made rate. These ain't kids, these were people in their 20s annoyed that their consolation prize seemed so small. Tf is wrong with people these days -.-

 

For the record, my department's had a programme the past couple of months wherein the top associates in either of our two main functions get five 'swag' bucks, and everyone that make 125% of our quota gets entered in a drawing to win a $25 gift card (Visa, so not just spent on our on-site store). That sort of reward system makes sense to me. The dollar for basically showing up and doing what they're already paid $11-12/hr to do puzzled me a bit, but the negative reaction to 'only' getting a dollar baffled me even more.

 

Consolation prizes, pfft. T's for the birds.

 

Funny thing about that is: I'd imagine it's easier to hit quotas when short-staffed. And people complain about not getting enough "extra" for doing what they are already paid to do. smh

[AlienEyeTX]

The problem with people who say that is that you ignore option number 3...

 

Stay, but do nothing...

 

Do you really want people on your team who don't even try?

 

I was just in Huttball, within a min, the other team scored 3 points. The game will be over in another min or so, there is no longer any point in trying and I don't care to be farmed. So find a nice quiet spot to sit and wait.

 

THAT is your solution?

 

No. That is YOUR solution.

 

My thinking is this: I queued up. I know it can be a win or a loss. If I'm going to be there, I might as well attempt to take the objectives. If the other team is slaughtering us, it's just good practice... an opportunity to improve.

 

No. I don't want a bunch of whiners who get creamed all the time to have the option to quit and never improve. Besides, that cuts my time in the WZ short, too. And if I didn't want to be there, I wouldn't have queued in the first place.

[Ruhun]

No. That is YOUR solution.

 

My thinking is this: I queued up. I know it can be a win or a loss. If I'm going to be there, I might as well attempt to take the objectives. If the other team is slaughtering us, it's just good practice... an opportunity to improve.

 

No. I don't want a bunch of whiners who get creamed all the time to have the option to quit and never improve. Besides, that cuts my time in the WZ short, too. And if I didn't want to be there, I wouldn't have queued in the first place.

 

If only more people thought like you in this game.

 

I can't count the amount of times two to four teammates resigned before the match was over.

They all sit on a node and do nothing, while we get creamed 8v4.

[psandak]

When I was a kid, the losing team at a sports event didn't get "second place" trophies. We understood that second place was first loser, and that we'd need to try a little harder to get that number one spot next time. First time I knew "second place trophies" were a thing is when I was about 15 and my kid brother's karate class was doing it. Shook my head then, and I still do it now.

 

masterceil,

 

You never saw the Olympics? You know: Gold, Silver, and Bronze metals for First, Second and OMG even Third place? You know, the two losing teams in the semi-finals playing the "consolation game" (to see who gets the bronze metal).

 

Even when I was a kid back in the 70's we did not get participation trophies, but we had first, second, and third place trophies.

 

I am not saying I want a mercy rule, but IMO the "second place is first loser" mentality is a little harsh.

 

Getting back on topic...

 

No. That is YOUR solution.

 

My thinking is this: I queued up. I know it can be a win or a loss. If I'm going to be there, I might as well attempt to take the objectives. If the other team is slaughtering us, it's just good practice... an opportunity to improve.

 

No. I don't want a bunch of whiners who get creamed all the time to have the option to quit and never improve. Besides, that cuts my time in the WZ short, too. And if I didn't want to be there, I wouldn't have queued in the first place.

If only more people thought like you in this game.

 

I can't count the amount of times two to four teammates resigned before the match was over.

They all sit on a node and do nothing, while we get creamed 8v4.

 

same here, I am like AlienEyeTX in that when I know the match is a foregone conclusion I will continue...if for nothing else than the practice.

 

That being said there was recently one queshball where the other team was so far superior I like many others did stop actively engaging. They held the ball on the lowest level and basically did a deathmatch (never even tried to score). Some of us caught on and stopped actively engaging, forcing the other team to come to us.

 

From the opposite perspective...

In an ancient hypergate match, we were outclassed in mid (they were killing us and we were getting no kills; they were getting cubes to the pylon etc.). I decided to try to cap their pylon and OMG I did it , but then they all came over and kicked my *** . I think I got marked after that because they focused me down something fierce.

 

Really back on topic...

 

I understand why some want a mercy rule. The thing about real life mercy rules is that they are either statutory (meaning that when specific conditions are met the game is over), and/or they are implemented by an impartial third party - specifically the referee, umpire, or the like. WZs do not have "referees" so any mercy rule would have to be statutory and automated. This WOULD result in false positives. And this above all else is why I would be against a mercy rule implementation

[TX_Angel]

No. That is YOUR solution.

 

Actually, it is yours, you just didn't say it out loud or admit it, but that is what ends up happening some of the time.

 

My thinking is this: I queued up. I know it can be a win or a loss. If I'm going to be there, I might as well attempt to take the objectives. If the other team is slaughtering us, it's just good practice... an opportunity to improve.

 

Sometimes it can be an opportunity to improve, sometimes it is not. If you're outmatched and outclassed and outgeared, there is no "learning going on" when two stealthers chain stun you on a node and kill you without you being able to do anything.

 

When you die in 10 sec and can't get a single thing off because you were stunned all 10 seconds, there is no learning going on.

[TX_Angel]

I'd rather people quit and get their spot backfilled by someone who is willing to actually play, yes.

 

You might rather that, but you aren't accepting of the fact that other people don't have to do what you'd "rather".

 

If half your team stops trying, what do YOU do? I've seen it often in Civil War, 4 of the 8 players just camp the one node we have, then someone starts yelling in chat "why are you idiots all guarding, attack the enemy". To which someone replies, "the match is over, we're just waiting for it to end".

 

You think THAT is an improvement over mercy?

 

Not at all. I'm not a pro pvper, but I can hold my own. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the same. After all, if you hit the queue button, and then hit join to actually go in, you asked to be there. I don't think an expectation of MAXIMUM EFFORT is unreasonable.

 

I always give my best, right up until it is clear that my best is not going to be enough. Sometimes it is because I'm not playing the "right class", sometimes the total of my team is less than the total of their team.

 

But when it is clear that winning isn't an option, why continue to try? That strikes me as foolish. A wise person understands when they are beaten and lives to fight another day. Throwing yourself against an enemy you cannot beat is stupid.

 

Not at all. When my kids get beat, I tell them to do better. I absolutely refuse to raise victims, or kids who think the bare minimum is acceptable, or that just trying is worth something. In this house, we give back participation trophies. As a consequence, I have three kids who are turning into leaders, and I see it every time I see them socializing with other kids.

 

So if your kids are being beat up and bullied, you tell them to go back for more?

 

Or have you actually sheltered them to the point where they don't have to face that? Because the real world has bullies and you can't beat them all, you have to know when to fight and when to walk away.

 

Do your kids know when to walk away?

 

Some people are better at some things than other people. Doesn't mean that they're better people, but it's not a crime or even mean to acknowledge and play to your strengths.

 

Yes, and having them compete is just stupid.

 

Would you put high school kids up against a pro NBA team and then when the score is 200 to nothing tell the high school kids, "just keep trying, you'll get there" when clearly they won't?

 

Trying your best is all fine and good, but a wise person accepts when they are outmatched. Fighting a losing battle is not noble, it is stupid.

 

The problem with PvP in this game is the inability to divide up the players among skill levels and experience. Premades with premades, PUGs with PUGs, newbies against newbies, pros against pros. Where it all goes turtle up is when a pro premade group gets matched against newbie PUGs, then someone shouts "why aren't you idiots fighting".

 

It is because they are smart enough to know that against pros, they are just wasting their time.

 

In the same vein, some folks better at PVP. Those that aren't, I don't look down on. They may still be good raiders, or just enjoy the story, dedicated to conquest, or whatever. But just because they're bad at PVP doesn't mean they deserve special accomodations.

 

Right, so as I said before, you think that anyone who isn't good at PvP should just quit. No trying here, either you're great or just leave. Because some people will never be pros and some people aren't in a PvP guild, yet get matched against them.

[TX_Angel]

When I was a kid, the losing team at a sports event didn't get "second place" trophies. We understood that second place was first loser, and that we'd need to try a little harder to get that number one spot next time.

 

If "trying a little harder" was enough, then that's fine. What do you tell them when they are in last place, get crushed 20 goals to nothing, and have no chance?

[TX_Angel]

If only more people thought like you in this game.

 

I can't count the amount of times two to four teammates resigned before the match was over.

They all sit on a node and do nothing, while we get creamed 8v4.

 

Exactly my point... You don't want a mercy rule, yet it would actually benefit you by ending such matches early.

 

People are going to do what they want to do, you can't control that. I've done the above many times when the match is clearly lost. I don't care to be farmed by premade bullies who love to chain stun, it just isn't fun. There is no "learning" involved when you die before you can get a single GCD fired off.

 

Thanks, but no thanks. I'll just sit on node and wait for it to be over, hopefully the next match is a good one.

 

---

 

As I've said many times in this thread, if the match is a close one, I don't mind losing. Did a GSF last night, satellites, we lost about 950 to 1,000. Those are nail-biters and a lot of fun, and why I keep playing PvP/GSF. I don't mind losing, I mind getting walked all over. GSF Satellites when the score ends up being 5 to 1,000 are not fun, they are boring and pointless.

[Soul_of_Flames]

Point 2 should be get 0 rewards.

No, because it defeats the purpose. People wouldn't bother with it if they got nothing out of it. Plus, they can already do that by quitting.

 

But the reason behind this concept is simply to end a match that is already decided. Sacrifice any points you might earn later in favor of letting the enemy win and allowing everyone to move on with their lives.

 

Because the larger picture isn't about rewards, it's about enjoyment. How much fun you're having. In a game that isn't fun because it's impossible to do break out and impossible to score, you're forced to stand there and wait for the enemy to either win or the timer to expire. All the while being farmed by the opposing team.

 

It isn't fun. For the losers or the winners. So why not let everyone just move on to the next match?

[Stoofa]

masterceil,

 

You never saw the Olympics? You know: Gold, Silver, and Bronze metals for First, Second and OMG even Third place? You know, the two losing teams in the semi-finals playing the "consolation game" (to see who gets the bronze metal).

 

 

Out of a field of at least 8.

So yes, places 1-3 are rewarded for getting through numerous qualification stages, quarter finals, semi finals and then a final where at least 8 people are taking part.

A single Warzone is stand-alone and there are only 2 teams playing.

How on each can you make any kind of comparison between the two?

 

When you watch a regular football match between two teams, there is a winner and there is a loser. There is not a winner and a second place team.

Losing is losing - this is a life lesson you really need to pick up on.

[DayneDrak]

You might rather that, but you aren't accepting of the fact that other people don't have to do what you'd "rather".

 

Yeah, nice try. Same logic applies to you. After all, you're the one that started the thread, and this is all about what you'd rather happen, no?

 

If half your team stops trying, what do YOU do? I've seen it often in Civil War, 4 of the 8 players just camp the one node we have, then someone starts yelling in chat "why are you idiots all guarding, attack the enemy". To which someone replies, "the match is over, we're just waiting for it to end".

 

You think THAT is an improvement over mercy?

 

As opposed to a feature that allows the team to give up just because the other team caps 2 turrets first? Because that's how a mercy rule to end early and reward would play out.

 

So yes, gutting it out is preferable. As for what I do in that situation, it depends, largely on what I'm playing. If I'm playing a stealth class, I harass right up until the end. If I'm playing a healer, then I do what I always do, I follow the mass, since I'm useless without. And yes, there are times when I go sit on my turret in order to run up some defender medals when it becomes clear that the team has given up.

 

But when it is clear that winning isn't an option, why continue to try? That strikes me as foolish. A wise person understands when they are beaten and lives to fight another day. Throwing yourself against an enemy you cannot beat is stupid.

 

So why don't you leave the Warzone? Answer, you're greedy and want your valor and comms and quest credit. Don't give me the live to fight another day rhetoric, if you were that serious about it, you'd drop and requeue.

 

So if your kids are being beat up and bullied, you tell them to go back for more?

 

I'll let you know when it happens. However, since each of our kids are athletic, with at least rudimentary training in firearms and self defense, and indoctrinated to stand up for themselves, not a single one of them has come home crying with a black eye.

 

Or have you actually sheltered them to the point where they don't have to face that? Because the real world has bullies and you can't beat them all, you have to know when to fight and when to walk away.

 

Well, no disagreement there. And as it pertains to this dicussion, same applies. In this case, walking away means leaving the Warzone. After all, if any of my kids were to get beat up by a bully, they certainly wouldn't get rewards for it.

 

Anyway, don't have time to respond to the rest of the ********. You seem to be more interested in disagreeing than in an actual conversation, as some of the points you're making are in direct opposition to why pvp should have a mercy rule.

 

So you're either an idjut or a troll. Either way, not worth the time.

 

Simply put, if you're getting pwned in a WZ, you can quit and requeue anytime you want. Mercy is already there. Any attempt to justify why you should still get rewards if you cry for mercy is just petty and selfish.

 

There's enough mercy in pvp already, since you get quest credit just for participation. I'd rather see them changed to wins, instead of merely showing up, but I guess that's what Ranked is for.

[DAMossimo]

FWIW - this probably wouldn't even be on anyone's radar if it weren't for the M1-4X/Major Pierce recruitment quests that prod people into queuing who normally wouldn't pvp but feel compelled to do so in order to get the companion.

 

I've gotten those companions on all my characters, so it is no longer an issue for me, unless they write more missions that require pvp to reap rewards for. I sure hope they do not.

[Fireswraith]

As far as the girls basketball goes I don't get it, not entirely I mean. Sure I can understand how losing by 100 points looks on both sides of the court looks. But I also see that the 100 point winners are simply a much better team with a coach that's actually coaching them to play the game and improve.... seeing this just makes me wonder what the hell the losing coach is doing with his time. A mercy rule makes sense because that way both sides can walk away proud (even if feeling trampled on) that they gave it their best and simply ended up being bested.

 

As far as PvP goes, it makes a bit of sense to perhaps have a similar "mercy rule" (though not so much a rule as will be explained). I say it makes a bit of sense because PvP in this game is really only spent in battlegrounds; to which you could make the comparison to a basketball court but I won't. I should say if this were open world PvP no mercy rule would ever make sense. OK, so there are premades out there (nothing wrong with them) and they happen to be good.

 

So let's come up with a hypothetical ability, call it a "mercy check". Mercy check being something that (like a ready check) can be issued by anyone on the losing team. But it can only be issued if losing by more than half of, well whatever (someone that knows more about the battlegrounds would have to answer that). So Mercy Check is issued by someone on the losing team and all 4 players (or maybe just 3) need to accept in order for the warzone to end. Or maybe anyone on any team, even the winning team, can initiate and then only need 4 people accepting to end the warzone. Wouldn't be such a bad idea.

[AlienEyeTX]

As far as the girls basketball goes I don't get it, not entirely I mean. Sure I can understand how losing by 100 points looks on both sides of the court looks. But I also see that the 100 point winners are simply a much better team with a coach that's actually coaching them to play the game and improve.... seeing this just makes me wonder what the hell the losing coach is doing with his time. A mercy rule makes sense because that way both sides can walk away proud (even if feeling trampled on) that they gave it their best and simply ended up being bested.

 

As far as PvP goes, it makes a bit of sense to perhaps have a similar "mercy rule" (though not so much a rule as will be explained). I say it makes a bit of sense because PvP in this game is really only spent in battlegrounds; to which you could make the comparison to a basketball court but I won't. I should say if this were open world PvP no mercy rule would ever make sense. OK, so there are premades out there (nothing wrong with them) and they happen to be good.

 

So let's come up with a hypothetical ability, call it a "mercy check". Mercy check being something that (like a ready check) can be issued by anyone on the losing team. But it can only be issued if losing by more than half of, well whatever (someone that knows more about the battlegrounds would have to answer that). So Mercy Check is issued by someone on the losing team and all 4 players (or maybe just 3) need to accept in order for the warzone to end. Or maybe anyone on any team, even the winning team, can initiate and then only need 4 people accepting to end the warzone. Wouldn't be such a bad idea.

 

Basically, what you're advocating is a system where the game tells one team, "You suck, you can't win. Just give up, already!"

 

The only way. THE ONLY WAY! I might go in for this sort of thing is if the winning is team is able to initiate the offer of mercy to the losing team. There is, afterall, honor in offering quarter to those who are feeble.

 

However, I stand by my belief that any team that chooses to quit gets no valor and gets no credit toward daily/weekly/companion missions. They may, however, keep their medals.

 

That seems like a completely reasonable compromise.

 

IMHO

[TX_Angel]

Yeah, nice try. Same logic applies to you. After all, you're the one that started the thread, and this is all about what you'd rather happen, no?

 

No, you're clearly one of those who enjoys being a bully and curb stomping those who can't do anything about it.

 

I'll let you know when it happens. However, since each of our kids are athletic, with at least rudimentary training in firearms and self defense, and indoctrinated to stand up for themselves, not a single one of them has come home crying with a black eye.

 

There is always a bigger fish, sooner or later, they will...

 

So you're either an idjut or a troll. Either way, not worth the time.

 

And you're a bully. The sooner people like you are bred out of humanity, the better off we'll all be.

[TX_Angel]

As far as the girls basketball goes I don't get it, not entirely I mean. Sure I can understand how losing by 100 points looks on both sides of the court looks. But I also see that the 100 point winners are simply a much better team with a coach that's actually coaching them to play the game and improve....

 

Because the winning team is showing a complete lack of sportsmanship, they are bullies, nothing more or less.

 

Outside of professional sports (which wouldn't normally have such uneven matchups because the losing team would be out of a job rather quickly), such behavior is simply not acceptable.

 

When the other team is down, it is considered bad form to continue to kick them. Doing so shows a lack of civil behavior and decorum, it is rude and boorish behavior and has no place in civilization.

 

---

 

Side note: I fully support the firing of the coach of the winning team, and my own son would never be allowed to play on such a team. The coach my son does play for teaches honor, integrity, and heart as much as he teaches basketball.

 

I would be embarrassed if we ever crushed another team as badly as happened in the OP, it is just... rude...

[TX_Angel]

However, I stand by my belief that any team that chooses to quit gets no valor and gets no credit toward daily/weekly/companion missions. They may, however, keep their medals.

 

That seems like a completely reasonable compromise.

 

IMHO

 

While that sounds reasonable, if that was the case, almost no one would take it and thus it might as well not exist.

 

Easier to just sit in the corner and camp and wait for it to be over. Which just ruins it for those who are still fighting, but that is what you end up with under such a plan.

 

---

 

When the match is clearly over, what difference does it make if it ends under mercy rules, or by sitting and doing nothing for another 5 min?

[branmakmuffin]

So let's come up with a hypothetical ability, call it a "mercy check". Mercy check being something that (like a ready check) can be issued by anyone on the losing team. But it can only be issued if losing by more than half of, well whatever (someone that knows more about the battlegrounds would have to answer that). So Mercy Check is issued by someone on the losing team and all 4 players (or maybe just 3) need to accept in order for the warzone to end. Or maybe anyone on any team, even the winning team, can initiate and then only need 4 people accepting to end the warzone. Wouldn't be such a bad idea.

So then you have the scenario someone else mentioned. PvEers queuing up together, pre-agreeing to "mercy out" as soon as the WZ starts. As I said, even I would do WZs if I could do it that way. "LFG for mercy quitters for quick WZ daily credit."

 

One difference between a WZ in TOR and a basketball game is that you still get something for losing a WZ.

[TX_Angel]

So then you have the scenario someone else mentioned. PvEers queuing up together, pre-agreeing to "mercy out" as soon as the WZ starts. As I said, even I would do WZs if I could do it that way. "LFG for mercy quitters for quick WZ daily credit."

 

One difference between a WZ in TOR and a basketball game is that you still get something for losing a WZ.

 

I was not suggesting that mercy quit would be an option any time, just under some situations.

 

Given the chance for exploit, perhaps it should be a system triggered event. Take the type of early endings you see in voidstar and pylons and expand them to all the warzones. Even more so, if someone scores 3 goals in 60 seconds in huttball, then it probably is over as well, but that is of course debatable.

[eGraced]

There are only a small number of instances where you can get truly shut out in PvP in a humiliating way, so I don't think a "mercy rule" is required. Yes it sucks when a team drags out a voidstar for the entire duration and spawn camps, or when a team scores 1 goal in huttball then just turtles up and slaughters your team for 15 minutes, but honestly it happens so rarely (at least in my experience, YMMV) that there's no need to add a new, exploitable mechanic to remedy it.

 

That said, I'm also not the sort to spawn camp and humiliate the other team for 15 minutes, in the same way I'd never beat up a 5 year old. I simply do my part to end the match, regardless of the angry tells I get for ruining the "fun."

 

In short, there's a difference between winning an unbalanced match quickly and humiliating the other team, and it's too many people doing the latter that has some asking for another option or avoiding PvP entirely. Imagine how much less toxic our PvP community would be if people remembered that, instead of grandstanding about "participation trophies" or stroking their epeen.

[DayneDrak]

No, you're clearly one of those who enjoys being a bully and curb stomping those who can't do anything about it.

 

Right, so just because I vigorously disagree with you, I'm a bully.

 

Maybe you don't understand the nature of PVP. It's a violent and competitive manner of gameplay. It's not a nice friendly game of crazy 8's with your buddies, hell, it ain't even poker night. It's gladiator mode. Being nice means you're a liability. Doesn't mean you have to be a dick all the time, but when it's game time, there's no friends other then the folks on your team, and no mercy.

 

So yeah, when I'm a PVP'ing, I guess you could say I'm a bully. However, if you think that's all someone who takes their PVP seriously is, that's shallow and narrowsighted of you.

[eGraced]

Maybe you don't understand the nature of PVP. It's a violent and competitive manner of gameplay.

 

Um... it's a video game... you push buttons and click a mouse while sitting in a chair... it's not exactly "violent."

[DayneDrak]

Um... it's a video game... you push buttons and click a mouse while sitting in a chair... it's not exactly "violent."

 

Probably need to look up the myriad definitions of violence. Violence doesn't always mean physical force.

[eGraced]

Probably need to look up the myriad definitions of violence. Violence doesn't always mean physical force.

 

I'm just saying that no matter how seriously you take it, we're still talking about a video game here. It's more like that "nice friendly game of crazy 8's with your buddies" that you derided than it is some horrific, no-holds-barred, to-the-death cage match.

 

Some people need to win crazy 8's or monopoly at all costs, no matter what they have to do to win, and enjoy humiliating everyone they play against. We generally call those people ***holes. It's no different here.

Edited February 27, 2016 by eGraced

[Frenesi]

I'm just saying that no matter how seriously you take it, we're still talking about a video game here. It's more like that "nice friendly game of crazy 8's with your buddies" that you derided than it is some horrific, no-holds-barred, to-the-death cage match.

 

Some people need to win crazy 8's or monopoly at all costs, no matter what they have to do to win, and enjoy humiliating everyone they play against. We generally call those people ***holes. It's no different here.

 

It's more of a dickery competition. There is a reason why MOBA communities are so toxic. It's almost always a game of "lololol get rekt noob" or "my *********** teammates don't do anything useful, braindead idiots"

Edited February 27, 2016 by Frenesi