PvP needs a mercy rule

[Nothing_Shines]

if you get absolutely crushed, say, 3 times in a row, you should get a title unlock [Participation Trophy Winner].

 

If your team does really well but your stats are like one third or less of the next highest player on your team 3 times in a row, your title unlock is [The Carried].

 

If your kill count is more than double the combined count of the entire opposing team's, you unlock [Warzone Bully].

[Joesixxpack]

This isnt a bad idea IMO.

 

Except for the fact that it would change regs across the board in a negative way as long as the feature existed.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Joesixxpack

[DomiSotto]

There is a mercy rule. You right click the PVP icon on the minimap and choose 'Leave Warzone'. The hurting stops whenever you want it to.

 

Unfortunately, it also installs a revolving door, and the zone drags on and sucks in folks in the queue, messing things up a lot for them too. An organized shut down of a zone would be preferential. Nothing wrong with having an option to say: "Well, guys, you've got us. Cheers."

 

And, GSF already has the 'fall on your own sword' option so, why not in ground PvP?

Edited February 25, 2016 by DomiSotto

[TUXs]

Except for the fact that it would change regs across the board in a negative way as long as the feature existed.

You really think so? Can I ask how? If you think people will just give up...well...yeah...they already do that, but right now they either leave and screw their team or they do nothing and screw their team.

 

If you think it'll be abused, I don't see how. It would take 16 people (8 on each team) to have a chance to exploit this...16 people working together, would roll ANY WZ...they don't need to forfeit.

 

However...to alleviate that as a concern, how about not allowing it until certain criteria are met?

• down by 3+ points in HB

• behind by 200 in CW (600-400)

• down by half in NC (100-50, 80-40)

• half the time has expired in VS

• 2 rounds have past in AH

[Joesixxpack]

You really think so? Can I ask how? If you think people will just give up...well...yeah...they already do that, but right now they either leave and screw their team or they do nothing and screw their team.

 

If you think it'll be abused, I don't see how. It would take 16 people (8 on each team) to have a chance to exploit this...16 people working together, would roll ANY WZ...they don't need to forfeit.

 

However...to alleviate that as a concern, how about not allowing it until certain criteria are met?

• down by 3+ points in HB

• behind by 200 in CW (600-400)

• down by half in NC (100-50, 80-40)

• half the time has expired in VS

• 2 rounds have past in AH

 

Critieria could help mitigate but if people know what the criteria are they could just screw off, or sabotage to get there quicker. Overall I don't see it accomplishing or encouraging anything positive.

 

Yeah sure people can click out of the match now as soon as reds cap first or whatever, and that's not unusual. But that's one person taking advantage of an option for self, not an officially provided group **** it button. Subtle but significant psych. difference IMO. The PVP equivalent of the idgaf spacebar, skip everything to the end, quit after first wipe, don't try because you can just requeue people in PUG PVE will be empowered.

[CrazyCT]

So, the options I've seen so far are -

 

1) Any 1 person can stop the WZ, opening it to huge exploits by sending a "mole" in to the opposite faction to forfeit the matches, or...

2) It goes to a vote in the team, which leads to......

 

How long do you keep the timer on the vote? 30 seconds? 1 minute? Will it be a subtle box that you could easily miss in the middle of a fight, or a big box that's going to get in the way? What happens if the vote is to continue playing and you've wasted that time standing around taking a vote? What about the people who want to keep playing, but don't see the point of continuing to fight while the vote goes on, in case the team decide to scrap the game. You think people get pissed off by ragequitting, how much more pissed off are they going to be when they have to stand around for 30 seconds/1 minute to find out if the game continues or not?

 

More extensive thinking - Will the WZ still count to Pierce and his counterparts quests if the WZ is forfeited? Even if you are on the winning team? What about the daily/weekly quests? Could you just forfeit through the quota for them?

 

Are WZ's really so long that you can't just wait it out?

 

Have to go to football, but I'm sure I could think of plenty more questions.

[TX_Angel]

^ All good questions...

 

Perhaps having a "vote" system isn't the way to do it. Perhaps simply adjusting the rules for when a warzone "ends early" automatically is the solution?

 

For example, in Civil War, if one team capped 2 nodes in the first 30 sec and held them without a break until the score is more than 50% apart (such as 330/140), then it is very unlikely to turn around since the losing team must now triple cap and if you can't get 2 at any point during the game, you won't get 3.

 

Might as well just call it when it goes beyond the point of no return.

 

I've noticed that Voidstar and Pylons do this sometimes, it ends before time is up, if one team advances fast enough. But it seems really rare that it happens, but sometimes it does.

[Soul_of_Flames]

Did anyone read my suggestion on the first page? Because I think it offers the best response to this situation and it can't be exploited.

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.

 

Also, an additional point I'd like to add:

In the case of a mercy ruling:

1. All players on the winning team get ONE extra medal and +5% match rewards (valor, credits, XP, etc) if the losing team admits defeat.

2. Players on the losing team who abstained from the ruling (IE allowed the rule to take effect) will lose ONE medal (as long as their medal count was greater than 2. If it was 2 or lower, then they would not lose a medal.)

3. Any player on the losing team that voted to decline the mercy ruling, regardless of the final result (effective or not) would not receive any reward penalties.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Soul_of_Flames

[DayneDrak]

I've noticed that Voidstar and Pylons do this sometimes, it ends before time is up, if one team advances fast enough. But it seems really rare that it happens, but sometimes it does.

 

Well in the case of Voidstar, it makes sense. Since it's just turn taking. If Round 2 gets further than Round 1, there's no sense playing full time, there's clearly a definitive winner.

 

As far as Hypergate goes, there's 2 win conditions. If a team manages to make it to 800, that's an instant win, game ends. Otherwise, the first team above 600 when the pylons sync (or the team with the higher score, if both are above 600) wins.

[HelinCarnate]

Did anyone read my suggestion on the first page? Because I think it offers the best response to this situation and it can't be exploited.

 

 

Also, an additional point I'd like to add:

In the case of a mercy ruling:

1. All players on the winning team get ONE extra medal and +5% match rewards (valor, credits, XP, etc) if the losing team admits defeat.

2. Players on the losing team who abstained from the ruling (IE allowed the rule to take effect) will lose ONE medal (as long as their medal count was greater than 2. If it was 2 or lower, then they would not lose a medal.)

3. Any player on the losing team that voted to decline the mercy ruling, regardless of the final result (effective or not) would not receive any reward penalties.

 

Point 2 should be get 0 rewards.

[t-darko]

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.

 

This is how pvp kill it self in this game! PvP servers run a light population 24-7, POT 5 have been crying for server mergers the past year, The so called RP-PVE servers have regular pops during primetime towards the weekends. The only servers that currently have a regular daytime pop is the PVE server, if you're lucky.

 

You got prominent pvp guilds practicing the shut-out spawn camp rule whenever they are on, if they by chance or a miss in the que-sync are on a losing side the collectively quit, all while whining about class balance on the pvp forums.

 

PvP is actively killing it self in swtor, with a blaster to the head, saber to the neck, and a chain stun that last from here to eternity while resolve fulls, then you die treatment to every newbie how dare to show him/herself in a wz.

 

Yep, so Reward them heavily on the bounty that are swtor pvp, 'cos with every spawncamped shut-out swtor pvp dies.

Edited February 25, 2016 by t-darko

[AlienEyeTX]

You really think so? Can I ask how? If you think people will just give up...well...yeah...they already do that, but right now they either leave and screw their team or they do nothing and screw their team.

 

If you think it'll be abused, I don't see how. It would take 16 people (8 on each team) to have a chance to exploit this...16 people working together, would roll ANY WZ...they don't need to forfeit.

 

However...to alleviate that as a concern, how about not allowing it until certain criteria are met?

• down by 3+ points in HB

• behind by 200 in CW (600-400)

• down by half in NC (100-50, 80-40)

• half the time has expired in VS

• 2 rounds have past in AH

 

Fine. If no one is having fun, let all 16 players vote to end the WZ. And no one gets credit (win or loss) for the WZ and they can all queue up again.

 

But, as long as one single player wants it to continue, to get the credit they are willing to work for... the match continues as it does today.

[Stoofa]

Personally I'd say the best solution is to ignore this thread, let it go away and just let PvP carry on the way it always has done.

People moan and cry about it now as they did at the beginning. No biggie, the PvP population will never change, for each one person so fed-up they leave it there is one ready to give it a go. The population never gets massive, but the majority of those in it will take the wins with the losses, the others can just continue to exit warzone, rinse and repeat.

[peter_plankskull]

Personally I'd say the best solution is to ignore this thread, let it go away and just let PvP carry on the way it always has done.

People moan and cry about it now as they did at the beginning. No biggie, the PvP population will never change, for each one person so fed-up they leave it there is one ready to give it a go. The population never gets massive, but the majority of those in it will take the wins with the losses, the others can just continue to exit warzone, rinse and repeat.

 

So instead of trying to improve PVP you just let it sink as low as it is now? We should always try to improve aspects of the game by voicing our opinions and ideas, not simply let it be.

[Joesixxpack]

Did anyone read my suggestion on the first page? Because I think it offers the best response to this situation and it can't be exploited.

 

 

Also, an additional point I'd like to add:

In the case of a mercy ruling:

1. All players on the winning team get ONE extra medal and +5% match rewards (valor, credits, XP, etc) if the losing team admits defeat.

2. Players on the losing team who abstained from the ruling (IE allowed the rule to take effect) will lose ONE medal (as long as their medal count was greater than 2. If it was 2 or lower, then they would not lose a medal.)

3. Any player on the losing team that voted to decline the mercy ruling, regardless of the final result (effective or not) would not receive any reward penalties.

 

If some form of a mercy rule was going to be implemented this or something pretty close to it sounds like the best option to me. More automation than player initiative. I still think any form dependent on player initiative would too often result in more chat spewing and general ****ery than playing when one side thought things looked adverse.

Edited February 26, 2016 by Joesixxpack

[cool-dude]

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.

 

In most cases, the team's skill has nothing to do with locking the other team in their spawn. It has to do with the other team not pvping. Most of " skilled" players have moved on to other games. Now, most of pvp consist ofpeople who do not like pvp, but do it just for the daily/weekly, or something to do with the alliance...So, they just do not care about the match.

Edited February 25, 2016 by cool-dude

[Stoofa]

So instead of trying to improve PVP you just let it sink as low as it is now? We should always try to improve aspects of the game by voicing our opinions and ideas, not simply let it be.

 

What do you mean "sink as low as it is now".?

So you lose a few matches, boo hoo?

What else do you want - the ability to say "Nah, I've had enough of this warzone yet for some reason still get credit for it". That isn't an improvement, that is simply giving people something for moaning and crying.

We already have a quite adequate way of dealing with a wz we don't want to be in - quit warzone. Why attempt to re-design the wheel?

 

At no point in this game do you "have to do" PvP - and just to go over that point again, at absolutely NO POINT are you FORCED to do PvP in this game.

So, if you want to queue up to do it you're doing so for one of two reasons:

1. You want to do it

2. You want to try it

What we don't need is some button that says "yup, you entered a wz, the other team is vastly superior to them - click here for "turning up" rewards".

 

This is not school where everyone gets a "participated" medal and we cannot have winners because the feelings of everyone else are hurt.

[AlienEyeTX]

What do you mean "sink as low as it is now".?

So you lose a few matches, boo hoo?

What else do you want - the ability to say "Nah, I've had enough of this warzone yet for some reason still get credit for it". That isn't an improvement, that is simply giving people something for moaning and crying.

We already have a quite adequate way of dealing with a wz we don't want to be in - quit warzone. Why attempt to re-design the wheel?

 

At no point in this game do you "have to do" PvP - and just to go over that point again, at absolutely NO POINT are you FORCED to do PvP in this game.

So, if you want to queue up to do it you're doing so for one of two reasons:

1. You want to do it

2. You want to try it

What we don't need is some button that says "yup, you entered a wz, the other team is vastly superior to them - click here for "turning up" rewards".

 

This is not school where everyone gets a "participated" medal and we cannot have winners because the feelings of everyone else are hurt.

 

I totally agree. The "participation trophy" is the losers share of comms. Guess what? It could be worse... you could get nothing for a loss. If you want to quit, quit. I don't begrudge you that decision. You just don't get a reward for it.

 

Win, or die trying.

 

If you want rewards for little effort, there's a story mode in this game for that.

[TX_Angel]

Win, or die trying.

 

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?

[DayneDrak]

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?

 

If you think that saying 'i give up, now give me rewards' is a better solution, you're off your rocker.

 

Any mercy solution would need to involve a forfeiture of all rewards. No medals for cowards.

 

Of course, that's functionally exactly the same thing as just leaving the Warzone.

 

Joining a Warzone isn't something you do on accident. It's also entirely optional. You accept the risk that comes with it. That risk includes bad teammates. You take your lumps, or you queue with like minded people to mitigate the risk of bad teammates.

 

If you choose to participate in a game function where the entire point is to kill the people on the other team, repeatedly, and then find out you suck at it, it's selfish and kinda wussy to demand that it be made easier for you, or that you get rewards just because the other guys are beating up on you so badly.

 

You want your rewards, take your lumps and suck it up, play better, or play with better people.

 

The playstyle is not for everyone

Edited February 26, 2016 by DayneDrak

[TX_Angel]

If you think that saying 'i give up, now give me rewards' is a better solution, you're off your rocker.

 

Any mercy solution would need to involve a forfeiture of all rewards. No medals for cowards.

 

That accomplishes nothing, why even suggest it?

 

If you get no rewards, then you might as well leave. Which is probably your point, but the other option is to stay and not fight at all and waste everyone's time.

 

Joining a Warzone isn't something you do on accident. It's also entirely optional. You accept the risk that comes with it. That risk includes bad teammates. You take your lumps, or you queue with like minded people to mitigate the risk of bad teammates.

 

What you're basically saying is that if you aren't at a pro level, you might as well quit playing.

 

That is a really sad view of the world, I must say. Perhaps we should tell all kids, "if you can't be the best, don't even bother trying". Because that is what you're saying.

[DayneDrak]

That accomplishes nothing, why even suggest it?

 

If you get no rewards, then you might as well leave. Which is probably your point, but the other option is to stay and not fight at all and waste everyone's time.

 

I'd rather people quit and get their spot backfilled by someone who is willing to actually play, yes. Not say 'i give up! gimme mah stuffs!'. If they allowed that, it would encourage bad play. Jesus, I could see a whole bunch of PVE'ers queuing up, immediately going MERCY! over and over simply to get their 20 in for Pierce/4X.

 

If they're going to stay and not fight, thats functionally no different from someone who just straight up sucks, both worthless, but that's part of the risk, especially when queuing solo. Giving people actual incentive to not win? You think that's going to encourage better gameplay?

 

What you're basically saying is that if you aren't at a pro level, you might as well quit playing.

 

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.

 

That is a really sad view of the world, I must say. Perhaps we should tell all kids, "if you can't be the best, don't even bother trying". Because that is what you're saying.

 

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.

 

I think the sad view of the world is that everyone deserves credit for trying. 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. I'm a top notch network engineer, I'll go toe to toe with anyone when it comes to network operations or design. Pretty damn good systems engineer too. Cars? Not my thing, and just because I'm good at what I'm good at doesn't mean I'm going to tell my mechanic how to fix my car. I respect his expertise in his field, just like I expect others to respect my expertise in mine.

 

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.

Edited February 26, 2016 by DayneDrak

[masterceil]

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.

 

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.

[branmakmuffin]

II could see a whole bunch of PVE'ers queuing up, immediately going MERCY! over and over simply to get their 20 in for Pierce/4X.

Even I would do WZs, then.

[DomiSotto]

I totally agree. The "participation trophy" is the losers share of comms. Guess what? It could be worse... you could get nothing for a loss. If you want to quit, quit. I don't begrudge you that decision. You just don't get a reward for it.

 

Again, this is perfectly fine, except it brings the person who was on top of the queue in the warzone that s/he have not participated in. So, an alternative clean closure to a lost warzone would be nice.

 

As well, it would be nice, if warzones did not start in 5 or 6 vs 8 comps. Do you seriously believe that 5 vs 8 can win a warzone? 1 vs 4?

 

If the outcome is crystal-clear, just shut it down. Don't call it a 'mercy rule'. Call it Improved Shut-down Sequence or something. The way it is handled right now is not optimal. It's idiotic.

 

Then, again, what is.

 

Better to Shoot, Shovel and Shut Up.

Edited February 26, 2016 by DomiSotto