Need a Surrender Option for CTF!

[Para_CW 19]

I am in way too many lopsided games and it ruins the experience.  Sometimes teams form that are unbalanced for any number of reasons ranging from the selection of tank types to player experience and one side absolutely dominates the other.  I've been on both sides and neither is particularly fun.

 

Once a team gets down by 10 flags or so it's pretty much over.  There may be teams that come back from that, but it's sufficiently rare as to not be worth taking into consideration.

 

The opposite team quickly loses players and it becomes a turkey shoot, with opposing tanks taking hits from the moment they spawn and if they manage to survive, they face impossible odds of 1-3 or more.

 

I've been on the winning side where we waited unopposed for 10 minutes for the game to end in order to collect our points.  How stupid is that?

 

Or if players are willing to hang around they get beat by 33-0 or some ridiculous number.  But more often than not, they just leave.  There is so little to be gained by staying in, or joining a lopsided game on the wrong side that this is a good strategy.  You never live for more than a few seconds and get very few crystals for the time expended.

 

There are ways to deal with this.

 

Automatically end games with a goal differential of 10 flags.

or

Create a surrender option.  Players on the losing side can surrender as a group with a simple majority.  The game ends, they collect their points and start a new game.

 

The former is probably easier to implement, but the latter gives players more control.  It needs to be done.

[Invincitron 888]

I am in way too many lopsided games and it ruins the experience.  Sometimes teams form that are unbalanced for any number of reasons ranging from the selection of tank types to player experience and one side absolutely dominates the other.  I've been on both sides and neither is particularly fun.

 

Once a team gets down by 10 flags or so it's pretty much over.  There may be teams that come back from that, but it's sufficiently rare as to not be worth taking into consideration.

 

The opposite team quickly loses players and it becomes a turkey shoot, with opposing tanks taking hits from the moment they spawn and if they manage to survive, they face impossible odds of 1-3 or more.

 

I've been on the winning side where we waited unopposed for 10 minutes for the game to end in order to collect our points.  How stupid is that?

 

Or if players are willing to hang around they get beat by 33-0 or some ridiculous number.  But more often than not, they just leave.  There is so little to be gained by staying in, or joining a lopsided game on the wrong side that this is a good strategy.  You never live for more than a few seconds and get very few crystals for the time expended.

 

There are ways to deal with this.

 

Automatically end games with a goal differential of 10 flags.

or

Create a surrender option.  Players on the losing side can surrender as a group with a simple majority.  The game ends, they collect their points and start a new game.

 

The former is probably easier to implement, but the latter gives players more control.  It needs to be done.

+1. I see games that are like 45-1 and they're just waiting for a new match...

[kayitsiz 621]

But there is a problem. İf i see any new strong player and while we are still have high score but opponent will win, i press surrender and get crystals similar to winning team.

[Truthteller 4,204]

Bad idea they can sabotage this surrender option

[Para_CW 19]

But there is a problem. İf i see any new strong player and while we are still have high score but opponent will win, i press surrender and get crystals similar to winning team.

It requires a majority and this is easily solved by not having the surrender option pop up unless you are losing by 10 or more flags.

 

 

Bad idea they can sabotage this surrender option

 

How?

[Baby_Sam 614]

Implementing the surrender is complicated. I do not think it can be sabotaged because your side is screwed anyway. By definition, you can't get screwed more than that. If you earn any crystals, you are practically earning them for the winning side. You get a negligible commission but that is really not worth mentioning. Who would fight in a battle for an hour to get 10 or 20 crystals?

 

I think it makes sense to have the option (at least when creating a game) to end at 10 differential (or whatever depending on the length of the battle) or maybe a score ratio. If one team's total reward (if calculated instantly) is 3 times that of the other team or whatever.

 

Though, I suggest to give everyone the option to leave instantly with their rewards. Once the battle is abandoned, it ends shortlyanyway.

 

Until that happens, the losing team should leave immediately because they are wasting their time. Doing this will force TO to distribute the rewards more fairly. There should be a difference between winning and losing, but it should not be disgrace and slavery. Maybe the winning team should have their rewards multiplied by 1.5 or whatever, but not take the losers' rewards with them.

[Para_CW 19]

Implementing the surrender is complicated. I do not think it can be sabotaged because your side is screwed anyway. By definition, you can't get screwed more than that. If you earn any crystals, you are practically earning them for the winning side. You get a negligible commission but that is really not worth mentioning. Who would fight in a battle for an hour to get 10 or 20 crystals?

 

I think it makes sense to have the option (at least when creating a game) to end at 10 differential (or whatever depending on the length of the battle) or maybe a score ratio. If one team's total reward (if calculated instantly) is 3 times that of the other team or whatever.

 

Though, I suggest to give everyone the option to leave instantly with their rewards. Once the battle is abandoned, it ends shortlyanyway.

 

Until that happens, the losing team should leave immediately because they are wasting their time. Doing this will force TO to distribute the rewards more fairly. There should be a difference between winning and losing, but it should not be disgrace and slavery. Maybe the winning team should have their rewards multiplied by 1.5 or whatever, but not take the losers' rewards with them.

Yes.  This is the problem and I've seen more of it the higher up I go in levels.  There is no point in continuing battle once it's clear you're going to lose.  The reward isn't worth it at all for the time expended.

[Opex-Rah 5,388]

Hmm... nice one with surrender option idea.

 

But it rather easier to implement win-by-domination rule.

 

The question is only how this rule should work.

[Para_CW 19]

Hmm... nice one with surrender option idea.

 

But it rather easier to implement win-by-domination rule.

 

The question is only how this rule should work.

Ideally, from a player perspective, a small rectangular button should pop up right above the little supply box counters after the team is 10 flags* down (this number is negotiable).  After a majority of losing players opt to surrender by clicking the button, the game ends normally and without further penalty.  I don't think that the winning team should get any sort of bonus or the losing team an additional penalty since the outcome was already determined.  If the losing team is split 50-50 the game continues.  If a player leaves the game before a decision is made, their vote disappears.  If a team is down 20 flags* (negotiable), the game ends automatically no matter what.

 

* This number may vary depending on the length of the game.  Less for a 10 minute game, more for longer games.

[Lord-of-the-Snipers 1,620]

Maybe a game should even end automatically if the domination of one team is obvious.

 

For example in a CTF with 10 flags the game automatically ends when the score gets 5-0 or 6-1.

No need for voting it 's just a pre-determined percentage of domination that leads to game ending.

 

Something similar could work as well in TDM and CP.

 

We definitely need to get rid of those many useless prolonged battles between clearly unbalanced teams:

than you much better start another fresh new battle with another team.

 

Another thing that might help is to tighten the rank limits in battles. This will often mean more balance beforehand.

[toanuparu_GT 7]

wow i never thout of that its a good idea 

[Endurance 543]

Nice idea.

 

How about battle automatically ends when:

- Battle has reached 30+ minutes and everyone from the enemy has left

- Battle has reached 20+ flags and everyone in the enemy team has left

- Battle has reached 200+ destroys and everyone in enemy team has left

- Not sure about control poins

 

Something along these lines...

[deathrapter27519 30]

It requires a majority and this is easily solved by not having the surrender option pop up unless you are losing by 10 or more flags.

 

 

 

How?

Not a good idea. In long team matches that take HOURS, 10 flags is a small amount, also, the surrender option has to have all members agree, otherwise it would be abused as @$@. I just don't think all the members would click surrender. 

[Baby_Sam 614]

I am against ending the battle forcefully regardless of the results, but I think everyone should get the option to leave early, taking their rewards when there is an obvious imbalance, and that should start when one side is 2 players down.

 

When the flag, control point, etc. difference is high, a wise player on the losing team will leave. That usually will make that side 2 players down. At that point, everyone should be allowed to leave.

 

To avoid people sabotaging the game by joining the losing team and then pulling out, there should be a certain score difference. In that case, it is silly for the losing team to continue anyway, so who cares if someone sabotages the battle?

 

But better than all these suggestions is adjusting the reward calculation algorithm so it makes sense for everyone to continue the game regardless of how bad they are losing. (Obviously as long the player ratio is not over 4:3, or whatever and the player difference is less than 2, i.e. 3:1, 4:2, etc. are ridiculous.

[a7x_Pedro48 13,999]

Bad idea. If a team win 40-30 in CTF, winning team will have good crystals, but losing team will steal way too much crystals with your surrender option... Winning 40-30 or 80-30 is not the same thing...

 

How waiting 10 is a problem? Just go in pause and do something else.

[Para_CW 19]

Bad idea. If a team win 40-30 in CTF, winning team will have good crystals, but losing team will steal way too much crystals with your surrender option... Winning 40-30 or 80-30 is not the same thing...

 

How waiting 10 is a problem? Just go in pause and do something else.

 The longest I waited was almost half an hour.  Some of us are adults and don't have all day to play.   You know, responsibility and stuff.

[Baby_Sam 614]

This is one of the nice battles you can find. 8 people against one person 5 ranks lower than their average rank with 5 minutes to go.

 

If any one of these 9 people is having fun for the next 5 minutes, I think he/she needs therapy.

 

[kayitsiz 621]

Bad idea. If a team win 40-30 in CTF, winning team will have good crystals, but losing team will steal way too much crystals with your surrender option... Winning 40-30 or 80-30 is not the same thing...

 

How waiting 10 is a problem? Just go in pause and do something else.

Yes, definetely. But it should be!

[kayitsiz 621]

This is one of the nice battles you can find. 8 people against one person 5 ranks lower than their average rank with 5 minutes to go.

 

If any one of these 9 people is having fun for the next 5 minutes, I think he/she needs therapy.

 

Sometimes i try. Just to try :lol: Maybe i can survive after 20 second :P

[Opex-Rah 5,388]

Ok, surrender option is a no go due to... possible abuse.

 

I suggest win-by-domination. If one team is more than ~10 flags and another team is less than ~50% of winning team score then domination timer is triggered. Lets say... 1 minute of domination will result in immidiate battle finish.

 

Need to think it through.

[shibe123 136]

:D

[Para_CW 19]

Ok, surrender option is a no go due to... possible abuse.

 

I suggest win-by-domination. If one team is more than ~10 flags and another team is less than ~50% of winning team score then domination timer is triggered. Lets say... 1 minute of domination will result in immidiate battle finish.

 

Need to think it through.

I think that's a viable option.  Thank you for taking it under consideration.

[Baby_Sam 614]

Ok, surrender option is a no go due to... possible abuse.

 

I suggest win-by-domination. If one team is more than ~10 flags and another team is less than ~50% of winning team score then domination timer is triggered. Lets say... 1 minute of domination will result in immidiate battle finish.

 

Need to think it through.

Yes, it needs to be thought through. The game may be dead well before that. The duration of the game, the remaining time, what the score is trending to statistically, the ratio of the players with the score trend of each, etc. need to be taken into consideration. However, that does not need to be calculated every second, maybe once every 10 seconds or whatever.

 

Though, you may want to rethink the reward distribution to avoid killing most battles before halftime. The losing team is ruined by the way the rewards are distributed currently. In the end, it is not fun if a battle rarely comes to an end. I think it can't be hidden for much long that the losing team better leave the battle immediately--well before your domination victory or whatever is triggered.

 

Granted, there are crazy people who would stick in the battle to the end and get next to no reward, but that is/should be rare.

[Para_CW 19]

Yes, it needs to be thought through. The game may be dead well before that. The duration of the game, the remaining time, what the score is trending to statistically, the ratio of the players with the score trend of each, etc. need to be taken into consideration. However, that does not need to be calculated every second, maybe once every 10 seconds or whatever.

 

Though, you may want to rethink the reward distribution to avoid killing most battles before halftime. The losing team is ruined by the way the rewards are distributed currently. In the end, it is not fun if a battle rarely comes to an end. I think it can't be hidden for much long that the losing team better leave the battle immediately--well before your domination victory or whatever is triggered.

 

Granted, there are crazy people who would stick in the battle to the end and get next to no reward, but that is/should be rare.

I agree that the reward distribution is the main cause of this problem.  It simply makes no sense as a player to stay in losing games.

[XXgamercool_TURBO 14]

Every game on earth has trolls and if all of your team had to surrender to actually surrender than this would be a good idea. People coudnt just surrender their team and everybody loses.