invalid Manual [Surrender] button for loosing team

[Rohrmeister 1,535]

The automatic battle termination fails, as simple algorithms can not suit the complexity and dynamic of situations on the battlefield.
So let the players of the losing team decide if they want to continue or not! Abuse prevented by majority vote. Read for details:
 
 
Surrender - Button (on/off)
 
Each time you click the surrender button, it will be toggeled:

from [ fight! ] -to-> [ surrender ];         or       from  [ surrender ] -back-to-> [ fight! ]

The numbers display how many of your team are willing to surrender at the moment:

 

 
If 50% of the players in the loosing team have set this button to [surrender], then the battle gets terminated,
But only if the following conditions are met:

• 5 minutes of the battle have already passed
• the other team leads with 100%+ or more flags / CP-score-points / TDM kills, then your team
  (like 11:5 flags; 31:15 flags, 151:75CPs, 121:60 TDM kills)
• your team did not cap the last flag or did not make the last CP-score-point
  (TDM kills are excluded from this last criteria due to mult interference)

(these values have to be tweaked a little after the feature was tested online)
 

Surrender saves your crystals !

If a battle is hopeless or you are infiltrated with some mults, then the enemies keep scoring.

So in fact your crystal share decreases with each minute you stay in. But if you just leave you get nothing

Via surrendering you can at least finish this battle, save your share as it is, and try your luck in the next battle.

 

 

 

Most asked question: What about ABUSE?

(Question) What if mults come to my team and push surrender?
(Answer) If mults manage to seize 50% of your team, you have no chance to win anyways. Better save what you've got and try your luck somewhere else.

 

 

Possible options

• 5% Threshhold to activate the feature for a player (added 2015-05-18):
  This button is only activated for player that obtained more then 5% of its teams total score (so no votes for mults, fresh joined players or players with too less battle participation. 5% of 1000 points are 50 points). This option was inspired by some 3rd party comments in this thread.

 
 
Upvote if you like it ;)
 
 
 
This will solve the following problematic scenarios:

- Scenario1:
you're in a battle and loosing. The battle is 15:4 flags, you are dominated.. the battle would end with 16 flags but they _do_not_capture_. Instead they keep killing, spawn killing, dooming you and push you out. Why? To get more crystals - of course by devestating you fun and making you curse this game..
With this Idea -> just surrender
 
- scenario 2:
The battle has no flaglimit but last for 30 more minutes. it is obvious to human judgement, that your team has no chance. But all would have to wait for 30 more minutes to spend their time more usefull.
With this idea -> just surrender
 
- scenario 3:
You team was infiltrated by mults. You see you have no chance any more and lost a lot of score. With each minute the crystal share you worked so hard before the mults came in, decreases. As just 50% have to switch to surrender, the mults can't prohibit your team from surrendering.
 
- scenario 4:
Flags are 7:3 and you are in the losing team.. but suddenly some couple of skilled guys enterer your team and you feel the momentum of the battle changed. You switch the durrender button back to [ fight! ] and keep going... make another try. No need for sophisticated algortighms that analyse battle momentum.. just use common sense of experianced tankers right in this battle
 

 
Related ideas, although different:

(link 1) - this one focuses on automatic battle termination. Author Para_CW. It was analyzed, changed and then implemented. It lead to the battle termination scenarios we had around xmas (remember that timer and the horn?).
(link 2) - this one is about automatic team balance before a subsequent battle starts, author creeperskelly
(link 3) - in this one it is proposed to have a special supply (cheap one) that can initiate surrender, author creeperskelly
(link 4) - my original proposal to this idea, but I decided to make a new topic for that

 

[Maf 32,300]

Valid

[Brubook 1,161]

I will not enter in ruling detail of it, but it is definitely a good idea, to be studied and implemented in the game!

Sure the scenarios will help to work the right mechanism out!

 

Please DEVs, take some time to read players ideas!! (I think you do it already ... it probably is a hard work, but maybe sometimes can be worth doing it!!)

 

Great Rohr !!!!

[Brubook 1,161]

You could also add creeperskelly graphics, to make the idea more attractive!! :)

[creeperskelly 1,281]

:)

 

Here is something I added to the "drugging" thread:

 

 

 

There is a thread about CTF surrender here:

 

http://en.tankiforum.com/index.php?showtopic=234512

 

Also something similarly related to how drugging impacts rounds here:

 

http://en.tankiforum.com/index.php?showtopic=237617

 

The two sort of go hand in hand: the drug raiders create the problem of unbalanced rounds which leads to the necessity of needing a surrender option.

[Darren4Turbo 4,913]

Yep, Good idea  :)

[beaku 2,656]

OK, scenario x:

Your team, although infiltrated by mults is winning. Score is 15:4. Your flag count is less but it is obvious that you will win. Mults just use the surrender option and presto... Battle ends.

[Pathfinder 1,690]

Imo, it has to be the entire team wanting to surrender. Otherwise multing will become even more of a problem. And besides, in principle it should be the case that everyone on the team wants to surrender in any case. It would be unfair for a player to have to surrender just because half his teammates want to.

[creeperskelly 1,281]

But if enough players are sitting there doing nothing it is essentially the same thing.

Perhaps it could be all 10 voting to surrender if the team limit is 10, or, decrease the number required as people leave.

Still, it is fair to 8 people who want t o surrender if 2 choose not to?

 

Perhaps a super majority of 66% would be more appropriate.

[dilsharox 2,395]

good idea

[Rohrmeister 1,535]

OK, scenario x:

Your team, although infiltrated by mults is winning. Score is 15:4. Your flag count is less but it is obvious that you will win. Mults just use the surrender option and presto... Battle ends.

 

Do you _really_ think you can win, if more then 50% of your team are mults? Honestly???

 

--

 

50% - vs- 66%

I also thought about 66%, but this is a problem if only 2 Players are left ;)

Maybe for 2 players -> 50% / for 3 or more players - 60%

 

--

Imo, it has to be the entire team wanting to surrender. Otherwise multing will become even more of a problem. And besides, in principle it should be the case that everyone on the team wants to surrender in any case. It would be unfair for a player to have to surrender just because half his teammates want to.

In team battles you can win only as a team.

If half your team is already convinced that there is no hope.. you have no chance anyways.. no matter how urge you like to beat continue.

Each second you stay decreases your amount of battle share, while surrender saves you more of your crystals and time.

The super-brave ones with no rationality can still say that their team surrendered and not them.

[Rohrmeister 1,535]

I reworked the initial post and added a picture.

[Mafia 339]

ROhr what if there are sabotagers in our team they just come to our team to press the surrender button because the opposite team has their friends or clanmates.

[Rohrmeister 1,535]

ROhr what if there are sabotagers in our team they just come to our team to press the surrender button because the opposite team has their friends or clanmates.

If mults manage to seize 50% of your team slots, then you have no chance to win anyways ;)

[Pathfinder 1,690]

But if enough players are sitting there doing nothing it is essentially the same thing.

Perhaps it could be all 10 voting to surrender if the team limit is 10, or, decrease the number required as people leave.

Still, it is fair to 8 people who want t o surrender if 2 choose not to?

 

Perhaps a super majority of 66% would be more appropriate.

For me, it is fairer for 8 people who want to surrender to have to play on, than for 2 people to have their own games forcibly ended.

 

If you don't want to play, leave.

[Pathfinder 1,690]

If mults manage to seize 50% of your team slots, then you have no chance to win anyways ;)

This was precisely the reason the kick system was removed in the first place.

 

"If they seize 50% of the teams slots..." You're absolutely right. But your suggestion does not help to resolve the problem, it just encourages it. The aim should be preventing multing in the first place, with is a completely different topic to your surrender option.

 

As regard to the surrender option, I think if the whole team wants it, it is fair. And sometimes it is frustrating to have to sit till the end of a game. But unless the WHOLE team is happy, I don't support this, reasons above ^

[lazer1786 44]

+ support

[Rohrmeister 1,535]

This was precisely the reason the kick system was removed in the first place.

 

"If they seize 50% of the teams slots..." You're absolutely right. But your suggestion does not help to resolve the problem, it just encourages it. The aim should be preventing multing in the first place, with is a completely different topic to your surrender option.

 

As regard to the surrender option, I think if the whole team wants it, it is fair. And sometimes it is frustrating to have to sit till the end of a game. But unless the WHOLE team is happy, I don't support this, reasons above ^

A Kicksystem and a surrender system set out different possibilities to mults.

Lets have a look at it:

 

Kick system

Here mults in your team can kick you out. So you get no share of the fund (nothing!).

This is very beneficial to the mults or their owners.

 

Surrender Button System:

If the mults manage to make you team surrender, you get you full share of the fund, while the mults get nothing (have no score usually). While the mult owners would get much much more, if the battle continues and they could enhance their lead!

-> To make you surrender is not beneficial to them, sorry for you Mults ;)

 

And remember: if they can make you surrender via mults it means two things:

  1) You have 50% mults in your team (50% team vote)

  2) the other team 100% score ahead (100% lead criteria).

Woud you consider this as a battle scenario that would lead to a potential win? ;)

The Surrender-System would save you at least crystals and time.

[creeperskelly 1,281]

For me, it is fairer for 8 people who want to surrender to have to play on, than for 2 people to have their own games forcibly ended.

 

If you don't want to play, leave.

A way to solve the problem of multing is requiring all of the top scorers in the round to surrender. You could consider the entire team's score and when 66% or more of the total team score has agreed to surrender then the team is taken out. This gives the most weight to those who have the most to lose by surrendering and it more or less takes away the ability of some people to join the team for the sole purpose of hitting surrender. If a player's score is very low then their vote literally has no impact. So, if a top scorer has 300 points and a mult joins with 0 points then the mult hitting surrender would affect nothing.

 

If 8 of 10 surrender on a round I highly doubt the remaining two players at the bottom are going to achieve anything other than being slaughtered by the other team.

[Pathfinder 1,690]

A way to solve the problem of multing is requiring all of the top scorers in the round to surrender. You could consider the entire team's score and when 66% or more of the total team score has agreed to surrender then the team is taken out. This gives the most weight to those who have the most to lose by surrendering and it more or less takes away the ability of some people to join the team for the sole purpose of hitting surrender. If a player's score is very low then their vote literally has no impact. So, if a top scorer has 300 points and a mult joins with 0 points then the mult hitting surrender would affect nothing.

 

If 8 of 10 surrender on a round I highly doubt the remaining two players at the bottom are going to achieve anything other than being slaughtered by the other team.

That sounds like a better suggestion.

[Pathfinder 1,690]

Surrender Button System:

If the mults manage to make you team surrender, you get you full share of the fund, while the mults get nothing (have no score usually). While the mult owners would get much much more, if the battle continues and they could enhance their lead!

-> To make you surrender is not beneficial to them, sorry for you Mults ;)

 

And remember: if they can make you surrender via mults it means two things:

  1) You have 50% mults in your team (50% team vote)

  2) the other team 100% score ahead (100% lead criteria).

Woud you consider this as a battle scenario that would lead to a potential win? ;)

The Surrender-System would save you at least crystals and time.

Are you seriously suggesting that a surrender option is of no benefit to multers??

 

Anything can lead to a potential win Rohr. As part of a takeover team we take games over that are way beyond even that.

[Rohrmeister 1,535]

A way to solve the problem of multing is requiring all of the top scorers in the round to surrender. You could consider the entire team's score and when 66% or more of the total team score has agreed to surrender then the team is taken out. [...]

This idea is pointing to a good direction.

Little drawback is the usual accumulation of the voting power in one player in long lasting battles (the high scoring players stay and accumulate points, while the rest of the team is frequently exchanged over time - and can't catch up to him)In this case this one player would decide over all late joined players.

 

Proposed  adaptation:

Maybe we can count only votes of players that have more then 5% of their teams overall score. So there will be not a single dominating player in long lasting battles; and on the other hand mults have no easy access to the surrender service.

 

Creeperskelly: "I highly doubt the remaining two players at the bottom are going to achieve anything..")

Rohr: Exactly that is the point why I consider multing to be no threat to this feature.

 

 

Are you seriously suggesting that a surrender option is of no benefit to multers??

I would highly apriciate if you can outline a scenario where mults make your team surrender _and_ you as loosing team player have a drawback due to the surrender (not due to the mult, but due to the surrender the muls can trigger).

Remember they can not make you surrender as long as you got the last flag (criterias, initial post)

[creeperskelly 1,281]

There is another application of this that we are overlooking. Suppose your team is winning and all of the other team completely bails out. This leaves players on one team with nobody to fight. When this happens the winning team should also be allowed to "surrender" and be able to collect their share of the battle fund without having to wait for the clock to run out. This would only be allowed if the other team had 0 players.

 

I think it is silly with a 30 or 60 minute match to have to wait a long time for it to end when there's nobody fighting.

[magnaboy2 656]

There is another application of this that we are overlooking. Suppose your team is winning and all of the other team completely bails out. This leaves players on one team with nobody to fight. When this happens the winning team should also be allowed to "surrender" and be able to collect their share of the battle fund without having to wait for the clock to run out. This would only be allowed if the other team had 0 players.

 

I think it is silly with a 30 or 60 minute match to have to wait a long time for it to end when there's nobody fighting.

That's why we have already have a system for "Obvious outcome" that only goes in work when there is no enemy left..

[creeperskelly 1,281]

It was removed.