Why doesn't BG's have a surrender option?

Avran_Sylt

Kinda just depressing to sit in spawn spammed at range from the bridge at the small medieval tournament map in a losing chaos ball match where the enemy team stops holding the chaosball objective. I don't want to quit either to be a double-loser.

Thumbless_Bot

The new formats weren't well thought out and, apparently, were designed by people who do not have a complete understanding of combat mechanics in the game. I am not sure on this but I can't imagine this is intended gameplay but i could be wrong. I hate typing this as much as I hate that it is the reality of the situation.

Try to make the most of it. After all, it's just a game. That's the only way to think aboutbitm

Avran_Sylt

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

The new formats weren't well thought out and, apparently, were designed by people who do not have a complete understanding of combat mechanics in the game. I am not sure on this but I can't imagine this is intended gameplay but i could be wrong. I hate typing this as much as I hate that it is the reality of the situation.

Try to make the most of it. After all, it's just a game. That's the only way to think aboutbitm

Oh I do have some good games, games where it's close cut and all that and I do enjoy them (also ones where I'm on the side doing the steamrolling). But I would like the game to respect my time. As such: in the case of a heavily lopsided match, the possibility of a group vote on calling it early.

Taril

The issue with surrender options, is that invariably, people will start using them the SECOND that things aren't highly in their favour, with people just giving up even when a match is actually fair but with a rocky start.

So surrender options are less likely to be implemented for the actual times when there are stomps, because people will abuse them whenever they're not getting carried...

Avran_Sylt

Taril wrote: »

The issue with surrender options, is that invariably, people will start using them the SECOND that things aren't highly in their favour, with people just giving up even when a match is actually fair but with a rocky start.

So surrender options are less likely to be implemented for the actual times when there are stomps, because people will abuse them whenever they're not getting carried...

Could make reaching the halfway point of the match be the trigger to enable the option to vote for a surrender.

And for the most part the few comebacks I've seen are when people actually just plain quit and are filled by more competent players.

Major_Mangle

Because it would be borderline considered griefing due to how the ESO playerbase works. You lose one round and you stop PvP/feeding which is such a strange mentality I rarely see in other PvP games. Also nothing worse than waiting 10-20 minutes for a game (mostly when you queue as a group) than the opposite team instantly "surrender" because the game isn´t in your favor and a cakewalk. Just feels that you´ve wasted your time at that point.

If there was a surrender option it should come with consequences of not getting any rewards whatsoever from that match, no AP, no leaderboard points, nothing. Then maybe I´ll be ok with it.

Xarc

ye sure, give to cowards an option to ragequit and leave alone the other dudes trying to do their best
this loser behavior should instead be sanctionned with a better penalty delay, you should not be able to join a BG for 24h

Avran_Sylt

Major_Mangle wrote: »

Because it would be borderline considered griefing due to how the ESO playerbase works. You lose one round and you stop PvP/feeding which is such a strange mentality I rarely see in other PvP games. Also nothing worse than waiting 10-20 minutes for a game (mostly when you queue as a group) than the opposite team instantly "surrender" because the game isn´t in your favor and a cakewalk. Just feels that you´ve wasted your time at that point.

If there was a surrender option it should come with consequences of not getting any rewards whatsoever from that match, no AP, no leaderboard points, nothing. Then maybe I´ll be ok with it.

You seem to be of the opinion that you get annoyed when you can't practice your rotations against a losing team. That seems less like you enjoy PvP and more like you just like popping numbers.

Sure, I don't mind if people lose out on AP from not finishing BGs. Some people play because they simply want to enjoy an experience. Leaderboards aren't too much a concern IMO. Gameplay is.

IF the MAJORITY of the opposing team isn't having fun, why hold them there?

Major_Mangle

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Major_Mangle wrote: »

Because it would be borderline considered griefing due to how the ESO playerbase works. You lose one round and you stop PvP/feeding which is such a strange mentality I rarely see in other PvP games. Also nothing worse than waiting 10-20 minutes for a game (mostly when you queue as a group) than the opposite team instantly "surrender" because the game isn´t in your favor and a cakewalk. Just feels that you´ve wasted your time at that point.

If there was a surrender option it should come with consequences of not getting any rewards whatsoever from that match, no AP, no leaderboard points, nothing. Then maybe I´ll be ok with it.

You seem to be of the opinion that you get annoyed when you can't practice your rotations against a losing team. That seems less like you enjoy PvP and more like you just like popping numbers.

Sure, I don't mind if people lose out on AP from not finishing BGs. Some people play because they simply want to enjoy an experience. Leaderboards aren't too much a concern IMO. Gameplay is.

IF the MAJORITY of the opposing team isn't having fun, why hold them there?

The core problem is that ZOS didn´t bother to adress the issue of a properly balanced MMR/ranking system in order to avoid games being too one sided. And no I don´t care about numbers in that sense other than I want to actually spend more time PvP:ing than waiting for a game to start, and once that game starts and opposing team starts feeding it feels like a huge waste of time on my end.

tsaescishoeshiner

Because then once you get a slight disadvantage, players would give up and start voting to surrender lol. The attitude that makes me enjoy BGs the most is where my teammates keep trying to win or try to stay at least neutral (if not positive) during a losing match. It's not fun waiting out a stalled match and maybe it should be reportable, but it's pretty rare that people bother to do that.

I hear about other MMOs where people are much quicker to start flaming and complaining, and I enjoy that it's more rare in ESO. I can get emotional about PvP, but I prefer to play where people don't try to bring other people down with them.

Avran_Sylt

tsaescishoeshiner wrote: »

Because then once you get a slight disadvantage, players would give up and start voting to surrender lol. The attitude that makes me enjoy BGs the most is where my teammates keep trying to win or try to stay at least neutral (if not positive) during a losing match. It's not fun waiting out a stalled match and maybe it should be reportable, but it's pretty rare that people bother to do that.

I hear about other MMOs where people are much quicker to start flaming and complaining, and I enjoy that it's more rare in ESO. I can get emotional about PvP, but I prefer to play where people don't try to bring other people down with them.

I am very confused about your sentimentality.

A surrender option would be there if most of the entire team feels like it's unwinnable.

Not as an option for an individual to surrender for the whole team.

(You already have that as is with being a sore loser and feeding/sitting in base).

Avran_Sylt

I suppose the current surrender option is just to sit in base and AFK watching youtube, ultimately just wasting more time on everyone's part. Unless the only thing you're concerned about is winning, and gameplay itself being interesting or fun isn't actually a factor.

the1andonlyskwex

Surrender options are too easily abused (especially in group queues). If the winners still get full rewards, then players quickly learn that it's better to trade surrenders than to actually play matches. If you try to combat that by reducing rewards, then people will surrender just to deny their opponents real victories.

BGs are so short (especially when they aren't well balanced) and unpredictable (where teams that get off to bad starts still win pretty regularly) that I really don't understand the desire for a surrender option anyway. Just let the match play out. The outcome might surprise you, and if it doesn't, it will be over soon anyway.

The only real exception I know of is when a bad 4v4 DM team has one player who evades dying by avoiding combat (or by being ridiculously tanky, I suppose), but that's a problem that should be fixed by changing the rules of the mode (and fixing the tank meta) and not by letting the rest of the team surrender.

mmtaniac

Because people that win games will cry they can't farm losing teams anymore.

tsaescishoeshiner

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

tsaescishoeshiner wrote: »

Because then once you get a slight disadvantage, players would give up and start voting to surrender lol. The attitude that makes me enjoy BGs the most is where my teammates keep trying to win or try to stay at least neutral (if not positive) during a losing match. It's not fun waiting out a stalled match and maybe it should be reportable, but it's pretty rare that people bother to do that.

I hear about other MMOs where people are much quicker to start flaming and complaining, and I enjoy that it's more rare in ESO. I can get emotional about PvP, but I prefer to play where people don't try to bring other people down with them.

I am very confused about your sentimentality.

A surrender option would be there if most of the entire team feels like it's unwinnable.

Not as an option for an individual to surrender for the whole team.

(You already have that as is with being a sore loser and feeding/sitting in base).

Right, but people would have to vote individually, otherwise how does the game know if most of the team finds it unwinnable? And this is where the issue starts, because people would start off thinking about potentially surrendering, and then it would cause team disagreements about surrendering.

So the first individual would lose hope, sometimes after their first death or lost fight with the enemy team, and start campaigning to surrender so that they can move on to the next match for a new chance at finishing their daily win quest. Then they would be complaining that their team was dumb for not surrendering. Even without surrendering, some players already do this lol as you mentioned, and a surrender option would make it more common and make giving up on players' minds from the start.

The option to surrender would reward players for identifying as early as possible whether they should give up on a match. It would also make people think about whether they should surrender from the start. Some players are very sensitive to losing hope in a match or feeling defeated and it brings everyone down, and the option to surrender, and a culture of having to argue whether to surrender or not, would absolutely be no fun. Major downer.

Because it would inevitably would lead to situations where some players on a team want to surrender and some don't--leading to fights and a bad team feeling. We've all fought matches that we knew weren't winnable. But it would be magical thinking to suggest that a surrender option would only solve those matches and not cause other morale issues and arguments.

The mindset of players who give up early and flame their teammates would be fed by this and make the culture worse. Mentally, some players get caught in a loop where they get discouraged and salty easily, and this would feed into that for the reasons above. If that doesn't make sense to you as I see it, that's okay, I just see it as encouraging people's worst habits and sitting through an unwinnable game is much, much preferable, even if it feels dumb at the time. Just try to kill one player or chat with your team.

Avran_Sylt

tsaescishoeshiner wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

tsaescishoeshiner wrote: »

Because then once you get a slight disadvantage, players would give up and start voting to surrender lol. The attitude that makes me enjoy BGs the most is where my teammates keep trying to win or try to stay at least neutral (if not positive) during a losing match. It's not fun waiting out a stalled match and maybe it should be reportable, but it's pretty rare that people bother to do that.

I hear about other MMOs where people are much quicker to start flaming and complaining, and I enjoy that it's more rare in ESO. I can get emotional about PvP, but I prefer to play where people don't try to bring other people down with them.

I am very confused about your sentimentality.

A surrender option would be there if most of the entire team feels like it's unwinnable.

Not as an option for an individual to surrender for the whole team.

(You already have that as is with being a sore loser and feeding/sitting in base).

Right, but people would have to vote individually, otherwise how does the game know if most of the team finds it unwinnable? And this is where the issue starts, because people would start off thinking about potentially surrendering, and then it would cause team disagreements about surrendering.

So the first individual would lose hope, sometimes after their first death or lost fight with the enemy team, and start campaigning to surrender so that they can move on to the next match for a new chance at finishing their daily win quest. Then they would be complaining that their team was dumb for not surrendering. Even without surrendering, some players already do this lol as you mentioned, and a surrender option would make it more common and make giving up on players' minds from the start.

The option to surrender would reward players for identifying as early as possible whether they should give up on a match. It would also make people think about whether they should surrender from the start. Some players are very sensitive to losing hope in a match or feeling defeated and it brings everyone down, and the option to surrender, and a culture of having to argue whether to surrender or not, would absolutely be no fun. Major downer.

Because it would inevitably would lead to situations where some players on a team want to surrender and some don't--leading to fights and a bad team feeling. We've all fought matches that we knew weren't winnable. But it would be magical thinking to suggest that a surrender option would only solve those matches and not cause other morale issues and arguments.

The mindset of players who give up early and flame their teammates would be fed by this and make the culture worse. Mentally, some players get caught in a loop where they get discouraged and salty easily, and this would feed into that for the reasons above. If that doesn't make sense to you as I see it, that's okay, I just see it as encouraging people's worst habits and sitting through an unwinnable game is much, much preferable, even if it feels dumb at the time. Just try to kill one player or chat with your team.

Yes, it would be individual votes to reach a majority. 3/4 for 4v4 and 5/8 for 8v8.

I am concerned as to why dying a single time is even something you consider as being a trigger in this games PvP. Ideally players should be dying multiple times and getting kills multiple times, so dying once shouldn't be an issue.

If at first you don't succeed, try another method: Change out gear, change to different skills, learn the powerup spawns, adapt to the needs of the group.

Of course current PvP doesn't really support that, given how expensive and time consuming it is to make varied builds or try new setups as there are no starter loadouts. It's also a hassle to change your gear with sometimes indefinite combat states.

But, we are playing competitively, right? Rewarding players for having game knowledge, such as early identification of a smackdown should also be rewarded if the team concurs. If the game doesn't give the players the option to adapt easily, reward the players for reaching a consensus on that. If there is not consensus, well, it'll still be the same thing now and the salty players can sit in base.

You seem to be approaching this from the opinion that the majority of BG players don't like BGs, or PvP for that matter... If they're losing the objective, players will no doubt also just like the PvP combat slugfest and tune out the objective (seen it happen a few times). But in the event that the players are completely mismatched and even the combat doesn't feel fun for the losing team, then they have an out via a majority surrender in the event that the match-type they're in would otherwise be dragged out (or if the enemy team are being poor sports).

the1andonlyskwex

So, let's say someone initiates a surrender vote and it fails, what happens then? Now the initiator's teammates know they've given up, and the initiator is pissed that their vote failed. It seems like nothing good can happen after that. It just breeds toxicity.

If you're such a sore loser that you can't tough it out through the rest of the match, just drop out and use your deserter penalty to relax (because getting that bent out of shape over a game isn't healthy).

tsaescishoeshiner

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

tsaescishoeshiner wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

tsaescishoeshiner wrote: »

Because then once you get a slight disadvantage, players would give up and start voting to surrender lol. The attitude that makes me enjoy BGs the most is where my teammates keep trying to win or try to stay at least neutral (if not positive) during a losing match. It's not fun waiting out a stalled match and maybe it should be reportable, but it's pretty rare that people bother to do that.

I hear about other MMOs where people are much quicker to start flaming and complaining, and I enjoy that it's more rare in ESO. I can get emotional about PvP, but I prefer to play where people don't try to bring other people down with them.

I am very confused about your sentimentality.

A surrender option would be there if most of the entire team feels like it's unwinnable.

Not as an option for an individual to surrender for the whole team.

(You already have that as is with being a sore loser and feeding/sitting in base).

Right, but people would have to vote individually, otherwise how does the game know if most of the team finds it unwinnable? And this is where the issue starts, because people would start off thinking about potentially surrendering, and then it would cause team disagreements about surrendering.

So the first individual would lose hope, sometimes after their first death or lost fight with the enemy team, and start campaigning to surrender so that they can move on to the next match for a new chance at finishing their daily win quest. Then they would be complaining that their team was dumb for not surrendering. Even without surrendering, some players already do this lol as you mentioned, and a surrender option would make it more common and make giving up on players' minds from the start.

The option to surrender would reward players for identifying as early as possible whether they should give up on a match. It would also make people think about whether they should surrender from the start. Some players are very sensitive to losing hope in a match or feeling defeated and it brings everyone down, and the option to surrender, and a culture of having to argue whether to surrender or not, would absolutely be no fun. Major downer.

Because it would inevitably would lead to situations where some players on a team want to surrender and some don't--leading to fights and a bad team feeling. We've all fought matches that we knew weren't winnable. But it would be magical thinking to suggest that a surrender option would only solve those matches and not cause other morale issues and arguments.

The mindset of players who give up early and flame their teammates would be fed by this and make the culture worse. Mentally, some players get caught in a loop where they get discouraged and salty easily, and this would feed into that for the reasons above. If that doesn't make sense to you as I see it, that's okay, I just see it as encouraging people's worst habits and sitting through an unwinnable game is much, much preferable, even if it feels dumb at the time. Just try to kill one player or chat with your team.

Yes, it would be individual votes to reach a majority. 3/4 for 4v4 and 5/8 for 8v8.

I am concerned as to why dying a single time is even something you consider as being a trigger in this games PvP. Ideally players should be dying multiple times and getting kills multiple times, so dying once shouldn't be an issue.

If at first you don't succeed, try another method: Change out gear, change to different skills, learn the powerup spawns, adapt to the needs of the group.

Of course current PvP doesn't really support that, given how expensive and time consuming it is to make varied builds or try new setups as there are no starter loadouts. It's also a hassle to change your gear with sometimes indefinite combat states.

But, we are playing competitively, right? Rewarding players for having game knowledge, such as early identification of a smackdown should also be rewarded if the team concurs. If the game doesn't give the players the option to adapt easily, reward the players for reaching a consensus on that. If there is not consensus, well, it'll still be the same thing now and the salty players can sit in base.

You seem to be approaching this from the opinion that the majority of BG players don't like BGs, or PvP for that matter... If they're losing the objective, players will no doubt also just like the PvP combat slugfest and tune out the objective (seen it happen a few times). But in the event that the players are completely mismatched and even the combat doesn't feel fun for the losing team, then they have an out via a majority surrender in the event that the match-type they're in would otherwise be dragged out (or if the enemy team are being poor sports).

Some players get salty and flamey and defensive in battlegrounds. It's just a mental habit some people get in. And even as a minority of players, one player like that on your team brings it all down, and (to some extent) spreads it to other people. I don't want the choice of surrendering because of how it changes the perspective you bring to battlegrounds with random players. In particular, it will encourage some players to get into a doom loop every match.

the1andonlyskwex wrote: »

So, let's say someone initiates a surrender vote and it fails, what happens then? Now the initiator's teammates know they've given up, and the initiator is pissed that their vote failed. It seems like nothing good can happen after that. It just breeds toxicity.

If you're such a sore loser that you can't tough it out through the rest of the match, just drop out and use your deserter penalty to relax (because getting that bent out of shape over a game isn't healthy).

I think that's a good description of how it encourages a bad mindset that negatively impacts a whole team.

Avran_Sylt

the1andonlyskwex wrote: »

So, let's say someone initiates a surrender vote and it fails, what happens then? Now the initiator's teammates know they've given up, and the initiator is pissed that their vote failed. It seems like nothing good can happen after that. It just breeds toxicity.

If you're such a sore loser that you can't tough it out through the rest of the match, just drop out and use your deserter penalty to relax (because getting that bent out of shape over a game isn't healthy).

Hmm. You know, that’s actually a good point. Making the system out to be the bad guy would indeed reduce inter-player toxicity, as it would generally be the system itself that’s the source of the toxicity.

Though that might just reduce player count overall and actually be detrimental to the health of the game-mode since people would get fed up with a lack of agency.

But why would I quit the match? Just go AFK and alt-tab, do something else.

I don’t get too bent out of shape too often, but there are matchups where the team comps just assure a stomp, there’s nothing to really to tough out, as there really isn’t any experience to be had.

I have been on both the giving, and receiving end of matchups like these. Once I’ve had teammates purposely hold the enemy teams relic and not capture it (even though we were sitting at 400 to 100) bc they wanted to enjoy a one-sided deathmatch.

I mean they were also a heal tank so they could have also wanted to farm score.

But being able to put the enemy team into such a point of lack of agency just feels wrong.

Avran_Sylt

tsaescishoeshiner wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

tsaescishoeshiner wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

tsaescishoeshiner wrote: »

Because then once you get a slight disadvantage, players would give up and start voting to surrender lol. The attitude that makes me enjoy BGs the most is where my teammates keep trying to win or try to stay at least neutral (if not positive) during a losing match. It's not fun waiting out a stalled match and maybe it should be reportable, but it's pretty rare that people bother to do that.

I hear about other MMOs where people are much quicker to start flaming and complaining, and I enjoy that it's more rare in ESO. I can get emotional about PvP, but I prefer to play where people don't try to bring other people down with them.

I am very confused about your sentimentality.

A surrender option would be there if most of the entire team feels like it's unwinnable.

Not as an option for an individual to surrender for the whole team.

(You already have that as is with being a sore loser and feeding/sitting in base).

Right, but people would have to vote individually, otherwise how does the game know if most of the team finds it unwinnable? And this is where the issue starts, because people would start off thinking about potentially surrendering, and then it would cause team disagreements about surrendering.

So the first individual would lose hope, sometimes after their first death or lost fight with the enemy team, and start campaigning to surrender so that they can move on to the next match for a new chance at finishing their daily win quest. Then they would be complaining that their team was dumb for not surrendering. Even without surrendering, some players already do this lol as you mentioned, and a surrender option would make it more common and make giving up on players' minds from the start.

The option to surrender would reward players for identifying as early as possible whether they should give up on a match. It would also make people think about whether they should surrender from the start. Some players are very sensitive to losing hope in a match or feeling defeated and it brings everyone down, and the option to surrender, and a culture of having to argue whether to surrender or not, would absolutely be no fun. Major downer.

Because it would inevitably would lead to situations where some players on a team want to surrender and some don't--leading to fights and a bad team feeling. We've all fought matches that we knew weren't winnable. But it would be magical thinking to suggest that a surrender option would only solve those matches and not cause other morale issues and arguments.

The mindset of players who give up early and flame their teammates would be fed by this and make the culture worse. Mentally, some players get caught in a loop where they get discouraged and salty easily, and this would feed into that for the reasons above. If that doesn't make sense to you as I see it, that's okay, I just see it as encouraging people's worst habits and sitting through an unwinnable game is much, much preferable, even if it feels dumb at the time. Just try to kill one player or chat with your team.

Yes, it would be individual votes to reach a majority. 3/4 for 4v4 and 5/8 for 8v8.

I am concerned as to why dying a single time is even something you consider as being a trigger in this games PvP. Ideally players should be dying multiple times and getting kills multiple times, so dying once shouldn't be an issue.

If at first you don't succeed, try another method: Change out gear, change to different skills, learn the powerup spawns, adapt to the needs of the group.

Of course current PvP doesn't really support that, given how expensive and time consuming it is to make varied builds or try new setups as there are no starter loadouts. It's also a hassle to change your gear with sometimes indefinite combat states.

But, we are playing competitively, right? Rewarding players for having game knowledge, such as early identification of a smackdown should also be rewarded if the team concurs. If the game doesn't give the players the option to adapt easily, reward the players for reaching a consensus on that. If there is not consensus, well, it'll still be the same thing now and the salty players can sit in base.

You seem to be approaching this from the opinion that the majority of BG players don't like BGs, or PvP for that matter... If they're losing the objective, players will no doubt also just like the PvP combat slugfest and tune out the objective (seen it happen a few times). But in the event that the players are completely mismatched and even the combat doesn't feel fun for the losing team, then they have an out via a majority surrender in the event that the match-type they're in would otherwise be dragged out (or if the enemy team are being poor sports).

Some players get salty and flamey and defensive in battlegrounds. It's just a mental habit some people get in. And even as a minority of players, one player like that on your team brings it all down, and (to some extent) spreads it to other people. I don't want the choice of surrendering because of how it changes the perspective you bring to battlegrounds with random players. In particular, it will encourage some players to get into a doom loop every match.

the1andonlyskwex wrote: »

So, let's say someone initiates a surrender vote and it fails, what happens then? Now the initiator's teammates know they've given up, and the initiator is pissed that their vote failed. It seems like nothing good can happen after that. It just breeds toxicity.

If you're such a sore loser that you can't tough it out through the rest of the match, just drop out and use your deserter penalty to relax (because getting that bent out of shape over a game isn't healthy).

I think that's a good description of how it encourages a bad mindset that negatively impacts a whole team.

Players can already get into a doom loop, and just sit in spawn and trash-talk the team. Though IMO I don’t see too much talking anyway unless the teams have been wholly unbalanced and we get a couple people just sitting up in spawn waiting for the match to end commenting on how bad BG’s can get and the utter trash state of PvP.

Like who on earth thought variable death timers were a good idea, especially on Relic Capture modes where you respawn nearby the relic point.

Thumbless_Bot

for anyone older than say 40, it's pretty obvious... https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089695/