[BATTLEGROUND] Add the ability to forfeit as a group

Xarc · September 28

Add the ability to forfeit as a group in a Battleground ?

When we want to finish faster, whatever the reason (inevitable defeat for example), we should be able to suggest to the other players that they forfeit and lose the battle, rather than waiting 5 minutes unnecessarily...
What do you think ?

This means that all party members agree to:

end the match immediately
lose as if the match had ended

edit:
Just to be clear:
No one decides alone; everyone has to agree in this situation. It's a bit like kicking a player into a dungeon. It's the same principle... No one is offended because it's possible to kick others into a dungeon, yet it is possible, and abuse rarely occurs.

Major_Mangle · September 28

No (please explain why)

I voted no because of how the current PvP demographic looks like in battlegrounds (most aren´t PvP:ers but PvE tourists there for daily exp bonus). It would be abused heavily to get free rewards, much easier to quickly throw a game and move on to the next without any real consequences. It´s also not uncommon if you queue as a group to get extremely long queue times. Imagine waiting 20+ min for a BG just for other team to vote concede after first clash. I wouldn´t blame my friends if they wanted to log off after that.....

If such an option were to be added, it should come with severe consequences (I´d rather ZOS fix the ranking/MMR system to get closer matches, but I consider that wishful thinking at this point). Voting to forfeit should lead to things like:

* No rewards whatsoever, like zero. No AP, no EXP, nothing.
* A small queue penalty.
etc etc

Xarc · September 28

Yes

Major_Mangle wrote: »

I voted no because of how the current PvP demographic looks like in battlegrounds (most aren´t PvP:ers but PvE tourists there for daily exp bonus). It would be abused heavily to get free rewards, much easier to quickly throw a game and move on to the next without any real consequences. It´s also not uncommon if you queue as a group to get extremely long queue times. Imagine waiting 20+ min for a BG just for other team to vote concede after first clash. I wouldn´t blame my friends if they wanted to log off after that.....

If such an option were to be added, it should come with severe consequences (I´d rather ZOS fix the ranking/MMR system to get closer matches, but I consider that wishful thinking at this point). Voting to forfeit should lead to things like:

* No rewards whatsoever, like zero. No AP, no EXP, nothing.
* A small queue penalty.
etc etc

You can still vote against the forfeiture. If you vote no, the game continues.

But keep in mind that people who don't want to play aren't going to start playing just because you declined the forfeit proposal.

Radiate77 · September 28

No (please explain why)

If a team were to concede, they should have no reward as they’ve effectively wasted their opponents time.

Major_Mangle wrote: »

(I´d rather ZOS fix the ranking/MMR system to get closer matches, but I consider that wishful thinking at this point)

I don’t believe the MMR system is broken, nor do I feel bad for people that queued into an activity they have no aspirations to succeed at. ESO is an extremely simple game, with over a decade of resources available for those who want to win.

Radiate77 · September 28

No (please explain why)

Xarc wrote: »

Major_Mangle wrote: »

I voted no because of how the current PvP demographic looks like in battlegrounds (most aren´t PvP:ers but PvE tourists there for daily exp bonus). It would be abused heavily to get free rewards, much easier to quickly throw a game and move on to the next without any real consequences. It´s also not uncommon if you queue as a group to get extremely long queue times. Imagine waiting 20+ min for a BG just for other team to vote concede after first clash. I wouldn´t blame my friends if they wanted to log off after that.....

If such an option were to be added, it should come with severe consequences (I´d rather ZOS fix the ranking/MMR system to get closer matches, but I consider that wishful thinking at this point). Voting to forfeit should lead to things like:

* No rewards whatsoever, like zero. No AP, no EXP, nothing.
* A small queue penalty.
etc etc

You can still vote against the forfeiture. If you vote no, the game continues.

But keep in mind that people who don't want to play aren't going to start playing just because you declined the forfeit proposal.

Those are my favorite! Especially on the bridge map, where I can spawn kill the quitters until they actually do quit the match.

Sarannah · September 28

No (please explain why)

No, as this can be easily abused to farm free AP and the daily bonus.

PS: It's funny how this was never requested for the old 3-team BG's.

spartaxoxo · September 29

Yes

Yes. Just make forfeits not count towards the daily quest for the losers. Winners still get credits. I think prioritizing the game modes health and enjoyment is more important than policing every single rewards. Other games have this option and they're generally better for it.

Xarc · September 29

Yes

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Other games have this option and they're generally better for it.

This is true

The final result is the same, but you dont waste time waiting for nothing.
I do BGs almost every day and I see too often the disproportionate groups with players leaving. If this possibility existed, it would be a real time saver.

ganzaeso · September 29

No (please explain why)

There is no need for this feature.

If everyone stops fighting for a period the match will end automatically as it is built into battle grounds already. Getting everyone to stop fighting for the time it needs to activate is almost impossible though and everyone will receive the deserter status.

If someone is still fighting an election to forfeit the match would just be disruptive to them and they are most likely to decline the forfeit if they are still fighting. The net result would be those who want to quit still have to be there or take the deserter penalty anyways.

Depending on how a feature like this is implemented, it can be used to troll groups by repeatedly proposing forfeiture and disrupting the groups play. Imagine a hypothetical team that is just dominating and winning then out of the blue a popup comes up saying do you want to forfeit every few seconds.

To summarize this kind of feature is disruptive and open to abuse, which will just create more problems.

Pinja · September 29

other (please explain why)

Players leaving matches is a big problem. Even with mmr if a player is on a win streak they eventually get put in a match with new players and get wiped all the same. Bad matches happen to everyone which is a problem.

During some peak hours players get replaced fast and can lead to a comeback. Balanced matches lead to the most medal points being generated. I've seen it happen even after players leave that they get replaced by someone stronger that can flip the match.

While I do think that something needs to be done I'd prefer 4v4v4 over a surrender option. Although the natural win ratio is higher in 4v4, 33% vs 50%.

If a surrender option is implemented I suggest there should be a minimum amount of time that a match must last before the option becomes available. Also the Move Out timer (the forced teleport into the arena) should be reduced to 30s down from 2mins so players are more encouraged to play the match.

There's a guy on Xbox NA that can get 1500 points of Blessed Assistance Medals sitting in spawn. It throws it for his team, but they climb the leader-board all the same.

Monte_Cristo · September 29

Sarannah wrote: »

PS: It's funny how this was never requested for the old 3-team BG's.

Probably cause in 3 team, 2nd and 3rd would fight over 2nd place for the rewards. 2nd and 3rd being close seemed to be more common than 3rd being way behind 2nd.

Xarc · September 29

Yes

Pinja wrote: »

If a surrender option is implemented I suggest there should be a minimum amount of time that a match must last before the option becomes available.

Yes, I think it's a good idea to have a minimum time limit.

But when the match starts as a 3vs4 and a player decides to leave after the first round, we end up at a 2vs4; it's simply no longer possible, and waiting 3 minutes for nothing at the spawn point or dying, I find that absurd.

Chrisilis · September 29

other (please explain why)

MAYBE battleground PvP should be reworked SO PEOPLE ARENT DISCUSSING WAYS TO QUIT PLAYING IT BECAUSE SO MANY MATCHES ARE ******* HOPELESS. I mean, call me crazy but IT SURE WOULD BE NICE TO LOOK FORWARD TO PLAYING AGAIN AND NOT THINKING ABOUT WAYS TO QUIT EARLY.

As @Sarannah pointed out above, Its funny how this was never an issue with 3 team battlegrounds.

Iriidius · September 29

Yes

Xarc wrote: »

Major_Mangle wrote: »

I voted no because of how the current PvP demographic looks like in battlegrounds (most aren´t PvP:ers but PvE tourists there for daily exp bonus). It would be abused heavily to get free rewards, much easier to quickly throw a game and move on to the next without any real consequences. It´s also not uncommon if you queue as a group to get extremely long queue times. Imagine waiting 20+ min for a BG just for other team to vote concede after first clash. I wouldn´t blame my friends if they wanted to log off after that.....

If such an option were to be added, it should come with severe consequences (I´d rather ZOS fix the ranking/MMR system to get closer matches, but I consider that wishful thinking at this point). Voting to forfeit should lead to things like:

* No rewards whatsoever, like zero. No AP, no EXP, nothing.
* A small queue penalty.
etc etc

You can still vote against the forfeiture. If you vote no, the game continues.

But keep in mind that people who don't want to play aren't going to start playing just because you declined the forfeit proposal.

Than there is no difference between forfeit as group and just all quitting the battleground other than the length of the penalty. I would probably swap character to avoid wait no matter the length if I wanted to do another battleground after such a bad one at all.

ganzaeso · September 29

No (please explain why)

How would it even be possible to prevent leader board scamming, if this was added?

To some degree it already happens, but this would put direct control of which matches happen in organized play.

Orbital78 · September 29

other (please explain why)

while there are plenty of matches that are so lopsided that it is not fun and I would like to just call it, I know this would be abused.

Radiate77 · September 29

No (please explain why)

I love how quickly this devolved into 4v4 vs 4v4v4.

We have clearly been playing different games, as my 4v4v4s would often not fill even after waiting in 30 minute queues which were the average, leaving the game 4v4v2 because of how unpopular the mode was, and when you finally did line up a full match, it usually devolved into 1st place farming 2nd and 3rd while 3rd did everything in their power to annoy 2nd, with people completely ignoring objectives while one team avoided PvP entirely… racing around the map capturing completely uncontested points. Teams with healers still dominated, people still sat in spawn and soft-quit when losing, and the population for Battlegrounds was in shambles.

I get this is a fantasy game, but let’s face reality. More people are willing to play two teams… even with the reduced overall number of people playing the game currently. That speaks volumes about how well they have been received.

Maybe one day we can have both modes.

Dock01 · September 30

Yes

Yeah the fact it doesn’t even have that is pretty telling. Nobody on the team knows how to design a pvp game. Every actual pvp game with team matchups has a surrender button, and here we are begging for one. Unbelievable. As if their design is peak, perfect and "fair" It's the complete opposite, and gaslighting will only make more players quit, the bg announcers are as bad , "dont give up dont giveup" Meanwhile we're going to lose all because of the terrible drafting system, revolting

The Elder Scrolls Online

[BATTLEGROUND] Add the ability to forfeit as a group

[BATTLEGROUND] Add the ability to forfeit as a group 32 votes