Again, the solution is not to make the game even more toxic.
I have seen what happens in games with surrender features firsthand. It’s always the same. There will always be one player who will try to initiate a surrender vote the moment they feel the game is unwinnable, and if the vote doesn’t go their way, they get even more toxic towards their own team.
Also, say goodbye to actually winning games by completing the objective of the match. Because in the event that your team is about to win? The game will end immediately with a surrender vote, even if it was possible for the enemy team to turn things around.
The game doesn’t need a surrender function. That’s it. End of story.
Proceeds to throw a tantrum in team chat for 3 minutes while afk
Awful awful awful. I can’t think of a worse addition to the game. “Oh we lost first round might as well give up and queue again so we can give up after the first round again”. They got the payload all the way to the 3rd point, might as well give up and hope they don’t push it all the way in the next match".
If you don’t have the resolve to sit and play your best for a few extra minutes then maybe consider not queueing at all and go play a single player game?
A surrender option will be abused to no end. Solo players getting mass reported for not surrendering when stacks want to surrender will be a huge issue, mark my words.
All a surrender button will do is make it easier for stacks to derank/throw and create an even more toxic environment.
I’ll say it again, if you don’t have the resolve to just play the game as best you can regardless of the matches outcome for a couple minutes then either just leave and deal with the penalties or don’t bother queueing up and find something else to do.
If you can’t stick around for the entire duration of a game, then maybe playing this game isn’t for you and you should play something with a shorter duration.
There is no way anyone with infantry and/or special ops training has that weak of a competitive drive or mental fortitude. This dude is just saying some edgy stuff to try to get internet cred on an effectively anonymous video game forum.
15 minutes, in-between que times depending on the role I want to play (often I’ll play “Flex Role” to minimize wait), sifting through game modes I just don’t enjoy (Clash, Flash Point), it can sometimes result in right around 6 or 7 “matches” per session. If I’m playing a little before work, I usually only have an hour or so of time.
On my day’s off, yes I can sometimes throw in a little more time, but I also factor that time into adulting things that I need to get done, other games I might want to play, shows I want to catch up on, etc… so It doesn’t always leave me the time I want to play.
All that to say, if an entire team is saying “Hey, we don’t want to keep going.”, I don’t understand what the issue is with just ending the match. At that point, the game is only continuing so the enemy team can get some gratification out of stomping.
I had a comp game where we had two lever the dps left and did not come back and we where not winning and the red penalty timer cam up and when it got done cont down the tank left the other team said sorry about it
I believe it was mentioned that this is the case in Flats spotlight video on Stadium. It’s a mode that last 15-45 mins apparently, so they decided to implement it.
If they are not going to put in surrender option and have leaver penalties in place then the new thing needs to be in place.
1 ) MAP SELECTION or “MAP BAN” for players. with the caveat that the more maps people select the longer a Q time will be.
2 ) CP matches should NEVER go beyond one round such as Tower, lighthouse oasis.
3 ) Push maps need to take into account that when its very obvious the one team has won. its time to end the match instead of dragging it through the mud forever.
4 ) Flash point maps and clash maps, after two lost engagements the match needs to end.
5 ) on payload race maps, unless someone takes control of the payload within the first 3 minutes. It needs to end.
Overwatch has a problem and that is the “farmers ethics” theory on how it is unethical and inhumane to:
Had someone initiate surrender after the first round in a ranked match in that other game recently. We came back and won but I had to initiate surrender near the end of our winning third round. I hate these whiney bums.
ok my suggestion. If you initiated vote to surrender, or if you voted yes to surrender, you should automatically have a forced “yes” vote if someone initiates surrender after that. If 4 of our team wanted to surrender after round 1, and 2 didn’t, and as we are about to lose, I would love to be able to force a loss on my team by surrendering if my other “no” vote teammate agreed
I think it could work and might be helpful for matches with leavers. But even then leaver penalties help with that. And if you don’t like the leaver penalties, then don’t leave so many matches.
I think with ranked though, it pretty much comes with the whole caveat that it isn’t backfilling people and that it is going to be what it is regardless.
vs Quickplay modes where people are rec gamers seeking thrills that are tailored for their interests vs people that are there for specific match types.
Fair point but I am not interested to stay and fight in Ranked Push mode after the enemy has a significant lead of 130 metres. Other modes, sure, but Push mode needs a surrender button. My mental health is not worth it for beating a dead horse after the enemy gets a significant lead in Push.
Loses first fight - “ggs dps diff” Proceeds to throw a tantrum in team chat for 3 minutes while afk
You make it sounds like this isn’t happening in games rn.
And your response just overlooks some key points.
It is not lacking resolve, sometimes there are valid reasons for players to want to surrender. Maybe the matchmaking were bad, and morale is so low that teammates are just soft throwing. Why continue the suffering? Yea it is a few minutes, but thats a few minutes that I can potentially save for better gaming experience. Forcing players to endure a match that they know they can’t possibly win is demoralising. Don’t tell me you haven’t encountered that scenario.
About the potential abuse, take a look at Rainbow Six Siege. There are cooldowns for surrender, and it requires an unanimous vote. It is also anonymous. Also, only after losing 2 rounds that the team can surrender. Winning teams are not allowed to surrender.
Overgeneralising people who want to surrender as “lack of resolve” is extremely toxic. You can be competitive but games are meant to be enjoyed. I don’t think forcing players to endure a bad match is enjoyable. And the notion of “dont queue at all and go play a single player game” is a such a false dichotomy. This feels like you are insisting that players should either endure frustrating situations or abandon the game altogether. And I think this is one of the reason why this game is faltering.
Your response has a fair points but your comment at the end is just an ultimatum that shows a complete disregard for the diversity of player experiences.
If your mental health can’t cope with a competitive videogame than maybe don’t play it?
I don’t think there is a better feeling in this game than winning from a disadvantaged position. It’s not supposed to be easy and if you think it should be then competitive games just aren’t for you.
I said no such thing. I specifically said it because it DOES happen in games and it’s an instant report/avoid for me. Why even bother queueing up if you are just going to throw because you didn’t get instant gratification as soon as the match started???
It is entirely a lack of resolve and that is a fact.
You seem to be under the allusion that winning=fun. This is a false premise.
The number of games I have won when my team clearly shouldn’t have is innumerable. Nothing feels better in this game that reverse sweeping a cocky smurf duo.
It’s a competitive game. You are going to win and you are going to lose. If you can’t handle losing and don’t have the resolve to play at your best regardless of the outcome then please do the people that actually enjoy this game a favour and find something else to play.
And this statement in no way addressed the concerns I brought up. Players know who is grouped and who is not. Especially in 4 stacks. It’s pretty easy to figure out who isn’t complying. We also don’t really want to be giving smurfs handy dandy tool to auto-derank in 5 stack premades.
So wanting to give up when something seems difficult isn’t a lack of resolve? I guess the truth can also be toxic?
Okay. So if you as a person, don’t like having to be competitive in a competitive game then where does the issue lie?
What is a bad match? Who gets to categorically decide what a bad match is and isn’t?
It is entirely logical. If you as a person are not competitive in nature, why would you purposefully put yourself in positions where you have to be competitive to get results. It’s not a convoluted idea.
If you are the type of person that gives up mentally after the first 30 second-minute of a match then you shouldn’t be playing competitive games and handicapping the experience for 9 other players.
I know that there are people that just want to have an easy time and don’t want to be challenged, but that’s not an excuse for diminishing the competitive experience.
This I believe was Blizzards failure in not going through with the PvE. PvE would have been a great way to give casual players the OW experience and the lore dump they wanted without the need for competitiveness.
That way the people that enjoy it’s competitiveness and have the will to try can carry on playing what they enjoy and the softcore players that want an easier time could have the PvE.
Surrendering doesn’t really make sense in a game like Overwatch. The design of the game means that you can win (or lose) from literally any point in the game.
It’s not like MOBAs where there’s a snowballing economy where leads can become insurmountable and your only hope of winning is an act of god and the entire enemy team being struck with lightning IRL.
Plus, games are pretty short, especially if they’re one-sided. A giga-stomp is over and done with in 5-10 minutes tops. An even game can go on much longer, but you’d never realistically surrender a game that’s even close to over. Meanwhile MOBA matches even if they’re essentially finished at 5 minutes, still take another 20+ to close out even if it’s a stomp.
Like Overwatch gets compared with Rivals a lot, but Rivals has a surrender feature and I think I’ve seen it used literally ONCE in 100 hours of playing. (It failed). The system just makes no sense in a game like Overwatch (or Rivals).
It’s a competitive game. You are going to win and you are going to lose. If you can’t handle losing and don’t have the resolve to play at your best regardless of the outcome then please do the people that actually enjoy this game a favour and find something else to play.
Yea so, surrender means I am willing to take the L earlier. I can handle losing very well so I much rather to just take the L faster. I am just here to enjoy the dynamic.
Maybe there is a slight chance to fight back but eh. It is not worth it. SRs mean nothing to me.
Sometimes, if the entire team has agreed to “aight this match is moot, lets move on”, I think it is ok. Of course, your point on potential abuse makes sense, could be a dealbreaker for adding the surrender vote.
But if you disagree with my point, sure. I am not going to change your stance. And ultimately, its Blizzard’s call. There are rumours that they are going to add it.
