Why not just add a feature that allows a vote to be cast in M+ dungeons that allow 3/5 or 5/5 to forfeit the key?
I mean it’s done in other ranked gameplay such as Valorant where if all 5 people don’t vote to quit the game, all 5 people must stay or be penalized after a certain amount of times you leave early.
I don’t think this is a cure-all, but what are your thoughts?
Ah this thread again
If someone wants to leave but the other members of the group don’t, that individual can drive the others to want to leave through either inaction or direct sabotage.
Valorant is random queued content.
So the 2/5 that voted no are held hostage?
I vote to leave. Get voted against. I now afk and watch youtube while making a sandwich. Brilliant game design from GD players.
This. You can’t force me to complete a key that I don’t want to.
I’m both for and against this, because obviously yeah I’m not going to stick around for a key that is getting bricked when it’s clearly a mechanical issue. If it’s not hard content, and you’re obviously incapable of doing it, I’m going to make a judgement call with my time and say yes this is worth it or not it’s not.
The vast majority of the issue is people who play poorly, blame the group, then leave and cause the key to be wiped.
I’m on key hiatus right now after this happened to me. I had an 18 HoV, which quickly became a 15 HoV because of leavers. In every single situation, the person who left was the reason the key was a failure.
This kind of behavior is completely unpunished and imo entirely unacceptable, but it kinda falls in the realm of the shopping cart litmus test. There’s nothing stopping you from leaving the key, you won’t be punished for doing so. If you really wanted, you could sign-up to keys all day and the instant the keystone was put in you could leave and brick the group - there would be no punishment for it at all. Is it bad? Yeah, it’s terrible, but you’re allowed to do it and for that reason it will continue to be an option.
I remember reading a thread earlier about why people do a certain thing in groups - I think it was something along the lines of rolling need on pieces of gear that they don’t need from LFR or w/e. The response was “because I’m allowed to”, and that encapsulates the entire situation. You’re allowed to do these things, therefore the only thing stopping me from doing it is whether or not I care about you or your keystone.
That’s life my dude, there’s no way of getting away from it.
You don’t get to hold people hostage in a key, the end. Stop with this nonsense.
You wont get traction for this, especially in this sub thread.
Just ignore the person, blacklist them, and be glad you don’t have to associate with them again.
Because it’s a terrible idea that would kill m+. You think finding a group is hard now? Good luck pugging with the threat of being locked into keys.
The ability to vote to end a key, and move onto the next one, is the opposite of being locked into keys.
Hell, even in a game with terrible players, the narrative/trend from players I know is the opposite of people refusing to surrender - far more common is that people will just accept any surrender vote the moment it pops up. Surrender just being a formal way to end/leave means that you don’t have to deal with any leaver penalities, which again should just means fewer “innocent” people being hit by leaver penalties if that was a concern.
In games that have the feature, Votes to surrender or end the match are also used in game modes that are non-random non-queued content. It just formalises a way to end the game and move onto the next one.
There are even rules for how to approach surrenders in competitive matches.
The person locked into the group and stuck there as the only one or one of two that voted to disband is “hostage”. It’s a very basic concept.
Like I said in literally the next sentence, the far more common trend is the exact opposite of that.
In addition, absolutely nothing can prevent a person from just hearthing out and/or leaving the group. Or quitting the game. It just makes far more sense if the option is available to try and use a surrender vote first if the feature is available. From the rest of the group’s perspective, it also makes far more sense to accept the surrender.
I’m sorry to hear about your incidents and all the incidences like them, and I agree, it’s not a good way for the leaving person to handle the situation. I sincerely believe, however, that the motivation for this is shame and fear of ridicule. They’re not leaving to ruin your key, they’re leaving because they’re embarrassed that they already ruined the key and don’t want to feel worse about it by being yelled at.
I wish these people would understand that they’re amplifying whatever mistake they made when they do this, and I think it’s a pretty weak way to handle an issue, but I have seen some of the reactions people have had to what are ultimately just mistakes, and I have some sympathy for the person who doesn’t want to deal with that.
I know it’s too much to hope that the community at large could do better about accepting mistakes of the people in their groups, but I think trying to find a bit of sympathy for the person who is so ashamed of their mistake that they had to quit might help ease the feeling of a need for punishment.
It doesn’t matter what the “common trend” is. The fact someone can be held hostage based on a vote is a no-go. What do you think happens to player performance if they are forced to stay and complete something? This is ridiculous. If groups are struggling and someone has had enough, they should be able to leave.
People generally don’t leave groups that are going well.
Which makes the entire vote system pointless. This isn’t 12 angry men.
What if one night, I decide that I will be unintentionally griefing keys because I had a little too much wine with my dinner. Now I’m signing up because I want to play but I keep causing wipes. Group is upset and doesn’t want to continue and reform new party without me, but guess what? Now I’m upset because they are picking on me for playing poorly/having the desire to remove me. If I vote no to stopping the dungeon then what happens?
If your suggestion isn’t actually trying to bind the vote in some way and is just a way to try to introduce a bit of etiquette to it then I guess it wouldn’t hurt anything. But it also seems like an empty gesture to have a vote if 4 people can to finish and the 1 dissenter can still leave.
But people have made it clear with visible vs. invisible rolls that they are willing to take irrational positions, so maybe just pretending that they were consulted would make people feel significantly better. If voting to surrender makes people stop complaining about players leaving keys and it doesn’t come with any compulsion to finish or punishment, then I’m all for it.
He’s seriously just a chronic contrarian. All he does.
Again, like I said in literally the next sentence after you quoted, nothing stops a player from leaving.
The trend does show some relevance in trying to highlight whether something could reasonably be an issue or not, and that’s the reason to look into how people are using it in games where it’s an option. There’s zero reason to believe the narrative you’re pitching could ever become a thing.
That’s literally untrue though. The point of a Vote system is to formalise the process, which comes with other benefits and tie-ins to other systems. For example, when the team surrenders in a game where the option is possible, everyone gets to move on to the next game, and no one is hit with any leaver penalty. That’s a clear benefit/purpose.
It also at least opens a point of possible discussion, but obvs a non-cohesive team isn’t going to take that, but maybe some groups will.
Then again, like I said, why even have a vote option?
Which serves absolutely zero purpose if people can leave regardless of the vote outcome.
If people are held hostage with a threat of a consequence for leaving then they aren’t going to leave, they will make someone else leave.
If people can leave regardless of the vote, then there’s no purpose to a vote.
Like I said from the start. This is a very basic concept. We see it all the time in other games with vote-to-surrender. If it doesn’t go through they troll around.