No one likes playing a match that's a foregone conclusion in the first 30 seconds, and is a game of entirely spawn camping for several minutes. There should be an option to vote for surrender so you don't have to sit in your base wasting your time.
LD surrendering
Sun, 04/06/2014 - 08:36
Sun, 04/06/2014 - 10:04
#2
You got that idea from LoL. xD
But as long as you don't gain any Krogmo Coins or getting a refund from surrendering, I guess it wouldn't hurt to implement this. +1
Sun, 04/06/2014 - 15:34
#3
You are experiencing a PICNIC ERROR!
Well, it probably should give you a coin, otherwise people looking for coins are likely not to want to surrender, and if it's unanimous, then...
It should probably act as a loss.
Mon, 04/07/2014 - 12:56
#4
Yes, it would basically act as a loss. The whole point is to stop predetermined losses from being long and boring.
And I actually got it from when I played HoN like 4 years ago, Sky, but yes LoL made me remember it. x3
Mon, 04/07/2014 - 21:10
#5
Amusingly enough ...
I was wishing a feature like this existed for DOTA 2 and find it more than a little funny that both its competitors have it. (Or, at the very least, if it exists it's not remotely convenient.)
Yes, if a game has devolved to spawn-camping, the losing side should have the option to cut. It would reduce rage-quitting, if nothing else. However, just in case it wasn't implied, it should be unanimous for one of the teams. I've met too many people who would refuse to stop a game they're winning, just because they enjoy killing.
Tue, 04/08/2014 - 03:48
#6
+1
I know how annoying lockdown can be. For myselfe it is pretty annoying when I did last try it (4*/5* vs pimped and UVed 5* guys, yea not much fun and no one was there in T1 LD). Also these long waiting lists just to get raped are more than annoying.
However, I see great potential in just clicking the lose button without giving the enemies to *enjoy* their killing and still get the loss-reward.
But in the end this would force the teams to be equal in power since all (or at least most) need to agree with a surrender - and if your team is about to win, they wouldn't give up.
This function would definitely improve the lockdown.
Tue, 04/08/2014 - 11:35
#7
This would be good
Balance the payout though. The team that surrenders get refunded 25 crowns consolation prize, and no krogmo coins. The other team gets 1 krogmo coin and 50 crowns back.
Also, teams can only surrender if the points on either team is less than 80%, or the timer hasn't reached critical phase. This will prevent players on a losing team to try and get an insignificant crown refund and get back at the winning team just because they're winning. (e.g., red is winning, and is 15 points from victory. Blue surrenders and red only gets one krogmo coin and 50 crowns, even though blue may have had 300 points)
At the same time, this discourages spawn camping, as the rewards are dampened for the "winning" team. Perhaps these games would not count towards the leaderboards / rank either.
Tue, 04/08/2014 - 16:00
#8
+1
This should also be implemented into BN as the games there can get just as lopsided with certain pro's trying to boost their egos. There are also instances in BN where players realize the teams will be lopsided and a whole team quits the match while still in the lobby which results in the game ending immediately with the remaining team dishonoring as they were unable to place the minimum number of bombs. This would suggestion would offer a more favorable outcome.
I do also like all of Fangel's additional suggestions (prorated rewards, no rank points, option unavailable after the clock turns red or match is still close).
Tue, 04/08/2014 - 16:21
#9
What if- the option only became available after about 3/5s into the match, and had to have at least 70% of your active (non AFK/missing) team on board?
From an "earn the coins as fast as possible point of view", it would make sense to just forfeit if any number of my team mates are missing, or if we even begin to look like we're losing, or if the teams are in any way imbalanced based on which players are on what team. A team should at least have to get out there and try to take on a team of Feller + RubyEclipse + Contri + Dark Cub for more than half a match before calling it quits, and if we're losing at the start of a match, the other team could easily lose Contri + Feller to server error and cannon us into the lead.
Other than that, yes. This is very much needed because about 80% of what I've done in Lockdown has been getting beaten to a pulp due to missing team mates + imbalanced team (That consist of little teamwork + questionable class decisions) + having to fight a team full of Fellers and Contris and Darkcubs.
"+1"
Tue, 04/08/2014 - 18:00
#10
I think it would be good if surrendering became available when there is more than a 100-point difference in score, or 150 for 900-pt games. And 75% (or maybe 66%) seems like a good ratio. And I also like Fang's no rank points idea.
Here's another related idea: What if the game automatically gave the game to the winning team when it became impossible for the other team to win because of time constraints?
Wed, 04/09/2014 - 01:33
#11
Here's another related idea: What if the game automatically gave the game to the winning team when it became impossible for the other team to win because of time constraints?
Great idea. Have the server calculate how much time would be required to catch up with all capture points in the losing teams name, and if there's not enough time left on the clock to win, the game ends.
+1 as long as it has to be unanimous.