#Allow players who want to fight still not be forced to resign on team vote

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

lethal rock
#

It's so frustrating that a team can vote to resign and your forced to quit because some want to give up. There really should be a way to keep fighting if you choose to. I was just in a game where we still had a lot of map control, just the bottom half got knocked up hard, but not out completely. I was able to get an experimental gantry and a afus up back up in less than 4 minutes, but because enough of the team didn't want to play anymore I was forced to quit and blow up. It's extremely frustrating because I believe we could have had a comeback.

ornate trail
#

It's so frustrating that a team can vote to resign and your forced to quit because some want to give up.

Unnecessary game prolongation because some player doesn't understand where the game is going/wants to play a certain lose to the last unit is even more frustrating.

eager kindle
#

You could argue that psychological victory is a legit victory condition, if the enemy team succeeds in breaking the spirit of, what is it, 3/4 of your team? They probably deserve the win 😄

#

I get that it feels bad on your end, though.

swift lava
#

Removing team forfeit option would result in 1. most players resinging on their own and you playing 1v8 and still losing because of APM difference and 2. you personally holding up the lobby and stopping up to 15 other ppl from playing.

subtle juniper
#

Lots of players are incapable of judging if a game can still be won. Very frustrating to get a team resign when a win is still very doable.

ornate trail
#

Lots of players are incapable of judging if a game can still be won

many such cases

lethal rock
swift lava
compact fiber
#

might be controversial but op yep thinks votes like this should be weighted by skill rating op
not 100% reliable but higher rated players are more likely to have op game sense and know if it's resign time or not gg

subtle juniper
#

That's true but being skilled also doesn't exempt a player from being an ass.

compact fiber
#

ya u probably shouldn't have twice the votes of a guy with half your ts anyway, need to find the right weighting op

full pivot
real ermine
#

Holding up a lobby isn’t really a good argument anymore, when there are literally 15x as many 8v8 lobbies as there were three weeks ago. How about if team resign passes, the result is recorded and any interested players can continue playing the game, and the rest who wish to leave can do so without worry of the OS changes.

#

For both the winning and losing team

subtle juniper
shell vigil
#

I'm not sure I can comment on the exact proposal here, but I've been very frustrated at this issue too. (Although part of it in my case has just been new players voting yes without understanding what they're voting)

#

Was in a game last week where someone started freaking out at the team for not supporting him better, acted like it was all over and just spammed chat.
Fortunately we didn't resign, and then utterly wiped the enemy team. Wasn't even a "comeback" was actually a massively one sided game in our favour.

#

These kinds of people love to try and drag everyone else's morale down with them though.

subtle juniper
#

At this time I would favour removing the team resign vote

shell vigil
#

I wouldn't miss it, personally.

#

Was one match today, where after a lot of trading at the front we managed to push past, and were clearly on the path to victory.
The two best enemy players stuck it out and fought anyway, putting up a surprisingly solid last stand. They got out some last ditch experimentals, and very nearly wrecked us.

#

Even the players who were 95% out of the game, still built a bot lab and started microing grunts/ticks through all the tiny gaps they could find, making it harder for us to win.
Was the best game of the day, which could have been ruined by a resign vote. Would have felt like having a proper win stolen.

fossil basin
#

from my experience it's very hard to find a good lobby to join if you don't want to wait for the one you're in to finish

#

all the lobbies are either almost empty or full of spectators

#

so yea it's kinda frustrating to have to wait for those two heroic players who think they can win 2v7

eager kindle
#

That has been less of an issue recently, with the influx of new players. But I do see your point, drub.

fossil basin
#

what percentage of the team has to agree to team resign?

#

if it's 50%, what if it was bumped to let's say 70%?

eager kindle
#

I'm pretty sure it's already closer to 75%

fossil basin
#

yea so I thought

#

well I mean - if like 3/4 of your team wants to resign something's up

#

not that I played too many games but I don't think I've ever seen an 8v8 game where the vote to resign almost passed (but failed by 1-2 votes) and then the team that almost voted to resign managed to come back

#

from my experience it was always just a waste of time for the players that got stomped already, and those that are about to get stomped

#

if teams resigning prematurely is an issue for some, ig some options could be:

  1. lobby settings regarding the ability to have a team resign (e.g. whether that's even possible or if the game has to have been running for a specific amount of time before it's possible to team resign)
  2. some conditions that have to be met to have a team resign in general (but I'm not sure what those conditions could be, perhaps that at least let's say 25% of your team got eliminated already? or maybe that the enemy controls x% of the map, or some conditions regarding your team's eco and military)
  3. a delay before your team resigns, so that you have those idk 5 more minutes to try and do something meaningful in the game and maybe change your vote if your team manages to achieve something
shell vigil
#

I guess it's partially down to personal preference.
I'd rather fight a losing battle for 40 minutes, than spend half my time in the lobby waiting to start again and again, only for matches to abruptly end.

#

It's not even fun to win to a resignation, or an easy flank from someone who took a hit and decided to throw.

#

I'm in it to enjoy the battle. If just winning or losing was all I cared about, I'd go play rock paper scissors. Would be a lot faster.

swift lava
#

Then there are still few lobbies

vestal snow
#

yeah if u dont want ur team to resign, get better OS and play with good people who wont? cant expect noobs who were defeated an hour ago to keep playing because u think u can win this

#

and often people like you who complain that people resign, do just eco for the first 20-30 min

#

i dont want to offend it is just a fact

fossil basin
rustic pebble
#

If surrender isn't unanimous, clone the lobby into a new lobby with an iterated name and put the surrendering players there while allowing the others to continue. That would probably make everybody happy but require the most work. [how would you even deal with players leaving in a staggered manner if multiple votes are made?]

#

imo other people shouldn't be able to decide whether the game keeps going for you or not, and nobody should be forced to play if they don't want. That's the ideal. Lobby clone on surrender would probably accomplish both.

unborn plaza
#

sometimes i like to try and hold on as long as i can on a last ditch effort because i find it fun and want to test my skills. who is to say my fun is not worth as much as anyone elses fun, just because others decided to leave the game early that is not my fault. i would like to continue as im still having fun. your fun does not trump my fun.

#

also yeah, some resign votes are made too early and end games where there is still a chance to comeback and win or if not at least have a good go at it.

#

so in conclusion, i dont mind the team resign vote, but maybe a tweek is needed.

ornate trail
unborn plaza
shell sierra
ornate trail
wise forum
subtle juniper
#

I played a lot of high level WC3 in the early days and i never felt it had near the same come back potential that BAR has.

#

Armies were more permanent and killing your enemy's army would net you a lot of XP, making your heros a lot stronger. Getting back from losing an entire army and heroes was near impossible. In BAR there are so many ways to turn a seemingly hopeless match around, and there is so much evidence of that

weak walrus
#

I’ve actually won a few matches becuase players resigned

#

And I took

shell sierra
ornate trail
#

so it is a "skill issue"

silent tartan
# subtle juniper Lots of players are incapable of judging if a game can still be won. Very frustr...

Anecdotal evidence aside, pretty much the opposite. For example, RIOT games devs changed the surrender system in League to be looser, to "not hold people hostage," and stated: "Players generally know when a game is unwinnable." They had the stats to back it up. Granted the games are pretty different and matchmaking in LoL is superior, but I believe the generalization holds. Perhaps it would be better to say that "People know when they could win a game." If you think you can still win, when the average person doesn't, you're 1. better than them and projecting your skill onto them, or 2. stubborn and think of your skill too highly, or 3. just like fighting to the bitter end.

silent tartan
#

old-ish thread so I didn't tag anyone, lol

subtle juniper
silent tartan
shell sierra
silent tartan
subtle juniper
#

How is it a psychological point tho

#

It is about the actual opportunities for the remainder of the game at a certain game state

silent tartan
#

And most people are pretty good at knowing what reasonable opportunities they'll have if they continue.

subtle juniper
#

from my extensive experience i'm telling you that is not true

#

even worse, people downright seem to suck at judging the game state

silent tartan
#

Then refer to "If you think you can still win, when the average person doesn't, you're 1. better than them and projecting your skill onto them, or 2. stubborn and think of your skill too highly, or 3. just like fighting to the bitter end."

subtle juniper
#

no, i'm judging the game state with teammates skills considered

silent tartan
#

In my extensive experience, I'm telling you that it's true that people know.

weak walrus
#

klap has been here for years
and really knows whats possible

silent tartan
#

Well yeah, that seems to prove the point :P

subtle juniper
#

it doesnt, but then we'd have to pull up hundreds of replays and discuss those

sturdy ember
#

"Play as a team, die as a team"

#

If the majority (from a vote) think it's time to resign, then the team resigns. If this feature didn't exist we'd have a lot worse issues with the team game experience

silent tartan
#

Right, which is why approaching the idea with the perspective of going into the weeds in particular games of "what is possible?" is silly, because you can look at any game and go "well, if that guy just shifted production to sumos after, he'd be able to push," or "hey, if that Viktor stops fucking up his ability combos our team would win."

Anything is possible in any game, but the reality of what will happen is limited by what the people think to be possible, and that's what surrender votes are based off of. The rationale justifies itself.

#

Judge with team skill in consideration? My friend tries to do that with me and refuses to surrender any games, and they're 9/10 games that we end up losing. Not for any morale loss on my part, no, not for lack of trying, no.

You might truly have the skill to know better than your teammates, and judge them, but that intelligence and skill shouldn't allow the idea that surrendering is bad or that you, as the better player, should be allowed to hold teammates or enemies hostage.

ember valve
#

I recall team resign vote needs 75%+ of the current teams players to vote yes to pass.

sturdy ember
#

75%>=

subtle juniper
sturdy ember
#

Yes but you've got to communicate with your team - and how you're describing "your frustrating scenario" you aren't really helping your team enough to keep them in the fight - why would they want to play on?

subtle juniper
#

you make it sound like im afusspamming in the back

silent tartan
#

If you're not communicating to them that it's winnable and how, you are just as complicit in your frustrating scenario.

silent tartan
silent tartan
weak walrus
#

There are players who will not be convinced bar is very nuanced to the point that it can be very hard to see the win condition

compact fiber
#

the opposite also true when there's like 5x eco difference, half team gone, no chance to win, and ppl trolling building porc wall in corner op

silent tartan
#

Yeah

silent tartan
sturdy ember
weak walrus
#

I’ll grab a replay in a bit for you

#

I have a very good example somewhere

silent tartan
#

Make sure it's specifically where 75% of a team didn't want to continue c:

#

The scenarios where it truly is winnable and everyone on your team is too dumb to see the wincon do happen, so do the scenarios where toxic trollers sabotage their team.

Why not think of the counter-scenario? Isn't it just as frustrating for a teammate feeling pressured to stay for someone (not necessarily you) who's stubborn and probably wrong? It can be just as frustrating for enemies who just want to clean up and get out of a won game. It's just as hostage-holdy as the guy holding his own units hostage from the superior player by not just resigning.

I'm still betting that frustration is lessened more by a 75% or 4 to 1 surrender vote than would be relieved by removing it.

What I wonder is why the hell would they stay in the game if they're not trolling? Does a resign count as a loss even if your team eventually wins?

weak walrus
#

I did advocate for 75% because of the fact that bar at the time only had 1 8v8 going for some portion of the day

#

We had less than 200 players online and a ton of those were single players who were online

silent tartan
#

Oh damn, was it lower than 75% before?

weak walrus
#

It didn’t exist

silent tartan
#

Oh it just

weak walrus
#

As a feature

#

We stole it from zerok

#

Spring told us to do so

#

Sprung*

#

Who is a zk dev

#

Both the zk and bar teams are really close and are reliant on some things together like the engine

silent tartan
#

That's pretty cool, tbh

shell vigil
#

Regarding the resign mechanic itself, half (possibly all?) my issues have simply been from new players confused about what they voted for.
I think they thought it was a vote to "resign" the toxic player or something. Sounds silly, but has happened at least twice, with confused comments in chat afterwards.
So perhaps some slight rewording alone could solve that. Clarify that it means to surrender as a team, rather than kick one person or "let that person resign".

weak walrus
#

I think adding a clear audio line would help this specific case

shell vigil
#

As for it's intended role without any confused votes factoring in, it being a 75% democratic vote does seem reasonable.
If 6 out of 8 players left the regular way to not be held up, then even the best players would likely struggle with the extra micro involved, on what's presumably already a sketchy battle.

#

So I don't have any dirrect objection to that, unless there actually was some feasible way to split games to allow continuing or something. But that sounds very impractical to implement.

#

Overall I just wish players on average had a bit more grit.
Would rather spend 50 minutes fighting a defiant defence with a team that could still enjoy that.
Than three 10 minute stomps with 10 minutes of lobby time between each, due to people just wanting to hit re-do hoping for a better opening.

subtle juniper
#

@spark cobalt I expect people to play with me because they hit 'Ready' in lobby for a game of BAR.

#

@silent tartan

subtle juniper
shell vigil
#

Had a recent game where I was defending a central choke point. Players who typically should have been backing me up went to fight south of the chokepoint instead, leaving me alone in a 2v1 situation.
Early trades went badly, and got smashed. Raids got through and literally wiped me out to just my commander and a single constructor.
I re-built, and did everything I could to slow them down. Laid mines, built temporary walls. Got half wiped a second time, and did it again trying to give as little land as possible. Made them really fight to get in.
Long term I was totally doomed on that front, but the south was slowly advancing. We won. Only just.
I know for a fact that a lot of players would be bitching at the team and just stopped entirely after those first trades, let the enemy in, and let it be a loss.

#

A really good place to see it clearly, is in game casts on Youtube, where you can see the whole match clearly without fog of war or the normal emotional tunnel vision, and get to read both team's chat.
Certain players on both sides will be panicking in chat and acting like they're loosing, not able to see the bigger picture. It's often a self fulfilling prophecy.

subtle juniper
subtle juniper
shell sierra
lethal rock
random moss
#

IMO a middle ground is just to allow resigned team players who do not vote to resign continue, but reveal their commanders permanently (or for a duration, like 10m). If the winning team with all their players and advantages cannot kill these last few hold-ups very quickly, then the game indeed isn't over, and the resign was too hasty and the remaining players deserve to play it out

#

you can view the commander reveal (10m or permanent) as a "morale break" loss mechanic as Perfi said, but not an immediate one that results in game stopping

subtle juniper
#

So, who watched those few replays?

#

@shell vigil ?

subtle juniper
#

So, yet another game ruined and lost because team resigned. Can we please stop this madness?

#

Did anyone even watch the replays above?

hot perch
#

No. Your last stand isn't fun for the other 15 ppl waiting for next game

#

Amount of games that end early and are still winnable is low enough not to be an issue

subtle juniper
#

Did you read the thread?

#

Cos you sound like you didnt

#

The amount of games that seem unwinnable that contain me is pretty damn high

#

so i dont like it when my team resigns

#

and if people would stop pissing their pants every time they lose a mex they'd win more often too

surreal yoke
#

a lot of players think the game is over when they themselves lose their lane

#

I agree with klap

#

have seen many games which looked unwinnable be turned around, usually when half the team resigns but the best player stays and takes it all

subtle juniper
#

I prefer when my team doesnt resign, usually the game is very winnable if my teammates just keep doing their thing

surreal yoke
#

especially during that early game phase where enemy team wins most lanes early because they stay t1 and other team techs up, so it gives the illusion of being really behind when all you need to do at that point is hold

#

I think it should require 100% of the votes to pass team resign

#

I agree there are also lots of situations where it gets dragged out, and requiring 100% agreement will mean more waiting, but I still think it's best

delicate tartan
#

Even if I will lose with a chance of 95%, often I still want to finish it properly. It can also still be fun.
Did you ever see a sports match like football or basketball being just stopped because one team was way behind? That's a strange BAR resign meta we have here imo

#

Imo resign is meant to stop the game if game is really over and last commander is hiding under water or stuff like that...

snow fable
#

They don't resign because people payed to see the full game, not because it's clearly over.

hot perch
# surreal yoke I think it should require 100% of the votes to pass team resign

Definitely not.
I was in games where people resigned and it got dragged 20 minutes more as other team just eco'ed while sending spam at last guy.
If people resign individually, they can't vote to lose you a game.
If majority thinks it's over, you should take one loss and not make 7 ppl wait for what could be half another game.

#

It's mostly right. And you get your last stand games anyway because ppl often just leave once they are dead.

#

There are also trolls in this game that want to make you waste time.

#

Met people staying in game after they died to just flame

#

Do you think they would vote to surrender?

humble island
#

I think if you didn't have this option you'd see a huge number of earlier individual resigns.

I've triggered the vote before and if people said no I kept on playing to support them (though we almost always all died another 10-15 minutes later) It lets you get a consensus as a group.

I've also never seen a team win when they're 1v8 or 2v8, which would be the case if the resign vote only kicked the yes voters out of the game. I've seen ppl hide their coms for 5 mins to troll or have a 15 min last stand before which was kinda fun, but they never actually stood a chance.

snow fable
#

@eager kindle vbs said do you ever see x or y sportsball game stop and it's because the audience payed to be there and the stadium owners want to keep selling drinks and stuff.

There's like, a ton of reasons why that analogy doesn't work but pro vidja game players will gg instead of waiting for the enemy to destroy all their stuff. Happens in sc2 and league often iirc.

eager kindle
#

Ah, gotcha. Thanks for the explanation, I misunderstood what you were referring to.

snow fable
#

Ye mb. I didn't tag or reply so I understand the confusion.

delicate tartan
snow fable
# delicate tartan Has absolutely nothing to do with money. I watched quite some free football game...

It does - but okay even if it doesn't this is:
Not a potential career
Not a professional e-sport
Not a game that ends quickly
Not a game that only exists for your team

Resigning is just as much for the time and sake of your own team as it is the enemies. Not everyone enjoys having to grind down a couple entrenched players for another 10-20 minutes. Team resign exists for that reason.

Even so; there is probably a plethora of reasons why people may not forfeit in a physical game vs a digital one. There is a huge amount of social expectation to carry out even a local game, and to people in person forfeiting may be seen and felt as much more shameful than just, resigning in a computer game and going next.

image.png image.png
delicate tartan
#

Sorry, I don't really understand your points as I think they apply mostly identically for e.g. hobbyist football games the same as for BAR games.

Anway, it was just a comparison. No comparison matches 100% but it is good enough for me. No need to drag this for too long.
I personally consider it just as bad attitude and/or bad sportsmanship throwing games early. But people might have different standards there.

PS.
Copy/pasting images of other people's discussions is an interesting approach. Again, most of that argumentation relates to money while I already said that even in hobbyist sports where neither players nor spectators get/pay any money, still nobody would even consider throwing a game.

Disclaimer:
Yes, I also resign from time to time. Nobody is perfect...

hot perch
#

I for one consider staying in obviously lost game bad sportsmanship.
There's no hard time limit like in football the match is supposed to last.
If you lost, you take it on a chin and go next.

#

Given amount of reactions this thread has, it seems to be prevalent attitude

delicate tartan
#

I ❤️ ChatGPT:

image.png
#

ChatGPT has higher moral standards than some humans

#

PS.
Asking ChatGPT was just for fun and not too serious, please don't freak out about the answer 🙂

subtle juniper
#

🤣

hot perch
snow fable
# delicate tartan Sorry, I don't really understand your points as I think they apply mostly identi...

The schools get money and funding for sports, and careers start at that stage so players need to get used to the expectations that may be set on them for college level football +. Games last a certain amount of time, that is how it b.

There is a difference between throwing a game early and just understanding when you are in a losing scenario and saving everyone's time to get another game going.

Most people in online gaming are probably going to feel like you're wasting their time since the culture of sports and gaming are entirely different. The only times this tends to change is in like, ranked MOBA matches where people just don't want to give up lp or w/e for free.

subtle juniper
#

What are you talking about?

#

This is not at all how stuff works, in my country at least.

#

Sounds more like a local thing

snow fable
#

It's how it works in the US lol

#

Schools have to put their funding somewhere based on property taxes and any kind of donations or sometimes sponsers they might get. Sometimes a school will charge a couple bucks to get into a local game, mine did.

minor spindle
#

okay so we are so far in the weeds here.

Back to the main topic. I think it's as simple as "The equity you gain by resigning lost games is far more than the equity you lose by resigning games that aren't lost"

#

sure, maybe 1/15 times your team resigns when you still could have won, but almost EVERY time your team resigns, the game is lost anyway, and now all the players get that time back (as mentioned before, lobbies have inertia, and the winning players are stuck fighting to make sure they get the win)

#

so fighting to the bitter end is, in a way, holding people's time hostage, and is annoying to (most) players

#

once in a while, yeah, team votes to resign when maybe they shouldn't have, but that's far more rare and that risk is far worth the gains you get by having teamvote resign as it is

snow fable
#

True my bad. Got off topic there.

snow fable
delicate tartan
#

Okay wow, that's the next step then. Resigning a game early cause the chances to win are low is one thing. Blaming other players for NOT resigning early is next level. Accusing a player "to hold everyone's time hostage" is quite dramatic just cause someone wants to continue playing a game everyone agreed to play while he sees chances to win. lul...

#

Also, people in a queue don't have any rights to demand anything from currently playing people. It's the game of the players and they can play how they want and how long they want. Regardless how stupid it might be for other people. People can just join a different lobby if they are impatient

minor spindle
# delicate tartan Okay wow, that's the next step then. Resigning a game early cause the chances to...

it's not dramatic, it's factual. If 14 people want to be done because they believe the game is over (the 8 on the winning team and 6/8 on the losing team) then popular vote should win, no? And if the two people really want to keep playing, they are, according to the other 14, "wasting time". I mean the intent obviously is not related to the other people, so "holding hostage" is a bit of a phrasing issue maybe, because the 2 players intent is simply "I want to keep playing". But it has the knock on effect of holding the other players hostage, who are all ready to be done.

Now granted, winning is fun so for the 8 winning players, they're probably LESS inclined to want the game to be "over now"

As far as the queue, I'm not even talking about the spectators waiting to play, I'm meaning the players in the current game wanting to get on to the next game already. Especially if you're on the winning team and you're bored with winning and want to be done, and the other team won't resign, you're stuck going through the motions of hunting down every commander when you'd rather be playing the next game.

#

And "blaming for not resigning" I don't quite know what you mean by that. They aren't resigning, so they are to blame for not resigning, yes? Blame isn't inherently a negative word. The people who don't want to resign are at fault for the resigning not happening. That's simply the definition of the word

#

Should you be mad at them and flame them? no, and I'm not suggesting such

#

I'm simply saying that if the will of the few is holding back the will of the many, that's generally not a net positive for gameplay in almost any context

#

and yes, it sucks to be "the few" in this context, but that's how any democratic system works that is built to be the most "net positive" possible

#

in a 1v1, you can resign or not resign whenever you want

#

so if you don't want to be part of a democratic team, then don't play in a team game. It feels weird to hold an opinion of "I want to be in an 8 player team, where if 7 of the people want to quit, and I don't want to, then they all have to keep playing with me"

delicate tartan
#

if someone does not want to keep playing a game, he can resign and let the others take and let them continue playing, no? I don't see how someone is forced into doing something in the meaning of "held hostage"
I have a history of >10 years with people resigning midgame in games I deem to be totally winnable

minor spindle
# delicate tartan if someone does not want to keep playing a game, he can resign and let the other...

no the issue there is twofold.

resigning solo means you have to go find a new group/lobby. As mentioned by multiple people in this thread already, lobbies have momentum. A lot of the time, you'd rather the game be over now, and do a new game with (mostly) the same group. Rather than resign and go find a whole new lobby.

Second, the winning team can't resign. So they ARE held hostage with zero power over the situation.

#

and yes, individuals resigning midgame is a thing

#

a whole team voting to resign when the game is VERY winnable is far less likely

#

like, I'd argue even if it's a 10% win, and the team wants to resign, that's still fine. 9/10 times you're just saving time, that's a huge net positive

delicate tartan
#

Second, the winning team can't resign. So they ARE held hostage with zero power over the situation.
Well, they could just.... win?

minor spindle
#

that takes time

#

time is a cost

#

and again, as i mentioned, sometimes as the winning team, you already know you've won, and you're having "less fun". This is very personal and subjective and unique to every player, of course, but HUGELY winning and just mopping up is generally "less fun" to a lot of people than the part where the game isn't decided yet

#

the whole point here is to maximize "fun" time, and minimize "not fun" time.

delicate tartan
#

at some point I agree with you. That is when the losing team intentionally hides last commander and stuff like that

minor spindle
#

People resign because it's less fun when game is already decided, and that, on average, holds true for both losers AND winners

#

obviously you can't put a system in place where winning team can force enemy team to resign, as that would be abused, but technically in a perfect world where humans don't abuse things, THEY should get a vote too if you think about it

#

because it's all 16 players that are having X amount of fun, between 0 and 100, and if the average fun being had by 14 or so of the players is very low, it makes a lot of sense to end the game

#

and just because 2 players are still having fun (or worse, they're not even having fun but they're just stubborn and don't like the idea/concept of resigning), I don't think that should force the rest to continue "not having fun", because again, everyone agreed to a team game

#

the key here is that it's a team, not just a solo act. And when you queue with randoms, that can lead to some annoyances of course

#

sometimes that being a teamvote to resign when they shouldn't. I haven't played thousands of BAR games yet, but I have only voted "no" on team resign once or twice so far in my many many many times where the teamresign vote has happened

#

because this game is snowball-y, and coming back from behind requires some amount of explosive power from one or more players, and is generally easy enough to gague

#

if enemy has tons of map control and units and your team has no aces up your sleeve, the game is pretty much decided

#

especially once your team has lost one or two bases

#

and thus tons of income with it

#

but again, that's all subjective. Each player is allowed to have their own threshold and no player is inherently "wrong" for where their threshold is

#

but if 7/8 players have crossed their threshold, it's selfish for the 1 to say "naa i'm gonna make you guys keep playing" (and thus, I think that it should only require 6 or 7 votes to pass)

delicate tartan
minor spindle
#

The threshold is up to each player

#

and how accurate they are at assessing it is also a variable

#

but if 7/8 are done, even if they're somewhat wrong, they clearly want to stop playing, shouldn't the game be over?

#

the winners get an "easy win" and only 1 person is unhappy with the result. Frustrating, yes, for that one. But moreso for the 7 if the opposite happens?

It's just a numbers thing. Maybe 1/10 times where I team resign, my team could have come back and won and it would have been GLORIOUS

#

but I'd rather not have that experience once, and have NINE experiences where I save myself 10 or 20 minutes of losing. and get to play a full 3 or 4 more games because of it

#

which again, is subjective, but that's why we vote and have a democratic system 😄

delicate tartan
#

pissed off people who lost their lane is not a good basis for a sensible vote

minor spindle
#

in the hypothetical world where it requires unanimous votes to resign, then the rest of your team just WILL resign, it'll be 1v8, and then the winners just are like "really....?" and their time is forced to prove to that one player left that they will lose. There's VERY little equity to be gained by changing the system in any way, and will result if far less "net fun" for BAR players

minor spindle
#

and it's more than just majority, i think the vote requires 6/8 right?

#

or 7/8? not even sure

#

it's either 6 or 7 for sure though

#

and generally you don't have ONE smart player and 7 dummies

#

or one untilted and 7 tilted

#

and if you do, well, probably best for that game to be over anyway lol

#

playing with 7 tilted ppl aint fun

delicate tartan
#

not sure, yes, the threshold is not so low. I have the feeling that lots of people get tricked into believing game is over when there are enough whiners that complain loudly

minor spindle
#

so like, I'd agree if we had a system where just 3 or 4 ppl could cause a team resign, but it already requires almost all the team to agree, so I think it's a pretty good ssytem

#

the bigger problem is when those tilted people leave early in a very winnable game, thus making the game even less winnable

#

but that's a separate thread

#

early leaving IS a problem for sure. But I would say teamvote resigning not so much (with the current system at least)

hot perch
#

Vsb can't comprehend world doesn't spin around him alone this reads like...

delicate tartan
#

Thanks Platys51, I like your style of discussion

subtle juniper
#

Watch this game end tell me half way who wins

delicate tartan
#

I agree that at some point there should be the possibility of a team-resign-vote. Problem is how people are using it

subtle juniper
#

I can share more replays of similar games(where team resign votes are proposed or held) that end up in the losing team winning than you have played in total

delicate tartan
#

I mean, you see, here are many jerks around and they want the game to end for everyone after losing their lane. Nobody should be allowed to keep playing after they lost their lane

minor spindle
#

i'm going to coin the term "false resign" to indicate a time where a TEAMVOTE resign goes through (7/8 people vote for it), when they WOULD have won the game.
IDK what exactly is being debated here. AFAICT, no one is arguing "there is never a false-resign". What is being argued is that the false resign rate is far lower than the true resign rate, and that already is a good system

subtle juniper
#

No it is not

#

People give up way too early because of exactly this thinking

minor spindle
#

so you are finding yourself in a situation where you know better than your 7 teammates freqently?

#

again, there are ALWAYS a few that are tilted or raging or w/e

#

but all 7?

subtle juniper
#

You think the 'true resign rate' is high. It is not. And the time waste argument is void: if the winning team can't finish in 5 mins or less they aren't guaranteed a win at all. If they don't want to win just yet they are not being held hostage at all

hot perch
#

What's more likely.
You alone know better or 7 other people

minor spindle
#

exactly platys

subtle juniper
#

Me

minor spindle
#

play with better people then

#

like if you're not willing to put enough trust in your 7 teammates that they can AS A FULL GROUP agree that the game is lost, then you really shouldn't be playing with them

subtle juniper
#

Dude

minor spindle
#

again i'm not talking 2 or 3 people, i'm talking ALL SEVEN

hot perch
#

Well, here we go, problem solved.
You can't be trusted and leaving time of 8 people in your hands is a mistake

subtle juniper
#

Hate to say this but do you know who I am

minor spindle
#

I don't, but if you're good enough to make comments like that, then you're good enough to party with enough people as good as you to not have this issue, right?

#

Like I feel like this issue is more a problem with lower level players

#

good players don't rage and tilt as much, especially not 7/8 of them

subtle juniper
#

Like shox, stardom and other high ranks don't quit prematurely 🤣

#

Haha

minor spindle
#

what even is premature?

#

you're choosing YOUR definition of that

#

I'm a math major, I work in numbers. Let's say I quit every game as soon as my projective "chance to win" drops below 10%

#

is that premature? Only I can decide

rustic pebble
#

Anything before the natural game win conditions.

minor spindle
#

I get to decide my own threshold

#

if 7 of your 8 teammates are past THEIR thresholds (not yours), who are you to tell them they're wrong? that's my point

delicate tartan
#

I would even argue, people would play the game differently if there was not this easy resign route. People are sometimes like "oh damn, I fucked up. Rebuilding my base is hard. Game will be quite a hassle now for me. I will rust resign and call for the next game!"

subtle juniper
#

Yes, you do. So don't assume you can decide mine as well

minor spindle
#

it's just that 7 of the 8 people are past theirs, and majority rules

subtle juniper
#

By team resigning you are

minor spindle
#

no, your not being told your threshold is wrong to have, you're just not being agreed with

#

of 7/8 people want to stop, why should you get to say "no you all are stuck here playing with me whether you like it or not"

#

thats the part of the argument I'm not getting

subtle juniper
#

Yes, and I'm telling you that most of the time those 7/8 players don't know what the actual game state is

minor spindle
#

whether or not they are correct or what % of the winrate is actually gone is kinda irrelevant to this convo

#

this is about human condition of fun and enjoyment and preference

#

7/8 should choose, not 1/8

#

it's that simple

subtle juniper
#

You don't know what 10% is

minor spindle
#

again, irrelevent

rustic pebble
#

Why should it have to be be one way or the other? With effort, everyone can be made happy, potentially.

"My opinion is, if reasonably possible,** no players should ever be forced to quit or surrender, and, no player should be forced to continue playing.**
To achieve that, there's a potential solution that should make everybody happy, but it's programmatically tricky and non-simple solutions always seem to come with a can of worms.

Currently if there's a forfeit the match just ends.
Instead, have the game automatically create and push players into a new identical game lobby if they chose to forfeit or accept an opposing forfeit.
Anyone that didn't forfeit gets to continue playing that match, leavers auto-donate to their team, and, if an entire team leaves and there's nobody to donate to, an AI replaces them.
For the sake of OS calculation, the game is over, but anyone who wants to continue playing for fun can continue.

That way people that want to move on to the next match have the convenience of "lobby momentum" and staying with the same group of people in essentially the same room, and anyone that really wanted to actually use those units/structures they build has a chance to do their thing and enjoy themselves.

The bigger pipe dream for me would be to have some galactic map that factions actually fight for like in old school Boneyard and creating some incentive system for players to stay till the bitter end and earn some kind of medals or achievements. RTS communities tend to get on the slippery slope of feeling entitled to a swift game ending and it's sort of "anti-fun" without most people realizing it."

#

A solution like this would stop all the arguing...

minor spindle
#

Like, the argument of "7/8 people want to stop playing because they're bored or they don't want to or they aren't having fun", is a good enough reason

#

who are you to say "no no, all 7 of you need to KEEP doing what you don't want to be doing, because I want to keep playing"

rustic pebble
#

Everyone gets to chose their own point where they surrender, if at all, with no interruptions.

subtle juniper
minor spindle
#

if all 7 of them are happy with their deciison to teamvote resign

#

you are in the minority by being frustrated

#

the other 7 people are happy its over

#

and that's a good system

#

sucks for you, but makes 7 people happy

#

that's far better than the reverse

subtle juniper
#

That is the status quo. My aim is to change that

minor spindle
# subtle juniper That is the status quo. My aim is to change that

improving players' ability to GAGUE whether the game is winnable, and helping them have the GRIT to push through frustrating situations is GOOD. I agree with that goal. Forcing them to play a game they currently do NOT want to play is BAD. I will always disagree with that goal

subtle juniper
#

Nobody is forcing them

rustic pebble
minor spindle
#

I'm not saying system cannot be improved. I am saying that 1 player having veto power of team resign is definitely a bad option and will reduce net fun of BAR players

delicate tartan
#

seems like experienced players who are playing this for years have made the experience that players are not good in judging their win changes and tend to resign too early

minor spindle
subtle juniper
#

The 'winning' team is having fun winning,

minor spindle
#

that's an assumption

subtle juniper
#

the 'losing' teams' players can resign themselves if they need to

minor spindle
#

sometimes you're winning and you want to move on already

subtle juniper
#

go play another game then

minor spindle
#

again, when the game feels decided, fun goes lower, for both winners and losers

#

you can't resign early as a winner

subtle juniper
#

not BAR

rustic pebble
#

This happens in every rts communiity, competitive players start feeling like they're owed a swift game ending and casual players get turned off by this. That's why I encourage people to look at my suggestion more seriously... I have no idea why people gloss over it, but I guess I don't know just how hard it is to implement.

minor spindle
#

people compete because they don't know if they'll win or lose

subtle juniper
#

that might be your experience, i see lots of people having a lot of fun winning, mopping up

minor spindle
subtle juniper
#

says who

#

oh, you

#

again, your experience

minor spindle
#

no, this isn't about preferences of myself. It's just that humans on average find less joy in decided outcomes

#

it's a game theory fact

rustic pebble
#

Beyond all that you can still have fun in a losing fight, you can learn things and grow as a player in a losing fight.

minor spindle
#

each person's thresholds and preferences are unique and different

#

but on AVERAGE it's lower

#

and on average is the way these types of decisions must be made

steady owl
#

Well just to add my 2 cents; I see this happen sometimes (although I think it's more common in lower ts lobbies, which is not surprising imo) and sometimes it sucks and sometimes I'm scratching my head, but currently the vote is like 75% which is fine imo - even if some games are winnable. Even when coming back I still feel held hostage sometimes because I gotta keep trying despite massive setbacks. I don't think this game is high stakes enough to default to forced playing situations instead of just ending the game through hard majority vote.

minor spindle
#

because the point is "what system provides the most net fun for players"

minor spindle
#

hard majority should rule, it's just a simple way to make the game more fun

#

helping the hard majority be smarter is a good goal, a worthy one, but outside the scope of this thread

subtle juniper
minor spindle
#

next you'ore gonna say players don't know what's good for them?

#

cause I have plenty of counterpoints to that one 😄

subtle juniper
#

You are saying that ' in the moment people arent having as much fun as they could be having at any other given moment'

#

so it should stop

minor spindle
#

no, I'm saying "players are actively clicking a button that shows their preference to stop the current game and take the loss"

subtle juniper
#

so we might as well play a long series of 5 minute long games that keep ending abruptly cos someone gave up

minor spindle
#

and they have decided (whether they're right or wrong) that they'd like to click that button

steady owl
#

Oh right, and I am against the allowing someone to keep holding the lobby hostage because of serious lobby inertia that exists in this game (pointless and sophistry to pretend its not the case imo). It's also extremely annoying when game is pretty much won and someone is last-standing.

minor spindle
subtle juniper
#

they click that button because they THINK they dont have a chance. they do. They will have a lot more fun when they learn and find out that the game can still be won

#

its the greatest feeling, a good come back

minor spindle
subtle juniper
#

the team resign is robbing that from tehm

#

no

#

i am not

minor spindle
#

No, if they're forced to play, they will have more fun 1/10 times, and less fun 9/10 times

rustic pebble
#

Why should settings cater to players being annoyed they have to continue playing? Settings should cater to people who want to play.

subtle juniper
#

im saying that in this system early quitting is encouraged (by mechanics and social pressure) so they never find out

#

what could have been

minor spindle
subtle juniper
#

yea, exactly

minor spindle
#

so it's a good system

subtle juniper
#

so let people resign and let people paly

minor spindle
#

even if it has some downsides

minor spindle
#

that's already the case

#

people can resign individually whenever they want, that's not what this convo is about

subtle juniper
#

it is the solution tho

minor spindle
#

this is about team resign

#

team resign exists so that the WINNERS can be done too

#

and the team can stick together in the lobby

subtle juniper
#

Team resign is an antiquated measure anyway: it was set up for the time we had 1 or 2 lobbies going at any time

minor spindle
#

lobby inertia matters, as stated 1,000 times

delicate tartan
#

8 out of 10 people want to commit suicide because they think life is senseless.... bad luck for the 9th and 10th person who disagree :E

rustic pebble
#

@minor spindle @subtle juniper Well I'll ask one more time, can either of you see why my suggestion would NOT solve both of your problems? Is it technically too complicated? #1091982320342417448 message

subtle juniper
#

nowadays people can hop into any lobby and get a game in under 5 minutes

minor spindle
subtle juniper
steady owl
minor spindle
rustic pebble
#

Cool juist want to make sure left vs right sees there's a middle ground potentially ^^

#

Hope we find a clever solution!

subtle juniper
#

oh wait kicktown: i dont agree with your OS solution

minor spindle
#

I don't really think it's effectively a middle ground though, cause once team resigns, most winners and most people will leave, and the "fun" of the one or two people left is mostly gone cause you're just getting mopped up or mopping up

#

so really it doesn't accomplish much IMO, but it's better than nothing

subtle juniper
#

if people want out they can get out, but im winning and taking that OS

rustic pebble
steady owl
#

I dont think reasoning from a perspective of ''í want to see my OS go up'' is a good way to decide on how game should function

#

just learn to carry harder if you want that

minor spindle
#

I mean honestly klap it sounds like you just want people to be better at gauging whether they're losing. I get that, that's frustrating. But THIS particular idea (not having team resign vote), is not going to help with your frustration. You'll just have even more leavers and the winners have to spend even more time winning.

#

and you'll even have winners leaving early because they're done and not care about the OS hit

#

and OS gets less accurate as a result

rustic pebble
#

It would be a big step in the right direction, imo, but that's why I mention the incentive to stay till the bitter end at the end. That would really clinch the deal. I'm not exactly sure what kind of incentives would actually make for a good game experience though. Maybe some secondary take and hold objetives or something?

subtle juniper
#

The reasoning is: i dont want to lose perfectly winnable games cos the rest of the team doesnt know the game well enough or can't be arsed to play to win

minor spindle
subtle juniper
#

it is

minor spindle
#

🤦‍♂️ then we are done debating because fundamentally we can never agree if you really believe that

subtle juniper
#

Team resign is both antiquated and relatively new. We did fine before it

minor spindle
#

cause you think the 1 is more important than the 7

#

and I can never agree with that

#

regardless of how "smart" or "better" the 1 is

subtle juniper
#

Well, learn to view it from anothers' perspective then

minor spindle
#

this game is a team game and for fun, not a "7 of us want to learn from senpai" game

subtle juniper
#

assumptions

minor spindle
#

you are not senpai, you are 1 of 8

#

you matter JUST as much as the other 7, but no more

#

so you are 12.5% of the equation

#

it's just that simple.

subtle juniper
#

16 players agreed to play a game, the win condition is Comm ends. Not 'most demoralised team'

minor spindle
#

Your frustrations are all valid, but you getting to count for more than 12.5% isn't really a solution here, cause it causes other players to be frustrated in the process (and more than one other player, but all of them)

rustic pebble
subtle juniper
#

if you are actually winning finding and killing the remaining commanders is so fucking easy

delicate tartan
#

no its not that simple. yes, as klap said, everyone started this game. so kinda you have the right to play it under these conditions

minor spindle
#

no.... only if you play a game where resignation is against the rules, which it's not

#

MANY players want the option to end the game, whether winning or losing

delicate tartan
#

we can change the rules,no?

minor spindle
#

because they want to go to the next one

#

We can. If you make a gamemode where no one can resign or leave, then go for it

#

but changing that option for all playres means less people play, or people will play and leave anyway

#

either way it's a loss

#

you can already make a lobby that says "no leavers and no resigning" and wait for ppl to join

#

if that's the game you really want

subtle juniper
#

lol

minor spindle
#

petition the devs to make it another game mode if you like

#

you can never stop leaving though cause ppl can just exit the game

delicate tartan
#

yes, i would want that. but selfish people dont play for the team but just for their personal amusement

minor spindle
#

and effectively, when your 7 teammates resign, that is the exact same thing

subtle juniper
#

i know some players just leave if their 5 minute buildup fails. I dont play with them anymore

delicate tartan
#

so they leave if they think they personally wont have much fun anymore in the game and they give a fk about the team goal

minor spindle
delicate tartan
#

what klap said

minor spindle
#

yeah I agree that's annoying, not on topic tho

#

if ppl leave because they're tilted, that's annoying, it's dumb. It's just ONE vote for teamresign though

#

the argument here is "if 7 people want to vote resign, they shouldn't actually have that option", and I cannot agree with that.

subtle juniper
#

people can leave, which is frowned upon. people can resign (which is less frowned upon if they gave it a real shot). People dont need to make ME resign

#

<-back later

delicate tartan
#

no, if a top player like shox leaves, it demoralizes the whole team and team-resign vote is not far away then anymore

minor spindle
subtle juniper
#

dont take my OS either

delicate tartan
#

so, basically: shox resigns -> team-gg

minor spindle
#

shox can still resign, then the rest (or most) of the team resigns?

#

individually?

#

like, most of y'alls frustrations are valid, but removing team resign (or giving 1 person veto power) doesn't fix any of these problems

delicate tartan
#

people would have to actually try without him and not do this lazy "ok damn, we are done, next please!"

minor spindle
#

they would? they would just resign instead

#

team resign is just like, a shortcut to "everyone resigns one by one slowly"

#

IMO if team resign happens, game keeps going, OS is calculated, and the one person can keep playing if they want and the winners can keep smashing if they want. Like kicktown said. But I really don't think that'll actually change much, most ppl will just leave the game at that point anyway

steady owl
#

maybe im wrong since i just skimmed but i get it klap that you are a very good player but 75% the replays you posted are just nublobbies 😅 i dont think you can expect much from these and it's not a reasonable argument to make that some newbies will correctly judge gamesituation according to the sense of 40+ ts player xDD this is just human nature stuff and the solution is just to play with ppl on ur own level no?

minor spindle
#

I have yet to hear an argument for how removing teamresign fixes any of the issues present. Because it will (most of the time) result in 1 player playing against the 8

#

and that's almost never going to result in a win

#

so like, again, frustrations are valid, but THIS thread, the suggestion to allow 1 player to veto team resign, does not SOLVE said frustrations

delicate tartan
#

well, sorry, but for me it actually would

rustic pebble
# subtle juniper dont take my OS either

I think that's unreasonably difficult to solve, that would potentially force people to continue playing that don't want to. Mind you, I'm just like you, I basically almost never want to forfeit, if there's still some fun to squeeze out of the match, even if it's hopeless, I'd prefer to keep playing. I have 0 problems hunting down hidden enemy commanders, I use it as a chance for playful trash talk as I hunt them down like rats ^^

minor spindle
#

so make a new suggestion thread to address the "players resign too early" or "players often teamresign when game is still winnable" concepts.

minor spindle
# delicate tartan well, sorry, but for me it actually would

okay please explain how. I'm seeing it go down like this (in the hypthetical world where teamresign can be vetoed or no longer exists)

person gets tilted, or thinks game is lost, and they !teamresign. The vote doesn't go through cause you hit "no" (but the other 7 voted yes). So that person now resigns individually, almost certainly, along with probably 1-4 other of the yes votes. Now you're already looking at like 1-3 ppl, maybe 4 left. And then from there, your loss is almost assured, and then the other few will probably leave in the next few minutes, and then you're left alone, 1v8.

Do you think that's a better gameplay route?

delicate tartan
#
  1. I dont think people would resign personally if team resign fails
#

it is not the case right now also when teamresign fails

#

at least in my observation

minor spindle
#

that's a fair perspective, I can't say that I agree, but I see where you're coming from

delicate tartan
#

actually yes

minor spindle
#

I am of the opinion that rando internet players have roughly zero grit on average and nothing can change that 🤣

#

and those players will just resign immediately anyway, or they will tilt and rage, or some combination

#

so based on your argument, I would say that REMOVING teamresign is far better than allowing 1 player to veto it

delicate tartan
#

might be true, klap and me are doing this since like 15 years so maybe we have more "extreme" mindset than the casual player

#

anyway, sorry, out for dinner

minor spindle
#

but again, IMO teamresign is a QOL feature and it saves a lot of time. I would vote against it being removed if it came down to a vote, but I can't say that you'd be wrong to have a different opinion. This thread contains my arguments against such things. I simply don't think removing it solves the issues, you disagree, that's fine 😄

#

well, i'd agree it would help with some things, but would cause MORE issues

#

so I believe removing it is a net negative though I agree it might have some positives.

rustic pebble
#

If it weren't for the potential for winners to artificially prolong a game and make leaving the only option, I'd say just remove resign altogether and make everyone suffer. xD Let them eat cake.

minor spindle
#

lol

#

people aren't prisoners

#

they can just exit the game

#

this is a video game after all

rustic pebble
#

i know i know, it's a joke

minor spindle
#

😄

#

what I'm curious about (and requires a new thread) is how to punish EARLY leavers. People who tilt and leave because they lost their lane, it's only 7 minutes in, and the game is VERY undecided. THAT is toxic behavior and I believe it needs to be punished somehow.

#

like, if you have to leave a game once in a while cause your dog is on fire, fine, but leaving a game in progress in the early stages, when your whole team mostly agrees it's still winnable (like, 7/8 instead of 1/8), should be more than just an OS hit IMO

#

So clearly I agree with some of the logic of y'all, but I care far more about majority opinion. If 7/8 wanna leave, fine. If only 1 or 2/8 wants to leave (and does), that probably should be dis-incentivized

#

but I tangent, as that's a different suggestion. I don't think team resign has anything to do with that issue

rustic pebble
#

Hmmm, automatch might fix this problem too, if you didn't have to worry about lobby momentum and could quickly get into a similar match with your allies, you could just have resigners leave and the remainder continue playing.

minor spindle
#

I almost wonder if leaving a game should just mean you can't play another one for 10 mins, unless your team votes to ALLOW you to leave (majority again, not unaniumous). For example, you leave 7 minutes in, randomly, and don't reconnect within 5 mins. Now you have a 10 min ban

rustic pebble
#

Seems like any solution that gives us more requires some programming

minor spindle
#

if you had to leave cause dog was on fire, 10 min ban doesn't matter

#

if you left because you wanted to start a new game, tough cookies, now you can't

rustic pebble
#

Early leaver penalty I think we can all agree on, no idea what thresholds or punishments though, I figure there's a science to taht.

minor spindle
#

well yeah, agreed on that. And removing team resign, while also punishing leaving, will result in a LOT of "hostage" situations

#

so we'd need team resign to still be a thing if leaving in general was more punished

rustic pebble
#

That's actually one of the cases where this comes up a lot, some people don't mind trying the 7v8 with an early leaver, others want to auto-remake. So yeah punishing early leavers would impact this problem too I think.

minor spindle
#

i think a simple threshold for sure would be 10 mins, at least in 8v8 matches, there aint no way the game is SUPER decided before 10 mins, and even if it is, it's only at like, 8 or 9 mins, and you can just wait a min at that point.

#

we'll still get annoying leavers at 10 mins tho so idk if that fixes anything

#

probably can't be time based

delicate tartan
#

Halo Infinite issues temp bans when leaving games

minor spindle
#

sorry, off topioc

minor spindle
#

only way to get out is leaving, which means you cant play again for a bit, or team resign

delicate tartan
#

yes, I wanted to support that idea

minor spindle
#

if you do temp ban AND remove team resign, that is bad. Results in a lot of situations where ppl will just AFK or tilt and throw or all sorts of random crap. (nuke their own team prolly)

#

but I like temp ban for leavers, leave team resign in the game as it is, and we find ways as a community to try to reduce teamresigns that are happening in winnable games. That seems to make everyone happy (ish)

#

cause if tempban is too long, and teamresign doesn't exist, people will AFK cause the game will be lost faster than the tempban anyway

#

so they'll just go get coffee while your team loses and that's bad

delicate tartan
#

every resign should result in teifion visiting the player in person and doing some one-to-one homeschooling sessions about gaming ethics

subtle juniper
#

As i said, these are not rare occurrences. It is incredibly frustrating when it happens. Given the agreed upon win condition (com ends) and the implied game-state (one team overwhelmingly winning) there is in fact no unreasonable loss of time. They can just win the match in a few minutes.

minor spindle
#

there's more than one way for the game to end

subtle juniper
#

You could, but easily rebutted by the actual coded win condition

minor spindle
#

not really? We could change that just as easily

#

you win when you meet the win conditions or your opponents all resign. Most games have resignation

subtle juniper
#

yes, we could in fact fuck up the game more

minor spindle
#

i'm just arguing your point, not suggesting it actually

#

resignation IS a wincon, is my point

#

you're acting like it's not

#

you play until you've defeated all their coms or they resign

subtle juniper
minor spindle
#

that's how the game works (and will always work, since players have agency. They can AFK if resigning isn't allowed anyway)

#

making resigning not allowed will not force players to do anything still

#

they can just play like crap, or not play at all, or do friendly fire, any number of other toxic behaviors

#

happened in dota all the time (feeding intentionally)

subtle juniper
#

Sometimes players would selfd all their shit (in the past) if they thought the game was over, referred to as rage quitting

minor spindle
#

so the other players resigning is ALWAYS an option, whether its coded into the game or not

subtle juniper
#

That was banned because they took away the fun for the remaining players

#

and lowered their chances towin

minor spindle
#

yes, that is toxic, and horrible, and unrelated to team resign

subtle juniper
#

How?

minor spindle
#

because if you ban OBVIOUS throwing, and you remove resigning, then you'll just have players doing enough game actions to NOT get banned

subtle juniper
#

Its the same mechanism

minor spindle
#

it's not. Team resign is a way to quit peacefully, by majority vote.

subtle juniper
#

Both force the remaining players quickly towards a hard lsos

#

loss

minor spindle
#

If you remove all the other options, you create new issues

#

which will be just as (or more) frustrating

#

people will FIND a way to quit

#

trust me on that

#

no amount of threats, or removing of coded ways to resign, will fix that

#

teamresign existing or not, people will quit

subtle juniper
#

Yes, and that is not a problem

#

stop using that as if it is an argument

#

They can leave, they shouldnt force me to leave as well

steady owl
# subtle juniper I can only play high end lobbies for this argument to be correct? Thats not the ...

i think the argument holds less when you are playing with new players yes, simply because most of them dont really have any idea what they are doing or gamesense, so expecting them to behave predictably is folly and unreasonable - they will learn in time. I think if you want high quality games, then yes there is little option than prolobby or accepting that the game will be low quality. I'm just taking your word for it that its true since i only saw one (maybe two) replays where it would be reasonable for match to essentially not be random 😅 i also cant say that my own experience (granted i only have a few hundred games played) aligns with yours, so it's hard to agree that the current situation is problematic - the maybe 2 or 3 games where i really didnt want my team to resign i just started acting like a peppy cheerleader and they kept playing so again, i dont really share your experience nor the perception of the current system being problematic or requiring a solution (i also dont really agree with the solutions written about here and i already wrote some comments but its too much work to address each and every one seperately :P)

minor spindle
#

I agree with kicktowns idea which fixes that problem of "forcing me to leave". Game should continue with OS being calculated.

#

And then anyone can leave.

#

Other you're "forcing everyone else to play" and that's worse

subtle juniper
# steady owl i think the argument holds less when you are playing with new players yes, simpl...

The quality of the matches isnt the issue here. Possibly the reason why your experience differs is because you judge the game state differently. And probably the win chances for your team composition are actually less than for mine. Also your judgement of the game state will often be more in line with your other teammates due to more similarity in experience and skill. So you just end up in less of these situations.

hot perch
#

Bottom line: There is 16 people playing.

#

They don't need to take your fragile ego into consideration.

#

If 15 of them agree to go next, you go next or find another lobby

#

You can play solo and never resign all you want

#

But if you play team game, you have to be willing to work as a team

#

And if team decides to resign, thats that

subtle juniper
#

If you dont understand this game please dont join this discussion dude

delicate tartan
#

why are you always about ego lmao?

hot perch
#

Because thats all this is. You are trying to force 15 people to do something they dont wanna do

subtle juniper
delicate tartan
#

I think it's egoistic, after losing your lane, instead of leaving the game and finding a new lobby, trying to stop the whole game for everyone so you have an easy time getting the next game

hot perch
subtle juniper
#

Code of Conduct: - If you are done with a game then resign; self destructing all your units in a team game can ruin the game for your team and is not acceptable

hot perch
subtle juniper
#
  • Examples of griefing include teamkilling, purposefully hurting/imprisoning, capturing or reclaiming allied units without consent or consistently throwing games with the intent to deny other team members a potential win
steady owl
# subtle juniper The quality of the matches isnt the issue here. Possibly the reason why your exp...

well quality of the match does matter in this case, because you want a situation where people will not force the team to throw, expecting this (or anything) from basically new players is ridiculous and you are using these as examples so it is fair to approach it from this angle imo 🙂
well what you said about my experience and such exactly and literally underlines my argument 😛 your problem is not that people are resigning too early but that you are expecting too much from people in games way below your ''level'' and the pproblem can be resolved by playing with people who are as developed as a player as you are, no?

hot perch
#

Reaction to this thread are good example of this. 19 people didnt agree. 3 of you did. You three will argue to hells end that you are the one in right

#

Just as you would hold everyone else in game for another 20 min by massing static D

subtle juniper
subtle juniper
hot perch
subtle juniper
#

Did you watch the replay i shared above?

hot perch
#

And if it is, once in how many games?

subtle juniper
#

Could you do so and tell me who you think should have won?

hot perch
#

If something works 99% of the time, you dont replace it with something that doesnt work 99% of the time

subtle juniper
hot perch
#

Just so that that last 1% works

hot perch
subtle juniper
#

rofl

#

Watch some replays man

#

See what's happening

delicate tartan
#

majorities should also respect the rights of minorities

minor spindle
#

Okay. Let's focus on a new angle. The winners. I can, to some level, agree that if you're losing, you can just resign and leave, you don't NEED team resign to do so. So let's imagine our scenario where 7/8 on the losing team want to leave. I would argue that, on average, far more than 1 winner would also like to be done.

Like if we did the following poll of players who agree with the following statement:
"if at least 7 of my opponents would like to resign right now, I would prefer to take the win and be done". I am quite certain that that is on average at least a few people per game, and by removing team resign, you force them to play longer. Just like you were "being forced to resign". And in this case it's multiple people, up to 8 people even, that you are forcing to play against their preference.

#

Again majority wins here.

#

So there's multiple angles which support team resign. I respect your preferences and frustrations but team resign existing creates the most net fun for the average player and the most players on average

#

As mentioned, 19 down votes and 2 up votes does show to some level that people like that team resign exists too.

subtle juniper
#

Nice

hot perch
#

Thats basics of democracy

#

Hell, even communism

#

You dont have right to my time.

#

Or 14 other peoples.

minor spindle
subtle juniper
#

You made up a scenario

#

The votes mean something in the context of the scenario

minor spindle
#

But the title is literally about having majority team resign, and I'm claiming downvotes imply people want to keep majority team resign

delicate tartan
#

I think one big problem with the team-resign-vote is, that it is heavily biased (imo) because players take part that already lost the game (their lane/position). So they have no stake anymore in the game and are not interested very much in the team winning. Instead they are only interested in stopping the game for personal reasons to get as easy as possible into a new game.
They do not strongly consider themselves to be part of a team and dont have a team mindset. They just are in the game for their personal amusement. That might be more true for casual players than for players that are more serious about the game

minor spindle
#

I would agree with that behavior being an issue. I don't agree that team resign vote makes it any worse or any more prevalent. I also agree it's more true for casuals. Which is the case in every other game I've played too, not just BAR

snow fable
#

I would say forcing everyone to keep waiting on you is much less a team mindset than the majority of your team wanting to forfeit and go next. The vast majority of this game is casual players anyway. Everyone is playing this for their personal amusement. Go play premades and 1v1s if you want to play with people to the very end.

I'm not trying to be mean but this is one of the least popular suggestions I've seen, people do not want this.

delicate tartan
#

Which suggestion are you talking about?

shell vigil
#

Oh, this thread came back? My stance generally remains the same.
I don't have too much issue with the current 75% majority required for a successful resign vote. It's a fair enough majority and kinda unreasonable to argue against at that point.
But I do have a major pet peeve with flaky low morale players, with their strange tunnel visioned and panicky ideas of what constitutes "it's over". There's nothing that can be done to "patch players", but some people do really need some grit, and to learn to enjoy the game as a whole, rather than only being able to enjoy having the glory of their army specifically leading the charge.

My most recent games have actually been refreshingly good, but so soooo many winning games have had multiple players per match, freaking out or getting despondent in chat, calling "gg" or "it's over" etc. Have had failed resign votes etc, and gone on to totally stomp the enemy. Feels like almost half of all games sometimes. People are just way too flaky. I honestly almost take it as part of the strategy by now, to try and prop up and encourage anyone that I'm concerned might call a vote. Morale is the invisible killer stat in this game.

Literally had one where our best player, both in rating and game impact thus far, took a hit, got pissy in chat, and decided to pull a solo resign, only for us to then win without him only 10 minutes later anyway. And I doubt he ever learned of this, continuing to assume "I'm skilled enough to know a lost game" whilst he plays lobby simulator.

#

If anything were done to make resigning harder, I certainly wouldn't be against it. I just don't think I have any strong arguments for it, in terms of the mechanic itself.
Would rather players themselves would learn that this isn't every other RTS. Big comebacks have always been one of the best parts of the TA sub-genere of RTS.
If they want to jiggle units back and forth for 5 to 10 minutes then insta resign when the first trade goes bad, they should go back to StarCraft.

random moss
#

can just add an option to game creation, so people can vote on what kind of resign the game allows; if people don't like how the game is set, they can leave and go find another one with the kind of resign resolution set to their liking

unborn plaza
hot perch
#

Hmm, doubtful.

#

It takes 100~ games to get a good feel for the game

#

And experience is hardly linear

#

You learn quickly, but then it drops off sharply.

#

Some of the new players probably are already better then him

eager kindle
#

You know the way this works is that you two now have to settle this in a honorable duel, right?

hot perch
#

Im hardly a good player and Im already out of what I would call a noob category. Last RTS I played was Starcraft 5 years ago and I wasnt very good at it

#

Im pretty sure there were much better players then me coming over. And If Im 31, they are better still.

subtle juniper
#

Check the leaderboard for how many new players are on there, platys

#

Number 30 seems rather new. Otherwise glass is newest I guess, he has been playing for 2 years or so (or wait, wasn't he also playing a lot longer as Melkaven?)

#

Elmer, it has only been 15 years for me

delicate tartan
#

🐶

unborn plaza
celest idol
#

i think the problem fixes itself if you dont play in a room full of noobs. Good players know if you still have chance to win, so would vote no.

subtle juniper
celest idol
subtle juniper
#

So not really a solution huh

celest idol
#

dunno, works for me tbh

subtle juniper
#

You just said those lobbies have long queues. You think waiting for up to 1-2 hours to get in a game is an acceptable solution?

celest idol
#

You want to take away the ability from the team to resign and have a fresh game, and your solution to that was that they can just resign and go play in another lobby.

So, you are fine if others are waiting in the queue or in the game for you to finish, but you yourself are not willing to wait in the same queues, because what? you feeling better than them?

If its so bad for you apparently, just play 1 vs 1. You are pretty high up there with the TS klap, in all competitve games with skilled matching, you would spend long ass time in queues regardless, because you would have to be matched with similar skill.

subtle juniper
#

There is a single lobby with a long queue. All others fill up quick and start fast. You are telling me I should stick to the one long queue lobby if I want to play a game that is not stopped midgame when some players can't deal with losing their base. I'm arguing for a culture where players don't give up as fast because a) often the game is far from lost, b) the chances of winning are way higher when your team realises they have to work through setbacks for a win, c) there is so much fun to be had when shit goes sideways and you, as a team, manage to come out on top.

#

The sad thing here is that people are robbing each other of great games because they don't know better. For players who know this is incredibly frustrating.

celest idol
# subtle juniper There is a single lobby with a long queue. All others fill up quick and start fa...

Thats not entirerely true nowdays klap, you have one top lobby running, and one/two lobbies with rank4-5 players, with minimum lobby rating set to 18-20. I know, cuz when the limit in the top lobby is set beyond my ts I join those. ( This is obv eu peak time, but in off peak time you dont have brutal 20 player queues). The wait time in those secondary lobbies is one game long. People rotate quickly. Those lobbies don't resign games that you have decent chances, or at least its rare occurrence (while in your lobbies apparently its pretty often).

What also changed recently is the king of the hill style of the top lobby, if there is someone higher ts in queue, the lower ts players gets force spec'd to make space for them. (thats how dev's want this to be done... should be automatic minimum ts lobby adjustment to be fair > . >)

I understand the feeling that sometimes you can carry game 1 vs the world, but I also understand the resign is there so that when the last player starts malding and prolonging the game for the rest of the lobby as long as possible, that's just toxic. In the end, communication with the team could alleviate some of your woes. You need to convince your noobs that you can beat the other noobs peepoLove

PS. I still remember you telling me that you don't play in pro lobby, because its toxic environment pepeFeelsBadMan

subtle juniper
#

Not sure where this argument is going anymore. Your definition of good players also differs wildly from mine. My point stands regardless of ease of getting in certain lobbies/games. No one should be robbed of a fun game.

#

And yes, I do sometimes avoid 'pro' lobbies cos of certain players (or combinations of players) who create an annoying environment.

celest idol
#

We agree to disagree.
Team decided to play the game together
Team decided to resign the game, as majority vote.
How you perceive fun game, or how you perceive good players differs, but that doesn't mean the other person opinion is invalid.
Its opinion vs opinion after all.

shell vigil
# celest idol i think the problem fixes itself if you dont play in a room full of noobs. Good ...

How far do you have to get past OS 31 before this game sense kicks in? Because that was the rank of the guy who called GG and solo resigned, with us then winning without him only 10 minutes later.
Not saying that ability to read games doesn't obviously get better with skill, but there's plenty of examples of people who clearly think they know enough, but are too quick to quit to ever actually find out if they were right.

celest idol
# shell vigil How far do you have to get past OS 31 before this game sense kicks in? Because t...

this sounds different though, its sounds like tilt. It happens in all online games since ultima online peepoCantSleep Also, OS means shit nowadays, you can just do seal clubbing for 200 games and you are well above 30 ts. (unless you are already at over 2000 games and gain 0.01 ts, rip Monkey)

I will reverse the fun aspect of the match. Yes, its fun to win 1 vs 8, but how fun it is to lose 8 vs 1? Whats the feeling of the players that lose 8 vs 1? Is it fun for them too? No, they just feel they got owned by much experienced player. The core issue is: noobs can play with pros and vice versa. There is no matchmaking, its free for all buffet. You decide with which players you play, nothing else. In equally skilled lobby 1 vs 8 is almost never possible, but very skilled player in room full with low ranks? Hell yeah it is, even i can do it and i'm a damn noob at this game.

The issue with "premature" resign happens mostly in low skilled lobby, have you played any other game? It's the same in all on them. People rage, troll, quit, grief mostly in lower tiers, when you get to high ranking matches, it happens less, as people start to tryhard and maintain their rank. (albeit its still pretty toxic alright 🙂 )

shell vigil
# celest idol this sounds different though, its sounds like tilt. It happens in all online gam...

Well just for clarity, in the particular case I'm talking about there, I believe the reason he resigned was his push failing just short of the enemy base, and getting pushed back to his. He probably then checked the map to see that we had been pushed all the way back across the entire map, and that our two south players had just been wiped. At a lazy glance it certainly looked like it was over. So maybe a tiny bit of tilt on "my attack failed", but probably a sincere resign rather than a rage quit. It was ironically two of our lowest ranked players that then unleashed a wave of titans at the same time, and we all just swept across the map following them.

Although I'd say you're right that it's more often newer players, who overly fixate on the situation of their own lane rather than the state of the whole battle. I think at least half of the time, it's literally down to people not getting that high eco plays always come late but hit hard. I get the impression that a lot of players have come from other RTS games where once the momentum starts going against you, it rarely changes. Whilst in BAR, it can very frequently be the opposite.
( Doing surprisingly well in the early game? Beware of why, and who's missing. Things looking bad in the early game? It might not be as bad as it looks. Check what your allies are cooking.)

vivid oriole
#

I had games in BAR where ppl vote multiple time in the span of 10 mins to resign (usually 2-3 ppl vote yes) and then we win game anyway because top3 players in team carry it; in TA:ESC (where max is 5v5) I had games where I win 1vs5 becauses of eco advantage and spamming heavy units; I had mixed feeling about this thread but I think it would be better to completely remove "vote team resign" feature as this is noob feature and anti-pro feature; the only argument for this feature to exist is "we keep the same lobby" but this is completely irrelevant: just create new lobby it is instant and hassle free; additionally its just FUN sometimes to play games where you are at theoretical disadavantage (eg 2 vs 6 ppl); game rules should be simple: game ends when all comms in team die; now the rule is like "OR if some noobs decide they want to force rest of the team to quit game"

snow fable
minor spindle
#

Honestly this thread should be concluded. The same arguments have gone around in circles forever. It's clear what the popular opinion is. No point going around and around anymore.

shell vigil
#

It does seem fairly concluded. 🫤

Still kind of a shame though. Two of my favourite and most memorable RTS matches of all time, were back on SupCom in a rare situation exactly like this. Both being where my brother and I were the last players standing but decided to fight to the last anyway, and managed to stage an epic comeback.
Those are the kinds of games that you remember for years to come, and can enjoy telling people about. Would trade dozens of generic on-meta matches for those rare special moments. Neither would have been possible as it stands in BAR right now.

It seems like a lot to trade, just for the sake of people not having to spend 30 seconds selecting a new lobby.

earnest geyser
#

Are you saying we won't allow people to argue in circles and be forced to watch the thread conclude on a vote

shell vigil
#

Lol.
Lets just battle it out forever. Anyone who gets fed up can solo resign and find a new thread.
Whoever is stubborn enough to still be here in 20 years time wins the debate. 😛

eager kindle
#

This is becoming extremely meta

subtle juniper
#

Sounds like you wanna give up to me.

minor spindle
hot perch
#

There are some people who just hide comms and prolong the game as long as possible.
6/8 is enough.
They are minority, but hardly so rare as to not get 2 in a game.

subtle juniper
#

If you can't find a hidden comm you don't deserve to win

hot perch
minor spindle
spare geode
#

Where is mbt? That guy likes to resign every time he see something he doesn’t like.

#

I personally like to fight to the end. Many games that seemed hopeless have been turned around. Too many weak snowflakes nowadays.

spare geode
minor spindle
#

ITT: two completely separate arguments.

No one is arguing that finding comms is too hard or winning when you're ahead is too long of a process. (well at least I'm not)

The argument is about team majority being allowed to say "collectively we are done playing" and the other team also getting the benefit of 'the other team would like to resign, so we accept the win now'

This thread has nothing to do with actual game mechanics and everything to do with player psychology. The concept of "team resign" has almost exactly the same conversation regardless of game. Most of the points for or against it are relevant in every video game, and have nothing to do with BAR. If 7 players aren't having fun, deciding to quit together is what they will usually do.

#

I think the only place team resign shouldn't exist would be like, a finals tournament, or something like that. For more interesting casting and such. For casual games? Definitely should have team resign.

#

A lot of arguments against it are forgetting these are casual lobbies.

#

All arguments about "is the game winnable" are secondary, cause that's irrelevant if the players want to quit. You cannot force grit. You cannot force fun. You cannot force "want".

#

I will agree that having the actual game keep running for the 1 or 2 who don't want to quit and winners that don't want to be done WOULD be a good change. Cause sometimes you wanna keep watching your juggernaut steamroll their base.

#

But the OS and "official" results should be calculated at time of team resign

spare geode
#

Im guessing you’ve never received “doing everything”.

hot perch
#

I have fair few times, so let me tell you, yes, you shouldn't hold people hostages. ^^
It takes time to kill last person.
10 minutes to build up and go kill you is a chore at that point, not fun.
And yes, it sometimes takes that long when sea player turtles while noone was air or hovers on your team.

subtle juniper
#

If you need ten minutes to kill me in sea you probably aren't going to win the game tho

#

And then we are back at this: lots of players don't know when the game is lost/won.

hot perch
#

16 min in, everyone but the sea dead

#

Took 10 more to build up to t2 air & go kill him

#

Not fun.
Just a chore

#

And a lot of people know, they just do their best to prolong it as much as possible.

#

Worse is hardly anyone knows how to stop building eco and just go kill the turtle.

subtle juniper
#

I'm available for a workshop if you like

delicate tartan
#

still this "holding people hostage" argument? I thought you guys were over that meanwhile

hot perch
#

That's ultimately all it is tho

delicate tartan
#

I guess if you happen to get actually taken as hostage irl, you might notice some subtle differences to people wanting to finish their BAR game.

silent tartan
#

Social hostage, LOL
Strictly speaking, nobody is FORCED to do ANYTHING, like signing a check, unless people come over and physically grab their arms and make them sign their damn name.
Still, everyone acknowledges that you MUST write checks if you want to do business.

And to the point, isn't there a social stigma to resigning too early, abandoning your teammates? Having a resign vote helps that situation, because it's a compromise that (socially) binds people to the group's judgment. If you repress the compromise, more people will go to the darkness of simply abandoning everyone on their own judgment. Luv me psychology.

vivid oriole
#

are there any pro / os35+ players (pre reset) who want vote resign to be in game?

delicate tartan
#

yes, me. I just don't want it to be called as soon as

#

an ally sees an enemy unit in his base after 3min

#

if even people do abuse it as that (I exaggerated a bit), then I would prefer to not have it in the game

celest idol
#

tbh limiting resigning vote to lets say after 15-20 mins have passed since start is not bad idea. Wouldn't avoid people just resigning outright after bad engagment in the first few mins though. ( or just quiting the game and joining other lobby)

shell vigil
#

Just out of curiosity, asking the people talking about "holding hostage" or dragging out games etc, are there never times where you feel cheated by a resign vote? Even the ones that result in you winning?
It's not too uncommon for me to feel like a hasty resign from the enemy team (even if I agreed with the predicted outcome), kind of steals the winning teams thunder.
I of course wouldn't expect an enemy team to just endure being beat on til the very end, but there's definitely times where it can feel quite disappointing to see eight players bases self destruct all of a sudden.
It can be really anti-climactic and cheapen the time spent getting to that point.

hot perch
#

Twice I looked at game and it was pretty even when surrendering.

The last 1-2 prolonging tbe game as long as possible maybe every 3-5th game?

Depends on day and if people leave one by one or vote resign. A lot just leave because setting surrendering vote not that easy while to leave there's 1 button.

snow fable
#

Yes, I feel as if I've been cheated by my team for resigning early, or by the enemies team when I don't get to see my own units perform.

But my own enjoyment does not outweigh the enjoyment of the rest of the lobby. That isn't equitable. Plus since I frequently run bossmode lobbies, I always want the players to have their own autonomy still recognized - dragging out games that most of the lobby doesn't want to keep playing infringes on far more people's autonomy.

Everyone participates in how lobbies feel and play. You guys are in a community. You aren't playing single player - your arguments are very self serving and totally ignore the cooperative nature of team games, especially in this situation where it requires the majority of your teams consent to carry on or not.

Please learn to share.

shell vigil
#

Regarding the part I was just talking about, it wouldn't be "just myself", it would be the entire winning team, plus potentially two people from the opposing team too.
My point in that example was that the quick to quit mentality, is the selfish action itself.
I've always considered it common courtesy even in an obvious definite loss, to let the enemy have their moment of glory that they've worked for.
That just suddenly bailing on a game the moment it seems like you've lost, is actually rude, in my own thinking.

snow fable
#

Okay but people quick to quit just leave the game and those people are rude, but people wanting to quit after 30~ minutes and one flank has fallen are not rude.

"kept waiting" Yeah so, I run bossmode lobbies with like 2 dozen people from a private discord, though we aren't all on at once. Lobby is a communal experience. You're wasting our time to play together and keep a smooth lobby going for everyone else not partied with us. This is a communal experience. Everyone contributes to the lobby. Don't keep us waiting.

Okay so first of all that doesn't usually happen - 6 people are not going to agree to quit unless the team is doing really poorly despite the battle still going on. The two outliers on the team are going to be frustrated for a bit and the enemy team is likely just going to be confused and a bit disappointed that the match ended early.

The alternative to this is letting 2 people now control the armies of 8 people in a losing scenario and probably not having the focus to handle all of that. In addition to this you're trying to leverage the possibility that the other team always enjoys destroying the majority of the enemies stuff. This is a projection. In reality in game it's almost completely ambiguous and impossible to know before hand what the other team wants. Out of game, people very clearly do not like this idea and would rather just let the other team resign and go next instead of killing all their shit or fighting 1-2 people that don't want to quit. It's more likely to be equitable to just let team resign stay in.

The community doesn't want this. You're acting the way I presume you do in game which is not agreeing to quit yourself when people clearly don't want things to continue.

vivid oriole
#

look like BAR will continue to still be a game where a few players can vote that you lost the game 😄 not sure its productive discussion any more; everything what should be said was already said I guess

minor spindle
#

Aka 6

vivid oriole
#

6 out of 16 in game lol

minor spindle
#

The winners shouldn't get a say in whether you've lost or not lol wut

vivid oriole
#

so 33% of player base in given match haha

vivid oriole
minor spindle
#

No because that's abusable. "oh yeah we're definitely winning, we will vote that they are losing" lol.

vivid oriole
minor spindle
#

Y'all forget ppl going to resign whether vote resign exists or not.

delicate tartan
#

I think this will soon be a topic for Amnesty International to strengthten human rights.
Maybe we will even see SWAT teams being send out to bring freedom to all the people being held hostage in BAR games against their will 🐶

minor spindle
#

It's just a QOL feature

#

You think somehow removing vote resign will make ppl not quit and effectively vote resign anyway. It won't. Promise. Played enough MP games in my life.

delicate tartan
#

#freeBARhostages

vivid oriole
delicate tartan
vivid oriole
delicate tartan
#

Dunno, didn't exist in BA afaik. Must be a BAR invention

snow fable
#

Damn having more equitable options must suck huh.

silent tartan
#

Yo, actual compromise suggestion:

silent tartan
#

League doesn't allow you to surrender vote until like 10 or 15 minutes, iirc?

#

The idea being "no lol, it's too early to tell, don't be trippin'."

#

Yeah the games ain't exactly comparable, since a BAR game can be over both way sooner and take way longer, but I think that's a good starting point.

#

Not allowed to start a team resign vote until 10 minutes at least.

snow fable
#

I just don't know if that's even necessary since I have never played a game where we team resigned <15 minutes unless like everyone died right away somehow, like losing all 4 frontliners on straight.

#

We weren't the ones resigning though we were the ones pushing 🤷 But tbh I don't think I'd be interested in fighting a tilted battle like that from basically the beginning.

I could agree to putting that in since it seems like it wouldn't affect 90% of games I guess, but it's working on something pretty much no one wants to begin with.

silent tartan
hot perch
#

Quite a lot of games don't last 20 minutes.
Just face it, if 6/8 people on your teamwant out, they should be able to.
You can go find another lobby after that if you think they surrender early.

spare geode
#

Actually the snowflakes can go find another lobby.

#

Literally just played a game 3 almost 4 ppl wanted to give up. We won. Ez clap. If the snowflakes had there way it was an auto lose.

shell vigil
# silent tartan Not allowed to start a team resign vote until 10 minutes at least.

It wouldn't hurt, but probably wouldn't help either, at 10 minutes. Most of the hasty resigns I'm talking about, tend to be roughly between 10 to 20 minutes.
That really key phase for team morale where the front is getting pushed and maybe a scary raid has dented plans, but others in the team haven't yet unleashed their upscaled eco to turn things around.
Survive that T2/eco-rush transition phase without anyone doom spiralling morale in chat, and you tend to be ok. ( Win or lose. I just mean that later resign votes tend to be more accurate.)

shell vigil
# spare geode Literally just played a game 3 almost 4 ppl wanted to give up. We won. Ez clap. ...

And yeah. It's just painfully common. When your team has an uncontested titan literally ripping the guts out of the enemy backline, and five of your team vote to resign, only narrowly stopped by a series of rabid pings to make them zoom out and realise that we've just won the game. Our backliner screaming "Vote NO! Enemy has NO BASE." in chat.
Its just... bleh.
People gotta at least take a moment to breath before voting no so quickly.

#

Honestly that's my only real goal in this thread. I've noted several times that the feature plainly isn't getting changed, and even if it were, it's not really the actual source of the problem.
Jaedrik raised the plenty true point, that if the vote resign were gone, we'd very likely just see more mid-game solo resigns instead. Since that subtle social contract resulting from a failed vote, of, "No, WE are still fighting" would be removed.
And I know I'm a broken record on it, but can't help but vent.
What I really want, isn't removal of the feature. I want some big youtuber to tell people to zoom out and check what's actually going on before declaring "it's over". Anything that helps people understand the "early T1 aggression vs Tech/eco late pay-off" dynamic.

snow fable
# spare geode Actually the snowflakes can go find another lobby.

Using the word snowflake is absolutely cringe.

There is no reason to keep talking about this. If the team wants to resign, deal with it.

There is a an astoundingly negative response to this idea, nearly a 5-1 ratio of dislikes to likes which is frankly the worst I've seen so far.

Insulting the people you both fought against and who wanted to resign is rude.

If you guys are going to continue to ignore the community and just start bitching all I can say is cope peepoClownThumbUp

spare geode
#

Karen is that you?

hot perch
#

Snowflake is a valid word which is descriptive.
If there's minority of people that wanna give up?
Yupp, they should go find another lobby.
If there's minority of people who don't?
Very same thing.

#

It's about more people then you.

subtle juniper
#

Glad to see there are more people experiencing this as problematic. @shell vigil, yeah could make for a fun series where a streamer does a 'lost but won games?' series. Start the video at the point people are doing a resign vote, zoomed in on the lost base then showing how the team still wins

delicate tartan
#

I can't even remember the last time a game ended by the actual win condition "Kill all enemy Commanders"
If resigning really is what the community wants to do, maybe change win condition officially to "Make the enemy team resign for whatever reason"

silent tartan
#

I mean, the """actual""" wincon in Starcraft 2 is "destroy all enemy structures," but

spare geode
#

Imagine a vote to resign in SC2. 🤮 rage quitting is always an option.

random moss
#

I still like the idea of revealing all remaining commanders for 10m after resign vote passed, and allow the remaining players to continue. I mean if the "winning" side can't finish off the very few players left in very short time, then maybe the game shouldn't have been resigned in the first place

#

WC3 had the mechanic of revealing all remaining buildings when your last income building (main town building) is destroyed, to speed up the finishing phase, and it works

weak walrus
random moss
#

the reason people might find the "play it out" approach cumbersome is because the remaining few players controlling the losing team could just hide commander and artificially delay an otherwise sure loss just to waste time, in that case, revealing their commanders will make that delay tactic unfeasible

spare geode
#

Scout and destroy. It is really that hard?

random moss
# spare geode Scout and destroy. It is really that hard?

the argument being brought up constantly against the "let the remaining players fight it out" mode is that the remaining players can grief the winning team by simply wasting time, and one of the easiest way to waste time is to just hide commander and force the winning team to spend more time than needed after it was very clear that they've won; my suggestion was to reveal commanders as a middle ground between "end game" and "let them fight to the end", by removing this stalling tactic to accelerate the remaining game

weak walrus
random moss
#

what issue is it causing?

#

I find it hilarious that people are not willing to meet in the middle on issues that they clearly debate for ages with no one yielding and no solution in sight

#

no one will gain anything by not yielding to find a solution

weak walrus
#

For the revealing of commanders
It adds intel to a team who did not go out of their way to create the information

random moss
weak walrus
#

It means that if most of the people on your team wanted to resign but you want to continue you now have a higher hill to climb than before

random moss
#

I don't see how that's worse than what already is in the game

weak walrus
#

This isn’t about clearly won games that I’m talking about
It’s the ones that are still toss up

#

That I am talking about

random moss
weak walrus
#

I do actually want to remove the 75 %
The reason for why it was done was that there was simply only one 8v8 match in a day

#

People wanted 50% at the time btw

random moss
#

there are downsides to the higher % vote solution too, it means 3 players can stall a game, and if those 3 are friends who joined the game together they still can grief the winners by flat out rejecting loss condition and drag game on

#

like I said before, we could just make it a setting for game creation, so that people can choose the %, we'll see in a few weeks what is the most popular, and it might be a good idea to just allow people decide on a per game basis anyway

snow fable
# random moss like I said before, we could just make it a setting for game creation, so that p...

That sounds like way too much player autonomy. People already go insane with vote spam, and some bosses abuse their privilege's and could set the resign threshold to one person wanting to resign.

There is no reasonable way to implement revealing the commander since they can build so no remaining buildings doesn't really work - anything that has to do with relative income or total metal worth could also have problems, and all of this is exaggerated the smaller games get

There's also the fact that, people just wholesale don't want this. Not really a reason to compromise because a couple of people want it bad enough when the community has blasted this into the dirt as a bad idea.

delicate tartan
#

Not sure if I can follow you correctly: what exactly are you referring to that has been "blasted into the dirt by the community"?

snow fable
#

The amount of people down voting this compared to any other thread I've seen is pretty severe. Especially considering the it's usually like the same 10-15 people talking in suggestion threads.

If this were to be scaled up, it would be something like 25% of the player base. (32/7=4.57) so 2 people out of 8, which matches the resign vote ratio already.

The community would rather call it and go next. No reason to put extra work on the devs. No reason to make things more complicated in order to resign or run lobbies. At most driverr reduces the threshold because it's in their vision for the game. But that would actually make it easier to resign, not harder, if I read their comment correctly.

#

Essentially, not only does the community not want this, but driverr said the community use to want 50% instead of 75%.

This isn't happening. I'm not trying to be a dick, but I am trying to end the discussion because even if I myself wanted it, the community and devs don't want it.

subtle juniper
#

You don't have to end the discussion though. You are free to leave and go have another on another game uhh, thread. The problem with your reasoning is that the very nature of the problem being discussed doesn't lend itself for a majority vote. The fact that you think it does only illustrates this more.

spare geode
#

Is it not less work and less complicated to scrap resign vote?

#

Please help me understand why people should have the power to force a lose on someone? They can just quit and join another lobby.

hot perch
#

Why should you have power to waste time.
People have power to make you loose because it's team game.
Don't like team aspect of it, play 1v1 or 2v2s.

snow fable
#

Zippy replies do not make what you want anymore popular.

#

This is also only a "problem" to a couple of you that refuse to share. This is not apart of the devs vision and it ironically has had the opposite effect of reminding driverr that they wanted to make surrendering even easier.

snow fable
#

Go play a different game or play small matches.

delicate tartan
# snow fable The amount of people down voting this compared to any other thread I've seen is ...

Hell, I have the feeling you are really serious about this? There are 32 downvotes from a community of 20000 people and you call it "blasted into the dirt by the community". Maybe a bit overly dramatic, no? 😄
Well, I don't say it doesn't say anything but actually this is statistically next to irrelevant. For different good reasons you wouldn't go ANYWHERE with this if this would be an actual election or stuff like that. I guess I don't have to explain why.

Uhh and I don't think people here need you to end the discussion. I guess they are free to still talk about it if they want.

snow fable
#

Not all 20k people are active. I help run a server with 20k+ people in it.

Out of all those people that are even active, which it sure doesn't feel like more than several thousand of them are, a very small fraction of them care about anything other than general, academy, and voice chat. Out of the people outside of that which is probably at most a few hundred, even less browse suggestions.

There are not even 100 people that talk in suggestions regularly, I think I could name all of them without looking. Out of any of the community that cares to such a finite deal that they read suggestions, most of them do not like it.

While this is not a vote, it's a clear sign that the people that care do not want this - and very easily correlates with polling in real life. You can't count all 400m~ Americans as active participants. You can't count all 20k members as participants. They don't care, the people who do don't like this idea and neither do the devs.

#

So while your passive aggressiveness is cute, no one wants this. This is a suggestion to the devs, that has run it's course.

Continuing to argue about it is just going to draw in people who are not privy to the nearly 800 messages and don't realize that the "suggestion" part of the thread is over and we're now in the "I'm going to go in circles and bitch about this until the thread is locked" part of the thread.

subtle juniper
weak walrus
#

please do not try to say devs say this
we are a committee styled organization

snow fable
snow fable
delicate tartan
#

It's good to have someone who definetly knows what the community and what the devs want and who is able to speak on behalf of them. Being able to just end discussions helps too. This will make communication on discord much simpler and much more efficient in the future.

eager kindle
#

I really think this is neither productive nor helpful, @snow fable 😦

snow fable
#

I don't see the point in entertaining people that refuse to acknowledge the communal aspect of things. Continued discussion of a unpopular idea is just as, if not more unproductive than discussing why we're even still talking about it in the first place.

eager kindle
#

That may well be, but the former is up to them to decide and the latter is up to you to decide. If you think this is a waste of time, don't waste more of yours and let others reach their own conclusions on that... in due time

subtle juniper
eager kindle
#

Honestly I'm glad this topic remains open, it gives people who need to vent a place to do that, and I can mostly ignore it 😄 there's no spillover into other threads

snow fable
# eager kindle That may well be, but the former is up to them to decide and the latter is up to...

I understand the message, this is a soft way to ask me to leave the thread because I am being abrasive. I don't say that in an accusatory way but more as in like - "I get it".

Suggestions works as much as a sounding board as it does a lightening rod. It gives people a place to rant about things they consider to be poor game design.

However - I find it likely more frustrating for people with genuinely good ideas and input to argue with people endlessly about bad ideas. It seems like suggestions is a little too hands off imo and it leads to situations where people argue in bad faith against others for literal days.

#

If I am being asked by the academy manager to leave, I will leave the thread. It ain't my discord to moderate.

eager kindle
#

Just to be clear - I have no power nor authority here, nor should I, really, I just run events from time to time, lol! I'm just saying that as a regular person I don't think this is a productive use of your own time, and I don't think the way you're going about achieving the goal of getting people to spend their time more productively - a goal I completely agree with, btw - is going to work.

snow fable
#

It's more like filibustering - the forum is open and I can use my own time on occasion to keep a few people from wasting more peoples time if I keep interjecting that the vibe leans towards people not wanting this.

subtle juniper
#

Because you are the Bringer of Truth, Protector of Time, Interpreter of People's Will and Conveyor of Devs' Wishes. That's one high horse you are on there, mate. The only time you are wasting is your own. Let everyone else decide if they consider participating in this thread a waste of time or not.

weak walrus
#

this conversation is going no where
please move on

snow fable
delicate tartan
#

You are of course free to draw whatever conclusion you want from those numbers. Please just don't ignore the fact that other people don't share that view and don't consider your conclusions as straight facts as this would be quite presumptuous

hot perch
spare geode
#

Ive been in soooo many games now where a vote resign fails and then we win.

#

In there eyes I guess we were just wasting time.

#

If the game is truly a lose it will be over quickly anyway. If you struggle to end it quickly then obviously you need the practice to get good.

shell vigil
# snow fable They already did 🫡 Audios.

This authoritarian "stop talking, thread is closed" stuff is unbecoming and contributes nothing.
Your time is your own, and others theirs.
Feel free to continue actually discussing the matter if you really want to, but you have no right to dictate that others are not allowed to.
Unless you're concerned that the vote count will suddenly reverse after you stop trying to silence people, then you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by simply moving on and counting it as a win.
You've done this in multiple threads now, and it's a really ugly habit.

snow fable
silent tartan
silent tartan
near raven
# snow fable I don't see the point in entertaining people that refuse to acknowledge the comm...

"I don't see the point in entertaining people that refuse to acknowledge the communal aspect of things." Yeah I totally 100% agree. Its like Jews trying to talk to Nazis in Germany back in the day. Fuck them, they are the minority, fuck what they have to say, they are clearly wrong. The answer has already been decided; fuck what they have to say, off to the gas chambers they go. Amazing argument. Couldn't agree more. Holy fuck people are retarded as shit. Please ban me from this discord. To get back on topic and maybe have an actual discussion, I've had multiple 8v8 games where I've almost been forced resigned where I have either won or nearly won a (end game) 1v8. I think its dumb to have my entire team cancel the game where I have a genuine chance of winning just because they "think" the game is over. Especially when they can literally just resign and join a different game.

subtle juniper
#

Lol, don't give mods a reason to lock this thread, Cheetah 😬

near raven
#

eh, idgaf. I honestly love this community but they can ban me if they want. if i see stupid ass arguments i will speak against it 😛

subtle juniper
#

Sure, but that doesn't help the rest of us who stay behind to discuss this topic.

near raven
#

well.. I did try to get back on topic at the end there 😄

spare geode
#

What a cunt.

oak wraith
# snow fable That sounds like way too much player autonomy. People already go insane with vot...

Yes way too much Autonomy for sure. An apple is not an orange, and a orange is not an apple. Just like a player wanting to resign should not mean a player can make everyone else resign. If someone is done with a game they have a resign button they can use to leave such game and join another one. Why should those who are still playing have to be forced out of the game they have spent time in. Some things should be left up to normal autonomy. For instance leave the apples as apples, and oranges as oranges. The voting is in pregame and should stay there, changing things after the birth of the game should be non existent. Let the game continue to play out and those who want to leave can do so. It is that simple. Those who want to resign in game to rejoin another game can do so. Nothing wrong with that.

snow fable
#

@oak wraith @near raven

#1091982320342417448 message

peepoclown

hot perch
crystal bronze