Concede or no concede in DotA 2?

sure i don't see the reason why not... if i have a bad game or a bad set of teammates i'd prefer to be able to just end and start fresh, isntead of having my frustration build

I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free. | coL.Ryan | www.twitter.com/coL_RyanR

scorch- United States. March 27 2012 06:43. Posts 576

Profile #

Yeah, see the problem is that the game isn't actually a good one if it's just wasting 20 minutes hoping the other team starts screwing around. How does that feel like an accomplishment to win? You're not actually improving by doing that. You're like the kids who join qlive CA pubs and spam grenades and rockets hoping to do damage or get free kills instead of fighting other players and forcing yourself to get better at aiming and moving or be punished for your errors.

With concede, you get to play more games at the point in the game where you're not woefully behind and can stand to improve the most. Compare your ability to improve when you play the laning and early pushing/ganking phase of the game 3x versus playing it once, playing the midgame once, and playing the lategame once. If the game is even, you're not going to concede, but if the game is lopsided, how is playing the mid/late game helping you improve? The hardest part of winning while ahead is getting your team to stop farming and just group up and end the game, and that's just an annoying facet of pubbing the game. There's nothing fun or skillful about winning a game where you're up by 10-15 kills, it's the least fun part of the game, where you have to ward up the other team's jungle, farm 2 lanes, and watch as they sit in their base, unable to leave while you're unable to kill them on their t3 towers. It's boring for 7+ of the 10 players in the game.

Concede is better for the game and community because it gives more players more opportunities to improve to the point where conceding is no longer necessary.

mordk March 27 2012 06:56. Posts 7012

Profile Blog #

To put it in starcraft terms so people can understand why concede is ridiculous:

Having a concede function is like having Idra play every single game

"I haven't prepared anything in particular. I'm naturally good at everything. I'm good at eating too, so that's why I can't lose weight. I'm thinking maybe I'll dance as a ceremony, a dance that's popular lately" MC - discussing GSL grand finals

DerNebel Denmark. March 27 2012 07:02. Posts 611

Profile Blog #

On March 27 2012 06:43 scorch- wrote:
Yeah, see the problem is that the game isn't actually a good one if it's just wasting 20 minutes hoping the other team starts screwing around. How does that feel like an accomplishment to win? You're not actually improving by doing that. You're like the kids who join qlive CA pubs and spam grenades and rockets hoping to do damage or get free kills instead of fighting other players and forcing yourself to get better at aiming and moving or be punished for your errors.

With concede, you get to play more games at the point in the game where you're not woefully behind and can stand to improve the most. Compare your ability to improve when you play the laning and early pushing/ganking phase of the game 3x versus playing it once, playing the midgame once, and playing the lategame once. If the game is even, you're not going to concede, but if the game is lopsided, how is playing the mid/late game helping you improve? The hardest part of winning while ahead is getting your team to stop farming and just group up and end the game, and that's just an annoying facet of pubbing the game. There's nothing fun or skillful about winning a game where you're up by 10-15 kills, it's the least fun part of the game, where you have to ward up the other team's jungle, farm 2 lanes, and watch as they sit in their base, unable to leave while you're unable to kill them on their t3 towers. It's boring for 7+ of the 10 players in the game.

Concede is better for the game and community because it gives more players more opportunities to improve to the point where conceding is no longer necessary.

No, that would be a guy picking vs, claim mid and build 5 wraith bands while feeding. Or a pudge insisting to jungle with rot, confused as to why he is dying. Or it would be you going 3-0 in lane only to find your 2 other lanes feeding 10 kills in the same time. Point is, a forfeit option would not protect you from these things and would promote the most fatalistic of mindsets, the "we're behind by 10 kills, we should concede" that is evident in HoN right now, with people deciding they can't win from picks and just spamming concede as soon as they can. HoN made the games quicker, sure, but is that a good thing when comebacks are so much fun?

DoomsVille Canada. March 27 2012 07:21. Posts 4808

Profile #

Yes to concede. But it should only be allowed if a combination of circumstances are met:

1) Game time should be at least 20 minutes (maybe even 30).
2) Gold difference should be at least 10k
3) At least 4 of the 5 players must concede

If all of those are met, no reason concede shouldn't be allowed.

But I would be thoroughly opposed to a concession system if it didn't have some sort of time requirement. And I think there should be some sort of advantage to the opposing team (or maybe xp? or maybe kill score?).

Jakkerr Netherlands. March 27 2012 07:44. Posts 2428

Profile #

hmm i'm not sure about conceding, there's a lot of pros and cons to the concede function.

as far as my experience goes:
Pros:
-Sometimes ur team just really sucks and there's no chance of ever winning.
-you can safely get out of a game if some people on ur team decide to give up and fake AFK.

Cons:
-I've had numerous comebacks I would have never had on HoN/LoL cause we would have surrendered 20 minutes a go
-It motivates people to keep trying, cuz what else can you do? I noticed there are a lot less ragers on Dota 2 then on LoL/HoN. There's still some obviously but not as much.

The best example of a great comeback was few days a go, I'm currently in the 'High' matchmaking rating on Dota2 which is kinda nice since people seem to have a clue about what they are doing, anyway the example:
I was playing nature's prophet woods but the game just went awful, we pretty much lost all 3 lanes and went like 6-16 in the first 30 minutes.
By the 40 minute mark mid and bot lane rax were dead and the enemy team was raging at us cause we kept trying to defend, 'just let us win this game is over'.
After a while we managed to catch up a little bit being able to keep them out of our base so we could get some farm, they had a huge advantage but their lineup consisted mainly of midgame heroes like pudge and broodmother.
Every teamfight after that went more and more in our favour and at the 60 minute mark we managed to completely turn things around and proceeded to win the game.
It's nice when no1 on ur team gives up for a change even if ur chances look abysmal

scorch- United States. March 27 2012 07:46. Posts 576

Profile #

On March 27 2012 07:02 DerNebel wrote:

Show nested quote +

No, that would be a guy picking vs, claim mid and build 5 wraith bands while feeding. Or a pudge insisting to jungle with rot, confused as to why he is dying. Or it would be you going 3-0 in lane only to find your 2 other lanes feeding 10 kills in the same time. Point is, a forfeit option would not protect you from these things and would promote the most fatalistic of mindsets, the "we're behind by 10 kills, we should concede" that is evident in HoN right now, with people deciding they can't win from picks and just spamming concede as soon as they can. HoN made the games quicker, sure, but is that a good thing when comebacks are so much fun?

So you just made no points other than that it doesn't work in some other game that sucks.

Yes, it is a good thing, for every reason that I just stated. Concede -> earlier point in time where concede becomes unnecessary. I don't even want to play games where my team is behind because MOST of the time, we are behind because teammates are bad and need to learn a lot. I'd rather they go play more early game and learn more early game and get better while I queue and hope for better teammates than me struggle to get them to stop sucking in the middle of a game. You don't know how to play 20mins+ anyway, and you won't ever learn if you play these games where the first 10-15 minutes are just played incorrectly by both teams. Not having concede is bad for the development of its players, and the game as a whole because of that.

Varpulis United States. March 27 2012 08:06. Posts 2356

Profile Blog #

I'm on the ropes about concede. Reading through the thread, I see strong arguments both for and against it. Ideally a concede system has no downsides: If there's no way to win, you type /ff and end the game so you don't have to wait 20 minutes for them to finally kill the throne. The problem, as I see it, is the way a concede option can be abused.

In the end, it all depends on the restrictions on when and how you can concede. I play LoL (no beta key T_T), and despite how hard snowballs are to reverse in that game, I find myself constantly declining concede votes because for me the best way to improve is my late game is to play from behind, where anything short of perfect performance leads to disaster.

At the same time, in certain circumstances the concede option is a wonderful thing, when no matter how well I've been doing the enemy is too strong, and the concede vote saves time and futile resistance.

Given these observations, I'd say that concede should be implemented, but only

After 30 minutes, if not even longer. Even in LoL, games are rarely over by the 20 minute mark (LoL concede minimum), and 15 minutes is even more ridiculous.
4 or 5 out of 5 need to agree. I don't want 3 whiny assholes queueing together to ruin my game, but at the same time one stubborn person shouldn't be able to elongate the game when 80% of his team agree that its over.
Completely anonymous voting. Straightforward. Anything else is just an invitation for harassment
Not announcing results globally. LoL does this, and it annoys me to no end. Telling the other team that half of you want to give up is not good, but this is more my preference than anything else.
if vote fails, you can't start another for at least 5 minutes, maybe even more.

With all of that, I'd be alright with concede. I'd hope that valve manages to sort something out, because I think that both no concede and unrestricted concede are in certain (different) ways ineffectual.

For he is the Oystermeister, lord of all the oysters.

Wrongspeedy United States. March 27 2012 08:12. Posts 1521

Profile Blog #

On March 27 2012 06:56 mordk wrote:
To put it in starcraft terms so people can understand why concede is ridiculous:

Having a concede function is like having Idra play every single game

They need to edit this on top of all the pages on this thread. It made me a believer.

It is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.- John Stuart Mill

FishBones Australia. March 27 2012 08:16. Posts 185

Profile #

Most players give up far too easily. From my speculation in HoN, there are many situations in which the team is not in an unwinnable situation but will choose to concede early just because they are losing. This is even before the team loses a rax, just because a few ganks go astray or they get ganked a few times they'll want to give up.

There are obviously unwinnable situations where concede will be nice, but if the team really got to an unwinnable situation I can't imagine that the game would last much longer anyway. I don't think that a game is unwinnable until you've lost at least 2 sets of rax though.

I voted against concede. I feel that it is abused in HoN to escape unfavourable games and greatly reduces the chance of you experience an epic game (i.e comeback game).

Tears fill my eyes, so I look up | You and I, right now we can't be together

nathangonmad United Kingdom. March 27 2012 08:25. Posts 302

Profile #

Fuck the surrender option, this isn't LoL. Dota is a game where come backs are always a possibility.

Last edit: 2012-03-27 08:25:45

Keep trying Leenock

Niton United States. March 27 2012 08:31. Posts 1497

Profile Blog #

On March 27 2012 06:56 mordk wrote:
To put it in starcraft terms so people can understand why concede is ridiculous:

Having a concede function is like having Idra play every single game

That's a horrible, dishonest analogy. If you wanted to put it in Starcraft terms (which, incidentally, has forfeits), it would be roughly analogous to the SC2 client punishing you for winning or losing a game in any way other than the "correct" way of all buildings being destroyed, because you can always come back if your opponents do something horribly wrong there, as well.

The lack of a proper surrender option is something that will hurt DotA2 far more than it will help it, especially when attempting to take players from League. A healthy pick-up game needs a way to end the game without multiple players being absolutely miserable. It's not about whether the game is possibly winnable, but about whether or not a group of randomly matched people can reach that possibility (hint: lack of cohesion means that most can not), or even if they WANT to subject themselves to 30 minutes of unfun for a chance.

To put it another way:

DotA2 is, ultimately going to have a public matchmaking system because that's one of the things a non-ancient game needs. To do that, they need to make sure that people want to play it. One of the biggest reasons why a new player might be dissuaded from playing it further is because they feel locked in to not having fun. Even if there's a (very small) chance they could have fun at the end, that's not what they care about, nor is it what they SHOULD care about. The complete inability to stop doing something unfun completely misses the point of what a game is.

Last edit: 2012-03-27 08:38:26

tree.hugger: Coming off of [(T)fantasy v. (T)Really] into [(T)Barracks v. (T)MVP] is like coming out of Manhattan into New Jersey. You just have to speed up and ignore it.

Absurd Bunny March 27 2012 08:58. Posts 140

Profile #

There should be a concede option.
Of course, comebacks are amazing, and ones that are almost impossible are almost amazing, but if the team KNOWS that the game is over, like no comebacks possible, you should concede. Besides, if almost all but you and one other guy agree on conceding, and you keep saying no, they are going to leave anyways, and reporting them won't matter.

cozzE Australia. March 27 2012 09:00. Posts 329

Profile #

post-25 minute concede option only. No sooner.

People actually arguing against concede.. just stupid. Even games you've won can be painfully boring post 25minutes..

Imbajoe United States. March 27 2012 09:08. Posts 443

Profile #

If there is going to be a concede function, I feel it has to be very strict on when it is allowed. Something like 35+ minutes, or a gigantic hero kill differential. Reason for this being that I believe many LoL players will try out the game, and if there is one thing I learned while playing LoL, it's that they give up easy (in LoL you can forfeit at 20 minutes with a vote of at least 4-1 in favor; many players became acclimated towards handing over a win right at 20 minute mark if they were in an unfavorable position). I don't want to have so many players with that mindset forfeiting games 20 minutes in just because the instantaneous picture is that we are losing. Maybe it was a good thing in LoL because it is much more snowballey and hard to come back in. But in DotA, where comebacks are possible are almost any point in the game (I have and I'm sure many others here have come back from megacreeps multiple times, one of them even being a 3v5) it just doesn't seem like it would be fun to give up all of those comeback opportunities because players would rather start over than work from a deficit.

i wear a kitten scarf

Fishes United Kingdom. March 27 2012 09:09. Posts 41

Profile #

Would be nice if there was some kind of algorithm based on gold difference, towers lost, team kills, experience difference etc. that would enable forfeiting after a certain threshold was reached but it would be quite hard to know where to put that threshold and it should only be available after a certain amount of time (25/30 minutes seems fair). I think other games' implementation of conceding so far is pretty bad (HoN comes to mind) and if one person is being really stubborn it will breed negativity/frustration in the community.

<3 Liquid

Xinder United States. March 27 2012 09:10. Posts 1396

Profile Blog #

On March 27 2012 08:06 Varpulis wrote:
I'm on the ropes about concede. Reading through the thread, I see strong arguments both for and against it. Ideally a concede system has no downsides: If there's no way to win, you type /ff and end the game so you don't have to wait 20 minutes for them to finally kill the throne. The problem, as I see it, is the way a concede option can be abused.

In the end, it all depends on the restrictions on when and how you can concede. I play LoL (no beta key T_T), and despite how hard snowballs are to reverse in that game, I find myself constantly declining concede votes because for me the best way to improve is my late game is to play from behind, where anything short of perfect performance leads to disaster.

At the same time, in certain circumstances the concede option is a wonderful thing, when no matter how well I've been doing the enemy is too strong, and the concede vote saves time and futile resistance.

Given these observations, I'd say that concede should be implemented, but only

After 30 minutes, if not even longer. Even in LoL, games are rarely over by the 20 minute mark (LoL concede minimum), and 15 minutes is even more ridiculous.
4 or 5 out of 5 need to agree. I don't want 3 whiny assholes queueing together to ruin my game, but at the same time one stubborn person shouldn't be able to elongate the game when 80% of his team agree that its over.
Completely anonymous voting. Straightforward. Anything else is just an invitation for harassment
Not announcing results globally. LoL does this, and it annoys me to no end. Telling the other team that half of you want to give up is not good, but this is more my preference than anything else.
if vote fails, you can't start another for at least 5 minutes, maybe even more.

With all of that, I'd be alright with concede. I'd hope that valve manages to sort something out, because I think that both no concede and unrestricted concede are in certain (different) ways ineffectual.

As someone who's a fan of no concede at all I could live with all of these rules being implemented for the concede option. I'd be ok with it then.

"Daaayyyy9, King Pussyfoot of NinnyVille"- Day9 while playing Amnesia

Candadar March 27 2012 09:10. Posts 1791

Profile Blog #

I think it's safe to say no one is genuinely against a concede option, but against it being implemented poorly and just being tacked on for the sake of being there and would rather not have one at all than have a poorly implemented one.

Last edit: 2012-03-27 09:11:10

Niton United States. March 27 2012 09:15. Posts 1497

Profile Blog #

On March 27 2012 09:10 Candadar wrote:
I think it's safe to say no one is genuinely against a concede option, but against it being implemented poorly and just being tacked on for the sake of being there and would rather not have one at all than have a poorly implemented one.

Read the thread again - a lot of people are saying it's unneccesary, because you can always come back. This is in reference to a solo queue matchmaking system, which is designed to be something that's 'pick up and go' and nowhere near as deep strategically as a 5v5 tournament. For the latter, I can understand why you might not want the option (though quite often TOs have their own criteria that allows it), but for the bread and butter experience of (hopefully) millions of players? I don't get it at all.

tree.hugger: Coming off of [(T)fantasy v. (T)Really] into [(T)Barracks v. (T)MVP] is like coming out of Manhattan into New Jersey. You just have to speed up and ignore it.

superstartran United States. March 27 2012 09:50. Posts 1307

Profile #

On March 27 2012 09:15 Niton wrote:

Show nested quote +

Read the thread again - a lot of people are saying it's unneccesary, because you can always come back. This is in reference to a solo queue matchmaking system, which is designed to be something that's 'pick up and go' and nowhere near as deep strategically as a 5v5 tournament. For the latter, I can understand why you might not want the option (though quite often TOs have their own criteria that allows it), but for the bread and butter experience of (hopefully) millions of players? I don't get it at all.

It's funny because the same people who say there should be no concede have no issues with surrender options in SC2 or other RTS games. The fact of the matter is players can concede/surrender if they feel like they want to. It is an option in every high level league/inhouse organization in DotA 1, anyone who argues for the surrender option likely never played in those leagues/inhouse organizations.