Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Chat
irc.quakenet.org #teamliquid
IRC Web ClientTeamSpeak 3 (58 users) | |
|
| DoubleDare Canada. March 31 2012 16:36. Posts 43 | Profile # |
I don't see it as "oh I'm losing let's concede".
I see it as: in 50% of my games I am required to buy wards and donkey + flying upgrade even if I play carries. I've grown sick and tired of playing with people who don't know how to play their role, and even more irritated by people who not only remain ignorant of their obligations but also insult me when I ask them to do their job.
I don't concede games when my team is competent, I concede games when I get 13 year old pricks who think they are amazing at DotA because they've played 10,000 hours of LoL. Typically, I am decent at controlling my anger, but honestly, sitting in 50 minute games with idiots that can't spell or form a coherent thought is my worst nightmare.
Concede vote? Yes please. |
| | Chilltosis forever. P{HuK, TAiLs, WhiteRa} Z{Sen, Nestea} |
|
|
| superstartran United States. March 31 2012 17:16. Posts 1307 | Profile # |
On March 31 2012 09:22 itkovian wrote:
Yes, concede but only if all five teammates agree. Why should a team be prevented from conceding if that is what the whole team wants to concede? It makes no sense.
When I play with my friends, and we all agree we've lost the game, why should we not be able to surrender and move on to another match? You can't just say "just let the other team win then" because sometimes the other team will just sit outside your base and farm instead of pushing your towers. And while it may be fun to farm the best items for the next twenty minutes, its no fun for the losing team to sit in their base and wait for the mercy of the other team to end it.
There have been many games where I've come from behind and won. And it is awesome. But if my team is in a position where we all want to concede, its seems obvious that we should be able to.
Why should 1 guy be able to hold a team of four players hostage? |
|
|
| rwrzr United States. March 31 2012 17:32. Posts 1158 | Profile # |
| Why should 1 guy have the right determine the outcome of a game for 9 people? |
| |
|
| Kuzmorgo Hungary. March 31 2012 18:18. Posts 725 | Profile # |
On March 31 2012 17:16 superstartran wrote:
Show nested quote +On March 31 2012 09:22 itkovian wrote:
Yes, concede but only if all five teammates agree. Why should a team be prevented from conceding if that is what the whole team wants to concede? It makes no sense.
When I play with my friends, and we all agree we've lost the game, why should we not be able to surrender and move on to another match? You can't just say "just let the other team win then" because sometimes the other team will just sit outside your base and farm instead of pushing your towers. And while it may be fun to farm the best items for the next twenty minutes, its no fun for the losing team to sit in their base and wait for the mercy of the other team to end it.
There have been many games where I've come from behind and won. And it is awesome. But if my team is in a position where we all want to concede, its seems obvious that we should be able to.
Why should 1 guy be able to hold a team of four players hostage?
Because this whole thread we have been arguing to reach a consensus, and I think a lot of people would be against a concede system where the other four players could give up, and ruin his experience. A system where 5/5 votes are needed is much more safe in the sense that in no situation is your fate out of your own hands.
Its all about priorities. I would rather play some games to the end, where one of my teammates won't concede, than even play one game where my teammates take a bad fight without me, all go EMO and hit the concede button, when in reality we may have been winning (it happened before in dota1 actually). |
| | "No, whine not! Play, or play not! There is no whine." | |
|
|
| dismiss United Kingdom. March 31 2012 19:39. Posts 176 | Profile Blog # |
On March 31 2012 18:18 Kuzmorgo wrote:
Show nested quote +On March 31 2012 17:16 superstartran wrote:
On March 31 2012 09:22 itkovian wrote:
Yes, concede but only if all five teammates agree. Why should a team be prevented from conceding if that is what the whole team wants to concede? It makes no sense.
When I play with my friends, and we all agree we've lost the game, why should we not be able to surrender and move on to another match? You can't just say "just let the other team win then" because sometimes the other team will just sit outside your base and farm instead of pushing your towers. And while it may be fun to farm the best items for the next twenty minutes, its no fun for the losing team to sit in their base and wait for the mercy of the other team to end it.
There have been many games where I've come from behind and won. And it is awesome. But if my team is in a position where we all want to concede, its seems obvious that we should be able to.
Why should 1 guy be able to hold a team of four players hostage?
Because this whole thread we have been arguing to reach a consensus, and I think a lot of people would be against a concede system where the other four players could give up, and ruin his experience. A system where 5/5 votes are needed is much more safe in the sense that in no situation is your fate out of your own hands. Its all about priorities. I would rather play some games to the end, where one of my teammates won't concede, than even play one game where my teammates take a bad fight without me, all go EMO and hit the concede button, when in reality we may have been winning (it happened before in dota1 actually).
So you think a system in which 4 people can get trolled by one person is more feasible than one in which one person might have to suffer from his team conceding? Especially when you could always, you know, talk to them and try to convince them that you are actually winning.
The big problem here seems to be that a lot of people are under the impression that their skills are so far superior to the normal pub player that only they can decide what's right for their team. (Which isn't true whatsoever^o^) |
|
|
| superstartran United States. March 31 2012 21:49. Posts 1307 | Profile # |
On March 31 2012 18:18 Kuzmorgo wrote:
Show nested quote +On March 31 2012 17:16 superstartran wrote:
On March 31 2012 09:22 itkovian wrote:
Yes, concede but only if all five teammates agree. Why should a team be prevented from conceding if that is what the whole team wants to concede? It makes no sense.
When I play with my friends, and we all agree we've lost the game, why should we not be able to surrender and move on to another match? You can't just say "just let the other team win then" because sometimes the other team will just sit outside your base and farm instead of pushing your towers. And while it may be fun to farm the best items for the next twenty minutes, its no fun for the losing team to sit in their base and wait for the mercy of the other team to end it.
There have been many games where I've come from behind and won. And it is awesome. But if my team is in a position where we all want to concede, its seems obvious that we should be able to.
Why should 1 guy be able to hold a team of four players hostage?
Because this whole thread we have been arguing to reach a consensus, and I think a lot of people would be against a concede system where the other four players could give up, and ruin his experience. A system where 5/5 votes are needed is much more safe in the sense that in no situation is your fate out of your own hands. Its all about priorities. I would rather play some games to the end, where one of my teammates won't concede, than even play one game where my teammates take a bad fight without me, all go EMO and hit the concede button, when in reality we may have been winning (it happened before in dota1 actually).
Concede will be implemented. It is inevitable. It would be stupid of Valve not to. The only reason why they haven't is due to the fact that they are just gathering more data because the game is still in a beta.
And two, the reason why 4 out of 5 makes more sense is because it is likely that 4 people have better judgement on the game rather than one. As a poster above me stated, those who are arguing for a no concede option grossly overrate their abilities and skills, believing that they have a better opinion than four other people in the same game. |
|
|
| CROrens Croatia. March 31 2012 21:52. Posts 665 | Profile # |
On March 24 2012 01:27 zeru wrote:
people qqing and wanting to concede should only happen at low mmr. mid-high mmr comeback is always possible, conceding should never be an option.
actually its the other way around, at low mmr mistakes are common and comebacks are possible |
| | There is no problem that cannot be solved by the use of high explosives. - Anonymous ...............................Hyuk fan! \o/ |
|
|
| superstartran United States. March 31 2012 22:00. Posts 1307 | Profile # |
On March 31 2012 21:52 CROrens wrote:
Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 01:27 zeru wrote:
people qqing and wanting to concede should only happen at low mmr. mid-high mmr comeback is always possible, conceding should never be an option.
actually its the other way around, at low mmr mistakes are common and comebacks are possible
Hence my statement as to why lower level players are the ones arguing for conceding. At higher levels of play, comebacks rarely happen unless the opposing team makes some really huge blunders. |
|
|
| Firebolt145 United Kingdom. March 31 2012 22:06. Posts 12383 | Profile # |
On March 31 2012 21:49 superstartran wrote:
Concede will be implemented. It is inevitable. It would be stupid of Valve not to. The only reason why they haven't is due to the fact that they are just gathering more data because the game is still in a beta.
Actually the only thing that we've heard from Valve regarding is that they have no plans to implement concede. |
| | @Firebolt145 | Dota 2 stream yayayay www.twitch.tv/firebolt145 | |
|
|
| superstartran United States. April 01 2012 01:51. Posts 1307 | Profile # |
On March 31 2012 22:06 Firebolt145 wrote:
Show nested quote +On March 31 2012 21:49 superstartran wrote:
Concede will be implemented. It is inevitable. It would be stupid of Valve not to. The only reason why they haven't is due to the fact that they are just gathering more data because the game is still in a beta.
Actually the only thing that we've heard from Valve regarding is that they have no plans to implement concede.
For now. I seriously doubt they will go live/retail without the option. You'd be shooting yourself in the foot if you do.
Every single no concede argument is rooted in stories about magical comebacks that somehow happen. I have yet to see a single good argument that anyone has come up with for "no concede" with any decent logic. DotA 1's entire IH/Competitive system was built around the surrender/concede/ff option. The conditions were different depending on the organization you were playing in, but it was always there. The chances of 1 person being right over 4 people is just too small for anyone to ever argue that no concede is the correct call. If 3 players on your team already admit defeat, there's no point in continuing the game. It just wastes your time, and the other teams time.Last edit: 2012-04-01 01:56:38 |
|
|
| Yurie April 01 2012 01:56. Posts 2099 | Profile Blog # |
On April 01 2012 01:51 superstartran wrote:
Every single no concede argument is rooted in stories about magical comebacks that somehow happen. I have yet to see a single good argument that anyone has come up with for "no concede".
Why do you play a game that gives you no money for your time and develops no real useful skills? Because it is fun? I find it fun to play the entire game out, win or loss. I see no reason for conceding just because I've lost the game. Comebacks happen or they don't. I still find it more fun to play out a game.Last edit: 2012-04-01 01:56:36 |
|
|
| superstartran United States. April 01 2012 01:57. Posts 1307 | Profile # |
On April 01 2012 01:56 Yurie wrote:
Show nested quote +On April 01 2012 01:51 superstartran wrote:
Every single no concede argument is rooted in stories about magical comebacks that somehow happen. I have yet to see a single good argument that anyone has come up with for "no concede".
Why do you play a game that gives you no money for your time and develops no real useful skills? Because it is fun? I find it fun to play the entire game out, win or loss. I see no reason for conceding just because I've lost the game. Comebacks happen or they don't. I still find it more fun to play out a game.
So you would like it in SC2 if there was a no surrender option where the guy can troll you forever? lol.
You will never develop real skills if the other team is the one making massive blunders. You already are supposed to learn how to capitalize and punish mistakes well prior to that point in the game.
And two, I guarantee you are in the minority. Not many people want to sit there and get hooked out of their fountain by Pudge for 15+ minutes. Who wants to sit there and get farmed by the Sniper with 20k+ of items? No one. Guaranteed. People are going to troll in DotA 2, it's inevitable. The concede/surrender option will be implemented, it's been a part of the DotA IH system for too long for it to not be there. If Valve continues with their "no concede/surrender" option then they'll lose a huge chunk of casuals to League, guaranteed. Last edit: 2012-04-01 02:00:42 |
|
|
| Kuzmorgo Hungary. April 01 2012 02:25. Posts 725 | Profile # |
On March 31 2012 19:39 dismiss wrote:
Show nested quote +On March 31 2012 18:18 Kuzmorgo wrote:
On March 31 2012 17:16 superstartran wrote:
On March 31 2012 09:22 itkovian wrote:
Yes, concede but only if all five teammates agree. Why should a team be prevented from conceding if that is what the whole team wants to concede? It makes no sense.
When I play with my friends, and we all agree we've lost the game, why should we not be able to surrender and move on to another match? You can't just say "just let the other team win then" because sometimes the other team will just sit outside your base and farm instead of pushing your towers. And while it may be fun to farm the best items for the next twenty minutes, its no fun for the losing team to sit in their base and wait for the mercy of the other team to end it.
There have been many games where I've come from behind and won. And it is awesome. But if my team is in a position where we all want to concede, its seems obvious that we should be able to.
Why should 1 guy be able to hold a team of four players hostage?
Because this whole thread we have been arguing to reach a consensus, and I think a lot of people would be against a concede system where the other four players could give up, and ruin his experience. A system where 5/5 votes are needed is much more safe in the sense that in no situation is your fate out of your own hands. Its all about priorities. I would rather play some games to the end, where one of my teammates won't concede, than even play one game where my teammates take a bad fight without me, all go EMO and hit the concede button, when in reality we may have been winning (it happened before in dota1 actually).
So you think a system in which 4 people can get trolled by one person is more feasible than one in which one person might have to suffer from his team conceding? Especially when you could always, you know, talk to them and try to convince them that you are actually winning. The big problem here seems to be that a lot of people are under the impression that their skills are so far superior to the normal pub player that only they can decide what's right for their team. (Which isn't true whatsoever^o^)
As I said, its a matter of priorities. I would get 100 times more frustrated over my teammates giving up a playable game, than having to stay in an unwinnable one. You may feel the other way around, then your priorities differ from mine.
But from the point of the number of votes, the way I see it there are 3 major groups: Those that don't want concede, those that want it but only with 5/5, and those that want it with 4/5. If we want to reach a consensus that is good for all, the middle ground seems to be concede with 5/5. |
| | "No, whine not! Play, or play not! There is no whine." | |
|
|
| superstartran United States. April 01 2012 02:32. Posts 1307 | Profile # |
On April 01 2012 02:25 Kuzmorgo wrote:
Show nested quote +On March 31 2012 19:39 dismiss wrote:
On March 31 2012 18:18 Kuzmorgo wrote:
On March 31 2012 17:16 superstartran wrote:
On March 31 2012 09:22 itkovian wrote:
Yes, concede but only if all five teammates agree. Why should a team be prevented from conceding if that is what the whole team wants to concede? It makes no sense.
When I play with my friends, and we all agree we've lost the game, why should we not be able to surrender and move on to another match? You can't just say "just let the other team win then" because sometimes the other team will just sit outside your base and farm instead of pushing your towers. And while it may be fun to farm the best items for the next twenty minutes, its no fun for the losing team to sit in their base and wait for the mercy of the other team to end it.
There have been many games where I've come from behind and won. And it is awesome. But if my team is in a position where we all want to concede, its seems obvious that we should be able to.
Why should 1 guy be able to hold a team of four players hostage?
Because this whole thread we have been arguing to reach a consensus, and I think a lot of people would be against a concede system where the other four players could give up, and ruin his experience. A system where 5/5 votes are needed is much more safe in the sense that in no situation is your fate out of your own hands. Its all about priorities. I would rather play some games to the end, where one of my teammates won't concede, than even play one game where my teammates take a bad fight without me, all go EMO and hit the concede button, when in reality we may have been winning (it happened before in dota1 actually).
So you think a system in which 4 people can get trolled by one person is more feasible than one in which one person might have to suffer from his team conceding? Especially when you could always, you know, talk to them and try to convince them that you are actually winning. The big problem here seems to be that a lot of people are under the impression that their skills are so far superior to the normal pub player that only they can decide what's right for their team. (Which isn't true whatsoever^o^)
As I said, its a matter of priorities. I would get 100 times more frustrated over my teammates giving up a playable game, than having to stay in an unwinnable one. You may feel the other way around, then your priorities differ from mine. But from the point of the number of votes, the way I see it there are 3 major groups: Those that don't want concede, those that want it but only with 5/5, and those that want it with 4/5. If we want to reach a consensus that is good for all, the middle ground seems to be concede with 5/5.
Concede 5/5 is fine up till like 40-50 minutes. At that point it should be pretty clear who is winning, and if a team is clearly farming you 4 players should be allowed to end the game right then and there.
If its a matter of priorities than the priorities of 4 other people matter more than one person. Period. Those who don't want a concede are the same people who attempt to hold teams hostage in League and HoN. They are predominantly low level players (yes, look over at both forums and you'll see that the majority of those who argue for a no surrender/concede option are of LOW level of play). They are clearly pissing off their entire team by holding them hostage in a game no one wants a part of.
A modified HoN system would be fine. Concede 5/5 up to 40 minutes or so, or 30 minutes depending on certain stipulations (such as the amount of gold disparity between the 2 teams). After that 4/5. If you can't tell who is winning at that point, well I don't know what to say. |
|
|
| Firebolt145 United Kingdom. April 01 2012 03:34. Posts 12383 | Profile # |
^ is a pretty good suggestion actually. Perhaps the following:
No CC before 30 min.
After 30 min, needs 5 people to CC.
After 45 min, needs 4 people to CC. |
| | @Firebolt145 | Dota 2 stream yayayay www.twitch.tv/firebolt145 | |
|
|
| vanTuni April 01 2012 03:53. Posts 301 | Profile # |
dotalicious has a concede system that has been proven to work perfectly fine for years. no need to change it.
can only concede after 20 with 5/5.
there is no 4/5... 3/5... always need every single player on the team to agree its lost.
|
|
|
| kellymilkies Singapore. April 01 2012 03:58. Posts 1237 | Profile Blog # | |
| | Be the change you wish to see in the world ^-^V // | |
|
|
| targ Malaysia. April 01 2012 04:14. Posts 352 | Profile Blog # |
I support the concede option.
When I was playing Dota 1 in pubs, the situation where the opposing team could clearly win, but preferred to farm some more and get cooler items, was very very common. If most players had the mindset of "I'm clearly winning, let me take down Roshan then go and smash them immediately," then I would say no concede.
But so many players sit around and farm when their team is 20-2 that I seriously cannot stand a game without the concede option. |
| | http://billyfoong.blogspot.com/ my other opinions are here |
|
|
| antelope591 Canada. April 01 2012 06:44. Posts 790 | Profile # |
On March 31 2012 16:04 skipgamer wrote:
No concede, conceding became the single most annoying thing about HoN... The biggest shit-rage-fests I've ever seen on the internet happen when 3/4 people want to concede and 1/2 people don't want to. You would have people saying "i will sit at fountain+afk until game is over if you don't concede" or "i will sit at fountain+afk until game is over because you all suck and i don't want to concede" and that was far from a rare occurrence, I would say every 2nd/3rd game was like that. Sure it was at a low skill level, around 1500-1600 mmr, but still, just the fact that it happened, and ruined so many games, was so annoying.
I've found many dota2 games so far to be good fights, even until the end, way more than 50% even. I'm not saying we've come back from huge disadvantages 50% of the time, but there have been good fights... It amazes me how much of an impact just removing that "i give up" button has had on the game. It would make for a great lesson in game design.
Oh, as others have said though, I see no problem with it in 5 stacks. If you have a 5 stack you should be able to concede definitely, I hate it when we are trying weird/funky/different hero combinations and we are getting raped, but are forced to sit a full game.
Yeah this is def the best argument against concede....there needs to be SOME form of concede to prevent troll fests it just needs to be on a much more restricted scale than on HoN. Literally 50% of low level games has someone who would AFK rage if a concede vote didn't go their way once the time hit. |
|
|
| red_b United States. April 01 2012 07:12. Posts 929 | Profile # |
I still am unconvinced that there needs to be a concede.
I think that if you, as a player, are so convinced that the game is a waste of time you should just take the abandon.
I honestly believe that if you want to give up a game before it's over, there should be some sort of punishment to make sure that you've really thought it through and the penalty for leaving is still less than having to stick around.
I saw a ton of 20 minute concedes in LoL even in ranked and even in gold. It's embarrassing. My DotA 2 experience so far has been leagues better than that and I do not want to see that changed.
BTW I've been queuing up with some of my friends who are new which means I have gotten the opportunity to play in the lower and medium skill tiers a bit and I still don't see it. Sure we get the occasional idiot, flamer, non-English speaker or troll but none to the extent that I thought "well no matter what I do I will lose". had a game last night where at 45 minutes our void had 1200 hp and a MoM. we lost. you know what I thought about for 30 minutes after that game? "if I played better we could have won." |
| | Those small maps were like a boxing match in a phone booth. |
|
|
| Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next All | |
|
|
|
| |
|
Sidebar Settings...
|
Store
