|
On February 20 2012 08:19 UniversalSnip wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 08:11 Candadar wrote:On February 20 2012 08:09 UniversalSnip wrote:On February 20 2012 08:06 Candadar wrote:On February 20 2012 08:04 UniversalSnip wrote:There's nothing wrong with a report feature, it works just fine in lol. On February 20 2012 07:57 Candadar wrote:On February 20 2012 07:12 ZAiNs wrote:On February 20 2012 06:28 PHILtheTANK wrote: Why should there be a surrender option in beta? You're not playing the game for fun, you're supposed to be testing it. If there was a surrender button 80% of pubs would only last 20 mins, and a ton of shit wouldn't get enough testing. 100% false. It's a beta. Not a demo. The purpose of a beta is to test the game. Crazy, I know. So dumb... I had to stop reading right here. I'm dumb because I recognize what a fucking beta is? Seriously? If you're not even going to read my post why are you replying? That's not tl standard lol. I don't feel the inclination to take a post seriously when it starts out with an insult. Well, that's your problem. Would be more productive to do the opposite. Show nested quote +Nonetheless, I'll quote myself. How about you get to actually winning instead of whining about that you can't lose fast enough. Most of my wins are come from behind anyways. If surrender was implemented, everyone who was even remotely behind would instant surrender 20 minutes. Nevertheless, it's completely irrelevant because this is a fucking beta and the purpose of a beta is to test, not to make it easier for people to quit games because they're losing.
I've played dozens of games, and I've only had maybe 5-6 that were the situation you describe of "totally unwinnable and 20 minutes of pointless death", and that's because someone on our team went "omg this is so pointless" and left, leaving us at a severe disadvantage.
This losing mentality needs to stop. Stop whining about not having a million ways to quit games when you're losing, and figure out a way to win.
Also, it's a beta. Not a demo. It's meant to test, not for you to faff about. I just felt I should put that out there again. Well, that's a nice fat edit, but it doesn't really address my points. I'm sorry you're so upset at the thought that people might do the exact same thing they do now, which is ditch, if there's a surrender option. The only impact it has is to let the people who WOULDN'T have alt + f4ed get out of the game without a leave or sitting around waiting for a game that's already over to be settled. Soooo much fun waiting for them to slowly push into our base 5 vs 4, really makes me want to play more.
If someone feels the need to start out what should be an intellectual discussion on a website with, as you said, "tl standards", with an insult, I don't feel the need to read the rest of their post, no. So please, keep the childish antics to a minimum =/
Anyways. Surrender function promotes a negative and losing environment. People wont alt + F4 out of games as much because if you leave a game, you get put in a separate queue and it takes absolutely forever to find a game compared to those who don't. I know my buddy who left like 10 games so far has to wait ~30 minutes in queue, on a good day, because of it and he's really regretting leaving. By implementing surrender, all it does is add a glorified leaving ability. Losing a bit too much? Pop up surrender, get a majority to agree, and you leave.
Also, fun fact of the day:
If someone leaves your game and does not return, in 5 minutes you can leave as well with no penalty and no mark on your loss record.
So this "20 minutes sitting around because someone left" analogy is fallacious.
|
On February 20 2012 08:25 Candadar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 08:19 UniversalSnip wrote:On February 20 2012 08:11 Candadar wrote:On February 20 2012 08:09 UniversalSnip wrote:On February 20 2012 08:06 Candadar wrote:On February 20 2012 08:04 UniversalSnip wrote:There's nothing wrong with a report feature, it works just fine in lol. On February 20 2012 07:57 Candadar wrote:On February 20 2012 07:12 ZAiNs wrote:On February 20 2012 06:28 PHILtheTANK wrote: Why should there be a surrender option in beta? You're not playing the game for fun, you're supposed to be testing it. If there was a surrender button 80% of pubs would only last 20 mins, and a ton of shit wouldn't get enough testing. 100% false. It's a beta. Not a demo. The purpose of a beta is to test the game. Crazy, I know. So dumb... I had to stop reading right here. I'm dumb because I recognize what a fucking beta is? Seriously? If you're not even going to read my post why are you replying? That's not tl standard lol. I don't feel the inclination to take a post seriously when it starts out with an insult. Well, that's your problem. Would be more productive to do the opposite. Nonetheless, I'll quote myself. How about you get to actually winning instead of whining about that you can't lose fast enough. Most of my wins are come from behind anyways. If surrender was implemented, everyone who was even remotely behind would instant surrender 20 minutes. Nevertheless, it's completely irrelevant because this is a fucking beta and the purpose of a beta is to test, not to make it easier for people to quit games because they're losing.
I've played dozens of games, and I've only had maybe 5-6 that were the situation you describe of "totally unwinnable and 20 minutes of pointless death", and that's because someone on our team went "omg this is so pointless" and left, leaving us at a severe disadvantage.
This losing mentality needs to stop. Stop whining about not having a million ways to quit games when you're losing, and figure out a way to win.
Also, it's a beta. Not a demo. It's meant to test, not for you to faff about. I just felt I should put that out there again. Well, that's a nice fat edit, but it doesn't really address my points. I'm sorry you're so upset at the thought that people might do the exact same thing they do now, which is ditch, if there's a surrender option. The only impact it has is to let the people who WOULDN'T have alt + f4ed get out of the game without a leave or sitting around waiting for a game that's already over to be settled. Soooo much fun waiting for them to slowly push into our base 5 vs 4, really makes me want to play more. If someone feels the need to start out what should be an intellectual discussion on a website with, as you said, "tl standards", with an insult, I don't feel the need to read the rest of their post, no. So please, keep the childish antics to a minimum =/ Anyways. Surrender function promotes a negative and losing environment. People wont alt + F4 out of games as much because if you leave a game, you get put in a separate queue and it takes absolutely forever to find a game compared to those who don't. I know my buddy who left like 10 games so far has to wait ~30 minutes in queue, on a good day, because of it and he's really regretting leaving. By implementing surrender, all it does is add a glorified leaving ability. Losing a bit too much? Pop up surrender, get a majority to agree, and you leave. Also, fun fact of the day: If someone leaves your game and does not return, in 5 minutes you can leave as well with no penalty and no mark on your loss record.So this "20 minutes sitting around because someone left" analogy is fallacious.
they're afking in fountain, you're right that I don't really see people alt + f4ing. Same effect.
|
On February 20 2012 08:29 UniversalSnip wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 08:25 Candadar wrote:On February 20 2012 08:19 UniversalSnip wrote:On February 20 2012 08:11 Candadar wrote:On February 20 2012 08:09 UniversalSnip wrote:On February 20 2012 08:06 Candadar wrote:On February 20 2012 08:04 UniversalSnip wrote:There's nothing wrong with a report feature, it works just fine in lol. On February 20 2012 07:57 Candadar wrote:On February 20 2012 07:12 ZAiNs wrote:On February 20 2012 06:28 PHILtheTANK wrote: Why should there be a surrender option in beta? You're not playing the game for fun, you're supposed to be testing it. If there was a surrender button 80% of pubs would only last 20 mins, and a ton of shit wouldn't get enough testing. 100% false. It's a beta. Not a demo. The purpose of a beta is to test the game. Crazy, I know. So dumb... I had to stop reading right here. I'm dumb because I recognize what a fucking beta is? Seriously? If you're not even going to read my post why are you replying? That's not tl standard lol. I don't feel the inclination to take a post seriously when it starts out with an insult. Well, that's your problem. Would be more productive to do the opposite. Nonetheless, I'll quote myself. How about you get to actually winning instead of whining about that you can't lose fast enough. Most of my wins are come from behind anyways. If surrender was implemented, everyone who was even remotely behind would instant surrender 20 minutes. Nevertheless, it's completely irrelevant because this is a fucking beta and the purpose of a beta is to test, not to make it easier for people to quit games because they're losing.
I've played dozens of games, and I've only had maybe 5-6 that were the situation you describe of "totally unwinnable and 20 minutes of pointless death", and that's because someone on our team went "omg this is so pointless" and left, leaving us at a severe disadvantage.
This losing mentality needs to stop. Stop whining about not having a million ways to quit games when you're losing, and figure out a way to win.
Also, it's a beta. Not a demo. It's meant to test, not for you to faff about. I just felt I should put that out there again. Well, that's a nice fat edit, but it doesn't really address my points. I'm sorry you're so upset at the thought that people might do the exact same thing they do now, which is ditch, if there's a surrender option. The only impact it has is to let the people who WOULDN'T have alt + f4ed get out of the game without a leave or sitting around waiting for a game that's already over to be settled. Soooo much fun waiting for them to slowly push into our base 5 vs 4, really makes me want to play more. If someone feels the need to start out what should be an intellectual discussion on a website with, as you said, "tl standards", with an insult, I don't feel the need to read the rest of their post, no. So please, keep the childish antics to a minimum =/ Anyways. Surrender function promotes a negative and losing environment. People wont alt + F4 out of games as much because if you leave a game, you get put in a separate queue and it takes absolutely forever to find a game compared to those who don't. I know my buddy who left like 10 games so far has to wait ~30 minutes in queue, on a good day, because of it and he's really regretting leaving. By implementing surrender, all it does is add a glorified leaving ability. Losing a bit too much? Pop up surrender, get a majority to agree, and you leave. Also, fun fact of the day: If someone leaves your game and does not return, in 5 minutes you can leave as well with no penalty and no mark on your loss record.So this "20 minutes sitting around because someone left" analogy is fallacious. they're afking in fountain, you're right that I don't really see people alt + f4ing. Same effect.
In 54 games, I have never seen anyone AFK in a fountain.
So either you're bullshitting, or you're taking an isolated incident and using it as if it were the standard model.
Either way, stop that.
P.S. - you didn't address a single one of my points. You say "OH THEY LEAVE SO IT'S 20 MINUTES OF POINTLESS ENEMY FARM AND THEM KILLING US", then I inform you that there is a mechanic where if someone leaves, you can leave as well and not get any punishment thus removing that problem. What do you do? "YEAH BUT WHAT IF THEY AFK!"
You're backpedaling. Hard.
|
On February 20 2012 08:30 Candadar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 08:29 UniversalSnip wrote:On February 20 2012 08:25 Candadar wrote:On February 20 2012 08:19 UniversalSnip wrote:On February 20 2012 08:11 Candadar wrote:On February 20 2012 08:09 UniversalSnip wrote:On February 20 2012 08:06 Candadar wrote:On February 20 2012 08:04 UniversalSnip wrote:There's nothing wrong with a report feature, it works just fine in lol. On February 20 2012 07:57 Candadar wrote:On February 20 2012 07:12 ZAiNs wrote: [quote] 100% false. It's a beta. Not a demo. The purpose of a beta is to test the game. Crazy, I know. So dumb... I had to stop reading right here. I'm dumb because I recognize what a fucking beta is? Seriously? If you're not even going to read my post why are you replying? That's not tl standard lol. I don't feel the inclination to take a post seriously when it starts out with an insult. Well, that's your problem. Would be more productive to do the opposite. Nonetheless, I'll quote myself. How about you get to actually winning instead of whining about that you can't lose fast enough. Most of my wins are come from behind anyways. If surrender was implemented, everyone who was even remotely behind would instant surrender 20 minutes. Nevertheless, it's completely irrelevant because this is a fucking beta and the purpose of a beta is to test, not to make it easier for people to quit games because they're losing.
I've played dozens of games, and I've only had maybe 5-6 that were the situation you describe of "totally unwinnable and 20 minutes of pointless death", and that's because someone on our team went "omg this is so pointless" and left, leaving us at a severe disadvantage.
This losing mentality needs to stop. Stop whining about not having a million ways to quit games when you're losing, and figure out a way to win.
Also, it's a beta. Not a demo. It's meant to test, not for you to faff about. I just felt I should put that out there again. Well, that's a nice fat edit, but it doesn't really address my points. I'm sorry you're so upset at the thought that people might do the exact same thing they do now, which is ditch, if there's a surrender option. The only impact it has is to let the people who WOULDN'T have alt + f4ed get out of the game without a leave or sitting around waiting for a game that's already over to be settled. Soooo much fun waiting for them to slowly push into our base 5 vs 4, really makes me want to play more. If someone feels the need to start out what should be an intellectual discussion on a website with, as you said, "tl standards", with an insult, I don't feel the need to read the rest of their post, no. So please, keep the childish antics to a minimum =/ Anyways. Surrender function promotes a negative and losing environment. People wont alt + F4 out of games as much because if you leave a game, you get put in a separate queue and it takes absolutely forever to find a game compared to those who don't. I know my buddy who left like 10 games so far has to wait ~30 minutes in queue, on a good day, because of it and he's really regretting leaving. By implementing surrender, all it does is add a glorified leaving ability. Losing a bit too much? Pop up surrender, get a majority to agree, and you leave. Also, fun fact of the day: If someone leaves your game and does not return, in 5 minutes you can leave as well with no penalty and no mark on your loss record.So this "20 minutes sitting around because someone left" analogy is fallacious. they're afking in fountain, you're right that I don't really see people alt + f4ing. Same effect. In 54 games, I have never seen anyone AFK in a fountain. So either you're bullshitting, or you're taking an isolated incident and using it as if it were the standard model. Either way, stop that.
The irony (diction?) of you saying your experience is representative whereas mine is anecdotal is impressive.
|
On February 20 2012 08:32 UniversalSnip wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 08:30 Candadar wrote:On February 20 2012 08:29 UniversalSnip wrote:On February 20 2012 08:25 Candadar wrote:On February 20 2012 08:19 UniversalSnip wrote:On February 20 2012 08:11 Candadar wrote:On February 20 2012 08:09 UniversalSnip wrote:On February 20 2012 08:06 Candadar wrote:On February 20 2012 08:04 UniversalSnip wrote:There's nothing wrong with a report feature, it works just fine in lol. On February 20 2012 07:57 Candadar wrote: [quote]
It's a beta.
Not a demo.
The purpose of a beta is to test the game.
Crazy, I know. So dumb... I had to stop reading right here. I'm dumb because I recognize what a fucking beta is? Seriously? If you're not even going to read my post why are you replying? That's not tl standard lol. I don't feel the inclination to take a post seriously when it starts out with an insult. Well, that's your problem. Would be more productive to do the opposite. Nonetheless, I'll quote myself. How about you get to actually winning instead of whining about that you can't lose fast enough. Most of my wins are come from behind anyways. If surrender was implemented, everyone who was even remotely behind would instant surrender 20 minutes. Nevertheless, it's completely irrelevant because this is a fucking beta and the purpose of a beta is to test, not to make it easier for people to quit games because they're losing.
I've played dozens of games, and I've only had maybe 5-6 that were the situation you describe of "totally unwinnable and 20 minutes of pointless death", and that's because someone on our team went "omg this is so pointless" and left, leaving us at a severe disadvantage.
This losing mentality needs to stop. Stop whining about not having a million ways to quit games when you're losing, and figure out a way to win.
Also, it's a beta. Not a demo. It's meant to test, not for you to faff about. I just felt I should put that out there again. Well, that's a nice fat edit, but it doesn't really address my points. I'm sorry you're so upset at the thought that people might do the exact same thing they do now, which is ditch, if there's a surrender option. The only impact it has is to let the people who WOULDN'T have alt + f4ed get out of the game without a leave or sitting around waiting for a game that's already over to be settled. Soooo much fun waiting for them to slowly push into our base 5 vs 4, really makes me want to play more. If someone feels the need to start out what should be an intellectual discussion on a website with, as you said, "tl standards", with an insult, I don't feel the need to read the rest of their post, no. So please, keep the childish antics to a minimum =/ Anyways. Surrender function promotes a negative and losing environment. People wont alt + F4 out of games as much because if you leave a game, you get put in a separate queue and it takes absolutely forever to find a game compared to those who don't. I know my buddy who left like 10 games so far has to wait ~30 minutes in queue, on a good day, because of it and he's really regretting leaving. By implementing surrender, all it does is add a glorified leaving ability. Losing a bit too much? Pop up surrender, get a majority to agree, and you leave. Also, fun fact of the day: If someone leaves your game and does not return, in 5 minutes you can leave as well with no penalty and no mark on your loss record.So this "20 minutes sitting around because someone left" analogy is fallacious. they're afking in fountain, you're right that I don't really see people alt + f4ing. Same effect. In 54 games, I have never seen anyone AFK in a fountain. So either you're bullshitting, or you're taking an isolated incident and using it as if it were the standard model. Either way, stop that. The irony of you saying your experience is representative whereas mine is anecdotal is impressive.
I need to stop editing so much :|
P.S. - you didn't address a single one of my points. You say "OH THEY LEAVE SO IT'S 20 MINUTES OF POINTLESS ENEMY FARM AND THEM KILLING US", then I inform you that there is a mechanic where if someone leaves, you can leave as well and not get any punishment thus removing that problem. What do you do? "YEAH BUT WHAT IF THEY AFK!"
You're backpedaling. Hard.
|
On February 20 2012 08:32 Candadar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 08:32 UniversalSnip wrote:On February 20 2012 08:30 Candadar wrote:On February 20 2012 08:29 UniversalSnip wrote:On February 20 2012 08:25 Candadar wrote:On February 20 2012 08:19 UniversalSnip wrote:On February 20 2012 08:11 Candadar wrote:On February 20 2012 08:09 UniversalSnip wrote:On February 20 2012 08:06 Candadar wrote:On February 20 2012 08:04 UniversalSnip wrote: There's nothing wrong with a report feature, it works just fine in lol.
[quote]
So dumb... I had to stop reading right here. I'm dumb because I recognize what a fucking beta is? Seriously? If you're not even going to read my post why are you replying? That's not tl standard lol. I don't feel the inclination to take a post seriously when it starts out with an insult. Well, that's your problem. Would be more productive to do the opposite. Nonetheless, I'll quote myself. How about you get to actually winning instead of whining about that you can't lose fast enough. Most of my wins are come from behind anyways. If surrender was implemented, everyone who was even remotely behind would instant surrender 20 minutes. Nevertheless, it's completely irrelevant because this is a fucking beta and the purpose of a beta is to test, not to make it easier for people to quit games because they're losing.
I've played dozens of games, and I've only had maybe 5-6 that were the situation you describe of "totally unwinnable and 20 minutes of pointless death", and that's because someone on our team went "omg this is so pointless" and left, leaving us at a severe disadvantage.
This losing mentality needs to stop. Stop whining about not having a million ways to quit games when you're losing, and figure out a way to win.
Also, it's a beta. Not a demo. It's meant to test, not for you to faff about. I just felt I should put that out there again. Well, that's a nice fat edit, but it doesn't really address my points. I'm sorry you're so upset at the thought that people might do the exact same thing they do now, which is ditch, if there's a surrender option. The only impact it has is to let the people who WOULDN'T have alt + f4ed get out of the game without a leave or sitting around waiting for a game that's already over to be settled. Soooo much fun waiting for them to slowly push into our base 5 vs 4, really makes me want to play more. If someone feels the need to start out what should be an intellectual discussion on a website with, as you said, "tl standards", with an insult, I don't feel the need to read the rest of their post, no. So please, keep the childish antics to a minimum =/ Anyways. Surrender function promotes a negative and losing environment. People wont alt + F4 out of games as much because if you leave a game, you get put in a separate queue and it takes absolutely forever to find a game compared to those who don't. I know my buddy who left like 10 games so far has to wait ~30 minutes in queue, on a good day, because of it and he's really regretting leaving. By implementing surrender, all it does is add a glorified leaving ability. Losing a bit too much? Pop up surrender, get a majority to agree, and you leave. Also, fun fact of the day: If someone leaves your game and does not return, in 5 minutes you can leave as well with no penalty and no mark on your loss record.So this "20 minutes sitting around because someone left" analogy is fallacious. they're afking in fountain, you're right that I don't really see people alt + f4ing. Same effect. In 54 games, I have never seen anyone AFK in a fountain. So either you're bullshitting, or you're taking an isolated incident and using it as if it were the standard model. Either way, stop that. The irony of you saying your experience is representative whereas mine is anecdotal is impressive. I need to stop editing so much :| Show nested quote +P.S. - you didn't address a single one of my points. You say "OH THEY LEAVE SO IT'S 20 MINUTES OF POINTLESS ENEMY FARM AND THEM KILLING US", then I inform you that there is a mechanic where if someone leaves, you can leave as well and not get any punishment thus removing that problem. What do you do? "YEAH BUT WHAT IF THEY AFK!"
You're backpedaling. Hard.
I have definitely seen people alt + f4, I've noticed you can control their hero if they do that, but now I'm unsure if all the people I've seen at fountain had actually left or were just sitting there? I don't really remember seeing "x has disconnected" messages. But yes, there have been leavers, or perhaps they were afkers.
|
Ok, first of all - I do not accept the "get to winning" argument because the scenario I've proposed is hopeless. I always try my best in every game right 'till the end, however there are games (like the one I described) that are completely lost. And if the opposing team actually had the intellect to finish the game in a timely fashion, I'd be the first to say surrender should NOT be an option. But when you have retards farming the map for 20+ minutes because they want to make an ursa with 5 rapiers they are wasting my time and a surrender option is more than fair.
Second, the "it's beta" argument. I don't understand how this is even an argument - yes, you're right, in beta we test things. Although I'm not sure just how essential these farm fests are for the beta process, I accept your reasoning as probably true - all I asked for was a surrender option in the final release.
Apparently everyone has been having a jolly time during their games. Maybe you're all such amazing players you always carry your team to victory. Or you just radiate some kind of anti-rage energy. Or maybe I just got an unlucky streak of bad games. The truth to this may never be known - the point is, however, that griefing with the system as it is now is extremely easy. I'd simply propose that instead of sanctioning the player with "low-prio que" from player reports, they'd get a red section in their profile like the green one we have now for the positive stuff. Basically what I'm saying is - don't let players affect other players' quality of service in the game (longer que times, etc.) If kiddies want to spam my profile with "noob" etc. I'll be annoyed. But messing with how another player is treated by THE GAME, not OTHER PEOPLE, is something that should only ever be in the realm of admins/game masters/whatever you want to call them. Never other players.
|
On February 20 2012 08:36 RyN wrote: Ok, first of all - I do not accept the "get to winning argument" because the scenario I've proposed is hopeless. I always try my best in every game right 'till the end, however there are games (like the one I described) that are completely lost. And if the opposing team actually had the intellect to finish the game in a timely fashion, I'd be the first to say surrender should NOT be an option. But when you have retards farming the map for 20+ minutes because they want to make an ursa with 5 rapiers they are wasting my time and a surrender option is more than fair.
Second, the "it's beta" argument. I don't understand how this is even an argument - yes, you're right, in beta we test things. Although I'm not sure just how essential these farm fests are for the beta process, I accept your reasoning as probably true - all I asked for was a surrender option in the final release.
Apparently everyone has been having a jolly time during their games. Maybe you're all such amazing players you always carry your team to victory. Or you just radiate some kind of anti-rage energy. Or maybe I just got an unlucky streak of bad games. The truth to this may never be known - the point is, however, that griefing with the system as it is now is extremely easy. I'd simply propose that instead of sanctioning the player with "low-prio que" from player reports, they'd get a red section in their profile like the green one we have now for the positive stuff. Basically what I'm saying is - don't let players affect other players' quality of service in the game (longer que times, etc.) If kiddies want to spam my profile with "noob" etc. I'll be annoyed. But messing with how another player is treated by THE GAME, not OTHER PEOPLE, is something that should only ever be in the realm of admins/game masters/whatever you want to call them. Never other players.
I would like to think of myself as a jolly player who carries his team to victory. Thank you for the compliment.
Anyways, back to the post.
Yes, there are times where games are completely lost. You are entirely right, I've had a few games where I kind of knew from 20 minutes in that we were going to lose, as did everyone else. However we fucking fought, hard, to the last second and we managed to get all of their T1/T2/T3 towers before we went down because of it. And I'm damn glad we did that over the next 30 minutes instead of quitting 20 minutes in because it was "hopeless"
Half of the game is losing. That's what needs to be accepted. However, this notion of being so far behind that you have no hope of victory and you need to surrender being commonplace is, and please, pardon me, fucking stupid. Yes, it's anecdotal evidence and all, but I may have a few games like that -- but not many whatsoever to warrant a surrender button. As I've had more than a fair share of games as well where half my team was "we lose, w/e" and we managed to win it. Comebacks are a major part of DotA, and that is diminished with Surrender in my opinion.
Let me make one thing clear. The idea of a surrender button in it of itself, I have no problem with no more than I have a problem with players gg'ing out of a SC2 match. However, this is a TEAM game and has effects not on yourself and your opponent like in SC2, but on 9 other people. Furthermore, it promotes this attitude, a very negative attitude. Right now, if you leave, you get fucked over in matchmaking hard if you do it remotely consistently. If someone leaves, and you're in that 4v5 scenario? In 5 minutes, you can leave too with absolutely no penalty, because Valve realizes that's a bullshit scenario to be in.
However, once "Surrender" is implemented, a whole new box of demons is unleashed. Suddenly, if you have a particularly whiny team that game and you're down 10-4 at 20 minutes, they can just quit the game instantly. Suddenly you have a loss even though the game was not even close to being over, and you wanted to keep fighting. Suddenly you have a loss, where you have not lost. It creates a function of justified game leaving and a losing attitude that plagues not only this community. That people are more concerned about how fast they can lose and move onto the next game rather than ways they can improve, and win.
Are there times where you are in that bullshit scenario where you have to wait 20 minutes for your untimely doom? Where it just sucks horribly? Yes, of course. It doesn't warrant that kind of game changing ability with its level of occurrence, however. I don't like to compare this to LoL, as it's apples to oranges, however, as I said, I played that a lot -- and well over half my games were decided within 20-25 minutes by the Surrender function on either side. Most of the time it not even being remotely needed.
On February 20 2012 08:36 UniversalSnip wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 08:32 Candadar wrote:On February 20 2012 08:32 UniversalSnip wrote:On February 20 2012 08:30 Candadar wrote:On February 20 2012 08:29 UniversalSnip wrote:On February 20 2012 08:25 Candadar wrote:On February 20 2012 08:19 UniversalSnip wrote:On February 20 2012 08:11 Candadar wrote:On February 20 2012 08:09 UniversalSnip wrote:On February 20 2012 08:06 Candadar wrote: [quote]
I had to stop reading right here.
I'm dumb because I recognize what a fucking beta is? Seriously? If you're not even going to read my post why are you replying? That's not tl standard lol. I don't feel the inclination to take a post seriously when it starts out with an insult. Well, that's your problem. Would be more productive to do the opposite. Nonetheless, I'll quote myself. How about you get to actually winning instead of whining about that you can't lose fast enough. Most of my wins are come from behind anyways. If surrender was implemented, everyone who was even remotely behind would instant surrender 20 minutes. Nevertheless, it's completely irrelevant because this is a fucking beta and the purpose of a beta is to test, not to make it easier for people to quit games because they're losing.
I've played dozens of games, and I've only had maybe 5-6 that were the situation you describe of "totally unwinnable and 20 minutes of pointless death", and that's because someone on our team went "omg this is so pointless" and left, leaving us at a severe disadvantage.
This losing mentality needs to stop. Stop whining about not having a million ways to quit games when you're losing, and figure out a way to win.
Also, it's a beta. Not a demo. It's meant to test, not for you to faff about. I just felt I should put that out there again. Well, that's a nice fat edit, but it doesn't really address my points. I'm sorry you're so upset at the thought that people might do the exact same thing they do now, which is ditch, if there's a surrender option. The only impact it has is to let the people who WOULDN'T have alt + f4ed get out of the game without a leave or sitting around waiting for a game that's already over to be settled. Soooo much fun waiting for them to slowly push into our base 5 vs 4, really makes me want to play more. If someone feels the need to start out what should be an intellectual discussion on a website with, as you said, "tl standards", with an insult, I don't feel the need to read the rest of their post, no. So please, keep the childish antics to a minimum =/ Anyways. Surrender function promotes a negative and losing environment. People wont alt + F4 out of games as much because if you leave a game, you get put in a separate queue and it takes absolutely forever to find a game compared to those who don't. I know my buddy who left like 10 games so far has to wait ~30 minutes in queue, on a good day, because of it and he's really regretting leaving. By implementing surrender, all it does is add a glorified leaving ability. Losing a bit too much? Pop up surrender, get a majority to agree, and you leave. Also, fun fact of the day: If someone leaves your game and does not return, in 5 minutes you can leave as well with no penalty and no mark on your loss record.So this "20 minutes sitting around because someone left" analogy is fallacious. they're afking in fountain, you're right that I don't really see people alt + f4ing. Same effect. In 54 games, I have never seen anyone AFK in a fountain. So either you're bullshitting, or you're taking an isolated incident and using it as if it were the standard model. Either way, stop that. The irony of you saying your experience is representative whereas mine is anecdotal is impressive. I need to stop editing so much :| P.S. - you didn't address a single one of my points. You say "OH THEY LEAVE SO IT'S 20 MINUTES OF POINTLESS ENEMY FARM AND THEM KILLING US", then I inform you that there is a mechanic where if someone leaves, you can leave as well and not get any punishment thus removing that problem. What do you do? "YEAH BUT WHAT IF THEY AFK!"
You're backpedaling. Hard. I have definitely seen people alt + f4, I've noticed you can control their hero if they do that, but now I'm unsure if all the people I've seen at fountain had actually left or were just sitting there? I don't really remember seeing "x has disconnected" messages. But yes, there have been leavers, or perhaps they were afkers.
Like I said, neither I nor anyone else I know has seen someone AFK in a fountain. I made sure to ask 4 of my DotA 2 playing friends, and they both confirm it's never happened to them. Again, I know it's anecdotal evidence and your experiences may be different than mine. However, experiences shape all of our opinions and in my experiences, I've never seen someone AFK before in a fountain so it's not an issue to me. I've had people leave, and I just left 5 minutes later with everyone else because you can do that with this game.
|
On February 20 2012 06:28 PHILtheTANK wrote: Why should there be a surrender option in beta? You're not playing the game for fun, you're supposed to be testing it. If there was a surrender button 80% of pubs would only last 20 mins, and a ton of shit wouldn't get enough testing.
Also that's the same message you get when you commend people, I don't see how this is an issue. This thread seems like a bunch of unwarranted whining and should probably be closed. 80% of pubs wouldn't last only 20 mins, there will always be at least one douche who is pissed off and will refuse to surrender if only just to spite his allies, this happened in dota-league all the time^^(btw it is another thing if that player still believes you can win, and is trying to make that happen i can appreciate that)
while i do think there should be a surrender option dota will still be dota and you just gotta grow a thick skin and deal with all the bullshit if you want to play, after all it's a really fun game and lot's of friendly games to be had too!
|
On February 20 2012 06:59 Der_Magen wrote: hmm in my 50 games of dota 2 i had about 3 people who were shouting at others and blaming their loss on others...( i reported one and muted the others)... in LoL which has a similar report function i think there are maybe only 10% of the games which end without a report....( and usually i have to mute about 3 people in each game) ( hmm ok maybe the people in dota2 appear to be nicer to me because i play at a level where noone actually knows wtf he is doing)
no surrender isn't that great but most of the time usually someone from the loosing team abandons the game anyway Yeah, in league I didn't get much raging on my way to 30. It was only after... holy shit.
|
When all 3 of your lanes get raped and no one on your team wants to play anymore, you're not going to make a comeback anyways with that attitude. Having to stay in the game where their mid has 7 levels on yours is not fun for anyone on the team, that's why concede option exists. The game should end at 20 minutes instead of wasting another 20 feeding the enemy out of boredom or waiting for them to throne you. Hon had it right with the 5/5 needed to surrender and 4/5 needed after 30 minutes, or something like that.
|
I've played every single moba with surrender and it is absolutely no different from dota 2 without surrender. The only difference is is that you get more chances at tiny slim comebacks with 5% success rates, but if I have to sit through 19 other games where you're losing badly and you just get shit on for 10-20 more minutes it's not worth my time for that one comeback. I have no idea what canadadar is talking about, but he is probably new to mobas.
It's very easy to tell when you're capable of a comeback when you have knowledge of heroes, but dota/LoL/HoN aren't like sports where leads don't mean as much. If you get a large lead, it's much easier to maintain and increase whereas in sports you have to continue playing equally or better.
|
On February 20 2012 10:05 Itsmedudeman wrote: I've played every single moba with surrender and it is absolutely no different from dota 2 without surrender. The only difference is is that you get more chances at tiny slim comebacks with 5% success rates, but if I have to sit through 19 other games where you're losing badly and you just get shit on for 10-20 more minutes it's not worth my time for that one comeback. I have no idea what canadadar is talking about, but he is probably new to mobas.
Not new to "mobas" by any means.
Also, 95% of statistics are made up on the spot (cwutididthar?).
I have played moba games for about 2 years now, and I've very rarely been "shit on" like being described in this thread. That's in LoL, HoN, and DotA 2. Have I? Yeah, it sucks. But that doesn't mean having everyone surrender at 20 minutes is good. I agree with what was said a few posts back that HoN did it best in its system, that all 5 people had to surrender until a certain point or whatever. I would be perfectly okay with that, if we had to have a Surrender function, actually and 4/5 at a certain point in like 30/35/40 minutes or something.
You don't even take time to explain your points. You just go "getting beaten down sucks, and Candadar is probably a noob so dont listen to him" and leave it at that. :|
I may be wrong, and I'm more than willing to accept that -- but please read this post, as I think it does a good job addressing the issue as a whole. Again, I'd be more than willing for a 5/5 surrender feature, but the 3/5 or 4/5 or whatever surrendering at 20 minutes is stupid in my opinion. Very stupid and presents a very negative attitude in the general community.
|
I'd simply propose that instead of sanctioning the player with "low-prio que" from player reports, they'd get a red section in their profile like the green one we have now for the positive stuff. Basically what I'm saying is - don't let players affect other players' quality of service in the game (longer que times, etc.) If kiddies want to spam my profile with "noob" etc. I'll be annoyed. But messing with how another player is treated by THE GAME, not OTHER PEOPLE, is something that should only ever be in the realm of admins/game masters/whatever you want to call them. Never other players. I don't exactly know how the report system in Dota2 works but I'm quite sure it is intended to show the admins the games where someone might have ruined the game experience for the other players. If i find ten friends and we report your posts here on TL you won't get banned... admins will simply take a look at your posts.. Giving flamers and kiddies a forum on your profile to call you terrible sounds like a pretty atrocious idea.
|
Except your point is moot. If you're getting shit on hard, and let's say there is no surrender function, how is that any different from the players just giving up right then and there? Do you want to fight on for 20 more minutes and end up losing just as badly or would you rather just lose faster and let them throne faster in the process? I don't see a single difference in mentality before 20 minutes when players are losing, and I don't remember the last time my team has ever passed a surrender when the score is something like 10-4.
|
The dota 2 community was fine before this. The only problems with players I've had have been obknoxious americans causing trouble.
|
On February 20 2012 10:16 Itsmedudeman wrote: Except your point is moot. If you're getting shit on hard, and let's say there is no surrender function, how is that any different from the players just giving up right then and there? Do you want to fight on for 20 more minutes and end up losing just as badly or would you rather just lose faster and let them throne faster in the process? I don't see a single difference in mentality before 20 minutes when players are losing, and I don't remember the last time my team has ever passed a surrender when the score is something like 10-4.
The game isn't over until it's over.
That's my mentality. If you want to implement things into the game that helps you lose faster, by all means, but I will kick, claw, and tear to keep it out of the game because I think it's extremely damaging to the community in many ways other than the obvious ones. Does getting beat on in a hopeless situation suck? Yes, it does. However, the times where your team is getting shit on hard and you absolutely need that surrender button will be heavily outweighed by the kids who are getting buttmad that they aren't having a great game and surrender 25 minutes in to move onto the next one.
Let me make this clear again, I do think a 5/5 surrender system at a certain time is fine. However, 3/5 or 4/5 at 20 min?
Just bad, in my opinion. Every last person on the losing side should agree to quit and should wait until the game gets to play out a bit before the option is made available. Because riddle me this: Would you rather play in a community where everyone does everything they can to crawl their way back into games and win in any way possible, or people that just surrender willy nilly and move onto the next game?
I personally would prefer the former.
EDIT: I edit far too much man :|
|
On February 20 2012 10:07 Candadar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 10:05 Itsmedudeman wrote: I've played every single moba with surrender and it is absolutely no different from dota 2 without surrender. The only difference is is that you get more chances at tiny slim comebacks with 5% success rates, but if I have to sit through 19 other games where you're losing badly and you just get shit on for 10-20 more minutes it's not worth my time for that one comeback. I have no idea what canadadar is talking about, but he is probably new to mobas. Not new to "mobas" by any means. Also, 95% of statistics are made up on the spot (cwutididthar?). I have played moba games for about 2 years now, and I've very rarely been "shit on" like being described in this thread. That's in LoL, HoN, and DotA 2. Have I? Yeah, it sucks. But that doesn't mean having everyone surrender at 20 minutes is good. I agree with what was said a few posts back that HoN did it best in its system, that all 5 people had to surrender until a certain point or whatever. I would be perfectly okay with that, if we had to have a Surrender function, actually and 4/5 at a certain point in like 30/35/40 minutes or something. You don't even take time to explain your points. You just go "getting beaten down sucks, and Candadar is probably a noob so dont listen to him" and leave it at that. :| I may be wrong, and I'm more than willing to accept that -- but please read this post, as I think it does a good job addressing the issue as a whole. Again, I'd be more than willing for a 5/5 surrender feature, but the 3/5 or 4/5 or whatever surrendering at 20 minutes is stupid in my opinion. Very stupid and presents a very negative attitude in the general community.
You seriously would want people forced to play a game when they no longer want to just for the so called winning spirit?
|
On February 20 2012 10:23 Chunhyang wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 10:07 Candadar wrote:On February 20 2012 10:05 Itsmedudeman wrote: I've played every single moba with surrender and it is absolutely no different from dota 2 without surrender. The only difference is is that you get more chances at tiny slim comebacks with 5% success rates, but if I have to sit through 19 other games where you're losing badly and you just get shit on for 10-20 more minutes it's not worth my time for that one comeback. I have no idea what canadadar is talking about, but he is probably new to mobas. Not new to "mobas" by any means. Also, 95% of statistics are made up on the spot (cwutididthar?). I have played moba games for about 2 years now, and I've very rarely been "shit on" like being described in this thread. That's in LoL, HoN, and DotA 2. Have I? Yeah, it sucks. But that doesn't mean having everyone surrender at 20 minutes is good. I agree with what was said a few posts back that HoN did it best in its system, that all 5 people had to surrender until a certain point or whatever. I would be perfectly okay with that, if we had to have a Surrender function, actually and 4/5 at a certain point in like 30/35/40 minutes or something. You don't even take time to explain your points. You just go "getting beaten down sucks, and Candadar is probably a noob so dont listen to him" and leave it at that. :| I may be wrong, and I'm more than willing to accept that -- but please read this post, as I think it does a good job addressing the issue as a whole. Again, I'd be more than willing for a 5/5 surrender feature, but the 3/5 or 4/5 or whatever surrendering at 20 minutes is stupid in my opinion. Very stupid and presents a very negative attitude in the general community. You seriously would want people forced to play a game when they no longer want to just for the so called winning spirit?
Hence why I believe that a 5/5 surrender function at a certain time would be appropriate if we must have one. I agree that there are plenty of situations where surrender could be very useful and needed. I do not debate that. I say that having the feature will give a very negative attitude to the community, and encourage these 20-25 minute surrender games that really are repetitive and stupid in my opinion. I do believe Surrender can have, and should have a role in all levels of play in any game. Much like gg does in starcraft. However, if implemented wrongly, it can be very damaging to a community.
Which is why I'm very cautious about the whole thing.
|
On February 20 2012 10:20 Candadar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 10:16 Itsmedudeman wrote: Except your point is moot. If you're getting shit on hard, and let's say there is no surrender function, how is that any different from the players just giving up right then and there? Do you want to fight on for 20 more minutes and end up losing just as badly or would you rather just lose faster and let them throne faster in the process? I don't see a single difference in mentality before 20 minutes when players are losing, and I don't remember the last time my team has ever passed a surrender when the score is something like 10-4. The game isn't over until it's over. That's my mentality. If you want to implement things into the game that helps you lose faster, by all means, but I will kick, claw, and tear to keep it out of the game because I think it's extremely damaging to the community in many ways other than the obvious ones. Does getting beat on in a hopeless situation suck? Yes, it does. However, the times where your team is getting shit on hard and you absolutely need that surrender button will be heavily outweighed by the kids who are getting buttmad that they aren't having a great game and surrender 25 minutes in to move onto the next one. Let me make this clear again, I do think a 5/5 surrender system at a certain time is fine. However, 3/5 or 4/5 at 20 min? Just bad, in my opinion. Every last person on the losing side should agree to quit and should wait until the game gets to play out a bit before the option is made available. Because riddle me this: Would you rather play in a community where everyone does everything they can to crawl their way back into games and win in any way possible, or people that just surrender willy nilly and move onto the next game? I personally would prefer the former. EDIT: I edit far too much man :| I have to say you are incredibly naive to believe that a no surrender function means that everyone tries their damn hardest until the very end. Do you honestly believe that in dota 2 everyone shares your mentality while as in LoL/HoN they don't? There's no incentive to try hard when you know there is no surrender function, it's just that people are only playing on cause they know they have to, the same thing that happens pre 20 minutes/15 minutes in other mobas.
Forcing 4 other players to play because of 1 person? I've played my share of games where there is actually someone who just stays in to troll and doesn't actually want to win. I've actually had SEVERAL occurrences back in HoN where there were 2 players who knew each other on different teams where one player just fed the other and FAILED THE SURRENDER as well to force the team to play on in a game where he fed. And EVEN OUTSIDE THESE OCCURRENCES it's pointless to waste 4 other people's time for the sake of one player. Like WHY? WHY should you cater to that player over 4 others who just want to move on to another game?
|
|
|
|