|
On February 20 2012 10:27 Candadar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 10:23 Chunhyang wrote: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 the other hand, despite all the leavers, the general idea is that people should be able to leave when they want to [except those who purposely join then leave immediately, or AFK immediately just to ruin stuff for others].
The reason is that if a player has a loser attitude, he's not going to turn into a winner just because the surrender option has been denied him. He either going to AFK, play halfheartedly or purposely turn himself into a feeder of xp/gold for the other team for kicks. Maybe some variation or combination of the above.
Addtionally, if I'm winning, I don't want to milk it. I know it's enjoyable, I used to love that. But now I'd rather play again. If the losing team is allowed to leave early, then my teammates would have to finish early rather than boringly farm less skilled players.
|
On February 20 2012 10:32 Itsmedudeman wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 10:20 Candadar wrote: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.
Of course I know everyone doesn't share my opinion. That really doesn't make a difference...?
Yes, being shit on sucked. Being trolled sucks. Yes, I agree, a surrender function, as I've said at least half a dozen times now, can be a very beneficial thing to all levels of play. However, if implemented wrongly, it can also be very detrimental to the game in very long lasting ways and shouldn't just be thrown in for the sake of being in.
|
On February 20 2012 10:36 Chunhyang wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 10:27 Candadar wrote:On February 20 2012 10:23 Chunhyang wrote: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 the other hand, despite all the leavers, the general idea is that people should be able to leave when they want to [except those who purposely join then leave immediately, or AFK immediately just to ruin stuff for others]. The reason is that if a player has a loser attitude, he's not going to turn into a winner just because the surrender option has been denied him. He either going to AFK, play halfheartedly or purposely turn himself into a feeder of xp/gold for the other team for kicks. Maybe some variation or combination of the above. Addtionally, if I'm winning, I don't want to milk it. I know it's enjoyable, I used to love that. But now I'd rather play again. If the losing team is allowed to leave early, then my teammates would have to finish early rather than boringly farm less skilled players.
Exactly. People will always be dicks. Thank fuck that Valve implemented the system where if that loser decides to leave, you can leave as well without penalty. However, you're right. You are 100% right that people who sit and AFK, or play half assed, or turn into feeders ruin the game and we shouldn't just sit here and deal with it for the sake of "the winning spirit." However, tossing in a half assed, 4/5 20 minute surrender system is not the way to fix it, in my opinion, and it should be approached far more carefully by Valve than having some surrender button just tacked on.
Keeping a surrender button out doesn't turn losers into winners, you're right, but putting a surrender button in recklessly and without much thought will turn winners into losers.
|
I have played Dota for years, HoN a bit, and LoL a decent bit. From my experience, a surrender button is 8/10 counter productive. People generally tend to try a little harder or at least don't throw in the towel for no reason, when there is no surrender button. In general, games in HoN lasted on average like 16 minutes (15 minutes required before surrender was allowed). In LoL the average was a little higher due to the slower pace of the game. In Dota, neglecting the rampant amount of leavers, the games generally lasted around 25-30 minutes on average. Again this is just from my experience, and is in no form a fully accurate statistic, but I feel that it drives the point nonetheless. So overall I prefer not having a surrender button in most cases. I agree that it gets annoying when people just want to farm it up when the game is very much so over, and a surrender button fixes this issue, but I don't think its worth the countless amount of games ended in 15 minutes. I think for the sake of testing the game at the very least, a surrender button is unnecessary. I hope the button is never added personally as most people do not know when to not use it. If people were more mature, it would work. If people know the game is over, and the team unanimously agrees that the opponents are just prolonging the game, I am fine with people running around in the fountain while playing minesweeper. The system isn't prefect (as very few are) but I think it's better off the way it is.
As for people whining and using the report system, I would take it with a grain of salt. From my experience, most people do not report people unless they are literally destroying the game via leaving or afk or purposefully dying (this one is often misunderstood, people are not purposefully ruining the game unless they are running into a tower OVER and OVER again with no intent to do anything). I am fine with the reporting system as it is. Keep your cool and don't vent and it will pay off. I rage more often than I am proud of, but I never take it to the level of actually messing with someone's ability to play.
|
o god the pain of reading through this thread will haunt my dreams for the next few nights... On the topic though i would say that the concede button is a needed evil to save the average persons sanity. Yea i agree comebacks are possible but sometimes you gotta call the ggs and move on to the next one.
|
Great thing is about dota is that its a game where you can comeback very easily. Down 20 Hero kills? No biggie, just keep those lanes pushed and you still have a chance. It's so much better than HoN, where if you get ahead, you almost automatically win.
|
On February 20 2012 10:32 Itsmedudeman wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 10:20 Candadar wrote: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? Lets say you play a game, you yourself had a strong start with good farm and you see that the enemy have a stronger earlygame than you guys had overall but you have better lategame potential. Your allies however just see that you are down 5 kills after 15 minutes and thus thinks that it is hopeless to play on. They then destroy your game by forfeiting that match. And trust me, that will happen all the time. Then it will become standard to forfeit if you are 5 kills behind so it will happen in every fucking game since that is what people got used to, the notion that it is possible to be in the lead even when you are down on kills will forever get lost unless you play with friends.
Also you seem to have the oppinion that only wins matters? Like, if you could get faster wins you would like the game more? Because, even when you are losing you are still playing the game. When you have lost all hopes of winning it usually is just around 5-10 minutes left, then calm down and enjoy the ride. Try to gang up and kill one of the enemy heroes, if you got him and they wiped your whole team in the process you won that one. Sure you wont get a medal for it but do you really play the game to get a nice profile?
Also it doesn't matter that this would only be a problem in bad games, since people playing in bad games deserves to enjoy the game as well. And on top of that your problems with the 5/5 forfeit would only be a problem in low level games as well, the difference however is that you will soon leave those games while others only play those. Should we really listen to you who just wants to shave off a few hours from the time it takes you to get out of the noob games?
|
Ironic that in a thread discussing the DotA community a fight breaks out and people are insulting each other
|
Why are you getting so mad at a video game especially when it's in beta? Like others stated above, conceding means that games go faster, and that means less data for Valve. Also, abandoning a game in beta phase essentially means nothing. It's just a number.
I've only left maybe 4 games, and that was mostly so I could accept the "punishment" in order to end the game earlier for my team, out of good will (and guilt for sucking something awful during the laning phase).
Take a breather next time you get frustrated, and read few pages out of a book. It helps.
|
On February 20 2012 13:23 audist wrote: Why are you getting so mad at a video game especially when it's in beta? Like others stated above, conceding means that games go faster, and that means less data for Valve. Also, abandoning a game in beta phase essentially means nothing. It's just a number.
I've only left maybe 4 games, and that was mostly so I could accept the "punishment" in order to end the game earlier for my team, out of good will (and guilt for sucking something awful during the laning phase).
Take a breather next time you get frustrated, and read few pages out of a book. It helps.
What a clever way of saying "Umad?"
|
I honestly don't understand how this is an argument. In pro matches if one team is getting shit on with no hope they can say gg and leave, they don't wait for the other team to throne them.
When your team is extremely outpicked, and ends up getting shit on in the first 15 minutes, NOBODY wants to play anymore at that point anymore. It's not "we can win if we turtle and X gets farmed", where a comeback happens maybe 10% of the time. It's "We got destroyed, we have shitty picks, their mid and carry have 5 levels on us, we are stuck sitting at our base and they're farming their jungle instead of ending it." Nobody wants to shit through that shit.
Hon actually made concede work for the most part. Don't be mislead when people say hon games lasted 10 minutes or something because of it, average game lengths were ~35 minutes WITH a concede option.
|
One of the most frustrating thing that happens when u play with noobs is that they don't realise they're winning despite being X kills down and Y amount of towers difference between teams. So I'm all for it ONLY if you need the whole team's approval.
|
On February 20 2012 06:25 Kipsate wrote: Welcome to ALL MOBA GAMES.
Fixed that for you. Although LoL has a surrender option, the "heartwarming gangbang of player reports" still happens... I honestly have never met a community as immature and feisty as the MOBA community, and I've played Xbox live games having the stereotypical 13 y/o kids shouting obscenities...
|
On February 20 2012 13:29 Candadar wrote:
What a clever way of saying "Umad?"
Ah, I didn't realize that this got up to 3 pages. Clearly I didn't read them all. Anyways, I apologize if I'm coming across as offensive! T_T
|
|
It kind of seems like everyone in this thread agrees, just to slightly different things. ANY form of surrender in dota 2 would be amazing for me. I'll be the first to admit I'm fucking terrible at the game, and every time I play with my equally-bad friends I feel punished for trying a new character or doing anything I'm not already comfortable with, which is incredibly discouraging.
I honestly don't understand why anyone would be against a 100% surrender option (for the record, it seems like no one in this thread does). If someone wants to keep playing, they get to. If no one does, then the game ends without someone having to afk or ragequit. It's that simple. So why is it not in game yet?
|
I love the lack of surrender functionality. Sure, sometimes you wish you had it, but I think overall people use it too quickly. In HoN pubs you see it used almost all the time as soon as one single person is having a bad day or thinks look slightly bad.
|
As split as this argument seems to be, I don't think it is, at all. We all agree that sometimes the games are so far gone that any notion of hope or fun disappears - surrender scenarios where this is fully justified. On the other hand, people are raising concerns about premature surrenders ruining games that could have gone on to be great, but never could because of a 5 kill difference at 15 minutes.
The fact is, however, that if there is NO surrender option, there is NO choice for the player to make. In a nightmare scenario there is only keep trying/feeding/afking until someone on your team cracks and leaves the game, opening it up for the rest. If there was a surrender function, your team would be able to talk about the situation and after establishing that the game is lost you'd type out gg and move on.
But let's say, as someone suggested, that your team's picks favor the mid/late game while your opponents have an early game team and, as one would expect, the early game went a lot better for them than for you. So you find yourself with a 5, 10 or whatever kill difference and a somewhat depressing outlook on the remainder of the game. I imagine someone is going to say "guys let's surrender" or something similar. Your team can once again talk about the situation and odds are that they will recognize that the other teams early game advantage was their picks and that your own lineup will come into it's own in the mid and late game. Or they could all start whining and spamming for surrender, which is a legitimate choice for them to make.
What I'm saying is, choice is always better than no choice. What we can do is put restrictions and time limits in place that minimize the negative impact and attempt to keep the surrender option as a last resort. When I was first writing the OP it didn't even cross my mind that you could have a surrender with less than 100% of people on your side agreeing. So I'd fully support a system where (for example) the surrender option would only become available after 20 minutes and require 5 surrender votes, which is later (at 30? minutes) reduced to 4. Hell, we can throw in a third step for 3 votes at 40 but at that point I doubt it's even needed.
Obviously there are downside scenarios in both cases, with and without the surrender option. But I think that given a choice, less than 100% of people would choose to end the game when there was still a reasonable chance of winning. When given no choice, 100% of terrible games get played out. This is an improvement in my book.
|
Now you know why dota and all of its clones have such a steep "learning curve". Not only is the game extremely hard to get good at because of mechanics and strategy, you have to get past a certain level of skill to get a good team of people together to play together with, so you don't get the constant stream of asshattery that's prevalent among the noobs. (Of course, not all lower-skilled players are asshats, but the asshats are.. louder.) Solution? Get better or quit. Or hope they implement something that is more effective in penalizing asshattery. No, I don't think it's a good situation but that's what you got.
|
Lets set this shit straight. 1.Everyone would be fine with a surrender option as long as it met restrictions like 5out5 on a team agree and after 30mins Yes? No?
2.Having a winning spirit and never give up attitude is a good thing Yes? No?
3.Giving up after 10minutes because it's heavily in the other sides favour is a bad thing? Yes? No?
+ Show Spoiler + 1. Surrender option should be allowed in pubs. With the above ascribed conditions. Maybe make it an game command option like -ts team surrender? So as to separate those that wish to have that option and not.
2. Yes, of course. You can learn a lot even from attempting to win a down hill battle. Personally I play to become a great player.
3. Forgiveable? Yes. Good attitude? No. I believe when players gain enough skill and experience then they can turn seemingly unwinnable battles around. From my experience most of the people wanting to quit and move on to the next games are players who most often have never experienced a hard fought come back before.
OP is describing a problem in DotA 2 that is more pressing. And that is 'bad' reporting. Reporting players that shouldn't of been so harshly punished for only being new or not skilful at the game.
That being said. I trust Valve cares a lot about these issues and will come to a intelligent system that takes in as much information in as possible before making big decisions on players.
|
|
|
|