| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
IceShifter Childhaspawn
Rebels New Republic
The Ditanian Alliance
818
   |
Posted - 2015.10.30 00:49:00 -
[1] - Quote
Some matches are just painful to play.
Allow a vote option called 'Surrender.' where if just under half the team wants the match to end- it does, without payout, reimbursement, sp award or stat recording -For either side.
It will certainly become the most used option for a while and would really add a new level of underhandedness to the meta.
It's hard to beat up hundreds of armor piercing bullets using only your face...
|
Terry Webber
Molon Labe.
RUST415
877
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 01:39:00 -
[2] - Quote
I've been wanting a feature like this for a while. It would really cut down on the number of uneven matches.
Inertial Booster Module
Vehicle Installation
|
Cquj The Merc
Eternal Beings
RUST415
12
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 04:25:00 -
[3] - Quote
If the losing side chooses to surrender at say 15 percent Armor, the winning team would receive no reward or reimbursement for their losses... To add to the concept, the teams should only be able to surrender above 50 percent mcc shield, otherwise you are just denying payout for deserving players.  |
IceShifter Childhaspawn
Rebels New Republic
The Ditanian Alliance
819
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 11:30:00 -
[4] - Quote
The point is that at any time the match could be for all intents -voided.
Think of it like FF for pubs. Sure one could screw over the enemy team, but will they?
We have a punish feature in FW- I rarely see it used.
My train of thought is that the enemy would have to be a special calibur of griefer to incite 5 people.
The key is the zero incentive bit. Im hoping this will fix stomping, camping and O-Spam because they will have lost it for nothing.
The real complaint we have against this game is that everything is powerful and we can perceive when it is unfair, but we cannot describe it in such a manner as to have a Dev provide a fix.
We all agree there is something amiss, but cannot tell what it is.
Implementing the Surrender feature would allow the players to decide what was fair or not fair.
It's hard to beat up hundreds of armor piercing bullets using only your face...
|
IceShifter Childhaspawn
Rebels New Republic
The Ditanian Alliance
819
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 11:50:00 -
[5] - Quote
And let it be a blind system. Like the punish option.
It's hard to beat up hundreds of armor piercing bullets using only your face...
|
Avallo Kantor
946
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 17:02:00 -
[6] - Quote
Correct me if I am wrong, but the system you are suggesting (with no payouts for either side) is the ability for the losing side in a fight to dictate the ability to invalidate time and effort put into something because... they are not doing well?
I have no issue with the ability to surrender, or more accurately to retreat. The concept of EVE and it's sandbox gameplay allows for people to run from fights, or purposefully destroy their own stuff. It certainly gives corporations abilities (that can be countered) to try and escape and preserve assets.
The issue I have is with the ability to, without earning it, dictate the loss of time and effort. To many people those are far more valuable things, and a team should NOT be able to invalidate that without putting in some degree of effort or show of force to cause that outcome.
Besides why would the winners of the match get nothing? They achieved optimal results: defeat of the enemy with less resources lost.
"Mind Blown" - CCP Rattati
|
DeathwindRising
Titans of Phoenix
Damage LLC
1
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 18:06:00 -
[7] - Quote
surrender would forcibly end the match?
isn't it better to simply play redline games if your team is losing? at then you still get paid and you have the opportunity inflict losses on the enemy.
I think a "retreat" option would offer something different. If a team voted to collectively retreat from battle, the match should simply end EARLY. all stats, payouts, and loot would be recorded as normal.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 20:49:00 -
[8] - Quote
End the game earlier? Great. Fine idea.
No payment whatsoever? Nope, nope nope. Nope.
Have it end the game immediately upon successful triggering, but at the very least the winners should get something, even if it's a token payment.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Derpty Derp
Dead Man's Game
1
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 22:07:00 -
[9] - Quote
How about the people who vote to surrender get no payment... I like the 4 v 12 matches, you can have a lot of fun trying to get out of the redzone.
Honestly, what's wrong with just quitting the match? Let me stick around as the sole surviving player on the team... The payouts are lovely. |
IceShifter Childhaspawn
Rebels New Republic
The Ditanian Alliance
823
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 17:42:00 -
[10] - Quote
The option would essentially expand the punish feature to include one sided matches. Consider it revoking the public contract.
It also gives victims of a steamroll recourse toward the stomping.
It's hard to beat up hundreds of armor piercing bullets using only your face...
|
|
|
IceShifter Childhaspawn
Rebels New Republic
The Ditanian Alliance
823
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 17:44:00 -
[11] - Quote
Avallo Kantor wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, but the system you are suggesting (with no payouts for either side) is the ability for the losing side in a fight to dictate the ability to invalidate time and effort put into something because... they are not doing well?
I have no issue with the ability to surrender, or more accurately to retreat. The concept of EVE and it's sandbox gameplay allows for people to run from fights, or purposefully destroy their own stuff. It certainly gives corporations abilities (that can be countered) to try and escape and preserve assets.
The issue I have is with the ability to, without earning it, dictate the loss of time and effort. To many people those are far more valuable things, and a team should NOT be able to invalidate that without putting in some degree of effort or show of force to cause that outcome.
Besides why would the winners of the match get nothing? They achieved optimal results: defeat of the enemy with less resources lost.
You are not wrong. Think of it like the FW punish option. Also consider what playstyle would be employed which would encite half of the enemy team to desire to void a match.
It's hard to beat up hundreds of armor piercing bullets using only your face...
|
IceShifter Childhaspawn
Rebels New Republic
The Ditanian Alliance
823
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 17:46:00 -
[12] - Quote
Derpty Derp wrote:How about the people who vote to surrender get no payment... I like the 4 v 12 matches, you can have a lot of fun trying to get out of the redzone.
Honestly, what's wrong with just quitting the match? Let me stick around as the sole surviving player on the team... The payouts are lovely.
A minority of players enjoy the redline. Most would rather the match end. I cite the flame threads in GD.
It's hard to beat up hundreds of armor piercing bullets using only your face...
|
IceShifter Childhaspawn
Rebels New Republic
The Ditanian Alliance
823
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 17:49:00 -
[13] - Quote
I also acknowledge that this option would not be available outside of pubs.
It's hard to beat up hundreds of armor piercing bullets using only your face...
|
Derpty Derp
Dead Man's Game
1
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 03:26:00 -
[14] - Quote
IceShifter Childhaspawn wrote:Derpty Derp wrote:How about the people who vote to surrender get no payment... I like the 4 v 12 matches, you can have a lot of fun trying to get out of the redzone.
Honestly, what's wrong with just quitting the match? Let me stick around as the sole surviving player on the team... The payouts are lovely. A minority of players enjoy the redline. Most would rather the match end. I cite the flame threads in GD.
Who said anything about enjoying the redline... Getting out and being a small group (or solo) trying to do as much as you can, is where the fun is.
As said, people who don't like the match, can leave.
Honestly, after the last few days I don't care a damn about the lazy blueberry community... They are the reason for stomps, not the reds. They all cry about proto, but half the time the other team is terrible and running standard gear, but these lazy bluetards still manage to get stuck in the redzone... There's really no hope for them... A vote to kick everyone that hasn't left the redzone for 5 minutes would be far more useful. |
IceShifter Childhaspawn
Rebels New Republic
The Ditanian Alliance
824
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 19:42:00 -
[15] - Quote
Derpty Derp wrote:[quote=IceShifter Childhaspawn][quote=Derpty Derp]
Truncated to avoid pyramid posting iaw tos
Honestly, after the last few days I don't care a damn about the lazy blueberry community... They are the reason for stomps, not the reds. They all cry about proto, but half the time the other team is terrible and running standard gear, but these lazy bluetards still manage to get stuck in the redzone... There's really no hope for them... A vote to kick everyone that hasn't left the redzone for 5 minutes would be far more useful.
This option empowers both sides of a match. It is the nuclear option where no one wins. What kind of players would cause the enemy to disregard ANY reward and simply end the match?
The answer to this question is the same players which spawn the endless QQ in GD.
The 'lazy blueberries' could have any number of reasons for their actions, some obviously personal.
For the rest- who are spending their daily free time playing a GAME. Are being griefed into regretting the decision to utilize DUST as an outlet. This gives them access to recourse.
Again this option in truly nuclear. Nobody wins. That is also the point.
It's hard to beat up hundreds of armor piercing bullets using only your face...
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |