PDA

View Full Version : Surrender



Gramalian
03-19-2013, 02:52 AM
It might just be me but I find it very frustrating that I have to play out what is clearly a loss in order to get ANY renown. I get it, you dont want rage quits or faked D/Cs or some such but when its clear that you are going to lose, dont make me sit around for 10 more turns. Let me just go on to my next game please. If its so the winner can get kills sure, thats swell, but cant you just award him more renown or something?

Leartes
03-19-2013, 03:05 AM
Sometimes it is annoying, sometimes you can still pull it around even when you think you lost. For me it is a nice mini-game to get as many kills as possible or get kills on an unit I want to develop.

If you don't care for any of that and only want to win, then just go rest on all units and place your stuff nicely so that he can get good tempest with lots of splash etc. It is a bit lame imo, but it is the fastest way to end a game. That way the game will certainly not last longer than a few minutes.

raven2134
03-19-2013, 06:00 AM
Part of the rationale behind this is that it also often takes a good amount of effort for the winning player to set up a good play and execute it. When the opponent surrenders, the victor can be left hanging without the satisfaction of having see the rest of the game play out for his/her effort.

KuntzRocket
03-19-2013, 08:48 AM
It would be very frustrating for me to have every opponent surrender as soon as I have maimed several of his units and it is clear I shall be victor. I still need to play out my strategy to make adjustments. The end-game is very important.

erom
03-19-2013, 09:08 AM
I argued this unsuccessfully at length throughout the beta (that we should be more forgiving of surrenders). I still disagree with their decision here, but I doubt it will change at this point.

Wordplay
03-19-2013, 10:15 AM
The reason a lot of people hate surrenders so much is that it messes up their kills. If you have a match where it's clear there's a winner, but it takes a long time to finish, it's probably because your opponent is focusing on levelling a particular unit - and set the whole battle up to do just that. That's why renown isn't enough to compensate people - kills are an important resource.

It's been suggested that you should be able to assign kills when someone surrenders - but that's a little odd in terms of flavour, and I guess would require some effort to implement. Personally I was never keen on surrender, but neither have I ever had a problem getting my units up to the kill thresholds for promote. What I am desperately short on is renown.

Vexbane
03-20-2013, 09:36 PM
Unless they change the way units level they cannot change this. I also disagree with the way it is implemented at this time as well, but I understand why it is.

To me the best thing to do is take away the kill requirement for units to level and make it so the person that surrenders earns what renown they have so far in battle. The winner gets full renown.

This will streamline the process and make games quicker without taking away any of the strategy. The winner would not mind as much if they did not need kills on certain units. This is what drags matches out unnecessarily and causes the animosity.

Micahh
03-21-2013, 01:28 AM
Another option is just having an "accept surrender" popup, the winner could get the option to accept the surrender or fight to the last man, no?

netnazgul
03-21-2013, 05:45 AM
Current surrender button works just like "Alt+F4" hotkey, so even if you do not agree on surrender, your opponent will still be possible to end the game early. That's why it's unreasonable to change it.

Maybe a "soft surrender" option is viable (gives some renown as consolation prize (for ex. half of the renown to be earned the usual way)). But still any similar method is exploitable, and handshaking methods of surrender are avoidable through the aforementioned "hack".

tanglefast
03-22-2013, 11:49 AM
if you're down to one or two guys, you should be allowed to surrender. When the person surrenders, you are allowed to put a "kill" points into whichever character you want.


solves everything except the satisfaction of watching the killing animation and numbers.

Vexbane
03-22-2013, 12:05 PM
@ netnazgul
I had brought up this way of surrender before. Called a friendly quit. Where are both parties can agree not to play each other. There should still me a normal surrender option as well though.

I do feel strongly though that kill requirements should go for unit leveling. It just brings up more issues, like this one where you are forced to play a losing game for the enjoyment of the victor. Meanwhile you are having a bad time. It just brings nothing good and causes animosity and people to want to rage quit, turtle, or other methods just to get back at the winner since they cannot just say GG surrender and move on with some sort of renown gained.

To put it in perspective even the losing side of a battle learns something from it. Usually more so than a win. So it makes sense to me from a fluff and game play standpoint to implement this.

evacpod
03-22-2013, 12:59 PM
If it's difficult to replace "Kills" with some kind of EXP, how about this:

When someone presses the "Surrender" button, all of his units are maimed automatically (0Armor 1Strength). And he loses all following turns (similar to a "Pillage" mode).

Since TBS is a game of Vikings, there is no need to take prisoners. So a opponent can kill all surrendered units freely.

In this system, no Kills will be lost for a winner. And a game will be over quickly after surrendering.

franknarf
03-22-2013, 02:05 PM
I feel that...

...if you really regard it as a loss, kamikaze your units; it should be over quickly, especially if you tell your opponent that's what you're doing.

...if you want the renown from some more kills, you'll have to work for it; you're not entitled to it, and, besides, this part can be fun.

...if you just want the participation points (daily login streak, expert timer, kills so far), well it's pretty obvious how giving that to the loser before the game is played out could be exploited, right?

Reading the comments in between, I see that this is basically what Laertes said. Good on 'im.

I'm not really worried about the victor's feelings (which raven and Wordplay brought up) or about the kill-count requirements. Who needs units above rank 1, anyway? I'd rather have true veterans reach that level, rather than be able to grind anyone up to it over a couple dozen games.

Really, in many cases where I think I've certainly lost, I am wrong. I think this is probably even more prevalent among newer players, who seem over-inclined to hit surrender even now. Making surrender more attractive makes newcomers think even more that the "RNG factors" -- the team you face, the map you're on, the initial positions and initiate order -- and early play are decisive. By playing out games to completion, they can learn that this is not the case.

As far as the proposals go, Vexbane's friendly quit sounds the easiest to implement and least prone to unexpected side-effects. However, even that could be exploited, I think. In a tourney, what if two or more top-ish players always chose to dodge each other and farm wins against the other 90%? Anyway, I don't want to debate the details, but just remind y'all that simple implementation and avoiding weird side-effects are to be highly valued.

erom
03-22-2013, 02:29 PM
...if you just want the participation points (daily login streak, expert timer, kills so far), well it's pretty obvious how giving that to the loser before the game is played out could be exploited, right? I don't think anyone is suggesting a quitter should get bonus points (or well, if they are, they're wrong, because it's clearly exploitable like you noted). But I'm not certain how giving someone who surrenders only the renown points from the kills they earned so far would be so exploitable.

franknarf
03-22-2013, 02:45 PM
@erom: Sorry for misreading, if I have done. I didn't mean to set up a straw man, but I thought it possible/likely that that's what the OP and perhaps others were expecting after a surrender.

Eh, like I said, I don't really want to offer a solution of my own here or get into the details, but I particularly like erom's proposal because the "+1 Renown" popup banners are misleading if the kill Renown can be taken back upon surrender (as it is now). Besides being easy to implement and hard to exploit, that's very easy to explain...and in fact easier to explain than the current setup.

Gramalian
03-23-2013, 12:35 AM
For me, What started this thread was that I had just lost a game I was in the process of winning because of a miss click that stopped my SS from pinning down his WM, which then moved 2 spaces and killed a full HP biter, who was positioned to take out a full hp archer on his turn( 2 turns away). Killing my guy let him go on a rampage and chain kill/maim 3 units that he would not of been able to over the next 5 or 10 turns. I was stuck watching my guys be exploited for the positioning and just smashed because of a miss click despite my positioning and set up being perfect for what I needed to do other then clicking 1 spot off of what I wanted.

It was such a let down to not only lose the match which I'm 90% sure I had won, but to also have to sit out 5-10+ rounds of watching my team die.It was the least fun thing I could think of.

Vexbane
03-23-2013, 10:36 AM
Friendly quit would not be an option for tournaments to avoid any exploiting.

The point of having the surrender not be an alt-f4 is to improve the game quality. The only way to do this is to remove the kill requirements for units to level. I started a thread and had some good ideas on alternative ways to promote units besides needed kills. That is also an option, but just removing the requirement is an easier fix for now.

Forcing players through a losing situation or to suicide his units in order to gain what they have earned so far is not good for the game. The point is not to have an easy way out, but to have one for situations like Gramalian described where you know you lost and there is nothing you can do. Will doing this make more people surrender? Maybe, but the winner still gets full renown and since there are no kill requirements it doesn't hamper his ability to level his units. A win win.

Between this and the issue with the ques I will say that my love for the game is waning a bit. I hope stoic has the time and decides to do something soon.

raven2134
03-23-2013, 01:36 PM
Stoic is at PAX (Boston) and will probably be back on Mar. 27. :) You'll have to wait until then to get a reply. (I'll be bringing a number of threads to their attention).

I hope that your love for the game will last at least that long ;).

Vexbane
03-23-2013, 05:19 PM
Stoic is at PAX (Boston) and will probably be back on Mar. 27. :) You'll have to wait until then to get a reply. (I'll be bringing a number of threads to their attention).

I hope that your love for the game will last at least that long ;).

I know they are gone to PAX. I wish I could be there myself as it is only a 2 hour drive max from where I live:)

My love will stay until they get back. I see great potential here. Like most of us do. Which is why we are all so passionate about the game imo. Sorry if I sound arrogant or anything. Tact isn't my strong suit.

gabusan
03-24-2013, 08:47 PM
I have noticed that some opponents that no longer want to keep playing, they just go afk and let me finish the match. That way they get renown and I get kills. It is a win-win situation, but I admit it is quite boring to finish a match against opponents who are afk, even with the reduced 30s. turns.

Maybe some alternate solution could be found? Like make turns last less as there are less units in play? I am no game developer, I am sure you can come up with something reasonable. Right now, having to play pointless battles to the end is detracting from the game experience.