Two things | Forums

[Justifi3d]

No my man, I'm saying at the 25 min mark in the countdown, not 25 mins into the game. I would say after the first gate, id be satisfied with that. However some games it's just toxic from the very beginning and an awful experience before the first gate is busted open. I also think if a player leaves that should also trigger a surrender option.

Oh, I see what you're saying. I could get behind that actually, considering that if you're playing attackers and you're just getting spawn camped then you're not gonna see the other side of the first gate anyway.

[iadvisoryi]

What kind of warriors beg for a surrender option!

Odin laughs!

Smart ones

[Goat_of_Vermund]

It is indeed wise for sheep to bow their heads to wolves.

I still think that a charge out option where the commander comes forward to fight (with a proper place to save him from easy kills) is better than a surrender option. It hastens the end, but you may still play.

Considering how orders work, and how some saltlords think, a surrender option would ruin games. As soon as one side loses a group fight, the game would end, with no orders complete.

[iadvisoryi]

It is indeed wise for sheep to bow their heads to wolves.

I still think that a charge out option where the commander comes forward to fight (with a proper place to save him from easy kills) is better than a surrender option. It hastens the end, but you may still play.

Considering how orders work, and how some saltlords think, a surrender option would ruin games. As soon as one side loses a group fight, the game would end, with no orders complete.

Not the case, that's why I stated the time limit minimum, like I said, as interesting as your idea is, it's not realistic for them to implement, they barely patch characters. Also how would it be if attackers wanted to surrender? Like oh let's skip the hard part and say screw it and try to get an easy win? Or why give the other side a chance to win if they want to surrender? Doesn't seem fair to the other team

[Goat_of_Vermund]

Attackers don't have to surrender, they will quickly lose their ram and tickets in a steamroll. Plus even if they suck, they will always have a glimmer of hope to somehow push through, while as a defender it is quite obvious what will happen if attackers have 35 tickets for phase 2.

I don't know about surrenders. Worked well in dota and lol, but for this game, it would be a bit weird. My idea would work because the defenders would not have to suffer through ten minutes of the ram's path, and no players would be robbed of their orders (jesus, those killstreak orders with pk nowdays...). It would also help the defenders' experience in group fight, fights near the commander certainly give a great edge. Implementing it is no big deal, you vote the way you woud for surrender, the gate falls on success, and the commander comes out and takes a somewhat safe location (he can stand right where the gate was).

[ArchDukeInstinct]

I don't think they should add a surrender option, but they should have a mercy rule instead for all 4v4 games. So many matches end up being a stomp one way or the other and you can't leave without getting the penalty, so you just have to suffer if the match is heavily rigged against you or have a boring game just wiping out the enemy team over and over.

[Valoredramack]

What kind of warriors beg for a surrender option!

Odin laughs!

The Japanese have one of the most honor-bound cultures in history, yet even they surrendered when their nation was nuked twice in World War 2.
I'm pretty sure Odin wouldn't be laughing if an atomic bomb dropped on his face.

There is no shame in acknowledging defeat, there is only shame in being a sore loser.

[Goat_of_Vermund]

Yeah, not willing to take a third nuke and lacking the willingness to put effort into a losing video game/e-sport match for a few more minutes is totally the same thing.

[Valoredramack]

Yeah, not willing to take a third nuke and lacking the willingness to put effort into a losing video game/e-sport match for a few more minutes is totally the same thing.

Your response is a logical fallacy because I did not say that responding to nukes and responding to e-sports are the same thing.

What I said was that there is no shame in acknowledging defeat, and since you are confused I will reiterate that this concept is even more true for something as trivial as a video game.

My point is that in war, soldiers like myself are taught to never accept defeat; it's even written into the second clause of our U.S Army Warrior Ethos.

And yet even with these principles in mind which many military organizations around the world internalize, there are still circumstances that lead to surrender, which is why I brought up Japan. So the crux of this analogy is to point out that if surrender is acceptable in
life-or-death situations, then it is also certainly acceptable in fantasy land.

Sometimes I share thoughts that fall outside the intellectual limits of typical gamer rhetoric in order to help people keep things in perspective; this analogy was one such occasion because I'm not just a misanthropist....I also happen to be a philanthropist.

[CRIMS0NM0NKEY]

Maybe if a team is lossing like the defenders. Like really badly. The game gives one of the attacking team members the option to switch sides. I don't mind fighting a losing battle especially if my winning team is being toxic about it. Plus fighting bots is a boring. I'd be happy to turn coat to even out the playing field.