209 replies to this topic

[Carl Vickers]

I actually quite like the reward system you suggest for finishing early.

Surrender button, has been discussed multiple times and negged every time. Too many what if's. For example, is it a group consensus button, what if 2-3 people out of the 12 that are getting smutched want to keep playing. Conversely what happens to the 9 who want to quit.

Do the team doing the smutching get the equivlant space bucks for taking out all 48 mechs when the other team surrenders at 2 waves down?

In my mind, surrender button is a big no, the reward for finishing early has promise and I would look at that.

[Kwea]

Palfatreos, on 12 August 2017 - 12:37 PM, said:

Wall of text
Option 1 read it
Option 2 not read it and just play

Tbh i am guilty of the latter would help having word like in bold letter like *Strongly emphasis in team cohesion*

I bet i would have taken the option 3 only read only bold letters.

stil havent readed evrything stopped halfway after *Strongly emphasis in team cohesion*

It's 3 small paragraphs. If this is a wall of text to you I doubt anything in it would matter even if you read it.

[Kwea]

Do you want to know why we spawn camp sometimes? Because match after match we have morons hiding in spawn trying to snipe us, failing to come out and engage us, and letting us push all the way to the gun or past before fighting.

What are we supposed to do, say "go ahead and shoot me and hide, we won't shoot back?".

No. Not going to happen.

If you don't want to play a team oriented end game content, then don't. But don't complain about the ones who play it well. You COULD come over to comms and drop with them, as almost every single team that is decent loves helping new players.

[Wing 0]

Shouldn't you just say "Spawn Kill" ? I find the term "Spawn Camping" very stupid since we "the attackers" aint camping in our spawn like the enemy does.. So many excuses...

Carl Vickers, on 28 August 2017 - 07:43 PM, said:

I actually quite like the reward system you suggest for finishing early.

Surrender button, has been discussed multiple times and negged every time. Too many what if's. For example, is it a group consensus button, what if 2-3 people out of the 12 that are getting smutched want to keep playing. Conversely what happens to the 9 who want to quit.

Do the team doing the smutching get the equivalent space bucks for taking out all 48 mechs when the other team surrenders at 2 waves down?

In my mind, surrender button is a big no, the reward for finishing early has promise and I would look at that.

Fk the surrender. That counts as non-participation.

Disliking a map or game mode or attempting to preserve a player statistic such as Kill/Death Ratio are not acceptable excuses for non-participation. <--- That Includes Leaving and who you are dealing with.

Edited by Wing 0, 28 August 2017 - 08:05 PM.

[Carl Vickers]

I dont like surrender but I am starting to think there needs to be some kind of mechanism for team(s) that are getting totally pwned.

The biggest issue I have with the surrender option is the space bucks that will be missed out on, especially for the newer players that need it the most to continue to expand their drop decks and skills.

I would only accept a surrender option if the team that is winning gets reimbursed what they would have made from killing all 48 mechs despite not doing so. Which is why the idea of a mech multiplier appeals to me in that sense. Now all we would need to figure out is how to implement it.

[Leggin Ho]

Insanity09, on 28 August 2017 - 07:34 PM, said:

I do thank you for acknowledging that the situation I described does actually happen. And it does happen more against PUGs, which tend to be the less experienced players.

The reward system, as I suggested in part of my book above, is another piece of the problem here.
The real rewards in a match come from kills/assists/damage/etc. Nobody is interested in sportsmanship or behavior that doesn't cruelly punish less experienced players if it means they get fewer kills overall.

Despite claims that people don't farm, I have seen numerous matches where one side could end it easily and does farm enemy mechs.
The attacker on siege that could readily destroy the gens and omega, the team that blew the other side away in domination and could sit in the circle, probably getting the count all the way down before the next wave showed up, etc.
I have been yelled at for trying to end games under those circumstances because I figured we'd already won and I wanted to move on to the next match quickly and efficiently (silly me).
Killing folks in such matches, especially if you're shooting them in the dropship &/or as they are dropping (can't move, twist, or fire when that's going on, I've tested it), that is exactly farming. You're just padding your score. And understandably, given the pride people take in their kill/death ratios and the like, and the reward system.

Which is why another change I've asked for repeatedly is a change to the reward system such that at the end of a match won by objectives, everybody get a bonus reward equal to some base value of xp/cbills/match score (I've suggested an assist) multiplied by the number of enemy mechs remaining alive. In an FW match, that could be quite a tidy sum for a team that finished it early.

As for punishing people for choosing it if there were a surrender option... in the name of all that is good and holy, why?! They have already suffered a staggering beat down, so severe that most (or all?) of them feel they have zero chance of winning. Forcing them to pay a price, in addition to that ignominy, or let themselves be joylessly (for them) ground into the dust is just mean.

Set it so that a team couldn't surrender unless at least half their mechs had been destroyed or some such, so people didn't just see a fearsome enemy unit and pack it in instantly. But let people acknowledge a superior foe and bow out with some dignity, in hopes of a better future match.

Because you already have folks that disco as soon as they have a team they don't want to fight as it is, anytime you quit there should be a penalty, even with your suggestion of the different rewards system (I like by the way, but alot of events also require match scores so there may be a issue there) simply because they don't feel like playing a team and by letting them just quit and end the match they are wasting the other teams time when that behavior is rewarded or in this case not punished when they quit. They will lose the match either way if they don't try, but allowing them to not even try for free is wrong and they should have a penalty if they choose to quit.

[Wing 0]

Heres an idea though the pugs wont like it but other free to play titles do have it rat players out for leaving on purpose. Ever played Star Trek Online? Their penalty system is not as nice as what we have. Any player leaving a queue in that game intentionally receives a 1 hour ban from all queues. Just imagine MWO having that. Many players would just pitch a temper tantrum because of it. If PGI is stupid to add a "surrender" system in play, they would place the players leaving on purpose having not only a 1 hour temp ban from ALL MODES but also any cbills he or so made would get sent to the other players instead who fought to end. Constantly leaving the games aka "surrendering" would receive harsher punishments and possible account loss. So If your really that dumb to not have common sense about thinking before leaping into faction play, I don't know what to tell ya. Either learn to get better or go away. Any feature will have strings attached and I just gave you 1 good one that they would enforce.

Edited by Wing 0, 28 August 2017 - 09:52 PM.

[Leggin Ho]

Well if they did a surrender they would have to make it a majority vote, if the majority voted to quit then they all should lose c-bills and Exp which should be given to the other team as "salvage". Since we still have people getting kicked by the game in some drops and others that just quit as soon as the drop starts we have to be careful when to enforce a penalty as it is. But if players can get enough of their "team" in drop to surrender then by all means we can let them, knowing full well it will cost them the tonnage they brought and the winning team gets that and c-bills as salvage.

[Insanity09]

Pertinent points:

• Surrender in game would not be allowed until mech deaths hit a certain point (I suggested 50% losses).
  
• The victory bonus I suggested would kick in. That gives an assist payout (xp, cbills, AND match score) for each enemy mech still alive (including not dropped) at the end of a match. (so if at the time of the surrender, the surrendering enemy has 24 mechs left alive, every player on the winning team gets the payout from 24 assists).
  
• The match is over very quickly, the winners, effectively, get to farm their victims without needing to fire a shot, and folks can move on to the next match, which will hopefully be more of a competitive fight for everyone (probably not for the losers, history and all, but hope springs eternal)

Is the e-peen of K/D ratio crucial? It could still be worked out.

Spoiler

True, the K/D numbers would be a bit skewed, but the W/L numbers would still be relevant, and I'm sure that some number fudging could be worked out if the e-peen is so important to people.
I'd suggest that either the remaining mechs be counted as kills for purposes of tracking (the bonus would still be based on assists), split evenly between the victorious team. So, if 24 enemy mechs hadn't been killed when the surrender happened, each winner gets 2 kills padded on their score.
Or...
Split the shadow-kills between the winners based on how many of the kills they had previously. So, with 24 surrendered mechs (24 killed) a person who had killed 6 would get 6 more, 2 gets two, and so on. If you didn't get a piece of the kill count before the surrender, then sorry, all you get is the huge victory bonus.

It seems people are a bit unclear on what a surrender does, even in the real world.

Spoiler

Except in rare cases, surrender is not non-participation. You've already tried to fight, it was devastatingly against you. If you try to continue to fight, you're just wasting your time, causing pointless losses and pain. You cede the victory to the enemy.
Lives matter.

You're worried about non-participation, yet folks are already pointing out that it is happening already.

Spoiler

When a match is clearly lost, you already see (more) people intentionally (though not provably) dc'ing, some just walk away from their keyboard (intentional afk, again hard to prove), while others just hide in the spawn zones because going out is certain and sudden death.
The pre-defeated team is already at the point of irrelevancy and effectively forced non-participation.
The losers are already getting minimal XP/cbill/match score due to poor performance, history shows they won't be getting much more, and you want to take even that away from them, in part or in full?
I'm sorry, but what kind of vicious and brutal misbegotten sob's are you?

I had a match last night that went 12:0, then 17:0, then 23:1, then it was 30:2, etc. It ended at 48:13 which is misleading because I know at least 3 of those were heat deaths, and one attacker ejected. At the 23:1 point they were inside the defensive spawn. I had 2 of those Kills (one solo) and one KMDD (2 total) on top of that. And I felt my time was totally wasted. I hate solo FW.
I would have happily surrendered at the 30:2 point (all the gens were destroyed, omega damaged, the victorious team could very easily have ended it right there, but mercy is absent, score and payout, wasting time, is more important to people).

[MischiefSC]

Insanity09, on 28 August 2017 - 07:34 PM, said:

I do thank you for acknowledging that the situation I described does actually happen. And it does happen more against PUGs, which tend to be the less experienced players.

The reward system, as I suggested in part of my book above, is another piece of the problem here.
The real rewards in a match come from kills/assists/damage/etc. Nobody is interested in sportsmanship or behavior that doesn't cruelly punish less experienced players if it means they get fewer kills overall.

Despite claims that people don't farm, I have seen numerous matches where one side could end it easily and does farm enemy mechs.
The attacker on siege that could readily destroy the gens and omega, the team that blew the other side away in domination and could sit in the circle, probably getting the count all the way down before the next wave showed up, etc.
I have been yelled at for trying to end games under those circumstances because I figured we'd already won and I wanted to move on to the next match quickly and efficiently (silly me).
Killing folks in such matches, especially if you're shooting them in the dropship &/or as they are dropping (can't move, twist, or fire when that's going on, I've tested it), that is exactly farming. You're just padding your score. And understandably, given the pride people take in their kill/death ratios and the like, and the reward system.

Which is why another change I've asked for repeatedly is a change to the reward system such that at the end of a match won by objectives, everybody get a bonus reward equal to some base value of xp/cbills/match score (I've suggested an assist) multiplied by the number of enemy mechs remaining alive. In an FW match, that could be quite a tidy sum for a team that finished it early.

As for punishing people for choosing it if there were a surrender option... in the name of all that is good and holy, why?! They have already suffered a staggering beat down, so severe that most (or all?) of them feel they have zero chance of winning. Forcing them to pay a price, in addition to that ignominy, or let themselves be joylessly (for them) ground into the dust is just mean.

Set it so that a team couldn't surrender unless at least half their mechs had been destroyed or some such, so people didn't just see a fearsome enemy unit and pack it in instantly. But let people acknowledge a superior foe and bow out with some dignity, in hopes of a better future match.

Bad players playing badly are going to get stomped. No mechanic will change that.

Surrender is exploitable.

I like the concept of a win by objectives bonus but the reality is that people play to shoot mechs. You start driving people to avoid shooting mechs and just dunk objectives and the population drops. Ask anyone who played with/against MS. You wait 10 minutes to get a match, 6 minutes to get into the match, and then it dunks out in 4 minutes?

Everyone gets beaten down. Why are we acting like that's some cruel and unfair thing? This game is 100% about team v team PvP. Nobody is in danger of brain damage for letting the match go all 10 rounds. I get terrible matches in QP all the time. Constantly. Where is my surrender button for QP when I see 3 LRM boats on my team?

What you're really getting at is that people like winning. That I absolutely understand. So your take is to really take the gameplay out of the game and let people functionally just avoid having to play out any match where they're not going to win.

No. You want to play a game, you risk losing. You want to improve your odds of winning you take steps to do so. You play harder, you play better. Letting people just avoid matches where they are probably going to lose and only play matches they're probably going to win just voids out the games point entirely. Nobody wants to actually play anyone unless they're going to win - so when the pug team voids on playing against BCMC, then the next match they're pugging along side AWOL and the other team just voids, now what?

You play the game, you play it to the best of your ability, you win or you lose. That's not some terrible, cruel, unfair system. It's the nature of multiplayer PvP gaming. If someone doesn't want to play against other people unless they're likely to win then we are, as a game population, better off if they go back to single player.

[Wing 0]

Well Said Mischief.

[Commander A9]

You forgot to mention that "Surrender" can be used as a weapon to deny a major unit the opportunity to battle in the first place.

Let's say 12 players from a good team organize to drop...and they encounter 12 pugs.

Within 5 seconds, all 12 pugs consent to surrender, ending the match in a win for the team unit...but also denying them the actual opportunity to fight...then the big-12-man team breaks up because they can't find anyone willing to actually let the match play out.

...who wins in that scenario?

[Pat Kell]

naterist, on 28 August 2017 - 03:12 PM, said:

That is a fine awnser from both yourself, and mr kell, and it has earned my respect. If you ever ask again why you ghost drop when there isnt an event, i shall draw your attantion back to this topic. And recall to you that your W/L ratio is more important to you, then the fate of this mode.

and just to be totally clear for the ones who correctly read this as a sarcastic slam on units that unapolegetically stomp as much as they can. no one reasonable is here to say your wrong for doing it. its doable so its fair right? but you are incorrect when you fail to acknowledge its a problem, and when people are trying to suggest ways to fix that problem and you try to pretend like theyre in the wrong for trying to make the game a better experience, thats when what you are doing is morally repulsive, and its also why no one gives a **** that YOU complain about something, like upsurges in ghost drops and the like.

I will never ask why we ghost drop so often. I am well aware of the issues plaguing CW right now. Your attempt, again, to shame me into changing our playstyle is falling on deaf ears. I will not ease off the pedal because someone decides to drop in a mode that they are ill prepared for or refuse to play it in a way that gives them a fighting chance. I will gladly offer advice on how to improve, I will salute them and I will do my best not to troll them or even respond to the vile nasty things that are said to us (even when we don't spawn kill). But one thing I will not do is allow you or anyone else to lay the blame of the current state of CW at our feet.

CW is dying for 2 reasons, PGI won't invest any REAL time into making it a mode that a lot people are interested in (just browse the forums for an absolute boat load of good, fascinating ideas) and the people who do decide to play it, are in large part, people who expect others to fix their woes. I am not playing this game to ensure that someone on the enemy team has a good time or feels like it was a fair fight. I am here to win, just like they are and I can assure you that every single person that I fight against is, at least on some level, trying their best to win. So if the shoe was on the other foot, there is no guarantee that any of them would offer me or anyone else that your trying to blame for the downfall of CW any leeway such as your asking from us. Treating us like we are idiots for not seeing what impact this will have on the game is very near sighted. I am very much aware of the fact that people will quit playing this game when they get spawn killed sometimes. This is not my fault. I didn't make them decide to quit. I didn't make them decide to play. I decided for myself what I was going to do. If I ever got spawn camped ( and I have before) I wouldn't come here whining to the world about how mean and nasty the big bad wolf was and treating them like they were dirt because they beat me so badly. I would go finds some friends to play with and kick the #$!# out of that wolf.

Some people come here to petition PGI to make some changes...fine, go for it, just stop blaming the people who are winning. They are the only innocent ones in this whole fiasco. They don't chose their enemies, whether they are a team or pugs, they just group up, hit launch and fight who they fight. Telling them that they have to let off the pedal in order to make sure that the enemy team has a good time is putting them in a subservient position in relation to these people. I don't play this game to make other people happy, I play it to make myself and my team mates happy. Every single person who plays this game plays it for the same end goal, to make themselves and (possibly) their teammates happy. Asking anyone to put that end goal of happiness at risk by focusing on what's going to make the enemy happy is just insanity.

You want to not be spawn killed? come out of your spawn and convince the rest of your team to do the same. We can't kill you in your spawn of you are not there. That is a simple fact and one that people constantly ignore. And don't give me this crap about the first wave being wiped out 12-3 or worse and claiming that this is when the real spawn killing begins. The spawn killing begins the moment a person drops and the make the conscious decision not to move out away from their spawn as a team. Sure, there are times when people will bring lights or fast mechs and even moving away from spawn at the start won't prevent it but for the most part, if you move out from your spawn and move towards the enemy at good haste, you are not going to be spawn camped. Don't get mad at me or anyone else who comes to your spawn to shoot you when you make the conscious choice at the start of the match to be spawn killed.

Your next point is somewhat out of touch. I clearly understand that spawn killing is a problem, it's just not my problem to fix. I don't get paid by PGI to make sure that everyone here has a good experience. I also don't get paid by anyone playing the game to give them a fight that they can "enjoy". If people are having a problem with something that happens in the game, that is their problem to fix. I will gladly give advice, share builds, tactics, whatever, but I am going to keep trying to winning and I am going to try to win with as large a margin as I can. The fact that you view this as morally repulsive makes me believe that you may be the type of person who thinks that I was put on this planet to provide you with happiness. If you believe this, I am here to tell you that you are wrong. I hope that you don't and are just a little confused on what's really going on here. Some people are having a rough time in some matches and are coming here to the forums to complain about it, trying to lay the blame at our feet and asking us to change our behavior. That, to me, is morally repulsive. If you have a problem, figure out a way to fix it but don't ask someone else to do it for you. No one was put on this planet to serve you or anyone else.

Now, people who come here and ask for changes to the game from PGI, fine. It's PGI's game and if they see value in it, that's up to them and well within their rights to do so. While I may disagree with some of the ideas I have seen put forth, I would still play the game to the best of my ability if these changes were put in place. And I certainly wouldn't come on here and try to blame other people if my win/loss ratio suddenly plummeted because of it. I would pull up my big boy pants (past my belly button, cuz ya know, I'm old) and I would figure out a way to turn things around.

As for insinuating that I somehow don't care about this mode, that's ridiculous. We have a pretty hard rule in KCom. We don't troll, ridicule, mock, berate or slam people who don't do well in a match. We are not perfect at this and sometimes it does happen but we are very persistent about calling team mates out when this behavior happens. We know that it's no fun to lose and we know that it is made worse when the enemy treats you like dirt. So we don't do it. As much as we want to sometimes, such as when people are calling us vile, nasty things or blaming us for all the woes of CW or when they refuse to drop as a team, work with their team or even come more than 500m out of their spawn, but we don't. We play the match to the best of our ability, try to give advice when we don't think it will be thrown back in our face, salute and move on. If we didn't care about this mode, we would of followed the lead of certain other units, who openly wanted it to fail nd we would treat everyone like dirt. We want this mode to succeed, you just have to understand that the only power we truly have when it comes to making this game succeed or fail is to simply play it. I know most will see this few as simplistic, and it is, but all life is simple when you break it down to it's core values. This game succeeding requires 1 thing, people playing it. So when people quit or whine or decide it's too hard and quit, I would argue that they share more of the blame for it's failure than someone who wins a lot. No one else is making them quit, they are making that choice for themselves. I can't make it for them. Sure, my decisions are influenced by the people I interact with but if I quit because I wasn't willing (or able) to put in the time and effort needed to improve or at least gain some enjoyment out of the game, how is that anyone else's fault but my own? I admitted defeat and quit. That's my fault.

Edited by Pat Kell, 29 August 2017 - 07:07 PM.

[Lovas]

Pat Kell, on 29 August 2017 - 06:42 PM, said:

That's my fault.

Can I use this quote whenever I want?


Just trying to lighten the mood in the room

Edited by Lovas, 29 August 2017 - 07:24 PM.

[Insanity09]

Any player wants to win.

Any player doesn't like losing, most will accept it as an early cost.

However, there is a difference between losing and having a team knock you over, kick you when you are down, and then grind your face into the dirt.

At that point, it is not about winning, it is about the psychological power trip.

Being utterly crushed, especially when you can see a team is choosing to prolong your agony by not winning by objective... that's not just losing, it's torture.
The vast majority of people will chose NOT being tortured.
People could win with respect for an opponent, but instead choose the curbstomp for a little e-peen and stat inflation.

Some folks, well intentioned even, want to blame the less-skilled for not stopping them? Blaming the victim? Really?

You want to blame those people when they reasonably move on to a different aspect of the game (if we're lucky) or leave the game entirely?

Are you and your team better at the game than those people? The answer is obviously, overwhelmingly yes. If that is the case, then you dictate how the game will go, not the poor suckers who are being thrashed.
Nobody is holding a gun to your head, forcing you to spawncamp. That was your choice.
Play well, win with respect, not brutality.

Some of these folks have said, well, they just hide in the spawn, and we can't wait for them to come out, so we go in.
In every mode except for skirmish and incursion, that is a very flimsy excuse. (even in incursion it's questionable)
You can't wait, so instead of winning the game quickly, you choose to victimize folks who've already effectively lost. Taking a bunch more time to do so. Think it through.
You don't want to wait, so rather than winning fast, you take the time to hunt the enemy down in every corner. Uh-huh.

Your W/L rate is secure. Your payout from the next match will come all the quicker for finishing fast.
Your K/D ratio might get padded. Or you might not get any more kills (teammates took em'!) and you might conceivably die (it could happen).

It is utterly true that you aren't responsible for their fun in the game.
Your boss and co-workers are not responsible for your job satisfaction (wait...). Never mind that bad boss and bad co-workers are the top two reasons people leave jobs (not pay/benefits).
Players could chose to win in such a way that it didn't leave a bad taste in the mouths of their victims. Then a "wow, Unit [X] just blew us away, impressed and trying to learn" post or comment might be a little more common than the salty hate.
But, instead, the rationalizations and excuses. Uh-huh.

I would truly love to see what changes, if any, the victory bonus would make in the player behavior if it got implemented.

[50 50]

MischiefSC, on 29 August 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

Bad players playing badly are going to get stomped. No mechanic will change that.

Surrender is exploitable.

I like the concept of a win by objectives bonus but the reality is that people play to shoot mechs. You start driving people to avoid shooting mechs and just dunk objectives and the population drops. Ask anyone who played with/against MS. You wait 10 minutes to get a match, 6 minutes to get into the match, and then it dunks out in 4 minutes?

Everyone gets beaten down. Why are we acting like that's some cruel and unfair thing? This game is 100% about team v team PvP. Nobody is in danger of brain damage for letting the match go all 10 rounds. I get terrible matches in QP all the time. Constantly. Where is my surrender button for QP when I see 3 LRM boats on my team?

What you're really getting at is that people like winning. That I absolutely understand. So your take is to really take the gameplay out of the game and let people functionally just avoid having to play out any match where they're not going to win.

No. You want to play a game, you risk losing. You want to improve your odds of winning you take steps to do so. You play harder, you play better. Letting people just avoid matches where they are probably going to lose and only play matches they're probably going to win just voids out the games point entirely. Nobody wants to actually play anyone unless they're going to win - so when the pug team voids on playing against BCMC, then the next match they're pugging along side AWOL and the other team just voids, now what?

You play the game, you play it to the best of your ability, you win or you lose. That's not some terrible, cruel, unfair system. It's the nature of multiplayer PvP gaming. If someone doesn't want to play against other people unless they're likely to win then we are, as a game population, better off if they go back to single player.

Just to point out that in quick play you can be beaten down but you never get spawn camped.

Unfortunately at this point in the development of FP I don't see us getting a mode that allows teams to push control points in a single battle, advance the control of territory, have selectable spawn points and be able to fall back (move forward) to another base etc. Despite how awesome that might be, the changes to mode are significant and also require new maps.

The simple truth of it is that people will happily drop in quick play again and again even if they get rolled one match because they can simply shrug their shoulders, pick a mech and drop into the next match fresh and have at least a chance to get into position and fight.
The whole aspect of grief that comes along with spawn camping is that if a team or group of players is overwhelmed to the point that they do get caught in their drop zones, they have very little chance to do anything about it. It's where you lose a couple of mechs, or more, helplessly that drive people bonkers. Combine that with the fact that we might wait an hour just to get a match and you then get smashed in 5 min..... that's where it's really frustrating and I can certainly understand why people never come back. Overall, you get a better experience and really importantly, more game time in quick play.

So, if we can't have the awesomeness of fighting over territory, capturing forward bases to spawn from all in a single battle that we can enjoy for as long as possible, then we should look at other options that give us that feeling of being in a galactic struggle and take advantage of the way the core game is played out.
That means putting functionality around (outside of) what is essentially the quick play + siege + scouting modes so we can take all of those modes and any new developments that might come along and port them into a Faction Play framework.
Which is why I suggest using the Drop Decks differently and treating the modes as missions to make it a campaign.
It eliminates spawn camping.
Any future development of modes and maps automatically benefits FP.
And we create greater appeal for FP because we have depth surrounding the battles.

[Baba Gump Waters]

''Play well, win with respect, not brutality''

You must be a SJW to say something like that. Wars are fought with tactics, soldiers and most of all brutality. If a psycho brakes into your house and want to kill you and your family what are you going to do? Use respect, fair play and harsh words?

No.

Your going to pick up that baseball bat and be as brutal as possible to win the encounter.

And if you can't get to the baseball bat ie objective do you think the pycho will let you get to it?

That's also why people band together to form neighborhood watches to spot robbers and psychos.

So get together and form a unit that plays often. that's how Kcom did it, that's how MS did it and all the other units that plow thru

pugs.

[naterist]

Insanity09, on 29 August 2017 - 08:20 PM, said:

Any player wants to win.

Any player doesn't like losing, most will accept it as an early cost.

However, there is a difference between losing and having a team knock you over, kick you when you are down, and then grind your face into the dirt.

At that point, it is not about winning, it is about the psychological power trip.

Being utterly crushed, especially when you can see a team is choosing to prolong your agony by not winning by objective... that's not just losing, it's torture.
The vast majority of people will chose NOT being tortured.
People could win with respect for an opponent, but instead choose the curbstomp for a little e-peen and stat inflation.

Some folks, well intentioned even, want to blame the less-skilled for not stopping them? Blaming the victim? Really?

You want to blame those people when they reasonably move on to a different aspect of the game (if we're lucky) or leave the game entirely?

Are you and your team better at the game than those people? The answer is obviously, overwhelmingly yes. If that is the case, then you dictate how the game will go, not the poor suckers who are being thrashed.
Nobody is holding a gun to your head, forcing you to spawncamp. That was your choice.
Play well, win with respect, not brutality.

Some of these folks have said, well, they just hide in the spawn, and we can't wait for them to come out, so we go in.
In every mode except for skirmish and incursion, that is a very flimsy excuse. (even in incursion it's questionable)
You can't wait, so instead of winning the game quickly, you choose to victimize folks who've already effectively lost. Taking a bunch more time to do so. Think it through.
You don't want to wait, so rather than winning fast, you take the time to hunt the enemy down in every corner. Uh-huh.

Your W/L rate is secure. Your payout from the next match will come all the quicker for finishing fast.
Your K/D ratio might get padded. Or you might not get any more kills (teammates took em'!) and you might conceivably die (it could happen).

It is utterly true that you aren't responsible for their fun in the game.
Your boss and co-workers are not responsible for your job satisfaction (wait...). Never mind that bad boss and bad co-workers are the top two reasons people leave jobs (not pay/benefits).
Players could chose to win in such a way that it didn't leave a bad taste in the mouths of their victims. Then a "wow, Unit [X] just blew us away, impressed and trying to learn" post or comment might be a little more common than the salty hate.
But, instead, the rationalizations and excuses. Uh-huh.

I would truly love to see what changes, if any, the victory bonus would make in the player behavior if it got implemented.

its wouldnt even be about that if they didnt spend all their effort trying to kill any attempts to get improvements implanted in the game. they dont only make it ******, they go out of their way to make sure that guys suggesting improvements and seeking a better way get harrassed off the forums, then once all the disenters are gone they make sure to stand up and do a head count and claim theyre in the majority. lol. they do it in the game and they do it in the forums.

you cant win until you have a place were you can have a legit debate. that place sure as **** aint here.

[Leggin Ho]

Commander A9, on 29 August 2017 - 02:20 PM, said:

You forgot to mention that "Surrender" can be used as a weapon to deny a major unit the opportunity to battle in the first place.

Let's say 12 players from a good team organize to drop...and they encounter 12 pugs.

Within 5 seconds, all 12 pugs consent to surrender, ending the match in a win for the team unit...but also denying them the actual opportunity to fight...then the big-12-man team breaks up because they can't find anyone willing to actually let the match play out.

...who wins in that scenario?

That would be the reason I said to hit them in the C-bill and Exp purse HARD so that surrendering is a LAST resort, not a option to just play who they want when they feel they have the upper hand.

[naterist]

MischiefSC, on 29 August 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

No. You want to play a game, you risk losing. You want to improve your odds of winning you take steps to do so. You play harder, you play better. Letting people just avoid matches where they are probably going to lose and only play matches they're probably going to win just voids out the games point entirely. Nobody wants to actually play anyone unless they're going to win - so when the pug team voids on playing against BCMC, then the next match they're pugging along side AWOL and the other team just voids, now what?

that sounds like a win win to me. arent all the clan unit players lamenting the lack of time spent getting real matches with real teams? whats it to you if you dont play against 12 pugs as often? you claim to crave a fight with other coordinated players. what happened to that? or do you just really like pugstomping? if you consider all your past "debates" (i use that term loosely here) with me on here, then this isnt a principled arguement your making, you just dont want to wait in the que again.