that solution is nice, Even if they don’t add the God powers. Just give me the other guys resources. But we should keep in mind that SC2 was released in an era in which 1v1 games were booming and were hot. Now though the RTS genre is becoming niche exactly because of 1v1. Most of the new generation in my opinion doesn’t really want to play 1v1 (In my opinion) and it is evident in viewer/active player numbers.
The solution for SC2 is not perfect but it is the minimum. I still think my suggestion (albeit with some major changes) is sort of the solution for team games. I understand your point about being stuck. But even if we don’t add a voting system there must a thing keeping players from leaving minute 10. This is super frustrating for every one because no game will even get to mythic age which is where the fun is.
In every game one guy will get pushed first, If there is no system to prevent them from leaving, Then everyone will leave! It will be like Garena DotA in which every game started as 5v5 and then 10 minutes later half the lobby would leave. cause there was nothing preventing people from leaving. And right now in AoM, there really isn’t anything preventing people from leaving. I only proposed voting system because in some games there really isn’t any hope for come back. then the team as a whole can agree to surrender.
As I said some one losing his Town Center will always happen in every game, and if they leave they will ruin the game for every body , even for the enemy team. But the point that you mentioned in which you are stuck with a bad teammate is a thing that will happen only if the match making is not balancing each team. and the solution for this is to have more players queueing (by limiting queue options) and having a better match making system.
The only thing I agree is your second point. matches below a certain threshold have no value and should not count towards elo. But even that case some players might know the enemy team and be like “Oh, Our enemy team is the same guys who owned us last game. We should just leave immediately so we don’t lose any points again”. This is sort of like surrendering and if this is the case then the enemy team deserve to have their Elo. Although making a system that recognizes this is near impossible.
As for the first point, Why should he lose less Elo? They lost as a team. If the matchmaking was balanced and bot teams were of equal skills, then every one should lose the same elo.
I don’t like your 3rd point because it will just create a fake inflation of Elo. But it is not a huge deal… . still I don’t see the point in adding it though especially since that it is a lot of hustle for an already very busy developers.
And the 4th point is just absurd. Every one deserves to play ranked. This game is for every one , the new . the noob . the veteran, the pro. As long as there is a fairly decent working matchmaking system which matches noobs with noobs and pros with pros then there should be no problem.
Yea i mean it can be all upsides. Otherwise you would incentivise people to leave
“keeping players from leaving minute 10” Thats the thing, games can be done by that point.
“No game will even get to mythic age which is where fun is” That is also subjective, some players enjoy earlier skirmishes, raiding games or heroic timings (winning with a big flaming weapons push) for instance.
You havent been able to list a criteria to considerar when a game is “gone” vs when someone is leaving preemptively and its maybe because theres no such criteria. Forcing people to play a game they dont want to doesnt seem like good game design. Other games you mention dont have a solo mode, theres no other way to play the game. So it makes more sense to deter people from ruining all others experience. If you have 3-5 games in a row where your ally is 2v1, looses his base and leave then maybe you are also part of the issue. If something consistently happens to you theres a chance you also have something to do with the outcome.
The part about the queue system is true and thats the current AOM, if you get a wait time of about more than 5 minutes expect you opponets to either be way better than you or way worse, because thats how matchmaking works, it begins to broaden the spectrum of the search to find people together, be it for better or worst.
The matchmaking system works best when you find matches quickly, it mens similar skill opponent and allies (in case you are queing solo or 2 man in a 3v3, etc). And games work great, but as soon as it begins to search more openly for people to fill slots unbalance will happen. Its not a thing of limiting queue options, rank doesnt really have much options to limit to begin with. Its a matter of the current game doesnt have enough active ranked players atmost times and at most ELO levels to make due.
It’s ok if it is minute 10 and everyone thinks the game is over then they can all surrender.
Just because this game has solo mode it gives people right to abandon and ruin other peoples experience?
So im my ally thinks he can win but i dont im forced to play it along or be punished?
That works the other way around also. Just because you wanna keep playing the other guys is also forced to? Its not like people are playing with the intention to leave in 5 min not mattering what happens in a game. People should be able to leave a game they dont wanna play anymore. You still dont adress the criteria for “lost game” btw.
I addressed this in my previous comments. Criteria for a lost game is pretty absurd in AoM which is to lose all buildings and all units. But for now this is what we have to deal with. But I don’t agree with this. To decide the criteria is pretty difficult and I have never thought of it. But this is the reason that a surrender vote is needed. But what does this has to do with forcing people to keep on playing? Losing one villager is for sure a not a criteria of a lost game but this is what is happening in 90% of my games.
First off this is ranked. Every one is supposed to play until they can make a come back or at least try to. “People should be able to leave a game they don’t wanna play anymore.” This is a ranked game no one leaves until they give it everything they have. You are suggesting “feel like they don’t want to play any more” that’s not how ranked works.
You yourself said that not every game will be late game mythic. and people will play every playstyle then why should your teammates who wants to play late game be punished every game? doesn’t he deserve to play boomy for just one game if he really think this is the viable play?
If you don’t force people to stay as I said, since at least one guy of every team in every game will be at frontline, One guy will lose certain stuff. And then he will leave because “he doesn’t feel like playing anymore” , his team mate will leave because now it is a 2v3. and the enemy team will not enjoy the game cause they know that the game was far from over and the win was probably not deserved.
Because theres no criteria for such thing. Thinking a game is lost and you cant come back is subjective, someone can see a way out, another can not. Someone can think theres a way out and another can realize theres not. Theres no easy way to meassure it and having to play until your ally or allies consider also surrendering wouldnt be fun.
Thinks of it as chess. Some poeple will play till checkmate. Others will leave if they blunder a piece. You dont have to play all games until the last unit is taken from you. You decide when to quit in any RTS game, theres no punishment for surrendering and it doesnt seem good game design to implement one.
Heres a missunderstanding. You booming and you refusing to help your ally are 2 different things which people get mixed up. I get at low levels managing economy and building an army is hard but people should adapt their playstyle. If your plan is to go 2 tc into a heroic ageup without building a single military unit, turtling in your base and leave your ally alone vs two agressive players you arent booming, you are throwing the game. Your opponent is doing the smart thing. They can either attack your defensive base or can team up, remove you ally from the equation and then beat you down 2v1.
If your opponent is getting raided by both your opponents maybe grabbing that third TC isnt the base idea. If both opponents are norse and are building their temples next to your opponents second tc maybe going for that second tc right away and leaving you ally alone isnt so sound. Yes, it might no be the way YOU wanna play it but if you wanna play for the win adapting is a thing you must learn to do.
I repeat what i said. If most of you games follow a pattern ( for example your ally leaves while you boom away) then maybe you are also part of the problem.
This is the part i agree with that leaving should give you comand of ally units or resources or anything to not make it so 99% of the time someone leaves its instant resign.
The developers should be the one to decide what are the criteria. and BTW people aren’t all sadistic, rarely will you get stuck with a bad team mate that on top of playing bad is not surrendering and the enemy is will fully not ending the game cause they are also sadistic and like wasting peoples’ time.
Chess is a solo game. You can do whatever you want in a solo game. You want to be stuck in the lowest league? sure just surrender when you lose the first piece who cares. You are the one that’s losing. AoM however is a team game. If you don’t want to play to win then go play another mod. And btw I understand that there is a line that practically making a come back is impossible. But non-pro players don’t know this line and in this scenario we need to choose between bad the worse. I opt to choose the bad because the worst is every game will end in 10 minutes without any big fights.
I am not that good to discuss what strategy is viable and what’s not… . I am only discussing that a player leaving early after losing a couple of villagers ruins everybody’s experience.
Your absolutely right. And it goes both ways, you also dont match always with the player that leaves as soon as a score change happens.
The comparison was more in the likes of peole choose where do they draw the line to surrender. I also just had a doubt. MOBAS are 5v5s and you usually need 3-4 votes to surrender. For 3v3 and 4v4 sure, simple mayority What would you do in 2v2s? One players vote is somehow worth more than the other?
I fully agree if you wanna win, adapt. Theres also the part of you can look for people to play with, join a clan, a discord server, as you say its a team game, its bette to play as a team.
This is not a “only pro players get this thing” Ofc the chances of a comeback are way more broad in lower elos, but each player can decide that for themselves.
You have no Idea how often this happens, But if surrendering in the game is just as easy as pressing a single button a lot of people will keep doing it.
Comebacks are possible when ever your opponent makes mistakes and since even pro players make mistakes so it is reasonable to assume that there is always a chance to come back. but as I said If majority of the people think that there is no way of coming back then they can move on. But it is unfair for this decision to be made by only a single player. Him leaving the match is essentially deciding on be half of the whole team that they should stop playing the game because majority of people don’t want to keep playing when they are one man down.
I don’t know what to do in 2v2s.
Playing with random players in team games are like a box of chocolates you never know what your going to get.
I would feel disheartened to be force to have to remain in a game that is a lost cause (no penalty) because of a team vote system.
I have seen how there are totally selfish players in teams that don’t help allies and will not quit and keep going until they are eliminated from everything being killed and destroyed with them sending units around forcing opponents to scatter their military around the map to find everything.
No one does, theres no statistic of it. We are each just expressing our experiences.
You are correct, and thats why i said comebacks are more likely the lower you go in ELO.
that is true, but there should be elements to help you take certain things in control. If there is a measure which prevents people from leaving, It is more likely that their team mate can sort of bring things around.
this is a problem of the game, not the surrender vote. The game has set settlement capture and total elimination as it’s criteria for winning. Both of them are very tedious and require lots of actions. This sort of stuff also happen in 1v1s.
Yes no one can know for sure but if doing something is as easy as just pressing a button lots of people will do it. AoM ranked matches feel like CS2 casual matches, every one just comes and goes.
I don’t get how some one can possibly be ok with this. this is the only competetive game that people can come and go how ever they want.
I’m not saying why he played so badly, I don’t ask for anything. Just don’t leave please
How is it handled in other RTS games? Does AoE have a solution on this? Starcraft? Wrc3?
All of these games were developed during the booming era of 1v1s. So they didn’t think about team games that much. they were just there.
AoEIV outright bans you if you leave 5> minutes into ranked games (don’t know about casuals). Although this isn’t intended for what I mentioned but it is still something. I still persist that team games need a surrender vote. and the victory conditions needs to be changed from “destroy every single thing the enemy has”.
I didnt mean only from those, any RTS would do.
Sure <5 min only gets a bit past classic age so some niche things aside it forces people to at least age up and just waiting 5 min out isnt a bad thing either.
Sure but there are issues with that, since 2v2 3v3 and 4v4 would apply different. Like who gets priority on a 2v2?
There are more victory conditions. Literally the only thing missing is a relic/wonder like thing like AOE 4 has which i get people enyoed and wanted the old wonder function back.
So sorry for my late response, I was kind of busy.
I don’t know of any RTS that has penalty in game for deserting. Mostly because I don’t play that much. The only RTS games I have played are SC2, AoE IV and AoM. I think it would be better if we role modeled games that are actually successful in multiplayer category.
Although I do understand some people find the agony of bad team mates unbearable, but the truth is most popular games right now are all team games. Yes, this system won’t work for 2v2s but also leaving people free to leave whenever they want also doesn’t work. other solutions who people have proposed are bandages (like letting the other players take control of the deserting player’s units, etc….). It won’t solve the problem that people tend to leave games that they might actually win if they stayed.
I am not talking about different victory conditions. I am talking about how difficult it is to actually achieve the current victory conditions is standard games and how easy it is to abuse it and prolong the game. In our previous posts (from my understanding) people don’t like to be “held hostage” in a lost game just because their ally has a flying unit and he is hiding it to waste other people’s time. This can be prevented for sure by some measures. I can’t be specific about details but if the score (both individual and team) is lower than certain threshold then people can just leave.
But what happens is people leave even they are ahead in score and he is just leaving because he lost 3 villagers. I think the way League of Legends implemented it is good for starters ( no one can leave <15 minutes, They can surrender if majority votes for surrender after 15 minutes).
Would be interesting to poll this somewhere to see what the general perception is.
Me neither, and that was kinda my point, its hard to implement since its not the same game as LoL or other genres.
Except you would have to ignore some glaring differences between the games. A simple one is the playerase quantity. In AoM due to the small player base most matches are unbalanced between teamates. You could be the only <1000s in a room full of 1500s+ or vice versa and some matches are truly pointless to play. Being a challenger, or even master and having 2 silvers on your team vs a full master/challenger team on the other side instantly tells you how more than likely that match is gonna go about.
Nitpicking aside, 15 minutes is way to big a timer for Aom where games can def be decided much quicker. But sure its just numbers tunning. I would personally allow disconects during the first 15-30 seconds of the game (idea proposed by someone else, whose name i forgot). It would facilitate dodging but it would also allow people to simply quit games after seeing their allies and realizing is not worth playing.
The time it takes to take over TCs and wait 2 min is similar to the Relic system in other AoE games in terms of how long it tkes to achive once you are in the same ovewhelming position. Even hunting a unit only takes a couple minutes tops since omniscience basically counters that waste of time.
from my perspective at least, it seems more harm than good to have this type of system, on top of needing to change several other aspects in order to prevent exploits/trolling.
Either way, a poll would be interesting to see what side people lean on or what other ideas come up to solve it.