I think you have some good points. It would definitely need to be implemented in a way that some exploits couldn’t be game changing or resigning be like a meta - eg like slinging in theory can be a strong strat.
So maybe you could do something like only do ‘x’ if they resign after 40 mins, or do ‘y’ before 40 mins etc, to balance it out.
The vote-to-surrender option sounds kinda nice, but I don’t think it can be implemented without penalties. Putting players in the penalty box is really just not good design, especially when you have a game that is notorious for crashes and desyncs. My game has been pretty stable lately, but there were times where the frustration was close to boiling over, and if I got put into a penalty box at that time because the game is unstable, I probably would have left AOE2 and never looked back. If there has to be a penalty, it should be more nuanced, like trying to matchmake people who quit early together.
I suppose you could simply delay early quitters from playing another ranked or multiplayer match until the first one ends. It would say ‘Your team is still in a match. Please wait for it to conclude before starting another online game’.
Yeah but not before wasting several minutes of everyone’s time, which can be a pretty long time if the game is lost in feudal/early castle age.
And in the end, even with your suggestion you won’t solve anything since the early resigner can still play on an alt account. Your suggestion would probably mostly harm people who try to play properly.
Not really my suggestion, but it does seem like an improvement. I don’t mind working for a victory.
People resigning early is much more of a time waste IMO. If anyone drops a team game under Feudal pressure they are a bad teammate and deserve to be held hostage and prevented from ruining another game. Flanks may be losing Feudal fights, but at least give your pocket a chance to hit castle age and send knights.
Now if every player on a team is stuck in Feudal while the opposing team is Castle Age and destroying them it may be ok to resign together. In that case someone hiding vills isnt a big deal because the teams searching have unopposed economies and can age up once to imp for spies.
It depends, if the pocket is a jerk who goes FC into 3TC boom on arabia (while flank has maybe even a forward gold on a hill) I wouldn’t blame the flank for resigning if the other side isn’t winning, he’s basically damned to play a losing game anyway since he has no real chance to hold and pocket can’t really carry 1v2 anyway if opponents are smart enough. I don’t see any benefit of forcing the flank to stay in the game or not queue up in this situation until pocket decides to resing, he’s not the one to blame here in my opinion.
I understand which is the problem you want to solve, and I understand it’s pretty tilting to get matched with idiots who give up at first rough moment, but your solution has notable side effects (not always are the guys who quit the ones to blame) and don’t really solve the problem (early quitter can dodge the cooldown period playing on a smurf). Unfortunately getting teamed with random guys carries the chances to getting matched with jerks, but I feel like trying to implement automatic systems to deal with stupidity is not the way to go if it carries side effects that can hurt other players experience, jerks are going to find other ways to ruin people experience anyway.
I think it’s important to remember we’re playing with real people. Talking of people ‘deserving’ to be held hostage isn’t really the community I want to nurture. Maybe they’re having a bad day, maybe they’re tilted, maybe they aren’t as good as you and don’t understand it all.
Ok maybe that wording was harsh. They’re welcome to go play single player while the rest of the team struggles in a 3v4 or 2v3 for the next hour. If they try to join a team game it could place them back into the one they left in spectator mode. Imagine if this worked for DC’s and you could get back into the same game and continue playing because you never resigned.