Well, what I was suggesting was a team vote, with like a 75% "Yes" vote to succeed for surrender, that way it would not get exploited. -=R=-
I hate the idea of teams able to surrender! thats one of the reasons having ninjas in the game was so great.. a losing team would still have a chance to win! you cant just give up... thats lame just yesturday we played glycen.. NF had the middle for along time and by the time we got mid we had 800 tickets compared to there 2000.. we never gave up and ended up capping there last flag with less then 20 seconds left.. our whole team was like WTF? how did we pull that off...
This is completely unacceptable as a vote. At the very least, the vote has to be for the ENTIRE server, and at bare minimum a simple majority vote of 51%+. If the losing team is as boned as you say it is, lordroy, 95% of the players will always vote to surrender. (I make a 5% exception for me, dubee, and those of us who are just die-hard bastards who are too stupid to give up) If 95% of the team votes yes, there's really no point to a vote, is there? You might as well just give the commander a 'blow up cv' button that he can press at a whim; at least then a com suicide would be justified. Furthermore if 75% of the losing team wants to end the match, that's only 37.5% of the whole server. Barely one in three people. You shouldn't even be able to vote kick someone with 1 in 3 people saying yes-- why would you allow the such drastic measures as a cv suicide to pass by such a low margin? Only 37.5% voting means that a whopping 62.5% of the server WANT the game to continue (assuming all of the enemy team does, but in your vote they aren't measured); this game like any other multiplayer game should be aimed at pleasing as many players on the server as possible. This vote gives a small fraction of the server gratification and pisses off vast majority which is always a bad idea in my opinion. (after all, I might have fun spamming jeeps but if it's at the expense of the vast majority, then i'm just ASKING for a kick or ban.) No, the only vote that would make this work is one for the whole server. At the very minimum, it needs over half the people on the server, which imo is still very low-- 47.5% of the vote is earned by the losing team, leaving only 3.5% needed from the winning team to end the game- that's literally ONE PERSON on a 32 player server. In other words, if only the losing team gets to vote, then you can damn well expect every single game to end in surrender. Every single game. Say goodbye to winning via cv destruction. It will no longer exist. If a simple majority does it, expect quite a few games to end in surrender. This isn't to say that the concept of the vote is bad, or that the vote idea wouldn't work. It's just that the particular value you suggested is too low. The vote, imo, should be a two-thirds majority, whole server, minimum value.
If you think your Commander is about to expload, you need Dr SANDBAG'S PATENTED CV PROTECTION! but hell yeah, giving up sucks. I am someone that enjoys the closing stages of a battle once in a while, but commander suicides really irritate me. If I am surrounded by tanks and infantry and think I can get one more kill, I'll be shooting till the end.
I am totally in agreement that surrendering sucks, I would hate it too. But what I hate more is when the enemy is sitting all around your base in heavy tanks, blowing up everything BUT the CV and there is no hope, and you have to just sit there, forever. The other night I sat for 20+ minutes waiting for the bastids to finish us off. The only person left alive was the commander (in the CV), and he went AFK (I guess). -=R=-
The other night I just happened to command NF on Crossroads. My team wasnt exactly building much and in short order were pushed back to the 2 entrances outside the base with about 250 tickets left to their 300 or so it had been fast. We lost the last barracks and all that was left was me in the cv and 1 other guy. I figured what the puck. I threw out another barracks outside the compound walls and got out and built it. The 1 other guy came back to help when I had it 90& completed. Dont ask me why they didnt finish us off but ya know what? We came back from that and ended up losing but Bren only had like 7 tickets left. Now that was a great game. p.s. I should point at that at the lowest point not only did we lose the last barracks we had zero buildings untill i managed to rebuild that barracks.
Well ill share this, i aint familar with the map name but its the one with the city at the bottom right and the open ish area with high walls at the top left, ok so me being commander being half asleep and team shouting at me, i forgot to place the other ref at the base, we was over powered by tanks, whole base virtualy raped, most of the team dead, i ran , in the command vehicle , placed and build barracks and armoury, no cash to build a ref meaning no refs was on the team = no income, so barracks and armoury up, i basicly had to run around and around and around senselessly whilst some tank was trying to kill me, a Ninja managed to destory nf's command vehicle and we won on the american server mittoes. if there was to be a surrender on the game it would require a 95-100% team vote.
emp_cyclpean; and there you go. That just goes to show you that when it comes to Empires, in the words of Yogi Berra, 'it ain't over till it's over.' However, I gave the issue a second thought, and I could live with a losing team surrender vote if it were 90-95% to pass. I don't like the idea, but I could live with that number.
I don't see that a 90% vote on the losing team would be a good thing. The only reason why this would be useful would be to end a game a lot earlier than the command vehicle is going to be destroyed. in situations where only the commander is left alive, I agree that if there is a vote like this, you will almost NEVER get commanders killed. as soon as a team gets pushed back to their base they'll surrender and hope to move on to the next match. realistically, if you are in your base, the best you can hope for is survival for another 20 minutes and possibly a win by ninja, but 19/20 times you won't win. I just don't think the idea of surrender is a good thing to bring to the game.
it's not the fact that you can win on ticket victory, and have an awesome last stand and an awesome ticket victory (or defeat) like this guy that will make people vote. it's the fact that when people are back to their base, they'll be demoralised and facing the prospect of possibly spawning and dying for another 20 minutes until an unfun finish for them. as soon as you give people the option to run away and start fresh, you have people thinking of the next round. some people will stop trying hard, and kinda accept the end. there won't be people struggling and trying to survive but failing. As fun as it sometimes is, it often isn't, and when you sneak up on a med, lay a mine behind him, shoot him with your rocket, he runs over the mine and then whatever you do, he just ends up running over you, and as you are dead you watch him repair any damages you did, it's enough to make anyone want to quit.
I dont know if anyone else has experienced this... but... when you KNOW you are going to lose, and your whole team KNOWS you are going to lose, half the server goes AFK/SPEC/LEAVES. Usually this means a much quicker victory, however... sometimes the enemy takes 20 minutes to finish it... I personally would rather do something other than get spam killed @ base. -=R=-
If your gonna lose and have tanks out side your last barracks tell your engys to stop repairing the damn thing and let it die I cant even remember how many times I've been in a nuke tank just getting countless kills because the other team had 5 engineers inside the barracks repairing it so I couldnt kill it.. Any one who would leave the building would get instantly killed.. 10 mins of easy kills for me and 10 mins of them bitching about getting raped.
