!surrender makes newbies surrender b4 games are ended

It all happened before and it happens again :D

Such is empires :D

 

I personally never seen it unreasonably abused.
If so many of your team agreed to surrender, why bother.

The only thing I notice, is that its hard to surrender when its reasonable...which is rather a good thing.

So Iam fine with it. It can also spare people from hours of hopeless gameplays.

( new post cause its not nice adding such edit to a liked post :D )

 

I support it. Like xya says it punishes stacking.

There are countless games where a stacked team takes the whole map in 10 minutes but doesn't have the tools or coordination to close the game out. The next 30+ minutes are spent getting heavies with nukes before they finally end the game. during this time the losing team is being utterly obliterated . They're all leaving the server and at the 50 minute mark they finally close the game out with the losing team now having half the players they started with.

The game is effectively over if the opposing team has the whole map and a reasonable commander. They secure each area with turrets, multiple raxes and a vf and respond to threats as necessary. You need a seriously stacked team to come back from that position, or a cheesy ninja on a naive comm.

Drawn out games also cause stacking. Some players despise that 30+ minutes of being owned by tanks, so they always try to make sure their on the best team.

And contrary to the statement that newbies are the ones to initiate a surrender vote. I find that it is the opposite. Experienced players are usually the ones to start the surrender vote and it is newbies who usually decide to fight to the end.

 

Surrender makes experienced players mostly mad because they know they will have to fight for next 20+ mins with no chance to win, when the new players think they can somehow change the fate. Sometimes there are newbs that are just getting massacred surrendering but that's rare.
Comm should have option to vote for surrender, and after 5+ min mark (there are matches when one team is owned in the first 10 minutes).

 

So lets just make comm need to confirm the start of the vote and we can be all happy.

IMO better than only giving this option to comm.

 

Nothing better than being forced to play for an extra 20 mins because other team wants to get more kills and save up for nuke heavies instead of ending a match.

 

Tbh, I'm alway a crapton better playing on a losing team, in any game. In empires that can escalate to epic proportions, and I've seen quite a lot of people play with godlike skill and teamplay just being put under that kind of pressure. Empires is one of the few places where that could happen and people would learn to...fight, really.

Part of Empire's charm is that it makes the game feel like a real fight, where you try your damnedest to win, forgetting shit about what winning means because it means more, just because you have these two teams fighting hard for it. It's not you playing football in your back yard with a friend, it's the world cup or the superbowl, and it's down to the wire on the last game. Or better, it's the battlefield where every soldier is precious, and every inch of ground is worth dying for.

That's what makes an Empires game.

That being said, the problem with shitty games that just go on, or people being dicks to lord a win over you, needs to really be addressed on a gameplay level. Having the CV as the only win condition and the way in which the game works, breeds both the best and the worst, but you want to mitigate one while preserving most of the other.

One way we used to not have people give up, is because classes were just overpowered. Engies could take down a rax really fast, and sneak through fairly easily, while grens could nuke half a base with mines, crippling it. These things made people feel like they could always win, somehow. And people would sometimes hold out just to get that ninja win.

That wasn't always good, but there has to be a way to fix all this in a semi-decent way. So people feel like they can make a difference, and where you don't get locked into resigning a game or waiting another half hour for some dicks to finish it.

I mean a lot of it can be solved with inventive solutions that no one considers. !Surrender trades in the CV for 5 heavy tanks and a 3 minute time limit? Hilarious, but better, right? At least it's an active lose if it's a loss. And if it's a win that's great, right? Of course you'd have to link it to the tech tree to unlock that option, but hey, what if we had a whole bunch of alternative win/loss strategies? Where you could trade what you have for a different chance at winning once you'd filled the requirements?

Empires will be stuck in this love it/hate it circle until these kinds of problems find some solution. It's been nearly 10 years since I started playing this game, and these parts haven't really changed. Until they do, the game won't really move forward.

 

we did fine without surrender before.

if a game drags out a admin can just tp the cv into the water provided their is some, or slay whoevers left alive.

imo surrender is just a pussy comm's / teams way out of playing till the end. we did fine with it for years prior.

 

@Lightning, admins get enough flack for taking action/not taking action, if they were to do what you suggest, all hell would break out.

Its not an admins place to decide a round should end and then actually end it. (even with a vote) there are always some who still complain when a vote wins).

Ending a round is up to the players themselves to end it.