Fixing Surrender Abuse

[nocturnalguest]

Why not remove solo queueing altogether?

Yes, this would be amazing

[Arek4]

Hm... "why not remove solo queuing"?
A problem as old as the game ,Already in the official beta testers reported this problem.that it will be used by 2-2-2 groups to farm solo players who have low rr
This was the case in the official version of the game and nothing has changed because I guess it is hard to ban someone from playing a scenario.
In beta there were suggestions to "join random team " "join premade" and what turned out.Premade they avoided because for them it is boring to play against premade.They take pleasure in beating weaker random group.
It's all about the 2-2-2 mentality of the players ( they enter the scenario hoping to hit random players) and not that they hit 2-2-2 on the opposite side.

[Dajciekrwi]

Can't balance good (or, more often, brutally bad) players.

Yep, ban, ban every bad player. Its revolutionary way of game managment but will close most (maybe all) problems!

[Detangler]

The only thing that needs fixing for /surrender is to not punish players with less rewards that voted YES to continue fighting. Cowards that vote NOshould get reduced rewards and people that choose to fight in a PvP game and vote YES should not be penalized.

[ifirex]

Make solo SC mixed and at-least 1/1/1 or 2/2/2 like solo ranked. Seems like the obvious play.

[TrainInVain]

The only thing that needs fixing for /surrender is to not punish players with less rewards that voted YES to continue fighting. Cowards that vote NOshould get reduced rewards and people that choose to fight in a PvP game and vote YES should not be penalized.

I like that idea. Also limit the number of yes to surrender votes per player per day.

Its rare that pugs do beat preforms, but if we weeded out the players that give up over and over in sc, games might be closer.

[bittrio]

The only thing that needs fixing for /surrender is to not punish players with less rewards that voted YES to continue fighting. Cowards that vote NOshould get reduced rewards and people that choose to fight in a PvP game and vote YES should not be penalized.

I like that idea. Also limit the number of yes to surrender votes per player per day.

Its rare that pugs do beat preforms, but if we weeded out the players that give up over and over in sc, games might be closer.

SC's would never pop

[SuperStar]

Would be cool if we know who are more pugs or premades?

If pugs all sc should be pug sc and you can oly join one if you have 6man.

Now we have one pug sc, and the pug usually dont know how to join it, based on my experiences.

[Aethilmar]

You want people to not surrender so easily, then give them a reason to keep fighting even when they are hopelessly outmatched. The current game stewards made a conscious decision to turn more objective-based scenarios into cage fights where the stronger team gets the renown AND the crests.

I'm not going to pretend Thunder Valley was a good SC in its previous form, but it was an example on the extreme other end where an under-strength team could compete (score wise) and even win by simply jumping in and trying. If the premades wouldn't split up then they had a very real chance of losing and premades HATE having to do anything outside their 2-2-2 comfort zone.

[Zxul]

You want people to not surrender so easily, then give them a reason to keep fighting even when they are hopelessly outmatched. The current game stewards made a conscious decision to turn more objective-based scenarios into cage fights where the stronger team gets the renown AND the crests.

I'm not going to pretend Thunder Valley was a good SC in its previous form, but it was an example on the extreme other end where an under-strength team could compete (score wise) and even win by simply jumping in and trying. If the premades wouldn't split up then they had a very real chance of losing and premades HATE having to do anything outside their 2-2-2 comfort zone.

Excellent point there.