Add a forfeit function

[sterls]

ok, i understand that you feel that way, i'm absolutely 100% sure that 99% of people probably share your feelings, but why? can you explain what makes you hate the idea? what is it about bots that you dont like? are they too predictable? is it because you dont get the same satisfaction out of beating a bot? Is it because they are too easy? Or because you can't flame them after stomping them calling them noobs? Is it because the current bots dont behave like you would expect a teammate to behave?

What if the option to have a bot take over for a user was only enabled after the 25 minute mark like the forfeit function that is being discussed? If the person leaves before that point they would face the regular leaver status system that valve would have to develop anyway without this sort of system. Would that make the system more appealing?

I know that anyone who played Dota or even HoN for very long, has the idea in there head that leaving is the scourge of the universe, and these people dont even deserve the right to play the game. But that was because leaving really did ruin all the fun for EVERYONE in the wc3 engine.

I'm asking people to think outside the box, forget any past emotion tied to leavers, and think. Would the game still be fun or would it be ruined if a player left and was replaced by Ai. How badly is it ruined on a scale of 1-10. Which is more annoying and ruins the game more, having a bot take over and possible still having a good close match? or having the hero sit in the fountain, or afking, or griefing, or feeding intentionally, or forfeiting anyway, in which case what is the point of the whole discussion in the first place.

Of course, this is all assuming that Valve can get some really awesome ai coders to make some really smart bots. Which considering that they've had people making bots for counter-strike in their engines (even pre source engine) since like 1992. If the ai sucks, obviously this wouldn't be an option.

[ForsakenBaken]

@vladhood

i understand what you are saying. the thing that you don't understand is that the forfeit system should not be the main "defense" (for lack of a better word) against leavers. leavers and afk'ers should be punished severely with a different system, be it with reports or with some type of automatic ban if you leave too much or whatever system valve chooses.

so lets say the system valve have chosen solves the leaver problem...

now i ask: do we still need a forfeit function? and my answer would be yes. otherwise you will get a large percentage of unhappy gamers that have to play games were they are completely dominated (and don't tell me this is not the case, every single person has reached a point where they know it is basically impossible to win. even pro teams sometimes just call a game halfway and quit. for an example look no further than the tournament that joinDota just had the other day).

the solution to this problem is an robust system of conditions that take everything into account (time, items, and so forth) and let you forfeit when it becomes statistically obvious that you cannot win anymore. for instance: one team is down 40 kills, they are out-leveled and the gold difference is huge = change of comeback 2% (this is all just conjecture, but you get the point). this statistic can be based on a large number of previous games and will of course have to be fine tuned.

and as for the problem of people playing badly just so they can forfeit, i am sure there is a solution for that. i don't know what that solution is, but it does not mean that we can't have a forfeit system. the report system is already a start. another way would be to reward people for staying till the end and playing well.

[vladhood]

You are suggesting that instead of having the occasional game be a drawn-out, unenjoyable loss, there should be an overcomplicated set of rules in order to allow a forfeit vote to go through? What is stopping people from just feeding the other team when they personally felt a game is lost until the game lets them surrender with this basis of conclusion that you have dreamt up? Nothing. If there is a surrender system, whatever the stipulations, people will find a way to speed up the process as soon as they personally feel it is time to give up. That isn't debatable. You are talking about a community where a large percentage is a bunch of hypocritical, arrogant, immature players who always feel they are correct no matter what the circumstances are.

Why is every person that is for having a surrender feature holding this mindset that losing is supposed to be enjoyable, or that you should be able to dip out of an unenjoyable game whenever you want? Simply doesn't make any sense. Losing isn't supposed to be fun, even if everyone on your team thinks you have lost. If you watched ESWC, you would have seen Na'Vi go from a concede-worthy match to winning against Monkey. They were 17-8 30 minutes in with all tier 1 towers down.

Also, people need to keep in mind that if matchmaking is as good as Valve has been imagining it to be, a game where you have obviously lost 40-0 with a 90k gold difference and 0 towers taken while everything but your ancient is taken is going to be pretty rare.

I still think surrender is a bad idea for the game's health.

[kekeke]

The ONLY argument I've seen against the forfeit is: Games end too early when they could have tried to win.

If five people on one team decide that the game is over and they want to leave, should they be able to? Yes. Why? THEY WANT TO.

And nobody's forcing you to stay in the game, pretty sure you can just leave if you don't want to play any more.

BTW, I am not necessarily against a forfeit function, but I think it should be thought about in depth.

[ForsakenBaken]

You are suggesting that instead of having the occasional game be a drawn-out, unenjoyable loss, there should be an overcomplicated set of rules in order to allow a forfeit vote to go through? What is stopping people from just feeding the other team when they personally felt a game is lost until the game lets them surrender with this basis of conclusion that you have dreamt up? Nothing. If there is a surrender system, whatever the stipulations, people will find a way to speed up the process as soon as they personally feel it is time to give up. That isn't debatable. You are talking about a community where a large percentage is a bunch of hypocritical, arrogant, immature players who always feel they are correct no matter what the circumstances are.

you missed my point and my last paragraph. the problems with the community, does not having a forfeit system solve them? no, they are already there. the leavers, the feeders and so on. the forfeit function is a solution to a different problem. and yes, people will try to exploit forfeit, but then you adapt and solve the problem. you don't just leave it out. if you wanted to leave out everything that people could exploit then by that logic lots of heroes and items would never have made it into the game in the first place. over time the exploits where fixed.

Why is every person that is for having a surrender feature holding this mindset that losing is supposed to be enjoyable, or that you should be able to dip out of an unenjoyable game whenever you want? Simply doesn't make any sense. Losing isn't supposed to be fun, even if everyone on your team thinks you have lost. If you watched ESWC, you would have seen Na'Vi go from a concede-worthy match to winning against Monkey. They were 17-8 30 minutes in with all tier 1 towers down.

with the correct conditions (no matter how complex or simple, that doesn't matter, as long as they are relatively effective) the forfeit would become available at a point where you already know that your stomped. that is the point of the conditions. and as for the Na'Vi game, yes i did watch it. firstly 17-8 with tier 1 towers down would in my opinion not be enough to forfeit. and secondly that is why is said 2% chance of still winning. and remember the forfeit function should be a vote, so if you and your team choose to conquer the odds, you still have that option.

[Typhox]

with the correct conditions (no matter how complex or simple, that doesn't matter, as long as they are relatively effective) the forfeit would become available at a point where you already know that your stomped. that is the point of the conditions. and as for the Na'Vi game, yes i did watch it. firstly 17-8 with tier 1 towers down would in my opinion not be enough to forfeit. and secondly that is why is said 2% chance of still winning. and remember the forfeit function should be a vote, so if you and your team choose to conquer the odds, you still have that option.

I think the 2% of winning isn't true.
Let's say your enemies are all 10 levels higher than you (okay, is almost impossible but still), if you kill one of them you get a HUGE amount of gold, experience (you will go up a few levels) and that enemy hero will be out of the game for a very long time. That's actually the reason why there are so many comebacks. The game is optimized for it. If your team is only carry heroes than you probably have a 30-0 early game and are extremely underleveled.
However, if your enemy does not decide to finish the game but to farm, then you have high chances tot turn the game around.

Something different:
Isn't losing part of the game? Is there forfeit on Soccer games for example?
I think if you make losing shorter and less frustrating, you make winning also shorter and less enjoying.
Also I think if you're playing a game that is as complicated as dota, then with the approach to give up as soon as you can (to start a new game as soon as you can), dota isn't really the game for you anyway...
In addition to that, with a reasonable matchmaking system, there should be only teams with equal skilllevel fighting against each other.
If you go 30-0 within 20 minutes, I guess that you played so insanely bad that it's only a fair punishment that you have to stay in this game to the end. So that everyone who's on your team realizes how annoying that is and tries to do better next time...

[kingboob]

This is NOT hon, enuf said.

[Chrys]

This is NOT hon, enuf said.

This is not enough justification. Not enough said.

[ForsakenBaken]

@typhox

good points. i understand the argument against forfeit and mostly agree with it. the problem is the average player want the feature. forfeit will be the most requested feature if left out, and valve will get a lot of grieve if they do not implement it.

i get the sense that people against forfeit also expect a forfeit to be called almost every game. the way i see it is that forfeit should be the exception, not the norm. it should only be used (and only be possible to use) in the those rare cases where there is no hope and you have already been stomped. if that is not possible to achieve then the forfeit system should be left out, but i believe it is possible and that is why i am trying to discuss it and not just reject it on first thought.

[dogsdogsdogs]

This is NOT hon, enuf said.

don't be ridiculous please, you're holding this game back.

[piov1984]

i am against a concede system, but... If you can limit the use/abuse of the system it could be possible...

Let's say a forfait system that allow your loosing team to vote ONLY if at least 2 barracks are destroyed AND difference in gold between teams (which is already being registered as we can see in the graphic during replays) are over a certain amount that we can discuss... The point is to limit the abuse and people calling for concede too early and giving up...

[Chrys]

i am against a concede system, but... If you can limit the use/abuse of the system it could be possible...

Let's say a forfait system that allow your loosing team to vote ONLY if at least 2 barracks are destroyed AND difference in gold between teams (which is already being registered as we can see in the graphic during replays) are over a certain amount that we can discuss... The point is to limit the abuse and people calling for concede too early and giving up...

So... someone that wants to farm you in the well won't push your rax and someone that wants to forfeit will feed to increase the gold difference. Not prone to abuse at all.

[piov1984]

So... someone that wants to farm you in the well won't push your rax and someone that wants to forfeit will feed to increase the gold difference. Not prone to abuse at all.

Good points but feeding on purpose is already a reportable offence, and not pushing the raks is usually a matters of some minutes, just defend in base, they will do roshan and finally will become bored and push the side wipe the team and forfait will be possible.

When everyone become bored the game won't last so much longer...

AND just destroing the middle tower and 2 raks usually raise drammatically differences in gold between the teams that it is very likely that both condictions for forfait will be granted at the same time. Forfait should be a possibility used only when the opposite team is purposely bitching around when they have already a side and want to buy rapier...

[Chrys]

pushing the raks is usually a matters of some minutes, just defend in base

If you make it so you can't forfeit with Racks, you'll start seeing it a lot.

[Claire Farron]

Forfeit function can reduce annoying games but it still has weakness. I'm questioning the thing we want to be implemented. How if there's 1 out of 5 player in a team doesn't want to forfeit? There's a high probability that others will leave or make the game becomes worse or simply report player as spoiler/insulting their plan to forfeit.