Currently there is no reason to stay in a lost match tbh. If you see your team is losing since the beginning of the match, you just quit as you know that it won’t suddenly get better.
Of course there are situations like people who play for fun and don’t care about xp, and matches where one side is as good as the other. But I’d say they are exceptions, most people play to grind and get high scores.
I’d like to suggest some kind of bonus for a side that is doing bad. But not xp modifier as it won’t change much imo.
I’m thinking about something like behemoths from BF1. Imo they are quite nice way to introduce some equipment that would be too strong otherwise, and give the loosing side a chance to fight back with a punch.
Of course it’s only an example.
How those behemoths will be distributed is up to discussion in the comments. It could be like in BF1 but imo that system is heavily flawed.
I just know how people work and I assume how they will behave. I assume that many people leave the matches, because why not? No losses, possible benefits.
Also pictures with scoreboards full of “disconnected” players, that show up on the forum from time to time, seem to agree with me.
I do not see flaws in your logic.jpg But it´s true, even more when they are 3 or more bots of leaving players and the ones who remains just su*k. I would suggest some penalization for leaving but that will decrease player base. I mean i get tilted when i lose sometimes, but when you know that you and your team did their best feels good.
I played a match yesterday that looked like a sure loss.
Defending the Kroll Opera House in Berlin.
The attackers had almost 500 tickets remaining and had capped about 50% of the final point,
but we dug in our heels and ended up with a victory.
Winning one like that is more satisfying than getting a win by cruising through a match.
If players quit or are handed a set of training wheels when things looked grim, they would never learn to dig down and fight.
Personally, I don’t want to be the French army in WWII.
I don’t see much of a problem with this, except for the right of every choice. I never quit battles. For me it’s XP waste. Also, there are sometimes miracles, and your efforts remain rewarded, where if there is at least one other aspiring player, we can stand up and win. It all depends on the attitude.
Your freedom ends where my freedom begins.
Why should I loose a match only because somebody decided to quit because he thought my team sucks?
I sill want to give everybody a choise (otherweise I would suggest negative xp or some other cursed ideas like that). I want to encourage players to stay and try to fight.
In past, people where leaving to try to join another match where their friends already playing. Deserters where replaced with bot and we hated that. Now, depending on map, you mighty have just few players and the rest are bots.
I don’t have stats at hand to say that people leave because their team is losing, neither do you. So it’s a speculation at best.
The matches can be very short or take full 30-40 minutes. At which point do you decide that some team is losing? Do you want some auto- help to make sure that every round we go over all of the points and battle finally decided on the last point? When one team is steamrolled, any sort of behemoth won’t make much different as it’s almost never because of lack of tanks. It’s just 2-3 people playing as team and hopping from point to point.
So far the longest matches are destruction on Tunisia, because point can be “recapped” if not held. The point hopping by the team is not so useful there too. The issue is map design. There is no need for a larger team play if couple of squads can just beeline to the point.
To be honest, some sort of dynamic mechanics would be cool, but I don’t feel that helping losing team is a way to go. Rather doing a bit of redesign of maps that a “front” can be formed and held and opposing team have to breach it. Kind of how it works in Hell let loose or moded Red Orchestra.
I agree as much as possible, because that is another aspect. I think all the “refugees” should get some penalty. In terms of time, join another battle, don’t get xp, or anything like that.
There’s no need for statistics to notice people are more likely to leave in a hopeless looking scenario. I know I’ve seen way more people leave when their team was losing to the point I had half the team leave in Normandy even after I destroyed all the balloons and we managed to capture the first objective. There are also many people who are more than happy to play with bots instead because of how bad some players are. It’s jut a lose-lose scenario because a useless player who doesn’t even play the objective is much worse than a bot (because bots do actually play the objective), however a better player willing to cooperate with their team would be ideal.
Wife and I have had the same experience before as well. Where we have kept on fighting because sometimes you can make a difference it just needs the right terrain, and mistakes from the other side.
Ironically I think I was on the same map, and that really indefensible circle after the second point is lost, we somehow managed to do the same, dig in and bleed them for 800 tickets.
And luckily I got it all on twitch.
I love those games so much.
For me it was a throw away game. For the 1st time, I was testing whether kamikaze style was actually a decent strategy for OoB tanks. So, for the 1st 3-4 points I was just mainly doing that (6 tanks destroyed plus 2 planes destroyed when they were hit with the bombs blasts). The final point was a bloody, noisy mess, but we pulled it out….Great Fun!
While I’m in for incentives to stay and fight rather than quit, I wouldn’t like if I were winning and all of a sudden the other side got a “Deus ex machina” help just because yes.
I only quit myself at the very start of a match (if it’s a map or mode I don’t want to play) or during the first minute if the first point get capped already (waste of time to stay). Past that I get too involved xp wise and stay to the end.
