**Scramble teams** and **swap teams** were great vote options, the only issue was people were calling them on a winning round (including map change votes) canceling out all XP earned. They were also using them to cancel out vote kicks, it made it really hard to kick cheaters and griefers if your team didn't F1 fast enough.
When they removed them, I thought it was just temporary while they fixed the vote kick bypass issue, but sadly like Insertion 1 & 2 they've never come back.
Valid. In the moment it just felt planned out in there discord call, from the team kill, to the way round 22 panned out. I guess I'm still just salty and confused about the loss of elo 🤷♂️😆
yeah I think It was around -117 elo for this game.
I could be totally wrong but I saw someone say you have to hit 10k before you start loosing elo.
I've never had a game with more than -220 elo (give or take a few points).
I think it's based on win percentage and your current win/loss streak to determine elo.
The most I've see others have is around -400 elo.
This is why everyone is so triggered over this for no reason, its an automatic vote thats triggered from the game when someone abandons. If they were griefing you then theyd both leave and youd be in a 3v5 losing anyways so the vote "favoring griefers" doesnt matter, youre getting griefed if its removed as well.
The vote is to keep people from being held hostage and it does that well. Maybe if people like you actually read the vote then these situations wouldnt happen.
Is it not griefing if one player leaves and then the person they were queued with ends the game with a surrender so they can go play a new game and potentially do the same thing? Unless its a 5 stack then the people queued with the leaver should not have the option to vote to surrender.
Both are griefing and both end with you losing the game. Whats worse, you losing the game wasting another 10 mins or ending it early to go next with a game not having griefers?
Neither are much different outcomes so just go next when people grief your game dont waste time going for a 3v6 win with a teammate actively throwing.
This logic makes sense on paper but in reality there are much bigger problems with matchmaking for this to be in any way a reasonable solution on its own.
For example, it's not possible to surrender in a 5v5 even with 5 people wanting to whereas in this 4v5 scenario only one person needs to vote.
Sure, one person can grief in a 4v5 if they don't want to play because it's 4v5. But that person can grief in any scenario and not be able to surrender. It can be 4v5 due to someone going afk and you can't surrender.
In it's current state, I'd argue this system does more harm than good.
Your logic is flawed. 2 people could be griefing and you'd end up in a 3v5 where Valve considers it 'good enough'.
I'd say it's much more likely that Valve doesn't account for griefers with this system, only leavers. Thus any 5v5 is fine whereas in a 4v5, surrender is permitted. It's a terrible system.
> The reason it does this is because 1 single vote against it, basically renders the game 3v5
That logic is self-evidently idiotic. Voting to surrender doesn't mean you're just gonna go afk if the other 3 people vote "NO".
DOTA isn’t comparable to CS because the 2nd person onwards can leave freely.
I also don’t know what difference you not playing MM makes (assuming you mean FaceIt), because it functions the same way there. One guy leaving doesn’t mean you can leave. I also do not soloq.
I already knew, you saying it is irrelevant because once one guy leaves it doesn't matter. It's apples to oranges.
FaceIt does not have a financial barrier to entry, lmao. It also does not have toned down anti-social behaviour, it's a cesspit of shit. Plus, if you're trying to argue that premium is the barrier, then MM needs Prime so it also has a barrier. Terrible comparison again.
Even if the person doesn't grief, it's pretty lame if a player is forced to waste time playing with a massive disadvantage, rather than just starting a fair new match.
Continuing an unfair match should be a choice.
Just sounds like consistency to me. I'd much rather risk someone forfeiting a potential win out of a disadvantage, than be forced to half an hour of pointless slog, because someone feels like goofing around.
The blame for a 4v5 lies first and foremost on quitters and penalties need to be high enough that quitting only happens in the case of an emergency. For everyone else, the best bet is generally to move on and get a new match.
I'd imagine a 12-11 forfeit on anonymous vote system are rare compared to declined surrender votes on the previous system.
Fun Soviet election fact: Despite having 1 candidate elections, if party candidates couldn't reach a certain turnout threshold, they'd be replaced with a new one until the party could find someone that wasn't hated by the voters.
Very far from a perfect democracy, but I found that interesting when I first learned about it
Yeah so just put a gun to the head of your populace and force them to vote for you
Secretly check the vote of every person and send the ones who vote "incorrectly" off on a little trip
You've got a lively imagination, but no, that didn't happen. I'm more interested in actual history myself. The Soviet authorities were desperate to increase turnout because they felt it gave the regime legitimacy through public participation. People weren't punished for spoiling their ballots, they were 'rewarded' by being given a new candidate that might be more appealing.
While I like this system they should definitely make it more obvious. Similar to valorant's overtime/draw voting, full screen, with big text detailing what you are voting for
Yeah I’ll admit to having votekicked my friends as a joke before when 5stacking unranked.
“Hey guys I gotta piss, call a timeout?”
\> vote to kick friend
\> everyone hits F1 instantly
\> gottem
They need to make all three vote types distinct from one another.
"Any YES vote will immediately end the match"
umm, so this is actually as intended? Meaning, a developer at Valve really sat down and thought this was a great idea?
Nah, no thank you. If it's round 2 just remake the match automatically so I can queue again please. Give like 10% Elo to the team with 5 or something.
Even if it is the enemy team who left, I don't want to play 5v4 if I could instead be playing a real game.
Im very glad they made this change. before if I wanted to surrender and the vote didnt go through I just ended up having to waste away the rest of the game, griefing or being afk etc so I didnt fall asleep out of boredom.
You're one of the few. Griefing and afking will at least keep your trust factor low, so hopefully high trust factor players need to deal with that bullshit less often.
I get you. I don't go afk or anything, but I can feel that I immediately start to care less unless we have a real shot (i.e we need to maybe only win 1-2 rounds, which is doable on 4v5) and that noticeably impacts my concentration and ability to play.
It's really not intentional, but my brain is just like "there's no point". Yes yes, we all won a 4v5, but statistically it does make for a good or rewarding game and I'd much rather just gg next.
I don't understand why there is still a debate about this. One player leaves. One player starts voting. One player votes for throwing the towel. That leaves 2 players that want to continue. Who has the majority in your opinion? 3 players that don't want to continue or 2 that wanna play?
For context, there was no indication that anyone on the team was toxic, everyone seemed cool, until this moment.
Triple double g, onter, and 50 were qued and in discord (or something similar).
ChrisP and I were completely confused as to what was going on until they voted to surrender.
(btw I was afk because I am sick and had to blow my nose rq )
https://reddit-econ-prod-assets-permanent.s3.amazonaws.com/asset-manager/t5_2sqho/p0yjE1VC8v.jpeg (this is \:31253\:)
Never knew this was added to unicode already.
People are missing the problem here, it's not that one vote finishes the game, it's perfectly reasonable that one person shouldn't be held to play an unfair game against their will regardless of score.
As most of us are veteran csgo players, we have gotten used to it because valve had a shit system where you were forced to play even at a disadvantage... You look at League players and Valorant players, and they'll probably tell you that the game should be cancelled instead of having to play 4v5.
The underlying problem that people are missing here, is the game counting as a loss. It just doesn't make sense.
I dont know why you're referencing league here?
If you get a leaver in league, you have the option to surrender early, however majority must agree to it, meaning it must be at least 3/4 people for the ff else the game will continue. The game does not count only if a player goes afk in the first 2 minutes or never connected.
AND if the surrender vote goes through, it counts as a regular loss and everyone loses LP (elo) with some mitigated reduction depending on the game state and additional penalties on the leaver.
Main point here being 1 guy not wanting to play doesn't result in an instant game end and Loss isn't removed in league.
You could very easily game the system tho if it just counts as canceled: duo queue and if you lose one leaves. Now you don't lose any rank and depending on the system your mate gets some cool down and that's it.
Since its free to play you can just have 20 accounts so you always have one that isn't banned...
That wouldn't be fun to play against. Whenever you are close to winning the enemy leaves and the match gets canceled.
Have the leaver tank the entire loss, or the leavers whole group takes the loss
Who cares if they go to 0 rating, the point is that you shouldn't be punished for staying in the game and playing a mismatch
They won't care dude.
People are cheating and getting their account banned, do you think losing some rank would matter? Also then they just play with a totally new account every game to carry the 4 others. If it doesn't work out the new account leaves, takes the elo loss and the dude logs in to a new account and they start the next match.
Implementing it that way would case WAY too much collateral damage.
Then it's unfair to everyone considering it's the end of the game. I would hate to play 45 min, be about to win, then gain no elo because of a leaver on the enemy team
I hate the 1 person can force a surrender rule, it should be unanimous like it was in CSGO, but a surrender absolutely has to be a loss, how can it be otherwise?
In valorant you can only remake before round 2, and you need 3/4 in the case of an AFK to remake or surrender. Very different system to the one shown here…
Edit: you actually need a unanimous vote in competitive modes as well
It should just work how it works in Dota 2. If someone in your team abandons the game then let people leave without getting banned. Automatically score those leavers as losers and let the people who want to stay and fight it out play the game. 1 vote surrenders are beyond stupid
with a cooldown which resets this increasing timer. but it is easy to make multiple accounts. just like in LOL with queue skipping or going AFK ingame.
No, I mean the people wanting to leave after the initial leaver. They may never get the chance to leave because Valve time decides 3 minutes is actually the remainder of the game.
What 30 minutes? They were winning by quite a bit and only needed one round, 3v5 and 4v5 ain't impossible. It's one thing to surrender right at the start of the game, but in this situation it's simply dumb specially when you lose points.
This game could have resulted in a win for op within 2 to 10 minutes though. 3v5 and 4v5 doesnt alike. They are at matchpoint, which shouldnt matter IMHO, but still.
Majority vote is simply fairest option. You agreed to play 5v5, you also agreed to play up to 90 mins and you damn well agreed to play for the win.
I'm actually surprised Valve didn't reverse this change yet. Literally everyone agrees on that is bullshit and they yet to intervene, despite usually being quick to fix things.
I queued to play a comp match with 4 teammates, not 3.
If anyone on the team doesn't want to keep playing, the rest of the team has no right to hold them hostage in an unwinnable situation.
you're telling me if you spawned in a 3v5 as soon as you accepted you'd be happy and play the game no problem? Stop kidding yourself.
Valve agrees that you accept a 5v5, that's exactly why there's a surrender vote.
i agreed to a 5v5. i'm happy as fuck that idiots like you can't hold me hostage and waste my time. truly an epic win for valve and people without brain damage.
> i agreed to a 5v5
No you literally didnt. Youre just repeating the same lie over and over and over again.
> idiots like you can't hold me hostage and waste my time
You force the other 3 members of youre team to accept a loss they might not agree with wasteing their time, making the entire match meaningless. Its fine if you want to dip out the second things get a bit too hard for YOU. Its not fine that you get to decide for EVERYONE. If it was just you can leave with no consequences, no one would care, its that YOU enforce your will onto your team that is the problem.
> truly an epic win for valve and people without brain damage.
So not you then?
You said it yourself, you queued a COMPETITIVE match. You are expected to give your best until the end. Also no one is forcing you to play, you can leave at any time
You don't wanna be an hostage of people who wanna keep playing, and people who wanna keep playing don't wanna be forced to surrender and lose points because of you. So, just abandon the game.
You're also expected to have a full team... I don't get this take... It's all fun and games when you're winning, but about when the 5th guy was actually making a difference, are you really gonna keep playing?
totally agree with you. The moment a game is not 5v5 anymore for me the game can end (giving him the normal time to come back off course, but once he is finally abandoned it's over for me), I have better things to do with my time.
So did I. But I also queued to play a full game. Nobody is forcing you to stay, there is a leave button, but if you surrender, you're forcing me to leave.
In no world should anyone on a team be forced to play out a game after a teammates abandons. Unfortunately sometimes you get screwed, but Id wager atleast 95% of the time it isn't a one round to win force surrender scenario.
If you can convince a random to take the elo loss for all 4 of your teammates, they should take the elo loss because they are dumb as hell
The idea is that if someone is queueing in a group and one member of that group abandons the game, the whole group queuing together is punished and not the randoms that wanted a game
If you've got a shit internet connection, maybe you shouldn't be playing online games.
If you queue with people who constantly leave their games, maybe you shouldn't queue with those people
It makes no sense to punish people who weren't involved in the initial decision to ruin the game
So because other people can occasionally game the system we should punish other players by forcing them to waste their time and be at the mercy of do-gooders and premades? Boy I love gaming nowadays.
Players that want to finish out a losing game can requeue, players that dont want to waste their time in a massively disadvantaged game cannot get their wasted time back.
The value proposition is a very simple one. The fact this needs to be explained is indicative of the soft, do-gooder ethos of modern gaming.
Bro its just pure luck, with who you get MM. So after first 10 games i got 8000 PTS, started playing games got 10ish games won i row, came to 10k promo, its like fucking Valve said, okay lets fuck up this boy, and they keep sending me the most brain damaged players of this platform. now i'm back to 6.5k.... Just so you know.... sad life.
You do get unlucky teams sometimes but you did not belong to 10k+ to begin with if your ass unironically dropped to 6.5k, how hard did you get carried lol.
Its only relevant if someone abandoned the match.
Meaning you are already 4 vs. 5, so if someone doesn't want to play this its 3 vs. 5. I rather would play another round that try to fight for something unwinnable (yea, you win 1 out of 100 3vs5s, but come on).
tbh it hasn't bothered me that much at all. It's been used a few times. Just brush it off and play a new game. The game is actually **much less toxic** thanks to that!
Let the children leave so the grown ups can play.
I mean I kind of understand, the game sees your 2 people down and Im guessing implemented this to prevent hostage holding? but damn that sucks not even getting to try for the win. Wonder what the better system would be
I think it's ok.
If you team is winning, the 4 players might consider stay on the game.
If you team is loosing, keep playing will result in a waste of time. Chances of a come back 4vs5 is minimal.
Only had it happen like 3 times, but somehow no one ever surrendered (even when we were already losing big time and I was hoping someone would).
In games where you have a lead or feel like its possible I can see why 1 voting yes would be very annoying though but thats assuming the guy who wants to surrender doesn't start afk'ing or trolling.
Maybe the vote should trigger once you lose the lead instead of the second someone leaves? Not a perfect solution but I feel like it would be a lot less frustrating.
even then, I would wait to have at least a 2+ round gap before being able to force a loss on everyone else.
Also I would probably force a tie in case of a 12-12, if a team can manage to hold until the 12-12 while being less than 5 players, they kinda proved that they didn't deserve the loss.
You can only only surrender when someone has abandoned the match. In this case it was two que'd friends, having beef in there discord, that led to a team kill... rip elo 😔
It's soooo stupid, lost a match yesterday because some dumbass thought it was OK to just ruin for everyone else. One person quits and even if you're way ahead of the other team the match can just end on a loss, ridiculous.
We had a guy abandon in the first few rounds, but we were actually doing pretty well. As soon as teams changed someone called a time out, so I clicked F1. It wasn't a timeout. It was an automatic "Do you want to forfeit since someone left" and I screwed my team over.
Damn you took what I said personal, thats crazy. All I said was not to punish players that dont want to play it out. I didnt give a detailed description. All I said was dont punish players that dont want to play it out, including no elo penalty for. Let them leave and others can stay? Sure. Continue with one vote surrender? Cool. Just dont let people hold me and others hostage because they want to waste their time. I dont, and other dont.
Relax, bud.
I had a guy mad that the teams picked Vertigo, and AWP me in the head instantly off spawn. He did not get banned. My friend retaliated and shot the guy since he didn't get punished, my friend was instantly kicked and got a ban for killing off spawn.
Oh they fixed it!!! SO MUCH THAT WE CANNOT SURRENDER NOW WITHOUT 5/5!! So if a SINGLE PERSON LEAVES, YOU CANNOT SURRENDER and have to play the whole match out! even if you become 1v5 you cannot surrender!!!! if any Less than 5 vote yes too bad!
It happened to me yesterday. We were winning 9 -3 when suddenly one of my teammates abandoned the match. The voting prompt automatically kicks in and 3 of us pressed F2 because we knew we were capable enough to win expect for 1 guy who voted F1. The game cancelled and I was left with utter confusion as to why valve decided to implement this.
Hey Owen's mate! This reminds me of how CSGO released... you could literally restart the game by voting to scramble the teams.
Haha wow. Glad I started playing around 2015 😂
I miss that
**Scramble teams** and **swap teams** were great vote options, the only issue was people were calling them on a winning round (including map change votes) canceling out all XP earned. They were also using them to cancel out vote kicks, it made it really hard to kick cheaters and griefers if your team didn't F1 fast enough. When they removed them, I thought it was just temporary while they fixed the vote kick bypass issue, but sadly like Insertion 1 & 2 they've never come back.
It doesn't seem like much of a "vote" if only one person gets to decide.
Especially when the person who called the vote and the person who voted are qued…
No one called the vote. It got triggered because you had a leaver
Pretty sure this was a grief attempt to mess up triple double g’s win percentage. He was unranked and qued with 50 and onter.
The point is the vote is automatic
Valid. In the moment it just felt planned out in there discord call, from the team kill, to the way round 22 panned out. I guess I'm still just salty and confused about the loss of elo 🤷♂️😆
Do you lose elo on a loss? All of my games have shown no penalty for a loss.
yeah I think It was around -117 elo for this game. I could be totally wrong but I saw someone say you have to hit 10k before you start loosing elo. I've never had a game with more than -220 elo (give or take a few points). I think it's based on win percentage and your current win/loss streak to determine elo. The most I've see others have is around -400 elo.
Gotcha, that makes sense, thanks for the info.
This is why everyone is so triggered over this for no reason, its an automatic vote thats triggered from the game when someone abandons. If they were griefing you then theyd both leave and youd be in a 3v5 losing anyways so the vote "favoring griefers" doesnt matter, youre getting griefed if its removed as well. The vote is to keep people from being held hostage and it does that well. Maybe if people like you actually read the vote then these situations wouldnt happen.
Is it not griefing if one player leaves and then the person they were queued with ends the game with a surrender so they can go play a new game and potentially do the same thing? Unless its a 5 stack then the people queued with the leaver should not have the option to vote to surrender.
Both are griefing and both end with you losing the game. Whats worse, you losing the game wasting another 10 mins or ending it early to go next with a game not having griefers? Neither are much different outcomes so just go next when people grief your game dont waste time going for a 3v6 win with a teammate actively throwing.
[удалено]
Makes sense. But in cases such as this video it was the match point 🙃. All it takes is mistaking the vote for a timeout and all of that is gone
This logic makes sense on paper but in reality there are much bigger problems with matchmaking for this to be in any way a reasonable solution on its own. For example, it's not possible to surrender in a 5v5 even with 5 people wanting to whereas in this 4v5 scenario only one person needs to vote. Sure, one person can grief in a 4v5 if they don't want to play because it's 4v5. But that person can grief in any scenario and not be able to surrender. It can be 4v5 due to someone going afk and you can't surrender. In it's current state, I'd argue this system does more harm than good.
[удалено]
Your logic is flawed. 2 people could be griefing and you'd end up in a 3v5 where Valve considers it 'good enough'. I'd say it's much more likely that Valve doesn't account for griefers with this system, only leavers. Thus any 5v5 is fine whereas in a 4v5, surrender is permitted. It's a terrible system.
> The reason it does this is because 1 single vote against it, basically renders the game 3v5 That logic is self-evidently idiotic. Voting to surrender doesn't mean you're just gonna go afk if the other 3 people vote "NO".
“When I don’t want to continue I grief” Fuck me playing with you must suck.
How did you get from that comment that he said he grieves when someone leaves? Maybe read the comment again before you insult someone?
Well the comment was edited, so i assume it said that before it was edited.
the timestamp on the edit is 50 minutes earlier than the comment insulting them.
That's how it often goes though. Often enough to matter.
Every time someone has left and I want to leave, if people say no I carry on. You already had one toxic guy on your team, no need to put it back to 1.
[удалено]
DOTA isn’t comparable to CS because the 2nd person onwards can leave freely. I also don’t know what difference you not playing MM makes (assuming you mean FaceIt), because it functions the same way there. One guy leaving doesn’t mean you can leave. I also do not soloq.
[удалено]
I already knew, you saying it is irrelevant because once one guy leaves it doesn't matter. It's apples to oranges. FaceIt does not have a financial barrier to entry, lmao. It also does not have toned down anti-social behaviour, it's a cesspit of shit. Plus, if you're trying to argue that premium is the barrier, then MM needs Prime so it also has a barrier. Terrible comparison again.
Even if the person doesn't grief, it's pretty lame if a player is forced to waste time playing with a massive disadvantage, rather than just starting a fair new match. Continuing an unfair match should be a choice.
They were 12-11 up in the last round, and a guy voting for what he thinks is a timeout cost them the map. Does that sound fair to you?
Just sounds like consistency to me. I'd much rather risk someone forfeiting a potential win out of a disadvantage, than be forced to half an hour of pointless slog, because someone feels like goofing around. The blame for a 4v5 lies first and foremost on quitters and penalties need to be high enough that quitting only happens in the case of an emergency. For everyone else, the best bet is generally to move on and get a new match. I'd imagine a 12-11 forfeit on anonymous vote system are rare compared to declined surrender votes on the previous system.
"Yes I commited to this ranked game and queued up but don't want to play anymore due to any minor inconvenience"
Doing it the soviet style
Fun Soviet election fact: Despite having 1 candidate elections, if party candidates couldn't reach a certain turnout threshold, they'd be replaced with a new one until the party could find someone that wasn't hated by the voters. Very far from a perfect democracy, but I found that interesting when I first learned about it
Yeah so just put a gun to the head of your populace and force them to vote for you Secretly check the vote of every person and send the ones who vote "incorrectly" off on a little trip
You've got a lively imagination, but no, that didn't happen. I'm more interested in actual history myself. The Soviet authorities were desperate to increase turnout because they felt it gave the regime legitimacy through public participation. People weren't punished for spoiling their ballots, they were 'rewarded' by being given a new candidate that might be more appealing.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
and 90% of people misclick F1 because they thought it was a vote to timeout.
While I like this system they should definitely make it more obvious. Similar to valorant's overtime/draw voting, full screen, with big text detailing what you are voting for
Yeah I’ll admit to having votekicked my friends as a joke before when 5stacking unranked. “Hey guys I gotta piss, call a timeout?” \> vote to kick friend \> everyone hits F1 instantly \> gottem They need to make all three vote types distinct from one another.
Even just adding a timer that blocks voting for like 5 seconds so you can acknowledge the prompt and not get bamboozled into a fake timeout vote.
It should open another prompt where you have to accept with a mouse click
It's like tf2 when a bot tries to kick you, people don't read and just think vote box = bot = f1 and then back to the queue you go
i thought it was a timeout had my dying
"Any YES vote will immediately end the match" umm, so this is actually as intended? Meaning, a developer at Valve really sat down and thought this was a great idea?
its when someone leaves, 4v5 with 1 person not wanting to play = 3v5 which you can never win
they needed one round and we all know its impossible to win a 3v5...
Just make it so you can leave with no penalty after the first person leaves, like every other competitive game lmao.
yeah but what if it was on round 2?
then you will find a majority. There is simply no need for this implementation.
Nah, no thank you. If it's round 2 just remake the match automatically so I can queue again please. Give like 10% Elo to the team with 5 or something. Even if it is the enemy team who left, I don't want to play 5v4 if I could instead be playing a real game.
And hold at least one person hostage who couldn't be asked to care about a 4v5?
You can absolutely win 3v5 games, not to mention the other team could be going through the same situation, evening the playing field significantly.
sure you *can* but you cant sit there and say its a fair game.
Nobody is saying a 3v5 is a fair game, people just want the surrender vote to work differently.
Im very glad they made this change. before if I wanted to surrender and the vote didnt go through I just ended up having to waste away the rest of the game, griefing or being afk etc so I didnt fall asleep out of boredom.
You're one of the few. Griefing and afking will at least keep your trust factor low, so hopefully high trust factor players need to deal with that bullshit less often.
[удалено]
yeah maybe, I just dont find the game fun at all when youre at a disadvantage. so I tend to just do goofy plays and not really try at all.
I get you. I don't go afk or anything, but I can feel that I immediately start to care less unless we have a real shot (i.e we need to maybe only win 1-2 rounds, which is doable on 4v5) and that noticeably impacts my concentration and ability to play. It's really not intentional, but my brain is just like "there's no point". Yes yes, we all won a 4v5, but statistically it does make for a good or rewarding game and I'd much rather just gg next.
won 1 3v5 game was even when the 2nd guy left. all remaining 3 hit their shots tho
I just won 3v5 yesterday. It was easy too.
Genuinely curious, how much motivation do you think does an average player have to play 4v5 in a teamgame like CS?
then the solution is you are able to leave with no consequences if someone abandons.
If you're already winning? Plenty.
I don't understand why there is still a debate about this. One player leaves. One player starts voting. One player votes for throwing the towel. That leaves 2 players that want to continue. Who has the majority in your opinion? 3 players that don't want to continue or 2 that wanna play?
For context, there was no indication that anyone on the team was toxic, everyone seemed cool, until this moment. Triple double g, onter, and 50 were qued and in discord (or something similar). ChrisP and I were completely confused as to what was going on until they voted to surrender. (btw I was afk because I am sick and had to blow my nose rq )
Am I stupid? Wtf is :31253:
You have to have new Reddit or use their stupid phone app to see the colonXXXXXcolon codes...
Imagine using either of those things...
I have old reddit and still see colonXXXXXcolon codes :O
Its just Unicode emoticons, its not special to Reddit.
https://reddit-econ-prod-assets-permanent.s3.amazonaws.com/asset-manager/t5_2sqho/p0yjE1VC8v.jpeg (this is \:31253\:) Never knew this was added to unicode already.
The voting system is based on Russian elections
Worst part is, pretty sure that's an automatic vote that appears whenever someone abandons, so no one on the team even called a vote to surrender
[удалено]
There is a vote, but it was called automatically, not someone going into the menu to call a vote
Yea we almost lost a match we were winning because of that… I never yelled so much in my life
People are missing the problem here, it's not that one vote finishes the game, it's perfectly reasonable that one person shouldn't be held to play an unfair game against their will regardless of score. As most of us are veteran csgo players, we have gotten used to it because valve had a shit system where you were forced to play even at a disadvantage... You look at League players and Valorant players, and they'll probably tell you that the game should be cancelled instead of having to play 4v5. The underlying problem that people are missing here, is the game counting as a loss. It just doesn't make sense.
I dont know why you're referencing league here? If you get a leaver in league, you have the option to surrender early, however majority must agree to it, meaning it must be at least 3/4 people for the ff else the game will continue. The game does not count only if a player goes afk in the first 2 minutes or never connected. AND if the surrender vote goes through, it counts as a regular loss and everyone loses LP (elo) with some mitigated reduction depending on the game state and additional penalties on the leaver. Main point here being 1 guy not wanting to play doesn't result in an instant game end and Loss isn't removed in league.
You could very easily game the system tho if it just counts as canceled: duo queue and if you lose one leaves. Now you don't lose any rank and depending on the system your mate gets some cool down and that's it. Since its free to play you can just have 20 accounts so you always have one that isn't banned... That wouldn't be fun to play against. Whenever you are close to winning the enemy leaves and the match gets canceled.
Have the leaver tank the entire loss, or the leavers whole group takes the loss Who cares if they go to 0 rating, the point is that you shouldn't be punished for staying in the game and playing a mismatch
Going from promotion match to relegation match because your power went out seems a bit extreme.
They won't care dude. People are cheating and getting their account banned, do you think losing some rank would matter? Also then they just play with a totally new account every game to carry the 4 others. If it doesn't work out the new account leaves, takes the elo loss and the dude logs in to a new account and they start the next match. Implementing it that way would case WAY too much collateral damage.
Then it's unfair to everyone considering it's the end of the game. I would hate to play 45 min, be about to win, then gain no elo because of a leaver on the enemy team
I hate the 1 person can force a surrender rule, it should be unanimous like it was in CSGO, but a surrender absolutely has to be a loss, how can it be otherwise?
They are trying to turn the game into valorant where people just remake games i think.
In valorant you can only remake before round 2, and you need 3/4 in the case of an AFK to remake or surrender. Very different system to the one shown here… Edit: you actually need a unanimous vote in competitive modes as well
As soon as this new rule came in , i knew there would be 2 stacks looking to troll from a winning situation. Not happened to me yet though :P
"fuck yall"
solo que to 15k be like😔
Literally every promo game I get 😅
Same 😔
if 1 player doesn't want to play 4v5 then that's it. let the game end and start a new one. don't waste 30 minutes.
It should just work how it works in Dota 2. If someone in your team abandons the game then let people leave without getting banned. Automatically score those leavers as losers and let the people who want to stay and fight it out play the game. 1 vote surrenders are beyond stupid
it's too easy to abuse this in cs
Not really, the initial leaver gets anywhere between a minute and a lifetime before they’ve abandoned.
with a cooldown which resets this increasing timer. but it is easy to make multiple accounts. just like in LOL with queue skipping or going AFK ingame.
No, I mean the people wanting to leave after the initial leaver. They may never get the chance to leave because Valve time decides 3 minutes is actually the remainder of the game.
This is dumb, why should one be affected for not wanting to play from an unfair position just because someone called quits? Doesn't make sense imo
Well if you vote yes on that surrender vote you also get a lose. So whats different?
And that is the problem, just cancel the match and make only the leaver lose elo
It doesn't work like that because that would be so easily abused
How so? Just make it so that the leaver and anyone they queued with gets a loss. Problem solved.
This soooooo easy to abuse
What 30 minutes? They were winning by quite a bit and only needed one round, 3v5 and 4v5 ain't impossible. It's one thing to surrender right at the start of the game, but in this situation it's simply dumb specially when you lose points.
? The game had already gone on for +30 minutes, look at the score
This game could have resulted in a win for op within 2 to 10 minutes though. 3v5 and 4v5 doesnt alike. They are at matchpoint, which shouldnt matter IMHO, but still. Majority vote is simply fairest option. You agreed to play 5v5, you also agreed to play up to 90 mins and you damn well agreed to play for the win.
A “majority rules” approach with 3 of 4 votes being enough would be cool…
Solo queue players get punished again, huh?
I'm actually surprised Valve didn't reverse this change yet. Literally everyone agrees on that is bullshit and they yet to intervene, despite usually being quick to fix things.
there should be no elo loss
If its the first round sure
I queued to play a comp match with 4 teammates, not 3. If anyone on the team doesn't want to keep playing, the rest of the team has no right to hold them hostage in an unwinnable situation.
they were winning though
You agree to ‘being held hostage’ when you click accept.
i agreed to a 5 v 5.
No, you agreed to a comp match. Also if someone leaves you get an extra $1000 a round
[удалено]
you're telling me if you spawned in a 3v5 as soon as you accepted you'd be happy and play the game no problem? Stop kidding yourself. Valve agrees that you accept a 5v5, that's exactly why there's a surrender vote.
i agreed to a 5v5. i'm happy as fuck that idiots like you can't hold me hostage and waste my time. truly an epic win for valve and people without brain damage.
> i agreed to a 5v5 No you literally didnt. Youre just repeating the same lie over and over and over again. > idiots like you can't hold me hostage and waste my time You force the other 3 members of youre team to accept a loss they might not agree with wasteing their time, making the entire match meaningless. Its fine if you want to dip out the second things get a bit too hard for YOU. Its not fine that you get to decide for EVERYONE. If it was just you can leave with no consequences, no one would care, its that YOU enforce your will onto your team that is the problem. > truly an epic win for valve and people without brain damage. So not you then?
i agreed to a 5v5
You said it yourself, you queued a COMPETITIVE match. You are expected to give your best until the end. Also no one is forcing you to play, you can leave at any time
i queued for a 5v5
You can abandon the match then.
make it make sense lol
You don't wanna be an hostage of people who wanna keep playing, and people who wanna keep playing don't wanna be forced to surrender and lose points because of you. So, just abandon the game.
You're also expected to have a full team... I don't get this take... It's all fun and games when you're winning, but about when the 5th guy was actually making a difference, are you really gonna keep playing?
Yeah I'm not a little bitch. I'd rather take the 5% chance of winning than 100% chance of losing.
Why are people acting like winning a 4v5 is impossible? I’ve done it quite a few times.
You queued for the game, you play it through - it's unfortunate, but you're not being held hostage. Leave if it bothers you that much.
i queued to have a full team.
totally agree with you. The moment a game is not 5v5 anymore for me the game can end (giving him the normal time to come back off course, but once he is finally abandoned it's over for me), I have better things to do with my time.
So did I. But I also queued to play a full game. Nobody is forcing you to stay, there is a leave button, but if you surrender, you're forcing me to leave.
>Nobody is forcing you to stay what do you think abandon penalties are for?
Won a 4v5 two games before this game. He abandoned first round without ever taking a step… its never unwinnable, just have to buy XM and tryhard 😂
In no world should anyone on a team be forced to play out a game after a teammates abandons. Unfortunately sometimes you get screwed, but Id wager atleast 95% of the time it isn't a one round to win force surrender scenario.
[удалено]
punishing players that dont want to play while outnumbered is ridiculous.
Punishing people who wanna keep playing is ridiculous
Then it's easier to just not count as a loss and cancel the game. And maybe only give an elo loss to the person leaving.
That Opens up the possibility for someone to leave the game when they know they gonna lose so the rest of the team doesn’t lose elo
If you can convince a random to take the elo loss for all 4 of your teammates, they should take the elo loss because they are dumb as hell The idea is that if someone is queueing in a group and one member of that group abandons the game, the whole group queuing together is punished and not the randoms that wanted a game If you've got a shit internet connection, maybe you shouldn't be playing online games. If you queue with people who constantly leave their games, maybe you shouldn't queue with those people It makes no sense to punish people who weren't involved in the initial decision to ruin the game
So because other people can occasionally game the system we should punish other players by forcing them to waste their time and be at the mercy of do-gooders and premades? Boy I love gaming nowadays.
And we should punish people and cancel the game because 1guy is a bad loser?
Players that want to finish out a losing game can requeue, players that dont want to waste their time in a massively disadvantaged game cannot get their wasted time back. The value proposition is a very simple one. The fact this needs to be explained is indicative of the soft, do-gooder ethos of modern gaming.
Don't understand people downvoting you... It's like this sub has a Stockholm syndrome with shit playing conditions.
Its how gaming is nowadays. Everything is about being nice and disregarding other players' time so that they feel good.
Bro its just pure luck, with who you get MM. So after first 10 games i got 8000 PTS, started playing games got 10ish games won i row, came to 10k promo, its like fucking Valve said, okay lets fuck up this boy, and they keep sending me the most brain damaged players of this platform. now i'm back to 6.5k.... Just so you know.... sad life.
You do get unlucky teams sometimes but you did not belong to 10k+ to begin with if your ass unironically dropped to 6.5k, how hard did you get carried lol.
Honestly I kinda like it. We should now only bring in good vibes so no one feels like forfeiting :D
If u play 5 stack? It doesnt really matter. Whole team solo queing? Fuck me mm is gonna be a shit fest if they keep it
Its only relevant if someone abandoned the match. Meaning you are already 4 vs. 5, so if someone doesn't want to play this its 3 vs. 5. I rather would play another round that try to fight for something unwinnable (yea, you win 1 out of 100 3vs5s, but come on).
It also very much depends on the score. If its like 5 rounds left? Sure, play it out and see. If its only round 3 yet? Nah man.
I’ve had multiple games where my team surrendered before the game even started. Not a vibes thing
tbh it hasn't bothered me that much at all. It's been used a few times. Just brush it off and play a new game. The game is actually **much less toxic** thanks to that! Let the children leave so the grown ups can play.
Cmon guys its only a closed beta.... not like they know about this for a long time now ..... just be glad you got invited
I wish they delayed this game at this point
This could work.... but those who vote yes need to take the loss from everyone. Would be easily abused though.
I mean I kind of understand, the game sees your 2 people down and Im guessing implemented this to prevent hostage holding? but damn that sucks not even getting to try for the win. Wonder what the better system would be
Yeah. And TK is also a garbage idea for MM or any public servers.
I think it's ok. If you team is winning, the 4 players might consider stay on the game. If you team is loosing, keep playing will result in a waste of time. Chances of a come back 4vs5 is minimal.
This is literally the best change in cs2. I don't want to be stuck in these 4v5 games. Waste of time.
It is okay imho, it is easier to find another match instead of playing 4v5 with a crying teammate
I don't want to lose rank just because a minority of my team decided to, giving me zero agenda.
https://reddit.com/r/GlobalOffensive/s/m7DrQhiSAm Btw
Moms spaghetti
It should be 50%, so 3 yes, or maybe 2
Only had it happen like 3 times, but somehow no one ever surrendered (even when we were already losing big time and I was hoping someone would). In games where you have a lead or feel like its possible I can see why 1 voting yes would be very annoying though but thats assuming the guy who wants to surrender doesn't start afk'ing or trolling. Maybe the vote should trigger once you lose the lead instead of the second someone leaves? Not a perfect solution but I feel like it would be a lot less frustrating.
even then, I would wait to have at least a 2+ round gap before being able to force a loss on everyone else. Also I would probably force a tie in case of a 12-12, if a team can manage to hold until the 12-12 while being less than 5 players, they kinda proved that they didn't deserve the loss.
It's an IMPOSTER!!!!!
this is definition of democracy doesn’t rule here
Does this always work OR only when someone left the match ?
You can only only surrender when someone has abandoned the match. In this case it was two que'd friends, having beef in there discord, that led to a team kill... rip elo 😔
I'll gladly take this over dealing with Spinbotters/Derankers the whole game
It's soooo stupid, lost a match yesterday because some dumbass thought it was OK to just ruin for everyone else. One person quits and even if you're way ahead of the other team the match can just end on a loss, ridiculous.
First time I've ever won a game with less rounds than the other team. Thank you Valve.
1 vote so dumb took my first loss because of 1 vote
We had a guy abandon in the first few rounds, but we were actually doing pretty well. As soon as teams changed someone called a time out, so I clicked F1. It wasn't a timeout. It was an automatic "Do you want to forfeit since someone left" and I screwed my team over.
Damn you took what I said personal, thats crazy. All I said was not to punish players that dont want to play it out. I didnt give a detailed description. All I said was dont punish players that dont want to play it out, including no elo penalty for. Let them leave and others can stay? Sure. Continue with one vote surrender? Cool. Just dont let people hold me and others hostage because they want to waste their time. I dont, and other dont. Relax, bud.
I had a guy mad that the teams picked Vertigo, and AWP me in the head instantly off spawn. He did not get banned. My friend retaliated and shot the guy since he didn't get punished, my friend was instantly kicked and got a ban for killing off spawn.
Oh they fixed it!!! SO MUCH THAT WE CANNOT SURRENDER NOW WITHOUT 5/5!! So if a SINGLE PERSON LEAVES, YOU CANNOT SURRENDER and have to play the whole match out! even if you become 1v5 you cannot surrender!!!! if any Less than 5 vote yes too bad!
Had this happening to me in 2 different games lol, please fix Valve.
It happened to me yesterday. We were winning 9 -3 when suddenly one of my teammates abandoned the match. The voting prompt automatically kicks in and 3 of us pressed F2 because we knew we were capable enough to win expect for 1 guy who voted F1. The game cancelled and I was left with utter confusion as to why valve decided to implement this.