Adjust Recall
-
@ftxcommando Because you agreed to play a game when you entered the lobby, and a game is ended when the enemy gives up or is destroyed, not when the other team thinks the game is over.
Imagine that, lol. "Yea mate we'll win in 15 minutes so we want you to leave right now so we can play a different game."
-
Me, looking as the last player alive wastes every ones time as 11 others are waiting for next game.
Yeah, imma go play something with normal people not some f'ed dudes willing to waste 10-20 minutes of other people lives due to their Gyle syndrome. -
Oh and me nor my team can't even quit the game for we will be banned for either ctrl+k or RaTInG MAnIPulaTiON.
-
@indexlibrorum said in Adjust Recall:
@ftxcommando Because you agreed to play a game when you entered the lobby, and a game is ended when the enemy gives up or is destroyed, not when the other team thinks the game is over.
Imagine that, lol. "Yea mate we'll win in 15 minutes so we want you to leave right now so we can play a different game."
Yes, we agreed to play a game. Game is now over as mandated by the majority vote of the team and it has now crossed into malicious timewasting.
I agree that it doesn’t matter what enemy team thinks, that’s why they aren’t part of the recall vote. But if recall vote required universal or some insane supermajority for consent I’d just go back to base ctrl+k to stop dudes wasting my and others time.
-
I understand the whole argument against recall being as it is because it does suck being forced to give up. But it sucks more being stuck in a game because someone wants to waste your time. And honestly it happened fairly often before recall was implemented, far more often than someone being upset about being forced to give up a lost game early.
It's obviously not the perfect solution, but I do think it's the best we have right now.
-
Why does it have to be a blanket rule? The people who complain about having their time wasted on average seem to be higher ranked players. It's also a valid criticism that in a 3v3 2 players can force a defeat from what is a potentially winnable position. At lower ranks of play the game is far more likely to be winnable from a seemingly poor position due to the greater potential for mistakes from the enemy team (since they're lower ranked for a reason).
It therefore seems ripe for a compromise approach that pleases more people than the current system. For example, in 4+ team games it works as is currently the case, and in <=2 team games it needs 100% agreement and/or just isn't an option.
Then, for 3v3s, it's only possible for 2 players to force the third to lose if any of the following is the case:
- It's a custom match (given it is likely to take longer to organise than a TMM match); or
- The average rating of the players is > x (e.g. >=1.4k? 1.5? As a lower ranked player I dont know the point at which games take forever to find); or
- The team that wants to recall has in total 75% or less of the mass income of the enemy team
To make things even simpler, it could just be a single rule - in a 3v3, you can only have 2 players force a recall if the team has 75% or less mass income vs the enemy.
While there will be plenty of cases where you can have equal eco vs the enemy team but clearly have lost, I'd have thought it very rare for it to take long at all for the clearly winning team to be able to translate their presumably dominant map position into an eco lead. So, it's not possible for one person to delay the team from a clearly lost position, but it's also not possible for 2 people to force someone to concede a winnable position.
In terms of implementation it'd need to only say 'recall vote successful' or 'recall vote unsuccessful' and not say why/how many people voted for it, to avoid being able to use the voting system to get information on how good your team's eco is vs the enemy.
I understand the argument for recall being it sucks to waste a long time on a foregone conclusion, but it sucks far more being forced to concede a game that could have been won (meaning all the time up until that point arguably was wasted as well). Especially since at lower ranks the players who want to recall are more likely to be able to find a new game if they leave the current one and rejoin the queue (TMM).
-
This is why high ranks should be allowed to base ctrl k
-
no
-
I never understood the the idea of: The game is pretty much in the bag so just quit now coz anything beyond this point is a waste of time.
I guess your goal while playing FAF is not to have fun, but only to win? And if you lose you don't have fun?
Just because you are losing doesn't mean you can't have fun. And if you arent having fun while you are winning but haven't won yet, then you need to look to yourself and ask yourself why aren't you having fun
-
Ah yes let me fight for 15 more minutes while literally nothing I do will have any impact to the game. So much fun to sweat my ass of for 15min straight just to see it had 0 impact no matter what I did.
Guess that's the "Just snipe the other ACUs duhh"-mentality -
Recall is great and so is forcing a stubborn time waster to quit the game.
I would agree though that it can sometimes feel that a recall vote comes out of nowhere, e.g. for the one player on the team that isn't mega crushed and hence hasn't realized yet that their team is losing super hard.
Sadly, I don't have a good suggestion on how to improve on that besides using the chat and zooming out more.
-
Are there any numbers available on how many games vote for/end in recall?
(As much as I love the "actually you're dead fucking wrong" dialectic.)
-
I will just post this:
"A failed 4-1 surrender vote in ranked has a 97% loss rate"
"I can give a bit more insight on this data, since I pulled it (I also moonlight as a data analyst in addition to my day job :D)
3.3% is the correct number
Of 4 vote failed early FF's, a significant number get dragged out:
However, if a game ends before 21 minutes, ~90% are held hostage (45% get FF 20'd, 50% end naturally by 20 [open mid or just lose])
80% of the games resolve by 25 minutes
Games that make it to 30 minutes have a 10% winrate
Games that made it to 40 minutes had a 45% winrate (but the incidence was very low)While the "come back from behind, win at 45 minutes" moments are some of the highest moments in League, the vast vast majority of the cases are experiences where the majority of the team doesn't want to play the game out and are trapped in a suboptimal experience."
Some might go, but it's league of legends mimimimi. Well I could argue that it's pretty similar experience both in faf and league, as both feel oppressive to play from behind while also having more than few comeback mechanics for the losing team. Like bounties in league and reclaim from bad attacks in faf.
Imo it's pretty clear that recall have to exist as a way out of being trapped by people in games you deem unsalvageable. Even more so when the community is so small that one dude taking hostage other 4 players can mean not having another game for half an hour as he busy jacking himself off to the thought of being featured in another gyle cast comeback...
Also post for those interested: https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/12cmyue/a_failed_41_surrender_vote_in_ranked_has_a_97/
-
@firv said in Adjust Recall:
I never understood the the idea of: The game is pretty much in the bag so just quit now coz anything beyond this point is a waste of time.
I guess your goal while playing FAF is not to have fun, but only to win? And if you lose you don't have fun?
Just because you are losing doesn't mean you can't have fun. And if you arent having fun while you are winning but haven't won yet, then you need to look to yourself and ask yourself why aren't you having fun
Fun comes from having a chance at winning. If that wasn’t necessary, we wouldn’t have every 5th dude under 800 rating complaining about smurfs that ruin their game. Likewise when the chance of losing is gone there isn’t anything engaging in the game anymore. The people complaining about this have gone through the motions of how to end these games hundreds upon hundreds of times. It’s like complaining at chess GMs for resigning early when there is a CHANCE that someone makes an obvious blunder. That’s why people would rather move on to a new game where both exist again.
-
@xiaomao said in Adjust Recall:
Some might go, but it's league of legends mimimimi.
Your foresight is impeccable and without peer. Let me get right on that;
You cannot take data from one game to analyze another, especially not when the games are so dissimilar. Additionally, you're gonna have to take into account that just by calling the vote, the result of the game is influenced, because the people that vote to surrender but are veto'd will not have the same motivation to keep playing for a win.
Imo it's pretty clear that recall have to exist as a way out of being trapped by people in games you deem unsalvageable.
...one dude taking hostage other 4 players can mean not having another game for half an hour as he busy jacking himself off to the thought of being featured in another gyle cast comeback...
Everyone seems to keep going on about how people are 'stuck' in a won game, and how it's a huge waste of time. But you can't have it both: is the game clearly won, or do you need to play for another half hour? Because if you're in a stalemate for 30 minutes, you're in game-ender territory.
If you're part of the enemy team and you need another goddamn half hour to close the game, then the game wasn't over in the first place.
If you're in the team that is losing and you think the game unsalvageable, leave.
@ftxcommando said in Adjust Recall:
It’s like complaining at chess GMs for resigning early when there is a CHANCE that someone makes an obvious blunder.
We're not arguing that surrendering is bad, we're arguing that forcing OTHER PEOPLE to surrender is bad.
-
This post is deleted! -
Well you kinda responded to me responding to a guy saying he doesn't understand the mentality of quitting games early so we were talking about surrendering being bad?
My arguments for enforcing a surrender are the same utilitarian argument I said before.
If you want an example of a game that is going to take quite a bit to end. You have situations of a person being down to some 20% map control fortress but no eco advantage. Regardless of what he can do, the enemy will be able to do it faster and with more stuff. So now you got to spend 10 minutes breaking down this base that is getting more and more defenses added to it because the guy isn't actually trying to play for a win condition, just make everyone waste as much time as possible building up the mass to break through it with a right click push.
This isn't even a particularly rare situation. There is no thinking involved. Besides me deciding what fun investment of 100k mass will kill the enemy. Thrilling.
-
@ftxcommando said in Adjust Recall:
So now you got to spend 10 minutes breaking down this base
Right, so then there's the argument: you think that 10 minutes of your time is more important that the other player's wish to not be forcefully kicked out from a game.
I disagree. -
Now you're being dishonest. It isn't a 2v2. If it was, I couldn't force the dude to recall. It's a 3v3+ where 2, 3, 4, etc people don't want to waste 10 minutes of their lives and you think 1 or 2 dudes have higher time value.
I'm the guy that holds basically all time of near equivalent value, though with a slight bias towards those in the current game since recall requires a supermajority not just a majority.
If you mean that I'm on the team that has to slowly grind this guy down, then yeah it makes me mad. But I'm not asking for me to be able to force this dude to recall, I'll just tell him he's an asshole.
-
@ftxcommando Fair enough, though remember that teammates can leave as they please, it's only the enemy's team time that's at risk of being wasted.
Though the core argument remains: someone is forced from their game against their will, because the enemy has to work to close the game. I think that's not great, in essence for the same reason that control-K'ing your base is a banable offense.
