Adjust Recall

@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.

@indexlibrorum said in Adjust Recall:

@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.

Yeah but faf doesn’t have a huge player base and those people who are dead and leave might need that game to end to get enough people to play another game. I’ve had one lovey person decide they didn’t want to leave and instead played survival for as long as they could. As a result myself and 3 other people from that game were stuck lobby simming for another 20 minutes. In this particular example it took so long that I actually ran too low on time and straight up couldn’t play another game of faf that day, and all 7 other people were annoyed by him including the enemy team.

One example, but that to at least some degree happens regularly when someone decides they want to hold up people. Just leaving the game doesn’t mean you can get another without the people stuck in the game.

@indexlibrorum said in Adjust Recall:

@xiaomao said in Adjust Recall:

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.

Oh, but of course you can. The psychology behind is exactly the same. If people vote FF they want out, same for FAF. If I vote FF it means I want out and go play next one. But unfortunately the amount of FAF players is so low that I will have to wait for the people from this game anyway(or risk getting being put in another shitter game with low ranks). So you either politely force a quit by recall or you do the ctrl+k manouver in case you have one shitter not willing to let it go. The other option which for some reason you prefer is me afking in base doing bois like a retard instead of getting another shot at actually good game(yes I'm not giving you my base anyway unless you have good idea how to play the game).

And no, the games aren't really that dissimilar considering how the income works in both and how map control translates into it and choking out the opposition. If anything the ways you can get ahead are funnily enough very similar be it by forcing enemy to try make proactive plays as you grow the eco lead or by choking them out through proper map control.

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.

There's difference between steamroll and being slowly choked out of the game. Playing for the sake of enemy team getting bored with you and making huge mistake is one of the most shitty ways to enjoy the game one can find.
Especially when there is no way to win but enemy throwing their lead. Which doesn't happen nearly often enough to be worth keeping everyone hostage and barring them from getting another shot at decent game.

Like I really don't understand why do people in this community find this autistic idea of building up robot armies for 1h fun even when they have no clear shot at winning, and more importantly that they don't care about the other 7 people in the lobby who'd rather go and have an engaging game rather than this snooze fest of choking the last player out.

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.

Unfortunately we are playing FAF. A game that MASSIVELY promotes a defensive play with how it works. And the longer it goes the more frustrating it becomes. After all, that failed attack might have just become mass donation. And the longer it goes the higher the risk, and more time is needed to make a sure win push. Which artificialy prolongs the games even more. Especially if you roll map that allows you to turtle. Making the loss just a boring matter of scaling up eco and stuff with no way for other party to win unless you go for the 4fun land push.

If you're in the team that is losing and you think the game unsalvageable, leave.

Now if only that meant there's gonna be enough players for the next game. Well, fuck me it's FAF so we have like 30 players to play with anyway... Half is offline, the other half afk leaving us with the few who got a game being stuck with that one dude who is aiming for the CERTIFIED GYLE COMEBACK.

@ftxcommando said in Adjust Recall:

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.

If fun comes from chance of winning then 50% of the games you play arent fun?

Why does the game become less fun when your chances of winning are getting lower?

It isn't fun when my chance of winning is essentially 0, yes. Games I lost or won are fun when they're competitive. Once the outcome is written in stone I do not find it interesting to go through the motions of ending it. The only way to make it fun is to intentionally drag it out even more by doing incredibly dumb stuff as a way to end the game. Like killing people with ASF crash damage.

So what I'm reading here is that if me and a buddy queue 3v3, we can end a game at will if we both decide to just give up.

We can leave, sure, but we can also force a recall, regardless of what the 3rd player says or thinks.

I have still failed to understand from any of you why it is that 1/3rd of the vote doesn't matter.

The vote should be unanimous as 33% is still a large portion of the equation in 3v3 games.
I can understand the majority vote in 4v4 and larger team games as those are larger groups.

But it just doesn't make sense as to why it's forced in 3v3.
If the vote ends, you can just leave.
Either way, you end up getting out of the game, but one option allows the last player to keep on playing if they wish to.

How is this a bad thing if all 3 players got what they wanted?

The leavers leave and the stayer, stays?

~ Stryker

@comradestryker said in Adjust Recall:

How is this a bad thing if all 3 players got what they wanted?

Because there are three more players in the equation: your opponents. We're talking about the competitive scene. People in the competitive scene enjoy games that are competitive. When (more than) half of your opponents team decides to leave the game then the game is no longer competitive.

I understand that the recall mechanic can be frustrating when you are forced to recall. But it is a common mechanic across a wide variety of competitive games. As an example, take the surrender mechanic of League of Legends. Our implementation is fairly similar, except for the case when there is a team of size 3. But in that game you do not usually start with a team of 3

@jip How is a game always no longer competitive when half your opponents team decides to leave? For example, 1 player with 1k mass income is capable of winning against 3 players with 300 mass income each. Even moreso if that 1 player is the team's highest ranked player.

Hence in that scenario, to allow the 2 players who died to force that 1 player to be forced to concede despite being in a potentially winnable position doesn't seem like common sense.

Even with a small mass disadvantage the game could be winnable - e.g. 3v3, on team 1 all 3 players go guncom+land spam, and kill 2 of the opposing team's players. However, the third player on that team managed to rush T3 air and build a strat (which will cause havoc with no opposing air force).

What is the objection to having 3v3 recall subject to a basic eco check to avoid a vote being successful when the team is in a potenitally winnable position and only 2/3 players vote for it? It'd still be going further than the league of legends surrender system (which requires 100% agreement for a recall with 3 players), and avoids most of the frustration of being forced to lose a game you think could be won.

@maudlin27 said in Adjust Recall:

How is a game always no longer competitive when half your opponents team decides to leave?

Allow me to rephrase: it is not the competitive scenario that everyone in the lobby signed up for

@maudlin27 said in Adjust Recall:

What is the objection to having 3v3 recall subject to a basic eco check to avoid a vote being successful when the team is in a potenitally winnable position and only 2/3 players vote for it?

The objection is the complexity and randomness that we introduce with such (arbitrary) rules. And they are arbitrary because the economic situation doesn't quite describe the game state. The game is complicated enough as it is

@jip Re it not being the competitive scenario that everyone in the lobby signed up for, actually it is - that is afterall the whole point of full share, that if someone on a team dies, the other teammate(s) inherit their stuff so the game can continue.

I also dont understand how an eco test to 2 players forcing 1 player to concede would add randomness - it would be based on actual amounts not randomness. Thinking further the only arguably random element I could see could be temporary power stalls or sudden reclaim distoring the figures, but that could easily be resolved in the code.

In which case that just leaves the argument that having say a 75% mass threshold for a 2/3 player recall to be successful is too much complexity to be justified. While it is an increase in complexity, it seems a fairly simple to explain complexity, and it has a massive impact at reducing unjust recall votes - this thread demonstrates how there is a significant amount of people who are unhappy with the current implementation, so there would be a clear benefit from such complexity. Given the complexity of the actual game (just take the overcharge mechanic as an example!), it also doesn't seem like it would be too complex a mechanic for people to understand if the UI could reflect it. However this part I dont know about - i.e. while I think it should be straightforward to code an eco test, I dont know if it would be straightforward to have the recall vote display text that varies based on the teamsize; e.g. in a 3v3 it would have explanatory text "This requires everyone on your team to vote to recall, or just one other player if your team has less than 75% of the enemy team mass income", e.g. on hovering over or as part of the UI menu.

@maudlin27 said in Adjust Recall:

@jip Re it not being the competitive scenario that everyone in the lobby signed up for, actually it is - that is afterall the whole point of full share, that if someone on a team dies, the other teammate(s) inherit their stuff so the game can continue.

I think we can both agree there's a difference in sentiment and accomplishment between a voluntary and an involuntary share of units. The former usually feels lame to me, because you didn't feel in control. The latter usually feels like my team did something, even if it was a pretty poor choice to give Tagada a second base

@maudlin27 said in Adjust Recall:

75%

This number is random. And requiring one additional vote because of it is random too. It would also convey information that you would otherwise not be able to decipher easily

I don't fully get why people want to force players to continue with low morale. The recall feature was implemented with the intention to allow players to end the game gracefully, in a manner that feels like an accomplishment to the other team. It feels great to me when my opponents recall - it means we managed to not just take out their units, but also their morale. And they acknowledge that by recalling

With that said, I won't dive into the topic further. If enough people want recall to be different then I'm fine with that. But reading this topic it seems to me that even though there are people that want it to be different there are just as many people that want it to be what it is now

Please remove recall from TMM games and leave it as option for custom lobbies. Thanks.

There have been people approaching me about this topic since it got more attention again , long live the lobby. The 3v3 matchmaker did not exist at the time that we implemented recall. Given that it is (still) quite popular it doesn't have one of the problems that recall was designed to overcome: being unable to find the next game without ending the current one.

At the moment it requires all votes of the team if there are two or less (alive) players remaining. What if we push that to three or less (alive) players remaining? That way you need all team members to agree with recalling in the 3v3 matchmaker.

This change would practically only affect the 3v3 matchmaker as global lobbies usually consist of teams of 4 or more players. It is also something that we can still add to the game patch of the 24th of June, which is this Saturday.

It feels to me that it is a good middle ground between the people that want to be able to end a (large) game, and those people that feel like they get recalled often even when they disagree.

@jip
I think that change, in combination with a lobby option that would let custom games adjust the required percent of votes for forced recall (with 100% being an option), sounds like a reasonable compromise.

@Jip requiring at least 3 people for a recall instead of 2 is less of a middle ground than one might think as most 4v4 games worth recalling also have one player dead. As a result a lot of the 4v4 recall situations would effectively also require recall to be unanimous, risking the come back of the ctrl-k meta.

Still, if false recalls are a sizable problem in 3v3 matchmaker, your proposed change might be worth experimenting with regardless.

Afterall, If it doesn't work out, we can reverse it and try a different fix. (cough allow changing your mind cough)

@CheeseBerry your ctrl-k meta is still here. In last game with "High rated players" FtX ctrl-k his base instead of recall! It is not a point anymore having it like this if people which were promoting it dont use it.

True let’s delete it entirely again and bring back ctrl+k thank u azot

You are welcome!

@jip said in Adjust Recall:

What if we push that to three or less (alive) players remaining? That way you need all team members to agree with recalling in the 3v3 matchmaker.

The suggested adjustment is now live on the release branch.