You are delusional...

General Discussion
If you tilt when you see a teamcomp, the right to concede won't help you because the problem is not Heroes' games...
03/10/2018 12:52 PMPosted by CowCarry
...if you think a concede vote option is wrong for qm.
There are games that are impossible to win or even have fun with.

https://i.imgur.com/1TkQeFj.jpg


This will only encourage more people to give up and troll more than they currently are. This dose not need to be in any game mode what so ever.
The only thing that should be added is if a person leaves the match and dose not return the game just needs to end or at least allow the other players to leave without getting a leaver status or losing points in ranked.
03/10/2018 02:34 PMPosted by Amei
I don't want to give up because of a loading screen but when I have 3 teammates with double digit deaths and 4/4 ignores 100% of the objectives, deal no dmg, soak no xp -> I want a concede button or just kick them all and play with 4 bots because bots are even better than 80% of my teammates today.


I don't want a vote kick, but I hear you. I've had many games like you described and so many times when one of the players went AI, it suddenly turned into a winnable game. Often though if that same player does reconnect, you will lose. It's kinda a sad state of affairs.
Obligatory:

07/11/2017 04:33 PMPosted by Alan Dabiri
With a constantly evolving game like Heroes, I've learned to rarely say things like "we'll never do that".

Having said that, a straight up surrender option is one of the things that we probably will never add to this game.

The games are short enough, and there is just too much potential for comebacks. Adding a straight surrender voting system would create more toxicity and it sends the wrong message.

However, I totally agree that leavers can create a poor game experience. So there are a bunch of things we are considering to improve the experience here. "Loss forgiveness" seems like a good addition to the game, and it's one we are actively discussing. There are also other ideas on the table in that same vein.
03/10/2018 12:52 PMPosted by CowCarry
...if you think a concede vote option is wrong for qm.
There are games that are impossible to win or even have fun with.

https://i.imgur.com/1TkQeFj.jpg

azmo can counter chromie and tracer during team fights,
abathur going full mine or symbiote build can help immensely vs tracer
since you got the vikings, no need to spread, stay as one team and force fights.
viking will force either to fight your team or to split up. if they engage you, simply stall , if hey split, push on them. its a lose/lose for them in that scenario.
varian can handle garrosh quite good in most cases, dehaka would be the major treat of this map.

in this case its not about the comp but how your team was going to out play them strategy or skill-wise, given the post i think its fair to assume it didn't happened.
Their only waveclear is Dehaka, and you have 3 specialists on one of the biggest maps in the game, and the only map besides Warhead with multiple bosses.

People always say such-and-such game is unwinnable, and they're always wrong.
03/10/2018 12:59 PMPosted by Krimnorr
Well, the way you win this one is to split push for days, and only fight if you have numbers advantage. Take camps whenever they're up, and make sure to do so safely while also pushing with them.

Use hit and run tactics, and just keep map pressure up.

(Im assuming your team is the one that you think will lose)


Ha i love how people make these suggestions as if you are playing with your group of friends and you can formulate a strategy like this together easily.

It's almost like they've never played QM before
Always this topic. The matches almost never go on long enough for there to be a reason for a concede option.

The mach up you showed wasn't even that terrible, but if you think it's THAT bad, the game will end in around ten minutes so why bother with a concede option.
Now I don't agree with the claims of delusion but... sometimes you just get screwed by matchmaking and their comp is better than yours for the map. Maybe a concede button would be nice as people tend to drag games on, and just sit there and remove any hope of a comeback. Thing is, there's also plenty of games where you never even had a chance and those aren't fun for either side. To be honest I'm fine either way but when you get into QM and it's pretty clear that it's gonna be a "Win/loss and move on" type of game, no one really wants to play that.
03/10/2018 01:40 PMPosted by XiChorn

Then I think the true delusion is thinking that there has been no improvement to matchmaking.

When golds and gms play in the same game? Ohyeah, amazing improvement...
03/11/2018 10:57 PMPosted by YourFather

Ha i love how people make these suggestions as if you are playing with your group of friends and you can formulate a strategy like this together easily.

It's almost like they've never played QM before


I agree, but that's a player problem though, isn't it.

You're basically saying "I'd like a surrender button because this game is unwinnable. Okay well very winnable but the strategy would require us to understand our characters, the enemy characters and for us to work as a team."

Yes, yes it does. That's not a bug. That's the core of the game.

Here's the other thing I don't get about QM comp complaints thread. Lets assume you're at a disadvantage. So what? Devise the best strategy you can. Work together as best you can. Play your character as best you can. And if you still lose, no big deal, there's always next game.

You learn more from defeat than victory. You learn more from a disadvantaged position than an advantaged position.
03/11/2018 11:12 PMPosted by Riv
You learn more from defeat than victory. You learn more from a disadvantaged position than an advantaged position.

In order to learn from a disadvantage position you need to be somewhat fairly matched. When a professional boxer fights a 5yr old the only thing there to learn is that it should never happen.
03/10/2018 03:25 PMPosted by CrazyLegs
People just bury their head in the sand on this issue. They basically don't have any good arguments why a concede option, under certain circumstances, should not be implemented for QM.


Minus the whole "it'll do more harm than good option"

But instead of looking at where to go to present 'valid' change, you present another argument that actually is the one that buries itself in the sand, to use your turn of phrase, and them blame everyone else instead of presenting an argument to facilitate said change.

Which side of the 'argument' wants something to change? Then they better be the ones to present worthwhile arguments that are actually convincing to anyone that doesn't already agree with the suggestion instead of, ironically, providing material for why the option isn't in this game.

What your perspective apparently decided to ignore (cuz head in sand \0/) is that a hefty chunk of the ruling for not having conceded is based from... experience ! The whining and bemoaning of the position, but not the notion to suggest change, pretty much comes from selfish gratificaion, esp on the grounds that they choose to ignore anything that doesn't suit them, and then pretend they have the one up by neglecting they have the responsiblity to provide reasoning for the change that's more than ad hominems'

but ya know, taking all that into consideration would require some to ya know, take their head out of the sand.
03/12/2018 12:10 AMPosted by Fuzz
03/11/2018 11:12 PMPosted by Riv
You learn more from defeat than victory. You learn more from a disadvantaged position than an advantaged position.

In order to learn from a disadvantage position you need to be somewhat fairly matched. When a professional boxer fights a 5yr old the only thing there to learn is that it should never happen.


Sure, but that's not what we're talking about though, is it.

No one said "GM players should always be matched against new accounts and accounts with less than 10 games"

The point being made is, 2 teams of roughly (not perfectly, but pretty good) equivalent skilled players are matched against each other. Sure, one comp can have an advantage over another, no one is disputing that either.

The dispute is that a comp advantage amongst roughly equivalently skilled players is the same as a boxing match between Mike Tyson and Prince George.

Its not.
03/11/2018 11:12 PMPosted by Riv
Here's the other thing I don't get about QM comp complaints thread. Lets assume you're at a disadvantage. So what? Devise the best strategy you can. Work together as best you can. Play your character as best you can. And if you still lose, no big deal, there's always next game.


Nobody is disputing that it's not possible to win games even if you start off at a disadvantage. That's not the point is it?

Sexual discrimination in the workplace exists, but even then there are women that rise to the top of the corporate world. Do we ignore the problem then?

You see the goal is to ensure equal opportunities, not equal outcomes. QM matchmaking should give everyone a fair chance to succeed. It's not easy to nail down what constitutes fair in terms of QM comps, but in this case, it's pretty obvious that the team on the right is highly disadvantaged. A multiclass varian can either go Assassin or Warrior build. Going Assassin build means the team has no Warriors against an opposing team with 2. Going Warrior build means the team has no Assassins against an opposing team with 2.
I would be behind a Surrender option. If it was only available after 40 minutes or so. Then we’d atleast be pushed to atleast try, and pansies that tilt from the first minute can’t hold the game hostage anymore then they already do
03/12/2018 02:23 AMPosted by YourFather

Nobody is disputing that it's not possible to win games even if you start off at a disadvantage. That's not the point is it?

Sexual discrimination in the workplace exists, but even then there are women that rise to the top of the corporate world. Do we ignore the problem then?


Putting to one side the idea that a Quick Match game of 20-30 minutes in any way relates to the historic and continuing systemic discrimination of any kind in the workforce, no, we don't ignore the problem. But overstating it, like here, and not understanding it, like the OP did, leads to bad solutions to the wrong problems.

To continue your example, the solution to sexual discimination is not firing and jailing anyone who has a complaint made against them, without any investigation or presumption of innocence. That will not fix the issue, it will just create more problems like over-capacity jails, and a much smaller workforce.

So I ask you, what is the problem with the match up. And "Look at the match up" is not an answer. I can see 1 side had 2 warriors, 2 assassins and a healer vs 1 multi, 1 healer and 3 spec. I can see that 1 side has a distinct advantage on team fights, and some decent split push while the other side has really good split push and okay map presence.

I know what I think the problem is, and yes, I think it's a bit of a problem, just not a sexual discrimination level of problem.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum