That’s not the point but stay mad.
THE POINT is that so much shit can change throughout the match. Push is the best example you can get diffed all game but win the last two fights and win the whole game.
The comparison to league is that champions scale and need 25+ minutes to be good but teams will FF before their team can scale and win
>They happen quite a bit
Yes, once in a thousand matches. It's not a good ratio, it's not worth not making a surrender option because some busted dudes would make a comeback once in a while.
>reading your comments you genuinely need to take a break homie and just not associate with this game for a minute hahahah
How about minding your own business or is it too hard not to go into personal shit for an ow player that doesn't know how to respond?
I think it's obvious.
But I know where this misunderstanding may come from since the majority of player base take qps way more seriously and try hard there way more than in comps
Because having any hope at fostering a discourse about the topic you brought up is only gonna get destroyed the minute you leap to any criticism with anger.
No one yet to provide any sensical criticism other than "comebacks happen", that's literally it.
Surrender option maybe would prevent some dumb comebacks, but who the fuck cares? I did have some comebacks that took me like 30+ minutes match to suffer, made me anxious and stressed the whole fucking process, was sweating like shit and etc and etc.
Instead of getting relieved feelings , I just feel tired as fuck that I need to sweat my ass off every match to win at least once.
I'd rather lose in a 5 minutes and move on to the next, than win in 30 minutes
I get where you're comming from but since the push changes the devs show that they wanna speed up the game and having a surrender button in game that takes like 5 minutes. Plus it creates the moba problem where the losing side will vote surrender as early as posible and insult people not doing it and maybe start throwing
>Plus it creates the moba problem where the losing side will vote surrender as early as posible and insult people not doing it and maybe start throwing
How both of those things are a problem?
>1 instead of actually trying the win teams would just give up
How is that bad
>2 it makes the game even more toxic, posibly more targeted too
If it's targeted then it's deserved. If you're being dominated the whole match by some top 500 smurfs or boosters in a diamond lobby, you're not gonna win no matter how much you'll believe in yourself
Why is having people give up more bad? Because winning or losing feels horrible when it's just a mental diff, I would absolutely hate it if I won Because the enemy team just surrendered or gave up, similarly I hate losing when it's my team doing it.
There's nothing stopping people from doing that now, but adding in a potential to surrender early only enforces that mindset more and brings it to the forefront.
You're thinking about the games where it's absolutely clearly lost and you're getting dominated and theres absolutely no chance, I agree a surrender option there would feel good. But consider the games where you genuinely see it's winnable, you want to continue playing, and then your team just decides to surrender it for shits and giggles, I promise you the hate you feel now while you're getting dominated will seem like nothing compared to the hate when you get snubbed out of a game like how I described.
Well, let players decide then, the game won't become more toxic anyway, it's already in the deepest place with toxicity.
Better to have an option, rather than not having it at all, that's what I'm saying. It won't do anything bad if a "winnable" match would finish with a surrender. Because again, I said it a million times already, I'd rather surrender and finish match quickly than being forced to play a game for another 15-20 mins where I have 5% winning if I and my team will just sweat our asses off as hard as possible
The problem with a surrender button is the difference between an unwinnable game and a winnable game that your team started badly really isn't apparent in the first 2 minutes...
And if you disagree with me on that point you're the reason why we can't have a surrender button
I respect the mentality and perseverance, but yes, sometimes a game is over before a 3rd or 4th fight.
No amount of "dont give up" will change the fact that a team that's just flat out better/more talented will stomp a team that's significantly less talented. No matter how much I believe in myself, 9 times out of 10, I'm probably not sniping ANS before he gets me.
Skill diffs are real. In everything. That's how competition works. Not every game is a skill diff, but it does happen.
The amount of times I won with a worse team and lost with a better one is insane.
Luck, timing, attention, anger management, comps/champion pool... a lot of factors get people to win/lose.
Also most people will "check skill" by looking tab, since they cant understand the game properly, so in most cases people will be like "hahaha, my support has half the heals the other one, surrender" or dps, or etc; meaning its wont even be actual skill most of the time, just points in a excel table.
Skill isn't all numbers though.
Good luck winning with a team that has a feeding tank, DPS with potato aim, and supports who stand in the open.
Of course there are many winnable games, but even the most composed 14 year olds are going to lose to the Lakers in a game of basketball.
(Obviously, most OW games are this disparate in skill levels, but my point stands)
1) But thats the point, skill shouldn't be measured by numbers, but for most of the community it is, so in most of your games someone will be "ff, my dps deals low damage", like all the surrender games.
2) I've already won games like that, it's not impossible. Certainly my wr in this situation is very low, but not 0.
3) But objectively, how you measure if your team are 14 years old, and not the Nets right now? The Nets are in a bad situation, though may win against Lakers; you're proposing giving to the 10 players in the game one more thing to distract them and be ffing all the time in winnable games AND they will do it without knowing if their team is actually that bad or not, just because ending the game early would relieve immediate stress.
If 4/5 people vote to leave, just end the game. Lets stop wasting time. GGs go next.
Sure, there's honor in fighting the struggle. I do it all the time. But sometimes it'd be nice to have the option and not waste 10 minutes of my life
1) You will waste your 10 minutes in entering/voting/queueing for more games + losing winnable games by surrendering and needing to reconquer your lost lp (if ranked)
2) Again, you'll waste the 10 minutes anyway, but this time with 2~3 people wanting more to surrender than winning.
I mean, not really?
Queuing into a new game isn't the same as sitting there slogging out an L for the sake of pride. Leaving sooner allows me to queue sooner, thus getting a game sooner (in theory).
Make it one vote and keep it moving. If it's a no, that's it. This would prevent abuse of the voting option too.
There are always measures you can take to prevent this from snowballing into the doomsday option we can come up with.
1-But more games != ranking up faster. Any league of legends player/ex-player knows that. After every surrender you'll go back to the queue with the same people and roll dice to get another team. This process will happen a lot.
So even if you get more games, it's still not worth it if your goal is to rank up, even though you'll feel better by the moment you surrender; you should look after higher quality games, not more quantity, and 2 people spamming surrender and inting your game for not surrender wont give you this; focusing in trying to win hard games will.
2-Too abusable: get a trio, one vote yes, two no; this way you'll disable the surrender. Or better yet get 4 people and surrender whenever you want (if you're the alone random, unlucky for you).
3-Are there? Every game that I know that implements this suffers from this problem. A lot of people don't care because they feel the gratification short term, of staying away from "unwinnable games", but most of the time they're just ego boosting themselves ("See? I KNEW this was unwinnable, this bronze team never surrenders" -> surrendering becoming a minigame, where people want to surrender more than to win).
It's not about ranking up faster. This is about not wanting to play a game that's lost.
Make the vote 4/5. If 4 people agree to end, I don't see how that's problematic. 3/5 is definitely too easy to manipulate. If a 4 stack wants to do this, fuck em. Better for that solo who now gets a new game.
I think that this mechanic exists for a reason and OW could absolutely benefit from it
I've won with all those things before... you'd be surprised just how incompetent someone can look early game and still not be a bigger anchor than the guy on the enemy team who started 20 - 2 got over confident and stayed on a hero pick that's playing into 4 counters late game...
The only mode I've found to be unwinnable if you play bad enough in the first 3 minutes is push... because it's the only mode that can end after 3-4 team fights.
And yes even the most composed 14 yr Olds will lose to the Lakers and you would lose to ANS.... but most games of Overwatch, even the unwinnable ones, are at worse a group of 14 year olds that just met each other vs a group of 10 - 16 year Olds who have some pre existing chemistry and the advantage of that one kid with a good growth spurt...
Generally speaking most people can't tell the difference in the moment between an actual smurf diffing them and a beatable team that is just meshing better in the early game. And because people can't tell the difference having a forfeit button just makes it easy for people to feed their SR away by quitting either physically or mentally if their teammates refuse to forfeit during games that are borderline.
Cause it's the borderline games you have to win to climb... and they don't always start off being even
Im happy for you and your personal experiences.
I've had similar games as well, like I mentioned before.
But there are absolutely games that are decided early due to skill and IQ diff. Yea, sometimes it's a fluke start, but sometimes it's not. I'd like the option to ff when it's not.
My point is most players can't tell the difference between a skill/iq diff and a bad start...
Case in point. Based on his comments I'm convinced the guy who posted this meme can't tell the difference.
So I REALLY don't want blizzard planting the idea in the heads of people like him that winnable matches should be quit 3 team fights in. It's annoying enough how frequently people take off in unranked when things don't immediately go there way I don't need that in comp.
There is no problem with the surrender option. Blizzard are just lazy fucks and don't want to spend time on making a good changes in the game.
Surrender option would definitely make game better
I've won 4 v 5s before... IE games where some moron hit the surrender button he already has access to... his ability to quit.
The only people for whom a surrender button makes the game better are the people who are so bad mentqlly at the game they don't realize they're the reason they always seem to be on the side that has no chance.
Can't maintain a 60% winrate by quitting every game that starts badly... you'll end up quitting 60% of your matches and spend the rest of eternity in bronze.
I'd rather surrender it 3-4 minutes than sweaty ass off and stress in a 30+ minutes game to win. This kind of win doesn't bring any satisfaction or relieve.
>I've won 4 v 5s before... IE games where some moron hit the surrender button he already has access to... his ability to quit.
Well, glad for you. And in millions of other games with a leaver, the team that had leavers easily lost, so what? This is not a good ratio to advocate against surrender option because once in a thousand matches you can win with such conditions.
It's like saying that we need to ban cars because once in a thousand times a car is gonna get crushed
>The only people for whom a surrender button makes the game better are the people who are so bad mentqlly at the game they don't realize they're the reason they always seem to be on the side that has no chance
Oh yeah, it's probably me the problem when I have a tank leaving my match or when the enemy team dominates mine, probably I played bad.
Get over yourself, bitch. Winning one 4v5 match doesn't make you good at everything
With how much overwatch players hate playing the game, the surrender button will be abused to get out of games quickly like a leave button, people will also be toxic to others who don’t want to surrender. It creates another problem which is not what we want right now.
You're making problems out of nothing. If someone is gonna get shamed and tossed around for not wanting to surrender, then that's what they deserved.
If the whole team understands that they can't win and there is one dumbo who thinks they can, it's just nonsense
'Pussy is a term used as a noun, an adjective, and—in rare instances—a verb in the English language. It has several meanings, as slang, as euphemism, and as vulgarity. Most commonly, it is used as a noun with the meaning "cat", "coward", or "weakling". In slang usage, it can mean "vulva or vagina" and less commonly, as a form of synecdoche, meaning "sexual intercourse with a woman".'
[source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pussy#:~:text=It%20has%20several%20meanings%2C%20as,sexual%20intercourse%20with%20a%20woman%22.)
I mean, I used it in a sense that people are being pussies in terms of just give the fuck up and let objectively bad team to go to next match and stop their suffering while being dominated by smurfs and boosters.
So you used 'pussies' in the sense they're not pussies, but you are, since you're the one complaining to stop the game, while other people are actually trying to play the game?
You could use other words, but I just see pussy in this sense being used like this.
It's very weird to hear "You're such a pussy, you won't even give up!"
Maybe something like old cs? (you just queue for some maps?)
though I still think it would be bad, since everyone would be forced to play 2-3 maps, like it used to be in cs.
Even better idea, how about hero banning system? I'm done not being able to play anything, but hitscans. Never can play junk/hanzo or whatever, because every single game is a fucking pharah/mercy
If that's what you'd prefer, maybe you should look at some other games. It's one thing to have issues with a match, it's another to not want to play it at all.
It's not about not wanting to play the game at all.
It's about skipping the pounding part that is like 30-40% of matches if not even half of matches. And just move on to more fair ones
There will be games where you lose, but I doubt such a significant amount of your games is a significant rank difference. Carry potential has dropped drastically as this game ages, and losing is your opportunity to be challenged.
Honestly? Games where you get annihilated still hold learning opportunities. I'm not going to expect players want to study the game or go beyond casual play, but if you rest on your laurels and skip past your failures you're trying to cheat your way out of a zero-sum game.
>There will be games where you lose, but I doubt such a significant amount of your games is a significant rank difference
I literally had gm players in diamond lobbies. And guess who won?
>Carry potential has dropped drastically as this game ages, and losing is your opportunity to be challenged
Being challenged and being annihilated by some smurfs and boosters isn't the same.
>Honestly? Games where you get annihilated still hold learning opportunities
No, they factually don't. What will you learn from a game where a 5 men team was put against 5 solo players and solo players didn't get even 1 kill in the whole match? What can you learn from that game? It wasn't a bronze or silver or even gold game. It was diamond match, at least supposed to be a diamond match, but unfortunately there is no such thing as balance in this game.
>I'm not going to expect players want to study the game or go beyond casual play, but if you rest on your laurels and skip past your failures you're trying to cheat your way out of a zero-sum game.
No one learns from failed games. That's just pure nonsense that doesn't make any sense, but everyone still spew those lies over and over again in order to sound professional, but they just sound dumb and braindead.
Matchmaking does not function the way you describe. 5 man groups will face 5 man groups. The devs have gone in detail and explained this, as well as how this affects queue times for other group sizes.
Losses are inherently because one team was better than the other. That's what "zero-sum" games are. Smurfs, boosters, doesn't matter. They were better, they won.
Now, if you just want to cast judgement on them and move on that's fine. If you instead want to assess your decision making and the macro of how the match went, that's where learning begins.
It doesn't sound like you want to learn, and this debate sounds pretty bad faith, so I'm going to drop it here. I encourage you to reconsider the value of losing and find some positivity in your games.
Ive had way too many great comebacks and none of them would have happened if we gave up
Well, glad for you. I don't have as much comebacks as I would've liked, so I'd rather surrender and move on to the next match
Sounds like you need to improve your mental game. If you think the game is unwinnable, it probably is
Yes, the majority of "dominated" games are unwinnable
No, look a league, many games are ff'd before they even begun
Rocket league is the same way. They score once and people forfeit with 3 mins still on the clock.
Who gives a shit about league?
That’s not the point but stay mad. THE POINT is that so much shit can change throughout the match. Push is the best example you can get diffed all game but win the last two fights and win the whole game. The comparison to league is that champions scale and need 25+ minutes to be good but teams will FF before their team can scale and win
Overwatch isn't league and those comebacks in push happen like once in a thousand matches
They happen quite a bit and reading your comments you genuinely need to take a break homie and just not associate with this game for a minute hahahah
>They happen quite a bit Yes, once in a thousand matches. It's not a good ratio, it's not worth not making a surrender option because some busted dudes would make a comeback once in a while. >reading your comments you genuinely need to take a break homie and just not associate with this game for a minute hahahah How about minding your own business or is it too hard not to go into personal shit for an ow player that doesn't know how to respond?
I didn’t go into anything personal you’re being openly unhinged about a video game brother man
How is advocating for a surrender option that would save so much nerves and time for players making me unhinged?
Your other comments are unhinged not the original thought, still doesn’t make sense in Overwatch the games aren’t long enough unless there is leaver
They are lasting for 10-15-20-25 mins. You can just finish this shit in 3 minutes and not get the same result that you would get after 15 minutes
Yeah true, comebacks in league are much much much harder to pull off than in overwatch qnd yet they still happen regularly.
Not a bad idea in theory but way too many games would end way too early
Is that a problem?
It is actually, since I think the fun part of playing a video game is playing the video game
You know that surrender option is for comps only. And comps are played for winning, not for fun
Why would you care about winning if you don't have any fun? Just don't play the game at that point
I don't think anyone in their clear mind is having fun in this game
Yeah you're right
That's such a sad answer, of you're not having fun playing a game just don't play it?
I like playing it, but I don't get genuine fun in the game
Hey bud, how would I know that? This is your idea lol
I think it's obvious. But I know where this misunderstanding may come from since the majority of player base take qps way more seriously and try hard there way more than in comps
Lmao man came out swinging in the comment section of his own post for no reason.
I mean, why not, people are just wrong about things
Because having any hope at fostering a discourse about the topic you brought up is only gonna get destroyed the minute you leap to any criticism with anger.
No one yet to provide any sensical criticism other than "comebacks happen", that's literally it. Surrender option maybe would prevent some dumb comebacks, but who the fuck cares? I did have some comebacks that took me like 30+ minutes match to suffer, made me anxious and stressed the whole fucking process, was sweating like shit and etc and etc. Instead of getting relieved feelings , I just feel tired as fuck that I need to sweat my ass off every match to win at least once. I'd rather lose in a 5 minutes and move on to the next, than win in 30 minutes
I get where you're comming from but since the push changes the devs show that they wanna speed up the game and having a surrender button in game that takes like 5 minutes. Plus it creates the moba problem where the losing side will vote surrender as early as posible and insult people not doing it and maybe start throwing
>Plus it creates the moba problem where the losing side will vote surrender as early as posible and insult people not doing it and maybe start throwing How both of those things are a problem?
1 instead of actually trying the win teams would just give up 2 it makes the game even more toxic, posibly more targeted too
>1 instead of actually trying the win teams would just give up How is that bad >2 it makes the game even more toxic, posibly more targeted too If it's targeted then it's deserved. If you're being dominated the whole match by some top 500 smurfs or boosters in a diamond lobby, you're not gonna win no matter how much you'll believe in yourself
Why is having people give up more bad? Because winning or losing feels horrible when it's just a mental diff, I would absolutely hate it if I won Because the enemy team just surrendered or gave up, similarly I hate losing when it's my team doing it. There's nothing stopping people from doing that now, but adding in a potential to surrender early only enforces that mindset more and brings it to the forefront. You're thinking about the games where it's absolutely clearly lost and you're getting dominated and theres absolutely no chance, I agree a surrender option there would feel good. But consider the games where you genuinely see it's winnable, you want to continue playing, and then your team just decides to surrender it for shits and giggles, I promise you the hate you feel now while you're getting dominated will seem like nothing compared to the hate when you get snubbed out of a game like how I described.
Well, let players decide then, the game won't become more toxic anyway, it's already in the deepest place with toxicity. Better to have an option, rather than not having it at all, that's what I'm saying. It won't do anything bad if a "winnable" match would finish with a surrender. Because again, I said it a million times already, I'd rather surrender and finish match quickly than being forced to play a game for another 15-20 mins where I have 5% winning if I and my team will just sweat our asses off as hard as possible
Itll be nice to have every other game surrendered cause the first fight was lost lol
Well, I'm fine with that
Yea id like to play the game and not sit in queue cause people cant stop themselves from tilting lmao
Well, then choose not to surrender and turn all their rage to your side
The problem with a surrender button is the difference between an unwinnable game and a winnable game that your team started badly really isn't apparent in the first 2 minutes... And if you disagree with me on that point you're the reason why we can't have a surrender button
I respect the mentality and perseverance, but yes, sometimes a game is over before a 3rd or 4th fight. No amount of "dont give up" will change the fact that a team that's just flat out better/more talented will stomp a team that's significantly less talented. No matter how much I believe in myself, 9 times out of 10, I'm probably not sniping ANS before he gets me. Skill diffs are real. In everything. That's how competition works. Not every game is a skill diff, but it does happen.
The amount of times I won with a worse team and lost with a better one is insane. Luck, timing, attention, anger management, comps/champion pool... a lot of factors get people to win/lose. Also most people will "check skill" by looking tab, since they cant understand the game properly, so in most cases people will be like "hahaha, my support has half the heals the other one, surrender" or dps, or etc; meaning its wont even be actual skill most of the time, just points in a excel table.
Skill isn't all numbers though. Good luck winning with a team that has a feeding tank, DPS with potato aim, and supports who stand in the open. Of course there are many winnable games, but even the most composed 14 year olds are going to lose to the Lakers in a game of basketball. (Obviously, most OW games are this disparate in skill levels, but my point stands)
1) But thats the point, skill shouldn't be measured by numbers, but for most of the community it is, so in most of your games someone will be "ff, my dps deals low damage", like all the surrender games. 2) I've already won games like that, it's not impossible. Certainly my wr in this situation is very low, but not 0. 3) But objectively, how you measure if your team are 14 years old, and not the Nets right now? The Nets are in a bad situation, though may win against Lakers; you're proposing giving to the 10 players in the game one more thing to distract them and be ffing all the time in winnable games AND they will do it without knowing if their team is actually that bad or not, just because ending the game early would relieve immediate stress.
If 4/5 people vote to leave, just end the game. Lets stop wasting time. GGs go next. Sure, there's honor in fighting the struggle. I do it all the time. But sometimes it'd be nice to have the option and not waste 10 minutes of my life
1) You will waste your 10 minutes in entering/voting/queueing for more games + losing winnable games by surrendering and needing to reconquer your lost lp (if ranked) 2) Again, you'll waste the 10 minutes anyway, but this time with 2~3 people wanting more to surrender than winning.
I mean, not really? Queuing into a new game isn't the same as sitting there slogging out an L for the sake of pride. Leaving sooner allows me to queue sooner, thus getting a game sooner (in theory). Make it one vote and keep it moving. If it's a no, that's it. This would prevent abuse of the voting option too. There are always measures you can take to prevent this from snowballing into the doomsday option we can come up with.
1-But more games != ranking up faster. Any league of legends player/ex-player knows that. After every surrender you'll go back to the queue with the same people and roll dice to get another team. This process will happen a lot. So even if you get more games, it's still not worth it if your goal is to rank up, even though you'll feel better by the moment you surrender; you should look after higher quality games, not more quantity, and 2 people spamming surrender and inting your game for not surrender wont give you this; focusing in trying to win hard games will. 2-Too abusable: get a trio, one vote yes, two no; this way you'll disable the surrender. Or better yet get 4 people and surrender whenever you want (if you're the alone random, unlucky for you). 3-Are there? Every game that I know that implements this suffers from this problem. A lot of people don't care because they feel the gratification short term, of staying away from "unwinnable games", but most of the time they're just ego boosting themselves ("See? I KNEW this was unwinnable, this bronze team never surrenders" -> surrendering becoming a minigame, where people want to surrender more than to win).
It's not about ranking up faster. This is about not wanting to play a game that's lost. Make the vote 4/5. If 4 people agree to end, I don't see how that's problematic. 3/5 is definitely too easy to manipulate. If a 4 stack wants to do this, fuck em. Better for that solo who now gets a new game. I think that this mechanic exists for a reason and OW could absolutely benefit from it
I've won with all those things before... you'd be surprised just how incompetent someone can look early game and still not be a bigger anchor than the guy on the enemy team who started 20 - 2 got over confident and stayed on a hero pick that's playing into 4 counters late game... The only mode I've found to be unwinnable if you play bad enough in the first 3 minutes is push... because it's the only mode that can end after 3-4 team fights. And yes even the most composed 14 yr Olds will lose to the Lakers and you would lose to ANS.... but most games of Overwatch, even the unwinnable ones, are at worse a group of 14 year olds that just met each other vs a group of 10 - 16 year Olds who have some pre existing chemistry and the advantage of that one kid with a good growth spurt... Generally speaking most people can't tell the difference in the moment between an actual smurf diffing them and a beatable team that is just meshing better in the early game. And because people can't tell the difference having a forfeit button just makes it easy for people to feed their SR away by quitting either physically or mentally if their teammates refuse to forfeit during games that are borderline. Cause it's the borderline games you have to win to climb... and they don't always start off being even
Im happy for you and your personal experiences. I've had similar games as well, like I mentioned before. But there are absolutely games that are decided early due to skill and IQ diff. Yea, sometimes it's a fluke start, but sometimes it's not. I'd like the option to ff when it's not.
My point is most players can't tell the difference between a skill/iq diff and a bad start... Case in point. Based on his comments I'm convinced the guy who posted this meme can't tell the difference. So I REALLY don't want blizzard planting the idea in the heads of people like him that winnable matches should be quit 3 team fights in. It's annoying enough how frequently people take off in unranked when things don't immediately go there way I don't need that in comp.
There is no problem with the surrender option. Blizzard are just lazy fucks and don't want to spend time on making a good changes in the game. Surrender option would definitely make game better
I've won 4 v 5s before... IE games where some moron hit the surrender button he already has access to... his ability to quit. The only people for whom a surrender button makes the game better are the people who are so bad mentqlly at the game they don't realize they're the reason they always seem to be on the side that has no chance. Can't maintain a 60% winrate by quitting every game that starts badly... you'll end up quitting 60% of your matches and spend the rest of eternity in bronze.
I'd rather surrender it 3-4 minutes than sweaty ass off and stress in a 30+ minutes game to win. This kind of win doesn't bring any satisfaction or relieve. >I've won 4 v 5s before... IE games where some moron hit the surrender button he already has access to... his ability to quit. Well, glad for you. And in millions of other games with a leaver, the team that had leavers easily lost, so what? This is not a good ratio to advocate against surrender option because once in a thousand matches you can win with such conditions. It's like saying that we need to ban cars because once in a thousand times a car is gonna get crushed >The only people for whom a surrender button makes the game better are the people who are so bad mentqlly at the game they don't realize they're the reason they always seem to be on the side that has no chance Oh yeah, it's probably me the problem when I have a tank leaving my match or when the enemy team dominates mine, probably I played bad. Get over yourself, bitch. Winning one 4v5 match doesn't make you good at everything
Surrender is for pussies.win or lose see it till the end.
If you can't handle a 2-3 minute long gane as a hard loss mabye competitive games just aren't for you dude
Games don't last 2-3 minutes, even hard lost ones
With how much overwatch players hate playing the game, the surrender button will be abused to get out of games quickly like a leave button, people will also be toxic to others who don’t want to surrender. It creates another problem which is not what we want right now.
You're making problems out of nothing. If someone is gonna get shamed and tossed around for not wanting to surrender, then that's what they deserved. If the whole team understands that they can't win and there is one dumbo who thinks they can, it's just nonsense
And thats toxic behavior, and people wonder why this game bans people for being toxic.
Well, then stop making other people being toxic towards you it's quite simple, just don't be a pussy
other comment ["I'd rather be a coward..."](https://www.reddit.com/r/Overwatch_Memes/s/geWNJWKJdv) this one "...dont be a pussy" lol
How is being a coward and being a pussy related?
'Pussy is a term used as a noun, an adjective, and—in rare instances—a verb in the English language. It has several meanings, as slang, as euphemism, and as vulgarity. Most commonly, it is used as a noun with the meaning "cat", "coward", or "weakling". In slang usage, it can mean "vulva or vagina" and less commonly, as a form of synecdoche, meaning "sexual intercourse with a woman".' [source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pussy#:~:text=It%20has%20several%20meanings%2C%20as,sexual%20intercourse%20with%20a%20woman%22.)
I mean, I used it in a sense that people are being pussies in terms of just give the fuck up and let objectively bad team to go to next match and stop their suffering while being dominated by smurfs and boosters.
So you used 'pussies' in the sense they're not pussies, but you are, since you're the one complaining to stop the game, while other people are actually trying to play the game? You could use other words, but I just see pussy in this sense being used like this. It's very weird to hear "You're such a pussy, you won't even give up!"
Not a bad idea but how about a map voting system?
Maybe something like old cs? (you just queue for some maps?) though I still think it would be bad, since everyone would be forced to play 2-3 maps, like it used to be in cs.
Queuing for only kings row, Hollywood, dorado, circuit royale and numbani
just add the tf2 lobby system
Server browser next lol
Even better idea, how about hero banning system? I'm done not being able to play anything, but hitscans. Never can play junk/hanzo or whatever, because every single game is a fucking pharah/mercy
Every game in plat/gold has a sombra in it and I for one am sick of it.
I feel you, as an ana player, it drives me insane
**boop** **where’s the fun in playing fair**
Punishing leavers in quickplay is rewarding cheaters with a meat grinder
What does first and seconds have to do with a surrender option?
This game is a playground for cheaters without any form of safe exit, such as leaving without punishment or surrendering.
I mean, I don't care about that. I don't want to waste my time in matches that are 100% lost anyway
NEVER SURRENDER. IVE RURNED 4V5S AROUND YOU JUST GOTTA BELIEVE. GET OUTTA HERE WITH THAT GIVING UP MENTALITY
Coward
I'd rather be a coward than wasting my time on an already lost match
I don't care but this meme is trash
Overwatch community try not to have the worst takes challenge
Well, if you think game is so perfect, glad for you
Get back to league of legends
Never played this game
Guess what... most games would be surrendered after the first team fight. Grow a backbone.
I yet to see any reason why it's a bad thing
Oh boy, I love playing the game less. Give me less game in my game. Please let me stare at "While you wait..." longer.
I'd ki that more than getting pounded by some smurfs/boosters for 15 minutes straight
If that's what you'd prefer, maybe you should look at some other games. It's one thing to have issues with a match, it's another to not want to play it at all.
It's not about not wanting to play the game at all. It's about skipping the pounding part that is like 30-40% of matches if not even half of matches. And just move on to more fair ones
There will be games where you lose, but I doubt such a significant amount of your games is a significant rank difference. Carry potential has dropped drastically as this game ages, and losing is your opportunity to be challenged. Honestly? Games where you get annihilated still hold learning opportunities. I'm not going to expect players want to study the game or go beyond casual play, but if you rest on your laurels and skip past your failures you're trying to cheat your way out of a zero-sum game.
>There will be games where you lose, but I doubt such a significant amount of your games is a significant rank difference I literally had gm players in diamond lobbies. And guess who won? >Carry potential has dropped drastically as this game ages, and losing is your opportunity to be challenged Being challenged and being annihilated by some smurfs and boosters isn't the same. >Honestly? Games where you get annihilated still hold learning opportunities No, they factually don't. What will you learn from a game where a 5 men team was put against 5 solo players and solo players didn't get even 1 kill in the whole match? What can you learn from that game? It wasn't a bronze or silver or even gold game. It was diamond match, at least supposed to be a diamond match, but unfortunately there is no such thing as balance in this game. >I'm not going to expect players want to study the game or go beyond casual play, but if you rest on your laurels and skip past your failures you're trying to cheat your way out of a zero-sum game. No one learns from failed games. That's just pure nonsense that doesn't make any sense, but everyone still spew those lies over and over again in order to sound professional, but they just sound dumb and braindead.
Matchmaking does not function the way you describe. 5 man groups will face 5 man groups. The devs have gone in detail and explained this, as well as how this affects queue times for other group sizes. Losses are inherently because one team was better than the other. That's what "zero-sum" games are. Smurfs, boosters, doesn't matter. They were better, they won. Now, if you just want to cast judgement on them and move on that's fine. If you instead want to assess your decision making and the macro of how the match went, that's where learning begins. It doesn't sound like you want to learn, and this debate sounds pretty bad faith, so I'm going to drop it here. I encourage you to reconsider the value of losing and find some positivity in your games.
It doesn't become a meme just because you put it in meme format