Gaming News

Why voting in online games are so minoritarian?

Gamingtodaynews1g - Why voting in online games are so minoritarian?

Particularly, I'm talking about votes for surrender. I can give three examples from personal experience. In Rocket League and Counter Strike, even one person voting against results in a failed vote. Both in CS and League of Legends, there are restriction to call a vote: in CS one member of the team must have left the game, in LoL you cannot call before 15 minutes – and you need a unanimous vote before 20 minutes, 80% of the must vote for surrender after that. Importantly, all games have varying degrees of punishment for abandoning a game, mostly in the form of a temporary ban. This makes personal surrenders costly.

To focus on practical consequences, I think such a blind focus to achieve unanimous votes results in toxic behavior and massive amounts of wasted time for the people involved. It's quite common for people to just go AFK, start griefing or team-killing after failed surrender votes. At best, having multiple surrender attempts fail just because one person voted against creates frustration, usually leading to not caring about the game, worsened performance, diminished team morale and cohesion.

I think some examples can show how wasted time is often not just "a few minutes" for the players. Consider this, after coming from work, you have around one hour reserved for gaming, and you lose 10 mins to setting up and finding a game. In both CS:GO and LoL, close games can last around an hour. I think it's fair to assume that people get the most enjoyment from close games & hard-wins ("ggwp"), this is one of the reasons behind skill&rank based matchmaking applied in majority of online games. So you have just the time for a one good game, maybe with 15 minutes extra.

When you get into the game, you and most of your team quickly (not hard to figure this out 5 to 10mins into game) realize that you're severely outmatched, which is all common since matchmaking is never perfect. As frequent as this, you may get disconnects, AFKers, partial AFKers or extremely toxic players in your team, making the game highly unsatisfying. With the current rules, you need to secure the consent of all, even the said toxic player to surrender. And as luck would have it, you have one person stubbornly rejecting this.

In CS:GO, you can proceed to kick the said player, then call for surrender again, which takes time. And sadly, I've often come across players who vote for surrendering and kicking out the stubborn contrarian, only for them to become when and sabotage attempts to surrender "for the lulz." Even if everyone agrees, you still need to have one player abandon the match, which is extremely nonsensical since abandoning imposes penalties, so one player has to sacrifice. In LoL, you have to sacrifice 15 minutes anyway, then wait another 5 minutes so you can pass a 4 to 1 vote. In Rocket League (with teams of 3), you just have to convince everyone.


I'm not trying to make a personal attack on people refusing to surrender, they might be legitimately enjoying the game. Nonetheless, should the enjoyment of one person come at the cost of frustration of many others? There are cases we cannot leave to voting, like inalienable human rights, but this would hardly be one such case. You end up with 10 to 40 minutes wasted per player, adding up to 40 to 160! minutes in total. This is unreasonable. Moreover, if the match was not prolonged some players would have the chance to find another one after a quick surrender. With the exception of Rocket League, I've talked about cases of 80% majority so far, but my views stand even for the simple majority.

I choose to post this here, because often in the subs of the said games people can only counter with arguments such as "it's just 30 minutes", which I shown to be baseless; or worse, by saying that every match can be turned around. LoL and CS:GO have win conditions, so theoretically, in any time before that it's possible to win the game. But does it matter? I'd say that it doesn't, because the surrendering majority are aware of this and still want to stop playing – it is a case of not getting any enjoyment out of the current match. In reality, the chances of turning such a game is very, very slim anyway and exceptions do not establish a case.

Making surrender hard could also cause wasted time for the winning team. While occasional power-trips and steamrolling is nice, I myself do not really enjoy winning lopsided games. While I don't have data on this, it's not unreasonable to claim there are many others feeling that ("ggwp" as mentioned above).

Only counter argument I can think of is that making surrender easy can similarly yield frustration as people try less and seek easier match-ups through quick surrenders. This may be especially problematic in cases where a single player is teamed up with a party of 4 (or 3). I'd say that this would only arise if majoritarian voting was established poorly without any checks, and even then, it would still cause less frustration than current mechanics. For example, both CS GO and Rocket League are score-based, so the winning team can be easily identified. A simple check would be to seek a lead of X points, after which the losing team would be allowed to vote for forfeit. Or this condition may turn the unanimity requirement to a majoritarian one. While this doesn't exactly apply to LoL, it wouldn't be that hard to come up with similar checks there. To improve on the current system, players could be allowed to abandon without penalties if there's an AFK/disconnect or if multiple calls for surrender failed by one vote. None of these measures are hard to implement.

So this is my first post here, I've tried to live up to the standards and probably overdid with a wall of text. I'm sincerely interested in counter-arguments though. I can, to a degree, see why developers shy away from majority voting but the current rules are just frustrating and I'm unable to comprehend their inaction on this.

TL;DR: Asking for unanimity in surrender votes causes a significant waste of time and drives people towards toxic behavior, especially hurting players not playing with a party. Stop wasting my time.

Source: Original link

© Post "Why voting in online games are so minoritarian?" for game Gaming News.

Top 10 Most Anticipated Video Games of 2020

2020 will have something to satisfy classic and modern gamers alike. To be eligible for the list, the game must be confirmed for 2020, or there should be good reason to expect its release in that year. Therefore, upcoming games with a mere announcement and no discernible release date will not be included.

Top 15 NEW Games of 2020 [FIRST HALF]

2020 has a ton to look forward the video gaming world. Here are fifteen games we're looking forward to in the first half of 2020.

You Might Also Like

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *