If you have to babysit your keyboard every 30 seconds, then why not just play the damn game?
It's very very easy to setup a small program that autoclicks for you.
The game also has maximized windowed. When I die and have long spawn times, I usually refresh my email or something on my other monitor. Could do stuff on other monitor while idling.
SMNC is a vast improvement over the previous game, but being in beta, it definitely has some balance issues that need to be smoothed out I think. I'd be in favor of a surrender button as well, but it would be somewhat difficult to implement, given the length of games. Perhaps if you have members of your team missing it activates? Or after a certain number of turrets are down?
We have had some great comebacks even when we had no moneyball turrets and they still did, so due to the game length I still feel SMNC doesn't need a surrender option.
True, but how much of that was our skill as opposed to their failings? And how often would that happen in practice with a quickmatch team?
If you're solo queuing, having a surrender button when 3 of your team decides to go AFK or quit would be very useful, but not something used all the time. Definitely think there's room to implement it to help people out, but definitely difficult to implement for losing teams, rather than just missing teams. I think it could be done, but it'd have to be a variety of factors. Maybe a mercy rule if you have so many downed turrets and so many levels lower than the enemy team? Worth discussing at least.
Biggest annoyance (besides my utter disdain for everything Veteran stands for) is the clipping. Running into my own bots gets me killed a lot, or hems me in so I can get grappled by Veteran. Frustrating, but understandable.
Frustrating but stupid? Kitties hitting teammates that run in front of me as I throw it at a ceiling, resulting in the kitty riding their head for a few seconds and ending up on the ground in the path of the enemy bots. There's pretty much 0 reason to make those hit teammates, rather than passing through to stick to walls or whatever. Hopefully they'll fix that.
Yes I want to keep playing, because the first annihilator doesn't determine the game like most people initially think. I love actually turning the tides, and rally the troops. Makes you feel good inside.
Secondly, I don't want my screen spammed every X seconds asking me to surrender by teammates, no matter how long the game has lasted.
Why would they make it something that spams your screen? I would assume it will be something tiny in the upper right of the screen that has a vote tally and F1=yes F2=no.
Not sure why you are so bent on only finding the negative in things that might improve the game for some people.
I'm not even talking about me personally here, I wouldn't surrender no matter how bad its going. But some people end up getting steamrolled due to disconnects, AFKs, etc. So the simple option of voting to surrender should be added. Most stomps are under 10 minutes anyway, and a surrender option would need to have a timer that makes really long games end when the other team is drawing it out just to be a dick.
And no, early annihilators can end up meaning nothing if you work as a team. We've missed like 3 or 4 of them and still won after getting the next one.
Then you dig your heels in and embarrass them for as long as you can.
Losing a slow fought slog isn't fun though. If you find it fun, you can vote not to surrender. That's why it's voting. I don't get why people are so against giving people choices.
IMO. having a concede vote will just encourage poor behavior in those people.
Lose the first/second anni? vote to concede.
The vote fails? intentionally feed to spite your teammates who are "wasting your time"
I foresee many less people actually trying to play, and many more people giving up early/whining about giving up early.
The only scenario that needs a concede option is when at least 2 people have dropped from your team.
IMO. having a concede vote will just encourage poor behavior in those people.
Lose the first/second anni? vote to concede.
The vote fails? intentionally feed to spite your teammates who are "wasting your time"
I foresee many less people actually trying to play, and many more people giving up early/whining about giving up early.
The only scenario that needs a concede option is when at least 2 people have dropped from your team.
I see these arguments a lot, but doesn't this already happen? "That guy sucks, I'm going AFK" for instance?
0
Options
KorKnown to detonate from time to timeRegistered Userregular
Yes I want to keep playing, because the first annihilator doesn't determine the game like most people initially think. I love actually turning the tides, and rally the troops. Makes you feel good inside.
Secondly, I don't want my screen spammed every X seconds asking me to surrender by teammates, no matter how long the game has lasted.
Why would they make it something that spams your screen? I would assume it will be something tiny in the upper right of the screen that has a vote tally and F1=yes F2=no.
Not sure why you are so bent on only finding the negative in things that might improve the game for some people.
I'm not even talking about me personally here, I wouldn't surrender no matter how bad its going. But some people end up getting steamrolled due to disconnects, AFKs, etc. So the simple option of voting to surrender should be added. Most stomps are under 10 minutes anyway, and a surrender option would need to have a timer that makes really long games end when the other team is drawing it out just to be a dick.
And no, early annihilators can end up meaning nothing if you work as a team. We've missed like 3 or 4 of them and still won after getting the next one.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to come off so negative. I just feel like I'm having a fun time, even when I'm losing. Even when I'm losing horribly. At most, I have a minor annoyance at the situation.
So I'm afraid that by giving people a surrender option, could potentially doing more harm than good in regards to my specific enjoyment of the game.
It just reminds me of early DotA, where after the first death in the game, it was a matter of seconds for the game to turn into a 2v5. I'm just afraid that a surrender option could bring that mentality back.
I guess my problem is I would want to know exactly how a surrender option would play out before I would ever feel like I would support one.
edit: Pablo, a couple posts above me, actually says perfectly what I'm afraid of.
I see these arguments a lot, but doesn't this already happen? "That guy sucks, I'm going AFK" for instance?
Pretty much... or they feed because they want the other team to hurry up and win. The people who are going to abuse a surrender option are going to do other silly goosery anyway, at least the option to end it early should be there.
So uh, dumb question most likely, but my name in game is player 256, which is not my steam name nor something I recall typing in anywhere. Is there a way to change it in game that I'm missing or am I stuck?
0
Options
Ginger MijangoDon't you open thatTrap Door!Registered Userregular
edited February 2012
It does that when a name gets caught in a profanity filter? I think.
It uses your Steam profile name, you can change it in Steam->Settings->Friends.
idk, I've just never been in a match worth conceding.
I've been in plenty where the outlook seemed bleak in the 6-15 minute range, but we managed to pull back and have a close match either way after the 3rd or 4th anni.
If it's a pubstomp, it'll be over soon. If people leave, it'll be over soon. the games are so short, who cares about the 2-4 minutes tops that pass between 'certain loss imminent' and 'loss complete'?
I see these arguments a lot, but doesn't this already happen? "That guy sucks, I'm going AFK" for instance?
Pretty much... or they feed because they want the other team to hurry up and win. The people who are going to abuse a surrender option are going to do other silly goosery anyway, at least the option to end it early should be there.
Because the surrender option is for games that actually can take a while. The MINIMUM time to call for a surrender vote is higher than the AVERAGE SMNC match. If you are going past the 20 minute mark in SMNC, then you have the chance to rally back and win.
A surrender option just teaches players to give up, and that sends the possibility for comebacks even lower. Players don't bother learning, they just try to rush through a game for coins and give up at the first sign of resistance.
0
Options
Ginger MijangoDon't you open thatTrap Door!Registered Userregular
edited February 2012
I have played matches where we've been on the back foot the entire time, losing every annihilator pop and somehow managed to win with the timely spawning of a Jackbot and some excellent last minute pushing.
I see these arguments a lot, but doesn't this already happen? "That guy sucks, I'm going AFK" for instance?
Pretty much... or they feed because they want the other team to hurry up and win. The people who are going to abuse a surrender option are going to do other silly goosery anyway, at least the option to end it early should be there.
Because the surrender option is for games that actually can take a while. The MINIMUM time to call for a surrender vote is higher than the AVERAGE SMNC match. If you are going past the 20 minute mark in SMNC, then you have the chance to rally back and win.
A surrender option just teaches players to give up, and that sends the possibility for comebacks even lower. Players don't bother learning, they just try to rush through a game for coins and give up at the first sign of resistance.
But when it's clearly going to be a loss by the 5 minute mark, or the 10 minute mark, why not allow surrender? Why drag it out for another 10 minutes? When I say clearly I mean, they've already pushed into your base, you've got a guy that's died 8 times before the first annihilator, etc. Not just "oh noes, we lost the first anni." I don't think comparison to other games time wise is particularly apt here. The option wouldn't be a bad thing.
Because it's ten freaking minutes. Are you really that impatient?
It also means that you get fucked over because your team is stupid and overvalues Annihilator. It'd be like allowing your team to surrender after the first dragon in LoL.
if you can last for 10 minutes again CERTAIN DEFEAT, then it wasn't certain defeat, it was a game that you legitimately lost after 15 or 20 minutes.
Like I said earlier, CERTAIN DEFEAT takes 3 or 4 minutes.
Because it's ten freaking minutes. Are you really that impatient?
It also means that you get fucked over because your team is stupid and overvalues Annihilator. It'd be like allowing your team to surrender after the first dragon in LoL.
Let me be clear that I am not advocating a purely time based surrender mechanic. Instead perhaps some sort of combined metric to determine when it's appropriate. But often, there are situations where your team is clearly going to lose, but the fight is going to take quite a while.
And yes, 10 minutes, given that it can also be an entire game, wasted in a fruitless battle that is frustrating to play in is not fun. It's got nothing to do with being impatient. Ten minutes of being hunted by one guy because he refuses to push lanes, but enjoys murdering you because your dumb teammate fed him up 4 levels higher than you is not fun. In SWTOR, for instance, there's a single flag CTF mode that requires 6 goals to score. However, because fighting the enemy gets you medals and thus end game rewards, people will often score 5 times against a bad team and then refuse to score again, simply farming medals for the losing team. It is awful to be on the receiving end of that, and in SMNC a similar scenario can play out. I see no reason why there can't be a surrender mechanic in place for that kind of situation, or some sort of mercy rule kind of thing. Because games that are clear losses can and do drag out for 10 minutes or more. On paper, yes, a team that is winning and plays well can push to victory fairly quickly. But often there are less skilled players who ignore bots and just create long drag out stalemates, despite being more fed/skilled at killing opponents.
It's not a simple problem, by any stretch. I'd at least like to see a system of some sort tested to see how well the implementation works.
I think the argument for surrender is a simple one. Stomps are absolutely no fun and the sooner they end, the sooner you can start playing a new match. We play games for fun, right?
There is no such incentive in SMNC as in SWTOR's PvP, so you're already on shaky ground by trying to draw a comparison. By being an asshole and drawing out the match, the winners are just decreasing the rate at which they earn combat coins.
Conjuring up some kind of formula to determine when a game is appropriately hopeless just shows what a colossal waste of development time that would be for Uber. It's much easier for other games in the genre because they last much longer, and it can be argued that you'd rather not gamble the next thirty minutes of your life on a game that has your team in a iffy position. We're talking ten minutes tops if the game is a straight-up roll. You cannot sit here and say that you know if that a game will be a long but DEFINITE loss. That is, quite franky, horseshit. If the other team is legitimately trying to win and facing serious resistance, then the game's outcome is not certain. There is no binary condition that says for a fact the game is DEFINITELY going to go play out in manner X.
It's a very simple problem because there is almost jack shit at stake.
I think the argument for surrender is a simple one. Stomps are absolutely no fun and the sooner they end, the sooner you can start playing a new match. We play games for fun, right?
A true stomp takes, at most, 5-7 minutes. You then are allowing idiots to screw you over by immediately throwing up their hands in the air after losing the first Annihilator.
It is a baffling argument to make. Stomps, by their very nature, are short. There is no need to cut them quick because they are quick.
I think the argument for surrender is a simple one. Stomps are absolutely no fun and the sooner they end, the sooner you can start playing a new match. We play games for fun, right?
Yes, we do. And I have no fun playing a game in which my team surrenders any time they are even somewhat disadvantaged. Which is what will happen with a surrender system.
There is no such incentive in SMNC as in SWTOR's PvP, so you're already on shaky ground by trying to draw a comparison. By being an asshole and drawing out the match, the winners are just decreasing the rate at which they earn combat coins.
However, they are increasing the rate at which they can be giant assholes. Some people enjoy doing that in games, regardless of reward. That is very much what people do in games like this quite often. It's satisfying to get kills over and over and over, so if you're getting to do that, often people will continue to do that rather than end the game.
For instance, this game, that I just played, took 20 minutes. It was clearly over by the 3-4 minute mark. I got the first kill 10 minutes into the game, at our moneyball. Then they drew it out another 10 minutes, rather than just finishing it. We never pushed past the middle of the map. Ever.
I think you guys are underestimating players. Sure some people will whine and surrender after the first anni, but these are the same people that would be feeding anyway. More experienced players have a better feel for when they have hit the "point of no return". I just think that if you are going to lose, you might as well lose quickly. Only the most vicious and aggressive stomps end in less than ten minutes. A lot of good players will play conservatively even when they highly outclass the other team.
I think the argument for surrender is a simple one. Stomps are absolutely no fun and the sooner they end, the sooner you can start playing a new match. We play games for fun, right?
Yes, we do. And I have no fun playing a game in which my team surrenders any time they are even somewhat disadvantaged. Which is what will happen with a surrender system.
This is why you vote no. They can already, and already do, effectively surrender, by going AFK.
I think the argument for surrender is a simple one. Stomps are absolutely no fun and the sooner they end, the sooner you can start playing a new match. We play games for fun, right?
Yes, we do. And I have no fun playing a game in which my team surrenders any time they are even somewhat disadvantaged. Which is what will happen with a surrender system.
This is why you vote no. They can already, and already do, effectively surrender, by going AFK.
And eventually I'll be able to report AFKers.
And yes, I can vote no. But there are 4 other people on my team with votes. This is how voting works.
cpugeek: I am not underestimating players. There are people who want to surrender after giving up first blood in LoL. Thankfully that game keeps people from surrendering until at least the 20 minute mark.
I think the argument for surrender is a simple one. Stomps are absolutely no fun and the sooner they end, the sooner you can start playing a new match. We play games for fun, right?
Yes, we do. And I have no fun playing a game in which my team surrenders any time they are even somewhat disadvantaged. Which is what will happen with a surrender system.
This is why you vote no. They can already, and already do, effectively surrender, by going AFK.
And eventually I'll be able to report AFKers.
And yes, I can vote no. But there are 4 other people on my team with votes. This is how voting works.
cpugeek: I am not underestimating players. There are people who want to surrender after giving up first blood in LoL. Thankfully that game keeps people from surrendering until at least the 20 minute mark.
So require unanimous votes. Or at least 4/5. Why do you, one person, get to say "No, I want to keep playing this losing game for 10 minutes, despite the other 4 people wanting to leave because this is terrible"?
We can just as easily say that not every team is going to troll you by drawing a game out. There's going to be a report system in place anyways, so it's not a very sound point to make in favor of a surrender system.
We can just as easily say that not every team is going to troll you by drawing a game out. There's going to be a report system in place anyways, so it's not a very sound point to make in favor of a surrender system.
But I think it happens often enough to make putting the system in worthwhile. Whether by trolling, or ineptitude. Unless it's some terrible coding nightmare, there's no valid reason that I've yet seen not to have that option. Or at least try it out, given it's a beta. Also, it's very possible I'm wrong on this, but in the vast majority of games I've seen, reporting is more like pissing in the wind than actually effective at anything.
I have never seen a team intentionally drag out a game, and I am approaching 200 games played. The cost of players just giving up for lame reason because they can is not worth stymieing the rare troll.
We can just as easily say that not every team is going to troll you by drawing a game out. There's going to be a report system in place anyways, so it's not a very sound point to make in favor of a surrender system.
But I think it happens often enough to make putting the system in worthwhile. Whether by trolling, or ineptitude. Unless it's some terrible coding nightmare, there's no valid reason that I've yet seen not to have that option. Or at least try it out, given it's a beta. Also, it's very possible I'm wrong on this, but in the vast majority of games I've seen, reporting is more like pissing in the wind than actually effective at anything.
Reporting leads to people getting temp and eventually perma banned in both LoL and Dota2, as far as I know. No reason why it can't be enforced in Super MNC. AFKing/leaving is a pretty gigantic no-no in mobas.
You guys are missing the real solution to this problem.
Report the assholes who are locking you in spawn and not ending the game, get them banned. Profit.
Also I agree, forfeit option is a terrible thing. It prevents players from being able to learn, because their team will just /forfeit as soon as it looks like they have a disadvantage. Just play the game to play the game, don't play it to win.
You guys are missing the real solution to this problem.
Report the assholes who are locking you in spawn and not ending the game, get them banned. Profit.
Also I agree, forfeit option is a terrible thing. It prevents players from being able to learn, because their team will just /forfeit as soon as it looks like they have a disadvantage. Just play the game to play the game, don't play it to win.
One could argue that instead, it forces them to learn to have a good early game. If you're great late game, but terrible early game, you're still never going to win. I'm glad you guys have lots of games played, but I don't have nearly that many and have seen quite a few assholes. I don't want to further the argument since it's turned into that, rather than discussion at this point, so I won't continue bringing it up, but I think having the option would not be detrimental or contribute to people being dicks.
If you are down three people from disconnects, AFKs, or leaving, the game is not going even make it to the second Annihilator.
Really? Because, last time that happened to me, the other team intentionally dragged out the game for as long as possible while camping our spawn and trying to grab people out with a Vet.
Posts
True, but how much of that was our skill as opposed to their failings? And how often would that happen in practice with a quickmatch team?
If you're solo queuing, having a surrender button when 3 of your team decides to go AFK or quit would be very useful, but not something used all the time. Definitely think there's room to implement it to help people out, but definitely difficult to implement for losing teams, rather than just missing teams. I think it could be done, but it'd have to be a variety of factors. Maybe a mercy rule if you have so many downed turrets and so many levels lower than the enemy team? Worth discussing at least.
Biggest annoyance (besides my utter disdain for everything Veteran stands for) is the clipping. Running into my own bots gets me killed a lot, or hems me in so I can get grappled by Veteran. Frustrating, but understandable.
Frustrating but stupid? Kitties hitting teammates that run in front of me as I throw it at a ceiling, resulting in the kitty riding their head for a few seconds and ending up on the ground in the path of the enemy bots. There's pretty much 0 reason to make those hit teammates, rather than passing through to stick to walls or whatever. Hopefully they'll fix that.
Why would they make it something that spams your screen? I would assume it will be something tiny in the upper right of the screen that has a vote tally and F1=yes F2=no.
Not sure why you are so bent on only finding the negative in things that might improve the game for some people.
I'm not even talking about me personally here, I wouldn't surrender no matter how bad its going. But some people end up getting steamrolled due to disconnects, AFKs, etc. So the simple option of voting to surrender should be added. Most stomps are under 10 minutes anyway, and a surrender option would need to have a timer that makes really long games end when the other team is drawing it out just to be a dick.
And no, early annihilators can end up meaning nothing if you work as a team. We've missed like 3 or 4 of them and still won after getting the next one.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I believe it sets your BASE crit rate to 0. So if you have -crit rate for endorsements, you will have an even lower crit rate.
You can't get -14% crit rate, then add that endorsement to go up to 0.
Losing a slow fought slog isn't fun though. If you find it fun, you can vote not to surrender. That's why it's voting. I don't get why people are so against giving people choices.
Lose the first/second anni? vote to concede.
The vote fails? intentionally feed to spite your teammates who are "wasting your time"
I foresee many less people actually trying to play, and many more people giving up early/whining about giving up early.
The only scenario that needs a concede option is when at least 2 people have dropped from your team.
I see these arguments a lot, but doesn't this already happen? "That guy sucks, I'm going AFK" for instance?
I'm sorry, I don't mean to come off so negative. I just feel like I'm having a fun time, even when I'm losing. Even when I'm losing horribly. At most, I have a minor annoyance at the situation.
So I'm afraid that by giving people a surrender option, could potentially doing more harm than good in regards to my specific enjoyment of the game.
It just reminds me of early DotA, where after the first death in the game, it was a matter of seconds for the game to turn into a 2v5. I'm just afraid that a surrender option could bring that mentality back.
I guess my problem is I would want to know exactly how a surrender option would play out before I would ever feel like I would support one.
edit: Pablo, a couple posts above me, actually says perfectly what I'm afraid of.
Pokemon Safari - Sneasel, Pawniard, ????
Pretty much... or they feed because they want the other team to hurry up and win. The people who are going to abuse a surrender option are going to do other silly goosery anyway, at least the option to end it early should be there.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It uses your Steam profile name, you can change it in Steam->Settings->Friends.
I've been in plenty where the outlook seemed bleak in the 6-15 minute range, but we managed to pull back and have a close match either way after the 3rd or 4th anni.
If it's a pubstomp, it'll be over soon. If people leave, it'll be over soon. the games are so short, who cares about the 2-4 minutes tops that pass between 'certain loss imminent' and 'loss complete'?
A surrender option just teaches players to give up, and that sends the possibility for comebacks even lower. Players don't bother learning, they just try to rush through a game for coins and give up at the first sign of resistance.
But when it's clearly going to be a loss by the 5 minute mark, or the 10 minute mark, why not allow surrender? Why drag it out for another 10 minutes? When I say clearly I mean, they've already pushed into your base, you've got a guy that's died 8 times before the first annihilator, etc. Not just "oh noes, we lost the first anni." I don't think comparison to other games time wise is particularly apt here. The option wouldn't be a bad thing.
It also means that you get fucked over because your team is stupid and overvalues Annihilator. It'd be like allowing your team to surrender after the first dragon in LoL.
Like I said earlier, CERTAIN DEFEAT takes 3 or 4 minutes.
Hmm, no profanity but maybe it doesn't like some of the symbols I have in it? I'll try changing it though, thanks man
Let me be clear that I am not advocating a purely time based surrender mechanic. Instead perhaps some sort of combined metric to determine when it's appropriate. But often, there are situations where your team is clearly going to lose, but the fight is going to take quite a while.
And yes, 10 minutes, given that it can also be an entire game, wasted in a fruitless battle that is frustrating to play in is not fun. It's got nothing to do with being impatient. Ten minutes of being hunted by one guy because he refuses to push lanes, but enjoys murdering you because your dumb teammate fed him up 4 levels higher than you is not fun. In SWTOR, for instance, there's a single flag CTF mode that requires 6 goals to score. However, because fighting the enemy gets you medals and thus end game rewards, people will often score 5 times against a bad team and then refuse to score again, simply farming medals for the losing team. It is awful to be on the receiving end of that, and in SMNC a similar scenario can play out. I see no reason why there can't be a surrender mechanic in place for that kind of situation, or some sort of mercy rule kind of thing. Because games that are clear losses can and do drag out for 10 minutes or more. On paper, yes, a team that is winning and plays well can push to victory fairly quickly. But often there are less skilled players who ignore bots and just create long drag out stalemates, despite being more fed/skilled at killing opponents.
It's not a simple problem, by any stretch. I'd at least like to see a system of some sort tested to see how well the implementation works.
My board games -->http://www.boardgamegeek.com/collection/user/cpugeek13
My BGG wishlist --> http://www.boardgamegeek.com/wishlist/cpugeek13
Conjuring up some kind of formula to determine when a game is appropriately hopeless just shows what a colossal waste of development time that would be for Uber. It's much easier for other games in the genre because they last much longer, and it can be argued that you'd rather not gamble the next thirty minutes of your life on a game that has your team in a iffy position. We're talking ten minutes tops if the game is a straight-up roll. You cannot sit here and say that you know if that a game will be a long but DEFINITE loss. That is, quite franky, horseshit. If the other team is legitimately trying to win and facing serious resistance, then the game's outcome is not certain. There is no binary condition that says for a fact the game is DEFINITELY going to go play out in manner X.
It's a very simple problem because there is almost jack shit at stake.
It is a baffling argument to make. Stomps, by their very nature, are short. There is no need to cut them quick because they are quick.
Yes, we do. And I have no fun playing a game in which my team surrenders any time they are even somewhat disadvantaged. Which is what will happen with a surrender system.
However, they are increasing the rate at which they can be giant assholes. Some people enjoy doing that in games, regardless of reward. That is very much what people do in games like this quite often. It's satisfying to get kills over and over and over, so if you're getting to do that, often people will continue to do that rather than end the game.
For instance, this game, that I just played, took 20 minutes. It was clearly over by the 3-4 minute mark. I got the first kill 10 minutes into the game, at our moneyball. Then they drew it out another 10 minutes, rather than just finishing it. We never pushed past the middle of the map. Ever.
My board games -->http://www.boardgamegeek.com/collection/user/cpugeek13
My BGG wishlist --> http://www.boardgamegeek.com/wishlist/cpugeek13
And eventually I'll be able to report AFKers.
And yes, I can vote no. But there are 4 other people on my team with votes. This is how voting works.
cpugeek: I am not underestimating players. There are people who want to surrender after giving up first blood in LoL. Thankfully that game keeps people from surrendering until at least the 20 minute mark.
So require unanimous votes. Or at least 4/5. Why do you, one person, get to say "No, I want to keep playing this losing game for 10 minutes, despite the other 4 people wanting to leave because this is terrible"?
But I think it happens often enough to make putting the system in worthwhile. Whether by trolling, or ineptitude. Unless it's some terrible coding nightmare, there's no valid reason that I've yet seen not to have that option. Or at least try it out, given it's a beta. Also, it's very possible I'm wrong on this, but in the vast majority of games I've seen, reporting is more like pissing in the wind than actually effective at anything.
Reporting leads to people getting temp and eventually perma banned in both LoL and Dota2, as far as I know. No reason why it can't be enforced in Super MNC. AFKing/leaving is a pretty gigantic no-no in mobas.
Report the assholes who are locking you in spawn and not ending the game, get them banned. Profit.
Also I agree, forfeit option is a terrible thing. It prevents players from being able to learn, because their team will just /forfeit as soon as it looks like they have a disadvantage. Just play the game to play the game, don't play it to win.
One could argue that instead, it forces them to learn to have a good early game. If you're great late game, but terrible early game, you're still never going to win. I'm glad you guys have lots of games played, but I don't have nearly that many and have seen quite a few assholes. I don't want to further the argument since it's turned into that, rather than discussion at this point, so I won't continue bringing it up, but I think having the option would not be detrimental or contribute to people being dicks.
So. How bout them new products?
Really? Because, last time that happened to me, the other team intentionally dragged out the game for as long as possible while camping our spawn and trying to grab people out with a Vet.