..well...I think most of you give up to easily.  You can turn a game around, work with your team mates. 

this must be a joke, a game so sought after for being competitive wanting built in 'This is too hard, I quit" buttons.

You're a bunch of sallys if you ask me.

The problem is that why would we even have an End Game section when at a determined point in the game players will just concede and bow out rather than trying to make a come back. I just posted in a thread where a player and his team managed to pull off an incredible late game comeback thanks to their determination - this simply won't occur once this option is in game, at least in the majority of games. I think the option to allow Surrender needs to be a Custom game option rather than an acceptable norm for Demigod, otherwise we'll be playing 10 minute games where the odds of even reaching level 15 will be non-existent. We should be trying to encourage players to work together and to use their heads to stage some late-game turn arounds rather than helping them quit because they actually have to try their hardest to win.

'Mopping Up' is in every competitive multiplayer game however it's the players who can turn these situations around through clever play and sheer determination that succeed, not the players who Alt+F4 when the enemy is winning.

I think it's worth analyzing the problems with quitting as a prelude to any solution.  As I see it, there are basically two reasons you'd want to get people to not quit:

1. When people quit the game in the first few minutes because they died once or twice, it wrecks the game for everyone else.  The point of the game is to have fun playing it, and if people refuse to play it ruins everyone else's pleasure.  This is similar to a kid who tips the board over because he doesn't like what happened.
2. The current game mechanics mean that once someone on your team has quit, then unless you were ahead to start with, you can pretty much call it a game.  (I have won games after someone dropped out, but only when I was ahead at that point -- the AI can play halfway decently if it gets to inherit good equipment and a level advantage)

I'm not sure if point 1 is as much of a problem as people think it is.  It's annoying, but IMO the only reason it's really annoying is because of the connectivity problems we have right now.  When it takes 10-15 minutes to get into a game, it's really frustrating when someone throws a temper tantrum and blows the game up right at the start; I don't have a lot of time to spend on this, and that can mean no games at all that evening.

If Stardock can get the connectivity to be better, then as long as this is something that happens in say less than 25% of games, I think I could live with it.  e.g., maybe you can try to rig the system in Pantheon/Skirmish so that people who often quit in the first few minutes tend to play each other more than the general populace (but add a way for them to be "rehabilitated" if their habits change!).  More importantly, there's basically nothing you can do to stop people from dropping out of a game that they don't want to play any more, so we really need to talk in terms of mitigating the damage to everyone else's enjoyment.

For point 2, I don't think that just dropping the Demigod and doing nothing else is a good solution (although it's probably better than swapping in an AI).  If I don't have time to kill, I no longer bother playing 2v1; I've tried several times and unless someone on the other side is a total newbie, it's just pointless to play those games out.  It's worth rehearsing why, though: the team with two Demigods has

1. better map control: they can be in two places, you can only be in one.
2. more damage output: if they're smart enough to stick together, they can win every fight by simply hitting you twice as hard as you hit them.
3. twice the gold that you do: unless someone sucks and is dying a lot, all the gold income is from passive gold.  The team with 2 players automatically gets twice your income, and probably more (since due to points 1 and 2, they probably hold the gold flags most of the time).  This plays out in various ways...ususally that you're either behind in gear, in Citadel upgrades, or both, depending on how the two teams split expenditures.
   

I think that it would be interesting to see a system that tried to handicap the game after a drop to mitigate these advantages.  It would also make unbalanced matches a more interesting prospect.

For 3 (gold advantage), the obvious solution is a flat-out buff to gold income (either passive only, or passive AND kill gold -- would make it even more important for the team with more manpower to not die).  I think that less than 100% is good for the reasons stated earlier in the thread -- there are some gold thresholds that can be really overpowering, and letting one side cross them twice as quickly could be bad.  But something in the range of 10-25% to start with, perhaps?

For 2 (melee combat), I would give the smaller side a boost to damage and/or durability.  Again, I think 100% would be just too ridiculous, but maybe a 10-25% increase in HP and damage dealt?  (i.e., like holding a really good Debilitating Flag and Fortitude Flag)  You could also increase +HP and attack speed ... again, I don't know how much is enough here, just brainstorming.  Hey, maybe 100% really would be reasonable -- we'd have to see how it played out.

I think 1 (map control) is the hardest to address.  A boost to movement speed seems like it would be too overpowering while not really solving the problem anyway...maybe just give the team that's down players a decent-sized boost in the areas I called out above, so the game is about the larger team trying to use their mobility to win against an opponent who's overpowered in combat, rather than about them teaming up to harass and suppress a single player who can't possibly hold out against them.  That seems like it could be kinda fun, even for the smaller team.

I don't have a great answer to any of this stuff (that's why you guys are the professionals and not me ) but I hope my rambling / brainstorming was useful, or at least amusing.  The handicapping seems like something that could be modded in as an experiment if we had multiplayer modding support.

TL;DR

personally i thing that everyone playing the game must vote to allow the player to leave, and they should get NO favor points when they leave through this method. we want to encourage staying in the game.

there should also be a forfeit option, where all players on the forfeiting team must officially ask their oponents to accept.

if every player on the opposing team accepts, everyone in the game gets their favor points and the game is over.

if the opposing team doesnt accept, play should continue.

if a player leaves the game without forfeiting they get no favor points at all and a loss is recorded.

That's not true at all. When you do custom games you can get a good team, or one with some or a lot of complete idiots. One or two early game death are fine (happens to me sometimes, if I get cocky), but then anyone should get it, and play more defensive. Some people refuse to talk, which is fine, if they naturally know how to play... but if they dont... the game is just a waste of time. Quitting at this point has nothing to do with "rage", it's a logical decision.

That's my pow on this matter.

This will cause so much griefing it's unbelievable.

The problem with this idea is most people will just leave without trying to turn things around. I've been apart of plenty of games where one team was a clear winner and then the other team starts working as a team and BAM, game over. If people have the option to conceed they will just leave when they start to fall behind and get into a new game.

I think a better option would to be reward players that stay. Win or Lose. Whether it's give a favor bonus or some kind of player rating that is visible to everyone.

Example-

I create a custom game, 3v3. I see everyone's name, but each has a different % next to their name (or it could be color coded) that represents how many games they complete divided by total games played(started).

Games completed/played=player rating.

That way I can see if someone will stick it out till the end or they will leave. I would know BEFORE HAND that they are an honorable player.

There's more griefing now. If I've lost, I simply quit. Now my opponents have to fight the boring AI. If I can concede, there is LESS griefing because my opponents won't be as annoyed.

yes i agree but it doesnt happen like that

in my game only the most noobs ragequit or just quit or keep complaining

i very hardly saw good players quitting cause other noobs lost their game

I never heard of the "ragequitter" epithet until this game. I played WC3 for years and most people I knew liked when the losing side conceded within a reasonable time frame, that way they could move on to the next game.

I think it's more of an issue here is because it takes longer to get a game started and the game is designed around 30 to 45 minute games as opposed to Blizzard's stated goal of 17 to 20 minute games. Basically, there's more invested in a game.

Also, in WC3 if someone drops the remaining folks can pick up his hero and his army and still play.

In DG, we are left w/ the AI and we know how that goes.

All around, conceding in DG is a lose-lose situation for everyone.

You absolutely need a concede option in the game, post haste.

However, I'm not sure if just removing the conceding player is a good option. It's probably better than having the AI feed but being left in a 4v3, 3v2, or 2v1 isn't likely to be much fun for anyone.

To me, you really should consider allowing the remaining players to take over for the guy who left.

This is how WC3 works. Basically, it's like controlling a Demon Hunter and a Mountain King with their respective armies. You select the Demon Hunter and you have his interface, you select the Mountain King and you get his interface with his spells. It just switches back and forth.

Poor and mediocre players will get overhwhelmed by this. However, good players excel. And sometimes, it's almost better to control two heroes and two armies if the good player gets to take over for the noob (I hate that term, but sometimes it's appropriate) who just left.

If I were you, I'd have a serious discussion about keeping the leaving person's Demigod in the game and having humans take over its control rather than having the AI do it.

This would require an interface overhaul and is not feasible short term.

I understand it would take some adjustments, perhaps even more than a UI overhall. I don't presume to know what it would take or how long that would be. I just thinks it's the best option, that's all.

Who knows, maybe it's not as hard as you think...maybe it is.

Whew! I'm tired of being blamed.

lol...