Why Deadlock Needs a Forfeit Button

[barlakopofai]

Dude most matches i get in midboss does not get touched

just not worth the effort if you can dissolve the enemy guardian first

... But the guardian is the thing that's not worth anything...

 

[lolggctest]

A forfeit option is a necessity, especially since the matchmaking is absolute trash these days.

 

[callmebad_nosferaty]

Deadlock is a great game with a lot of potential, but one critical feature is missing: a forfeit (FF) button.


Since leaving matches is punishable, players are effectively forced to stay in games no matter how bad the situation is. If quitting a match can result in bans or penalties, then a forfeit option shouldn’t be optional — it should be mandatory. You can’t punish players for leaving while also refusing to give them a clean, official way to end a hopeless match.

When a game is clearly lost, forcing everyone to stay only creates frustration, toxicity, and AFK behavior. Players stop trying, morale drops, and the match becomes a waste of time for all sides. A simple vote-based forfeit system would solve this in a fair and controlled way.

Valve has decades of experience with competitive multiplayer games, which makes this omission even harder to understand. This feels less like a deliberate design decision and more like a weakness in Valve’s approach to basic quality-of-life features. If penalties exist to keep matches fair, then proper tools must exist to respect players’ time as well.

If leaving is bannable, forfeiting must be allowed. Without an FF button, the system is incomplete.

I literally created this account to just add that suggestion and made a post about it. Nice to see that someone also realizes that the game could use this addition.

 

[callmebad_nosferaty]

This game does not need a forfeit button. Anyone that leaves should just be banned for 24-48 hours if not longer.

I have won several 5v6 and people need to stop giving up and bitching 10 minutes into the match.

There are so many comeback mechanics. Anyone that can't handle being behind in souls without "giving up" should go play a fucking single player game and seek mental assistance.

This clearly does not belong in the bug report forum either.

"I have won several 5v6 and people need to stop giving up and bitching 10 minutes into the match."

Just because one player feels like they can win a one sided game doesn't mean the entire team needs to be hold hostage in a unfun game.

"There are so many comeback mechanics. Anyone that can't handle being behind in souls without "giving up" should go play a fucking single player game and seek mental assistance. "

Cool i would love to use them in another match where i'm not getting erased by a graves or a bebop doing 2k dmg.

This second half of your.."Opinion" shows a very dangerous side of the community, this kinda of Toxic behaviour and disposition hurt the game in a long way. Mobas only survive and strive due to the casual fanbase keeping it alive. This is not a Gacha Game where its going to be kept alive by whales. Also any moba has a forfeit option is clear that they didn't add one yet cuz the game is in developtment.

 

[callmebad_nosferaty]

This is bug reports. Post in feedback. Why would a play test alpha that is about gathering data have a forfeit button?

Why would a play test alpha should have balancing updates? Its clear that the game actually being fun is part of the experience. We all know that a surrender option is going to be implemented in the long run we are just making a claim that it should be added sooner since the game is never going to be 100% balanced and the matchmaking is going to take a huge while to solve.

 

[callmebad_nosferaty]

In my experience (which has mostly been bad) with vote-based surrender is that it turns into one of two things:

1. The match is winnable but the vote is initiated by 1 or 2 people whoms lane is losing, other people might find that they don't want to play anymore or aren't feeling to well or otherwise demoralized so they also vote yes, and then you and your team mate is the only one that votes no, the chat and voice chat turns into absolute cancer and chaos because now you're the ACTIVE component in them not having a fun time and they will make your life miserable. Don't even tell me this shit doesn't happen because League of Legends is the primary example i cite here for how bad that can get.

And the opposite:

2. The match is clearly lost, all lanes lost, bad words have already been exchanged because of incompetence or maybe just real life issues people are having idk, and one or 2 people decide to be petty and vote no just to keep the people they dissagree with in the match and in turn also keeping you in the match.

And i will happily take no surrender over constant surrenders or one of the top 2 examples it is the LESSER of two evils. You will never get to 'good' late-game if you surrender on the first 10 to 15% difference in souls. or 1 or 2 lanes lost.

The amount of times you have had people in League or other MOBA games say "gg ff at 15" on the first few deaths of a lane, will demoralize the game more than trying to turn it around through real effort and becoming better.

I've turned games around that were absolute despair for the first 15 minutes. I've had games where i've done really well and ended up losing.

No, No, NO absolutely no surrender votes. i will die on this hill and i hope Valve does too.

I don’t think the conclusion should be “no surrender at all,” but rather that the surrender system needs the right safeguards.

1 - I think we can simply make the Surrender option need 60%+ of the votes. In this case if 4 players agree the game is unwinnable then the vote wins. After all if 4 people are not having fun and the whole enemy team is being fed then the 4 out of 2 are being kept hostage in a unfun game anyway. 4 out of 6 also stops one afk player afecting the vote in favour of one toxic or newbie player.

"other people might find that they don't want to play anymore or aren't feeling to well or otherwise demoralized so they also vote yes"

Good they have the right to leave no?

"the chat and voice chat turns into absolute cancer and chaos because now you're the ACTIVE component in them not having a fun time"

I dont defend toxicity but they are right no? If you are the only one in a team of 5 to actually want to keep playing a game either you should be able to only play by yourself or be forced to play another round. Its okay you didnt lose your team surrender its fine.

2 - The 4 out of 6 vote could fix this.

"u will never get to 'good' late-game if you surrender on the first 10 to 15% difference in souls. or 1 or 2 lanes lost."

The surrender Option should be available after 15 minutes IMO.

Also Some people don't give a shit about getting good they just wanna have fun in a video game. Sometimes the bebop or drifter player in the enemy team is so fed that winning is actually impossible.

I get where this perspective is coming from, but I think most of the argument here is based on anecdotal experiences from other games, especially League of Legends, rather than on how a surrender system could be designed specifically for this game.

Using past negative experiences to argue for “no surrender ever” feels like throwing out a potentially useful system instead of improving its design. A higher vote requirement, like a 60% majority, already avoids most of the edge cases being described, including early tilt surrenders and players being held hostage by one or two no-votes and of course its going to be implemented later we are just making a claim that it should be added sooner.