Why isn't there a WZ quitters cooldown?

[Dawncatcher]

This applies to those who were in the game from start. I don't think backfillers should ever have to suffer for leaving a game.

 

1. When you deliberatly quit you are ruining the expereince for your team mates, or atleast making the situation worse. It's lack of sportmanship, regardless of it being a game. People claim that a game is supposed to be for fun but they're only taking their own fun into consideration, what about the other seven's fun? Hence, there needs to be consequences. "Normal" sports are for most people intended for fun too but that doesnt mean that it's acceptable to behave however you like.

 

2. The outer circumstances excuse.

 

*Real life- If you are in a position where you constantly have to drop because of RL issues this isnt the game for you. Infact, no multiplayer game is for you and it's an arrogant approach to deliberatly put yourself in a situation where you know that there's a good chance that you will have to bail on the rest. Perhaps it's possible for you to work something out with your guildies while raiding, if so great, but it is not possible in normal warzones where atleast half the team is made up by strangers.

 

May as well put a big sign on the game saying, "People with families not welcome. Single bachelors with no real life responsibility only. And no elderly people with heart problems either!"

 

Here's the thing. People with families represent the majority of the country. Bioware wants their money, and not the newspaper saying they're discriminating against people with families and elderly people.

 

You are the one who is selfish and arrogant, to presume Bioware will go out of their way to ruin random queueing for such a huge portion of their customer base. If you want to be elitist about that sort of thing, please, take responsibility for making your own pre-made with people who feel the same. Unless of course you tried but couldn't actually find a full group of 8 people willing to promise you that. In which case I guess you can either quit the game or deal with normal people who have lives. Or, you know, get a life of your own. But don't expect Bioware to start imposing your elitist anti-family standards on random people queueing solo. That's what pre-mades are for.

 

*Connection - If your connection drops you to the extent that it can be considered a problem then it's really time to take care of that problem before going online again. The vast majority, if not all, here have been thrown out to lobby or had some disconnect but it has little to no effect on the bigger picture. I'm willing to trade one debuff per month, because that's about as often I drop for no apparent reason, for not having three people quit in a good deal of games on behalf of "we're not satisfied with how this turned out". Pros vs cons and the pros of a debuff is in the normal user's favor.

 

Ah, yes, people have a responsibility to spend millions of dollar's fixing their city's internet or electrical problems just so you don't have to lose in a PvP zone! If it bothers you so much, you pay millions of dollars to fix their internet or electricity! And why don't we ban the entire state of Florida from playing during hurricane season while we're at it?

Edited March 28, 2013 by Dawncatcher

[MidichIorian]

May as well put a big sign on the game saying, "People with families not welcome. Single bachelors with no real life responsibility only. And no elderly people with heart problems either!"

 

Here's the thing. People with families represent the majority of the country. Bioware wants their money, and not the newspaper saying they're discriminating against people with families and elderly people.

 

You are the one who is selfish and arrogant, to presume Bioware will go out of their way to ruin random queueing for such a huge portion of their customer base, simply because you refuse to take responsibility for making your own pre-made full of people who have no life. Unless of course you tried but couldn't actually find a full group of 8 people willing to promise you that. In which case I guess you can either quit the game or deal with normal people who have lives. Or, you know, get a life of your own.

 

 

Ah, yes, people have a responsibility to spend millions of dollar's fixing their city's internet or electrical problems just so you don't have to lose in a PvP zone! If it bothers you so much, you pay millions of dollars to fix their internet or electricity!

I don't know what kind of familiy you are running but if you can't sit down for 15 minutes without someone tapping your shoulder with an emergency then it might be time to sort out your personal life instead of playing games. Futhermore, families representing the country does not equate representing the in-game population. I don't believe for a second that "families", and I have to assume that you are refering to the parents here since kids have all the time in the world, are representing the majority of swtor players. The get a life comment at the end suggests that you're probably not old enough, or mature enough, to be a parent in the first place so why are you trying to represent a 3rd party?

 

Millions of dollars on connections? Well, bad luck. Perhaps you should reconsider the whole thing then and stick to Google. Don't try to load your connection-shortcomings on others. I' cant race cars on behalf of not owning a race car. People can't play online games on behalf of not being able to deliver the minimum requirement. And how fun can it be to play on a crappy connection in the first place? May I suggest a board game? It's also quite remarkable how swtor, specifically, is suffering from a community on dial-up when I've never come across this as a problem in other games.

 

On another note, this has nothing to do with me losing games, I haven't even touched upon that subject. I do however not enjoy having to backfill games just because someone couldnt stick it out.

 

Just tell it how it is instead, you like to quit games when you're not satisfied with the results. No, you feel entitled to it since you are a paying customer. Apparently the only paying customer too.

 

Lastly I have to question your gaming experience. You are acting as if a system in which quitters are punished is unheard of and it's something people came up with just now. I'm pretty confident the swtor community would be able to deal with it even if you can't, just as millions of players have been able to adjust in other games.

Edited March 28, 2013 by MidichIorian

[Atramar]

Well, people who quit already are getting debuff.

They are not getting rewarded for playing with dummies who can't guard objectives, wasted 5 minutes in a game, and have to reque.

Not getting comms = penalty for leaving.

Ofcourse you still have to differ between

1.people who leave on first sign of later start.

2.people who leave cause most of their team ignores objectives and runs like headless chickens

3.people who leave cause they have to due real life things (kids playing with fire, wife aggro/help required, dogs trying to kill mailman)

 

if you give headless debuff of a decent number of minutes:

1st type will go afk node, as they don't care any way (and then all hopes for winning will be gone)

2nd type will que with premades to reduce chances of muppets on their team (and then QQ about premades will start) and may rage chat a bit explaining 'why leaving node undefended is not good for your team'.

3rd type will still be leaving warzones and maybe leave the game if debuff will be to long.

[Slicktime]

wz quitters should just go pve and leave the wz's for the people who want to try. by leaving warzones you are basically saying you only want to play if you win and not enjoy a challenge. you should win everytime running around killing mobs. so quit leaving wz's or don't q at all.

[Sijansur]

Or -in addition - marking those who quit few times in a row with a special title, like "PVP QUITER" for a certain amount of time. Of course, title could not be changed.

[Muushie]

I should I stay in a Warzone where everyone is getting farmed by the spawn point?

 

I dont enjoy getting farmed for a good 10 Minutes, if you do go have your fun.

[Aebrynis]

Hey Gang,

 

I would just like to pop in here and offer some of our perspective on this topic. A lot of good points on both sides have been thrown around here, and extending our current vote kick penalty (or something similar to it) to players who opt to leave the Warzone is definitely something that we discuss. However, at this time we feel like the negative consequences of putting in such a system (such as hurting players who crash out of a Warzone) don't overcome the potential gain. With healthy Warzone queues, players will backfill into a game relatively quickly (side note: we are receptive to the complaints that you can get back filled into a really terrible position, that is something I want to try to address), and even if we prevented people from requeueing that doesn't necessarily stop them from leaving or going AFK at a point.

 

I'm surprised the topic has endured this long, as this was pretty obvious from the start. Thank you for confirming what should have been apparent to everyone. And thank you also for looking into the backfill issue - any sort of improvement would be welcome.

 

All of that being said, I do think the Civil War Warzone specifically has some issues that really shines a bright light on reasons people would leave. Inherently, CW is the Warzone that has the hardest time for a team to come from behind and that leads to a higher percentage of players to give up once they feel like the game is lost (and that feeling can occur very early into a game). My team and I are working to try to come with some solutions to this CW issue specifically, to see if we can improve the general Warzone itself and fight some of this problem at the root cause instead of the effect.

 

Civil War is indeed the warzone with the issues. The whole PvP system has issues, sure, and a lot of them are things which aren't EAWare's fault (people not calling out incomings, people not fighting on the pylons, and so on and so forth), but the level of pure Suck is seemingly embodied in Civil War. I once heard someone say that once he has all the codex entries from Huttball, he never goes back to it. I won't even bother with that with Civil War - I won't play it, period. The Suck is strong with that warzone.

[Dawncatcher]

I don't know what kind of familiy you are running but if you can't sit down for 15 minutes without someone tapping your shoulder with an emergency then it might be time to sort out your personal life instead of playing games. Futhermore, families representing the country does not equate representing the in-game population. I don't believe for a second that "families", and I have to assume that you are refering to the parents here since kids have all the time in the world, are representing the majority of swtor players. The get a life comment at the end suggests that you're probably not old enough, or mature enough, to be a parent in the first place so why are you trying to represent a 3rd party?

 

Sure, I often can sit down for 15 minutes without being interrupted. But not every time. It's never an absolutely sure, 0% chance of being interrupted thing. If I play several hours a day for five days a week (which I don't generally, but if I did), I would probably be interrupted for longer than 30 seconds, when not expecting to be interrupted, an average of 3 times per week. Which would probably come out to about 1 warzone in at least 30. And if Bioware gave me grief about not being able to complete 1 warzone in 30 or more (not that Bioware ever would), just because unlike some people I have responsibilities outside the internet to look after family, then yes, I will file a complaint and demand my money back. And play another PvP game where being elitist is recognized as the responsibility of raid leaders, not the company running the game, and soloers are left to their own devices.

 

Millions of dollars on connections? Well, bad luck. Perhaps you should reconsider the whole thing then and stick to Google. Don't try to load your connection-shortcomings on others. I' cant race cars on behalf of not owning a race car. People can't play online games on behalf of not being able to deliver the minimum requirement. And how fun can it be to play on a crappy connection in the first place? May I suggest a board game? It's also quite remarkable how swtor, specifically, is suffering from a community on dial-up when I've never come across this as a problem in other games.

 

People with cable have this problem too. The power goes out because some wind knocks over a power pole, or whatever, and doesn't come back until the power company sends a guy out to fix it. Putting all those electric wires underground to make them less vulnerable to wind, running all the way from the power plant to the customer's house, could easily cost millions of dollars, or at least hundreds of thousands. Plus even cable companies sometimes their network infrastructure crash in some way that is not related to the power company.

 

On average, it tends to be worse the further you are out from cities, but then again, it depends on the city. No, it won't interrupt you every single match or anything, but if people are going to put you on some sort of permanent hate list just because once every now and then the wind in your area wreaks havoc on the local infrastructure, those people have no business queuing without a full premade of 8 people with perfect internets anyway.

 

Also, this game has less fault tolerance than other games. In the other MMO I've played, if the internet gets interrupted for a few seconds for whatever reason, I'll get stuck but the game will keep trying to reconnect to my computer, and then I'll be able to move again. My character might die, which we call a lag death, but then I just start over from the rez. This game, seems to kick you out of the warzone the instant you go link-dead, even only for a few seconds, and then you have to relog the whole game.

 

On another note, this has nothing to do with me losing games, I haven't even touched upon that subject. I do however not enjoy having to backfill games just because someone couldnt stick it out.

 

No one is forcing you to backfill games. Make a pre-made with even one other person, and you will rarely end up backfilling, unless another game loses 2 people at once. Make a pre-made with seven other people, who all presumably meet your standards, and you'll never backfill again, even in the unlikely event seven people all quit at once. But if you insist on letting Bioware pick all your teammates for you, you're in no position to complain that you don't like what they chose.

 

Just tell it how it is instead, you like to quit games when you're not satisfied with the results. No, you feel entitled to it since you are a paying customer. Apparently the only paying customer too.

 

A lot of the ones I have to quit are ones we're winning. Not always, obviously, as real life doesn't care if I'm winning or losing. But in the ones we're winning, I want the team to keep winning rather than being dragged down by an AFK person, which is why I step out. If there's only a minute left, I either go AFK or semi-AFK, depending on whether I can still keep at least an eye and a hand on the game or whether I have to stand up from the computer entirely.

 

Lastly I have to question your gaming experience. You are acting as if a system in which quitters are punished is unheard of and it's something people came up with just now. I'm pretty confident the swtor community would be able to deal with it even if you can't, just as millions of players have been able to adjust in other games.

 

In another game, which happens to have open world PvP rather than confined warzones -- not the whole world, just one region -- all consequences are imposed by other players, not by the company, as it should be. If you're in a raid and you leave/go AFK or link-dead, it's the discretion of the raid leader to kick you or wait for you to come back, and to decide if they want to invite you in the future. But you're still welcome to follow their raid around and gold tag off of them, because the company isn't going to stop you from logging in to the PvP zone just because you have a life outside the internet. If you're solo and go AFK without logging out, other players may still kill your character, but your own teammates have no business complaining, since you weren't actually grouped with them. That game also has built-in voicechat, so no one has any business complaining if the other side has Ventrilo and they don't. People decide for themselves who they want to group with, and who they don't, and if they even want to group at all. The company stays out of it, and permits solo play so even the busiest people can do their own thing without having to worry about not being wanted by raids.

 

In SWTOR, leaders can make pre-mades full of people they like, and let them know up front what their expectations are. Those people can either agree to those expectations or leave and join a different pre-made, start their own, or remain solo. Soloers can join a completely informal queue with none of the expectations that a leader might have. People who want to impose rules on other people's reliability should not be queueing solo; they should be creating pre-mades.

Edited March 28, 2013 by Dawncatcher

[Eillack]

So I should have been punished back when voidstar would make me CTD, so I would leave instantly when I got that wz?

 

Lol people in this thread are full of it. All I see is ragers who want to take out it on people because they got farmed by premades and want everyone to suffer like them.

[Dawncatcher]

So I should have been punished back when voidstar would make me CTD, so I would leave instantly when I got that wz?

 

Excellent point!

 

Lol people in this thread are full of it. All I see is ragers who want to take out it on people because they got farmed by premades and want everyone to suffer like them.

 

Agreed.

 

Not that I'd ever quit *because of* an awesome premade on the other side. I'd run around healing, doing everything I could to annoy them and make it harder for them to plant bombs or otherwise advance their objectives, laugh like a madwoman as the game announces that I am Unbeatable even as the other side is winning, get myself chased by 4 imperials and make them spend several minutes killing me, or perhaps if they forget to put a damage over time on me, make them spend several minutes trying to kill me and then fail because I disappeared, and giggle when I saw that none of their healers could come close to competing with me on total healing output, even if it's not really a fair competition because my teammates didn't actually manage to do enough damage that the imperial healers had all that much work to do. But then, I don't expect other people to be like me. If a few people on my side quit, that's their business, and I won't let it get in the way of getting as much fun out of that match as I possibly can.

[Dawncatcher]

Well, people who quit already are getting debuff.

They are not getting rewarded for playing with dummies who can't guard objectives, wasted 5 minutes in a game, and have to reque.

Not getting comms = penalty for leaving.

Ofcourse you still have to differ between

1.people who leave on first sign of later start.

2.people who leave cause most of their team ignores objectives and runs like headless chickens

3.people who leave cause they have to due real life things (kids playing with fire, wife aggro/help required, dogs trying to kill mailman)

 

A sensible summary.

 

if you give headless debuff of a decent number of minutes:

1st type will go afk node, as they don't care any way (and then all hopes for winning will be gone)

2nd type will que with premades to reduce chances of muppets on their team (and then QQ about premades will start) and may rage chat a bit explaining 'why leaving node undefended is not good for your team'.

3rd type will still be leaving warzones and maybe leave the game if debuff will be to long.

 

Probably accurate predictions.

[Slicktime]

Well, people who quit already are getting debuff.

They are not getting rewarded for playing with dummies who can't guard objectives, wasted 5 minutes in a game, and have to reque.

Not getting comms = penalty for leaving.

Ofcourse you still have to differ between

1.people who leave on first sign of later start.

2.people who leave cause most of their team ignores objectives and runs like headless chickens

3.people who leave cause they have to due real life things (kids playing with fire, wife aggro/help required, dogs trying to kill mailman)

 

if you give headless debuff of a decent number of minutes:

1st type will go afk node, as they don't care any way (and then all hopes for winning will be gone)

2nd type will que with premades to reduce chances of muppets on their team (and then QQ about premades will start) and may rage chat a bit explaining 'why leaving node undefended is not good for your team'.

3rd type will still be leaving warzones and maybe leave the game if debuff will be to long.

 

right so if you are going to leave the wz everytime it doesn't start out 100% spectacular you should just go pve. it's a guaranteed win to kill mobs. leave the wz's to the people with b@lls.

 

i see people in recruit gear leave wz's too. even if its a loss you should get minimum 50 comms HELLOOOOOO thats better than leaving, getting nothing, re qing and waiting for another wz. all you are doing is delaying the gearing up process.

Edited March 28, 2013 by Slicktime

[Atramar]

right so if you are going to leave the wz everytime it doesn't start out 100% spectacular you should just go pve. it's a guaranteed win to kill mobs. leave the wz's to the people with b@lls.

 

i see people in recruit gear leave wz's too. even if its a loss you should get minimum 50 comms HELLOOOOOO thats better than leaving, getting nothing, re qing and waiting for another wz. all you are doing is delaying the gearing up process.

 

I don't . I leave WZ only if majority of team run around ignoring objectives, trying to do a deathmatch in huttball on our half (giving enemy jugg/guardian a perfect jump lane, not to mention, there is not a person who even tried to get the ball), 5 of my team fights by the bridge against enemy heal+tank combo, while the other 6 already planted the bomb by the doors, people giving free kills on hypergates (while our 2 stealth node defenders got NINJA'd), and so on, so on.

 

Only time I leave very early, is if I land in a certain premade, which are very bad pvpers, rage chat alot, and a game with them in a team = auto loss + terrible expierience.

 

For a recruit player leaver early, well, maybe you are better without him ;-) we have fresh 50s every day.

[Jacen_Starsolo]

I don't . I leave WZ only if majority of team run around ignoring objectives, trying to do a deathmatch in huttball on our half (giving enemy jugg/guardian a perfect jump lane, not to mention, there is not a person who even tried to get the ball), 5 of my team fights by the bridge against enemy heal+tank combo, while the other 6 already planted the bomb by the doors, people giving free kills on hypergates (while our 2 stealth node defenders got NINJA'd), and so on, so on.

 

Only time I leave very early, is if I land in a certain premade, which are very bad pvpers, rage chat alot, and a game with them in a team = auto loss + terrible expierience.

 

For a recruit player leaver early, well, maybe you are better without him ;-) we have fresh 50s every day.

 

Or the 50 walking into PvP wearing Tionese gear. A lot of them have been happening since the Ilum power level weekend. And one even tried to tell the team when we were fighting Novare Coast and down 50 to 18 and he runs to the third capture point. People tell him to concentrate on the 2 we just got to defend them. He replied (and I quote), "We need to 3 cap to win. Come help me capture the third." And another n00b runs to help him. And the opposition found the weak point defended, grabbed it for the win.

 

I had no problem with people who PL'ed their alts but apparently n00bs PL'ed too and have no clue what the maps are about. So if in a zone with someone like that, I'm more apt to leave too.

[Dawncatcher]

right so if you are going to leave the wz everytime it doesn't start out 100% spectacular you should just go pve. it's a guaranteed win to kill mobs. leave the wz's to the people with b@lls.

 

i see people in recruit gear leave wz's too. even if its a loss you should get minimum 50 comms HELLOOOOOO thats better than leaving, getting nothing, re qing and waiting for another wz. all you are doing is delaying the gearing up process.

 

I think his point was that missing out on the 50 commendations was sufficient penalty for rage-quitters without being overly obnoxious to family loggers, nor with the drawback of encouraging people to go semi-AFK while pretending to guard a node just to avoid a debuff, which would only make things worse for the people left than if they did just rage-quit.

[Caeliux]

I think his point was that missing out on the 50 commendations was sufficient penalty for rage-quitters without being overly obnoxious to family loggers, nor with the drawback of encouraging people to go semi-AFK while pretending to guard a node just to avoid a debuff, which would only make things worse for the people left than if they did just rage-quit.

 

There are already those that go afk due to being a little cry baby when they have a opinion without a buff, I don't believe rules evolve a person to become a baby because the person that acts that way already acts like a baby without rules.

 

If it looks like a duck and its quacks like a duck then its a *********** duck, cry babys and quitters are the same thing.

 

A buff wouldnt change that, it would allow people to think twice about quitting and acting self absorbed.

 

It's that simple.

[Kubernetic]

Of course I experienced it. Just the other day I was queueing solo for the Republic while an Imperial pre-made was out winning almost every single match (except for a couple times I convinced our side to try some non-standard tactics that surprised them). And quite frankly, the backfills were often better than a lot of the "we have no chance" complainers they were replacing, but early on in the morning often no one replaced them. And yes, I was mildly annoyed when that happened, especially if it was the same person five matches in a row (you do realize you can get the daily done from two losses, right, so long as you actually finish?), but I never wanted to take it out on the opposing team, who were doing quite well, and ruin their ability to participate, just because there were some hopeless people on my side.

 

[i removed all of the rest for space's sake and no other reason.] But here are the replies to your thoughts in your last reply.

 

1. So it's settled. You're okay with PVP being screwed up by quitters and the only method you approve of to fix this is essentially to buff the side that went down a few or punish the entire warzone.

 

We'll agree to disagree.

 

2. Noting that you continually seem to overlook the fact that there is a quitter problem and that there is something that needs to be fixed is not an ad hominem attack. Please consult the definition.

 

No, because we have quitters on our team does not mean it's the opposing member's fault. So what? Does that mean it's automatically MY team's fault? If not, what then? Now we have a whole warzone people who aren't at fault. I say we do something about it and fix the imbalance.

 

You obviously disagree unless we're freezing and disrupting the entire warzone or coming up with the extremely convoluted freeze-everyone-then-give-one-or-more-people-the-option-to-freeze-themselves-and-unfreeze-everyone-else or whatever. We'll leave it there.

 

3. Yes, quitters are responsible for their own actions. Not me. So stop punishing me and my team for their inability to play the game.

 

4. I wouldn't care if I got the freeze beam so long as I was being compensated in some regard. I would understand that it's being done for the overall enjoyment of the match, and unlike some, I'm not opposed to losing 30 seconds out of a match here or there to insure that many more of the matches on average started out fairly and ended fairly with each team at least having a chance.

 

We will again disagree on this.

 

5. Please don't suggest again (with a straight face) that all of the people who just quit a warzone IMMEDIATELY AFTER A BOMB WAS PLANTED IN VOIDSTAR did so because all of their children simultaneously just fell out of their high chair and needed immediate attention.

 

I have no problems with people leaving a match to take care of their lives. I have all kinds of problems with selfish little brats leaving just because they got popped in the nose once.

 

Just stop. You look ridiculous. No one believes this crap that every warzone quitter is doing so for a family emergency. They are the exception, not the norm.

 

6. You're already committed to having people who weren't at fault punished, i.e. the team that suffered the quitters. Please stop prtending that you have some internal problem with people in a warzone being inconvenienced through no fault of their own. We're past that now. We know the reality.

 

7. Well if you've lost credibility with me and I've lost credibility with you, I suppose this is my final response post to you. Farewell.

 

8. My way wouldn't kill PVP. That's ridiculous.

 

9. Again, we already have players inconvenienced who had no control over stopping it. Apparently you only care about the opposite team being inconvenienced. I'm not sure how you sort that, but that will be your prerogative. I cannot follow that twisted logic. There are more people in the warzone than just the opposing team.

 

10. I wasn't making anything up. I was specifically referring to your specific responses to my notions of balancing the warzone by reducing the number of opposing players to parity. Directly calling into account your claim that doing this "Creates an advantage" was not imagined nor conjured by me. It was your reply. You figure it out.

 

11. Your conitnual reliance on slinging around "ad hominem" charges as if they are legitimate when you apparently don't understand what that means, as you are using it incorrectly, is tiresome. Noting that you completely ignore your own team's disadvantages in continual deferrence to the opposing team's enjoyment of the warzone is NOT an ad hominem attack. It is simply an analysis of your argument.

 

And you have so far failed to explain why you continually do this, apart from an apparent need for nearly insurmountable challenge every time you play a PVP warzone.

 

I like a challenge, but I'd also like a bit of an opportunity each time to win. I'm not interested in 50-75% of the matches being foregone conclusions.

 

If you don't think 8 vs 5 is unbalanced, then we're done. Thanks for taking the time to reply as you did.

Edited March 28, 2013 by Kubernetic

[Shaggggy]

Lol people in this thread are full of it. All I see is ragers who want to take out it on people because they got farmed by premades and want everyone to suffer like them.

 

Lol, you ain't wrong. Rage is rage

[Arlanon]

So what about giving a 12.5% buff to everyone for each player absent

 

7 members get a 12.5% buff

 

6 members get a 25% buff

 

etc

 

This updates every time a person leaves or joins a given team, and doesn't punish anyone for anything so everybody can be happy happy happy

 

I also support visual penalties, Marks of Cain, if you will, that have no mechanical penalty but make a character easily identifiable as a quitter

Edited March 28, 2013 by Arlanon

[MidichIorian]

So what about giving a 12.5% buff to everyone for each player absent

 

7 members get a 12.5% buff

 

6 members get a 25% buff

 

etc

 

This updates every time a person leaves or joins a given team, and doesn't punish anyone for anything so everybody can be happy happy happy

 

I also support visual penalties, Marks of Cain, if you will, that have no mechanical penalty but make a character easily identifiable as a quitter

What kind of 12,5 % buff? A damage/heals buff? How is that fair to the other team, the team that most likely caused your team mates to quit? Why should they have to play buffed enemies and perhaps lose a game they were winning?

 

Or are you refering to an exp/valor/comms buff? If so, agreed and definitely on the valor because sticking around when you are players down is indeed an act of valor.

Edited March 29, 2013 by MidichIorian

[Dawncatcher]

[i removed all of the rest for space's sake and no other reason.] But here are the replies to your thoughts in your last reply.

 

1. So it's settled. You're okay with PVP being screwed up by quitters and the only method you approve of to fix this is essentially to buff the side that went down a few or punish the entire warzone.

 

We'll agree to disagree.

 

An outnumbered buff is an established practice. It's already in use in another game. But in an open field map it doesn't always work properly since other people log in alternate accounts to the other side and just leave them AFK just to prevent the opposing side from having the buff, plus in a really big area, being outnumbered doesn't mean much if the opposing side is spread out all over the place and your numbers, few though they are, are condensed together.

 

But it a small space like a warzone, it really could work. I never see anyone trying to multibox in a warzone, keeping a spy on the opposing team. No way to guarantee both characters would get in the same warzone, plus the deserter detection and AFK-kicking is fairly harsh.

 

Forcibly preventing players from participating, except due to unintentional issues like bugs and lag, is not an established practice.

 

2. Noting that you continually seem to overlook the fact that there is a quitter problem and that there is something that needs to be fixed is not an ad hominem attack. Please consult the definition.

 

No, but continually insisting that I am completely uncaring about the problem and want to take advantage of it to zerg an underpowered team, as you did, is an ad hominem attack.

 

No, because we have quitters on our team does not mean it's the opposing member's fault. So what? Does that mean it's automatically MY team's fault? If not, what then? Now we have a whole warzone people who aren't at fault. I say we do something about it and fix the imbalance.

 

Yes, the quitter creates an imbalance, but not Bioware, and no one is actually prevented from continuing their business. People log into warzones and expect to be allowed to PvP, not sit there as an observer while other people PvP. So either go along with a solution like a buff that will allow people to continue engage in player versus player combat, or just shrug your shoulders and acknowledge that PvP, like anything else in life, has it's ups and downs, so either take the good with the bad or stop queuing.

 

You obviously disagree unless we're freezing and disrupting the entire warzone or coming up with the extremely convoluted freeze-everyone-then-give-one-or-more-people-the-option-to-freeze-themselves-and-unfreeze-everyone-else or whatever. We'll leave it there.

 

I would prefer the buff solution. But freezing everyone is at least a lesser evil to punishing just one random innocent and leaving them with nothing to do but watch while the match goes on without them.

 

3. Yes, quitters are responsible for their own actions. Not me. So stop punishing me and my team for their inability to play the game.

 

Bioware didn't punish you. Your teammate either abandoned you for selfish reasons, or was pulled away by family, Acts of God, or other stuff outside of their control. If anyone should be frozen, it's the person who left, with an option to rejoin the same match they just left, at least until someone else replaces them or the match ends. Which isn't so unreasonable -- it wouldn't punish people who were genuinely AFK, since freezing their character would probably be doing them a favor (to prevent AFK death), and if it only lasted until their slot was replaced (with an option to rejoin), it wouldn't punish people who disconnected or who crashed to desktop because of a memory leak or whatever. It would be a minor inconvenience to people who did quit for selfish reasons, as it would stop them from enjoying the rest of the game, but unless the queue was empty of backfillers, not much of one, and even if the queue were empty, it would never last longer than the match they left -- certainly not half an hour.

 

Some random person on the other side, however, did nothing to deserve it.

 

4. I wouldn't care if I got the freeze beam so long as I was being compensated in some regard. I would understand that it's being done for the overall enjoyment of the match, and unlike some, I'm not opposed to losing 30 seconds out of a match here or there to insure that many more of the matches on average started out fairly and ended fairly with each team at least having a chance.

 

Maybe you're there just for the rewards, but I want to fight other players. I'd rather switch sides than be frozen (with all my medals and stats intact). I'm a profiteering smuggler -- I don't care who I'm fighting for. Let me defect and join your losing team and try to turn the match around! Hahahahahah! Although I suppose two people would have to quit on the same time, or that would just create a numerical imbalance in the other direction... I don't know, better just call a companion in that case. Or the buff idea.

 

We will again disagree on this.

 

5. Please don't suggest again (with a straight face) that all of the people who just quit a warzone IMMEDIATELY AFTER A BOMB WAS PLANTED IN VOIDSTAR did so because all of their children simultaneously just fell out of their high chair and needed immediate attention.

 

It depends if they left right after the enemy team planted a bomb, or right after their team planted a bomb. Even then, all you have is a preponderance of evidence, not beyond reasonable doubt.

 

I have no problems with people leaving a match to take care of their lives. I have all kinds of problems with selfish little brats leaving just because they got popped in the nose once.

 

Okay. That's one thing we agree on. In this whole post... but at least it's not a small thing.

 

Just stop. You look ridiculous. No one believes this crap that every warzone quitter is doing so for a family emergency. They are the exception, not the norm.

 

Of course it's the exception, but it's still a large minority, not something almost completely unheard of.

 

6. You're already committed to having people who weren't at fault punished, i.e. the team that suffered the quitters. Please stop prtending that you have some internal problem with people in a warzone being inconvenienced through no fault of their own. We're past that now. We know the reality.

 

This is what I meant by ad hominem attack. I accept that people will have to suffer quitters on their team and there is only a limited amount that can be done about it, such as buffs or companions, but that doesn't mean I'm delighted about it. Life isn't fair. Some children are born blind, which is infinitely more unfair than being grouped with quitters in a warzone in an online game, but that's the reality of nature, and while I'm not happy about it, I'm not complaining about the government's failure to find some sort of technological solution to help all those kids see either. Accepting reality isn't the same as being happy about it.

 

7. Well if you've lost credibility with me and I've lost credibility with you, I suppose this is my final response post to you. Farewell.

 

Farewell to you too.

 

8. My way wouldn't kill PVP. That's ridiculous.

 

Being frozen isn't Player versus Player combat. It's isn't even PvE. It isn't player versus anything at all.

 

9. Again, we already have players inconvenienced who had no control over stopping it. Apparently you only care about the opposite team being inconvenienced. I'm not sure how you sort that, but that will be your prerogative. I cannot follow that twisted logic. There are more people in the warzone than just the opposing team.

 

"Apparently you only care" is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about when I pointed out you are unable to debate without ad hominems. I care, but not so much to suggest a cure that's worse than the disease. But hey, maybe the opposing team would start quitting just to grief you, and perhaps then you'd understand.

 

10. I wasn't making anything up. I was specifically referring to your specific responses to my notions of balancing the warzone by reducing the number of opposing players to parity. Directly calling into account your claim that doing this "Creates an advantage" was not imagined nor conjured by me. It was your reply. You figure it out.

 

You were making up strawman arguments, presumably because you found those easier to counter than my actual arguments. Your solution creates and advantages of opportunity, not of numbers. Opportunity, as in, hey, that person was about to interrupt us planting a bomb, but they got frozen right before they could. Now we can continue planting the bomb. Advantage of opportunity.

 

11. Your conitnual reliance on slinging around "ad hominem" charges as if they are legitimate when you apparently don't understand what that means, as you are using it incorrectly, is tiresome. Noting that you completely ignore your own team's disadvantages in continual deferrence to the opposing team's enjoyment of the warzone is NOT an ad hominem attack. It is simply an analysis of your argument.

 

Responded above -- you keep putting words in my mouth, which is ad hominem. Well, earlier you were saying I completely ignored my team's advantages, not disadvantages, in continual callousness, not deference, to the opposing teams enjoyment... but I guess you can't make up your mind.

 

And you have so far failed to explain why you continually do this, apart from an apparent need for nearly insurmountable challenge every time you play a PVP warzone.

 

No need for an insurmountable challenge when I can find perfectly surmountable ones everywhere I look.

 

[qoute]

I like a challenge, but I'd also like a bit of an opportunity each time to win. I'm not interested in 50-75% of the matches being foregone conclusions.

 

I win in every single match I play (unless I'm literally backfilled in the last minute). Multiple times over. Every single kill is a win. A killing blow is an extra special win. Winning a 1v1 is a really fun win. Also, lives saved with my heals are wins. And living longer than I should four versus one is sort of winnish in a way to. Not that I completely ignore objectives or anything. Interrupting someone from planting a bomb or scoring with the Huttball are wins too. The whole match is a series of wins, with some loses along the way, but those are quickly forgotten with the next win. Win, win, win, win, win. Sitting in a freezebeam would not be win. It wouldn't even be lose. It would be... stagnation. Losing is not the antithesis of winning. You simply learned one more thing that does not work, so in a way, even a lose is a type of win, of sorts. Stagnation is the antithesis of winning.

 

If you don't think 8 vs 5 is unbalanced, then we're done. Thanks for taking the time to reply as you did.

 

"If you don't think [something that I do actually agree with]" is exactly the sort of completely made up ad hominem straw man argument I was talking about. But I suppose you have to make up straw mans because you are utterly incapable of dealing with real arguments. Well, assuming each player is the same level of goodness, then yes, of course it's unbalanced. (And if they aren't all equally geared... well, not much you can do about that, short of getting rid of grind based character progression and giving the same gear choices to all players for free or so cheaply as to be insignificant. And if they aren't equal in other ways, like kiting or organization, then there really is nothing you can do.) But there are plenty of solutions that do not prevent people from PvPing in a PvP zone. Buffing, companions, defecting, whatever, just let people who logged in to PvP actually be able to do so.

Edited March 29, 2013 by Dawncatcher

[manchusabre]

If they would just work on balancing pvp there would be less quitting. I can tell who is going to win most matches in the first 30 seconds of the match. You have people in recruit gear with 14k health going up against full EWH gear, tanks at 27k health. Ridiculous. It's no contest. People are focusing the people in recruit gear all the time. You have to put in hours of depressing gameplay to finally get gear to have a chance in pvp and to be enjoyable. People are trying to get the weekly done which can be such a crap shoot. People are realizing they are going to lose the match and drop the warzone. It's not an occasional thing either. I spent a whole weekend pugging pvp to get gear and lost the majority on the time. A premade group is pretty much needed to get some wins in. Pugs v. premades end up losing all day long. I know it seems lately pubs end up having fewer healers than imps. A good team with no healer can't last against a team with heals. You have geared healers that can out heal the dps being done to them. I sure hope there isn't another night and day difference in the 55 pvp gear. It's kind of sad there isn't more focus on pvp because it's half of the endgame. I know I can only put up with it for so long before i need to take a week or 2 break from it because of the imbalances. They will probably need to work on adding back in cross server pvp. I know i'm seeing the same names over and over.

[Dawncatcher]

If they would just work on balancing pvp there would be less quitting. I can tell who is going to win most matches in the first 30 seconds of the match. You have people in recruit gear with 14k health going up against full EWH gear, tanks at 27k health. Ridiculous. It's no contest. People are focusing the people in recruit gear all the time.

 

Well, yes, gear does make a big difference. Not such a huge difference that I've never seen someone win against an overgeared opponent, particularly in a duel, but that was because the well geared person was really bad in some other way, perhaps didn't know how to kite, or was using weak ranged skills when they were primarily a melee class, or possibly just lagged out, while the undergeared person kited like mad and used everything they had. But without an even greater skill imbalance, yeah, the gear does not put people on equal footing. In a group versus group it is of course unlikely all the undergeared people will have much greater skill than all the overgeared people. Personally, I think a full pre-made of 8 should have the option to allow the other side to have extra numbers, if they lack any premades of their own. Optional checkbox, recommended for experienced pre-mades only. 8 well-geared well-coordinated people against 12 lesser geared more disorganized people, so maybe the extra 4 could help balance out the gear and organization imbalance.

 

But what are you going to do about it? Give everyone Elite War Hero gear for a few credits so they can all go in equal in terms of gearing at least? Or equal options, in any case, but still let people customize their builds. A lot of people would like that, so PvP could be about kiting and skill and not about stats. But then you have a lot of people who insist that they should have it easier because they've been around for a long time and they worked hard for that gear. And that is the standard of the MMO industry. So if you were going to try something where everyone had the same gear options from the onset, you might want to leave existing PvP alone so those people don't become too furious. I read another post suggesting space PvP. Perhaps that would be an appropriate arena for PvP where everyone could have the same gear options from the start and focus more on kiting and less on gearing, while still leaving tradition intact for ground PvP.

 

Also, if it isn't your first character, you can use bound to legacy orange gear to pass war hero or elite war hero mods to them. I'm guessing not enough people on your side do this. If people aren't using options Bioware gave them, there's not much to be done.

 

You have to put in hours of depressing gameplay to finally get gear to have a chance in pvp and to be enjoyable. People are trying to get the weekly done which can be such a crap shoot. People are realizing they are going to lose the match and drop the warzone. It's not an occasional thing either. I spent a whole weekend pugging pvp to get gear and lost the majority on the time. A premade group is pretty much needed to get some wins in. Pugs v. premades end up losing all day long. I know it seems lately pubs end up having fewer healers than imps. A good team with no healer can't last against a team with heals. You have geared healers that can out heal the dps being done to them.

 

Regarding your lack of healers -- I play Republic side, and 90% of the time I go in solo, I don't get a guarded by a tank. I still frequently top the charts on healing, but that could be in part due to the other people on my team not doing enough damage that the imperial healers have that much work, and in part due to my gear. If I don't die a ton of times, either the other side doesn't have good focus fire, or there's another healer or two looking out for me.

 

Now, I realize the ops leader of a bunch of random soloers isn't a real leader, and can only make suggestions, but even when I've been ops leader and strongly suggested to the tanks that they should find a healer to guard and pair up with (I don't tell them which healer, just a healer), it's a suggestion they almost never follow. No, sorry, we're damage. It's exactly that sort of attitude that discourages people from queuing solo on their healers. Bless the tanks who guard without being asked. But please, tell your healer you guarded them so they can thank you with heals. Unless you're one of those really dedicated tanks who keeps moving their guard buff around based on the situation and doesn't have time to let people know.

 

I sure hope there isn't another night and day difference in the 55 pvp gear. It's kind of sad there isn't more focus on

pvp because it's half of the endgame. I know I can only put up with it for so long before i need to take a week or 2 break from it because of the imbalances. They will probably need to work on adding back in cross server pvp. I know i'm seeing the same names over and over.

[AntarNyaus]

...extending our current vote kick penalty (or something similar to it) to players who opt to leave the Warzone is definitely something that we discuss...

 

Wait, there is a vote kick penalty? Considering the two times I've been vote kicked were for absolutely ridiculous reasons relating to the team leaders failure to understand how the game works (things like I DC and instead of removing me from the group, they "votekick, reason: DC") it would be exceedingly aggravating to find out that I'm being penalized for other people's lack of comprehension.

 

However, at this time we feel like the negative consequences of putting in such a system (such as hurting players who crash out of a Warzone) don't overcome the potential gain.

 

I agree. Until there is a toggle to select which warzone you are queueing for I drop a WZ at least once a day when I'm PvPing much (like working on the Weekly over the weekend). The reason being I hate Huttball. I know some love it but whether I win or loose it's just never been fun for me on any of my characters. And it takes 15 minutes. Ugh. Huttball loads and I immediately leave the WZ and then re-queue after a few minutes to try and avoid getting backfilled into the same Huttball match. If I'm only logged on to PvP and get locked out for "desertion", I'm just going to log off for the day and go play some other game.

 

If we could select which warzones we queued for, I would be 100% supportive of a desertion penalty. Until that time, however, I remain 100% opposed to any penalty.

[Ninja_Amnesty]

My problem isn't people quitting in the match, it is being put into a game that has already started. I want to be able to play a full game from start to finish with a chance at maxing out medals and what not and have fun playing. I don't want to be a replacement for a terrible team.

 

My suggestion is that if people quit out of a warzone, the game should find a game that has already started for the people who have recently quit a game to play or I should have the option to turn off a setting which allows me to join games in the middle of a severe beat down. Chances are, if someone quit because losing isn't fun, no one would want to join a game that isn't fun. Unfortunately this game isn't the only one with matchmaking that sends you into a hopeless endeavor.

 

Not many people quit a warzone because they didn't get to choose which one to participate in. If that was the case, they wouldn't play half the way through the warzone and then decide they don't want to play that particular one. They would do it at the beginning before the real reason people quit warzones occur.

 

On the other hand, I don't want a debuff because I have to take a call or go eat or simply just get disconnected.

 

My argument still stands, why can I not have the option to avoid joining games that are already in progress?