Why isn't there a WZ quitters cooldown?

[mrekxxx]

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 upy 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.

 

nice post, all important is here ...

[Atramar]

@Ninja_Amnesty:

you never joined game that was won?

or joined HB 0:2 and turned tables , 4 minutes later it was won 6:2?

fair enouth, sometimes it's annoying when you join Voidstar where attackers had freerun till the end or CW on 3cap from enemy... but those are easy to quit

but the satisfaction from winnin such a game...

[Varkantos]

Why isn't there a mechanic to keep bad players out of my warzone?

[Crawelc]

Why isn't there a mechanic to keep bad players out of my warzone?

 

Agreed if you do less than 100 of either damage healing or protectiong in 3 wzs in a row you should have to take a time out to evaluate why you que for wzs.

[Hazaz]

Agreed if you do less than 100 of either damage healing or protectiong in 3 wzs in a row you should have to take a time out to evaluate why you que for wzs.

 

Screw that. Winning is not the only reason to play.

 

/support OP 30min. Cool Down.

[Crawelc]

Screw that. Winning is not the only reason to play.

 

/support OP 30min. Cool Down.

 

I dont think you meant to say that out loud.....

[Hazaz]

I dont think you meant to say that out loud.....

 

Absolutely, I did. Some of us like to play games. Some of us, the real players, would rather lose a close game than win a 'pwn". The egocentric children who quit the moment the game doesn't look easy should have a penalty.

 

My favorite WZ's are the ones where my team starts losing, a couple the kids wuss out, and the team recovers and wins! That is a good game. An easy win is boring crap and has no more relation to the reason I PvP than when my team get's pwnt while the kids camp and "earn" defensive points.

 

( I use the terms "kids" and "children" to describe childish attitudes predicated on immediate gratification, not individual players ages.)

[Caeliux]

Absolutely, I did. Some of us like to play games. Some of us, the real players, would rather lose a close game than win a 'pwn". The egocentric children who quit the moment the game doesn't look easy should have a penalty.

 

I can vouch for this statement ^

 

+1

[Crawelc]

I dont think we disagree. I would just like to see a penalty for the guys that "earn" defender points before a penalty for those that leave in frustration because of it.

[DarthMaulUK]

Is this dead horse STILL getting flogged? If you don't want people to quit, then dont play like a Muppet Player or MP as I call them. Being stupid helps no one.

 

If only the cartel market sold 'Common Sense packs'

[Joesixxpack]

Absolutely, I did. Some of us like to play games. Some of us, the real players, would rather lose a close game than win a 'pwn". The egocentric children who quit the moment the game doesn't look easy should have a penalty.

 

My favorite WZ's are the ones where my team starts losing, a couple the kids wuss out, and the team recovers and wins! That is a good game. An easy win is boring crap and has no more relation to the reason I PvP than when my team get's pwnt while the kids camp and "earn" defensive points.

 

( I use the terms "kids" and "children" to describe childish attitudes predicated on immediate gratification, not individual players ages.)

 

Why do the most vociferous supporters of a penalty use such moronic language? You guys sound dumb, like droolingly dumb. "Real players", "Wuss", "pwn", "kids", blah blah blah.

 

To you and the other insecure online tough guys and wannabe psychologists: Many don't put the priority on winning that you imagine, they just want to be on teams that try and play the objective-based maps as intended. By your braindead rationales I shouldn't have bailed from a CW yesterday. Two guys from some offbrand guild call mid def, then went afk. Meanwhile another teammate jumped up to a high point on the rocks and also went afk. Such *******s aren't entitled to my time, which I'll reserve for actual team players.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Joesixxpack

[Royox]

The side speeders are fine (when people actually use them ).

 

Fixing CW could be a simple fix like changing the scoring mechanic to match Novare Coast.

 

 

+1 but that will cause CW and Novare coast to be the same WZ with diferent scenario.

[Xumaximus]

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.

 

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.

 

Sweet! I will quit EVERY match now because I know that I don't have to waste my time with less skilled players and not get penalized!!

[Caeliux]

Sweet! I will quit EVERY match now because I know that I don't have to waste my time with less skilled players and not get penalized!!

 

So you pat yourself on the back for being a quitter, nice personality there.

[Xumaximus]

So you pat yourself on the back for being a quitter, nice personality there.

 

Hey don't get upset with me"BRAH" bw is allowing me to do it. Not going to stay in a 5 to 0 huttballmatch because I was placed in it

Edited April 8, 2013 by Xumaximus

[Caeliux]

Hey don't get upset with me"BRAH" bw is allowing me to do it.

 

Bioware having a feature for you to be egotistical don't mean its ok or the right thing.

 

Quitting is never the right call in a game when a game still can be won, if you quit before the match then I see no reason to complain about that.

 

And I am not your "Brah" brother.

[Xumaximus]

Bioware having a feature for you to be egotistical don't mean its ok or the right thing.

 

Quitting is never the right call in a game when a game still can be won, if you quit before the match then I see no reason to complain about that.

 

And I am not your "Brah" brother.

 

Lol hey I have no problem with you staying in a 5 to 1 huttball match or a 100 to 20 coast match someone has to so let it be you lol. You can hang on to that hope of coming back with it being a 6 vs 8 match and still losing. Knock yourself out buddy lol

[doesthiswo]

The reason being, players would simply AFK @ a node instead if this was put into game. Simple truth.

 

IB 27 pages of rebuttles.

 

Great point...had not thought of that.

 

I think it has more to do with the makers of the game. My guess is that they want you to play...what they do not want is for you to get frustrated to the point you quit the game because you are in a Huttball (I personally do not like Hutt-ball) against a pre-made and simply want to re-q.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't give me that do good good ....

[murdurr]

seriously needs to be some sort of penalty for quitters... this is just ridiculous.

[Viperswhip]

What about those of us who just leave, say Huttball as soon it pops?

 

People quitting a warzone though, well, I don't know, I really enjoy getting the win after people have quit, feels like redemption.

[Astarica]

What about those of us who just leave, say Huttball as soon it pops?

 

People quitting a warzone though, well, I don't know, I really enjoy getting the win after people have quit, feels like redemption.

 

What's worse are the guys who leave 5 seconds before the game starts. It's almost like they're a spy working for the other side to ensure you start out a man down.

 

If the goal is to maximize the number of comms, quitting a game is only hurting yourself because the rate of getting comms goes quick win > quick loss > long win > long loss. You can't really do anything on the individual level to guaranteed a quick win, but it's really easy to guaranteed a quick loss. In fact, if one doesn't care about his reputation, you can say get 8 medals and then, in any game that appears hopeless, start doing things like purposely standing in a spot the enemy can easily leap to you and score, or solo guard a node and pretend you never saw the guy walking past you visibly to cap the node. Of course, in most hopeless games you don't even have to try to lose badly.

Edited April 23, 2013 by Astarica

[Arkerus]

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.

 

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.

 

I agree with you generally. People realistically will stick around if they are having fun or the WZ has a chance of being won.

 

CW presents a unique problem in that once a certain point is reached, the losing team cannot hope to come back.

 

I humbly suggest that two additional nodes be added to CW. These nodes don't fire directly at the ships but they add power to the guns you control. If a team owns 1 gun but controls two power nodes, their 1 gun is more powerful than two guns combined.

 

If a team owns 2 gun and controls 1 power node, the power is added to one of the guns.

 

If a team owns 2 guns and controls 2 power nodes, the power is added to both guns. (This also means they are going to win fast.)

 

In this scenario, the team losing always has the option to control one gun and two power nodes.

[Astarica]

Eliiminating the side speeders, which they did on PTS at one point, would go a long way in at least giving the losing team a chance to come back because now the side turrets are relatively bad positions, but if you jump down from middle to the side you cannot return there immediately, which means you can actually try to fake an attack on side to retake middle, or just take side if they didn't respond to it. Right now, it's way too easy to hold the side cannon so you just put 2 guys there and 6 in middle (or 4/4 if you have both side cannons) and there's virtually no way to assault this kind of defensive position because the side speeders offer the defenders too great an advantage.

[Pheros]

Until they implement a way to blacklist certain WZ then forget a quitters CD.

[Crawelc]

Why did this get necroed?