EzioMessi Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 In warzones, quitters who quit for stupid reasons are a pain in the *** especially the ones that quit when the enemy two-caps first; before our bunker even loses health, "What'shisfacequitter has left the Ops group". But at least they leave the avenue for someone who actually intends to play to join up. But last week, when I backfilled into a game of Voidstar where our team failed to blow up the first door, I thought I was finally gonna get an awesome challenging fight. And then, one of the sore losers actually talks about THROWING the match. Needless to say, when I inevitably died while guarding, the guy just stood there and let 'em plant, they had a bomb on there before even one quadrant of the respawn timer expired. So the sore loser, was too scared to continue the fight, but still thought he deserved comms, and threw the match? I know at least one person is gonna say, "I don't have to put up with terrible PuGs, I want comms", but this is PvP, not Comms vs Comms. If you expect a faceroll, go to Tython or Ord Mantell with your level 55 and fight mobs there, only queue up when you expect to fight a real person on the other end. Shouldn't Bioware reduce the "rewards" for losing to give people the incentive to actually fight their enemy?
Vladnar Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 yes but you wanted to fight on and he'll have to get the same as you so they have it right. Quitters should face a "timeout" and hopefully we'll see that in 2.4 or whatever........
EzioMessi Posted August 22, 2013 Author Posted August 22, 2013 yes but you wanted to fight on and he'll have to get the same as you so they have it right. Quitters should face a "timeout" and hopefully we'll see that in 2.4 or whatever........ A "timeout"? You mean a lockout similar to the one the GF queue currently has? That punishes someone for dropping group? That will resolve the problem of quitters, but actually encourage match throwers like the one I mentioned. Because now, in addition to quick comms, they also have the incentive of not wanting to be locked out of PvP for 15 minutes, and instead of fighting harder, they will just throw the match to end it as quickly as possible.
Kerensk Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 There needs to be a reputation system for PvP where quitters get negative marks and are queued with other quitters. Then have vote to kick votes add to the same total for stooges like the OP played with. Then we can start identifying these players and cull them from the rest of the herd.
Banderal Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 Maybe if the ignore list worked for WZs, so if someone was on your ignore list it actually *would* prevent them from being placed in a WZ with you? That's something I wish BW would do. I'd actually use my ignore list then.
EzioMessi Posted August 23, 2013 Author Posted August 23, 2013 There needs to be a reputation system for PvP where quitters get negative marks and are queued with other quitters. Then have vote to kick votes add to the same total for stooges like the OP played with. Then we can start identifying these players and cull them from the rest of the herd. That might work. Someone who has to quit for RL reasons, would likely only lose a bit of reputation, while chronic quitters would just face each other constantly. How hilarious would that be, a warzone where everyone quits Don't know about vote to kick though. I would be happy if the vote to kick system actually worked to kick players, as opposed to assuming they're playing everytime they enter combat, but not add to the reputation system, as griefers can use it to harass guys they don't like. The above mentioned things, and a ignore system that works should be effective enough.
DarthBloodloss Posted August 23, 2013 Posted August 23, 2013 I already know you're going to not like what I have to say... I have been PvPing since about a month after release. For most of that time, PvP was my main thing and not PvE. Out of the two hundred and fifty billion times I have played voidstar, I have won without planting a bomb only 2 or 3 times. (Games rarely end in no bomb vs no bomb.) My PvP toons have valor of 96, 72, 70, 60. That's a lot of games with only 2 or 3 wins of this type. When you go first and fail to plant a bomb, its really the best thing if the game just ended right there. You already have 75%+ of the comms/medals you are going to get....and only had to play 50% of the game. And have a 99% chance to lose (based on the amount of times you WIN after not planting a bomb in the first round). I'm not telling you to not be upset about people letting the other team win, but the reality is that its (game-wise, not fun-wise) in everyone's best interest for the game to end asap (if you fail to plant in round one).
EzioMessi Posted August 23, 2013 Author Posted August 23, 2013 I already know you're going to not like what I have to say... I have been PvPing since about a month after release. For most of that time, PvP was my main thing and not PvE. Out of the two hundred and fifty billion times I have played voidstar, I have won without planting a bomb only 2 or 3 times. (Games rarely end in no bomb vs no bomb.) My PvP toons have valor of 96, 72, 70, 60. That's a lot of games with only 2 or 3 wins of this type. When you go first and fail to plant a bomb, its really the best thing if the game just ended right there. You already have 75%+ of the comms/medals you are going to get....and only had to play 50% of the game. And have a 99% chance to lose (based on the amount of times you WIN after not planting a bomb in the first round). I'm not telling you to not be upset about people letting the other team win, but the reality is that its (game-wise, not fun-wise) in everyone's best interest for the game to end asap (if you fail to plant in round one). Oh, I know the odds are stacked completely against me on such a game. But that's the whole fun of PvP right? I mean, I always thought the challenge of fighting against a real person is what made PvP fun. Surely the greater the challenge the more the fun to be had right? And surely the satisfaction of winning that 1% is more rewarding than any number of losses.
DarthBloodloss Posted August 23, 2013 Posted August 23, 2013 You're right. But in the times when you don't plant on the first door, and don't even get close.....and are clearly outmatched by your opponent with no hope of beating them in kills.....sometimes its hard to have fun if its too one-sided. It reminds me of huttball games that are 5-0 in the first 3 mins. Should I really use KB to send their ball carrier over the ledge and into the pit? Or should I just look the other way and let the last goal score so the game ends....?
EzioMessi Posted August 23, 2013 Author Posted August 23, 2013 You're right. But in the times when you don't plant on the first door, and don't even get close.....and are clearly outmatched by your opponent with no hope of beating them in kills.....sometimes its hard to have fun if its too one-sided. It reminds me of huttball games that are 5-0 in the first 3 mins. Should I really use KB to send their ball carrier over the ledge and into the pit? Or should I just look the other way and let the last goal score so the game ends....? Huh. When you put it that way I guess it makes sense. I guess not everyone likes to play against overwhelming odds, especially if they have already lost a bunch of matches a while ago. Although I still don't think it justifies throwing a match, it at least gives some context to do so.
Paul_Otto Posted August 23, 2013 Posted August 23, 2013 Maybe if the ignore list worked for WZs, so if someone was on your ignore list it actually *would* prevent them from being placed in a WZ with you? That's something I wish BW would do. I'd actually use my ignore list then. Yes but then who misses out on the queue pop, you or him?
NeverSuffer Posted August 23, 2013 Posted August 23, 2013 Currently you can Votekick players out of warzones.... however if they enter combat it wipes all votes and they cant be kicked. They should change to where entering combat doesn't prevent the player from being kicked BUT you still want it to be hard to kick just so that you don't have people who hate each other having their buddies vote out legit players... something like 6/8 have to agree... 5/7, 4/6 etc. This wont solve every problem related to this but it could help.
Falkenhausen Posted August 23, 2013 Posted August 23, 2013 I have seen players act as the OP described on probably a half dozen occasions. I thought maybe they had a lag spike (naive I guess)...but if people are deliberately not fighting, some corrective acton needs to happen. I like the ideas described herein.
Xanas Posted August 23, 2013 Posted August 23, 2013 (edited) 95% of players who support a "timeout" when someone leaves a WZ are bad players who expect other people to win the game for them... If you think i am going to waste my time (limited as it is) with people who don't play to win or are just stupid... Yeah not going to happen. Example from last night: I was at West bunker, i can see 2 people going my way to cap it... I of course "yell" in chat... I fight them for a long time and NO help comes from my team... Not 1 moved off from mid "kill farming" to help me... After West was lose ALL OF THEM left MID undefended that we just won... Had to move there and after that i whent AFK.. Needed just 1 more watever to finish my daily so i did not care. If this DO happends you are going to get a LOT of things the OP describes in the OP... People throwing games or just AFK'ing somewere. As for the OP: Its like this bub. FAST LOSS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SLOW LOSS. But in the scenario you described where it was tied and that moron threw the mach is different. In that instance i agree with you. Edited August 23, 2013 by Xanas
Jarfunkz Posted August 23, 2013 Posted August 23, 2013 yes but you wanted to fight on and he'll have to get the same as you so they have it right. Quitters should face a "timeout" and hopefully we'll see that in 2.4 or whatever........ No they shouldn't. Bad players should be kicked from warzones.
Xanas Posted August 23, 2013 Posted August 23, 2013 (edited) No they shouldn't. Bad players should be kicked from warzones. I do agree with this. Put a "timeout" on people leaving the game AND put a timeout + automatic kick on players who don't play for objectives, don't respond to people calling for help at pylon (or whatever), people who don't see that 1 dude planting a bomb behind there buts and so on. Edited August 23, 2013 by Xanas
Schattenaura Posted August 23, 2013 Posted August 23, 2013 (edited) 95% of players who support a "timeout" when someone leaves a WZ are bad players who expect other people to win the game for them... If you think i am going to waste my time (limited as it is) with people who don't play to win or are just stupid... Yeah not going to happen. Example from last night: I was at West bunker, i can see 2 people going my way to cap it... I of course "yell" in chat... I fight them for a long time and NO help comes from my team... Not 1 moved off from mid "kill farming" to help me... After West was lose ALL OF THEM left MID undefended that we just won... Had to move there and after that i whent AFK.. Needed just 1 more watever to finish my daily so i did not care. If this DO happends you are going to get a LOT of things the OP describes in the OP... People throwing games or just AFK'ing somewere. As for the OP: Its like this bub. FAST LOSS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SLOW LOSS. But in the scenario you described where it was tied and that moron threw the mach is different. In that instance i agree with you. /sign Absolutely right! Why waste time with smash-idiots, who can't read the chat, due to their lack of schooling... ? In reality..."timeout"...or whatever...is only supported by pvp-losers and ego-smashi-DDs...! Teamplay? What's that?...I only want to smash with low damage in the middle? Why plant a bomb, or tab/defend a cannon?...makes no damage...I want MY smash medals!...Bioware should punish that non-teamplayers with a ban! Edited August 23, 2013 by Schattenaura
Banderal Posted August 23, 2013 Posted August 23, 2013 Yes but then who misses out on the queue pop, you or him? Him! Of course. Actually, I think that algorithm is not really too difficult. The queue is ordered. Start going down the queue. Add person #1, then keep adding people who are not on ignore lists of people in the match so far. If you don't get enough, then start over with person #2 and repeat. Something like that. Basically, whichever of us is first in the queue gets first chance - but having a lot of people on your ignore list makes it less likely you will get the pop even if you are first in the queue. Personally, I think that's valid. I think if I have a whole lot of people on my ignore list, maybe that says more about my ability to "get along" than it does theirs.
Xanas Posted August 23, 2013 Posted August 23, 2013 Him! Of course. Actually, I think that algorithm is not really too difficult. The queue is ordered. Start going down the queue. Add person #1, then keep adding people who are not on ignore lists of people in the match so far. If you don't get enough, then start over with person #2 and repeat. Something like that. Basically, whichever of us is first in the queue gets first chance - but having a lot of people on your ignore list makes it less likely you will get the pop even if you are first in the queue. Personally, I think that's valid. I think if I have a whole lot of people on my ignore list, maybe that says more about my ability to "get along" than it does theirs. To the point they get (and they never will) get cross server que.... I don't need anything like this... You just don't have enough people to work with.
Banderal Posted August 23, 2013 Posted August 23, 2013 I do agree with this. Put a "timeout" on people leaving the game AND put a timeout + automatic kick on players who don't play for objectives, don't respond to people calling for help at pylon (or whatever), people who don't see that 1 dude planting a bomb behind there buts and so on. Maybe you were being facetious, but that's always tricky. How do you decide if someone is playing objectives? If you call "inc 1 west", and one person heads over to help... are the other 6 not playing objectives? If the plan is to go "take mid", and 2 people keep heading to the enemy mob at west, are they playing objectives? What if one of them is a jugg who heads there and starts spamming "slow" to keep that enemy mob from getting to mid so fast and stopping your cap? I think "playing objectives" is one of those "I'll know it when I see it" things that a computer would find hard to accurately detect.
Banderal Posted August 23, 2013 Posted August 23, 2013 To the point they get (and they never will) get cross server que.... I don't need anything like this... You just don't have enough people to work with. Yeah, you are probably right. They value fast queue pops over everything else. I think I am in the minority in that I'd rather wait longer for a match *if* it somehow meant a "better" (by my nebulous definition, of course) match. Too bad for me.
Recommended Posts