Don’t add a deserter time out in this meta.

[masterceil]

Keep the feedback coming. Discussions like these are helpful for us so continue to let us know your thoughts.

 

-eric

 

I definitely support an abandonment lockout being put in place for Warzones, similar to the one we already have for other Activity Finder activities. Two of the few reasons I quit playing Warzones was due to my frustrations with both being on a team whose players leave the match early, and with backfilling a very lopsided match in the last minute or two because someone abandoned an active match. The third primary reason for my lost interest in Warzones is something that may be alleviated by what PennyAnn and Andryah have started discussing - players having no interest in certain objective matches, and thus not bothering to play the objectives at all.

 

I definitely like the idea of being able to pick and choose which Warzones you can queue for. I understand Andryah's position that it would likely be healthier if you only let people choose a handful of maps to exclude from their queue, but personally I would rather be given full choice - if I want to just practice Arenas outside of Ranked PvP, I'd like to be given that choice. I think a better solution would be to have every map be optional, but for you to incentivise choosing more maps, e.g. with more Credits/CXP/EXP/Conquest Points for a completed Warzone for each map you have checked in Activity Finder. Perhaps also double the number of points towards the WEEKLY missions if you leave every map checked, to maintain an incentive to queue for everything.

 

With such a system in place, I think that would make an abandonment lockout timer much more palatable to more PvPers. And it would also entice me to once again join the fray, in the hopes that fewer people would be leaving matches, and more people would focus on objectives because they really want to play the maps they're queuing into.

 

As to OP's concerns about trolls and haters, I think the existing /ignore function is sufficient for turning a blind eye to bad-mouthed players and going on about your day. I don't necessarily think /ignore should work the same way in Warzones as it does for PvE Activity Finder activities (e.g. you don't get randomly queued with such people), as I think that would be too easy to abuse and be a detriment to everybody in the queue.

 

TL;DR: I support abandonment lockout timers if you also let us choose our maps. I'd really like abandonment lockout timers to be implemented regardless, but it would be a better system overall with map selection opportunities in place.

[AlienEyeTX]

It would be great if we could choose which maps to queue for. That might solve half of the abandonment problems (just a guess, calm down). The fact is, there are certain maps that just stink. Or maybe a person is not in the mood for certain maps. I have definitely left because of other players before, and because something came up IRL and I didn't want to AFK my team. At least if I abandon, there's a chance someone can fill. I've also left because of lag issues, but that's pretty rare. But, I think the biggest thing is just not liking certain maps.

 

At any rate a lockout does not seem to be the appropriate solution. It punishes people who leave for good reasons and it would kill the queue, making other people wait even longer for a pop. And if someone locked enough, they might just stop with PvP altogether, which is the worst.

 

All in all, aside from needing to add map selection to the queue, the system actually works pretty well right now. Please don't mess that up.

[Aeneas_Falco]

Actually, I think a lock-out is a bad idea for one and only one reason. It won't work. People, especially in this game, have demonstrated repeatedly that they will abuse the mechanics or find a way around them to their advantage over and over. I fully believe that almost all of the people who think they have a valid reason for quitting, whatever that reason is, will think it's just as valid a reason for going AFK instead. So they will just do that... go AFK.

 

 

This is a very good point that should be repeated.

 

A lockout system would just result in many of those who would have otherwise dropped, finding a quiet corner of the map to camp and not contribute. You already have some of that happening now where instead of dropping, people go camp the one node they control when there is still a chance to come back. A lockout would just make that problem worse, and campers do far more harm to their team than people who drop.

 

People who drop are almost always replaced by backfills, most of whom are going to contribute because they just joined the match. Most of us have also probably been part of losing matches that were later won after several people dropped and were replaced. I know I've also come in as a backfill in losing matches before, solo killed a node guard, and stole a node. I've also backfilled onto teams as a healer that had no healing prior to me joining. People dropping isn't always a bad thing.

 

People camping on the other hand, is never anything but bad.

Edited April 13, 2018 by Aeneas_Falco

[kodrac]

I only quit WZ's if I see kodrac in them...or any names with a 'k' in them, just in case it's him...

 

LOL I have one that starts with an A and 2 others that start with S also.

[Ibokagain]

Eric,

 

Since you asked for my thoughts, here they are.

 

Let's put all the technical issues aside, like if you queue as a group sometimes you get split up (you queue while someone is still in a match, someone goes afk and misses the pop etc.), or dc, or the roll bug that causes you to be unable to move, etc.

 

Let's also put the fact aside that not everyone likes all maps, or some maps popping multiple times in a row, and they will leave them regardless, because you neither provide the option to queue for anything specific (or at least not queue for something), nor you at least tell people what they get when it pops.

 

Here's the big thing about unranked: it's not fair. Premades are a big source of unfairness (I'm not going to bash them, as I'm often seen queuing with one myself), but one has to understand the other team needs both the skill and the matchup to counter them effectively. Technically forcing people to sit there being farmed for an entire match is not going to make PvP a better experience for anyone. (That is not to say games without premades are fair and close, more often than not they are not.)

 

You will not force me to sit there for an entire 10-20 minutes doing nothing but being farmed, or, if I get lucky, afk in a corner. I will either leave and do something else (like cursing at the devs who thought this lockout would be a good idea), or simply alt+f4 for the day and do something else, while still cursing at the devs who thought this would be a good idea. Neither are going to help with your game.

 

You want more toxicity in warzones because people you've forced to participate can't let the steam out otherwise? Go lockouts. You want more people to abandon PvP, temporarily, or even forever? Go lockouts. You want to further punish those already shafted by your random non-matchmaking? Go lockouts.

 

There's simply nothing in this idea I would consider good. You keep seeing the same faces over and over in PvP every night. Want to decrease that even further? Sure, kick some out of the queue, that will help.

 

This is just a petty revenge attempt of bads who don't see themselves in the mirror (prime example of one a few posts below in this thread) and understand why people leave, and they're blinded by their imagined righteousness and moral superiority.

 

Besides, out of all issues plaguing unranked, being undermanned because of leavers is pretty low on the list. Backfills are quick, and often better than the people you lose.

 

Do you even play your own game?

 

This ^ and to add to it lets not mess pvp, everything else yall have touched hasn't been pretty by any means.

Galactic Command

Conquest - I highly doubt 5.9 will do anything but add more stupid "legacy" "daily" lockouts that are just dumb.

Class imbalance still and instead of actually correcting it yall mess it up more.

 

However if yall goal is to actually close the game down then continue with your guys plan I'm already playing other games, spending more time and money on them as well.

 

Here's an idea, how about actually using the resources to fix bugs and de-sync issues?

Edited April 13, 2018 by Ibokagain

[fushnchips]

I play a bit of Final Fantasy they have a 30m lockout time for quitting anything like dungeons,raids via the group finder and that time goes fast. Also they have a function to disband the group if so many members agree and this gives no lockout timer.

[Lualei]

I definitely support an abandonment lockout being put in place for Warzones, similar to the one we already have for other Activity Finder activities. Two of the few reasons I quit playing Warzones was due to my frustrations with both being on a team whose players leave the match early, and with backfilling a very lopsided match in the last minute or two because someone abandoned an active match. The third primary reason for my lost interest in Warzones is something that may be alleviated by what PennyAnn and Andryah have started discussing - players having no interest in certain objective matches, and thus not bothering to play the objectives at all.

 

I definitely like the idea of being able to pick and choose which Warzones you can queue for. I understand Andryah's position that it would likely be healthier if you only let people choose a handful of maps to exclude from their queue, but personally I would rather be given full choice - if I want to just practice Arenas outside of Ranked PvP, I'd like to be given that choice. I think a better solution would be to have every map be optional, but for you to incentivise choosing more maps, e.g. with more Credits/CXP/EXP/Conquest Points for a completed Warzone for each map you have checked in Activity Finder. Perhaps also double the number of points towards the WEEKLY missions if you leave every map checked, to maintain an incentive to queue for everything.

 

With such a system in place, I think that would make an abandonment lockout timer much more palatable to more PvPers. And it would also entice me to once again join the fray, in the hopes that fewer people would be leaving matches, and more people would focus on objectives because they really want to play the maps they're queuing into.

 

As to OP's concerns about trolls and haters, I think the existing /ignore function is sufficient for turning a blind eye to bad-mouthed players and going on about your day. I don't necessarily think /ignore should work the same way in Warzones as it does for PvE Activity Finder activities (e.g. you don't get randomly queued with such people), as I think that would be too easy to abuse and be a detriment to everybody in the queue.

 

TL;DR: I support abandonment lockout timers if you also let us choose our maps. I'd really like abandonment lockout timers to be implemented regardless, but it would be a better system overall with map selection opportunities in place.

 

You've quit some time ago meaning you have no idea what state the current pvp is in? Regardless you prompt for a yes for a debuff. That's pretty bold m8. I'd say come back and play pvp for 1 week and I almost guarantee you that you will change your mind. On top I'm sorry to say but forcing players into something we don't want won't make pvp better. Players DO NOT learn to go for objectives because they are forced to stay in a game, neither do you get more active players in a particular wz . My guess is that a new issue will arise: There will be more afk'ers than ever before.

 

The real issues are matchmaking and balance and BW needs to deal with them.

Pvp could be more fun and challenging that way but you can't set rules for the type of players who don't care about helping their team and run for objectives. They will still join. So no matter how many rules or debuffs you try to implement they will still have the same behaviour and teams will still suffer from players leaving because of them. All you accomplish is to make players (even) more annoyed with the game - if they can't leave whenever they want to without being punished for it.

Edited April 13, 2018 by Lualei

[Costello]

As feedback is being asked for I definitely think that there should be a deserter time out. If anything it should be sufficient a penalty that people can't just shop for wins.

 

Playing a match and having a less than favoruable start is bad enough, but then to have people drop out so you are men down in the fight makes it impossible to come back from it. Sure you get a back fill but that person might just drop out when they see they have been dumped in to back fill someone that decided the match was impossible to win only there in 30 seconds to a minute later.

 

Which in turn makes the dropping out to find a better team to be on the smart move. While the people trying to struggle against a bad start get ganked because they are outnumbered.

 

So without it cowards and deserters get reward and people that actually try and keep the game alive get a loss, in gsf worse stats (i.e. kill to death ratio), the enjoyment of getting ganked and for time spent less of a reward.

[ZionHalcyon]

I am going to add my two cents.

 

Not all of the reasons the op gave are legitimate reasons to leave to me.

 

For instance, wanting to leave because your team stinks is not a legitimate reason. That is the very definition of Rage quitting. You are raging because your team isn't very good.

 

I do however like the idea of being able to leave within a certain time frame.

 

All PVP matches have a warm-up time where time passes before the match officially starts.

 

I would support having a 30-second run up timer that kicks in once the match feels it has the people it needs. That 30 seconds is when people can leave without penalty. I would state that if a person leaves, they can be thrown right back into the same match if it's the only one going on.

 

I also support being able to select certain warzones like flashpoints. However, the issue here maybe one where a better system is needed.

 

What I mean is, it does no one any good if they want to queue for certain warzones and they never pop because no one else wants to queue for those same warzones.

 

Therefore I suggest a change to the group finder. This is likely something that would have to happen for 6.0 but I think it is an important change then the less:

 

Include in group finder when a person queues, the number of players who are also queued for that same operation / flash point / war zone, and the breakdown buy heals, tank, and DPS.

 

This will allow people to gravitate towards what is popular.

[beattlebilly]

Nah there needs to be a time out. Always has needed to be one.

 

WoW has timeouts & they've worked fine for years.

 

But SWTOR does need to allow you to either A. Choose from a list of what you want to Q for. Or B. Show you what match you're going into before you go into it. That way you can say yes or no to it.

 

A timeout would discourage the whole "team is losing let's bail" leaves group & queues up again. It would encourage those to work a bit harder. Not every time are those losses when these ppl who have recently started to leave group as soon as it looks like it's going south, leave.

Then they need to reward us as we go, not give us all the rewards we earned at the end of a match. People that leave already get penalized in that respect, you don't earn valor, cxp, exp, credits as you earn the medal or kill a player in the match(like you do in games that give deserter debuffs) until after the match is over.

[Mevan]

The second problem that makes a lot of people leave is premades vs full pugs. Wether you’re a fan or premades or not, this is still a major reason people leave.

 

^This. I stopped PvPing because I got sick of seeing that crap every single game. Premades should only be allowed in ranked, not in regs where they spoil it for others.

[Kurj]

I very seldom leave a match. I used to say "never", but if I see a team farming kills by refusing to advance the game (i.e., holding the ball in huttball), I leave, whether it's my team or the other.

 

All of that said, I don't think a deserter time out is needed. I'm not sure on the timing, but didn't this first come up when they were refusing to reward CQ for completing a warzone, and people were leaving at the first sign of a loss? That's not really an issue anymore since they added points for completing.

[CaptRogue]

-Snip-

All The Best

 

Rage much? Just because they are not in there posting & commenting on everyone's different little problems, does NOT mean they are not reading it & taking into account what they need to change. So chill, Mr. "All the Best" (which is nothing but a joke btw. lol)!

[Stellarcrusade]

^This. I stopped PvPing because I got sick of seeing that crap every single game. Premades should only be allowed in ranked, not in regs where they spoil it for others.

 

I agree completely. To fix this all wars should be cross faction and if you queue as a team it should simply solo queue everyone in the team, and any same match hits should divide team 50% on each side.

 

Basically I think we should stop any consideration of a deserter flag completely. But instead just fix the things that make people quit. Then quitting will be more rare (you cannot fix everything, but you can really really fix a lot).

PROBLEMS TO FIX:

1.) FACTION IMBALANCE: People have a short fuse for a loser war when they just lost the last 27 in a row.

---> FIX: ALL WARS CROSS FACTION

2.) WARZONE SELECTION:

---> FIX: By character should be able to select which warzones to queue for. For group, goes off of party leader's settings. (simple)

3.) PREMADES IN UNRANKED: Lets face it, a premade on one side means 99% chance of an unfair war. Nobody cares that they can cultivate their own team over time. It is SOOOO rare that 2 equal premades meet up. Basically if a premade is running, it pretty much means the war will not be fair for someone.

---> FIX: Since all wars are cross faction (see item 1), split up all premades so that they are 50% on any matches they pop together.

4.) CAMPING: Wimps exist, they camp. Designing maps so that you can spawn in different places DOESNT WORK. Because you may need to spawn at a specific place to have a chance at accomplishing warzone goals.

---> FIX: Anti-camping can be added. If players get too close to a spawn drop-off (or too many players crowding it), they can be automatically randomly dropped at a non-important area of the map (meaning no where near map goals). OR Perhaps they can all take periodic damage like the gas at the end of a 4v4. OR they can be hit with a long long stun that doesn't break with damage. Very simple things will make people remember not to camp. Nothing wrong with letting the weak team choose how to engage, camping is for wimps only.

 

One thing WE DO NOT NEED is Matchmaking. This is a popular "catch all" idea to fix the problems, but really it would be implemented in a way to totally dilute any strategy left in this game, so it is too dangerous to ask for this to be "improperly implemented".

[CaptRogue]

Then they need to reward us as we go, not give us all the rewards we earned at the end of a match. People that leave already get penalized in that respect, you don't earn valor, cxp, exp, credits as you earn the medal or kill a player in the match(like you do in games that give deserter debuffs) until after the match is over.

 

Um no. No one needs rewarded for quitting a match just because they did something.

All rewards are given at the completion on a match. That would definitely cause more ppl to quit. Get their medals fast & leave. Leaving the rest of us to hang & try to complete the match. *smh* Bad idea.

 

And please name one game that gives you rewards for quitting before it's over with.

WoW sure didn't when I played.

[Rion_Starkiller]

This is a really good thread. 5 stars.

 

I agree with the OP about how easily it would be to overpunish people who leave warzones with a lockout timer. Some things that MAY make people less likely to quit matches:

• Name the map when we get the pop, not afterwards when we see the load screen.
  
• Allow people to queue for only reg arenas (good practice for ranked) OR only warzones.
  
• Allow people to choose which warzone, arena, etc, similar to how you can queue for a specific flashpoint.
  

Edited April 13, 2018 by Rion_Starkiller

[SaerethDL]

This is only a bad thing for people that desert. I don't desert so this timer won't really effect me or people like me. I could also care less if a bunch of deserters quit the game, I think it would actually be better because I don't have to worry about them quitting a match and leaving us hanging every time they face any adversity or challenge. Edited April 13, 2018 by SaerethDL

[CaptRogue]

 

PROBLEMS TO FIX:

1.) FACTION IMBALANCE: People have a short fuse for a loser war when they just lost the last 27 in a row.

---> FIX: ALL WARS CROSS FACTION

 

3.) PREMADES IN UNRANKED: Lets face it, a premade on one side means 99% chance of an unfair war. Nobody cares that they can cultivate their own team over time. It is SOOOO rare that 2 equal premades meet up. Basically if a premade is running, it pretty much means the war will not be fair for someone.

---> FIX: Since all wars are cross faction (see item 1), split up all premades so that they are 50% on any matches they pop together.

 

Most of what you posted I agree with.

 

Point no. 1: no they don't need to worry about the faction imbalance. It will fluctuate over time. What does it really matter if you queue up many times facing Imp vs Imp or Pub vs Pub??

 

Point no. 3: I'll be danged if I'm going to queue up PvP with 3 of my guildies just for our group to get split up into 2's to fight each other. That's stupid & kills the whole "make friends/guildies & play together" MMO part of game.

The funny part is no matter what people want to say Pre-Mades do NOT kill PvP.

I've been in way too many where IF they were premades not one of them had the same guild tag or even guilded yet they destroyed my team. Also been on teams were we worked together as a team. Most of those were because almost everyone was paying attention to chat & call outs were quickly answered & taken care of.

 

The biggest problem I see in WZ's is that some DO not care about objectives. Others don't care to help those who need help in chat. Hence the "premade is killing wz's" but not a darn premade was in the match.

There is NO way to even tell if there is a premade(s) in chat unless it's all the same guild or there is a server PvP discord channel & some are in it.

Edited April 13, 2018 by CaptRogue

[Alec_Fortescue]

There isn't much to add to the OP. It's weird how often I find myself agreeing with Trixie. I'd only agree on deserter in ranked (especially if someone gets kicked - and no one gets kicked for no reason in ranked).

[Glocko]

Another thing that nobody wants.... therefore we are guaranteed to get it

[peter_plankskull]

Most of these problems can be solved solely through a basic matchmaking system and the ability to queue for a map we like... along with a proper kick vote system, not once regulated to kicking primarily afkers.

[Stellarcrusade]

Most of what you posted I agree with.

 

Point no. 1: no they don't need to worry about the faction imbalance. It will fluctuate over time. What does it really matter if you queue up many times facing Imp vs Imp or Pub vs Pub??

 

Point no. 3: I'll be danged if I'm going to queue up PvP with 3 of my guildies just for our group to get split up into 2's to fight each other. That's stupid & kills the whole "make friends/guildies & play together" MMO part of game.

The funny part is no matter what people want to say Pre-Mades do NOT kill PvP.

I've been in way too many where IF they were premades not one of them had the same guild tag or even guilded yet they destroyed my team. Also been on teams were we worked together as a team. Most of those were because almost everyone was paying attention to chat & call outs were quickly answered & taken care of.

 

The biggest problem I see in WZ's is that some DO not care about objectives. Others don't care to help those who need help in chat. Hence the "premade is killing wz's" but not a darn premade was in the match.

There is NO way to even tell if there is a premade(s) in chat unless it's all the same guild or there is a server PvP discord channel & some are in it.

 

Weather you like or not the suggestions 1 & 3 (all cross faction warzones and auto-splitting up premades) isn't the point really. The point is to eliminate the main reasons people quit. And lack of those fixes does result is many many many leavers. And also, the lack of faction balance prevents lots of queues.

1.) Frankly, most people will not even queue on pub side (in the example of our server where pubs are way too weak), so they go play a character on the imp side. So no matter what you think, you are playing with the weak faction anyhow, but its silly that they cannot play their pub characters. You pick your fix, but unless they fix faction imbalance that will continue to be a PvP killer and fed up people will leave any war where it even seems like they are starting to lose. (One goal in a buttball, leave).

2.) Premade = unfair war. Many leavers that want a fair war will leave as soon as they see 3 or more of the same guild name. So then it takes a little bit before the back-fillers can get in and get engaged, and so its a face roll and more people quit. All you get is a faceroll, don't you want real competition? Granted, if you want a different fix, thats ok: Instead: premades stay in queue until an equal premade queues to oppose you. Take your pick, premades are for people who rarely want a challenge.

 

Your point about people not caring to focus on the goals of the war is a good valid point, but not sure that results in very many actual leavers though. Any leavers that see they are on a bad team and then decide to leave, would probably leave most times no matter what if they are losing. Maybe to encourage people to focus on goals more there could be conquest rewards for every war goal you accomplish, or something that rewards good play more.

Edited April 13, 2018 by Stellarcrusade

[beattlebilly]

Um no. No one needs rewarded for quitting a match just because they did something.

All rewards are given at the completion on a match. That would definitely cause more ppl to quit. Get their medals fast & leave. Leaving the rest of us to hang & try to complete the match. *smh* Bad idea.

 

And please name one game that gives you rewards for quitting before it's over with.

WoW sure didn't when I played.

 

You got me on WoW, it's been a loooong time since I played so I'm not going to say if they do or don't.

 

Wildstar, you get prestige when you make a kill and do an objective.

 

Rift, w/e the currency is.

 

Warhammer was the same deal.

 

Those are the games I played, but yes plenty of games do reward you as you kill/do objectives. SWTOR is the only one I've played that holds onto the rewards until the match was done. PvE, you get rewarded as you go, and they give you a debuff when you leave before it's done. Stands to reason that PvP should do the same if they are going to implement a deserter debuff.

Edited April 13, 2018 by beattlebilly

[-Bob-]

Eric,

 

Since you asked for my thoughts, here they are.

 

Let's put all the technical issues aside, like if you queue as a group sometimes you get split up (you queue while someone is still in a match, someone goes afk and misses the pop etc.), or dc, or the roll bug that causes you to be unable to move, etc.

 

Let's also put the fact aside that not everyone likes all maps, or some maps popping multiple times in a row, and they will leave them regardless, because you neither provide the option to queue for anything specific (or at least not queue for something), nor you at least tell people what they get when it pops.

 

Here's the big thing about unranked: it's not fair. Premades are a big source of unfairness (I'm not going to bash them, as I'm often seen queuing with one myself), but one has to understand the other team needs both the skill and the matchup to counter them effectively. Technically forcing people to sit there being farmed for an entire match is not going to make PvP a better experience for anyone. (That is not to say games without premades are fair and close, more often than not they are not.)

 

You will not force me to sit there for an entire 10-20 minutes doing nothing but being farmed, or, if I get lucky, afk in a corner. I will either leave and do something else (like cursing at the devs who thought this lockout would be a good idea), or simply alt+f4 for the day and do something else, while still cursing at the devs who thought this would be a good idea. Neither are going to help with your game.

 

You want more toxicity in warzones because people you've forced to participate can't let the steam out otherwise? Go lockouts. You want more people to abandon PvP, temporarily, or even forever? Go lockouts. You want to further punish those already shafted by your random non-matchmaking? Go lockouts.

 

There's simply nothing in this idea I would consider good. You keep seeing the same faces over and over in PvP every night. Want to decrease that even further? Sure, kick some out of the queue, that will help.

 

This is just a petty revenge attempt of bads who don't see themselves in the mirror (prime example of one a few posts below in this thread) and understand why people leave, and they're blinded by their imagined righteousness and moral superiority.

 

Besides, out of all issues plaguing unranked, being undermanned because of leavers is pretty low on the list. Backfills are quick, and often better than the people you lose.

 

Do you even play your own game?

 

Pretty much everything Schoock said is spot on.

If i am forced with the decision to either stay in a bad match with a terrible team or leave and get locked out. Most times I will probably afk on a node and collect medals and contribute absolutely nothing to the team, or i will just alt F4 for the day. I PVP reg WZs, thats all my game time consists of. If you implement a lockout, many people will do the same resulting in more people crying that WZs don't pop frequent enough because people have quit playing for the day/week/forever. Lockouts are a terrible idea but hey, do what you're gonna do and I'll do what i'm gonna do.

[hesfalcon]

So you respond to this stupid pvp thread, but with nearly 25 pages, total silence on the stupid tank changes.