Rage Quitting Solutions

 If it bugs you so much just don't play with those people again. There is no way to stop RQ. People are going to get upset, bored, or just not having fun and leave. Taking away points wont do anything since once you buy an item you have it. Plus for some people they dont care about stats and just want to have fun, myself, and will leave if they are not having fun.

Until we can press alt-p to punch someone in the nuts across the interwebs, rage quitting will always be an issue in online gaming.

You realize that even Frogboy himself has acknowledged a player's right to leave a game? Fun is doing something you like because you feel like doing it, not because some kid in Nebraska will cry if you don't. Sorry, RQ frustrates me too, but get over it.

 

alt-p ^

Coming from a 3 year DOTA background, RQ'ers (aka leavers) have always been a problem. I support having strong penalties for people who arbitrarily leave.  The other alternative is to have some sort of 3rd party tool tied to Impulse that allows you to ban a player by ACCOUNT, such that you would never have to play with that loser again.  This would probably be a much more viable solution.

When people like myself who take having my arse handed to me like a man by not RQ'ing, experience playing with someone who RQ's we get infinitely more pissed coz we have the decency to behave otherwise.  Hence I do not agree with Frogboy's stance on the issue (assuming this IS his stance).

Only problem atm with rage quitters imo is that many of them arent actually rage quitters and have in fact been dropped mid-game.

 

I randomly had my game crash the other night for absolutely NO reason mid-game. I think it was the first time ever the goddamn game just completely froze and i had to alt-f4.

 

Likewise people can still randomly drop despite all the work done on connectivity. It's not always clear when someone has ragequit - such as last night, a guy i regularly play with/against just suddenly left - we werent neccessarily losing and he hasnt dropped before so i assume he possibly crashed, but who knows.

 

 

again, it sounds like a 3rd party banlist program with an integrated shared database of Impulse userID's is the only way to resolve this issue.  Guess it will take some time though and the game certainly needs to be stabilzed before then.

i leave if the other team is owning because my allies suck

Zakariel, that issue has already been brought up, and strongly opposed by the majority of the forum-going population for a number of reasons. Banlists are fine locally, but using a global banlist is stupid, and leaves you trusting the legitamacy of Joe-chows-on-paste's bans.

Actually, you greatly exagerate, if not flat out make up the statement that a "majority" of the forums are opposed to a banlist. Many people support a banlist, inlcuding myself.

It's unfortunate, and something I would rather not deal with, but if people insist on being infintile and leaving games then there is little alternative atm.

i support people having a personaly no play list as in not playing with certain people  but making it so that if u bad mouth the wrong dude you get banned shoved on a list which alot off people use and that would limit the people you play with

and make it a worse game

i dont see why people want a banlist  can't they  just  open a notepad file and right down the name off any assholes they hate in it

and check it before the match starts if there is one just leave the match

here is one... allow 5v5s so the effect of a leaver is alot less

Guys, the problem with stern punishments for rage quitting is stuff happens and it's just a game.  What if my game just crashed?  What if my wireless went out for a second?  What if something IRL came up and I had to deal with it?

Besides, the reality is that it's looking like the playerbase is small enough that too much banning of each other is going to make matchmaking exceeding difficult.

Take it with humor:

Well, that is the price you pay for spreading the mentality that rage quitting is ok.  It's not ok, it's just not made accountable for, yet.

No one needs people that drop every game they are losing or have a bad start in to begin with, they can go play single player.

 

Just a game - ok.  So following your logic, if I commit myself to say, playing tennis with a friend, and he wins the 1'st set out of 3 sets, I can just walk out on him and use your argument that "its just a game".  Right?  How do you think that would work?  Alternatively if I was I was playing soccer against some friends and they score first, I can just walk out and again, people should not get pissed coz its just a game.  Correct?

I am going to assume that you have the intelligence to understand that such behaviour would not be socially acceptable IRL.  So why should the virtual world be different?  Because we are not facing each other?  This is why RQ'ing can be translated as abuse of the anonymity of the internet.

When I play online, I make a comittment to complete the game becuase I realize that the people I am playing with are human beings and expect them to behave in kind, by not leaving my game just as I, out of respect, will not leave theirs.  Having said that, I can still see quitting as a viable way to end the game if all the following 3 criteria are true:

1)  We are overwhelmgly losing (due to feeders / ppl disconnecting)
2)  We have been overwhelmgnly losing for a long time
3)  Our opponents are deliberately postponing their victory by not destroying the citadel, instead just pwning us, and have been doing so for a while.

I have been playing online for a week and have yet to see the aforementioned scenario.  Sofar the community has not been too bad.  So whats your excuse?

Now, moving on to solutions;  I retract my statement where I said that people should lose rating when they quit a game, becuase sometimes, there are legitimate technical reasons for leaving.  This is why a 3rd party banning application would be more viable where you can decide for yourself if the RQ'er is bannable or not by using your discretion.  If you are not 100% sure, don't ban.  Also don't ban the 2nd person for leaving if one person has already left on his team etc.  Whatever you decide, your banlist database would be specific to yourself and your friends so it wont really matter anyway.

Another solution that the devs should implement is to NOT allow the AI to take over a player but simply allow the players themselves to take control over that demi by taking his items etc to further balance things out.  Finally the players on the RQ'ers team could be compensated with extra gold / XP gain on top of the items of the RQ'er. Its not a perfect solution but at least a step in the right direction.

EDIT: added some more clarfications.

mines basicaly the same as zak  but  with that if they are all crit noobs who arn't using any attack abilities and are just using crits to kill then i leave

As I recall, in the thread where someone introduced his own Global banlist it was shut down by the majority of players. I've searched a couple times through my responses but couldn't come up with the thread .

Either way, the fact remains that if you just trust everyone who uses the banlist to 'not ban unreasonably' you will run into problems. Ragers are not limited to people who leave games and don't own a banlist, and therein lies the problem. Without saving every single replay of every game you ever play (not to mention, Demigod does not have replays that I'm aware of), you would eventually get banned by someone for beating him/disagreeing/not playing well eventually, and thus the Banlist would serve no purpose but to alienate and lose users.

i would rather have personal ban list  as in one that if u hate some one u can make it so that  his name wont appear  and u wont see games with him in stuf like that

but u dont need to shove somesone name up on a huge board for tousands of people to see that just means ur a bastard too

so  banlist is a good and bad idea

dannnng 400 or 500 points is a huge penalty. Atleast for a newer player.

There's a problem with individual enforced banlists though.  Here's an example:

Player A hosts a custom game.

Player B, Player C, and Player D join game.

What if Player A wanted to play with Player B and Player D, but Player B was banned by Player D for some reason.

And Player C wants to play with Player A and Player D, but can't b/c Player B banned Player D also.

I'm sure there'd be some kinks to be worked out, but you can see how issues could possibly arise.

 

And I agree, public display of banlists is a big nono.  It's always your word against their's unless there is a replay to back it up.

Then Player D will make a decision, stay and play with the banned player, or not.

to fix rage quitting just hit alt-f4 who really cares bunch of whiners