Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

Matchmaking pentalies for leavers

15 posts, 1683 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
sort
6 years ago
I would like some sort of penalty to be introduced for people who leave matchmaking games, specifically in team games.

It's really annoying when you are 15mins+ into a 2v2 or 3v3 and a teammate gets upset or angry and quits. It totally spoils the game and it wastes everyones time.

I only have an hour or two a day at most to play and I like to do some solo and team games. It's really irksome when teammates just quit for trival and unjust reasons.

Please impliment some sort of reputation system or ban system to prevent these types of players from ruining the teams mode.

Thanks.
+0 / -0

6 years ago
Resigning is legal way to leave game anyway.
There is also problem with forbidding resign - if game becomes long and pointless struggle where you as experienced player know that its just waste of time then resign is savior. This is very annoying on large team games where less experienced player want to prolong time even when defeat is immanent.
+9 / -0
6 years ago
Resign saves time.

Early unnecessary resigners will be punished with low ELO?
+2 / -0

6 years ago
Both guys sort of have a point, although I agree more with Senaven than Bucky.

When your team is on 1/4 map and you've been losing ground all the way, and the Bertha fire is starting to hammer down and the Detriment your team started building is a mere 20 minutes away ... it's time to resign. Likewise when one flank is holding but the other flank has collapsed and the enemy has heavy tanks rampaging through the rear. Also when you've had your side nuked twice and you have no superweapon or anti in sight. The end is a foregone conclusion.

On the other hand, Bucky has a point that sometimes players resign too soon. Some cough plukky players like to execute high-risk strategies that are devastating when they work but less than amazing when they don't. It seems fair to me that such a player at least play along for a while instead of resigning when the high risk strat fails. Very often this sort of player is a very experienced and high level player and could stabilize the situation they caused in the first place.

My personal gripe is when I can see a way to win, and players start just leaving units. It's very, very hard to just pick up where another player left off. It's doubly so when the player that resigns is on the other side of the map. One simply can't suck in their tactical situation and make the correct decisions in the space of a few seconds. (Well, at least I can't.) I think it's good manners to at least (1) alert the rest of the team that you are going to resign and (2) at least give your units to the player closest to you, who is somewhat sharing your immediate tactical map.

To recap: resigning is fine, just don't be an ass about it.

Fighting to the last solar panel is a waste of everybody's time.
+0 / -0

6 years ago
Does it really make a big difference? This isn't a MOBA where you need to micro every unit individually, and sometimes taking control of both armies is better anyway. Granted, two players of equal skill tend to be better than one, but I'd say leaving isn't such a huge impact on balance that people should be forbidden to leave.
+1 / -0


6 years ago
There is a tradeoff to be made:
  • How good is it to coerce someone to keep playing when they want to resign?
  • Hos bad is it to want to resign but have a teammate that cannot see that you've clearly lost?

This topic has a multitude of social and technical solutions/issues to take into account.
  • Being unable to resign is less bad in a game designed to end quite quickly after it is lost. Unfortunately this tends to depend on player skill.
  • Early resigns are not so bad in ZK because it is possible to competently take control of your teammates units. The success of this also depends on skill.
  • What should the penalty be, and how bad is it when it misfires due to crashes or other bugs?
  • If a player really wants to resign are they going to be particularly good teammates?
+7 / -0
6 years ago
From my perspective as a player it is more about playing style (maybe you enjoy fighting more against odds than others) and selecting whom you play with (some people just annoy you).

I would love to have a list of "never play with this guy again" and a list with "play with this guy even if ELO is not in our favor".

(had a funny game when someone in our team resigned and 2 minutes later the whole other team resigned. My opinion was that all the resigns were premature, and that the game was not decided at that point)
+0 / -0
6 years ago
At least make opt out of takes. If I recieve some random take I resign too coz its just too annoying.
+0 / -0

6 years ago
Dota has a punishment system for leavers and no voteable surrender option.

My takeaway after 3000 hours of Dota is that if you punish people for leaving they'll just stay and ruin your game. There are also some measures to detect in-game non-participation but people always find a way to work around them. It turns into a cat-and-mouse game between devs and game ruiners to detect bad behavior, and it's very difficult to programmatically differentiate between a ruiner and a bad player who's honestly trying. Time spent developing such a system means less attention to the core gameplay of ZK.

Some examples of behavior in Dota when people want to leave but aren't willing to accept the punishment:

- Walking down mid (like moving your commander to the enemy base at game start and streaming glaives to feed metal)
- Invis AFK (like spamming cloaky AA on hold fire to fool afk detection)
- Team griefing (like spamming snitches to friendly-fire your team mates)
- Feeding intel ("we're making nuke!")

The possibilities for griefing in ZK are even more numerous because of things like terraforming, forced attack, and friendly-fire for all weapons.

Maybe this is better with voteable surrender but if your team won't vote with you I imagine you'd see the same problems. The obvious response is that you could then report griefers for bad behavior but since you're effectively forcing this situation with leaver penalties you'd likely see a massive increase in report volume which means more work for our (volunteer) admins.

I vote for no penalties. There's a lot of evidence from other games showing that if you force someone on the internet to do something they don't want, they'll make it as miserable for you as they possibly can.
+10 / -0
I personally consider most bans a no-go with zk's current, small community. Unless somebody is griefing in a majority of their games, zk would benefit more from a bigger player base than from getting regular negative reviews by banned people about "abusive admins".
+3 / -0
Firepluk
6 years ago
quote:
Early unnecessary resigners will be punished with low ELO?

Ha-ha! Silly lobster! Low elo is not a punishment it's a BLISS!
Pluks has been exploiting it for years :D
+8 / -0
quote:
Low elo is not a punishment it's a BLISS!
+16 / -0
6 years ago
I've always said the ELO system is a nonesense.

However the majority seem to care about it so my suggestion was a pragmatic one rather than any reflection on my personal opinion about what individuals think is a penalty.
+0 / -0
6 years ago
Dota having no resign is one of the reasons that game is slowly dying.

Valve doesn't understand that games like HoN etc were popular because of mass flaming, everything goes, vote resign at 10 min kind of games. They have tried to force a naturally toxic playerbase to all be super nice and well, it doesnt work.

If their storm spirit has 20 kills at 10 mins I dont care if we end up winning I dont want to play the game anymore, yet it forces you to. Even if everyone on your team wants to leave you are forced to play.

Its why I stopped playing that game seriously about 5 years ago.

In Zero-K the current system is basically perfect -- you can resign, it doesnt destroy your units and your ally can keep fighting if they wish. I have personally won loads of games where some noob ally left after getting rushed only to come back and win. Forcing people to play when they dont want to is a horrible and unfun idea.
+5 / -1
There's also those lovely accounts of games being held hostage for 5 hours.
+0 / -0