Rage quit deterrents
DarkflameQ
Join Date: 2013-02-28 Member: 183451Members
Join Date: 2013-02-28 Member: 183451Members
Is anything being done to deter such behavior?
Happens a lot in a skilled game like NS2, people need more patience to learn the game and not rage quit after a few deaths in a row.
I've seen people rage quit simply because they lost their higher life forms / exo's.
I read somewhere once that the Battlefield series implemented an anti rage quitting deterrent by removing the disconnect button from the escape menu for a few seconds after a player dies and that it cut rage quitting by 30%.
Team Fortress 2 also introduced anti rage quitting deterrents back in October last year by reminding players that leaving a match counts as an abandonment and that the game tracks how often this occurs.
I think these are both good ideas for a game like NS2, i think some form of attempt should be made to deter rage quitting, even if it's just in the form of a mod.
Happens a lot in a skilled game like NS2, people need more patience to learn the game and not rage quit after a few deaths in a row.
I've seen people rage quit simply because they lost their higher life forms / exo's.
I read somewhere once that the Battlefield series implemented an anti rage quitting deterrent by removing the disconnect button from the escape menu for a few seconds after a player dies and that it cut rage quitting by 30%.
Team Fortress 2 also introduced anti rage quitting deterrents back in October last year by reminding players that leaving a match counts as an abandonment and that the game tracks how often this occurs.
I think these are both good ideas for a game like NS2, i think some form of attempt should be made to deter rage quitting, even if it's just in the form of a mod.
Comments
But sometimes it is an issue that people quit too early. But I'm not a fan of penalizing them, it would be different if it was actually matchmaking, like an actual match, but for public servers it's a no-no imho.
I also can't think of another good option, forcing people to play is not very fun for the people being forced either, as much is ragequit for the others.
I agree people should not be penalized but i think the disconnect option disappearing for a few seconds after someone has died would help a lot as it will give them a few seconds to cool down and make a rational decision decision instead of one from anger.
Won't stop folks from going to console and typing exit.
When/if they ever put a proper skill rating system, you will know that veteran players tend to ragequit less.
I am appalled at the lack of thought in this post. Darkflame just said that rage-quitting was shown to decrease by 30%. He never said ragequitting would be stopped. It's like:
"how can we deter people from committing crimes? There is one method whereby it has been shown to decrease crime by 30%"
"We can never fully prevent crime therefore why bother trying to reduce it?"
I don't know if the figures are correct, but I have heard that it had a significant effect from other sources so I am inclined to think it's probably true. If it IS true then I do not see why this wouldn't help.
"but you could just type disconnect in the console"
You don't fucking say. There are, however, many people who do not know that (calm down the forums is not representative of the wider community).
I was expecting such responses from the community here, a lot of people on these forums are very negative at the best of times.
Alas i felt the need to post the suggestion in the very slim hopes a modder sees it and gives the disappearing disconnection button / disable f4 function function a whirl.
I'd be more than happy to put such a mod on my servers.
I often watch games in spectator mode and i've seen half of a team rage quit within 5 minutes of a game starting simply because the commander was new.
Not sure what we can do for those people though, they didn't even think to try to eject him...
On a serious note, I don't rage quit often. I have before though. I think rage is a little strong of a word; to me I just quit. If I do I really do just alt-f4.
I do see rage quitting as a problem though.
It certainly wouldn't make people suddenly start trying harder as if they have a chance, most would simply goof off and/or hide while they wait for it to end. When it's that time to concede, I myself will find a nice secluded spot to sit and wait for it to be over.
Also getting enough people to vote to evict a bad comm, or concede when it's over takes too many votes. So many people refuse to concede, even when their team has zero resource points and no commander... Apparently it's fun for them to die over and over again with no hope of a comeback.
Move conceding back from 10 to 5 minutes and slightly lower the % it takes for a vote to be successful, and I think that would greatly lower the number of people who "ragequit"
On smaller servers with many regulars playing on it its not real a problem.
The Shine admin mod allows customisation of evict comm and concede voting.
Default non modded values are way too high to be effective.
My servers already has 40% team vote to evict com and concede at 5 minutes with 50% of the vote instead of default 60%, people still rage quit, lol
Like i said previously, you can never completely rage quitting, but it can be reduced with measures, right now, NS2 has none.
I think these are both terrible ideas that came out of great games that turned to complete shit, and any attempt to control people's behavior is beyond retarded. Good luck preventing me from leaving whenever I want to. You'll need it.
Why? I crash alot, as im using the SUPREXTRMLYBUGGYVURSHN(linux/port) And sometimes i can't even reconnect into the game i just crashed out of, resulting in an abandon of an otherwise was going fairly well game
Any attempt to increase strictness when it comes to game quitting will just result in much.less.fun for EVERYONE.
There is a concede option for a reason, people should use it if their team is losing badly with no hope of winning.
I'm finished with this topic.
-Makes suggestion-
-Comes with evidence-
-Is told he is wrong-
lol people
This is so dumb. It's like someone saying "not allowing machetes on the playground won't stop folks from going to the dinner hall and getting a fork to poke your eyes out".
I've seen ragequits happen quite a lot. I saw a few comms ragequit yesterday. It won't stop you from raging - look you could use the console, type alt+f4, or even switch your computer off at the mains. But if you think the timer thing will do nothing...lol
On the other hand, I agree with those who say ragequitting is not much of a problem. Usually I don't blame them for doing it as it's often the culmination of a very one-sided round. I have "ragequit" myself a few times when carrying a round very heavily, only to sack my lifeform because no one on my team has a neuron between them.
Ok. You are wrong there. By saying that you are assuming people only rage quit because they are losing. I have quit while winning because the other team was being silly. Such as 90% of aliens/marines are still in base after 5 minutes. I am sure if I really thought about it I could make a page long list of reasons to quit not related to losing.
People need more than a few seconds, if that's all it took to cool down there would be less rage quitting than there is. People get frustrated an take it personal, then that turns into an internal struggle = quit.
Except there are plently of deaf and blind or stubborn players that won't use it. Or there are masochistic, plently of times people just continue on when it's clearly lost.
It seems to be mostly an issue with new players, those with a white name but still new included.
Its something that would heavily decrease the demoralized, infectious, detrimental rage quitting.
Because then it wouldn't be an RTS anymore, it would be a class-based shooter, and there would be no need for RTs. Spiraling is something built into all RTS games, because the more economy you get, the more and arguably "better" (while still somewhat having weaknesses/strengths) units you get, which lead to more economy, and then more/better units, and then more economy etc. It's always exponential.
Reducing the "better" or more desirable units closer to the "base" units (which would enable more "comebacks") would make the better units less desirable, and therefore the entire resource game meaningless. I mean, that's actually not too bad of an idea, but we're talking about making ns2 into a different game - something like TF2 where you pick if you want to be a skulk or an onos, an LMG or a dual, at every respawn, and without RTs.
Spiraling is fine. The better team deserves to win. In my opinion, the better team doesn't win fast enough actually. There's nothing more boring than winning the game, and then just waiting 5-10-15 minutes in the adjacent rooms until aliens get X oni, Y biomass, and Z upgrades so they can finally end it.
That being said I've played countless games where people left for any number of valid reasons, and the other team whine, bitched, and chided the players that are left claiming that our team was "raging." This is absolutely unacceptable. Some people are going to rage, and honestly I'd rather not have those people in game. Let them take a time out and cool off. Forcing these people to stay will only make them more upset, and help feed a toxic atmosphere they generate.
@IronHorse
That's probably the best idea, making comebacks viable, but I'd have no idea where you could start considering where the game has progressed. The thing is there are plenty of games that have had amazing comebacks. The problem is that pub games generally come down to a battle of morale. If you can break the opposing teams' morale, you win the game either by concession or by the toxic atmosphere and degenerate snowballing you've previously described.
@HeatSurge
I've joined pub games half an hour in on a single base, pushed back and won the game because we played intelligently, and the enemy was drawn into making mistakes. So I'm not convinced that teams need to win faster, or that "spiraling" is the only method of wining strategy games. There are numerous RTS examples such as Company of Heroes in which intelligent play can trump economic and tech advantage. It bares mentioning that economic advantage does not nec. equate to winning, it's a certainly positive indication but it's never a direct sign. Fortunately NS2 hinges on individual players and the team outside of the general "macro" (econ, tech). If you have weapons 3, it doesn't mean anything if your guys can't shoot.
What i propose is something i typically loathe.... built in mechanics which upset the current balance.
An example of what we typically hate about these kind of mechanics: The other team has a 3 rts lead? Your team just got a *shudders* supply crate dropped in which hands out shotguns and jetpacks at X mins.
It will feel random.. it will feel like your efforts are for nothing.. and it sucks.
But i think you accomplish comebacks without making it suck - you can wrap it up into a nice meta game, and hide the betraying aspects.
Something like having to actually invest something which was not pres or tres, so that it was available as an option to you even when you were economically bankrupt.
It would be a last ditch effort strategy which would provide a high risk / high reward scenario, while also giving the winning team a chance to deny this opportunity and therefore actually end the round as it would before. AKA Counterable.
This way it would feel natural and would be a tactical decision.. you already see this sometimes with gorge rushes.. but they are not really high risk (what, you're out of position and each player is down just a few pres?) and not always high reward.
Would be relative easy to implement as well, and would fit nicely into the macro / existing game. Just needs a bit of brain storming.
The only downside would be what @soul_rider brought up.. it would have potential to making games longer.. if the risk or reward were both not high enough.
You have to make sure it'd be a choice that couldn't be chosen early just because it was so powerful - it must be situationally based/triggered.
It seems that the the definition has changed nowdays such that if somebody leaves the game after a death (even a vanilla marine or skulk death) people can be like "LOL ragequit". Sometimes it's in anger (although if it's kept to themselves I wouldn't characterise it as rage), but some of the time - that's just the logical time to leave if you don't necessarily have the time to play until the end of the round. It's the same scenario as when you'd play old platformer games as a kid - when it's time to stop, you either stop at the end of the level, or when you lose your next life. It's no different.
Having said that, it would actually be pretty funny if when you turn your SEGA off after you lose a life in Sonic the Hedgehog, a speech bubble comes up from the spikes you fell on saying "LOL ragequit!" before shutting down.
I like what Ironhorse wrote, I also "dont mind" the commander's choice to concede a game, though many others used to rage at commanders who rec'd the base. Not being able to shut down the CC or Hive you're sitting in - has always kind of bothered me.