Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

Why isn't there a WZ quitters cooldown?

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > PvP
Why isn't there a WZ quitters cooldown?
First BioWare Post First BioWare Post

Dawncatcher's Avatar


Dawncatcher
03.28.2013 , 07:07 PM | #371
Quote: Originally Posted by Kubernetic View Post
[I removed all of the rest for space's sake and no other reason.] But here are the replies to your thoughts in your last reply.

1. So it's settled. You're okay with PVP being screwed up by quitters and the only method you approve of to fix this is essentially to buff the side that went down a few or punish the entire warzone.

We'll agree to disagree.
An outnumbered buff is an established practice. It's already in use in another game. But in an open field map it doesn't always work properly since other people log in alternate accounts to the other side and just leave them AFK just to prevent the opposing side from having the buff, plus in a really big area, being outnumbered doesn't mean much if the opposing side is spread out all over the place and your numbers, few though they are, are condensed together.

But it a small space like a warzone, it really could work. I never see anyone trying to multibox in a warzone, keeping a spy on the opposing team. No way to guarantee both characters would get in the same warzone, plus the deserter detection and AFK-kicking is fairly harsh.

Forcibly preventing players from participating, except due to unintentional issues like bugs and lag, is not an established practice.

Quote:
2. Noting that you continually seem to overlook the fact that there is a quitter problem and that there is something that needs to be fixed is not an ad hominem attack. Please consult the definition.
No, but continually insisting that I am completely uncaring about the problem and want to take advantage of it to zerg an underpowered team, as you did, is an ad hominem attack.

Quote:
No, because we have quitters on our team does not mean it's the opposing member's fault. So what? Does that mean it's automatically MY team's fault? If not, what then? Now we have a whole warzone people who aren't at fault. I say we do something about it and fix the imbalance.
Yes, the quitter creates an imbalance, but not Bioware, and no one is actually prevented from continuing their business. People log into warzones and expect to be allowed to PvP, not sit there as an observer while other people PvP. So either go along with a solution like a buff that will allow people to continue engage in player versus player combat, or just shrug your shoulders and acknowledge that PvP, like anything else in life, has it's ups and downs, so either take the good with the bad or stop queuing.

Quote:
You obviously disagree unless we're freezing and disrupting the entire warzone or coming up with the extremely convoluted freeze-everyone-then-give-one-or-more-people-the-option-to-freeze-themselves-and-unfreeze-everyone-else or whatever. We'll leave it there.
I would prefer the buff solution. But freezing everyone is at least a lesser evil to punishing just one random innocent and leaving them with nothing to do but watch while the match goes on without them.

Quote:
3. Yes, quitters are responsible for their own actions. Not me. So stop punishing me and my team for their inability to play the game.
Bioware didn't punish you. Your teammate either abandoned you for selfish reasons, or was pulled away by family, Acts of God, or other stuff outside of their control. If anyone should be frozen, it's the person who left, with an option to rejoin the same match they just left, at least until someone else replaces them or the match ends. Which isn't so unreasonable -- it wouldn't punish people who were genuinely AFK, since freezing their character would probably be doing them a favor (to prevent AFK death), and if it only lasted until their slot was replaced (with an option to rejoin), it wouldn't punish people who disconnected or who crashed to desktop because of a memory leak or whatever. It would be a minor inconvenience to people who did quit for selfish reasons, as it would stop them from enjoying the rest of the game, but unless the queue was empty of backfillers, not much of one, and even if the queue were empty, it would never last longer than the match they left -- certainly not half an hour.

Some random person on the other side, however, did nothing to deserve it.

Quote:
4. I wouldn't care if I got the freeze beam so long as I was being compensated in some regard. I would understand that it's being done for the overall enjoyment of the match, and unlike some, I'm not opposed to losing 30 seconds out of a match here or there to insure that many more of the matches on average started out fairly and ended fairly with each team at least having a chance.
Maybe you're there just for the rewards, but I want to fight other players. I'd rather switch sides than be frozen (with all my medals and stats intact). I'm a profiteering smuggler -- I don't care who I'm fighting for. Let me defect and join your losing team and try to turn the match around! Hahahahahah! Although I suppose two people would have to quit on the same time, or that would just create a numerical imbalance in the other direction... I don't know, better just call a companion in that case. Or the buff idea.

[/quote]
We will again disagree on this.

5. Please don't suggest again (with a straight face) that all of the people who just quit a warzone IMMEDIATELY AFTER A BOMB WAS PLANTED IN VOIDSTAR did so because all of their children simultaneously just fell out of their high chair and needed immediate attention.
[/quote]

It depends if they left right after the enemy team planted a bomb, or right after their team planted a bomb. Even then, all you have is a preponderance of evidence, not beyond reasonable doubt.

Quote:
I have no problems with people leaving a match to take care of their lives. I have all kinds of problems with selfish little brats leaving just because they got popped in the nose once.
Okay. That's one thing we agree on. In this whole post... but at least it's not a small thing.

Quote:
Just stop. You look ridiculous. No one believes this crap that every warzone quitter is doing so for a family emergency. They are the exception, not the norm.
Of course it's the exception, but it's still a large minority, not something almost completely unheard of.

Quote:
6. You're already committed to having people who weren't at fault punished, i.e. the team that suffered the quitters. Please stop prtending that you have some internal problem with people in a warzone being inconvenienced through no fault of their own. We're past that now. We know the reality.
This is what I meant by ad hominem attack. I accept that people will have to suffer quitters on their team and there is only a limited amount that can be done about it, such as buffs or companions, but that doesn't mean I'm delighted about it. Life isn't fair. Some children are born blind, which is infinitely more unfair than being grouped with quitters in a warzone in an online game, but that's the reality of nature, and while I'm not happy about it, I'm not complaining about the government's failure to find some sort of technological solution to help all those kids see either. Accepting reality isn't the same as being happy about it.

Quote:
7. Well if you've lost credibility with me and I've lost credibility with you, I suppose this is my final response post to you. Farewell.
Farewell to you too.

Quote:
8. My way wouldn't kill PVP. That's ridiculous.
Being frozen isn't Player versus Player combat. It's isn't even PvE. It isn't player versus anything at all.

Quote:
9. Again, we already have players inconvenienced who had no control over stopping it. Apparently you only care about the opposite team being inconvenienced. I'm not sure how you sort that, but that will be your prerogative. I cannot follow that twisted logic. There are more people in the warzone than just the opposing team.
"Apparently you only care" is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about when I pointed out you are unable to debate without ad hominems. I care, but not so much to suggest a cure that's worse than the disease. But hey, maybe the opposing team would start quitting just to grief you, and perhaps then you'd understand.

Quote:
10. I wasn't making anything up. I was specifically referring to your specific responses to my notions of balancing the warzone by reducing the number of opposing players to parity. Directly calling into account your claim that doing this "Creates an advantage" was not imagined nor conjured by me. It was your reply. You figure it out.
You were making up strawman arguments, presumably because you found those easier to counter than my actual arguments. Your solution creates and advantages of opportunity, not of numbers. Opportunity, as in, hey, that person was about to interrupt us planting a bomb, but they got frozen right before they could. Now we can continue planting the bomb. Advantage of opportunity.

Quote:
11. Your conitnual reliance on slinging around "ad hominem" charges as if they are legitimate when you apparently don't understand what that means, as you are using it incorrectly, is tiresome. Noting that you completely ignore your own team's disadvantages in continual deferrence to the opposing team's enjoyment of the warzone is NOT an ad hominem attack. It is simply an analysis of your argument.
Responded above -- you keep putting words in my mouth, which is ad hominem. Well, earlier you were saying I completely ignored my team's advantages, not disadvantages, in continual callousness, not deference, to the opposing teams enjoyment... but I guess you can't make up your mind.

Quote:
And you have so far failed to explain why you continually do this, apart from an apparent need for nearly insurmountable challenge every time you play a PVP warzone.
No need for an insurmountable challenge when I can find perfectly surmountable ones everywhere I look.

[qoute]
I like a challenge, but I'd also like a bit of an opportunity each time to win. I'm not interested in 50-75% of the matches being foregone conclusions.[/quote]

I win in every single match I play (unless I'm literally backfilled in the last minute). Multiple times over. Every single kill is a win. A killing blow is an extra special win. Winning a 1v1 is a really fun win. Also, lives saved with my heals are wins. And living longer than I should four versus one is sort of winnish in a way to. Not that I completely ignore objectives or anything. Interrupting someone from planting a bomb or scoring with the Huttball are wins too. The whole match is a series of wins, with some loses along the way, but those are quickly forgotten with the next win. Win, win, win, win, win. Sitting in a freezebeam would not be win. It wouldn't even be lose. It would be... stagnation. Losing is not the antithesis of winning. You simply learned one more thing that does not work, so in a way, even a lose is a type of win, of sorts. Stagnation is the antithesis of winning.

Quote:
If you don't think 8 vs 5 is unbalanced, then we're done. Thanks for taking the time to reply as you did.
"If you don't think [something that I do actually agree with]" is exactly the sort of completely made up ad hominem straw man argument I was talking about. But I suppose you have to make up straw mans because you are utterly incapable of dealing with real arguments. Well, assuming each player is the same level of goodness, then yes, of course it's unbalanced. (And if they aren't all equally geared... well, not much you can do about that, short of getting rid of grind based character progression and giving the same gear choices to all players for free or so cheaply as to be insignificant. And if they aren't equal in other ways, like kiting or organization, then there really is nothing you can do.) But there are plenty of solutions that do not prevent people from PvPing in a PvP zone. Buffing, companions, defecting, whatever, just let people who logged in to PvP actually be able to do so.

manchusabre's Avatar


manchusabre
03.28.2013 , 09:54 PM | #372
If they would just work on balancing pvp there would be less quitting. I can tell who is going to win most matches in the first 30 seconds of the match. You have people in recruit gear with 14k health going up against full EWH gear, tanks at 27k health. Ridiculous. It's no contest. People are focusing the people in recruit gear all the time. You have to put in hours of depressing gameplay to finally get gear to have a chance in pvp and to be enjoyable. People are trying to get the weekly done which can be such a crap shoot. People are realizing they are going to lose the match and drop the warzone. It's not an occasional thing either. I spent a whole weekend pugging pvp to get gear and lost the majority on the time. A premade group is pretty much needed to get some wins in. Pugs v. premades end up losing all day long. I know it seems lately pubs end up having fewer healers than imps. A good team with no healer can't last against a team with heals. You have geared healers that can out heal the dps being done to them. I sure hope there isn't another night and day difference in the 55 pvp gear. It's kind of sad there isn't more focus on pvp because it's half of the endgame. I know I can only put up with it for so long before i need to take a week or 2 break from it because of the imbalances. They will probably need to work on adding back in cross server pvp. I know i'm seeing the same names over and over.

Dawncatcher's Avatar


Dawncatcher
03.29.2013 , 02:25 AM | #373
Quote: Originally Posted by manchusabre View Post
If they would just work on balancing pvp there would be less quitting. I can tell who is going to win most matches in the first 30 seconds of the match. You have people in recruit gear with 14k health going up against full EWH gear, tanks at 27k health. Ridiculous. It's no contest. People are focusing the people in recruit gear all the time.
Well, yes, gear does make a big difference. Not such a huge difference that I've never seen someone win against an overgeared opponent, particularly in a duel, but that was because the well geared person was really bad in some other way, perhaps didn't know how to kite, or was using weak ranged skills when they were primarily a melee class, or possibly just lagged out, while the undergeared person kited like mad and used everything they had. But without an even greater skill imbalance, yeah, the gear does not put people on equal footing. In a group versus group it is of course unlikely all the undergeared people will have much greater skill than all the overgeared people. Personally, I think a full pre-made of 8 should have the option to allow the other side to have extra numbers, if they lack any premades of their own. Optional checkbox, recommended for experienced pre-mades only. 8 well-geared well-coordinated people against 12 lesser geared more disorganized people, so maybe the extra 4 could help balance out the gear and organization imbalance.

But what are you going to do about it? Give everyone Elite War Hero gear for a few credits so they can all go in equal in terms of gearing at least? Or equal options, in any case, but still let people customize their builds. A lot of people would like that, so PvP could be about kiting and skill and not about stats. But then you have a lot of people who insist that they should have it easier because they've been around for a long time and they worked hard for that gear. And that is the standard of the MMO industry. So if you were going to try something where everyone had the same gear options from the onset, you might want to leave existing PvP alone so those people don't become too furious. I read another post suggesting space PvP. Perhaps that would be an appropriate arena for PvP where everyone could have the same gear options from the start and focus more on kiting and less on gearing, while still leaving tradition intact for ground PvP.

Also, if it isn't your first character, you can use bound to legacy orange gear to pass war hero or elite war hero mods to them. I'm guessing not enough people on your side do this. If people aren't using options Bioware gave them, there's not much to be done.

Quote:
You have to put in hours of depressing gameplay to finally get gear to have a chance in pvp and to be enjoyable. People are trying to get the weekly done which can be such a crap shoot. People are realizing they are going to lose the match and drop the warzone. It's not an occasional thing either. I spent a whole weekend pugging pvp to get gear and lost the majority on the time. A premade group is pretty much needed to get some wins in. Pugs v. premades end up losing all day long. I know it seems lately pubs end up having fewer healers than imps. A good team with no healer can't last against a team with heals. You have geared healers that can out heal the dps being done to them.
Regarding your lack of healers -- I play Republic side, and 90% of the time I go in solo, I don't get a guarded by a tank. I still frequently top the charts on healing, but that could be in part due to the other people on my team not doing enough damage that the imperial healers have that much work, and in part due to my gear. If I don't die a ton of times, either the other side doesn't have good focus fire, or there's another healer or two looking out for me.

Now, I realize the ops leader of a bunch of random soloers isn't a real leader, and can only make suggestions, but even when I've been ops leader and strongly suggested to the tanks that they should find a healer to guard and pair up with (I don't tell them which healer, just a healer), it's a suggestion they almost never follow. No, sorry, we're damage. It's exactly that sort of attitude that discourages people from queuing solo on their healers. Bless the tanks who guard without being asked. But please, tell your healer you guarded them so they can thank you with heals. Unless you're one of those really dedicated tanks who keeps moving their guard buff around based on the situation and doesn't have time to let people know.

Quote:
I sure hope there isn't another night and day difference in the 55 pvp gear. It's kind of sad there isn't more focus on
pvp because it's half of the endgame. I know I can only put up with it for so long before i need to take a week or 2 break from it because of the imbalances. They will probably need to work on adding back in cross server pvp. I know i'm seeing the same names over and over.

AntarNyaus's Avatar


AntarNyaus
04.04.2013 , 08:02 AM | #374
Quote: Originally Posted by RobHinkle View Post
...extending our current vote kick penalty (or something similar to it) to players who opt to leave the Warzone is definitely something that we discuss...
Wait, there is a vote kick penalty? Considering the two times I've been vote kicked were for absolutely ridiculous reasons relating to the team leaders failure to understand how the game works (things like I DC and instead of removing me from the group, they "votekick, reason: DC") it would be exceedingly aggravating to find out that I'm being penalized for other people's lack of comprehension.

Quote: Originally Posted by RobHinkle View Post
However, at this time we feel like the negative consequences of putting in such a system (such as hurting players who crash out of a Warzone) don't overcome the potential gain.
I agree. Until there is a toggle to select which warzone you are queueing for I drop a WZ at least once a day when I'm PvPing much (like working on the Weekly over the weekend). The reason being I hate Huttball. I know some love it but whether I win or loose it's just never been fun for me on any of my characters. And it takes 15 minutes. Ugh. Huttball loads and I immediately leave the WZ and then re-queue after a few minutes to try and avoid getting backfilled into the same Huttball match. If I'm only logged on to PvP and get locked out for "desertion", I'm just going to log off for the day and go play some other game.

If we could select which warzones we queued for, I would be 100% supportive of a desertion penalty. Until that time, however, I remain 100% opposed to any penalty.
Antar "Tonar" Nyaus, Gunslinger, The Ebon Hawk Nyaus Legacy
Republic: Antaakot, Sage; Antaaro, Guard; Antaade, Troop; Antrajhin, Scoundrel
Empire: Arnot, Mara; Antaanih, Sorc; Antaail, Snipe; Antaahin, Merc; Antvalt, Jugg
░▒ The Army of Light (R) ░▒ Unhinged (I) ▒░

Ninja_Amnesty's Avatar


Ninja_Amnesty
04.04.2013 , 11:28 AM | #375
My problem isn't people quitting in the match, it is being put into a game that has already started. I want to be able to play a full game from start to finish with a chance at maxing out medals and what not and have fun playing. I don't want to be a replacement for a terrible team.

My suggestion is that if people quit out of a warzone, the game should find a game that has already started for the people who have recently quit a game to play or I should have the option to turn off a setting which allows me to join games in the middle of a severe beat down. Chances are, if someone quit because losing isn't fun, no one would want to join a game that isn't fun. Unfortunately this game isn't the only one with matchmaking that sends you into a hopeless endeavor.

Not many people quit a warzone because they didn't get to choose which one to participate in. If that was the case, they wouldn't play half the way through the warzone and then decide they don't want to play that particular one. They would do it at the beginning before the real reason people quit warzones occur.

On the other hand, I don't want a debuff because I have to take a call or go eat or simply just get disconnected.

My argument still stands, why can I not have the option to avoid joining games that are already in progress?
As a smuggler, I usually give three responses. Are you going to pay me, is that all you're going to pay me, and yes I'll do it.

mrekxxx's Avatar


mrekxxx
04.05.2013 , 02:19 AM | #376
Quote: Originally Posted by manchusabre View Post
If they would just work on balancing pvp there would be less quitting. I can tell who is going to win most matches in the first 30 seconds of the match. You have people in recruit gear with 14k health going up against full EWH gear, tanks at 27k health. Ridiculous. It's no contest. People are focusing the people in recruit gear all the time. You have to put in hours of depressing gameplay to finally get gear to have a chance in pvp and to be enjoyable. People are trying to get the weekly done which can be such a crap shoot. People are realizing they are going to lose the match and drop the warzone. It's not an occasional thing either. I spent a whole weekend pugging pvp to get gear and lost the majority on the time. A premade group is pretty much needed to get some wins in. Pugs v. premades end up losing all day long. I know it seems lately pubs end upy having fewer healers than imps. A good team with no healer can't last against a team with heals. You have geared healers that can out heal the dps being done to them. I sure hope there isn't another night and day difference in the 55 pvp gear. It's kind of sad there isn't more focus on pvp because it's half of the endgame. I know I can only put up with it for so long before i need to take a week or 2 break from it because of the imbalances. They will probably need to work on adding back in cross server pvp. I know i'm seeing the same names over and over.
nice post, all important is here ...

Atramar's Avatar


Atramar
04.05.2013 , 02:27 AM | #377
@Ninja_Amnesty:
you never joined game that was won?
or joined HB 0:2 and turned tables , 4 minutes later it was won 6:2?
fair enouth, sometimes it's annoying when you join Voidstar where attackers had freerun till the end or CW on 3cap from enemy... but those are easy to quit
but the satisfaction from winnin such a game...
Tracer Legacy, The Red Eclipse.
Not reading colored text, it hurts my eyes. Sorry (unless it's a dev post)
L55:Sniper,Operative,Juggernaut,Assassin,Marauder, Powertech,Guardian,Commando,Scoundrel
to finish:Shadow(41),Sage(53),Merc(39). 29.07.2013

Varkantos's Avatar


Varkantos
04.07.2013 , 04:22 PM | #378
Why isn't there a mechanic to keep bad players out of my warzone?

Crawelc's Avatar


Crawelc
04.07.2013 , 04:37 PM | #379
Quote: Originally Posted by Varkantos View Post
Why isn't there a mechanic to keep bad players out of my warzone?
Agreed if you do less than 100 of either damage healing or protectiong in 3 wzs in a row you should have to take a time out to evaluate why you que for wzs.
Imprimis <Fight><Redemption><Conquest><Super Bads><Murica Force><The Cream><RSU>
All Imprimis All the time.
GM of 3 dead guilds and counting.

Hazaz's Avatar


Hazaz
04.07.2013 , 06:13 PM | #380
Quote: Originally Posted by Crawelc View Post
Agreed if you do less than 100 of either damage healing or protectiong in 3 wzs in a row you should have to take a time out to evaluate why you que for wzs.
Screw that. Winning is not the only reason to play.

/support OP 30min. Cool Down.
Friends don't let friends drink and forum post!

DeviantArt
HazazartSWTOR