DUST Search - How to Stop Players from Leaving

Breakin Stuff wrote:

Adipem Nothi wrote:

A, B and C above are good examples of opinions. Thank you, Breakin.

Reducing squad size improves Scotty performance:
* 60 players / 6 = 10 squads; 60 players / 4 = 15 squads
* The more squads in population, the more squads available for matchmaking
* The more squads Scotty has to work with, the better he'll matchmake
* The more squads Scotty has to work with, the faster he'll matchmake
* 6-man, high-Mu squads strain Scotty (spent 30 minutes waiting in queue with one last week)
* The fewer of these outlier squads Scotty has to work with, the faster he'll matchmake
* The fewer of these outlier squads Scotty has to work with, the better he'll matchmake

Reducing squad size dilutes stompsquad potency:
* 6x100M SP > 4x100M SP
* 6 protobears > 4 protobears
* Passives shared 6 ways > Passives shared 4 ways
* Risk exposure of 4-man squad > 6-man squad
* Etc ...

Note: I'd more readily suggest 4-man squads for Bush, Dom and Acq than Skirm. 6-man potency is often diluted in Skirmish, as the squad is more often than not split across multiple objectives.

Cite your sources.

I was unaware you have an ear into the processes and syasystemic downfalls of matchmaking.

What I see is assumptions you are touting as facts.

Get it through your head, adipem, unless you can provide something which can be physically verified, it is not evidence, it is anecdote.

So link me where you are magically getting your information.

And your bias against allowing squads is also well-documented. I think your position on squads is idiotic.

Because people who squad statistically do better, succeed more and tend to stick with the game longer, wheras solo players have an average life expectancy of hours.

Habitual solo play adds no long term benefit to the game and limiting players' social options does more harm to the game than anything else.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
DUST Fiend 16945	Posted - 2015.05.09 04:09:00 - [1] - Quote Once a player has attained 2 million SP, they will be prompted with the following upon joining a public contract queue "For your outstanding performance in combat, you are now qualified to enter the Dedicated Mercenary Queue. If you leave a contract before it has been completed, for any reason, you will be removed from the DMQ for the next 20 hours. Inactivity will be judged more harshly, and will result in removal from the queue for the same length of time. For your dedication, the winning team will receive 50% additional ISK, and the losing team will receive an additional 25% ISK. If you agree to these terms, please click X" A second window pops up that says "From now on, to join or leave the DMQ, press Square to enter options and toggle DMQ on or off." There is an X button to confirm, and that's it. If you try to join a DMQ match after having been removed, you will be prompted with a message stating "You will be eligable for DMQ matches in XX:XX hours" Clicking X changes the wording from "Public Contracts" to "Dedicated Mercenary Queue" (or whatever, you get the idea) and any matches started will be placed into that pool. In order for a squad to enter, everyone must be qualified for DMQ matches, otherwise the squad leader will be prompted with a message telling them that their squad is ineligible for DMQ at this time. The AFK punishing systemizationator should be ratcheted up even more, and possibly even threaten to kick you for spending too much time in your redline. If you're not killing and / or dying in the combat zone, you're not staying in a DMQ match. This isn't for the faint of heart, and those who have unreliable connection may want to reconsider before joining the queue. Matches should only be started with full teams, but it will also draw players in who are waiting for a match if slots become available. TL:DR: Carrot on a stick and whipping cane make sweet sweet love "When in doubt, dropship out" If you see me, bring AV to collect ISK DUST STUFF
BLOOD Ruler VOLKOV INDUSTRIES 1807	Posted - 2015.05.09 04:54:00 - [2] - Quote Yes, but the punishment is not severe enough. No Escaping Reason, No Denying Purpose For We Know Without Purpose We World Not Exist The Purpose Of Life Is To End
DUST Fiend 16948	Posted - 2015.05.09 04:55:00 - [3] - Quote BLOOD Ruler wrote: Yes, but the punishment is not severe enough. I don't see how locking them out for a day isn't severe enough lol. It allows them to mess with ONE match, and also doesn't overly penalize those who drop out because of poor connection. Times could potentially be looked at, but feel free to offer up alternative / additional infractions. "When in doubt, dropship out" If you see me, bring AV to collect ISK DUST STUFF
Happy Violentime OMFGZOMBIESRUN 1193	Posted - 2015.05.09 06:48:00 - [4] - Quote Quit match, don't get to play for 20hrs. Win/Win situation I think. PS. Good luck getting any sort of match when half the player base can't play for 20 hrs. Maybe just firebomb the server if you want to kill the game some more.
DUST Fiend 16958	Posted - 2015.05.09 07:06:00 - [5] - Quote Happy Violentime wrote: Quit match, don't get to play for 20hrs. Win/Win situation I think. PS. Good luck getting any sort of match when half the player base can't play for 20 hrs. Maybe just firebomb the server if you want to kill the game some more. Except if you drop out of a DMQ match, you can still play regular matches? If you quit match, who cares? Now your lame ass isn't in the pool, and the people who actually want to fight can continue to fight and earn more ISK This thread is now a dance party ~ Dances Boldly ~ DUST STUFF
Aderek Made in Poland... E-R-A 134	Posted - 2015.05.09 07:13:00 - [6] - Quote What with DC? dust514.pl, wcogram.pl, i-play24.net MM proto logi 60 kk SP and growing
DUST Fiend 16959	Posted - 2015.05.09 07:15:00 - [7] - Quote Aderek wrote: What with DC? Unfortunately the same result, because there's no way to tell if it's a legit DC or someone just turning off their PS3 :/ If you get locked out of DMQ matches though you can still join regular contracts and FW contracts This thread is now a dance party ~ Dances Boldly ~ DUST STUFF
TheEnd762 Sver true blood RUST415 741	Posted - 2015.05.09 07:43:00 - [8] - Quote I hope the 50 people who enter the DMQ have fun together.
deezy dabest 2210	Posted - 2015.05.09 07:57:00 - [9] - Quote So your solution is to further divide the player base and punish people who leave in an effort to hang out with their squad mates who got burned by Scotty?
DUST Fiend 16962	Posted - 2015.05.09 08:08:00 - [10] - Quote deezy dabest wrote: So your solution is to further divide the player base and punish people who leave in an effort to hang out with their squad mates who got burned by Scotty? Well obviously scotty needs a budget buff, but thats a separate issue. By all means please offer up your ideas, thats what forums are for: brainstorming This thread is now a dance party ~ Dances Boldly ~ DUST STUFF

deezy dabest 2210	Posted - 2015.05.09 08:27:00 - [11] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: deezy dabest wrote: So your solution is to further divide the player base and punish people who leave in an effort to hang out with their squad mates who got burned by Scotty? Well obviously scotty needs a budget buff, but thats a separate issue. By all means please offer up your ideas, thats what forums are for: brainstorming The real issue is not ending up with 12 vs 10 it is that either 8 out of those 10 people either leave or go AFK. That is the point where the battle actually becomes broken. As long as those people that are there have the desire to win and the means to be able to fight they are usually very good battles. I believe that the real fix is very close in this thread. I would argue that the system should be applied to both sides with a flat bonus and a per WP bonus for the winning side. Obviously this would go along with the removal of passive ISK. Basically we need to make it extremely rewarding to win and to participate as much as possible while making it absolutely useless to AFK. Would having balanced matches skill wise of 10 or 12 players per side really be all that bad? Those matches turn into the best ones when they do not get ruined by people quitting because it is not "even" or those same people going AFK.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 8468	Posted - 2015.05.09 10:07:00 - [12] - Quote Making the battles worth fighting is the answer. There's never enough sh**posting going on, so let's add a few more teaspoons of the guy posting after me to the recipie!
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 9535	Posted - 2015.05.09 13:55:00 - [13] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Making the battles worth fighting is the answer. ^ This. Give me a reason to give stompers hell, and hell they'll get. Give me a reason to stick-it-out when Scotty puts me into half-completed match. Give me a reason to keep things interesting when my team gives up and heads for the redline. The options -- as I see them -- are to either better reward effort (to mitigate Isk losses) or reduce squad size (to put end to 500M SP stompsquads). Doing both wouldn't hurt. Further partitioning the playerbase would only serve to increase wait-times. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 8478	Posted - 2015.05.09 13:57:00 - [14] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Making the battles worth fighting is the answer. ^ This. Give me a reason to give stompers hell, and hell they'll get. Give me a reason to stick-it-out when Scotty puts me into half-completed match. Give me a reason to keep things interesting when my team gives up and heads for the redline. The options -- as I see them -- are to either better reward effort or reduce squad size. Further partitioning the playerbase would only serve to increase wait-times. And reducing squad sizes is a not-solution. It will make people offended by teamwork feel better, but it won't even put a dent in any of the behaviors.. There's never enough sh**posting going on, so let's add a few more teaspoons of the guy posting after me to the recipie!
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 9535	Posted - 2015.05.09 14:03:00 - [15] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Making the battles worth fighting is the answer. ^ This. Give me a reason to give stompers hell, and hell they'll get. Give me a reason to stick-it-out when Scotty puts me into half-completed match. Give me a reason to keep things interesting when my team gives up and heads for the redline. The options -- as I see them -- are to either better reward effort or reduce squad size. Further partitioning the playerbase would only serve to increase wait-times. And reducing squad sizes is a not-solution. It will make people offended by teamwork feel better, but it won't even put a dent in any of the behaviors.. Reducing squad size would improve Scotty's performance and dilute stompsquad potency. These are indisputable facts. Player behavior is tough to predict, but facts are still facts. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 9535	Posted - 2015.05.09 14:08:00 - [16] - Quote Not to say this is a bad idea, Dust Fiend, only that we currently don't have the headcounts to support it. I suspect you may still see a DMQ-like concept realized through Raids. The "bigshots" will be drawn to bigger paychecks and tougher fights that Raiding has to offer. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 8481	Posted - 2015.05.09 14:25:00 - [17] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Making the battles worth fighting is the answer. ^ This. Give me a reason to give stompers hell, and hell they'll get. Give me a reason to stick-it-out when Scotty puts me into half-completed match. Give me a reason to keep things interesting when my team gives up and heads for the redline. The options -- as I see them -- are to either better reward effort or reduce squad size. Further partitioning the playerbase would only serve to increase wait-times. And reducing squad sizes is a not-solution. It will make people offended by teamwork feel better, but it won't even put a dent in any of the behaviors.. Reducing squad size would improve Scotty's performance and dilute stompsquad potency. These are indisputable facts. Player behavior is tough to predict, but facts are still facts. scotty is just as stupid solo as in a squad. Stomp quad potency is diluted by actually fighting back. Your opinion is not backed by facts. They are backed by your perceptions and bias. If they are backed by facts, then cite your sources. There's never enough sh**posting going on, so let's add a few more teaspoons of the guy posting after me to the recipie!
DUST Fiend 16971	Posted - 2015.05.09 14:28:00 - [18] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Not to say this is a bad idea, Dust Fiend, only that we currently don't have the headcounts to support it. I suspect you may still see a DMQ-like concept realized through Raids. The bigshots who'd play in the DMQ will be drawn to bigger paychecks and tougher fights that Raiding has to offer. I wouldnt hold my breath for raids, that would take considerable effort and we lack the devs and resources for a project like that. I just dont see how to easily make matches worth fighting without overpenalizing people who leave, and lo, this random idea was bored. I try not to make any suggestions that cant theoretically be implemented with minimal changes to the current system. This thread is now a dance party ~ Dances Boldly ~ DUST STUFF
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 8481	Posted - 2015.05.09 14:36:00 - [19] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Not to say this is a bad idea, Dust Fiend, only that we currently don't have the headcounts to support it. I suspect you may still see a DMQ-like concept realized through Raids. The bigshots who'd play in the DMQ will be drawn to bigger paychecks and tougher fights that Raiding has to offer. I wouldnt hold my breath for raids, that would take considerable effort and we lack the devs and resources for a project like that. I just dont see how to easily make matches worth fighting without overpenalizing people who leave, and lo, this random idea was bored. I try not to make any suggestions that cant theoretically be implemented with minimal changes to the current system. Honestly rattati adding ISK to FW could very well accomplish a lot of what we want. Add to that the increased payouts he's discussing and FW might be wwhere vets graduate to. I know I'd never waste time in a pub again if I have the choice. And add to that whenever I catch some turd AFKing in the MCC/redline I put a bolt pistol round through the back of their head. Teamkilling doesn't even make me blink, which is something AFKers count on to do what they do. They want you to feel like you cannot do anything about them. This is pretty much why I love friendly fire active game modes. I get to murder risk-averse candyasses who don't contribute. Like redline snipers. There's never enough sh**posting going on, so let's add a few more teaspoons of the guy posting after me to the recipie!
general drake55 G.R.A.V.E The Ditanian Alliance 15	Posted - 2015.05.09 14:37:00 - [20] - Quote Happy Violentime wrote: Quit match, don't get to play for 20hrs. Win/Win situation I think. PS. Good luck getting any sort of match when half the player base can't play for 20 hrs. Maybe just firebomb the server if you want to kill the game some more. no,they have their reasons for leaving,you should respect that. fight for freedom and what's right,only you have the power to stop the madness. >Rush at me trolls,I dare you!

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 8483	Posted - 2015.05.09 14:44:00 - [21] - Quote general drake55 wrote: Happy Violentime wrote: Quit match, don't get to play for 20hrs. Win/Win situation I think. PS. Good luck getting any sort of match when half the player base can't play for 20 hrs. Maybe just firebomb the server if you want to kill the game some more. no,they have their reasons for leaving,you should respect that. You have completely missed the point of both the OP and you are apparently uncomprehending of sarcasm. GG There's never enough sh**posting going on, so let's add a few more teaspoons of the guy posting after me to the recipie!
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 9536	Posted - 2015.05.09 14:48:00 - [22] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Making the battles worth fighting is the answer. ^ This. Give me a reason to give stompers hell, and hell they'll get. Give me a reason to stick-it-out when Scotty puts me into half-completed match. Give me a reason to keep things interesting when my team gives up and heads for the redline. The options -- as I see them -- are to either better reward effort or reduce squad size. Further partitioning the playerbase would only serve to increase wait-times. And reducing squad sizes is a not-solution. It will make people offended by teamwork feel better, but it won't even put a dent in any of the behaviors.. Reducing squad size would improve Scotty's performance and dilute stompsquad potency. These are indisputable facts. Player behavior is tough to predict, but facts are still facts. A) scotty is just as stupid solo as in a squad. B) Stomp quad potency is diluted by actually fighting back. C) Your opinion is not backed by facts. They are backed by your perceptions and bias. A, B and C above are good examples of opinions. Thank you, Breakin. Reducing squad size improves Scotty performance: * 60 players / 6 = 10 squads; 60 players / 4 = 15 squads * The more squads in population, the more squads available for matchmaking * The more squads Scotty has to work with, the better he'll matchmake * The more squads Scotty has to work with, the faster he'll matchmake * 6-man, high-Mu squads strain Scotty (spent 30 minutes waiting in queue with one last week) * The fewer of these outlier squads Scotty has to work with, the faster he'll matchmake * The fewer of these outlier squads Scotty has to work with, the better he'll matchmake Reducing squad size dilutes stompsquad potency: * 6x100M SP > 4x100M SP * 6 protobears > 4 protobears * Passives shared 6 ways > Passives shared 4 ways * Risk exposure of 4-man squad > 6-man squad * Etc ... I'd suggest "trialing" 4-man squads in Ambush. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 8491	Posted - 2015.05.09 15:53:00 - [23] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: A, B and C above are good examples of opinions. Thank you, Breakin. Reducing squad size improves Scotty performance: * 60 players / 6 = 10 squads; 60 players / 4 = 15 squads * The more squads in population, the more squads available for matchmaking * The more squads Scotty has to work with, the better he'll matchmake * The more squads Scotty has to work with, the faster he'll matchmake * 6-man, high-Mu squads strain Scotty (spent 30 minutes waiting in queue with one last week) * The fewer of these outlier squads Scotty has to work with, the faster he'll matchmake * The fewer of these outlier squads Scotty has to work with, the better he'll matchmake Reducing squad size dilutes stompsquad potency: * 6x100M SP > 4x100M SP * 6 protobears > 4 protobears * Passives shared 6 ways > Passives shared 4 ways * Risk exposure of 4-man squad > 6-man squad * Etc ... Note: I'd more readily suggest 4-man squads for Bush, Dom and Acq than Skirm. 6-man potency is often diluted in Skirmish, as the squad is more often than not split across multiple objectives. Cite your sources. I was unaware you have an ear into the processes and syasystemic downfalls of matchmaking. What I see is assumptions you are touting as facts. Get it through your head, adipem, unless you can provide something which can be physically verified, it is not evidence, it is anecdote. So link me where you are magically getting your information. And your bias against allowing squads is also well-documented. I think your position on squads is idiotic. Because people who squad statistically do better, succeed more and tend to stick with the game longer, wheras solo players have an average life expectancy of hours. Habitual solo play adds no long term benefit to the game and limiting players' social options does more harm to the game than anything else. There's never enough sh**posting going on, so let's add a few more teaspoons of the guy posting after me to the recipie!
DUST Fiend 16974	Posted - 2015.05.09 15:59:00 - [24] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Cite your sources. To be fair, you haven't done this either, at least not here. This thread is now a dance party ~ Dances Boldly ~ DUST STUFF
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 8491	Posted - 2015.05.09 16:03:00 - [25] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Cite your sources. To be fair, you haven't done this either, at least not here. I also haven't claimed to be crapping facts all over the place. There's never enough sh**posting going on, so let's add a few more teaspoons of the guy posting after me to the recipie!
DUST Fiend 16974	Posted - 2015.05.09 16:05:00 - [26] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Cite your sources. To be fair, you haven't done this either, at least not here. I also haven't claimed to be crapping facts all over the place. True-che Just pointing it out lol. I don't comment much on squad aspect of things since I don't squad. This thread is now a dance party ~ Dances Boldly ~ DUST STUFF
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 8493	Posted - 2015.05.09 16:11:00 - [27] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Cite your sources. To be fair, you haven't done this either, at least not here. I also haven't claimed to be crapping facts all over the place. True-che Just pointing it out lol. I don't comment much on squad aspect of things since I don't squad. Neither do I generally, my list of people I can tolerate for longer than three seconds in comms is very short. There's never enough sh**posting going on, so let's add a few more teaspoons of the guy posting after me to the recipie!
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 9537	Posted - 2015.05.09 17:49:00 - [28] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: A, B and C above are good examples of opinions. Thank you, Breakin. Reducing squad size improves Scotty performance: * 60 players / 6 = 10 squads; 60 players / 4 = 15 squads * The more squads in population, the more squads available for matchmaking * The more squads Scotty has to work with, the better he'll matchmake * The more squads Scotty has to work with, the faster he'll matchmake * 6-man, high-Mu squads strain Scotty (spent 30 minutes waiting in queue with one last week) * The fewer of these outlier squads Scotty has to work with, the faster he'll matchmake * The fewer of these outlier squads Scotty has to work with, the better he'll matchmake Reducing squad size dilutes stompsquad potency: * 6x100M SP > 4x100M SP * 6 protobears > 4 protobears * Passives shared 6 ways > Passives shared 4 ways * Risk exposure of 4-man squad > 6-man squad * Etc ... Note: I'd more readily suggest 4-man squads for Bush, Dom and Acq than Skirm. 6-man potency is often diluted in Skirmish, as the squad is more often than not split across multiple objectives. Cite your sources. I was unaware you have an ear into the processes and syasystemic downfalls of matchmaking. What I see is assumptions you are touting as facts. Get it through your head, adipem, unless you can provide something which can be physically verified, it is not evidence, it is anecdote. So link me where you are magically getting your information. And your bias against allowing squads is also well-documented. I think your position on squads is idiotic. Because people who squad statistically do better, succeed more and tend to stick with the game longer, wheras solo players have an average life expectancy of hours. Habitual solo play adds no long term benefit to the game and limiting players' social options does more harm to the game than anything else. I don't claim to know the ins and outs of matchmaking, but some aspects are clear-cut enough to opine upon. As for "proving" an opinion, that isn't our job, it isn't necessary and in most cases, it isn't possible. Every observation we make is anecdotal. Every opinion we offer is limited by perspective. Very few things in a video game can be "physically verified". In any event, I'm not pulling these opinions from arse ... Rattati himself has stated that reducing squad size would alleviate stomping. And for the record, I'm not opposed to squads. I have alot of fun running with squads (squadded with you and Cross Atu just last week in fact). But I find zero satisfaction in stomping/redlining, and I believe that stomping/redlining does more to harm Dust than anything I could ever do solo. If squad size were 4, I'd run in a full squad regularly. The same goes for dozens of other good players who enjoy a challenge and detest the boredom and monotony of stomping. In these cases, reducing squad size from 6 to 4 would improve upon social aspects of Dust. Shoot scout with yes. - Ripley Riley
Aeon Amadi Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 9976	Posted - 2015.05.09 19:25:00 - [29] - Quote Reminds me a lot of the people who advocated against Respecs. Vengeful thinking that doesn't really accomplish much of anything. You guys are like a broken record with this "CPM material" business xD Let it go
DUST Fiend 16975	Posted - 2015.05.09 19:27:00 - [30] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Vengeful thinking that doesn't really accomplish much of anything. Vengeful thinking? So offering enhanced rewards and putting a system in place to keep people from dropping at the first sight of trouble is Vengeful? Interesting. This thread is now a dance party ~ Dances Boldly ~ DUST STUFF



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page