This is obviously a problem. And for those that stick to the end of a game it frankly annoys the hell out of them.

So chatting amongst the CPM about it, I had an idea and just wanted to bounce it off you all.

The main reason people leave is either the map, they don't like their chances against the opposition and want to protect their KDR.

As for the map, well as a Merc you're contracted to do a battle and it's a sign of bad faith if you back out. As for those those that want to go up against players that might present a challenge..... I personally don't have any time for that way of thinking.

So my idea is this. New Eden is all about consequences based on your choices. I want to add consequence to backing out of a contract.

Say there's a set number of times in day (DT-DT) that the game might allow you leave a battle. Things happen in RL. But after that number, your Merc is fined, heavily and direct from the wallet by CONCORD for cowardice. On top of that, your avatar in game is 'branded', showing you as a Merc that doesn't honour his/her contracts.

Removing the brand is easy. Complete a set number of matches from beginning to end.

But for the persistent offenders....

Their MU is boosted to the maximum level. They will be put up against the best players and have to take a hit to their precious KDR in order to return to the correct level. It'll also mean that they're kept separate from the rest of the player base until they learn the error of their ways.

Like I say, there's likely all sorts of problems with this idea that you'll point out to me but that's why I'm asking.

4) Fix what's wrong with pub pay. Coming into a match late should not guarantee a paycheck of pennies. Same goes for being put on a team with a disproportionately high number of rep logis. Err on the side of your customers. Too much pay is better than not enough.

5) Reward personal effort and achievement. Try keep-what-you-kill and see how it works. People might not like the idea, but it's a whole lot less risky than whipping out the stick.

This is the kind of counter productive incentive I am talking about.

While I agree with diminishing passive isk, if you oulandishly reward winners, and people realize throughout a game that their side is being stomped, there is no incentive to stay.

I have played games where I was one of a few people trying, which means I was against several proto players by myself. What is the incentive to stay? The only way to make money would be to run nothing but starter fits.

If you reward stomps, that is all you will see.

If you want people to stay and play despite stomps, you have to offer them enough incentive to do so, and this suggestion does the opposite.

If you want to reward productivity, reward based on acttivity. Reward each kill, hack, assist, etc.

If you simply reward winners, people will leave. Which means people on the winning team will not have fun cause there is no one to kill, and people on the losing team will not have fun because they are vastly outnumbered, and accomplishing anything will be much more costly, with next to no reward.

That doesn't sound like a fun game worth my time to me...

I'm suggesting that low-latency and high-latency players be grouped by like type. I've no technical understanding of how these things work, but if instances exist wherein one player's connection is causing framerate drops and rubberbanding for other players, that player is ruining the match and needs to go.

Thought of an interesting way to 'punish' players for leaving a match that winds up being beneficial. Rather than hitting their wallet, I think we should institute a mandatory survey. If you leave three matches in a day, you're fine, but any more than that and you have to take a mandatory survey explaining why you left the match each time you quit out. This would last until downtime, so if you left mid-match you wouldn't have to complete the survey after downtime the next day.

This way we can track reasons why players leave and collect data while also forcing them to take a bit of time to complete the survey before proceeding to their next match, acting as a soft-deterrent from leaving future matches.

@ deezy

People do not leave when they see they are losing because winning isn't rewarded enough.

That is counter intuitive.

People leave when losing because LOSING does not reward enough.

Reward the losers who try, and you will see closer battles. If trying and losing are profitable, people will stay. If its not, people will leave.

Incentives can only go so far.

You can't offer a massive incentive and suddenly make people more skilled. You can only incentivize effort. If teams are mismatched from the beginning, there is nothing that can totally prevent a stomp.

Again, I've no understanding of how these things work ... but why wouldn't this work?

Set Low Latency queue's bounce threshold to tolerate Ping(A) - Ping(C).
Set High Latency queue's bounce threshold to tolerate Ping(X) - Ping(Z).

Group players by region and ping.

If a player with Ping(A) - Ping(C) is detected in the High Latency Queue, kick him.
If a player with Ping(X) - Ping(Z) is detected in the Low Latency Queue, kick him.

If a player "spoofs" his latency to get into the wrong queue, he'd be booted when he "unspoofs" and exceeds that queue's thresholds. Right?