DUST Search - So, people leaving games early...

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

So, people leaving games early...

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kevall Longstride DUST University Ivy League 3	Posted - 2015.10.09 09:16:00 - [1] - Quote 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. CPM 1&2 Member CEO of DUST University
Aeon Amadi 12	Posted - 2015.10.09 09:59:00 - [2] - Quote I want no part of this, lol. I will always appreciate the carrot over the stick when it comes to match leaving. I'm a firm believer that if players are leaving matches there is a fundamental reason as to why and that needs to be addressed long before penalizing match-leaving. Negative Introspection - Aeon's CPM Blog Skype: nomistrav
Haolo Geardreck Calvary Won't Arrive 0	Posted - 2015.10.09 10:18:00 - [3] - Quote I've preferred half carrot, half stick. The server can tell if you lost connection, manually quit, and how often this happens. Then there are variables such as how long the game has gone on, if your team was losing, your kdr, history of match loss/win/quit, and if something goes wrong and its a big misunderstanding, internet issues can be verified by the ISP if the player so desires to go through that trouble. Basically, yea, treat them like mercenaries. Some are honored and rewarded, some are blacklisted and penalized to bankruptcy. And I've been the guy with terrible internet, sometimes I still am. At those times I play an offline game because: if you can't help the team, you shouldn't be on it! Its more true in games like Dust, CoD, and LoL, where attendance and reaction time make a huge impact. G Commando/Sentinel, A Assault/Logistics, M Scout - Terrible FPS gamer - Decent Strategy gamer - Good RPG gamer
Foo Fighting Blank Application 546	Posted - 2015.10.09 10:19:00 - [4] - Quote The root of the problem is bad matchmaking and squads of officer/proto on one side and solo starter fits on the other. People leaving is purely a symptom of this and should not be targeted for fixing else we will loose even more players permanently.
TheEnd762 SVER True Blood RUST415 833	Posted - 2015.10.09 10:28:00 - [5] - Quote Let's use the stick on the people who keep bringing up this non-issue (perma-ban from forums). Give the carrot (high ISK payout) to players who join in-progress matches against cheating stomp-squads. Until we can see all the terms and conditions (map, allies/enemies, etc) of a contract BEFORE we are dumped in a match (you know, how contracts actually work), and choose to accept them or not, you can't penalize people for leaving. And even if/when we can, it's still a bad idea. Nature calls, phones ring; there's a lot more important things than satisfying the frustrations of a few butthurt whiners who think this game involves some kind of sacred oath.
No-one-ganks like-Gaston Corrosive Synergy 201	Posted - 2015.10.09 10:44:00 - [6] - Quote I think it's a neat idea, certainly. If you want to go with a punishment for players who fail to complete their contracts, though, I think there should be some sort of reward for the players that do frequently complete them. I can't think of much off the top of my head, but maybe something like increased amount of EoM salvage, or increased chance of rarer salvage based on x amount of contracts completed that day, with small bonuses to the chance depending on your WP gain during the battle and how many of your contracts have been wins. (Successful mercs get the sweeter deals while unsuccessful just get a handshake and their paycheck.) Of course, this has a couple of problems, notably keeping the rich rich and drowning in officer gear, potentially devaluing and circling more of said officer gear, solo players potentially getting shafted (but group play should be encouraged, and if there's more squads on both sides then that's a good thing for everyone, so maybe not so bad?) and several other things I may not be able to think of right now because **** am I tired. It's happened once or twice someone couldn't pay the price, and I'm afraid I had to rake 'em 'cross the coals.
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 1	Posted - 2015.10.09 11:53:00 - [7] - Quote Kevall Longstride wrote: But after that number, your Merc is fined, heavily and direct from the wallet by CONCORD for cowardice. People aren't obligated to play Dust 514. If you penalize them they won't correct towards the behavior you want, they'll just stop playing. If we want to play together with these guys we'll have to find ways to make them enjoy something they currently don't. This can be achieved by removing less enjoyable aspects such as unfair matchups or offering a compensation for less enjoyable aspects of the game, such as increased ISK and SP rewards for continued loyalty during losing matches. Preferably of course both. I can very well imagine a standings-system similar to FW that is based around loyalty during losing matches. Higher ranks give additional rewards in the end of match screen, and are labeled as such. The system could be forgiving up to a ratio of 10% for the number of matches where the player left early versus the number of matches the player entered and become much more strict for ratios that exceed this baseline. On the other hand this only incentivizes staying in a match, not competing in it. Changing this aspect through a rewards system requires a completely new metric that captures effort even during lost games, instead of the current WP system that measures successful activities during the match.
Baal Omniscient Qualified Scrub 2	Posted - 2015.10.09 12:58:00 - [8] - Quote There's only really 2 reasons I'll leave a match. First is if the framerate becomes so bad it's impossible to shoot at anything (which happens far more often than it should) and second if there's a squad on the other side running officer gear and my blues are losing everything to them left and right. Just to be clear, I either run solo or with my girlfriend because we take a cigarette break after nearly every match and frequent beer breaks. We don't feel like causing other people to wait on us so we don't squad with others, and two people who have very little blueberry backup have little hope against an officer squad with wall-hacking permascans. Typically I'll pull a MLT dropship out and let her bomb officer gear with MLT missiles. It's very satisfying to see them leaving the match after their officer gear goes boom in a cloud of MLT shrapnel, but that's not an option on all maps and when they have proper dropships on their side it's pointless. So when I have to choose between suiciding against a wall of red with next to no blue assistance, sitting in the redline longingly looking at a letter while afking, or simply moving on to the next match I choose the latter. I have no interest in wasting ISK and feeding it to asshats using broken officer gear, nor do i feel like running free stuff so I can die quickly and pad their stats. Some may see that as entertainment, I on the other hand would get more enjoyment out of peeling my fingernails off one by one with a pair of pliers than I would from being someone's source of stat-padding/ISK farming. Winmatar Assault, Proficiency 5 SMG's & Proficiency 5 Swarms Since Uprising 1.0 I GÖú Puppies (Gê¬n+Ç-´)GèâGöüGÿån+ƒ.*pâ+n+ín+ƒ.
Lavallois Nash Federal Transfers and Trades 563	Posted - 2015.10.09 13:06:00 - [9] - Quote Kevall Longstride wrote: This is obviously a problem. And for those that stick to the end of a game it frankly annoys the hell out of them. I like the idea of heavy fines. I think that the fines should be on a sliding scale. Less of a fine for a player with a lower loyalty rank, a significant fine for the highest loyalty rank. Also, its probably not possible, but instead of CONCORD taking the fine, it should be the NPC corp who exacts it for "breach of contract". That fine should then be distributed into the ISK payout for the people on the team of the quitting player. That way when your 6 against 12 because someone was too much of a princess to put in the effort, you can atleast look forward to a boosted payout courtesy of the offending players fine. If the fine doesnt work, match queue penalties should apply. When they go to queue for a match, put a 5 minute timer onto the regular timer as a "cooldown". This should only be used in the worst cases though.
Baal Omniscient Qualified Scrub 2	Posted - 2015.10.09 13:08:00 - [10] - Quote Oh, and until you either create perfect balance gamewide between all suits, weapons, modules and tiers thereof or introduce a MLT/STD only playist;punishment of people who quit matches will do nothing but drop your already withered playercount. People should never be obligated to play matches that suck for reasons like broken mechanics, cheap tactics being available, horrid framerate and obviously overpowered gear on the other side. Winmatar Assault, Proficiency 5 SMG's & Proficiency 5 Swarms Since Uprising 1.0 I GÖú Puppies (Gê¬n+Ç-´)GèâGöüGÿån+ƒ.*pâ+n+ín+ƒ.

Lavallois Nash Federal Transfers and Trades 563	Posted - 2015.10.09 13:21:00 - [11] - Quote Baal Omniscient wrote: cheap tactics being available, and obviously overpowered gear on the other side. Its a war game for christ sakes. Do you know what war is? War is getting your side to win by making the other poor SOB die for his side. This isnt organized sports, this isnt monopoly with friends. You were hired to participate in a battle. As a soldier of fortune, Your supposed to be making your fortune throwing down the heavy hits your contractor asked you to. Lets say you finished a battle and the NPC corp decided not to pay you? What if halfway through the battle the NPC corp called off the attack and refused payout? If the NPC corp breached its contract with you, youd be livid. Yet you reserve the right to break the contract with them on a whim with no penalty?
Haolo Geardreck Calvary Won't Arrive 1	Posted - 2015.10.09 13:28:00 - [12] - Quote Lavallois Nash wrote: Baal Omniscient wrote: cheap tactics being available, and obviously overpowered gear on the other side. Its a war game for christ sakes. Do you know what war is? War is getting your side to win by making the other poor SOB die for his side. This isnt organized sports, this isnt monopoly with friends. You were hired to participate in a battle. As a soldier of fortune, Your supposed to be making your fortune throwing down the heavy hits your contractor asked you to. Lets say you finished a battle and the NPC corp decided not to pay you? What if halfway through the battle the NPC corp called off the attack and refused payout? If the NPC corp breached its contract with you, youd be livid. Yet you reserve the right to break the contract with them on a whim with no penalty? If this game is connected to EVE, people can take is as seriously as EVE, which is pretty damn serious. So introduce a little realism to the game, and a very basic life lesson. So if you know its almost bedtime, you're expecting a call, or otherwise may not be able to finish a game, go find something else to do. Maybe take the trash out or something productive. I'll call back my own mother after a game, its integrity, she's glad I have it even in "silly games". Thankfully more games these days are teaching it. G Commando/Sentinel, A Assault/Logistics, M Scout - Terrible FPS gamer - Decent Strategy gamer - Good RPG gamer
Baal Omniscient Qualified Scrub 2	Posted - 2015.10.09 13:28:00 - [13] - Quote Lavallois Nash wrote: Baal Omniscient wrote: cheap tactics being available, and obviously overpowered gear on the other side. Its a war game for christ sakes. Do you know what war is? War is getting your side to win by making the other poor SOB die for his side. This isnt organized sports, this isnt monopoly with friends. You were hired to participate in a battle. As a soldier of fortune, Your supposed to be making your fortune throwing down the heavy hits your contractor asked you to. Lets say you finished a battle and the NPC corp decided not to pay you? What if halfway through the battle the NPC corp called off the attack and refused payout? If the NPC corp breached its contract with you, youd be livid. Yet you reserve the right to break the contract with them on a whim with no penalty? REALITY CHECK: This is not war, this a videogame. A videogame requires balance between players or it's not enjoyable to play. If it's not enjoyable to play your game dies. Balance > Realism. Let's say you put down the keyboard until you recognise the difference between a war and an entertainment source. Winmatar Assault, Proficiency 5 SMG's & Proficiency 5 Swarms Since Uprising 1.0 I GÖú Puppies (Gê¬n+Ç-´)GèâGöüGÿån+ƒ.*pâ+n+ín+ƒ.
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui Four Horseman Tactical Agency 2	Posted - 2015.10.09 13:47:00 - [14] - Quote Foo Fighting wrote: The root of the problem is bad matchmaking and squads of officer/proto on one side and solo starter fits on the other. People leaving is purely a symptom of this and should not be targeted for fixing else we will loose even more players permanently. Thank you , these people cant see that because their too busy being the cause of it . That Hubris is something special . Penalize people for leaving matches and you will see people not only leaving matches but leaving the game as well . I guess you people just don't see all the titles that come out and will be to understand that no one is tied to this game . Fix or create a balanced matchmaking system and you would see less traffic leaving matches . I just can't understand why people just ignore the main cause just to feed their selfish desire .?. when that selfish desire is killing / has killed this game . People just cant get off their throne of power to see anything else . It's obvious that people just don't want or have to be gluttons for punishment and be bullet sponges for people that are crap in PC matches , treating pubs like PC games . You want to fix the game you have to get you head out of the clouds and pound the ground and support those who are in the trenches . This is why nothing that needs to get done is because the people at the top only care about that and could care less about others experience . Teamwork is really important - said the Tyrannosarus Rex from Kung Fury .
Haolo Geardreck Calvary Won't Arrive 1	Posted - 2015.10.09 13:47:00 - [15] - Quote There are video games.. then there are: Simulators (Gran Turismo) Competition Platforms (League of Legends) Virtual Worlds (SecondLife, EVE) And more types. Basically, not every game is just a game to the primary player base or even the developers. And CCP tied DUST to EVE, so I believe that makes it a virtual world, not just a game. They even came up with explanations for respawning and how weapons work. Anybody in CCP want to settle this? G Commando/Sentinel, A Assault/Logistics, M Scout - Terrible FPS gamer - Decent Strategy gamer - Good RPG gamer
TheEnd762 SVER True Blood RUST415 833	Posted - 2015.10.09 13:53:00 - [16] - Quote Again, if we're comparing to reality, a contract entered without prior knowledge of the terms is not valid. In other words, you can't obligate mercs to fight a battle in an undisclosed location, against an undisclosed opponent, let alone penalize them for not doing so. That's what regular soldiers are for.
DEATH THE KlD Imperfect - Bastards 463	Posted - 2015.10.09 15:09:00 - [17] - Quote Balance matchmaking..why should a squad of FA and one of AE be on the same team against my team with me being the only one in a noteable Corp? MM is a lot better but still has matches not worth staying in CEO of Imperfect Bastards and NF
Bremen van Equis Incorruptibles 750	Posted - 2015.10.09 15:58:00 - [18] - Quote Either get rid of KDR or make leaving battle a stat...that effects KDR. Give mercs a "buffer" against legit drops, freezes, squad deploy problems, but those above the curve get a big fat asterisk of some sort on that shiny useless stat of theirs. Buckle up, boysGÇªthis ramp leads to space. -Axe Cop
Kaze Eyrou DUST University Ivy League 3	Posted - 2015.10.09 16:07:00 - [19] - Quote Kevall Longstride wrote: The main reason people leave is either the map, they don't like their chances against the opposition and want to protect their KDR. You forgot other factors: Framerate drops to unplayable situations where you can no longer be effective to your team at all. (1 frame every 5 to 10 seconds - happened to me) Real life intervenes, such as family comes over without notice (happened to me), a real life emergency, like your heart starts racing abnormally (happened to me) Your electricity cuts out (happened to me in a thunderstorm) Your internet cuts out randomly (happened to me) Your PS3 hard freezes (happened to me) Your PS3 tells you explicitly it encountered an internal error and must shut down (happened to me) The game tells you that you encountered an internal error (happened to me). Among other things that might happens that I haven't listed. I, too, am not a fan of people leaving matches. However, I am guilty of this too. I have blamed people who have done it, whether it was intentional or not. I have also thought of many things like Kevall has to punish leaving matches, both worse and tame than this idea that was presented. My new idea pulls from other games that have already been implemented. Looking at League of Legends and War Thunder (games that have matchmaking and lobby style gameplay), you are punished for leaving matches too soon. War Thunder punishes you by locking the country for a small amount of time, making you either wait that country to unlock, or you have to switch to another country in order to fly. League of Legends has a system that tells you explicitly tells you that it's not ok to disconnect or leave games. You then have to type "I AGREE" into a box before being allowed to continue. After that, if you start leaving and/or dodging games, you are put into a "lower priority queue". In League of Legends, this means you have to wait 5 minutes in a special queue before going into the normal queue that matchmakes you into games. Also, there's another "lower priority queue" that has you wait 20 minutes. Pros for this idea are that people who leave games are penalized by ISK, but rather time. Time is precious to everyone whether your wallet is big or small. If you were to do it by ISK, new players are penalized harsher than the older vets that hold a great amount in their wallets. Time penalties effect everyone equally. Cons for this, however, are that these idea are pulled from games that have a significantly larger playerbases. This idea would simply thin out our already low player base as it is (already mentioned in this thread). In closing, why not simply fix some of the coding (reducing or eliminating one or more of the causes why players leave the game aka Internal Errors on both PS3 side and game side), continue to work on matchmaking (already mentioned), and introduce a new game mode that has either metalocked matches which restricts the total level of gear used and/or a Militia/Standard only where players of any skill level can play for fun with reduced ISK rewards (also already mentioned in this thread)? We could also introduce a PvE mode that was being worked on or thought of during the infancy of Dust 514. Yes, it would take time and resources, but would have the benefit of bringing FUN back into the game and potentially increasing the playerbase. CB Vet // Logi Bro // @KazeEyrou Kaze's Helpful Links
argel999 T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K 32	Posted - 2015.10.09 16:18:00 - [20] - Quote Foo Fighting wrote: The root of the problem is bad matchmaking and squads of officer/proto on one side and solo starter fits on the other. People leaving is purely a symptom of this and should not be targeted for fixing else we will loose even more players permanently. I think the same, for me the Matchmaking is the main problem, you can start 10 vs 14 and finishing 10 vs 16, so wtf?? ...SLAYER... Sometimes Pubs are more difficul than PCs, yea Scotty trolls you with a 16 vs 10 and anybody into squad

Bremen van Equis Incorruptibles 750	Posted - 2015.10.09 16:32:00 - [21] - Quote There's a way to normalize the leaving battle stat to account for unintentional occurrences...there's away to differentiate between a merc that leaves 3 battles a day vs a merc that leaves 10. Buckle up, boysGÇªthis ramp leads to space. -Axe Cop
Lavallois Nash Federal Transfers and Trades 563	Posted - 2015.10.09 16:33:00 - [22] - Quote Baal Omniscient wrote: REALITY CHECK: This is not war, this a videogame. A videogame requires balance between players or it's not enjoyable to play. If it's not enjoyable to play your game dies. Balance > Realism. Let's say you put down the keyboard until you recognise the difference between a war and an entertainment source. Ok, so if you dont want to participate in the meta, why are you here? Why dont you go play Mario Party or something? Did you ever consider that the whole concept of a universe and of meta and of mercs actually might be entertaining to people? People who dont just sign onto a game to get a sense of self worth from numbers? You talk about balance but listed "cheap tactics" as a reason for quitting. A cheap tactic has nothing to do with balance it just means you arent smart enough to have developed a counter. Maybe if you spent less time rage quitting and more time being creative there would be no "cheap tactics" used against you.
Haolo Geardreck Calvary Won't Arrive 5	Posted - 2015.10.09 16:55:00 - [23] - Quote Even if our player base thinned from losing sadists, flamers, and people with terrible connections, the people who spend a few dollars here and there and enjoy the game for what it is would still be around supporting the game and it would create a better enviroment for new players and growth. Besides, measures can be placed to help tell is the player is just quitting to annoy people. And with that, map selection or awareness would need to be available for the casual games. Sorry, but if you enlist with the Amarr empire, you go where they need you. Basically, the entire matchmaking needs a rebuilding. That takes a lot of effort. CCP still has players, so that isn't going to become a priority. G Commando/Sentinel, A Assault/Logistics, M Scout - Terrible FPS gamer - Decent Strategy gamer - Good RPG gamer
Commander Noctus Gallente Loyalist 286	Posted - 2015.10.09 19:36:00 - [24] - Quote Remove the Lag Facility and I will support this. Every time I see that map, even though I love the design, I leave. I don't care if I'm gonna get stomped, or if I'm going to stomp, or if it's a good match up, I leave. That goddamn map is a disaster for me every time and it will not be fair to punish me and others who feel the same way. As to why this "stick" strategy should be supported, is that there are far...far...FAR too many times where people who are considered "good" leave matches based on the opposition. "But Noctus, sometimes groups leave because x reason!" I understand, but if this happens over, and over, and over with opposition being equal or greater than the people who leave in each match they leave, I'm calling bullshit on that and I'm tired of having no one try because of that. Gallente User since Jan. 28th, 2013 Mastered every Gallente role since. Soon to be called FotM chaser (Pre-FoxFour)
Anmol Singh G0DS AM0NG MEN 991	Posted - 2015.10.09 19:41:00 - [25] - Quote How about fixing matchmaking so my 8 newberries and me aren't put up against a fully stacked team with coordination. *Sagaris lover!!!* Commando <3
Roger Cordill The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 441	Posted - 2015.10.09 19:50:00 - [26] - Quote There's often no point in staying in a match that's going to net me less than 250k ISK. Gotta make up that ISK for those HAV's somehow. If I got actually decent contracts, I would stay.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 16	Posted - 2015.10.09 20:00:00 - [27] - Quote Sounds like a pretty bad idea to me, Dennie. Carrot > Stick. I love the game, I buy boosters and respecs often, and I try to play as regularly as I can. I also leave matches every day for lots of different reasons; lag/stability is chief among them. If you were to hit me with a stick for leaving a match when it lagged, I can assure you that I'd turn the game off instead of trying to find a playable battle. The less I play, the less likely I'll be to buy boosters and respecs. Pushing away paying customers doesn't seem like a sound business strategy. Further, and perhaps more importantly, with headcounts seldom topping 3k/day, I don't think that now would be a good time to whip out the stick. Here are my suggestions: 1) Improve gameplay performance and stability. Cut graphics. Convert socket maps to static maps. Reduce players per battle. Do whatever it takes. Making cuts is acceptable; instability is not. 2) Remove server selection. Set everyone's battleserver to automatic. Group players by region and ping when PCU permits; otherwise, group players by ping. Boot players beyond permissible lag thresholds from match. Abort matches if/when the lag cannot be remedied (so players don't have to). 3) Add an ISK/SP bonus for completing consecutive matches. 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. Dropsuit Usage Rates
deezy dabest IMPERIAL SPECIAL FORCES GROUP Evil Syndicate Alliance. 3	Posted - 2015.10.09 20:10:00 - [28] - Quote Kevall Longstride wrote: 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. Sorry but this idea just won't fly, any kind of "punishment" only breaks things further. We are better off with those people leaving battle than going totally AFK in the MCC. For the short term a simple "consecutive battles with 150 or more WP" mission. This would at least stop leaving battle from turning into a domino effect. I have seen many cases of lower level players starting to leave battle just because they see others leaving and know the match is going to go south. Beyond that it is a mechanics issue that I will leave out of this thread. The only voice for a port is the voice of reason from money drying up. More skins and 1% damage to keep Dust on PS3.
Haolo Geardreck Calvary Won't Arrive 5	Posted - 2015.10.09 20:14:00 - [29] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Sounds like a pretty bad idea to me, Dennie. Carrot > Stick. I love the game, I buy boosters and respecs often, and I try to play as regularly as I can. I also leave matches every day for lots of different reasons; lag/stability is chief among them. If you were to hit me with a stick for leaving a match when it lagged, I can assure you that I'd turn the game off instead of trying to find a playable battle. The less I play, the less likely I'll be to buy boosters and respecs. Pushing away paying customers doesn't seem like a sound business strategy. Further, and perhaps more importantly, with headcounts seldom topping 3k/day, I don't think that now would be a good time to whip out the stick. Here are my suggestions: 1) Improve gameplay performance and stability. Cut graphics. Convert socket maps to static maps. Reduce players per battle. Do whatever it takes. Making cuts is acceptable; instability is not. 2) Remove server selection. Set everyone's battleserver to automatic. Group players by region and ping when PCU permits; otherwise, group players by ping. Boot players beyond permissible lag thresholds from match. Abort matches if/when the lag cannot be remedied (so players don't have to). 3) Add an ISK/SP bonus for completing consecutive matches. 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. I fully agree with an option to leave if your ping gets too high, but not auto-boot. I get spikes during most matches, but its generally low ping. And I mean spikes that seem to be about 2500 for a few seconds. As for the stick.. the stick will be harder to get than the carrot, and it'll disappear easier too. This is primarily for the repeat offenders who can no prove it was a power outage, ISP issue, or another recorded event. As for RL events, most can be planned around, the rest wouldn't happen often enough to get the stick. Every aspect of the carrot, stick, and matchmaking would need to be rebuilt for things to work properly, with an "ELO" system like league has. But withindividual skill mattering partially. G Commando/Sentinel, A Assault/Logistics, M Scout - Terrible FPS gamer - Decent Strategy gamer - Good RPG gamer
deezy dabest IMPERIAL SPECIAL FORCES GROUP Evil Syndicate Alliance. 3	Posted - 2015.10.09 20:14:00 - [30] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: 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. I can not put into words how happy I am to see this idea that I have been spamming all over the place finally catching on. Unfortunately after months of screaming keep what you kill a couple of good players were able to point out flaws in that which I believe are not able to be worked around. For now my biggest request is to: Remove passive time in battle ISK. Add a base pay system in its place. Something like 25k for a defeat and 100k for a victory would be perfect in my opinion. This would allow the refill rate to be cranked back up since entering a battle late would not be a death sentence on your wallet. This would also bring queue times slightly back down. The only voice for a port is the voice of reason from money drying up. More skins and 1% damage to keep Dust on PS3.

One Eyed King Nos Nothi 12	Posted - 2015.10.09 20:31:00 - [31] - Quote Yes, leaving battles is a problem, but you will never fix it by penalizing leaving players. While I think there are some @$$hats who leave for lame reasons like kdr, there are a vast majority who leave for other, legitimate reasons. I have suggested this before, but will suggest this again. First, you need a metric to measure how often each merc leaves battle. A simple measure such as games completed per games deployed. This will give you a baseline to see how bad the problem is. What is more, you can identify the top 5 percent of people who actually stay, and find out the reasons they leave. This could help identify matches where squads don't fully deploy or other bugs that could be fixed. The metric would also allow you to identify the worst offenders. Then, I would suggest using the measure to reward people that stay, especially those who enter partway through.. If you penalize people who are trying their best to enjoy a game despite its large, and great many flaws, they will simply decide not to play. Your numbers will likely drop even more, which is a significant part of the problem itself already. Penalizing players will be counter productive. Its been counter productive to reward stompers, and you forced people to leave because they can't afford to fight in stomps. It is time to fix the incentives such that they improve circumstances and stop with well intentioned but ludicrous incentives that only make problems worse! Former CEO of the Land of the BIind. Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
Snake Sellors Hellstorm LLC 506	Posted - 2015.10.09 20:34:00 - [32] - Quote well, something needs to be done so well done for thinking something up. personally my approach would be simple. a new daily mission, complete 5 games in a row without leaving a battle and receive 1 key for the ever increasing strongboxes, I say keys as they lead to some decent gear but another good idea, in my opinion possibly even better, would be warbarge components. I think though you will have to make it genuinely impressive and worthwhile to achieve what your aiming for as there are some maps on dust at the moment where the team gets so heavily redlined that the enemy team are literally running around the mcc and ground spawn killing everybody who spawns in. and in those circumstances it takes some real effort just to stay in the round also there is a matter of players not liking certain maps so they will leave at the start of the battle. overall I think that the carrot is better than the stick after all this is a game and although its designed to be played by serious gamers players still need to enjoy the experience and forcing them to suffer through things they don't enjoy will probably make them decide they don't enjoy the game. this way they leave battles they don't get their rewards.
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 2	Posted - 2015.10.09 20:36:00 - [33] - Quote @OP POST: I agreed totally - until the idea of using Mu as a penalising factor. The very delicate and barely working matchmaking/team balancing shouldn't be used for that purpose. Especially because MM/team builder's purpose are to create enjoyable and playble matches for all. Now, if this suggested penalty is used, it breaks the function of team building and therefore breaking the game experience for 15 (FIFTEEN) other people in the match. That is way too much collateral damage. KERO-TRADER is my official Eve character for Dust trading.
Starlight Burner Titans of Phoenix Damage LLC 540	Posted - 2015.10.09 20:41:00 - [34] - Quote 3 words. Fuk this idea. Complete horseshit to punish players for this. CEO of Arrary of Clusters, a close relations corporation Caldari Factional Warfare, enlist today! Thank you for DUST
One Eyed King Nos Nothi 12	Posted - 2015.10.09 20:44:00 - [35] - Quote deezy dabest wrote: Add a base pay system in its place. Something like 25k for a defeat and 100k for a victory would be perfect in my opinion. 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. Former CEO of the Land of the BIind. Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
deezy dabest IMPERIAL SPECIAL FORCES GROUP Evil Syndicate Alliance. 3	Posted - 2015.10.09 20:54:00 - [36] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: deezy dabest wrote: Add a base pay system in its place. Something like 25k for a defeat and 100k for a victory would be perfect in my opinion. 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. Of course stomps are still going to turn into **** situations but the goal is to incentive actually being productive towards the common goal of a victory to try to hold off stomps. 100k is hardly an extra reward for stomping when one pro suit costs more than that. The idea here is to just unify the team under a common goal. To a newbie 100k on victory is serious incentive to actually keep spawning in instead of turning into a paper weight which is the cause for many stomps. I am working on a proposal that takes participation into account to provide bonuses in certain situations to make stomping higher risk but it is taking me longer than I expected to balance the numbers while keeping it in a simple form that hopefully CCP would be able to implement easily. The only voice for a port is the voice of reason from money drying up. More skins and 1% damage to keep Dust on PS3.
One Eyed King Nos Nothi 12	Posted - 2015.10.09 21:05:00 - [37] - Quote 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... Former CEO of the Land of the BIind. Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
deezy dabest IMPERIAL SPECIAL FORCES GROUP Evil Syndicate Alliance. 3	Posted - 2015.10.09 21:11:00 - [38] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: 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... That is exactly what I am working on in my proposal. Specifically higher rewards for people that do stay and battle it out but so far every thing I have come up with either involves a new mechanic which would be overly complicated or be farmable beyond belief. You have to admit that within the current system winning simply does not reward enough meaning that at the slightest hint of the battle being lost everyone goes into their own form of ISK preservation mode be it MLT / APEX suits or just going AFK and this is a big issue that can be both quickly and easily addressed. The only voice for a port is the voice of reason from money drying up. More skins and 1% damage to keep Dust on PS3.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 16	Posted - 2015.10.09 21:16:00 - [39] - Quote Haolo Geardreck wrote: I fully agree with an option to leave if your ping gets too high, but not auto-boot. I get spikes during most matches, but its generally low ping. And I mean spikes that seem to be about 2500 for a few seconds. 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. Dropsuit Usage Rates
deezy dabest IMPERIAL SPECIAL FORCES GROUP Evil Syndicate Alliance. 3	Posted - 2015.10.09 21:29:00 - [40] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Haolo Geardreck wrote: I fully agree with an option to leave if your ping gets too high, but not auto-boot. I get spikes during most matches, but its generally low ping. And I mean spikes that seem to be about 2500 for a few seconds. 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. This sounds highly exploitable in my opinion and would probably make lag switches a real thing. Forcing yourself into that lower group and then bumping your connection back up to normal to farm those who have lower connections would be the padding of all padding. Between net code, server side hit detection, and an insane amount of calculations I see the whole thing as a cluster **** which personally I am glad I am not one of the ones trying to fix it. I feel like step 1 should be damage normalization, reducing the load on the server when it comes to applying damage would be a big help. It does not sound like much but when you are dealing with ping times as low as 20 - 30ms for some people a simple 10ms extra time processing on the server suddenly becomes huge. Going beyond that I really do not see any great way to handle high latency players without either punishing them or hurting game play for everyone. I feel like pretty good work has been done reducing the benefit of fast suits used in conjunction with a slow connection and whatever was done we could use a lot more of. The only voice for a port is the voice of reason from money drying up. More skins and 1% damage to keep Dust on PS3.

Aeon Amadi 12	Posted - 2015.10.09 21:32:00 - [41] - Quote 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. Negative Introspection - Aeon's CPM Blog Skype: nomistrav
deezy dabest IMPERIAL SPECIAL FORCES GROUP Evil Syndicate Alliance. 3	Posted - 2015.10.09 21:41:00 - [42] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: 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. Then we end up with double the amount of AFK players per battle. Any obvious and intentional negative effect for leaving battle only leads to worse game play for everyone else. We already have enough people that go AFK without further incentive to do so. All that is needed is a way for us to be able to bump the refill rate way back up so that leaving battle is not equal to sabotaging the match because it is guaranteed to be lopsided. I can tell you now that many people leaving battle is nothing more than a domino effect of people realizing the match is now lost because there is no good players left on your team. The refill rate being way down is also killing match times while increasing the chances that you will have a bunch of randoms against squads. The only voice for a port is the voice of reason from money drying up. More skins and 1% damage to keep Dust on PS3.
One Eyed King Nos Nothi 12	Posted - 2015.10.09 21:45:00 - [43] - Quote @ 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. Former CEO of the Land of the BIind. Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
Roger Cordill The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 441	Posted - 2015.10.09 21:47:00 - [44] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: @ 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. It's on both ends worse for Pilots, but pretty much this.
deezy dabest IMPERIAL SPECIAL FORCES GROUP Evil Syndicate Alliance. 3	Posted - 2015.10.09 21:50:00 - [45] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: @ 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. I agree that fighting a lost battle should have more incentive but there also needs to be incentive to stop it from turning into a stomp in the first place. The numbers I am currently toying with involve a WP multiplier for the losing team once the match has reached a certain inequality. This would lead to a higher cut of the ISK pool for those who continue to fight as well as increasing SP gain for those same people. Obviously with no numbers there it is hard for you to answer but do you feel like this would be a step towards solving the issue that we are talking about here? The only voice for a port is the voice of reason from money drying up. More skins and 1% damage to keep Dust on PS3.
One Eyed King Nos Nothi 12	Posted - 2015.10.09 22:01:00 - [46] - Quote 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. Former CEO of the Land of the BIind. Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
deezy dabest IMPERIAL SPECIAL FORCES GROUP Evil Syndicate Alliance. 3	Posted - 2015.10.09 22:02:00 - [47] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: 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. Any answer to the second part? The only voice for a port is the voice of reason from money drying up. More skins and 1% damage to keep Dust on PS3.
Haolo Geardreck Calvary Won't Arrive 5	Posted - 2015.10.09 22:51:00 - [48] - Quote deezy dabest wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Haolo Geardreck wrote: I fully agree with an option to leave if your ping gets too high, but not auto-boot. I get spikes during most matches, but its generally low ping. And I mean spikes that seem to be about 2500 for a few seconds. 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. This sounds highly exploitable in my opinion and would probably make lag switches a real thing. Forcing yourself into that lower group and then bumping your connection back up to normal to farm those who have lower connections would be the padding of all padding. Between net code, server side hit detection, and an insane amount of calculations I see the whole thing as a cluster **** which personally I am glad I am not one of the ones trying to fix it. I feel like step 1 should be damage normalization, reducing the load on the server when it comes to applying damage would be a big help. It does not sound like much but when you are dealing with ping times as low as 20 - 30ms for some people a simple 10ms extra time processing on the server suddenly becomes huge. Going beyond that I really do not see any great way to handle high latency players without either punishing them or hurting game play for everyone. I feel like pretty good work has been done reducing the benefit of fast suits used in conjunction with a slow connection and whatever was done we could use a lot more of. For those who know how, yea, it would be an easy exploit. High latency players shouldn't even be trying to play something so fast-paced in my opinion. I've been the laggy guy before, I just picked up a different game instead of ruining it for everyone. If they don't have that decency or are simply unwilling to get better internet (if available), I feel like some firm of punishment is in order, even if its just the first part of the stick: a longer queue or such. The server will also know their lag and keep from making their punishment harsher for simple disconnects. Due to a terrible ISP. G Commando/Sentinel, A Assault/Logistics, M Scout - Terrible FPS gamer - Decent Strategy gamer - Good RPG gamer
Haolo Geardreck Calvary Won't Arrive 5	Posted - 2015.10.09 23:03:00 - [49] - Quote People who just afk commonly should get a beautiful permaban :/ G Commando/Sentinel, A Assault/Logistics, M Scout - Terrible FPS gamer - Decent Strategy gamer - Good RPG gamer
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 16	Posted - 2015.10.09 23:09:00 - [50] - Quote Haolo Geardreck wrote: deezy dabest wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Haolo Geardreck wrote: I fully agree with an option to leave if your ping gets too high, but not auto-boot. I get spikes during most matches, but its generally low ping. And I mean spikes that seem to be about 2500 for a few seconds. 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. This sounds highly exploitable in my opinion and would probably make lag switches a real thing. Forcing yourself into that lower group and then bumping your connection back up to normal to farm those who have lower connections would be the padding of all padding. Between net code, server side hit detection, and an insane amount of calculations I see the whole thing as a cluster **** which personally I am glad I am not one of the ones trying to fix it. I feel like step 1 should be damage normalization, reducing the load on the server when it comes to applying damage would be a big help. It does not sound like much but when you are dealing with ping times as low as 20 - 30ms for some people a simple 10ms extra time processing on the server suddenly becomes huge. Going beyond that I really do not see any great way to handle high latency players without either punishing them or hurting game play for everyone. I feel like pretty good work has been done reducing the benefit of fast suits used in conjunction with a slow connection and whatever was done we could use a lot more of. For those who know how, yea, it would be an easy exploit. High latency players shouldn't even be trying to play something so fast-paced in my opinion. I've been the laggy guy before, I just picked up a different game instead of ruining it for everyone. If they don't have that decency or are simply unwilling to get better internet (if available), I feel like some firm of punishment is in order, even if its just the first part of the stick: a longer queue or such. The server will also know their lag and keep from making their punishment harsher for simple disconnects. Due to a terrible ISP. Again, I've no understanding of how these things work ... but why wouldn't this work? Set Low Latency queue's bounce threshold at Ping(A) - Ping(C). Set High Latency queue's bounce threshold at 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 the queue's thresholds. Right? Dropsuit Usage Rates

One Eyed King Nos Nothi 12	Posted - 2015.10.09 23:35:00 - [51] - Quote deezy dabest wrote: One Eyed King wrote: 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. Any answer to the second part? That was kind of my point with the leaving battle metric. It could be used as a multiplier in some way such that people who stick out battles are rewarded more than those who leave, without it being so burdensome to those who only leave on occasion for legit reasons. Former CEO of the Land of the BIind. Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
deezy dabest IMPERIAL SPECIAL FORCES GROUP Evil Syndicate Alliance. 3	Posted - 2015.10.10 00:38:00 - [52] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Haolo Geardreck wrote: deezy dabest wrote: Adipem Nothi wrote: Haolo Geardreck wrote: I fully agree with an option to leave if your ping gets too high, but not auto-boot. I get spikes during most matches, but its generally low ping. And I mean spikes that seem to be about 2500 for a few seconds. 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. This sounds highly exploitable in my opinion and would probably make lag switches a real thing. Forcing yourself into that lower group and then bumping your connection back up to normal to farm those who have lower connections would be the padding of all padding. Between net code, server side hit detection, and an insane amount of calculations I see the whole thing as a cluster **** which personally I am glad I am not one of the ones trying to fix it. I feel like step 1 should be damage normalization, reducing the load on the server when it comes to applying damage would be a big help. It does not sound like much but when you are dealing with ping times as low as 20 - 30ms for some people a simple 10ms extra time processing on the server suddenly becomes huge. Going beyond that I really do not see any great way to handle high latency players without either punishing them or hurting game play for everyone. I feel like pretty good work has been done reducing the benefit of fast suits used in conjunction with a slow connection and whatever was done we could use a lot more of. For those who know how, yea, it would be an easy exploit. High latency players shouldn't even be trying to play something so fast-paced in my opinion. I've been the laggy guy before, I just picked up a different game instead of ruining it for everyone. If they don't have that decency or are simply unwilling to get better internet (if available), I feel like some firm of punishment is in order, even if its just the first part of the stick: a longer queue or such. The server will also know their lag and keep from making their punishment harsher for simple disconnects. Due to a terrible ISP. 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? That is absolutely a programming night mare not to mention terrible for the player base. What about people that have unreliable internet? Are they suppose to just get kicked from every battle because someone in the house started or stopped downloading a torrent? You also have to account for additional server load of monitoring 32 people per battle times how ever many battles. Why would anyone ever bother logging into a game that they are out right punished because their internet is not the greatest. Not everyone lives in a large metropolitan area and has access to cable or fiber like we do. The only voice for a port is the voice of reason from money drying up. More skins and 1% damage to keep Dust on PS3.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 16	Posted - 2015.10.10 01:26:00 - [53] - Quote deezy dabest wrote: That is absolutely a programming night mare not to mention terrible for the player base. What about people that have unreliable internet? Are they suppose to just get kicked from every battle because someone in the house started or stopped downloading a torrent? You also have to account for additional server load of monitoring 32 people per battle times how ever many battles. Why would anyone ever bother logging into a game that they are out right punished because their internet is not the greatest. Not everyone lives in a large metropolitan area and has access to cable or fiber like we do. I was under the impression that player pings are already being logged and monitored (source). Either way, you have a good point. To be clear, I'm not looking to "punish" anyone for having less-than-reliable internet (or a roommate), and I wouldn't want to propose anything which might detrimentally impact headcounts. The above idea is probably bad for reasons you've provided, but the goal -- to improve match stability -- is not a bad goal. I've played lots of AAA shooters over the years at a wide range of connection speeds; latency problems came up from time-to-time, but never have I experienced recurring issues with framerate drops and rubberbanding like so many of us do here in DUST. All of this is relevant to Dennie's concerns. DUST has stability issues. Some players "work around" those issues by leaving broken battles in hopes of finding better ones. This is reasonable behavior. It would be unreasonable to punish these players for wanting to play smooth matches. Dropsuit Usage Rates
ROMULUS H3X research lab 791	Posted - 2015.10.10 02:00:00 - [54] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: I want no part of this, lol. I will always appreciate the carrot over the stick when it comes to match leaving. I'm a firm believer that if players are leaving matches there is a fundamental reason as to why and that needs to be addressed long before penalizing match-leaving. Soo... as your job as CPM, go out there and get in touch with these constant offenders.. IF you want, I can give you a list of the players that I mostly see leaving battle. Most of the time it's the cowards and K/D padders leaving. Yet there are many instances where people leave because one of their squadmates gets "Scottied" aka "screwed." Leaving battle is the only way to be fair to your buddy, not his/her fault Scotty is on the rag. Sometimes this happens multiple times in a row. There are also quite a few cases where people leave battle because they know they won't get the much needed '1 Victory for a Key' Mission... Some mercs actually do have jobs beyond DUST 514 believe it or not and they don't really HAVE all day and night to do so. Fixing the "Something went wrong with Scotty" scenario and fixing the Victory = Key missions will deff help alleviate the confusion to WHO and WHY they are still leaving battlle. Now lets get the ball rolling, FORGE/FLAYLOCK/FISTS PLASMA/PISTOL/PUNCH ALL OF YOU PUNKS GET HUMILIATED AFTER LUNCH!
TheEnd762 SVER True Blood RUST415 836	Posted - 2015.10.10 03:58:00 - [55] - Quote Make in-progress battles (that are uneven) special contracts with higher payout. This will incentivize stomp squads to join battles against other stomp squads that others have left due to being unable to compete.
WeapondigitX V7 The Exemplars 440	Posted - 2015.10.10 05:47:00 - [56] - Quote I would be ok with players having incentives to stay in matches and also contribute in combination with a system that punishes players for leaving matches after they have passed a tolerance level. Examples That I would like implemented into the game: Officer gear is rated much higher in ISK value within public matches than they already are, thus when they are destroyed in pubs, the total amount of ISK is increased much more than it does today, that is awarded to the team that destroyed that officer gear. Killing Proto gear enemies awards players with 65 WP and killing officer gear awards players 90 WP instead of 50 WP. Terminating enemies awards 1 WP. The amount of players on team 1 creates a ratio ((no of players of team 1) / 16) and the total amount of ISK awarded to team 1 is divided by that ratio ( 0 < ratio < 1 ). This would increase the ISK payouts to small teams with a smaller amount of players compared to the opposite team in the match. The same effect is applied to the opposite team. Players are allowed to leave 5 battles every day without penalty but are penalized 50 000 ISK on the 6th time they left a battle. Then keep multiplying that 50 000 ISK penalty by 3, every time they leave a battle that day. (this penalty shows up on the player wallet history). Example: (50 000 6th), (150 000 7th), (450 000 8th), (1 350 000 ISK 9th)..... etc.
Regnier Feros Dead Man's Game 874	Posted - 2015.10.10 07:31:00 - [57] - Quote ._. I LIKE PIE
Varoth Drac Dead Man's Game 1	Posted - 2015.10.10 08:21:00 - [58] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: 3) Add an ISK/SP bonus for completing consecutive matches. 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. I think these are great ideas. Completing consecutive matches in a day could earn you a "reliability bonus". Basically, employers know that you are likely to stay for the duration of the contract and so pay more for your services. Also CCP should lessen the pain of team members dropping out, or of joining a match late, by increasing the payout for players that stay with the smaller team. So you could have a team-wide payout at the end, split amongst the players left at the end, according to contribution. This means that you will get a larger proportion of the payout if you have a smaller team, as there will be less mercs for the isk to be divided by. For example: 16 player team at the end. 1600000 isk split 16 ways (assuming equal warpoints) = 100000 isk each. 8 player team at the end. 1600000 is split 8 ways (assuming equal warpoints) = 200000 isk each.
Baal Omniscient Qualified Scrub 2	Posted - 2015.10.12 09:44:00 - [59] - Quote Lavallois Nash wrote: Baal Omniscient wrote: REALITY CHECK: This is not war, this a videogame. A videogame requires balance between players or it's not enjoyable to play. If it's not enjoyable to play your game dies. Balance > Realism. Let's say you put down the keyboard until you recognise the difference between a war and an entertainment source. Ok, so if you dont want to participate in the meta, why are you here? Why dont you go play Mario Party or something? Did you ever consider that the whole concept of a universe and of meta and of mercs actually might be entertaining to people? People who dont just sign onto a game to get a sense of self worth from numbers? You talk about balance but listed "cheap tactics" as a reason for quitting. A cheap tactic has nothing to do with balance it just means you arent smart enough to have developed a counter. Maybe if you spent less time rage quitting and more time being creative there would be no "cheap tactics" used against you. Kid if you enjoy waving your HTFU flag that much, go play EVE and quit trying to force a lobby shooter to hold to the standards of an enormous space sandbox with PvE, PvP, actual events, proper mechanics, Concord, etc. Meta can be fun, but meta doesn't keep a game alive on its own. Cheap tactics are a balancing issue, as evidenced by CCP's attempt (and failure for the most part) to fix RE Frisbees among other things like tower forge sniping, the original thukker grenades, the old broken Gal logi standing in repping hives, etc. The fact that cheap tactics have counters has nothing to do with whether or not they belong in the game and whether or not they hurt te gameplay. Try thinking through all of the factors involved with a decision before jumping on a self-destructive bandwagon. Winmatar Assault, Proficiency 5 SMG's & Proficiency 5 Swarms Since Uprising 1.0 I GÖú Puppies (Gê¬n+Ç-´)GèâGöüGÿån+ƒ.*pâ+n+ín+ƒ.
maybe deadcatz TRUE TEA BAGGERS Smart Deploy 1	Posted - 2015.10.12 10:46:00 - [60] - Quote Kevall Longstride wrote: 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. That's so evil that even the little voice in my head says "why didn't we think of that?" Ha! You can't kill me! I'm already dead!

Press Attache The Office of The Attorney General 200	Posted - 2015.10.12 13:57:00 - [61] - Quote Anmol Singh wrote: How about fixing matchmaking so my 8 newberries and me aren't put up against a fully stacked team with coordination. Don't take newberries into FW then. When you do it to yourself(and them) its not a legitimate complaint. Forum representative for Mr. Hybrid Vayu: The Attorney General.
Tebu Gan Capital Acquisitions LLC 1	Posted - 2015.10.12 14:43:00 - [62] - Quote Kevall Longstride wrote: 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. Stopped reading there. Don't like their chances and want to protect KDR, what a stupid statement. More like don't like their chances and want a fairer fight. Not what is no doubt a quick redline.
DiGreatDestroyer Grupo de Asalto Chacal Rise Of Legion. 179	Posted - 2015.10.13 18:19:00 - [63] - Quote Should something be done about people leaving matches? YES Should we penalize those that leave? Maybe... But you also have to reward those that stay. Say, if you complete matches without leaving you get a 10% Isk bonus 20 matches? 20 % Up to 100% Leave once? It resets all your progress Directivo de Grupo de Asalto Chacal "SOMEONE GIVE THIS MAN A GD COOKIE"- Aeon Amadi
Haolo Geardreck Calvary Won't Arrive 7	Posted - 2015.10.13 18:45:00 - [64] - Quote Doesn't matter to me if its a fair fight it not, and I'm kinda terrible at keeping a bead on the enemy, bad at map awareness, reflexes, etc. I just keep a cheap fitting for when I'm in a beatdown. ~500ISK per spawn for the basic or 3000 for the one I prefer. Getting beat down is just practice IMHO. G Commando/Sentinel, A Assault/Logistics, M Scout - Terrible FPS gamer - Decent Strategy gamer - Good RPG gamer
Kalante Schiffer Ancient Exiles. 1	Posted - 2015.10.13 19:23:00 - [65] - Quote Baal Omniscient wrote: Lavallois Nash wrote: Baal Omniscient wrote: cheap tactics being available, and obviously overpowered gear on the other side. Its a war game for christ sakes. Do you know what war is? War is getting your side to win by making the other poor SOB die for his side. This isnt organized sports, this isnt monopoly with friends. You were hired to participate in a battle. As a soldier of fortune, Your supposed to be making your fortune throwing down the heavy hits your contractor asked you to. Lets say you finished a battle and the NPC corp decided not to pay you? What if halfway through the battle the NPC corp called off the attack and refused payout? If the NPC corp breached its contract with you, youd be livid. Yet you reserve the right to break the contract with them on a whim with no penalty? REALITY CHECK: This is not war, this a videogame. A videogame requires balance between players or it's not enjoyable to play. If it's not enjoyable to play your game dies. Balance > Realism. Let's say you put down the keyboard until you recognise the difference between a war and an entertainment source. Well one way to fix balance is to remove scanners once and for all. New players stand no chance against scanners. The game is already hard as it is for them and then you have them appear on the map which are basically free kills. They are not gonna fit dampeners, they do not even know how to shoot much less know how the mechanics work. buff range
CallMeNoName PIXXXIE 95	Posted - 2015.10.14 02:01:00 - [66] - Quote What I heard is: "If you leave a match where you are up against 80 Mil SP veterans in Basic gear, we'll penalize you heavily in ISK." "If that does not work, then we will start putting you against 100 Mil veterans in Prototype gear." You remove a weed by the roots (matchmaking...), not by torching your garden. Core Nades can't melt Amarr Sentinels.
ROMULUS H3X research lab 819	Posted - 2015.10.14 02:22:00 - [67] - Quote DiGreatDestroyer wrote: Should something be done about people leaving matches? YES Should we penalize those that leave? Maybe... But you also have to reward those that stay. Say, if you complete 10 matches without leaving you get a 10% Isk bonus 20 matches? 20 % Up to 100% Leave once? It resets all your progress I like this general idea, a leveled bonus for finishing contracts. Up to 30% increase would seem fair enough without payouts getting too ridiculous.. FORGE/FLAYLOCK/FISTS PLASMA/PISTOL/PUNCH ALL OF YOU PUNKS GET HUMILIATED AFTER LUNCH!
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 17	Posted - 2015.10.14 03:10:00 - [68] - Quote Kalante Schiffer wrote: Well one way to fix balance is to remove scanners once and for all ... I suspect Kalante's correct. Sadly, this would help far more than it'd hurt. That said, fixing Active Scanners would likely be a better approach. Dropsuit Usage Rates
Shaun Iwairo Simple Minded People Pty. Ltd. 67	Posted - 2015.10.14 03:36:00 - [69] - Quote I'm trying my hardest but I can't think of another game with a similar mechanic to scanners function of 'revealing enemy players on the map without actually seeing them'. I'm sure a lot of you have played Destiny, so you'll know that one of the things that made Thorn OP was that you could see you enemy through walls from their DoT ticks. Unlike scanners, you had to see them and land a shot on them first to get that effect. If anyone knows any other examples of Dusts scanner in other FPSs I think they'd be worth discussing. As for balancing the scanner, why not have it only highlight enemies within line of sight to the person doing the scanning? It would change it from being more or less a wallhack to something more like an auto-spotter. Stat modifiers are killing new player retention.
Shaun Iwairo Simple Minded People Pty. Ltd. 67	Posted - 2015.10.14 03:39:00 - [70] - Quote DiGreatDestroyer wrote: Should something be done about people leaving matches? YES Should we penalize those that leave? Maybe... But you also have to reward those that stay. Say, if you complete 10 matches without leaving you get a 10% Isk bonus 20 matches? 20 % Up to 100% Leave once? It resets all your progress More carrot, less stick. I like it. The streak does seem a little long, however. 10 matches usually takes over 2 hours. Stat modifiers are killing new player retention.

One Eyed King Nos Nothi 13	Posted - 2015.10.14 04:56:00 - [71] - Quote Shaun Iwairo wrote: I'm trying my hardest but I can't think of another game with a similar mechanic to scanners function of 'revealing enemy players on the map without actually seeing them'. I'm sure a lot of you have played Destiny, so you'll know that one of the things that made Thorn OP was that you could see you enemy through walls from their DoT ticks. Unlike scanners, you had to see them and land a shot on them first to get that effect. If anyone knows any other examples of Dusts scanner in other FPSs I think they'd be worth discussing. As for balancing the scanner, why not have it only highlight enemies within line of sight to the person doing the scanning? It would change it from being more or less a wallhack to something more like an auto-spotter. In some of the previous CoD games, you could call in a drone that would give away enemy positions. One specific type would also reveal the direction enemies face. There were also perks that would prevent showing up, and you could shoot down the drone with a missile, but that doesn't take away from the fact this is essentially an active scan. Former CEO of the Land of the BIind. Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
Shaun Iwairo Simple Minded People Pty. Ltd. 67	Posted - 2015.10.14 05:10:00 - [72] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: Shaun Iwairo wrote: I'm trying my hardest but I can't think of another game with a similar mechanic to scanners function of 'revealing enemy players on the map without actually seeing them'. I'm sure a lot of you have played Destiny, so you'll know that one of the things that made Thorn OP was that you could see you enemy through walls from their DoT ticks. Unlike scanners, you had to see them and land a shot on them first to get that effect. If anyone knows any other examples of Dusts scanner in other FPSs I think they'd be worth discussing. As for balancing the scanner, why not have it only highlight enemies within line of sight to the person doing the scanning? It would change it from being more or less a wallhack to something more like an auto-spotter. In some of the previous CoD games, you could call in a drone that would give away enemy positions. One specific type would also reveal the direction enemies face. There were also perks that would prevent showing up, and you could shoot down the drone with a missile, but that doesn't take away from the fact this is essentially an active scan. Thanks for the example. IIRC it showed them on the minimap but didn't tag them in-game, AKA it had no wallhack effect. It was also on a longish cool-down so to speak - the earliest you could get it was after a 3 kill streak - and it could only be used once per life. Makes our scanner sound pretty OP. Stat modifiers are killing new player retention.
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 17	Posted - 2015.10.14 12:23:00 - [73] - Quote Shaun Iwairo wrote: One Eyed King wrote: Shaun Iwairo wrote: I'm trying my hardest but I can't think of another game with a similar mechanic to scanners function of 'revealing enemy players on the map without actually seeing them'. I'm sure a lot of you have played Destiny, so you'll know that one of the things that made Thorn OP was that you could see you enemy through walls from their DoT ticks. Unlike scanners, you had to see them and land a shot on them first to get that effect. If anyone knows any other examples of Dusts scanner in other FPSs I think they'd be worth discussing. As for balancing the scanner, why not have it only highlight enemies within line of sight to the person doing the scanning? It would change it from being more or less a wallhack to something more like an auto-spotter. In some of the previous CoD games, you could call in a drone that would give away enemy positions. One specific type would also reveal the direction enemies face. There were also perks that would prevent showing up, and you could shoot down the drone with a missile, but that doesn't take away from the fact this is essentially an active scan. Thanks for the example. IIRC it showed them on the minimap but didn't tag them in-game, AKA it had no wallhack effect. It was also on a longish cool-down so to speak - the earliest you could get it was after a 3 kill streak - and it could only be used once per life. Makes our scanner sound pretty OP. It's been awhile. IIRC, these only affected the minimap: http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/SR-71_Blackbird http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/Advanced_UAV http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/Orbital_VSAT Example: https://youtu.be/HSAiOortWFI?t=338 Painting target locations to HUD was supposedly achievable via hack but was never a killstreak (IIRC): https://youtu.be/tx3P6KkFHo4?t=20 * Also, perma-scan wasn't ever a thing in CoD. Even if you were playing with a good team, UAVs typically had more downtime than uptime, and the more advanced killstreaks seldom seen. Dropsuit Usage Rates
Arkena Wyrnspire Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 28	Posted - 2015.10.14 12:37:00 - [74] - Quote I'm not convinced by this. The reason people quit matches is typically because they're against nigh-unstoppable slaughtersquads of proto. Forcing them against these people is not going to make them play and is much more likely to lead to frustration and eventual quitting. I don't think the 'muh precious kdr' view is nearly as prevalent amongst match leavers as people seem to think it is. People will leave matches if they're not having fun. Sure, a couple of these people might be unsavoury types whose view of 'fun' is being put up against people who don't know how to fit a dropsuit, but the majority are likely leaving because the match is genuinely frustrating them and they're just not having fun. And really, I can appreciate that view. I probably count as one of the more 'elite' players in that I've played for years, have proto, and my KDR is over 5. If a person in militia gear runs in front of me, they're probably not going to survive. Even if they do that, say, 10 times. Now, that may be very amusing for me but I can't imagine it's much fun for them. If some poor newbie comes out of the academy, gets thrown into a few horrible matches (and consequently leaves them because he's going 0/20), do you propose that he should be constantly forced into a situation where he is in his militia against a full squad of proto vets? The solution to match-leaving is proper matchmaking and a fun game. Punishing people for getting frustrated will solve nothing. Arkena Wyrnspire aka "British Khorne" - Cross Atu
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 17	Posted - 2015.10.14 12:44:00 - [75] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: I'm not convinced by this. The reason people quit matches is typically because they're against nigh-unstoppable slaughtersquads of proto. Forcing them against these people is not going to make them play and is much more likely to lead to frustration and eventual quitting. I don't think the 'muh precious kdr' view is nearly as prevalent amongst match leavers as people seem to think it is. Beautifully put, good sir. Dropsuit Usage Rates
Kale Cienfuego Calvary Won't Arrive 0	Posted - 2015.10.14 14:15:00 - [76] - Quote My KDR is about 0.3, I think. I've quit one match in the history of ever and it was for an emergency. Win or lose you get ISK and SP and experience. I was originally that 0/20 guy that would have gotten flamed to a crisp if chat were plausible. Now I'm the 4/6 guy usually, 2/15 if we are getting stomped, 5/2 if my team is stomping. Point is, learning happens faster when its such a challenge. Its not so fun, but it makes a player better. Although there is one thing I still haven't learned.. how a heavy with 360/1140 HP dies in just one second to an AR/SR/RR @100m while my AR is doing nearly no damage..
catsrule D3ATH CARD RUST415 25	Posted - 2015.10.14 14:47:00 - [77] - Quote Kevall Longstride wrote: 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. i have never heard anything that sounded better to me EVER when it has come to dust, this is probably the best idea ever. we get fined and what not. at least its not like other games where you can get banned for just leaving one battle. This idea makes the games more fun. it could be that i never back out even in fac where there might be a whole team of AE. like he said he dont have time for people that want to fight people with skill. im one of those people who loves to fight people of equal skill. its no fun when all there are is starter fits or basic. i want to vs people using proto/officer because i KNOW i can kick their asses. but most of "the good players" back out in almost every battle im in..... i just want to see battles where they stick it out to the very end no matter what.
Bremen van Equis Incorruptibles 754	Posted - 2015.10.14 15:07:00 - [78] - Quote 2 keys for victory, 1 key for completing battle. Problem solved. Buckle up, boysGÇªthis ramp leads to space. -Axe Cop
Sneshandaar Cboollt Calvary Won't Arrive 0	Posted - 2015.10.14 16:21:00 - [79] - Quote WP is a good way to track activity in battle, along with move distance and other factors. Even if the AFKers only fought 1/3 of the time, its helpful. And have it tracked harder when they're behind the red line. Some might think this would punish a bad sniper, but using bullets and getting kill assists, having SP in sniper rifles, or having a history of Sniper use can be easily factored in.
Haolo Geardreck Calvary Won't Arrive 7	Posted - 2015.10.14 16:29:00 - [80] - Quote That's ~1800 AUR per victory just given away. Sure, they could drop the likelihood of rare items per box, but then opening the box becomes less worth the risk of real money, and people won't buy keys, CCP loses that money source. Instead introduce yet another currency: Favor. Use it as a universal Corp currency or to buy special types of boosts like post-battle ISK earnings or discounts on suits while in battle, skill book discounts, better sale prices on the market, use it as a type if postage for item trades whenever that becomes possible, and an option to spend some to leave a battle without penalty. G Commando/Sentinel, A Assault/Logistics, M Scout - Terrible FPS gamer - Decent Strategy gamer - Good RPG gamer

Bremen van Equis Incorruptibles 755	Posted - 2015.10.14 16:51:00 - [81] - Quote 800 Aurum to open a box with 30 flux grenades. That's a whole other thread... Buckle up, boysGÇªthis ramp leads to space. -Axe Cop
Vesta Opalus PROJECT OF KILLERS. RUST415 1	Posted - 2015.10.14 17:22:00 - [82] - Quote Kevall Longstride wrote: 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. As for the leaving because of map part: if I had any say in what I was contracting to aside from game type your comment about contractual obligation might mean something, but the reality is Im contracting to do some game type on some random map, and if I dont have a decent chance of fun on that map, then the contract can go **** itself. Im leaving. This isnt a job, its a game. As for leaving because of enemy players: yeah this is annoying, why cant we just have the enemy names obscured until the end of match? Solves the problem entirely (though people will still leave if they see a stomp starting Im sure).
Alena Ventrallis Commando Perkone Caldari State 3	Posted - 2015.10.14 19:11:00 - [83] - Quote A system based solely on rewards breeds entitlement. A system based solely on punishments breeds resentment. A system with both breeds motivation. Why don't we use the carrot AND the stick? Why not reward staying and punish losing? Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind.
Kevall Longstride Dust University Ivy League 3	Posted - 2015.10.14 22:43:00 - [84] - Quote Sorry I've not checked up since the OP.. Real life has been very busy at the moment, looking to buy my first house. Which is far too responsible for my taste. I'll plough through the pages and give my thoughts on your feedback so far. CPM 1&2 Member CEO of DUST University
One Eyed King Nos Nothi 13	Posted - 2015.10.14 23:09:00 - [85] - Quote Kevall Longstride wrote: Sorry I've not checked up since the OP.. Real life has been very busy at the moment, looking to buy my first house. Which is far too responsible for my taste. I'll plough through the pages and give my thoughts on your feedback so far. Good luck! Are tiny houses all the rage where you are? Former CEO of the Land of the BIind. Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
One Eyed King Nos Nothi 13	Posted - 2015.10.14 23:24:00 - [86] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: A system based solely on rewards breeds entitlement. A system based solely on punishments breeds resentment. A system with both breeds motivation. Why don't we use the carrot AND the stick? Why not reward staying and punish losing? From my perspective, a system involving a games deployed/completed ratio could be tailored to reward the top 25% of players staying above normal, keep the payouts for the middle 50% approximately the same, and give the bottom 25% a reduced payout. Should be just a matter of playing with the numbers, assuming that games deployed/completed is an easy ratio to track and add to the payout calculation. Former CEO of the Land of the BIind. Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
Kevall Longstride Dust University Ivy League 3	Posted - 2015.10.14 23:26:00 - [87] - Quote Rightio. So some have raised the issue of matchmaking, problems with Scotty, issues with the games poor net code etc etc. By and large I agree with those concerns. I wouldn't expect such a punishment/ reward system to be implemented if there was technical problems preventing it from being fairly enforced. So let's reframe the question or rather give it a different context. If Rattati and the team managed to eliminate a lot of these problems to the point where match making and team size balancing issues were no longer relavant, rendering these concerns moot, how would you then feel about a punishment system in place. Quite a few games do have them, the League of Legends example given earlier being a good one. So it's not like it's without precedent. A lot of the feedback has been centred on improving the carrot aspect. This is fine but there is a point where, the carrot gets so juicy that players will leave a match without hesitation if they don't think they'll get it. If we improve the carrot to that point then I think it only fair that an equally large and effective stick should be in place. Now, over the years many claims have been made about Dust and how it was to be a game of consequence. That's the part that appealed to me to begin with. I'd grown bored of the experience that COD offered being as it was, just another rinse and repeat lobby shooter. But because of the failings of previous leadership, Dust is getting dangerously close to being just another formulaic Lobby Game. And like those games there's no consequence to your actions. Now if we got to the hypothetical situation of a #portdust514 becoming reality and with it a chance to fix these issues then how much better would the game be, in terms of its meta, if true consequence became part of it. CPM 1&2 Member CEO of DUST University
Zan Azikuchi G.R.A.V.E The Ditanian Alliance 287	Posted - 2015.10.14 23:32:00 - [88] - Quote Kevall Longstride wrote: 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. So right from the get go, before EVER going up against the "best player's" I have to go through MORE proto stomping and corp stomping? I never left to "protect my KDR", KDR has no meaning in this game, war point's do. Reason why I leave is cause I know I'm about to be stomped by the enemy player's cause my team has no one of worth mentioning but the enemies do. Just 2 day's ago in FW wanting to get away from the pub stomping, I went through 3 FW stomp's from Gallente, 3rd match had some hope but we lost track real fast and got stomped into the ground. Adding any penalties would only harm the NPE, since their, like many other smart individual's that'd rather have even/fair matches, leave because they're up against known Proto stomper's/corp stomper's. Well that and going up against the same player's that killed you 7 times over, can be overly frustrating, massively. When there is light, shadow's lurk and fear reign's... Yet by the blade of knight's, mankind, was given hope.
DiablosMajora 336	Posted - 2015.10.15 00:10:00 - [89] - Quote Kevall Longstride wrote: Rightio. So some have raised the issue of matchmaking, problems with Scotty, issues with the games poor net code etc etc. By and large I agree with those concerns. I wouldn't expect such a punishment/ reward system to be implemented if there was technical problems preventing it from being fairly enforced. So let's reframe the question or rather give it a different context. If Rattati and the team managed to eliminate a lot of these problems to the point where match making and team size balancing issues were no longer relavant, rendering these concerns moot, how would you then feel about a punishment system in place. Quite a few games do have them, the League of Legends example given earlier being a good one. So it's not like it's without precedent. A lot of the feedback has been centred on improving the carrot aspect. This is fine but there is a point where, the carrot gets so juicy that players will leave a match without hesitation if they don't think they'll get it. If we improve the carrot to that point then I think it only fair that an equally large and effective stick should be in place. Now, over the years many claims have been made about Dust and how it was to be a game of consequence. That's the part that appealed to me to begin with. I'd grown bored of the experience that COD offered being as it was, just another rinse and repeat lobby shooter. But because of the failings of previous leadership, Dust is getting dangerously close to being just another formulaic Lobby Game. And like those games there's no consequence to your actions. Now if we got to the hypothetical situation of a #portdust514 becoming reality and with it a chance to fix these issues then how much better would the game be, in terms of its meta, if true consequence became part of it. Proposal: When joining a match you choose what gear to bring with you to the MCC (what, are you gonna bring your whole armory with you every time?), up to a certain limit of stuff. If you make the conscious action of leaving the battle, you could potentially lose some (or all) of the stuff you brought with you, which would then be split up among the winners (either your team or the enemy). If you happen to get disconnected, you have until the battle actually ends to rejoin without penalty. If you have to leave... well... don't fly what you can't afford to lose? 0.02isk Prepare your angus
Haolo Geardreck Calvary Won't Arrive 8	Posted - 2015.10.15 01:58:00 - [90] - Quote With a good carrot and lower starting pay, the stick is the threat of losing the carrot. Kinda how many of us were treated with school grades, except there was a definite stick in my contract. A D was grounded 3 weeks till the progress report. An F was 6 weeks grounded regardless and plenty of yard work to keep me from getting bored.. but As and Bs earned money. In a similar way.. half the usual payouts across the board and implement a system that allows an increase of up to 150-200%, with a quit knocking off a larger percent each successive time, starting at zero percent. And I have to partially agree with the gear/loot idea, but if its implemented, a player should be able to insure their goods in the case of a late-game disconnect. G Commando/Sentinel, A Assault/Logistics, M Scout - Terrible FPS gamer - Decent Strategy gamer - Good RPG gamer

CELESTA AUNGM Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 677	Posted - 2015.10.15 18:06:00 - [91] - Quote I'm against anything too elaborate or multi-insured against disconnects/lags, becsause it will tax CCP's staff and pull them off of being as productive as possible with regular hotfixes and updates. So, (yikes, I brought this up before) we're playing this game partly like we play a shooter, partly like we play Monopoly. Many of us are entering matches more like real estate barons, hedging our risks, pulling out the moment it feels like a bad investment----and OK, we should be allowed to play the game that way if we want. BUT, just like pulling out of a stock market deal in mid-stream, you should pay a small tax, or take a small "investment rating" loss each time you pull that "I've changed my mind" option. When we hit the 'triangle' button to see a player's Info, it should give us some small mentions of Ranking: Faction Standing (so we know she fights hardest for Minmatar, etc), and a "battles joined/completed" ratio number . When a player "leaves" a battle less than 3 times per UTC day, there should be no penalty at all (you ought to be able to leave for physical reasons--it's not boot camp). IF you leave 3 times or more per day, --Faction Standing level should begin to go backwards (regardless of whether this was a FW match). --Loyalty points should be reduced on ALL Factions you've built points with (this will not be visible to other players when they call up your Info screen). --"Battles Completed" ratio will track it, (with a retro-dated back to when the matchmaker was activated, so many of us will already show negative-numbers) --Finally, Loyalty Ranks should reduce, so that the only way to repair their Officer-Rank pride will be to temporarily increase AUR use (LOL, "buying" a captain's rank). All these should occur simultaneously, so the player is shocked by how MANY little penalties he just suffered. But each reduction one should be a MODEST drop, so the player CAN opt to keep leaving, if he doesn't mind paying the leaving-tax and ranking-loss... ...and if doesn't mind that we can see how much of a "leaver" he is when we call up his Info screen, and knowing if he's worth inviting to parties Universe of good wishes for the 49, especially CCP Eterne... No story can have life without writers and publishers.
Sylwester Dziewiecki 511	Posted - 2015.10.15 22:41:00 - [92] - Quote It's not cowardice to back out of a match or sign of bad faith; It is more like cold calculation. Matchmaking system should remind courier contract in EVE: before accepting contract you can check plenty of data associated with the task, like size of cargo, travel rout, reward, collateral(so if you fail to deliver goods to destination you will have to pay for it) etc. those data are open to player and there is no surprises. We can certainly can assume that it would never look like this in 514 game, because of certain reasons.. I have feeling that we have definitely more chances to see something compliantly opposite to transparency coming to Dust, and being part of it, a way to trick players, fool them to play with someone that they do not want to play with. Some time ago development team disallow players to join squads or see them while being in battle, and since that moment complaints, like "we are fighting with no squads against at least 2" suddenly stop appearing on forum. In my opinion it was another nail in the 'I want to play a lone wolf in strangers squad' coffin, and another not needed nerf. BUT we no longer have those stupid complains on forums, happy days! So, victory is knowledge, removing option to see players corporations on match score board would reduce players leaving match, because they would no longer see connections with other players. They would no longer be able to tell if they are fighting against extremely good players, or with a swarm of noobs that did not left NPC corps. I know, it's sic and I felt really really bed to telling you this , but it is very easy solution to implement . In case you have time to read something else here is some interesting proposal to make pub matches more interesting: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2943553#post2943553 G Speed Scout. MM Logi/Assault. EVE side of me: Nosum Hseebnrido
Haolo Geardreck Calvary Won't Arrive 11	Posted - 2015.10.16 02:37:00 - [93] - Quote Because really, how can you identify your opponent? They're all engineered clone bodies in mass-produced suits. I originally tjoughybthe clones were 'piloted' by the merc remotely, which could be picked up on. But it turns out that's not the case.. G Commando/Sentinel, A Assault/Logistics, M Scout - Terrible FPS gamer - Decent Strategy gamer - Good RPG gamer
Juno Tristan Obscure Reference 922	Posted - 2015.10.16 02:47:00 - [94] - Quote People leave if they're not going to win and therefore not get their daily ticket Replace the mission with something like earn 2500WP and I think things would improve Or Maybe it's always been an issue, we just didn't notice before the latest matchmaking as games would fill back up ADS Ramming Revenge! Plasma Cannon Rampage
Shaun Iwairo Simple Minded People Pty. Ltd. 115	Posted - 2015.10.16 03:13:00 - [95] - Quote Kevall Longstride wrote: > This is fine but there is a point where, the carrot gets so juicy that players will leave a match without hesitation if they don't think they'll get it. This makes no sense? The only thing they have to do to get the carrot is not leave. > If Rattati and the team managed to eliminate a lot of these problems to the point where match making and team size balancing issues were no longer relavant, Then you've probably fixed the reason players are leaving matches in the first place. IMO players are leaving matches because they are already getting punished by the matchmaker. They are thinking 'this is only going to get much worse if I stay'. You need something that changes that thinking to 'well this is going to get worse, but at least I've got x and y to look forward to if I stay'. Come up with a system that rewards a carrot that is proportional to how bad the matchmaker failed and you never have to worry about it again. If the matchmaker stays as it is you get rewarded for sticking out a stacked match, if the matchmaker improves the reward is smaller or goes away. Something is killing new player retention.
Shaun Iwairo Simple Minded People Pty. Ltd. 116	Posted - 2015.10.16 04:19:00 - [96] - Quote So the above helps the people that are leaving because of an ISK hemorrhage. What about those who are precious about their KD? Stop tracking it. Start tracking ISK efficiency in pubs. Start generating Killmails (did someone say new proxy node?) Rattati once said something along the lines of 'I don't mind going up against a stomper when I'm in my STD gear, because even if he goes 20/1, when I'm the one that does the 1 the I'm happy that I've cost them.' That's a great attitude, but people like to be able to track the stats that say they're good at one thing or another. When they see that number go up they get a whole lot of positive reinforcement and are more likely to continue that behavior. You get the same effect but in reverse with Killmails. Expensive Killmails are embarrassing, even more so if you've been taken down by cheap stuff. Not a day goes by on /r/eve where the recipient of some expensive Lossmail isn't mocked and derided. Lots of negative reinforcement for flying unnecessarily expensive stuff. Something is killing new player retention.
TheEnd762 SVER True Blood RUST415 839	Posted - 2015.10.16 05:17:00 - [97] - Quote Shaun Iwairo wrote: What about those who are precious about their KD? As has been stated numerous times, that group of players is a very small minority that is heavily exaggerated in a thinly-veiled attempt to push this non-issue into the spotlight.
Shaun Iwairo Simple Minded People Pty. Ltd. 118	Posted - 2015.10.16 05:25:00 - [98] - Quote Just as I can't say for sure how many quit due to KD preservation, you can't say for sure how few quit due to KD preservation. The only think we know is that the problem exists. People are leaving matches at an unusually high rate, which is causing lopsided battles to snowball. Something is killing new player retention.
Sylwester Dziewiecki 511	Posted - 2015.10.19 15:44:00 - [99] - Quote DiablosMajora wrote: Proposal: When joining a match you choose what gear to bring with you to the MCC (what, are you gonna bring your whole armory with you every time?), up to a certain limit of stuff. If you make the conscious action of leaving the battle, you could potentially lose some (or all) of the stuff you brought with you, which would then be split up among the winners (either your team or the enemy). If you happen to get disconnected, you have until the battle actually ends to rejoin without penalty. If you have to leave... well... don't fly what you can't afford to lose? 0.02isk That was one of the Legion idea for PvE maps. Player were suppose to buy packed of clones that they were planning to take for the mission, if they would run out of them, mission ends for them. It's to complex for dust. Kevall Longstride wrote: Rightio. So some have raised the issue of matchmaking, problems with Scotty, issues with the games poor net code etc etc. By and large I agree with those concerns. I wouldn't expect such a punishment/ reward system to be implemented if there was technical problems preventing it from being fairly enforced. So let's reframe the question or rather give it a different context. If Rattati and the team managed to eliminate a lot of these problems to the point where match making and team size balancing issues were no longer relavant, rendering these concerns moot, how would you then feel about a punishment system in place. Quite a few games do have them, the League of Legends example given earlier being a good one. So it's not like it's without precedent. A lot of the feedback has been centred on improving the carrot aspect. This is fine but there is a point where, the carrot gets so juicy that players will leave a match without hesitation if they don't think they'll get it. If we improve the carrot to that point then I think it only fair that an equally large and effective stick should be in place. Now, over the years many claims have been made about Dust and how it was to be a game of consequence. That's the part that appealed to me to begin with. I'd grown bored of the experience that COD offered being as it was, just another rinse and repeat lobby shooter. But because of the failings of previous leadership, Dust is getting dangerously close to being just another formulaic Lobby Game. And like those games there's no consequence to your actions. Now if we got to the hypothetical situation of a #portdust514 becoming reality and with it a chance to fix these issues then how much better would the game be, in terms of its meta, if true consequence became part of it. Bold part is impossible, objectively speaking. Team of that size is impossible to fix all issues that accumulated over several years. Taking in to account World of Darkness I do not believe that Rattati team works only on Dust, especially in times of Valkyrie delays. Beside, is it really worth to focus that amount of human resources to fix this game, if they can spend less time to make "+2%/-2%" changes and keep current amount of player base alive? Sorry bro, but you have head in the clouds. When I'm looking at the past, It was always players who was some how successful who were nerfed, not those who was unsuccessful by game mechanics. G Speed Scout. MM Logi/Assault. EVE side of me: Nosum Hseebnrido
Kaeru Nayiri OSG Planetary Operations 1	Posted - 2015.10.19 18:01:00 - [100] - Quote This was covered here: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=202215 Know what cannot be known.

Meee One Amakakeru-Ryu-no-Hirameki 1	Posted - 2015.10.20 08:22:00 - [101] - Quote Kevall Longstride wrote: 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. Player A:"Hey guys i have a great idea." Guys:"Yeah?" Player A:"Let's keep leaving matches until it's only us versing eachother." Guys:"Ok." Kdr padding to the extreme. And a low threat EOM reward farm. Did i mention the easily abused WP boosting? Official Blueberry of the Forums. Title given by my #1 fan Sgt Kirk.
Sequal's Back Dead Man's Game 1	Posted - 2015.10.20 08:55:00 - [102] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: I want no part of this, lol. I will always appreciate the carrot over the stick when it comes to match leaving. I'm a firm believer that if players are leaving matches there is a fundamental reason as to why and that needs to be addressed long before penalizing match-leaving. This ^ You're not taking care of the right issue. Penalizing the players won't solve anything, you'll just lose more players. Rewarding those who stay WILL solve the problem. Triple the ISK payout for those who stayed til' the end of the match. This will push people to play their best gear the whole battle knowing they will earn something for their effort. You must stop listening to the proto whiners and increase the payouts significantly. It will increase the game quality for sure. Bring your daughter... TO THE SLAUGHTER ! - Sequal Rise


Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.

I LIKE PIE