An alternative to rage-quitting?

[Not-here-anymore]

I'm sure we've all been there. Happily playing an FPS of some form online, on the losing team, but still having fun, when half your team leaves because they're losing.
Or joining a game only to find out you've been placed on the team that's gonna lose in about 10 seconds, because someone just left rather than face defeat. (Recently ended an epic win streak courtesy of this. Stupid BlOps...)

Is there a system that anyone can come up with that prevents you from being left undermanned whilst also stopping people from auto-losing games by being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

The best I can come up with is informing people as they join a game in progress what the current score is, and asking them if they still want to continue. But that doesn't stop the losing team from having everyone abandon ship...
Thoughts, escapists?

 

[lobster1077]

I'm sure we've all been there. Happily playing an FPS of some form online, on the losing team, but still having fun, when half your team leaves because they're losing.
Or joining a game only to find out you've been placed on the team that's gonna lose in about 10 seconds, because someone just left rather than face defeat. (Recently ended an epic win streak courtesy of this. Stupid BlOps...)

Is there a system that anyone can come up with that prevents you from being left undermanned whilst also stopping people from auto-losing games by being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

The best I can come up with is informing people as they join a game in progress what the current score is, and asking them if they still want to continue. But that doesn't stop the losing team from having everyone abandon ship...
Thoughts, escapists?

Perhaps some kind of xp reward could be implemented in BlOps giving losing players who persevere incentive to keep playing. Dishing a few points their way if they keep playing to the end of the game.

 

[PayneTrayne]

Instilling a sense of shame in ragequitters? One games like UFC: 2009 and LoL it's always funny to laugh at someone for their leave scores. I'm not sure if it actually helps, but at least that way you won't be suprised and can continue to report them for being douchenozzles.

 

[gigastar]

I dont ragequit. I channel rage directly into my reaction times.

In essense it comes down to this.

[HEADING=3]My skill level = How pissed off I am.[/HEADING]

Dont waste anger on loud, numerous profanities, use it to formulate uncoventional and unexpected tactics to get back at your agressor.

 

[Aphex Demon]

I'm sure we've all been there. Happily playing an FPS of some form online, on the losing team, but still having fun, when half your team leaves because they're losing.
Or joining a game only to find out you've been placed on the team that's gonna lose in about 10 seconds, because someone just left rather than face defeat. (Recently ended an epic win streak courtesy of this. Stupid BlOps...)

Is there a system that anyone can come up with that prevents you from being left undermanned whilst also stopping people from auto-losing games by being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

The best I can come up with is informing people as they join a game in progress what the current score is, and asking them if they still want to continue. But that doesn't stop the losing team from having everyone abandon ship...
Thoughts, escapists?

I rage on CoD like an absolute *****, and once I start raging I start playing badly, so its like a vicious circle of fuck.

As for joining when your ten seconds from a loss that pisses me the fuck off, I don't know why they haven't sorted it out.

Are you any good, yourself at BlOps?

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Some kind of auto-joining system that allows players to join mid-game, but locks out the lobby from people trying to join once 75% of the victory conditions have been met. So a first to 50 deathmatch lobby allows joining until 1st place has 38 kills, a first to ten capture the flag locks out when one team has 8 captures etc.

Personally I quite like being on a team that has suffered rage-quitters. I've always been a fan of the underdog.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

The only game that encouraged rage quitting in me is Dawn of War 2. Thanks to truly awful matchmaking, you will often be paired with an utter noob who's presence is so incredibly unhelpful that I'd prefer being accompanied by the abysmal AI (because at least the AI will try and capture points even if they lose every single skirmish they get into). In this game, it is often obvious far in advance that you're going to lose. In situations like this I press the concede button. Normally, noobs refuse to concede the match. On some nights I get stuck in this situation for a half dozen games in a row and the rage slowly builds until I just alt-f4 out of the game and move on with my life.

Unfortunately, while I am aware that the game has no possible means to offer a replacement when I (or anyone on my team for that matter) leave, my interest in games is self serving. I play to have fun. When the rage-to-joy ratio skews too sharply towards rage, I stop playing. And if that happens to be in the middle of a match that indeed sucks for the people on my side. But they're strangers on the internet and I can thus offend them without a moment's guilt.

 

[MrRetroSpectacles]

Probation, you quit multiple matches and you get a warning informing you that quitting again will result in a temporary ban from that match type. Sounds unfair i know, being unable to play the multiplayer you payed for, however consistantly quitting spoils the experience for others so it can be justified.

This would offer little incentive for players to "abandon ship", rather they grit their teeth and be adult about the fact they CANT WIN EVERY GAME. This would also give them a healthier gaming attitude as they would learn to accept defeat rather than screaming abuse at the TV set because a rival keeps "camping" or -insert specialist weapon- whoring.

I can't tell you how many times i felt Assassins Creed Brotherhood needed this, waiting 5-10 minutes just to get a 45 second match against a team 4000 points ahead because the team you've ended up on consists of idiots running everywhere, activating templar vision in plain sight and then shooting people instead of earning decent points. This strategy always makes me think "If they want to know who the enemy is without any skill, run up and shoot them, why aren't they playing COD?"

 

[Raikov]

So, you want a game mechanic that lets you win something even if you lose?

All I see here is carebears. Sorry guys, but it's what you are.

 

[Fanboy]

Odd-man-out respawns would solve minor team balance issues, or at least faster/slower respawn rates. It would depend on what kind of game you are playing though.

Have a reward for staying the entire game, despite of the loss, or a punishment for leaving early. Maybe after too many rage-quits your avatar's belly turns yellow, which only goes away after staying the entire game through 5 losses.

 

[Not-here-anymore]

Snip

I rage on CoD like an absolute *****, and once I start raging I start playing badly, so its like a vicious circle of fuck.

As for joining when your ten seconds from a loss that pisses me the fuck off, I don't know why they haven't sorted it out.

Are you any good, yourself at BlOps?

I like to think so. Certainly I have the reflexes to win 4 out of every 5 firefights and the surprisingly rare ability to notice when I'm playing a game with an objective involved. And the patience/determination to not run away from a game like a little ***** when I'm losing.

Snip

Perhaps some kind of xp reward could be implemented in BlOps giving losing players who persevere incentive to keep playing. Dishing a few points their way if they keep playing to the end of the game.

Don't know if you're trying to be vaguely ironic there, but that system already exists. Some people simply can't hang around for a loss, as if it's a waste of time or something...

 

[Someone Depressing]

When your cursor/arrow is over a Server, it gives you the Details (Score, Time Left, What team you'll be placed on, ECT ECT). Simple.

Or maybe, if you stick through a Match all the way, you get more EXP Than you would of by just being in the match when it ends, so this'll help newer players get on their feet, and it'll prevent rage quitting. Other than that, I'm clueless on how to conclude the action.

 

[RuralGamer]

Not counting games if you don't actually get to contribute to them. That's the best I can think of; I agree it annoys me when I join and it ends, but rage-quitters will always exist, so long as there are sore losers and unbalanced teams.

 

[Erana]

Instilling a sense of shame in ragequitters? One games like UFC: 2009 and LoL it's always funny to laugh at someone for their leave scores. I'm not sure if it actually helps, but at least that way you won't be suprised and can continue to report them for being douchenozzles.

I find the exact opposite to be true.

Just be nice. No one gives a damn if they've lost to someone who shows others some respect. The only reason to ragequit is because someone feels like they're going to be made to feel inferior by their fellow players.
No reason to feel bad by losing = no need to avoid losing.

 

[Killertje]

In League of Legends, if you ragequit you can't join another game until the game you were in ends. All you can do is reconnect to that game. If you don't rejoin that game you get a leave instead of a loss and everyone can see how many games you have left (but not lost). Players can also report you and if you get reported enough times you can be banned (game is f2p, but you will lose all your unlocks if you make a new account obviously).

 

[droid]

It depends on the game. A few mechanisms I can think of to reduce RQ(Rage Quit) count:

* Only 1 life. (Leaving the game after you are dead doesn't affect other people's game as much).
* Allow surrender. (End as soon as it is decided, rather than forcing players into a long boring endgame.)
* Give rewards to losers. (Winners get more, but losers get something as long as they don't quit early.)
* Keep rounds short, shuffle teams.
* Increase the amount of time to connect to a server.
* Apply an Honor or XP penalty to rage quitters.
* Auto-balance teams.
* Record dishonorable losses on a players profile.
* Focus on 1 vs 1 gameplay. Count a RQ as a surrender.
* Focus on PvE gameplay.
* Develop competent bots to fill in for absent players.
* Give buffs to the last man standing on the losing/outnumbered team.
* Give handicaps (read: competitive advantage) to poor players so they can enjoy themselves better. Not quite cheating as long as the handicaps are visible and everyone knows it represents a lack of skill.
* Encourage players to play against people they know.

To prevent unfair losses to a player joining late, you can add them as a spectator, letting them wait until next round if they don't want to join the losing.

The most important factor is not in developers control: Get your ego out of the game! Seriously, the game isn't about proving your superiority. It is about having fun and learning about the game and your mind.

If you let your ego get into the game, you think you deserved to win if you win, and think you were cheated if you lose or start to lose. In neither case do you get anything of lasting value from the game. Remember that in balanced competition you will lose about 50% of the time.


Edit: When you take too long writing a post, you get ninja'd by about 50 people.

@Gigastar: "My skill level = How pissed off I am." Not quite what I thought of in the paragraphs on ego, but I like your attitude.

@Raikov: It depends on the game. If the game is very skill based (XP == player skill) and gives no gameplay advantage to higher XP, then it would undermine what XP represents to "win something even if you lose." But if you are going to unlock better weapons through XP, then winning doesn't represent skill necessarily, since winning could just mean that you had better unlocks than your noob-ish but skilled opponent. In this case, XP doesn't represent skill, it is just a rough measure of how much of how long you have been playing.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

The simple way to fix this is to make sure all multiplayer games have an autobalance feature. In TF2, for example, if there's a difference in team size of more than one player, the first person to die on the stacked team automatically gets switched to the smaller team, and it keeps going until the difference in player numbers is one or less. This keeps things fair as people rage quit, and prevents a death spiral where one person rage quits because the team is losing, which makes the team lose harder, which prompts more people to rage quit. Another thing that all games should support is a scramble button. Forget about putting friends on a team together, and just randomize the teams if one team is constantly steamrolling the other. It makes things more balanced, since you're less likely to get every good player on the server on one team. Frankly, I don't understand how CoD multiplayer is so popular without these simple but important features.

 

[Sebenko]

RAGE ALT-TAB!

Clearly the greatest method of raging.