Dark Sector Need Penalty For People Leaving

[wind4life]

As I've already said, if DE balances DS conflicts and there are still a significant number of players disconnecting, then that issue can be addressed at that time. Right now there are a lot of players who disconnect out of frustration with the game. That's the larger issue, and implementing penalties for disconnecting will only make it worse. The people who disconnect out of frustration will simply stop playing DS if you impose a penalty like you're talking about.

 

Warframe is still in beta, remember? Penalties and the like are for games that are established. They're for dealing with troublemaking outliers in a game that the majority of the playerbase is satisfied with. They're a tool of last resort. And DS conflicts, even moreso than many other game aspects, are still being worked on. On top of being a bad solution for the current issues, DE needs lots of players playing DS in order to gather the data they need to make them more enjoyable. Scaring off a goodly-sized section of the playerbase? Not gonna help with that.

 

 

I take it you're someone who never plays Dark Sector PvP. I've currently spent 200 hours in Warframe. A huge majority of that time is in Dark Sector Conflicts defending our own nodes/attacking nodes or in conclave. As such, I have a different perspective on this issue which is why I cannot agree with you.

 

You do understand that DCing can (and is already being abused by certain clans that shall not be named) to take advantage of Dark Sector Conflicts, right?

 

It's not just about penalties to make the people who are disatisfied with losing sad or whatever. It goes far beyond that. It's to stop people from abusing host migration. It's to stop people from disconnecting right before they're about to lose in order to prevent the other side from claiming their battle pay (currently the only incentive for casuals to play DS Conflicts). In addition, if the host disconnects the entire match is forfeit leading to no winning side. This is already extensively being abused.

 

As long as this issue exists, DS conflicts can never be taken seriously because players have this power to abuse DCing/host migration.

 

 

 

Why does it have to be?

 

You seem to be stuck in the mindset that it is a problem that cannot be fixed. Or maybe you simply cannot see what the actual problem is in the first place?

 

Have a good think about why DC'ing is a problem. Now try and think of an idea to stop it from happening altogether.

 

Penalizing players who DC means that the problem of DC'ing is still there, and the only thing it would do is create more sufferers.

 

Okay, so how do you propose we fix this? Warframe is peer to peer using a host connection. As long as this is the case, the problem will persist.

 

Unless you truly believe DE will dedicate an entire server to Dark Sector PvP in a fanbase that is comprised mainly of casual PvEers?

 

Go ahead. Shoot. Tell us your suggestions. You've already heard my opinion on this issue. Let us hear how you propose we "stop it from happening altogether".

Edited September 9, 2014 by wind4life

[Whytee]

Let us hear how you propose we "stop it from happening altogether".

 

I already did.

[OneUp.]

should the abuse of bugs/glitchs be punished?

 

Every game I played would get you banned for using/abusing glitches/bugs to your benefit.

[motorfirebox]

I take it you're someone who never plays Dark Sector PvP. I've currently spent 200 hours in Warframe. A huge majority of that time is in Dark Sector Conflicts defending our own nodes/attacking nodes or in conclave. As such, I have a different perspective on this issue which is why I cannot agree with you.

 

You do understand that DCing can (and is already being abused by certain clans that shall not be named) to take advantage of Dark Sector Conflicts, right?

 

It's not just about penalties to make the people who are disatisfied with losing sad or whatever. It goes far beyond that. It's to stop people from abusing host migration. It's to stop people from disconnecting right before they're about to lose in order to prevent the other side from claiming their battle pay (currently the only incentive for casuals to play DS Conflicts). In addition, if the host disconnects the entire match is forfeit leading to no winning side. This is already extensively being abused.

 

As long as this issue exists, DS conflicts can never be taken seriously because players have this power to abuse DCing/host migration.

I've got over 300 hours in, mostly PvE. Yeah, we've got a different perspective on it: you're one of the people who makes Dark Sectors not fun for people like me. That's not personal, it's just the plain fact that with a modicum of organization, it's very easy for a team to quickly outlevel PUG opposition, leading to 30-minute games that are decided in the first five minutes. Individual skill doesn't mean anything when you join a match a few minutes after it starts and the other team has 10 levels on you. 

 

Yes, I realize that some players intentionally DC in order to throw the game. I just don't care, at this point. With all the messages that keep popping up telling me that so-and-so alliance has defended or taken whatever rail, it doesn't seem like the DC issue is preventing clans and alliances from doing their thing. Yes, it's less fun for you. Yes, some clans cheat by using DCs tactically. So what? You're still playing, right? Then it's not the problem that needs to be addressed first. Because the balance issues are why I spend so little time in Dark Sectors these days.

 

Frankly, if your concern is for clan-level play, I don't see why you're advocating for individual penalties. Clans and alliances will simply adapt around individual penalties. If the problem is clans and alliances, apply penalties to clans and alliances. At the level of the individual player, the focus still needs to be on making the conflicts enjoyable.

[-InV-Skitz0]

I take it you're someone who never plays Dark Sector PvP. I've currently spent 200 hours in Warframe.

 

I've got over 300 hours in,

Why  do peeps always add there in game time to arguments in the forums? Does the amount of hour played magically make your statement more valid then those who disagree with it. If so I should just add my in game time to everything I disagree with, Ill win any argument 3/4 of the time. =p

 

On Topic:The easy solution IMHO would be simply to add a forfeit option. Say there is  a team of four attackers (attacker A - Attacker D) With attacker A being the host. Half Way though the match attacker A decides to forfeit, host Migration occurs attacker B is now the host.

 

If attacker B forfeits C or D becomes host. If their Is only 1 attacker in a match, and the attacker forfeits, Mission complete for defender they receive BP Immediately. The Forfeiting attacker does not receive half battlepay like they normally would for a mission failed. The option to forfeit includes forfeit all battlepay. This insures no one joins and instantly forfeits for pay.

 

If the defender forfeits, the game plays out as normal with specters, just like it normally would if no defenders joined the game. Now anyone who wishes to end a game may forfeit, they receive no reward for doing so. Everyone on the opposing side will not lose rewards because someone dose not want to continue playing.

 

Also If this is implemented and there is a group of opponents that are still alt+tabbing in order to troll the other players instead of using the forfeit option, then report them (hopefully with video evidence of this happening in multiple games, avoiding the he said she said arguments and the people who just crashed normally).

Edited September 9, 2014 by -ExT-Skitz0

[Spacetimer]

Why  do peeps always add there in game time to arguments in the forums? Does the amount of hour played magically make your statement more valid then those who disagree with it. If so I should just add my in game time to everything I disagree with, Ill win any argument 3/4 of the time. =p

 

On Topic:The easy solution IMHO would be simply to add a forfeit option. Say there is  a team of four attackers (attacker A - Attacker D) With attacker A being the host. Half Way though the match attacker A decides to forfeit, host Migration occurs attacker B is now the host.

 

If attacker B forfeits C or D becomes host. If their Is only 1 attacker in a match, and the attacker forfeits, Mission complete for defender they receive BP Immediately. The Forfeiting attacker does not receive half battlepay like they normally would for a mission failed. The option to forfeit includes forfeit all battlepay. This insures no one joins and instantly forfeits for pay.

 

If the defender forfeits, the game plays out as normal with specters, just like it normally would if no defenders joined the game. Now anyone who wishes to end a game may forfeit, they receive no reward for doing so. Everyone on the opposing side will not lose rewards because someone dose not want to continue playing.

 

Also If this is implemented and there is a group of opponents that are still alt+tabbing in order to troll the other players instead of using the forfeit option, then report them (hopefully with video evidence of this happening in multiple games, avoiding the he said she said arguments and the people who just crashed normally).

 

This just raises more issues. Join a game as an attacker, get people to join opponent, forfeit immediately. Repeat until battlepay is drained. Having forfeit wins not drain battlepay but still award it might work, but would still be really exploity (not to mention anyone that jumps into a session doing this wouldn't get a PvP experience).

 

Partial battlepay (proportional to player kills achieved) is more reasonable, but still has the issue of everyone cheesing the opponent out to get their pay as fast as they can.

 

 

A good place to start would be a PvP system that doesn't encourage growing the gap between you and your opponent as quickly as possible. Unfair tactics are less unfair if they don't cripple your opponents' progression.

Edited September 10, 2014 by Spacetimer

[-InV-Skitz0]

I will agree the xp gap needs to be addressed, as well as spawn camping in the fist room.

 

But even in a well balanced system there will be those who will always want to alt+tab to prevent the others from receiving their rewards out of spite .And with that some form of forfeit might be worth looking in to. Perhaps put a time limit on the forfeit, Can not forfeit before 10 mins has passed. Or what ever would be a good time.This would prevent attackers from instantly joining and forfeiting effectively draining all of the opponents reserve.

[wind4life]

Why  do peeps always add there in game time to arguments in the forums? Does the amount of hour played magically make your statement more valid then those who disagree with it. If so I should just add my in game time to everything I disagree with, Ill win any argument 3/4 of the time. =p

 

Sorry, I think that statement I made came off the wrong way. It wasn't meant to come off as "I've played 200 hours, I'm better than you!". I just wanted to clarify that I invest a lot of my game time on Warframe to playing Dark Sector Conflicts, so resolving this issue means a lot to me. That's all!

 

I love your suggestions by the way. Hopefully they resolve these issues in the future. :)

Edited September 11, 2014 by wind4life

[low1991]

maybe if stat do show, maybe people will actually play a bit better.

I prefer to have 99% Mission failure rate... mind helping me?

Not like my motivation to play better in any areas comes from win/lose ratios.

 

Add in Penalty for people bailing out, and i will not even bother about DS PVP.

 

PVP is broken, fix it before introducing another system on top of it.

[Severuslanskerr]

And how do u leave if there is unbearable lag? or the telephone rumbles? house on fire? meteor strikes? burgulars? zombie invasion? rapor jesus?

 

or all at once happens?

 

no seriously i HAD to quit because of some extreme unbearable LAG issues (needed to wait 30 seconds to actually be able to  "move" about 2 steps last time) thats not a joke i counted it because i was bored looking at the "picture frame" that used to be my monitor

Edited September 14, 2014 by Severuslanskerr

[BrazilianJoe]

A simple 'Abort Mission' should send a clear 'I'm quitting' message to make it clear the player is abandoning, which can then trigger a penalty  depending on the progression of the mission. Check time in seconds, number of death on both sides, players levels, use that info to set a bar for when penalties begin, and how do they scale. 

 

Alt+F4 quitting could trigger the 'I'm quitting' message too. 

 

The game needs more foolproof detection of lag. I am not going  to theorize on the difficulty of that, but it's difficult. Depending on lag time, the penalty could be forfeited.