By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - Killer Instinct Developer Will Send You To Jail If You Rage Quit Too Much

Soleron on 31 January 2014
J_Allard said:
Soleron said:

This is not new. It's called Prisoner's Island, or Dota 2's low priority queue, or lots of other things.

The problem is it DOESN'T ADDRESS source of the behavior. Shouldn't game companies be incentivising good behaviour instead of spending development effort on the worst players? Through sufficiently clever design, people can be persuaded to be sportsmanlike.

This is exactly what the jail system can accomplish.

Fear is not an appropriate emotion to associate with queuing up for a matchmade game. It disengages people from your game.



Around the Network
sales2099 on 31 January 2014

Move along guys, Soleron isn't a Sony fan. Games consoles listed on profile are purely Nintendo based. This explains everything. Let him have his opinion.



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

Soleron on 31 January 2014
sales2099 said:

...

Ya.....the positive gamers play with other positive gamers.

Then your game and your community remain insular and exclusive.

Pretty sure you are alone on this. You seem to neglect what the internet brings out in people with anonyomity and you expect way to much from people who are just making entertainment.

Of course I have higher expectations than, jail system, job's done. They're leaving money and customer engagement on the table.





Soleron on 31 January 2014
sales2099 said:

Move along guys, Soleron isn't a Sony fan. Games consoles listed on profile are purely Nintendo based. This explains everything. Let him have his opinion.

Nice, personal attacks that aren't close to valid.

I'm not a fan of any of the three companies. You can find my criticism of Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo in many threads on this site. I like nothing more than successful games and companies with positive attitudes towards customers.

I don't believe this is the right direction for behaviour management in games. That is the entire motivation for my position.



sales2099 on 31 January 2014
Soleron said:
sales2099 said:

...

Ya.....the positive gamers play with other positive gamers.

Then your game and your community remain insular and exclusive.

Pretty sure you are alone on this. You seem to neglect what the internet brings out in people with anonyomity and you expect way to much from people who are just making entertainment.

Of course I have higher expectations than, jail system, job's done. They're leaving money and customer engagement on the table.



I don't mean to talk down to you, but being a predominant Nintendo gamer that you are....you are in no position to lecture a Xbox/PS gamer on their games online features and functionality.

To be as simple as I possibly can: People love this news. Competitive gamers will get more uninterupted matches. The fighting genre is arguably one of the most competitive genres out there. Tree hugging mentality has no place here.



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

Around the Network
Soleron on 31 January 2014
sales2099 said:
...

I don't mean to talk down to you, but being a predominant Nintendo gamer that you are....you are in no position to lecture a Xbox/PS gamer on their games online features and functionality.

I am not a Nintendo fan.

I think it's pretty funny that you think debate only takes place along console ownership lines. 



Soleron on 31 January 2014
sales2099 said:

...

To be as simple as I possibly can: People love this news. Competitive gamers will get more uninterupted matches. The fighting genre is arguably one of the most competitive genres out there. Tree hugging mentality has no place here.

I think designing your games around the existing vocal fans and around professional competition are some of the most destructive philosophies a game company can have.



J_Allard on 31 January 2014
Soleron said:
J_Allard said:
Soleron said:

This is not new. It's called Prisoner's Island, or Dota 2's low priority queue, or lots of other things.

The problem is it DOESN'T ADDRESS source of the behavior. Shouldn't game companies be incentivising good behaviour instead of spending development effort on the worst players? Through sufficiently clever design, people can be persuaded to be sportsmanlike.

This is exactly what the jail system can accomplish.

Fear is not an appropriate emotion to associate with queuing up for a matchmade game. It disengages people from your game.

lol no it doesn't. Fear is in integral part of every single online MP game.



lestatdark on 31 January 2014
Soleron said:
lestatdark said:

...

Plus, this isn't just an issue that anyone can just "reform". We're talking about basic human psychology, how biology and evolution pressure has put hardwire psychological traits in most people which just don't know how to react in a "sportsmanship" way when they're confronted by a losing scenario. 

You see professional, well known sportsman in every circle cave down to it in day-to-day basis. Why should anonymous people over the internet, playing a videogame that's supposed to take their mind off day-to-day pressures, simply just adhere to a sense of "sportsmanship" because it's the right thing to do, even if it's indeed enforced in a videogame, sport or any other thing?

So just because it's difficult there shouldn't be any attempt?

If you can cause the people who react badly not react badly, your playerbase wins AND that person you helped feels better about playing the game too. If the feeling when you lose its the problem, maximise the impact of wins and minimise the impact of losses.

Quite the opposite, I do believe this is an issue that should be tackled.

What I'm saying is that it's not something that can be tackled by enforcing an environment in which people have to shown sportsmanship or even persuaded to do so, because that's a formula that doesn't work at 100% even in scenarios where people are almost obliged to do so (professional sports, etc.)

It's a society and psychological issue, compounded with the added cloack of anonimity. This is a good step to separate those who play by the rules to those who don't and it's actually a good incentive to play fair, as most people who would do otherwise, might be discouraged from going down the bad behaviour path since it's gonna label them as so (and that does incredible damage to those who like to act under cloaks of anonimity).



Current PC Build

CPU - i7 8700K 3.7 GHz (4.7 GHz turbo) 6 cores OC'd to 5.2 GHz with Watercooling (Hydro Series H110i) | MB - Gigabyte Z370 HD3P ATX | Gigabyte GTX 1080ti Gaming OC BLACK 11G (1657 MHz Boost Core / 11010 MHz Memory) | RAM - Corsair DIMM 32GB DDR4, 2400 MHz | PSU - Corsair CX650M (80+ Bronze) 650W | Audio - Asus Essence STX II 7.1 | Monitor - Samsung U28E590D 4K UHD, Freesync, 1 ms, 60 Hz, 28"

Mr Khan on 31 January 2014
Soleron said:

This is not new. It's called Prisoner's Island, or Dota 2's low priority queue, or lots of other things.

The problem is it DOESN'T ADDRESS source of the behavior. Shouldn't game companies be incentivising good behaviour instead of spending development effort on the worst players? Through sufficiently clever design, people can be persuaded to be sportsmanlike.

I agree. What you just end up doing is pissing off a portion of your own fanbase, whereas better mechanics could incentivize against rage-quitting. I remember Mario Strikers Charged making it so that you got "points" towards the monthly leaderboard for any goals you scored in a completed match, whether you won or not, just that the winner got 10 extra points plus goals scored, meaning losses still got you somewhere, while a ragequit either got you no points or negative points, i forget. This and other mechanisms can reward you for at least trying, while still making victory clear and desirable.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.