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

SvennoJ on 31 January 2014
sales2099 said:
SvennoJ said:
sales2099 said:
Well certainly the update is being done because of a overwhelming demand of the dedicated players.

This promotes a life lesson: Finish what you start, and quitting reflects poorly on you.

People get upset, they don't play. The game just got better for those who do. The entry level for the game is free, so there will never be a shortage of new players. Those without that moral fiber get weeded out.

I was wrong, this game is a parent.

Nah a bigger life lesson is to be a better winner and not whine about those who do not want to play with you. Keep the match interesting for both sides is how to prolong fun competition. Decimating the opponent / winning all the time, and people simply go play something else.

Better matchmaking will help although that can always be manipulated.

Why not offer both anyway. Strict rules for professional matchmaking, next to friendly comeptitions. You have to qualify to fight in the professional matches by having a good reputation, not quitting early (and have a stable internet in the process) Much better then calling it jail time. The higher you rank the more strict the rules get.

Not whine, but rightfully complain. Winning via disconnect....there is no honor in that. You win from playing a good match from start to end.

You know the game has a unranked and ranked MP? So those that can't tough it out should go to unranked for some honest, no pressure, clean fun.

Ah ok, rage quitters have no place in ranked matches. Matchmaking should still work on unranked ofcourse, but yes quitting on ranked matches is bad sport. Calling it jail is a bit weird though, just lock out ranked matches for a period of time.



Around the Network
SvennoJ on 31 January 2014
J_Allard said:
SvennoJ said:

Nah a bigger life lesson is to be a better winner and not whine about those who do not want to play with you. Keep the match interesting for both sides is how to prolong fun competition. Decimating the opponent / winning all the time, and people simply go play something else.

Better matchmaking will help although that can always be manipulated.

Why not offer both anyway. Strict rules for professional matchmaking, next to friendly comeptitions. You have to qualify to fight in the professional matches by having a good reputation, not quitting early (and have a stable internet in the process) Much better then calling it jail time. The higher you rank the more strict the rules get.

Really? Is that supposed to be an actual counter point here? It's actually the people who don't quits fault for rage quitting because they need to "be a better winner"? Are you saying if I am playing Madden, I need to let my opponent score a few times? Please.

If they don't want to get beat up on, don't play in ranked matches. Your logic is to baby people and punish the good players so everyone has a good time. No thanks.

No you don't need to let them score, but don't complain if they don't want to waste their time on a lost match, forfeit is fine imo. Anyway I understood incorrectly, I didn't know there were already ranked and unranked matches. My mistake.

Btw it is more fun to let your opponents catch up in racing games, or play with boost on. People leave the room when they're trailing far behind, create close races and they'll stay, attracting more and probably better opponents as the room gets more populated. Nothing wrong with everyone having a good time.



mutantsushi on 31 January 2014

Who cares what they call it? Call it the Melted Ice-Cream Club.
Call it the "Knows When to Hold 'Em, Knows When to Fold 'Em Club'.
Same effect.



DonFerrari on 31 January 2014

Good response, where will they improve next? Using cloud to better gauge level of players for pairing could be nice.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari on 31 January 2014
J_Allard said:
kupomogli said:
J_Allard said:

A. Your opponents are all rage quitters, you get rage quit on a ton in jail and realize it's lame, you mature.
B. Your opponents are all rage quitters, you get rage quit on a ton in jail and realize jail sucks, you still wanna rage quit but don't out of fear of going to jail.
C. Your opponents are all rage quitters, representing a much smaller userbase than the people playing the game. You find less games against less quality opponents, you now have incentive to stay out ogf jail.
D. Combination of all 3.

Bravo, Double Helix. Bravo.

Not true really.  As fighting games are competitive, most rage quitters that continue playing the game are decent if not good.  The rage quitters that suck at the game will quit playing shortly after they know they can't beat anyone so those wouldn't be playing any longer regardless.

Instead of the jail system, the game should recognize the player that didn't leave the match and give that player a win, give the player who quit a loss as well as add a percentage to his disconnect percent. 

As someone in the first page stated, "in before more people in jail than in the regular servers."  Something like this would probably be true.  Why break apart the community when you can give the one player a win, the other player a loss.  The reason most people rage quit is because they don't want to receive a loss, so giving them a loss simply because they rage quit would make some of them quit less and keep the entire community on the same server.

Putting people who rage quit in a lower class may also just have them give up on the game altogether, doing more harm than good for the community.

People rage quit because they know they are going to lose and don't want to waste the time waiting around for the inevitable to happen. Handing them a loss doesn't make a difference. Look at Madden for an example. If you quit in Madden, whether it's by simply dashboarding the console, or pausing and quitting, or pausing and conceding, you get a loss. And you get a disconnect percentage penalty. And yet, rage quitting still plagues the online public games.

The skill of the rage quitters is mostly irrelevant. People who are continuously rage quitting because they suck, might eventually move on to another game, but that takes time. And there's always fresh meat to take their place. But even rage quitters don't like people quitting on them. So if that's all they face, that's a great way for the developer to reinforce how shitty rage quitting is and get them to stop.

If Madden not only gave you the auto loss and disconnect penalty but then went a step further and made sure you could only play other losers who rage quit, people would do it A LOT less. I know it's not an apple to apple comparison since football games take a lot longer, but the idea remains.

And I am perfectly, 100% fine with someone who constantly rage quits no longer playing online. Awesome.

I would say that more often than not you and other people are fine with anything as long as it benefits you even if in detriment of others.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
J_Allard on 31 January 2014
DonFerrari said:

I would say that more often than not you and other people are fine with anything as long as it benefits you even if in detriment of others.

You mean I need to care about the experience for people who rage quit and ruin the competitive online gaming? Uh.... no.



J_Allard on 31 January 2014
SvennoJ said:
J_Allard said:
SvennoJ said:
 

Nah a bigger life lesson is to be a better winner and not whine about those who do not want to play with you. Keep the match interesting for both sides is how to prolong fun competition. Decimating the opponent / winning all the time, and people simply go play something else.

Better matchmaking will help although that can always be manipulated.

Why not offer both anyway. Strict rules for professional matchmaking, next to friendly comeptitions. You have to qualify to fight in the professional matches by having a good reputation, not quitting early (and have a stable internet in the process) Much better then calling it jail time. The higher you rank the more strict the rules get.

Really? Is that supposed to be an actual counter point here? It's actually the people who don't quits fault for rage quitting because they need to "be a better winner"? Are you saying if I am playing Madden, I need to let my opponent score a few times? Please.

If they don't want to get beat up on, don't play in ranked matches. Your logic is to baby people and punish the good players so everyone has a good time. No thanks.

No you don't need to let them score, but don't complain if they don't want to waste their time on a lost match, forfeit is fine imo. Anyway I understood incorrectly, I didn't know there were already ranked and unranked matches. My mistake.

Btw it is more fun to let your opponents catch up in racing games, or play with boost on. People leave the room when they're trailing far behind, create close races and they'll stay, attracting more and probably better opponents as the room gets more populated. Nothing wrong with everyone having a good time.

If I want to play a racing game for fun, I will play Mario Kart.

If I want to play a racing game for reals, my friends and I will play Forza or GT5 online (well, not much longer for GT5).

People have the same options in KI. If you want to rage quit and be a loser, play local MP or play unranked. Even unranked rage quitting makes you a douchebag though.



DonFerrari on 31 January 2014
J_Allard said:
DonFerrari said:

I would say that more often than not you and other people are fine with anything as long as it benefits you even if in detriment of others.

You mean I need to care about the experience for people who rage quit and ruin the competitive online gaming? Uh.... no.


A social and reasonable human being should think about their kins even if they behave in a way that he doesn't like. But it seems that around here we can complain about other people behaviour and still make the same mistakes.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

mutantsushi on 31 January 2014
KylieDog said:
mutantsushi said:
Dedicated Servers rather obviate that issue, no?

KI doesn't use them, for fighters dedicated servers are worse than p2p.

Hmm... Seems like you could still use a dedicated server solely for dealing with non-gameplay issues like this.

Each console would ping/be ping'd by said server, so there can be neutral verification of who cuts out first.

There will be such server support anyways for match-making, etc.

Also, if it's set up so neither player KNOWS which one is randomly chosen as the 'host', that removes intentional exploits.



mutantsushi on 31 January 2014
DonFerrari said:

A social and reasonable human being should think about their kins even if they behave in a way that he doesn't like. But it seems that around here we can complain about other people behaviour and still make the same mistakes.

So at best you can say they are morally equivalent: ragequiter not thinking about their opponent who won the game contrary to their like,

most players not thinking about the narrow self interests of the ragequiters who do the above, contrary to the community plurality norm.

That just leaves it majority vs minority, too bad for the minority if they don't like the majority's community norm rules: find another game.