14 replies to this topic

[ninjaMooCow]

Problem:  People with a lot of lobbies under their belts yet still with awful reliability

Proposed solution: General block of users > 100 lobbies < 50% reliability or some such threshold.

Proposed solution: auto join lobby ban, placed by a nightly script.  (Allows user to appeal.)

 

Please refer to the following link and a frustrated player for details:

 

http://forums.tf2cen...quest-krownski/

[Vortex]

As the frustrated player who made that topic, I don't even know the specifics of something that would be implemented. Kenneth proposed something similar to the CSGO ranked MM system for delaying queues which seems like it might work, but it's also kind of harsh. New players might be dissuaded from playing if they have trouble joining the center only to find out they've been banned from joining centers for a while. Also, not to diminish centers, but as there's no "ranking" for centers and shit obviously comes up from time to time, I don't think people leaving a center once in a while is all that terrible - especially if they report themselves beforehand.

 

Your first solution seems like it'd be a good one to implement. Things come up and not having a 100% or even a 90% reliability rate is always manageable but the 50% after nearly 200 games that is in the linked topic is definitely an unreasonable amount of games to leave. I feel like being that consistently unreliable should be grounds for an auto block (with a chance to appeal perhaps in the unban forums) or dealt with on a case-by-case basis as grounds for reporting for a ban.

 

EDIT: Also, what's a good cutoff point? The guy who has a 50% reliability is almost an extreme case, even people who have like 60-70% reliability at 150+ centers means they're leaving way too many games. 

Edited by Vortex, 09 June 2014 - 06:42 AM.

[Roxanne]

Isn't that already taken care of by the lobby leader being able to set a minimum reliability requirement to join the lobby? 

[TheMattgician]

Leaders are too lazy/don't care to put requirements. Although that's fine in most cases, there are extreme cases which should be taken care of.

[ninjaMooCow]

agreeing With hat-man.

 

Users > 100 lobbies, less than n% reliability are probably just wasting peoples time and affect the community as a whole in a bad way.

 

Any option that I would be required to enter upon every lobby creation is pretty annoying.

[naknak]

Why not limit them to filling sub slots until their reliability is higher?  

 

It keeps people on the site AND it increases the number of people who fill sub slots AND it forces the ragequitters to clean up the messes of other ragequitters and see firsthand why their behaviour is degenerate.

[TheMattgician]

Oh, now that's sneaky naknak, I like it.

[Taddy]

Why not limit them to filling sub slots until their reliability is higher?  

 

It keeps people on the site AND it increases the number of people who fill sub slots AND it forces the ragequitters to clean up the messes of other ragequitters and see firsthand why their behaviour is degenerate.

 

This is a great idea, but I feel like people would use different accounts to bypass it. I really think the 100 hour requirement for registering on the site is way too low. If you have players with 100 hours going around they are either on alternate accounts to avoid something or are newer players who should really develop more map awareness and DM ability in pub servers before stressing out teams and causing steam rolls. 

Edited by Taddy, 28 June 2014 - 11:37 PM.

[Cytotoxic]

There doesn't seem to be much punishment for ragequiting at the minute as side from a reliability hit. I think implementing a cooldown for people who frequently ragequit would sway people from doing so.

Edited by TheMattgician, 03 July 2014 - 10:44 AM.
Merged Threads; Original title: "Cooldown for frequent ragequiters"

[LastTalon]

I do have a small concern with this. If a player has less than 50% reliability and there is an overall ban on lobbies they have no opportunity to rectify their poor reliability as the only way to improve it is to play more lobbies. Even if you allow them to join sub this probably won't encourage people to improve their reliability. Although its sometimes hard to think this way, I think it would be a terrible idea to make it more difficult for these players to fix their mistakes.

[TheMattgician]

Well this is a different question now, since reliability is much less forgiving in some aspects now.

So I suppose we are now talking about the RQ count.

[LastTalon]

Well this is a different question now, since reliability is much less forgiving in some aspects now.

So I suppose we are now talking about the RQ count.

 

That's a very good point. If it were the RQ count how would you place a hard limit on it though? Surely 50 is a large number for someone who only has 100 lobbies, but what if someone has 1000 lobbies played? That's only 5% then. But if you then take it as a percentage of total lobbies played the same problem remains of it being very difficult if not impossible to improve.

[Highvlass Heavy]

I can't remember the last time I played an entire lobby without at least one person leaving half way through. I'm aware that these things happen, but it's getting to the point that I'm just waiting to see which team is going to be playing with 5 people for a good 5-10 minutes while the system looks for a sub. What makes this more compelling of a problem than just people leaving, is I, and im sure many other people, have started to recognize certain players who will be an almost guaranteed rage quit if our team is not winning. (or trolling) 

 

Solution 1: Reward players who consistently play the entire match. However that would happen could be up to devs/the community. Just give people a reason to stick out a hard game.

 

Solution 2: Add a system to lobby joining so where low reliability players, who have been warned and then marked for low reliability, can lose their spot to players who play lobbies consistently. In my head I see *low reliability player* taking up the demo spot, but because he's marked, his name is opaque and he can be joined on top of by a player who has not been marked.

Edited by TheMattgician, 13 July 2014 - 09:38 AM.
Merged Threads; Orginial Title: "Repercussions/Cool down timer for consistent ragequitters"

[Waffle]

Why not limit them to filling sub slots until their reliability is higher?  

 

It keeps people on the site AND it increases the number of people who fill sub slots AND it forces the ragequitters to clean up the messes of other ragequitters and see firsthand why their behaviour is degenerate.

I agree with naknak. As if we just banned  them they would not be able to get reliability up.

[naknak]

I think that putting the onus on lobby creators to police reliability was a well-intentioned but doomed gesture.

The last change (rolling reliability) made the number more volatile and even less useful as an indicator of future behaviour. Almost no one puts requirements on their lobbies, because they don't know what to put, or because players bitch about requirement lobbies and admins close them ... or simply because everyone wants their lobby to fill quickly. Perversely, lobbies that tolerate bad reps are more attractive than lobbies that require good reps.

This is like how dirty, germy restaurants can outperform clean ones. Cleaning costs time. Refrigeration costs money. The market isn't good at solving the clean-restaurant problem, so we have a health department to enforce standards. That's what's needed here: an actual policy on noshows and ragequitters and people who insist on coming and going like they were in a pub because they can't be bothered to honor their own commitments.

A progression of consequences tied to the severity of the lapse would be a good start. From least-bad to most-bad, we might rank bad actions like this:

5. leaving more than 45 minutes after lobby launch or more than 20 minutes after match start.
4. showing up and leaving before match start.
3. readying and not showing up (this condition can be gamed, for example by pre-banning from a gameserver)
2. leaving within 20 minutes (but more than five minutes) after match start.
1. leaving within 5 minutes of match start. This ruins lobbies!

Then these actions can lead to consequences. Many good ideas have been suggested.

I think most unreliable players would adapt quickly once it's made clear what's expected. There is no clarity now. There is no reason to stay through a hard game, apart from respect for fellow players, and not everyone has that.