No, you are wrong.
To determine whether a person is a good player by how often or infrequently he discards a match, the experience in all campaigns must first be a level playing field. And as you know, there is no such experience in this game.
For example, the frequency of matches that you would want to discard would be different if you were playing the Allies in the Pacific than if you were playing the Allies in Tunisia.
And I am quite sympathetic to those who play the Allies in the Pacific. The number of times you can have a decent match there is much less. The same goes for Axis in Tunisia.
Why don’t you think again and see what is wrong with escaping the game. I don’t think it is good manners to leave other players who are fighting hard and run away without them. Basically.
But that is, after all, my subjective opinion.
What is the standard of “fighting hard” is also different from person to person. Perhaps my idea of playing hard is different from yours.
In the first place, since I started the game, should I be responsible for continuing it until the end? If you ask me, I think that is also wrong. Even if you exclude the really unavoidable emergencies, such as a house fire or your pet dog eating chocolate, there are still some games that are really painful to continue. At least in Enlisted now.
We should not think about punishing users before fixing the flaws in the game. Perhaps even if the merge is implemented, it won’t dramatically improve the game experience by itself. What we should be thinking about now is what needs to be fixed to make the game better, not how to punish people.
Its still debatable whether we should be responsible for the enjoyment of other players or not but to be frank, majority won’t care if other players have a very bad game besides lots of rat tactics like spawn camping, spam mines/WP/flamethrowers, etc to the point that the match becomes very toxic. Enlisted is not some collective society where people always have to care for others sort of thing and we don’t have a Geneva Convention here.
I’m pretty much gloves off in most matches anyway knowing most of the time I just cannot trust my teammates on simple tasks like rally points and doing the objective. In this case, its either bad teammates ruin my match or I ruin their match by deserting because I’m not having fun with their stupid antics and I know the match is lost anyway kinda like kill or be killed.
By the end of the day, its the developers responsibility to address the game design flaws and unfortunately doesn’t have a track record that its taking the right direction but instead actively encouraging more toxic playstyles like the ranking system, events, etc while not giving any incentive for players who are willing to fight to the end.
Let’s not pretend that babyragers only leave matches that are utter despair. Most of the time they alt f4 over nothing, just because a single point was lost or even because they can’t just farm hapless noobs.
Again, you are having a completely different experience than what I am. Every time I go to Pacific, its completely full of Allies and absolutely no Axis.
In Tunisia it seems like there aren’t many people overall, but its pretty balanced on numbers.
They actually put numbers to it not that long ago. That’s what the “Contribution to Victory” Hero award is for. I’ve seen it obtained by a wide variety of players:
those playing objective
those playing support
even those just holding back waves of enemies
If players actually played through games more often rather than the default being that they leave, It would likely be less painful.
Even so, play through the game as a courteousy to other players. Just because you don’t like the map, doesn’t mean nobody does.
I agree that there are flaws in the game that need to be addressed. However, I think punishing players that repeatedly quit out of games is something that needs to be addressed as well.
I sometimes have to leave games due to terrible teammates or lag from servers. I’m fine sticking with a team that try’s, as long as they make an attempt at winning, but sometimes its just not worth it. I could spend my time trying to cap a point with “less than” teammates and get little XP, or leave and find a better match with a better team.
it depends on the way that single point was lost. i ragequit when point is lost when i just go to build rally point. ffs if they cant keep cap point in 30-60 seconds without me, then it is pointless playing that match. or when i am the only one building rally points and enemy is pushing so hard that we need 2-3 rally points.
i will accept discussion about punishing players when:
they fix MM bug and i am not paired against teams that have more than 10 players
they make mode available for selection
they make maps available for selection
when there is equal number of console players in both teams
i would rather leave a match and take the ranking thingy penalty and whatever other punishment some people here cooked up instead of playing a match where i already lose the 1st cap point by the time i joined the game. not like “oh, it’s already overwhelmed and being taken over” but more like “oh, they’re already killing the people/bots guarding the 2nd cap”.
unless i’m there for a “finish x match in y map as z”, then i’ll just shitpost and do my own goofy shit.
same deal with joining a match where my team soldier reserves is already close to 500.
my point is, i don’t care how much punishment the game gives me. if the match looks like its gonna sucks, or god forbid sucks and drag on, i rather leave or fuck around.
now, if i was given an incentive to stick around in a match that’s gonna suck… like maybe, having a battle medal thingy fully negates the losing modifier… maybe i’ll try to stick around more! surely i can get best sniper medal right?
or at least tactician.
i still don’t know what gives tactician medal, but i get those often enough i like them. makes me feel smort (i am not smart).
Unfortunately this only takes into account PC players I’m guessing. On console its the complete opposite. I know most PC players don’t care about console players but we have a right to enjoy the game as well. Unless they decide to have separate balancing depending on crossplay vs non-crossplay servers, both need to be taken into consideration when making decisions on balancing according to faction popularity.
I play predominately console only, North-American and European servers.
There may be different trends in popular factions between PCs and consoles. But that is not the point of the argument.
I just used Tunisia and Pacific on PC as examples of terrible matching/faction trends, why do you use the fact that it is different on consoles as an argument against it?
If it’s OK on consoles but a problem on PC, it needs to be addressed. Unless you are intentionally trying to ignore PC, it is a pointless counter-argument.
Ultimately, however, it is a matter of user “etiquette”, and what is desirable and what is not is subjective to the individual. As I have shown so far, there are many different views.
So, back to what I posted.
Don’t make other players “guilty” based on your own subjective opinion.
So, the first thing I think should be done to curb user desertion is not to punish users, but to improve the game system.
First, there could be additional rewards for users who stay in a game with a disadvantage in terms of number of players, or for users who stay in a game with users who have played for less time.
A more drastic overhaul of the matchmakers may also be necessary, such as ensuring that the number of people are matched evenly.
Perhaps a ranked match like in the Battlefield series, where the player’s SPM is measured and given a rating that more closely matches the user’s ability, would be a good idea, although it would probably be very difficult to develop.
Et cetera, et cetera…
But in any case, big changes are coming soon.
Whatever you do, you will have to wait for the merge. The best thing is that the merge will fix everything (personally, I don’t think it will work that well…)
It is after the merge that the developers do any additional work.
