jimmyneutral

god damn baby all of this im liking what i am rreading here baby lets go

damn baby i remember the good old days when matchmaking was crossfaction baby that system cranked hard baby non stop around the clock ringing domes like bells baby damn now its just dead times no missions to be played not fun these days baby damn

open threat districts is one foot in the door baby full send it and crossfaction play baby !!!!!` i dont want to hear jack diddly about lore baby ! fk it baby ! Le`ts go !

the outlier 'everybody refuses to oppose me' players versus the numerous 'a good amount of players refuse to oppose me' players. i wish i had a solution for players like the one youve described, atleast theyre fruitless missions would end instantly via the defeatist team forfeiting. youre not rewarding the forfeiter, theyre doing that regardless. youre alleviating the time waste of the players who actually want to play.

reworking matchmaking properly would better route high skill players and low skill players to their own brackets, alleviating this issue to some extent, no denying that. but remember that were only addressing players who hackusate alone, not even accounting for the various players that have their own minds made up on what is valid play regarding strategy, playstyle, weapon selection etc. you can rework the game to perfection and yet you'll still have that noticeable lump of wrongfully entitled players who muddy the system up. the stubbornness that leads to sandbagging a mission stems from fucked human behavior, it will keep happening to a noticeable degree.

i still understand where youre coming from, its obvious to me that forfeiting doesnt exist in a perfect environment. but the undeniable fact is that aslong as there is belief of your opposition cheating, its a rare feat to find where people will still accept the match and play anyway. needless to say, id play anyway, the potential cheater is a challenge like any other player.

and again, when these defeatists are left without an option to forfeit their match, what do they do? they AFK the entirety of it. its in all ways worse.

regarding abuse of a forfeit system, i could only assume you mean farming rating/money. ive mentioned earlier that, of course, parameters need to be set and adjusted accordingly to best reward players appropriately based on overall mission participation when a mission ends due to a forfeit. 'Absolutely not, good players already have a hard enough time getting opposition, giving the people that hackusate everyone better than them a surrender option is just going to ruin more and more missions and make the game even less playable for 4 player groups.' realize that Frosi omits or is somehow completely unaware of the fact that players who 'hackusate everyone better than them' AFK against said players, forcing you to either wait the 5-10 minutes depending on whether youre attacking or defending or restart your game, because they arent. why the fuck would you want to sit in an abandoned mission any longer than you have to? so long as there are enough players with the notion of cheater pollution in mind, this is going to happen.

placing a forfeit option behind a time restriction ultimately results with a quitter afk'ing for that time restriction, then proceeding to forfeit. no difference is made, this is obvious to you based on what youve said at the end of your reply. of course not regarding all games or communities, but specifically for APB, it could range from something as simple as recognizing an enemy player's name, indicating that the mission is infact an 'unwinnable match', which is ground for 'taking the easy way out'. obviously this issue is behavioral, meaning that you cant treat it with the assumption that people are behaving according to the structure. your previous post, you mentioned that, 'if you really want to, you can spam out of district or close your game'. thats what we already are doing when our opposition determines that theyd rather afk. streamlining this as a proper option funnels you against players actually willing to play you more quickly. the main point here is that im not advocating quitting, im pointing out that a notable amount of players do quit for their own valid/invalid reasons, and theres no mechanic that can with certainty make them play, so there needs to be a mechanic that lets willing players conveniently get themselves out of a would-be abandoned mission.

tolerance of duration is variable, what you mentioned about inevitable losses is far more concrete. time/duration shouldnt be the factor in what determines whether or not a feature like this is positive because again, from that lesser experienced player's perspective, that soon-to-be loss is just as inevitable as the MOBA players match.

yeah its pretty clear to me now that you dont care about griefers or how to cushion the impact they have. Merged. i think were neglecting the fact that you cant change a players intentions or behavior for things of this nature. obviously among lesser experienced players, there is the stigma that this game has a high percentage of cheaters, and id like to think weve all played this game a fair amount to know at which rate you encounter these players where when they die to you once, they ultimately end up driving to the end of the district while you either restart your game or chore your way through that abandoned five stager. when i say it happens regardless, i quite literally mean that the difference between an official forfeit option and no official forfeit option would be marginal.

voting for the option to forfeit introduces a new method of griefing via, again, sandbagging a mission and now voting against your team forfeiting, which defeats the purpose of a forfeit option in itself. its implied that forfeiting yields no gain in progression unless a ***yet to be determined*** amount of mission participation took place. and the more it happens, the more quickly you'll reach players who want to play against you as much as you want to play against them.

im not in favor of it anymore than you are, thats not the point being made. the point is that 'sandbagging' a mission will occur regardless, whether its due to suspicion of the enemy cheating or that theyre 'too difficult' to oppose. its a positive addition for forfeiting to be conventionalized so that the players who actually want to play can avoid being griefed by afk'ers, again, because it happens regardless.

afk'ing is surrendering in a griefed form. officializing a surrender option speeds up the process of what would have been you closing your game and relaunching to actually play the game. whether theres a surrender option or not, the end result is still the same people deliberately not playing versus you, the difference made is convenience.

wouldnt want those new engine dumptrucks going untested am i fuckin right or am i riiiiiii-YEAHHH