When was the spam to lobby fixed? Oo

[Kewlin 692]

14 minutes ago, Salvick said:

What about "negative incomes"? Could that help? Specially against team killing and other demerits such as AFK?

 

If by that you mean an APB$ fine, I personally wouldn't mind should be substantial cash penalties for such things, E.G. 5k for TKing, 10k for going AFK, and 20k for killing a friendly who's P/N5.

 

Also, please, for fuck's sake, fix the friendly N5 icon on the minimap.

 

 

1 minute ago, Clandestine said:

I don't see where was the problem with people just leaving. I see problem with people trolling in lalaland 1000m away for most or entire mission. APB has backup system. It's not mission in the void where you are down by 1 team mate for entire mission.

This just reminds me shotgun/ir3 fiasco that no one asked to touched.

 

No, clearly you need for "fix" non-existent issues.

 

Especially if pop got back up losing a teammate isn't a big deal most of the time.

[Clandestine 390]

57 minutes ago, BXNNXD said:

it’s not people on your team leaving, it’s people on the other team leaving

 

imagine waiting 20 minutes for opp and then the entire enemy team quits after your team wins one stage

Been there, done that? Been like this for 8 years. Let's make a revolution.

I was stuck today in a mission, spam didn't work and guess what? It turned out I didn't bother playing APB today and probably won't for days again.

GG easy let's give people even less reasons to login.

[BlatMan 708]

1 hour ago, BXNNXD said:

it’s not people on your team leaving, it’s people on the other team leaving

 

imagine waiting 20 minutes for opp and then the entire enemy team quits after your team wins one stage

My suggestion is to delete their accounts since they're just wasting server space, but I know LO would lose money since those types tend to be the whales of the community.

[Glubbable 41]

4 hours ago, MattScott said:

Hi all,

 

We found that spamming /cointoss to get kicked was actually negatively affecting the server, so we fixed the exploit.

 

We are now having a discussion about if or when we should allow players to drop from matches.

 

This was supposed to be mentioned as part of the patch notes, but we missed it.

 

I’ll take up the GM issue internally.

 

Thanks,

Matt

 

A Team Surrender Vote would be pretty awesome, there's no point forcing people to sit through 5-10 minutes of being rofl stomped into the floor due to a massive skill gap.

[BlatMan 708]

1 hour ago, Glubbable said:

 

A Team Surrender Vote would be pretty awesome, there's no point forcing people to sit through 5-10 minutes of being rofl stomped into the floor due to a massive skill gap.

You should be charged in game cash and lose progression for doing so. Do it too many times and your account gets deleted. These people do more harm than good to keep the community active. They purposely throw missions when they get a new player on their team, and constantly spam support with false cheat reports.

 

If name and shame was allowed I would have a 100 page thread of these players.

[Clandestine 390]

1 hour ago, MrsHappyPenguin said:

My suggestion is to delete their accounts since they're just wasting server space, but I know LO would lose money since those types tend to be the whales of the community.

K. Cya at /pop 100 then

[ScottDaniels 30]

It'd be kinda funny if they let players quit whenever they wanted for a week, then shared the results.

[safdfsgkjhdgsjkhs 140]

if they banned the people who are litterally rage hacking in mission districts then this wouldnt even be a problem.

[Glubbable 41]

11 hours ago, MrsHappyPenguin said:

You should be charged in game cash and lose progression for doing so. Do it too many times and your account gets deleted. These people do more harm than good to keep the community active. They purposely throw missions when they get a new player on their team, and constantly spam support with false cheat reports.

 

If name and shame was allowed I would have a 100 page thread of these players.

You do not punish your players for problems that arise in your own game, you work on mitigating / fixing the problem.

 

You can easily limit possible abuse by time gating the vote option or requiring the first stage of a mission to be completed before the vote becomes an option.

Then you'll have to get the entire team to agree to surrender, which will be not always be the case with randoms and certainly with pre-made groups.

 

If the vote is implemented correctly, it will become an option that is only used when everyone comes to the conclusion that they have no hope of winning. Which can be caused by multiple factors, from either being out-classed or out-gunned by better players to the mission itself is too heavily one sided.

Edited February 17, 2019 by Glubbable

[Mitne 724]

17 hours ago, BXNNXD said:

dear lord please no

 

no semi-decent players will ever finish a mission again 

How about option like "surrender"?

You surrender match and other team wins game and gets medal for other team surrendering.

Problem is... I see also it can be abused by some of players...

[Szambi 85]

15 hours ago, Kewlin said:

If by that you mean an APB$ fine, I personally wouldn't mind should be substantial cash penalties for such things, E.G. 5k for TKing, 10k for going AFK, and 20k for killing a friendly who's P/N5.

I think if anything cash penalty should be based on rank of the player. 'Cause if you're a newcomer and you accidentaly TK, those 5k gone may hit a bit too hard. On the other hand for most of 255s 5k is next to nothing.

[Fortune Runner 796]

With phasing having someone leave a mission can then replace them with a new person.

Without phasing it would clearly not be as easy to fill the gaps

[Kewlin 692]

3 hours ago, Szambi said:

I think if anything cash penalty should be based on rank of the player. 'Cause if you're a newcomer and you accidentaly TK, those 5k gone may hit a bit too hard. On the other hand for most of 255s 5k is next to nothing.

 

Learn fast then.

 

You're probably right though. Not sure I'd call 5k nothing to most 255s though; sure, it's not a ton, but that makes 20 teamkills 100k.

[Weeb TheEpicGuyV2 269]

Can't get fined if you don't have money

[Kewlin 692]

1 minute ago, Weeb TheEpicGuyV2 said:

Can't get fined if you don't have money

 

It's called debt dumbass.

[Weeb TheEpicGuyV2 269]

1 minute ago, Kewlin said:

 

It's called debt dumbass.

no booli

[Kewlin 692]

9 minutes ago, Weeb TheEpicGuyV2 said:

no booli

 

Every day I be boolian.

[yood 345]

23 hours ago, MattScott said:

Hi all,

We are now having a discussion about if or when we should allow players to drop from matches.

 

Thanks . good news . 

[nikitos5 51]

We need a votekick option for this game where a player can call a votekick on his teammate

[BlatMan 708]

9 hours ago, Glubbable said:

You do not punish your players for problems that arise in your own game, you work on mitigating / fixing the problem.

 

You can easily limit possible abuse by time gating the vote option or requiring the first stage of a mission to be completed before the vote becomes an option.

Then you'll have to get the entire team to agree to surrender, which will be not always be the case with randoms and certainly with pre-made groups.

 

If the vote is implemented correctly, it will become an option that is only used when everyone comes to the conclusion that they have no hope of winning. Which can be caused by multiple factors, from either being out-classed or out-gunned by better players to the mission itself is too heavily one sided.

These players will not ask to surrender, they will intentionally waste the other teams time. They'll brag about how easy a win was while fighting new players, then they'll go afk the moment they get experienced opposition. I don't see new players and low threats going afk, it's always max rank, max threat, veteran players.

 

You want to screw up matching making even more? Allowing players to choose which missions they play is a great way to do that.

[Glubbable 41]

1 hour ago, MrsHappyPenguin said:

These players will not ask to surrender, they will intentionally waste the other teams time. They'll brag about how easy a win was while fighting new players, then they'll go afk the moment they get experienced opposition. I don't see new players and low threats going afk, it's always max rank, max threat, veteran players.

 

You want to screw up matching making even more? Allowing players to choose which missions they play is a great way to do that.

 

How would a mission, that ends early because of a surrender, be something that would screw up the matchmaking even more?

[Clandestine 390]

2 hours ago, nikitos5 said:

We need a votekick option for this game where a player can call a votekick on his teammate

Lol good luck with it tho when majority of citadel is rus. Unless you wanna get constant kicks.

I know I wouldn't. Certain people enjoy wasting my time knowing I won't play with them. They will rather lose than kick me so thank the universe I still can unplug the net cable or realize it's better to loop pallets for 5 gens in dbd than partcipate in this dead cesspool.

Edited February 17, 2019 by Clandestine

[BlatMan 708]

4 hours ago, Glubbable said:

 

How would a mission, that ends early because of a surrender, be something that would screw up the matchmaking even more?

The way the threat system currently works is it does not count missions you are disconnected from or score below a certain threshold (100 points?). Those missions players choose to leave would end up not counting. Their threat would get inflated overtime due to them playing only missions that are easy wins. If quitting counted against your threat, you could exploit that by dethreating.

[Glubbable 41]

7 hours ago, MrsHappyPenguin said:

The way the threat system currently works is it does not count missions you are disconnected from or score below a certain threshold (100 points?). Those missions players choose to leave would end up not counting. Their threat would get inflated overtime due to them playing only missions that are easy wins. If quitting counted against your threat, you could exploit that by dethreating.

I think you've completely misunderstood what a Team Surrender is.

[BlatMan 708]

19 hours ago, Glubbable said:

I think you've completely misunderstood what a Team Surrender is.

It means the mission doesn't count or you lose. Not counting doesn't affect threat, losing decreases threat. Either way, it's going to further screw up threat and matchmaking. Almost every match last night had players quitting. Those same players are just going to surrender, or go afk, which is a waste of time for the opposing team.

 

I'm sticking my idea to delete player accounts who refuse to play missions they ready up for.

 

 

Edited February 19, 2019 by MrsHappyPenguin