Penalty for leavers suggestion

[kqgee]

That makes sense, plus the karma system could just incentivize new accounts to subvert.

Overall I think V2 is in a great spot, I still dont think it needs a penalty system… maybe for versus…

I havnt had a host freakout since I got the game…When I healed a Zealot with a medkit and he turned around murdered me to death typing how I should never ever heal Saltzpyres unless they ask…lol.. that was my new player experience to this game. I was fortunate to have a few buddies to learn with after that but the learning curve is set pretty high with a game that has friendly fire and hosts.

[Ensrick]

Ahhh… I remember the first time I healed a zealot, almost got kicked. Got off easy I guess, but I’ve seen it happen many times and people range from chill to insane.

It is a little late to add a penalty system, but for versus on the other hand, I think that game mode is dying. I just couldn’t find a match the last two times I tried about 3 months ago.

[Flinlock]

@LethargicSaga

Just wanted to come back to this, because in another thread from 2018, Temporary punishment for leaving game, you stated the following:

@Flinlock

I’d like to see a hosting specific penalty. Like if the host shuts down a game when people are connected, they get banned from hosting for an hour or something like that. They’d still be able to join games or play private of course. A fits-the-crime punishment that would encourage people to stick it out till the keep before disbanding.

I assume back then you didn’t have many hours in? You probably didn’t have all the red items or whatever either. So you found leavers to really inconvenience you at the time, and you targeted hosts specifically.

What we can take from this is that when you are effected by leavers, it’s a big issue and you demand punishment. However as long as you get to have fun, it doesn’t matter that youractions ruins games for other people.

I think everybody can agree this is selfish.

I think everybody can agree that you misunderstood my post I was talking specifically about HOSTS quitting mid-game, because it would instantly kill the game for everyone else. At the time host migration was broken so if a host quit, the round would end with no rewards for all the clients who connected. And it would take a good couple minutes to get back to the lobby because it would try and fail to migrate to a new host.

THAT is what I wanted to penalize. I had zero problems with clients leaving the game on a whim, same as now.

@LethargicSaga

This is why I can’t trust people who are against a penalty system. It’s all double standards from them.

LOL ok if you say so

[Flinlock]

I find this extra funny because in modern Vermintide, a ragequitter can actually SAVE the run. If someone dies and instantly leaves, they get replaced by an ALIVE bot. When there’s one alive (or just downed) player left, a bot popping in can be so clutch.

[Ensrick]

I like this change. I think this was intended to help with the issue of people joining, dying and quitting mid match. This way, at least they can’t grief by killing off a bot.

[LethargicSaga]

@Flinlock

I was talking specifically about HOSTS quitting mid-game, because it would instantly kill the game for everyone else.

Like how rage quitters kill the game for everyone else then, isn’t it?

@Flinlock

LOL ok if you say so

I don’t mean this in a bad way, but the way you use “LOL” and emojis make you look very young.

[LethargicSaga]

@Flinlock

I find this extra funny because in modern Vermintide, a ragequitter can actually SAVE the run. If someone dies and instantly leaves, they get replaced by an ALIVE bot. When there’s one alive (or just downed) player left, a bot popping in can be so clutch.

I’ve addressed this in one of my ealier replies.

Firstly, it’s actually 50/50 whether its saves or kills a run.

In a team of three, the remaining bot might actually be the tipping point when deep in a horde (especially on twins). In this case, when a fourth player joins, runs off and dies, and immediately leaves, then the three party members could get wiped because the bot is now on the other side of the map. It’s just crappy.

On the other hand, when the remaining bot does save a team wipe, it feels cheaty and exploitative. Who wants to cheat?

A penalty system would mitigate both these issues.

[LethargicSaga]

Just wanted to add as well, I’ve been playing some Elder Scrolls Online recently, and found that if you leave a dungeon early you are put on a timeout system.

Dungeons in ESO are entirely “cooperative”, and as others here have stated, so is this game. Dead by Daylight is another game that implements a timeout system to mitiage rage quitters and the consequeneces of their actions imposed on the remaining party members.

I see no reason why Warhammer: Vermintide 2 should not have a penalty system. In fact, since so many other games have a penalty system, it almost feels like a lacking feature of the game.

[Flinlock]

@LethargicSaga

Like how rage quitters kill the game for everyone else then, isn’t it?

…Seriously? These are the two scenarios:

1. A client rage quits the game. They’re replaced immediately by a living bot. Maybe replaced by a player later, who knows. Your ability to continue stabbing rats is unaffected.
2. A host rage quits the game. This means for all the other players in the game: it lags out for awhile. It tries to transfer to a new host for awhile, eventually fails. Game quits to main menu, taking awhile to load back in. All progress in the match is lost.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that these are equivalent?

YOU are basing YOUR enjoyment of the game on whether or not other people are required to play it with YOU for the entire time. That’s a YOU problem and a rather petty one IMO.

@LethargicSaga

I don’t mean this in a bad way, but the way you use “LOL” and emojis make you look very young

Thanks it’s all a part of my master plan to be young forever. Glad to hear it’s working

@LethargicSaga

Firstly, it’s actually 50/50 whether its saves or kills a run.

In a team of three, the remaining bot might actually be the tipping point when deep in a horde (especially on twins).

… If your team can’t handle it with three + a bot, then you are definitely not gonna handle it with only three. Because if the player who died didn’t rage quit, they’d just be dead, and you wouldn’t even have the bot.

@LethargicSaga

On the other hand, when the remaining bot does save a team wipe, it feels cheaty and exploitative. Who wants to cheat?

Mmmkay, rather odd definition of cheating

[LethargicSaga]

@Flinlock

… If your team can’t handle it with three + a bot, then you are definitely not gonna handle it with only three. Because if the player who died didn’t rage quit, they’d just be dead, and you wouldn’t even have the bot.

If the player who joined didn’t run off and die, they’d still be alive and be performing better than a bot.

… If your team can’t handle it with three + a bot,

Was just an example, and it depends on the game mode, difficulty, and skill level of the players.

Also, depends. Could just be overwhelmed by a horde temporarily and the bot was sufficient enough to aid the players. Doesn’t mean that two or three of the party members can’t do the rest of the map themselves. The difficulty fluctuates as the players move through the map and needs become situational.

In the end it was just an example.

@Flinlock

Thanks it’s all a part of my master plan to be young forever. Glad to hear it’s working

Makes you come across as very sarcastic.

@Flinlock

Mmmkay, rather odd definition of cheating

If you’re leaving and rejoining to abuse the game mechanics, then yes you are cheating.

If you’re not going to play the game properly then what is the point in playing?

[Ensrick]

@Flinlock

Glad to hear it’s working

In all seriousness, @LethargicSaga makes a good point. By NOT impelmenting a timeout system, you’re risking unfairly penalizing the team, and rewarding the player who quits and hops into a new game. A timeout system is common in many games and makes sense. It encourages commitment to the current match.

@Flinlock

Your ability to continue stabbing rats is unaffected.

No, it’s not. Not everyone has bots decked out in top gear and chosen to specifically fill the gap.

@Flinlock

YOU are basing YOUR enjoyment of the game on whether or not other people are required to play it with YOU for the entire time. That’s a YOU problem and a rather petty one IMO.

No, one person leaving leaves the entire team with one less human player. That’s one person inconveniencing the team by being a loser. You play a game solo, no commitment. You play a game with a team, part of the fun is people working together committed to the match.

When people can just leave as soon as they go down, they are avoiding the penalty incurred by going down.

You may not mind people leaving mid match, but that is a ‘you’ thing as you say.

[Pawelpl55]

@LethargicSaga

If the player who joined didn’t run off and die, they’d still be alive and be performing better than a bot.

If they are a sort of player who rushes and rage quits, I’m sceptical about them actually performing better with the team than a bot does.

@Ensrick

No, one person leaving leaves the entire team with one less human player. That’s one person inconveniencing the team by being a loser. You play a game solo, no commitment.

And I’d rather have a bot and get another player later, than be stuck in a game with a sort of player that would rush and rage quit, who, under a penalty system, would stay in the game and continue being bad.

@Ensrick

You play a game with a team, part of the fun is people working together committed to the match.

And if somebody is prone to being selfish and rage-quitting rather than working together with the team, having to cooperate with them won’t be any fun or good for anyone involved.

@Ensrick

When people can just leave as soon as they go down, they are avoiding the penalty incurred by going down.

And everyone in the lobby avoids having to play with them. Otherwise, such a player may stay in the game, figuring that waiting for a revive is better than waiting for the penalty to end.

@Ensrick

You may not mind people leaving mid match, but that is a ‘you’ thing as you say.

And you guys caring about people leaving mid match is a ‘you’ thing just as much as some of us not caring for that.

The thing is, I host a lot, and I will always prefer a bot to players prone to reckless behaviour and abandoning the game. I think it’s much better to have those people leave instead of them continuing to be in my games, and incentivising them to stay is bad imo as I don’t foresee them changing their reckless nature.
I also think it’s just better to let people leave in general - this week I’ve been hosting a lot of Twitch Twins games, and I’ve had players join who were underskilled for this difficulty, and some of them would leave mid-game. I don’t mind them joining and trying their best, and I also understand them leaving when they realise it’s too difficult for them to enjoy. I partially prefer it when they choose to leave, because they are often replaced by regulars who play these with me consistently.
I’ve also had one of these guys have a worse day, as in, he’d die during very difficult situations, and he eventually left mid-game because it was obvious he wasn’t having fun, and I think it’s better that he wasn’t chained to us and could play something else.

@Ensrick

[…] has little to maintain cooperation when a player leaving mid-match can disrupt the experience. Temporary matchmaking bans discourage casual quitting. I think we want to promote commitment to completing matches and objectives.

Another thing I’ve had happen this week is a player who after we started the game, realised he had wrong THP talent and so left and rejoined after changing it, something which I already mentioned already but only got a ‘nuh-uh, bad reason to leave’ answer to, even though it makes it better for the entire team for him to switch.
Also on the topic of cooperation, what I also said before is that I will leave when I see that I joined a game with a build that I don’t like. I don’t understand how me joining and leaving 3 seconds after would realistically disrupt the cooperation of the team and warrant a penalty in any way. And I know I’m not the only one, since whenever I have a Lingering Flames BW join my hosted basic Twitch games, the number of player who join and leave immediately afterwards changes from practically zero to a lot.

Ultimately, I prefer to have players who want to leave, be able to leave and I think it’s net positive to have them do it, and some of you don’t. I don’t think we can really change anyone’s mind on that. Where I might agree is when it comes down to penalising hosts for shutting down games mid-run. That’s something that I might see as a good idea, since them doing that literally prevents the rest of the team from continuing the game.

[Ensrick]

@Pawelpl55

I don’t foresee them changing their reckless nature.

I think this is the main disagreement. I think it’s hard to judge a person based on how they play a game. The best predictor of a general player’s behavior is whether they are penalized or rewarded for their actions in the game.

If the game penalizes leaving and rewards commitment to the match, I think you’ll see the behavior of players changes as they learn the game.

It’s not normal behavior for a player to continue the same pattern of rushing in and dying when they have to deal with the consequences.

As a host and a team, you have options to remove the squeaky wheel if the player continues a negative trend of rushing in and dying; though I think you’re less likely to see that with a system in place to ensure they commit to the match.

[SirDiggyOfHole]

@LethargicSaga

t players will strugle by themselves. I guess it takes a lot of playing before you can save a team by yourself.

I don’t mind if someone who is wobbly joins, even if that means they need a carry.
Most of the time people will thank you for the carry, or apologizing for poor play. I have no issues with that, friendly fire is bound to happen, but it’s not really a big deal.

Only time it gets annoying is if they break all the Vermintide tactics*

*Flat out careless friendly fire, patrol pulling, dumb team killing like yeeting bombs directly into CC with team mates, running so far ahead getting downed or disabled.

I avoid hosting if possible, but if I find myself in a game with toxic players (or monsterously bad ones that keep ignoring the other team mates), I just leave.

[LethargicSaga]

@SirDiggyOfHole

*Flat out careless friendly fire, patrol pulling, dumb team killing like yeeting bombs directly into CC with team mates, running so far ahead getting downed or disabled.

I don’t know what ‘CC’ is but I agree with the rest. These are people who deserve to be kicked and put on a timeout. It would either filter them out or force them to play properly instead of ruining it for everyone else.

[SirDiggyOfHole]

CC = close combat.

If someone is in actual combat I won’t shoot into it as I’ll hit them, something I’m sure we’ve all experienced, usual offenders tend to be:

Necro’s with soul-stealer staff, Slayers with throwing axes, Bounty hunters with griffon’s pistols, Outcast engineers with their ULTs and almost any Kerillian career with javs.

[Argonaut14]

Ahh see I’m gonna cause some trouble because I’ll shoot into CC if someone is surrounded and going down fighting on the basis of staggering .. like.. SV out of an overhead or something.

Not all the time, not just yeeting fireballs into CC for horde kills but specific times when it is probably the best-of-a-bad-bunch to FF into CC.

[SirDiggyOfHole]

@Argonaut14

onna cause some trouble because I’ll shoot into CC if someone is surrounded and going down fighting on the basis of staggering .. like.. SV out of an overhead or something.

Not all the time, not just yeeting fireballs into CC for horde kills but specific times when it is probably the best-of-a-bad-bunch to FF int

I’m guessing you play Cata? (based off you actually thinking about your team mates, especially if you see one of them is about to eat an overhead).

Shooting into CC if you’re assissting, or getting overwhelmed is one thing (taking 2-4 damage of FF rather than 30-60 from enemy hits is definitely preferable).

My fault for not being specific, but you’re correct, a bit of FF when it’s good faith/assist is different, I’m thinking more of those who just needlessly spam into combat heedless of whether it’s needed or not.

[LethargicSaga]

Imho I think its ok to shoot into a horde while someone is in close combat with it. The problem is that most players have no common sense and no spatial awareness.

If there is an engineer or sienna on my team, I will attack the horde from the side, being aware that they will want to shoot them. In a tight corridor or on a bridge, I’ll glue myself to one side as I push ahead so the ranged careers can shoot down beside me.

That being said, there are those players who literally don’t even try and shoot around you even when you give them the space. Those players are so annoying I have to resist shooting them back.

Then there are those players who literally jump between you and your shots constantly and then complain about your friendly fire once they got themselves killed (always the Krubers for some reason). These players are the worst honestly. Not only do they stop you from eliminating a special but it could also get the team wiped if it was a critical moment.