Noobs quitting - and why wouldn't they?

I honestly don't know if they can change this. Or even should. After all, how can you save and leave a game if you can't leave without it affecting the all-important score ratio?

why do u focus on bashing n00bs (im one) ?!! dont tell me that non-n00bs dont do what you have described !

and why are u killing of the ai if every game means nothing?

One reason people quit is when they get into a game and realize that the other 4 people they are playing against are a rehearsed, choreographed team who practice together, know the map inside and out, and have a pre-planned course of action. One such group I played against were people who had [LoS] at the beginning of their names. Avoid them!

Why do people get their rocks off teaming up and beating the brains out of another group of people who have never played with each other before? If you are some rehearsed group or clan, great - play against another group or clan! Wouldn't that provide more of a challenge, or are you even interested in a challenge in the first place?

@ Sorceresss
by noobs, i mean people who leave games as soon as things look bad for them, i do not refer to their skill level at the game.

@ Xerxes
i kill the ai bcos it's more fun than starting up a new game and quitting again after 20 minutes and the first pirate raid forces a quitter to leave.

@ Marikir
there should at least be an option to play some challenge games, that end up in affecting a complete ranking, like most MP RTS' do.

@ Agent
we have played a clan vs clan match, however i have only been in contact with one other clan, and have not been contacted by any other clan. i shouldnt have to run around looking for games that last more than 20 minutes

One good aspect of the current system is that it's more frustrating to a person who makes a "newbie" game but is actually a pro and likes to beat on newbies.

But there is still plenty of retards who can't accept anything but the enemy laying down and die, and thus quit at the first set back leaving the other person with either a somewhat pointless game (you started a MP game, not a single player) or a minor stain on his record, which is worthless you are playing against clans or something similar.

Make a "casual" name under your ICO account (you can have more then one) so you can quit without worring about your record, and use your completive one for completive games.

There is a difference between Newb and Noob. Also tell LoS RaY has been lookign for a group to 4v4 against

You have to also understand the newbie side. When people only play casually, it's not fun to play a losing game and slowly see your empire get crushed. Quitting is frustrating for the winning side, but staying to see yourself get crushed is also frustrating for the losing side too. It's not fun to see and not fun to bear, so people quit when they see that coming.

Unless you can make the experience a pleasant one, "Oh look my planet's slowly dying one by one! I'm so happy!" I don't think you can fix this problem, like, forever. Not that I encourage quitting, but this is still a game. And to some people, when the game is no longer fun, there's no reason to bear it...

That's the problem with these games.

Its all too apparent (at any non specific juncture in the game) that you have no chance of winning (usually because you didn't expand quick enough initially - another tedious aspect of these games) and who the heck wants to spend an hour loosing by degrees, until the inevitable outcome?

Sorry but the game design doesn't allow for non linear progression. You win or you loose slowly. That is a flaw in the game; it doesn't offer enough variety or surpises along the way.

Here is what they should do.

Create a leaderboard ranking system (similar to World in Conflict's leaderboard).

If someone quits the game then they will suffer a severe penalty on their leaderboard ranking.

Simple as that. Case closed.

[MAGOG]Kruelgor

Great. Now imagine you're playing with your friends, it's late, so you decide to save and continue the next day. Oops, now you've all taken huge hits to your ranking

I'm tried of playing people who quit after their capital ship gets destoryed. Capital ships are not the same as hero units in Warcraft III, if you lose one it is not the end of the game for you. I don't agree that once you start losing, its game over. In 1v1 games maybe, but I have played a game where what looked like a loss for me, allowed my team mate to build up and win it. I was what is often called "The decoy."

I try and say before I start a game that: No quitting after your cap ship dies(because that is not the real end), and if you do have to quit either surrender or skuttle all your planets, this causes the game to actually end. The one time I forget to say this, is the game where the guy quits 15 minutes in because his 4 frigate+1 cap ship raid on my allies base gets his cap ship killed.

If you voluntarily exit a game (by quitting rather than surrendering) you should get a loss on your record. That is really the only way the devs can encourage people to try to salvage a losing situation. I suppose people could disconnect by rebooting instead, but that at least costs them some time rebooting (they are not in another game 10 seconds later like now).

My problem is that the muliplayer games have been dumping (maybe its the host dumping, not sure when it says everyone is disconnected and I am migrating if it is just me dumping, the host dumping, or the game itself dumping) after 30-120 minutes, so it has been hard to finish a game without it going to AI's (which is very boring compared to playing 8 humans on a huge map). This is a bigger problem for me than people quitting early, since it always seems to happen right during climactic battles.

That means the host quit and the game is trying to find a new one, which may or may not work

Annatar11 makes a good point. How do you distinguish between saving and quitting (with the intention of finishing the match later) and just plain quitting?

The penalty would only apply to someone if they disconnected from the game without accepting the SAVE AND CONTINUE later option. If they are all friends as you suggest then they would all GLADLY click "yes" on the SAVE AND CONTINUE LATER option.

Simple as that!

Having only limited multiplayer experience with SINS, how possible IS it come back from early setbacks? To me it looks like the game mechanics are more of a 'landslide' where one significant loss means that losing the game is just a matter of time. And honestly, expecting people to sit and play a losing position for an hour or more is just not realistic.

Of course this refers to 1v1s. In a team game, I think its bad form to leave unless your entire team is ready to concede. But when the team knows the game is done, why would they want to sit for hours and get pounded when they could go and start a new game?

There would need to be a "request save and continue later" button on the console where all players must agree. If all players agree then there would be no penalty for quiting.

I had this simular problem with Supreme Commander; you've got a really deep game, with many people who've been playing it since it conception (beta). Then come all the new player base, and when they collide, it's usually not pretty.

My first MP game of Sin, I hosted and wrote "noob only please". When the guy came in, I ask if he was a noob, he said yes, then "go go go". I had too many of that type with SC, and was ready from so much skirmish. Had a cap ship with 6 frigs when he rushed my homeworld with his cap, and the moument he saw I had a cap+, he quit the game. So sad.

I was hoping this game might spawn different types of players, but my second MP, the guy assured me he was a noob, but THEN, he kept calling my tactics/stratagies/build orders "Gay" when he saw them with his scouts (this is another topic entirely, but I SWEAR, if I hear ONE more person call another person "gay" cause they are learning to play a new game, I'm going to loose it. That term is so prepubesant as it is, let alone the racism/bigotry it implies). Anyway, how would he know if my tactics were "gay" if he was a noob too???

What I try to do when I start getting knowlegable about a game, is invite new players to play with me on their team with a 2v2 vs 2 humans or even 2 AI, then tell him to watch the replay. Even if he/we lose, they don't feel so crushed or hopeless, and they learn a lot usually too, especially when they compair what they did, to what you/I did.

My suggestion to those that are those types that play only to win, using mathmatical forumulas even Vulcans would find perplexing, and who verbally trounce any who do not conform to their "ulimate logic of play" is this: If your such an incredible player, then play a 2v2 with a noob on your team, and try to win. If you still win, then maybe you are actually a great player (and helped bring another person into the player base). If you do nothing but complain to your teammate the entire time, then maybe you can only win when the game is stacked exactly as preconceived as possible; something that never happens in actual war/battle, and the truly great "generals" overcome. . .

Well, there's still the issue that those that want to quit would choose that "Save and Continue Later" option and the game would still end...they would just delete the save or never come back to it.

And requiring all players to agree first? I'm not so sure that being "held hostage" in a game you don't want to continue (for any reason, selfish or not) is such a good idea. I imagine that some players run into playing too late, must leave for a reason as simple as Must Sleep, and quit.

I don't know that there is an easy way to enforce "Stay and Complete." Unless there were to be 2 different forms of Online Games (Casual vs Competitive). Even then...

Are those who are winning these games upset due to the fact that they don't get the win? Or do they still get the win and are upset that their opponent are not "punished" for leaving?

The problem of people simply quitting is a problem that's been around forever.

I don't know an easy way around it.  1.03 will at least have AI players take over but that doesn't solve the root problem of playing with strangers.

When you can't swim and the water's too deep to wade, it is normal for people to head for shore.

If you are a newbie and are getting trounced, so what? Have fun doing it. The only way to get better is to beat other peoples strategies, and the only way to learn that is to keep trying until you do.

You also have the type of player that is very familiar with RTS games. Even if the game says noobs only, he may think 'well I only have been playing this game for 2 days so I qualify' and join up. I also think the person on the receiving end of such a beating shouldnt take it so hard. Its a game. It shouldnt have any reflection on your ego.

The best way to learn how to play at the higher levels, is to play those that are already in the higher levels. The thing to understand is that you should record games and watch them to see for yourself what your opponent was doing, then borrow his strategy and practice with it.

I hate it when they quit just because you have an agressive playstyle and dont want to play the settlers with them.
The best thing would be if this guys learnt how to play.

Easy fix, and something that makes this game an RTS with 4X elements rather than the other way around.

Multiple victory conditions. Give the player who doesn't win the first cap skirmish or loses the colony war another way to win.