Some people don't have 12 hours a day at their computers, and would rather leave when they know they've lost rather than waste an hour.

I play online occasionally, and conversations help keep players in the game. Encourage the player to stay by saying "Try to keep him busy, I'll start attacking his planets and draw him away" or something similar.

The OP is probably reasonable enough to understand that someone who is losing badly would accept leaving and taking a loss rather than play on. The problem is that if you are ever out of the lead you can leave with repercussion. So the simple answer is allow the other players to agree to a save & continue option. Other than that a quit should be a loss...

The real issue here is what happens when players leave a game. There are two options right now, neither of which are convenient for the players left in the game.

A. Surrendering - Removes your player from the list of people needing to be eliminated in order for the other team to win, but all your planets and ships remain where they are. Personally, I think it'd be a better idea for these to be scrapped once you surrender, because your remaining planets could have been useful to your teammates.

B. Quitting - I realize this is supposed to result in your player being taken over by an AI, and it's a convenient choice for someone who needs to leave the game but doesn't want to hurt their team. It's not a great solution, but it's still better than leaving the teammates on their own.

Easily solved.

The "Quit" option should be renamed "Parley"
If a player clicks it, the other players get a message to accept or decline.
If the majority accept the game ends, no wins/losses. Works fine for in friendly games or when a save is needed.
If the majority decline or it's a tie, the player will have to surrender to leave early.

I have seen other players come back from the brink of death to dominate the end game. I have come back from the brink of death to dominate the end game. It's not over until your last planet falls.

In an FFA, fair enough to leave. In a 1v1 fair enough to leave.

Don't join a team game unless you're prepared to see it through.

Never join a game called 3v3 NO QUITTERS if you're a sore loser. I have a blacklist of players that do this, they will never play a game I'm hosting again.

Lion heart you are on it. Lion heart indeed.

for all those people who think that once behind in this game, it's time to lose:

https://www.sins.bz/infusions/pro_download_panel/download.php?did=94

in that game i was in a horrendous position but i stuck it out and we eventually won.



there should be no quit button, i do not understand the reason it is even there tbh.

the problem with quitters occurs in every MP game, however this problem disappears once ranking games are introduced.
there should be a leaderboard, and either matchmaking, or a host enabling an option to make it a ranked game - the current midway system (you get wins and losses, but they mean nothing) is not working at all.

fyi, i just finished another game in which one of the players quit as soon as he saw a 3-bar army. he didnt wait to see it was 90% flak when he had all light frigates, he just saw an army that was bigger than his, and straight up quit the game over it
and what punishment does he receive?
the game was called "no quitters please"

Why are they joining a team game if they don't want to play against a team?



I get no special enjoyment out of an easy win, but I can't find good players easily as there isn't a ranking system.



Yes it would, that's why I challenged another clan last weekend, and will do so again. It takes time to coordinate though and isn't feasible during the week because of different timezones. So in the week I host games for anyone to join.

great idea, gars-grenouille !!

yea...well...if i play with « strangers » and i predict that they are going to beat me around for a few HOURS, for sure ill quit :

im not a mazokiss...im not going to waste a whole evening juss to let a bunch of strangers beat me up to the bitter end

(im not revealing my ico nick : none of u guys will ever want to play with me)

In a 1v1, if you have been hammered and don't want to watch your empire fall, this is what the Surrender button is for. Not the quit button.

In a team game, if the whole team has been hammered, again they should surrender.

'Landslide' can happen to a whole team, but not to one member individually in a team. If one member of a team is losing, they should fight for every speck of dust in their systems so their teammate can make a comeback. Think of how much disruption a small pirate fleet can cause. A player on the fall can create more delay than this.

I would still play you so long as you are

a) actually surrendering, not just quitting
b) not leaving teammates out to dry when the game is still wide open

I must admit that this game is far too linear. You either slowly win, or slowly lose; that is what makes this a fairly boring game.

In RTS' like Company of Heroes you could be losing the first half of the game, then come back and destroy the enemy in the second half. There isn't much of that in this game, so why should players stay in the game another 2 hours if they are just going to get "slowly" destroyed?

The best way to learn how to really play a game is to lose a few and observe how you are getting beat, maybe even ask questions (ex: so do 12 assailaints always kill 2 cap ships? etc). I do not mind losing, although I do detest trash talk, or accusation of cheating by people who are losing.

I have found that most of the Sins people online have been reasonable mature, I have not as much trash talk (or accusations of being "gay") as in games with wider audiences, such as Company of Heroes. Maybe I have just been lucky.

My big problem is that my game hosts keep crashing (at least I think its the host), ending games prematurely, and I have yet to seen one successfully migrate to another host. I cannot host myself, I can only join games...

thats OK...fair enough...

In a 1v1 maybe, I don't play many 1v1, but in this case you Surrender so the other player gets their win acknoledged

Team games aren't linear.

I agree for a 1v1 game, that it is fairly liner but in a game with six or eight players, you can get come back with a little help from third and fourth parties intervening. If I am playing a guy one versus one, and it is clear that I am going to win, I do not mind if he surrenders at that time rather than drag the game out until the end and waste both of our time. In one versus one, if I am clearly going to lose, I will surrender also, but only after trying to learn from the victor through Q & A.

I did play a game the other night 1v1 that was very fun, where we invaded eachothers home systems from different routes, and there was a lot of zooming around trying to save planets on both sides. I did eventually win, but the outcome was in doubt for a good 90 minutes or so...

the speed at which this thread grows indicates a clear problem with the current system

i had set up a ranking system for the BETA, and it can be used for release also
within it is a complete system for free (set up by myleague) with a leaderboard and tournaments hosted within it.
if anyone is interested the original thread is here:

https://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/?forumid=402&aid=173179#1423818

the idea was scrapped when we were promissed a ranking system built in, but with no sign of that on the horizon..

the URL of the league itself is located at:
www.myleague.com/sinsplayers

games are reported by the losing player/ team

Stats should be abolished.
They just encourage griefing, smurfing and other annoying stuff.

The only thing needed is a system which allows to roughly classify a player as nub, intermediate or pro.

Bullshit. Case in point, Halo 2. Also, to a lesser extent, Halo 3. If anything, sore losers in Halo quit early more often, because there's only so much time in a day to grind that leaderboard ranking up.

If ranked leaderboards are introduced, at least have them give winners points, give losers less points, and give quitters no points at all (ala CoD4, which has the lowest incidence of quitting in the FPS genere that I'm aware of.)

A better approach might be:
- Allow players to offer/agree to save and quit. Must be mutually agreed upon.
- Allow players to offer to concede the game. In team games, the whole team must unanimously agree in order to offer concession.
- Track "Quit Early/Surrendered" as a stat alongside "Wins/Losses"
- If matchmaking is eventually implemented, use a prefer/avoid player system (along with aforementioned stats) to help match people together who would rather concede early rather than fight to the bitter end.

So eloquent!

This game does suffer from "The Slow Death", where once you're losing, you pretty much can't turn it around unless the enemy leaves.

There should be some kind of bonus for smaller teams and pirates... like the pirates offer a discount for their services (it's in their interest never to let one side win, cause then they'd get smashed by an empire).

I don't play this game online, but it doesn't surprise me that people quit. After all, a lot of people quit all online games when they are losing. If you think about it, quitting is really doing is speeding up the loss for the quitter.

I don't blame them, really. This is a long ass game when things are going well, it must seem twice as long when you are up against it. In any case, I don't get my jollies from beating someone when they are down, so I really don't get mad at someone when they quit against me in an online game. Because usually they quit because they are getting beaten.

I play in an online soccer league against friends on xbox live. No one ever quits those games, because it is an organized league built around respect and reputation.

That is really the only way to have a quit free game, i.e. play against friends.

So there is your solution O.P.

That anyone is stupid enough to think 'there shouldn't be a quit button' simply astounds me. Absolutely - lock people in a room and FORCE THEM TO PLAY UNTIL THE END! There can be only ONE! This is SERIOUS BUSINESS! :SURPRISED: There is certainly no other way to quit the game at all, right?

Anyone who thinks 'ranked = no quitters' is horrificly ill-informed. You will ALWAYS, ALWAYS get quitters, for many reasons already mentioned in this very thread (ie, throwaway accounts, fact that the end result is often very obvious after 15m yet will take 5h to play out, etc) and many other reasons common to all multiplayer games. The format of Sins just makes it more appealing due to time issues.

The common elitism is of course expected. Obviously, any team game means anyone who isn't a clanner with a prearranged-to-the-second build deserve to lose and shouldn't be surprised, or complain when it takes the whole night to ACTUALLY lose. Don't you DARE rob them of their hours of pleasure defeating someone with no chance to win! Pushing casual players out is what these people want, because playing a multiplayer game is SERIOUS BUSINESS. Like that guy who declares you should leave your girlfriend if she gets in the way of your 'gaming'. :CONGRAT:

People who leave when they start to lose shouldn't bother you. They obviously don't care about having fun playing they game, they just want to win. And in leaving early they are ensuring they will lose and eventually will stop playing the game.

Hell, this happens all the time in Starcraft too, any time something starts to go bad for them they just quit like wussies. Silly because good planning and quick thinking can turn a possible loss into a win more often than they may think.

QFE

yep its a simple solution (they can use some of the code for starting the game and modify it..etc) and should be something added in a patch.

Sorceresss: It's Masochist, not Mazokiss.

if there are ranked games, and i get ranking when people quit then it would not bother me so much - after all they quit bcos they are going to lose. quitting without consequence is ridiculous - this situation of too many quitters was bound to happen
i find it hard to even blame people for quitting when it is a no-lose situation, and you get out of playing a losing battle - it is not them that annoys me, it is the system

i am not saying FORCE PEOPLE TO PLAY
anyone who is STUPID ENOUGH to NOT READ MY POST shouldnt even be posting on here

there is a surrender button, i dont understand even why people who 'claim' to have real-life business to attend to should get out of the game - they should get a loss for leaving in the middle, and therefore the surrrender button is sufficient - or have quits tracked along with wins and losses, so it is easy to locate a quitter when hosting/joining games
as conan said, the game should then go to a vote, and players should return to the lobby to find a substitue (who would get the win if his team wins, but does not receive a loss if they do not) or continue with AI

well OK, sorry...im no expert on the Markiss the Sad... (:(