?

Marquis Du Saude?

+1 for sure to the bold, Excellent post sir

You're INSANE. People leaving when the game is basically a fait accompli isn't related to people only wanting to win: it's often because the game will STILL take ages to play out, and there's no percieved way to turn it around. Some people just want a casual game, and they have no interest in spending 4 hours getting ruled. If you're a new player and you start losing, they aren't 'having fun playing the game' for however long it takes them to get defeated (in some cases this could be hours).

The idea floated above of kicking out to the lobby to find a substitute for quitters sounds like ASKING for trouble from griefers. Remember, there shouldn't be a quit button because with the no stats tracking people should 'surrender' instead because nobody will ever simply ALT-TAB or pull out the cable to circumvent this EVER. We should all 'surrender' to allow the no stats tracking to not track our surrender as a quit and thus pad our ranking that doesn't exist!

It amuses me that this is apparently a 'big deal' because of 'how fast the thread is growing' when it's largely the same couple of people. What a grass-roots movement! Let's make Sins srs bizness! This will somehow make a hugely long RTS less appealing to quit when losing!

Frankly, people quit WiC games when they're losing. They're 20m games, absolute tops, and it's ranked out the ass and they're counted as losses. People do it anyway, because once the outcome is obvious, many people can't be bothered sticking around. Amusingly, people who cry about 'quitters' usually aren't the people who complain about team-stacking (ie, team of clanners vs pub group of noobs). I wonder why?

I've had a couple of games when someone left, due to losing the first skirmishes, and even with an unbalanced team we ended up winning. Hence proving that the ones that left shouldn't have (as in: it wasn't a lost situation)

---

My suggestion to "fix" it would be to intrroduce some sort of system that would flag quiters as well... er... "quiters" so that other people can just reffuse to play with them so as not to ruin their game experience. Making such a system "fair" would need to be a top priority and it should emphasize on getting people to actually play through the game and not on ostracize those who don't.

I mean who likes to spend 1 hour or so (on the bigger maps) trying to get a real epic game, to have someone quit just because the pirates (who aren't much of a threat 99% of the times) are going after him?

A ranking/stats system is not going to fix the problem you're describing. I recall the use of a ranking system in Command and Conquer promoted the idea of just cutting your internet connection to make it look like you lost connection. This would result in no win and no loss. If a ranking/stats system is deployed, you'll see more of the same. Also, you'll likely see cheating pop up as stats/ranking systems tend to promote cheating.

For such a long game like Sins can be, changing the way the Quit option works could be detrimental. There should be help text on the Quit/Surrender screen to explain when each option is best used and a reminder to contact all parties in the game to keep them in-the-know about what's going on. The only way to really increase the number of finished games is for people to get together more often or game length to be shortened.

I was having a blast earlier with 3 complete strangers on a 2v2 map. The opposing team kept causing serious damage against my ally and I tried to help when I could. Soon two people (my ally and one of the enemies) had to go and the opposing team thought they won. However, when I play RTS games I'm one of those economic boom players. If you don't eliminate me early I'm there for the long haul. I'm technically a newbie since that was my first game online. Not every newbie does an unethical quit without warning.

I agree, the core of this game is incredible, but no campain (which I can handle) and THEN, the way the game ends reguardless if you win or lose (a finger painting of celebrating russians) pops up suddenly after 2-10 hours of play, is a big let-down.

I too wish there was a resign/surrender button; a nice version of tipping over your king in chess. I wish the computer offered surrender when you have 90% of the galaxy, and there is nothing left but 45 minutes of mop-up.

Maybe I should put this in the 1.3 suggestion thread, but what if they had a "handicap" option for new players; staring with a lot more resourses, tech already researched, extra damage and defence for ships and buildings, maybe even ships or even the first cap ship already to go. Course expirienced players could take advantage of that, pretending to be noobs, but at least noobs would have a crutch as they were able to play with more experienced players/teams.

Well first off, noobs tend to be a epithet. people tend to dislike being called that.

and therein is the problem. part of having a gg in any game is that you respect the other people you are playing as people. when you start calling them gay or ripping on them because they didnt use your ub3r tact|cs. you hurt that persons feelings and in turn they get sick of hearing it and in turn a game loses its player base.

i played a couple of games online last night and one of the maps placed me in a field with two actual planet s and five astroids two of which here dead. while i did expand and take the worlds i had, i was severely underfunded logistically since asteroid yield very little in the way of financial support to establish a solid defense. i was playing on a team with another person and while i tried to keep myself afloat when i got rushed by the enemy fleet i knew that it was lost when all of my planets came under siege. so i walked away after giving my teammate what resources and creds i had and surrendered. i went to another game where like alot of the previous posters said there were 8 ppl in the map and at least three left in 5 mins. one of which i attacked his carrier and took an asteroid he tried to colonize.

i agree that ranked games could be a solution to the problem, but i also believe that not all games should be ranked. that way people who just play a game for fun and not to become gods of the solar system can do so and not further feel obligated to invest tons of effort in getting into a game, but insists that people who play ranked games have to stay in to be rewarded. it would keep clanrape on casual players down to a minimum since most of them will prefer to play on ranked games, and casual players who play for fun dont have to stay in forever only to get ganged up on in an alliance and die in a painful death.

Any game with ranking has the option for the host/server to set a 'ranked' flag, to determine whether results are to count towards the e-peen stat record. However, expecting this to resolve this issue (which is based on the nature of the game and the nature of multiplayer itself) when it has never resolved it for any other multiplayer game is dreaming. Unranked games are still going to be full of people who have their Xtreme Build Orderz ruling over noobs who give up in disgust. This is just human nature (on both sides).

The fact that some people care so deeply about this is exactly why I don't play against strangers on line.

So how do all of us ethical players get together to play matches without the quitting troubles? You're a stranger, I'm a stranger, but it seems neither of us would arbitrarily quit early and unethically.

You can't. That's why many people dislike 'pub games'.

I dislike people who drop from games without a good reason just as much as everyone else. I will also not drop from a game just because I am losing. That being said, I will also not join a team game against a clan, nor will I let a clan join my team game. I am not in a clan, I do not wish to be, I have other things to do with my time. And as such I do not wish to play against someone who takes this game seriously enough to do so. That being said, if you are in a clan playing against someone who isn't and they leave, let it go, if you want to play a match with your clan members, get it big enough to play against yourselves, or find another clan to fight. I feel the same way about all FPSs as well. This all being said, if you are creating a game with your clan buddies, put clan in the game title so I don't have to bother joining and leaving. Now these previous statements are all my opinions and as such feel free to disregard them and complain when average gamers leave your clan games.

I'm not really against playing clans. I mean, they could simply remove the clan tag and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Besides, most of the clans I've seen are just friends in real life so their clan tag honestly means nothing. If they kick you butt, don't you think it may simply be a case of them being better than you and/or your team mates? The game's really slow paced so the advantage of talking over typing becomes greatly lessened.

Also, if your team is noobish, tell them what to build/how to play/what counters what. If you do it nicely, they'll appreciate it and it'll make the game better for everyone. Chances are, they want to know how to play better just as much as you want to win.

Read the thread again. Play a few games online. Then comment. If you don't play online you won't understand what we're talking about.

The problems are
a) Sore losers are quitting early from team games, ruining the game for their teammates, when there's every chance they could come back and win. 5 players have their game ruined because 1 sore loser is in a strop.

b) Sore losers are pressing Quit when they should press Surrender. They always will because their egos won't allow them to have acknowledge a loss on their account. It shouldn't be possible to get a free quit without consent and it can be prevented by requiring other players to agree to let them off. Otherwise they can still Surrender properly



Read the thread again. Realise how stupid you have made yourself look.



How can it not bother you if they were your teammate, and you are now playing 1v2?

If it's a 1v1 they should click the "Surrender" button.

people leave games. it happens. deal with it. the average person only has 6-8 hours of free time in between work and sleep, so some may not want to waste it like others.

personally I'm the type to stay if there is even a remote chance of winning. I don't mind retreating after taking heavy losses, just fall back to the nearest owned planet and mount a defense there. It is much more fun to get almost beat and come back for the win, but it is also very hard to do if your enemy still has dozens of ships while you only have a handful, since build rates will be relatively the same, unless they stop building, you will never get enough ships, especially if you have less resources than they do.

some aspects of this game isn't strategy at all, but luck. such as your proximity to asteroids, or certain types of planets. if your enemy is next to a desert planet, and you are next to an ice planet, you will need to do more research and build research structures to colonize it, this can eat at your resources early in the game, and pretty much guarantee you a loss from the start..even if you take a defensive strategy in this case, it won't help much if you aren't able to spread out early in the game.

personally I get as much satisfaction from a person leaving a game as I do winning, because you win both ways. I'd rather have them leave sooner than later so I don't waste to much time on them.

In the end, you have to pick your opponent wisely, only play with people you know won't leave when things get tough, but also don't play with new unskilled players if you are skilled unless you are helping them learn how to play to, won't be much fun or last long anyways. watch the comments you make when playing people, if you are screaming 'raped' and 'owned' at them every time they lose a battle, they aren't going to want to hear it. Often people will try to play against people they are sure they can beat, which to me, takes all of the fun out of the game. learn to go for a challenge.

I assume this is sarcasm. Apologies if not.

If someone ALT-TABs out and ends the program (or anything else causes them to leave without using the Surrender or Parley buttons), it should give everyone the option of accept or decline Parley, if the majority accept they are let off, if not it's treated as Surrender.



It will help because I will be able actively look for players that are of a similar skill level, and are motivated to protect their rank, thus are less likely to quit on their team.



There is one. It's labelled "Surrender" and we've been discussing it for the entire thread.

Then they should surrender



A ranking system would enable the wise choice of opponents



It's not a case of "learning" to like a challenge. It's a case of there being no system in place match players of similar skill.

i do , do what other games have started doing since civ4 and let people join an already existing game and take over someone elses empire that quit.

i think the game needs better base defences though, ones that are powerful enough to actually hold of a fleet for awhile so you can rebuild instead of getting steam rolled over.

the current defenses are to weak , 30+ turrets are weak against anything over than frigates , a full set of hangers is weak against anyone who has any sense.

it doesnt even take much to conquer a fully fortified planet

If the other players don't agree to let them off they still have the option of Surrendering



In a 1v1 or FFA there's no problem here - they can Surrender. But why start a team game if you are likely to be falling asleep soon?

to the OP you have a reasonable point but if thats a problem for you then why are you playing this game in the first place?

people dont play this game because of the ladder or ranking system

hopefully improvements will be made because what you have said is mostly true

but that has nothing to do with wether or not i will play this game, thats just silly.

I don't think the point is to play only because of the ladder. The point is that the ladder will bring like-minded players together. Players that want to push their skill and strategy will be able to find each other (top/middle of the ladder), likewise players that are just after a casual game (bottom of the ladder)

Ok well I skipped the last page of this thread, so if someone said this forgive me.

But I think you're ALL missing one VERY important peice of information. Quitting DOES register as a loss. Look at their info card, it'll say 'Games played: (Wins: Losses:)' or something to that affect. Now, if it says they played 5 games, yet no wins are listed. Take a guess what happened? Geez, some people just have no common sense.

It could mean one of two things

They're really poor and quit all their games

OR

They're really skilled and keep getting quit on (and get bored of playing ai ftw)

For me personally, I rarely if ever play MP games any longer. I use to play online about 90% of the time but it seems all people are after is the win and not the fun of playing.

I sold my copy of Age of Empires III due to the fact that, online everyone rushed for the quickest win possible. It did not matter if you listed the game as "No Rush 15 minutes" someone would join and rush to “prove” to you that this is the way to play the game.

I am more of a slow/medium style player that likes to be able to play games where you get to use some of the later techs and larger units in a game, than to simply chalk up another win so my name is on a totally insignificant listing somewhere.

I have yet to even click the MP Button because I am not interested in providing someone a quick win, in a game that had no real fun attached to it.

Maybe if more people played for fun instead of the win, it just may be that you still win and everyone had fun in the process.

Play for Fun, Play to Win, and Do it with Honor.

There's nothing wrong with what you've said, but this isn't the "I keep getting rushed" thread; let's have one topic at a time please