Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ggkoreanos

Punishment for people who leave random squads

Recommended Posts

On 7/18/2018 at 12:32 PM, GrumpyOldMan said:

disagree , because of the declining player base they have to sort this limitation. Otherwise we get below 500,000 players and nobody can get a game

So NOBODY can get a game or REGIONS WITH LOW PLAYER POPULATIONS cant get a match? Never had an issue in NA or EU. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Officer Ovaries said:

So NOBODY can get a game or REGIONS WITH LOW PLAYER POPULATIONS cant get a match? Never had an issue in NA or EU. 

it does seem to be a function of player volumes & number of queues - hence issues in OC but not EU currently. As the player population drops EU NA etc will start to get to current OC population levels and then something will have to change is all I'm saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GrumpyOldMan said:

it does seem to be a function of player volumes & number of queues - hence issues in OC but not EU currently. As the player population drops EU NA etc will start to get to current OC population levels and then something will have to change is all I'm saying

by the time the player population in those regions drops to OC levels ill be a grandpa....Its not even close to being the same .....Yes at that point time to find another game to play....They never should have sold the game to regions with low player counts..Its only frustrating to the players....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Officer Ovaries said:

by the time the player population in those regions drops to OC levels ill be a grandpa....Its not even close to being the same .....Yes at that point time to find another game to play....They never should have sold the game to regions with low player counts..Its only frustrating to the players....

 

That depends on if you have Adult children and if they are in active sexual lifestyles with opposite genders.

 

The truth is that the player base can drop below 300,000 this year at the rate that they are losing players now. We may even see below 100,000 if things don't change. The player base is just not enjoying the game and with the trash console releases there is even less of a chance to return.

 

Couple that with the coming new game releases and next year we may see new console releases. PUBG is old in video game terms. Many games die quickly after release because of the lack of actual support by the companies than produce them.

 

I am predicting 30,000 players worldwide by Jan2019.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NotABot said:

 

That depends on if you have Adult children and if they are in active sexual lifestyles with opposite genders.

 

The truth is that the player base can drop below 300,000 this year at the rate that they are losing players now. We may even see below 100,000 if things don't change. The player base is just not enjoying the game and with the trash console releases there is even less of a chance to return.

 

Couple that with the coming new game releases and next year we may see new console releases. PUBG is old in video game terms. Many games die quickly after release because of the lack of actual support by the companies than produce them.

 

I am predicting 30,000 players worldwide by Jan2019.

not gonna happen....this game will be around at least 2-3 more years...As much as i voice my displeasure with how they manage the game its the best BR game out there currently and i dont see any company coming up with anything better. As people have said battlefield is only 64 players and much smaller map sizes....Call of duty is even smaller than that....Part of the issue with player base is they started selling passes and having missions...Now we have players who drop and get the required blah blah blah and then just quit the server....They dont play the game, just trying to finish missions.....This has fragmented the player base but ive not seen anyone address it....i would not count out a pubg2 on the updated engine....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Officer Ovaries said:

not gonna happen....this game will be around at least 2-3 more years...As much as i voice my displeasure with how they manage the game its the best BR game out there currently and i dont see any company coming up with anything better. As people have said battlefield is only 64 players and much smaller map sizes....Call of duty is even smaller than that....Part of the issue with player base is they started selling passes and having missions...Now we have players who drop and get the required blah blah blah and then just quit the server....They dont play the game, just trying to finish missions.....This has fragmented the player base but ive not seen anyone address it....i would not count out a pubg2 on the updated engine....

 

Saying this is the best one is questionable considering Fortnite is doing much better and there is still the BlackOps BR that is yet to be released.

 

We can see that the player base is dropping and dropping every day.

 

The question is just how many people will be left in 3-6 months from now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, NotABot said:

 

Saying this is the best one is questionable considering Fortnite is doing much better and there is still the BlackOps BR that is yet to be released.

 

We can see that the player base is dropping and dropping every day.

 

The question is just how many people will be left in 3-6 months from now.

fortnite is garbage, i dont consider that to be a comparison.....and yes in the low pop regions 6 months might be the end. but with new snow map coming and more content people are seemingly willing to buy its not going away anytime soon......

 

edit: fornite may run smoothly but i cant bring my self to play it....Too cartoony and the building in my opinion is silly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, NotABot said:

The question is just how many people will be left in 3-6 months from now.

 

If I can complicate matters a little, its not just how many people are left  but also how much choice of game modes they want to offer to those people. In EA with TPP, single map 50,000 was more than enough to fill servers. Throw in FPP, map queues, solo, duo, 4 man, 1 man squad 50,000 wont work imo.

 

Personally I don't think they will let the population drop too much further anyway before making the game free to play. That will bring in a lot of new players for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, GrumpyOldMan said:

Personally I don't think they will let the population drop too much further anyway before making the game free to play. That will bring in a lot of new players for a while.

 

Seems to be the route developers take.. "Milk the Early Adopters as much as possible, then make it free to get the rest."

 

That's the fastest way to piss off everyone who bought the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, NotABot said:

 

I am predicting 30,000 players worldwide by Jan2019

 

I would agree below 100k avg hourly players. 30k is quite aggressive! :)

 

13 hours ago, Officer Ovaries said:

not gonna happen....this game will be around at least 2-3 more years

 

This is laughable! No chance!

 

13 hours ago, Officer Ovaries said:

fortnite is garbage, i dont consider that to be a comparison

 

I think that game is crap as well, but there is no denying that it has crushed pubg in every possible aspect! I mean, it's not even close anymore...the war is over!

 

14 hours ago, Officer Ovaries said:

.i would not count out a pubg2 on the updated engine....

 

pubg2??? You really think 50+ million are going to fall for the same lies and tricks twice? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Buck Sexton said:

I would agree below 100k avg hourly players. 30k is quite aggressive! :)

 

Yeah, probably, but 30k is kind of the peak for some of the most popular games.

 

2 minutes ago, Buck Sexton said:

pubg2??? You really think 50+ million are going to fall for the same lies and tricks twice? 

 

Destiny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NotABot said:

Destiny 2

 

Never played it. But it looks like a game who's player base could be fooled again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/21/2018 at 4:00 AM, Buck Sexton said:

 

I would agree below 100k avg hourly players. 30k is quite aggressive! :)

 

 

This is laughable! No chance!

 

 

I think that game is crap as well, but there is no denying that it has crushed pubg in every possible aspect! I mean, it's not even close anymore...the war is over!

 

 

pubg2??? You really think 50+ million are going to fall for the same lies and tricks twice? 

in my opinion fortnite has peaked....Even ninja is starting to play other games now again....The building aspect has just about ruined any competetive aspect with all the turtling and hiding .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2018 at 2:02 PM, NotABot said:

 

Saying this is the best one is questionable considering Fortnite is doing much better and there is still the BlackOps BR that is yet to be released.

 

We can see that the player base is dropping and dropping every day.

 

The question is just how many people will be left in 3-6 months from now.

how is BO gonna fit 100 player in a map, they can barely fit 32.....?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Officer Ovaries said:

how is BO gonna fit 100 player in a map, they can barely fit 32.....?

 

It's not about the number of players per match but the immersion and engagment provided to the gamer. No one cares if it's 16-32-64-128-256 .. The only thing that matters is how the player feels when playing the game.

 

If you had a point to your statement I would like you to elaborate on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, NotABot said:

 

It's not about the number of players per match but the immersion and engagment provided to the gamer. No one cares if it's 16-32-64-128-256 .. The only thing that matters is how the player feels when playing the game.

 

If you had a point to your statement I would like you to elaborate on it.

the game needs time to develop each round. If they shove 32 players into a map and its 4 man squads that only 8 squads...Game wont last long and as they have super small maps so far the amount of different tactics and positioning wont be very many until it becomes like call of duty is currently. Who ever can hold spot A or get their first wins the round....Thats the one thing no one has been able to replicate is the amount of map and how it creates numerous way to push or reposition....Call of duty maps arent even half the size of mili island. I cant imagine dropping to an area that small over and over and over each round..It would get old very quickly in my opinion....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Officer Ovaries said:

the game needs time to develop each round. If they shove 32 players into a map and its 4 man squads that only 8 squads...Game wont last long and as they have super small maps so far the amount of different tactics and positioning wont be very many until it becomes like call of duty is currently. Who ever can hold spot A or get their first wins the round....Thats the one thing no one has been able to replicate is the amount of map and how it creates numerous way to push or reposition....Call of duty maps arent even half the size of mili island. I cant imagine dropping to an area that small over and over and over each round..It would get old very quickly in my opinion....

 

It is very hard to understand what you are trying to say. It seems like you are saying because the maps are small in COD that the matches will be shorter and therefore tactics and strategies will be limited. That as seen in past COD games who ever controls a specific point of the map wins the match.

 

I have to disagree. If the matches winner is decided based on Last Man Standing then the goal is to stay alive and eliminate the other team. As long as the game is not timed and their isn't any RNG circle that decides by luck who the winner of the match will be there is an infinite amount of tactics that can be used to win the game.

 

As long as your team plays smart and doesn't do anything as stupid as running head-on into the enemy camp then you will see a tactical stalemate if neither team decides to move from their encampment.

 

This is were skill and strategy plays a significant role. Each teams strategy may be to encamp an area that provides the greatest advantage but as long as they don't act so dumb as to try to encroach an enemy encampment without a winning tactic then the game will not end quickly.

 

You want to poke the encampment but not lose a member of your team in the process in hope that you can harrass them enough to bait them out or wait until they have expended their ammo or abilities.

 

I am not going to explain every little detail about warfare in this post. I just wanted to show that what your saying doesn't make much sense.

 

Also, this is getting off topic to the main thead point. Let's not derail the topic in to discussions about Black Ops.

 

This discussion is about how to create a better environment for players in PUBG so they do not want to leave games or if there should just be a punishment.

 

I don't agree there should be a punishment for leaving games as I believe there are better ways to handle the situation. That punishment doesn't address the issue of why players are leaving games in the first place

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NotABot said:

 

It is very hard to understand what you are trying to say. It seems like you are saying because the maps are small in COD that the matches will be shorter and therefore tactics and strategies will be limited. That as seen in past COD games who ever controls a specific point of the map wins the match.

 

I have to disagree. If the matches winner is decided based on Last Man Standing then the goal is to stay alive and eliminate the other team. As long as the game is not timed and their isn't any RNG circle that decides by luck who the winner of the match will be there is an infinite amount of tactics that can be used to win the game.

 

As long as your team plays smart and doesn't do anything as stupid as running head-on into the enemy camp then you will see a tactical stalemate if neither team decides to move from their encampment.

 

This is were skill and strategy plays a significant role. Each teams strategy may be to encamp an area that provides the greatest advantage but as long as they don't act so dumb as to try to encroach an enemy encampment without a winning tactic then the game will not end quickly.

 

You want to poke the encampment but not lose a member of your team in the process in hope that you can harrass them enough to bait them out or wait until they have expended their ammo or abilities.

 

I am not going to explain every little detail about warfare in this post. I just wanted to show that what your saying doesn't make much sense.

 

Also, this is getting off topic to the main thead point. Let's not derail the topic in to discussions about Black Ops.

 

This discussion is about how to create a better environment for players in PUBG so they do not want to leave games or if there should just be a punishment.

 

I don't agree there should be a punishment for leaving games as I believe there are better ways to handle the situation. That punishment doesn't address the issue of why players are leaving games in the first place

.There wont be enough room for people to negotiate..I see each round as being like everyone dropping school, but the size of the map is limited to school and apartments.....Imagine having 8 squads fighting at school and apartments....The number of scenarios is not many.....Most teams will either drop school or apts...The first team or 2 that finds guns controls the entire map due to size....

Or another way, imagine 3rd to last circle with 32 people alive and its the start of the round....Just not many options that wont be exhausted due to map size , back on subject.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its almost impossible to punish people for certain "bad" behavior, even team killing. Assume a downed random team mate is crawling right into your line of fire when you are defending him, you hit him once and kills him, he gets pissed an reports you. The only way to determine if this is worthy punishment is if an actual human is reviewing the situation, which of course is impossible, unless Bluehole hires thousand of full time moderators.

 

Thats what you get for playing with randoms BUT ive said it before and I say it again: I think a hidden reputation rating could be applied to this game, which wouldnt affect the player except that people would have a higher chance to get randomly teamed with  people around their own rating. So if you leave game or get reported for team killing by your team mates,  you will lose rating thus getting paired with other bad lemons.  


Now, before you nitpicking chat room warriors point out my own example of the unintentional team kill and how innocent little angels may be wrongfully placed in reputation hell, they must ofc adjust at what rate your rating changes. Bottom line is that it must be a gradual change over time, i.e a couple of DCs wont affect you much but if you keep doing it, it will etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People leave matches because nobody on their squad use mics...I notice this a lot when I do random grouping...someone will talk and because I play with a muted mic...they don't know that I have a mic also...so they leave. In retrospect I can understand why no one would want to stick around with a team who won't talk...so i guess it makes sense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Coffee_Girl said:

People leave matches because nobody on their squad use mics...I notice this a lot when I do random grouping...someone will talk and because I play with a muted mic...they don't know that I have a mic also...so they leave. In retrospect I can understand why no one would want to stick around with a team who won't talk...so i guess it makes sense

how do you enjoy playing with randoms and no comms? That would frustrate the crap out of me....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2018 at 11:38 AM, ggkoreanos said:

I think it would be a necessary idea to avoid that people that leaves the random squads when they don't like the map... It would be like in CSGO 30 minutes ban for the first time, 1 hour for the second time they do it, 2 hours, 24 hours, and 1 week...

 

What do you think about?

I think your an Idiot. As long as players can't choose their map there will be leavers. I leave Miramar ALL Time. Ban me for a minute and I simply stop playing this and all my friends too.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Accolon said:

Ban me for a minute and I simply stop playing this and all my friends too.

 

This is actually the feeling of many people. As a developer you should want people to not be deterred from playing. What you don't want is to force people away. Bans, even temporary, are like telling someone "we don't want you here." That elitist attitude kills games. The game should try to be inclusive because the goal is to serve as many people as possible. This will keep the community healthy.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×