How to solve the Quitting Issue?

Games Halo 5: Guardians
1

In a game like Halo, where the individual has a huge impact on the game outcome, quitting is a major issue in my opinion.
Quitting players can change the entire game in disfavour for their former team mates and have a negative effect on the overall game experience in general.
It seems like that the amount of quits has steadily increased over the last 3 games, especially Halo 4 has suffered under a heavy quitting epidemic.

The question is: How can you prevent that Halo 5’s multiplayer experience will suffer under the same issue?

At first, I think you have to ask yourself why people even quit. What are the reasons?
There are two kinds of quitting: intentional quitting and unintentional quitting.
Intentional quits during the game are mainly caused by frustrating circumstances such as:

  • Loop-sided teams
  • Getting jipped into an dominated team
  • Getting spawn-trapped
  • Unsportsmanlike team mates
  • LAG

A special case are frequent intentional quitters that quit games for absurd/arguable reasons like don’t liking the map, don’t getting the preferred weapon/vehicle, fear to harm their beloved K/D, etc.

Unintentional quits are caused by a “higher power” such as:

  • Power/ connection issues
  • Real life interferes

Now that we know why people mainly quit games we can think about how to prevent that for the most part.
Should people get punished for quitting?
I think punishment isn’t the solution since the majority of quits has been caused by frustrating gameplay and strict and hard punishments will likely only cause more frustration. Plus you have to consider the players that quit unintentionally.

In my opinion, the player should be encouraged to stay in the game but not forced. The matches have to be balanced, fair, entertaining and simply fun. Enjoying a match is the simplest reason why the player would not consider to intentionally quit it.
I think an important step to achieve that is a well-working match making system to match players with equal skill and to form teams that are on par.
Besides, with Dedicated Servers I think it is very likely that JIP will function a lot better and could replace quitted players during seconds.
Nonetheless, I think there has to be some restrictions to prevent frequent intentional quitting but those restrictions should not heavily affect the players who unintentional quit.
I think each player should receive a certain amount of free quits per day. Once you used up all your free quits you would receive a time penalty for the next quit on that day. Besides, every following quit would add 5 minutes more to the penalty.
For example after using up all your free quits: 1. quit – 5 min penalty, 2. quit – 10 min penalty, 3. quit – 15 min penalty and so on.

What do you think about that?
How could you effectively solve the quitting issue?

2

In any competitive video game, the biggest reason people quit is because of uneven teams. I will never understand why there isn’t skill based matchmaking. That doesn’t mean you have to show player their skill based rank, but at least match players according to skill.

3

i feel like a matchmaking ban for quitters is counter productive in all honesty

i was always wanting for a system that both nullifies the current game’s EXP earned, as well as subtracting EXP for past games as well, thus nullifing any work you did if you decide to quit

the first quit within 12 hours will go unpunished, but any that follow will have the player’s EXP be subtracted by the amount of EXP that was gained within the past three games

i run into a problem once i think about how heavy lag and things like power failures will tie into this.

4

Right

Punishing players by not allowing them to play doesn’t help. While it’s justified, they get angry and may potentially leave the game for good. Another thing it also does is still allow those who quit on a regular basis play with players who stay in the games.

Punishing players by subtracting EXP/cR or whatever is used will lead to derankers, or if deranking is impossible, players who at some point don’t give a crap and try to go as low as possible on their XP, provided they can go negative. And again those players can still play with those who stay in the game.

My solution is to let them play against each other. Any player that quits, AFKs, team kills and so on would go “into the box”. The “box” is an area of MM that harbors only those who doesn’t play properly. No stats are recorded and no xp is given for matches in the box. To get out of the box you’d have to play a few consecutive clean matches, meaning no AFKing, no quitting, team killing and so on, stuff the system can detect.

They get to play, they don’t get any stats recorded and they are treated the way they treat others, potentially. Thing is, they might not want to be in the box so the majority might play clean matches so the only thing that changes would be that they don’t get XP and their stats updates. The match could be all regular. Best of all is that they’d be removed for a time from the regular MM population.

5

> i feel like a matchmaking ban for quitters is counter productive in all honesty
>
>
> i was always wanting for a system that both nullifies the current game’s EXP earned, as well as subtracting EXP for past games as well, thus nullifing any work you did if you decide to quit
>
> the first quit within 12 hours will go unpunished, but any that follow will have the player’s EXP be subtracted by the amount of EXP that was gained within the past three games
>
> i run into a problem once i think about how heavy lag and things like power failures will tie into this.

Like Naqser has already mentioned, the major flaw with a system that follows an EXP-punishment is that people who do not care about EXP and everything that is connected with it, could heavily abuse that system because there would not be any personal consequence for quitting for them.

6

> Right
>
> Punishing players by not allowing them to play doesn’t help. While it’s justified, they get angry and may potentially leave the game for good. Another thing it also does is still allow those who quit on a regular basis play with players who stay in the games.
>
> Punishing players by subtracting EXP/cR or whatever is used will lead to derankers, or if deranking is impossible, players who at some point don’t give a crap and try to go as low as possible on their XP, provided they can go negative. And again those players can still play with those who stay in the game.
>
> My solution is to let them play against each other. Any player that quits, AFKs, team kills and so on would go “into the box”. The “box” is an area of MM that harbors only those who doesn’t play properly. No stats are recorded and no xp is given for matches in the box. To get out of the box you’d have to play a few consecutive clean matches, meaning no AFKing, no quitting, team killing and so on, stuff the system can detect.
>
> They get to play, they don’t get any stats recorded and they are treated the way they treat others, potentially. Thing is, they might not want to be in the box so the majority might play clean matches so the only thing that changes would be that they don’t get XP and their stats updates. The match could be all regular. Best of all is that they’d be removed for a time from the regular MM population.

I thought about your system as well when I was writing my OP.
Why not let the people who quit and ruin the games on a frequent basis not play against each other until they have learned some “manners”?
The issue is: how could the system distinguish players who quit intentionally from players who quit unintentionally?

A personal example/experience:
Right after the release of Halo 4 I suffered under heavy connection issues for a few months. I lost connection during nearly every second or third game. I was a frequent unintentional quitter.
With your system I would have been trapped in the “box”. Harshly said, I would have been forced to play with “unwanted” people, the “scum” of Halo until I manage to fix my connection.
Because I know quite well how it is and feels to quit games unintentionally I think, aside a well-working match making system, there has to be some form of restriction/punishment to prevent frequent intentional quitting but it still has to be bearable for unintentional quitters, why I suggested that everyone should have a certain amount of “free-quits” per day plus a increasing time penalty once you used them all up.

7

> > Right
> >
> > Punishing players by not allowing them to play doesn’t help. While it’s justified, they get angry and may potentially leave the game for good. Another thing it also does is still allow those who quit on a regular basis play with players who stay in the games.
> >
> > Punishing players by subtracting EXP/cR or whatever is used will lead to derankers, or if deranking is impossible, players who at some point don’t give a crap and try to go as low as possible on their XP, provided they can go negative. And again those players can still play with those who stay in the game.
> >
> > My solution is to let them play against each other. Any player that quits, AFKs, team kills and so on would go “into the box”. The “box” is an area of MM that harbors only those who doesn’t play properly. No stats are recorded and no xp is given for matches in the box. To get out of the box you’d have to play a few consecutive clean matches, meaning no AFKing, no quitting, team killing and so on, stuff the system can detect.
> >
> > They get to play, they don’t get any stats recorded and they are treated the way they treat others, potentially. Thing is, they might not want to be in the box so the majority might play clean matches so the only thing that changes would be that they don’t get XP and their stats updates. The match could be all regular. Best of all is that they’d be removed for a time from the regular MM population.
>
> I thought about your system as well when I was writing my OP.
> Why not let the people who quit and ruin the games on a frequent basis not play against each other until they have learned some “manners”?
> The issue is: how could the system distinguish players who quit intentionally from players who quit unintentionally?
>
> A personal example/experience:
> Right after the release of Halo 4 I suffered under heavy connection issues for a few months. I lost connection during nearly every second or third game. I was a frequent unintentional quitter.
> With your system I would have been trapped in the “box”. Harshly said, I would have been forced to play with “unwanted” people, the “scum” of Halo until I manage to fix my connection.
> Because I know quite well how it is and feels to quit games unintentionally I think, aside a well-working match making system, there has to be some form of restriction/punishment to prevent frequent intentional quitting but it still has to be bearable for unintentional quitters, why I suggested that everyone should have a certain amount of “free-quits” per day plus a increasing time penalty once you used them all up.

Games can detect Connection issues and hence kicking you from game, why they do no bother is beyond me.

8

> I thought about your system as well when I was writing my OP.
> Why not let the people who quit and ruin the games on a frequent basis not play against each other until they have learned some “manners”?
> The issue is: <mark>how could the system distinguish players who quit intentionally from players who quit unintentionally?</mark>

Same as with the quit ban system? They allready had a system to punish quitters in Reach, and I guess there’s also a similair system in Halo 4 as I’ve seen players complaining that they’ve been banned for an hour after quitting, or disconnecting a lot in a short time.

> A personal example/experience:
> Right after the release of Halo 4 I suffered under heavy connection issues for a few months. I lost connection during nearly every second or third game. I was a frequent unintentional quitter.
> With your system I would have been trapped in the “box”. Harshly said, I would have been forced to play with “unwanted” people, the “scum” of Halo until I manage to fix my connection.
> Because I know quite well how it is and feels to quit games unintentionally I think, aside a well-working match making system, there has to be some form of restriction/punishment to prevent frequent intentional quitting but it still has to be bearable for unintentional quitters, why I suggested that everyone should have a certain amount of “free-quits” per day plus a increasing time penalty once you used them all up.

Well, I remember Bungie adressing the issue of connection problems and the quit ban system. It’s not their problem, and while it’s regretable that you have connection issues, you’re still affecting other players in the game the same way as a quitter would. If you disconnect. So what’s the difference there between quitting and not fixing your connection, if you don’t fix your connection? Either you make it function properly, or you’re in the box.

I’m pretty sure a system could be implemented to see the behaviour of the quitting. Like seeing what maps come up or game types, or a combination of those. So if you quit a match to much with a specific map or gametype, the game could regard it as intentional quitting because it most likely is. Or quitting a lot in a short amount of time and so on. Quitting two matches inside the scope of three hours isn’t that harmful I think.

9

Allow a console and player based avoidance vote. Private/non-public. Just the XLive system uses the data. The current avoidance does not work like outlined below.

If you avoid a player then, it is tied to their player account & the console. If they play on their own console then the account and the console gain red flag status if the player is avoided. This is combined and quickens that player to reach the reduced services/suspension penalty.

Comments on avoiding a player can be placed and again are private for XLive support to view not the public.

This means that both that console and account will be penalized when the quota is reached for red flag/avoidance vote’s by players/strangers they interact with on-line.

A “console” avoidance red flag count can only increase if “a player account” is flagged on that device. Consoles cannot be flagged by themselves. The avoided player gains a red flag no matter what console they are on.

Your friend is a looser and you think it is funny, no problem. Your console is gaining red flags each time your pal(s) get avoided on your console or their own. If they are jerks on your system then it is them and “your” system getting the credit.

Eventually you will be penalized by having your console used as a stepping stone for bad behavior and restricted/suspended; no matter if you have any avoidance’s or not.

No one can see or find out the avoidance’s on their account or console. If it reaches the set limit then you get what you deserve, playing with all the other avoided players. If the behavior continues then, you get the account and the console (if the console has reached the quota too) suspended.

It is possible to have a console suspended or just penalized and “not” the account holder. In this case the account holder will have to deal with the console restrictions or play on someone else s console until the penalty or suspension expires.

Say you have your console and account flagged and you go to your friend’s console. Penalties travel with your account and if you are logged in to that console to play with your friends; that console is reduced to your red-flagged status as long as you are logged in.

This can get ugly because, a red flagged looser can red flag each other. So, if you all think you are safe then you are really placing your console at risk because others who get flagged on your console build your console red flag quota. This means you will be joining your pal in hell for a few weeks if the avoidance votes continue.

Work in progress…

10

I always felt that the best way to tackle both the issues of quitting and the issues of JiP would to be to use JiP as a means of punishing quitters.

As we all know, there are times when you really aren’t given the choice to quit. You could be having issues with family, or your power could have gone out. Whether or not people are quitting because they don’t want to harm their “precious K/D” or they’re facing real-life-situations, the punishment must be fair for both reasons.

The next problem we’ve had is Join-in-progress. Many people just want it removed, and others want an ability to disable it. The problem with that is, however, is that removing it would destroy its ability to end the misery that grows from 4 v 1 games, and if there was an option to disable it, JIP would never happen and it’d be about as useful as glue in a washing machine.

The best way to deal with both issues would be to use JIP as a way to punish quitters. There are many times when me, a person who rarely quits, is JiPed into a match that puts me on the losing side.

I’m similar to Walder Frey in some sorts. I tend to want to choose the winning side (And I also like to slaughter my guests during weddings)

In order to ensure that “honest” people like me aren’t launched into losing games against our will, when someone quits a match, the next match the play will be a JiP. The next quit after that, and they will find themselves JiPing into a game that puts them on the losing side.

Overall, it’s a win-win for everyone. And it’s two birds killed with one stone.

11

Betrayal bans for a minute or two would be fine, but punishing quitters in any long term capacity will make people stop playing altogether.

A better in-between solution to filling the void quitters make when they leave would be to temporarily replace the quitters with fill-in bots that would act as participating place holders till JIP players can be dropped in.

Also a idea for JIP incentive could be letting JIP joiners get to pick their first spawn spot on the map.

Another thought on the use of Bots to balance games would be if a match has a ensured unchangeable victory outcome decided way too early maybe the losing team could get bot helpers dropped in to slightly re-balance the scales without stealing a unearned victory.

12

> Same as with the quit ban system? They allready had a system to punish quitters in Reach, and I guess there’s also a similair system in Halo 4 as I’ve seen players complaining that they’ve been banned for an hour after quitting, or disconnecting a lot in a short time.
>
> Well, I remember Bungie adressing the issue of connection problems and the quit ban system. It’s not their problem, and while it’s regretable that you have connection issues, you’re still affecting other players in the game the same way as a quitter would. If you disconnect. So what’s the difference there between quitting and not fixing your connection, if you don’t fix your connection? Either you make it function properly, or you’re in the box.
>
> I’m pretty sure a system could be implemented to see the behaviour of the quitting. Like seeing what maps come up or game types, or a combination of those. So if you quit a match to much with a specific map or gametype, the game could regard it as intentional quitting because it most likely is. Or quitting a lot in a short amount of time and so on. Quitting two matches inside the scope of three hours isn’t that harmful I think.

The punishment in Reach (1 h time penalty) was too extreme. I think in Halo 4 they heavily reduced the penalty since I only got a few 10 min bans despite my horrible connection to that time.

I think when the system cannot distinguish intentional quits from unintentional quits it has to be fair and bearable for everyone at least.
Punishing players for their unintentional actions by putting them into the “box” with all the people who spoiled games intentionally isn’t fair nor bearable, in my opinion.

13

> Allow a console and player based avoidance vote. Private/non-public. Just the XLive system uses the data. The current avoidance does not work like outlined below.
>
> If you avoid a player then, it is tied to their player account & the console. If they play on their own console then the account and the console gain red flag status if the player is avoided. This is combined and quickens that player to reach the reduced services/suspension penalty.
>
> Comments on avoiding a player can be placed and again are private for XLive support to view not the public.
>
> This means that both that console and account will be penalized when the quota is reached for red flag/avoidance vote’s by players/strangers they interact with on-line.
>
> A “console” avoidance red flag count can only increase if “a player account” is flagged on that device. Consoles cannot be flagged by themselves. The avoided player gains a red flag no matter what console they are on.
>
> Your friend is a looser and you think it is funny, no problem. Your console is gaining red flags each time your pal(s) get avoided on your console or their own. If they are jerks on your system then it is them and “your” system getting the credit.
>
> Eventually you will be penalized by having your console used as a stepping stone for bad behavior and restricted/suspended; no matter if you have any avoidance’s or not.
>
> No one can see or find out the avoidance’s on their account or console. If it reaches the set limit then you get what you deserve, playing with all the other avoided players. If the behavior continues then, you get the account and the console (if the console has reached the quota too) suspended.
>
> It is possible to have a console suspended or just penalized and “not” the account holder. In this case the account holder will have to deal with the console restrictions or play on someone else s console until the penalty or suspension expires.
>
>
> Say you have your console and account flagged and you go to your friend’s console. Penalties travel with your account and if you are logged in to that console to play with your friends; that console is reduced to your red-flagged status as long as you are logged in.
>
> This can get ugly because, a red flagged looser can red flag each other. So, if you all think you are safe then you are really placing your console at risk because others who get flagged on your console build your console red flag quota. This means you will be joining your pal in hell for a few weeks if the avoidance votes continue.
>
> Work in progress…

I don’t think the system should be controlled by the players themselves (that’s how I have understood it at least).
It would open up a playing field for trolls. You could basically flag everyone for no reasons and without hesitation.

14

> I always felt that the best way to tackle both the issues of quitting and the issues of JiP would to be to use JiP as a means of punishing quitters.
>
> As we all know, there are times when you really aren’t given the choice to quit. You could be having issues with family, or your power could have gone out. Whether or not people are quitting because they don’t want to harm their “precious K/D” or they’re facing real-life-situations, the punishment must be fair for both reasons.

Agreed. In case the system uses some kind of punishment it has to be fair and bearable for everyone.

> The next problem we’ve had is Join-in-progress. Many people just want it removed, and others want an ability to disable it. The problem with that is, however, is that removing it would destroy its ability to end the misery that grows from 4 v 1 games, and if there was an option to disable it, JIP would never happen and it’d be about as useful as glue in a washing machine.
>
> The best way to deal with both issues would be to use JIP as a way to punish quitters. There are many times when me, a person who rarely quits, is JiPed into a match that puts me on the losing side.
>
> I’m similar to Walder Frey in some sorts. I tend to want to choose the winning side (And I also like to slaughter my guests during weddings)
>
> In order to ensure that “honest” people like me aren’t launched into losing games against our will, when someone quits a match, the next match the play will be a JiP. The next quit after that, and they will find themselves JiPing into a game that puts them on the losing side.
>
> ---------------------
>
> Overall, it’s a win-win for everyone. And it’s two birds killed with one stone.

Well, basically it is only logical that someone gets JiPed into the losing/dominated team more often then getting JiPed into the winning/dominating team.
On the other hand, such situations, that one team can clearly dominate (one reason for intentional quits) should not happen in the first place and a well-working MM system can prevent that for the most part.
That’s why I think using JiP as a punishment could be ineffective.

I rather see JiP working together with the match making system and supporting it like it is supposed to be.
While the MM system should match people and create teams with similar/equal skill, JiP should help to keep the teams on par in case of quitting. The quitted player should be replaced by a similar skilled player as fast as possible, meaning before one team can clearly get the upper hand and before the game tends to become frustrating for one side or even both.
And I think with dedicated servers that could work properly.

15

I think that they should just take the option out of the start menu. If you want to quit you would have to dashboard. That would deter most rage quitters, and if you really, really need to quit they can.

16

> Betrayal bans for a minute or two would be fine, but punishing quitters in any long term capacity will make people stop playing altogether.
>
> A better in-between solution to filling the void quitters make when they leave would be to temporarily replace the quitters with fill-in bots that would act as participating place holders till JIP players can be dropped in.

Replacing players through Bots in MM wouldn’t be a good solution, in my opinion.
I mean, firstly you play online multiplayer to play and compete with real people.
Playing with and against Bots is really not the same, not to mention the issues they would likely cause.
Besides, how could you justify your win or defeat in a competitive PvP game when there are AIs involved?

> Also a idea for JIP incentive could be letting JIP joiners get to pick their first spawn spot on the map.

I like that idea. With that the JiPed-in player would have the chance to decide either if he/she wants to get directly send into the action or if he/she wants to spawn some steps away from it.

> Another thought on the use of Bots to balance games would be if a match has a ensured unchangeable victory outcome decided way too early maybe the losing team could get bot helpers dropped in to slightly re-balance the scales without stealing a unearned victory.

Well, if that happens then there is likely something wrong with the MM system (matching people/teams that are not on par). That’s why a well-working MM system is important to prevent such scenarios.

17

You can’t stop quitting. Video games are a hobby, and it’s not uncommon to hit the power-off button as soon as dinner is ready, your gf calls, or the doorbell rings. Quitting is inescapable.

If you want to make the overall experience better, then just fix JIP. Make it faster. Make the joining more seamless. Fix the cutoff thresholds. And make it optional ('cuz some ppl just hate it). Do that, and you’ll hardly notice the quitters except for late in the game.

18

To solve the quitting issue you have to have a system that doesn’t give the player many chances to do so. What I think is the answer is make the matches shorter. Shorten them through lowering the time limit or the points to win.