And milk, no offense, I like making pubs mad/getting easy kills as much as the next guy, but just because you can do it, doesn't mean you should.
No offense taken. Don't misunderstand me; we only recently started playing Demo with any regularity: partly because people need the plants for Flak Jacket Pro, and partly because Domination's starting to feel stale, what with teams 90% full of Ghosts over and over and over again. Demo's been a fun week-or-two long distraction, but it isn't something I want to do all the time.
Also, for what it's worth, we can only create spawn traps like that on two, maybe three levels (Havana, WMD, and sometimes Firing Range). On all the other stages, we play Demo the way it's generally meant to be played.
Alright seriously that is the craziest CoD related thing I have seen, both in terms of content and of editing.
Man, you know what would be awesome? A CoD with UT2k4's mutator system. It would solve everybody's problems forever, and it would legitimize crazy mod-servers which were my favourite thing ever!
When dom is played without spawntrapping it is one of my favorite game modes. Which is annoying when you join a game then die immediately 4 times until you ragequit.
Also I can only ever get a 7 killstreak when I don't have that contract. And I only ever call in blackbird when I don't have that contract.
SLyM on
My friend is working on a roguelike game you can play if you want to. (It has free demo)
When dom is played without spawntrapping it is one of my favorite game modes. Which is annoying when you join a game then die immediately 4 times until you ragequit.
Also I can only ever get a 7 killstreak when I don't have that contract. And I only ever call in blackbird when I don't have that contract.
I've failed "5 Napalm Strikes", but every time the Dogs contract comes up I get it in one game. There's some weird contracts voodoo.
Just out of curiousity, why do people rage quit? It's something I've done ... I dunno, maybe half-a-dozen times since Black Ops released (and only rarely in previous games), but I mostly reserve that tactic for matches against japanese hosts or something, where everyone on my squad has 1 red bar, and the game turns into a slideshow -- in that kind of a situation, there's really no point to sticking around.
But rage quitting is a goddamn epidemic in Black Ops. It was an issue in previous games, but nowhere near this level, in my opinion. In all honesty, I feel pretty comfortable saying I've probably won more matches in Black Ops due to forfeits than I've won in all previous Call of Duty titles combined. And that's really frustrating, because that kind of behaviour often causes Host-Ended Matches, which give everyone in the Lobby a loss, and completely fucks up otherwise solid Combat Records.
Also, I just want to play against people, and matches turn super-boring when it's down to only one guy on the other team. Whenever a match starts, the members of our squad all but get down on our knees and pray that we'll get Host; not because we want a latency advantage, but because at least if we've got Host, the game won't end prematurely.
So anyway, why do people rage quit when they're on the wrong side of a beat-down? That's not something I've ever done because, well, I think it's dumb. You don't get better at the game by pub-stomping carrots and rage quitting when you're losing, you know what I mean? It can be frustrating when you're up against stiff competition, and you keep getting your ass handed to you as you push toward that objective, but that's when your team needs you the most, and just as importantly, by adapting to the situation and applying all the techniques you've learned from previous experiences, that's the time when you'll grow as a player.
I'm not judging people, honestly. It's a game, after all, and not everyone plays for the same reasons I do; some people just play to have fun, and if you're not having fun, you have every right to leave a match. It is frustrating to me, though, because of my 140ish losses, over 100 of them are from Host-Ended Matches. I can't keep my goddamn Win / Loss above 10.0, because every dozen or so matches, everyone in the lobby takes an automatic loss because one person on the other team pussed off to the Dashboard when shit turned south for his team.
And that gets old fast.
So, yeah. I guess my question is, "Why do people rage quit when they're losing instead of sticking around to help their team when it needs them most"?
Just out of curiousity, why do people rage quit? It's something I've done ... I dunno, maybe half-a-dozen times since Black Ops released (and only rarely in previous games), but I mostly reserve that tactic for matches against japanese hosts or something, where everyone on my squad has 1 red bar, and the game turns into a slideshow -- in that kind of a situation, there's really no point to sticking around.
But rage quitting is a goddamn epidemic in Black Ops. It was an issue in previous games, but nowhere near this level, in my opinion. In all honesty, I feel pretty comfortable saying I've probably won more matches in Black Ops due to forfeits than I've won in all previous Call of Duty titles combined. And that's really frustrating, because that kind of behaviour often causes Host-Ended Matches, which give everyone in the Lobby a loss, and completely fucks up otherwise solid Combat Records.
Also, I just want to play against people, and matches turn super-boring when it's down to only one guy on the other team. Whenever a match starts, the members of our squad all but get down on our knees and pray that we'll get Host; not because we want a latency advantage, but because at least if we've got Host, the game won't end prematurely.
So anyway, why do people rage quit when they're on the wrong side of a beat-down? That's not something I've ever done because, well, I think it's dumb. You don't get better at the game by pub-stomping carrots and rage quitting when you're losing, you know what I mean? It can be frustrating when you're up against stiff competition, and you keep getting your ass handed to you as you push toward that objective, but that's when your team needs you the most, and just as importantly, by adapting to the situation and applying all the techniques you've learned from previous experiences, that's the time when you'll grow as a player.
I'm not judging people, honestly. It's a game, after all, and not everyone plays for the same reasons I do; some people just play to have fun, and if you're not having fun, you have every right to leave a match. It is frustrating to me, though, because of my 140ish losses, over 100 of them are from Host-Ended Matches. I can't keep my goddamn Win / Loss above 10.0, because every dozen or so matches, everyone in the lobby takes an automatic loss because one person on the other team pussed off to the Dashboard when shit turned south for his team.
And that gets old fast.
So, yeah. I guess my question is, "Why do people rage quit when they're losing instead of sticking around to help their team when it needs them most"?
If the game is just a giant spawn trap or its 2v6 I'll leave the game if its obvious that the game is basically over.
The only other time I'll rage quit is when theres some serious douchebaggery going on or the connection is just so much bullshit that its a waste of time and will do nothing but get me worked up to continue. Those cases I'll just turn my xbox off and go do something else for awhile.
Though I will say a ton of BS over time adding up (connection issues, getting constantly stuck with bad pubs, and douchebaggery) will get me to a point once in a while where I just turn off the box. Its not exactly a common occurance but it does happen from time to time.
iRevert on
0
Options
BerkshireEarth Federal ForcesMassachusettsRegistered Userregular
edited February 2011
I can say I've only ragequit once or twice in Black Ops. If I'm in a lobby where my team has been smoked several games in a row, if I'm bleeding deaths like crazy, I'll leave the room. But in the middle of a game, I'd rather go hide and stop getting killed that way than just furiously turn off my xbox. There's a lot less shame in hiding than fleeing.
I've been on the receiving end of some serious beatdowns. But I've also been in games where it was down to just me against a whole other team, and I stay in that fight. Do I lose? Usually, but it lets the other guys finish the game and at a certain point, the odds are in your favor (six guys running around for me to kill versus one guy running around for them to kill).
My favorite story ever for this one was losing four guys from my team and having it just be me and a buddy against a full other team with the score tied at 5500, and we went all Double Dragon and pulled off a win. It was awesome.
Berkshire on
"And don't you ever stand for that sort of thing. Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back."
GT: FootlongKaPow
0
Options
MrVyngaardLive From New EtoileStraight Outta SosariaRegistered Userregular
edited February 2011
Silenced single skorpion with Grip using Warlord and Scavenger, along with Ninja. Tomahawk, Nova Gas, and Tactical Insertion.
This class is henceforth known as Black & Decker, for all your close-up power tool needs.
MrVyngaard on
"now I've got this mental image of caucuses as cafeteria tables in prison, and new congressmen having to beat someone up on inauguration day." - Raiden333
So, yeah. I guess my question is, "Why do people rage quit when they're losing instead of sticking around to help their team when it needs them most"?
In short, mostly because Activision/IW/Treyarch refuses to punish people for quitting. This allows players on the losing end of a game to get out without prolonging the inevitable, and lets them pull off the ultimate in sour grapes sore loser shit by giving everyone in the lobby a loss if they have host when they dashboard. Instituting a temporary quitban would not be a bad thing.
slurpeekilla on
0
Options
acidlacedpenguinInstitutionalizedSafe in jail.Registered Userregular
W...T...F?! I'll certainly never play Demolition until that shit gets patched. No wonder people can have such a high k/d streak.
That's the thing, though; it's not a glitch that needs "patched". Demolition was intentionally designed that way; each side gets one primary spawn on their side of the map, while the objectives are centrally located. Unlike game types like Domination, you don't get spawned in secondary safe-zones if the enemy's in your primary area -- you just keep spawning into fire. It's been that way since the mode was introduced in Modern Warfare 2, which, as I said before, is where we first learned the tactic.
My question to the forum is, "If you don't like it, how would you fix it?"
well first, I'd change the game mode so that both teams get a shot at defending in overtime to fix the fact that on a stalemate game, the team who gets to defend in overtime wins de facto (which is probably the thing that is worst designed in that game mode) I think you've said before that the team who gets to defend is the one who has the most kills? if that's true then that certainly rewards people for spawn trapping the other team and then playing TDM with broken spawns. . .
I'd consider changing the spawn system such that there are spawn locations all over the map and spawn new players in near alive players provided they are not/have not been under fire for a period of time. Which would allow for the chance of one player to escape from the spawn trap and begin spawning teammates elsewhere.
I'd even consider bringing back the idea of a death streak sort of. . . I hate the idea of deathstreaks as much as the next guy, but I think it would be neat if their effects weren't so apparent (in the gameplay sense). For example, having a 1 to 3 second invulnerable status at spawn, or instead of spawning in, getting airdropped in with a slight (really slight) bit of control over where you land, getting dropped off by an APC at the corner of a map, etc. just things that provide a temporary safety at the beginning of a life.
to further expand those alternate spawn death streaks ideas, I'd want it to change the spawns so that anyone who has them selected would then spawn at the same time, together, every #seconds, sort of like the Day of Defeat spawn system.
edit: also,
yes to punishing early quitters. I know SSFIV implemented a system where it counted your number of quits versus your number of completed fights which helps mitigate the "false positives" problem where people are afraid of being punished for accidental legitimate drops. To further reduce the number of false positives, they could simply call a vote whenever the host drops, something like "Do you think the host ragequit? Y/N" and use that as another metric for evaluating the dropped games/completed games ratio.
Here's the thing, playing like that is basically just trolling the other team. You are taking away any ability they have to enjoy that match, and that's fine, it's in the game & if they were better players they wouldn't have to deal with it, right? Well if a person is gonna lose anyway and they're feeling trollish why not quit & hope to give everyone a loss, misery loves company and all that? It's in the game and a legitimate tactic, right?
GccPoseidon on
0
Options
ZarathustraEckUbermenschnow with stripes!Registered Userregular
So, yeah. I guess my question is, "Why do people rage quit when they're losing instead of sticking around to help their team when it needs them most"?
In short, mostly because Activision/IW/Treyarch refuses to punish people for quitting. This allows players on the losing end of a game to get out without prolonging the inevitable, and lets them pull off the ultimate in sour grapes sore loser shit by giving everyone in the lobby a loss if they have host when they dashboard. Instituting a temporary quitban would not be a bad thing.
I've done a "rage quit" four or five times since purchasing the game, and I'll say it wasn't a sour grapes situation at all. It's simply that I play the game to have fun... and sometimes I'm not having fun. If the other team is organized, all wearing the same clan tag, and they've got my squad of pubbies in a spawn trap where I'm living literally three seconds before being blown up or gunned down with no hope of returning fire... yeah, I'm going to "rage quit." I'm going to go find a game where there is some fun to be had.
Playing against your betters is a challenge. Playing against a group that has you pinned down to the point where you can't actually play the game is no fun. I'm not going to sit for ten minutes in a game, having zero fun, all out of respect for anonymous internet people.
So, yeah. I guess my question is, "Why do people rage quit when they're losing instead of sticking around to help their team when it needs them most"?
In short, mostly because Activision/IW/Treyarch refuses to punish people for quitting. This allows players on the losing end of a game to get out without prolonging the inevitable, and lets them pull off the ultimate in sour grapes sore loser shit by giving everyone in the lobby a loss if they have host when they dashboard. Instituting a temporary quitban would not be a bad thing.
I agree with you 100%. I've been saying that for a while, actually. If they'd just do something, I'd be happy; other shooters I've seen punish players with experience penalties if they quit games early, and hell, even World of Warcraft tacks on a "Sorry, asshole, you can't queue up for the next 15 minutes" debuff if somebody quits in the middle of a dungeon.
The biggest proponents of rage-quitting always bring up arguments like, "What if my kid knocks something over, and I have to go take care of it right away?", or, "What if somebody comes to the door and I have to answer it?", or "What if blah blah blah?" Well, if they'd just penalize players with a wait time before they could queue back up, it's no big deal; if they're really cleaning spilled milk and mashed up cheerios, they should have it done in about 15 minutes, and the game will be waiting when they come back.
I messaged a guy the other day who quit out of a match and gave us all a loss. He was a 15th Prestige, and his Combat Record was terrible. We got about 50 points into a game of Domination before he quit; I fucking knew he would, too, which is why I messaged him. He sent me a message back the next day saying he was an EMT, and that he had to go save lives, which is funny, since he was already in another game of Domination by the time we re-formed our party after the drop. Fucking prick.
Dashboarding when host is obviously just plain douchebaggery.
I don't feel any guilt or shame in using the "leave game" option. Nor do I need to justify any reason to use it, call it rage-quitting if you want.
[edit]
I'm not good enough to take on a skilled team on my own or a team with twice as many members. I'm also not good enough to play with a handicapped connection.
When the game becomes unfun, I feel no obligation to stay in the game. I'm just a random pubbie and I'm not even any good.
AllUrBase on
0
Options
acidlacedpenguinInstitutionalizedSafe in jail.Registered Userregular
edited February 2011
Once I was playing domination with an ak74u+grip, ghost, steady aim, and marathon, and after the game I got a message from someone on the other team who said (and I'm paraphrasing) I bet you couldn't do that well without the that class. So I sent him back, "Yep, you're completely right, I couldn't do it without the 74u that thing is so broken/OP, I was just using it to run through a contract real quick" then he got back to me laughing, apologizing for raging and then everything went better than expected.
Here's the thing, playing like that is basically just trolling the other team. You are taking away any ability they have to enjoy that match, and that's fine, it's in the game & if they were better players they wouldn't have to deal with it, right? Well if a person is gonna lose anyway and they're feeling trollish why not quit & hope to give everyone a loss, misery loves company and all that? It's in the game and a legitimate tactic, right?
So if the other team's better than yours, and with a combination of experience, teamwork, and skill, they force your mic-less, uncoordinated wookie party rabble into a disadvantageous position and rack up the kills ... they deserve a loss?
You may not like it, and that's fine, but what we're doing in those videos is Demolition. That's how the game's been played since it debuted in Modern Warfare 2. Clips like that show just how brutal it can be, but it's a two-way street; there's no magical ward in place that prevents them from doing it back to us. If the other team doesn't want to be in or take part in that kind of slaughter, there are plenty of other game types to choose from.
Also, rage quitting to force your opponents into a loss isn't a "legitimate tactic" that's "in the game".
I don't necessarily rage quit. If my team mates are utter incompetent goons and we're getting hosed and I'm not having fun, I simply quit. No rants about Ghost, AK74u, noob toob, etc.
I dunno, there's a "Quit" button in my pause menu. Not sure how that's not in the game or is not legitmate. Maybe, just maybe, that's an outcome that one can expect to encounter while trolling other players.
iTunesIsEvil on
0
Options
TrippyJingMoses supposes his toeses are roses.But Moses supposes erroneously.Registered Userregular
edited February 2011
"That's just how game's been played..."
You could be defending diving in soccer in exactly the same way.
I dunno, there's a "Quit" button in my pause menu. Not sure how that's not in the game or is not legitmate. Maybe, just maybe, that's an outcome that one can expect to encounter while trolling other players.
"Quitting" isn't the same as "Dashboarding", Tunes; I don't care if people "Quit", because in that case, Host Migration kicks in. Also, just for fun, next time you earn the 9 kills required to put a Chopper Gunner in the air, wait like 3-4 seconds before firing at any red squares that just popped in; give them a sporting chance to get to cover or lock on with a Strela, because firing at them before they have a chance to move or act is "basically trolling", amirite?
[edit:] I can't seriously believe people are defending "rage quitting the other team into a loss" as a "legitimate, in-game tactic".
Here's the thing, playing like that is basically just trolling the other team. You are taking away any ability they have to enjoy that match, and that's fine, it's in the game & if they were better players they wouldn't have to deal with it, right? Well if a person is gonna lose anyway and they're feeling trollish why not quit & hope to give everyone a loss, misery loves company and all that? It's in the game and a legitimate tactic, right?
So if the other team's better than yours, and with a combination of experience, teamwork, and skill, they force your mic-less, uncoordinated wookie party rabble into a disadvantageous position and rack up the kills ... they deserve a loss?
You may not like it, and that's fine, but what we're doing in those videos is Demolition. That's how the game's been played since it debuted in Modern Warfare 2. Clips like that show just how brutal it can be, but it's a two-way street; there's no magical ward in place that prevents them from doing it back to us. If the other team doesn't want to be in or take part in that kind of slaughter, there are plenty of other game types to choose from.
Also, rage quitting to force your opponents into a loss isn't a "legitimate tactic" that's "in the game".
Again, you can play the game any way you want, I don't really care. We play to win as well, and I can see how there would be some appeal in playing that way. My point was that you shouldn't be surprised when people rage quit when you play that way. Here's the biggest point: They're going to lose anyway. I know that you and a lot of other people would like to see some sort of penalty for quitting out, but it's never going to happen. They won't risk their franchise over it. More people want the option to quit out then don't, and seriously fuck any game that says I can't play for 15 minutes because I had something in real life to attend to. Dashboarding is an ability built in to the xbox, they're not hacking their game in any way in order to be able to do it, so I'd argue it's legitimate. Is it a dickish thing to do? Absolutely. Does it piss me off when someone does it to me, absolutely. But are you really any more pissed off then the team you were spawn camping? If you don't want to be in or take part of a game that allows people to quit out there are plenty of other games to play.
If you have to leave a match because something popped up in real life that's so urgent it can't wait another 5 minutes for the game to end, it's probably something that's going to take you a few minutes to take care of, right? In that case, the queue penalty shouldn't bother you at all; by the time you get back to the game, you'll probably be able to queue right back up. The only people it would negatively affect are assholes.
I mean, a system like that's already in place in WoW, for god's sake, and it works well for what it does. Are Call of Duty players seriously more self-entitled than WoW-players, who demand (and receive!) epics, even though they don't have the talent or time to earn them? I should hope not.
I don't think anyone's defending it per se, but the problem is with the way Treyarch decided to handle rage quitting (i.e. giving everyone a loss). People are going to rage quit when they're getting stomped -- Treyarch should've planned for and handled it better.
I just played a few games of MW2, and the abundance of tubes, the overpowered killstreaks (except not really because I can actually shoot them down better there) and the occasional map where everyone was hacking (fucking PS3 godamn) were far outweighed by me being able to use guns that I actually enjoyed. The fact that I was going 24-6 with the F2000 didn't hurt either. But hey, I guess I just enjoy MW2 more than blops.
SLyM on
My friend is working on a roguelike game you can play if you want to. (It has free demo)
I don't think anyone's defending it per se, but the problem is with the way Treyarch decided to handle rage quitting (i.e. giving everyone a loss). People are going to rage quit when they're getting stomped -- Treyarch should've planned for and handled it better.
To be fair, it's not solely Treyarch's problem; that's the way it's been since Call of Duty 4, and neither Infinity Ward or Treyarch have ever done anything about it. I have to assume because the overwhelming majority of players don't give two shits about their Win / Loss, for whatever reason.
I just played a few games of MW2, and the abundance of tubes, the overpowered killstreaks (except not really because I can actually shoot them down better there) and the occasional map where everyone was hacking (fucking PS3 godamn) were far outweighed by me being able to use guns that I actually enjoyed. The fact that I was going 24-6 with the F2000 didn't hurt either. But hey, I guess I just enjoy MW2 more than blops.
I just don't like Modern Warfare 2. I once got a nuke from just 7 kills (Harrier Strike got me the 4 kills I needed for Chopper Gunner, and the CG got me the nuke). Everyone on the other team was running around with shotgun secondaries, so nobody shot my streaks down. That stuff happened for us ... all the time. That, combined with the constant fucking noob tubes, was just not fun for me. A lot of people quit out of matches when we'd call in nukes as well, which I guess I can understand, I mean, winning a match after getting only 7 actual kills is "basically trolling".
If you have to leave a match because something popped up in real life that's so urgent it can't wait another 5 minutes for the game to end, it's probably something that's going to take you a few minutes to take care of, right? In that case, the queue penalty shouldn't bother you at all; by the time you get back to the game, you'll probably be able to queue right back up. The only people it would negatively affect are assholes.
I mean, a system like that's already in place in WoW, for god's sake, and it works well for what it does. Are Call of Duty players seriously more self-entitled than WoW-players, who demand (and receive!) epics, even though they don't have the talent or time to earn them? I should hope not.
I've got kids and don't play until they're asleep. On occasion they wake up & I need to go up & settle them down. Most times this takes less then 2 minutes, but I usually quit out because being afk is unhelpful to my team in the best circumstance and it might take 10 minutes rather then 2 since kids are by nature unpredictable. I've got very limited playtime, so if a game tells me I can't play for 15 minutes after that it can be a quarter of my available play time for the day, it's even worse when you add in the matchmaking for this game. If a game presumes to tell me when I can or cannot play that game then I won't buy the game, simple as that. I'm an adult, and this is a video game. I've got enough responsibilities and things I have to do in real life, gaming is supposed to be fun and an escape from all that real life stuff. I don't need a video game handing out punishments, that's ridiculous and the opposite of fun.
I mean, a system like that's already in place in WoW, for god's sake, and it works well for what it does. Are Call of Duty players seriously more self-entitled than WoW-players, who demand (and receive!) epics, even though they don't have the talent or time to earn them? I should hope not.
WoW has a large aspect of single player in it as well so it's not the same really. I could see them going the way of Halo's quitting punishment which requires several quits in a short period of time to go into effect since constant quitting is douchey. The only problem would be that there would have to be some sort of exception for when I get thrown into games in progress where I come in to a 3 cap and a spawn trap.
I find it funny that someone who's getting upset about people disconnecting (not just quitting, m'bad) and fucking up his 10.0 W/L ratio is also wondering if "Call of Duty players are seriously more self-entitled than WoW-players".
tee-motherfuckin'-hee
[ed] @Xaquin: I think there are some adapters that you can get, but from my understanding they introduce some processing-time lag into the equation so it makes it kind of useless.
iTunesIsEvil on
0
Options
acidlacedpenguinInstitutionalizedSafe in jail.Registered Userregular
edited February 2011
once again, punishing a player for quitting early every time they quit early is pretty dumb. Figuring out the ratio of quit games to completed games to decide on a punishment is less dumb. If a person has like a 50% drop ratio then we can be fairly certain the reason that person dropped this time is not because of real life emergency. If a person has a 10% drop ratio then it is much easier to believe that person is not a sore loser.
Simply dole out the punishments based on drop ratio.
... by a "drop" I mean times they are the host AND quit early and not just times dropped out. Though I suppose you could use both metrics, host AND drop, drop, with a higher weight on host AND drop.
acidlacedpenguin on
GT: Acidboogie PSNid: AcidLacedPenguiN
0
Options
joshgotroDeviled EggThe Land of REAL CHILIRegistered Userregular
Here's what it comes down to for me: when I am playing the game, I am playing to have fun and be entertained for that specific time. I am not playing to craft some grand historical record of my vidja gaming awesomeness. I don't care one bit about my win/loss, KD or whatever.
I mean this stuff isn't the friggin' code of Hammurabi here. Once the next big game comes out, no one's going to care about your BLOPS statistics -- and there's a good chance that no one cares now.
So when I'm not having fun? There's a good chance I'm leaving the game.
Posts
No offense taken. Don't misunderstand me; we only recently started playing Demo with any regularity: partly because people need the plants for Flak Jacket Pro, and partly because Domination's starting to feel stale, what with teams 90% full of Ghosts over and over and over again. Demo's been a fun week-or-two long distraction, but it isn't something I want to do all the time.
Also, for what it's worth, we can only create spawn traps like that on two, maybe three levels (Havana, WMD, and sometimes Firing Range). On all the other stages, we play Demo the way it's generally meant to be played.
The BlOps system works in all the other gametypes, it's just busted in Demo.
EDIT: @josh.
Wheee, Comcast.
Alright seriously that is the craziest CoD related thing I have seen, both in terms of content and of editing.
Man, you know what would be awesome? A CoD with UT2k4's mutator system. It would solve everybody's problems forever, and it would legitimize crazy mod-servers which were my favourite thing ever!
That's some pretty amazing editing.
Ah, that'll do it, I was wondering what was going on.
Also I can only ever get a 7 killstreak when I don't have that contract. And I only ever call in blackbird when I don't have that contract.
I've failed "5 Napalm Strikes", but every time the Dogs contract comes up I get it in one game. There's some weird contracts voodoo.
hAmmONd IsnT A mAin TAnk
But rage quitting is a goddamn epidemic in Black Ops. It was an issue in previous games, but nowhere near this level, in my opinion. In all honesty, I feel pretty comfortable saying I've probably won more matches in Black Ops due to forfeits than I've won in all previous Call of Duty titles combined. And that's really frustrating, because that kind of behaviour often causes Host-Ended Matches, which give everyone in the Lobby a loss, and completely fucks up otherwise solid Combat Records.
Also, I just want to play against people, and matches turn super-boring when it's down to only one guy on the other team. Whenever a match starts, the members of our squad all but get down on our knees and pray that we'll get Host; not because we want a latency advantage, but because at least if we've got Host, the game won't end prematurely.
So anyway, why do people rage quit when they're on the wrong side of a beat-down? That's not something I've ever done because, well, I think it's dumb. You don't get better at the game by pub-stomping carrots and rage quitting when you're losing, you know what I mean? It can be frustrating when you're up against stiff competition, and you keep getting your ass handed to you as you push toward that objective, but that's when your team needs you the most, and just as importantly, by adapting to the situation and applying all the techniques you've learned from previous experiences, that's the time when you'll grow as a player.
I'm not judging people, honestly. It's a game, after all, and not everyone plays for the same reasons I do; some people just play to have fun, and if you're not having fun, you have every right to leave a match. It is frustrating to me, though, because of my 140ish losses, over 100 of them are from Host-Ended Matches. I can't keep my goddamn Win / Loss above 10.0, because every dozen or so matches, everyone in the lobby takes an automatic loss because one person on the other team pussed off to the Dashboard when shit turned south for his team.
And that gets old fast.
So, yeah. I guess my question is, "Why do people rage quit when they're losing instead of sticking around to help their team when it needs them most"?
If the game is just a giant spawn trap or its 2v6 I'll leave the game if its obvious that the game is basically over.
The only other time I'll rage quit is when theres some serious douchebaggery going on or the connection is just so much bullshit that its a waste of time and will do nothing but get me worked up to continue. Those cases I'll just turn my xbox off and go do something else for awhile.
Though I will say a ton of BS over time adding up (connection issues, getting constantly stuck with bad pubs, and douchebaggery) will get me to a point once in a while where I just turn off the box. Its not exactly a common occurance but it does happen from time to time.
I've been on the receiving end of some serious beatdowns. But I've also been in games where it was down to just me against a whole other team, and I stay in that fight. Do I lose? Usually, but it lets the other guys finish the game and at a certain point, the odds are in your favor (six guys running around for me to kill versus one guy running around for them to kill).
My favorite story ever for this one was losing four guys from my team and having it just be me and a buddy against a full other team with the score tied at 5500, and we went all Double Dragon and pulled off a win. It was awesome.
GT: FootlongKaPow
This class is henceforth known as Black & Decker, for all your close-up power tool needs.
In short, mostly because Activision/IW/Treyarch refuses to punish people for quitting. This allows players on the losing end of a game to get out without prolonging the inevitable, and lets them pull off the ultimate in sour grapes sore loser shit by giving everyone in the lobby a loss if they have host when they dashboard. Instituting a temporary quitban would not be a bad thing.
well first, I'd change the game mode so that both teams get a shot at defending in overtime to fix the fact that on a stalemate game, the team who gets to defend in overtime wins de facto (which is probably the thing that is worst designed in that game mode) I think you've said before that the team who gets to defend is the one who has the most kills? if that's true then that certainly rewards people for spawn trapping the other team and then playing TDM with broken spawns. . .
I'd consider changing the spawn system such that there are spawn locations all over the map and spawn new players in near alive players provided they are not/have not been under fire for a period of time. Which would allow for the chance of one player to escape from the spawn trap and begin spawning teammates elsewhere.
I'd even consider bringing back the idea of a death streak sort of. . . I hate the idea of deathstreaks as much as the next guy, but I think it would be neat if their effects weren't so apparent (in the gameplay sense). For example, having a 1 to 3 second invulnerable status at spawn, or instead of spawning in, getting airdropped in with a slight (really slight) bit of control over where you land, getting dropped off by an APC at the corner of a map, etc. just things that provide a temporary safety at the beginning of a life.
to further expand those alternate spawn death streaks ideas, I'd want it to change the spawns so that anyone who has them selected would then spawn at the same time, together, every #seconds, sort of like the Day of Defeat spawn system.
edit: also,
yes to punishing early quitters. I know SSFIV implemented a system where it counted your number of quits versus your number of completed fights which helps mitigate the "false positives" problem where people are afraid of being punished for accidental legitimate drops. To further reduce the number of false positives, they could simply call a vote whenever the host drops, something like "Do you think the host ragequit? Y/N" and use that as another metric for evaluating the dropped games/completed games ratio.
No offense man, but really you of all people are wondering this? You answered your own question last page:
Here's the thing, playing like that is basically just trolling the other team. You are taking away any ability they have to enjoy that match, and that's fine, it's in the game & if they were better players they wouldn't have to deal with it, right? Well if a person is gonna lose anyway and they're feeling trollish why not quit & hope to give everyone a loss, misery loves company and all that? It's in the game and a legitimate tactic, right?
I've done a "rage quit" four or five times since purchasing the game, and I'll say it wasn't a sour grapes situation at all. It's simply that I play the game to have fun... and sometimes I'm not having fun. If the other team is organized, all wearing the same clan tag, and they've got my squad of pubbies in a spawn trap where I'm living literally three seconds before being blown up or gunned down with no hope of returning fire... yeah, I'm going to "rage quit." I'm going to go find a game where there is some fun to be had.
Playing against your betters is a challenge. Playing against a group that has you pinned down to the point where you can't actually play the game is no fun. I'm not going to sit for ten minutes in a game, having zero fun, all out of respect for anonymous internet people.
-Z
I agree with you 100%. I've been saying that for a while, actually. If they'd just do something, I'd be happy; other shooters I've seen punish players with experience penalties if they quit games early, and hell, even World of Warcraft tacks on a "Sorry, asshole, you can't queue up for the next 15 minutes" debuff if somebody quits in the middle of a dungeon.
The biggest proponents of rage-quitting always bring up arguments like, "What if my kid knocks something over, and I have to go take care of it right away?", or, "What if somebody comes to the door and I have to answer it?", or "What if blah blah blah?" Well, if they'd just penalize players with a wait time before they could queue back up, it's no big deal; if they're really cleaning spilled milk and mashed up cheerios, they should have it done in about 15 minutes, and the game will be waiting when they come back.
I messaged a guy the other day who quit out of a match and gave us all a loss. He was a 15th Prestige, and his Combat Record was terrible. We got about 50 points into a game of Domination before he quit; I fucking knew he would, too, which is why I messaged him. He sent me a message back the next day saying he was an EMT, and that he had to go save lives, which is funny, since he was already in another game of Domination by the time we re-formed our party after the drop. Fucking prick.
I don't feel any guilt or shame in using the "leave game" option. Nor do I need to justify any reason to use it, call it rage-quitting if you want.
[edit]
I'm not good enough to take on a skilled team on my own or a team with twice as many members. I'm also not good enough to play with a handicapped connection.
When the game becomes unfun, I feel no obligation to stay in the game. I'm just a random pubbie and I'm not even any good.
So if the other team's better than yours, and with a combination of experience, teamwork, and skill, they force your mic-less, uncoordinated wookie party rabble into a disadvantageous position and rack up the kills ... they deserve a loss?
You may not like it, and that's fine, but what we're doing in those videos is Demolition. That's how the game's been played since it debuted in Modern Warfare 2. Clips like that show just how brutal it can be, but it's a two-way street; there's no magical ward in place that prevents them from doing it back to us. If the other team doesn't want to be in or take part in that kind of slaughter, there are plenty of other game types to choose from.
Also, rage quitting to force your opponents into a loss isn't a "legitimate tactic" that's "in the game".
You could be defending diving in soccer in exactly the same way.
"Quitting" isn't the same as "Dashboarding", Tunes; I don't care if people "Quit", because in that case, Host Migration kicks in. Also, just for fun, next time you earn the 9 kills required to put a Chopper Gunner in the air, wait like 3-4 seconds before firing at any red squares that just popped in; give them a sporting chance to get to cover or lock on with a Strela, because firing at them before they have a chance to move or act is "basically trolling", amirite?
[edit:] I can't seriously believe people are defending "rage quitting the other team into a loss" as a "legitimate, in-game tactic".
Start MTGO. Go to the casual room. Win the dice roll.
Turn 1: Swamp, Duress.
Again, you can play the game any way you want, I don't really care. We play to win as well, and I can see how there would be some appeal in playing that way. My point was that you shouldn't be surprised when people rage quit when you play that way. Here's the biggest point: They're going to lose anyway. I know that you and a lot of other people would like to see some sort of penalty for quitting out, but it's never going to happen. They won't risk their franchise over it. More people want the option to quit out then don't, and seriously fuck any game that says I can't play for 15 minutes because I had something in real life to attend to. Dashboarding is an ability built in to the xbox, they're not hacking their game in any way in order to be able to do it, so I'd argue it's legitimate. Is it a dickish thing to do? Absolutely. Does it piss me off when someone does it to me, absolutely. But are you really any more pissed off then the team you were spawn camping? If you don't want to be in or take part of a game that allows people to quit out there are plenty of other games to play.
I mean, a system like that's already in place in WoW, for god's sake, and it works well for what it does. Are Call of Duty players seriously more self-entitled than WoW-players, who demand (and receive!) epics, even though they don't have the talent or time to earn them? I should hope not.
To be fair, it's not solely Treyarch's problem; that's the way it's been since Call of Duty 4, and neither Infinity Ward or Treyarch have ever done anything about it. I have to assume because the overwhelming majority of players don't give two shits about their Win / Loss, for whatever reason.
I just don't like Modern Warfare 2. I once got a nuke from just 7 kills (Harrier Strike got me the 4 kills I needed for Chopper Gunner, and the CG got me the nuke). Everyone on the other team was running around with shotgun secondaries, so nobody shot my streaks down. That stuff happened for us ... all the time. That, combined with the constant fucking noob tubes, was just not fun for me. A lot of people quit out of matches when we'd call in nukes as well, which I guess I can understand, I mean, winning a match after getting only 7 actual kills is "basically trolling".
I've got kids and don't play until they're asleep. On occasion they wake up & I need to go up & settle them down. Most times this takes less then 2 minutes, but I usually quit out because being afk is unhelpful to my team in the best circumstance and it might take 10 minutes rather then 2 since kids are by nature unpredictable. I've got very limited playtime, so if a game tells me I can't play for 15 minutes after that it can be a quarter of my available play time for the day, it's even worse when you add in the matchmaking for this game. If a game presumes to tell me when I can or cannot play that game then I won't buy the game, simple as that. I'm an adult, and this is a video game. I've got enough responsibilities and things I have to do in real life, gaming is supposed to be fun and an escape from all that real life stuff. I don't need a video game handing out punishments, that's ridiculous and the opposite of fun.
Can you use a mouse to aim in this game?
WoW has a large aspect of single player in it as well so it's not the same really. I could see them going the way of Halo's quitting punishment which requires several quits in a short period of time to go into effect since constant quitting is douchey. The only problem would be that there would have to be some sort of exception for when I get thrown into games in progress where I come in to a 3 cap and a spawn trap.
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
Yes.
And to the 'how' question: Play on the PC.
sorry, I meant on xbox360
tee-motherfuckin'-hee
[ed] @Xaquin: I think there are some adapters that you can get, but from my understanding they introduce some processing-time lag into the equation so it makes it kind of useless.
Simply dole out the punishments based on drop ratio.
... by a "drop" I mean times they are the host AND quit early and not just times dropped out. Though I suppose you could use both metrics, host AND drop, drop, with a higher weight on host AND drop.
I mean this stuff isn't the friggin' code of Hammurabi here. Once the next big game comes out, no one's going to care about your BLOPS statistics -- and there's a good chance that no one cares now.
So when I'm not having fun? There's a good chance I'm leaving the game.