[Warrior's Den Question] Leaver Penalty if my Friend crash and I didn't ?? | Forums

[We.the.North]

It's time for another Warrior's Den question, this time regarding the leaver's penalty :

What If I decide to bring a friend with me into a game and he crashes right at the start of the game while I didn't. Will I get a leaver's penalty if I decide to quit the game so we can try again to get a game going together ??

[UbiJurassic]

I'll be sure to add that to your other questions. In the future though, instead of making a new thread, just PM me with your question.

[Ezcendant]

The answer is yes, you will. There's no way it won't. Hell, in most games with a ranking system if your friend leaves you get a penalty even if you stay in the game.

[We.the.North]

Well, maybe Ubisoft could let people grouped together to be able to join games regardless whether or not they had the "leaver penalty". I'm pretty sure most "rage quitters" are solo players anyway.

[CoyoteXStarrk]

I'm pretty sure most "rage quitters" are solo players anyway.

I am willing to bet that is true. People are less likely to ragequit a match if they have friends in it.


I can't imagine people wanting to play with someone like that anyway.

[Ezcendant]

I am willing to bet that is true. People are less likely to ragequit a match if they have friends in it.

I can't imagine people wanting to play with someone like that anyway.

I don't rage quit, but I have quit unbalanced dominion games as a duo queue. We're there to have fun, not get rolled by an all diamond premade of centurions who haven't logged out since release.

And I'm not sure why you can't imagine two liked minded players in a group disliking the same thing. Take you for example, you've admitted to loving a good stomp as a 4man so clearly even griefers and trolls can get a group.

[CoyoteXStarrk]

I don't rage quit, but I have quit unbalanced dominion games as a duo queue. We're there to have fun, not get rolled by an all diamond premade of centurions who haven't logged out since release.

That is by DEFINITION ragequitting

rage-quit: angrily abandon an activity or pursuit that has become frustrating, especially the playing of a video game.

You are leaving a match that you don't like because the way the other team is playing or what they are playing as is frustrating you because you aren't winning or doing well.


Thats a ragequit.

And I'm not sure why you can't imagine two liked minded players in a group disliking the same thing. Take you for example, you've admitted to loving a good stomp as a 4man so clearly even griefers and trolls can get a group.

I still don't understand how me enjoying winning with friends makes me a Griefer or a troll?


Also I have already explained I don't enjoy "stomps" as you call them because I am wrecking the other team. I enjoy them because it validates how well my team and I are working together. You are acting like I am rubbing everybody's face in the fact they lost and are ferociously teabagging after every kill.

Thats not how I play. No matter how much you want that to be true.

[We.the.North]

Still, Ubisoft is in a spot where it has to choose between the lesser of two evil :

Choice #1 : Anyone, as soon as they quit manually, get the penalty.
Evil #1 : A friend that DC during a match will have to wait about 10 minutes for hte game to end before he can group up again with his friends again, because his friends will not want to quit and get penalized. Notice how in this scenario, the player that DCed is actually the one getting the leaver's penalty ...

Choice #2 : People in a group can always queue, regardless if they have the leaver's penalty.
Evil #2 : You'll have duo of people dropping out of unfair games together, which is much more likely to crash the rest of the game. Afterward, everyone can queue up again right away.

-----------------------------------------------------

Now, put yourself in the shoes of Ubisoft. From a marketing point of view, which scenario is the best ?? I think penalizing a player that did nothing wrong (scenario #1) will get them a lot of bad press. Especially For Honor want to encourage friends to play together and promote how fun the game is. They wouldn't want people getting salty and contaminating their friends by thrash talking the game. As for Scenario #2, people will probably not even notice 2 people are grouped together and will think they DCed when they drop shortly one after the other. No harm done, we'll blame the connection to the game which is already screwed up.

I prefer option #2. I want to play with my friends and not get stuck outside of a game I DCed from waiting for them to be done.

[Ezcendant]

That is by DEFINITION ragequitting

rage-quit: angrily abandon an activity or pursuit that has become frustrating, especially the playing of a video game.

You are leaving a match that you don't like because the way the other team is playing or what they are playing as is frustrating you because you aren't winning or doing well.

Thats a ragequit.

To be a rage quitter you need to feel anger, as you yourself said. I load into a game, see the enemy team and think "huh, this won't be a fun match" so I quit out and re-queue. There's no anger there at all. It doesn't happen that often, I'm confident I can carry to a certain degree, but sometimes the teams are just clearly unbalanced so I'll re-queue.

As I said in another thread, this is your fundamental misunderstanding of the rage quit debate. Most people aren't angry, they just dc, error, or know that the current match won't be fun so they are forced/want to requeue for a better and enjoyable game.

Also I have already explained I don't enjoy "stomps" as you call them because I am wrecking the other team. I enjoy them because it validates how well my team and I are working together. You are acting like I am rubbing everybody's face in the fact they lost and are ferociously teabagging after every kill.

Lol, a premade rolling a group of randoms doesn't validate anything. The fact you think it does is very sad.

Still, Ubisoft is in a spot where it has to choose between the lesser of two evil :

Choice #1 : Anyone, as soon as they quit manually, get the penalty.
Evil #1 : A friend that DC during a match will have to wait about 10 minutes for hte game to end before he can group up again with his friends again, because his friends will not want to quit and get penalized. Notice how in this scenario, the player that DCed is actually the one getting the leaver's penalty ...

Choice #2 : People in a group can always queue, regardless if they have the leaver's penalty.
Evil #2 : You'll have duo of people dropping out of unfair games together, which is much more likely to crash the rest of the game. Afterward, everyone can queue up again right away.

-----------------------------------------------------

Now, put yourself in the shoes of Ubisoft. From a marketing point of view, which scenario is the best ?? I think penalizing a player that did nothing wrong (scenario #1) will get them a lot of bad press. Especially For Honor want to encourage friends to play together and promote how fun the game is. They wouldn't want people getting salty and contaminating their friends by thrash talking the game. As for Scenario #2, people will probably not even notice 2 people are grouped together and will think they DCed when they drop shortly one after the other. No harm done, we'll blame the connection to the game which is already screwed up.

I prefer option #2. I want to play with my friends and not get stuck outside of a game I DCed from waiting for them to be done.

Or they could go for option three, release ranked, have a quit penalty for there because it's ranked, and leave the casual fun non-ranked modes alone.

Oh and sorry for contributing to derailing your thread, but I figured once Jurassic said your question was accepted you wouldn't really mind.

[CoyoteXStarrk]

Lol, a premade rolling a group of randoms doesn't validate anything. The fact you think it does is very sad.

In a team based game mode that relies on teamwork and playing the objective a team that does both of those things in order to win doesn't validate anything?


You are essentially saying that Teamwork shouldn't matter in a team based game which is just stupid. Just because one team decides to work together and one team decides not to doesn't make the other team worse lol


By working together for the win a team shows that it worked together for the win rather than relying on the other team to be bad in order to win or relied on a single person to most of the work towards the win. The fact that my team works well together doesn't automatically make us WORSE skillwise than teams that don't.