{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
9/13/2018 11:56:38 PM
4
People [i]could[/i] just be in fire teams and have one person leave so the teammates don't get penalized. Would be abused
English
-
One more thing, priority wise, preventing cheaters eventual exploit of some rule or gameplay should be less important than being fair to people who play nice. When said cheat does not affect other players that is. Take the raid chest exploit as an exemple, bungie did not penalized exploiters mostly because 1) was their [bungie] own miss, and 2) because it doesn’t have a big enough impact on the fairness of the game as a whole. But exploiters did not truly earned the loot and also unfair to people who didn’t get any.
-
So, what do you mean? It seems like you’re saying: “because some people might cheat everyone should be treated as one”. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough in my discourse. “Outset” means beginning, in this case beginning of the game. The way I’ve putted is easy to assume I was solo with randoms, and I reckon it might be misinterpreted, so being more specific: I wasn’t in a fireteam nor in a partychat and not even communicating with the randoms (I could cause I have an open mic more often than not). People disconnected at the first standoff (transmat). Now, bungie’s work is: to come up with a fair system. To go through multiple scenarios and come up with ways to prevent exploit in a multiplayer game is part of the job. Do you want a simple example: by the data alone would be fair to assume players were “cheesing” in case they had lost a match already and were about to lose the second one. So abusers can be dealt with.
-
So what do you suppose bungie should do? There is a penalty for leaving and you can't change people's mind if they want to leave. It is what is is. Maybe put quitters with quitters? Don't put people already started games unless they want to (game preference setting).
-
Are you trying to misunderstand my post on purpose? The match wasn’t in progress when people got disconnected (again, I don’t know if they left or just timed out or what have you, but at the “flying portion there was 4 ships), then at the very start I realize “oh $#!+ is 4v2!”, nobody was winning nobody was losing, how is this supposed to be fair? I didn’t make people leave. If people accept the ban and choose to leave regardless, is their right. But why should I lose my winning streak, as a punishment, for no fault of my own. This is a specific scenario with a specific solution, no-brainer if you ask me. If this feels bad in Gambit, where you don’t lose ranking points on losses, how about competitive PvP? And why are you going out of your way to find reasons to dismiss the issue at hand? How about productive thinking and coming up with a possible solution (if better than my suggestion then great!) I spect bungie fix the issues, nothing more nothing less. I’ve already gave you a possible solution. Now, having an option to accept or refuse being matched to an already in progress match sounds good, but might be more difficult to implement than it seems. Easier to just disable penalties when a match gets unbalanced in a unfair way, specially when it’s from the get go (not mid game). I feel like you you don’t “get it” why this is a big deal, so let me put it this way: going in solo, matched with random people is rough in a heavily cooperative game mode like gambit. In our case (me w/ randos) besting even clan stacks (between 2 and 4 stacks) and getting a winning streak is an achievement and not easy to get. And don’t get me wrong I’ve lost countless matches on account to people who are clueless and/or using bad tactics (or even just trolling on purpose) but I’m not complaining about this. I accept the nature of random matchmaking, what I don’t accept is oversight regarding rules and punishments. Oh and being matched against stacks is also a big issue, and most people who disagree are those playing in stacks... a viable solution? Again a simple accept/refuse option would go a long way!
