so if I enter a match where the score is 158-16 and the game is to 200 I should stay and get the crap kicked out of me?

It would not deter me. Sometimes quitting is very warranted. Forcing a quit penalty on all players that the game does without knowing the actual reasons is madness. If it just penalizes after a single match I cannot agree with a system like that. Only players that show a [i]pattern[/i] of quitting often should be placed in such a system. and even then not everyone has the best setup or internet to play. Some matches there is no point staying. If my whole team quits I will quit to, I will not waste 5+ mins of my time in a match that won't go anywhere but lead to me being on a spawn counter the rest of the time. I'm not gunna get spawn killed against 6 players because my whole team decided to leave early. Lag? Yeah not staying in a terrible lagfest match either. That would be brutally annoying. If I was to be penalized for such a thing and was made to wait so many mins after a match well thats what owning 2 accounts are for. Let one wait while I play on the other. I don't quit if my team is losing. I only quit when the game becomes unplayable (aka awful network, game/server crashes, or 1 person against an army). I will admit I have stayed in 1 v 4 matches before and made the other team slowly rage quit and ended up winning but against an effective team they know what they are doing and I'm not about to stick around. Games are meant to be fun and quitting a multiplayer match shouldn't be penalized, only habitual quitters who leave before matches even begin or quit after they get killed once should be. Penalizing everyone for quitting a single match because the game was unplayable in the standards of actual [b]game certification[/b] (for example the xbox 360 cert guidelines) would just be downright silly. A game's failure to play properly should never be placed on the player. That is a huge no no. I can't imagine being penalized in BF4 (or any game for that matter) for example every time half the people in the server crashed and then we'd have to wait for that 20+ min match to end because the game counted it as a 'quit' because it technically thinks we left a game on purpose (even though we didn't) that was in progress. Yes, if you never played BF4 this happened often. Server and game crashes actually count as a quit. In fact even now some times a server will just have a glitch and half of us will be kicked, yep, congrats you got a quit added to your record against your will. As far as I know those of us who played those early months still have all those server crashes on our record unfortunately. So you'd be ok with a system like this that would penalize players even when the game fails them? The system can't tell [i]it[/i] failed. It automatically assumes you were the quitter and places blame on you. Also don't forget cheaters. They are around and I've even been host booted in games like Halo 3 before many times. So I should be penalized while a cheater is rewarded? I don't like that concept. They were already ruining the match and now they take my internet down and so the game says "guilty!" and slaps a 15 min timer on my account? Not cool, not cool at all. My time is precious and after a long day of work if I want to play a game I'm not gunna waste half of it watching a timer count down. And there lies the problem. If a single player is [i]ever[/i] penalized unfairly due to the game forcing them to quit (network issues on their end, game crashes, the lobby fails, w/e) it's already 1 too many times. So no, penalizing people for quitting (even if the real quitters get away with it) shouldn't be a thing. Ever. I've never had quitters really phase me. I'm used to it. Halo 3, quitters everywhere. I deal with it and keep going into matches until I finally find a team that won't quit. Lastly many games run on open lobby servers. It's meant to be drop in and drop out so a quit penalty would be obsolete. The system will fill that quitter spot with another player. No reason anyone should be penalized with servers around.

Stuff like that is just irritating, if your connection craps out or you have to - Shock horror- do something other than play the game. IRL is a bitch. Punishing the player is stupid.

The easiest way to deal with the leaving games early problem Is to lock them out of multiplayer for a few minutes if they leave early.

I like this idea and I think it sound great! I don't want to be doing a raid for four hours and have everyone bail on me

While I don't disagree with leaving penalties, there are so many things that make it hardly fair. What if the enemy team is cheating, hacking or even just glitching? you are in a helpless situation that is undesireable, should you be forced to take it, or get penalized for not doing so? What if the game is lagging beyond playability? What if your internet craps out for a moment? what about bad team members? What if they are just there to team kill? What if the rest of your team quits? Should you be penalized for not staying alone? There are too many factors for it.

So there's only a penalty if a player wants to keep playing after quitting a match? But what about when the match is not fun anymore, for example the base raypes in BF3?

What about if someone's Internet dies or there is a power cut? Especially on games like Battlefield which can last for hours.

Servers.

Quitters shouldn't be punished. Its the people that suck shit at games that ruin everything. [i] They're [/i] the ones that need to get punished. If you go -20 every game you deserve to be punished.

But I need to go have my dinner...and you can't pause multiplayer...

It shouldn't be a punishment for every single match that you "leave." There needs to be some give for those that are forced to leave due to an unforeseen event such as a dropped connection, real life occurrence, or something else. Also, to avoid the quit penalty, players could just sit inactive for the length of the match. In my opinion, I'd rather have players leave than just sit in the match feeding the enemy team (Of course it depends on the game if this example is even applicable; a lot games I know of will time-out inactive players anyway). I personally prefer punishment based on consecutive behavior where if you leave so many matches within a certain time period you get the punishment such as a temporary matchmaking ban (I believe Halo: Reach did this, correct me if I'm wrong).

So punish someone if their console RRoDs, their internet connection goes out, or real life happens? Also, totally not going to work in MMOs. You can't treat shooters like MOABs.

I thought most games already penalize players for quitting ranked matches. It doesn't need to go any further than that.

18 year ban.

CSGO has this. Basically it bans you for Competitive matches if you quit or teamkill.

Nah, that's become irrelevant since everyone's finally moved into the modern day and adopted the superior drop in and out system.