The way Stardock addresses ragequitting seems very well thought through - it provides an incentive to stick around even after someone quits, in addition to the original disincentive to leave.  I know I'll be playing through games more often now after someone leaves so the quitter is flagged, and consequently I'll be less likely to play with someone similar in the future.  While this solution is not a panacea (other changes would need to be implemented to deal with individuals like Andianqz, but certain individuals will always find new ways to be poor sports no matter what you do), it is definitely an improvement.

An additional suggestion that may keep players around after someone leaves, instead of causing a string of quits, involves taking away the rewards players get for killing the "pinch hitter" AI.  If there is no gold/experience reward for killing the AI that starts playing midgame, I don't have to worry about my AI partner feeding the opponents massive gold and levels.  I think this is a better alternative than removing the demigod because the AI can still contribute.  Even if the AI isn't much for teamwork in a fight, it's still helpful with paying for citadel upgrades and taking flags.

Some might argue that it's unfair having a computer opponent that can take my flags when there's no reward for killing him (other than getting the flag back), but you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would rather have this kind of AI teammate over a human player.

Brad,

Would it be possible to seperate disconnects and manual quits?  My internet connetion isn't the best, and while I complete the majority of my games, my (legitimate) disconnects will probably add up.  I'd rather people decide if they want to risk someone with a moderate connection instead of just assuming I'm a rage quitter.  I don't leave games early, no matter how poorly they are going, and it would suck to get lumped into rage quitting because of disconnects or game crashes.

I just want to make it clear that your current system won't punish only ragequitters.

Most RTS games have the % disconnect showing. They are even harsher as they give a LOSS to someone quitting past 3min.

Sorry, but if after 2 real disconnects in a row you keep playing, it's your fault for messing up your disconnected %.

Those are good ideas and should be implemented. I'd even go as far as doing like every other game out there, disconnect = loss, period.

The disconnect idea sounds absolutely horrible to me: it is never a good idea to put someone's account in a state where they have a difficult time playing the game, first because those people paid to play your game, and second because there is no fool-proof method to determine who should be allowed to play and who shouldn't.

It is made far worse by the fact that Demigod is likely to get a lot of false positives due to the high presence of game crashes and mid-game mass disconnects that I do not feel are likely to be fixed by the next update.  It is made further worse in that there is no good way to "fix" your account once you have a high disconnect percentage.  You'll just be kicked from every game you try to join.

I fully expect to see people whose game disconnects the first time they try to play online end up having a horrible Demigod experience.  Even disregarding that situation, as soon as you introduce this sort of negative statistic, you automatically create players who are viewed negatively by other players and whose experience with the game will be bad.

And by this description, if the rest of my team quits, I'm forced to play the rest of a losing game by myself.  There are some situations where it makes sense to leave the game, and players shouldn't be punished for that.

It's also easy to abuse: players who get disconnected by the game have no choice but to take a disconnect count, but former rage-quitters may now just decide to go afk.

My recommendation for dealing with the ragequitting problem is to first stop the game from crashing or disconnecting (which probably looks a lot like a rage quit), and second make players quitting the game less of a punishment on the remaining players.  Change it so players don't have to wait 30 seconds when someone leaves, and if you can't improve the AI, then at least give the team a hard or nightmare AI.

On a change of subject, the original post is inconsistant.  It first says that you get a rage quit if you leave and the game lasts more than 10 minutes.  It then says "Games that last under 3 minutes aren't counted."  Is it ten minutes or three?

Regardless, I think the logic would need to be more complex than this.  If nine out of ten players leave in the first minute, but one player stays in the game fighting the AI, making the game last twenty minutes, then surely the other nine players shouldn't all get a disconnect count, even though the game lasted more than ten minutes.

Little idea for people sharing this little::

"It generally takes me much longer than 3 minutes before I realize my team is full of noobs and I don't want to play with them."

How about you just dont quit? Why not stick around and try to teach the newbies how to play the game better--I mean seriously, how the hell else will casual players/people who just don't learn that fast, pick up on the better points of playing?

I know I'm not very good at playing this game yet--so I ask tons of questions while I play because I, thankfully, have a fast typing speed. Sometimes I get answers, sometimes I get flamed, and somtimes complete lamers just leave when I start asking questions.

If you want a better player base--help the noobs, stop being noobs--what a novel idea. ¬¬

Just my two bits.

-T

It would be far better to give people a loss on their account than to create a situation where they might not be able to play the game anymore.

I also do not see how anyone can claim that a high disconnect rate means that a player has a problem with the game.  I have played this game quite a bit, and in  my experience, it is far, far more common for the game to just randomly disconnect due to game issues than for players to rage quit or for players to have a hardware problem.  Typically a hardware problem prevents players from getting into the game at all in the first place.

Anyhow, I am aware of these benefits that you mentioned.  But I am trying to say that these benefits do not outweigh the disadvantages, and I fear that you or I might as easily fall victim to this system as someone who really deserves it.

This is exactly what I wrote...isn't it?

This is important.  With what cyrenic suggests I'd say your system is good.  If the game lasts ten minutes after you left it, you definitely left way too early to tell so it will just affect true ragequitters(I'd actually be interested in the statistics on how many people start accruing these, my impression has been it isn't nearly as rampant as all the bitching suggests).  However, if a player has a net problem and builds up a serious disconnect percent, people will kick him because they think he's a ragequitter, even after he finds the problem and fixes it.  If there's a way to differentiate, his explanation will be more believable.  There's also that thing where games just split off for some reason(or was that fixed?).

Also, you need to be careful with players who pull the plug.  If someone can cause a disconnect by pulling their ethernet cable, then plug it back in and win the game more than ten minutes later, will they give everyone else a +1 in the ragequit column?  That would be really really bad and there are always people who are big enough assholes to do that sort of thing.

Personally, instead of getting a disconnect % rating for rage quits, I'd like to see the person who quits without it being a team concede does not get to use a favor item in the next game they play.  That would hurt and be a real deterant I'd say.

Koz

I've only twice played with a teammate so incompitent I knew we where guarenteed to lose... and I played through the game, both times. I mean, how do you know the opposing team didn't get an unlucky draw, too? And it's not like losing is the end of the world, if your teammate(s) feed your enemies up four levels, you don't have to take it as a personal failing when you lose. No better way to get better than to face stiff compitition and try to pull your team out of the hole singlehandedly.

Now, I'd like to mention the idea some people had to make randomized teams optional. I think people will complain a lot less about stacking and mismatches if that's a possibility, and it's got to be easy to do. Also, give people the option to return to the game instead of being automatically kicked to the lobby when it ends? I think that'd give people more incentive to be nicer to their opponents, when they'll actually see them again... and maybe have to work togther next time.

I would also agree that a punishment system is not the best way to go even though that seems to be what the devs have decided on. A much better long term solution would be to balance out losing a teammate. Give them gold; give them better AI; just give them something besides a teammate that feeds the other team.

At least make it so the enemy doesn't get gold for killing AI.

Rage quitting in this game is totally legitimate b/c the losing team typically gets such pathetic Favor.  I played a game last night that had a Rook who was pretty damned good, but his team member left 3/4 way through the game.  My teammate got around 190 favor, I got 160...both of the losers got 10 paltry favor points...even the guy who "rage quitted."  It would've made much more sense for them both to leave when they knew it was unwinnable and get in another game where they might actually get some favor. 

My point is that to reduce rage quitting, GIVE THE LOSING TEAM MORE FAVOR.

Implementing any kind of persistent disconnect% system will stifle online play in the long term.  I can't think of another game that does this.  Wow gives you a temproary debuff when you quit a battleground, but it is not visible to anyone else once it is gone, and doesn't prevent you from getting into future games.  Its enough of an annoyance to make you think twice about quitting, but never enough to make you worry about joining a battleground (very important distinction imo).

I think the disconnect% mechanic is a bad idea...I've disconnected once I think, and certainly not planning on abusing it. But I can guarantee I'll play less if the disconnect% gets into the game, as I suspect most casual-hardcore players would.

What about situations that are totally independent of the games current status.  I'm a husband, father, and am on call with my job at times, and I need to have the option of stopping a game if need be.  If however, I'm constantly worried that doing so will brand me as a rager I will inevitably be inclined to play online less.  This would be the case if I think there is ANY chance I'd need to quit, while in reality it would happen very infrequently.

[Update]

"Rage-quitting" in WoW (World of Warcraft) is not a big issue because the losing team always gets 1/3 the total Marks (roughly equalivent to Favor).  People stay in 'till the bitter end b/c IT IS IN THEIR INTEREST TO DO SO...thats the only way it will work.  The punishment for a quitter is built in...it is often more profitable to go ahead and get your 1/3'rd "points" than quit and join another game.

Frogboy -

Big post warning.

Froggy, instead of punishing players for leaving a game THEY ARE NOT ENJOYING, why not implement a proper ranking system? That way you KNOW you aren't gonna be playing against noobs. This should be more important than punishing players who do get stuck with a team who has no idea and get squished.

Seriously stop blaming players for a GPG game design flaw. No-one will play a game they dont enjoy, and if you punish them for feeling this way all you are doing is further alienating your customers. Which means less people playing which means less moneys for you. wow.

To prove my point here is an example:

A few nights ago I host a 3v3. 5 others join, cool.

I ask: 'Before we start, can I ask who is a new player?' both guys on my team say they only have a little online experience. Which is cool I dont' mind helping new players learn. I say 'Ok that's cool then, I'll help you guys learn how to play, just try to follow my advice'. Response: 'Ok no probs'.

Game start.

Me: 'Guys try and stick together and back each other up, don't wander off or you'll get ganked'

Them: 'ok' 'ok'

Game progresses.

Me: 'Guys why are you both running off, please cap the flag you are standing right next to.'

Then: no response....

A few mins pass.

Me: 'Guys wtf are you doing stop running into all three of them you can't win you'll just die'

Them: .... no response ...

SMITER, WRATHFUL etc.

Me: 'Ok fuck it. Do what ever you want, you have fed them too much already'

Them: still no response.

So I ran at enemy base, died and then went to do some washing... I came back 5 mins later just as the enemy finished off our citadel.

Now Frogboy, tell me how it was unfair for me to not keep playing? I didn't actually quit but I may as well have. I asked these guys from the start if they were new, then I tried to offer them help all through out the game. In the end they just ignored me, fed the enemy and didn't cap any flags, even after I advised them what to do several times.

So with your new system, if I had have actually quit, I'd be punished. Punished for a. identifying new players. b. trying to help new players and c. for losing paitence for 2 people who didn't want to either listen or learn how NOT to ruin other players games.

In a fair would THEY would be punished not me.

How about instead of this badly thought out proposal you have put forward for rage quitters you look at a ranking system. This way I'd not have had to deal with new players at all and then if new players don't want to learn how to play properly and just want to screw around they can, noone loses.

In closing, your proposed system is unfair, unreasonable and will only hurt the community even more so. I am your customer, I don't owe you anything, that includes sitting in a 20 min game while my team who I tried to help gets curb stomped because they aren't willing to learn.

phew.