Multiplayer Needs an Official No Quit Option

[Y'hate T'see It]

I host games. I put no quitters in the title. When the lobby is full I type:

"This is a no quit game, meaning no one leaves unless you lose capital or 66% of your cities. Could be 5+ hours, you might have to deal with a bad spawn, etc. If anyone isn't ok with that please leave now :)"

and still people often rage quit by turn 20. Why is this community so selfish that they'd gladly join a no quit game when they have every intention of leaving the second something they don't like happens? An easy solution would be to add a check box for no quit in the game setup screen and everyone who leaves those games early gets banned from joining other no quit games for a month or so. Rejoining after an accidental disconnect (because wifi and civ don't get along) would prevent the ban.

[SkiRich]

Originally posted by Anomalous:

I host games. I put no quitters in the title. When the lobby is full I type:

"This is a no quit game, meaning no one leaves unless you lose capital or 66% of your cities. Could be 5+ hours, you might have to deal with a bad spawn, etc. If anyone isn't ok with that please leave now :)"

and still people often rage quit by turn 20. Why is this community so selfish that they'd gladly join a no quit game when they have every intention of leaving the second something they don't like happens? An easy solution would be to add a check box for no quit in the game setup screen and everyone who leaves those games early gets banned from joining other no quit games for a month or so. Rejoining after an accidental disconnect (because wifi and civ don't get along) would prevent the ban.

A complete ban would be way too overkill. Too many incidents of accidental bans.
A better idea is to rate the users for playtime and continuation and give the host the option to select from the rated users.
Simple .. I finish the game or get eliminated, A rating.
I rage quit ... F rating.
B thru D/E would be based on total time relative to game point rating before quiting, and maybe give the option to mercy quit.

Average it out over time.
Rate the host as well.

[the wizard]

video games are for fun. video games are not a job.

[Y'hate T'see It]

Originally posted by Boss:

video games are for fun. video games are not a job.

Yeah and my fun comes from playing against humans. You're not entitled to join my games if you don't want to play by my rules.

[Lemurian1972]

That's it. They're your rules. Don't rely on the makers of the game to enforce them for you. Note the names of your players and keep a blacklist of people who quit.

Sure most people would be happier if everyone who joined a game stayed until they were out, but they also know life happens.

This game doesn't strive to be an esport, there's no rankings beyond your personal scores. The developers have no incentive to try and referee stuff like that in a game like this. Even in multiplayer XCom where they added more robust mp features, they didn't bother to set up software guardrails to ensure 'good' behavior.

It's great that you host your own games, but you sound like you'd be better off if you cultivated a friendlist of like minded people who play for the same reasons.

[Kimmaz]

I agree. I am always the last human left in the few games I have played online. Even If I am not the host. I find it a bit boring to have to finish the game basicly versus AI.

[SkiRich]

Originally posted by Lemurian1972:

That's it. They're your rules. Don't rely on the makers of the game to enforce them for you. Note the names of your players and keep a blacklist of people who quit.

Sure most people would be happier if everyone who joined a game stayed until they were out, but they also know life happens.

This game doesn't strive to be an esport, there's no rankings beyond your personal scores. The developers have no incentive to try and referee stuff like that in a game like this. Even in multiplayer XCom where they added more robust mp features, they didn't bother to set up software guardrails to ensure 'good' behavior.

It's great that you host your own games, but you sound like you'd be better off if you cultivated a friendlist of like minded people who play for the same reasons.

You and the OP have good points.
I agree with the OP, if there is a multiplayer game in the cloud that I join, I should be prepared to play until I cannot. Otherwise you basicaly wasted everyone elses time.
Thats not fun for the other players and it makes the rage quitter a poor sport.

Your point though of having a decent friends list that you can rely on is key to not getting frustrated with random players you dont know.

My suggestion of rating system is sort of the happy in between spot and pernalizes those players that rage quit games because they cannot compete and wasted everyones time.

[Facemelter]

Originally posted by Lemurian1972:

That's it. They're your rules. Don't rely on the makers of the game to enforce them for you. Note the names of your players and keep a blacklist of people who quit.

Sure most people would be happier if everyone who joined a game stayed until they were out, but they also know life happens.

This game doesn't strive to be an esport, there's no rankings beyond your personal scores. The developers have no incentive to try and referee stuff like that in a game like this. Even in multiplayer XCom where they added more robust mp features, they didn't bother to set up software guardrails to ensure 'good' behavior.

It's great that you host your own games, but you sound like you'd be better off if you cultivated a friendlist of like minded people who play for the same reasons.

I think you've missed the entire point of the OP. Either that or you're trying to side with the quitters than ruin online gaming.

[Facemelter]

Originally posted by SkiRich:

Originally posted by Anomalous:

I host games. I put no quitters in the title. When the lobby is full I type:

"This is a no quit game, meaning no one leaves unless you lose capital or 66% of your cities. Could be 5+ hours, you might have to deal with a bad spawn, etc. If anyone isn't ok with that please leave now :)"

and still people often rage quit by turn 20. Why is this community so selfish that they'd gladly join a no quit game when they have every intention of leaving the second something they don't like happens? An easy solution would be to add a check box for no quit in the game setup screen and everyone who leaves those games early gets banned from joining other no quit games for a month or so. Rejoining after an accidental disconnect (because wifi and civ don't get along) would prevent the ban.

A complete ban would be way too overkill. Too many incidents of accidental bans.
A better idea is to rate the users for playtime and continuation and give the host the option to select from the rated users.
Simple .. I finish the game or get eliminated, A rating.
I rage quit ... F rating.
B thru D/E would be based on total time relative to game point rating before quiting, and maybe give the option to mercy quit.

Average it out over time.
Rate the host as well.

The rating idea would work well. You could then have an option to filter out the regular quitters maybe.

[Kimmaz]

The thing OP wants already exists. There are steam groups for hooking up with ppl to play civ5/6 and they have the "no quit" rule. my guess is that ppl who doesnt follow their rules get kicked from the group.
If you play with ppl in the group you would get what you want.

[SkiRich]

Originally posted by Kimmaz:

The thing OP wants already exists. There are steam groups for hooking up with ppl to play civ5/6 and they have the "no quit" rule. my guess is that ppl who doesnt follow their rules get kicked from the group.
If you play with ppl in the group you would get what you want.

Sounds cool.
Got any links?