Low and behold, ever MORE frustration online! [Archive] - Team17 Forum

PDA

View Full Version : Low and behold, ever MORE frustration online!

fariswheel
7 Sep 2007, 20:15
(PSP Online Mode)
Scenerio: 4, 3, and 2 player game.
I have defeated all of my enemies and I await being declared winner. The game has lasted around 1 hour and I am satisfied and proud of my performance in winning the game. "To the victor, the spoils" shouts my friendly Thespian Worm as he waits for his just reward.
"Waiting for other players..." shows up. Nothing seems to be wrong since this always pops up from time to time, so I anxiously wait for the result.
(1 minutes passes)
Still "Waiting for other players...", I am now certain that there is something wrong, but yet, I still wait.
Then, all of a sudden...
BOOM!!!
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/488/mygodca4.png
So even AFTER I won the game, people can still leave and make the session "No longer available".
After removing all doubt that there is a winner and that the game has finally ended in a legitimate way, you STILL end up screwing over the winner.
I can't wait to hear your comment on this one.

MrBunsy
7 Sep 2007, 20:44
Find a better host in future?

Spadge
7 Sep 2007, 20:57
At the end of the day, we cannot be held responsible for people's actions nor can we guarantee anyone will stay on line. I'd suggest you find trusted people and stick to playing them and avoid the idiots - there are many.
People have been quitting while hosting and playing for years and will do for years to come, it's terribly unfortunate but it happens in all online games.
The game is not responsible for this, people who quit are. Having a quit option is irrelevant, people can just flick the network off switch.
I'm unaware of what you want us to do other than tie people up and ensure they're connected to the mains so they stay online. This game works very differently to other online games because it's peer to peer and you don't play on a server so to speak, you don't dive in, dive off with a server tracking every move. Once you're playing, you're playing in a small network amongst each other.
I wouldn't mind, but in all the cases you mention, you'd actually WON and the game had ended... (barring the final screen).

fariswheel
7 Sep 2007, 21:05
At the end of the day, we cannot be held responsible for people's actions nor can we guarantee anyone will stay on line. I'd suggest you find trusted people and stick to playing them and avoid the idiots - there are many.
People have been quitting while hosting and playing for years and will do for years to come, it's terribly unfortunate but it happens in all online games.
The game is not responsible for this, people who quit are. Having a quit option is irrelevant, people can just flick the network off switch.
I'm unaware of what you want us to do other than tie people up and ensure they're connected to the mains so they stay online. This game works very differently to other online games because it's peer to peer and you don't play on a server so to speak, you don't dive in, dive off with a server tracking every move. Once you're playing, you're playing in a small network amongst each other.
I wouldn't mind, but in all the cases you mention, you'd actually WON and the game had ended... (barring the final screen).
^ Yes, I won, but I didn't get my points nor did I get my Berserker badge which I so righteously deserved.
I understand people will quit no matter what. What I don't understand is why you would have people quitting affect the declared winner at the very end of the game. When a winner is declared, a winner is declared. People leaving shouldn't affect the declared winner whatsoever since the game is already over. If there is nothing you can do about that due to the structure of the networking features then I understand, just please put it into consideration with any future releases of Worms games.

Spadge
7 Sep 2007, 21:15
Unfortunately staying within the peer to peer structure of the network over-rides continuation of the rest of the game. If it's broken then you have to return, you can't simply carry on to the part that you feel relevant (in this case, some points or awards). Sorry about that. It really is as simple as trying to find quality people to play against.

wave
7 Sep 2007, 23:54
Unfortunately staying within the peer to peer structure of the network over-rides continuation of the rest of the game. If it's broken then you have to return, you can't simply carry on to the part that you feel relevant (in this case, some points or awards). Sorry about that. It really is as simple as trying to find quality people to play against.
Thats all been explained well, however really i think you should get rid of that 'quit' option really, i mean come on it would deter people somewhat from quitting as it would mean that they would HAVE to turn off their psp's if they wanted to be cruel and devoid the winner of his/her points. People would be less inclined to turn off their systems. Having a quit option really kinda gives the impression that its ok and reasonable to quit an online game, whenI think that by now we have established that it is NOT ok to quit an online game.
After all its not that hard to dedicate allocated time in ones spare time to execute fully a game of online worms is it.

robowurmz
8 Sep 2007, 10:19
Thats all been explained well, however really i think you should get rid of that 'quit' option really, i mean come on it would deter people somewhat from quitting as it would mean that they would HAVE to turn off their psp's if they wanted to be cruel and devoid the winner of his/her points..
Well, actually they would just flick the network switch, so they wouldn't really care. And switching off their PSP's probably wouldn't bother them, if you think about it. They can just turn them back on straight away, so your idea falls flat.

wave
8 Sep 2007, 12:06
Well, actually they would just flick the network switch, so they wouldn't really care. And switching off their PSP's probably wouldn't bother them, if you think about it. They can just turn them back on straight away, so your idea falls flat.
right ok, so if they can do that GET rid of the quit option! Simple.

robowurmz
8 Sep 2007, 14:01
right ok, so if they can do that GET rid of the quit option! Simple.
I just said why getting rid of the quit option wouldn't work! They. Just. Turn. Off. The. Network. Switch.

Darkspark
8 Sep 2007, 15:38
I would think people would be put off switching their PSP's off and then on again, because reconnecting is a pain.
People here seem to be under the impression that a person leaves because they are trying to deny the other player points, or because they are sore losers.
In most cases, in many online games, people leave because they are getting beaten, or they aren't doing well. It's more convenient to leave a game with a "quit" button, and having the button there justifies it's use, which is not a good thing.
For instance, If you put a exit in a boring conference room, some people will be inclined to use it. If these doors were sealed until the end, those desperate to get out would find alternative more difficult means (perhaps a window?), whilst a majority would stay. Thus those who do not want to remain in a game, but are not inclined to reboot their PSP and reload the game will stay on till the game finishes. However, since an Exit button is so kindly avaliable, they will now take the easy way out. The number of disconnecters has effectively increased. Not doubled, but certainly increased.

Gbonzo
8 Sep 2007, 15:51
So when the opponent disconnects it doesn't make him lose nor doesn't give you the point? Wow, didn't devs learn from Mario Kart? Even Nintendo got it right the second time with Tetris.

LeoGolden
8 Sep 2007, 16:38
That's why you buy the DS version ;)
j/k, but still...

wave
8 Sep 2007, 17:01
I just said why getting rid of the quit option wouldn't work! They. Just. Turn. Off. The. Network. Switch.
my god you really are mentally challenged. If they can 'Just. Turn. Off. The. Network. Switch.' ................ WHY..............NOT..............GET............. ........RID.................OF.................... ........THE....................................... ..........................QUIT.................... .................................................. .................................................. ..........................................OPTION.
if people need to quit a game of worms it because they probably have some real life issue to deal with in which case, you can just press the Home key on the psp and quit the game or just turn the system off.

MrBunsy
8 Sep 2007, 18:53
Because a menu option is so much more professional shall we say? Give the game a little time to run and and get rid of the greifers and the most common use for the quit option will probably be a decent one.

wave
9 Sep 2007, 02:47
Because a menu option is so much more professional shall we say? Give the game a little time to run and and get rid of the greifers and the most common use for the quit option will probably be a decent one.
nah man, the focus should be on fair play and fun.

franpa
9 Sep 2007, 07:10
Unfortunately staying within the peer to peer structure of the network over-rides continuation of the rest of the game. If it's broken then you have to return, you can't simply carry on to the part that you feel relevant (in this case, some points or awards). Sorry about that. It really is as simple as trying to find quality people to play against.
this is why i play W:A on the PC ;) its got network code thats decent. it gives you your win if the other player disconnects. quitting should send a command to other player saying they quitted and this command could be used to determine if the other player wins by default.

Wormetti
9 Sep 2007, 07:34
this is why i play W:A on the PC ;) its got network code thats decent. it gives you your win if the other player disconnects. quitting should send a command to other player saying they quitted and this command could be used to determine if the other player wins by default.
W:A doesn't have working ranks and hasn't for a long time, so you get nothing for winning/disconnecting. OW2 PSP has host migration, so in a 3 player game, if the host quits, you should still be able to continue playing.

robowurmz
9 Sep 2007, 08:21
my god you really are mentally challenged. If they can 'Just. Turn. Off. The. Network. Switch.' ................ WHY..............NOT..............GET............. ........RID.................OF.................... ........THE....................................... ..........................QUIT.................... .................................................. .................................................. ..........................................OPTION.
if people need to quit a game of worms it because they probably have some real life issue to deal with in which case, you can just press the Home key on the psp and quit the game or just turn the system off.
You do know that it doesn't matter whether you have a quit or not, right? People will still leave, so you aren't contributing useful information to this thread. This thread is about stopping people from leaving without themselves losing points. The people left lose points because they didn't quit for a bizarre reason. And by the way, on a side note, I am in perfect mental health, thank you. Straight A's all the way so far. Not only that, but I've nearly finished this year's course in computing before the rest have started it.

Eyedunno
9 Sep 2007, 08:48
Oh my god. I just had my first chance at getting an annihilation medal, and the guy quit on me. That's gonna be a hard one to get. :/
...And it just happened again. What jerks.
Oh man! This time I fought somebody, destroyed the person, and still didn't get an annihilation medal! Can you not get medals from random matches?!
Ya know, my worst nightmare would be if you can only get medals from ranked matches. Please, Two Tribes, tell me you guys didn't set it up that way... The ranked matches are an embarrassment to an otherwise amazing game.

wave
9 Sep 2007, 10:08
You do know that it doesn't matter whether you have a quit or not, right? People will still leave, so you aren't contributing useful information to this thread. This thread is about stopping people from leaving without themselves losing points. The people left lose points because they didn't quit for a bizarre reason. And by the way, on a side note, I am in perfect mental health, thank you. Straight A's all the way so far. Not only that, but I've nearly finished this year's course in computing before the rest have started it.
Gees you do know that i'm trying to make the point that not having a quit option in the menu, in my humble opinion would REDUCE (not eliminate) the amount of quitters don't you? ? Flipping the wifi switch or turning off their psp's is a less attractive than going for the quit option. As i said before having a quit option in the menu provided really does say thats its ok to quit an online game.

franpa
9 Sep 2007, 10:28
W:A doesn't have working ranks and hasn't for a long time, so you get nothing for winning/disconnecting. OW2 PSP has host migration, so in a 3 player game, if the host quits, you should still be able to continue playing.
but once you win, you win and nothing changes that fact unless your pc crashes.
in W:OW2 if you win and the other player quits then you dont win. the game fades out and you dont see a victory screen and i assume this occures in non ranked games too.

Paul.Power
9 Sep 2007, 10:30
For instance, If you put a exit in a boring conference room, some people will be inclined to use it. If these doors were sealed until the end, those desperate to get out would find alternative more difficult means (perhaps a window?), whilst a majority would stay.That's not quite as absurd a metaphor as CJH's "ice cream sandwich" one, but it's not far off.
It's just the image of some conference centre manager laughing evilly and saying "Noooo, you can't get out, now sit there and be bored like good little conference-goers!"
I mean aside from anything else, the room has to have an exit, for two reasons:
1. How did they get in there in the first place? Through the windows? Must not be such a boring conference after all.
2. What if someone starts a fire?

MrBunsy
9 Sep 2007, 14:14
Gees you do know that i'm trying to make the point that not having a quit option in the menu, in my humble opinion would REDUCE (not eliminate) the amount of quitters don't you? ? Flipping the wifi switch or turning off their psp's is a less attractive than going for the quit option. As i said before having a quit option in the menu provided really does say thats its ok to quit an online game.Clearly, not everyone agrees with you.
In my personal opinion; it may, in the early stages of the game's life, where it's filled with newbies and morons alike, reduce the quitting a tiny bit. However, in a few weeks when all the morons have got bored and gone on to the next new game, it will only annoy the decent players who have valid reasons for quitting.

wave
9 Sep 2007, 15:10
Clearly, not everyone agrees with you.
In my personal opinion; it may, in the early stages of the game's life, where it's filled with newbies and morons alike, reduce the quitting a tiny bit. However, in a few weeks when all the morons have got bored and gone on to the next new game, it will only annoy the decent players who have valid reasons for quitting.
well they should agree with me, also what valid reasons are there for quitting? A valid reaon in my view would be that your house was on fire, in which case i would think the other players would understand.

Paul.Power
9 Sep 2007, 15:40
well they should agree with meThe universe doesn't work like that.
also what valid reasons are there for quitting? A valid reaon in my view would be that your house was on fire, in which case i would think the other players would understand.Your parents have just told you to put that thing down NOW and get on with your homework?
Admittedly this could be achieved by flicking the off switch.

Joel_the_J
10 Sep 2007, 01:20
If the ranked game was just one round it would make quiters far less prevalent. For a game made on a portable system ranked games take far too long! to win 3 games when 4 people are playing takes FOREVER! Its understandable that people are going to quit. An hour to play any game conflicts with alot of people lives. I never quit but when its the fourth game it gets understandable.

Wormetti
10 Sep 2007, 02:34
If the ranked game was just one round it would make quiters far less prevalent. For a game made on a portable system ranked games take far too long! to win 3 games when 4 people are playing takes FOREVER! Its understandable that people are going to quit. An hour to play any game conflicts with alot of people lives. I never quit but when its the fourth game it gets understandable.
You can host with a one round custom scheme on the PSP version, they just didn't include any by default. Of course, if everyone is hosting and no one selects the find game option, no one will join.

Squirminator2k
10 Sep 2007, 06:24
Firstly, wave - clam down. Really. You're acting rather a fool in this thread. Might be an idea to go have a lemonade or something, try to clear your head. Go for a walk. Maybe ride your bike through the local park. Stop in at a bookstore, flirt with the girl behind the counter for a bit. That usually clears my head up.
You're saying "RAWR, remove teh quit option grr" but the fact of the matter is even if it's removed, people can still quit by switching off the network switch or, more drastically, turning their console off. Removing the quit option won't solve the problem.
Now, you've been given this information before, and your answer is "then it won't matter if the quit function is removed". That's circular logic that doesn't work. It keeps going around in repetitive circles, much like the plot of a Stephen King novel. Listen to what you are saying - "Removing the quit option won't solve the problem, so they should remove the quit option." Does that seem logical to you? Does it work? No. It doesn't. It doesn't solve the problem, it won't reduce the number of quits. People will just continue to quit using more nefarious methods.
It's analogous to, "Calling the Fire Department is pointless because my house is on fire, so we should call the Fire Department." Except that's not a perfect analogy. I expect someone else can come up with something better.

wave
10 Sep 2007, 10:35
Firstly, wave - clam down. Really. You're acting rather a fool in this thread. Might be an idea to go have a lemonade or something, try to clear your head. Go for a walk. Maybe ride your bike through the local park. Stop in at a bookstore, flirt with the girl behind the counter for a bit. That usually clears my head up.
You're saying "RAWR, remove teh quit option grr" but the fact of the matter is even if it's removed, people can still quit by switching off the network switch or, more drastically, turning their console off. Removing the quit option won't solve the problem.
Now, you've been given this information before, and your answer is "then it won't matter if the quit function is removed". That's circular logic that doesn't work. It keeps going around in repetitive circles, much like the plot of a Stephen King novel. Listen to what you are saying - "Removing the quit option won't solve the problem, so they should remove the quit option." Does that seem logical to you? Does it work? No. It doesn't. It doesn't solve the problem, it won't reduce the number of quits. People will just continue to quit using more nefarious methods.
It's analogous to, "Calling the Fire Department is pointless because my house is on fire, so we should call the Fire Department." Except that's not a perfect analogy. I expect someone else can come up with something better.
oh god grow up, i'm perfectly calm, its silly repetitive arguments like yours that wind me up and you know it, what you have just said has been said already in this thread, i've made it perfectly clear about my opinion about the quit option. I've never said removing the quit option would solve the problem of people quitting.

Luther
10 Sep 2007, 10:46
Keep it civil please.

MrBionic
12 Sep 2007, 12:03
This problem is more frustrating than I could have ever imagined... 5 games in a row now I've had people quit half-way through, and I'm running a one game match! Trying to run 3 games is pointless.. the number of times in twenty that I can say 3 games ever made it to completion can be counted by how many buffalo you can put on the head of a pin.
Yah.. finding trusted people to play with is nice in theory, but damn...
Anyway, anyone reading this.. I'm MrBionic in the game, and if you see my name, you can rest assured *I* won't quit out. If you see me, I'd love to play with people with some mother-lovin' integrity.

fariswheel
12 Sep 2007, 12:44
Firstly, wave - clam down. Really. You're acting rather a fool in this thread. Might be an idea to go have a lemonade or something, try to clear your head. Go for a walk. Maybe ride your bike through the local park. Stop in at a bookstore, flirt with the girl behind the counter for a bit. That usually clears my head up.
You're saying "RAWR, remove teh quit option grr" but the fact of the matter is even if it's removed, people can still quit by switching off the network switch or, more drastically, turning their console off. Removing the quit option won't solve the problem.
Now, you've been given this information before, and your answer is "then it won't matter if the quit function is removed". That's circular logic that doesn't work. It keeps going around in repetitive circles, much like the plot of a Stephen King novel. Listen to what you are saying - "Removing the quit option won't solve the problem, so they should remove the quit option." Does that seem logical to you? Does it work? No. It doesn't. It doesn't solve the problem, it won't reduce the number of quits. People will just continue to quit using more nefarious methods.
It's analogous to, "Calling the Fire Department is pointless because my house is on fire, so we should call the Fire Department." Except that's not a perfect analogy. I expect someone else can come up with something better.
Regardless of everything you said, this game encourages quitting. Screw up a shot and you can just quit and still stay connected to WormNET and play a brand new game in seconds, just like you did Squirmanator. Ironically, the "punishment" is given to the disconnecter AND the normal player as well.
I also love how Worms stays true to their awards at the end of each round usually being wrong and worthless. I beat some guy in a rope race with my time as 20 seconds (the stage with the 4 layers), if anything I should have gotten greatest acrobat in the world, but instead I got "Mose Useless and Boring".

Paul.Power
12 Sep 2007, 14:51
I also love how Worms stays true to their awards at the end of each round usually being wrong and worthless. I beat some guy in a rope race with my time as 20 seconds (the stage with the 4 layers), if anything I should have gotten greatest acrobat in the world, but instead I got "Mose Useless and Boring".I forget what Useless and Boring are actually awarded for, but I'd hazard a guess it's because you didn't do any damage.
I appreciate this is not the aim of a Rope Race, but Useless and Boring are probably awarded for an absence of damage.

wave
12 Sep 2007, 17:54
I would think people would be put off switching their PSP's off and then on again, because reconnecting is a pain.
People here seem to be under the impression that a person leaves because they are trying to deny the other player points, or because they are sore losers.
In most cases, in many online games, people leave because they are getting beaten, or they aren't doing well. It's more convenient to leave a game with a "quit" button, and having the button there justifies it's use, which is not a good thing.
For instance, If you put a exit in a boring conference room, some people will be inclined to use it. If these doors were sealed until the end, those desperate to get out would find alternative more difficult means (perhaps a window?), whilst a majority would stay. Thus those who do not want to remain in a game, but are not inclined to reboot their PSP and reload the game will stay on till the game finishes. However, since an Exit button is so kindly avaliable, they will now take the easy way out. The number of disconnecters has effectively increased. Not doubled, but certainly increased.
I'm glad some people know how to use their brains. And that is actually quite a good analogy.

Paul.Power
13 Sep 2007, 10:37
And that is actually quite a good analogy.Except no-one in their right mind would design a conference room without an exit door, expecting people to leave via the window. The analogy is accurate, but it doesn't support the point.

Wormetti
13 Sep 2007, 11:26
The problem isn't so much that there is an exit, the problem is that your opponent doesn't get a win if you take that exit. There is also no obvious policy/message that you will be punished for taking that exit. There is effectively no punishment anyway since everyone in the game gets a disconnect on their record and because of this, the community is likely to ignore those stats.
I know if you choose surrender on the PSP version then your opponent gets a win but I haven't tested what happens if you push start and then choose quit, if it doesn't give your opponent a win then that's a mistake that could have been easily corrected (just trigger a surrender). I'm not sure what developers are allowed to do with the home button though, in PSP homebrew you can do whatever you like when someone pushes home but for official developers there may be Sony restrictions on what code they can run when home > quit is selected.
It would be nice if it was made more obvious whether there was disconnection, quit (by detectable means, eg button/menu option) or a surrender.

Afrohorse
13 Sep 2007, 12:43
I understand how it may seem like taking out the quit option would ease the problem as people are quitting, but you would still be faced with same result if people simply switched off their WiFi connection.
If the quit option was taken out, then people would simply flick off thier WiFi switch instead, or switch off the router. Given that there is no way of knowning a genuine disconnection, from a forced disconnection. If the last person left in the game automatically won then others would feel equally cheated if the disconnection was genuine. This would create a new problem...
Also, if you automatically win via a disconnection from the other player, you could cheat by blocking a connection from the person you are playing, simulating a disconnection and achieving a win. The result would be, you connect to a game, the cheater forces you to lose connection and the cheater would win. You wouldn't even get a chance to play and it would skew all the results in favour of the cheater. That is an even worst scenario than it is currently.
I'm sure you guys can follow the reasons why it has been done this way, if you still feel the need to question why there is a quit option then please re-read this message.

Darkspark
13 Sep 2007, 13:06
THe issue is not with winning or losing, earning points or losing points....trying to cheat or use other forms of subterfuge to achieve a win. Can we just face the fact that NOT HAVING A QUIT BUTTON WOULD LEAD TO LESS DISCONNECTS. I don't even have a PSP, but I can understand Waves' point, and I think its something to re-consider should future wi-fi games be released from T17.
Paul.Power, that is exactly the point.
"no-one in their right mind would design a conference room without an exit door, expecting people to leave via the window."
In the multiplayer online setup that Worms has created, people in the game shouldn't expect other players to leave at all, unless its a genuine requirement, (e.g. their adsl disconnects, or their router loses the signal), in which case, there does not need to be a quit button, or windows.
Think of my analogy as
Exits = Exit Button
Windows = Turning off wireless or rebooting PSP
Which is easier. Does one actually act as a natural prevention of people leaving? Well unless you regularly use Windows to get in and out of buildings...you've answered my question.

Luther
13 Sep 2007, 13:12
darkspark, it appears that you have not read the above message.

Eyedunno
13 Sep 2007, 13:42
Besides, the biggest problem with his analogy is that he's deliberately set it up to be ridiculous. A better analogy would be turning your TV off with the remote vs. turning it off with the power button. Sure, it's easier to do it with the remote, but it's not as if losing the remote is going to make people never turn off their TVs...

wave
13 Sep 2007, 13:45
Except no-one in their right mind would design a conference room without an exit door, expecting people to leave via the window. The analogy is accurate, but it doesn't support the point.
yes the analogy is accurate and supports the point, of course no one would design a room without an exit door.

Eyedunno
13 Sep 2007, 14:15
yes the analogy is accurate and supports the point, of course no one would design a room without an exit door.
Okay, let me get this straight then. I'll number my points to make it easy to understand.
1) Your analogy is accurate and supports your point.
2) No one would design a room without an exit door
3) The quit button is analogous to an exit door
So then it would seem to follow that it was at least not unreasonable for Team17 to put in the quit button.

Darkspark
13 Sep 2007, 15:08
darkspark, it appears that you have not read the above message.
Luther, I promise that I did read the comment. Afrohorse was going on about the quit button existed to maintain fairness with the scores/leaderboard etc... Now my first paragraph disputed this (most people don't care about points etc...), therefore I thought it would be okay to create a post stating why. But I don't think I'm listened to anyway :confused: Anyway, Wave and I realise that more games would finish without a quit button due to to exit and window story I don't want to think about anymore.
If you re-read my first paragraph I just think removing the quit button is something that T17 should consider in the future. Then I went onto Paul Powers point which made even less sense than mine, but of course, its only my points that get picked to death...
I stated nowhere that conference rooms were designed without exits.
Though a few student conferences I've been to have deliberately had a few of their doors locked at strategic points to prevent us from escaping :D
Eyedunno, The "quit button is analogous to an exit door".
That is an open exit door. That begs to be used when one is in a losing position (usually) and is too selfish to finish the game. They might think twice if it was more difficult to use that door, (e.g. they were questioned, it would take a long time, anymore reasons you can imagine...)

wave
13 Sep 2007, 22:28
Okay, let me get this straight then. I'll number my points to make it easy to understand.
1) Your analogy is accurate and supports your point.
2) No one would design a room without an exit door
3) The quit button is analogous to an exit door
So then it would seem to follow that it was at least not unreasonable for Team17 to put in the quit button.
stop being pernickerty now, i'll make this VERY simple for you to understand:
I'm right and you're WRONG. Comprende?

MrBunsy
13 Sep 2007, 22:34
Because we all agree with you, don't we? :p

wave
13 Sep 2007, 22:42
Because we all agree with you, don't we? :p
apparently not, although its unclear why esp. as people don't seem to have any decent counter arguments.
Am i wrong in thinking the DS version of worms OW2 has no 'quit' option in the menu?

franpa
14 Sep 2007, 03:48
I know if you choose surrender on the PSP version then your opponent gets a win but I haven't tested what happens if you push start and then choose quit, if it doesn't give your opponent a win then that's a mistake that could have been easily corrected (just trigger a surrender).
awesome idea.

Afrohorse
14 Sep 2007, 14:38
If people realised they would surrender when they quit and lose the match, they would start turning off the WiFi switch instead. This invalidates any arguement about the quit option being there or not as you can always leave a game regardless.

Wormetti
14 Sep 2007, 16:07
The PSP can detect if someone pushes the wifi switch, it could log that and report it each time the player connects to WormNet. Quitting by powering off/removing battery could also be logged (write a 1 at startup and only erase that if the game is ended properly) and the player could have points removed. If there was or is a near constant connection/communication to WormNet then you could detect which player turned off their router. I don't expect idiot detection/deterrents to be in every game but I think it's worth considering for future games.

Afrohorse
14 Sep 2007, 16:17
That would also punish players that have had a genuine WiFi or battery problem.
People have been saying due to the PSP hardware design it is easy to accidentally flick off the WiFi switch, they would feel more cheated if they lost points because of it.

Wormetti
14 Sep 2007, 16:26
They don't have to be punished (you could reward the other player instead or aswell) but I think it's fair (more so than the current system) to take a point deduction/give my opponent a win, if I forgot to charge my battery or I pushed a switch that I shouldn't have or even if my ISP decides to do some maintenance.

Afrohorse
14 Sep 2007, 16:44
In that case if you automatically assign a win to the other player, your opponent could cheat by knocking your connection out and gain a win everytime. (See my previous explanation of this).
You may be fine with getting points taken away for a lost connection, but others wouldn't be and we'd get forum posts about that instead. The safest option is not to award the points, then nobody loses anything, they just have a bad game due to a quitter.
I'm sure you can see the bigger picture and you also understand that we have to go with the solution that has the least impact overall and not reward cheaters. I see that the quit option can make it easier for people to leave losing games, but removing doesn't solve the problem. In the future though, we would look into this problem more so and try and make it harder for people to quit the game.
Lets not forget, although this happens and quitters exist and spoil the game for others, there are far more successful games happening and people have had great fun in playing them.

Wormetti
14 Sep 2007, 17:19
In that case if you automatically assign a win to the other player, your opponent could cheat by knocking your connection out and gain a win everytime. (See my previous explanation of this).
They can disconnect you from themselves but to disconnect you from WormNet/the internet would require some kind of DDoS and the majority of quitters just aren't that determined.
I'm sure you can see the bigger picture and you also understand that we have to go with the solution that has the least impact overall and not reward cheaters. I see that the quit option can make it easier for people to leave losing games, but removing doesn't solve the problem. In the future though, we would look into this problem more so and try and make it harder for people to quit the game.
I have no issue with there being a quit/surrender option, I would just like the remaining player to be rewarded if that option is chosen. I understand the current system has no method for determining the remaining player but in theory, it is possible to detect who quit in various situations (I posted some admittedly obvious methods/suggestions)
Lets not forget, although this happens and quitters exist and spoil the game for others, there are far more successful games happening and people have had great fun in playing them.
Indeed, I have had many successful and fun games. My posts on this topic are suggestions and not really complaints. It's a great game.

wave
14 Sep 2007, 17:25
In that case if you automatically assign a win to the other player, your opponent could cheat by knocking your connection out and gain a win everytime. (See my previous explanation of this).
You may be fine with getting points taken away for a lost connection, but others wouldn't be and we'd get forum posts about that instead. The safest option is not to award the points, then nobody loses anything, they just have a bad game due to a quitter.
I'm sure you can see the bigger picture and you also understand that we have to go with the solution that has the least impact overall and not reward cheaters. I see that the quit option can make it easier for people to leave losing games, but removing doesn't solve the problem. In the future though, we would look into this problem more so and try and make it harder for people to quit the game.
Lets not forget, although this happens and quitters exist and spoil the game for others, there are far more successful games happening and people have had great fun in playing them.
well thankyou very much for saying that you say you will look into the problem, as i've said before i understand that removing the quit option won't resolve the problem, i acknowledge this, but in my and other peoples view it will help reduce the problem. But saying that people will quit by other means eg flicking the wifi switch is not justification for having the quit option in the menu, far from it.
I don't understand how another player can knock out your internet connection.

parsley
14 Sep 2007, 17:30
The PSP can detect if someone pushes the wifi switch, it could log that and report it each time the player connects to WormNet.
Unfortunately, that doesn't describe anything like what's necessary.
Any time a player signs in, the last game's result and list of players would have to be sent to the servers.
Then, the servers would have to find every stored report mentioning that player and if there's one or more complete sets of reports for one or more games and if the reports can be sensibly resolved it could then, and only then, perform whatever action was required.
But what happens if the PSP is powered down before the next connection? It gone, unless the data are saved, which doesn't work because the user can modify it or delete it.
So we develop a vast system to achieve next to nothing. The quitter can still quit without punishment and can still deprive you of your points.
Quitting by powering off/removing battery could also be logged (write a 1 at startup and only erase that if the game is ended properly) and the player could have points removed.
Saving the data doesn't work because the user can modify it or delete it.
If there was or is a near constant connection/communication to WormNet then you could detect which player turned off their router. I don't expect idiot detection/deterrents to be in every game but I think it's worth considering for future games.
Solving the "turning off the router" method doesn't solve very much at all. Use a firewall to block the other players' connections instead.

Wormetti
14 Sep 2007, 21:22
Eliminating all (or most) methods of depriving points by ending the game early (other than using a firewall) would IMHO significantly reduce the amount of deprived points. I don't know if it would be worth the time it would take to code for the reward it would give legit players but some point junkies would think so.
As far as I know, current PSP save games are encrypted and there aren't any editors for them but there are ways to change the data once it's in memory (still it's too complex for most users). The WormNet server could expect the clients to report results. If a player decides to delete their profile/save data, they won't report a result and the points could be given to the only player that reported the result. You can use expiring unique game session IDs and some layer of security (prevent the player from using a backup of an old savegame, among other things).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle ruins some of my quick design but there must be some middle ground that is better than the current system :)

vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.