Curse

Allamorph · Oct 30, 2009, 12:44 AM // 00:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

People should give teams a chance ... because it's supposed to be about fun, not how many Gamer points you're going to get.

True.

And then again you have the players who are driven by the rewards more than the spirit of the game, who just want to play for the schwag and really don't care too much about the other players so long as they help the person win and profit. And in venues like these where there are no immediate social consequences for never finishing what you start (both because of the anonymity of the internet and because of the sheer number of players and games), it becomes increasingly hard to discourage such play.

But in the long run, stuff like this doesn't really matter. The only losses are reward items with no real value outside the game and your time and patience. Patience comes back and time keeps on ticking into the future (ugh, terrible reference); so sure, it's frustrating now, but I don't see any real benefits of worrying about it.

Edit: A possible solution to the whole thing might be to allow players to form a list—somewhat like the Ignore list on the Friends panel—where if a name is entered on that list those two players would not be placed in random battles together. In most real-life instances involving quitters, usually no one ever plays with that person again, which is the social pressure I was talking about. A "party filter", then, would allow those players who want to battle with good teammates to keep from seeing the same people jump in and out, and still keeps the jumpers able to find teams.

Now, I don't really feel it's a great idea, but at the moment that's the only concept I can come up with that would approximate the natural social filter.