For the love of God, please punish toxic players!

[King Nutella.4570]

It gets pretty disappointing to see known afk players continue to play with us. Is there not a way to prevent this/punish these players? Or at least make it so that the rest of the team is not punished?

 

For example, acknowledging that a player is afk (idle for more than 15 seconds) and then either kicking them out so I our rating is not affected or decreasing their rating substantially (like -30 or less).

 

Also, so that these fools don't waste our time, I think that if a team gets a 300 point lead, there should be a poll asking the losing players if they want to abandon the match. All or at least 3-4/5 must say yes.

[Exalted Quality.8534]

It is unwise to jump to the conclusion that people are being toxic by idling for 15 seconds. If multiple people are on respawn timer, you will actually hurt your team by running out of your base alone and “feeding” the enemy team kills. The correct play in this situation is almost always waiting for a few people to respawn and pushing for the home node together.

 

There is already an idle timer and dishonor system in place that will preserve your rating in the event of a loss where you’ve had a team player disconnected for the time threshold.

 

Why are you in such a big rush to give up when the enemy team gets a lead? I have been on teams that won after being down by 350 and it’s not in my nature to quit. If I got a bunch of cry babies on my team that vote-quitted after eating the full duration of ghastly breach on mid node, I would be very triggered.

[Marxx.5021]

Anet encourages toxicity in PvP by game design. Why would they punish it?

[vampirem.2065]

i Agree with nutella

[sephiroth.4217]

I had 3 games yesterday and all 3 games resembled this.


 

Basically you got 1 person who was touched badly during mid fight that now has PTSD about leaving the base, got another guy who's raging at him so he's afk too and another guy asking how to get team chat to work and learning about team chat.

 

I don't know whats up with ranked this season, but just about every day is like this... I'm only in it for the rewards but the quality of these games are so bad that it can't even be enjoyed and could understand why people get "toxic".

[Rodzynald.5897]

> @"Marxx.5021" said:

> Anet encourages toxicity in PvP by game design. Why would they punish it?

 

Could you expand this argument further?

[MyPuppy.8970]

Maybe there should be a system where the remaining active players don't lose rating if 1 or more decides to go afk? But such a system could be abused as well... There is no solution. Only human extinction could prevent this kind of behaviour.

[Crozame.4098]

punishment works. So there are several options: punish playing time after an afk (now we have it, but can increase the length); punish the points even harder; maybe even some gold (Note that you earn 2 gold after the daily achievements, so can deduce from that)

Another idea is to give a voting mechanism. If a guy is afk in base for more than 30 seconds, then people are allowed to vote to kick him. He will get kicked after 3 or 4 votes. Can make it even more subtle, only report might be enough, so the guy does not even know (this latter mechanism is to prevent afkers to go into the match and to throw on purpose.)

[ilmi.5369]

> @"Crozame.4098" said:

> punishment works. So there are several options: punish playing time after an afk (now we have it, but can increase the length); punish the points even harder; maybe even some gold (Note that you earn 2 gold after the daily achievements, so can deduce from that)

> Another idea is to give a voting mechanism. If a guy is afk in base for more than 30 seconds, then people are allowed to vote to kick him. He will get kicked after 3 or 4 votes. Can make it even more subtle, only report might be enough, so the guy does not even know (this latter mechanism is to prevent afkers to go into the match and to throw on purpose.)

 

It would require some mechanics that prevents an abuse of the system but basically I'm all in for a kick vote or a kick by Anet after an idle report. After a kick vote the loosing team should still loose rating, as usual, in order to avoid the kick vote being abused as a panic button for the loosing team. But the team that just kick voted an idle player could immediately get a new player from the queue.That way there at least was a chance to keep on playing a match.

[Urud.4925]

And me that I thought this threads was about punishing people who insult and trash talk in map chat during PvP.

[MyPuppy.8970]

> @"Urud.4925" said:

> And me that I thought this threads was about punishing people who insult and trash talk in map chat during PvP.

 

Yeah me too. On that note i'd suggest -100 rating and -100g for trash talkers instead of ban.

[Marxx.5021]

> @"Rodzynald.5897" said:

> > @"Marxx.5021" said:

> > Anet encourages toxicity in PvP by game design. Why would they punish it?

>

> Could you expand this argument further?

 

Here a few aspects to this:

PvP is pretty snowballing, e.g. loose first fight -> somebody might go AFK -> toxicity.

Your personal mmr rating gain or loss is often defined by other players -> bad feeling / unfair -> toxcity.

Match maker allows class stacking, player duo with huge mmr difference and does not consider team composition -> one sited matches -> toxicity.

PvE driven class balance -> overpowered specs, slow adaptation for PvP -> one sited / random matches -> toxicity.

 

What could be changed:

Give incentive to keep playing. (There was something similiar in place when you could gain pips for a lost match!)

Include personal achievements even if this is hard to measure and may be not 100% correct.

Don't allow class stacking.

Don't allow broken specs when you can't balance them for PvP in a reasonable time.

Add an option where you can choose the max premade size yourself you want to allow, e.g. from your own team size to 5.

 

In general I often have the feeling of an unfair random system.

[Amaranthe.3578]

Thats what you get for playing with randoms and pushing away all the team players.

You made your bed now lie in it.

[Daishi.6027]

> @"MyPuppy.8970" said:

> > @"Urud.4925" said:

> > And me that I thought this threads was about punishing people who insult and trash talk in map chat during PvP.

>

> Yeah me too. On that note i'd suggest -100 rating and -100g for trash talkers instead of ban.

 

A-net intentionally allows trash talk and has expressed they did not want to stifle it.

Unless you say something racist, homophobic, or **legitimately** sexist (lol jessica) no one is going to take action.

 

If you want to punish people, you could just throw. Keep in mind you will also be punishing the allies who weren't being bad mannered.

 

Someone on your team calls you bad and hounds you for nothing, just start to rotate the wrong way, maybe obvious and intentionally letting that guy die when you could have rezzed him; like jumping up and down on his body and when he complains just be like "Sorry, I'm bad remember? I thought space bar was to rez."

[Vieux P.1238]

Omg peeps,........plz L2bloc toxic players instead of posting multiple rants post about toxic players.

Trash talk will always be in gaming. You need to turn off your chat on does bad trash talking players instead of crying about it.

[SteepledHat.1345]

>A-net intentionally allows trash talk and has expressed they did not want to stifle it.

 

Huh? When was this stated?

[King Nutella.4570]

> @"Vieux P.1238" said:

> Omg peeps,........plz L2bloc toxic players instead of posting multiple rants post about toxic players.

> Trash talk will always be in gaming. You need to turn off your chat on does bad trash talking players instead of crying about it.

 

Smh nobody cares about trash talkers. Did you even read the OP? Blocking does nothing to avoid afk players.

[shippage.1983]

Funny thing is, toxic players will get banned on twitch before they get banned in game

[mindcircus.1506]

> @"Rodzynald.5897" said:

> > @"Marxx.5021" said:

> > Anet encourages toxicity in PvP by game design. Why would they punish it?

>

> Could you expand this argument further?

 

This "argument" is something PvP'ers say from time to time in order to abdicate responsibility for their own actions.

"Anet's design choices get me SO frustrated that I cannot possibly conduct myself like a rational human being"

[Vieux P.1238]

> @"King Nutella.4570" said:

> > @"Vieux P.1238" said:

> > Omg peeps,........plz L2bloc toxic players instead of posting multiple rants post about toxic players.

> > Trash talk will always be in gaming. You need to turn off your chat on does bad trash talking players instead of crying about it.

>

> Smh nobody cares about trash talkers. Did you even read the OP? Blocking does nothing to avoid afk players.

 

Yes i did read the op's post. Have you read all other's posters? Have you read mine when & i quote mention all PEEP's? & not Op's.

[Bazsi.2734]

> @"King Nutella.4570" said:

> It gets pretty disappointing to see known afk players continue to play with us. Is there not a way to prevent this/punish these players? Or at least make it so that the rest of the team is not punished?

>

> For example, acknowledging that a player is afk (idle for more than 15 seconds) and then either kicking them out so I our rating is not affected or decreasing their rating substantially (like -30 or less).

 

15 seconds of idling... thats like capping a point without disturbance. Genious idea, everyone but the troll autorunning into a wall would get kicked.

 

> Also, so that these fools don't waste our time, I think that if a team gets a 300 point lead, there should be a poll asking the losing players if they want to abandon the match. All or at least 3-4/5 must say yes.

 

If there is a 300 point lead, the match is basicly played out already, ending within 2 minutes. But to potentially cut that time down by 30 seconds, it's worth eliminating the incentive for comebacks! (Just imagine this: enemy has a 200-ish lead already, so if you AFK just for like a minute, you can vote abandon and be rid of this match. Noone tries once the match seems lost anymore, and wins seem less legitimate. EVERYONE WINS!)

 

Unless you motivate players with something to compete for, many of them will do whatever they want. This cannot be solved like you suggest. Not if you tweak the numbers, not if you redesign your "abandon match" idea.

If there is a possible cool reward 90% of the players want, there is decent competition in the upper half of the ladder. If there isn't, well then it's hell. Welcome to hell.

[Snellibee.2761]

PvP these days is filled with people that have no idea how this game works, even in g3/p1 there are brainless plebs running around point to point runnin ginto 4v1s. Theres afk'ers left and right. I've gotten substantially more toxic in this season

[Burnfall.9573]

Interesting articles about toxicity

 

https://blog.emblim.co/a-toxic-psychology-in-gaming-what-we-can-do-to-solve-it-429dcb1f7632

 

https://heyyouvideogame.com/toxic-gaming/

 

'Toxic Gaming culture seems to becoming more and more normal across all the online multiplayer games. It’s not easy to battle the toxic trolls of the gaming world, but game developers are doing their best. Gaming companies are realizing that incredibly toxic gaming communities will keep potential players and buyers at bay. Knowing this game developers are building in more mechanics to curtail toxicity and reward those who don’t participate in the negativity. Hopefully game developers will hone in systems and game dynamics to the point toxicity will be minimized and positive dynamics between gamers will be reinforced'.

 

 

[Burnfall.9573]

repost same

[phokus.8934]

“Toxic gamers” have always been there.

 

It’s just now with SJWs and people really being overly sensitive in today’s world that people think it’s a problem.

 

It’s a crazy world we live in now compared to 10 years ago. Trolling can be fun at times for anyone but game companies are trying to curb this to create safe virtual places.

 

If noise from someone’s mouth or text really hurts you then there are bigger issues at hand with you than the person doing it.