Why do you get penalized for leaving midgame?

[Mental Surge]

We all know the online in this game is a joke. But why do you get penalized for leaving a game midway through? This isn't street fighter where you screw your opponent out of getting points. In this game you do your opponent a favor and let them kill a lvl 1 cp. There's no negative to either party in this. Seriously, what utter rubbish this? You are telling me that they went to the trouble of implementing a leavebuster mechanic when it wasn't needed at all, yet they have not implemented a way of vetoing maps on ladder? Or being able to queue with a friend in doubles on ladder? Or having tournaments that arent filled with items and stage hazards that no one cares about? Is everyone at Nintendo brain-dead?

 

[1FC0]

I wonder that myself. Personally I think that every player should be allowed to just press start followed by some button combination to forfeit the game. And if they D/C then that should also count as a forfeit.
In 1v1 a forfeit should end the game and prompt the results screen with the non-forfeiting player as the winner. In FFA a forfeit should remove a player (and allow him to leave) and put him below above every player that forfeited before him but below everyone that stayed in the game longer than him in the rankings. And in Team Battle a forfeit should just remove the player unless he was the last remaining player in his team in which case the battle ends with the other team winning if there are 2 teams or the removed team gets placed above all previously forfeited teams and below all remaining teams if there are more than 2 teams.
That system makes sense. It's simple too because it boils down to "the later you forfeit the higher you are in the rankings".

And then in other games where disconnecting is an issue due to the game being co-op (Luigi's Mansion 2) Nintendo does nothing to prevent it.

But online has more faults too. Another thing that I hate is the braindead implementation of Arena's. Why does th earena close when the leader leaves? Why not just have the player that has been the longest in the Arena after the leader take over automatically as leader?

 

[Mental Surge]

I wonder that myself. Personally I think that every player should be allowed to just press start followed by some button combination to forfeit the game. And if they D/C then that should also count as a forfeit.
In 1v1 a forfeit should end the game and prompt the results screen with the non-forfeiting player as the winner. In FFA a forfeit should remove a player (and allow him to leave) and put him below above every player that forfeited before him but below everyone that stayed in the game longer than him in the rankings. And in Team Battle a forfeit should just remove the player unless he was the last remaining player in his team in which case the battle ends with the other team winning if there are 2 teams or the removed team gets placed above all previously forfeited teams and below all remaining teams if there are more than 2 teams.
That system makes sense. It's simple too because it boils down to "the later you forfeit the higher you are in the rankings".

And then in other games where disconnecting is an issue due to the game being co-op (Luigi's Mansion 2) Nintendo does nothing to prevent it.

But online has more faults too. Another thing that I hate is the braindead implementation of Arena's. Why does th earena close when the leader leaves? Why not just have the player that has been the longest in the Arena after the leader take over automatically as leader?

or why do you have to leave the queue in an arena to switch characters or stages? Or change the rules?

 

[1FC0]

Or why does the kick window not show ping? To me lag is the only reason that I would want to kick so when there is lag then I want to know who is causing it.

 

[StoicPhantom]

1. You do get screwed out of your points if an opponent disconnects. And are left with fighting a boring cpu for the remainder of the match. I've had this happen many times.

2. A forfeit in Teams will just leave one team unfairly disadvantaged with a cpu.

3. Due to 1 and 2, penalties are there to discourage disconnection. If you are getting to the point of rage quitting, it's time to stop.

The rest of the complaints are valid.

 

[1FC0]

1. You do get screwed out of your points if an opponent disconnects. And are left with fighting a boring cpu for the remainder of the match. I've had this happen many times.

So why does Nintendo do that? If Nintendo just treated a D/C as a loss then nothing bad would come from a D/C and the D/Cer would not need to be punished.

2. A forfeit in Teams will just leave one team unfairly disadvantaged with a cpu.

That's a risk you are taking with teams. You could just as well get a crappy teammate or a troll.

If you are getting to the point of rage quitting, it's time to stop.

There are other reasons than rage to D/C. Maybe someone has to go, finds the match boring, or his internet drops out. Why would people have to fight a boring match? Besides, one does not get penalised for self-destructing on purpose so there already is an inefficient annoying way to forfeit. Why not just streamline the forfeiting?

 

[meleebrawler]

So why does Nintendo do that? If Nintendo just treated a D/C as a loss then nothing bad would come from a D/C and the D/Cer would not need to be punished.


That's a risk you are taking with teams. You could just as well get a crappy teammate or a troll.


There are other reasons than rage to D/C. Maybe someone has to go, finds the match boring, or his internet drops out. Why would people have to fight a boring match? Besides, one does not get penalised for self-destructing on purpose so there already is an inefficient annoying way to forfeit. Why not just streamline the forfeiting?

If having quit matches count as losses was all it took to discourage quitters, we wouldn't have had things like Jail in Killer Instinct.

- If quitting the game for an errand gives you a ban, the length of it should cover the ban time anyway.
- You actually do get penalized for intentional SDs. It just takes a lot of them in a short period of time because there needs to be a margin of error between those actually doing this and those who are doing it accidentally.
- It's not the game's job to determine the cause of your network failing. A dropped connection is a dropped connection and if it happens frequently you need to be banned so that you stop making other players suffer for it.
- If you are going to quit for something as vague as being bored, how are we supposed to know you won't also quit for any other petty or inane reason at the drop of a hat? Or that other players won't try to encourage this kind of behaviour, for sick pleasure if nothing else?

 

[1FC0]

If having quit matches count as losses was all it took to discourage quitters, we wouldn't have had things like Jail in Killer Instinct.

Why do they need to discourage quitters?

- If quitting the game for an errand gives you a ban, the length of it should cover the ban time anyway.

The game cannot connect the length of a ban to the length of an errand. What if someone gets bothered because he needs to help with something small like carrying something or opening the door for a package? That only takes a few seconds and that does not cover all of the game's bans.

- You actually do get penalized for intentional SDs. It just takes a lot of them in a short period of time because there needs to be a margin of error between those actually doing this and those who are doing it accidentally.

You get penalised for some of them, but not even close to all. Anyway I am against that either. Intentional SDs are not a problem especially not if forfeiting is treated as a legitimate option.

- It's not the game's job to determine the cause of your network failing.

I already implied that it's not the game's job to determine why the connection dropped. I suggested that a connection drop be treated as a forfeit. Technically the connection getting dropped on accident is not a forfeit but since it's not the game's job to determine why the connection dropped it should be considered as a forfeit regardless.

A dropped connection is a dropped connection and if it happens frequently you need to be banned so that you stop making other players suffer for it.

How does the player suffer from an early victory? Just move on and go to the next game. That's how it would be if disconnects were treated as forfeits. As soon as the opponent disconnects you would hear "GAME!" and the victory screen would pop up with you as victor. Then you would move on to the next game. So where is the suffering? Do you also suffer if the opponent misses his recovery on his last stock making you win unexpectedly early?

If you are going to quit for something as vague as being bored, how are we supposed to know you won't also quit for any other petty or inane reason at the drop of a hat?

Why do you even need to know? If the opponent wants to forfeit and hand you over the win, why not just take it and move on to the next game?

Or that other players won't try to encourage this kind of behaviour, for sick pleasure if nothing else?

What do mean? How would they encourage it?

 

[meleebrawler]

Why do they need to discourage quitters?


The game cannot connect the length of a ban to the length of an errand. What if someone gets bothered because he needs to help with something small like carrying something or opening the door for a package? That only takes a few seconds and that does not cover all of the game's bans.


You get penalised for some of them, but not even close to all. Anyway I am against that either. Intentional SDs are not a problem especially not if forfeiting is treated as a legitimate option.


I already implied that it's not the game's job to determine why the connection dropped. I suggested that a connection drop be treated as a forfeit. Technically the connection getting dropped on accident is not a forfeit but since it's not the game's job to determine why the connection dropped it should be considered as a forfeit regardless.


How does the player suffer from an early victory? Just move on and go to the next game. That's how it would be if disconnects were treated as forfeits. As soon as the opponent disconnects you would hear "GAME!" and the victory screen would pop up with you as victor. Then you would move on to the next game. So where is the suffering? Do you also suffer if the opponent misses his recovery on his last stock making you win unexpectedly early?


Why do you even need to know? If the opponent wants to forfeit and hand you over the win, why not just take it and move on to the next game?


What do mean? How would they encourage it?

Because some players just don't care abut raising their rank and just want easy wins or instant gratification, but also don't want the pure skill randomness of unranked matches. Even if you technically get rewarded whenever this happens to you, it's still annoying because you don't get to enjoy full matches (or actually playing humans in this case) if it happens often. And on the flipside some could try to abuse this by playing in a rage-inducing manner to get as many people to quit against them as possible. Plus whether or not that's intentional, you run the risk of reaching ranking heights well beyond your ability.

If you allow players an easy way out if situations being "boring", it runs a high risk of being a slippery slope that devolves into them doing things like quitting just because the opponent chooses a character they don't like. And others will absolutely pick up on these trends and modify their behaviour to suit their needs, whether they like it or not.

You lose GSP if you disconnect from a match, so in that regard they're already considered forfeits.

 

[1FC0]

it's still annoying because you don't get to enjoy full matches (or actually playing humans in this case) if it happens often

Should we also ban people who accidentally self-destruct? Because that has exactly the same effect that a forfeit would have.

Besides that, being forced to sit through a game that one does not enjoy anymore is not fun either. Personally I do not mind a match ending sooner than expected by a SD or forfeit because that does not invalidate the fun that I had during the game; it just makes the game end sooner. But the next game is normally mere seconds away.

Also, forfeiting would count as a loss and thus would lower one's score meaning that the few heavy forfeiters that the game has would generally all be collected in the low GSP area with all the trolls and such.

And on the flipside some could try to abuse this by playing in a rage-inducing manner to get as many people to quit against them as possible

In that case we definitely need forfeiting. Imagine having to face such a troll right now—you would have to put up with it! At least with forfeiting you could just admit that you cannot beat him and move on to enjoy the game. Of course that is assuming that you lack the skill to beat him. SSBU seems to be pretty balanced against degenerate playstyles so if the opponent can play in a rage-inducing way against you then that generally means that he is better and deserves the win anyway.

Plus whether or not that's intentional, you run the risk of reaching ranking heights well beyond your ability.

How so? If people forfeit becaus they cannot beat you then you are better than them and deserve the win. If they forfeit because they're trolls then they could have easily lost without forfeiting as well by playing bad on purpose and thus forfeiting probably makes little difference. The game an only rank players on how well they play, not how good they really are. So sandbaggers will always distort the rankings no matter if they can forfeit or not.

If you allow players an easy way out if situations being "boring", it runs a high risk of being a slippery slope that devolves into them doing things like quitting just because the opponent chooses a character they don't like.

Good, people should not be forced to play a game against their will.

And others will absolutely pick up on these trends and modify their behaviour to suit their needs, whether they like it or not.

So that's a character that's considered to be boring to play against. That's not a fault of forfeiting, but of the character. Why have degenerate characters in the roster? That makes no sense without forfeiting either. Besides, this is almost exclusively a low GSP problem anyway (because forfeiting would lower GSP and thus frequent forfeiters would automatically get low GSP unless they're insanely good). Low GSP will always be full of trolls.

You lose GSP if you disconnect from a match, so in that regard they're already considered forfeits.

That's the good part of how disconnects are handled right now.

 

[StoicPhantom]

I should preface this post with I'm not necessarily in favor of how they handled things in this regard, but explaining why you need to do something.

So why does Nintendo do that? If Nintendo just treated a D/C as a loss then nothing bad would come from a D/C and the D/Cer would not need to be punished.

To discourage this kind of behavior. As was already mentioned, there are people who don't care about losses and just decide to quit for whatever reason. It's not like you're banned right away for leaving one time. And it's not like you have only a few strikes and you're out. It's more about how frequently this happens. I've found I can get away with disconnects at least twice in one day, provided I don't have frequent disconnects.

That's enough to cover you for any "emergencies" that would require you to leave in the middle of the match. Any more than that and you probably don't have a good excuse. It's not like we're playing 15-30 minute matches. You're going to be playing like 3-5 minute matches most of the time.

Why would people have to fight a boring match?

Because that's subjective. Many people find anybody not mindlessly rushing into their attacks "boring". Competitive play above a mid level is going to be "boring" as competitive players aren't above "playing lame", AKA playing intelligently. Smash players in general seem to have an aversion to any playstyle that isn't an all offense mash fest.

So in order to not turn the competitive oriented mode into a literal Final Destination, Fox only meme, we would need to establish some behavior guidelines. Given the character I main it would probably be nigh impossible for me to be able to actually play in such a scenario. I'm not the typical WiFi Zelda, but salt mines still lump me in with them anyway and I very rarely get rematches. I shudder to think of what it would be like to play with people being able to quit whenever they want.


As flawed as Quickplay is, it is still pretty obvious it's meant to be competitive oriented. If you want complete control over how you play, then you have Arenas. But you can't please everyone, so you're going to have to buck up and deal with playstyles or characters you don't like to fight, if you want to play QP. It's not perfect by a long shot, but it is much better than Smash 4 in terms of limiting toxic community behavior.

 

[1FC0]

You seem to misunderstand me. My point is that it's good for people to not be punished for forfeiting. A forfeit should count as a loss in order to keep the integrity of the ladder system in place and not to serve as punishment. I think that there should be no punishment for forfeiting.

I think that there should not be a punishment for forfeiting because when someone does not enjoy a current match then the game —which is supposed to entertain him— is failing him. Forfeiting and starting another match could rectify this and thus is a good thing and therefore should not be punished.

As for the one who's opponent forfeits, he would just win and move on to the next match. I still do not get why this is supposed to be annoying outside of team matches.

 

[meleebrawler]

You seem to misunderstand me. My point is that it's good for people to not be punished for forfeiting. A forfeit should count as a loss in order to keep the integrity of the ladder system in place and not to serve as punishment. I think that there should be no punishment for forfeiting.

I think that there should not be a punishment for forfeiting because when someone does not enjoy a current match then the game —which is supposed to entertain him— is failing him. Forfeiting and starting another match could rectify this and thus is a good thing and therefore should not be punished.

As for the one who's opponent forfeits, he would just win and move on to the next match. I still do not get why this is supposed to be annoying outside of team matches.

First of all I'd like to know what kind of person buys a fighting game with the intention of playing with other humans and never expect to be given a hard time.

Secondly, do you honestly believe gaining GSP is the only reason anyone would ever stick around for a full match? Becuase that's the only scenario where what you describe is actually mutually beneficial.

And would you consider a person whose idea of fun is that games are only so when he is winning and rage-quits or table-flips anytime he isn't good company?

 

[1FC0]

First of all I'd like to know what kind of person buys a fighting game with the intention of playing with other humans and never expect to be given a hard time.

You mean hard as in difficulty? How is that relevant? Many players like a bit of difficulty and will not forfeit if they get it. Would you? The relevant question would be "what kind of person buys a fighting game with the intention of playing with other humans and never expects to be given a boring time?". And the answer is: People who expect the game to be good because the better the person expects the game to be, the less they will expect to be bored by it. The point of the whole game —even the online multiplayer mode— is to be fun and that's the opposite of boring.

Secondly, do you honestly believe gaining GSP is the only reason anyone would ever stick around for a full match?

No.

Becuase that's the only scenario where what you describe is actually mutually beneficial.

Wrong. The only way a match can be mutually beneficial is if both players enjoy it. If one player is bored but is forced to wait out the match —like you want— then that's clearly not mutually beneficial. But if the bored player can forfeit and both can start a new game which they do enjoy then they do both benefit from the game.

And would you consider a person whose idea of fun is that games are only so when he is winning and rage-quits or table-flips anytime he isn't good company?

If he's bad company then why do you want to force him to sit down and play with you? I'd say "good riddance" to the scrub and move on to better opponents.


Forfeiting is allowed in many games and it works fine there. You just play a bit, enjoy the game, and then the game ends by forfeit instead of by stock or time and you just move on like you would have if the game had ended by stock or time. It's really nothing special; it's just another win condition.

 

[StoicPhantom]

I sympathize with the idea of not wanting to play boring matches, but you have to take this in the context of the community and of the algorithms inability to distinguish nuance or behave in a way that it isn't explicitly programmed to do.

I played the old Call of Duty where there was this perk that allowed you to refill ammo off of dead bodies. This allowed people with grenade launchers to run around and instantly killing people and essentially have an endless supply of ammo. That obviously broke the balance of the game and people complained until they removed that ability.

There was another perk that made you hidden from radar. I used this one a lot because I liked to play as a sniper. But there were campers that would in a quiet corner in the map and shoot anyone that came by. This angered "Run N' Gunners" as they didn't like to pay attention to their surroundings and would get killed and have their kill streaks ended. This made them complain enough that they removed the ability to be hidden from radar if you weren't constantly moving. This completely killed the ability to be a sniper because you could never find a good spot to setup and snipe without always being on someone's radar.

While this is a good example why there needs to be a balance when it comes to community feedback, the main point I want to drive home is that there is a subjective difference in what people like and dislike in terms of playstyle. Obviously infinite grenade launchers is a clear balance issue but some people complained about that removal. Obviously removing the ability to effectively use the sniper class is silly but some people felt that was justified.

You can't please everyone, so you need to strike a balance. People don't like my character or playstyle and find it boring similar to what the anti-campers did in COD. I almost never get rematches and I used to get constant disconnects and suicides at the beginning of the game. I shudder to imagine how little full games I'd be able to play if you could quit with no penalty.


Like take Street Fighter V for instance. Rage quitters pulling their ethernet cord to ensure the match wouldn't count as a loss was ruining the online for many people. While this wouldn't be an issue under your proposed solution, the point is that when you have an easy way to exit a game like that, it's easy for people to knee-jerk and rage quit when something unfavorable happens. People having their ethernet cord in front of them lead to them easily rage quitting when something bad happened to them.

Imagine then, if you could just press start and select quit to leave a match. I played this dude some weeks ago who accidentally SD'd early on and promptly disconnected. While that's an unfavorable position to play from, it's not like it is impossible to come back from that. I've done that plenty of times. While it didn't stop this guy from disconnecting, having the potential for a ban will give lots of people pause before they knee-jerk into a rage quit. It might encourage them to play it out and they might even end up winning. And if they continue to rage quit anyway, then it will quarantine them from the rest of the populace so they can't ruin other people's games.


So the issue here is largely one of ensuring people can't abuse this for toxic ends and algorithms and code being unable to discern your intentions. If you leave a match featuring the ninth laggy Samus or Link then that is understandable. But the algorithm can't tell between you leaving such a match and someone routinely rage quitting on every match that doesn't go his way. A quit here and there is fine but if someone routinely quits, it will ruin a lot of people's games.

But again, "boring" is subjective. If you find projectile zoners and defensive players "boring" then you're going to be quitting a lot of matches. But there is something to be said about how competitive games don't necessarily guarantee you're going to be having fun with every opponent. You can't very well be disrupting other people's games because you don't like how they play and still have a proper competitive environment.

In other games, you can often leave and they'll queue another player to take your place because those are usually team games that have long matches. Fighting games are often 1v1 with only a few minutes each game, if that. You can't just have someone quit in the middle of the game and sub someone else in and expect things to go smoothly. If you quit a game, you are going to ruin that persons game and ultimately waste their time, even if the game counts as a win for them.


So I do sympathize with what you're saying. I don't like being thrust into Free-for-Alls whenever I want to play teams. It happens way more than it should and eats into my playtime all due to ****ty algorithms. But were I to quit, it would ruin that match for the others who also don't have control over the algorithms. Not only would they not gain any points, but they would be playing with one less person.

While an actually decent online would fix that, what you want isn't really easily fixed. And unfortunately the best balance is to force people to play once they commit to a match. You aren't really guaranteed a fun time in competition but you are entitled to expect a full match when ranks and the like are on the line. It would be nice to have an unranked mode that you can quit at anytime, but that's not what was implemented and Arenas are your closest equivalent.

 

[1FC0]

I think that the best balance is to allow people to forfeit. That way you are not guaranteed long games but you are guaranteed fun games. And the games would also be "full games" since having the opponent forfeit would be a legitimate win condition; though I guess that's playing with semantics a bit.

Either way I guess in the end both solutions are viable. If you play the game then you agree to the rules whatever they are. So although I think that not punishing disconnects would be better I do agree to having disconnects punished every time that I play online.

You can't please everyone, so you need to strike a balance. People don't like my character or playstyle and find it boring similar to what the anti-campers did in COD. I almost never get rematches and I used to get constant disconnects and suicides at the beginning of the game. I shudder to imagine how little full games I'd be able to play if you could quit with no penalty.

I'm actually in the same boat since I play with the "all stages on" setting high in Elite Smash (where people hate that setting) and I play a defensive R.O.B. (which is considered to be an annoying character by many—especially when played in the low risk/low reward playstyle that I generally use). The difference is that I do not care when my opponent gives up because finding a new match usual only takes a few seconds.

But I guess it's subjective. I can respect your opinion and am glad that at least you get what you think is better. To be honest I personally do not care all that much since the only games that I personally want to run from are games that have heavy lag. But I think that lag should be dealt with by just banning the lagger for lagging and considering a the lag to be a forfeit (since it's essentially cheating).

 

[Sucumbio]

It is also possible that quitting mid match introduces more network instability on an already shaky system and so to help eliminate that cause out of the hundreds that can worsen netplay is at least one step closer to "better." Back in brawl days disconnect mid match meant everyone dropped more than half the time instead of the cpu take over thing. Now at least it's more like 1 in 10 times it'll disconnect everyone.

 

[Coolboy]

this frustrates me in QP like i should at least get my points if i win,
i keep using Splatoon 2 as example but if your team wins and there is a disconnect at the opponent's side you get your points and the opponents won's lose theirs, only the rage quitter or the quitter gets punished not the whole lobby
why is this to hard for smash to do? just give the winner their points. my GSP would be so much higher if i added all the wins where i didn't got my GSP points for, and believe it or not but people with high GSP can be rage quitters too and some of them were good....
i have more respect for someone that i am 3 stocking but finishes the match then for someone who is better then me or i really struggle against but ragequits cause i end up winning. and then i mean ragequitting as in turning off the switch/closing the game.

 

[1FC0]

my GSP would be so much higher if i added all the wins where i didn't got my GSP points for

Probably not, actually. GSP is about how well you do compared to others. Other people also get cheated out of points by disconnects and that raises your GSP because GSP is relative.

 

[Mental Surge]

1. You do get screwed out of your points if an opponent disconnects. And are left with fighting a boring cpu for the remainder of the match. I've had this happen many times.

2. A forfeit in Teams will just leave one team unfairly disadvantaged with a cpu.

3. Due to 1 and 2, penalties are there to discourage disconnection. If you are getting to the point of rage quitting, it's time to stop.

The rest of the complaints are valid.

1. No you don't. I have had this happen plenty of times and every time they leave and I beat the cpu I get the win. No idea what you are talking about. If you however did not the points then obviously that should be rectified and the person who wins should get the points. The leaver should not be penalized for giving you a free win.

2. I'm talking about 1v1s. Obviously that doesn't apply to 1v1s, thus your argument makes is null.

3. That makes no sense. In SC2 if you know you have lost it's considered bad manner to stay until every last building is destroyed. It's no different here. If you want to leave there should be no penalty to leaving. Who cares if they are rraging? It doesnt hurt the other player now does it? Giving the other player a free win should not result in your getting penalized.

Your logic makes no sense.

 

[StoicPhantom]

1. No you don't. I have had this happen plenty of times and every time they leave and I beat the cpu I get the win. No idea what you are talking about. If you however did not the points then obviously that should be rectified and the person who wins should get the points. The leaver should not be penalized for giving you a free win.

2. I'm talking about 1v1s. Obviously that doesn't apply to 1v1s, thus your argument makes is null.

3. That makes no sense. In SC2 if you know you have lost it's considered bad manner to stay until every last building is destroyed. It's no different here. If you want to leave there should be no penalty to leaving. Who cares if they are rraging? It doesnt hurt the other player now does it? Giving the other player a free win should not result in your getting penalized.

Your logic makes no sense.

1. Unless it does it secretly, I've never had my GSP rise after a disconnect and at best it seems your opponent loses some GSP. Are you talking about GSP specifically or are you talking about just winning? The numbers don't rise in the results screen at the very least, but I guess I've never paid attention to the number back in the character select screen versus what it was before the match.

2. All modes share the same system in Quickplay so it does still apply to Teams. Unless they separate the modes again, you're still going to have everything across the board share the same penalties or lack of and the potential consequences. So it absolutely is valid to consider Teams and FFA.

3. This ain't SC2. You don't know if you've lost until the game ends. Not only do you look like a ***** when you forfeit because you're losing, but you deny your opponent a gratifying and conclusive win. Some people may be fine with it, but for others it essentially means that you don't really ever know whether you would have won or whether your opponent would have made a comeback had they bothered to play it out. Not to mention being forced to fight a boring cpu and further having your time wasted. If I wanted to fight a cpu, I'd play offline with level 9s.

I'd agree with allowing forfeits on laggy connections somehow, but I don't think we should encourage poor behavior. People get rightfully criticized and lambasted when they rage quit in a tournament, so I don't see why we have to enable that same behavior online. It was funny when you first start getting good enough to tilt your opponent that much, but now it's just annoying and feels ****ty overall. I can understand and respect that not everybody is as committed to improving as us competitive players, but then competitive modes aren't for you. I don't know anything about SC2, but it's more disrespectful to quit out of a match because it's not going your way than it is to stay till the end and maybe learn something in fighting games.

Lag is one thing, but a rage quit due to simply losing is basically an exercise in narcissism stemming from a belief that you deserve to win. Anger is something we are all susceptible to, but self-control needs to be exercised when it starts getting to that point. Those unable to exercise self-control is what we have these "penalties" for. Like I said, you won't get banned quitting once or twice a day. It's only when it becomes a frequent thing that you start getting banned. Because if you have the capacity to rage quit enough times that those penalties become an issue, then you are probably causing lots of problems for lots of players.


I'd rather not go back to the toxic behaviors seen in Smash 4 where people would refuse to fight anymore and just be punching bags but wouldn't let you kill or edgeguard them, so you wasted time building them to kill percent each stock. Or just ran away the entire game taunting you or switchto Sonic and do nothing but press B or something.

Imagine doing all that and then just being able to press quit right before the game winning blow and escape with no or light penalties. Do you really want to enable that kind of abuse? Having these kinds of penalties has almost completely eliminated that kind of behavior and the worst you usually have to deal with is teabagging and sarcastic uses of the results screen messages.

Your logic makes no sense.

Then read your own topic. Everybody else understood what I was saying, even if they didn't necessarily agree.

 

[Crazy Hand 2001]

All modes share the same system in Quickplay so it does still apply to Teams. Unless they separate the modes again, you're still going to have everything across the board share the same penalties or lack of and the potential consequences. So it absolutely is valid to consider Teams and FFA.

which is why you don’t merge people who want teams vs people who want teams in the first place

 

[StoicPhantom]

which is why you don’t merge people who want teams vs people who want teams in the first place

Right, but that is unfortunately the hand we were dealt with. I don't really know why they discarded the already well working Smash 4 online structure, but quite a lot of issues people have with Ultimate's wouldn't exist if they hadn't.

 

[Eremurus]

Leaving still nets you a loss- you lose GSP. That means people rage quit out of spite, so that their opponent can't collect any points. I've had it happen several times.

There's always a lag spike, might as well just quit the game if that happens to save yourself some time.