Radical different perspective of a possible solution to rage quitting

I think there's a better solution and I posted it before - people who die should not give much gold but should instead lose gold....like Dota.  Before you roll your eyes let me explain that there is a large benefit here - the person who dies is penalized, but the enemies do not make significant gains (like they do when they get a kill with assists now - that's a crazy amount of gold!).  As such the enemy's relative strength will increase compared to the person who died and lost gold but NOT to the other people on the team who did not die.

A few kills for someone now and they become unstoppable even to the people on the other side of the map who didn't die because of the items they buy with the kill proceeds.  That's the real flaw with Demigod, there's a very large snowball effect.  Not giving such massive gold boosts is part and parcel to fixing this.  But the penalty should be about the same, which is why the person who died should lose the comparable amount of gold.

This helps against people who quit because someone on their team feeds the enemy the win through no fault of their own.  Now the noob/feeder digs themselves into a hole but doesn't thrust the enemy above everyeone else while they do it - and neither will the feeder AI always spell jackpot for the other team.

Not sure how that will stop rage quitters. They don't quit because they don't think they can win. They quit because they feel if they're not guaranteed a win they're wasting their time.

I think a system that punishes quitting instead of rewarding staying will always prove to be more effective. If the quitters quit too much and no one wants to play with them, or attempt to, they have no one to blame but themselves.

Great post by Infinite; I agree 100% with his response, as I think it's the most proper way to handle DG death.

I didn't think of that but that'd be a better idea I agree.

I'm not sure that would help. People would just spend all their gold and then go out with little risk, since they have no gold to lose.

This is a win idea.

Except running out and dying before you accumlated 1000/1500 would net 0 gold after you spent your inital allotment.

The downside to this I think would be that people might opt for less combat in fear of losing their purse. Perhaps start running around in groups playing the merry go round flag capture

Not sure how that will stop rage quitters. They don't quit because they don't think they can win. They quit because they feel if they're not guaranteed a win they're wasting their time.

This is an immature view of rage quitting, and doesn't even address the posts here. The whole rage-quitting debate is slanted anyway because any opinion of it that isn't draconian is viewed as "soft on rage-quitting." Even the term 'rage quitting' is biased. After all, even though it's hard to believe for some, Demigod is a game, not a sport.

The idea behind the previous two posts is to effectively reduce the level of frustration to the losing side by reducing the gains made by the winning team. I like InfiniteVengeance's post along with AnnihilatorX's post, since both provide diminished returns on the winning team's ganks.

Left 4 Dead attempts to boost the losing side by providing more goodies and less baddies for them. Demigod could do the same and provide random buffs to creeps, etc. with a bias for the losing side in order to keep the game interesting and fun for a longer period of time. The idea is not to simply buff the losing side, but to provide opportunities that the losing side could use to its advantage.

That wouldn't solve entirely the problem of rage  quitting, but that would help a lot.

In regard to Niladen, I would must rather have my teammate penalized the the other team rewarded for his/her death.  I really like the idea from InfiniteVengeance

Or you can get negative gold then?

Except then they're only limited to small purchases.  Which I don't think is entirely wrong either.  Saving up for a big item is then a risk.

I agree. In summary people who rage quit is because they are getting frusturated. The partial solution is to not a game which not only provides one sided "fun" but should keep both sides fun to play as long as possible.

Left 4 Dead is a good example too. The "Director" system dynamically adjusts difficulty and item spawn.

I'm not sure I am sold on this idea yet. It's appealing in that the other team isn't beating on a gold pinata but at the same time a teammate continually dying and at worst having no gold all of the time is pretty abysmal. At least now that member could buy something instead of nothing or having to hang out at the citadel waiting to collect enough for a upgrade, which is almost as bad as an AFKer.

Perhaps the amount of gold on a kill should have a cooldown timer with stacking diminishing returns to a floor value. Stomp someone and get your fill. Stomp them again within say...2 minutes you get less. Within two minutes again? Less gold for you. let them be for over two minutes? Great, you get one diminishing return removed. They manage to kill you? All is fair, the return for you to them is reset and they now have a clock ticking the other way for them.

The exp is still there so it's hardly not worth you time but maybe that would curb a bit of the feeding. Taking gold out though? That just sounds like a recipe to drive people away. Even more so with Patheon and Skirmish not working as intended.

They would have to be more cautious, but they should be anyways.  You're a bit more conservative when you're the one who gets the penalty for dying.

It's more important not to hurt the other players on the team like it does now when you die and give massive gold - in my opinion.

Yeah, awarding the killer disproportionately affects all players, whereas docking the killed player focuses the effect of the kill on one person. It's counter-intuitive, but it seems like a smaller price to pay for all players.

It's like buying Currency; one person's 1800 gold, but a gain for all players on the team that benefits more with more players.

I wholeheartedly agree. Stuffing the other teams pockets at no fault of your own sucks. But, lets be frank. A player who gets rofl stomped out of the gate and then plays a conservative game isn't the player we bang our heads on our desk about. It's the Rambo Rook(tm) that charges the center lane...every...single...time that they are alive and ends up with a nice 30 second timeout.

Now, I choose to not sell that person short. Hopefully they will learn and maybe even become a favorable player. Knocking their purse empty upon death just sounds like adding insult to injury and may even spawn a fresh RQ'r.

So lets have the best of all worlds, at least for custom games. Make the payout style a setting. Normal, Dimishing, and Taxing. I would imagine the more 'hardcore' element would start to pick the Taxing variety. Make sure this setting is in BIG BOLD LETTERS somewhere on the custom screen. That way when ILikeToFeedTheOtherTeam joins your game, they leave because they know they will have no money the whole time or don't want to risk it because they think "it sux lol".

As for Patheon and Skirmish those have been picked as the defacto casual arenas so maybe those should be left well enough alone. Or, at least not use the Taxing payout or have that also be a setting where people who like that can play with other people in Pantheon and Skirmish games voluntarily.

I've won several games where my team were all several levels lower than the losing team. While the losers sat around power leveling, we sat around tearing their base down.

Best way to deal with rage quitters is make it so the game can't tip in 1 teams favor so easily, and if it does tip, the game ends faster.

I really don't like the whole warscore system as it is. I feel the game is too biased on holding the flags down, instead flags should really only play an integral role in the Dominate games. While I don't offer any well thoughtout alternative to the current warscore system I believe it should be more based on something that allows a losing team to come back rather than just snowballing. Make flags more about the bonuses they give rather than just warscore. Perhaps adding creeps and buildings killed into the warscore. Would add some tactic into controlling those neutral portals. Early on it may not be wise to control them as the creeps just die endlessly to the enemy towers(which would boost their warscore) then again, holding that flag would also give you warscore so would require some planning/tactics. Would also allow a team that is being pinned down to come back, while their base is under attack and the enemy has more portals you are able to kill many more creeps, which would give you a good warscore boost and possibly allow you to get some citadel upgrade and turn the tide rather than just die.

But it's their own fault - they *should* be punished for screwing up.  Additionally if they do leave, the feeder AI would benefit greatly from this change - it won't feed the enemy the win either, it will only hurt itself.

this wouldn't make angry immature players any less angry or any less immature. it would just make the game take longer and make it harder to leverage an experience gap over the opponent. 

in other words, it wouldn't prevent rage quitting but would make the game take longer to finish. this is not the solution we need. 

this wouldn't make angry immature players any less angry or any less immature.

This is (also) an immature view of rage quitting. Angry, immature players are likely rage quitters, but rage quitters are not necessarily angry, immature players.

 it would just make the game take longer and make it harder to leverage an experience gap over the opponent. 

The goal of the "Fixing through prevention" rage-quitting camp is to reduce frustration in the game. An easy way to do this is to make games closer and less hopeless. As a result, an easy way to make them closer is to reduce the gap between two opposing sides.

in other words, it wouldn't prevent rage quitting but would make the game take longer to finish

The idea here isn't to needlessly increase the length of games. I mean, lets be honest: the idea of balancing means you balance the skill of one team with a bias for the opposing side. In this way, you make games more interesting for both sides.

Ideally, a balancing system of any sort does not change the outcome of a game: A team that should win in an unbalanced game should win in a balanced game. The difference is in the closeness of the game.

I totally disagree with this. It's a cheap mechanic that replaces skill with equality, which is unfair to skilled players.

It's like saying in a FPS shooter you start to kill someone a lot so you get less bullets or less HP. How would that be fair?

Most rege quit issues come down to differences in skill level. If you want that problem solved then promote a proper ranking system that is reflected in game.

exactly as HateForest said. 

skill must be rewarded in competitive games. the appropriate solution to rage-quitting is to properly match player skill BEFORE A GAME STARTS. any mechanic designed to compensate after a game starts is a bad idea.

rubber-banding mechanics such as the one described in the OP blunt the impact of skill. simply put is against the spirit of fair competition. rubber-banding mechanics make games closer but less competitive. it irons out the wrinkles in the game. but its the wrinkles that are the source of the fun. Demigod is based fundamentally on INEQUALITY of competitors. why else would it feature a levelling system or a gold system? this ain't chess. inequality is the desired state of the game by design. 

to extend the metaphor: what if it was chess? should a player start getting his pieces back if his opponent takes too many of them? free Pawn back every time you lose a Bishop? opponent has to give up a Rook if he takes your Queen but still has his own? 

just say no to rubber-banding mechanics. they are anti-fun. they are un-competitive. 

It's like saying in a FPS shooter you start to kill someone a lot so you get less bullets or less HP. How would that be fair?

The solutions described here give advantages to the losing side. The winning side is not handicapped.

On the other hand, to use your analogy, the game currently awards HP and bullets to players who kill their opponents. How would that be fair?

The answer, I think, is that it's a faulty metaphor. An FPS has very little disparity between any given player: a badass and a noob have the same tools at their disposal, and the only difference are the players. Counterstrike can potentially have some differences due to money collection, but I think that difference doesn't significantly affect the gameplay.

I totally disagree with this. It's a cheap mechanic that replaces skill with equality, which is unfair to skilled players.

I would agree with this if Demigod was designed first and foremost as a sport; something whose overall intent is competition. However, it's not; to me, the overall intent is making games as interesting as possible for a healthy amount of time.

The idea is that you give the losing side opportunities to turn the tide of the game. You don't give them anything absurd, and you could even make them triggered as rewards.

For example, the losing side has both portals capped. As a reward for recapping them both, they're both locked for X minute(s). This gives the losing side an opportunity to push back.

There's two important things to understand with the balancing idea. First, Demigod is a game, not a sport. The overall motivation of developers is to make the game as fun as possible for all players. Second, the perfect balancing system doesn't actually affect the outcome of the game. It should only make games closer and consequently more interesting. It should not flip outcomes.

additionally,

has no-one else noticed that gold and exp rewards for killing players is ALREADY scaled to level? higher level DG's are worth more gold and exp than lower level ones. the game is already set up to grant greater rewards for killing high level players and lower rewards for killing low level players. why should increasing this existing gap solve the problem at all?