As I sat down to type a gripe about how easy it is to quit… The conversation in my head expanded, as it usually does, to encompass much, much more.
Let me start by saying that I really really enjoy this game. I’ve invested hours upon, upon hours, upon hours playing it. I’ve mastered 5 characters, and intend on mastering more…
One of the things I hate, and is number one on my list of things to ramble about, is quitters.
Losing sucks… Nobody likes it, myself included. Especially, when you start a match a person down due to disconnection and/or being AFK. That said, maybe I’m going to have the unpopular opinion here, but I feel like it is still entirely too easy to surrender in this game.
Because of the ease of which people can opt to try and give-up, I feel like I spend almost as much time waiting for a game, as I do actually spending time playing the game.
Again, nobody likes losing… But making 400-600 credits in a loss, because I was actually able to play a game from start to finish, makes losing much easier to swallow. Additionally, I get the benefit of being able to play the game I paid for. Not wait in queue to find another team. On top of all that, I’ve actually been on a couple of short-handed teams that have pulled out the win, despite playing the entire game down a player, and have even outscored the opposing team when down 3 to 5 the entire match (it was loss in game, but a moral victory for me).
That leads me into my second point… Why is scoring a secondary method for choosing a victor, and not a primary? I understand the notion of the “win” going to the team that completes the objective first e.g. a team that kills both sentries first. But in a game where the match goes to timer, I feel like it should come down to team score. As I sit and thing about it though… That would only really apply to the Incursion game mode, but I digress… This point is more open to debate, and I’d love to hear others input on it, as I know this part of my post isn’t really black-and-white.
Lastly, I want to ask a serious question that ties into both of rabmlings above… Why is drop-in/drop-out play not a thing?
In a game where you’re instantly down a factor of 20% (not accounting for player skill, of course) of your fighting capacity if someone fails to load in, or decides to quit for whatever reason, why was the matchmaking not designed with the capability to balance the teams, mid-game?
The first online game that I played, and remember this being a capability was Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, meaning that the possibility will have been around for at least a decade, later this year. Maybe even longer.
I think I understand what Gearbox was trying to do, by forcing people to re-join the same game that they just left, and I honestly love that consideration was given to that… But it does nothing to combat those that quit, because the game isn’t going their way, so they just wait it out until the match is done, and during that time, the other players A) Vote to surrender (the most common and annoying occurrence) or B) Suffer short-handed the entire match, and usually end up losing. Of the three things I’ve typed about in this post, this is the one that really bugs me the most, because it would actually directly address the other two, and is probably the one thing, in my mind, that keeps a really, really good game, from being great.
Anyway… I’ll get off my soapbox.
For those of you whom I know want it…
- I ramble about people quitting early, and how annoying it is.
- I ramble about team score being a secondary factor for winning, not a primary.
- I ramble about drop-in/drop-out play not being a thing in this game.
Again, please comment. I would honestly love to hear other peoples thoughts on this stuff. I know I’m not alone in my thinking, but am I in the minority?