Addressing Disconnects and Leaving in Smite: A Need for Increased Punishments?

As a seasoned Smite gamer with countless hours invested in this electrifying MOBA, I find myself resonating deeply with HouseOnFire13’s passionate plea for stricter penalties against intentional leavers and feeders. Time and time again, I have found myself at the mercy of these disruptive players who abandon their teams during critical moments. The frustration is palpable as we struggle to salvage a lost game due to their selfish actions.

In recent times, discussions about the game Smite have ignited fierce debates within its player base, particularly concerning matters such as player conduct and game fairness. A post by HouseOnFire13 initiated a significant conversation revolving around the sanctions for players who intentionally abandon matches or disconnect at critical points in the gameplay. The post showcased anger towards players who exploit the system without repercussions, implying that the current punishment framework is lenient. HouseOnFire13 proposed that strengthening penalties might enhance the overall gaming experience for all participants. This proposal for modification in punishments has generated a variety of passionate replies from the community due to its relevance to numerous players encountering recurring offenders.

Could we make leaving a game and DCing intentionally a longer punishment?
byu/HouseOnFire13 inSmite

Summary

The community feels the current penalties for leaving and disconnecting in Smite are inadequate.
Players propose various solutions including low-priority queues and goodwill systems for better matchmaking.
Concerns about distinguishing between intentional disconnects and server-related issues complicate proposed changes.
Some players express a fear of stricter penalties hurting an already minor player base.

The Call for Stronger Punishments

HouseOnFire13’s statement clearly demonstrates the community’s exasperation due to frequent disconnections and deliberate feeders. The recurring demand is for stricter punishments against those who abandon games under challenging conditions. Essentially, they are advocating for an extension of penalty time from the current 5 minutes to a more substantial 30 minutes. This proposed change underscores the rising frustration among players who frequently face disruptive individuals in game after game. Many believe that a stronger deterrent is needed to reestablish fairness and motivate players to work on improving rather than giving up when things don’t go their way. This viewpoint is consistently expressed in capital letters across the comment section, with numerous players showing solidarity, having likely experienced the letdown of teammates who abandon them during tense situations.

Alternative Solutions and Community Ideas

Discussions about harsher penalties for rule-breakers often lead to suggestions for alternative approaches, such as a lower priority queue or matchmaking system. For instance, as user henrietta9 notes, many popular Multiplayer Online Battle Arenas (MOBAs) have a low-priority queue where players who frequently leave games play against each other, which seems to be an effective way of discouraging leavers. Another idea is to create a goodwill system similar to compliment-based matchmaking, where players with multiple reports lose their “goodwill points” and are matched with others who also have low goodwill. This could theoretically protect players by encouraging positive behavior and isolating those who consistently disrupt the game experience for everyone involved.

The Technical Challenge of Implementation

A significant barrier to enforcing stricter penalties or implementing these new systems lies in the technical challenges of accurately determining whether a player has intentionally disconnected or suffered from a connection issue. Deci_Valentine voiced this concern, stating, “There isn’t any real way for the system to tell if someone simply dced due to connection issues or if it was a rage quit.” This dilemma means that any attempt at reforms could inadvertently penalize innocent players who face genuine connection problems, thus creating a double-edged sword of sorts: improve the game at the risk of pushing away more casual players suffering from bad luck.

The Impact on the Player Base

Discussions about this topic are heavily influenced by worries regarding the overall player count of Smite. Some people worry that stricter punishments could lead to even fewer players. Quiet_Log expressed this concern succinctly when they said, “We can’t afford to ban people indiscriminately; Smite doesn’t have a large player base as it is.” Many players are concerned that excessive punishment might scare away new players before they’ve had a chance to fully experience the game. For developers and those advocating for fairness within Smite, walking the line between dealing with toxicity and preserving the player community is like walking on a tightrope.

In any game, particularly one as competitive and team-focused like Smite, spirited debates such as those started by HouseOnFire13 are crucial for shaping its future. However, they also underscore the challenge of finding a balance between keeping players responsible without driving away community members. Encouraging discussions on possible resolutions, offering incentives such as goodwill systems or distinct match queues for rule-breakers could help create a more pleasant gaming environment. It’s important to remember that Smite’s community is continuously balancing the need for protective measures with maintaining its lively player base essential for the game’s prosperity.

2024-11-01 00:13