Think about it this way... Let's say you're just watching a baseball game. Your team is down 8-0 in the first inning due to crappy pitching or w/e. You planned on watching the game but decide that you'd rather go sit in the sun and read a book instead. THIS is the mentality of people who quit games becuase of bad players.  The conclusion is foregone. If you read in the paper that the final score was 10-9 in favor of your team are you REALLY going to feel like you missed out on a game that was like 1:10,000?.  No you're not. You will think "would've been cool to watch it but the likelihood of that happening and me wasting 2 hours it was +EV to go do something else"

With that said i have a 3 strikes rule. If you die 3 times before priests are out the game is over and i find another.

Offer an opponent to optionally drop and take an easy win as though he played a 1v1 against the leaver and got all favor points while the leaver receives 0. If there are no takers, 'volunteer' one of them.

In a 2v2, this will devolve it into a 1v1, so two people get some immediate benefit over the current way of doing things. This scales. 5v5 would mean 8 people would still have a salvaged experience.

You could also give remaining players some kind of vote to call it a draw if you really think playing out a 1v1-4v4 is just horrible.

The motivation of the leaver has no effect whatsoever on the impact to those remaining in the game. Someone could spontaneously combust and the end result would be that others' time in that game was very likely a waste. The impact is the same. That is why cushioning the blow seems most beneficial to me.

To the TL;DR's.

Have you guys never read a book?

This is not a wall of text. Go read Moby fracking Dick and then tell me what a wall fo text is, m'kay?

Anywho. I love how people on the forums are always waving their "This is nothing like DotA," schpeil just to turn around and bitch and whine about something that no-one should really care about. It wont change, ever, get over it.

/Rant

And it never will with this attitude.

People can be made to change if we are given the proper tools, and those that don't will simply stop playing. Either option is a win for legitimate players.

• I'd put this at the end but I'm guessing it wouldn't be read by those it applies to. 
  
• If you're too impatient to read a long paragraph, please gtfo. 
• Posting things like "wall of text" and "tldr" is nothing short of idiotic trolling. 
• I split the first paragraph because there was a convenient place to do so, but you guys really need to develop a longer attention span because it's entirely possible for a paragraph that size to contain a single, thoroughly developed point.

 
quote snipped

This would of course be a great thing and it is very much needed, particularly since it would actually make pantheon a viable competitive option. 

That said, this doesn't address the flaws in the community's approach, ragequitters are not monsters and the way the community approaches them is harmful to its own growth, because people who do not know the unwritten rules(basically newer players) of the game will get screwed over. 

It's actually more harmful to the community than just that because any time you orchestrate a witch hunt, people get hypersensitive about who could be a witch and a lot of people who haven't done anything objectionable get shafted by paranoia.



quote snipped

I would argue the opposite:

•  Pantheon and skirmish are the least competitive modes right now.  
• Once you can do AT on pantheon and/or skirmish they will become the competitive modes, but Demigod relies so heavily on teamplay that to develop competitive play, you need to be a premade team(actually this is true in just about any team game).  
• If you're in pantheon, you should expect and accept whoever the system teams you with [snipped redundant text]

snipped quote


My experience thus far has been the opposite:

• The people who leave before the game is decided are the ones that die 2-3 times in the first few minutes, and even in these games, it's unlikely they'll make a comeback unless they have some sort of epiphany of how to play the game.  
• I play custom though for the reason I mentioned in the above paragraph so maybe it's a pantheon thing(most effective way to gain favor is probably to play lopsided matches in which you're winning).  
• If this is the case, then the so called ragequitters are just playing to win the most stats instead of playing to win the game
• in which case the issue is entirely in gpg's hands to fix and banlists still don't make sense because you're punishing people for playing competitively).
  

I'm really not sure what you want here. You seem to argue that people should be allowed to as they please with no consequence.

If you want to join games and quit when things don't go your way, that's ok, but you need to suffer some consequences for your actions, and others should be able to be made aware of your past actions so that they can make an informed decision when interacting with you in a game.

There's a clear moral difference, as those asking people not to rage quit as asking them to fufill a moral obligation. To use an analogy, someone asking a murderer not to kill them is putting their own welfare first, but it's not wrong for them to do so (not that rage quitting is anywhere as bad as murder, but the analogy is important).

When you hit the ready / find match button on the game, you're making a commitment to play for a full match. In emergencies this can be broken, because it is a recreational activity, but barring that, you should finish out a match. You might turn around and argue this isn't explicit, but I'd say since most people do not like it, and there are ways of rage quitters playing with other rage quitters so as to not inconvenience those of us who would actually like to play the bloody game, there is no justification.

I don't think they should be banned at all, myself. But I think that if we add a team concede option (to allow legitimate concessions), and then stick rage quitters with other rage quitters, that would be fair. People who like to play full matches will be matched together, and those who like to quit as soon as they die twice can play together, and hopefully never shall the two meet.

I am arguing that punishing people for ragequits is contrary to the interests of the community.  To extrapolate that into a "people can do as they please with no consequence" is taking it a little far.

We obviously have a fundamentally different approach to life and will never see eye to eye on this topic.  I don't believe in moral obligation(and please don't tell me to read Kant, his arguments aren't sufficiently logical to convince me).

The only way I can envision your approach working (teaching people, instead of punishing) is to create a 'new players' area, but that in itself would create a whole new crop of problems.

You also have to accept that some people will never learn, and conciously choose to act out their malicious behavior, and it is for this reason I believe a punishment system must be put into place. Sure, in a perfect world I'd love to solve all my problems with a coke and a smile, but that's just not how the world works.

I primarily leave games due to high pings and a lack of aus games infact ITS not actually me often quitting its others because my lag is just so awful and no one in aus hosts.

The only one "bitching and crying" is you. You are the only person (well, you and your other account shiny objects) that has resorted to bullying and cursing. The rest of us have just been having a (reasonably) pleasant conversation.

If you are sick of reading about rage quitting, by all means, stop reading the threads, it's not as if you have added anything of value whatsoever.