I don't see what would be so bad about giving a loss forgiven if you have a DC.

#11UnderwaterAirPosted 2/18/2013 2:45:16 AM
If you duo queue and one of you disconnects neither of you get a loss forgiven.
There you go.
---
http://oi41.tinypic.com/9ht4ea.jpg
No matter which way you slice it you'll both be ending up in Hell!
#12DeadpooL7Posted 2/18/2013 3:00:37 AM
ssj4supervegeta posted...
uh....sure it might be "abusable" but thats only assuming the person who DC's is "working for you" lol...which sounds very silly.

the game is barely winnable in a 4 v 5, and honestly its ONLY winnable if the other team sucks. :/ if you have to rely on the other team being bad to win something is wrong.

If its a DC at the start of a game it should just be a loss forgiven. This community needs to start taking chances with this stuff instead of "omg no no NO!!!! noobs will use it wrong!!!" >.> just seems ridiculous to me that a solution is brought up but its denied because of what might happen instead of just thinking of the obvious ways to make those scenarios not happen.


So your plan is to 'take chances' by doing things and worrying about the results later? That doesnt sound like a very good plan.

It also a bit weird you mention the 'obvious' ways to prevent abuse but dont say what they are. Since you seem to have it totally figured out and abuse proof maybe you should tell everyone your perfect idea.

Honestly what does a DC matter? Everyone will get them and it will equal out. I know everyone likes to QQ that its only their team that has DCs and never the other team but thats simply not true.
#13hotshotgamesPosted 2/18/2013 3:58:03 AM
OH NO I"M LOSING

*unplug's router*

All better
---
Apple>Nintendo>Steam>Playstation>Google>Microsoft>Origin
Own: Wii, DS, iPod Touch, Computer
#14Tali_ZorahPosted 2/18/2013 4:12:32 AM
ssj4supervegeta posted...
uh....sure it might be "abusable" but thats only assuming the person who DC's is "working for you" lol...which sounds very silly.

the game is barely winnable in a 4 v 5, and honestly its ONLY winnable if the other team sucks. :/ if you have to rely on the other team being bad to win something is wrong.

If its a DC at the start of a game it should just be a loss forgiven. This community needs to start taking chances with this stuff instead of "omg no no NO!!!! noobs will use it wrong!!!" >.> just seems ridiculous to me that a solution is brought up but its denied because of what might happen instead of just thinking of the obvious ways to make those scenarios not happen.


You have clearly never played classic WoW pvp.

When the PvP system was first introduced, you needed to play ridiculous hours to reach the maximum rank, because if you didn't pvp constantly, you'd go down in ranks. As you went higher through the ranks, the faster you'd lose ranks for not playing. A few precious hours is the difference between being max rank, and being 4 ranks lower.

Additionally, if everyone tried to become Grand Marshal, the requirements would get even worse, since the system placed your rank in accordance to your progress with the rest of the server - and no, it wasn't a ladder system at all, so its not like there's always a grand marshal running around somewhere, the top rank was empty most of the time and sometimes even the next few ranks were empty as well.

So, pretty much the big guilds on the server would "elect" a grand marshal and then dedicate entire teams of people into earning that player as many honorable kills as possible, passing him along through several teams so that no one would get anywhere near as many kills as him, even passing his account across several players to ensure 24 hour a day pvp, just so that person could get Grand Marshal, then move on to the next person.

Why? Because the best PvP gear obtainable was from Grand Marshal rank, and you only needed the rank to purchase it, not to use it.


So yes. If it is even slightly abuseable, people will abuse it. Having a friend who can pull the plug on his router if need be is extremely simplistic compared to the rigors of becoming Grand Marshal.
---
Pokemon White FC: 3568 3549 8596
Pokemon Black 2 FC: 1593 3074 6920
#15Herbert0Posted 2/18/2013 5:36:18 AM
Well it could turn out really bad where 4 players will persuade the 5th player to leave.
#16ChapteroPosted 2/18/2013 6:12:22 AM
cause baby I'll catch a grenade for ya.
---
Zhehehe, A man's dream will never die !
GT: Doruhan
#17ssj4supervegetaPosted 2/18/2013 6:18:30 AM
the reason i say that is cause of what a lot of people bring up

"Dota2 does somethings that league players insist will be abused!"

if someone wants to spend their time not connected to a game just so they auto get loss forgiven...what would be the point? in ranked games you'd get "divisions?" and you could easily make it so duo Q doesnt counter, and if your partner DCs it doesnt count

or make it only if it happens in the first few minutes. or make it see if the person Pressed leave game or if they suddenly disconnected.

many other things but yes im saying TEST IT FIRST instead of just saying its abusable (note: Testing does not mean put it on live automatically :/)
---
LoL summoner: Vejitables
Bromaciaaaaaaaaaaaa!
#18chelthPosted 2/18/2013 6:22:02 AM
Tali_Zorah posted...
ssj4supervegeta posted...
uh....sure it might be "abusable" but thats only assuming the person who DC's is "working for you" lol...which sounds very silly.

the game is barely winnable in a 4 v 5, and honestly its ONLY winnable if the other team sucks. :/ if you have to rely on the other team being bad to win something is wrong.

If its a DC at the start of a game it should just be a loss forgiven. This community needs to start taking chances with this stuff instead of "omg no no NO!!!! noobs will use it wrong!!!" >.> just seems ridiculous to me that a solution is brought up but its denied because of what might happen instead of just thinking of the obvious ways to make those scenarios not happen.


You have clearly never played classic WoW pvp.

When the PvP system was first introduced, you needed to play ridiculous hours to reach the maximum rank, because if you didn't pvp constantly, you'd go down in ranks. As you went higher through the ranks, the faster you'd lose ranks for not playing. A few precious hours is the difference between being max rank, and being 4 ranks lower.

Additionally, if everyone tried to become Grand Marshal, the requirements would get even worse, since the system placed your rank in accordance to your progress with the rest of the server - and no, it wasn't a ladder system at all, so its not like there's always a grand marshal running around somewhere, the top rank was empty most of the time and sometimes even the next few ranks were empty as well.

So, pretty much the big guilds on the server would "elect" a grand marshal and then dedicate entire teams of people into earning that player as many honorable kills as possible, passing him along through several teams so that no one would get anywhere near as many kills as him, even passing his account across several players to ensure 24 hour a day pvp, just so that person could get Grand Marshal, then move on to the next person.

Why? Because the best PvP gear obtainable was from Grand Marshal rank, and you only needed the rank to purchase it, not to use it.


So yes. If it is even slightly abuseable, people will abuse it. Having a friend who can pull the plug on his router if need be is extremely simplistic compared to the rigors of becoming Grand Marshal.


on my server there was a really good dwarf hunter named jakk. jakk was a loner and didn't like to play by the rules. he set about usurping the title of grand marshal all by himself. they raged very hard at him and he almost did it, but he stopped at 13.