Please implement a sort of leaver penalty for the Blunderville lobby

[RyveSontek]

This thread is not about the achievement itself. Please keep comments about that to the relevant threads.

I have been enjoying the Blunderville event greatly and have been playing it a lot. As many know by now there are a large amount of players chasing the 100 win achievement by joining and leaving lobbies in the hopes of getting a solo lobby.

I have noticed that this causes lobbies to fill slower. Side note and not as important, this also makes it far rarer to actually have a full lobby.

I don't know what kind of implementation is possible. I would advise something minor though. No need to go overboard. Just something to dissuade the constant joining and leaving.

Cheers.

[Stormpeaks]

Or how about we ask them to fix the netcode/server tick instead ?

Yeah that sounds better.

If people want 1 people lobbies it's because that event is atrocious due to all the issues with netcode and server tick, and that you need 100 wins for the achievement.

Blame SE.

[RyveSontek]

Or how about we ask them to fix the netcode/server tick instead ?

Yeah that sounds better.

There is no real netcode/server tick issue in Blunderville.
There are aoes that are badly designed as to when they lock in compared to their animation.(but are still very consistent)
Or you can have bad ping of your own.
I would like to request that this is the end of this side track.

[MAJRIS]

There is no real netcode/server tick issue in Blunderville

https://vxtwitter.com/ipsusu/status/...754570202?s=46

[RyveSontek]

https://vxtwitter.com/ipsusu/status/...754570202?s=46

There are aoes that are badly designed as to when they lock in compared to their animation.(but are still very consistent)
Or you can have bad ping of your own.
I would like to request that this is the end of this side track.

I respond with the post made just above.

[IDontPetLalas]

I respond with the post made just above.

You've already responded in another thread saying that your concern is primarily the effect on lobby queues, and that you don't consider others forcing solo queues to be an exploit.

I would state that your initial comment of "As many know by now there are a large amount of players chasing the 100 win achievement by joining and leaving lobbies in the hopes of getting a solo lobby. I have noticed that this causes lobbies to fill slower. Side note and not as important, this also makes it far rarer to actually have a full lobby." is backwards.

The primary concern should be that it takes longer to get a full lobby, which is a poor experience. Players should only be entered in a solo lobby as a last resort.

Whether Square regards this is an exploit and hotfixes it is up to them. However, having someone comment on the reasons why people feel that they can't even compete (even if they may not be correct) and may force a solo queue - they can certainly post that here. Feel free to log a request in the other threads directly to Square (bugs, technical discussion, etc) otherwise.

[RyveSontek]

You've already responded in another thread saying that your concern is primarily the effect on lobby queues, and that you don't consider others forcing solo queues to be an exploit.

I would state that your initial comment of "As many know by now there are a large amount of players chasing the 100 win achievement by joining and leaving lobbies in the hopes of getting a solo lobby. I have noticed that this causes lobbies to fill slower. Side note and not as important, this also makes it far rarer to actually have a full lobby." is backwards.

The primary concern should be that it takes longer to get a full lobby, which is a poor experience. Players should only be entered in a solo lobby as a last resort.

Whether Square regards this is an exploit and hotfixes it is up to them. However, having someone comment on the reasons why people feel that they can't even compete (even if they may not be correct) and may force a solo queue - they can certainly post that here. Feel free to log a request in the other threads directly to Square (bugs, technical discussion, etc) otherwise.

I don't understand what you're trying to say at all.
First you claim that I have said that players forcing a solo queue is not an exploit while all I said is that players doing that is not an example of players speedhacking or other such cheats.

Then you quote what I say, saying it's backwards. But then say that the focus should be the same thing I just said, which is visible in the quote?

And what are you trying to say with square regarding this as an exploit or not being up to them? Of course it's up to them. Who said otherwise?
That doesn't change that I can advocate for my opinion and make this thread.

And as for the posts above. There was no comments as to why people feel the need to get solo instances. Simply some comments on netcode and ping issues, which I have already addressed as they miss the point.

So, to round off. Are you trying to contribute to the conversation or are you just trying sow confusion?

[keichirou]

sure , lets blame the customer

[IDontPetLalas]

I don't understand what you're trying to say at all.
First you claim that I have said that players forcing a solo queue is not an exploit while all I said is that players doing that is not an example of players speedhacking or other such cheats.

Then you quote what I say, saying it's backwards. But then say that the focus should be the same thing I just said, which is visible in the quote?

And what are you trying to say with square regarding this as an exploit or not being up to them? Of course it's up to them. Who said otherwise?
That doesn't change that I can advocate for my opinion and make this thread.

And as for the posts above. There was no comments as to why people feel the need to get solo instances. Simply some comments on netcode and ping issues, which I have already addressed as they miss the point.

So, to round off. Are you trying to contribute to the conversation or are you just trying sow confusion?

First of all, your post concerned multiple instances that you had observed of people trying to force a solo queue. You have your theory as to why you observe it, you may see multiple theories from other people as to why people may try to force a solo queue. You may disagree with their theories, however it's not up to you to tell them to stop posting their theories. The suggestion was made that if you don't like seeing these alternative theories, perhaps the technical discussion section for Square might be a better thread. Square is also in a better position to make a technical assessment.

Secondly, my comment as to what you have backwards was in reference to how you regard the impact of this behaviour. I don't consider it to be a "side note" or a minor impact that lobbies aren't filled. The intent is clearly to have a full lobby except during exceptional circumstances (low population) which they didn't think through.

I do hope that you are not so confused now.

[Stormpeaks]

There is no real netcode/server tick issue in Blunderville.
There are aoes that are badly designed as to when they lock in compared to their animation.(but are still very consistent)
Or you can have bad ping of your own.
I would like to request that this is the end of this side track.

Yeah right lol, you enjoy your crusade about players trying to get into solo lobbies because of how terrible this event is with all the issues especially the netcode and server tick issues.

Please don't blame the poor small indie company for failing to fix it, blame the players instead, much easier.

Lmao.