Progressive deserter debuff thought?

[Greyhide-khadgar (Greyhide)]

That’s definitely one risk. On the flip side, people claimed the same thing when Deserter itself was introduced. People were mad because they couldn’t hop from BG to BG to find the perfect one.

[Pípíkaula-proudmoore]

I liked the really old system of choosing 3 (?) BGs to queue for rather than the current RNG “you get what the game chooses for you” system.

I know people today might complain that would result in game hopping, but TBH at this point I don’t care. I just want to play fun games with decent teams that are trying, rather than waste my time watching stupidity all over a map I don’t even enjoy.

jm2c

[Greyhide-khadgar (Greyhide)]

I just want to play fun games with decent teams that are trying, rather than waste my time watching stupidity all over a map I don’t even enjoy.

My friend, I’m afraid that ship has sailed

[Juga-hyjal]

Most of my games are close though.

[Felshout-mannoroth (Felshout)]

deserter is fine how it is.

a good change would be to not start the match until both teams are full. might not be the easiest thing to code, but we all know blizzard can do it

[Jdpp-zuljin (Jdpp)]

I had 2 out of 8 ish games last night start out down a couple guys. If they held off on the countdown timer until the teams were full and then start the timer at 30 seconds or so when the last man joins would be ideal… could even be faster if everyone joined the game quickly.

[Khadayrn-emerald-dream (Khadayrn)]

I think cutting the window of time which you have to accept a queue down to 30 seconds could help a lot with getting games to start with full teams. I think you have 90 seconds currently and that just leaves far too little time to fill spots that end up being left vacant.

[Anchovy-caelestrasz]

The point should remain the same regardless of your ability to understand the hypothetical situation…you can’t tell the difference between an unintentional internet loss and an intentional network adapter disabling. Too many situations are possible to lose connectivity unintentionally, and it sucks to be punished for something you can’t control.

Garbage.

Of course you cant tell when it is an unintentional disconnect or simply that a player has to go for other reasons BUT THESE THINGS DO NOT HAPPEN EVERY DAY… It would NOT impact genuine people greatly and certainly not often enough for it to be worth worrying about.
There are many players who quit in the first few minutes after getting the slightest bit behind - they are the ones that would be impacted almost exclusively by a STACKING ACCOUNT WIDE DEBUFF for leaving a random bg - such a penalty would serve to remove the bulk of these players from queuing.
And yeah I’m aware of the nonsensical “I can tell when its a bad bg so I leave early” argument… These people need to go as well… If you’re so damn pro then go run rated - or step up and lead the bg.

[Dangerjosh-wyrmrest-accord (Dangerjosh)]

I’m unsure why you’re telling me to go play rated when I was arguing about intentional and unintentional DC’ing. Did you just get angry as you were typing and starting shooting in all different directions? You also just repeated things already said in the thread if memory serves, so coming at me a month later with no new information is a lil silly.

[Bazongas-zuljin]

Quitting Seething Shore should be immune to deserter debuff, just so they can get an accurate metric on it’s popularity.

[Vanx-shandris (Vanx)]

But you can’t vote someone out that’s not actually AFK can you?

Malseph and his bot army got my warrior kicked out and the warrior had top KBs/dmg (for a single player, heh) and was never AFK at any time, so…

edit: wow, necro

[Nomak-spirestone (Nomak)]

edit: wow, necro

Necro indeed. Blame Anchovy, not me!