So, this is how the PSP version of the Open Warfare 2 leaderboards works:

If you complete a match as the victor, you gain points toward your rank.

If you complete a match as the loser, you lose points toward your rank.

If your opponent leaves the match at any point throughout the game (whether you are winning or losing), your rank and completion percentage both go down, and there is nothing you can do about it?

Today was my day off work, and I decided to spend it trying to increase my leaderboard status. For my own personal reference, I also decided to keep track of how many people would disconnect during the course of a match. The end result was that I played a total of 35 ranked matches. Out of these matches, I found myself in the lead for 33 of them. However, because my opponents never felt the need to complete a single match, I never scored an actual victory toward my rank. Yet, to my utter disbelief, the two matches I was losing managed to complete just fine, hence further bringing my rank down.

A couple days ago, my completion percentage was 100%.

I haven't quit a single match since the day I bought this game.

Now my percentage is 63%, and I have dropped 13 slots in the permanent leaderboard as a result.

To bring my rank up, I should have to compete against my opponents - not against a flawed ranking system.

To solve this issue, I believe the completion percentage should be removed from the game entirely as it is not an accurate representation of how often any individual quits a match in progress. I also believe that if someone does quit a match and Wormnet can't decipher who the guilty party is, it should simply ignore it instead of dropping every players' rank several notches. This is the equivalent of a police officer pulling over every single car on the freeway and presenting them all with speeding tickets because he couldn't actually figure out which car was driving over the limit.

I apologize if I sound like I am complaining ... but in all fairness, I am complaining.

I spent my day off work hoping to enjoy Open Warfare 2 online. But, thanks to Team 17's inability to construct a fair ranking system, their refusal to repair and improve a broken one, and the outstanding number of quitters who loiter the Worms community, reflecting back on my day makes it seem like more of a chore than anything else.

-- Zero

PS: A big gesture of appreciation goes out to all of you Worms players who are actually willing to stay and complete a full match online. You are awesome. Both of you.

What, exactly, do you propose they do? A couple of weeks ago I suggested they visit each and every person who's ever quit a game of WOW2 (including myself, because even though I had a valid reason that single time I quit there shouldn't be any exceptions) and punch them square in the jaw. That seems to be the only way to discourage quitting.

Really, there's nothing Team17 can do about this issue. They can't stop ********s being ********s. They cann'e change the laws o' physics.

And before any smartarses chime in with "y not remov teh quit opton then ppls cant quit an they wil hav to finsh teh gaem" you forget two very important points:

http://stuff.benpaddon.co.uk/wow2quit.gif

What, exactly, do you propose they do? A couple of weeks ago I suggested they visit each and every person who's ever quit a game of WOW2 (including myself, because even though I had a valid reason that single time I quit there shouldn't be any exceptions) and punch them square in the jaw. That seems to be the only way to discourage quitting.

Really, there's nothing Team17 can do about this issue. They can't stop ********s being ********s. They cann'e change the laws o' physics.

And before any smartarses chime in with "y not remov teh quit opton then ppls cant quit an they wil hav to finsh teh gaem" you forget two very important points:

Thank you for putting words into my mouth.

I didn't say anything about removing the quit option.

I said that I don't feel like seeing my rank drop when my opponent quits.

Having been an online gamer for many years now, I have come to terms with the fact that most people are inevitably quitters. What I don't agree with, however, is faulting both players involved in a match when only one of them is the quitting culprit. Since Wormnet can't decipher which player was responsible for the disconnection, Team 17's approach is to simply penalize everyone involved in the match.

If my opponent disconnects during a match right before I am about to win, I would rather see my rank (and his) stay exactly as it were as opposed to seeing both of our ranks go downhill when I have clearly done nothing to deserve it. My current rank and position on the leaderboard should not be determined by whether or not my opponents choose to quit in the middle of our match.

Especially since Team 17 knows that most people quit during gameplay.

My argument is that in an attempt to discourage people from quitting, Team 17 has inadvertently punished everyone who is serious about competing on the leaderboards - and, they don't seem to recognize this issue.

I'm not trying to start a flame war. I do feel I have a valid point.

-- Zero

I agree with Zero.

Thank you for putting words into my mouth.

I didn't say anything about removing the quit option.

I know that. I was pre-empting the comments which would inevitably follow - I did say "any smartarses", not "you" - although I can see how you would have thought that was aimed at you, so I apologise. It was pretty late when I wrote that post.

This is a discussion that's been had on a forum a lot and some MENSA candidate invariably offers the "solution" of removing the Quit option from the pause menu, forgetting entirely that flicking the WLAN or Power switches would perform much the same task.

My personal solution was to basically just stop playing the PSP version online and stick to the DS version - I have both, because I'm a Sad Man.

33 out of 35 games ended in a disconnect? This seems far too high, in my experience it's not nearly that bad, perhaps you are getting disconnected from your opponent for some reason or you are just extremely unlucky.

i agree entirely with your commets, yet if they didnt penalize anyone when a game ends abruptly from the cause of a quitter, it would probably entice more people to quit as they know they wont get a lose for it

I think the "solution" a lot of people suggest is, basically, don't penalize the last person remaining in the game. But how do you determine this? And how do you differentiate between someone who has quit, someone who has turned off their WLAN switch or powered down, and someone who is experiencing genuine network problems? My wifi network at home is abominable - I can only get connections from certain parts of the house at certain times of the day, for some bizarre reason. Sometimes my PSP fails to connect at all. Sometimes my Nintendo DS will connect but won't be able to locate any games. And sometimes my PS3 can't find the network. The 360 and the Wii don't have any trouble, though.

It's a dilemma. Case in point: I was playing a game against Everett on the DS on Monday evening, and the game froze for a moment before reporting that Ev had disconnected. He reported at his end that the game had frozen completely. How do you deal with that on an online ranking system? You can't say "Don't punish anyone" because that leaves the system wide open for abuse. You can't say "just punish the disconnector" because under those circumstances we were both booted off of the connection as a result of Ev's crash. The only viable solution is to punish everyone.

Think of it as a classroom full of High School students. Say some bright spark decides to start throwing paper balls at the teacher. The teacher will ask 'Who threw that?". No one owns up to it and no one's going to grass the guilty party up. The throwing continues and the teacher inevitably says, "If one of you doesn't own up, I'll keep the entire class for lunch!". No one does, so the teacher makes good on his promise. He does the only thing he can[i/] do under those circumstances - he punishes the lot of them, because without the little bugger stepping forward, and without his classmates saying who he was, he has no way of knowing who was being a git. And he can't let it go unpunished, because the kids would know he's soft and they'd take advantage of that. So he holds the class back. The kids moan about him and he loses out on part of his [i]own lunch break, but it's the only fair way of dealing with the scenario.

What, exactly, do you propose they do? A couple of weeks ago I suggested they visit each and every person who's ever quit a game of WOW2 (including myself, because even though I had a valid reason that single time I quit there shouldn't be any exceptions) and punch them square in the jaw. That seems to be the only way to discourage quitting.

Really, there's nothing Team17 can do about this issue. They can't stop ********s being ********s. They cann'e change the laws o' physics.

And before any smartarses chime in with "y not remov teh quit opton then ppls cant quit an they wil hav to finsh teh gaem" you forget two very important points:

http://stuff.benpaddon.co.uk/wow2quit.gif

I've said it before and i'll say it again, there aren't any valid reasons to quit, what do you think was your valid reason? Even if someone was choking to death you could have just left your DS/ psp console alone still on while you did the hymlick manoeouver on the choking person.

furhermore the two quit options you mention completely negate the need for a quit option in the menu.

Anyone here like swings and roundabouts?

I've said it before and i'll say it again, there aren't any valid reasons to quit, what do you think was your valid reason? Even if someone was choking to death you could have just left your DS/ psp console alone still on while you did the hymlick manoeouver on the choking person.
Stop trying to make this about me. We've had this discussion before. If you want to continue it you're welcome to PM me, but please don't hijack yet another thread with your "theres no valid reason to quit" malarky.
furhermore the two quit options you mention completely negate the need for a quit option in the menu.
It amuses me that you still think this is a valid reason to remove the Quit option.

Stop trying to make this about me. We've had this discussion before. If you want to continue it you're welcome to PM me, but please don't hijack yet another thread with your "theres no valid reason to quit" malarky.

It amuses me that you still think this is a valid reason to remove the Quit option.

it has to be said your comments about this amuse me also.

it has to be said your comments about this amuse me also.

This is largely because I'm saying that there's no point in removing the Quit option because there are two alternatives, and you're saying the Quit optioned should be removed because there are two alternatives. Mostly we're talking in circles and are making the same basic point - that removing the Quit option will make no difference whatsoever - but you still want to see it removed anyway.

basically, I'm Professor Xavier, and you're Magneto - same idea, different outcome.

This is largely because I'm saying that there's no point in removing the Quit option because there are two alternatives, and you're saying the Quit optioned should be removed because there are two alternatives. Mostly we're talking in circles and are making the same basic point - that removing the Quit option will make no difference whatsoever - but you still want to see it removed anyway.

basically, I'm Professor Xavier, and you're Magneto - same idea, different outcome.

yeah i've said it is obselete (ie theres no need for the quit option so it could be omitted from the game in a future worms title) but thats not all, if you need to know more look at my pasts posts or PM me.

I've looekd at your past posts. Your logic is flawed because you generally assume that removing the quit option will make people suddenly not want to drop out of the game at all. Take the option away and people won't do it because it's not so eay, right? No, people don't work like that.

Quitters have always been a problem with online gaming. It's tough, really. Just get on with it. it's only a game - why take it so seriously?

I've looekd at your past posts. Your logic is flawed because you generally assume that removing the quit option will make people suddenly not want to drop out of the game at all. Take the option away and people won't do it because it's not so eay, right? No, people don't work like that.

Quitters have always been a problem with online gaming. It's tough, really. Just get on with it. it's only a game - why take it so seriously?

its a serious issue (quitters) as it spoils the fun of the game and to a large extent. Oh and by the way don't presume that all people are the same. How do i know that taking the quit option away would reduce quitters because i myself used that option to exit the game a lot at first under the assumption that it was okay to do this (as it ws provided nicely in the menu) and only quitted me out. As soon as i learnt that it ended the game for everyone (by visiting this website) i stopped doing this! Perhaps a in game note explaining this might be helpful in the future.

Your logic is flawed because you assume that all people are the same, that they have no nobility.

If a study was done on this using the psp and ds as comparison i bet the ds would have less quitters primarily because the ds has no quit option.

To me, It seems like the only way to stop quitters is to punish them. And it's already been established that "Blame" can not be determined. (Which I still find hard to believe) So we just have to deal.

its a serious issue (quitters) as it spoils the fun of the game and to a large extent.

Which is the fault of Bad People, not Team17.

Oh and by the way don't presume that all people are the same. How do i know that taking the quit option away would reduce quitters because i myself used that option to exit the game a lot at first under the assumption that it was okay to do this (as it ws provided nicely in the menu) and only quitted me out. As soon as i learnt that it ended the game for everyone (by visiting this website) i stopped doing this! Perhaps a in game note explaining this might be helpful in the future.

It's never ended the game for everyone in my experience. I've had a couple of three- and four-player games, and invariably someone drops and the game keeps going.

Your logic is flawed because you assume that all people are the same, that they have no nobility.

And you assume that people are idiots who will, when presented with the lack of a quit option, will just grunt, scratch their heads and play the game anyway. A nice idea but people aren't like that in real life. It's basic psychology - if someone who doesn't like losing is losing, they will quit. Whether the option is there or not.

If a study was done on this using the psp and ds as comparison i bet the ds would have less quitters primarily because the ds has no quit option.

If I've learnt anything from playign games online on the PS2 and the PSP, it's that generally PlayStation users have a lower regard for each other. On the DS and the Wii, and to an extent the 360, this doesn't appear to be the case. I think it speaks more about the userbase than whether or not the option is presented to the player.

no i don't assume people are idiots.

Well then allow me to George Lucas my original post, only without accidentally taping over the original:

And you assume that people awill, when presented with the lack of a quit option, will just grunt, scratch their heads and play the game anyway. A nice idea but people aren't like that in real life. It's basic psychology - if someone who doesn't like losing is losing, they will quit. Whether the option is there or not.

This is still Cold Hard Fact™, I believe. Just because you started off quitting because you thought it was socially acceptable and then realised, whoops!, it wasn't, doesn't mean that's how the entire world processes its thoughts. At the same time I acknowledge that there are likely to be some people who will quit just because the option to do so is there, but those people are probably so far and few between that there's really little point in making a further issue out of this.

Besides which, I just remembered that we'd agreed a ceasefire some weeks ago. So let's cut our losses now. As I've said before, neither of us is going to convince the other one that we're right. While I can appreciate your point fo view, I disagree with it. You disagree with mine. Let's leave it there, yeah?

Well then allow me to George Lucas my original post, only without accidentally taping over the original:



This is still Cold Hard Fact™, I believe. Just because you started off quitting because you thought it was socially acceptable and then realised, whoops!, it wasn't, doesn't mean that's how the entire world processes its thoughts. At the same time I acknowledge that there are likely to be some people who will quit just because the option to do so is there, but those people are probably so far and few between that there's really little point in making a further issue out of this.

Besides which, I just remembered that we'd agreed a ceasefire some weeks ago. So let's cut our losses now. As I've said before, neither of us is going to convince the other one that we're right. While I can appreciate your point fo view, I disagree with it. You disagree with mine. Let's leave it there, yeah?

right thankyou for accepting my argument, you sure know how to draw out a debate don't you, i don't know why u have such a problem with this, the amount of times i've stated that it would reduce and not eliminate quitters, i've never said the enitire world processes its thoughts this way although for some reason this is what you think i'm banging on about.

I don't have a problem with it at all. I just disagree with you.

I don't have a problem with it at all. I just disagree with you.

no you don't, you just accepted that some people would use the quit option because its there, thus illustrating my argument, you've brought this entirely on yourself squirminator.

arguing on the internet. c'mon guys, save it for the game.

no you don't, you just accepted that some people would use the quit option because its there, thus illustrating my argument, you've brought this entirely on yourself squirminator.

I do disagree with you, because we appear to have differing values for "some". When you say "some" you are implying "everyone". When I say "some" I am implying a handful of people. If anything, you agree with me because where I had previously said that removing the Quit Option won't make any difference, you agreed with me on that point, and then said it should be removed anyway for that reason. Which is, y'know, stupid.

Look, I'm done with this debate. We both agree that if you put a cake in a room on a pedestal, people will eat it. You're saying that if you remove the door, no one will try to enter the room. I'm saying people who want the cake will just climb in through one of the side windows instead. You say this is adequate reason to remove the door, and I disagree with you. Let's leave it there. We're not getting anywhere here.

I do disagree with you, because we appear to have differing values for "some". When you say "some" you are implying "everyone". When I say "some" I am implying a handful of people. If anything, you agree with me because where I had previously said that removing the Quit Option won't make any difference, you agreed with me on that point, and then said it should be removed anyway for that reason. Which is, y'know, stupid.

Look, I'm done with this debate. We both agree that if you put a cake in a room on a pedestal, people will eat it. You're saying that if you remove the door, no one will try to enter the room. I'm saying people who want the cake will just climb in through one of the side windows instead. You say this is adequate reason to remove the door, and I disagree with you. Let's leave it there. We're not getting anywhere here.

okay suuirminator

(england beat france so, COME ON!)

How about this to solve the problem then. Why not just alter the game so that any quit or disconnection constitutes an immediate forfeit by the player? Here's a few scenarios.
1) Someone decides to quit early when they get annihilated. As soon as they press QUIT [which should have SURRENDER in parantheses] (surrender), they pull out the white flag and it's automatically counted as a loss for them and a win for the other player.
2) Someone disconnects by turning off the POWER or shutting down the LAN. Plays out just like it does now, both statistics and ranking go down for both players, (In case the system can't decide who d/ced).
Rather than completely removing the Quit option, merely change it to constitute an immediate surrender by the player.
It's just another idea I've been contemplating for quite some time now. It probably wouldn't work for some techincal reason or something, but if it did, it would definitely discourage the ever increasing number of disconnectors I've been seeing lately.

Except people will recognise that "Quit" counts against them only, while using the power or WLAN switch affects them both. People are *******s like that, y'see. Not everyone is honorable. That's why we have this problem in the first place.

If you have the game store a file someone temporarily on your system during a ranked game and you removed the "quit" option then it would be simple to see if someone tunred there system off or disconnected the lan because the game would not remove the temporary files under these situations and upon starting a new game it will check for these files and if they are found it will lower that players score.

if someone disconnects then the other players game will end gracefully and the files would be removed befor it checks for them thus that players score would not be lowered.

*removes memory stick*

shush you ._.

If you have the game store a file someone temporarily on your system during a ranked game and you removed the "quit" option then it would be simple to see if someone tunred there system off or disconnected the lan because the game would not remove the temporary files under these situations and upon starting a new game it will check for these files and if they are found it will lower that players score.

if someone disconnects then the other players game will end gracefully and the files would be removed befor it checks for them thus that players score would not be lowered.
I believe that would also fall under the "can't detect who disconnected" category. At least for turning off the lan anyway.

surely games could detect if the lan is active (doesnt need to be connected)?

Except people will recognise that "Quit" counts against them only, while using the power or WLAN switch affects them both. People are *******s like that, y'see. Not everyone is honorable. That's why we have this problem in the first place.

I see your point. Changing QUIT to surrender wouldn't completely eliminate disconnectors, but it would certainly help discourage the problem. Imagine having to keep reconnecting to the internet or rebooting your game every time you wish to quit an online deathmatch early.

What's the pot for when playing a game