Crashes in matches. Should it really be a replay?

[[one] Gambit]

I would like to propose a rule chnge regarding the handling of player crashes during match games. My own experience with this particular issue has been exclusively that a player on the other team will crash invariably when his team is behind in a game. I am talking about less than a half dozen occurances (four come to mind immediately) so I do not claim this to be a universal truth or anything. My point here is that while players do crash from time to time, it seems unreasonable to me that the other team should in any way be in a position to suffer from such a crash. An argument might be made for sportsmanship, I say, let the team with the crashed player be good sports and play out the game.

It's been pointed out to me recently that some players who play on dial-up connections are particularly prone to dropped connections and crashing issues. If that is the case, and clans insist on allowing players with dial -up to play, it places an unfair burden on the opposing team to play under the constant possibility that any game might have to come to a halt and be restarted because one player has a substandard connection. Further, it is never pointed out before the match that there is a player participating with such issues, and the other clan is not given the option of accepting or declining to continue with such a handicap on the continuity of the cb.

Further, it is just too damn simple to stage a crash. ... in any number of ways. I can turn off my computer and it will still only say 'Gambit has left the game.' I can just up and press run until I go into a wall and keep pressing it and it looks just the same as a player who has lagged. There is no way to know.

To sum up, I do not think it is reasonable to penalize a team because of a technical difficulty on the other side. We are expected to take responsibility for our actions in pretty much all other aspects of our BL participation: I think it's time we take sole responsibility for our internet connections as well.

[Saberian 3000]

I have to agree with what Gambit is saying.  It is unfortunate for the 56k players that crash during a game but there should be some type of guideline to it.

1. If no one is killed on either team and someone crashes and says something before anyone is taken out of the round then it should be taken over.
2. If anyone else dies within the match other then a tk then the game is played till the end even if one of the players left alive in the game end up to crash.

I can see Gambit's point and it does make sense.  Even though I have a 56k player and sometimes he crashes, I would still take responsability for the round if he does happen to crash under that guideline.  It is not that I wouldnt let my 56k player guy play.  I would, but I can also live with the fact that if he crashes during gameplay that he should be considered dead.  Although I would more worry about the player that crashes that isnt 56k.  At least it is understandable that a 56k user crashes. but I do agree with what Gambit's frustration is when it comes to 56k players crashing, or any one for that fact, they should be considered dead.  So I second the motion as well that crashing during gameplay should be considered with at least some type of harsher penalty.  The game "should" continue on from there without a stopping of the game.  It really only makes sense.

:MoD:Saberian

P.S. This thinking of mine only applies of course to Ghost Recon Team Play. For the other gameplay's are quite different and require different rules.  And other games like Rvs have totally different issues then the ones residing in Ghost Recon.  Just wanted to clarify that.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

I don't agree.

First, the team that didn't crash isn't being penalized.  Having to play the round over isn't a penalty.  

Now, if you want to talk about making it more fair, have it start over under the same circumstances as when the guy crashed.  Have the guys that died all kill themselves, maybe even wound someone if they were wounded.

But face it, games crash for some people.  And it has nothing to do with bad connections all the time.  Ghost Recon is buggy, and we all know it.  People crash all the time.

So what you really have to ask yourself is, does winning on the ladder mean more than a good fair game?

One last thing.  If a team had someone crash more than twice in the same CB, always when they were down, I'd be very worried that it was on purpose.  And everyone here knows that this tactic has been used.  So I'm not against putting a limit on how many times this is allowed in a particular CB, because once is too likely an accident, twice is fishy, three times and they may as well be cheating.  If clans were caught using that tactic, I'd want them banned just for being poor sports.

[Saberian 3000]

The only disagreement I have with Bucc's logic there is that if they were to restart and the one guy was to kill himself.  Then the other team would then know for sure where the team with one man down started and therefore would set the match to an unbalance again.  Even more then would have originally been intended by having the one guy commit Sepuku(Suicide).  I would just say go observer but the only bummer about that is that the observer would be able to view all the players movements, and with Netfone would then therefore create a bunk situation for possible cheating thru the eyes of the beholder lol.  So I guess in the end nothing can really be done in that issue.  Although I suppose that things can be worked out on a clan vs. clan level within the game.  One can always hope.  But I still can relate to Gambit's frustration on the matter.

:MoD:Saberian

Modified for spelling stupidity lol

[Saberian 3000]

Hmm, writing this statement above I just thought of a possible solution.  What if the guy that was to commit suicide was to instead be the last one to check in the ready box to start the game, but, instead of cheacking in the ready box, he was to leave the game, therefore automatically setting the start of the game.  That way when he got back into the game he couldnt see the gameplay that was going on and therefore would not really be able to help his team in any way except for maybe in spirit lol.  Anyway, just a thought.

:MoD:Saberian

[|MP|Buccaneer]

just let the dead people go to the center of the map to off themselves.

That way, they eat up some of the time too, but don't give away position, etc.

[[one] Gambit]

While I understand your point Bucc, I have to say that no matter what scenario you try to implement to recreate the pre-crash conditions, it will penalize the non-crash team. At the very least, it disrupts the flow of the game to stop and restart a game, even without all the running to the middle and commiting suicide. I dislike splitting the host for the same reason. In addition, there is no way to re-establish the positions of the players at the time of the crash. And those are just objective logistical considerations.

Unfortunately, I think this is one of those all or nothing issues. Either you scrap the whole game and start it over because one player experienced an unverifiable technical issue, or you continue and accept crashing as part of the deal.

Keep in mind, I am bringing this point up specifically BECAUSE

a) There is no way to verify a crash as an actual crash, and

b)If a player's connection is chronically problematic and he insists on participating in the Battle leaugue, it should (in my opinion) fall upon him and his teammates to assume any detriment caused by his weak connection.

I have only been around Game Ranger for about a year now, but I have been a gamer for considerably longer. The fact of the matter is that the days of games you could play effectively on a dialup connection are past. My own experience has been that I don't crash, especially in smaller games (as cb's tend to be). If people don't have access to DSL or cable and still want to play, that's fine. And like I've been saying all along- put it on them, not on me.

All that being said, I fully expect to now begin having connection issues. ;-)

[KoS.Rebel]

The way i see it.....do u wanna win by getting a crash win? Or do u want to win by proving your skill and earning that round? You make the choice....

[[one] Gambit]

Rebel- you are entirely missing the point, but on the flip-side of your argument, would you rather pick up a win on a replay because your team 'lucked out' and had somebody crash when all seemed lost, or would you rather accept the fact that crashing is

a) a part of the whole online gaming experience, (kind of like catching an errant mortar round or a bullet from a local partisan sniper) and

b) completely unverifiable as to the cause of any player abruptly leaving during a game.

Plus, if you are AHEAD when one of your players crashes, just think of it as more convincing proof of your skill as a team if you still pull out the win.

But don't try to blow smoke with this 'earned' win line of thinking.

 

[KoS.Rebel]

Yawn. The rule stands and flaming wont change it...

[BTs_GhostSniper]

How often does this really happen?  I mean, really, I've played hundreds of games of GhR during CBs and I have NEVER seen a person crash during a CB.  So what's the big deal?  You are making a huge argument over something that happens once in every hundred CBs (or less).

[BFG]

It dosnt' happen very often, but it does happen occasionally. You can play 50 cb's and never see it happen, and then play 5 cbs and have it happen twiice.....

[Noto]

I think much of the concern of a player crashing has only come into question when the circumstances surrounding the crash are questionable.  It seems that when ever this situation is brough it, it when one clan is up 4v1 or 3v1, and the other clan's guy crashes out.  As much as this may be a nuisance, I suppose (after much thought) that changing the rule to penalize the team with the crashed player is like trying to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage.  Whether it's gay marriage or crashing when it's 4v1 or 3v1, just think to yourself; how often does/will this really happen?  Such a small percentage to really worry about.  Somtimes shit happens (if you consider it shit...)

.::|N| Noto