as we well know star conflict is a game where the team is important, the actions of each player ally affects the type of game that you do.
I noticed that in many matches players who disconnect, others who inexplicably stop is still more an attack. the result is that while you’re dominating a game, the Allied team disappears between those who disconnects because he has more important things to those who do not care about anything but especially for those who play against players of the same corporation.
sometimes an ally would be better to have it as an enemy.
I think we need to change the matchmaking and set it with filters that prevent players from the same guild to meet against further matchmaking is not balanced, there are too many games where there are teams with high upgrades and other teams with teams with low rank and upgrades.
think evil is wrong but sometimes maybe you have found a truth!
mercenaries greetings
Implement credit/synergy penalty system. Depends on your ship rank, you lose 50k credit and 1000 free synergy for r1 and 750k credit and 15k free synergy for r15 for each abandoned battle, and goes up 100% for each repeated offense until you properly finishes a a battle. For example, You would lose a total of 41.25m credit and 825k free synergy if you abandon battle 10 times in a row on a r15 ship. This only apply if your status is “disconnected” when battle ends. In other words, if you accidentally disconnect due to power surge or ISP hiccup, you still have a chance to get in battle before it ends.
what does it have to do with players from the same corps?
people from the same corps leading a squad already cant face each other in a squad
Resulting in actually _less_ balanced games, because if two teams from a strong corp meet, chance is, both are very well equipped, and would cancel each other out. instead, to prevent abuse, they are always teamed up against teams not from their corps. Which can be abused just as easily, but well, leave it to the dumb people to make up rules… (the “expert statisticians” at work here actually probably will still need a few years to realize what the hell a logical bias actually is.)
Disconnecting players is for sure annoying, however I have to say, I have never disconnected a pvp on purpose, and still got disconnected a lot by various issues, either isp, strange packet loss, crashes, etc. If it is a structural disconnect, as corps usually have people from similar geographical areas, it usually affects multiple people from the same corps, doesnt mean, they left together.
It is much more likely you lost because of the LRFs in your team, than a disconnected player, or the corp tags of specific players, in nearly 90% of the games in medium or hard.
14 minutes ago, Milfeulle said:
Implement credit/synergy penalty system. You lose credit and free synergy for abandon a battle, and goes up 100% for each repeated offense until you properly finishes a a battle.
this might be nice.
Make pvp 8vs8 wings.
Well, wouldn’t penalties also penalize those who really disconnect because of isp or w/e? Not only those who alt-f4.
In that case, just use the ingame report system. Believe me, repeating violations won’t go unpunished.
Please just make sure you write as reason “AFK, Abandoned battle” or similar, empty reports are not helpful.
Yeah, game doesn’t respond for a whole 2 minutes, and then would still consider me d/c at the end of a battle. Half the time, resetting doesn’t even fix anything, or if it does, 1 minute later, back to non-response.
10 hours ago, g4borg said:
cosa ha a che fare con giocatori della stessa corpi?
persone dello stesso corpo che conducono già una squadra smussano di fronte all’altro in una squadra
Con conseguente realtà less giochi equilibrati, perché se due squadre da una forte corp si incontrano, il caso è, entrambi sono molto ben attrezzata, e sarebbe annullano a vicenda. invece, per prevenire gli abusi, sono sempre uniti contro squadre non dal loro corpo. Che può essere abusato con la stessa facilità, ma bene, lasciare alla gente muti per compensare le regole … (gli “esperti” statistici sul lavoro qui in realtà probabilmente sarà ancora bisogno di alcuni anni per rendersi conto che cavolo un bias logico realtà è.)
Scollegare i giocatori è sicuramente fastidioso, però devo dire, non ho mai staccato un pvp di proposito, e ancora ricevuto scollegato un sacco da vari problemi, o ISP, strana perdita di pacchetti, si blocca, ecc Se si tratta di una disconnessione strutturale, come corpi di solito hanno le persone provenienti da aree geografiche simili, che di solito colpisce più persone dello stesso corpo, non significa, se ne sono andati insieme.
E 'molto più probabile che si perde a causa dei LRF nella vostra squadra, di un giocatore disconnesso, o i tag corp di giocatori specifici, in quasi il 90% dei giochi a medio o difficile.
questo potrebbe essere bello.
then we can say that in this game no one ever asked the mate or guild mates to leave the game because maybe you do the more fast daily quests? or perhaps to produce faster synergy.? I believe first of all that the matchmaking should change player with rank against players with lower rank too high. also should put a filter to avoid that corporations play together or against in pvp, the most they can participate in 4 per game, tonight I saw a pvp nasa vs rest of the world. for competitive matches are the conquest, tournament and league, we do not need this even in normal pvp. so for me to be divided both together and against, avoiding conflicts of interest.
9 hours ago, pacoXXI said:
maybe you do the more fast daily quests? or perhaps to produce faster synergy.?
nope. most players on that level do not need faster synergy. i do not need synergy, at all. i have millions of free synergy at my disposal. and even in strong squads, you lose games, as the MM sometimes makes really unfair teams no matter the squads, and sometimes the teams are even and you just lose.
if someone is this strong in the game, chances are high to certain, such practices are unneeded. also, you cannot go faster, as entering new games while you are in another battle is not condoned indefinitely.
9 hours ago, pacoXXI said:
we do not need this even in normal pvp
yes, you do. you need good players to follow, and learn. this is how we learned the game. corps like nasa have very old players from corporations which now do not exist anymore - and an opportunity for newer corps to get competitive enough to beat them. in fact, most usually squads do not carry games anymore, at all.
getting to know the older corporations, and the current active corporations is mainly in pvp. just requeue - by now we finally have loot even after losing. get together, as we have missions for squads. there was a time, where squads were not allowed to play pvp for months, and the result was, that games did not get better.
Most of the old players even know each other across corporations, and will play just as strong together in all-solo situations. But the games themselves get not fairer through it.
Play long enough and you might witness the joy in a game, where a team you hate for making hard games loses.
Finally, atm. we have a tharga infestation, so games are usually decided by tharga amount or counter strategies.
I feel your pain, but do not blame the players - even if they give you a lot of losses, they also show you how the different roles can be played, fitted, and how teams can become really strong. It definitely is not helpful for them to disconnect, nor does it everybody on purpose. Also, if you ever were in a battle, where lots of weaker players suddenly found themselves and fight back - you will see those games forge you to steel. It’s pvp. If you want it easy, go coop. But staying in pvp is like going to the gym, a few weeks of masochism, and you will see how you improve. Especially, if you have a hard time. Go on soldier!
9 hours ago, pacoXXI said:
for competitive matches are the conquest, tournament and league
tournament: yes. but thats once a week, and yes, most competitive players are online around that time - you will find that pvp after tournaments is very vivid, full of squads, and very very close and intense games. you should ask for more corps to squad up instead!
conquest: no. while it gives a bit of fun for organized play, its a separate group mode, that isn’t enjoyed by everybody. It’s also not high level play most of the time, nor even fair games - depending on the worth of the sector.
leagues: hm. problem is, those small games are boring and full of cheese. but it already does reduce the players from pvp. the game would need more population for it to work, it might become more important in the future. It was introduced exactly to fullfill your whish of giving endgame options to players, same as destroyers allow you to play a more slow role in the battle.
23 hours ago, Milfeulle said:
Implement credit/synergy penalty system. …
I would say the free choice of quitting a battle must be available for players. I would suggest a leave option which would ensure that the ship was bound in battle and the AI takes over for the player. Player then could decide to take this ship left in a battle out of the ship dock slot and do something else (like toilet etc.) with out any penalty, but with no gain from the battle, also and be left with some repair costs (not in case of premium ships).
I see penalties a very unwise path to go… make the MM better and encourage the players not to quit, make it easy and low barrier to enjoy this game!
There is too many players that get kicked from a game by the game itself, penalties should be only for the real griefers that really leave the game, like, ask him 98765 times if he wants to leave and if he says yes on all, slap him with a ban of some sorts. Nothing straightens up a player like a ban. 
5 minutes ago, ORCA1911 said:
There is too many players that get kicked from a game by the game itself, penalties should be only for the real griefers that really leave the game, like, ask him 98765 times if he wants to leave and if he says yes on all, slap him with a ban of some sorts. Nothing straightens up a player like a ban. 
I value this suggestion as non realistic. It would give too much power in to the hands of snitches, trolls, informers, clownes and evild doers - on the side of players (from teen to adult) as well as on the side of -more or less grown up- GMs …
Imho a bad path, too…
If you click on yes i want to leave and then on yes im sure and then on im really really sure button just because you dont like losing a match, a slap is in order, imo. Very realistic.
Slaps are not in order, I witnessed GMs getting their climax in “slapping” players… not a good thing to increase police state and cast of punishers in a PEGI12 game… Very much not recommended. Punishment does not better people but make them hide/avert special behavior and it causes the evil chain of rage, frustration, and counter punishment to start…
In the end you want to serve the players and advertise to them payables, GS, and licenses – not delivering climaxes and uber-human fantasies to the staff…
Okay let’s never punish toxic people then. Let them do what they want, it’s pegi12, what would they understand anyway.
Its more like this:
12 minutes ago, ORCA1911 said:
Okay let’s us never punish let toxic people punish, then. Let them not do what they want, it’s pegi12, what would they understand anyway.
”)
I mean lets be reasonable, if one really feels the increased urge to personally punish/snitch players in a PEGI12 game … i mean come one would that be the right place for that person?
What are you even talking about xD
xD
Each disconnect should give you 1000 GS.
9 minutes ago, Koromac said:
Each disconnect should give you 1000 GS.
finally, a good suggestion.