Spring RTS Engine

I dunno... when I'm filled with raeg at my teammates, I can put some effort into my raegquit. (Teammates are capable of inducing much more raeg in me than any enemy.) Having to raegquit in thirds won't stop me in that case. In fact, I have a hierarchy of quitting methods, depending on how much raeg I have for my teammates. From least raeg to most raeg:

1. Give everything to the best player on my team (negative raeg).
2. Quit and leave (minor raeg).
3. Give everything to the worst player on my team (moderate raeg).
4. Ctrl-A, Ctrl-D (major raeg).
5. Ctrl-A, give to best player on enemy team (raeging raeg).
6. Build an air transport, transport my comm to the teammate whom I have the most raeg against, drop off my comm, nap their comm, and DGun their base (T3 Experimental raeg).

If you want to make mass self-D annoying, you might as well put in a captcha. One letter for each unit you want to self-D.

Number six only happened once, after I had fallen to the tides of war.

Evil4Zerggin wrote:Then people will just raegquit in thirds.

Funniest thing I read on the forum in a while.

You should see how people look at Zerg and I when we discuss BA at dinner. Lawdy!

Evil4Zerggin wrote:Then people will just raegquit in thirds.

then we just make it so that you have to have under a third selected. then people will have to select slightly less than 1/3, so we make it so that you have to have under a under a third selected, then people will have to select slightly less than slightly less than 1/3... and so on.

CALCULUS POP QUIZ
What is the limit of the number of different groups of units a player will have to self-d in order to ragequit as the number of Spring releases approaches infinity?

Felix the Cat wrote:CALCULUS POP QUIZ
What is the limit of the number of different groups of units a player will have to self-d in order to ragequit as the number of Spring releases approaches infinity?

lim f(x) > 9000
x->inf

WHAT, NINE THOUSAND?!?

If you prevent self-d if more than a certain part of his force is selected (e.g. a third) then the next batch of self-ds will have to be smaller (since it's a portion of the remaining force).

Also this would be a gadget so Spring releases don't factor into it.

Not if they self-d the rest before the first batch goes off.

Well, that depends on how we define our criteria

LOL

Would you people take a step back and look at this conversation. It's absolutely hilarious. I nearly died after the self-D in thirds, but it just keeps going!

Leave it as it is, if someone rages, don't play with them next time. So simple!

my thead is win ^^

I agree that trying to self-d everything should give the stuff to allies. That would at least stop the noobs who just want to leave when things get ugly without thinking about it.

Insulting/humiliating quit messages would also improve the situation somewhat.

Im seeing alot more people enter games and self-d straight after weve started, then quit. Thats one thing that pisses me off more than ragequitters.

Maybe you could have an option for self-d to be restricted to specific units and buildings? (Commanders, crawling bombs, energy storage, decoy fusions...)

BTW, can you tell mines to NOT self-destruct when an enemy is near, but only when ordered?

Rage quitting is not fair for those who wants to enjoy the game. The rage quitters don't ragequit when they are winning, so why should they do it when they are losing. Don't make lame excuses like, "It's waste of time"(Rage Quitters) because it's waste of time for the rage quitters' opponents when rage quitters are winning. Basically, rage quitters don't rage quit when they are winning, which shows inconsistencies; They should either stick to their argument by rage quitting everytime including when they are winning, or don't rage quit at all.

What you are saying is just an obvious fact that everyone already knows. The problem is that, right now we don't have a practical means to stop rage-quitting. If they get banned, they can always open a new account; if the victims of their rage-quitting stop playing with them, they can always find someone else to play with; even if the devs somehow manage to implement an anti-rage-quit feature (such as prohibiting ctrl-a ctrl-d, and disable shift-esc ), there are always ways to quit, e.g. unplug the internet to pretend to have lost connection, alt-tab out of the game, etc.

That said, at least for now, I can't care less about it, because I almost never play online.

People simply abandonning is much less annoying than having them self-destruct, beause their allies can then .take. Of course it's still somewhat annoying, I've found myself once controlling the whole team against 4 other players because my allies left! And in the next game, when we were ready to launch our final attack, we found out that all of the players except one had self-destructed! It's like some people are only playing to win, and don't understand that you can have as much fun while losing.

And even for this there is a solution - allow players to give a part of their forces with shared control to the AI if they find they can't manage everything. It would be also a great addition for the biggest games that have few players for a big map.

Dont make the noobs start out the front in bad spots if they cant handle it..

and support them when they get swarmed..

then you wouldnt have to rage quit.

TEAM WORK + infinity!

and when someone self D's it leaves a gaping hole in whatever side they were holding..


atleast just que up 100000 units / build orders so that your base atleast functions..

I would much rather that then being given all of someones units.

There are cases where newbs don't listen to what skilled players are trying tell. Things like expand to new area, do not porc, etc.