I've thought of a solution to the disconnect problem

[McSquid82]

Like the thread title says I've found something that could help out a team who's had a player disconnect or rage quit on them. If it happens, send in a computer controlled Inkling or Octoling with the gear to take their spot on the team. I know AI isn't perfect or as smart as a human player, but it would be much more preferable
in my opinion than having a situation of four on three or even worse. All Nintendo would have to do is program them with the knowledge of how to play all the modes and it would help make this game much more enjoyable. Punish the people who disconnected, but not the team they bailed on. What are your thoughts?

 

[Phichikapparho]

The only issue I see with that is so far I have never encountered any sort of AI that could compare to a real player that's a decent player. even the more advanced ones you can still find patterns and weaknesses and figure out how to kill them effortlessly fairly quickly.

Now wouldn't you be chagrined if you had a disconnect on your team and they placed an NPC in place of that disconnect and they ended up dying 27 times in the two minutes that was left of the match?
I'm not saying that the disparity would be quite that wide but I would much rather just not have to worry about an NPC playing as one of my teammates.

 

[Gameboy224]

People have thought of this idea many times before.

But honestly, I don't like it. It's a bandaid solution for a much more severe injury.
The AI solution is a mediocre solution but passable for Turf War, but it is nearly pointless in Ranked, maybe even detrimental in Splat Zones.

I forget which thread I posted this but I think this idea would be a much more valid solution in terms to ensuring a more fair match when somebody D/Cs.

When somebody disconnects, the game will force the other team to only play with 3 players at a time.
Once somebody disconnects, the game will still be a 3v4, but once somebody on the 4 team gets splatted, that person will not be able to respawn normally and will be put in reserves. But, when somebody else from the 4 team gets splatted, the person will be slotted back in and the splatted person get put in reserves. Players will be slotted in and out every time somebody gets splatted. This ensures that all 4 players still have the chance to play, but also ensures that the match is always a 3v3. The person being slotted in will still be affected by the other person's respawn time, but not special depletion.

Yes, it means somebody on the 4 team will always be out of play, but people get splatted often enough that they'll still see play. Even if they don't, that usually means their team is doing well and they aren't getting splatted much.

But as a whole, this makes sure that an even number of actually players are going against each other. This will not take affect in League, but will for normal Ranked and Turf Wars.

 

[the]

People have thought of this idea many times before.

But honestly, I don't like it. It's a bandaid solution for a much more severe injury.
The AI solution is a mediocre solution but passable for Turf War, but it is nearly pointless in Ranked, maybe even detrimental in Splat Zones.

I forget which thread I posted this but I think this idea would be a much more valid solution in terms to ensuring a more fair match when somebody D/Cs.

When somebody disconnects, the game will force the other team to only play with 3 players at a time.
Once somebody disconnects, the game will still be a 3v4, but once somebody on the 4 team gets splatted, that person will not be able to respawn normally and will be put in reserves. But, when somebody else from the 4 team gets splatted, the person will be slotted back in and the splatted person get put in reserves. Players will be slotted in and out every time somebody gets splatted. This ensures that all 4 players still have the chance to play, but also ensures that the match is always a 3v3. The person being slotted in will still be affected by the other person's respawn time and special depletion.

Yes, it means somebody on the 4 team will always be out of play, but people get splatted often enough that they'll still see play. Even if they don't, that usually means their team is doing well and they aren't getting splatted much.

But as a whole, this makes sure that an even number of actually players are going against each other. This will not take affect in League, but will for normal Ranked and Turf Wars.

My beef with this idea is that, like the AI thing, it could cause unfair matches. If one team has a disconnect, who will the game take out of play? The player who’s fighting off an intruder who’s getting ready to spawn camp? The player who is making a break and about to dunk the rainmaker? The last person holding the tower in overtime? The only slayer weapon on the team, who really needs to be alive to stop a push? This type of change could completely turn the tide of a match or lead to a completely hopeless situation just based on bad luck. I would be furious if I was taken out of a game when my team was counting on me.

Ultimately, I think they should just crank up the advantages they give to D/C teams at the moment, until they seem effective enough to give at least a fighting chance.

 

[Gameboy224]

My beef with this idea is that, like the AI thing, it could cause unfair matches. If one team has a disconnect, who will the game take out of play? The player who’s fighting off an intruder who’s getting ready to spawn camp? The player who is making a break and about to dunk the rainmaker? The last person holding the tower in overtime? The only slayer weapon on the team, who really needs to be alive to stop a push? This type of change could completely turn the tide of a match or lead to a completely hopeless situation just based on bad luck. I would be furious if I was taken out of a game when my team was counting on me.

Ultimately, I think they should just crank up the advantages they give to D/C teams at the moment, until they seem effective enough to give at least a fighting chance.

The person taken out will always be whoever got splatted first. When the next person gets splatted, the 1st person gets brought back into the game and the 2nd person is then put in reserves. In theory, this would reward those who perform well, you get splatted, you are taken out of the game till the next person is splatted, which can be as soon or as late as possible.

 

[McSquid82]

I'm glad this thread has gotten so many responses. Also, I'm not saying any idea in here, including mine, is the perfect solution. But I think there is a consensus that something needs to be done about this. In Ranked
mode, there's already a thing where if one of your teammates disconnects and your team loses, you don't get cracks in your ranking meter. I'd just like that same principle expanded to turf wars. For example, I've lost too many freshness points on my weapons due to disconnects. And the thing is, I can accept losing if our team lost fair and square. I won't be happy about it, but I can accept it. My whole point is, Nintendo needs to do something (more) about it.

 

[Gameboy224]

I'm glad this thread has gotten so many responses. Also, I'm not saying any idea in here, including mine, is the perfect solution. But I think there is a consensus that something needs to be done about this. In Ranked
mode, there's already a thing where if one of your teammates disconnects and your team loses, you don't get cracks in your ranking meter. I'd just like that same principle expanded to turf wars. For example, I've lost too many freshness points on my weapons due to disconnects. And the thing is, I can accept losing if our team lost fair and square. I won't be happy about it, but I can accept it. My whole point is, Nintendo needs to do something (more) about it.

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, you still get cracks if you lose. As far as I'm aware, the only difference it makes is that you won't Rank down, you won't get the 4th crack, but crack 1 to 3 it still game.

 

[calamaro]

Is it really that big of a deal?

 

[McSquid82]

Is it really that big of a deal?

It is to me, and I presume a lot of other people who have had this happen to them. It's affecting my enjoyment of the game, and if Nintendo wants me to start paying for their online service in September, I would prefer they do something about it.

 

[Elecmaw]

Bots aren't programmed for this game, making such logic work would require a significant rehaul of both code in multiplayer maps themselves and program new AI to make it work. AI in multiplayer games is rarely simple, even when you plan on making primitive bots for newbie practice. Games that have AI opponents (Overwatch) tend to play akin to newbies, they cannot adapt to the meta, and tend to get really predictable after a while.
There's also the issue of this game being peer-to-peer, which means that one console(the host) has to handle controlling the bots. Which means that:
-This is both taxing on resources and a strain on the host's internet connection, which this game and it's extremely juicy 16 tickrate cannot afford
-Can be exploited, especially once this game can get hacked in the future
-If the bot 'owner' D/C's that means the bots themselves can also D/C, ironically enough

The singleplayer Octolings jump (or appear) right in front of you to force a direct confrontation with them, because they aren't meant to be fought from a distance. Just try to back up from one, and see if it can get near you- it can't.

Personally, i'd give the team with (more) D/C's quicker respawns, passive special charge and an ink recovery buff. Something to help close the gap, but not something to make intentional D/C's a thing.

 

[Jimmys1000]

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, you still get cracks if you lose. As far as I'm aware, the only difference it makes is that you won't Rank down, you won't get the 4th crack, but crack 1 to 3 it still game.

Depends on how early the player DC’d.

 

[McSquid82]

Bots aren't programmed for this game, making such logic work would require a significant rehaul of both code in multiplayer maps themselves and program new AI to make it work. AI in multiplayer games is rarely simple, even when you plan on making primitive bots for newbie practice. Games that have AI opponents (Overwatch) tend to play akin to newbies, they cannot adapt to the meta, and tend to get really predictable after a while.
There's also the issue of this game being peer-to-peer, which means that one console(the host) has to handle controlling the bots. Which means that:
-This is both taxing on resources and a strain on the host's internet connection, which this game and it's extremely juicy 16 tickrate cannot afford
-Can be exploited, especially once this game can get hacked in the future
-If the bot 'owner' D/C's that means the bots themselves can also D/C, ironically enough

The singleplayer Octolings jump (or appear) right in front of you to force a direct confrontation with them, because they aren't meant to be fought from a distance. Just try to back up from one, and see if it can get near you- it can't.

Personally, i'd give the team with (more) D/C's quicker respawns, passive special charge and an ink recovery buff. Something to help close the gap, but not something to make intentional D/C's a thing.

Maybe not this game, but if there's another one, which is likely, put in that one. As for the hacking thing, Nintendo is constantly sending system updates to beef up security, including new systems with a whole new chip. I probably would have been better off saying series.So it doesn't have to be this game, or even this console. But the power issues you mentioned won't be an issue forever, especially with the way tech is advancing. Either way, it needs to be implemented at some point down the line, even if it's years from now.

 

[Hero of Lime]

It would be nice if any and all punishments for losing would disappear with a DC on your team. Ranked does that already, though it's not guranteed to not dock points for you. Your freshness rating in turf should not go down in the case of a DC, and maybe it would not effect a win loss ratio on the Spatnet app. Losing because of something beyond your control is frustrating enough, it would help to know the match was just a waste of time and nothing more.

I like the idea of adding bots to help, but until Nintendo proves they can program good bots in Splatoon, I would rather the game give buffs to the disadvantaged team, or eliminate all losses they may take for one.

 

[MeTaGross]

I honestly don't see any major flaws with the idea @Gameboy224 has. None of this would ever have any impact on professional/tournament play, so I don't see how this would be a bad thing. If one team has a player disconnect early on then the two teams can fight a 3v3. If you think this is bad because the original 4 team loses X player that would do Y, then you completely ignore the fact that the other team has simply lost a player. On the 4 team the players that die the least will be on the field the most, so theoretically they would have their 3 best players on the field more often than not. If the "disconnect" was somebody on a losing team leaving at the end, then it will have virtually no impact and everyone will know that they quit.

It's not perfect, but nothing in this game is, and it is better than the system that we have now. Sometimes you lose points, sometimes you don't, and there is no way to tell why one way or another.

 

[Chaos_Knight]

I propose that should ever the team win against a team that has D'Cs (whoever has more), they do not get the full reward but instead have their reward cut. That way it wouldn't just be an "easy win" for the winner.

 

[Parsnip]

I don't like the idea of benching other players on the non dc'd side to equal the numbers like someone suggested, that is just potentially punishing an even higher number of people for something that is an unfortunate inevitability.

I'd just make it so that if there is a dc on your team, your rank meter doesn't change, full stop. No AI, no benching other players etc simple damage limitation, worst case is that the least number of people (3) are inconvenienced (if they lose) but are not punished.

If a team with a dc wins, maybe reward them with a small increase in the bar progression. This would help people not to give up, they have nothing to lose and a bit extra to gain.

 

[MINKUKEL]

There should've been bots in S1 and S2 anyway, to preserve the game for when the online service is no longer available. It's true that it would've been quite a different experience as bots are (usually) not the same as playing against real players, but it still should've been there.

Of course, bots are notoriously time-consuming to implement properly, so I can see why they didn't. But 50 years from now, I won't be able to go back to the original Splatoon and just fire it up for a quick round to show people what it was like, or to just relive the good ol' days. It's just sad that having bots isn't the industry standard anymore.

When somebody disconnects, the game will force the other team to only play with 3 players at a time.
Once somebody disconnects, the game will still be a 3v4, but once somebody on the 4 team gets splatted, that person will not be able to respawn normally and will be put in reserves.

Punishing one player for another's DC would be a terrible system if you ask me.

 

[Gameboy224]

Punishing one player for another's DC would be a terrible system if you ask me.

Read the rest of it.

Again, it will use a tag-team rotation type system, it is not punishing one player, it is putting a handicap on the entire team equally. Once one person gets splatted, they are taken out. Once ANOTHER person gets splatted, the first person will take their place and the person just splatted will be taken out. Then when the next person gets splatted that person takes his place and the new splatted person gets taken out, so on and so forth. The game will always take out and put in players based on order of who gets splatted.

All 4 players on the 4 player team will still be able to play (unless those 3 players on the field turn out to be godly and never get splatted), but the game will always keep one player out at any given time in order to keep the match a 3v3.

 

[Parsnip]

But increasing the respawn time of players on the non dc side, regardless of it being rotation based (at least as you put forward the idea) is a punishment as it decreases their active time, and therefore their enjoyment of the game. Also since it is death related it will not be applied evenly across players either. So instead of 3 people being annoyed you now have 7 people feeling annoyed about the dc.

 

[Gameboy224]

But increasing the respawn time of players on the non dc side, regardless of it being rotation based (at least as you put forward the idea) is a punishment as it decreases their active time, and therefore their enjoyment of the game. Also since it is death related it will not be applied evenly across players either. So instead of 3 people being annoyed you now have 7 people feeling annoyed about the dc.

Respawn time in unchanged. What I was saying is if somebody has like Quick Respawn or Respawn Punisher, the person taking their place would be affected by it. So if you had Quick Respawn and die immediately, the next person would have to wait less after the previous person died to come back, but if you got Respawn Punished, it will take longer for the next person in line to come in (decided to redact my stance on special depletion, that will not be affected). Alternatively, we could just make it so it only affects when you yourself respawn, which might actually be better.

You're quite wrong about your last statement. Why would the team of 3 be complaining? They are no longer at a disadvantage, the reason a 3v4 was unfair, was because it was a 3v4, now it isn't, it's a 3v3 and therefore the disadvantage the team of 3 had is now gone. The only people with anything to complain are on the team of 4 since they might have to wait some odd extra seconds before they may return into battle and they now have an inconsistent team composition.

I personally see slightly inconveniencing 4 people part of the time and producing the fairest game possible to trump completely inconveniencing 3 people for a game that is blatantly unfair.