If you lot are going to have a strict concession rule, maybe either get stable game code, or make it possible to rejoin a game after a server dc or client crash. Or, take into account number of games played. I just got disqualified for having 6 "concedes". Three were purposeful. I played I think around 80 games on the ladder. You constantly lament the lack of participation on this console, then ban someone because of your codes instability and the inability to provide a simple way to reconnect to the game. Talk about shooting yourselves in the foot.
As I communicated on the FB forum to the admins there, that was poorly communicated. Feel free to check out the situation there. However, I do have to stress just how ridiculous it is not being able to reconnect to a game. I am led to understand that it is perhaps inherent to Xbox? IDK, I do know that this is an issue I haven't experienced since the late '90s.
However, my new clarity with the situation should not be confused with being satisfied with the situation.
If, as I beleive I read on another post, you are a volunteer and not an employee, please do tell someone who has received payment for the product I purchased that I am not happy with my purchase, and as with the folks who put up with me in the FB group, thank your for your time.
Additionally, and this is for anyone who is paid by the folks who charged me for a product. Now, I don't know all the things it takes to provide a quality gaming product online, but, I do know what its like to interact with a product from a company that does. It is what I expect, and as of yet, not what I've received. It is a major factor in my future gaming purchases. It sounds like the product on offer on PC, I beleive via Steam is, in fact, up to my expectations for what an online gaming product should be. As of now, the product on offer on console, at least for the Xbox, the one I own, is not. I'm not currently sure exactly how I feel about that disparity, and I know I am less than thrilled with the fact that the inability to reconnect from a hardware or software malfunction is both a known issue, and one that is largely and specifically misdirected from in formal communication. We'll see I guess.
I agree. My dissatisfaction regarding the product I purchased should be directed at a paid employee. I don't know how to proceed on that front tbh, but, I wanted a Focus employee to understand that my frustration with this interaction will effect my future considerations with purchasing a product from their company. That's it. If they have a solution in mind, great, if not, so be it.
As far as concessions go in the CCL, I agree there should be a rule in place to dissuade folks from just conceding every time things don't go their way. I'm not sure this is the end result of the current rule, at least on a console where reconnecting is not an option, and the way it is communicated. I've expressed that.
I might suggest expanding it to, say 5 or less than a % of games played, whichever is greater, once someone looks at the data and decides on what % of games they feel are acceptable casualties to instability, or some way to incorporate high games played into the equation. It is often hard enough to consistently get a game, and during some hours, it is 20-30 minutes, an hour, longer maybe in the que, I don't wait for that long personally, I go do something else. Enough people do that, and the game is effectively dead. On XBox, its not incredibly far from that point. A flat concessions rule, that also incorporates unwilling ones, like server disconnects and system crashes only makes people choose to spin for less games in order to not be banned.
I don't know the ultimate solution. I do know I previously thought the actual dc/crashes were far less frequent, and the five "allowed" was intended to include at least a few concessions by choice. I would alter my choices given them over, but, it could have been more clearly communicated.
"We ideally want zero concessions on the CCL"
"You will not be able to reconnect to a game that is lost due to a system crash, server dc, XBox Live going down, for even a minute or so, etc., for this reason only we allow up to 5 instances of disconnection or system crash"
That wording would have been night and day, and would have clearly communicated the intent of the rule, and an honest communication about the actual situation.
Not, the message that says "if" one is unable to reconnect to the game it will count as a concession.
I've just been told here, and it was implied previously, that its not "if". Its a known issue. If your game client crashes, if you disconnect from the server, Xbox Live, if your game closes out for any reason whatsoever, you will be unable to reconnect to it, and it will be a concession.
I mean, I've gamed enough on PC. My first server dc that lasted more than a second or two I shut the game down quick so as to try and reboot and reconnect before the 2 minute timer expired. Why? I assumed if there was a timer, it was possible to reconnect. Like on every other game I've played in the last two decades. If I'd known it was impossible, it would have been far less frustrating, and, I would have been able to govern my behavior regarding choosing to concede appropriately.
Anyway, enough. I've said my piece, have a nice day, and thank you for your attention.
I think the in-game message is generic across all platforms. Part of the problem is the lack of space available to write messages in-game.
As for percentages etc, a dynamic system is even less clear than a static one and would require even better communication. As you've seen, we don't really have the tools for that.
No, not in game. The one on the forum. The one that is the top post. Click on the "xbox" link in the Start of Season X thread that is the top one. The post by Netheos. That is the one I am referring to. Why in the world would you try to put that in the poorly designed in game text when you have a perfectly good forum to use here?
No worries I can read the full post here. We're aware of the stability issues on consoles and are currently working on an update to make things better. Hopefully it will arrive shortly because, as you said, it's very bad for a competitive ladder with a prize pool to suffer from stability issues.
Thank your for a response. My issue is I am unhappy with the current wording of the rules for CCL, and my current banning. As I've explained, the instability hit me all at once, within a week or so, having not experienced any before. No where is it explained officially that rejoining a dropped game is impossible, nor is it stated that your intention is to have a "zero concession" league, and that they are only there to make up for the instability, which, as I've explained here and on the FB group, I've only recently experienced. You simply state "no more than 5". I read that as concessions, not dc/crashes. I might refer you to the FABBL rules, a FB group of players on Xbox. They clearly state that zero conceding is the intention.
Additionally, I would suggest, as above, taking into account games played with regards to concessions, and clearly stating a "no conceding" ideal with regards. I've played strategy games, turn based mostly, as this is, and in a competitive environment, every resource needs to be utilized. As I said, I interpreted those 5 allowed concessions as a resource to be exploited. Had I fully understood the instability issues your game has, I would not have. Had it been clearly stated, that, like the FABBL, you want zero concedes, I would have, like in the FABBL games I've played, not conceded. I experienced someone conceding to me, at least once every ten games. It seemed a thing that was common. Perhaps, with different phrasing, that would become less an issue.
The community on Xbox is bare bones enough as it is. I don't find it helpful, nor healthy to the multiplayer environment to disregard a high number of games played, in the interest of "clarity" or whatever was being expressed above. It is simply going to make fewer people spin in the que. It is going to make getting a game harder, and there are going to be fewer completed games. I can say, it was entirely likely I myself was going to play 70ish more games this season, that is now not possible.
This is also souring my with regards to your company in general. I have been intending to purchase a steam copy once I get my new computer, sometime after Christmas. This whole annoyance has me unfortunately reconsidering this previous decision. I am also regretting buying your product on console, as, for reasons apparently out of your control, it does not measure up to what I expect regarding stability and consistent gaming experience. I am specifically confused by the inability to reconnect to a game. I suppose I was just spoiled by always interacting with really strong companies like Riot and Blizzard.
Anyway, thank you for your time.
What you have now is surely better than it was. I'm feeling the effects of bringing too many problems, not enough solutions, which I hate doing, so I will post here for you how I would have worded what has been communicated to me after the fact. Again, thank you for your time. I would like to thank your volunteers moreso as they volunteer for this aggravation... anyways...
"We at Cyanide want to have the Cabalvision Champions League a concession free ladder. Unfortunately, due to hardware and software limitations, you will experience occasional concessions due to server disconnects or system crashes. In light of this, we will be banning anyone who accumulates more than five concessions over a season. Were there no instability, there would be a blanket ban on players conceding. Please do not try to reboot your console in an attempt to reconnect from a disconnect or system crash ,as it is impossible to reconnect to a game on your console. We apologize for this inconvenience."
Feel free to use any portion of that, as I think it more clearly communicates what has been communicated to me here, after the fact. Its posted here purely as I wrote it up in a discussion on the FB thread I started, so why not post it here as well. Use it, discard it, laugh at me privately about it, whatever.
Again, thank you for your time, and thank your volunteer admins for theirs. It is appreciated.
And, I just wanted to clarify. I understood that disconnects and crashes were counting as concedes. I was, for whatever reasons, one of which I feel was the framing of the original statement, as well as my previous experiences during season 9, grossly underestimating the likelihood of said occurrances, and was not aware that the desired ideal was zero purposeful concedes, and that the sole reason for the concede/ban rule was system instability. I do like better what you have now. I would still love to see a statement of intent, some how bringing attention to the concept that your ideal is a ladder with zero concessions. It would have better communicated to me that I should not concede AT ALL, not only that I should not concede very often. I only bring attention to it, because I am banned because of this, seemingly insignificant distinction, which, in my case, would have made all the difference.
Again, thank you for your time.
Oh, and just one more thing, I promise. I made the mistake of being honest, and admitting to choosing to concede 3 times. This apparently completely overshadowed the fact that I had 3 dc/crash instances in just a little over 2 weeks, in a 6 week competition, that has a static hardcap of 5 allowed instances of concede/dc/crash. Just in case it needs to be stated, I will specifically. Those numbers would not have seen me through to the end of the competition just on instability issues.
Now, I can't speak to their honesty/dishonesty, but, I have come across 2 others who played a fair few games, and now find themselves banned, and they stated they only chose to concede once and twice respectively. Again, we are in the 3rd week of a 6 week competition, and for those counting, that is 4 and 5 instances of system instability. Now, is this accurate, Idk. Mine is. I am in no way stating that there should be no rules regarding concessions, simply that an arbitrary, static, hard cap that in no way takes games played or any other variables (Known times when Xbox Live is being sketchy, new bugs that appear after updates, both to game and console OS, etc.), into account, may not be the best one to go with.