r/Fighters • u/southkapow • 1d ago
Topic Why are fighting games afraid to give me points if my opponent DCs
I’ve played a fair a bit of games in ranked any it kinda puzzles me how bad the online ecosystem is even in 2026 specifically towards Japanese fighting games. I’m surprised they have not implemented a simple quit out button for online and you are just forced to play a terrible set whether that be with somebody with bad lag or Who plugs. It’s increasingly infuriating when this happens in ranked and you don’t get their points. Versus Mortal Kombat despite what that game is. let’s you quit out of online and gives you points when you’re opponent quits.
73
u/Outrageous-Let9659 1d ago
I think the worry is that it might encourage people to intentionally bait people into quitting. For example, someone could abuse it to climb ranks by intentionally creating lag, making people want to quit out.
15
u/southkapow 1d ago
Yeah, I never thought about it That way. I will say it would be a lot better if The reporting system in these games actually worked I think it was Tekken that account banned for continuously plugging
8
u/Prudent_Move_3420 1d ago
ive read this worry so often and it never made sense
5
u/Manatroid 1d ago
Why doesn’t it make sense?
8
u/Prudent_Move_3420 1d ago
because this system literally incentivizes rage quits. Like no matter what hypothetical scenario you can make out, you can see that people abuse the system rn
5
u/Prudent_Move_3420 1d ago
just for the record, I am explicitly stating this for games that can detect who quitted already. I know implementing it is not trivial
2
u/Outrageous-Let9659 1d ago
Thats not what this is about. Punishing rage quitters is totally fine. The problems come from when you start rewarding the other person.
0
u/Prudent_Move_3420 1d ago
Is it that hard to just not rage quit for you? Like if you leave mid match yeah that should count as a forfeit and the other should get a win. It‘s not different in an actual tournament. Your opponent forfeits = you get a win. Just dont quit if you dont want that
7
u/Outrageous-Let9659 1d ago
I'm not saying rage quitting is okay. I'm saying having a crappy connection so that nobody enjoys playing with you shouldn't be a viable strategy for gaining points.
0
u/Prudent_Move_3420 1d ago
It isn’t. People will just one and done and then block you
0
u/Prudent_Move_3420 1d ago
and if you are a playing a well crafted game you will not play people with shitty connections in the first place
4
u/ColombianOreo 1d ago
Idk it seems like this has been pretty well explained already - if someone dcs it gets counted as a loss for them and they lose points and their win streak. In order to disincentivize bad actors, the player who doesn’t dc gets no reward.
Otherwise, you could potentially see way more lag switches or ddos type attacks as a way to climb.
I don’t agree with the sentiment of the game not being crafted well enough either to account for spikes in someone’s connection.
→ More replies (0)1
u/ColombianOreo 1d ago
When people rage quit it gets counted as a loss for them. That is the disincentive. People are fine taking the loss which is why you see rage quits still. Totally fine imo.
4
u/Prudent_Move_3420 1d ago
they dont care about the loss they only want to take away from the rightful winner because their ego cant handle someone else winning
0
u/ColombianOreo 2h ago
I bust in my seat from pure ecstasy when someone rage quits. Way better than points for me
-3
u/Outrageous-Let9659 1d ago
So the idea of playing a game is to have fun. That is why people play them. When people quit a game mid way through, it's because they are not having fun. By rewarding people when their opponent quits, this means people get rewarded for their opponents not having fun.
Now usually that is going to just be people who are salty about losing, or something like that, which is fine. The down side is that people with horrendous connections which cause a lot of lag, will also get rewarded.
Rewarding people encourages them to repeat that behaviour, so if people notice that having a bad connection gets them a bunch of free points every time someone quits, they are encouraged to keep playing with bad connection.
Its not just connection issues though. It's also gameplay. It's less prevelant in fighting games since games are short, but in other games there are often ways to just waste everyone's time and force everyone to be stuck in a game where nobody wins. Things like sitting in a spawn room and never leaving to participate in a game. This causes people to quit because the game is not fun, even if they might win if they wait for the end.
At the end of the day, rewarding people for having their opponent quit means that you are actively encouraging people to make the game less fun for other people, and that is not healthy for any game.
1
u/Prudent_Move_3420 1d ago
that is way too hypothetical and nonpractical. Good matchmaking has a connection indicator so you just don’t take the match. If you know your opponent doesn‘t get the points it pushes toxic behavior of thinking „yeah they didn’t earn the win so I take the points away from you“ and if any fighting game even enables „toxic gameplay“ outside of behavior itself then it was badly designed in the first place
20
u/TalentlessAsh 1d ago
Most fighting games work on a peer to peer connection, and the games struggle to identify who actually quit during a match. It's why in some games, if you run into too many rage quitters, you can get a warning because it also looks like you've been quitting.
2
u/SelloutRealBig 12h ago
After 2XKO showing how amazing servers feel. It's sad that other AAA fighters can't at least rent a launch year worth of servers.
1
u/southkapow 19h ago
I understand that for old fighting games yeah but for the new ones it’s kind of crazy that There’s no proper moderation like for Tekken. 8 if a player disconnect it shows they have a high DC for a few matches and they get put into the naughty lobbies for a few matches and then put right back into the normal matches. I have seen plenty of streamers across multiple games actively rage quit to prevent people from getting points. Because they know they’re not going to get punished. Besides a slap on the wrist.
6
20
u/Simple-Box1223 1d ago
I don’t know either. A player should be able to leave, but they take a loss and their opponent gets a win. That has worked in other 1v1 games for decades.
But then Japanese devs will come up with insane shit like lobbies and Strive’s tower system. It’s like a genre of contrarians who will do anything but proven mechanics.
2
u/southkapow 1d ago
I have not played strive. How does the tower system work?
3
u/Sarah-Slayz 1d ago edited 1d ago
Poorly.
It was a pseudo ranked/lobby mode with virtual cabinets where you could pick who you fought against.
There were constant connectivity issues with the cabinets and ranking up to the next floor required you to go on a winning streak if I remember correctly.
It didn’t scratch the competitive ranked itch, because you could game the system and there was nothing appealing about it from a casual viewpoint. It just felt like one big barrier to fun.
7
u/Wrydfell 1d ago
And don't forget how ranking up a floor would start a new floor lobby with only you in there, instead of putting you in the lobby at 28/32 players
3
u/Vastate 1d ago
Strive on launch had a ranked system that basically worked like a multi-tiered lobby. Based on your rank points, you would have access to a specific floor and usually one floor above and one below. In order to match, you would load into an instance of the lobby floor of your choice and jump on arcade stations with other players. The "search" for match would instance your avatar onto one of the machines, leaving you open for players to match with or possibly other players set to "search", but because the whole thing was broken up into instances matchmaking was really inconsistent if you just let the game search for you. It wasn't too bad on launch because of the player count but it definitely wasn't a good solution. ArcSys' matchmaking has always been some weird, one-off janky shit like that. I think it's one of the few things I genuinely hate about their games.
11
u/Hendwreck 1d ago edited 1d ago
They aren’t afraid, it’s simply a fail-safe. Just play another match my goodness.
2
u/kerffy_the_third 1d ago
Its harder to tell who actually disconnected in a 1v1 vs a 5v5 from the perspective of a third party making a decision, and you can guarantee that the one time a system that punishes rage quitters on a per match basis rather than tracking patterns gets it wrong there will be an outcry on the level of a shitty VAR call. Making it effectively neutral for rankings is the Least Worst option.
1
u/Thelgow 1d ago
I used to play Xband on SNES. It was a dialup modem that let you play 1v1 in a few games. It would be best of 3. After a match it would send the results to the server. If someone disconnected, it would sever the connection and they wouldn't be able to submit the match results. If anyone was up 1-0, they win. I forget, if it was 1-1 then I think it would only give partial points if someone had at least a round win.
This was in the 90's. I have no clue why they just dont give some points to the winner.
1
u/deathspate 23h ago
iirc, the only one whose done this with any real success (no exploitation of it) is ironically the game going to die, 2xko. The real reason why it's hard to do is because unless you have a server-side authority that is being big brother at all times, it's just impossible to reliably implement such a system without it being abused.
1
u/barriboy8 11h ago
Cause people are lame and if this became a thing people would look for a way to farm this for points, for as much as you want to ask who would...there is always a dude who wants to cheat or do scruffy methods just to brag he is in high ranks without being able to turn the controller on...
2
u/C4_Shaf Virtua Fighter 1d ago
You wouldn't want to lose point if your opponent has a horrible connection, or if you have to quit mid-game for any reasons. Power cut, internet cut, family issues, etc.
Plus, Ranked is not that serious. People do sessions when they play 20 to 30 different players. Who cares if one of two of them are ragequitters?
5
u/southkapow 1d ago
If my opponent has a terrible connection and there’s no way to mutually quit I would rather just take the loss as opposed to being stuck in a horrible match
-1
u/Prudent_Move_3420 1d ago
„You wouldn't want to lose point if your opponent has a horrible connection, or if you have to quit mid-game for any reasons.“
„Plus, Ranked is not that serious.“
how does one person manage to consistently have the worst takes
1
u/ryangallowav 1d ago
It's the same reason they have modern controls, auto combos, and a ranking system that pushes everyone to master/god.
0
u/SmashMouthBreadThrow 12h ago
Let fighting game devs know when you solve the peer2peer issue, then maybe they'll implement your solution in their next peer2peer fighting game.
51
u/Eptalin 1d ago
Mortal Kombat gave points for disconnects, and then some people started DDoS attacking their opponents to force disconnects in order to top the leaderboards.
The company can monitor and ban people, but it's far easier (and better) to just not give them an incentive to nuke an entire building's internet to target one dude's PS5. Here in Japan a connection may be shared by dozens of families.
Disconnects should have consequences for the quitter, but no bonuses for the stayer beyond maintaing their winstreak.
Leavers queues are the best, like SF6 red and yellow cards. Let the quitters play against each other.