185 replies to this topic

[Bud Crue]

Hinted at above and I posted this on the other thread:

Regardless of the ideas thrown around by the community PGI needs to be crystal clear on what they hope to accomplish and the limit to what they are capable and willing to incorporate into the game.

Based on their development history I believe the desires of the community are so far out of line with what PGI is willing or capable of doing, that if PGI fails to be clear about this, up front and repeatedly throughout the round table (and subsequently here on the forums and twitter) that it will create another environment of "false promises"; which would alienate what is left of the player base.

[Mawai]

Procurator Derek, on 25 July 2016 - 10:08 PM, said:

This is the kind of attitude that needs to be addressed. This here is poisoned pride of us being ignored.

Don't let that get in the way of what's important, this, talk, this, round table, is probably what we need most right now.

Would you throw it away because the reckless rage within you decides that you want to shape it the way you want it to be?

Or is this all for nothing, all this pointless, all this hate, all of it, for what, nothing if we haven't even reached the point of talks yet?

I'm curious if that's what you want, because your response is more anger than logic.

Derek, the response you replied to made several good points.

The objective of the post was to point out that low player population was one of the main topics on the agenda to discuss. However, the plan EXPLICITLY excludes discussion of all of the REASONS for low player population. How can you discuss ways to increase accessibility and player population without discussing the REASONS why faction play is failing to engage with a large fraction of the overall player population?

I also agree with the poster you are criticizing that if you get a player group that is heavily invested in FP and plays FP a lot then the opinions you will receive will

1) Tend to support that FP is pretty good - since these folks are already playing it a lot then they will see ways to improve it from their perspective but may not see the fundamental issues that prevent it from appealing to a broader fraction of the player base.
2) They are more likely to be approving of changes from PGI that may address their specific desires but do not reflect what the people who are NOT currently playing FP might want to see

Consider that the people who currently play FP might like the fact that their organized groups get to stomp random PUGs because of the way the FP matchmaker works. Would they consider fixes to this a priority? However, game imbalance for solos is one of the reasons a lot of players do NOT play FP. The usual response to this is to "Join a Unit". However, many solo players don't have the time or desire to join a unit where they might be expected to participate on specific schedules or have other commitments.

A large fraction of the player base is somewhat older, have families and full time employment ... for these folks they have limited free time and spending it waiting for long times in FP queues in order to drop into a match that offers less play rewards than the quick play modes only to be stomped by organized teams due to the matchmaker ... is somewhat less than an enjoyable game play experience.

Will you receive that sort of input from the folks that already play FP regularly? Probably not.

Anyway, in case anyone is reading ... here is a short list of possible FP issues that in my opinion may be affecting the player numbers
- long wait times
- ghost drops (waiting to drop in match with no opponents - though I think they removed this .. it is a not a smart feature in the first place)
- match imbalance for solo players where 12 random players can face 12 man teams.
- spawn camping
- rewards compared to quick play
- win mechanics (i.e. game modes)


Finally, if someone is considering limiting the FP to clan vs IS ... then I think they REALLY need to go back to the drawing board since they understand NOTHING about queues. In order to prevent queue times from growing INDEFINITELY ... i.e. hours long ... you need to have exactly equal numbers dropping on both sides of the fight which will NEVER happen. Even a small imbalance between clan and IS ... say 1300 IS drop vs 1200 clan in an hour for example ... that is 100 more IS pilots / hour. 1200 clan mens that they can form 100 matches/hour ... or about one every 36 seconds. 100 extra IS players will need about 10 matchs to fill them out or about 5 minutes of matchmaking at that rate. So after 1 hour, the queue times would be up to 5 minutes for the IS side. After 3 hours the wait would be 15 minutes. If that fractional imbalance continues indefinitely the IS queue would grow indefinitely until folks just quit.

This also does not take into account ANY weight class matching ... if you include weight class matching then the queues will be MUCH MUCH longer. This is basic math. ANYONE who proposes having ONLY clan vs IS matches simply does not understand what that really means in terms of games played and queue times. (There are fixes or ways around it ... primarily spawning IS vs IS or clan vs clan matches to deal with whichever queue has an excess ... but including the required weight class matching will also extend queue times).


P.S. I was reminded of one of the biggest issues with FW at the moment ...
- the Long Tom -
- I can't imagine who decided that randomly dying to artillery that is placed on the largest concentration of your mechs and can do up to 120 damage PER component ... represents good game design. This is just a random death mechanism that leads to irritation and frustration without adding any redeeming aspect to game play. There is no way to combat it (other than locust rushes where you can force it to land on the side which has it ... realistic that isn't it? ... LOL), and it can completely unbalance the outcome of a match.
- Consider that the Long Tom essentially makes it impossible to launch any sort of coordinated attack since to avoid too many getting hit by it ... the forces must spread out ... making them easy targets for opponents that can group as they wish.

Edited by Mawai, 26 July 2016 - 01:56 PM.

[Deathlike]

Biggest annoyance I've had to deal with when discussing trying to "fix" FW was about the MM, and trying to factor in skill (like in QP) is nigh impossible to apply when it comes to dealing with queues.

The assertion by others is generally that "if" it were implemented, there would be better games.

It sounds great, except when you are limited literally about the sub-100 people that queue up for a faction (remember, we have 10 factions, so nominally you are dividing whoever's online by 10 for the purposes of queuing up) and you THEN need to match by skill.. which filters it even further.

Outside of FW interest, you can't really add additional filters to the equation when you're already "effectively" dividing the population just by national division/separation.

As much as I don't give too much of a damn of Quickplay's voting system, you have to understand that if there's a natural imbalance in the queues (first by separating people by regional selection, which would be most problematic in the Oceanic region at certain hours of the day) and if people were to have mode control (like picking the least popular gamemode), you could potentially be waiting a long time for a match with the most limited in scope to spawn (like Oceanic and Conquest just as an example).


This is basic queue theory (I think) and your worst enemy when it comes to "having options" is "how likely" a match is going to happen based on massive/divisive criteria restrictions.

[Jables McBarty]

Sader325, on 26 July 2016 - 02:05 AM, said:

Bombadil (NGNG) is not picking the vast majority of panelists. They have oversight during the NGNG stream on who will be in the live discussion with PGI, during the Wednesday Stream there will be extra panelists who may not end up on the NGNG stream, along with many of the panelists who will be on the NGNG stream the following day.

The Pre-Meeting stream will be much wider in scope and size than the NGNG stream.

In short: You're wrong.

Glad that you and Jman put this thread up.

Can we get any more information on how the panelists on Thursday are being chosen? These are the first details I've seen (unless you are referring to the panel you are hosting).

[Oderint dum Metuant]

There is but quite a simple fix.

Merge Quick play with FW, make FW the game.

Now before someone loses their mind, allow me to elaborate on what i mean.
Currently we have scouting and invasion part of planet capture. Very linear.

What about border raids (assault inc bases and Skirmish) Supply line raids (Domination/Conquest) mechanics can be made around these new options to give something meaningful either to the faction or the invaders/defenders much like scouting does.
These modes can effectively be kept as is rule wise, they allow quicker single respawn games and for those who don't and won't ever care about FW that is fine...this won't represent a change for you.

What you will be doing passively is making the system work/adding to it.

to make one thing clincly clear, you can not separate solos and groups, unfortunately solos make the system work that's just a sad fact of math.
What could be done as in similar games is that the "raid" game modes are limited to 3 players in a group. More than this defaults to "group que" ie: Invasion.

NB: Invasion would still be open to solos, just as it is now but it will be the "shark pit"

[Scout Derek]

Mawai, on 26 July 2016 - 04:09 AM, said:

Derek, the response you replied to made several good points.

The objective of the post was to point out that low player population was one of the main topics on the agenda to discuss. However, the plan EXPLICITLY excludes discussion of all of the REASONS for low player population. How can you discuss ways to increase accessibility and player population without discussing the REASONS why faction play is failing to engage with a large fraction of the overall player population?

I also agree with the poster you are criticizing that if you get a player group that is heavily invested in FP and plays FP a lot then the opinions you will receive will

1) Tend to support that FP is pretty good - since these folks are already playing it a lot then they will see ways to improve it from their perspective but may not see the fundamental issues that prevent it from appealing to a broader fraction of the player base.
2) They are more likely to be approving of changes from PGI that may address their specific desires but do not reflect what the people who are NOT currently playing FP might want to see

Consider that the people who currently play FP might like the fact that their organized groups get to stomp random PUGs because of the way the FP matchmaker works. Would they consider fixes to this a priority? However, game imbalance for solos is one of the reasons a lot of players do NOT play FP. The usual response to this is to "Join a Unit". However, many solo players don't have the time or desire to join a unit where they might be expected to participate on specific schedules or have other commitments.

A large fraction of the player base is somewhat older, have families and full time employment ... for these folks they have limited free time and spending it waiting for long times in FP queues in order to drop into a match that offers less play rewards than the quick play modes only to be stomped by organized teams due to the matchmaker ... is somewhat less than an enjoyable game play experience.

Will you receive that sort of input from the folks that already play FP regularly? Probably not.

Anyway, in case anyone is reading ... here is a short list of possible FP issues that in my opinion may be affecting the player numbers
- long wait times
- ghost drops (waiting to drop in match with no opponents - though I think they removed this .. it is a not a smart feature in the first place)
- match imbalance for solo players where 12 random players can face 12 man teams.
- spawn camping
- rewards compared to quick play
- win mechanics (i.e. game modes)


Finally, if someone is considering limiting the FP to clan vs IS ... then I think they REALLY need to go back to the drawing board since they understand NOTHING about queues. In order to prevent queue times from growing INDEFINITELY ... i.e. hours long ... you need to have exactly equal numbers dropping on both sides of the fight which will NEVER happen. Even a small imbalance between clan and IS ... say 1300 IS drop vs 1200 clan in an hour for example ... that is 100 more IS pilots / hour. 1200 clan mens that they can form 100 matches/hour ... or about one every 36 seconds. 100 extra IS players will need about 10 matchs to fill them out or about 5 minutes of matchmaking at that rate. So after 1 hour, the queue times would be up to 5 minutes for the IS side. After 3 hours the wait would be 15 minutes. If that fractional imbalance continues indefinitely the IS queue would grow indefinitely until folks just quit.

This also does not take into account ANY weight class matching ... if you include weight class matching then the queues will be MUCH MUCH longer. This is basic math. ANYONE who proposes having ONLY clan vs IS matches simply does not understand what that really means in terms of games played and queue times. (There are fixes or ways around it ... primarily spawning IS vs IS or clan vs clan matches to deal with whichever queue has an excess ... but including the required weight class matching will also extend queue times).

Of course it was a good point, but saying:

Quote

I can see where this is going now. They will get these hand picked 'player representatives' to endorse a Clan vs IS only FP so they can just say they gave the players "what they wanted".

Is just reckless and unnecessary, even if you hate what PGI is what it is.

that's all I'm targeting in his argument and to add to it he also said he wouldn't be "invited", when everyone is to join in on the conversation.

Jables McBarty, on 26 July 2016 - 08:59 AM, said:

Glad that you and Jman put this thread up.

Can we get any more information on how the panelists on Thursday are being chosen? These are the first details I've seen (unless you are referring to the panel you are hosting).

I advise heading over to Saders stream at twitch.TV/sader325 ASAP to ask him, as there's not a definite list on whom is going to be there as it's a rush.

[JaxRiot]

Mawai, on 26 July 2016 - 04:09 AM, said:

Derek, the response you replied to made several good points.

The objective of the post was to point out that low player population was one of the main topics on the agenda to discuss. However, the plan EXPLICITLY excludes discussion of all of the REASONS for low player population. How can you discuss ways to increase accessibility and player population without discussing the REASONS why faction play is failing to engage with a large fraction of the overall player population?

I also agree with the poster you are criticizing that if you get a player group that is heavily invested in FP and plays FP a lot then the opinions you will receive will

1) Tend to support that FP is pretty good - since these folks are already playing it a lot then they will see ways to improve it from their perspective but may not see the fundamental issues that prevent it from appealing to a broader fraction of the player base.
2) They are more likely to be approving of changes from PGI that may address their specific desires but do not reflect what the people who are NOT currently playing FP might want to see

Consider that the people who currently play FP might like the fact that their organized groups get to stomp random PUGs because of the way the FP matchmaker works. Would they consider fixes to this a priority? However, game imbalance for solos is one of the reasons a lot of players do NOT play FP. The usual response to this is to "Join a Unit". However, many solo players don't have the time or desire to join a unit where they might be expected to participate on specific schedules or have other commitments.

A large fraction of the player base is somewhat older, have families and full time employment ... for these folks they have limited free time and spending it waiting for long times in FP queues in order to drop into a match that offers less play rewards than the quick play modes only to be stomped by organized teams due to the matchmaker ... is somewhat less than an enjoyable game play experience.

Will you receive that sort of input from the folks that already play FP regularly? Probably not.

Anyway, in case anyone is reading ... here is a short list of possible FP issues that in my opinion may be affecting the player numbers
- long wait times
- ghost drops (waiting to drop in match with no opponents - though I think they removed this .. it is a not a smart feature in the first place)
- match imbalance for solo players where 12 random players can face 12 man teams.
- spawn camping
- rewards compared to quick play
- win mechanics (i.e. game modes)


Finally, if someone is considering limiting the FP to clan vs IS ... then I think they REALLY need to go back to the drawing board since they understand NOTHING about queues. In order to prevent queue times from growing INDEFINITELY ... i.e. hours long ... you need to have exactly equal numbers dropping on both sides of the fight which will NEVER happen. Even a small imbalance between clan and IS ... say 1300 IS drop vs 1200 clan in an hour for example ... that is 100 more IS pilots / hour. 1200 clan mens that they can form 100 matches/hour ... or about one every 36 seconds. 100 extra IS players will need about 10 matchs to fill them out or about 5 minutes of matchmaking at that rate. So after 1 hour, the queue times would be up to 5 minutes for the IS side. After 3 hours the wait would be 15 minutes. If that fractional imbalance continues indefinitely the IS queue would grow indefinitely until folks just quit.

This also does not take into account ANY weight class matching ... if you include weight class matching then the queues will be MUCH MUCH longer. This is basic math. ANYONE who proposes having ONLY clan vs IS matches simply does not understand what that really means in terms of games played and queue times. (There are fixes or ways around it ... primarily spawning IS vs IS or clan vs clan matches to deal with whichever queue has an excess ... but including the required weight class matching will also extend queue times).

^^^^^^This needs to be posted in that Round Table discussion thread

When I first heard about this Round Table thing, my very first thought was.. "They are probably talking to the wrong people"

Instead of talking to FP regulars who like having 200+ member Merc Units that all migrate from IS to Clan (or Clan to IS) every time a Mech Pack comes that throws population all out of whack, creates longer que times, more Ghost Drops, greatly turns the tide because of the sheer number of migrating players, and has no problem Clubbing Seals... Then they (in my mind) are talking to the wrong people.

If they want to bring back old players (and even new ones), then they should be talking to people have tried FP. Find out why they dont play FP any more. Find out what has driven them away.

The ones that dont play any more.. they have the real reasons why FP is failing

Edited by JaxRiot, 26 July 2016 - 09:50 AM.

[Davers]

Procurator Derek, on 26 July 2016 - 09:13 AM, said:

Of course it was a good point, but saying:




Is just reckless and unnecessary, even if you hate what PGI is what it is.

that's all I'm targeting in his argument and to add to it he also said he wouldn't be "invited", when everyone is to join in on the conversation.



I advise heading over to Saders stream at twitch.TV/sader325 ASAP to ask him, as there's not a definite list on whom is going to be there as it's a rush.

I said what I did because player suggestions have been about adding more lore, making the game modes more varied and fun, about making planets and factions matter- things that might bring more players back. But PGI is talking about player pop and buckets, which are issues that are only a concern to players currently involved with FP. I highly doubt PGI will want to talk about adding more buckets, but will want to talk about less. My conclusion is PGI will want to combine factions to appease the current FP players. Unless long wait times are the primary reason FP is under populated, this is a band aid fix that doesn't adress what many perceive as the core problems.

[feeWAIVER]

Stop doing weekly quick play events that incentivize the population to play quick play.

Start doing weekly FP events to incentivize the population to play FP.


The more people we have queuing for FP, the better the games are for EVERYONE.

Also, double the hit point values on gens and omega.
Gen rushing is too easy.

[Deathlike]

feeWAIVER, on 26 July 2016 - 09:48 AM, said:

Stop doing weekly quick play events that incentivize the population to play quick play.

Start doing weekly FP events to incentivize the population to play FP.


The more people we have queuing for FP, the better the games are for EVERYONE.

FP events actually get people more pissed off at the game.

It reminds them time and again how much the Long Tom is a bad idea, and that unless your team is even remotely trying to work together... you have technically little to no shot of success.

FP has to be reworked in major ways before FP events aren't looked at as "Long Tom" player removables.

Edited by Deathlike, 26 July 2016 - 09:50 AM.

[Jables McBarty]

JaxRiot, on 26 July 2016 - 09:31 AM, said:

^^^^^^This needs to be posted in that Round Table discussion thread

When I first heard about this Round Table thing, my very first thought was.. "They are probably talking to the wrong people"

Instead of talking to FP regulars who like having 200+ member Merc Units that all migrate from IS to Clan (or Clan to IS) every time a Mech Pack comes that throws population all out of whack, creates longer que times, more Ghost Drops, greatly turns the tide because of the sheer number of migrating players, and has no problem Clubbing Seals... Then they (in my mind) are talking to the wrong people.

If they want to bring back old players (and even new ones), then they should be talking to people have tried FP. Find out why they dont play FP any more. Find out what has driven them away.

The ones that dont play any more.. they have the real reasons why FP is failing

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
-Upton Sinclair

In this case the salary is fun, but it pretty much applies.

Edited by Jables McBarty, 26 July 2016 - 10:23 AM.

[Pjwned]

Sader325, on 25 July 2016 - 09:08 PM, said:

As far as I know there is no limits being put on the discussion except that it must relate to faction play, I would suggest operating under the assumption that everything is open for change, far reaching and otherwise.

Without PGI commenting on what we can expect realistically, I'm not really expecting much out of this roundtable discussion, all things (including PGI's track record) considered.

For that matter, my feedback is more about the roundtable discussion itself. I don't really expect that it's going to go very well (although I could be pleasantly surprised...maybe), and as such my feedback is that I would like the organizers to preface the feedback on FW itself by suggesting that if the roundtable discussion doesn't work out very well, then PGI should present possible ideas to the community for them to refine and critique in another future discussion. If PGI is serious about commitments to improve FW and we end up not really getting anywhere with this, then it would be more helpful for them to let us know what they can and/or are willing to do and then we can work it out from there.

I hope the organizers take note of this because this seems entirely reasonable and, while a little pessimistic in nature because it kind of assumes the roundtable discussion won't go anywhere, it lets PGI know that the community is willing to work with them in other formats that may be more comfortable for one or both sides.

I do understand that maybe PGI legitimately needs help from the community to improve FW (though, to be frank, I think this is PGI blowing a bunch of hot air yet again as they've done in the past, e.g the "player council" BS that was supposed to address ECM) and that there's a good reason they're asking the community for their input, but I think even PGI (given that they are serious about this matter) should be capable of seeing what's wrong with the mode and brainstorming ideas on how to fix it with community input on said ideas.

Edited by Pjwned, 26 July 2016 - 10:34 AM.

[Mudhutwarrior]

"Hope is for those already Defeated"

We saw what came of the council. From what experience does any of you think this will be any different?

Like I have been saying a long time now. What PGI needs to learn from the base is already here on the forums. No Council or round table changes that, reinforces that , or pushes that. These threads asking for suggestions are just more of the same MO.

Really wish I was wrong. Really do.

[JaxRiot]

Mudhutwarrior, on 26 July 2016 - 10:31 AM, said:

"Hope is for those already Defeated"

We saw what came of the council. From what experience does any of you think this will be any different?

Like I have been saying a long time now. What PGI needs to learn from the base is already here on the forums. No Council or round table changes that, reinforces that , or pushes that. These threads asking for suggestions are just more of the same MO.

Really wish I was wrong. Really do.

I think I agree with you.

All of the problems with FP have been stated here on these forums many times. If they were actually reading and paying any kind of attention, they would already know.

And it always the same major ones.

1- Que times
2- Ghost Drops
3- Seal Clubbing
4- Rewards vs Time and effort spent
5- Long Tom ( Long Tom is new though and should die a fiery death)

The top 4 of those have been major complaining points since long before I have been here.

The first 2 are just simply population/population balancing issues.

Any fixes should address- Population equality and stability, Rewards vs Time Spent, and New/Solo Player experiences.

If any of those issues are not addressed, then it wont matter how much lipstick we put on that pig. Its still going to be a smelly dirty pig.

Edit- Because each one of those affects (affects or effects?) the others. If one suffers, the others will suffer.

Edited by JaxRiot, 26 July 2016 - 01:48 PM.

[Mawai]

To be honest ... one aspect of this entire thing I don't understand is ...

On the one hand, PGI wants a meeting with players to get feedback to improve FW ...

On the other hand. at the last townhall, Russ claimed that the entire playerbase was clueless about game design, their feedback was useless and that PGI does it right and if folks disagreed they should go out and build their own game.

How can PGI claim that the player base input is important while at the same time claiming that the player base is clueless and doesn't understand?

[Deathlike]

Mawai, on 26 July 2016 - 01:49 PM, said:

To be honest ... one aspect of this entire thing I don't understand is ...

On the one hand, PGI wants a meeting with players to get feedback to improve FW ...

On the other hand. at the last townhall, Russ claimed that the entire playerbase was clueless about game design, their feedback was useless and that PGI does it right and if folks disagreed they should go out and build their own game.

How can PGI claim that the player base input is important while at the same time claiming that the player base is clueless and doesn't understand?

It was a flip-flop position at the time.

[Pjwned]

Mawai, on 26 July 2016 - 01:49 PM, said:

To be honest ... one aspect of this entire thing I don't understand is ...

On the one hand, PGI wants a meeting with players to get feedback to improve FW ...

On the other hand. at the last townhall, Russ claimed that the entire playerbase was clueless about game design, their feedback was useless and that PGI does it right and if folks disagreed they should go out and build their own game.

How can PGI claim that the player base input is important while at the same time claiming that the player base is clueless and doesn't understand?

It would actually make a lot of sense if PGI doesn't actually have any intention to listen to anybody and are simply blowing hot air to pretend they listen so that people aren't raging as much due to false promises.

Now I'm not going to say that's definitely the case, but I really won't be surprised if that's what this whole event ends up being since it would be completely in line with what PGI has done in the past.

[VATER]

I quit playing FW a long time ago, just doing it when there is some interesting stuff to be won.
This so-called end-game (and I still have to giggle when I hear that term when it comes to FW) is so not thought out through the end, that it is mind-blowing.
When PGI announced CW back in closed beta, I had stuff like tactics, strategies, economics, salvage and the like in my head. Big scale Community Warefare with the QP as a rally point for practice and leisure, a testing ground with life fire conditions...then CW came, at least one year late but who cares...and I was like "Whoooohoo, WAR IS COMING."
Then I logged into the CW servers and was like: "WTF, MW4 Mission Play? That is all, really?"

This community used to be a very nice one, a lot of input how things could and should work, etc. NOW IT IS TOXIC....only one to blame: PGI

They never listened, or they listened when the damage was already done. LURMageddon, Dragonbowling, SPLATCATs...the list goes on and on.

Everything that CW should have been was already there in the first place, back in MW4 we had several playerrun leagues (NBT i.E.) THERE was economy, strategy, alliances, etc.
Did PGI bother to even look into these? I do not think so, because if they would have, CW would have not been such a big disaster.

As much as I wish and hope that we will get our promissed end-game, I have serious doubts and this "roundtable" seems more like some kind of backpaddling from PGI's side, after those blatant insults thrown at their customers.

I for my part will close my vallet until I do see real changes, real improvement.

HELL, I want this game to succeed, I am a MECHHEAD and I am proud of it !!!

Edited by VATER, 26 July 2016 - 04:06 PM.

[DaFrog]

So let me guess who's invited to the round table: Kell, Rex, maybe Theaus and Proton.
Anyone representing pugs or is it only big unit heads who have a voice ?
I have made a few posts on the official roundtable forum, and considering the response I got from one of those big heads, I am sorry to say I have no illusions on the results.

unless they fix different levels of aptitudes in FP, we will have seal clubbing more often than not.

[Carl Vickers]

DaFrog, on 26 July 2016 - 04:19 PM, said:

So let me guess who's invited to the round table: Kell, Rex, maybe Theaus and Proton.
Anyone representing pugs or is it only big unit heads who have a voice ?
I have made a few posts on the official roundtable forum, and considering the response I got from one of those big heads, I am sorry to say I have no illusions on the results.

unless they fix different levels of aptitudes in FP, we will have seal clubbing more often than not.

If you stopped ejecting, the team you are with wont get clubbed as much.