Talk:Ragequit

I think a couple of us gvg'ers can agree that "It is almost unheard of in GvG, where the teams are often composed of like-mind" needs to be fixed. ;) :) --Narcism 20:59, 14 February 2007 (PST)

I was thinking the same thing myself. :P --Drekmonger 21:03, 14 February 2007 (PST)

That sentence I wrote doesn't sound too good, I'd appreciate help from anyone who speaks english well --Narcism 21:07, 14 February 2007 (PST)

I've been GvGing since April 2005, and I can count the total number of ragequitters I have ever seen, on mine or the opposing team's, on one hand. Of course, we don't guest much. Even back when we were top 100 and cared about the ladder, we rarely ever guested others. In fact, we have only once had a member who ragequit during a match, and he was kicked from the guild and banned from vent before the match ended. S 21:09, 14 February 2007 (PST)

I think the likelihood of someone ragequiting has a lot to do with the type of community they come from. A close group of friends who can handle things maturely and work together are a lot less likely to have rage quits happen than a randomly formed group of players with little history together. A guild which has a more exclusive recruiting procedure and rules than one that just takes anyone or has lax recruiting procedures and rules is less likely to have rage quitting. If you are careful about who you play with it may take longer to form a group or a guild, but you will likely have better quality members and cohesiveness within the group or guild. People who don't take the time to invest in a recruiting procedure have little investment in a guild and thus have little to lose in a ragequit. Alternatively the more a person's perceived self-importance (or "ability") over that of the other members, the more likely they are to ragequite when they perceive others "dropping the ball" in a GvG. I guess it just depends on how you recruit and the type of people you recruit. But I agree "unheard of in GvG" is simply inaccurate. Dancing Gnome 01:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thread necromancy ftw, I guess. -Auron 02:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a forum this is a wiki. The content by function of a wiki should remain up to date. An article which remains a part of the wiki should always remain a topic of valid discussion as the game changes. Dancing Gnome 03:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

QQ more?? Ragequitting FtW!! 24.141.45.72 01:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Note on Perception?

Should we note that Ragequitting is generally frowned upon by most players? This article doesn't seem to say it, and I'm wondering if it's worth the mention. 69.249.223.63 20:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Surely that's obvious..? --Neil • 20:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)