Time Cut Offs

[UtterlyBrainDead]

Surely if people leave before the 1 minute per people rule they shouldn't be punished because the noob insists on staying on his own past the cut off?

[KeyBlue]

That is quite a complex matter.

If it doesn't have any effect on the leaver, i can imagine that someone will consistently leave when the game isn't looking good after X amount of minutes. In an attempt to inflate his rating.

To counter that argument, you can say that nobody will want to play with him cause he always leaves.
(But this isn't true because he only leaves when losing so it will take a long time before it is public knowledge. During this time he ruins dozens of games)


Main point is : Are you really punished by this kind of behaviour? (does the frequency really affect your rating?)

• Yes?
  Is the effect big enough to warrent an effort by the development team? (who are busy with other stuff)
  (unless you offer to do the necessary change yourself, then i would say: "Go for it!")
• No?
  Well then there is no real problem.

[PhilipJFry]

This is a non issue and changing it would do 10x more harm than it does good at least.

[UtterlyBrainDead]

That is quite a complex matter.

If it doesn't have any effect on the leaver, i can imagine that someone will consistently leave when the game isn't looking good after X amount of minutes. In an attempt to inflate his rating.

To counter that argument, you can say that nobody will want to play with him cause he always leaves.
(But this isn't true because he only leaves when losing so it will take a long time before it is public knowledge. During this time he ruins dozens of games)


Main point is : Are you really punished by this kind of behaviour? (does the frequency really affect your rating?)

• Yes?
  Is the effect big enough to warrent an effort by the development team? (who are busy with other stuff)
  (unless you offer to do the necessary change yourself, then i would say: "Go for it!")
• No?
  Well then there is no real problem.

Lets suppose you play a Setons game where the front player half builds his land factory, then goes for a walk, then decides to finish it, then goes for another walk, then decides to go to the middle to get some reclaim. Thats pure incompetence that doesn't reflect on the rest of his teams ability. Needless to say I quit at that.

When he made it to the middle he died fast causing my beach player to rage quit too (almost 5 minutes in). Unfortunately our rock player insisted on playing on alone until they killed him at minute 12. I'm not amused lol. He was 900 too so you'd think he'd know if he plays past 8 minutes he will cost everyone points.

[KeyBlue]

Nice anecdote.

The main point stands though.

Are you really punished?
Does this happen so frequently that your rating is so underrated that you imbalance each game you play?

Remember: Rating is not a trophy to show off. It's a way to balance games. All under the assumption that games are more fun if they are balanced.

[UtterlyBrainDead]

Nice anecdote.

The main point stands though.

Are you really punished?
Does this happen so frequently that your rating is so underrated that you imbalance each game you play?

Remember: Rating is not a trophy to show off. It's a way to balance games. All under the assumption that games are more fun if they are balanced.

Lets suppose we think about decent <1000 ranked players in Setons games. They frequently have to run the gauntlet of quite bad players to get their scores up above 1000. That's a punishment, it holds back perfectly good players. I was 1200 at 26 games and part of the blame exists with me for entering a game with a 700 player at the front. It dropped me to 1100. But he did actually give out assurances in the lobby that he knew what to do when he didn't. He was totally clueless.

I am different to you in that what I enjoy about the game is getting higher and higher scores. I'm not usually bothered if I lose but if I do if its because I got someone on my team that bad. Its not a fair fight of a game and you know within two minutes of starting if you have one like that on your team.

[Hawkei]

Lets suppose we think about decent <1000 ranked players in Setons games. They frequently have to run the gauntlet of quite bad players to get their scores up above 1000. That's a punishment, it holds back perfectly good players. I was 1200 at 26 games and part of the blame exists with me for entering a game with a 700 player at the front. It dropped me to 1100. But he did actually give out assurances in the lobby that he knew what to do when he didn't. He was totally clueless.

I am different to you in that what I enjoy about the game is getting higher and higher scores. I'm not usually bothered if I lose but if I do if its because I got someone on my team that bad. Its not a fair fight of a game and you know within two minutes of starting if you have one like that on your team.

My advice to you would be to not play such games in the first place. Limit your global rating exposure to games where you have much more of a direct influence on the game outcome. Such as 1v1 and 2v2 matches. Preferably with team mates you know, and preferably with full share enabled (even though this is generally 'noobish' it does tend to rule out the more random elements in winning or loosing). Especially with Isis type maps.

[UtterlyBrainDead]

Lets suppose we think about decent <1000 ranked players in Setons games. They frequently have to run the gauntlet of quite bad players to get their scores up above 1000. That's a punishment, it holds back perfectly good players. I was 1200 at 26 games and part of the blame exists with me for entering a game with a 700 player at the front. It dropped me to 1100. But he did actually give out assurances in the lobby that he knew what to do when he didn't. He was totally clueless.

I am different to you in that what I enjoy about the game is getting higher and higher scores. I'm not usually bothered if I lose but if I do if its because I got someone on my team that bad. Its not a fair fight of a game and you know within two minutes of starting if you have one like that on your team.

My advice to you would be to not play such games in the first place. Limit your global rating exposure to games where you have much more of a direct influence on the game outcome. Such as 1v1 and 2v2 matches. Preferably with team mates you know, and preferably with full share enabled (even though this is generally 'noobish' it does tend to rule out the more random elements in winning or loosing). Especially with Isis type maps.

Isis is alright, I have 100% win record on that and most of the games have been no full share. Its the Setons, my favourite map, invaded by some quite poor players.

[KeyBlue]

I understand what you mean. I also like having a higher rating. Its a symbol of my skill and superiority over others.
So what i want is superior skill, which is why I think people shouldn't see rating as anything else than a way to match people of similar skill.

Since you are 1000+, I advice you to only play with players of +1000 rating from now on or even exclusively better players.
From these people you can mostly suspect a certain degree of competence.

And unfortunatly we can't stop people from lying or purposefuly doing something you don't want.

[Aulex]

You could try and be a better player by taking over his base and managing two fronts.