Author Topic: Fairness of the Auto-concede  (Read 17671 times)

Offline Shimrra3

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 750
  • I am ... darkness!
    • View Profile
Re: Fairness of the Auto-concede
« Reply #60 on: November 19, 2014, 12:51:02 AM »
If people conceding turn 1 annoys you, play ranked or rift run. Then you will run into very few turn 1 concedes, and the ones you do run into will make you happy, not sad.
The above is probably why I'm so unaffected by this. And I've just been avoiding normal matches because the queue is even longer...

As far as I can tell, the only thing resembling a solution that we can agree on is to improve the matchmaking and queue times. Make the damn thing go faster, make it less picky so that we a) get matched faster, and b) get a wider range of opponents. I don't even think we'd need something to prevent recurrences of the same match-ups if we get that done, but we can always consider that later (vsing the same person 3x in a row would be much more annoying when its Bo3 and translates to vsing then 6-9x instead).
Quote from: Teremus
YOU WANT BALANCE? I'LL MAKE EVERY CARD IN THE GAME VIZZERDRIX

Quote
"That was the worst driving of all time!"
"Because that wasn't driving! That was flying and burning!"

Offline Pixels

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 110
    • View Profile
Re: Fairness of the Auto-concede
« Reply #61 on: November 19, 2014, 01:26:15 AM »
Let's get down to it, the real problem isn't the auto-concedes. It's the 10-20 minute, MMR driven, queue times.

If you could get into games at a decent rate it wouldn't even be a problem. But when you can only maybe play 3-4 games an hour because you sit in queue for 20 minutes only to get matched up with the same guy for the 4th time in a row, it really sucks to get conceded on right away.

The queue times and the match-making are the worst thing about this game. There are so many people that play during the same time i do, that i have never had a match with in almost a year of playing.

The game really punishes you the better you get at it, you queue times get longer and longer and longer and it just doesn't make any sense for 'Normal'.

Offline JSlayerXero

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 577
    • View Profile
Re: Fairness of the Auto-concede
« Reply #62 on: November 19, 2014, 04:56:27 AM »
Solution (technically possible although maybe implementation would be too expensive, but it's the only thing that would work for sure): do as MTGO does; you do NOT click "play game" and get paired against a random opponent, but you have a list of "queued" games you can join, each with a description, and you can either join one of them or create one of your own and wait for somebody to join.
If I see a game whose description is "Testing Bio Sol, serious players only" be sure as hell I won't join that game even if it was the only one available for hours; if I want to test a goofy aggro deck, I'd create a game whose description is "casual deck, no triple verore pls" and so on.
Obviously, random matchmaking will be kept as is for ranked.

Ah yes, I remember being on DN; a very manual way of playing YGO online without needing to buy a dang thing. Those descriptions helped so much in unranked. Ranked was random, but I really couldn't care less about ranked in that. Adding that kind of queue would also allow for Bo3 w/ or w/o sideboards to be a tad bit more usable, and would help with different "speeds" should they ever re-implement that. A larger player-base. It also had several search options if you were looking for anything in particular, like Bo3, or singles, or for something in the description because you couldn't invite, so locked games were the alternative.

You know... I never did have a problem with conceding in that game... That whole taking turns simultaneously in this might be part of why... Then again, you also had to literally concede every game manually on DN; no exceptions. Admins were only required to resolve people choosing to not concede in ranked because that's the only place anything really mattered. *shrugs*

Admittedly, the times I concede while failing to at least say "Yeah... there's no way to beat this" does make me feel guilty... :/ Have to work on that.
Despite preferring to go by Xero, it's not frequently the part of my name people latch on to. Oh well. I deal with it.

Offline wastions

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: Fairness of the Auto-concede
« Reply #63 on: November 19, 2014, 06:07:58 AM »
If I concede instantly then my opponent gets a quick IP, Exp and ranking boost and can go on to another game. I don't feel guilty at all. If I'm not going to enjoy the game then I'd only be going through the motions anyway so I wouldn't be giving my opponent a good experience.

I only insta-concede when I see triple Overseers or double Overseer+Genesis, so hopefully once Order is released I won't have to do it any more.

if you auto concede it's probably because you knew you were going to lose anyways, which mean the other player would have gotten way more exp and IP then they did. plus you make them waste 5-7 maybe as much as 20 minutes depending on your MMR (elo rating).

also if you auto concede, chances are the person queues again and you get matched with him/her again next game. so at which point is it ok to stop messing with someone else's time? after the 5th or 6th auto concede in a row?

 why is your time more valuable than theirs?

Offline wastions

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: Fairness of the Auto-concede
« Reply #64 on: November 19, 2014, 06:20:08 AM »
So let me hear some feedback to the point of what may assist players better in these scenarios? Of course an auto-concede can just be viewed as rude and inconsiderate, but what could a developer do to alleviate this issue for both sides?

Of course don't just say "BALANCE YOUR PUFFING GAME" I'm looking for actual feedback here. If we remove the ability to concede right off the bat, the person who would generally do that just gets up and walks away from their computer and nothing changes.

So let me hear some thoughts.


have you guys ever thought about having a Karma system?

like in some games (I think league of legend has one)

at the end of the game both players give each other a certain amount of karma point say form 1 to 10 one being really bad and 10 the most points.

If a player is being a jerk, calling ppl names on chat, BMing you, you give them a bad score, equally if a player is really nice, (friendly chatting, saying gg that kind of stuff) you can give then a good score.

at some one the karma points accumulate, and if average karma goes below say 2 you get penalties, maybe you lose exp, or you don't gain LP as fast, or you are banned from the game for 20-30 minutes.

so basically if someone Auto concede let the other player decide if they liked it or no, if they don't mind they might even give the other player good karma for the "free" (not really but you know what i mean) exp/lp

Also ppl who auto concede or get bad karma during a single match should get negative exp/lp

Finally, best and easiest way to fix the problem is make it so you can't auto concede until say turn 5 maybe 6 or 4, like mobas do.

If we remove the ability to concede right off the bat, the person who would generally do that just gets up and walks away from their computer and nothing changes.
a karma system prevent that from happening (see: Dawngate)


also in a karma system, players with bad karma are matched with each other, ppl with good karma would be matched against each other.

so basically you let the rotten apples deal with each other
« Last Edit: November 19, 2014, 06:25:33 AM by wastions »

Offline jgsnowbaorder

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 160
    • View Profile
Re: Fairness of the Auto-concede
« Reply #65 on: November 19, 2014, 07:00:56 AM »
I play IW for fun. I've played maybe 3-4 ranked games in the year+ I've been playing. I view auto conceding as a non-issue, because the game is just a game, and about fun in the first place. If I know I won't have fun during a match, I should be able to leave that match and re-queue with no issue or penalty. For those with high mmr who have those 20-30 minute wait times between matches, I'm sorry, but you'll just have to wait until more people are at your level and the population goes up. We as the Infinity Council do our best to make sure the game is balanced and fun at all times, but decks will slip through, and people will be people who dislike playing against certain archetypes. Don't punish them for their opinions.
Now, now, let's all calm down. No-one knows what they're talking about anyway ;)

Offline Adorabear

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2430
    • View Profile
Re: Fairness of the Auto-concede
« Reply #66 on: November 19, 2014, 07:29:06 AM »
Im seeing quite a few variations of the sentiment
"I play for fun therefore I don't have to consider how my behaviour effects other players."
On one hand im sure that perspective make sense to the people that stand by it. On the other hand it doesn't change the fact that its literally the very definition of selfish, pleasing yourself without regard for others. Sitting in queue is not fun either.

People need to get off their highhorse talking about freedom and fun and opinions and thinking insta conceding is actually a compliment. There are a growing number of players building all or nothing style decks without bothering to shore up weaknesses and then only playing match ups that favor them because its more 'fun' to win all the time and stroke ones ego. Its frankly a terrible attitude and certainly not the direction I would like the IW community to head in. I would like to think we are better than that and that we can be a community of players that consider each other as well as have, a go down fighting and improve my strategy next game, mindset.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2014, 07:33:12 AM by Adorabear »
Goose got me loose!

Offline Rawonall

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 254
    • View Profile
Re: Fairness of the Auto-concede
« Reply #67 on: November 19, 2014, 08:20:44 AM »
Im seeing quite a few variations of the sentiment
"I play for fun therefore I don't have to consider how my behaviour effects other players."
On one hand im sure that perspective make sense to the people that stand by it. On the other hand it doesn't change the fact that its literally the very definition of selfish, pleasing yourself without regard for others. Sitting in queue is not fun either.

let me paraphrase you too:

"I play for <insert whatever reason here> therefore I don't have to consider how my choice of deck affects other players"

Please explain how this is less selfish.


have you guys ever thought about having a Karma system?


Oh yes we have. Let me explain you how it would work: quitters would get bad karma for being quitters, and they'd leave bad karma too while leaving, just to discourage the offending deck's player from playing it again (and don't say "but quitters would't get the option to leave karma!", since we have already explained how you can passively quit without quitting)

Repression is never the best solution, unless it's the only one available. Not our case.

Offline Pjoelj

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
  • It's been a while...
    • View Profile
Re: Fairness of the Auto-concede
« Reply #68 on: November 19, 2014, 08:57:13 AM »
In the type of match where one of the players would auto-concede, it's because that player loses fun by playing out what to them is a boring match. Auto-conceding, on the other hand, robs the other player of their fun. No matter what happens, as soon as such a match is created, someone's going to lose out on fun. Trying to say "it should be the other player" is selfish, no matter which of the players you are.
Yes, auto-conceding is selfish. Yes, trying to force people not to auto-concede is selfish. Now can we all stop with the "I'm not saying you have to agree with me, but everyone who doesn't is a selfish puffy because (insert reasons here)"? That statement is like "Puffy's an awesome goldfish" - it's not wrong, but it doesn't really add anything to this discussion and it's not going to make anyone change their mind as people on both sides can say it anyway.


On a less ranty note, from what I've seen, one of the main problems, both with auto-concedes and with games in general, appears to be queue times. So what if matchmaking treated you as having queued longer depending on how long your last game lasted? For example, if you queued for 15 minutes to find a game that ended in 3 minutes, the next time you queue up, the game treats you as having queued for 15 - 3 = 12 minutes already? Makes facing players who concede much less annoying (partially solving the main problem), while not punishing people for doing it.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2014, 09:25:55 AM by Pjoelj »
________
   |___|  
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Got thesis!

Offline Adorabear

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2430
    • View Profile
Re: Fairness of the Auto-concede
« Reply #69 on: November 19, 2014, 10:55:13 AM »
Wait so now the person NOT conceding and wasting peoples time is the selfish one? How? I really don't see how. We come here to play cards. The person who concedes is the one forcing their will on someone else and not only ruining their fun but tangibly taking something from them as well by damaging their 'farming'. If that sore loser wasn't in the queue conceding every time that the match up didn't favor them then the person trying to actually get a game could be playing someone else and getting some points and experience.

I see no reason not to penalise people who are apparently quite willing to penalise everyone elses IP for the sake of their own enjoyment. However the solution I proposed protects the average player rather that penalising the conceder.
Goose got me loose!

Offline Rawonall

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 254
    • View Profile
Re: Fairness of the Auto-concede
« Reply #70 on: November 19, 2014, 11:33:29 AM »
Wait so now the person NOT conceding and wasting peoples time is the selfish one? How? I really don't see how.

You don't see how because you assume he's selfish by default, and nobody said that because it's false.
Player A becomes selfish when he wants to force Player B to waste his time doing something he doesn't enjoy so that Player A can enjoy HIS time. That applies both to the quitter (I want you to wait longer for your game so I can play a funnier matchup) and to the obnoxious deck's player (I want you to patiently act as a punching ball while I have fun with my OP deck that for some reason I don't want to play in ranked right now)

We come here to play cards.

Agreed. That's why when I'm playing triple Sleepers I hit concede faster than lightning if I face double or triple OOS, and that's also why I don't bring triple Sleepers to ranked.
"playing" implies a certain degree of interaction and both parties having fun, if one player thinks the game is not gonna be "played", he shouldn't be blamed if he doesn't want to engage in it and use his time looking for a more enjoyable experience.


Vertu Honagan

  • Guest
Re: Fairness of the Auto-concede
« Reply #71 on: November 19, 2014, 11:46:43 AM »
Wait so now the person NOT conceding and wasting peoples time is the selfish one? How? I really don't see how. We come here to play cards. The person who concedes is the one forcing their will on someone else and not only ruining their fun but tangibly taking something from them as well by damaging their 'farming'. If that sore loser wasn't in the queue conceding every time that the match up didn't favor them then the person trying to actually get a game could be playing someone else and getting some points and experience.

I see no reason not to penalise people who are apparently quite willing to penalise everyone elses IP for the sake of their own enjoyment. However the solution I proposed protects the average player rather that penalising the conceder.

The only place that auto-conceding is in Normal Play. Where players go to just enjoy the game. This is where people can have fun playing around with weaker cards such as Omni decks and Star Trek, yet tell me how it is enjoyable to face top notch decks in this fun play mode? The only reason a player should be forced to play against a meta deck should be in the ranked mode, right? If a player wanted to play a Ranked deck that player would go into Ranked play instead of normal play.

I have to say that I agree with Pjoelj, both players are being selfish. As you just put it, the player spamming their best decks in normal is doing it for to farm. If they were to take those decks into ranked play they would have way more equal matches and would have tougher times farming. So they play these decks to have easier games in Normal Play. Where they are almost guaranteed to fight someone just playing around with fun decks, such as using the uncontrolled Rift Weekly deck. You think the player taking the Uncontrolled Rift deck into Normal Play should be forced to play a Meta deck, that both players know will just absolutely overwhelm that deck? Sure, there may be a very slim chance that the player playing the Uncontrolled Rift deck could somehow win the match, but it's highly unlikely.

I think the best solution, in my opinion, is to do exactly what I suggested. Make a standard Win/Loss/Draw reward and give that out regardless of the time that the match took to play. So, if a player wins a game, they should be given 500Exp and 150 IP. Regardless of the time of the match. Wouldn't this just solve all the problems? Especially since there are entire factions designed to win in less than 7 turns and faster than 5 minutes. Inherently punishing a player just for using that Faction. Flame Dawn I'm looking at you.

If you then propose, but that's abuseable in Master/Apprentice! Make it so that after level 10 players only get 350Exp and 100 IP, or even make it so that once an Apprentice makes it to level 10, they are no longer an Apprentice and can only become Masters. As the whole point of the Master/Apprentice is to help teach a player how to build a successful deck and play well with the said deck.

Offline Pjoelj

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
  • It's been a while...
    • View Profile
Re: Fairness of the Auto-concede
« Reply #72 on: November 19, 2014, 12:09:04 PM »
Wait so now the person NOT conceding and wasting peoples time is the selfish one? How? I really don't see how. We come here to play cards. The person who concedes is the one forcing their will on someone else and not only ruining their fun but tangibly taking something from them as well by damaging their 'farming'. If that sore loser wasn't in the queue conceding every time that the match up didn't favor them then the person trying to actually get a game could be playing someone else and getting some points and experience.

I see no reason not to penalise people who are apparently quite willing to penalise everyone elses IP for the sake of their own enjoyment. However the solution I proposed protects the average player rather that penalising the conceder.
That is not at all what I said, or at least not what I meant to say. Insta-conceding is selfish. Not conceding is not selfish. I assume we can both agree on those things.
What I then tried to say was that trying to remove your opponent's option to not play a game they won't enjoy (not saying that's what you were doing, but several people have proposed such things in this thread) is prioritizing your enjoyment over that of your opponent and wasting your opponent's time - which I consider selfish.

As for your solution (assuming you refer to the one about having queue time count for IP/XP rewards), that's exactly the kind of solution that I believe would fit here - it solves the problems that insta-conceding causes, but doesn't needlessly punish anyone involved aside from those who'd abuse the system.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2014, 12:12:00 PM by Pjoelj »
________
   |___|  
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Got thesis!

Offline Adorabear

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2430
    • View Profile
Re: Fairness of the Auto-concede
« Reply #73 on: November 19, 2014, 12:10:17 PM »
Firstly theres really no such thing as 'meta decks', 'ranked decks', 'obnoxious decks' etc etc

You are trying to say that because someone is playing a good deck or a well thought out strategy that they are selfish. But that is not true at all, they are just playing cards well. How selfish of them to play cards well? What!?!?! THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS GAME IS TO PLAY CARDS WELL!! If you want to play stupidly/lazily/badly and still win go play AI's. Also if its a bad match up/hard counter thats not their fault either. They are in no way to blame and yet the conceding person is the one punishing them by denying them the ability to even play the game. Some one raging quitting is in no way comparable to someone playing the game well.

Like Merlini pointed out he played for several hours without even getting to play an actual game just some people conceding for their own selfish reasons. Good players should be able to play the game in all formats AND still be able to get some points saved up for Order.
Personally ive been forced out of normals if I want to get anywhere because of the situation that Merlini described. I have to play draft and win alot if I want to actually play games and that is wrong.

Conceders are the ones denying people the ability to even play cards, denying them fun, denying them IP, denying them exp, and all because they want to play crappy(fun) decks and still get easy wins so that they feel good. That is selfish and there isnt two sides to this lol. Theres some people trying to play cards and others trying to play cards on their terms alone regardless of whether they wreck the entire format for others.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2014, 12:12:13 PM by Adorabear »
Goose got me loose!

Offline Symphony

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 564
  • "...you've met with a terrible fate, haven't you?"
    • View Profile
Re: Fairness of the Auto-concede
« Reply #74 on: November 19, 2014, 12:11:51 PM »
Quote
Especially since there are entire factions designed to win in less than 7 turns and faster than 5 minutes. Inherently punishing a player just for using that Faction. Flame Dawn I'm looking at you.
I'd just like to emphasize that this is only partially true because of the horrendous queue times. If they were faster, FD/rush players would benefit from the system. I don't see how a lot of people don't get how this works.

Quote
If you then propose, but that's abuseable in Master/Apprentice! Make it so that after level 10 players only get 350Exp and 100 IP, or even make it so that once an Apprentice makes it to level 10, they are no longer an Apprentice and can only become Masters. As the whole point of the Master/Apprentice is to help teach a player how to build a successful deck and play well with the said deck.
And that is inherently flawed because you're assuming people would get 10 entire levels of apprenticeship. If you finish all the campaigns+academy before hopping into PvP (which there's no real reason you shouldn't do), you're going to be at around level 8~9. By your system, they'd not only have to grab a master right after they finished this, but they'd have at most 2 levels to benefit from the system.

And even if the 'fixed' rewards only worked in normal, people would simply create new accounts with low MMR and just go on about conceding every single game they get in normal pvp. Time based rewards are there to prevent this to happen. I strongly suggest thinking a lot about how would someone go around to abuse a system before suggesting it, as it will not only show you the flaws in the system you're thinking of, but will give you some ideas on how to improve it.


Finally, on this 'selfish/selfless' discussion. Seriously? We're human beings. Selfishness is present in pretty much every single action we do in our lives. Calling a player that concedes because he can't be bothered to play a game he will not enjoy selfish has the same arguments of calling the player who wants to force the other one to play through a matchup because he 'waited in the queue' selfish.

Fix the freaking matchmaker to reduce queue times and balance the freaking game. That's the basic solution with no drawbacks. At all.