Author Topic: Fairness of the Auto-concede  (Read 15963 times)

Offline stranger42

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 725
  • Aspiring Polymath and Amateur Guide Maker
    • View Profile
Re: Fairness of the Auto-concede
« Reply #75 on: November 19, 2014, 12:22:32 PM »
From the way I see it, there are several angles towards the problem:

1. The issue of long queue times
Okay, I think it's pretty safe to say that everyone wants shorter queue times. Long queues mean long periods doing nothing, earning nothing etc. unless you have something else to occupy your time with. The queues can be attributed to what appears to be a small playerbase, and possibly the matchmaking algorithm.

After a long queue, it's understandable if a player finds it frustrating to have their long-anticipated game cut short by an insta-concede. In my opinion, it's the lost time, rather than the lost rewards (IP/XP from the game) that hurts more. That time spent waiting is essentially wasted, because what you ended up with isn't a game that is satisfying.

2. The issue of bad matchups
I think when you go into matchmaking, you have taken a risk to be put up against any and all kinds of decks. It's a rare deck indeed that will have even matchups against all others, and so there is the possibility of 'hard counter' matchups. Ideally, a solution would be to play around with the balance so that there is a little counterplay between even extremely advantaged decks, although a player's deckbuilding skill can contribute to how much the 'imbalanced' matchup affects the deck.

3. The (perception of) player attitude
To be honest, it's quite subjective to determine the attitude of a player based on whether they insta-concede or concede later in the game or never concede. The argument for selfishness does cut both ways. Is a player selfish for wanting to keep the game going when the other player doesn't? Is the other player selfish for denying the other player the chance of a match, especially after waiting in the queue?

I think it's a little presumptuous to put a blanket statement like "insta-conceders are selfish" and leave it as that. A player who just waits the full time out and doesn't play anything can be pretty darn selfish too. I mean, if I wanted to play that kind of matchup I would have played Puffy instead, and at least the goldfish doesn't waste my time in game.

4. A solution?
What I was thinking of is to emulate something like DOTA 2's matchmaking system. I'm primarily thinking of the 'high priority' queue. If a player fails to load into the match, all players are put into the high priority queue, and are assigned matches preferentially to others. In the case of IW, the person conceded upon quickly (say within turn 1-2) would be put into the high priority queue while the other would join normal queue.

My thinking goes like this. As a player being conceded upon, you want a game. The system gets you a game fast so you don't have to wait 20+ minutes to play another person. So, instead of saying "Ah, damn. Another half-hour queue" it's going to be "Oh, you don't like my deck? Never mind, I can play with someone who's more sporting".

As for the insta-conceder, either a matchmaking delay or a low priority slot in the queue might be appropriate. I've been on the receiving end of my share of disadvantageous matchups, and naturally I don't win those often. However, to give up without trying is, in my opinion, not something to be encouraged. If after a few turns your plan, backup plan, and desperation options are exhausted, fine, I understand, you tried. To go "Ah, puffy this. I'm not even going to try", especially if it comes as a cost to the other player, is not something that I can agree with.

Regarding the issue of 'tryhards' and deck testing in the normal queue, I honestly don't know. There are multiple sides, from players wanting to test decks before ranked, and for those who want to feel good by taking strong decks and stomping others. I suppose it largely depends on your perspective of what you want, but personally, I'll just take the matchup. Even if I'm playing Uncontrolled Rifts vs a triple Verore oblivion deck, I'll play it out. It's a player's right to play a strong deck, and I don't think it's fair to put a limit on how 'strong' a deck can be to be banned from normal.

Offline Adorabear

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2430
    • View Profile
Re: Fairness of the Auto-concede
« Reply #76 on: November 19, 2014, 12:28:47 PM »
Excellent post stranger +1
Goose got me loose!

Offline Apostroph

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
Re: Fairness of the Auto-concede
« Reply #77 on: November 19, 2014, 01:03:07 PM »
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.

There are two sides... but it seems that u cant see them clearly.

1st side is the game mechanic, forcing ppl to play against deck they dont want! The result is, that some guy insta-conceeding against a BioSol deck, because i never asked for that match up. The game decides those things. Not the ppl are wrong, the mechanic is doing this the ppl dont satisfy. Nothing more, nothing less.

2nd side is ofc the result. Insta-Conceeding, like u do as well Adorabea. Beeing selfish and taking the decession, if i cant have fun, my opponent is not allowed to have fun either. Sure, most of the time its a question about fun, and who comes first in life... me, or all others.

The problem in this discussion is the causality. If the the disliked match-up would not take part, no insta-conceede would be the reason out of it.

Ah, and more than that... i just want to bring up some of those non-selfish examples, why a insta-conceede might happen as well: Wife, Husband, Friends, Phone Call, Door Bell, Human Needs like Toilett, Cooking etc. Its not that selfish, if a games ends early, when something more important is happening in life, than a game.

Face it, its just a game. In reasonable moments, it will always be the lowest priority in life, and with that, the opponent as well. Thats life :) But marking a conceeder with any sanctions cause he might conceeded out of fun-reasons or maybe with higher reasons like saving a cat from a tree, will not work.

Offline Istarune

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
    • View Profile
Re: Fairness of the Auto-concede
« Reply #78 on: November 19, 2014, 01:11:47 PM »
Generally this scenario is avoided IRL by the players talking before the match.
If someone says "Hey I want to test out this deck" generally even if you dislike the deck idea, you'll play them to help them test.
If you want to start a game and say to the other person "all I've been playing against this week is X decks, I'd really like to play against something else", the opponent usually goes "Oh, well sorry I only have a X deck with me" or "alright I'll play something else".
Either way, either a game is going on where the situation is understood from the outset, or the players will respectfully go look for a new opponent without wasting time setting up.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2014, 01:14:09 PM by Istarune »

Offline Adorabear

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2430
    • View Profile
Re: Fairness of the Auto-concede
« Reply #79 on: November 19, 2014, 01:30:07 PM »
because i never asked for that match up.

But... you did! If you queue up for a game against a random player you ARE asking to play a real game with a real player with a deck that you may not like. If you aren't prepared to play properly go play AI's or play with a friend. Queuing for normals is signing up to play against all sorts not signing up to play only against what is the most fun match up you can think of.

Also quite obviously real life situations take priority that's not the issue here. Neither is conceding after the game as played out to the point where its only 1 or 2 turns before one player losses all their hp or moral. That's what concede is for.
However people regularly signing up for a pvp match against a random opponent and then conceding before turn 4 for their own fun at the expense of others... they are a real shame to the community. I would much rather see this game continue its history of having players that care about others as well as them selves. However it is the internet afterall so I guess I will eventually have to resign myself to the fact that there's all types of people in the world. :)

Its a sad fact though that, although the amount of time between Ascension and Order is several months longer than the average time between sets, AND ive played more than normal, AND ive used my 100% xp token and 25% xp token AND the player base has grown with more players than ever before... im still struggling to even get enough points for my usual amount of packs. Wasting other peoples time sabotaging their progress just because you expect to play your favourite match up every game is so immature.
Goose got me loose!

Offline Rawonall

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 254
    • View Profile
Re: Fairness of the Auto-concede
« Reply #80 on: November 19, 2014, 01:49:05 PM »
Wasting other peoples time sabotaging their progress just because you expect to play your favourite match up every game is so immature.

I totally agree with you on this.

Wasting other people's time forcing them to play against your Bio Sol or Oblivion deck just because you expect to play with a favorable matchup every game even in a non-competitive room is so immature.

That's what you meant, right? Oh wait...

Offline Adorabear

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2430
    • View Profile
Re: Fairness of the Auto-concede
« Reply #81 on: November 19, 2014, 02:45:47 PM »
Wasting other peoples time sabotaging their progress just because you expect to play your favourite match up every game is so immature.

I totally agree with you on this.

Wasting other people's time forcing them to play against your Bio Sol or Oblivion deck just because you expect to play with a favorable matchup every game even in a non-competitive room is so immature.

That's what you meant, right? Oh wait...

Wait so you think I play Bionic Sol or Oblivion in normals? And you think that either of those decks have a favourable match up every game? And you think that playing cards is a waste of time compared to sitting in a queue? And you think that you've made a single helpful addition to this thread?
I have no idea how you got it into your head that someone playing a good strategy is the equivalent of sabotaging other peoples progress or rage quitting. The difference is one player is playing cards and attempting to win or lose fair and square. The other player is taking one look at their and saying 'well if i cant win no one can!' or 'if I cant have fun no one can!'. I mean why play cards when we could be sitting around doing nothing in queue thats more fun somehow right? Is this IW 2014 or Queue Simulator 2014?

Its really simple guys dont queue up for games that you dont intend to play. If you want a specific match up play a friend. Dont treat the entire community as your personal clown that is supposed to play how YOU like or else they dont get to play at all.
Goose got me loose!

Vertu Honagan

  • Guest
Re: Fairness of the Auto-concede
« Reply #82 on: November 19, 2014, 03:49:58 PM »
Stranger, I like it! Though I disagree with the fact that we should force a 20 minute Queue...Ever. The longest I've ever sat in Queue was MAYBE 2 minutes? I think what we really need to do is have separate MMR's for each different game type. Rift already has a different one that sorts players out by their current decks win/loss ratio. Ranked has one that sorts players out by their current Rating. We shouldn't be using the ranked MMR for normal play. I think that normal Play should not have a complex MMR. If 2 players hit the Search button, the game should automatically put them into a match together. The only variances are the MMR should check to see if those players have matched before in the last hour. If yes, then search for another player. If no, then start game. This way, there are no consecutive matches against the same player, and everyone in the game will be able to play each other. Rather than right now, where for example, I'm in a group where I play maybe the same 25 players every day. The only times I play different players outside of my range is in Draft. I think we should all get the chance to play each other, with the one exception of newer players. I think Newer players should be able to play each other until they have all played each other and then pit them up against us Veteran players. This is just my thoughts on the Queue system and what I think it should be. I don't mind playing top players in the game and I think it would be interesting to see how they vary from the average player.

 Everyone says, to fix the Matchmaking, but never offers up a suggestion. I've read Strangers, and I like it other than the fact that it still allows for long queues. This is my suggestion on a way to fix it. Make Normal Play open to everyone without MMR. While making Rifts and Ranked still have their MMRs.

Offline Qfasa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 758
    • View Profile
    • русскоязычный сайт об Infinity Wars и других цифровых ККИ (Russian site about Infinity Wars and other digital TCGs).
Re: Fairness of the Auto-concede
« Reply #83 on: November 19, 2014, 03:58:01 PM »
Adorabear, you can't be nice to everyone, there is too many options. Someone doesn't like insta-surrender or any form of surrender. Second one demands in private chat to "make your move faster, I'm in a hurry". Third one insults you as soon as he sees your commanders. Fourth one takes full 2 minutes every turn without any explanation and so on.

What should I do? Play only pauper decks, feel bad for using cards that my opponent doesn't have or doesn't like, finish my move in 10 seconds with one opponent but patiently wait for another, and never ever use "concede" button? I'm sorry but this is not going to happen. I won't adjust my behavior to every person I play.

Maybe it's selfish, I don't know. I don't see myself as a rude person. I can say "hello", can talk during the match, and even say "gg" when I don't think it was actually "gg". And as long as I can see a way to have at least a close ending, even if I lose anyway, I will continue to play. But if my opponent crashes me heavily (or just very slowly but surely) I will concede because it could be fun for him but it's just painful to continue for me. And when I crash someone I completely expect him to concede because I know what he should feel at this point. In fact sometime I even want it, because completely dominate someone isn't so fun for me either so I don't think that he robs me in any way.

The idea of auto-concede at first turn alienates me, but again if a player thinking that he has no chance to have a decent fight against the commanders he sees, I see no reason to blame him. It maybe demonstration of a weakness from his side but I suppose not everyone should be strong and take a fight in any circumstances. This is why we have Normal mode as an opposition to Ranked, where people are more responsible because they have something to lose.

If at some point there will be a mode with ante, where both players will bet some cards on their match I'm sure there will be even less problems with surrending. Or in a tournament where you should pay to participate. Normal is just a mode for all sort of goofiness and I don't think you should really wait from everyone in this mode to be responsible and fight till the last drop of blood.

As for the "Queue Simulator 2014" blame LM for that, not the players.
www.TCGO.ru – русскоязычный сайт об Infinity Wars и других цифровых ККИ (Russian site about Infinity Wars and other digital TCGs).

Offline Rawonall

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 254
    • View Profile
Re: Fairness of the Auto-concede
« Reply #84 on: November 19, 2014, 04:26:55 PM »
Wait so you think I play Bionic Sol or Oblivion in normals?

I think it's weird that you (and I really mean YOU, Adorabear, this time) are entitled to use the generic "you" when making examples, while I'm not.

And you think that either of those decks have a favourable match up every game?

I think that many forum posts whining about how those decks are either OP, unfun to play against and ubiquitous are sufficient proof to state that they have more favourable matchups than unfavourable ones.

And you think that playing cards is a waste of time compared to sitting in a queue?

I think that getting slaughtered by a deck I know being definitely superior to the 40 cards I put together for fun is a waste of time compared to sitting in a queue, which in turn is a waste of time compared to actually playing an enjoyable game with an unpredictable outcome.

And you think that you've made a single helpful addition to this thread?

Given that it's my 6th post, I think that I made around 6 more helpful posts than you did in this thread.

I also think that you read too much between the lines and pretend / wrongly assume people wrote things they didn't write to better defend your poor position on the matter.

I think that my policy "I quit whenever I feel like I won't enjoy the game, and I'm not pissed at all when people quit on me because I respect their will" is much more tolerant and respectable than your policy "Quitters GTFO my queues!"


Offline wastions

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: Fairness of the Auto-concede
« Reply #85 on: November 19, 2014, 04:29:09 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.

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.

OR......... maybe JUST MAYBE
the person "spamming" (what does that even mean.....) their best decks in normal are doing it because that's how they have fun?.... and then your entire argument would be a fallacy.

and you would still be the selfish one for preventing someone from having fun?

food for thoughts 

Offline MerliniX

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1398
    • View Profile
Re: Fairness of the Auto-concede
« Reply #86 on: November 19, 2014, 04:34:11 PM »
Rawonall - I understand where you are coming from on this, really, I do. But you also have to understand the reality of the situation that Adorabear, and myself, and several other players of note experience when trying to play a game of normals.

I have recently tried queueing up and had people just take a look at my borders and concede, regardless of the fact that I was playing a pile of really bad cards with the sole intention of having a 'fun' match. (My command zone was Xi, Infested Hulker, and Aleta Caretaker, if that matters).

For some people it is basically impossible to get a game of normals, regardless of the decks being played in question. That can be very frustrating for us because sometimes we just want to relax and have a less meaningful game than we do in ranked, or rift, the same as everyone else. Just because we do well in ranked should not mean that we basically never get to enjoy a game mode that everyone else does.

Offline wastions

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 54
    • View Profile
Re: Fairness of the Auto-concede
« Reply #87 on: November 19, 2014, 04:39:57 PM »
Wait so you think I play Bionic Sol or Oblivion in normals?

I think it's weird that you (and I really mean YOU, Adorabear, this time) are entitled to use the generic "you" when making examples, while I'm not.

And you think that either of those decks have a favourable match up every game?

I think that many forum posts whining about how those decks are either OP, unfun to play against and ubiquitous are sufficient proof to state that they have more favourable matchups than unfavourable ones.

And you think that playing cards is a waste of time compared to sitting in a queue?

I think that getting slaughtered by a deck I know being definitely superior to the 40 cards I put together for fun is a waste of time compared to sitting in a queue, which in turn is a waste of time compared to actually playing an enjoyable game with an unpredictable outcome.

And you think that you've made a single helpful addition to this thread?

Given that it's my 6th post, I think that I made around 6 more helpful posts than you did in this thread.

I also think that you read too much between the lines and pretend / wrongly assume people wrote things they didn't write to better defend your poor position on the matter.

I think that my policy "I quit whenever I feel like I won't enjoy the game, and I'm not pissed at all when people quit on me because I respect their will" is much more tolerant and respectable than your policy "Quitters GTFO my queues!"

no offense but you need to get off you high horse

you ain't holier than thou, an adorabear and anyone else is entitled to disagree with your opinion without you trying to talk down on them.

i see you making one of those, "no one agrees with me that this card is op so i'm quitting iw for solforge threads" in a couple of days.

Offline Heart

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 604
    • View Profile
Re: Fairness of the Auto-concede
« Reply #88 on: November 19, 2014, 04:41:53 PM »
Back when i was still playing more than nowish,
I was one of those players whose mmr made it practically impossible to get a normal match in a normal amount of time, and if i managed to find one after like 10-40 mins, it would most likely be a tryhard no skill deck.
But I still wouldn't ever suggest a system that separates the queue population to make it take longer, like in strangers post i think. Anything that would promote a person from wasting more time in game is a bad idea flat out.
This entire thread wouldn't even be an issue if the matchmaking system was faster and just paired anyone together, regardless of mmr. In ranked and rift runs it doesn't matter if someone concedes, you get rewarded anyway.
The only negative of insta concedes is queue times, thats it. Fix that, and you fix all the butthurt.
Follow your...

Offline Adorabear

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2430
    • View Profile
Re: Fairness of the Auto-concede
« Reply #89 on: November 19, 2014, 04:49:22 PM »
 Points well made Qfasa and heard.

 Heres something to consider. Most people seem to be giving insta conceders the benefit of the doubt and allowing them the excuse that its not fun to play a 1 sided match. Painting them as noble intellectuals in pursuit of an interesting game and they only concede because once they know the outcome of a match it isn't fun anymore.
 However if merely thinking you know the outcome of a match in advance sucks all the fun out of the game and is cause for conceding then how come you never seen these players concede when they are winning? Thats right you never ever not even once see these players concede when they are hard countering you or when they have an early advantage. Thats because at the bottom of it all they are sore losers. What they leave unsaid when they say they want a fun game is that most of the time playing a fun game for them means playing a game where they are winning. They only concede when they are losing and will keep doing so until they find a match up they can beat and then take the wins.

So what ends up happening is...
Cronic Conceder. Concedes if might lose gets nothing. Wins when winning, gets win.
Normal Player. Gets conceded on if winning and gets nothing. Gets crushed when losing at best gets a loss.

So not only do you have hugely extended queue times if you keep running into one of these slimey dudes, but you never get to actually win against these guys. You either get nothing or a loss, nothing or a loss. Its so dishonourable. The more I think about it the more disgusting I think it is to have the attitude that you will hand you opponent either a loss or a 1 second win, no points, no satisfaction, and 15 minuets time out in queue. And then to say something like "I just play this game for fun so its ok." really gets me. But everyone can probably tell that from my numerous posts. So ive said my piece I think for everyone's sake I better just leave this thread alone now lol :)
« Last Edit: November 19, 2014, 04:58:29 PM by Adorabear »
Goose got me loose!