[Suggestion] remove MP early resign time punishment

Because what else are you supposed to do when you hit a draw-fire-whirl-spam build, except resign after sitting for five minutes through the first turn?

 

(To clarify, this is referring to the 3-minute delay before you can get another match, if you resign during the first (two?) round(s).)

 

Well, yes, that's the long term solution, but they have yet to actually nerf infinite draw decks.

 

That's because it takes a LOT of balancing.

 

I do recognize the delicacy of that operation, which is why I suggested this change in order to make draw decks a little less annoying until y'all manage to work your magic. ^_^

 

The issue, of course, is when people just resign over and over until they see a party they can "beat" which is one of the reasons we instituted the time limit. It also really wears on the server. Finding a happy medium is hard, I won't be the first to admit it. Hmm. Things to think about!

 

Wasn't the current resign time punishment implemented itself as a stopgap against rating tankers? As far as I know it's not really working—the people who complain about it are the people who don't want to deal with unfair parties, and the people who are tanking their ratings do it anyway and read webcomics in between resignations. Definitely seems like a tricky puzzle to solve, and a "good" solution will probably need to involve both rewarding players who don't resign (consolation chests when they play out matches, maybe?) and actually punishing people who tank for the sake of smurfing (not sure what this would look like, but if you guys have the ability to track a player's Elo fluctuation you might be able to determine which players tank and then moderate on them in some way?).

Good luck improving things BM

 

There will always be some kind of work-around. The key is finding the least doable one I guess :/

 

As long as the system has rules, as long as it has rewards, people will find a way to game the system to their maximum benefit.

The key would be to set the system up in a way that someone gaming the system ends up looking like someone following your ideal playstyle: building a strong deck and playing against opponents of equal strength.

I don't really see how this can be done with the current system. As long as you are rewarded based on the number of wins you achieved in a given day, you will always have an incentive to find the easiest, most consistant victories, in the shortest time possible.

I think the only solution to the problem is divorcing the reward from the # of wins, at least for the non-casual segement of the PVP population. Maybe a daily/weekly reward awarded at the end of the day, based on Elo rating? A hybrid system where the first 1-3 golden chests stay, but the rest are brown chests + biggish reward at the end of the day?

The best system I can think of would be to have "casual ranked" with reward chests as they are now, but players who have played a total amount of games higher than a certain threshhold (200 games?) become ineligible. Instead they have to play in "weekly tournaments" or somesuch, with a higher potential reward based on performance instead of # of games played...?


It would also be really cool to have different types of tournaments, hopefully which stressed skill over item selection.

Something like a draft tournament from MtG, where every player gets a pre-set set of items they can use, and they have to build the best team they can out of it?

 

Personally, I just don't want to be penalized for other people's misbehavior. To analyze these situations:

1) I encounter someone with an infinite draw deck, which goes off during the first round.
1a) If I stick it out, I'm going to lose after an excruciating five minutes or so of clicking "pass," before cycling back into the mm pool.
1b) If I quit as soon as they play a couple draw cards, I have to wait three minutes before cycling back into the mm pool. I guess I can go read a webcomic, though.

2) I encounter someone who resigns immediately. I get a reward chest, which compensates for not getting to play a match, and then I cycle back into the mm pool.

I would very much prefer to encounter case 2 more often than case 1, because I (an innocent bystander) am not significantly penalized for someone else's misbehavior.

 

Here is a good way to deal with draw decks : create new cards that neutralize having too many cards on one character. Examples:

A new counterattack card, like some kind of armor or block, that causes the attacker to take damages based on how many cards he has. The blowback causes 2 or 3 damages to the attacker. If the attacker has a few cards, he will survive the blowback damages. If he has tons of cards, he is dead with one attack.

A range attack skill that prevents a character from using any non-movement card in a round. So, let say a character stacks cards. An opponent wizard casts a simple spell that prevents that character from using any of his dozens of attack or magic cards in that round. Now he has just wasted hid drawn deck. When the round ends, he has to discard the whole long stack of cards.

 

No. The problem with any kind of solution which involves adding a new card or card type to the game is that it is not consistant. The card spam decks can reliably and consistantly do their draw cycle on usually the first or second round, allowing them to draw up the majority of their deck into their hands.

On the other hand, if you have one copy of the "anti-draw" card in your deck, it is one card out of your deck of 37. You draw 4 from this deck on the first round, so your chance of getting the anti-draw card in your hand is about 4/37 (~10.8%). If we include the 2nd round of combat, you get 2 more chances, for a total of about 6/37 (~16.2%).

So you have a relatively small chance of actually having the new "counter" card in your hand, while the enemy has a chance approaching 100% of pulling off his combo. This is why even decks which are specifically built to beat card spam decks can not do it all the time - you sometimes simply do not draw the right cards. Wheras the deck which specializes exactly on drawing cards, well, does draw the right cards.

This exists. It is an effect called "Stun". I believe only Anvil Strike has it available for players to use.

This in and of itself can not be a full counter - see the explanation above why a single card or card type by definition can't be completely effective. Furthermore, card draw decks are able to counter this or other types of counters by either 1) using purge, or 2) throwing new buffs/debuffs onto the target until the "Stun" falls off on it's own (each character may only have 3 attached card effects at any time).

 

Ppl, this is a thread specifically about the rematch delay. Take arguments about game balance to the proper thread. Plz? ^_^

 

Actually I did not even know early resign has a penalty.

Now that I know, if I want to quit, I just bring up a YouTube tab to watch videos instead of resigning from battle, and let the other guys wait. YouTube has short clips which are just perfect to watch in small doses when I make those guys wait. LOL.

They were all so pissed. One guy was even complaining how he was going to report me, which only made me to delay the timer even more just to make him wait longer. Yeah, whatever. Don't blame me. Blame Blue Manchu for their stupid rules. And stop interrupting me when I was watching Survivor: Blood vs. Water secret scenes.

 

Er, deliberately stalling carries a penalty of the ban hammer, which is infinitely worse than 3 minutes in the queue...

 

Wait guys.

I had a brilliant idea just now, admittedly a bit frustrated after being paired up against draw abusers game after game:
Since there IS actually a legitimate reason to resign early—Pengw1n above said that it's only for people interested in easy wins, but the entire premise of this thread is that no one wants to be forced to play against draw abuse—the penalty for finishing a game early should apply to both players.

Think about it

(Of course, this will hopefully be moot in a few days, but still.)

 

I know you said generally. As for what I suggested not being "more fair," I was trying to illustrate something: it wouldn't be less fair than the current situation. As you say it's impossible to tell people apart based on what part they had in a game ending early. And the sports team analogy kind of falls apart at a certain point when you have a meta so saturated with uninteresting, barely-beatable opponents.

Jon's announcement is pretttttty harsh so we'll see if this nonsense continues. I'm guessing not!