People get disconnected midgame all the time. Nevermind the wide array of other reasons, the server just shuts people out at times. We discussed this somewhere, i couldnt find it, but i dont think a formal suggestion was made: Remove the "blitz" variation that based on the the winner having less the 4 stars when the game is decided. Only mind the stars of the losing party. It shouldn't be counted as blitz once that player made two stars. http://forums.cardhunter.com/threads/prizes-pizza-rewards-for-guild-seasons.6808/page-5#post-88956
It was a suggestion, but it was posted in the guilds subforum: http://forums.cardhunter.com/threads/suggestion-modify-how-time-outs-affect-blitzes.7728/ But yeah, please @Farbs?
Network failures and other such events are a pain, but I am worried that this would make tanking even easier.
I'd say the 2 needed points already does as much as is possible to deter tanking without making an in-game punishment for it. If someone is really determined to lower their rating while keeping their standing positive, I don't think the extra couple minutes it takes to kill 2 of their own characters will do much to stop them, but it can be a pretty big inconvenience/unintended punishment for others that care about their standing (and more so their guild rating).
Exactly what I was going to say; at a certain point, tankers gonna tank, regardless of what they need to do to do so. (I like the end of that sentence.) It seems like that an approach of a carrot instead of a stick may be more in order. Perhaps some sort of award for not being blitzed?
Also we are talking about Guild Players here. Unless there is total disregard for the own guild, who would abuse this?
I allmost never win or loose due to connection problems, no matter mine, server's or opponents'. It just doesnt happen. Approximatly i see this ~1% of times or less.
And you are affected by a change of guild blitzes how? Are you even opposed to a change? To remind, its about acknowledging stars conquered - consequence being you either not get that blitz loss when being disconnected - or allowing you to forfeit matches you feel you have lost more freely once you got 2 stars - even when the winner is only 2 stars ahead.
I'm ParodyKnaveBob, and I approve this message. .. Well, I wanted to leave this post blank except for that jokey "I agree," but addressing Farbs' statement seems important: Right now, if someone doesn't care about ratings, then one can enter matches, resign, get reported, repeat. If the system changes how ratings are handled, this person won't be affected anyway. Right now, if someone does care about ratings, then one must enter a match, put forth effort to win at least two stars, then somehow put forth effort to make sure the other player gets at least four stars, then resign (or let the other player finish). If the tanker also cares about not being banned, even more effort has to be put forth so as to not be obvious. That's a ridiculous amount of time and effort going into such an insignificant exercise (assuming the goal is to collect virtual items in a virtual world which cannot be exchanged for any real-life tangible value whatsoever, including trading to anyone, even temporarily (currently? heheh)). I don't have server stats at my disposal like Farbs does, but I have a sinking suspicion that if this person exists, this is the extreme minority (of the "tankers" subset who I also suspect is a ranked-match minority in the first place). If the system changes as Rob proposes, that the winner's VPs aren't even examined, then this particular tanker no longer has to put forth said effort to get at least four stars for the seriously playing opponent (with optional effort to not get reported), which certainly appears to benefit the tanker. However, ...to suffer through... Therefore, for the loser to not be blitzed, O Mr. Farbs, perhaps you could fiddle with the numbers on a trial basis? Let it go for a month or six and see how it pans out? And, if the real player experience gets degraded, you kindly inform us TOLD YOU SO SUCKAS and put it back to where you had it? $:^ ]
