[Suggestion] Give something for non-resign PVP losses

An idea worth the thread necro! Thanks, PKB!

 

I think it is an interesting idea as well, but why would the loser not also judge the winner's sportsmanship/effort? Standing on the meta site takes wins and losses into account, so it seems this might ask for the same treatment.

I suggest this because winning a match does not = sportsmanship does not matter. A personal pet peeve of mine is, after passing in a final round, with no chance to score any more points, and my opponent having victory in hand by passing, goes off and plays three holy spells to see what their Altruism will reap, or wants to show off their remaining step moves, or whatever. In my eyes, that's bad sportsmanship. I know, I know, no one realized what the score was, since there are not any yellow stars in the left top corner of the screen that light up when you obtain them. Seriously (Srsly), actions like this are stalling your win. Strange to say it, but it truly is. Just win; seeing that you had 3 fireballs, 2 pulverizing bludgeons, an invigorating touch, and a team walk will not impress me. I have already resigned by passing, so just take the win. All you are doing with your supposed flair is making others salty, and much more likely to engage in unsportsmanlike behavior the next time they run into things like this. At least in my opinion, that's what I tend to see happen over time.

Okay, diatribe over. Again, to reiterate, I think it's a good idea. Well thought out, and I think it could work.

 

Three things:

1. Thanks, peeps, for the idea support. Mine is just an adjustment of others' ideas already stated in this thread, but yay if it brings about good things. ~nodnod~

2. I'd said the API could broadcast the hidden "sportsmanship/effort" rating. Dur. Broadcasting it makes it not hidden. $E^ P So yeah, nevermind that particular thought. (Perhaps, though, now thinking more, the API could broadcast when a consolation chest is awarded, and the META site in particular might bump Standing up a tad each time.)

3. I agree, @gulo gulo, that it'd be nice for the loser to also rate the winner. I wanted to keep my previous post on-topic, even moreso since I had minutes before disappearing from the 'Net for a day or two, but yeah, a "short survey" (ha ha ha ha) for everyone after every match could be nice. Question, though -- and nevermind for a moment that many losers would be sore losers about rating the winners. The real question becomes, what would be the in-game consequence of winners being rated? (Adding a little to the tally for a Consolation Chest upon the next loss is one thought, but that has its issues to work out if so.)

 

That is a question, for sure. I suppose you could just ask the loser if the winner had good sportsmanship. If they say no (warranted or not), the winner receives some minuscule amount toward their Consolation Chest (maybe .5 of a point? .25?); if they get a yes, they get some larger amount (maybe 1 point maximum).

To the winner goes the spoils of course, so I guess that would be that they earn points towards this Consolation Chest regardless of their sportsmanship; however, it's going to take a lot longer if you're a jerk.

Just an idea to get this ball rolling a little more.

 

Just to reply to gulo's numbers and concept there -- keepin' the ball rollin' $;^ b -- the winner's MP chests are the spoils, thus they certainly don't need C.C. ConCh points (totally pronounced like conch shell! $E^ D ), too. That's what I'd figure anyway. We've both stated it in so many words: sportsmanship does not equal winning. Frankly, I've played some super rude winners.

An issue to work out would be .. okay, a person has won and received X points toward a consolation chest, and has lost and received Y points. The person wins, receives enough points, and .. now has an MP chest available and .. what? If the conch is an MP chest, then there's a double-up issue with programmatic-and-design questions how to handle. If it's some other type of granted chest, it's still doubled up. Therefore, if MP chest, this causes difficulty in the idea of the winner getting it at the same time as the actual win; if not MP chest, it splits into one of three different directions: either 1. it's some special kind of unique chest auto-awarded after battle and still has to handle double-up issue; 2. it's just a randomly selected low- or high-level brown chest (one random item) in the chest shop awaiting you opening at any time (which actually brings a different set of "gaming the system" issues, a.k.a. hoarding for expansions potentially being more desired than winning, at least at certain times); or 3. it's only an auto-win-after-battle chest for the loser, and the winner's points go to something else.

On that last note, one idea could be to just toss a little gold the winner's way (still built up by points perhaps so to better avoid the "you didn't give me gold" social issue).

 

I don't think we need consolation prizes for winning. Nobody wins all the time, and I don't expect people to switch their behavior from considerate to rude for games they will end up winning. This is a peer review system is to reward good sportsmanship. Feedback will simply come a little slower to players with high win rates.
I realize this wouldn't address the end-game issues gulo gulo described, but I think most of those incidents could be fixed by a polite explanatory PM.

 

Four and a half years later...

I raise the dead again because ... frankly, I still believe in this idea. Plus, new devs. Talk in the Discord server got me thinking on this. Upon re-reading the whole thread~

1. People (including the originator of the game) like the idea of a winner declaring the level of sportsmanship a loser exhibited, followed by the game consoling the losing good sport with a small pat-on-the-head prize.
2. People fear the social pressure of connecting the winners' personhood directly to the losers' rewards and lack thereof.
3. I suggested a tally-over-time system to mitigate the connection; the idea seemed well received.

Now that I've been able to re-examine and summarize the issues, I'd like to suggest something new on how to mitigate the social connection—hoping The Knights of Unity are keen on this old concept of rewarding sportsmanship to encourage losers (e.g. newbies reaching higher rank thresholds, experimenting Jennys/Johnnys, social Timmys/Tammys, lol fretful not-very-skilled Spikes lol) to continue enjoying playing despite the setbacks.

• How ever it's determined what prize(s) would console a loser, delay it, just like league rewards. Maybe you get your sportsmanship consolation "the next day"—be that 18 or 24 hours after your first returning match, or Cardhuntrian midnight (UTC-0 server reset). The beginning of the week also crossed my mind, but I believe daily is better for several reasons which I hope are mostly obvious.
• Upon implementing this in-game, Gary explains this to you at some point when he fights you in ranked, and a small explanation always accompanies your consolation when you receive it.
• How to receive it? How to receive what? Since non-immediacy can facilitate aggregating—i.e., since putting it off can make it easier to make it a lump sum—the prize can be a chest in the chest shop. Currently, that means either a "Simple Chest" split between levels 1–9 & 10–18 (no 19–21), a better chest, or an AotA/EttSC/CM brown chest.
  • It could alternate or randomize between the two Base Simple Chests.
  • It could aggregate and upgrade a chest at some point. (For example, between today and tomorrow, if you've received X sportsmanship points, something upgrades.) I'm fine with it not doing this for a couple reasons. If it means 1 upgraded chest instead of 2–3 lesser chests, that means fewer items given. Newbies, especially, can benefit from any items collected more than rarer items, imo. (Lemony Snicket describes the difference between looking for a needle in a haystack and looking for anything in a haystack. If you're only looking for anything in a haystack, you'll find plenty you might be able to work with.) It's a consolation, after all, an encouragement, a reward for being a good player—not the reward for being a skilled and winning player; we all know skill ≠ goodness. $;^ ] However, if the algorithm internally sees, "wow, this player got a 3rd chest already, that's a lot of community niceness," and decides, "I'll make this 3rd chest Magnificent instead of Simple," ..I probably wouldn't be opposed, except I fear that'd reward too much play or super fast playstyle over others, which leaves some distaste in my mouth. Probably just sticking to a Simple Chest is fine, imo.
  • There could be a new chest added somewhere somehow. This requires more design and programming, though. Again, it's just a leg-up to those who genuinely try to play and who interact well in the community.
  • It could modulo or randomize among the five brown chests I listed. The non-Base brown chests only reward 1 item, and Citadel chests have been run into the ground thanks to some leagues exclusively giving those items for 5 years. Therefore, I figure the 2-item Base brown chests are again probably fine.

If I had more to say, I've forgotten. I'll post now and see what happens.