Howdy, all, but especially Farbs, the great Guildmaster, $;^ b I'll make it short and make it real: Currently, if I have 5 stars vs. an opponent's 0 stars, 3 characters alive vs. an opponent's 1, and I lose due to time-out, the META site proclaims the opp blitzed me. Oh. Wow. You don't know the frustration. That just feels like a hateful end to a match. Did I take too long? Sure. Did I lose? Sure. Did I get blitzed? Absolutely no way in the world. Please change this. Please? $:^ ] I know the system looks at whether or not the winner has at least four stars. Couldn't it look at whether either challenger has at least four stars (as well as if the loser has at least two)? $:^ . Regards,
Come to think of it, a related issue: one's Standing should not drop on a time-out at all since the point is that "an early resignation or non-attempt ... costs you Standing" and clearly, a time-out is neither.
Except someone who wanted to artificially lower their rating and keep good standing could then just queue a game and then disconnect immediately.
But Scarponi, that would give an inactivity time-out -- not a run-down-the-20-minute-timer time-out. $:^ ]
I think any possibility of being blitzed should expire once you are past 2 stars. There is that case when you got 2 and forfeit while your opponent has below 4 that leads to a blitz as well, that seems equally faulty.
Robauke's suggestion is probably the best; the only thing that should matter is whether or not you got your 2 points. Handling time-outs as a special case incentivizes stalling to run out your clock, and it simply shouldn't matter how many points your opponent got if there was no way they could have possibly blitzed you if the match had gone on longer.
That's hardly a fair statement. Not everyone plays like you do. While I don't time out in ranked matches, I do occasionally have to slow the game down to take different scenarios into consideration. If I'm facing a dwarf wizard who enjoys throwing fire attacks at me, I'd like to think about what would happen if all his attacks were caught by my Defender's blocks and what my position would be like if they all failed. - Reading the OP, I definitely agree that time outs need to be re-worked in terms of ranking and standing. The only thing that you should lose in a time out is the game (and maybe kick yourself a little bit for getting into such a situation, but that's beside the point). All these penalties seem to be rubbing salt in the wounds.
I actually don't think that's a good idea because of the sheer number of ppl who quit immediately after losing one character (ugh). EDIT: Oh wait, I didn't think that out properly and thus had my facts wrong, sorry. ~ ~ ~ It might be a good idea, or not; now I'll have to think on it more. ~ ~ ~ Perhaps it could still affect Standing but not count as a blitz? Hm? I don't see what good it does anyone to run out one's own clock on purpose. I apologize, I couldn't quite understand from the way you wrote this. Could you rephrase? Thank you, everyone, who has contributed to this idea -- includinag debating against it. $:^ ] Regards,
A time-out could certainly be considered a non-attempt if it's done on purpose, and this would give people an incentive to do it on purpose. Imagine this scenario: You're beating your opponent 5-0 and control the only victory square on the map. Realizing the futility of his situation, your opponent passes. You grin in delight as you triumphantly glide your cursor over the 'End Round' button to seal your inevitable victory when all of a sudden your router violently self-destructs, leaving you without an internet connection and forced to accept not only a loss, but a blitz and a drop in standing as well, due to the current rule requiring your opponent to earn at least 4 points before a loss may no longer be considered a blitz.
I've gotten much, much better at not running out of time. My current party has only run out of time like three times now (out of nearly forty games). Nevertheless, it can still happen. Earlier tonight, I was winning 5-1. I ran out of time. I lost. Gg. Then, a short while later, I was winning 4-0. I just needed to move one character, then step the character, then step attack on a sitting duck enemy. The opp surprised me by removing his other surviving char off a VS to go on the offensive, lowering some HP on a fourth character in all this. The funny thing is, I don't even know if my opp realized how much this entirely messed up my plan. My opp got directly in the way of where I was going to run roundabout. I only had like half a minute on the clock, thus this really ruined everything, beautifully. Instead of barely squeezing in the kill for the last VPs, I had to sit there trying to pass, trying to discard, and running out of time. I appreciated the unexpected, fun way I lost that one on time while at 4-0. Gg. $:^ J Does either case sound like my opponent handed my head to me in a full-out blitz? Does either case sound like I should lose standing due to such similarity to bad sportsmanship? This is pretty much the one thing about the game mechanic that truly leaves a bad taste in my mouth to where the game becomes unfun. (Good thing it's kinda sorta external albeit official, right? ha ha) When this happens, I want to congratulate my opponent. I do congratulate, even. But, it winds up being without gusto. (Contrast this to the time my opp struck me through Parry x2, Armor x2, all failing, for the opp's victory! Ha ha, I was in shock, and I laughed and was just wowed by it. It's a card-board-and-dice game; these things happen. I did congratulate with gusto, and in other similar situations have even "consoled" a few opps who didn't like winning in such ridiculous "lucky" ways, ha ha ha. But, back to losing instead to time.) Losing in league to time is an "aww, too bad, but you managed your time better," no problem! Losing in ranked to time, however, literally feels insulting many times due to the scoring aftermath. @Rainingrecon worded it well, and I'll adapt it further: It's seriously like specifically creating a wound just to rub some salt into it. It feels punishing and uncalled for. (I know some obvious reflex answers: Don't play, then. Don't lose to time, then. Et cetera. Clearly though, in reality, mere snarky quips don't fix the issue at hand.)
My opinion is that it shouldn't count as a blitz. But taking that long is bad unless the opponent spent about the same amount of time.
this is an important topic, but my focus is on disconnects. Losing due to bad time management is legit, tough you shouldnt get blitzed even then when you had a match on eye.height,
Agreed. ~nodnod~ $:^ . Sorry, maybe you were posting by phone or whatnot, but something got manglated there -- a little lost in translion. $E^ D
I hope you just mean generally bad, with which I'm apt to agree, and not "bad sportsmanship" (which I referred to because that's what standing attempts to generally represent).
In this case it isn't stalling but you are taking a really long time, which is why I am not disagreeing with the lost of standing.
