Slitherine

A few times now I have accepted or started a challenge on multiplayer and after one or two turns in (with the battle hardly started never mind decided) my opponent has resigned?


Why would anyone do that? I can understand that mybe someone does not have the time to complete it but in that case why post or accept a challenge in the first place?

Don't worry, it is not just you. Sometimes people resign because they don't like the army you have. Sometimes they don't like the map. Sometimes they bodge the deployment and just quit. Sometimes they accuse you of "camping" because your army doesn't move off full steam in their direction. It is really kind of irritating.

There is one circumstance where I generally resign, but only if the other player agrees--and that is when I get the fortified hill map, which I can't stand playing on.

I have only had this happen when playing one person. Both times he quit after 2 or 3 turns, with unsavoury comments about playing style or bad luck. Other than that, everyone has completed games despite the good or bad swing to events.

Sometimes the map terrain is disappointing, or playing style frustrates/annoys, but I think you'll find just about everyone will complete games. Don't let a couple of games like this colour your opinions of the community.

Dan T.

I'd like to track the % of completed games a player has and show it by their name somehow. Maybe also a gamesmanship rating, allocated by your opponent on completion. These will encourage people not to play like this and help you avoid those that do.

I have quite a few uncompleted games over the last few months, but not one of them is due to me not being available or having resigned. I would hope that a record such as you are suggesting would reflect this and only show those that had not responded to a turn or had resigned from a game as being unreliable.

I'm assuming it would only track uncompleted games sitting in your turn.

This would somehow need to account for games that cannot be played due to system bugs.

I had one that sat in my 'inbox' for about 6 weeks until it was purged. This was a SOA game I accepted when I didn't have the expansion. The bug that allowed this was subsequently fixed, but I was told that the game itself would have to stay there until it naturally purged.

I'd hate to get a black mark for something that wasn't in my control.

My only concern is this: People will make assumptions if a log of all your resigned games is kept but obviusly its not going to track why the game is resigned. For example players might be experimenting w a fellow player to get a specific map, or friendly agreements to try for another.... Now I never resign battles but to think that a player who does with good reason and concurement with their opponenet possibly could be viewed with "prejiduce" by players that dont know them simply because of the tracking mechanism...

Also , why even have the option to resign if now it could potetnially be used to single out bad sportsman..... Ive played enough games vs enough opponents and have come across only one player that I dont want to play any more, however I simply dont accept any of his challenges.

If you removed the option to resign, you'd have games sitting ignored by whoever didn't want to play.

Why not, instead of tracking completed/incomplete games, we had a voluntary Rank My Player? You can join the list and people who play you could check off preset boxes about playing style, sense of community...etc.

Blathergut wrote:If you removed the option to resign, you'd have games sitting ignored by whoever didn't want to play.

Why not, instead of tracking completed/incomplete games, we had a voluntary Rank My Player? You can join the list and people who play you could check off preset boxes about playing style, sense of community...etc.

I am not suggesting that the option to resign be removed, however a resign is considered a loss and these will eventally be tracked much like the AI battles are tracked... isnt that enough?

Players who resign at the drop of a pin will either not care or will simply click off the option to have their games tracked anyways ....

Not so sure about a rate the player, could really start a flame war, misinformation , misunderstanding etc
For example "dont play player x, he always defends on terrain, he sucks!"
Dont think that will help.... Plus since it would be voluntary, again a player simply could not sign up and continue being a chump...

Th option needs to stay. I accidently accepted the wrong game in league play and the only way out was for one of us to resign. It would be a shame to see someone get the scarlet "R" due to an error.

I don't see anything wrong with resigning if done with proper notice to the opponent and good reason. I do object to the rudeness of the very few individuals who resign without a word. I too just don't pick up challenges from those who have done this to me.

Although I am undoubtedly a truly warm and wonderful human being I don't think rating players is a good idea - it is too subjective and affords too much scope to the trolls to give poor scores just for the 'fun' of it.

You know, it may be just as well to not play against someone who you don't get on with or you know has resigned for no apparent reason in games against you before. I know that you probably can't refuse a player when they accept a game but maybe this could be a possible way forward, so that the challenger gets to see who accepts before starting the game.

Having a sort of blacklist of players who resign may not be a good thing at all as there could be many reasons for a player resigning a game that has nothing to do with unsporting conduct on their part. Personally I would not resign any game no matter what, but others may have their reasons and its simply part of the online multiplayer experience. Unless software updates can add a sort of filter for the challenger as to who accepts, then what can you do that won't come across as unfriendly.

My final 2 cents : Is this really an issue? I think I have played at least 200 Mp matches at this time and there is only one player that has resigned battles for no reason... I simply wont accept any more of his challenges, problem solved (he of course could accept mine but has never done so...)

As for play style: I realize some players dont like HOW their opponents play.. This is of course , as mention by other posters, is a very very subjective thing.... I think from the forums some players dont like when their opponent sits and tries to play a defensive battle.. I have no problem with this at all, after all both players have the same chance of getting terrian that advantagious , and if your opponent gets that and chooses to use it , why is that an issue? If people can start commenting with such subjective opinions then i really feel it will just breed bad blood etc...


Fortunately FOF is a very tight game and there are no bugs, or game mechanic flaws that can be exploited.

I suggest having the option to play competitive or friendly games. If you play a competitive game, resigning for any reason should count as a defeat. Same with accepting a challenge and then not moving for weeks on end.

Deeter

It woudl need to be thought through but some sort of gamesmanship rating is something that would be nice to have.

If I am getting soundly beaten, then I might resign. (I never have) Just to save both parties time. It is a loss, so who cares. I prefer a resignation, then have someone not submit a turn for 2 months. One of my games had that problem ,but the guy was having serious medical issues (He did a turn and said he was on medical holiday, then he stopped submitting turns again. I hope he is alright.)

I would rather a resignation, then just stop playing.

I doubt if this would fly, but how about a handicap for using unbeatable armies such as Swiss or Bosporans?

Deeter

TheGrayMouser wrote:My final 2 cents : Is this really an issue? I think I have played at least 200 Mp matches at this time and there is only one player that has resigned battles for no reason... I simply wont accept any more of his challenges, problem solved (he of course could accept mine but has never done so...)

As for play style: I realize some players dont like HOW their opponents play.. This is of course , as mention by other posters, is a very very subjective thing.... I think from the forums some players dont like when their opponent sits and tries to play a defensive battle.. I have no problem with this at all, after all both players have the same chance of getting terrian that advantagious , and if your opponent gets that and chooses to use it , why is that an issue? If people can start commenting with such subjective opinions then i really feel it will just breed bad blood etc...


Fortunately FOF is a very tight game and there are no bugs, or game mechanic flaws that can be exploited.

Imagine Alexander sending a courier to Xerxes to lodge a complaint about his defensive tactics.

I don't care if someone likes defensive tactics, I like them too but i'm willing to adapt and attack if needs be, surely that's what any decent commander would do?

I don't mind people resigning just as long as they are polite enough to let me know but so far it's happened thricely to me and not a word.

iainmcneil wrote:It woudl need to be thought through but some sort of gamesmanship rating is something that would be nice to have.

Like ebay feedback? That's a good idea.