Jump to content
Akiowo

Quitting Matches

Recommended Posts

Akiowo

I seem to have a bit of a problem lately, finding that it can be really hard to complete the "knock out 12 with type X" challenge. This is because painfully often, if I am the first person to k/o a pokemon and the other person doesn't have a bench that is far stronger than mine, like a bunch of GX all with full energy, then people just quit. This coupled with the general quitting you get from people just having a terrible start or a really unlucky deck matchup means that I am having to join sometimes 20+ games and even on a rare few occasions (that I have gotten really annoyed at) 30 games with a single-type deck to complete the k/o challenge with that type.

This got me wondering if there will ever be any effects for quitting games too often? Punishing players with very short bans like some games do might work but that seems like a way to discourage people playing, so I am not sure exactly what would be a good way to go about it. Surely there must be a nice way to incentivise people to want to finish matches or at least play more than 5 turns before quitting.

  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MASTERMajora

These kind of challenges can be a bit frustrating. I can relate to the people quitting thing -- that drives me nuts!

 

The best advice I can offer is stick to the Theme Decks. There's a strong deck for most types out there. What's nice is you don't have to win the game for your progress to count towards the challenge. Although, Theme Deck battles can be frustrating in their own right for other reasons. lol

 

Good luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wise_Sage

This problem exists for years..  i thought that they should have points deducted if they quit. I think the best way to conquer the knockout challenge is by joining the tournament.  People tend to quit less.  But, I noticed that there are less people playing this game nowadays.  I had to wait more than 15 minutes because there aren’t enough people joining. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otakutron

The short version is that - based on how it hasn't changed - the Knock Out Challenge is supposed to take 10 to 20 games to complete.

 

Punishing people for quitting sounds tempting, until one remembers all those times their battery died, their wi-fi badly hiccuped, and other similar technical issues that result in someone quitting without meaning to.  Next you have real life getting in the way; should someone be punished because someone in the house suddenly needs their help?  Finally, a lot of folks just value being able to quit on a moment's notice.  I mean, if my opponent is intentionally dragging things out when they just need to attack to win, I prefer being able to freely concede.

 

TL;DR: The KO Challenge is supposed to be that hard, as it rewards you with a pack (eventually a Tradeable pack).  Penalizing people for quitting is tempting, but even as someone who thinks it is "wrong" to quit a game without a good reason... how does the PTCGO know when you've got a good reason to quit?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Akiowo

Well yeah I was thinking if people quit tons then it might be an idea. Battery and network failure and software errors are, generally speaking, extremely infrequent. As in, *most* of the time there aren't problems. Unless someone is always trying to play the game on data in a bad network zone I guess...
At the same time I would be comfortable estimating that people aren't constantly blasted with issues that take them away from games, such that *most* of the time you can actually sit and play a 10 minute match without being hassled. This doesn't really correlate to what I see in the game (sometimes) where with certain decks I play, far more often than not people quit unless they greatly outplay me in the first few turns.

Other games that come to mind that punish quitting, it is more like if you instantly quit 10 games in a row something happens. Don't game me wrong I even think the challenges could be made harder but for sure they need to be applicable to people who only play a few games now and then. I don't specifically have a problem with the length of the challenge so much as the huge difficulty of being able to actually complete a match. You say a challenge is *supposed* to take 20 games but that means they designed an aspect of the game to require you to not be able to finish matches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Felidae_

The biggest problem in my opinion is the whole idea of a “daily reward/quest”. Despite acquiring multiple quest slots while progressing through the levels, a lot of players (or at least those vocal on the forums) tend to forget that you don't have to complete those quests in a single day and you still get a new quest the following one.

We can all agree that they are a bit tedious to complete (not challenging for a difficulty reason, but more for a time consuming one) and the best solution would probably to grant the other player the remaining prize count in K.O.'s if the opponent leaves the game.

Then again, grinding is part of the nature of any TCG and from a developer aspect it would be odd to add a system that diminishes the time that players are “forced” to play the game every day (going back to my initial statement).

 

What I found works best is only to take a KO challenge for a type whose deck I'm currently playing on the ladder and then gather K.O.'s simply by playing the game. Sometimes I even forgot I had the challenge active and then its always a nice surprise when I get a booster out of the blue.

 

There is one thing that I've been preaching for years now and I will continue to do so: Have fun. If something is boring, tedious, or downright unpleasant then don't do it. For all that is worth a pack is worth less than 99cents (based on the money you'd spend for a code card on the secondary market).

So, if you spend 1 hour to grind with a deck that you don't like, just to complete the challenge (and clearly don't enjoy your time doing so), how about you spend an extra hour working, get yourself X booster instead, build the deck you want and enjoy the game how it is meant to be :).

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Akiowo

Yeah for sure if I am not playing a type I just wont pick a challenge for that type, unless there is no choice. Just to reiterate my issue was with people quitting. I have no beef with the challenges themselves really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XP_On

For me, the main problem is Daily Versus Reward.

Since start playing, i try to get this everyday to collect token and buy Deck

  1. Mistery Box
  2. Mistery Box
  3. 10 Tokens
  4. Mistery Box
  5. 20 Tokens
  6. 30 Tokens
  7. Mistery Box
  8. 50 Tokens
  9. Tournament Ticket
  10. 50 Tokens
  11. Mistery Box

my target is to get atleast 160 Tokens each day.... so when the games is a sure lost, i tend to quit. because i dont have 10+hours to play and get 10 or 11 win each day

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
srsrox

No way. If I'm playing a game and I know I'm going to lose, or if I don't want to play the deck you're using, then I'll quit. It should be my right. You get the win and reward anyways. The challenges should change though, but in real life, you can drop out, so it should be in this game without punishment.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otakutron

While you should be able to quit, srsrox said some questionable stuff... so I'm questioning it.  I may find out I am wrong, though. XD

 

14 hours ago, srsrox said:

You get the win and reward anyways.

 

Exactly, you're taking the one thing from your opponent you can; the satisfaction of actually finishing the game.  If you're quitting because you can't win, then you're not giving them the win or reward or anything like that.  You may be saving them time, however, ignoring the Daily Challenge side of things.

 

14 hours ago, srsrox said:

...but in real life, you can drop out, so it should be in this game without punishment. 

 

Is that true?  Remember that the Reward Ladder of the PTCGO is more like Pokémon League, not a tournament.  I mean, if it was a tournament, you'd be damaging your record so there is a penalty, just one you might be willing to pay.

 

I haven't been to Pokémon League in over a decade for various reasons.  I used to attend multiple official Pokémon Leagues back in the early 2000s, even running a few.  There were rules against conceding prematurely, to prevent someone from milking the League Rewards.  I don't know if this was official, or even permitted under the official rules, but that was the way it was.

 

At League, players were free to challenge whomever they wanted, which is also different from the PTCGO; maybe that justified the difference.  The thing is, if you were that kid who quit anytime you fell sufficiently behind, folks only challenged you if they thought you were an easy win: there wasn't enough time to waste on someone who couldn't commit to finishing the game, and we were there to play Pokémon! :)

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
srsrox
On 10/2/2019 at 10:01 AM, Otakutron said:

While you should be able to quit, srsrox said some questionable stuff... so I'm questioning it.  I may find out I am wrong, though. XD

 

 

Exactly, you're taking the one thing from your opponent you can; the satisfaction of actually finishing the game.  If you're quitting because you can't win, then you're not giving them the win or reward or anything like that.  You may be saving them time, however, ignoring the Daily Challenge side of things.

 

 

Is that true?  Remember that the Reward Ladder of the PTCGO is more like Pokémon League, not a tournament.  I mean, if it was a tournament, you'd be damaging your record so there is a penalty, just one you might be willing to pay.

 

I haven't been to Pokémon League in over a decade for various reasons.  I used to attend multiple official Pokémon Leagues back in the early 2000s, even running a few.  There were rules against conceding prematurely, to prevent someone from milking the League Rewards.  I don't know if this was official, or even permitted under the official rules, but that was the way it was.

 

At League, players were free to challenge whomever they wanted, which is also different from the PTCGO; maybe that justified the difference.  The thing is, if you were that kid who quit anytime you fell sufficiently behind, folks only challenged you if they thought you were an easy win: there wasn't enough time to waste on someone who couldn't commit to finishing the game, and we were there to play Pokémon! :)

 

Sorry man, and I mean this with respect, but I'm not going to play a full game because you want a specific type of satisfaction you crave. You won... that's the point of the game. I don't have to take a beating to make you feel good, in all due respect again. Honestly, I would feel bad if I was destroying someone or making them play when I know they can't win. Seems a bit harsh honestly. That can be quite despriting for your opponent.

 

Now if you want to finish a full game because of the Daily Challenges, that may more be an issue with those challenges than the matches. Maybe it does need changing. I'd love it if they would have more variety for example.

 

I dunno about you, but I play to play really good, close matches, not me destroying my opponent or them destroying me. As such, I shouldn't be forced to do the latter. And sometimes, I just don't want to test my deck against specific archetypes, either because it's redundant and boring (a BIG reason why for me), or because I know I'm going to thrash them or be thrashed. That's also boring.

 

Best to leave it as it is.

Edited by srsrox
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otakutron

@srsrox I've got to ask, how much of this thread did you read?  Relax, I'm not saying you only read the title and then posted an answer, but your response to my then most recent post seemed to ignore a lot of what I've said.  Including what was being said in that specific post (as opposed to overall). Edit: Which could just mean I ain't understanding you, right. /Edit

 

I originally was going to break it all down line by line, but it will be both more concise and courteous to just point out your argument hinges on your preferences and how you feel, while you disregard everyone else.  I don't like being robbed of the satisfaction of finishing a task (completing a game).  You don't like being bored by a game.  Where we differ is basic sportsmanship; both players can concede but recognize that they came here to play a game.  If it ends up going how they don't like, that doesn't mean they shouldn't finish.  Your opponents on the PTCGO are human.

 

Nor am I for any of the proposed changes, and doubt a workable solution would ever be found.  So we don't disagree there, even if we arrive at the same conclusion through very different routes.  I will point out that, if you feel so strongly about how matches should go, then you shouldn't be on the ladder; challenge folks directly so that your expectations can be met!  If I took some of the wording you used seriously, I'd be concerned about your mental health as tolerating the game for another minute or three when you truly cannot win shouldn't be so fearsome for you. ;)

Edited by Otakutron
Left out a line, making me sound worse than normal
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XP_On
5 hours ago, Otakutron said:

If it ends up going how they don't like, that doesn't mean they shouldn't finish.

I should think of this more...

 

i wish we can have a fuction to ask the opponent if he/she mind if we concede....

Edited by XP_On
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LMDragon

Maybe it's because I'm kind of new, but I find a game that I'm most likely losing exciting still. I'm watching the other player's moves, learning, maybe even getting impressed. 😀 And sometimes I actually win games I thought I was losing 😊, so I never quit. Maybe the other player think it's boring to watch me desperately trying to get back on track 😂, but hopefully not. 🤗

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
harshu
On 10/16/2019 at 4:55 AM, Otakutron said:

@srsrox I've got to ask, how much of this thread did you read?  Relax, I'm not saying you only read the title and then posted an answer, but your response to my then most recent post seemed to ignore a lot of what I've said.  Including what was being said in that specific post (as opposed to overall). Edit: Which could just mean I ain't understanding you, right. /Edit

 

I originally was going to break it all down line by line, but it will be both more concise and courteous to just point out your argument hinges on your preferences and how you feel, while you disregard everyone else.  I don't like being robbed of the satisfaction of finishing a task (completing a game).  You don't like being bored by a game.  Where we differ is basic sportsmanship; both players can concede but recognize that they came here to play a game.  If it ends up going how they don't like, that doesn't mean they shouldn't finish.  Your opponents on the PTCGO are human.

 

Nor am I for any of the proposed changes, and doubt a workable solution would ever be found.  So we don't disagree there, even if we arrive at the same conclusion through very different routes.  I will point out that, if you feel so strongly about how matches should go, then you shouldn't be on the ladder; challenge folks directly so that your expectations can be met!  If I took some of the wording you used seriously, I'd be concerned about your mental health as tolerating the game for another minute or three when you truly cannot win shouldn't be so fearsome for you. ;)

I haven't read most parts of the thread, but I read the post by srsrox and yours, and the original post.

 

While I support srsrox strongly, because fundamentally, this game is a place to practice how one would go about in the real world with those decks and a competitive player like him, who would love playing close matches rather than waste his time doing something else, and conceding for that seems completely acceptable. The point that he highlighted was - Maybe its the challenges that should change.

 

I don't know if you were there before ladder and daily challenges were not present. We didn't have linear daily wins ladder either. All we had was ranked matches (PvP), Testing decks against AI or Friendly matches against friends.

 

People never had problems in conceding back then. These threads only started because people wanted to earn a reward through challenges and were frustrated when they were robbed off from completing them. The point is, its the daily challenges that are flawed rather than the problem being conceding. Fundamentally, all players reserve the right to concede at any point of time and for any reason. This should never change. Its the daily challenges that should change if you don't want this kind of problem.

 

Personally speaking, all the additions of Ladder rewards, daily challenges, daily wins ladder are at first welcoming, but when you look at it overall. The environment in vs mode doesn't give that competitive vibe anymore. It all seems like people want to win as fast as possible and complete and get the rewards. It is a big reason why threads like these have started and why the chat was actually canned. Because people get frustrated on being robbed off from such rewards that they could have possibly achieved in less time.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XP_On
13 hours ago, LMDragon said:

Maybe it's because I'm kind of new, but I find a game that I'm most likely losing exciting still. I'm watching the other player's moves, learning, maybe even getting impressed. 😀 And sometimes I actually win games I thought I was losing 😊, so I never quit. Maybe the other player think it's boring to watch me desperately trying to get back on track 😂, but hopefully not. 🤗

i wish we can meet in a match someday..... will be fun game :D 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otakutron

@harshu Most folks may only take issue with opponent's up and quitting on them due to how it interferes with grinding out Daily Challenges, but I don't think so.

 

8 hours ago, harshu said:

I haven't read most parts of the thread, but I read the post by srsrox and yours, and the original post.

 

All of my posts in this thread, right? ;)  Yeah, I've got to ask because you never addressed a major aspect of what I've been discussing: gaming etiquette and netiquette.  Maybe you just don't think it worth commenting on, but at least let me know that so I stop bringing it up. XD

 

The Forums are a good indicator of what the players are concerned with, but we'd both need to actually sit down and sort through all the old threads and maybe even individual posts to see if what you said was true.  I certainly remember this being an issue the whole time I've been active here, but I didn't think I discovered the Forums right away.

 

I actually signed up for the PTCGO shortly after the open beta began but I couldn't really play because both my desktop and home internet connection weren't good enough at the time.  That changed near the end of May 2014.  I think Daily Challenges were introduced shortly after that, but I could be mistaken.

 

What I do know is that "rage-quit" dates back to at least 2005, well before the PTCGO.  Because it is a general gaming concern.  In fact, it predates the term; we just referred to it as poor sportsmanship before then.  The idea has long been that if you begin a game, you finish it barring extenuating circumstances.  Circumstances that do not include simply being tired of playing, unless your opponent agrees to quitting the game at that time as well.  Maybe that is the way it needs to be explained; both parties have to agree to beginning the game, so why is it so odd that at least some of us aren't happy that it ends at the whim of only one player?  Note: The game ending due to one player winning is still by mutual assent of the rules. ;)

 

To cut what would have been another long post short, I am not convinced Daily Challenges are the only reason some players dislike opponent's abruptly quitting on them.  "Rage-quit" isn't an ancient term, but it certainly predates the PTCGO because in general abruptly quitting just because you're losing isn't seen as a good thing.  The idea that it is poor sportsmanship is very old indeed.  I'm willing to consider that such a thing may be an old-fashioned idea... but I'm seeing anything suggesting that the vehement "I should be able to quit for any reason at any time without any consequences" crowd has entertained the notion that they could be wrong.

 

Oh, and so that I don't do what you dislike... I signed up for the PTCGO as soon as the open beta began, give or take a few days.  I could not regularly play, however, until May or June of 2014.  I think that just barely predates Daily Challenges.  I also don't remember if I was aware of the PTCGO forums, right away, either.

 

Anyway, I'm willing to consider that the notion is old-fashioned.  I just haven't heard a persuasive argument that it is.  Just as I've heard no workable solutions from the "Do something about it!" side of things.

Edited by Otakutron
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
harshu
4 minutes ago, Otakutron said:

@harshu Most folks may only take issue with opponent's up and quitting on them due to how it interferes with grinding out Daily Challenges, but I don't think so.

 

 

All of my posts in this thread, right? ;)  Yeah, I've got to ask because you never addressed a major aspect of what I've been discussing: gaming etiquette and netiquette.  Maybe you just don't think it worth commenting on, but at least let me know that so I stop bringing it up. XD

 

The Forums are a good indicator of what the players are concerned with, but we'd both need to actually sit down and sort through all the old threads and maybe even individual posts to see if what you said was true.  I certainly remember this being an issue the whole time I've been active here, but I didn't think I discovered the Forums right away.

 

I actually signed up for the PTCGO shortly after the open beta began but I couldn't really play because of both my desktop and home internet connection weren't good enough at the time.  That changed near the end of May 2014.  I think Daily Challenges were introduced shortly after that, but I could be mistaken.

 

What I do know is that "rage-quit" dates back to at least 2005, well before the PTCGO.  Because it is a general gaming concern.  In fact, it predates the term; we just referred to it as poor sportsmanship before then.  The idea has long been that if you begin a game, you finish it barring extenuating circumstances.  Circumstances that do not include simply being tired of playing, unless your opponent agrees to quitting the game at that time as well.  Maybe that is the way it needs to be explained; both parties have to agree to beginning the game, so why is it so odd that at least some of us aren't happy that it ends at the whim of only one player?  Note: The game ending due to one player winning is still by mutual assent of the rules. ;)

 

To cut what would have been another long post short, I am not convinced Daily Challenges are the only reason some players dislike opponent's abruptly quitting on them.  "Rage-quit" isn't an ancient term, but it certainly predates the PTCGO because in general abruptly quitting just because you're losing isn't seen as a good thing.  The idea that it is poor sportsmanship is very old indeed.  I'm willing to consider that such a thing may be an old-fashioned idea... but I'm seeing anything suggesting that the vehement "I should be able to quit for any reason at any time without any consequences" crowd has entertained the notion that they could be wrong.

 

Oh, and so that I don't do what you dislike... I signed up for the PTCGO as soon as the open beta began, give or take a few days.  I could not regularly play, however, until May or June of 2014.  I think that just barely predates Daily Challenges.  I also don't remember if I was aware of the PTCGO forums, right away, either.

I know you were talking about etiquette that I chose to ignore, because I felt ineligible to discuss it at first.

 

While good etiquettes should be observed. It doesn't mean that conceding a match until you reach the official "check-mate" state means that I am rage-quitting. It simply means, well I have nothing else to offer so that I can win. So I decide that you have bested me, which is basically conceding. Interpreting this as rage-quit would be completely wrong. I would associate rage-quit with games that involve more that 1 particular round where you have a chance of coming back, the next round when both parties start again from scratch or simply where game can turn around any minute, as in football.

 

However, in vs-mode when you have 1 particular round and you have type disadvantage and after turn 1, you know you don't have the best hands and considering your opponent is well setup, even if you knock something out, sometimes its just not possible to win the game. You know what your deck can possibly offer. You have seen how much your opponent is setup and what advantages he has on you. So basically at some point of time, you have already calculated that no matter how much your deck does from that turn, you still can't beat him to get a victory. So you know, that a check mate is inevitable. That is when you concede which would basically mean, oh well, I can't win, your setup was too strong in this match. Well played...

 

This also has the other side, when people quit specifically before the opponent attacks just to annoy them, but then there are also people who knowingly annoy people on a checkmate by prolonging their turns before the final attack (apart from players who are just making sure everything is right).

 

Rage-quit to me would be playing a football and knowing that you are 3-0 by the end of 20 minutes. Now you simply think, oh well I can't win by the end of the other 70 minutes because I don't want to try. Or when sort of equal decks are posed against each other in Best of 3, however, because you got beaten 6-0 in the first match, you don't want to try the second match.

 

Not trying, even when you have chances and conceding could be considered rage-quitting, but not when you don't have anything else than just playing out to what you already know is a defeat.

 

This is similar to chess - You lost an important piece on your board, but there is a chance of winning yet you quit without thinking much ca be considered rage quit. However, when you have calculated that the board position on turn 5 is already a trap you have fallen in and considering your opponent doesn't make mistake, it will lead to check mate no matter what you try. The end result of cancelling each others moves and counter attacks will lead to your defeat, simply means you can concede and at this point, opponent should consider that he has won.

 

Daily challenges were introduced after Primal clash. The Primal clash update was huge, and I remember daily challenges releasing after that.

 

Please forgive me for my grammar 😕

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otakutron
35 minutes ago, harshu said:

I know you were talking about etiquette that I chose to ignore, because I felt ineligible to discuss it at first.

 

I'm not sure why you felt ineligible, but thank you for explaining.  Also, sorry for the length, especially as I may be unable to respond for a few days due to family issues.  Using the last of my down time for this comment, I think.

 

36 minutes ago, harshu said:

While good etiquettes should be observed. It doesn't mean that conceding a match until you reach the official "check-mate" state means that I am rage-quitting. It simply means, well I have nothing else to offer so that I can win. So I decide that you have bested me, which is basically conceding. Interpreting this as rage-quit would be completely wrong. I would associate rage-quit with games that involve more that 1 particular round where you have a chance of coming back, the next round when both parties start again from scratch or simply where game can turn around any minute, as in football.

 

I am glad you brought up your definition of rage-quitting because it is your definition, not mine.  Nor does it match the common definition of the term.  I did try to avoid constantly labeling the act as "rage-quitting", since that obviously colors things, but pointing out that the act at least had at one time been seen in a negative light was relevant to the discussion.  Concession in a normal game requires your opponent accept your concession.  It is a simple but significant difference.  It doesn't matter whether or not you could turn things around, which is hard to actually know for certain, especially in the heat of the moment.

 

52 minutes ago, harshu said:

However, in vs-mode when you have 1 particular round and you have type disadvantage and after turn 1, you know you don't have the best hands and considering your opponent is well setup, even if you knock something out, sometimes its just not possible to win the game. You know what your deck can possibly offer. You have seen how much your opponent is setup and what advantages he has on you. So basically at some point of time, you have already calculated that no matter how much your deck does from that turn, you still can't beat him to get a victory. So you know, that a check mate is inevitable. That is when you concede which would basically mean, oh well, I can't win, your setup was too strong in this match. Well played...

 

Except this situation is very, very rare.  You need to know your opponent's deck (both total contents and current remaining cards), hand, discard pile, and Prizes.  Only one of these things is public knowledge in Pokémon.  None of the cards involved can have serious divergent outcomes based on variables like coin flips, or else all results have to still end with you losing.  You have to be certain your opponent can make no misplays.  Even if you know all these things, however, you're missing the point: the general understanding of both people agreeing to play a game is that they will play that game to completion, win or lose.  You both agreed to play the game, so you both ought to agree to end the game.  Which is what happens when one player achieves a win condition or when a player actually asks "Do you mind if I concede?".  Yeah, you can't ask that anymore, but that's part of the problem.

 

I mean, I do not usually understand an opponent's concession as translating to "Well played...".  That is actually what is meant by seeing the game through to the end! XD It may just be a matter of totally different standards, but abruptly quitting is meant as an insult in our circles.  If you're in a winning position it means "I'm bored and your not worth my time."  If you're losing it is "Yeah, I agreed to finish the game but you're not worth it."  I mean, in polite terms.  There are much simpler but not Forum-friendly ways to say it. >.>

 

58 minutes ago, harshu said:

This also has the other side, when people quit specifically before the opponent attacks just to annoy them, but then there are also people who knowingly annoy people on a checkmate by prolonging their turns before the final attack (apart from players who are just making sure everything is right).

 

That first bit is one aspect of rage quitting, yes.  You see it as a stark contrast.  Let us look at that last bit.  Someone intentionally eating up the clock is indeed seen as rude however, there are two other aspects of this to consider.  The first is if you can actually win through the clock.  It is part of the game, so some believe that is indeed fair; winning within the time limit is part of the rules.

 

There is another side of it as well.  Some folks consider it a sign of respect when their opponent's give it their all.  I don't feel that way but I do understand it.  In real life, as well as unofficial means of online play, you can usually reveal your hand, Prizes, etc. to your opponent when you lose, whether to say "See how close this was?" or "Wow, you had me totally beat!".  This is not an option for the PTCGO, so the closest equivalent is playing out your hand.  In a sense, it is seen as the "right" of the losing player.  The winning player doing that, however, is seen as "showboating".  Either way, it was seen as fine so long as your opponent agreed... sadly, no longer an option.

 

Oh, and again, this is ignoring the potential impact of Daily Challenges. ;)

 

1 hour ago, harshu said:

Rage-quit to me would be playing a football and knowing that you are 3-0 by the end of 20 minutes. Now you simply think, oh well I can't win by the end of the other 70 minutes because I don't want to try. Or when sort of equal decks are posed against each other in Best of 3, however, because you got beaten 6-0 in the first match, you don't want to try the second match.

 

Tournament play can affect whether or not those are examples of "Rage-quitting", but ignoring that then yeah, I would consider those examples of it.  However, I would also consider it rage quitting even if you were only down by one point, or if you only lost the first game by a single Prize, etc.  Just taking advantage of your example to stress the point, since I wanted to make sure you know I read this bit. ;)

 

1 hour ago, harshu said:

Not trying, even when you have chances and conceding could be considered rage-quitting, but not when you don't have anything else than just playing out to what you already know is a defeat.

 

Again, we just disagree.  When the only thing you can do to be rude is to be less polite, even being less polite can be seen as rude.  You agreed to see a game to its conclusion, you probably don't know for sure at this point you're going to lose or you do know but seeing it through requires just waiting another minute... when all you can do is deny this to your opponent, it isn't likely to be seen as a "Well played..." but an attempted insult.

 

1 hour ago, harshu said:

This is similar to chess - You lost an important piece on your board, but there is a chance of winning yet you quit without thinking much ca be considered rage quit. However, when you have calculated that the board position on turn 5 is already a trap you have fallen in and considering your opponent doesn't make mistake, it will lead to check mate no matter what you try. The end result of cancelling each others moves and counter attacks will lead to your defeat, simply means you can concede and at this point, opponent should consider that he has won. 

 

I've alluded to other games before, but this is where we have to be very aware of how chess isn't a TCG.

 

In chess, even in casual play, you can get to a point where even a draw is impossible without gross human error.  In Pokémon, you can usually only assume such is the case, because there are elements of luck not present in chess (blind card draws, coin flips, etc.) and the nature of one turn equals one move.  Which is why chess has special rules dedicated to these circumstances!

 

When we look at tournament player versus league play, the difference becomes even more pronounced.  As I said, playing on the Rewards Ladder is not like playing in a tournament, it is like playing at a Pokémon League.  Put them both together, and it would be akin to someone at the chess club almost always conceding when they lose their queen, even if they still have every other piece from their backfield, just because their opponent still has their queen and might be able to check (not put them into checkmate) the next turn.  People aren't just here to accumulate wins in the chess club, they're also here to play. :)  I understand you don't quite see it at that, and we could debate exactly what board setup equates to what between the two games.  There isn't really a good direct comparison, which is my main point; you can see what pieces each player has in play and where they are at on the board in chess.  Both players can see; that is rarely the case for Pokémon.

 

1 hour ago, harshu said:

Daily challenges were introduced after Primal clash. The Primal clash update was huge, and I remember daily challenges releasing after that.

 

Please forgive me for my grammar 😕

 

Thanks for mentioning there might be grammar issues.  I'll try to only bring them up if relevant and beg the same quarter.  Primal Clash officially released February of 2015, so yeah, I had longer than I thought without Daily Challenges. XP  Though I that does mean my memory is suspect, as I didn't remember it taking that long. XP

 

Thank you for having this discussion.  I don't need us to necessarily agree on conclusions so long as we can agree on facts, or at least agree to disagree on them while being open to further discussion.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
harshu
14 hours ago, Otakutron said:

 

I'm not sure why you felt ineligible, but thank you for explaining.  Also, sorry for the length, especially as I may be unable to respond for a few days due to family issues.  Using the last of my down time for this comment, I think.

 

 

I am glad you brought up your definition of rage-quitting because it is your definition, not mine.  Nor does it match the common definition of the term.  I did try to avoid constantly labeling the act as "rage-quitting", since that obviously colors things, but pointing out that the act at least had at one time been seen in a negative light was relevant to the discussion.  Concession in a normal game requires your opponent accept your concession.  It is a simple but significant difference.  It doesn't matter whether or not you could turn things around, which is hard to actually know for certain, especially in the heat of the moment.

 

 

Except this situation is very, very rare.  You need to know your opponent's deck (both total contents and current remaining cards), hand, discard pile, and Prizes.  Only one of these things is public knowledge in Pokémon.  None of the cards involved can have serious divergent outcomes based on variables like coin flips, or else all results have to still end with you losing.  You have to be certain your opponent can make no misplays.  Even if you know all these things, however, you're missing the point: the general understanding of both people agreeing to play a game is that they will play that game to completion, win or lose.  You both agreed to play the game, so you both ought to agree to end the game.  Which is what happens when one player achieves a win condition or when a player actually asks "Do you mind if I concede?".  Yeah, you can't ask that anymore, but that's part of the problem.

 

I mean, I do not usually understand an opponent's concession as translating to "Well played...".  That is actually what is meant by seeing the game through to the end! XD It may just be a matter of totally different standards, but abruptly quitting is meant as an insult in our circles.  If you're in a winning position it means "I'm bored and your not worth my time."  If you're losing it is "Yeah, I agreed to finish the game but you're not worth it."  I mean, in polite terms.  There are much simpler but not Forum-friendly ways to say it. >.>

 

 

That first bit is one aspect of rage quitting, yes.  You see it as a stark contrast.  Let us look at that last bit.  Someone intentionally eating up the clock is indeed seen as rude however, there are two other aspects of this to consider.  The first is if you can actually win through the clock.  It is part of the game, so some believe that is indeed fair; winning within the time limit is part of the rules.

 

There is another side of it as well.  Some folks consider it a sign of respect when their opponent's give it their all.  I don't feel that way but I do understand it.  In real life, as well as unofficial means of online play, you can usually reveal your hand, Prizes, etc. to your opponent when you lose, whether to say "See how close this was?" or "Wow, you had me totally beat!".  This is not an option for the PTCGO, so the closest equivalent is playing out your hand.  In a sense, it is seen as the "right" of the losing player.  The winning player doing that, however, is seen as "showboating".  Either way, it was seen as fine so long as your opponent agreed... sadly, no longer an option.

 

Oh, and again, this is ignoring the potential impact of Daily Challenges. ;)

 

 

Tournament play can affect whether or not those are examples of "Rage-quitting", but ignoring that then yeah, I would consider those examples of it.  However, I would also consider it rage quitting even if you were only down by one point, or if you only lost the first game by a single Prize, etc.  Just taking advantage of your example to stress the point, since I wanted to make sure you know I read this bit. ;)

 

 

Again, we just disagree.  When the only thing you can do to be rude is to be less polite, even being less polite can be seen as rude.  You agreed to see a game to its conclusion, you probably don't know for sure at this point you're going to lose or you do know but seeing it through requires just waiting another minute... when all you can do is deny this to your opponent, it isn't likely to be seen as a "Well played..." but an attempted insult.

 

 

I've alluded to other games before, but this is where we have to be very aware of how chess isn't a TCG.

 

In chess, even in casual play, you can get to a point where even a draw is impossible without gross human error.  In Pokémon, you can usually only assume such is the case, because there are elements of luck not present in chess (blind card draws, coin flips, etc.) and the nature of one turn equals one move.  Which is why chess has special rules dedicated to these circumstances!

 

When we look at tournament player versus league play, the difference becomes even more pronounced.  As I said, playing on the Rewards Ladder is not like playing in a tournament, it is like playing at a Pokémon League.  Put them both together, and it would be akin to someone at the chess club almost always conceding when they lose their queen, even if they still have every other piece from their backfield, just because their opponent still has their queen and might be able to check (not put them into checkmate) the next turn.  People aren't just here to accumulate wins in the chess club, they're also here to play. :)  I understand you don't quite see it at that, and we could debate exactly what board setup equates to what between the two games.  There isn't really a good direct comparison, which is my main point; you can see what pieces each player has in play and where they are at on the board in chess.  Both players can see; that is rarely the case for Pokémon.

 

 

Thanks for mentioning there might be grammar issues.  I'll try to only bring them up if relevant and beg the same quarter.  Primal Clash officially released February of 2015, so yeah, I had longer than I thought without Daily Challenges. XP  Though I that does mean my memory is suspect, as I didn't remember it taking that long. XP

 

Thank you for having this discussion.  I don't need us to necessarily agree on conclusions so long as we can agree on facts, or at least agree to disagree on them while being open to further discussion.

I will answer in highlights, because I feel if we go down deep in discussion, we might spend out time discussing something entirely different. I agree that out definitions of rage-quitting and how the process of accepting a premature defeats differ. To me, it doesn't require opponent's approval, to me, it simply means telling the opponent that he had me beaten was simple enough (not possbile without the in-game chat)

 

Since PTCGO is about luck, you have "assume" lots of things. Ruling human-error out and based on the board position, if you are lagging behind in the match, I feel it safe to assume that I lost, until its a tournament match/event match. For me ladder is not playing in a league, rather a practice arena where I would simply test my decks so I can play them in real events.

 

Because in a pokemon league, you don't simply grind matches for getting a reward or doing some daily challenges. You actually play to maintain a good record so you can finish in top spots and move to the next round or become the top of the division and win by most points and then take the prizes home. To me the point of this whole thread seems to be quitting because someone can complete his daily challenges. Doesn't ever happen in real life.

 

I simply compared chess to a definite PTCG board position, didn't compare its mechanics to TCG as a whole. I merely wanted to highlight that what is definite loss in chess, would be a possibility of 80-90% in PTCG for me. While, if I were in a serious tournament match, I would consider to play for the 10%. On ladder, I wouldn't waste that time in playing the match out and rather spend that time, tuning my deck, so I do not end in that position ever so often. For me, ladder matches are and always will be practice arenas and not serious matches.

 

In the end, we can agree to disagree :)

 

Have a good day !

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otakutron
7 hours ago, harshu said:

I will answer in highlights, because I feel if we go down deep in discussion, we might spend out time discussing something entirely different.

 

Good call.  I tried to follow your example, but I think I ended up addressing most of what you said.  Sorry. v_v I'd like to think it is because you stayed mostly on track and thus most of what you said was worth directly addressing.

 

7 hours ago, harshu said:

Since PTCGO is about luck, you have "assume" lots of things. Ruling human-error out and based on the board position, if you are lagging behind in the match, I feel it safe to assume that I lost, until its a tournament match/event match. For me ladder is not playing in a league, rather a practice arena where I would simply test my decks so I can play them in real events.

 

The PTCGO is about luck relative to what?  "Luck" is definitely a serious factor, but I don't think it is the deciding factor.  Then again, if luck is the deciding factor, wouldn't that mean you could rarely assume you'd already won or lost?  Part of playing in a league is practicing for events.  Well, it was when I attended League.

 

Seriously, wondering if Pokémon League is totally different from what it used to be, especially given...

 

8 hours ago, harshu said:

Because in a pokemon league, you don't simply grind matches for getting a reward or doing some daily challenges. You actually play to maintain a good record so you can finish in top spots and move to the next round or become the top of the division and win by most points and then take the prizes home. To me the point of this whole thread seems to be quitting because someone can complete his daily challenges. Doesn't ever happen in real life.

 

Yup, Pokémon League has totally changed.  Sorry about that.  I shouldn't be surprised, as I haven't been able to attend one in... wow... guess it has been 10 years.  For the nearly 10 years before that, however, League was about playing matches and slowly grinding your way to rewards.  There wasn't a bonus for having the top spot, or at least, it *********** most folks were after.  You would earn 10 points for a win and five points for a loss.  You just had to keep playing to earn that "Seasons" reward promo (which could be done twice per person).

 

Seriously, my apologies for assuming things had remained the same!  Hopefully, now that you know my outdated understanding of Pokémon League, some of my previous comments don't sound quite so confusing.

 

8 hours ago, harshu said:

I simply compared chess to a definite PTCG board position, didn't compare its mechanics to TCG as a whole. I merely wanted to highlight that what is definite loss in chess, would be a possibility of 80-90% in PTCG for me. While, if I were in a serious tournament match, I would consider to play for the 10%. On ladder, I wouldn't waste that time in playing the match out and rather spend that time, tuning my deck, so I do not end in that position ever so often. For me, ladder matches are and always will be practice arenas and not serious matches.

 

Thank you for clarifying.  I think this comes down to how I do not think you're wasting time in finishing out the game; you're honing skill and developing character.  It is still a part of practice to see things through, because if you are not as skilled as you think you are in predicting results, how will you know?

 

I know I've overused the term and its variants this post, but a serious issue in player comprehension I've regularly encountered is players not knowing how to beat [insert top deck] not because they lack general skill nor because their deck cannot win, but because they've assumed they can't that they never learned how it worked and how to best face off against it.  See complaints about Night March.  Especially recent complaints, and I've seen them as recently this year. @_@

 

Still, let us assume you're right.  In fact, let us assume you can predict who will win with 100% accuracy.  You're still not finishing the game.  It may just be a personality/communication thing.  Ever had someone who wanted to receive a verbal thank you for doing something for you?  It is a simple acknowledgement though it does take a few seconds.  Perhaps a better example is when you're showing courtesy when dealing with someone who works for you, directly or indirectly.  Yeah, I'm the kind of guy who at least tries to thank the waitstaff verbally, even if I am also leaving a tip.  Yes, they're just doing their job, but I value them doing their job out of more than just "Ugh, I have to serve this guy if I want to get paid.  Better put on a happy face!"

 

So, if none of this clears anything up, then you're right:

 

8 hours ago, harshu said:

In the end, we can agree to disagree :)

 

Have a good day !

 

You as well. :)

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fatcatz2007
On 9/23/2019 at 12:59 PM, Akiowo said:

Well yeah I was thinking if people quit tons then it might be an idea. Battery and network failure and software errors are, generally speaking, extremely infrequent. As in, *most* of the time there aren't problems. Unless someone is always trying to play the game on data in a bad network zone I guess...
At the same time I would be comfortable estimating that people aren't constantly blasted with issues that take them away from games, such that *most* of the time you can actually sit and play a 10 minute match without being hassled. This doesn't really correlate to what I see in the game (sometimes) where with certain decks I play, far more often than not people quit unless they greatly outplay me in the first few turns.

Other games that come to mind that punish quitting, it is more like if you instantly quit 10 games in a row something happens. Don't game me wrong I even think the challenges could be made harder but for sure they need to be applicable to people who only play a few games now and then. I don't specifically have a problem with the length of the challenge so much as the huge difficulty of being able to actually complete a match. You say a challenge is *supposed* to take 20 games but that means they designed an aspect of the game to require you to not be able to finish matches.

People arent conceding so you cant finish your challenge. No one wants to sit there losing for 5 minutes so you can complete your challenge and get one useless booster pack from a trash expansion!!! people dont know you are trying to do your challenge.  Some people have limited time so they dont want to play an entire match and get no reward in the end.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fatcatz2007
On 10/22/2019 at 8:20 AM, Otakutron said:

@harshu Most folks may only take issue with opponent's up and quitting on them due to how it interferes with grinding out Daily Challenges, but I don't think so.

 

 

 

 

What I do know is that "rage-quit" dates back to at least 2005, well before the PTCGO.  Because it is a general gaming concern.  In fact, it predates the term; we just referred to it as poor sportsmanship before then.  The idea has long been that if you begin a game, you finish it barring extenuating circumstances.  Circumstances that do not include simply being tired of playing, unless your opponent agrees to quitting the game at that time as well.  Maybe that is the way it needs to be explained; both parties have to agree to beginning the game, so why is it so odd that at least some of us aren't happy that it ends at the whim of only one player?  Note: The game ending due to one player winning is still by mutual assent of the rules. ;)

 

 

I may have misunderstood what you said but the people arent "rage quitting" They are trying to get the most out of thier time. Who would want to watch themself get brutally crushed by a reshizard becuase of a weakness. I agree with srsrox on this thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kodking

not sure what you people are complaining about, if people quit u get the rewards. if u trying to do a challenge just play another match, simple. people sometime dotn mean to quit but stuff happens like they need to get off, or their internet goes down, i have had to do that kind of thing a while now. some people are even just making it easier for both players, there is not point in continuing the match if one player has started off with a bad hand and cant get them selves out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fatcatz2007

oh sorry for posting, i did not realize it was over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...