Reporting conceding players in ToT

Punches_Below_Belt

Does anyone know if ZOS is banning players who concede rather than lose as an effort to deny other players points towards ranking. This needs to be fixed. Every spoiled-sport is just conceding on the last round. I’m winning but making no progress.

redspecter23

I think it would be a higher priority to fix the bug that punishes the winner when someone concedes. Conceding should be a legitimate way to end the game. Punishing players that concede is not the answer. Fixing the broken system is.

MidniteOwl1913

I won't play against other people until this issue is addressed. It's a long game and when it's clear that one person has won, dragging it out is punishing *both* parties for no good reason.

kwinter

Since conceding is option that players have I don’t see how ZOS can ban players for it that would make no sense.

Holycannoli

redspecter23 wrote: »

I think it would be a higher priority to fix the bug that punishes the winner when someone concedes. Conceding should be a legitimate way to end the game. Punishing players that concede is not the answer. Fixing the broken system is.

How is this still not fixed is the question. Conceding should = automatic win for opponent.

redspecter23

Holycannoli wrote: »

redspecter23 wrote: »

I think it would be a higher priority to fix the bug that punishes the winner when someone concedes. Conceding should be a legitimate way to end the game. Punishing players that concede is not the answer. Fixing the broken system is.

How is this still not fixed is the question. Conceding should = automatic win for opponent.

I guess it's just not a high priority. I have my fun with Tribute, but it's really hard to take it seriously because of issues like this.

Holycannoli

redspecter23 wrote: »

I guess it's just not a high priority. I have my fun with Tribute, but it's really hard to take it seriously because of issues like this.

Nope, nerfing everything is.

maximusrex45

Holycannoli wrote: »

redspecter23 wrote: »

I think it would be a higher priority to fix the bug that punishes the winner when someone concedes. Conceding should be a legitimate way to end the game. Punishing players that concede is not the answer. Fixing the broken system is.

How is this still not fixed is the question. Conceding should = automatic win for opponent.

Because they don't want Win trading, that said if a match goes on for a certain number of rounds it should award the other party the win and all rewards.

redspecter23

maximusrex45 wrote: »

Holycannoli wrote: »

redspecter23 wrote: »

I think it would be a higher priority to fix the bug that punishes the winner when someone concedes. Conceding should be a legitimate way to end the game. Punishing players that concede is not the answer. Fixing the broken system is.

How is this still not fixed is the question. Conceding should = automatic win for opponent.

Because they don't want Win trading, that said if a match goes on for a certain number of rounds it should award the other party the win and all rewards.

This is an issue where the "fix" is worse than the perceived problem. ZOS doesn't want win trading (fair enough) but the fix they implement punishes the winner when anyone concedes. That's a ludicrous fix if it's intended to work that way.

Punches_Below_Belt

So sick of the emotionally arrested ruining things in real life and ESO. They would rather break the game than lose by the rules. Grow up and stop trying to con your way to success.

redspecter23

Punches_Below_Belt wrote: »

So sick of the emotionally arrested ruining things in real life and ESO. They would rather break the game than lose by the rules. Grow up and stop trying to con your way to success.

You're placing the blame in the wrong place. Players conceding is them using a game mechanic ZOS has implemented. Conceding shouldn't be seen as emotionally arrested behavior. The bug is on ZOS to fix and it should be given higher priority than it currently has.

Neoauspex

They should set it so you can't concede after a certain amount of turns or total prestige etc. Only time I ever concede is when my opponent gets super lucky in the first few turns and it's just a waste of time to try to overcome it.

redspecter23

Neoauspex wrote: »

They should set it so you can't concede after a certain amount of turns or total prestige etc. Only time I ever concede is when my opponent gets super lucky in the first few turns and it's just a waste of time to try to overcome it.

Conceding is not an inherently bad act. It should never be removed as an option to end the game. The fix isn't to remove the option to concede (even if only at certain points). The fix is to remove the penalty to the winner when an opponent concedes.

cyclonus11

There's literally a button that says CONCEDE. Why would ZOS ban someone for pressing a button that they put in the game?

Also, if I'm getting pummeled with no way out, I'm not going to waste everyone's time by continuing to take it.

Ratzkifal

The reason conceding is being punished is because you can farm rewards against your friends that way, right? Then... why not just stop giving rewards for friendly matches? Does ZOS really have that little confidence in their own product that they believe nobody is going to play it if there aren't rewards? Is the game not fun on its own?

amgame308_ESO

Didn’t know conceding punished the winner. Losing is brutal. I’ve been up to rank 26 then lost a few in a row. Some good players out there. The design of the game is pretty good but I think there should have been a side bar deck you could choose to add yourself. 3 to 5 cards with a cost of less than 3 or 4. Some of the 3 or 4 cards are just too good early on turn 1 and 2.

redspecter23

Ratzkifal wrote: »

The reason conceding is being punished is because you can farm rewards against your friends that way, right? Then... why not just stop giving rewards for friendly matches? Does ZOS really have that little confidence in their own product that they believe nobody is going to play it if there aren't rewards? Is the game not fun on its own?

You don't get rewards for friendly matches. Only the queue and NPC matches give reward coffers.

If it's an issue, they can either remove the defeat box upon concession or tie it to time played so that if the match goes over X minutes (5 minutes perhaps?) then you qualify for defeat rewards.

Ratzkifal

redspecter23 wrote: »

Ratzkifal wrote: »

The reason conceding is being punished is because you can farm rewards against your friends that way, right? Then... why not just stop giving rewards for friendly matches? Does ZOS really have that little confidence in their own product that they believe nobody is going to play it if there aren't rewards? Is the game not fun on its own?

You don't get rewards for friendly matches. Only the queue and NPC matches give reward coffers.

If it's an issue, they can either remove the defeat box upon concession or tie it to time played so that if the match goes over X minutes (5 minutes perhaps?) then you qualify for defeat rewards.

Well then it makes no sense at all. I haven't even played a single match of it because I wanted tavern minigames not this.

ZOS_Hadeostry

Greetings,

After further review we have decided to move this thread to a category we think is more appropriate for this topic.

Thank you for your understanding

SeaGtGruff

redspecter23 wrote: »

Punches_Below_Belt wrote: »

So sick of the emotionally arrested ruining things in real life and ESO. They would rather break the game than lose by the rules. Grow up and stop trying to con your way to success.

You're placing the blame in the wrong place. Players conceding is them using a game mechanic ZOS has implemented. Conceding shouldn't be seen as emotionally arrested behavior. The bug is on ZOS to fix and it should be given higher priority than it currently has.

Agreed that conceding was included as a way for an obviously-losing player to forfeit the game without having it be painfully dragged out, and should not be seen as an attempt to "con" anyone. But as far as where the "blame" lies, it should actually be placed on those members of the playerbase who took the legitimate option of forfeiting the game and used it as an exploit to help boost other players' rankings through "win trading." That has placed ZOS in the unenviable position of having to basically punish the potential winners to keep a legitimate option from being abused as an exploit.

KefkaGestahl

I admit to doing it. I embrace it. Because I only do it if my opponent is being a poor sport, like not ending a match when they had a chance. I played against somebody who was about to reach 40 power when I only had 6 power. It was a terrible game. However, instead of reaching 40 power, they instead spent two power to activate Hunding, causing their turn to end at 39 power. They were toying with me, so I conceded.

I'll also concede against people who do nothing but spam orgnum, and gladly whisper them to tell them I don't waste my time playing orgnum spammers.

tomofhyrule

At least the concessions not counting for quests will be fixed when 8.1.0 goes live:

Dueling Tribute: Fixed an issue that prevented you from receiving quest credit in ranked matches where your opponent concedes.

DinoZavr

Please, excuse my being rude, but how on Nirn should we report our fellow-players for using the in-game feature?
Yes, i understand bought wins, bit there are carries, which are quite legal.
ZOS has logs, please, let them decide. I would never report my opponents for conceding, though sometimes this hurts me.
Just conceding should be made fair by game-makers, as now it is not OKay.

redspecter23

SeaGtGruff wrote: »

redspecter23 wrote: »

Punches_Below_Belt wrote: »

So sick of the emotionally arrested ruining things in real life and ESO. They would rather break the game than lose by the rules. Grow up and stop trying to con your way to success.

You're placing the blame in the wrong place. Players conceding is them using a game mechanic ZOS has implemented. Conceding shouldn't be seen as emotionally arrested behavior. The bug is on ZOS to fix and it should be given higher priority than it currently has.

Agreed that conceding was included as a way for an obviously-losing player to forfeit the game without having it be painfully dragged out, and should not be seen as an attempt to "con" anyone. But as far as where the "blame" lies, it should actually be placed on those members of the playerbase who took the legitimate option of forfeiting the game and used it as an exploit to help boost other players' rankings through "win trading." That has placed ZOS in the unenviable position of having to basically punish the potential winners to keep a legitimate option from being abused as an exploit.

I'm not familiar with that particular exploit, but certainly there must be a better way to fix it than penalizing all winners for any concession by an opponent. That just creates another whole situation where people can actively troll by conceding once they are aware that it will punish their opponent. Like I mentioned earlier, if this is an intentional solution to a problem, it's a situation where the fix does nothing but shift the issue to a different source.

Personofsecrets

I've been conceding most of the games that I lose. It's reflex from playing real card games for years. That's just how things are done.

Largomets

I imagine this is the scenario people are talking about in this thread. I was going to push over 80 and win the game after a long game with multiple overtimes, but rather than "allowing" me to win, this butt-hurt person conceded so that I won, but via their conceded on the last turn.

In all honesty, I didn't even realize that this meant I didn't get credit for the win. I assumed I still got credit and moved up the leaderboards and they still lost points. Are people saying that by this person conceding, they "undid" the match and neither of us went up or down? If that's true, that needs to be addressed ASAP, because being able to skirt around any and all losses by conceding will just let people game their way up the leaderboard by only registering "wins" and conceding to any "lose" to avoid any movement downward.

PinkApple

Largomets wrote: »

I imagine this is the scenario people are talking about in this thread. I was going to push over 80 and win the game after a long game with multiple overtimes, but rather than "allowing" me to win, this butt-hurt person conceded so that I won, but via their conceded on the last turn.

In all honesty, I didn't even realize that this meant I didn't get credit for the win. I assumed I still got credit and moved up the leaderboards and they still lost points. Are people saying that by this person conceding, they "undid" the match and neither of us went up or down? If that's true, that needs to be addressed ASAP, because being able to skirt around any and all losses by conceding will just let people game their way up the leaderboard by only registering "wins" and conceding to any "lose" to avoid any movement downward.

You still gain/lose leaderboard points, but it does not count towards the daily quest to win 3 matches versus players.

A fix is also already on PTS I believe.

AnduinTryggva

I think you should not report players for a reason of disoptimal programming by ZON

Largomets

TalesOfTribute wrote: »

Largomets wrote: »

I imagine this is the scenario people are talking about in this thread. I was going to push over 80 and win the game after a long game with multiple overtimes, but rather than "allowing" me to win, this butt-hurt person conceded so that I won, but via their conceded on the last turn.

In all honesty, I didn't even realize that this meant I didn't get credit for the win. I assumed I still got credit and moved up the leaderboards and they still lost points. Are people saying that by this person conceding, they "undid" the match and neither of us went up or down? If that's true, that needs to be addressed ASAP, because being able to skirt around any and all losses by conceding will just let people game their way up the leaderboard by only registering "wins" and conceding to any "lose" to avoid any movement downward.

You still gain/lose leaderboard points, but it does not count towards the daily quest to win 3 matches versus players.

A fix is also already on PTS I believe.

Oh well then I don't care if people are petty and I'm back to finding it cringe but not game breaking. As long as it can't be used to game the leaderboard, and the daily quest portion is already being fixed, it's a non-issue for me.

I've conceded a few matches where it was very clear I would not win, but I don't use the "concede" button usually, but rather play 1 coin and hit the hour glass to signal my intent to resign so that I don't have the cooldown for conceding. My goal is to save us both time and move on, rather than drag out a scenario where I will clearly not win. I've seen other players do the same and I really like the informal "I admit this is done please end it" that the community seems to understand here.

Fennwitty

KefkaGestahl wrote: »

...However, instead of reaching 40 power, they instead spent two power to activate Hunding, causing their turn to end at 39 power. They were toying with me, so I conceded.

I've done similar things -- used a Patron unnecessarily. But not from malice, only from 'brain fart' and not paying attention to the actual score.

If you get 40 but expect your next hand won't be competitive, it often makes sense to delay the sudden death phase until you're in a stronger position to defend your win.

Sucks to get 40/41 points then your opponent has a good hand and overtakes you when you can't fight them on it.

Largomets

Fennwitty wrote: »

KefkaGestahl wrote: »

...However, instead of reaching 40 power, they instead spent two power to activate Hunding, causing their turn to end at 39 power. They were toying with me, so I conceded.

I've done similar things -- used a Patron unnecessarily. But not from malice, only from 'brain fart' and not paying attention to the actual score.

If you get 40 but expect your next hand won't be competitive, it often makes sense to delay the sudden death phase until you're in a stronger position to defend your win.

Sucks to get 40/41 points then your opponent has a good hand and overtakes you when you can't fight them on it.

+1 on this. I've had scenarios where turning the crow dials pushes me well over the 40 limit and would force the "win check," but decided against it because if they can overtake, not only is my hand weaker but now I can be "locked out" of using the crow dial as an "execute." If I'm playing someone good and we're having an even REMOTELY competitive match, I try not to go all-out on irreversible options unless it's a "do or die" hand for me.

When I see a player avoiding the "obvious" move and doing something less obvious but tactical, my thought is usually not malice, but "yup, that's someone that's been burned before" lol.