Remove temporary ban on conceding

AnduinTryggva

As the bug where the party that won the match by the other player conceding did not receive the reward is fixed this temporary ban for queuing again should be removed or made significantly shorter. A match is usually decided during the early phase of a match and the discrepancy between the hands of both players just grow exponentially it is simply a waste of time to stay in a game just to avoid the time penalty.

rbfrgsp

Cool down should be a maximum of 2 minutes. Increasingly, the time I have to queue for match when logged on during the day on PCEU is on the 3-5 minute range, and I am sure this is because a large section of the playerbase is (correctly) conceding when a game is a lost cause, and the cooldown is thinning the player queue to barely a trickle.

tsaescishoeshiner

I've never conceded and never found a need to. I've played a lot of games where it seems like the opponent had an unbeatable advantage early on that wound up not being true, although a bit less often in Rubedite/top 100.

If you want a game to end as fast as possible, just keep looking like you're trying to win and they'll have to rush.

WitchyKiki

tsaescishoeshiner wrote: »

I've never conceded and never found a need to. I've played a lot of games where it seems like the opponent had an unbeatable advantage early on that wound up not being true, although a bit less often in Rubedite/top 100.

If you want a game to end as fast as possible, just keep looking like you're trying to win and they'll have to rush.

My game sometimes glitches and doesn't enter the match, so I have to log out. I get a penalty for that, otherwise conceding shouldnt carry that big of a timer. The game is supposed to be fun, and some matches are not fun.

Aggrovious

Yeah, a 10/15 minute deserter penalty is really stupid @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_RichLambert

I concede the match because my opponent clearly is ahead and just want to play a new match. So we either have to suffer for 10 more minutes or concede.

Hlaaluna

I never concede even when I know my cause is hopeless. You still learn and to be honest I don't want to rob my opponent of that lovely feeling we all get when we know we have the cat in the bag.

INM

I don't know any other 1v1 game that's punishing a player for conceding.

spartaxoxo

I used to be against this because this game has a leaderboard. But, I've since changed my mind. The reason being that the way the scoring is handled (and how difficult is to discern) means that a lot of people aren't really going for it. There's so many players that just get to Rubedite and then start doing casual queue. At the very least, casual queue shouldn't have the penalty timer.

WitchyKiki

Make the concede timer account bound!

Trenia

The easiest solution is to do the quest on multiple characters. Your rank is carried over between characters, but the penalty for leaving is not. The quest takes no time at all. Also, you can get many purple coffers daily doing this.

SilverBride

This is what I found when I looked up the word concede:

What does it mean to concede to someone?
to acknowledge as true, just, or proper; admit. He finally conceded that she was right. to acknowledge (an opponent's victory, score, etc.)

When we realize that there is no way we can win I find it sportsmanlike to admit this and concede the victory to our opponent. It is not an action that should be punished.

rbfrgsp

At least have a separate cooldown for ranked and unranked - or remove the cooldown from unranked altogether.

Come on, get it done. Conceding should be encouraged as the correct behaviour in friendly games that are an obvious lost cause.

birdmann1230

I would be less inclined to consider conceding matches if people played in some strategy other than patron-spamming to win before even half the points are achieved.

HalfDragoness

tsaescishoeshiner wrote: »

I've never conceded and never found a need to. I've played a lot of games where it seems like the opponent had an unbeatable advantage early on that wound up not being true, although a bit less often in Rubedite/top 100.

Lillutu wrote: »

I never concede even when I know my cause is hopeless. You still learn and to be honest I don't want to rob my opponent of that lovely feeling we all get when we know we have the cat in the bag.

Likewise I have never condeded a match, it can be frustrating or painful to loose but I want to at the very least pay attaention to what my opponent is doing so that I can learn from it. However my view on the time penalty is this:

If you concede towards the end of the game i.e when your opponent is above 40 and you are not, or if the match has been going on for 10-15 minutes there should be no time penalty for condeding.

SilverBride wrote: »

This is what I found when I looked up the word concede:

What does it mean to concede to someone?
to acknowledge as true, just, or proper; admit. He finally conceded that she was right. to acknowledge (an opponent's victory, score, etc.)

However there should be a time penalty for conceding at any other point, especially in the very early stages of the game.

I say this because I played against a person who's name I recognised because I'd played against them before and they used the infite crow (crows + reach king) tactic on me every time. Within my first two turns I picked two crow cards, leaving them with 0 crow cards and they raged and conceded the game. If there was no time penalty at all we would have considerably more instances of this. I mean sure I am glad of a free victory, but it didn't feel earned, and I certainly don't want to have ToT economy where players can instantly leave and then start queuing for a new game when they don't like the first few opening moves.

SilverBride

HalfDragoness wrote: »

...I certainly don't want to have ToT economy where players can instantly leave and then start queuing for a new game when they don't like the first few opening moves.

Why not? If a player knows in the first few turns that there is no way they can win, why not concede that the other player is the winner?

Conceding is not abandoning. Conceding is saying the opponent is winning the match and acknowledging the fact, just like when a boxer throws in the towel.

Why drag the game along in these cases?

HalfDragoness

SilverBride wrote: »

HalfDragoness wrote: »

...I certainly don't want to have ToT economy where players can instantly leave and then start queuing for a new game when they don't like the first few opening moves.

Why not? If a player knows in the first few turns that there is no way they can win, why not concede that the other player is the winner?

Conceding is not abandoning. Conceding is saying the opponent is winning the match and acknowledging the fact, just like when a boxer throws in the towel.

Why drag the game along in these cases?

Well in this case, it was a ranked match and the game had lasted less than 2 minutes. My opponent was annoyed I'd taken cards they wanted, and as I'd played against them before and they only used one strategy, I don't want a person to develop one strategy and then only play games where they get to use their strategy. It's akin to playing games with a young child where you feel like you have to let them win in order for the game to continue. Also, I had picked a total of 2 cards. They picked 1 card and on their second turn they conceded. There was so much more time for the game to go their way, maybe they would have learnt a new strategy... who knows...

Also you said, "if a player knows in the first few turns that there is no way to win", but there are so many ways you can win, just not the way you originally planned to win.

SilverBride

HalfDragoness wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

HalfDragoness wrote: »

...I certainly don't want to have ToT economy where players can instantly leave and then start queuing for a new game when they don't like the first few opening moves.

Why not? If a player knows in the first few turns that there is no way they can win, why not concede that the other player is the winner?

Conceding is not abandoning. Conceding is saying the opponent is winning the match and acknowledging the fact, just like when a boxer throws in the towel.

Why drag the game along in these cases?

Well in this case, it was a ranked match and the game had lasted less than 2 minutes. My opponent was annoyed I'd taken cards they wanted, and as I'd played against them before and they only used one strategy, I don't want a person to develop one strategy and then only play games where they get to use their strategy. It's akin to playing games with a young child where you feel like you have to let them win in order for the game to continue. Also, I had picked a total of 2 cards. They picked 1 card and on their second turn they conceded. There was so much more time for the game to go their way, maybe they would have learnt a new strategy... who knows...

Also you said, "if a player knows in the first few turns that there is no way to win", but there are so many ways you can win, just not the way you originally planned to win.

Players should not be penalized for conceding a match they know they can't win just because they may learn something if they keep playing. That is not a decision someone else can make for them.

HalfDragoness

SilverBride wrote: »

Players should not be penalized for conceding a match they know they can't win just because they may learn something if they keep playing. That is not a decision someone else can make for them.

I agree with you for non-ranked matches, but in ranked matches I guess we'll just have to disagree with each other.

Amottica

HalfDragoness wrote: »

tsaescishoeshiner wrote: »

I've never conceded and never found a need to. I've played a lot of games where it seems like the opponent had an unbeatable advantage early on that wound up not being true, although a bit less often in Rubedite/top 100.

Lillutu wrote: »

I never concede even when I know my cause is hopeless. You still learn and to be honest I don't want to rob my opponent of that lovely feeling we all get when we know we have the cat in the bag.

Likewise I have never condeded a match, it can be frustrating or painful to loose but I want to at the very least pay attaention to what my opponent is doing so that I can learn from it. However my view on the time penalty is this:

If you concede towards the end of the game i.e when your opponent is above 40 and you are not, or if the match has been going on for 10-15 minutes there should be no time penalty for condeding.

SilverBride wrote: »

This is what I found when I looked up the word concede:

What does it mean to concede to someone?
to acknowledge as true, just, or proper; admit. He finally conceded that she was right. to acknowledge (an opponent's victory, score, etc.)

However there should be a time penalty for conceding at any other point, especially in the very early stages of the game.

I say this because I played against a person who's name I recognised because I'd played against them before and they used the infite crow (crows + reach king) tactic on me every time. Within my first two turns I picked two crow cards, leaving them with 0 crow cards and they raged and conceded the game. If there was no time penalty at all we would have considerably more instances of this. I mean sure I am glad of a free victory, but it didn't feel earned, and I certainly don't want to have ToT economy where players can instantly leave and then start queuing for a new game when they don't like the first few opening moves.

I agree that there should be a lockout timer, without exception, for abandoning any type of match be it BG, GF dungeons, or the card game.

You make a good point about how it would be done. The timer starts from the match begins, not when the person abandoned the match and that should also be account bound.

This is something that I expect everyone can get behind as it means that if someone quits early on they did not give the match a chance and it is that type of play style that needs to be curtailed. A player who sticks it out for at least a few minutes would not receive the penalty because they actually gave the match a chance.

DragonRacer

Admittedly, sometimes real life can cause a concession and you’d have no way to realize.

We recently got a puppy. Despite her having recently pottied outside, I was in a nice competitive match midway through when she started sniffing around, whining, and acting like she might need to go out again. As a responsible adult who needed to attend to that situation (when I thought I had time for a match) and didn’t want my opponent to sit through 1.5 minutes of timer while I went AFK for who knows how long each time in a match I would now be doomed to lose, I conceded and ran my puppy outside.

Also, my Internet loves to be sketchy occasionally and I’ll find myself midmatch being kicked to the main ESO screen. Despite all my other devices having fine wireless connection and despite my ability to play Red Dead Online for hours upon hours without a disconnect… ESO seems pickier, I guess, about bandwidth or whatever. I can only imagine my disconnect looks like a concession to my opponent (when I log back in, I can’t queue back up thanks to the penalty timer), even if I didn’t CHOOSE to concede.

Your Crow conceder may have rage-conceded after 2 minutes. Or their Internet or power might have flickered. Or their child cried out for help. Or their mother sitting in the hospital with their father called. The possibilities are endless.

SilverBride

HalfDragoness wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Players should not be penalized for conceding a match they know they can't win just because they may learn something if they keep playing. That is not a decision someone else can make for them.

I agree with you for non-ranked matches, but in ranked matches I guess we'll just have to disagree with each other.

It doesn't really matter anyway because I quit playing. I tried just playing NPCs but there is no challenge there. And I won't play other players unless they fix the ranking system.

AnduinTryggva

HalfDragoness wrote: »

tsaescishoeshiner wrote: »

I've never conceded and never found a need to. I've played a lot of games where it seems like the opponent had an unbeatable advantage early on that wound up not being true, although a bit less often in Rubedite/top 100.

Lillutu wrote: »

I never concede even when I know my cause is hopeless. You still learn and to be honest I don't want to rob my opponent of that lovely feeling we all get when we know we have the cat in the bag.

Likewise I have never condeded a match, it can be frustrating or painful to loose but I want to at the very least pay attaention to what my opponent is doing so that I can learn from it. However my view on the time penalty is this:

If you concede towards the end of the game i.e when your opponent is above 40 and you are not, or if the match has been going on for 10-15 minutes there should be no time penalty for condeding.

SilverBride wrote: »

This is what I found when I looked up the word concede:

What does it mean to concede to someone?
to acknowledge as true, just, or proper; admit. He finally conceded that she was right. to acknowledge (an opponent's victory, score, etc.)

However there should be a time penalty for conceding at any other point, especially in the very early stages of the game.

I say this because I played against a person who's name I recognised because I'd played against them before and they used the infite crow (crows + reach king) tactic on me every time. Within my first two turns I picked two crow cards, leaving them with 0 crow cards and they raged and conceded the game. If there was no time penalty at all we would have considerably more instances of this. I mean sure I am glad of a free victory, but it didn't feel earned, and I certainly don't want to have ToT economy where players can instantly leave and then start queuing for a new game when they don't like the first few opening moves.

I have to say I concede matches when I realize that due to some lucky picks my opponent has an advantage that is almost impossible to beat. This is how ToT currently works: Some decks, and Crow is the most prone to this, can decide a match from the early stages. It is from that point just a waste of time.

However, I deny that I concede on a rage It is just the wish to not be forced to play a match which outcome is already fixed. It's like watching a soccer game when one team is leading by 7 goals in 15 min. Just an utter waste of time that can be spent on other things like questing, crafting or whatever.

This is why I think conceding should ideally come at zero penalty. Specifically for ranked matches as ranked matches only are about winning points to climb up in the leaderboard and above all not played just for the fun of playing. There is no disadvantage for the winning player after a conceded match so I don't see why there should be a penalty for the player recognizing early that he has lost that match. It just does not make sense.

For unranked matches: These I play purely for the fun of playing and I have never conceded a match there.

AnduinTryggva

HalfDragoness wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

HalfDragoness wrote: »

...I certainly don't want to have ToT economy where players can instantly leave and then start queuing for a new game when they don't like the first few opening moves.

Why not? If a player knows in the first few turns that there is no way they can win, why not concede that the other player is the winner?

Conceding is not abandoning. Conceding is saying the opponent is winning the match and acknowledging the fact, just like when a boxer throws in the towel.

Why drag the game along in these cases?

Well in this case, it was a ranked match and the game had lasted less than 2 minutes. My opponent was annoyed I'd taken cards they wanted, and as I'd played against them before and they only used one strategy, I don't want a person to develop one strategy and then only play games where they get to use their strategy. It's akin to playing games with a young child where you feel like you have to let them win in order for the game to continue. Also, I had picked a total of 2 cards. They picked 1 card and on their second turn they conceded. There was so much more time for the game to go their way, maybe they would have learnt a new strategy... who knows...

Also you said, "if a player knows in the first few turns that there is no way to win", but there are so many ways you can win, just not the way you originally planned to win.

Sorry but it is not up to you to "educate" other people how they should play according to you. This is pretty condescending in my oppinion. Please reconsider the way how you see other players.

BTW I also concede sometimes when real life requires me to stop a match mid-way. So also stop projecting motivations into other players.

loosej

HalfDragoness wrote: »

If you concede towards the end of the game i.e when your opponent is above 40 and you are not, or if the match has been going on for 10-15 minutes there should be no time penalty for condeding.

Just wanted to point out that if you concede the match after 10 minutes, there is no time penalty. But it's annoying that the game doesn't mention this anywhere, and that you need an addon to see how much time has passed.

AnduinTryggva

To be honest I still don't see why there should be a time penalty on conceding whenever, specifically in a ranked game.

For ranked game what really matters is that the winner gets the points. So why force ppl to waste time on a game already lost.

There is already the penalty that a conceded match counts as lost (currently going along with point losses) and no box is given. Why add a second punishment?

Necrotech_Master

against npc matches, i dont concede even if im in a bad spot because i would get no reward at all instead of a losing purse which still has mats and stuff in it

i dont know what its like in pvp matches because ive only played 13 of them and never conceded any of them lol (i also dont think anyone of my opponents conceded against me either lol)