Voiding the outcomes of short games

[phoenixffyrnig]

How exactly does this work? I can appreciate why this is in place, to counter gem scamming, but it seems to be being abused in other ways and is punishing the innocent party while the transgressor actually gains from it. Players are quitting early to void their bad result whilst also nullifying the impending win for the opposition.

It's remarkable how many times a player in a poor position will resign just before turn 20...or even earlier if things look bad! A cynic might say they are trying to skew their stats. Seems unfair that they get to chalk off a loss while the survivor loses a victory.

What about gems wagered too? The game "winner" doesn't gain any - does the quitter lose theirs, or do they get their stake back for free? If the latter, again, doesn't seem right to me, it's like having a free buy-back.

Can I suggest putting a block on resigning until turn 20 since it is really only ever used for cutting and running?

[Aral_Yaren]

Can it also be possible the minimal "win counter" decreased to 6 turns? That's enough tun tolerating early quicker, mainly in small map like the case.

[phoenixffyrnig]

Noticed by DrearyDragon (not on forum)

"If you kick someone out before turn twenty. You still keep there gems if you win. You resign in there name so it shouldn't be any different if they resign on there own before 20"

Yeah, a shameless necro on my part, but I'm taking advantage of his observation to highlight an incongruence, whilst also restating that it seems like we have a readily abused situation that could easily be fixed.

[b2198]

Is it really a necro if the last post was made less than a month ago?

Also personally I think we shouldn't be disencouraged from necro-ing posts that weren't closed, because they might still be useful, and it's not like they were completely rejected, just that not enough attention has gone to them at that moment.

...Though I probably am very biased here, since I necro quite often


On the topic at hand: Wait, gems are not awarded when winning in less than 20 turns? o.O If that's the case, then yeah, this should probably be changed. I also agree on still counting the victory for the winner in this case.

Maybe it should check for a minimum amount of turns played by human players, instead of simply by turns played in general? This new number being much lower than 20, of course. Probably somewhere around 4 to 10, based on map size?

[Endru1241]

There are no rules about necroing in the forum.

On the contrary - it's encouraged in many cases.
If topic is related to anything that didn't change since topic last posts - why would there be any need to create new one.

I'd say it's even more than that - in case of any game changes, new units, techs, etc. it's actually forbidden to not necro (forum rule - don't create topic when the same or similar proposition already exists).

Digging up, necroing is the term that's relevant only to dynamic forums, like ones asking for help.

On the topic:
I am not multiplayer specialist, but isn't 4 turns too short?
Even 7 is quite unbelivable.
Which map and situation can allow something like that?

I could agree that 20 turns may be too long for small maps, but that can be going to the other extreme.

[b2198]

There are no rules about necroing in the forum.

On the contrary - it's encouraged in many cases.
If topic is related to anything that didn't change since topic last posts - why would there be any need to create new one.

I'd say it's even more than that - in case of any game changes, new units, techs, etc. it's actually forbidden to not necro (forum rule - don't create topic when the same or similar proposition already exists).

Digging up, necroing is the term that's relevant only to dynamic forums, like ones asking for help.

That makes sense.

On the topic:
I am not multiplayer specialist, but isn't 4 turns too short?
Even 7 is quite unbelivable.
Which map and situation can allow something like that?

I could agree that 20 turns may be too long for small maps, but that can be going to the other extreme.

A lot of my games in maps of size 20x20 and smaller are decided by turn ~5-6 (not finished already, but when you have double the amount of units and TCs as your opponent, I'd usually call the game decided unless it is against phoenix), sometimes even 4 (usually when I'm against a newer player, against experienced players it usually lasts longer, I'd say in those cases the game might be decided by turn ~10-20 in these small maps). Of course this is in case of a 1v1, so it would have to be adjusted for more players (2*player count?), as they usually last longer because in FFAs the added chaos usually prevents quick wins, and in team games teammates can cover for each other's weaknesses.

[makazuwr32]

I know in aof several random maps on which in case of bad tc gen you and opponent can spawn within like 4 tiles from each other.

And ofc if you have bad race (you as scalefolks vs orcs for example or you as dwarf vs elves) or make even single mistake your opponent can wipe you off the map within 5 turns.

[DreJaDe]

In my 30x30 game, it's mostly done on the 20-30 turns but the deciding factor is mostly in the first 10-20 turns.

I think, having the 20 counts is kinda absurd. Some of my games aren't even being recorded.

[KingOfTheSilverlands]

I agree with Phoenix.