PDA

View Full Version : Opponent leaves the game to hinder promotion



Morgenstern72
03-02-2013, 03:16 PM
Maybe it's just coincidence, but now three times an opponent just left the battlefield when I was to promote a unit with the next hit. It's nice that I just win the game but promotion goes painfully slow for new units in a high rank team (like 3 raiders in a rank 3 team).

Would it be ok to distribute at last halve the kills not done before leaving the battlefield to the weakest units?

Flickerdart
03-02-2013, 03:36 PM
It seems like a lot of effort to remember how many kills people's units have and then screw yourself out of rating and renown just to spite the opponent.

Jorgensager
03-02-2013, 04:15 PM
I'm thinking it would greatly devalue the 5-kill experienced units if you could distribute kills in that way.

Besides your opponent surrenders, so it wouldn't make sense logically if the units were experienced and ready for promotion after seeing a couple of opponents surrender ;p (no, this is not an important part of the argument... take it as a side note)

Maybe expand your barracks and play with a power 1 team or so? Doesn't hurt to have backup units to promote if you decide to try out a new build later!


It seems like a lot of effort to remember how many kills people's units have and then screw yourself out of rating and renown just to spite the opponent.

^_^

KRD
03-02-2013, 09:35 PM
I would argue that seeing their foes flee the battlefield time and time again as a result of their early dominance would at the very least do their confidence a world of good. :p

I've now won five battles and both my raider and shieldbanger are yet to chalk any skulls on the board, in significant part due to opponents surrendering at the first sight of things turning grim for them, so count this post as my vote in favour of somehow distributing the "kills".

Leaving them up to the player to distribute would probably clutter the interface a bit too much, while automatically assigning them all to a single character might still be a bit too convenient if it's the one that needs them most, so how about simply distributing them evenly, one to each participant of the battle on the winning side? Ideally, you'd probably want to call them something other than kills then, but they weren't actual kills in the first place, were they? It's more a matter of knocking the opposition unconscious, or so I like to believe!

Reinios
03-02-2013, 11:16 PM
No one does this. Surrendering a match loses you any possible renown. No one cares about how many kills your guys have. What possible reason exists for someone to do that? You're paranoid. It's just a coincidence.

PS: If there was ANY reason for people to surrender matches, I would agree with you for renown or kills for remaining enemies. I only saw people surrender when I was new and matched with new people; they probably didn't know surrendering forfeits everything from the match. I imagine you might see surrendering if it becomes obvious to your opponent early they're going to lose, or if the guy just has other places to be. So maybe.

Morgenstern72
03-03-2013, 06:43 AM
I just switchwd to a rank 1 team to promote my raiders. Which brings the new problem of newbies matchmaked with me getting completely frustrated. And with rank 1 I only got newbies...

Whatever, it works this way. Still would like to see ONE kill for the weakest unit when an opponent flees.

Jorgensager
03-03-2013, 07:07 AM
I would argue that seeing their foes flee the battlefield time and time again as a result of their early dominance would at the very least do their confidence a world of good. :p

I've now won five battles and both my raider and shieldbanger are yet to chalk any skulls on the board, in significant part due to opponents surrendering at the first sight of things turning grim for them, so count this post as my vote in favour of somehow distributing the "kills".

Leaving them up to the player to distribute would probably clutter the interface a bit too much, while automatically assigning them all to a single character might still be a bit too convenient if it's the one that needs them most, so how about simply distributing them evenly, one to each participant of the battle on the winning side? Ideally, you'd probably want to call them something other than kills then, but they weren't actual kills in the first place, were they? It's more a matter of knocking the opposition unconscious, or so I like to believe!


I just switchwd to a rank 1 team to promote my raiders. Which brings the new problem of newbies matchmaked with me getting completely frustrated. And with rank 1 I only got newbies...

Whatever, it works this way. Still would like to see ONE kill for the weakest unit when an opponent flees.

I could agree to add 1 to the kill count of the unit (or maybe two) with the lowest kill count(s)*, as this is something you could expect to achieve by playing a full game. My issue with giving you +6 total killcount was that the game might have taken 2 minutes and you already get full renown, and there is nothing to say you would have managed to kill them all if you had played a full 20 minute game.

*These one or two would have to be the ones among the living units fulfilling those conditions, upon surrender. Maybe do 1 if opponent has > 3 units left and 2 if ≤ 3? (max +1 for any unit, so if you would have one unit left, your opponent 3 and they surrender, you would only get +1 [no idea why they would do that, it's just hypothetical])

Yes, some newbies surrender because they realise they will lose, but others do so because they suddenly need to leave. Even if you would end up winning the game there is no guarantee that your weakest unit would have made it to the end, or get any kills... Feel free to ask my Shieldbanger of 11 battles and 1 kill [I won all] for the details.. ;p

Point being; The game shouldn't give you things on surrender which you shouldn't expect by playing the game [to avoid making it farmable; the best way to get kills could potentially be having people surrender to you... which would be slightly ironic]. It is already generous in giving +6 renown in kills, so my argument is to avoid making it too lenient.

KRD
03-03-2013, 03:08 PM
Um, correct me if I'm wrong on this, but don't your units get kills even when they're not left standing after the battle? So if it is reasonable to expect that you would have won when your opponent surrenders, why isn't it reasonable to expect that you would have brought down all their units? Aren't they one and the same in Factions?

Jorgensager
03-03-2013, 03:37 PM
Um, correct me if I'm wrong on this, but don't your units get kills even when they're not left standing after the battle? So if it is reasonable to expect that you would have won when your opponent surrenders, why isn't it reasonable to expect that you would have brought down all their units? Aren't they one and the same in Factions?

They get the kills they did. If they're dead, they obviously can't get any further kills in that game. And for the record it isn't necessarily reasonable to assume you would win whenever your opponent surrenders [depends on why they surrender], or that your weakest units would have managed to get any kills [again, feel free to consult my Shieldbanger :p ]. But I wouldn't mind the free kill for the lowest killcount solution.

KRD
03-03-2013, 04:05 PM
And for the record it isn't necessarily reasonable to assume you would win whenever your opponent surrenders [depends on why they surrender], or that your weakest units would have managed to get any kills [again, feel free to consult my Shieldbanger :p ].

What I mean is that the game, by design, assumes this. That's why you're awarded the full 6 renown in that eventuality.

Jorgensager
03-03-2013, 04:09 PM
So if it is reasonable to expect that you would have won when your opponent surrenders, why isn't it reasonable to expect that you would have brought down all their units?


What I mean is that the game, by design, assumes this. That's why you're awarded the full 6 renown in that eventuality.

Yes, but it only does that because it wouldn't be able to judge properly, so it plays it safe by granting us the win and all the renown. The fact that the game does it this way doesn't mean it is reasonable, or that this means you can assume you would have gotten all the kills... so I argue against that assumption.

CytochromeC
03-06-2013, 06:34 AM
Ohoy fellow vikings!
Im new to this game - so i apologize in advance should i not make sense.
Yday my 7th game was ended by an opponent surrendering just as i was about to kill his last viking. I got the renown but not the kill which was annoying.

My question is - does the surrendering part get any penalties? like no renown for the entire match, or even a negativ renown count? Wouldnt it be more efficient in stopping early (or late) surrendering compared to boosting the team which wins through opponent surrender (which doesnt affect the surrending team)? The only problem i can relate to penalties lies with DC issues. Whats your views on this?

PS. TBS is unbelievable good!! See you in Valhalla!

Jorgensager
03-06-2013, 06:41 AM
My question is - does the surrendering part get any penalties? like no renown for the entire match, or even a negativ renown count? Wouldnt it be more efficient in stopping early (or late) surrendering compared to boosting the team which wins through opponent surrender (which doesnt affect the surrending team)? The only problem i can relate to penalties lies with DC issues. Whats your views on this?

PS. TBS is unbelievable good!! See you in Valhalla!

The surrender counts as a loss (in ELO rankings, win streaks etc.) and awards no renown. I.e. it is not something you should do to shorten the end of a match if you're losing.

A client disconnect counts as a loss while a server disconnect counts as a win (for both parties). This makes sense since the player can't be blamed for the server issues, and shouldn't be penalised for them. While the players arguably can't be held responsible every time the client crashes, I'm guessing it would be hard for the server to tell whether the disconnect was caused by a bug or someone simply closing the game when they realise they are losing..

CytochromeC
03-06-2013, 11:31 AM
Good to hear that fleeing is not something you do unpunished. Though it raises a big questionmark as to why people then quit on purpose. Maybe it will make sense when i progress.

Thanks alot

Jorgensager
03-06-2013, 12:54 PM
Good to hear that fleeing is not something you do unpunished. Though it raises a big questionmark as to why people then quit on purpose. Maybe it will make sense when i progress.

Thanks alot

My guesses are that they're unaware that they are punished for surrendering, afraid of the opponent (which, by the way, makes no sense since they have nothing to lose on doing their best) or suddenly have to leave - for one reason or the other.