Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

consistent early resigning should be a bannable offense

10 posts, 779 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
sort
If a person resigns consistently every game, within the first 5mins. I personally think they should be banned. Why should they play and impact the fun of others if they are going to resign.

They might as well not be playing. The only excuse is that they are trolling and we have to draw a line where, is this person actions allowed because frankly it sucks and it has a large impact on people and i end up just speccing until the person is usually gone.

It hurting the community quite a bit. I'm frankly sick of it personally.

Here a valid match. http://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/285783

We already one player short. Sfireman has 2 coms, he places air fac and gunship. He make brawler, within first 3mins he already resigned. Leaving us 3 players down + 2000 elo player x2.


+1 / -2
9 years ago
this is firemens high-risk-tactic!
Dont forget, when Brawler Rush and fight is good/well, then he wins with his tactic.
But when he become no team-(AA Support) and he Dies, the high-risk-Tactic is useless and resign is the consequence.
+1 / -0

9 years ago
Isn't suboptimal gameplay handled by Elo and not CoC?
+6 / -1
9 years ago
princereaper don`t crush sfireman with this
+0 / -0
quote:

Isn't suboptimal gameplay handled by Elo and not CoC?


fman has rounded elo of 2000, So if u play in constelation like:
2 * ~2000, one 1700, 1500 + rest per team and one heavy weight resigns after 2 min or 5 min balance is broken.
+0 / -0
The problem is it works often enough, and he occasionally plays seriously often enough, and his ELO started high enough, that sfire's ELO is more or less preserved at around 2k.

No matter whether his strategies work or not in a given game it's really not that much fun to play with or against - part of the reason I don't play much in team lobby any more.

Bannable? I don't know about that. Definitely irritating, though.
+0 / -0
The thing also is also to me that doesn't make sense is that with a constant influx of new players, should there not be a certain amount of elo that doesn't get passed on to other people?

Anyway should "losing elo" not be "contribution based" It doesn't make sense that everyone should equally lose the same elo as well. IDK some random idea for players with a good elo performing badly taking a harder hit then the rest of them for example like comparing all the stats and putting the names of people in order and seeing the difference between one skill and their current elo and then taking it from there.

Or possibility increase the amount of elo lost because currently, in a 10 vs 10, average I lose between is 3-5 elo which makes no difference because I can play a 4vs4 and win 12 elo in one go for example.

From my point of view the amount of elo vs the amount of players factor is also another voice for concern even if one could argue that the more people there are the less work you have to do in which case that should not matter, at the end of the day, that team has won. The amount of players should not make a difference but the average elo of the teams should be the deciding factor with elo gain/losses.
+0 / -1
9 years ago
if fireman keeps his 2000 elo, then obviously resigning early is a high skill tactic...

duh nooobs! all pros know this secret
+2 / -0
9 years ago
+1!
+0 / -0

9 years ago
quote:
should there not be a certain amount of elo that doesn't get passed on to other people? (...) Anyway should "losing elo" not be "contribution based"?

No. Elo must change and global Elo {de,in}flation does not matter, because the values are relative. Elo is also a measure of success, not contribution. If you believe you can measure contribution in a meaningful way, please impart instructions; if you believe you have a skill rating algorithm better than Elo, please submit the details.
+0 / -0