leavers

gooseman Where do you draw the line?

Personal Opinion about the Quoted Passage:
" "Pursuing all-or-nothing strategies" - Hows that defined? Nux rush i guess, what else?
"without the consent of your team," - what is "your team"? 50%+1? 50% of those who actually participate in chat? else impossible to follow -> gets ignored. Pala rush? When only 5/16 Players help does that count as "consent"?
"or resigning on your own because you faced an early minor setback," - what is a "minor setback"? Is loseing entire Army (80% of total Value owned) still considered "minor" since fac and com are still alive?
"is disrespectful to your teammates." - respect needs to be earned, recognition/esteem can be demanded -> gets ignored.
" A pattern of such behavior may result in moderator action," - that would require the definition of a measurement on which basis "moderator actions" are taken. Rarely ever witnessed any, my guess is the mods dont know themselfes whats ok and when it crosses the line. I think more communication could often do wonders without the need of any authority.
"may result" - only "is going to result" if the mods sex last night was bad or what? I dislike such injustice/unequality inviteing passages.
"and in any case you will be damaging your own reputation in the community." - what reputation?


Personal Opinion about your Statement:
"Some simply resign early" - noobs look at colours, pros look at names&symbols. If theres a big imbalance of "average+" names a early resign is justified in my opinion. Theres even purples that are beasts 1vs1 but are egoistic noobs in lobpot. Why fight when you cant win? Id rather spend the time takeing my chances in the next game than spending looong time slowly dying.
" others resign after their, " - logic result.
"frankly, stupid strategies predictably fail" - was this pointed out to them before?
"or their commander dies" - their own fault.
"or something similar." - understandable but often salvageable.
" It wouldn't be so bad if it were just low-rank players," but I've seen at least 3 blues do that" - id recomend throwing that line of thought out of the window. Youre forceing players into a role with it. Also whats "low rank" for you? colour or level? In my experience everything below like level 40 resigns last. Were the games where they resigned won or lost afterwards? Theres often a "point of no return", many games are decided by 1 action of 1 player.

Since your initial post is more a question im keen on hearing your position. About the many questions id like to establish a baseline first so were talking about the same thing. Feel free to also copy paste quote me so its known what youre refering too.

I sometimes pack it in early if I can see there's no way the team can win. Sometimes for inexplicable reasons nobody expands and when I die 2v1 in some lonely spot forward, I look back to see one guy building roach ramp, a noob spamming storages and two other players building their own seperate singus. Then you know its hopeless and rather than rage I just quit. Probably healthier.

Other times I inexplicably leave early are due to my shitty internet and electrical situation and I apologise for those.

lol you know most people in the top 20 can figure if a game is lost in the first 5 minutes of a game right? we stay for the amusement of the fight and the occasional turnaround.

also all nothing strategies are amazingly effective when they work... you don't report the successes only the failures? just because "you" can't manage it does not mean it never, or even rarely works.

imo this is just a bad precedent to set.

quote: also all nothing strategies are amazingly effective when they work... you don't report the successes only the failures? just because "you" can't manage it does not mean it never, or even rarely works. imo this is just a bad precedent to set.

Yes they can be effective but they basically force that risk upon the whole team. I mean, if you are focused on your personal fun, than you should maybe better do that in 1v1. In my exp, people mostly get reported for persistently doing all-or-nothing-strats over many games, effectively turning them into 1-man-shows. This can become quite annoying. The reports should start after people ask them not to do it, but without success.

ehh so i should start reporting every player that plays bad? cause to me every sub 2200 elo player is utterly incompetent and is doing a terribly stupid thing without my approval?

not taking mex? - BANNED!

not making basic E? - BANNED!

no grid? - BANNED!

not making the right units to counter X? - BANNED!

not pushing front? - BANNED!

in-base porc? - extra BANNED! why do you even need that LLT?

making radar? - BANNED! everyone should know how to contact line scout with raiders

These are all legitimately bad strategies, but every player makes these mistakes; some of them are just crutches because they cant play any better. I highly disapprove of your incompetence and lack of skill! Play as good as me!

If people want to leave/resign because it's not fun any more I think this should be ok. Playing on a losing game is pretty pointless and demoralizing... Just let the resign happen and try again next time!


Also, if a blue+ is resigning I suspect it's very rare that the game is in a winnable state and it's almost certainly the case that they have no idea what to do, so would just end up feeding anyway.

For example, in practice if I'm calling a resign vote (though not resigning myself) then I think the game isn't winnable, I know my current strategy isn't working and don't have any ideas what alternative strategy might be viable. I suspect an actual resign is a more extreme version of this (I personally will normally only actual!resign when things passed hopeless five minutes ago and it's now mop-up time, though I will sometimes just check out and do some eco or move a widow around, letting my metal excess to people who presumably think there's still a game there).



Unrelated: pretty much every bold attack or superweapon starting (e.g. Trinity) is all-or-nothing and no-one ever asks if it's ok to start building a Trinity (nor should they), so that bit of the CoC seems poorly worded to me...

quote: it's ok to resign there, but you have to call a resign vote/talk to your team about it.

I think *have to* would be overselling it a bit... but it is certainly polite to communicate usefully in some way or another before unilaterally resigning. Particularly when you still have plenty of units left to play with, which you are now dumping on somebody else to manage.

All of this really does just boil down to

quote: Treat other members of the community with respect.

quote: Playing poorly even if you know better is actually fine

I agree insofar as such a person does not necessarily cause imbalanced games.

That being said, playing with someone who could play quite well if they chose, but is instead publicly boasting and flaunting that they can't be bothered playing the game with any degree of seriousness, is rather a drag - even if their rating accurately reflects the level of play they are delivering.

In this case I suppose the boasting is more the problem rather than the poor play.