I've not experienced this so hopefully it will prove an isolated instance. It would be a shame if players started refusing matches simply based on the opponent's rating -- that would quickly kill interest in the system, especially since interrupted ai games are not resumed.
I'm the type of guy who'd have no shame rejecting a match, for diverse reasons. I'd just be surrendering if i got into a match i don't want to play.
It is normal and healthy that people can refuse to get into a match they don't want to play, since this a game, designed to generate fun and entertainment. It would be detrimental to this essential notion, but to coerce players into things they don't want.
Far more hurtful than losing a few high-ranked players, the Goblins and the player community would risk losing new players and - thinking about game maintenance - lose the sales opportunity that comes with new players. Seriously, when was the last time a high-ranked player put any cash in the game? I don't necessarily want to know, but I think it'd prove my point.
So... I'd say that players should be able to do whatever they judge appropriate to their own enjoyment. Including refusing games.
That being said, on pandanet (a network for players of go), after refusing too many matches with lower-ranked opponents (can be higher-ranked in our case), they get a little flag-of-shame next to their name. Something of the sort could be used, so you could, in turn, decide to refuse playing with someone carrying that flag. But then, what's high-ranked? At 377, I'm 11th and have half the point that Mark has, but still get smashed by many people under 100. So really, no need to try to define anything here, it's a lost cause, methinks.
There you have my 2 cents about this, they are my 2 cents, but you can borrow them whenever in need. What? .... Hummm
I understand your frustration but I don't think it is reasonable to penalise players for rejecting a game in the match Lobby area (i.e. before they have started the match). That's kind of the whole point of that area - maybe the player is looking for someone new, maybe they are scared of you whatever, but given it shouldn't take much time before they disconnect all you've lost is a bit of time.
Players disconnecting mid-match deliberately is very annoying, but at the same time if they know they are going to lose and they don't feel like they will gain much from a game then surrendering is again a fair choice on their part. If they surrender, perhaps the victor can still gain some rank too.
We'll see what we can do to improve this as we go, but the improvements do need to be good for new players - I agree with Confused's summary here.
I expect you'll get some new opponents soon that will be prepared to take you on :)
As usual a good summary of opinions here. It's the old adage; you can't please everyone all the time.
I particularly agree with .Confused view on this matter. I would also like to say, as ever, how pleasing it is to see the Goblins always responding with speedy and concise replies (I'm sure we all know games out there where this doesn't happen). You guys always think things through and come up with the best solution available at the time. You''ll carry on listening and developing your labour of love and this will define the final version of what is already an outstanding game. Hats off to you blokes.
While the update to the player versus player system is absolutely fantastic, I can foresee one potential future problem.
While playing a game against Orange the other night, we were interrupted about 10 times by others using global chat. And I don't mean to criticize this: it is great to see players enjoying the chat feature. But the interruptions were a bit disruptive of our game. As the player base grows, this could become a larger issue.
I would love to see a feature to turn global chat off -- at least temporarily.
After an experience a few moths ago when I encountered a newer player who clearly got frustrated when I played dragon after dragon (unfortunately I was experimenting with a deck that only held big minions so I had no choice), I have been consciously trying to keep at least a couple decks on hand that are more appropriate against players who do not yet have access to large numbers of cards. Since the new system has come out, when encountering an unfamiliar player, I use player rank to decide whether to use my "cheap" decks or my "deep" decks.
From this experience, I can attest that low player rank does not correlate well with either playing skill or access to powerful, rare cards.
But I can also attest that it is frustrating (and would be discouraging if I had no alternatives) to play even a very well designed all common deck against one that repeatedly brings out dragons, aquamancers, giants, meteors and the ilk. And there is very little satisfaction in using superior access to rare cards to trample novice players. For now, I would very much hate to be unable to see player rank as it is the best gauge I have in choosing a deck that keeps the game fun for both me and my opponent.
Sooo... since we are talking about -that player-, I chose not to play him/her anymore.
Disconnecting before losing is not refusing a game before it begins.
This is not fun, not fair game and not a good example to follow.
Is there not a patch to make a player who disconnect automatically give the victory to the other player? That would solve it, since the only motivation I can discern in this case is that he/she doesn't want to let others get ranking when they beat him/her. If there was such a fix, then the motivation is neutered.
I didn't say you did. I did, though, suggest -that player-. It is unacceptable for my standard. I speak for myself only, noone else. Solved my own issue, though.
My point was more about asking a fix to this negative outcome to a match that should have been a victory, with all its rewards. It will discourage new players and detriment the game. As well as setting a poor example.
Please be aware there are legitimate reasons a player leaves a game unfinished. I have learned the hard way that accepting a phone call on my Iphone can lead to disconnecting a match. I have disconnected because I had to respond to a crisis with one of my daughters. Yes I could surrender but that takes time to navigate a couple of screens -- time I don't always have. And I have, in a senile moment, hit the off button instead of the chat send button. And these do not include legitimate wifi issues.
I agree, in these cases the opposing party should get full credit for a victory. But it is not always a reflection of a player's sportmanship.
I just had a match with Maryeta. She asked me about why the forum mention her name. I explain those comments to her. She said she never do that other than forfeit matches. The games she played with me were always fair. she said her English is not very well, she will talk to Valentino in Spanish. That what I have offered her and posted it for her.