Sorry luke Spikey fought and won my battle for me. Is preventing people from doing missions courteous? No, it is not.
Don't quit, you dirty quitter.
The only times I would like someone to leave the battle when they lost is elo and survivor.
These two modes can often take up a lot of time and leaving once you lost can save time for both players. Elo isn't the place for missions nor is survivor (a part from xx wins or reach xxxx elo missions). Those missions may be there but will be completed with time. If you are arguing that leaving makes missions seem "longer" then all other players feel that not leaving makes matches seem "longer". Most players will probably only understand this when they actually competitively try to top elo ~every~ week or attempt to get high in survivor ~every~ day.
Missions can be done in rooms like classic, if you don't like when people leave matches just read this part again "Those missions may be there but will be completed with time", do you expect the missions to be completely instantly?
edited by Infiniti wednesday 23/10/2013, 22:26
But sometimes a battle where a KO is achieved is actually shorter than the battle where it is not. Many opponents I've faced specifically set out to make me wait 2 minutes in the 4th round when they have badly lost, then abandon the fight just before timeout. In this case, a match which is actually abandoned took longer than if they'd played their card and let me have a KO, because in the abandoned example the round takes 2 minutes and in the KO example, if both players are prompt the last round only takes 20 seconds.
I know elo isn't designed for KO missions but elo score, I'm just pointing out that many people who abandon fights are not trying to save time at all. What you say about abandon fights saving time is only true when the person is prompt about abandoning, and in many cases they aren't they just do it as they are sore about losing.
I don't want to argue, but it is clear many people (category A) think abandoning fights (ASAP) is good sportsmanship as it prioritises time saving, and many others (category B) prioritise being allowed obvious KOs in elo instead. What I think also needs to be acknowledged is letting the battle timeout or even abandoning 2 seconds before timeout is sportsmanship whether you look at it from the point of view of category A or category B, but the category A people deny the scenario mentioned ever happens when I many others have it happen to them all the time.
Such a split in the elo community could almost be an expression of how the UR community is thriving, not dead. If UR was dead, people wouldn't care enough for such differences of opinion to be noticed...
Infiniti basically you touched on my point but not Spikey's.
Regardless, that is your personal opinion, and mine is that missions can and should be completed in all rooms, not just classic.
Since we are just generally debating abandoning of games now, I will throw in the fact that I do not want to lose XP points for the sake of my opponent getting faster games in. The opposite to selfishness is selflessness and do not think one is better than the other.
I can and WILL finish my game whether I've won or lost. (unless I time out )
I am not saying I want missions to be completed instantly, but when people purposefully delay that progression, not only is that extremely annoying, but it's UNsportsmanlike and makes you look like a lowly rage quitter.
Thanks infiniti that's just what I was thinking, I probably should have added that what I said only really applied to elo and survivor. And spikey, I wasn't referring to stalling or anything like that, which is bad sportsmanship, I was talking about promptly resigning in a game you will clearly lose, which saves everyone's time. Competitive rooms like elo aren't a place for missions.
Glad we agree on that the badness of stalling, which when I complain about people abandoning, is actually what I'm referring to. Aaaargh lost in communication!
Everywhere is a place for missions!
Don't be so ignorant to the facts.
- Withdrawing takes bp away.
-There are many missions exclusive to the ELO mode.
- Not every single player plays all of their missions in Fight Club; then it would be called Mission Club.
Taking these factors into account, withdrawing the battle "just to save time" is not only extremely annoying, unsportsmanlike and the marks of a rage quitter, but it is also somewhat counter-productive as you use up 'time' on the game to level up which is then negated by the selfish act of withdrawing.
In elo im not gonna waste my time just for the 1% of people who are doing missions there. I only quit when i have a sure loss. When at 4th round i finish the match. There should and is nothing wrong with that. It is even considered sportsmanlike to quit once you have a sure loss. Elo players generally dont care about bp, because there's no use for it. If they would make more leaders maybe we'll see a decline in matches quited.
Though sometimes players leave on me when at 4th round and i have already played my card. That's just insane and those people are unsportsmanlike and rage quitters.