AzurePrototype
You don't seem to think much of my intelligence, or reading skills. Try to keep little insults from slipping through while you type, so we can all be adults here? I admit my highly mocking quote isn't exactly Ivy League, but at least it isn't attacking a single person. Do you think it might be possible that I am not, in fact, a childish idiot, but someone with a different opinion than yours?
Gladly. What little insults are you referring to, though? Was it that I suggested that you didn't grasp the difference between the strawman you were addressing and the actual position I held? I was just drawing attention to the difference in the two positions in order to ensure that everyone stayed on point. Granted, the vast majority of Gaians are fairly young, so treating someone like a child may be a safe bet.
xp
No, I assumed by your ability to compose a coherent, gramatically sound post that you were at least 18. I stopped being treated like a child at that age, so I try to give others the benefit of the doubt. Nor do I think you're an idiot. If you consciously attempted to set up that scarecrow, you're obviously fairly clever. If you didn't mean to misaddress the position I was holding, then its a simple misunderstanding. I am, of course, not the most intelligent person myself. There's a reason I'm a 23-year old dog groomer sitting on Gaia and not a billionaire.
Unfortunately, I fail to see how it was better to mock and generalize everyone who was in favor of forfeit reform as opposed to picking out a single, poorly considered opinion
AzurePrototype
There are two main points to my argument. The first is that there are various reasons for forfeiting. Not all forfeits are the same, and some have more reason than others. For instance, forfeiting because you lose the first skirmish is kind of unnecessary. Your first example is kind of silly and cowardly, especially because I bet all of us have made a comeback with far worse.
No argument against point one. Obviously we agree that not all forfeits are the same, just on principle of the fact we aren't arguing over essence farming.
Why is the forfeit after the first skirmish unnecessary when that first skirmish often defines the tone of the game. Why is that first skirmish any less decisive than the second, or third? I feel obliged to point out that my first post in this thread described a situation in which I lost a single clawfighter in the first skirmish and my opponent forfeited in the second. So why was he justified in quitting during the second skirmish, but I wouldn't have been justified in quitting during the first?
AzurePrototype
The second one is just sad; the person with Jakyr was about to finish the match, and get a bunch of essence, but they didn't. Too bad for them that they were willing to throw away free essence. However, the only thing that matters in your examples is Blue Relic's perspective, not yours (or whoever's, honestly it doesn't matter). From Blue Relic's perspective, there are two more wins for the belt. Maybe Blue Relic is like me; two wins against quitters are just as sweet. Maybe Blue Relic is like you; disappointed that the wins couldn't have been to-the-death every time. Either way he's not inconvenienced. Tell me why not.
Okay, let's see. Blue Relic's opinion is the only one that matters, presumably because he's the one that's being forfeited against. I'm inclined to agree with this. But up until this point you offered an entirely different view of it. Your first post in the thread suggested that we try to see it from the viewpoint of the quitter, who presumably feels they are being curbstomped and raped post-mortem,
AzurePrototype
There's something that you and I have a difference of opinion about, and I fail to see your reasoning. The way I see it, a victory is a victory. Some are more profitable than others, but ultimately the winner comes out with more than the loser. As long as I get one more Win on the tally and some more sweet, sweet essence, I'm satisfied. If the opponent forfeits, especially if we've been playing longer, I get an edge against them forever because we're all competing. The higher levels have better chances of getting better cards and thus becoming even stronger. When the opponent forfeits, I get a jump-start and they fall behind in essence points. I even get a surge of pride when someone forfeits as soon as they see my name, although admittedly I don't get any tangible reward from those.
You, on the other hand, seem to believe that you've been robbed somehow by someone forfeiting on third turn, or the sixth turn, or what-have-you. It's "rude" and "unsportsmanlike". I think it's just a pet peeve of yours, and isn't some problem that needs to be fixed. You aren't being hurt if they forfeit. You barely even win less. The way it's calculated, the enemy forfeiting before the turn they would have lost anyway doesn't make much of a difference to your rewards. Do some math and tell me what you find. I bet the difference will be negligible. Keep in mind, too, that the sooner one match ends, the sooner the next can begin and you can be on your way to more rewards.
I feel this is where we differ, ultimately, in the value of a victory. I'll try to sum it up in two statements that you can digest and toy with as you wish.
One, winning is not important to me.
Two, the 'wow' factor is what is important to me.
I apologize for the awkward phrasing in the second one. Its not necessarily about the essence rewards. If it were, I'd just be suiciding on Belphy for hours on end. Guarantee I'd get more essence faster there than in PvP. I play this game not because I feel some need to beat people, to prove my intellectual superiority - and as my college class rank recently reminded me, I possess no such thing - or to watch people squirm. I play it because I think the game is cool. I like relaying commands to a squad of shock troopers as an onyx dragon hovers menacingly above the battlefield. I like the dramatic contrast of a single thunder lizard taking on a half-dozen Avalon infantry. Appealing to my win count (which, granted, isn't bad) or to my essence count isn't going to change my mind about how I feel about people who forfeit because they're losing.
AzurePrototype
If it's about honour... the difference between football etc. and Heralds of Chaos is that it's online, and you play for rewards. The fact that there are rewards for the winner, no matter how they win, is part of the game. The fact that it's online means that if one person storms off in a huff, the game isn't over. You can always find someone else to play with you who will perhaps be more in line with your idea of honour. It can be at all hours too if you don't mind playing against Flamewing or Belphegor. The comparison doesn't stand.
Sure, if you want to call it honor, let's do that. Regardless of what you call it, there are similarities between sports and Heralds of Chaos.
As you say, HoC doesn't end if one person storms off in a huff. Nor does football. Regardless of what happens, there will always be another game. There are certainly rewards in sports, too. Professional players make more money than most intellectuals (at least here in glorious 'murica.) Obviously that's a silly leap of logic to make. However, I find a more simplistic reward in both.
Fun.
Fun to me is more important than essence. Its not fun when Timmy takes his ball and goes home because his team is losing. Its not fun when Blue Relic stops the game because he failed at an early rush. I suppose he's not having fun, sure, but as you said, the person who isn't forfeiting is more important. You have to consider that you might lose when you join a game. Forfeiting, at least to me, says "I'm not ready for this after all, and I'm prepared to deny a game its completion and a victor their fun because I don't like losing."
As we've both said, our difference is in what the victory means for us. I find the game itself fun, regardless of whether I'm winning or losing. Its only "un"fun when someone clearly denies me agency of my units, generally via essence-farming. You find it more important to make that tally mark under the wins category, and to make as much essence as possible over time. Which is reasonable for you, and explains why you feel the way you do. But its no more valid than my own point, and it certainly doesn't justify your opening line in the thread.
AzurePrototype
"Waaaah! I wanted to keep curbstomping the same person instead of moving on! Oh if only they didn't have the built-in 'stop the rape' button, I could harvest his corpse forever!"
