Forfeit Mentality (and other issues)

+
Forfeiting is fine as it is. It should be even encouraged if one player sees they're way outmatched from round 1. Cause it's gonna be boring for both players in the end. It's better to play matches in which the result is still uncertain until the very last card is played. Cause personally, when I see a player struggling with placement of cards like not putting them in the rows they need to be for their effects to trigger and so on or passing when they still have 8 cards in hand, it's as boring as losing somehow.
I see your point, however, I think this is also an important part of learning. I don't forefeit if I make one mistake because I want to see if I can find a way to win despite a screw up. And often I can! That sure feels good :)
 
The game is frustrating in so many ways: RNG reveal mechanics, Eithne control decks with a few units and a bunch of artifacts that can't be all countered, bad card draw/mulligan system (no blacklisting, almost no tutors, low number of mulligans for most leaders), many potentially game winning cards (you lose to unless you have a perfect counter), etc. And yes, matches are longer not only because you have to play 16+ cards instead of 13+, but also because for some decks it takes ages to issue all orders.

It's totally understandable many people forfeit when they see they cannot win.
 

DRK3

Forum veteran
When i made my original post, i forgot to present the other side of the coin (it was already a huge wall of text, sorry):

I was text chatting a friend, and we started playing a game: i would just say him the name of my opponent and what i was about to do in the match, and we would bet if the opponent would forfeit or not, and how long it would take to forfeit.

And i can get impatient too, and i know its frustrating: on the last match of the night i wanted to wrap it up quickly, but the opponent was taking ages to play. He could be roping, in which case i would forfeit, i aint got time for that at 4AM, but at the same time, HC was released barely over a week ago, plenty of players are still learning all these changes, so i kept going.
 
Forfeiting is a huge problem because of the achievement system, and the fact you lose out of hard to get achievements because the oponent quits before they register.
Just another area CDPR failed to get right.
If youe oponent quits you should have an option to continue playing your cards until you win naturally.
 
I propose to disallow cancelling the game in the third round, or at least after half of that round. There are some contracts (maybe even daily quests?) that require a large point difference of for example 100. It is hard enough to reach that goal, but when you manage to do this in the very last round and the opponent quickly cancels the game, so that the points of that round don't count, that's very frustrating. It happened a few times to me, and I'm sure not to be the only one.

In the meantime I managed to reach that goal in the second round, so I'm not affected by such a change. But I experienced the frustration and would like other players to not be dependent on the tempers of their opponents.
 
By 'cancel' you mean 'forfeit', right? Doesn't that reduce XP rewards significantly? If that is indeed the case, perhaps making that more obvious might discourage people from forfeiting.
 
Why would you want that?

If a player knows they can no longer win, surely it's better for all concerned if they just concede, give their opponent a quicker win, and both player can get onto the next game.

Forcing someone to play out a losing hand is ridiculous.
 
No thanks. IMO all players should have the freedom to forfeit, if they so wish, at whichever point they wish.
 
No thanks. IMO all players should have the freedom to forfeit, if they so wish, at whichever point they wish.
Ok, but then there shouldn't be quests that require both players NOT to forfeit. Or the points would have to count at any point of forfeiting. One way or another a change would be needed, as long as one mechanic requires another one.

I agree to all other situations of forfeiting, which is why I restricted the conditions in my proposal.
 
Eh, why so many people in the world rely on restrictive thinking/principles/actions as the first thing to turn to? There are needed restrictions for some matters, but so many things can be solved other way.

About half month ago, I presented idea in other topic and I find it much more suitable than forcing both players to participate in decided match. My idea is, if one player forfeits the game, game will end for him just like now (including giving him XP, rewards, etc), but other player could have option to either accept result or simply continue playing until he will pass (or disconnects, which would be still counted as victory for him). Of course opponents turns will be "auto-pass". That way, there is fair chance for players to make their contracts/acievements. (Oh, how many times I tried to get that one, which needs you to win last round by 50+ points. Opponent usually resigned when I got significant lead.)
 
I believe that both players should have vote in whether one can forfeit or not. Simple three-round voting process will decide if the forfeit proposal will be accepted. Each player can vote no (by placing card with odd power on left-most position on range row), or yes (by placing artifact with even provision cost on right-most position on the siege row). After three rounds votes will sum up and decision will be made.
Simple like that. Everyone will be happy.
 
Last edited:
Everyone would not be happy because a system like this would effectively negate the time saving aspect of forfeiting games. And that is a major reason for forfeiting, especially during the third round.
Issue is when it messes up with quests that are hard to complete anyway.
 
Issue is when it messes up with quests that are hard to complete anyway.

Allowing people to gain "wins" in the event of a forfeit encourages power-leveling / abuse of the system.

Forcing people to drudge through one-sided matches wastes their time and encourages frustration.

Decreasing the challenge of the quests results in a sense of instant gratification and encourages boredom.

Leaving things as they are means players need to cope with forfeits, but at least have a shot. I think perhaps a compromise would be to count the game as a victory if the forfeit occurs during the third round. (At least in terms of recognizing whether or not quest objectives were fulfilled.)
 
  • RED Point
Reactions: rrc
Issue is when it messes up with quests that are hard to complete anyway.
Quests and contracts are entirely optional. Besides, everyone, including those who like forfeiting, has the exact same quests.
So, it's a rather weak argument.

Using it as a reason for why the freedom of forfeiting should be removed or restricted is something I keep seeing, but that sounds really unfair to me. "You can't do what you want because I want to be able to do what I want."
 
@Draconifors I am not saying it should be removed, just that the system is flawed and can drive a (quest hunter) person crazy sometimes. Also I am pretty sure this is not the only example of this mechanic.
 
When you're playing with - to quote Swim - an "ass-hand", forfeiting is an absolute necessity. Watching gold after gold get played against your crappy filler bronzes is frustrating enough as is - if there's no ability to quit the game, I'd 100% never, ever play again.
 
My idea is, if one player forfeits the game, game will end for him just like now (including giving him XP, rewards, etc), but other player could have option to either accept result or simply continue playing until he will pass (or disconnects, which would be still counted as victory for him). Of course opponents turns will be "auto-pass". That way, there is fair chance for players to make their contracts/acievements. (Oh, how many times I tried to get that one, which needs you to win last round by 50+ points. Opponent usually resigned when I got significant lead.)
That's actually the best idea regarding this topic. It's a win-win situation. The one forfeiting will face no differences to the current behaviour, while the ones questing have a chance doing so.

Since you need the rewards for progressing on gettingleaders, etc., it is also a weak counter argument to say, it shouldn't be addressed because quests were opional. Forfeiting is just as optional. As is most in this game.
 
Top Bottom