Small gripe about "Good Game"

[Guest 4368728]

My apologies to moderators if this has been mentioned before. I have a small request to make about the "Good Game" mechanic.

At times it peeves me that I have given a good game to someone, especially someone who has only beaten me by a small margin, and this person does not send a good game to me in return. The entire match, for instance, can be totally absent of banter (I personally don't mind a bit of banter but no banter is good too) and move at a nice pace with plenty of time for each player to think and with no interruptions by those gamers who constantly like to bombard you with messages to "hurry up" etc and yet... still no good game. So... my request would be for a player to mark these perhaps less courteous players somehow at the end of a match so the player does not play them again, if the player so chooses. A "block" mechanic if you will. There are more than enough people playing the game so I think this should be fine.

i think it is reasonable to say that the more options a player has, the better a game is.

 

[4RM3D]

You want to block players because they don't GG you back? Is that an actual real suggestion? Well, in my opinion, it's a very childish reason to do so, if such a mechanic would exist. Regardless, a block mechanic is a bad idea to begin with and you aren't making a good case for it. Because such a feature can be easily exploited, basically like the way you have suggested it. Furthermore, GGs are meant as a bonus. If you don't get any, for whatever reason, so be it. Just move on. But fretting over something like this...

 

[EvanDavidson]

I agree that the GG mechanic should be adjusted but I think the cause is that there are contracts for giving good game and saying a taunts in game. I couldn't care less about saying "Hurry Up" in most games, but I have to say something in like a 1000 games to complete the contract....

 

[dragoonzen]

Sorry, I don't GG broken decks atm. Just too sour by playing the exact same copy and paste deck and seeing the EXACT same result Everytime. It's almost robotics how they are play atm.

 

[InkognitoXI]

If you want something like that the only decent solution would be to only give resources for a GG to players if both GG and none to anyone if 1 or 0 players send a GG, in that case someone who does not GG would get nothing either and you would have no reason to (apparently) feel bitter about it.

Come to think of it I would actually enjoy such a change, also because I am almost feeling bad when my lockdown opponent GGs me, when I am not sending a GG to lockdown players on principle.

 

[akhorahill]

Well, there's no such thing as an objectively good game.

You may feel it was a good game because the score was tight but if you look in the thread about sending or not a good game, you will see some people do not feel it was a good game at all if:

• You are playing a faction / ability they do not like;
• You are playing a strategy they think it's cheap;
• You are playing a faction they think requires nothing but playing overpowered golden cards;
• You are using a specific avatar (I really laughed at this one);
• You emote;
• You do not respond to emotes;
• Your take too long to make your plays.

So, what was in your eyes a good game, was not enjoyed by the other player and they did not send a GG for their own reasons. I myself always GG unless my opponent is a compulsive roper, but that's my reasoning and, like you, I cannot force others to conform to it or be relegated to a naughty child club.

 

[Anciluart]

Too much drama about GG yes or GG no.

I rarely use that option, the truth is that I am not interested, it is not that the game does not grant enough resources. If the opponent sends immediately after the game I return it, but only for courtesy.

I could get used to sending it automatically, but as I mentioned, I am not interested in the function, the game is over, to something else.
On the other hand, if the option "auto send GG" came out, I would use it.

 

[rrc]

If you want something like that the only decent solution would be to only give resources for a GG to players if both GG and none to anyone if 1 or 0 players send a GG, in that case someone who does not GG would get nothing either and you would have no reason to (apparently) feel bitter about it.

Come to think of it I would actually enjoy such a change, also because I am almost feeling bad when my lockdown opponent GGs me, when I am not sending a GG to lockdown players on principle.

Mythgard use this same system. Unless both players send GG, no one will get any benefit and the GG benefit is much bigger in Mythgard.

 

[Draconifors]

No, just no.

GG is entirely optional, there are multiple reasons to not send it (just like there are reasons to send it), and punishing people for not sending it would be a terrible idea.

I really don't see why many people have a problem with how the GG system works and want to see it change. Just ignore it if you don't like it.