5 Kill Rule in 3v3/4v4

i dunno

i play 11-0, but i may just be a sadist

That's nice. Your anti rage-quit campaign has now reached the point of nuisance.

You play games you know you're going to win?  What a waste of time!  I don't have time to play games I already know the outcome...I have things to do!

All of the replies ran away. I guess all of the bugs haven't been cleared up.

*posting in hopes that it will let me read the thread*

EDIT: Oh. Nice. I totally fell for it. Thought it was the other thread. Continue on about your day.

Dude, no amount of pesturing people in the forums is going to change what any significant number of people do in the heat of the moment during a game. Your reverse argument is not helping because the fallacy of it is just a turn off to people who are looking for you to provide a rational argument to justify your position.

People like to win, they don't like to lose. Yes, it gets boring winning over and over, but that doesn't feel as bad as losing over and over. You may not be willing to admit it, but most humans are instinctually programmed to have a good feeling when they succeed at something and a bad feeling when they fail. Therefore, most people would like to be in a situation where they have a decent chance of coming out on top. Rational people generally don't strive to lose. Human nature 101.

This whole thing is moot with the coming concede functionality.

I don't feel bad losing most games.  The fun is in the challenge, not the outcome.

Actually I'd say this is learned behavior.

But each game will have 50% of the people in it LOSE.  I'd hope people came to terms with that before even starting the game. 

In some kind of games in life there's only one winner, and everyone else loses! (Uno, for example) Why would anyone play those games if the chances are more likely they will lose than not?!

I think in summary - if you only care about winning, get out.

"Rational people generally don't strive to lose.  Human nature 101"

Sorry the quote button doesnt' seem to be working.

If they don't strive to lose, they wouldn't quit.  Once you quit, you automatically lose.  That is the definition of striving to lose.

Oh Lord, please don't go into semantics.

Ugh... there is so much fail on these forums.

hmm infin your rule is bad i prefer mine the  if u one off your team dies over 5 in 10 mins

It's all relative to me.  I quit when it's clear we're gonna lose and it's gonna take long enough that I'm not willing to waste that much time taking the beating.

5 kills down but a war score of 10 when the other team has war score of 4 (could happen if you just have one AI feeder in a big game) is much better than 2 kills down but you have a team of reguluses that snipe from base all game.

But you're willing to waste that much time giving the beating?  Where's the logic in that?

You mean when I'm winning?  Usually when I'm winning I'm having fun and since this is a game that's kinda the point no?  Losing is usually frustrating for me and since this is a game not my job I don't really have to deal with that so that's when thoughts of quitting pop into my head.

If a game is only fun while winning then I think you have problems.

everyone likes winning but true gamers also like losing

  a gamer isn't the best player  it is the player who has the most fun

Yes, we know how YOU feel.

And you'd be wrong.

Uno is a game of chance. People play games of chance for different reasons (i.e., the social interaction). Demigod, in theory at least, is a game of skill, where winning is a function of outplaying your opponents. Yes, you can play Demigod for the social interaction too, but what you can't do is play Uno in order to outplay your opponents.

Your intolerance for other people's ambitions is the biggest reason your argument is failing to persuade as well as you'd probably like. What it is doing is intimidating some people to the point where they are afraid to ever leave a game for fear of being ostricized by the vocal minority like you who refuse to make friends and choose decent people to play with. People who feel compelled to blindly impose their own morality on others.

Here's a pro tip. It's how you can avoid these situations in the future, in just about any game of skill you play:

1. Play a game with randoms

2. Near the end of the game, or after, choose the people who seem to fit your moral code and ask them to play again with you

3. If they agree, put these people in your friends list

4. Keep repeating steps 1-3 until you are no longer playing with people who don't do things the way you'd like them to

5. Each day when you log on to play, seek these people out first and try to organize a game with them

6. If there are not enough of them online, start over at step 1

7. Eventually you'll have a large enough group of friends that you can always control the situation (on both teams) and virtually ensure no one ever does things you don't like again

I don't even care about ragequitting anymore. I never do it if I have a teammate, but if my teammate does it I just sigh, try to win anyways, and then give up and quit so I can find another game where I have a chance of winning instead of being dominated the whole match.

The only thing that gets affected are my stats, which I frankly don't care about very much since they're mostly broken anyway.

i kinda care about my stats as  in i was trying to make a pretty pattern on the  stats line but then i reaized u can't have 0 played

so that fucked up my pattern

There is nothing blind about it.  There are numerous compelling reasons why ruining games is wrong.

Maybe you didn't shake hands with the other little league baseball team after the game, but many of us did.  A good game is good no matter the outcome.  You can have an epic game and still lose.

Yes it's called a personal banlist, which I used to great success in Dota.  I'd prefer that half the players didn't end up on it though because they don't have common sense.

You know as well as I do there are innumerable games out there not chance based but deterministic and yet still have one winner and the rest losers.  The fact that you didn't address the underlying point shows you are avoiding it.  We both know why.

At least you admit that's what you're doing.

You must have misquoted because my point was the human brain is programmed to reward behavior that results in positive outcomes. I'm trying to help you understand why most people will always, at least at some level, want to leave a game they are losing and start over. Most people have no problem saying gg and admitting defeat, they just want to get back into a situation where they can play again, not become fodder for another player's sadistic amusement.

? You're not listening. Those "deterministic" games are still based on skill, whether there is one winner or 50% of the players are winners.

There is only point I'm trying to avoid saying directly. My hope is that you'll come to the conclusion on your own.

Losing in a close game is fine.

Losing in a blowout is no fun.

There's a difference.  At some point the closeness of the match snaps and one team clearly breaks away.  That's when frustration sets in and I move on to the next match.  From your OP apparently you don't like losing either so are you just arguing for the sake of arguing now?

If you quit when you are about to win, you're just being unfair to your teammates that have to play the rest of the game with a stupid AI and are probably going to lose the game that they would've won if you stayed.

It's true, but then you kind of have a big problem. People don't want to lose and get beaten on, but they sure do like to beat other players, and use them for sadistic amusement. Problem in these games is that for every winner there is a loser. So if a loser would always quit then nobody would ever win. People don't want a player to win, they want to win themselves, and don't care if someone else loses. But when they are on the losing side, they don't care either and just quit.

And I'm saying that even were that true, what defines "positive outcomes" are learned.  It's an arbitrary game - it holds absolutely no consequences regarding your survival.  Whether you view "winning" in that game as the desired outcome was completely learned.  People told you that you want to win.

If you were by yourself, there is nothing wrong with admitting defeat.  It's when you are on a *team* with *other people* is when declaring "f this - I'm done" and ruining the game for everyone else is when it becomes wrong.  No one seems to get this point.  It's ok to give up - if everyone is agreeing to give up.

Yes they are based on skill, but statistically there's still a 50% (or greater!) chance you will lose, unless you're so arrogant to expect that you are the best player in the world all the time.  So why play at all if you have such a high chance of loss?  Your point was "rational people don't strive to lose" yet loss is a natural part of these things.  Why is it ok to only flee from losses when they were a large part of the total package you agreed to play?

So why don't you when winning the blowout get equally frustrated and move on?  Think about it.

thats a real shame.

y not help new players learn about the game?

how is anyone going to get better if after 5 kills the game turns to S#!t, just because you leave.

You can't be serious.

That's my point. Get some friends.

You play because A) it's fun regardless of whether you win or lose or B.) you think you can win

I already told you why.