Option to Draw Team Games

[Hawkei]

This is getting to be quite irritating... I have had an incredibly bad run of luck with team games. Disconnects, players leaving, and all that. The problem is that games become ranked after a period of time and it then becomes impossible to fairly end the game or continue. With victory being assigned by random chance and the lack of disconnects.

It would be really nice if there was the option to simply end a game without score when there is a disconnect. It really sux when a disconnect turns a great victory into an unlikely defeat. It is very irritating and spoils an otherwise enjoyable game. With the number of losses I have incurred during this last week my Global rank has dropped a full 100 points and I'm now under-rated and unable to join games which I was previously able to play.

This is a great source of irritation and it would be great if it could be fixed.

[speed2]

Please do tell me more about 100 rating points is making a huge difference and completelly kills a chance for a fair game.
Thats just a bullshit.

Else I dont mind this idea of a draw button. But that above ...

[Stups]

Gorton mentioned before that this option exists. The remaining team, after dc, needs to press close on the window instead of ctrl-k/exit.

[TheKoopa]

Gorton mentioned before that this option exists. The remaining team, after dc, needs to press close on the window instead of ctrl-k/exit.

That's not really obvious now is it

[Mel_Gibson]

Gorton mentioned before that this option exists. The remaining team, after dc, needs to press close on the window instead of ctrl-k/exit.

Wait, whut? So any team in any game can just unrank it by all closing the window? This doesn't sound right....

[Hawkei]

The proposition would be for there be an offer draw button in the diplomacy window. In precisely the same manner as is done for 1v1 Ladder matches. In this way, provided that both teams agree, a draw can be selected as the game outcome.

Please do tell me more about 100 rating points is making a huge difference and completelly kills a chance for a fair game.
Thats just a bullshit.

Else I dont mind this idea of a draw button. But that above ...

I didn't mean to say that it did ruin chances for a fair game. But it does put me outside of the rating limits for some hosts. Meaning that I need to explain why my rating is lower than normal atm. So hosts don't like this and kick me anyway.... Though I should add that there is a silver lining. Because, it is easier to join noob games and beat them Either way you look at it, having an incorrect rating isn't fun for anyone.

[Lieutenant Lich]

Please do tell me more about 100 rating points is making a huge difference and completelly kills a chance for a fair game.
Thats just a bullshit.

Else I dont mind this idea of a draw button. But that above ...

100 points do make a difference. If you do not care about your rating it does not mean that everyone else does not care about it as well.

[Morax]

Our rating system is fairly simplistic in that it doesn't take into account what variety of maps a person plays, eg: you could find someone with a 1700 rating that only plays GAP and nothing else. You could find a 1700 that only plays Sentons. You could find a 1700 that knows how to play most of the common maps.

It's really a load of crap that our tournaments even use global rating for this reason. It's pretty much why I've always used 1v1 rating to judge the WWPC since you have to play a variety of maps and it is therefore a better assessment of game knowledge or skill.

You guys probably don't care about that, though, as I'm getting the hint that you like shiny, big numbers as opposed to what they truly mean.

[Hawkei]

Our rating system is fairly simplistic in that it doesn't take into account what variety of maps a person plays, eg: you could find someone with a 1700 rating that only plays GAP and nothing else. You could find a 1700 that only plays Sentons. You could find a 1700 that knows how to play most of the common maps.

It's really a load of crap that our tournaments even use global rating for this reason. It's pretty much why I've always used 1v1 rating to judge the WWPC since you have to play a variety of maps and it is therefore a better assessment of game knowledge or skill.

You guys probably don't care about that, though, as I'm getting the hint that you like shiny, big numbers as opposed to what they truly mean.

I'm all for that. Yes, if you want to be technical, for a statistical sample to be relevant it needs to be randomised. Global rating isn't randomised because the sample is determined by which maps the player chooses to host or play. There was however that annoying tendancy for players to play a lot of unranked matches - thus allowing for their rank to be determined by a statistically small and favourable game sample. The rank it all approach was designed to counter that.

The problem that I am seeking to address here is that not only is Global Rank a measure of legitimate game outcomes. It is also a measure of desyncs and crashes. By allowing for a game to be drawn, we can limit the sample of ranked games to those which are actually played to completion and have legitimate outcomes. It is immune to abuse because it requires the agreement of both teams.