Steam - Windows best 3/5 update seems to have severely exacerbated ragequiting

[BeizlFreiz]

This clearly isn't a bug, but I see it as an issue don't know where else to put it.

in a scenario where two players are fighting in quick match, and one has won the first two games by a landslide victory, the "losing player" is faced with a set of options, including but not limited to: Play again, change characters, and return to menu. should the "losing player" choose the "return to menu" option at this point, they are denying the other player a recorded win. this is essentially ragequiting. perhaps since this is presented as a menu option as opposed to only being available through external means (alt+f4) players do not seem to view this as being as detestable as ragequiting the "normal" way. through personal experience I have noticed a strong uptick in people leaving games early.

my proposed solution is as follows:
in a situation where a player leaves after a match by selecting the return to menu option, and the player that leaves is not the winner of the previous match or "winning" with 2 games over one or zero or one game over zero(otherwise this would be very abusable) grant a recorded win to the winning player.

unfortunately this solution may be unfair or it may defeat the purpose of best 3/5 but it's the best I could come up with. more than anything else, I just want this to be recognized as a problem.

 

[skull person]

Not quite.

Whoever wins the first match of the best out of 5 gets the win.
None of the matches after that are recorded.

The rest of the matches are optional, and both players are allowed to leave at any time without affecting the score which is why they have the option to do so.

EDIT: The above is how it is supposed to be by design.
If you find that this is not the case then you should report that as a bug.

 

[alwaysanarchy]

Not quite.

Whoever wins the first match of the best out of 5 gets the win.
None of the matches after that are recorded.

Seriously?
So if I lose the first match and then win the next 3 ending set with a 3 - 1 I still lose? This doesn't seem right. All this time I thought the purpose of the 3/5 system was to just speed up the process of re-matching the same opposing player and still scoring +1 to the winner compared to before where you went straight to main menu and get another match maybe with the same person.
If this is the case then I will be dropping to main menu every single time if the rest of the matches will not be recorded on my score, regardless if people consider it ragequit (or win rage depending on the case), except that now I'll waste a little more time post match end menu and pressing "go to main menu".

 

[skull person]

Seriously?
So if I lose the first match and then win the next 3 ending set with a 3 - 1 I still lose? This doesn't seem right. All this time I thought the purpose of the 3/5 system was to just speed up the process of re-matching the same opposing player and still scoring +1 to the winner compared to before where you went straight to main menu and get another match maybe with the same person.

Yes.
You lose, and the game does not display your loss (on steam) or factor it into anything.

If this is the case then I will be dropping to main menu every single time if the rest of the matches will not be recorded on my score, regardless if people consider it ragequit (or win rage depending on the case), except that now I'll waste a little more time post match end menu and pressing "go to main menu".

Yeah boy grab those meaningless numbers from winning a FT1, which doesn't exist in any tournament setting, and run with them. :P
The point of FT3 is to play an actual set because in tournaments you play FT3.
FT1 doesn't exist ANYWHERE so there's no reason for quick match to be played as a FT1.
It's AWFUL PRACTICE.
I think the only reason that you only get one point for the FT1 is because that's how it was for four years, so those who still want to be the one and done masters can still keep doing that.

Off topic(?):
So many quick match kings are still so garbage at the game because they don't practice playing sets and adapting to the other player.
If they take a match and disconnect they get to feel good about it and bump up their "times I have won a match in skullgirls" counter by 1.

If Skullgirls ranking system wasn't a complete joke and Steam didn't literally display "times I won" (which was actually times player 1 has won for the longest time thanks to a bug, so those numbers mean nothing) then sure I would agree that it would maybe be a waste of time if you were grinding for points??

But if you're playing Quick Match for the POINTS you are really doing it wrong...

Spoiler: The Bug, Patch Notes

- Fixed...a bug...with PC Quick Match score reporting...that has been present since the very first PC build...where the check for when to report scores to the leaderboard was
if(mWinningPlayer == 0)
instead of the correct
if(mWinningPlayer == myPlayerNumber)
...the end result being that if Player 1 won the game, both players would report a win for themselves. If Player 2 won, neither player would report a win. So the PC leaderboard currently reflects the number of times you played a Quick Match where Player 1 won the game, rather than the number of times you won. Heh?

 

[alwaysanarchy]

Yes, the points are meaningless because in reality anyone with 1 win can defeat someone with 10,000 wins if the player is more skilled. But then what's the point of the leaderboard if those points are there for nothing and are based on a bug that existed for a long time (yes, I already knew thanks). If a player wants to actually play FT3/FT5/FT(n) with a certain person (or more) then they would go to lobby. Isn't the point of quick match randomize opponents and increase my ego +1 (joke)?

Don't misjudge me because of this, I do enjoy quick matches a lot even though I get to play most of the time with laggy people or ragequitters. I've got so many great matches on quick match that have kept me on the hook of this game for like 3 years and in fact I got happy when the 3/5 patch came because that gave me the chance to play against a great opponent once again in a row rather than go back to menu and wait until I get to play with that person again; but going back to the point, a leaderboard system that doesn't keep track of your actual wins has no purpose at all then.

Why is the system like that instead of giving the win to the actual winner of the match?

 

[skull person]

Yes, the points are meaningless because in reality anyone with 1 win can defeat someone with 10,000 wins if the player is more skilled. But then what's the point of the leaderboard if those points are there for nothing

Good question, there isn't a single SG player that takes the leaderboard seriously besides maybe GiantKingTurtle :^)
If they had a system that took your points and did something with it and actually made losses matter, then any of this would matter.

If a player wants to actually play FT3/FT5/FT(n) with a certain person (or more) then they would go to lobby.

Or you could very quickly get a random opponent and play a 'tournament set' against them.
There's always more people in QM than open 1/2 lobbies with the name "First to X wins".

Leaderboard system that doesn't keep track of your actual wins has no purpose at all then.

Agreed.
Therefore, given the current system in place for "rank" in quick match, there is no reason to leave after the first match unless you prioritize getting points over learning the game.
Which is why I don't understand this:

If this is the case then I will be dropping to main menu every single time if the rest of the matches will not be recorded on my score

If I play you, and have have a great close game with you, and you take the first game, you're going to leave and play someone else (or maybe me)* to get another potential point faster instead of playing more against a player you can learn from?

*There must be no other players online in the "waiting for opponent screen" on QM in order to get rematched against the same player.

EDIT: I also just checked with Mike to make sure.
You only get 1 point for the FT1. No points after.

 

[alwaysanarchy]

Agreed.
Therefore, given the current system in place for "rank" in quick match, there is no reason to leave after the first match unless you prioritize getting points over learning the game.
Which is why I don't understand this:

I can tell that maybe was my stupidity typing at the moment, no other reason then. In fact, I never quit the first game (nor I'll do it after knowing what it does) because I play for fun 98% of the time. I have never rage quitted a match and I rarely go straight to main menu; only reason I can think about is if the opposing player has been rage quitting or being disrespectful in prior matches.

If I play you, and have have a great close game with you, and you take the first game, you're going to leave and play someone else (or maybe me)* to get another potential point faster instead of playing more against a player you can learn from?

I agree, rematching a good opponent is better than a meaningless point.

 

[IsaVulpes]

a leaderboard system that doesn't keep track of your actual wins has no purpose at all then.

A leaderboard system that DOES keep track of your actual wins still has no purpose at all, since it's entirely dependant on massgaming with no regards to your skill

 

[missingno]

Never really understood why we have a leaderboard that basically just measures time spent playing. The idea that anyone actually takes that seriously is even more baffling.

 

[BeizlFreiz]

wow, I had no idea it worked that way. there's a strong possibility I'm just being a big idiot but I'll be sure to play several sets over the weekend and record my data a scientifically as possible. I keep quite a close eye on my position in the leaderboards. competitive personality I guess. I place way too much stock in these thing because I don't really get to go to tournaments.

 

[BeizlFreiz]

If this is the case then I will be dropping to main menu every single time

no way dude. the experience is more important. ya can't get good without gettin' a few teeth knocked out

 

[skull person]

competitive personality I guess. I place way too much stock in these thing because I don't really get to go to tournaments.

Your competitive personality is much better spent playing in online tournaments then.
There are so many of those going on where you can compete against other players.
I PROMISE that nobody will ever take your placing on the leaderboard seriously, ever : (
A long time ago someone tried to make a thread about how he was a top 300 player because of his leaderboard placement and well.......... It ended in flames.

I was in your boat too and I only got to go to my first tournament a year after I started playing.
Online tournaments were lots of fun.

 

[BeizlFreiz]

Your competitive personality is much better spent playing in online tournaments then.

I would love to but my internet isn't great. I'd say I run into green ping less than 40% of the time, that's kinda why I live in quick match.

 

[skull person]

You're EC, so you live in the area where most of the Skullgirls players are actually.
Try asking in the Skullgirls discord server for some matches:

https://discord.gg/nwRyWbD

The dark green names are those on the east coast and you should have a good connection to them.
You should be fine for online tournaments because your internet being 'good or bad' usually isn't related to your ping.
There's also local Skullgirls tournaments that are closer to you than you think.

 

[BeizlFreiz]

You're EC, so you live in the area where most of the Skullgirls players are actually.
Try asking in the Skullgirls discord server for some matches:

https://discord.gg/nwRyWbD

The dark green names are those on the east coast and you should have a good connection to them.
You should be fine for online tournaments because your internet being 'good or bad' usually isn't related to your ping.
There's also local Skullgirls tournaments that are closer to you than you think.

thanks man. you really do have an answer for everything. expect quickmatch data on this thread sometime on sunday if I remember.

 

[BeizlFreiz]

played 10 sets in quick match

set 1: G1: loss G2: win G3: win G4: win Board win: no

set 2: G1: win Board win: yes

set 3: G1: loss G2: loss G3: loss Board win: no

set 4: G1: loss Board win: no

set 5: G1: loss G2: loss G3: loss Board win: no

set 6: G1: win G2: win G3: win Board win: yes

set 7: G1: loss G2: loss G3: loss Board win: no

set 8: G1: win G2: win G3: win Board win: yes

set 9: G1: loss Board win: no

set 10 G1: win G2: win Board win: yes

not a single anomalous datum, though granted, it's not a particularly large data set. looks like this was a completely imaginary issue. how embarrassing. sorry guys, my b.