Super post sport but before you go cream your spacesuit in masturbatory righteous indignation you might want to watch the replay again and discover that it was your teammate that was hosting.

Ironically, I agree with your conclusion, I would like my win tallied.

Yeah I've seen that already... They clearly don't get it. So because theres no organization on ironclad online people don't try hard to win "at all costs?" Good thing they are typing that cause I don't know how you could say it with a straight face...

And Bronnieman don't be cross just because we stopped what you and your little buddy were doing. But at least we agree on recording wins/losses

yeah I have to agree that what Frogboy says in that quote is very dubious.

I understand where he is coming from, I think. It can be very frustrating for new players if the "competitive" ones take over the culture.

On the other hand there are many (if not most) players who obviously aren't interested in noncompetitive play. Good players won't want you on their team if you don't have a good win-loss record, and it's a pain to achieve that status when people just leave.

I don't see why you can't accommodate both. Include a ladder system, allow games to be made "ranked" or "unranked" and give players a choice. If a player doesn't want to have a win-loss record at all, provide that option. We have noncompetitive aspects like free for all matches and mod support, why can't competitive support be added non-exclusively?

I don't play WoW but I know it has some pvp and some non-pvp servers. I can't imagine that game being so popular if there was no pvp or arena battle whatsoever. I think the same principle applies for any online gaming community: if you want to protect the roleplayers, the 'casual' players, and the newbies, create a place for them. But provide a place for the competitive players too! Heck, probably the best way to ensure that people can play the game online leisurely is to separate them from the wolves. Creating two areas does this!

I agree 500, 000, 000, 000, 000%. They seem only wanting to cater to the casual crowd, when it is incredibly easy to give us ranked matches and keep our scores. That will discourage quiting for people who actually wanna finish the game. I hope this is read by someone important for 1.4.

I have no idea, but it was a good line.

The 1.03 preview thread mentions that ICO is getting more of an overhaul in 1.04. Hopefully this means there will be ranked games. At the very least it is simple enough to make a quit=loss in ranked game and non-ranked games do not add a win, loss, or game total to your stats.

If wins & losses exist they should mean something. With the current system you get competitive and casual players in the same game and it sucks for both parties. They are two different mindsets that have very different opinions. Neither is wrong but they just don't mix.

Obviously I am just going from their description, but I really don't like the sound of it. TEC and Advent's speed construction research items and Vasari's Repair Cloud can construct things so quickly that if you make structures invulnerable until they're complete you will end up with a situation where you have to chase tiny tiny (regenerating!) constructor icons around a well while someone turtles the planet in front of a huge fleet. It strikes me that people will figure out a way to be just as annoying with this as they are with blowing up pre-paid structures now, only it would discourage attacking as much as the current version discourages leaving a system unguarded.

We will see what they do, hopefully they manage to strike a good balance.

I've asked for the same thing (and so have a lot of people). Apparently the 'user initiated quit' stats ARE being tracked right now, they're just not displayed in the interface until the next patch.

Thanks for responding. No one has said though that all games should be ranked. Theres plenty of games that I'll play with friends which I DON'T want to be ranked. IE practice, just for fun ect. We just want both options to be in the game. It's very frustrating rolling the dice when you get in game as to who you're actually going to get.

Just as has been mentioned, you're going to drive both sets of people away if it continues how it is. Nothing drives a competetive player more bonkers than to have someone who wants that special all cap ship fleet, or wants to play empire builder in space, while the rest of the team is working together. And nothing drives the other side of the equation away more than getting yelled at repeatedly for trying to play sim space empire...

In galciv II, you can create multiple characters for the metaverse. Perhaps Ironclad should make it where players can make multiple characters, set one for competitive ranked gaming, and another character for just for fun. Perhaps include a metaverse type scoring system for the "just for fun" system, so single players can also have a part in it.

What I liked about SC is that I played unranked games for a month before I dipped my toe into a ranked game. I wanted to play for fun and practice at first, then get competative. Odd thing was, not once during a ranked SC game did my oppoents name call, or quit. Heck, a couple even ask if they wanted me to have them surrender, or play to the death (now THAT's good sportmanship). Non-ranked, where I just want to play for fun/practice is where the name calling and quitting was ranpant.

4 MP games of sins under my belt, 3 of which people just "quit". No GG, or "I'm leaving", nothing. And what really ticks me is that they did not quit because they were losing, I think they just quit because they did not get a quick win (being runshed by 3 Kols for example, which my mixed fleet easily dispatched).

Now I don't want to force someone to play a game their sure to lose for an hour more, but, they should just surrender, cause it's just salt in the wound (let alone SO borring) to have to mop up after someone just quits.

I agree. I think down the line it's goign to need to be added. It's all likely just a matter of time.