Stalling / Roping / Quitting - Improvement Suggestion

That topic is about stalling opponents. I’m playing mostly in bronze-silver and A LOT of people stall the match if they are about to lose the first duel. As soon they realize they are in a losing position they simply don’t respond or play anything and just let the timer run out. Side decking? The same, full 2 minute duration and then the second duel nothing as well. It’s frustrating, I come online to play.

Because of that, I tend to quit the game during side decking myself as soon I see my opponent not responding in the first duel. Which kind of gives them a free win and losing me points. I do not care about the points, but if it keeps me in low elo where people tend to do that a lot, then something needs to be done against it. It can’t be that people can waste my time and force me to sit there. It’s always the choice between: Do I stay in low elo and just quit the game to pray that the next opponent actually plays, or do I let the timer run out and get the win? That’s stupid, that choice shouldn’t exist.

So, I would like to introduce the following suggestion to allow me to quit such games and stop wasting my time, without getting punished for it:

If the opponent loses a duel BY TIMEOUT, then let me quit the game during side decking without losing points. Giving me +/- 0 points and the opponent +/- 0 points. That’s a compromise between choosing to wait and win the match OR not getting my time wasted because I actually want to play the game.

There should be no drawbacks regardless if it’s the first or second duel. First duel? Well, I’m one point ahead. Second duel? Well, I lost the first but won the second… So… 1:1? Can we call it a draw then?

Once again, I just suggest this for if the opponent loses by TIMEOUT and if the WINNING PLAYER (me lol) quits the game during side decking. This prevents the abuse from the person who stalls the match as well.

In the worst case, just implement that system for the first duel only if the second one might cause some concerns. But I see no reason not to allow it.

Cheers~

By the way - I’m totally offering to implement this by myself if you guys say “Yes good idea, but no… other priorities”. Bruh… :stuck_out_tongue:

The Devs are actively working on a solution to the stall problem for the 3.0 release (I think they have settled on a good solution but I do not know the details). As it stands while your solution is simple, and simple to implement. A smart staller would just not let it timeout, and in fact many stallers do in fact keep doing small actions to refresh the timer. Thus the problem is not fixed just moves to a more annoying form.