Not scoring on purpose - OK or not?

The situation: It's impossible for you to stop the opponent from scoring. The few guys you have left are all too far away, even figuring in the nearest teleportation pads. He's near your end zone with the ball and he could score this turn -- but he doesn't. He just waits for your last guys to be forcefully teleported out. You lose the match, your MVP and the gold winnings. In your opinion, is this OK or not?

No, acting like this for me is using a glitch. It's unfair. I think Cyanide have to change this quickly !

The worst of this, is that it works like intend ...

[Tristelune]

I doesn't do it but the game give this possibility.

I alert Cyanide on this problem beetween the test day they work on to change that.

It's the very definition of unsporting behaviour.

I have used the following formulation a few times already, but nobody ever got sued for sounding like a broken record on the intertubes. There should be no such thing as involuntary concessions, i.e. concessions that are automatically imposed by the program. That opens the door to abuse.

If a game goes on for too long, it's a stalemate. By definition. A situation in which it's not possible to score within a reasonable time frame. Therefore, a 0-0 draw should be allocated after a given number of turns (24, for example, or maybe 30), and both teams should get money and an MVP.

It sucks, but until Cyanide see senses change that ridiculous rule, it's not illegal.
If someone does it, just go hunting one of their players - might at least make them score.

It's the very definition of unsporting behaviour.

I have used the following formulation a few times already, but nobody ever got sued for sounding like a broken record on the intertubes. There should be no such thing as involuntary concessions, i.e. concessions that are automatically imposed by the program. That opens the door to abuse.

If a game goes on for too long, it's a stalemate. By definition. A situation in which it's not possible to score within a reasonable time frame. Therefore, a 0-0 draw should be allocated after a given number of turns (24, for example, or maybe 30), and both teams should get money and an MVP.

This is the best solution - cyanide were right to introduce *some* time limits, but they've not done it in the best way. The incentive to stall like this has to be removed, or some coaches are going to continue to manipulate the rules like this to get the extra MVP and cash.

Controversially I like the player warp out idea. It is the concession that is the sucky part. I think that once a team has been reduced to zero players in the dungeon the opposing team is awarded a TD. The losing team should still get their MVP and money.

As we all know and agree being forced to concede after a long game is terrible. Being forced to concede because you got beat down and only had 2 players left from turn 16 whilst your opponent just sat there with the ball and 12 players on the pitch whilst not even trying to score is plain nasty!

Controversially I like the player warp out idea. It is the concession that is the sucky part. I think that once a team has been reduced to zero players in the dungeon the opposing team is awarded a TD. The losing team should still get their MVP and money.

As we all know and agree being forced to concede after a long game is terrible. Being forced to concede because you got beat down and only had 2 players left from turn 16 whilst your opponent just sat there with the ball and 12 players on the pitch whilst not even trying to score is plain nasty!

I think this idea is pretty popular generally - the French language moderator has made the same suggestion to cyanide, hopefully they will listen to the community and make this change.

I wouldn't go so far as to say I support it. It's better than what we've got now, certainly, but adding draws would be much better. This "solution" still rewards cynical play, just not quite as much.

I wouldn't go so far as to say I support it. It's better than what we've got now, certainly, but adding draws would be much better. This "solution" still rewards cynical play, just not quite as much.

Bah, that is for the weak. You shouldn’t even get the win unless you score or make the other coach concede. In fact I’d give neither team any money or MVP in that situation.

How about when a team runs out of players the game continues until turn 24 or the other coach runs out of players. But to keep things interesting then each turn a minotaur, ogre or troll gets teleported in under the control of the player who warped out 1st.