I see your point and would allow you to mark this invalid now, but I'd like to expand on this point. Having a player signal another player with a lower score to disconnect for a backup player with a higher score to takeover sounds like a dodgy way of gaining upper hand, but I would like to ask what is really cheating or unfair here? The most obvious form of cheating is removing the human element, but no human element is being removed here. The second most obvious form of cheating is gaining an unfair advantage over other teams. Also not true in this case. Any team can switch to a backup if they choose to. Also if the backup player is someone good like cookiezi and offers a decisive advantage, it shouldn't matter since it's no different than cookiezi being the actual player and not the backup. The third and final type of cheating I can think of is breaking the rules. Ofc this request would break the rules, but the rules can also be changed to accommodate this. So I would like to ask exactly what part of this creates unfairness to other teams and in what regards is this actual cheating?Nathanael wrote:
I don't think this is a good idea.
Yes, the advantage is to allow substitutes in case a participant got disconnected during the match but it can be also used for cheating like the participant with the lowest score will intentionally disconnect from the game and the backup will substitute their place if they have a higher score (e.g. full combo). Teams can simply make a conversation (like voice chat) as a signal to do the act.
But you are not removing, you are substituting. There is still a human there.Endaris wrote:
Removing a human via planned DC from multi sounds like removing the human element for me.
And it still depends heavily on the results of inside the game. I think of it as switching between possible results from actions taken inside of the game. Only reality is, once changed it cannot be undone.Endaris wrote:
Most of all the result will be altered via actions taken outside of the game.
Yes that works too until something goes wrong in a tie-breaker or the deciding plays. Actually who am I kidding, that's a poor arguement. Anything can happen to the backup player as much as any of the plays.Endaris wrote:
There are tons of better ways to setup some Anti-DC measures that aren't prone to abuse.
For example you could set up a 4v4 tournament but only the 3 best plays of each side count.
Possibilities to abuse? None. Basic DC-protection? Checked.
That was a terrible comparison indeed imo, but why are you not marking this invalid? The idea is dead as everybody pointed out it's not a the better solution to DC.MrSergio wrote:
Maybe comparing a game to real life isn't the best choice, but the idea of overcoming inevitable situations through virtual workarounds feels lame imo.
Just my opinion tho...
Any team can switch to a backup if they choose to.Then are you saying that they should disconnect if they're standing is bad? The purpose of the request was abused if that's the case.
But you are not removing, you are substituting. There is still a human there.The old player was removed and replaced by someone else, which is a human element.