My Competitive Pet Peeve: Last-Second No Contest (Surrender)

[Thinkaman]

Warning, this is probably going to be a rant.

All competitive games are based on the common understanding: We come together, push a bunch of buttons, it says who won, and we respect that. It's a pillar of competition--the idea that being declared the winner matters.

Cancelling out the game from the blast zone at the last microsecond is inherently a subversion of this, arrogantly putting one's self above this basic premise.

It is far from a sign of "gg" or accepting defeat; since defeat is imminent anyway, it is the exact opposite. It is a psychological message of "No, I'm going to lose on my terms!" in a final act of defiance. The ego reaching out for one last, desperate attempt at asserting agency in the face of failure; one final attempt to make the winner's victory about myself.

Denying the opponent a victory screen they have seen a thousand times already isn't just denying them a petty form of congratulations, it's spitting on the very premise of the competition--intentional or not. The victory screen is the symbol of an important moment, where we accept the result and respect the outcome. It feeds into the opportunity for the loser to graciously nod and shake the winner's hand, as the wheel of competition completes this cycle and immediately begins turning towards the next one.

Additionally, denying the victory screen (and replacing it with a smug nod between the players) is a middle finger to spectators, whom the result screen is more directly addressing. Can you imagine any respected sport--physical or e-sport--not explicitly announcing who won? (And just declaring that people who didn't pay attention don't deserve to know?) It's unacceptably confusing to outsiders, literally being insular for the sake of being insular.

Adding artificial tech skill to losing is the ultimate form of smash masturbation.

----------

I like to think I'm a pretty easy-going and laid-back guy; I will argue for what I believe is correct, but generally I'm not very combative. I actively try to make sure everyone is having a good time, and am very patient with other players. I strive to create a welcoming environment with complete sportsmanship at all times.

But I'll be blunt: If you're too cool for a victory screen, you're too cool to shake my hand.

 

[Duck SMASH!]

You are implying that games must be honorable. As in, both players respect this conception of what a fight is.
While I agree with your argument, I do not believe games must be honorable. Not all players respect this idea.
And for those people, it is their choice whether to reflect this respect in their matches or not. Nobody else can tell them what to do in this regard.
There is another way to avoid this issue: Disable the pause button.

 

[GdspdUblkprzdnt]

Oh, please. It's just a game. You devalue yourself by investing so much thought into such an arbitrary aspect of it.

 

[Muro]

isn't pause supposed to be disabled?

 

[Thinkaman]

I mean, it's sort of like a state flag.

It's just a patterned piece of cloth that doesn't really mean much, until someone makes the choice to spit on it or burn it.

It is that person, the one spitting, who is putting emphasis and investment on the symbol--not those who object. That person is the one who explicitly went out of their way to do this unnatural act and make a statement. Someone who doesn't care would just let the game end normally.

----------

As a piece of context, this isn't in response to any particular event, recent or otherwise. No one in our core Smash 4 community in STL does this. I just realized when talking about tourney etiquette with someone that I felt strongly about this, and had never seen a discussion about it online.

----------

I think disabling the pause button is a good solution that most tourneys should disable anyway (I do, but don't feel strongly about it), but wish we could just be adults instead.

 

[PHYTO-1]

the victory screen is just spam A/Start anyhow. more importantly we do not need the victory screen to determine the winner. and saving a few seconds here and there is always welcomed.

"Can you imagine any respected sport--physical or e-sport--not explicitly announcing who won?"
within the game its not announced, but like i said we dont need that to determine the winner. if it was e-sports then the commentators/TO/etc would be keeping track. not only that but i think thats an unfair comparison because smash is one of the few games that allow a one-sided on-the-fly surrender option.

I like to think when people LRAS, they are mentally focused and prepared. They knew exactly why they died and how. As opposed to seeing the color blasts and wondering what happened. Them quickly getting into the next match via LRAS is what helps them cope with the loss and stay focused.

 

[Thinkaman]

the victory screen is just spam A/Start anyhow. more importantly we do not need the victory screen to determine the winner. and saving a few seconds here and there is always welcomed.

But it doesn't save time. In fact, it actually takes a trivially longer amount of time in most cases, particularly in smash 4 with the confirm dialog.

And we do need the game to tell us who wins, even if we are capable of predicting the winner with complete accuracy without its help. The winner is not determined by the players, but by the unquestioned authority of the game. This is philosophically the root of the competition.

 

[Djent]

I second what that other guy said about "Pause = OFF" fixing this.

Actually, this is yet another good reason to turn off pausing.

 

[PHYTO-1]

But it doesn't save time. In fact, it actually takes a trivially longer amount of time in most cases, particularly in smash 4 with the confirm dialog.

And we do need the game to tell us who wins, even if we are capable of predicting the winner with complete accuracy without its help. The winner is not determined by the players, but by the unquestioned authority of the game. This is philosophically the root of the competition.

we've created the competition and we've created the ruleset. i really dont think we need the game to tell us who won.

 

[Jigglymaster]

At the very least, Smash 4 has made it harder/more insulting for these players who quit early due to the fact that the game makes you confirm your exit after you've already paused and hit the button combination.

 

[Johnknight1]

Honestly why does it matter=???

If we know who won, it isn't a big deal. Plus, it loads the game quicker.

I don't personally do it, but I don't see why pausing and exiting a match is the worst way to do things.

 

[Muro]

also I dunno if it was like this in other games, but you can pause a match and quit as someone is being KO'd on his last stock and the results screens will still show the last death even though it was a no contest.

 

[thehard]

I was planning on making a post like this; you beat me to it. Agree 100%. It's a childish act of defiance and lame from a spectator's viewpoint. Play it out.

 

[Asdioh]

More importantly, you can't save replays on a No Contest >=(
(Correct me if I'm wrong)

 

[ChikoLad]

Not in disagreement or anything, just curious - what is the opinion people have on the act of the winner pausing upon winning a match or taking a stock, like so?

 

[Thinkaman]

Not in disagreement or anything, just curious - what is the opinion people have on the act of the winner pausing upon winning a match or taking a stock, like so?

I mean, I think this is just poor taste and bad sportsmanship. No deeper psychological meaning to dissect.

 

[ChikoLad]

I mean, I think this is just poor taste and bad sportsmanship. No deeper psychological meaning to dissect.

To be honest, I think the same of the no contest scenario. It just boils down to someone being a bit spoiled. Though you certainly put it in a nice, eloquent fashion.

As for my own opinion, I agree on both accounts. However, with one exception, and that is in the case that the players involved are all OK with it.

This likely never happens in the case of a No Contest (unless when playing casually), but in the case of pausing after a flashy KO, I see it as OK if you know there is a friendly rivalry between the players (which was the case in that GIF there).

 

[Thinkaman]

Sure, all social rules (including sportsmanship) are very flexible based on your relationship with the other person.

We shouldn't discount spectators though. If Smash wants to be treated like a serious competitive e-sport, we do have to act like it.

 

[ChronoPenguin]

Oh, please. It's just a game. You devalue yourself by investing so much thought into such an arbitrary aspect of it.

Going with this.

 

[Deleted member 269706]

I agree with the OP here, I think it's stupid to end the match right before it's over, it's just pointless. What's more, is that ending a match with "No Contest" leads to the same screen as the victory screen, it's simply a different animation/sound clip. I personally think that anyone who does this should not only lose the match (obviously), but be dropped from the entire tourney altogether (meaning they don't get to participate any other matches, including the losers' brackets). That being said, when looking at it from an unbiased standpoint, neither one really matters so long as it doesn't have any effect on the match. It's just a pet peeve, nothing more.

 

[erico9001]

In Pokemon Showdown the other player quits all the time if they know they are going to lose. The reasons for quitting are mixed. Sometimes, it is just as a way to save time. Other times, they quit right before they lose to sort of not give the opponent a sense of victory. I personally don't quit in PS, for there is usually the chance that I can have a comeback. Even when I know I can't, I want to give my opponent the victory he has earned by beating me. This could be seen as respect, or just understanding tbh.

This translates very well into Smash Bros. There is especially chance for comebacks in Smash Bros, so quitting is even worse from that respect. Ending the match or SD'ing in Smash also does not give the sense of victory or the full experience of a 'gg.' Yeah, you are still declared the winner like in PS, but it doesn't have that full 'good game' feeling. Especially if the opponent leaves right before the lose, I'm just like 'really dude, you just couldn't accept it could you?'

 

[Teh Sandwich]

I totally agree with you. There is a local kid in my area that does this every chance he gets in tourney. I find it disrespectful, and he's always super salty about it too.

 

[Thinkaman]

A key theme here is that this is not surrendering to save time, as many of us have noted. If that were the case, there would be no problem--surrendering to save time is very common in Chess, Starcraft, LoL, and DotA.

I personally think that anyone who does this should not only lose the match (obviously), but be dropped from the entire tourney altogether (meaning they don't get to participate any other matches, including the losers' brackets).

Whoa there. I think sportsmanship is important, but disqualifying players entirely for something so tame is... a bit much.

Again, the real solution is that pause should be turned off.

 

[Deleted member 269706]

Whoa there. I think sportsmanship is important, but disqualifying players entirely for something so tame is... a bit much.

Again, the real solution is that pause should be turned off.

Taking something like that directly out of context makes it look more extreme than it is. And if that rule did become a thing (which it obviously won't) it's not like someone is going to "accidentally" quit a match knowing the end result. No one would do something so miniscule with such insane consequences, which is why I have that personal feeling towards it. But again, it's completely personal. I'm not going out of my way to try and change the rules to fit my beliefs. Just stating opinions.

 

[Raijinken]

It's polite in Chess, Shogi, and several other strategy games to surrender pending an expected defeat. It's also common in professional-level Dota matches to surrender before the ancient is under attack, often even before the tier-4 towers come under attack.

But in Dota, surrendering has the game tell everyone who won, your ancient still explodes, and it's still a very clear (and system-regulated) means of tracking the victory. Extremely few cases of the tournament organizers ruling against the end screen, and even one amusing case of EG gg'ing out accidentally (right after the system was implemented). It makes it easy for people who watch the matches later to know who won, even if they're watching without commentary. Likewise in Chess, surrender is done by toppling your own king. (Some could argue that it's a more clear sign for spectators in that respect, since the king is never captured in Chess). For Smash spectatorship, that sort of confirmation is still useful.

I can understand this sort of surrender earlier in a match. If you're in a 3-stock match and got 0-death'd for both of your first two stocks, and you, knowing your own capabilities and mental state, don't think that last stock is worth fighting out, then by all means, surrender then. There's nothing unsporting about that, and you are saving people time in most cases.

But if you get knocked off, gimped out of your jumps (or are playing someone with a poor recovery) and have no option but to accept fate for the two more seconds it will take you to fall, and you choose THEN to no-contest? That's just poor sportsmanship. It's childish display of "Nuh-uh, I didn't lose, it was a draw, and my record according to the game is spotless", and really has no place in professionalism. Disabling pause certainly goes a long way toward helping by preventing the option in the first place, but that doesn't validate the act.

"Checkmate."
"No, I surrender, that's different. I have never been checkmated still, despite this tournament loss."

See how ridiculous that sounds?

As for DQing people for it, while I certainly believe sportsmanship is something worth rewarding or punishing, I think it's a relatively minor case of poor sportsmanship. Contrast, say, slapping the reset button, which has the exact same effect on the match, but is probably generally considered "pushing it" as far as the level of unsportsmanlike conduct (and is more disruptive to the flow of the tournament than the few seconds wasted with Smash4's No Contest slowness). And I quite understand any "Sportsmanship and maturity matter less here, we're playing a video game, not pro athletes" type arguments, but would like to point out that such justifications (and indeed, immaturity issues that bring rise to that) are a very real part of exactly why video games are not treated as a serious profession by the majority of the Western public.

 

[Anomilus]

Definitely with you on this. I've disliked the act for the longest. The act is selfish. The time saved is negligible (not everybody does this, so it doesn't add up much), now even less so because of the delay.

Considering this is a spectator sport, part of the enjoyment of watching matches is the inevitable victory of the player you might be rooting for, the defeat of a tough opponent, a comeback, whatever. The "GAME!" and the ensuing victory screen is the brief celebratory portion of the match, signifying the triumph of one player over the other.

To cancel this outright is completely anticlimactic for the spectator. It's practically the losing opponent saying "Fine you win I lose whatever..." Sure they may still shake hands afterward, but odds are it's just going through formality and that's still better to the loser than seeing their match reach its proper conclusion. Spectators aren't watching two or more players go at it so they can shake hands at the end. They want a clear winner and loser. A CLEARLY ANNOUNCED winner and loser.

In other spectator sports do the players just silently walk off when the game is over? Do they just find the nearest opposing team's player, give a quick handshake and leave the field? Or do they celebrate with their teammates? Display a sign of exuberant pleasure at the results? The spectators want it as much as the player wants it. Even if the winning player doesn't care, the losing player is denying the spectators the proper conclusion. And I guarantee the glory of the win is being diminished for spectators by this self-defensive action.

Keep in mind this: The only time I find it acceptable to not let the match properly conclude is when the celebration outside the match is gonna exceed whatever the game does. Such as winning the grand finals of a major, the winning player may celebrate openly, get congratulated enthusiastically by friends, whatever. But I've even seen grand final matches end with being sent to "No Contest" and the opponents just... shaking hands. That is seriously anticlimactic.

 

[ATH_]

Do people not understand what a pet-peeve is? It's something that bothers you, while having logic, still seems to admittedly affect the person more than it should. For instance, when you hear someone's voice too often and suddenly ANYTHING they say pisses you off? It's not a pet-peeve there, but it's a good example of something close.

I agree with this and always turn pause off. If I were to tourney match someone who did this I would shake their hand but just not look at them. Give them the respect and thought of the loss at the same time.

 

[san.]

This makes victory even sweeter.

 

[ATH_]

This makes victory even sweeter.

woohoo difference of opinion isn't that great!

 

[_Magus_]

It's definitely true that this is immature/disrespectful, however, it also makes the person you were playing look MUCH worse. If someone quits out, particularly at a tournament, they're likely going to be doing it in front of a lot of people, and looking super salty and immature in front of all those people in the process.

 

[False]

I couldn't agree with the original post more. It's just generally disrespectful.

 

[Octavium]

You are implying that games must be honorable. As in, both players respect this conception of what a fight is.
While I agree with your argument, I do not believe games must be honorable. Not all players respect this idea.
And for those people, it is their choice whether to reflect this respect in their matches or not. Nobody else can tell them what to do in this regard.
There is another way to avoid this issue: Disable the pause button.

I wouldn't call it dishonorable to ''no contest'' a match as the last second, I'd call it severe disrespect. I am not much of a rager, everytime I die I analyze what caused me to lose a stock and attempt to stop it from happening next time.

But if somebody wishes to take away my victory screen by simply denying it for his own greedy pleasure, I'd stop playing with that person.

 

[Timbers]

I suppose I'm desensitized to such a situation as it happens on occasion in any competitive environment. People get salty as **** for a hot minute and then regain composure. I don't see it as a personal attack, just more that they can't keep their cool under (arbitrary) pressure

I wouldn't call it dishonorable [...] I'd call it severe disrespect.

Uhhh..these are nearly interchangeable lol.

 

[Freduardo]

If he's doing it to save time, I'd probably call him out for being impatient and say "But I wanted the video of--" and then whatever kill was the most humiliating. Ideally a Luigi taunt, but that's rare. And I would do this. Every match. Until he got the point that I don't play that way and he's likely playing on my system. House rules. If I'm at his house and he's impatient, eh, I'll learn to live with it, house rules. But still be sarcastic whenever he wins and I don't do that. Live and let live and I'd still play every round with only good natured mockery as a response, but I'd still be a pain in the ass equal to the pain that ass is being.

As for the winner pausing like SonicBrawler suggests, once again, it depends. Is he taking a screenshot? If so, let him get his screen shot in. If it gets to you, do it when you're beating him. If he's doing it just to gloat, definitely do it when you're beating him and just beat it out of him. Either in smash or in real life, beat it out of him. Because violence is the answer.

And knowing is half the battle.

The other half: violence.

 

[Terotrous]

This makes victory even sweeter.

I agree. My opinion is that when this happens, you basically won twice. First you won the game, then you won the mental battle by making your opponent so frustrated that they couldn't even wait out the victory screen.

 

[Teshie U]

No contesting in Smash 4 also stops anyone from being able to save the replay. Pause should be set to off anyway, but no contesting should not be allowed in tournaments as players cannot refuse to have their matches recorded (M2K clause)

 

[Roukiske]

Not sure about Smash 4 but people did this in Melee because it was faster to get to CSS and back into battle. Sounds like in Smash 4 this could be true also, but it also blocks replay saving so I guess that kinda sucks too.

 

[Octavium]

Uhhh..these are nearly interchangeable lol.

They are two different concepts, or at least in my environment they are, having a respectful match never means an honorable match.

Despite me sharing the same pet-peeve with OP, this is all subjective per person.

Some people who leave at certain death do not mean to be rude or immature and just want to save time.

While others use it as a way to let off steam, by stripping the winner of his ''reward''.

I guess its whether or not you consider the victory screen a reward.

 

[Terotrous]

Also, if anyone is really bothered by this, you can just envision the victory screen in your head, with your opponent doing the Ice Climbers' eye-wiping loss animation. I guarantee it'll make you feel better.

 

[thehard]

Also, if anyone is really bothered by this, you can just envision the victory screen in your head, with your opponent doing the Ice Climbers' eye-wiping loss animation. I guarantee it'll make you feel better.

Less bothersome and more unsatisfying to all present but the loser. And unsportsmanlike as well. I'll still do that though.