Assault on the ragequiters

Hello everyone,

This is my first post ever to this forum, so if it’s in the wrong place I apologize.

Usually when on this forum it’s only as an observer, but tonight I had an experience that I felt I needed to share. Tonight while playing in the rated match section of HRD someone I knew to be ranked in the top 50 ragequit on me on five separate occasions. I had had enough. After the fifth time I sent them a quick note which read, “no one thinks you’re good when you ragequit all the time.”

I didn’t really expect to get a nice response given the tone, but since that wasn’t my intent it didn’t matter what they said. To my amusement, and hopefully yours, this is what they said in reply, "this coming from a turtle who never attacked first? lol your logic is that if its in the game [it] is legal? well [it] is legal to quit [,] enjoy your failure turtle.

I have to say, when I first read this I laughed out loud. After about a minute I began to wonder if anyone else bothers to confront the ragequit wonders?

If so, what were you’re experiences?

Additionally, is it more egregious to ragequit when one standings in the rankings is quite high?

Lastly, should a wall of shame be created for those people who are known to be prolific ragequitters? For the record, the person I’m talking about went by the name:


Assuming a game where disconnecting (regardless of why) awards you a loss and the person remaining a win, then it’s wholly irrelevant and unworthy of the ironic rage you have for the quitter. In fact, if the game scores in that fashion, all a wall of shame hopes to accomplish is wasting time and, eventually, including somebody who didn’t quit on purpose.

EDIT - Forgot to relay my own experiences.

I remember going into a player room and destroying this dude’s Akuma with trusty ol’ Dee Jay. He quit the whole room. I laughed, and I laughed, and I laughed s’more.

I got an 8-win streak with Dan in SF4, and it would have been about a 13-win streak if opponent quits awarded me wins. :rofl:

Concerning how the game awards wins and losses, I’m not sure how HDR deals with people who ragequit. When I go to play another game after someone has quit, it usually doesn’t appear as a win on the load screen. Later, when I go in to check the scoreboard, some of the time it seems to have counted the game as a loss against me, and other times it seems to count it as a win.

While I obviously can’t be certain about this, given that the person I was playing was ranked in the top 1 percentile, it seems likely that they have found a way around getting game losses. Otherwise, how could they maintain their consistently high ranking while ragequiting all the time?

Thanks for mentioning your own experiences specs. I bet it really burns some people to get their ass handed to them in SF4 by Dan.

As for my wall of shame comment, I was for the most part joking. I just don’t like the idea of having the leader board of HRD filled with people who have cheated their way to the top.

If you’re playing to win and losing the current game why not disconnect? If you know you will lose why not throw the dice on a win? Obviously this is not the logic of ragequitting but I’m sure some people do this.

I only send messages back when people actually message me. I think the most shocking experience I had was one person actually called me a “ninja” (he didn’t say ninja, let me tell you what) during voice chat, which is odd for a number of reasons; especially due to the fact that I’m not black and the fact that I didn’t say anything into the microphone at all, let along something that would imply that I’m black. The funny thing too is that he then messaged me and said “You need a life, go outside”. And, all I was thinking was “You called me a “ninja”, cussed at me, and ragequit over a video game, and I need a life?”

Quitting should never be concidered ok, no matter how the game registers it. However, it looks like HD remix at least lets people avoid losses by quitting. This is simply put cheating. Saying that it’s “in the game” and therefore legal is completely proposterous.

People who have a high score will obviously be more likely to do anything to protect it. At the same time it might mean that the person has put it in system to cheat his way to the top, in which case it sure is more despisable than your run of the mill ragequitter.

That guy who wrote that to you after quitting must have done it to enfuriate you. Implying that he in some way defeted you by quitting the game… Makes me angry just thinking about it :D.

I’ve posted two videos that show [media=youtube]gyzhGhoGTBk"]when someone disconnects on you, you get a free win. There might be bugs in the system where sometimes you are credited with a loss when you won, but that is a separate issue. The most notable dropper I’ve come across is Z Somer, who is a top 25 player on the leaderboard. He dropped on me so many times, [URL=“”[/media]. :zzz:

Banthur: This is not the idea behind playing to win. If you haven’t read Sirlin’s book on playing to win, I strongly reccomend it []. If you have read it, then I’d read it again. The concept of playing to win doesn’t mean it’s okay to “win” through cheating (in this case exploiting a potential bug that allows one to avoid a game loss). If you read Sirlin’s book this is what he says about cheating.

?What about using the map hack in StarCraft, or a packet interceptor, or a macro to cast your spells faster, or just a swift kick to the shins of your opponent??

One of the great things about playing to win is that it?s a path of self-improvement that can be measured. In playing to win, we have the cold, hard results of winning and losing to guide us along that path. I think it?s only useful to consider winning and losing in the context of formal competition such as tournaments. Kicking your opponents in the shins is outside the scope of the game, and is not legal in any reasonable tournament.

Stout Soul: I could not agree more

Eggo: Thanks for the videos, and the commentary.

Please everyone, keep the stories coming! :wgrin:

Eggo: Do you know whether the, opponent disconnect = you win thing, is valid for those of us playing HRD on the PS3?

From what I’ve gathered (using Xbox myself), here’s how it works:

Xbox: opponent disconnect = you win for 99% of cases, and you lose for like 1% of cases

PS3: Flip a coin. Heads, you win ; tails, you lose.

That he doesn’t take his losses like a man like I do gives me the comfort that I know I’ll be better than him someday.

Yea i play on PS3 and i’m seriously tired of ragequitters.

Its funny because i can beat the shit out of people with Fei all nite, and they never ragedrop, but i play serious with Barlog then they instantly drop off.

Its getting to the point where i feel like i cant play seriously with Barlog.

Fuck ragequitters.

great vids and yes, ragequitters make my days that much more stressful. i mean if they cant win legit, do they really feel accomplished by being on the leaderboard if the score is tainted? and if they quit vs people who are good and can only beat people who are worse than they are, doesnt that make them bigger losers?

this is what i have to tell myself when ragequits happen to me…

Very smart outlook.

LOL. I like his Akuma strat of “just keep jumping in” :confused:

nice Sim btw.

In addition to “rage quitters”, I really hate people who give up on a round when they are losing by a lot. This happens when you take a big lead (nearing a perfect round) and your opponent just stands there without fighting back. I’ve had near perfect rounds many times before only to lose the round when my opponent strings together a set of moves to beat me down. In fact, I find that the top players are harder to kill as their life bars approach 0.

When my opponent gives up without fighting with every last breath, it just seems disrespectful. It’s almost like they’re saying “I let you have that perfect round.” Ugh.

From your video description: “This is a triple pack of Z Somer action… 3 fights for the price of 1!”

Eggo I want my money back. None of those fights were complete! :rofl:

maybe a sh*t list?

LOL yea Z Somer quits on me every time.

How about someone maintains a list of high-ranked rage-quitters so we know whose ratings don’t count? Are they even worth it?

I have read it actually and this is what you say it is – a bug. You know, like roll cancelling. In all honesty disconnecting is admitting loss but exploiting the system to play better opponents – which in my opinion is a plus since you’ll learn more from better players. This isn’t like using a hack or a macro because it’s part of the game’s interface.

On a side note, I have a feeling the win/loss result of a disconnect depends also on method of disconnect. I think if they were tricky they could determine if someone quit using return to dash (and maybe even hitting the power button) and give them a loss, its much trickier if you have to rely solely on network forensics.


I am far from an expert on all the nuances of fighting games–HRD included–so correct me if I’m wrong on what roll canceling is. I was under the impression that roll canceling was more of a technique used for adding extra invincible frames to a given move by canceling from one move into another in a certain way.

If I’m correct in my understanding of this, then I must respectfully disagree with your assessment. Role canceling, while based on a “bug” in the programing would be perfectly legal to exploit in tournament play.

Ragequitting at the end of a series of games that is about to be lost, in order to avoid a game loss is not at all like this. While it is also based of a “bug,” and may very well be a clever manipulation of the network forensics, such activity would obviously never be allowed in tournament play.

I guess I just see the ragequitter much more as the person who kicks his opponent in the shins to avoid losing, and not as someone who’s exploiting the system with the aim of playing better opponents.

In addition to this there is also the issue of fairness to consider. If these people are able to avoid the game loss, and inflate their rating, their rank on the leaderboards should be lower. While I recognize that this is not a huge deal it is still objectionable, if we consider that their position in the ranking should rightfully belong to someone else.

Tournament play? Unlikely. But it is allowed in ranked play so why not use it?

I’d agree with you there but I think it’s important to see the other side of it.

I think you just have to remember what rank represents: a player’s ability to gain rank. It is only partially how good they are at the game and partially how good they are at exploiting the ranking system. No matter how objectionable a person’s tactics may be if they rank highly it is because they are good at gaining rank.