Forums-->General game forum-->
1|2|3
| Author | Ban ask for this player |
|---|
^^ Hope all of this lead to smthing other than self justification.
But hey Mirz and DD can go 1 on 1 and settle it in more interesting way :D
ah hell, next time i just cut my powersupply and go afk
>>> A simple log out 'll do. | I am not taking it personally. I just would prefer not to play against someone who acts as you have chosen to do.
You know, the kind that joins a game advertised as "no Artifacts" with a full set of artifacts. And then thinks that people are being unreasonable when they are criticised for ignoring the advertised parameters of the battle. | | divina, thanks, i think this has helped more than 20 combats lost this way | Youre welcome.
If even a little part of this discussion will serve the DEVs to implement and enforce more rules and possibility during the creation and play of a battle, all this post will not have been in vain. | American Heritage Dictionary:
a priori - Made before or without examination; not supported by factual study.
I think Mirz's decision was made with and after examination by the facts he had at his disposal | Cvert - you're commenting Grunge's (good) proposal for a rule change. The current rule doesn't mention anything like that. Of course, "a priori" (which is latin, btw) may mean a number of different things in different situation.
Grunge - yep there are numerous interface problems I'm afraid... But there are ways around this.
One is to *rule* that descriptions are binding - which is not, till now. So one that ignores them is actually breaking the "law of the game" and can be banned, taken action against, or similarly made miserable.
This will also help those who don't face a player as fair as Mirz, and find themselves against a vastly superior opponent.
Another is to add SOME limitations (like no arts, which is the one I see the most), which would help although it doesn't solve the problem.
And the last is removing descriptions or allowing people to ignore them freely, as it is now, in which case there's no complaint about fair play - and everyone has to fight against whatever comes, which is what the devs had in mind to begin with, me thinks...
All of them are a bit better than the current situation, where one player like Mirz has to make his own justice. And if you face one like DivinaDemon with someone other than Mirz, that will take advantage of this situation... you (might) lose and can't even complain.
And you know... I'm positive that this rule amendment is exactly what DD had in mind when he opened this topic. Provoking and irritating as it may have been for some, or many.
Just my .02. | I only read up to #22 wherein I had been prepared to post the same 2 rules as DD had. As a moderator I tend to have to go with the rules. Whether or not Mirz has declared how he will treat people who break the code of the battle description isn't up for discussion (which DD did and no one is arguing that). The rules state he has to play out his part of the group battle and furthermore can not grant other party members appeasement for their loss.
As posted from Mirz'z profile:
A warning to all lame players that do not follow descriptions (like no arts or ups), I can and will set battle on my own team to make them either read next time or to avoid combats with me. no lame excuses will be tolerated
You can't expect every player to read every person's bio before entering battle. Furthmore you can't take the rules into your own hands and thereby breaking ACTUAL and LISTED rules for a rule of etiquette or social observance.
#46 The DEV's could place a simple option for Art's, Ups, etc, but up until now have chosen or haven't been able to apply such an option. Until that day comes, AND they list a change to the way the diamonds function on the rules page, then players can not take the vigilante battle style mentality.
Final note: DivinaDemon START READING AND ABIDING BY THE BATTLE DESCRIPTIONS AS LISTED and start playing along with the social foundations of the game so we won't have to continue reading these ridiculous posts about afkers and ups abuse!!! | "3.16. Contractual combats leading one of the parties to losing <b>A PRIORI</b> is prohibited. A contractual combat supposes that one of the parties intentionally loses to the other for any reason different from having technical problems with access to the game. Instigation to losing a combat is also forbidden."
My interpretation of this rule is that you must have the intention to win the combat before you agree to take part - a priori - which Mirz did | No need to analyse law to see where where's the problem. If admins want to punish Mirz, they'll do it, and this forum isn't the place to discuss it. But i think with multis and real contractual defeats, they've more criminal attitudes to take care than a guy who try to make respect of his convictions.
The real problem is:
This was a "no art" fight and a player joined with full set. This was a "no up tier 2" fight and a player joined with shrews.
Group battles are the equivalent of friendly matches when tournaments are the equivalent of competition. There is a lot of conditions verified by the code established by devs to assure full set cannot come in tournament, cause it's competition.
In group battles, there is no reason of coding it, cause it should be based on etiquette et respect - in theory.
The player who joined the fight with full set and tier 2 upgraded at the last moment , even making in his player description that he doesn't read battles descriptions (I've already seen this case, yes) make it cause he has no etiquette, and he doesn't respect the other player with whom he join. It's like players with whom he will play are just bots for him.
There cannot be friendly match in these conditions. So I think Mirz methods should make disciples.
I've already been confronted to players joining "no arts fights" with full sets, that's just the reason why, last times, i don't play no more many group battles.
When i saw player no resepcting conditions of the battle, until today, i just said them it was disrespect for 5 other players and breaks all pleasure for them - the same as an afk who go play MMORPG or another game when he just joined -, but i think i will do the same as Mirz.
The players who join these battles with full arts will be very angry by loosing them. They loose battle and durability of their arts. i think it's a way that after a certain number of uses can be dissuasive for them not to join.
Sorry if my text is not easily understandable, but english is not my native language. If you cannot understand me, say it. | I have not read all of the previous posts but,
I personaly dont agree with joining a duel where it says no arts with arts.
Although nowadays you see all kinds of weird duel descriptions like a lvl 3 Dark elf had open the other day, it said "Only melee attacks". And it was everyone for themselves, and i think everyone know that not many classes beat a lvl 3 DE in only melee.
Anyway, as the creation of duels is at this moment when you cant actually prevent people with arts, higher tier units and even a hero with other abilities then melee to join the game i think its just best to leave it free for all to join. If you feel that you have a disadvantage in for example arts, then go and buy some and put on yourself?
My 5 cents.
/Hatred | well, ;ets statethe following still
- i do not disagree with diamonds, expenses are made, so a way to get some cash is really needed and this is way better than seeing a commercial every time a battle loads
- i do not disagree with the use of advanced critters on a level where they should not belong, it is a way to make above mentioned attractive after all
- i do not disagree with the use of artifacts as well, i have a set of them too
I simply abhorr the lack of etiquette that is very common in mmorpg's and that is something that can only be enforced by the peiole that play, no ammount of rules en checks WILL enforce it, only when those who are breaking ettiquette rules are punished for it by the community will it be able to work, else ye get moderatoers and administrators who will be seen as a police force and any way you can evade through the mazes of their checks is not only accepted, new ways will be applauded even.
and i will not complain when the other side has better troops or artifacts or whatever, when it was all according to the descripton of the match, nor will i go afk or whatever, who knows, it might even go the right way after all, upgrades or no, artifacts or no, also my team deserver my best effort
as long as a restricted match is not seen by some as an easy way to gain a (next to) sure win by ignoring the description, then i am quite satidfied.
oh, and off course say, in 2 % of the situations, it is really a mistake, but it seems when we are talking about afkérs in other threads (where the % will be much higher and for those the reasons a lot more important) no punishment seems to be hard enough.
if this must be my way of enforcing ettiquette, so be it, but i will not let those who are unfairly duped by my actions go without some compensation.
(and BTW, i did not enter the battle with the intention of losing, it was a random and had i entered the other side. damn sure i would try to win, i just do not want to win the easy way, those are no fun, i want to win in a fair way).
if ye ask me, this thread can be closed and the administrators may decide whatever they want.
greetz
Mirz | u buggers study law or something?
those r some HUGE posts!!!!
in my opinion, restricted battles r a bit stupid, as pointed out by Hatred.
we pay valuabe resoures and sometimes diamonds for upgrades and arts, so we should be able to use them!!!
anyway i agree with what Skunder says |
This topic is long since last update and considered obsolete for further discussions.
1|2|3Back to topics list
|
