Forums-->General game forum-->
<<|<|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|>|>>
| Author | second blinfold battle |
|---|
teaming up in a blindfold battle has never been against the rules, so why should it be any different now?
Coz this is not a casual FFA that anyone can set up?
This is a tournament. And the very definition of that word means doing one's best to win. If you KNOW who you are helping, and yet is deliberately giving your friend exp/fsp (not to mention gold since there's a prize involved), then it's as staged a combat as the definition allows. | | I thought aRU was a decent person... he just lost all of the respect I had for him. | for FaithBringer:
You do know that alliances are allowed in FFA battles?
These 2 players from EW allied from the start. Why? Because this way they have more chances to finish 1st AND 2nd in battle. Actually, they do play to win, they just know that it's impossible to win for both of them :)
for Jedi-Knight:
OK. Imagine following situation. There are 4 players left, one of them is almost untouched and 3 others are seriously crippled. You think that if these 3 players allied they had the chance to bring strong player down. But. It's long and hard process and success isn't guaranteed. At the same time, if they try to finish other crippled players (which can be done much easier), they almost guarantee higher scoring.
Also, how can they be sure that you won't strike them in the back while they battle strong player, so that YOU place higher? | | yeah, when everyone else is dead they turn against each other, so what they did was an advantage for both players, which is the whole point of teaming up, it would only be wrong if they had decided from the beginning who of them should win, and the other one would sacrifice himself to make that happen. | FaithBringer, read the definition of a staged battle in the rules and you will probably realize how incredibly stupid it is calling this a staged battle.
teaming up in a blindfold battle has never been against the rules, so why should it be any different now?
Please don't call messages ''incredibly stupid''. It's quite offensive you know, please don't be that offensive next time
I haven't said that temaing up is illegal. I wrote that in this respect (blindfold battle, but players from same clan team up) I would consider it a stage battle. But just let them report it and see what the admins think about it, ok?
It's not our task to judge about it, but we can give our opinion, that's all. | For Jedi-Knight:
1. Rule 3.16 defines "staged combat" as intentionally losing the combat (not joining together to defeat a third).
2. CaA local rule 8 (https://www.lordswm.com/forum_messages.php?tid=1853328) specifies clearly that such treaties are not considered staged combats.
Though I sympathize with you about the sportsmanship of the tournament in such cases, in the view of the game rules with additional explanations in the CaA local rules, this kind of treaties is not illegal. | for Huntress:
It's long and hard process and success isn't guaranteed
No disrespect, but in my books, that's as warped a theory as I ever heard one. So what you are implying is that as long as success isn't guarantee, it's OK to settle for 2nd? How can one even taste success if one don't even TRY?
And imagine how many great inventions won't even have existed if the great inventors of our time all think - "Better not try, success isn't guaranteed."
At the same time, if they try to finish other crippled players (which can be done much easier), they almost guarantee higher scoring.
Another way of saying not playing for 1st place/to win? You have your opinion, but I can't, and won't, accept that. In a casual FFA, yes, maybe I can accept, coz it's all fun.
But this is a TOURNAMENT (go read what this word means).
Also, how can they be sure that you won't strike them in the back while they battle strong player, so that YOU place higher?
Ermm.. coz I have walked pass his troops even though I can hit them? That I have not attack him in the last 20 or so turns? That they are level 12s, and know when another player is going for the win, or merely going (heavens forbid) 2nd-3rd place?
No offense, but did you even watched the whole battle before commenting? :) | No disrespect, but in my books, that's as warped a theory as I ever heard one. So what you are implying is that as long as success isn't guarantee, it's OK to settle for 2nd? How can one even taste success if one don't even TRY?
Let's see.
There are 2 scenarious:
1) Take out stronger player first, then take out other players
2) Take out weaker player first, then take out stronger ones
To WIN you need to take out BOTH stronger and weaker players. But 2nd scenario GUARANTEE higher scoring.
But this is a TOURNAMENT (go read what this word means).
Yes, it is. And it means that each player have to play to their best. And taking on the stronger opponent IS NOT always the best tactics.
-------------
Ermm.. coz I have walked pass his troops even though I can hit them?
That was your decision and your combat tactics. They had theirs. What's wrong?
-------------
One more time. Imagine:
There are only 3 players left. 1 Knight has like 10 Xbows w/o shots left, 1 Barb has like 2 Ogres and 1 Mage has like 30 Gargs and some mana left. You do understand that in this situation, Knight and Barb don't have even a SLIGHTEST chance to win, do you? Their BEST action would be to try to take down each other. They ARE playing to their BEST. | for CGSMCMLXXV:
this kind of treaties is not illegal.
Hiya m8. :)
Note that no where in my posts did I speak about the 'legality' of what was done (it's up to the admins to decide that).
I brought up the issue of -
The integrity, moral and general sportmanship of a sporting/gaming activity. One can say anything he/she wants to defend such actions, but one can't hide from the fact that when something like this happens, it's not done in the true spirit of a tournament, the very definition of which means to try one's best to WIN.
Name me another sports/game where it's within the rules to try and stop another by sabotaging another competitor's chance of winning, if he/she can't win himself? Go figure that one out, my friend.. | | ^^ Forever or temporary teaming in blindfold is one thing but know exactly who's who in a tourney that supposed to be "blind" is another thing. | for Huntress:
You do understand that in this situation, Knight and Barb don't have even a SLIGHTEST chance to win, do you?
??
Why are you giving scenarios when there's NO chance to win? Which was not the case here. ppfff....
Never mind, I give up. | I think the main point with this is how you class Winning.
Jedi-Knight is referring to a play style whereby winning that specific match is the important aspect.
The others are taking the view of having the best shot of winning the tournament overall, ie most points. Neither in my opinion is right or wrong, just different viewpoints. | K, I'm tired of this, so here's (hopefully) my final post -
imho, it's alright to team up with other player(s) [not knowing who you are teaming up with, coz it's supposed to be BLINDfold] while in battle, when you see that someone is getting too strong, and is running away with the win.
But to have a prearranged teaming up even before the game actually starts, with someone you know, just reeks of.. foul play, amongst other things.
And I'm not assuming, mind you. The guy admitted it. End of story. | For Jedi-Knight:
I understand your point and I already agreed with you about poor sportsmanship in such a case. I understand your frustration and I will think twice before entering such a tournament. Still, as long as the founders of this game allowed that explicitly, I don't see any point in discussing that matter. | Why are you giving scenarios when there's NO chance to win? Which was not the case here. ppfff....
That's your words: So what you are implying is that as long as success isn't guarantee, it's OK to settle for 2nd? How can one even taste success if one don't even TRY??
Yes. There are situations where you HAVE to settle for 2nd.
The last thing that I'm saying about THAT battle:
Every player is in his own right to make the decisions in battle. You can't guarantee that it would be the best decision. Not everyone is Einstein or Newton.
What I see:
1) 2 players teamed up
2) They together did good damage to 4 other players
3) You wanted other players to team up, but they didn't
4) You thought that they were not trying to play to their best
5) You've got totally pissed off about that fact and came here whining
Sorry, but you are just raging about your defeat. | i think that going for number 2 is ok. if you ever played blindfold tourney, it's quite normal in fact.
now, about aRu thinking that his friend should win... that's low. on tourney, you don't team up with your friends. so disappointed in you, aRu :( | To fix all this, simple solution.
Last man Standing receive pts, the other, NOTHING ! | | imho, it's alright to team up with other player(s) [not knowing who you are teaming up with, coz it's supposed to be BLINDfold] while in battle in a FFA, when you see that someone is getting too strong, and is running away with the win. | Stupid tournament! No battles started for Lvl 13 since begging!
And players do join and but NOTHING happen.
Makes me angry! | Blindfold Tournament should be as follow.
Only 1 Grand Winner, no Second place, no Third, no Incentive
In Each battle, only the 1st player, the one still standing at the end of the battle should receive points.
Teaming up to a certain extend is considered ok, but in the end, you wont win with that tactic so its not a good tactic to win the tournament.
Easy solution, that would fix all the problems. |
<<|<|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|>|>>Back to topics list
|
