Forums-->Queries and help-->
| Author | Intentional Loss and bad sportsmanship |
|---|
Is losing on purpose always bad sportsmanship?
More specifically is losing intentionally when you have been ambushed always bad sportsmanship?
What is the difference between fighting badly in order to lose as quickly as possible and taking only 1 troop in order to lose as quickly as possible? The only difference I can see at the moment is that for the first you get a fine and for the second you don't which doesn't quite seem right to me. If you're going to be fined for one you should be fined for the other, they're both trying to achieve the same goal just in a different way. | | Most people don't want to be ambushed. Why force them to fight when they don't want to? | @ 1 & 2
Because it's a thin line between fighting badly in order to lose as quickly as possible in an ambush and fighting badly in order to lose as quickly as possible in other PvP battles. | | That line being that one has to voluntarily join other PvP battles? | | What about just taking one troop is that not an intentional loss? | I have to agree this is one delicate subject. Both try to achieve the same goal. But one can ask, if you have the troops, why not try to win?
And if you have 1 troop in your army, even if you want to win, you can't. It can be argued that in this case is not actually an intentional loss.
But, as I said, it's a very delicate subject. I just tried to reason in a way of accepting the current situation. | Funny, i was just thinking about this very question when i saw this thread. I got ambushed today while travelling with minimal troops - I was definitely intending to lose if I got ambushed :p
This has never been punished as far as I know and i don't think it should be. To follow the thought logically, i don't see why players travelling with full troops who get ambushed and want to finish the fight quickly should be fined either.
I recently got ambushed by a racial 8 barb wearing enchanted arts, while i had no arts and am racial 4 wiz at the moment - i mean, really, what IS the point of trying to run with gargs when i can only kill about 7 raiders with my strongest spell? *rolls eyes*. In that case, i don't think finishing the battle quickly is bad sportsmanship - it's just saving time :p | | I often bring 1 rogue to travel except when I have a Brigand .. U know that many players do not want to waste much time to fight against Thieves .. common thieves have full arts, while the ambushed ones do not .. :) | I recently got ambushed by a racial 8 barb wearing enchanted arts, while i had no arts and am racial 4 wiz at the moment - i mean, really, what IS the point of trying to run with gargs when i can only kill about 7 raiders with my strongest spell? *rolls eyes*. In that case, i don't think finishing the battle quickly is bad sportsmanship - it's just saving time :p
Of course that's sensible.
https://www.lordswm.com/warlog.php?warid=496739815<=-1
However, in games like the one above, players intentionally target their *own* troops just to end the battle quicker. There's a huge difference between not deciding to use Hit 'n' Run and choosing to dive-bomb your own guards ;)
That line being that one has to voluntarily join other PvP battles?
No, that line being; If players don't get punished for bad sportsmanship in ambushes, then what's to stop them thinking that they will also get away with it in normal battles?
Whenever I need to travel a lot -if I'm doing a merc quest chain, or collecting resources/arts- then I always travel with only 1 griffin. Even If I'm afk for the ambush, the thief can finish the game quite easily and quicky. But as long as I'm not really away from my keyboard, then I always finish my battles, whether I have only 1 griff or my full army :) | Just to express simply my thought:
loosing quicly in a 1 vs 1 game is fine for me
If I can't win why should I play for 10 minutes and pay much attention to each move just to kill 5 skellies more ?
I prefer to play 3 minutes and then do something else (most of the time I'm playing from the office so somethign else means go back to work ^^)
Problem is more when this is not a duel.
In this case playing to lose quickly can be a real problem for teammate(s) and in this case should not be done.
Doesn't mean player has to spend max time before each turn but don't do stupid sacrifice.
In addition if a player joins a PvP then he has to accept the constraint, not because this is in a "rule" but to be honnest and fair with team mate. | I have been told by higher-ups before that due to the fact that ambushes are beyond your control, trying to end the ambush fats as an ambushee is ok as long as you don't try to kill yourself. And this is also why they don't punish most of the ambushees that don't play 'proper'. But there are limits to that leniency (ie, no obvious self-killing, etc)
The current attitude is to close one eye on Travelling with 1 unit as it allows people to get over with ambushes fast, but it is still considered to be match-fixing since there is no way you can win the match, thus you are purposely losing. If you want to be blame-free (for whatever administrative reason), avoid doing that since you CHOSE to put yourself in a weakened position.
Not wearing arts while travelling is ok as you have the right to protect your own in-game possessions and not force a loss of durability on yourself. | ok, thanks Takesister
[Player banned by moderator Patrickou until 2011-04-08 13:17:36 // Please use your main to post in Forum as you did when created this thread! Thanks.] | oops, wrong character, sorry
thanks again, from the right character this time. | There is a key difference between losing on purpose (with normal troop recruit) and traveling with 1 troop that has not yet been brought up. When you lose on purpose your opponent gets fp and exp for the win, with only 1 troop they only get the TG point.
I think this is the main reason for one being allowed and not the other. If a person gives up because they are certain they will lose it can not always be determined if this is a honest decision by that player or if it is one or two players playing for just the benefit of one character.
If you are in a fight that it seems a waste of time to try and win the best thing to do is play aggressive without suiciding your troops in obvious ways. Move your stacks so that if one is killed another can then attack.
On a side note, with these rules being what they it can encourage people to afk from battles they think they have no chance to win. The luck penalty is small and gone after a couple hours, fines for intentional loss and be big. | What is the difference between fighting badly in order to lose as quickly as possible and taking only 1 troop in order to lose as quickly as possible?
MAJOR difference.
- You choose to be in a PvP, you don't choose to be in an ambush.
- The system don't allow you to enter a PvP (or any combat for that matter) unless you have a minimum number of troops. BUT, the system allows you to travel with 1 troops. If it's 'illegal' for whatever reason, why don't the higher-ups just forbid traveling without a minimum set of troops? The system settings speaks for itself.
Scenario, I just finished a quest, I'm in a hurry and have to log out/afk from my PC, but I have to report back for my quest. So I travel with 1 troop. I can report back within 2 minutes, and be gone from my PC.
IF a player travels is forced to travel with his full compliment of troops, he would be FORCED to fight when he don't have the time to. And that could take on average 15-20 minutes.
There was once I forgot to travel with just my Griffins, as I was in a hurry to report back for a quest before I go for an appointment. And guess what? I met a Wizard thief!
He was in min arts, and typically, did his garg-fee-zap-with-hero tactics. I was FORCED to fight in a battle I don't want to, and that ambush lasted like an hour ! I couldn't leave the unwanted and unplanned fight as I would then be guilty of 'deliberate loss/staged combat'. In the end, I missed the appointment with my client.
Anything that forces a player to fight when he don't want to or have the time for, can't be a good thing. Thus, the current rules regarding this is fine as it is.
Fight when you choose to. Won't, when you don't want to. |
This topic is long since last update and considered obsolete for further discussions.
Back to topics list
|
