Who wants to play GUESS THAT ALT!! ?

It appears that this is not a popular opinion on the Warlight forums, but I strongly agree with this:

Fizzer has, as everyone knows, made the game a game of strategy and skill, not a game of levels and experience. He wants the game to be as fair as possible, but people reject his dream by surrendering in these circumstances.

It is wrong, unfair and mean to surrender because you are losing.

In a 1v1 game, you can surrender because you believe you have no chance of winning: this is fine.

In a larger game, your actions affect everyone else and change the game for everyone. Surrendering changes the conditions of battle and tends to advantage some players over others. (I've won games simply because I knew certain players were likely to quit if I hit them hard, so I did so, with predictable results.)

Given that not everyone seems to feel the same way:

Perhaps we can use the "surrenders must be accepted" setting as a sort of "flag" for games which operate under this philosophy?

That seems plenty clear, and I don't particularly see the setting having any other purpose.

In a 1v1 game, you can surrender because you believe you have no chance of winning: this is fine.

In a larger game, your actions affect everyone else and change the game for everyone. Surrendering changes the conditions of battle and tends to advantage some players over others. (I've won games simply because I knew certain players were likely to quit if I hit them hard, so I did so, with predictable results.)

Given that not everyone seems to feel the same way:

Perhaps we can use the "surrenders must be accepted" setting as a sort of "flag" for games which operate under this philosophy?

That seems plenty clear, and I don't particularly see the setting having any other purpose.

+1

I believe I included in my rules the exception that surrenders are ok in times when there are only 2 people left or playing.

It's impossible for me to just keep playing, with the knowledge that i lost, the same way i played before. It would be ideal if everyone on a ffa just plays the game till a winner is decided, but it simply won't happen. I surrender exactly at the point, when i'm certain i can't win without boot anymore.

Edited 3/25/2016 06:37:10

^

Same

I used to think in FFA everyone should play until the end, but realisticaly a winner is usually clear before then, and if a player is attacking you to the point that you have to surrender then he is either in a position to win, or is an idiot. In either case then it's a good time to leave...

I don't have a strict personal code but I tend do disagree with a couple of your points:

When people don't want to VTE in a situation that warrants that - e.g. (in team games, not FFA) somebody getting booted without even picking or somebody surrendering for shits and giggles - I will,if need be, get them mobbed and eliminated irregardless of their team and make sure VTE comes into effect. Then I will blacklist them.

(It goes without saying that surrendering for shits and giggles will also get you on my BL. Or when you suddenly have "a plane to catch" mid-game RT)

People who do not accept my surrender in RT games when defeat is clearly inevitable and consequently leave me to get booted end up on my blacklist.They are willing to try and force me to waste my time against my will and against common sense, increase my boot rate % as a teammate, and they would probably also drag out a clearly lost game against me.

(People who drag out games they clearly lost against me are, of course, blacklisted as well)


These are all very sparingly used lately - the beauty of systematically blacklisting people who do things you dislike is that with time you get to experience that behaviour less and less frequently.

In FFA, i play until elimination or until i recognise the game has a winner, usually when 1 player got more income than the rest combined.

don't listen to timi

I didn't listen to timi, but I did read what he said and agreed.

Cloud Strife, it is not against the rules to not VTE or accept a surrender, it is part of the game to have a choice in these matters. Blacklisting people disagree with you is incorrect.

Surely Blacklisting people who disagree with you is correct? The whole point of Blacklisting is to tailor your Warlight experience to only players with views and play styles that you enjoy, that way we can all get the most enjoyment out of the game.

Why should anyone have to play a game with someone they don't like?

Edited 3/26/2016 07:38:33

How about this :

DON'T BE A DICK.

Then the poor Fleecemaster should be suspended.

Sometimes I feel like people resort to the blacklist too quickly. I myself was once blacklisted by a prominent member of the community merely for asking questions in what was essentially a rigged lottery game. But to each their own, I suppose.

Sometimes I feel like people resort to the blacklist too quickly.

I agree fully with that. I usually save my blacklist (which is about 10 total) for people who either act like total dicks to get them an advantage (strategic booting and the likes), repeatedly prove that they are illiterate and/or retarded (people who completely disregard the rules in diplo games or scenarios, like people in diplos who feel the need to immediately attack everyone around them without declaring on the first turn, several games in a row), and finally people who are just plain around assholes in games. I don't blacklist people unless I've played several games with them and they acted similarly (negative way) every time. Forum disputes are not a valid reason to blacklist someone in my opinion. I've tried to send mail to certain people in the past only to see they've blacklisted me out of nowhere, and with no valid reason.

Summary- Blacklisting should be saved for those who truly deserve it, and not simply thrown around like candy at a parade.

don't stall on wgl

accepting or not accepting a surrender is a part of the strategy to me sens some will attack you for net accepting and some will not, but I always accept if gets close to them getting booted.

don't listen to timi

No kidding, he shouldn't even be allowed on this thread. He finds sneaky ways to abuse game mechanics ;)

Edited 3/26/2016 19:35:42

I feel like you guys are talking in code. What's that all about?