Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

Winnig IS NOT the only goal in game/match. I got warned.

27 posts, 522 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 2 (27 records)
sort

TWranktreegb
32 days ago
(edited 32 days ago)

I got reported and warned by suicide "intentionally".
This game in 2017-99-17:
http://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/469400?
, I suicide my commander because I was bring to game automatic when I forgot to switch from "Playing" to "Spectate" button when I joined room, since I don't play, I want to make both team balanced. So another team will get metal reclaim.

After this, I get This message :
quote:
Your account has received moderator action: Don't suicide intentionally. You are free to leave the game at any time. http://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/469400 (This is a warning)


I can not understand why even this kind of judgement is possible, I have told my intention this was "for team balance". Unfortunately, someone still reported this (Firepluk had said "reported" while in that moment) and it even works ...

Then I was curious about is there any rules in lobby I have to obey?
I went check Zero-K Code of Conduct and I think only "rules" I violated was "3. Cooperate With Your Team":
http://zero-k.info/mediawiki/index.php?title=Zero-K:Code_of_Conduct

In this not too long page of COC, I immediately see PROBLEMS, when inspecting this with my current knowledge, value, thought, I get my conclusion:

ThIS COC ONLY REFLECT IDEA of specific small portion of people who think the most important and only thing to care in game/match is to win, nothing else.
ThIS COC DO NOT REFLECT IDEA of all people how they think what a game/match should be, and and what the value of a game/match is, including purely fun, enjoying the building process like Simcity, playing with new idea, trying new tatics, trying more challenged way to win, doing exciting gambling, enjoy graphics and sounds, making friends, trolling (yes, even trolling) ...

You are basically narrow down the thinking into how specific people who only have specific idea/view of what a game/match should be think, if you follow the "rules" in COD "3. Cooperate With Your Team".
It narrow down the huge diversity of ways to play a game, and believe this is the only way we have to play a game/match. People don't follow these rules have potential to be warned or banned even their intention is good - just want to have fun, no matter for himself or bring it to others (when also respect others). As mentioned before, WINNING IS NOT THE ONLY GOAL in game/match, there should be much wider reason why people stay here and game/match together.

Now consider how a GAME MOD was createcd. It was started from some people found playing with "unnormal style" was fun, then thinking why we don't create a game mod ourselves? Then finally a new mod with differnt play style was borned, and game mod like Garry's mod, derived by Counter Strike was actually not too related to first person shooting, but still very enjoyable. If people are not allowed to think differently, there is no these mod today. Zero-K will be boring too if there is no such diverse way to win a game and only limited to use only few units or few tactics.

In another way, people consider winning is their only goal in this game/match, often don't happy/enjoiy the gaming actually, you can see this example all the time by observe many team games, spectators number in a room are more then players in many times, because gaming are probably too pressured and bring unhappy, exhausted for them. Also people tends to play with AI instead of human when there are only few people in room, many people don't like 1v1 or 2v2 they only play team games. All these happened because people don't like "losing".

And I see problem in COC "5. Abide by Moderator Actions" too:

quote:
If you feel a moderator has acted unfairly, you should bring it up through the 'Contact administrators' button on your user home page ... Do not make forum threads complaining about the ...


The reason I post this thread here because, if this is a robust community, it should not eleminate different opinion, viewpoint, no matter you dislike or don't agree, instead you leave a opening space for discussion, inspection, communication to make a consense eveyone agree and confortable, this not only eliminate argument in this case, but also bring good example for others who are viewing this case and forming more friendly community in the future.
Peole don't always agree with each others but will at least respect different concepts, views, instead of making arguing the only option when seeing different stance of himself.
In a private moderation, this doesn't happened, why hide the fact and makes people can't obtain these kind of information?
I don't agree with Firepluk and I don't have to, but this doesn't mean I can't have open mind to discuss different logic and views of what a game/match should be like all the time with him, the best way to eliminate argument is by communication, not by penalty, ban, these don't solve deeper problem and will probably cause more opposition and even causing members leave such a harsh community with such narrow mind.

Since I joined Zero-K about a some time, I began to sniff out unusual atmosphere in this community, if you ask my opinion, I will tell you honestly this is a community with too many harsh people, blaming, flaming, ignoring, coldness.

This is different compare to another game community, 0.A.D , the biggest different is "coldness", people acting coldness here, they play, they leave, they don't even talk in game, is this really a community you want to form?

I think community is as important as the code itself, the code would not be too value when there is no good community using it, and I think this is the works people volunteering under are always doing too - bring more people here.

And if the main value of community think this is just few minor group of people thought, it actually eliminate the diverse opinion, gameplay, viewpoint of people in community, making only same people with that specific thinking will stay in community, others leave after frustration and go find other better place instead of Zero-K. A community which only accept one way of thinking or one way of playing, I don't see this is a good sign for a possitive community.

So the quesiton is? Is wining that important? If people don't support his team, so what? People can always create their private passworded room and invite people have same playing style they wish if they want.

+4 / -1

PLrankOrfelius
32 days ago
(edited 32 days ago)

By marching your commander towards your enemies and letting him kill it you are giving them free metal.

quote:
I will tell you honestly this is a community with too many harsh people, blaming, flaming, ignoring, coldness.

I came back from dota 2 to ZK recently for a bit and tried to shit talk a little bit for fun. People thought I was being rude and hostile. Imo compared to other multiplayer games ZK is pure and noble.
+6 / -0

DErankkatastrophe
32 days ago
Hm, good point. In a team game, the fun of the other players is definitely not worth as much as your personal fun. Seems logic. Sarkasm aside, i cannot think of any TEAM that would agree with you. How long would you be for example in a soccer-team if you don´t play how the others expect you to?
It´s very simple. The group matters, not only you. I completely respect your opinion that winning is not the only thing that matters, but if you want to play for your personal fun, why don´t you play bots or 1v1, wich i would recommend anyway.
For me, i enjoy a good fight, not neccecarily winning. If I or our team fucked up, i may resign without regret and play the next game. But if someone in my or even the enemy-team does not play with the intention of winning but just, let´s say hilariously suiciding his units, it just robs the fun for me. I cannot enjoy a win when i know our enemy has been sabotaged from within.
On a more general thing (and that is not meant to attack you, not even targeted on you specifically): I have played a lot of different things so far, and what i learned is the following: when you begin to play something DON`T assume your ideas are good. The stronger players are stronger for a reason. Usually they are stronger because they understand the game better. WAY better. I mean, yes, you could be a genious and all other people around you are dumb. Then it would make sense. But in general, this is not the case. I played Go/wéiqí on my own for half a year and got to 15kyu (roughly 700 elo). That´s how far my own intellect brought me. As soon as i got a teacher (and actually listened to his advice) i went straight to around 1900 elo. I can only encourage people to lay down their egos and listen to stronger players. It will pay out. And when you actually have a competent understanding of the game and the personal abilities it needs (like fast multitasking in 1v1), you will see that THEN it is the time for your own ideas and style.
+0 / -0


AUrankAquanim
32 days ago
(edited 32 days ago)

Both teams will always have the same number of commanders. (In general.)

By running your commander into the enemy team, you made your team have one commander less and gave your opponents free reclaim as well. Despite your intentions, what you actually did was the opposite of making the game "balanced".

If you had just left the game or resigned, you would have given your commander to your team, which would have preserved balance.

While I appreciate that you were unaware of that (which is probably why you weren't banned, in conjunction with first offense and other mitigating elements), you did ruin the game, which is against point 3 of the CoC (which is why you were warned).

EDIT:

With respect to your larger argument, with respect to unconventional strategies the Code of Conduct is in practice enforced with a great deal of leniency. However, it is important to remember that when playing in a team game your teammates' enjoyment, as well as your own, is dependent on your actions.

Therefore, the Code of Conduct does and should place restrictions on the actions you can take that are fun for YOU, but not for the other players in the game.
+3 / -0



AUrankAdminGoogleFrog
32 days ago
This looks like a misunderstanding. The basic misunderstanding is that you thought you were balancing the game when in fact you were not. Because there were only five players on the enemy team (compared to your six) one player on the enemy team received two commanders. If you had simply resigned then both teams would have six commanders and five players. The game is considered balanced regardless of whether you resign. We have systems to make game balance resilient (but obviously not perfect).

Generally resigning is the best option when an issue like this occurs. Resigning maintains the balance of resources and lets the other players play out the game. Resigning is not free of problems but it is the best option if you have to leave.

quote:
I can not understand why even this kind of judgement is possible, I have told my intention this was "for team balance". Unfortunately, someone still reported this (Firepluk had said "reported" while in that moment) and it even works ...
So, I've watched the game, and my response to this is that silence is not consent. If you are going to do something which your team is likely to find highly disagreeable then it is your job to make sure that they have agreed. Telling them and getting no response is insufficient. They may not have noticed. Ideally they would have told you that you were not balancing the game but they are themselves busy with playing the game.

Most of the rest of your post is about COC rule 3 and how it stifles creativity in play styles. You seem to stop talking about the game in question. Briefly, what you've said does not relate to your warning because I think it was clear that the other 10 players in the game were aiming to win. There may be a large group of people that are not covered by COC rule 3 but, if that is the case, they were underrepresented in that game. Even if the other 10 players were playing a very narrow game you should notice this and respect it.

quote:
So the quesiton is? Is wining that important? If people don't support his team, so what? People can always create their private passworded room and invite people have same playing style they wish if they want.
You were in such a room, minus the password. It turns out that the winning style of play is popular enough to support a non-passworded host with few issues. We also have five types of rooms. It is generally understood that players will cooperate with their team and try to win in Team rooms. FFA, 1v1 and Coop rooms are similar. If you want to use a different play style you are best off hosting a Custom room and telling people the rules before you start.

Now, onto the general restrictiveness of the COC. Technically, the COC says you can do anything as long as your team agrees.
quote:
Do not pursue all-or-nothing strategies without the consent of your team. Gambling the game on a risky move without their consent robs your teammates of their agency. You're free to try any strategy as long as you inform your team and they agree to it. The more risky, extreme, or unusual the strategy is, the more important it is to obtain your team's agreement before you start. Play as if you mean to play a full game.
That said, the COC does assume that the default goal is to win the game. In practice there is a lot of leeway for people trying out weird tactics and diverse ways to win. Have you seen games limited to only a few units or tactics? I have not. I don't see any argument for a suppression of diversity within the framework of trying to win.

If you want to play non-winning games then host a custom or passworded room. Winning is a goal by default unless otherwise stated. It is a goal because it is necessary for creating much of the gameplay of Zero-K. Both teams have to try to win for there to be any strategic interaction. I think it is generally understood that players are looking for strategy, since ZK is a strategy game. You can have fun with the strategy-free version of ZK but, in my experience, strategy games without strategy lack lasting appeal for most people. In this sense winning is an important goal but actually winning is much less important than everyone trying to win.

Note that I'm not being narrow minded with my definition of winning and strategy. You can put many restrictions on ZK while maintaining winning as a goal. Someone building a porc fortress in a corner against the AI is still trying win and so is still making strategic choices. A commander-only custom game (factories banned) still has winning as a goal.

I don't think you are in a position to comment on COC rule 5. The rule does not apply to you or to this situation. It is primarily for dealing with toxicity.
+2 / -0

TWranktreegb
32 days ago
Thanks for GoogleFrog and other people reply, it is 1. my misunderstanding 2. we still have different value and view at some point.

About suiciding commander it was my misunderstanding, "enemy team (compared to your six) one player on the enemy team received two commanders", nothing more to say about this.

About "You seem to stop talking about the game in question", yes my intend is I concern about the COD itself more than my this very case, I actually wasn't even watching this match I was doing other work.

About

{{
If you are going to do something which your team is likely to find highly disagreeable then it is your job to make sure that they have agreed. Telling them and getting no response is insufficient. They may not have noticed.
}}

and

{{
You were in such a room, minus the password. It turns out that the winning style of play is popular enough to support a non-passworded host with few issues ...
}}

{{
If you want to use a different play style you are best off hosting a Custom room and telling people the rules before you start ...
}}

{{
COC does assume that the DEFAULT goal is to win the game ...
}}

, my explanation/conclusion is the consensus of the community is so different than what I thought.
Since I was part of community, though I don't agree with some of the consensus but I obey it. And GoogleFrog your explanation is very logical and indeed explain my question very well, I could agree with it.

I would say this is all about we have different value/viewpoint/stance, and I still think COC rule 3 only represent a partial of people how they think.
This argument assume most teamate don't like player who suicide their commander or use gambling tactics just at beginning, but don't represent the view for all people.
For me, I consider Firepluk playing style is amusing and hilarious few years ago, he did a lot suiciding stuff and resign early in game (here I don't discuss what he personal talks and behave in this point), and the gambling probably do no any value to teams, but for me is like "why not?", I don't see any problem with this/his playing style, it is fun and I CAN ACCEPT IT even he is in my team.

I don't agree with COC rule 3, but I can accept it WHEN PEOPLE/THIS COMMUNITY SEE THIS AS CONSENSUS, this make sense. And about

{{
It turns out that the winning style of play is popular enough to support a non-passworded host with few issues ... If you want to use a different play style you are best off hosting a Custom room
}}

, yes, this is all about consensus too, I don't agree, but I follow this consensus.

About soccer team example, I would say teamwork is one of the goal to form a game, this is true, but not the only goal.

In soccer team, you don't have easy practice, you probably don't always have personal time and you cant say tomorrow I will have a day off because blablabla reason, you consider team first. To do practice, you sometimes have to do the same physical action/movement practice again and again, your practice/learning process is in boring and painful environment, not joyful. Even to become a gameer (professional), you found you don't have much time to enjoy the game itself, 8 hours practice a day, 6, 7 days a week is normal to become the normal team/player (not even need to mention toppest).

So there is always the most extreme case and example, in different situation, we can't assume any single stance is always right. People can choose their own beloved concept/thought/stance/option, but this will always be the only concept/thought/stance/option inside so many other possible concept/thought/stance/option, none is the best and most right.

I would say I will follow/respect consensus, but I would also want to say there is not only single way of thinking, always, not only in this topic, but in too much other place. And consensus or majority view doesn't mean it is right, actually in this world there is noting right or wrong, only different value/viewpoint/stance, always.
+0 / -0


JPrankgajop
32 days ago
You don't have to play seriously, just make your own room as GoogleFrog said.
You also don't have to play optimally always. Firepluk often uses "silly" strategies, but try to keep those limited and ask for permission to be courteous.

Since we're doing sports, to make a basketball example, there's a weekly Tuesday game I stopped going to because no one is taking it seriously. I have limited time to play and I enjoy playing competitively, so this feels like a waste of time. I don't mind them enjoying that play style however.
+3 / -0



GBrank[GBC]1v0ry_k1ng
32 days ago
(edited 32 days ago)

My simplified understanding of team game CoC is: you are free to choose a goofy, bad or outright gimped strategy - and people won't usually have a problem with that - but you are then expected to still do your utmost to try and support your team and win the match within the framework of that strategy.

Suiciding your commander into the enemy for them to reclaim does not support your team or parse as an attempt to win the match - its the football equivalent of passing the ball to an opposing player so they can score a goal, and naturally it will piss everyone off.
+3 / -0

ATrankSkasi
32 days ago
(edited 32 days ago)

TWranktreegb as far as I am concerned you are free to ignore this paragraph

quote:
Do not pursue all-or-nothing strategies without the consent of your team. Gambling the game on a risky move without their consent robs your teammates of their agency. You're free to try any strategy as long as you inform your team and they agree to it. The more risky, extreme, or unusual the strategy is, the more important it is to obtain your team's agreement before you start. Play as if you mean to play a full game.

as long as you seriously play to win. I haven't seen strategies with the goal of winning the game leading to any penalties yet. So learn and experiment as much as you want, provided you think something is a good idea and could be a viable strategy to win the game. Just make sure it's actually aimed at winning.
+0 / -0


LUrankAnir
32 days ago
treegb, i totaly agree with you: WINNING IS NOT THE ONLY GOAL!!!

There are many things that the Zerok-players can be looking for in a game. But whatever they are looking for, everybody wants to have some fun. I guess everybody agrees ;).
I also agree that our community reacts very sensitive to unusual strategies. But there is a reason for that.


-------------------------


Lets take trollcoms as an exemple.
All trollcom lvl 5 cost more then 2000 metal, which is the cost for an ulti (the counter to all trollcoms under 10.000hp, there are more and cheaper ones)
So by morphing beyond lvl 5 is nearly useless. It will probably die to something cheaper. (when your oponement possesses some skill)
I agree, it can deal more damage, so even if you morph to lvl 10, i can kinda agree upon that. But thats realy the last point i can see it beeing usefull. Later it gains nearly nothing on hp/usefull modules. Still there are people who continue morphing their com...
Thats why most people dont like trollcoms, just from the idea.
Also people sometimes use them on huge maps. Why would you go for a awefull slow com, on an 16*16 map? Damm, play 1 vs 1 there and i will kill you with darts. And there are still people doing so....

So yes, it is a justifiable stragtegie, but most people just play it wrong...

Also, when you go for a trollcom you maybe secure 1/8 of the frontline. Whats with the other 7/8? When there are only 3 players in each team, the other two players need to secure 3,5/8 each. Sounds a bit unfair doesn´t it?



An other example: Roachcannon.
It takes you often 2000 metal to get the ramp + newtons done + the roaches. And people often even spend more on it... So until all of the preperations are done, your team is 1 person down, but not only on metal, but also on mikro, and makro abilityes. Also you didnt expanded for your team. Which also means less income for everybody.
Just to shoot some unprecisious cannonballs in the enemy base which rarely make cost? And you dont hold anypart of the front on your own?


-------------------------

Those were two examples of often used strategies. Now i want somebody to tell me, how this is supposed to be fun for your teammates? They need to carry the troll the whole game, so that he can have some fun?
Thats the reason why most people react toxic on those players.

I agree totaly that unusualy strategies should have their right to exist in zero-k. But please also respekt your teammates, and their right to have fun. (by the way, the thread DeinFreund opened a few days ago, that he couldn´t play a relax custom game. This is the reason why.)


When you have a larger custom game with no people over 1800 elo, to carry the game, the room will mostly die pretty fast, because the trolls dont even intend to change their playstyle in favor of the team... And they also dont listen to the 3 or 4 1800+ elo players trying to explain them why they are stuck at 1200 elo....



Just saying. The mumble clan made passworded rooms, for their players, and those who joined us on mumble so we could talk to them. When we first played those games. We immediatly felt the difference. First we needed to play way more focused then when we killed the noobs and trolls (We have like 80% winnrate on clustergames) and we had by far more fun.

But dont get me wrong, we also accept new players within our games. As long as they play with us!
+1 / -0

LVrankSenaven
32 days ago
quote:
Winnig IS NOT the only goal in game/match.


Whinning is not only goal in game/match



quote:
I will tell you honestly this is a community with too many harsh people, blaming, flaming, ignoring, coldness.


Hmm, then you need play Dota 2 with russians. Then you will know what is 'harsh community'.

Com suicide is feeding enemy and nothing more. Doesn't see how it could balance game.




+4 / -0

GBrankLynx
30 days ago

+0 / -0

GBrank[Fx]Drone
30 days ago
I think that even if TWranktreegb was wrong and did something stupid- He's on a player host USrankfilch and it should be up to that host to decide if he wants to do something about it.

I'm opposed to ZK nanny police state trying to tell people how to behave all the time and threatening new comers who made mistakes.
+1 / -1

GBrank2plus2is5
30 days ago
This post has been downvoted below -5 and collapsed, click here to expand
The ruling elite in Zero-K dont have enough reports to deal with, so when they get one, they can get a bit excited.
A Council of the wise ones will be called and they will preside over a grand judicial ruling which will often result in some non sensical gibberish being plastered over your account details.


The solution for this would be for many many more reports to be submitted, something that actually would have happened had the game ever reached a wider audience.

+0 / -7



AUrankAdminGoogleFrog
28 days ago
Right Drone, lets see how well that worked for the main Spring server...
+2 / -0

LVrankSenaven
28 days ago
The main problem with 'all do host person' is that there is so small player base that all players fit in one room. Anyone can say - 'if you don't like something then make room and so whatever you like'. But in reality its forced to start in other room because most player still will sit in previous. I already have seen many rooms where hosting player is totally afk or left. Or hosting player ignoring everything or reacting very sharply even on minor occasion. Or even host player reacted unfair. Kicked me out of server when i answer in same manner to offender but offender was allowed to stay. If there would be other active room then i would not to care but there is only one room mostly.
Nanny K already have very low rate and i see less muted and banned players overall since new host system.
And he got only warning not ban. So why whine?

+0 / -0


DErankChesti
27 days ago
quote:
Right Drone, lets see how well that worked for the main Spring server...


lets see.... I bet I can repeat it at any time with same results

main spring server:



lobbyserver for zerok


+0 / -0



AUrankAdminGoogleFrog
27 days ago
The main activity of the SpringRTS forums seems to be complaining about particular autohost moderators and trying to get lobby moderators to take action.
+0 / -0

SErankcleanrock
27 days ago
Again, consider "opt in" as default (join as spec).
+0 / -0



AUrankAdminGoogleFrog
27 days ago
Yes SErankcleanrock... obviously... come up with a good system. I wish you would research before saying these things.
+0 / -0
Page of 2 (27 records)