Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   
Title: [A] Free For All
Host: Nobody
Game version: Zero-K v1.9.12.0
Engine version: 104.0.1-1544-ge1f249f
Started: 43 days ago
Duration: 10 minutes
Players: 3
Bots: False
Mission: False
Watch Replay Now
Manual download

Team 1
Chance of victory: 15.3%

UArankhedkeaf
Team 2
Chance of victory: 6%

unknownrankBonke
Team 3
Chance of victory: 78.6%

DErankHoppili
Spectators
UArankdanidkas333

Show winners



Preview
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 3 (55 records)
sort
What is the point of this game!?

I wanted to have a relaxed 3-Way FFA game what do I get a death within 5 MINUTES!!!!

quote:
UArankhedkeaf: "Bonke we need team or we died" , "help" , kill him now"

In felt every FFA game hedkeaf incites other players against me. (to make me resign).

quote:
UArankhedkeaf "oke" , "my goal is done)"

And thinks afterwards that his goal is fulfilled

Pure logic to fight together against the (best) player is probably good but in this game I saw Bonke clearly stronger. Which simply means that Rank & Elo does not mean who is the best.

Now my question can you blacklist on self hosted lobbies? I know you can set minimum and maximum level and elo can you also ban specific players from a self hosted lobby?
+0 / -2
43 days ago
"Banning", or even kicking a player from self-hosted lobbies went against the rules a few years ago when I played. Doubt that rule has been changed since then.
+2 / -0


43 days ago
I think in your case in particular you tend to aggravate some types of people, which makes them try and make you lose regardless of whether or not they win.
+2 / -0
42 days ago
ELO vs. diplomacy ... Et tu, UArankhedkeaf?
[Spoiler]
Feel the Zeitgeist, DErankHoppili: Just invest more in your fakenews skills. It is cage fight FFA.
+4 / -0
42 days ago
The official standpoint of the moderator team has always been that a non-passworded room is a public roon.
Therefor any kick or other form of exclusion of a certain player/group of players is not acceptable.

So, if you don't want to play with a certain player, you will have to make a privat, passworded host, where you can do whatever you want.


However, I know the problem you face right now, very well.
Therefor, I also want to remind UArankhedkeaf of point 4 in the Code of Conduct:
4. Maintain Fairness
+1 / -3


41 days ago
Point 4 in the Code of Conduct says nothing that is relevant to this thread:
+5 / -2

41 days ago
quote:
SErankGodde: "Point 4 in the Code of Conduct says nothing that is relevant to this thread:
"


I think the listed things under the different main points are just examples.
I think that LUrankAdminAnir is generally referring to the main point "4. Maintain Fairness"
+2 / -1
41 days ago
So point 4 of the Code of Conduct:

"Let the purple win."
+1 / -5
41 days ago
quote:
However, I know the problem you face right now, very well.
Therefor, I also want to remind UArankhedkeaf of point 4 in the Code of Conduct:
4. Maintain Fairness


Aren't you a moderator LUrankAdminAnir? Posting vague threats as one is not the way to go. Also, is this 'reminder' from you personally or the moderator team as a whole? If it's the latter, I'd be rather curious to hear how the mod team finds "getting enjoyment from putting in all the effort to knock out the best player in an FFA" any different from the utter garbage plays that many pot players do?

As far as I remember, the mindset of the ZK team was that everyone should be allowed to have fun and play the game the way they want, without getting griefed and/or harassed for their way of playing. This also meant that people weren't punished for playing for fun rather than trying to win. Not sure why this is suddenly a problem in an FFA game?

Kicking out that purple player in an FFA must feel good, partially because those games are the rare chance many players ever get to beating one of them outside of pots; it's only natural that purples got that huge target on their head. I remember speccing a couple of NOrankAdminKingstad's FFA games back in the day, and despite getting teamed up on pretty often (relative to the handful of games I specced, of course) I don't recall seeing him ever complain.

And lastly, taking out the best player at the very start is simply the smartest way to go about it. The longer a game goes on, the more advantageous it gets for the skilled purple player.
+3 / -3
SErankGodde read section 5 of the CC. Titled 5. Respect Moderator Actions ;-)


FIrankRemembrance as far as you remember?
Do you mean from the whole 10 days your account exists or from the vast experience you gained during the 4 games you played in total?


Just read into this thread, here I explained everything people need to know about FFA games: https://zero-k.info/Forum/Thread/33659
And it also explains why hedkeaf's behavior wasn't even doing himself a favor here.
+1 / -3
40 days ago
I installed ZK on a whim for a short while, had no idea what the password to my previous account was so I just created this one. FIrankHuixtocihuatl is my old account.

As for the 'need to know about FFA games', I'll go commenting about that in the thread you linked.
+1 / -0
Kicking people from the current main teams room (whether it is an autohost or not) without immediate and recent cause (griefing, spec cheating, verbal abuse) is frowned upon. A kick like this is often equivalent to being outright banned from playing multiplayer ZK.

I don't think there is a specific precedent for a personally-hosted, unpassworded room in an alternate game mode like FFA or a modded game. I think I would prefer to get the opinions of other moderators before answering that question. Often a kick like this would not be equivalent to being outright banned.

The above being said, I think somebody should try to have a conversation with UArankhedkeaf about the issue before anything more drastic is attempted.

EDIT: FIrankRemembrance you can contact an admin (discord or lobby PM is easiest) to get your previous account's password reset.
+1 / -0


40 days ago
Obviously DErankHoppili feels this game was unfun, but is this the tipping point? Are there other games that have specific grievances against the UArankhedkeaf? In what ways does DErankHoppili feel deliberately targeted?
+0 / -0
I don't know, but in the situation where

(1) Player A explicitly allies with Player B to defeat Player C in a 3-way FFA
(2) While destroying Player C, Player A says "just killing Player C is my goal"
(3) Player B then attacks Player A
(4) Player A says "okay my goal is done" and resigns (to be clear, the game was 100% over at this point)

then, even without previous context, in my opinion Player C has pretty good reason to feel that they have been denied a fair and reasonable FFA game by Player A.

With respect to the post of GBrankdyth68: Having a reputation for being unusually duplicitous/manipulative/whatever in FFA does indeed come with costs. I don't think this game falls within a reasonable definition of what those costs should be.

---

A further point of clarification: Sometimes you are going to end up in a bad FFA game. This does not always mean that everybody or anybody else played in bad faith.

To take this game as an example, if hedkeaf had committed less to the attack against Hoppili (still sending enough to be sure that Hoppili would be defeated by Bonke) and instead built up their economy in preparation for the coming 1v1 against Bonke, that would be a perfectly reasonable way to play, even if hedkeaf had (say) a 40% chance of winning the resulting 1v1. That is still better than the 1 in 3 chance hedkeaf could be assumed to have by default, and given that hedkeaf is lower rated than Bonke and a lot lower rated than Hoppili, 1 in 3 is probably a generous default assumption. Given Hoppili's rating, Bonke and hedkeaf probably should gang up on Hoppili quite a bit in this game.

However, the things that UArankhedkeaf said in allchat make it hard to believe that their play was based on any such strategy or analysis, as opposed to just having it out for DErankHoppili.
+2 / -0
It is FFA, you evidently has the highest chance to win with that purple elo therefore it is only logical to make a call to gang upon you.

Now, you feel is deliberate because he lost in the end while signing off "my goal is done". Ironically, you left out the subsequent game of the same period with him which is https://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/1259114. You sound it out loud that you not "plan to win", then end up killing your neighbor and winning. Not only that, you also threatened to leave the game if you are ganged, again.

Honestly, what I got from all this is that you just salty to be killed. If you can't deal with being primary target in FFA then don't be a purple or don't FFA with other non-purples or better, don't FFA at all.
+3 / -0
quote:
Now, you feel is deliberate because he lost in the end while signing off "my goal is done".

quote:
Honestly, what I got from all this is that you just salty to be killed.

Do you intend to engage with my posts which (broadly speaking) agree with Hoppili's position on this point, or are you just here to pick a fight with Hoppili?

quote:
You sound it out loud that you not "plan to win", then end up killing your neighbor and winning.

Saying stuff to give your opponents a false sense of security and then playing a reasonable strategy might be kind of scummy but it's not really a comparable situation.

quote:
Not only that, you also threatened to leave the game if you are ganged, again.

This I don't like, but in a competitive social game about deception like FFA, once things start getting personal and unreasonable they tend to stay that way. "If other people are going to violate the social compact which keeps FFA fun then I will too" is a pretty natural place to end up. Which is why we would prefer they not go in that direction, or even appear to be going there, in the first place.
+1 / -0
AUrankAdminAquanim
Your post? I think you are over analyzing a specific direction which based off one replay and DErankHoppili post instead of looking at numerous directions. In other words, you see what you want to see.

Me judging him being salty is based on two replays in that same day of the same period and the contents of his posts.

He started by trying to rationalize what UArankhedkeaf doing is illogical, citing elo is not a good deciding factor as oppose to actual strength ingame. Then use that as justification to judge what he doing as "deliberate". However, FIrankRemembrance already argued why it isn't illogical. I don't want to repeat that.

Then the question he wrote already begin to display that saltiness
quote:

Now my question can you blacklist on self hosted lobbies? I know you can set minimum and maximum level and elo can you also ban specific players from a self hosted lobby?


Why he ask this question? I think is no brainer he ask this so he can ban UArankhedkeaf from his FFA room.

I then watched the subsequent game to see if there is more saltiness and there is indeed more with threatening to leave the game if ganged while blaming UArankhedkeaf for it.

AUrankAdminAquanim, the problem is you seem to narrow it down to either DErankHoppili or UArankhedkeaf being the problem but you fail to see that inorder to "gang" someone, the other parties too must share the same opinion or in other words, agree with that logic. UArankhedkeaf simply utilizing his freedom of speech or in LUrankAdminAnir's thread, diplomacy to gang upon a player. Now, DErankHoppili fail the diplomacy and upset that he die, he subconsciously too understood why he is ganged with

quote:

Rank & Elo


Instead of taking it as it is, he made a post in this replay and even asked if he can ban someone from a room. If all of those are not screaming saltiness, I don't know what is and I don't see the point of sugarcoating my words. I only see myself criticizing him harshly for such obvious saltiness and I am sure he knows what I am referring to, definitely. If you see otherwise, that is your judgement, not mine.
+1 / -0
quote:
Me judging him being salty is based on two replays in that same day of the same period and the contents of his posts.

Hoppili may be salty but that would not inherently make him wrong in his assessment that hedkeaf's conduct was unreasonable. In fact if he's right he has pretty good reason to be salty.

You seem to be obsessed with proving that he's salty without actually considering whether what hedkeaf did and said was reasonable.

quote:
you fail to see that inorder to "gang" someone, the other parties too must share the same opinion or in other words, agree with that logic.

No they don't. Bonke doesn't have to agree with hedkeaf's reasons for wanting to ally against Hoppili to take advantage of them.

Your entire argument reads like it is driven by your own salt against Hoppili.
+0 / -0
AUrankAdminAquanim
And you seem to be obsessed with defending DErankHoppili. I do play FFA and I see what I see, that includes fog of war and step by step timeline.

Of course unknownrankBonke has to agree else he won't readily engage while entering via different slope which the replay evidently shown. Sure, he didn't go all out but enough to kill the commander.

On that subject, while DErankHoppili said unknownrankBonke was the strongest in this post, he sent his glaives towards UArankhedkeaf and then when ganged upon, said UArankhedkeaf would win. Evidently, what he wrote in this post is more of a hindsight, after he die.
+1 / -1
quote:
And you seem to be obsessed with defending Hoppili. I do play FFA and I see what I see, that includes fog of war and step by step timeline.

I don't even like Hoppili's FFA style. Don't know much about hedkeaf. My position, independent of anything Hoppili said, is that I watched this replay and I think that people behaving like hedkeaf did in this game will make the FFA community less enjoyable.

That being said, I have an obligation as a moderator to prevent this thread from being "let's shit on Hoppili for fun" which seems to be what you want the thread to be.

quote:
Of course Bonke has to agree else he won't readily engage while entering via different slope which the replay evidently shown. Sure, he didn't go all out but enough to kill the commander.

Hedkeaf says his main goal in the game is to kill Hoppili (as opposed to winning the game himself) and plays accordingly.

Bonke does not have to have the same goal in order to attack Hoppili. If Hedkeaf is going to attack Hoppili in a way that leaves Hoppili weak, then of course Bonke (playing to win) is going to attack Hoppili.

"Agreeing to attack"
IS NOT THE SAME THING AS
"Having the same reasons or logic to attack"

quote:
On that subject, while DErankHoppili said unknownrankBonke was the strongest in this post, he sent his glaives towards UArankhedkeaf and then when ganged upon, said UArankhedkeaf would win. Evidently, what he wrote in this post is more of a hindsight, after he die.

Again, my opinion of hedkeaf's conduct has nothing to do with what Hoppili said.
+1 / -0
Page of 3 (55 records)