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

FFA: Calling for a systematic hunt for P1s.

36 posts, 896 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 2 (36 records)
sort
This post has been downvoted below -5 and collapsed, click here to expand
All,

I'm calling for defacto alliance of all players and a systematic eradication of P1s in FFAs.
If you do not have majority in game, I would recommend to not play.

If/Until we get some sort of update, we can change collective behavior to match what is already being done by P1s.

Here's the thing. If we know that P1s will ally each other in FFA, will turn off fire and feed each other units and will exploit any game or system mechanic to ensure P1 vicotry, why wouldn't the public at large adopt the same behavior towards P1? It's only logical.

They will hang in teamspeak/discord and discuss strategy during the game. I'm calling for it over the forums. Different tool, same behavior.


+1 / -10


15 days ago
This is exactly the behaviour we didn't want. :/
+7 / -0
15 days ago
Although I can identify with the sentiment here, I have to agree with Godde. This violates the "spirit of FFA" just as much as some of the stuff that has happened recently.

Instead of ramping up, can we de-escalate?

Experience tells me that when there is an acknowledgement of even some fault, it is sometimes better to allow someone to save face and move on, rather than continue to attack.
+4 / -0

15 days ago
Warning 1: No Meta-gaming.
[Spoiler]
+1 / -0


15 days ago
quote:
Experience tells me that when there is an acknowledgement of even some fault,

Has there been such a thing here? I must have missed it.
+4 / -0
15 days ago
quote:
Has there been such a thing here? I must have missed it.


That's the thing. There hasn't been. It's all legit under the eyes of P1.

I'd be fine FFAs being actual FFAs, or perhaps have temporary alliances based on a particular player becoming a significant threat at a specific point of a game. Something like "player x has det / SW / control of a continent...", but whenever P1s are in a game, it's P1 vs FFA.

I'd be totally fine with descalation if there was some sign from the other side that this isn't the desired outcome. Instead, we get justifications and rationalization.
+1 / -0
I missed the part where Red_Eagle had any clanmates in that game.


If he used the ingame chat to whisper and create alliances in that specific game, you got outplayed.
I'm pretty sure Red_Eagle is saying the opposite of what you think he is saying.

Edit: Multiplayer B1124245 5 on BlackStar
+5 / -0


15 days ago
Don't quote people out of context.
+4 / -0
I hesitated to use the quote, and it wasn't in my post originally.

I think RedEagle is talking about Multiplayer B1124182 5 on BlackStar. I think his claims are correct, or at least I have no reason to think they aren't.

The quote was to support the call through the forums as a legitimate communication channel. I would not advocate for people to start using voice to strategize and share game information to gain an edge.

It's also why I didn't target Redeagle specifically in my original post, but P1s instead. The assumption was that if there is more than 1 P1 in the game, they would team. I don't think I would support hunting a lone player because you have a legit FFA at that point.

It's Multiplayer B1114695 7 on FataMorganaV2 that gave me that idea, as well as the general take on it by AUrankAdminGoogleFrog in that thread.
+0 / -2
I think it makes absolute sense that you try to destroy the side that has the most disproportionate win chance. In an individualist ffa that's the local purpler. This is pretty much common knowledge and requires very little overt coordination at this point.

But if you know there's an alliance that can be treated as a team, same rules apply. Starting out with two players allied for life essentially means that the alliance "holds two spots" from the first second of the game.

And if the "we're a team" is written right on the player's nickname, just as the purple star would be, well then.

I don't think anyone really needs to "sign up" for the hunt, or whatever. This all becoming common knowledge is quite sufficient of itself, imo.

FWIW i don't think "deescalation" has much chance against unspoken agreements, either. It's very hard to undo reputational damage.
+5 / -0


14 days ago
I find this take kinda weird Anarchid.

The most substantiated claim against RedEagle is that he plays FFA too casually and not "serious" enough according to GoogleFrog and Anir.
However, if FFA is played Hunger Game-style where pregame alliances are okey, the probable collusion and collaboration that the clan P1 has done, is simply acceptable play.

I don't think a member of the moderator team should promote behavior that is currently either against the rules or will be against the rules in the future for "serious" FFA play when such guidelines haven't been properly established.

Also, where and how should players be allowed to play casual FFA?
+2 / -2
14 days ago
quote:
The most substantiated claim against RedEagle is that he plays FFA too casually and not "serious" enough according to GoogleFrog and Anir.


That's not true though. In the long thread I linked above, there are several instances of RedEagle disabling SW or putting units on ceasefire and sending them to another P1.

If this was about one instance of a player being casual about FFAs, I would be forced to admit I am in the wrong for creating this thread.
+1 / -0
GoogleFrog wrote:
quote:
I think a fundamental issue is that CArankRedEagle_P1 enjoys a much more casual FFA experience than the one desired by most FFA players...


Disabling superweapons and putting units on hold fire to opponents for them to capture can be examples of not taking the game seriously. It can also be examples of colluding/allying and letting your teammate win. Colluding/allying/teaming up is a part of FFA. For serious FFA players, there is a line where colluding is considered unfun or ruining FFA. Arguably pre-game alliances fall into that. We all have preferences for some players and some behaviours that makes us likely to team-up with them. The question is where the line is drawn for colluding/allying/teaming that is considered to ruin Serious FFA.
+2 / -0
quote:
I find this take kinda weird Anarchid.

Nonweird takes can be fully inferred from the orthodox position, and thus valueless. I take this as a compliment.

quote:
The most substantiated claim against RedEagle is that he plays FFA too casually and not "serious" enough according to GoogleFrog and Anir.

Casualness is a claim about RedEagles's feelings. I take it as an attempt at online psychology: useful inasmuch as modelling your possible FFA opponent is; limited inasmuch as online psychology.

quote:
However, if FFA is played Hunger Game-style where pregame alliances are okey, the probable collusion and collaboration that the clan P1 has done, is simply acceptable play.

I have no claim for or against this. My take is that regardless of existence of a claim of mine to make, the other players of FFA games being simply aware of this fact is likely sufficient to have the hunt-down effect through the mechanism of common knowledge.

quote:
I don't think a member of the moderator team should promote behavior that is currently either against the rules or will be against the rules in the future for "serious" FFA play when such guidelines haven't been properly established.

It is not against rules to gang up against a faction that holds a disproportionate amount of resources and win% in an FFA, as far as i know.

[Spoiler]
Moreover, i propose that this requires no pregame collusion on the part of the players who gang up against the perceived ultimate threat, be it identified by a purple star next to the threat's identifier, or by another identifier in a similar position, be it a flag, or a clan tag.

quote:
Also, where and how should players be allowed to play casual FFA?

What is "casual FFA"? The way i see it, so-called Casual WHR is the thing that dictates the color-coded caste of ZK players, almost without exception, and every FFA game bets a massive amount of that currency.

All it takes for evil to triumph is for rational men to respond to incentives.

[Spoiler]
+2 / -0
ill hunt this p1 fella or whatever you called him.. for a price.. .. but listen iv got a family to feed so it cant be for free.. if you want him dead you need to give me a krow next game.. the price is 1 krow per commander kill.. he has to be playing in enemy team so as to not arouse suspicion that it was a hit.. and i reserve the right to reclaim the krow and use my own means to clean the target.. and dont send metal in-game its traceable.. send a krow ill know what it means. i dont care why.. and as far as you know we never did business.. oh and one other thing.. no women no kids
+3 / -0


13 days ago
quote:
It is not against rules to gang up against a faction that holds a disproportionate amount of resources and win% in an FFA, as far as i know.

Although you would like it to be so, wouldn't you, you eddog :P
Yes, I think this should be against the rules as a pre-game statement.

Godde wrote:
quote:
However, if FFA is played Hunger Game-style where pregame alliances are okey, the probable collusion and collaboration that the clan P1 has done, is simply acceptable play.
Anarchids response:
quote:
I have no claim for or against this. My take is that regardless of existence of a claim of mine to make, the other players of FFA games being simply aware of this fact is likely sufficient to have the hunt-down effect through the mechanism of common knowledge.
How is that different from calling for collusion against a specific clan that is currently being investigated for collusion?
In my opinion, this should be an illegal pre-game FFA statement.
As an admin, you cannot both prosecute people for collusion while promoting such collusion.

According to my FFA rules of conduct, there are illegal pre-game FFA statements and legal statements.

Legal statements:
Attack the highest rated players first.
Players of clan X are likely to team up ingame, so watch out for that.
Player A and B are likely to team up, so watch out for that.

Illegal statements
We are clan X and we will completely defeat all other players before attacking eachother.
I and player X will be allied when the game starts regardless of all other players.
I think clan X are allied even though they say they are not so lets ally against them.

Borderline statements:
Attack player X, he is the highest rated player here.
If all lower skilled players team up on me and high skilled player X, I will ally with high skilled player X from the start.


Then there are statements ingame that I think should be legal or illegal:
Legal statements:
Attack the highest rated players first.
Players of clan X are teamed up, so lets ally against them.
Player A and B are likely to team up, so watch out for that.
I and player X are allied.
I think clan X are allied even though they say they are not so lets ally against them.
Attack player X, he is the highest rated player here.
If all lower skilled players team up on me and high skilled player X, I will ally with high skilled player X from the start.

Illegal statements:
We are clan X and we will completely defeat all other players before attacking eachother.


I think one determining factor that makes some illegal behaviour allowed ingame while not allowed pre-game is lying.
If the lying extends to the pre-game of FFA, then the forum is also part of the FFA metagame and it would be a legit strategy to go on the forum and lie about FFA players.



While the difference between the legal pre-game statement "Player A and B are likely to team up, so watch out for that" and the illegal pre-game statement "I think clan X will collude even though they say they won't so lets ally against them" might seem subtle, but I think there is an important distinction to make here. The suspected colluders can answer the question honestly if we accept that there is no lying allowed before a FFA game starts. Any ingame alliance between the clan would then be incidental depending on the circumstances of the FFA and diplomacy ingame.


Preferential rules(these are all rules that should be agreed upon by all players or have to be set by the host of the game and these rules should be revealed to all players):
Hey players, lets all join voicechat so we can talk while we play!
Hey specs, feel free to join our voicechat and ask general questions about the game but if your questions reveal any information, we will tell you to stop talking about the game.
Hey specs, feel free to join our voicechat and talk while we play but don't ask any questions about the game.
Hey specs, feel free to join our voicechat and listen while the players talk but you have to be muted.
Hey clans, there are 3 clans in this game room, lets team up in our clans until there is only 1 clan left.
Hey other players, we are newbs and there are skilled players in this host, is it okey if we ally from the start? We probably wont win anyway.
+1 / -0
quote:
How is that different from calling for collusion against a specific clan that is currently being investigated for collusion?

In exactly the same way that targeting the room's top ranking player does not specifically call for a hunt against SErankGodde.

quote:
While the difference between the legal pre-game statement "Player A and B are likely to team up, so watch out for that" and the illegal pre-game statement "I think clan X will collude even though they say they won't so lets ally against them" might seem subtle, but I think there is an important distinction to make here. The suspected colluders can answer the question honestly if we accept that there is no lying allowed before a FFA game starts. Any ingame alliance between the clan would then be incidental depending on the circumstances of the FFA and diplomacy ingame.

I think if it turns out that the accusation was repeatedly wrong, future alliances based on it will be improbable, and anyone crying wolf in such a way will find themselves considered untrustworthy.

Contrarily, if it turns out that the call to arms was correct in some sufficiently high amount of cases, it will solidify.

How high an apriori probability of collusion would you accept as threshold for action?

FYI, I consider all of the multidirectional attempts to supplant the organic systems of reputation and common knowledge with some prescriptive code, as presented on ZK forums so far, to be highly suspect, including but not limited to both GoogleFrog's and yours.

I don't think any systematizing intervention is required per se. Perhaps it is useful to try to systematize those things to understand them better, or to somehow pour water on the "escalation" as discussed above in this thread, but that's another story.

quote:
Illegal statements
We are clan X and we will completely defeat all other players before attacking eachother.
I and player X will be allied when the game starts regardless of all other players.
I think clan X are allied even though they say they are not so lets ally against them.

I guess you are suggesting for things like this to be reportable and bannable, including if done in retaliation?

I think it's a pretty tough ask for players in games in which Clan X participates and colludes repeatedly to feign ignorance and not act on their metagame knowledge. I also think this will probably be very difficult to enforce.
+1 / -0

12 days ago
I find this whole situation really silly. If they are in fact working together to ultimately ruin FFA matches by making them one sided towards their own clan, surely with time, replays and personal accounts would tell the whole story. Why jump the gun and actively encourage them to behave in the way that you seek to punish them for? If anything, any targeted harassment would give them valid reason to collude and make the staff teams job harder in this investigation.

This also goes for the other threads that have sprouted from the whole controversy. Any solution or method of teaching that is strictly implemented through community teaching and hearsay is by no means a valid solution to a gameplay problem.
+3 / -0
12 days ago
quote:

I find this whole situation really silly. If they are in fact working together to ultimately ruin FFA matches by making them one sided towards their own clan, surely with time, replays and personal accounts would tell the whole story. Why jump the gun and actively encourage them to behave in the way that you seek to punish them for? If anything, any targeted harassment would give them valid reason to collude and make the staff teams job harder in this investigation.

This also goes for the other threads that have sprouted from the whole controversy. Any solution or method of teaching that is strictly implemented through community teaching and hearsay is by no means a valid solution to a gameplay problem.


Big +1 on that one, brother.
+0 / -1

12 days ago
quote:
If they are in fact working together to ultimately ruin FFA matches by making them one sided towards their own clan, surely with time, replays and personal accounts would tell the whole story.

I think this take underestimates how clear the existing evidence is.
+0 / -0
Page of 2 (36 records)