Sovereignty of Units, or when Dgunning allies is acceptable.

[Zpock]

If you want to make a gadget to disable orders on allied units, that should be fairly trivial, just check any orders if it's a reclaim on an allied unit in allowcommand(). Disabling friendly fire might be a bit harder to hack in, you could check in onunitdamaged and unitdestroyed and try to reverse the effects I guess, not sure if you can outright keep damage from happening.

[Omega2]

That's what I was saying: it doesn't really work. If the guy explodes a friendly commander, then gets kicked out, the rest of the team will still be at a disadvantage.

It's the price you pay for taking in random players for a quick game, you just have to accept it.

Agreed. Being in a clan or playing only with friends is the best way to avoid it.

I think there should be a way to at least mitigate it. It's not strictly necessary, as there is a solution, but it would still be useful.

[Zpock]

You can also mitigate it by playing smaller team games. And if 1/10 quick random games get screwed for you, ask yourself if it's really a big deal or you could just move on to the next game? No need to stop playing randoms completly.

[Omega2]

I said it's the best way, not the only way.

I'm personally not annoyed by that kind of thing (I lose often and spectate a lot, so I'm always searching for new games), just stating some more functionality in that direction would be nice for everybody, even if not strictly necessary.

[LordMatt]

Agreed. Being in a clan or playing only with friends is the best way to avoid it.

If I play a teamgame with only my LCC clanmates, we are immediately accused of stacking the game. The fact is, LCC members have a range of skill levels (we had IaMaCuP in the clan for a while lol), but theres none of this arguing when someone is told by a better player what to do. Lesser skilled clan mates follow instructions from the better ones, and the cooperation is what makes the team so much better. We used to pwn tN over and over, mainly because those guys would argue over strats and we would cooperate.

When I first returned to spring and was a nub at AA (having only played XTA when spring first came out, and OTA before that), and I was playing with experienced players, I always asked before game start what they wanted me to do, and where they wanted me to start and tried to follow those instructions. It was a great way to learn how to play a new mod. I don't expect new players to do that (though a few do, and these always turn into good players), but at least do what you are told.

[DemO]

Mate what? That was a long time ago but I remember it being pretty close in terms of team games vs LCC when I was playing. Maybe things changed once I quit and tN took on a life of its own with random players , but I can find many replays of games where LCC lost to tN in team games. Specifically I remember myself and Ray had a good record in 2v2 vs you and lion for quite some time. The games were always enjoyable, I miss those days sometimes.

I suppose its the same thing for both of us though, it was so long ago that you tend to mainly remember the victories, coz I can't remember losing very often :D

[LordMatt]

I only remember losing 1 2v2 on DSD to you and Ray (and thats all lion remembers also). I'm thinking more of the 4v4 games. Could be LCC lost more when I wasn't playing though. Agree those were good times.

[Saktoth]

Firstly, NT42, your original post says that, when a player interferes with you 'you should d-gun them or force-fire on their units'. Grief for grief.

This is not acceptable. Ive been combombed for reclaiming my own corpses before (the guy wanted to res them >_>). Escalation just hurts more people in the game. If you are griefed, ask for host intervention. If you are unable to get it and it frustrates you, leave.

Jerks will be jerks, what can you do.

Only after you sat in the back spamming adv solar and metal maker while stalling to make lvl 2 and not making any offensive units for the front.

Lordmatt - that may very well be the case, but it's still my right to conduct a battle as I choose.

This is where you really lost me. This is what i object to. If you chose to play the game badly when you know better then you are griefing me. You are ruining my fun.

I gotta say though, that stuff slek says about playing to the limits of the game isnt totally true.

By not using .cheat, or hacks, or luaz (he doesnt play with lua last i heard, though i think that may be a hardware, not moral, issue) he is putting artificial, imaginary rules on himself. Really, why is .cheat not a part of the game? Its right there for you to use if you're the host. You just chose not to.

[KDR_11k]

Isn't one of the basic problems this thread highlights that mex spots belong to one player even if it's a team so individuals in a team will want to grab as many spots for themselves as possible? Some games don't care which team member claimed the territory, they're one team and they all benefit from it. Giving territory to the first player to come along is silly and if one player grabs stuff faster than the others that just results in the others getting annoyed that there's nothing they can grab (if they weren't allies they could just roll over his mexes but with an alliance the spots are taken and all they can hope for is that a raider gets past the line of defense and makes the spots open for claiming agian) and thus fall even further behind.

[CarRepairer]

The two following actions really annoy me:

1) Air players who pick up friendly commanders without asking and either use them as a combomb or just put them down on the other side of the map with the injunction to build there.

2) Any player who reclaims an ally's mex and builds his own there, again without asking, perhaps with the lame excuse that they haven't got enough.

I punish 2) with dgunning the resulting 'allied' extractor and building my own back, and if one 1) happens again I'll send artillery to force fire on their airbases

It should never be acceptable to interfere with an ally's units, especially their commander. Mex imbalances do happen but a quick, reasoned, message to allies should result in some metal sharing or an extractor gifted. Reclaiming, which is nothing more than destroying, is rightly seen as an act of war.

I totally, completely, absolutely and balancedly agree.

In every game there must be rules of conduct. We cannot enforce through game mechanics the prevention of manipulating the units of teammates or other similar such things. So there must be unwritten (or perhaps written) rules about what is considered acceptable. It must be agreed upon by all the participants. But not only that, these rules must not be open for interpretation or they are meaningless. Saying "I can capture my teammate's unit when I decide he's a poor enough player" is so ridiculously open to abuse it's almost a joke that I have to make this argument in here. In my most humble opinion the following should be the code of conduct:

Never attack a fellow teammate, ever. Period. Capturing and kidnapping count as an attack. If you don't like something your teammate did but he did not break this rule, too bad. If you think he's a crappy player, too bad. It's a game, and all is fair in the game. All except for attacking a teammate. That is unfair, it cannot be enforced in the game for various reasons, so it's simply a moral rule. And it's not up for interpretation. There is either "attacking a teammate" or "not attacking a teammate" and no blurry line in between. Don't do it. If you don't like that teammate, never play on their team again after this game. It's just one game you have to endure like a good sport and be done with it.

And yes, I've been attacked, and I retaliated. Once within the past two weeks, and one other time way back when I started spring. I don't feel bad, because the line was crossed already. It makes me upset to know that there are people who feel contrary to the above rule. Only for the fact that the very logic of it fails since it's up for interpretation of the offender whether or not to attack a teammate.

[lurker]

Still, car, if something is not in your base and the team really needs it, it's not 'attacking' you. If you have twice the mex spots of another player, it's not attacking you for them to grab one. If you have taken a geo across the map from your base as arm, it's not 'attacking you' to rebuild a behemoth there. This attitude of 'I got there first; suck it.' is even worse teamplay than that noob porcing in the back.

[Teutooni]

This attitude of 'I got there first; suck it.' is even worse teamplay

I don't have a problem with that. If an ally takes 'my metalspots' - which is bullshit, metalspots are not anyone's property - I make a few extra builders. The ally with more metal tends to do most of the fighting, so all I need to get back up and running is to get a few corpses, essentially 'leeching' off his metal.

However, if an ally captures/reclaims/dguns my mex (the actual unit), I take the liberty of getting the metal back with intrest's by reclaiming something he has.

I guess this is 'I got here first; suck it.' attitude. Obviously I will not rush for anyone's startpos or actively try take metalspots allies are likely to claim in the near future, or anything like that though. Moreover, if asked, I usually share whatever was asked, within reason.

Reason I do this is that every second there is an uncapped metalspot, it's potential being wasted. Wasted potential is also bad teamplay.

[Saktoth]

Unless someone is just flat-out griefing (this isnt that common and responding to them is probably what they want) then most of the time, it is the response to a real or imagined slight.

Sometimes its because he 'reclaimed all your corpses', sometimes its because he 'took your metal spots' sometimes its because he 'isnt pulling his weight' or 'napped my com (Perhaps in good faith)' or 'reclaimed my factory'. Its all open to interpretation. There are passive and more active ways to annoy someone. What you are all advocating is vengeance for the perceived wrong- which is probably what started the situation in the first place and why the player wronged you.

As i said, like someone combombing me for 'stealing his corpses' (My dead units). Still who says you cant own corpses? Its metal just like from a mex and it was on his territory (Id just stopped him getting raped >_>).

Dont escalate. Talk to the player, talk to the host, if all else fails leave and do not play with them again.

[NT42]

Firstly, NT42, your original post says that, when a player interferes with you 'you should d-gun them or force-fire on their units'. Grief for grief.

This is not acceptable. Ive been combombed for reclaiming my own corpses before (the guy wanted to res them >_>). Escalation just hurts more people in the game. If you are griefed, ask for host intervention. If you are unable to get it and it frustrates you, leave.

Jerks will be jerks, what can you do.

As i said, like someone combombing me for 'stealing his corpses' (My dead units). Still who says you cant own corpses? Its metal just like from a mex and it was on his territory (Id just stopped him getting raped >_>).

Saktoth - I agree someone combombing you for 'corpse-stealing' is absolutely ludicrous, and you're right that we have to avoid people reacting disproportionately to any perceived slight.

However, you also seem to agree that the two problems I identified first are uniquely bad slights; they represent nothing less than a hostile act against an ally's base or units.

Yes, talking to the host might work, if he can spare the time to listen and if it's not an autohost, but there is something to be said for robust retaliation: it deters future attempts in that game, and over multiple games people will learn that interference generally results in internecine warfare that costs a team the game. If the cost of a poor or misguided player is one ally not contributing fully to the game, it will never be rational to interfere with that player if it could mean he retaliates (as well he might, against hostile action) against allies, since the cost of this would be greater than simply letting him alone and advising him strongly against his course of action.

Quote:
Only after you sat in the back spamming adv solar and metal maker while stalling to make lvl 2 and not making any offensive units for the front.

Lordmatt - that may very well be the case, but it's still my right to conduct a battle as I choose.
This is where you really lost me. This is what i object to. If you chose to play the game badly when you know better then you are griefing me. You are ruining my fun.

I admit I've given cause for misunderstanding here. I'm not specifically defending deliberately bad or stubbornly stupid play, and I myself would always seek to help at the front even if I'm positioned well to the rear. My post here was more about granting as much possible of an objector's argument while being able to maintain my case. Being able to do this demonstrates the strength of an argument.

I grant that some cases of interference may be due to very poor play, but I don't think this changes the basic point that I've been getting at, and which others have made very skilfully, that it is almost never okay to interfere with allies in the ways I've mentioned.

Perhaps one of the main problems is the spurious sense of entitlement many people seem to have: it is a sense that they can join any public game, with no lower rank limit, and expect all allied payers to conform to their skewed conception of how to play. If you join a game where new players are allowed, you have absolutely no right to interfere with their game play.

[Regret]

Ya, dgun is hard to fix... I guess you could do something like "dgun may not fire if it's target area will contain more allied units than enemy units" That's probably the way I'd try to do it.

That's such an obscure situation, that ya, maby if applied to the current game it would occationally cause frustrations like that, but it's something players would quickly adapt to.

Once again, it's something you have to adapt to, it's an obscure enough situation that we really shouldn't determine the flow of the game by one potential.

That's just stupid. Tell your allies to reclaim thier own labs, or give them a con if they can't. You're being an asshole doing it without concent, I'd quite literally ban you from games I'm hosting for doing that. If you play with people who don't give a crap, fine, I'm not going to stop you, but that's something absolutely unacceptable to impose on people who don't want to play that way.

I'm not going to intelligently respond to your comment because you yourself seem unable to do so. You could have at least tried making some logical arguments instead of literally saying: "I don't give a damn that this breaks the gameplay in obvious ways, players will adapt!"

There is a reason the units belong to your ally, not you: because it's a team game. As such, it's up to every player to use their units how they see fit. Taking the analogy and running with it: when your friend is playing chess and you have a bet saying he's going to win, you're not allowed to move his pieces. At most you can tell him he's doing something wrong and hope he'll accept your suggestion. As much as you have a stake on the game, they are still his pieces and he's the only one who should be able to move them.

I used the chess pawn example to show how the game is presented to each individual player in the team game. You can't compare the actual chess game to a team game because chess is 1v1. All ally units in a team game belong to your team which you are part of, you and all other teammates are free to manipulate them in any way to achieve victory which is the sole purpose of said units.

I'd like to point out that the units you control in a teamgame are not solely yours, they belong to the team as well as you. This seems to be the common misunderstanding a lot of people here have.

In every game there must be rules of conduct. We cannot enforce through game mechanics the prevention of manipulating the units of teammates or other similar such things. So there must be unwritten (or perhaps written) rules about what is considered acceptable. It must be agreed upon by all the participants. But not only that, these rules must not be open for interpretation or they are meaningless.

There is no need for unwritten rules (except using cheats/hacks w/e that's a totally different story). The game mechanics are the only rules in any game that are a "must have". Any unwritten rules only clogs the games/community with cult-like behaving players religiously enforcing their/someone else's morals onto others.

If you want an example of this happening, take a look at Jedi Knight - Jedi Academy. The majority of the game's community evolved into serious shit as getting banned from nearly any server for attacking someone that didn't give you the permission to do so in a FFA just because a couple of years ago some retards came up with the 'brilliant' idea of 'honor code'.

[Teutooni]

Still who says you cant own corpses?

I do. The first to reclaim the corpses 'owns' them. Why? It could be the enemy, therefore it's in the best intrests of everyone to reclaim every corpse asap.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a very selfish player (hopefully, can't really judge that myself). Just asking for more metal or making a marker announcing you need those corpses there should prevent any confusions. If there are no such claims, the metal is there for anyone to grab.

[CarRepairer]

In every game there must be rules of conduct. We cannot enforce through game mechanics the prevention of manipulating the units of teammates or other similar such things. So there must be unwritten (or perhaps written) rules about what is considered acceptable. It must be agreed upon by all the participants. But not only that, these rules must not be open for interpretation or they are meaningless.

There is no need for unwritten rules (except using cheats/hacks w/e that's a totally different story). The game mechanics are the only rules in any game that are a "must have". Any unwritten rules only clogs the games/community with cult-like behaving players religiously enforcing their/someone else's morals onto others.

I agree with this statement in all cases except for this one. In this case, the attacking of a teammate (includes capture/kidnap) I wholeheartedly disagree. This moral rule does not clog a single thing because it's so very simple, easy to follow, easy to identify, not up for interpretation (there's no mistaking it in a replay) and without it, the game would be entirely ruined. We could remove all friendly-fire damage, and cancel teammate capturing (actually that might be viable) and team-airlifting. But this would drastically change the gameplay in other ways. That is why this simple rule of conduct should be enforced. No attacking a teammate, ever. No matter what.

Still, car, if something is not in your base and the team really needs it, it's not 'attacking' you. If you have twice the mex spots of another player, it's not attacking you for them to grab one. If you have taken a geo across the map from your base as arm, it's not 'attacking you' to rebuild a behemoth there. This attitude of 'I got there first; suck it.' is even worse teamplay than that noob porcing in the back.

Disagreed. Slippery slope leads to someone claiming anything within a 200 mile radius is theirs. If you leave this "radius" to interpretation, it fails. Just like if you decide a teammate is a poor player and you can use his comm for commbombing. Leaving the choice to the offender (making the criminal into the judge/jury) fails.

And I am not the most selfish person in the world. I usually place labels, ask around if someone needs something, will share if someone indicates they need X or Y. Sometimes I don't but that's up to the OWNER whether he wants to SHARE, not the TAKER.

This attitude of 'I got there first; suck it.' is even worse teamplay

I don't have a problem with that. If an ally takes 'my metalspots' - which is bullshit, metalspots are not anyone's property - I make a few extra builders. The ally with more metal tends to do most of the fighting, so all I need to get back up and running is to get a few corpses, essentially 'leeching' off his metal.

However, if an ally captures/reclaims/dguns my mex (the actual unit), I take the liberty of getting the metal back with intrest's by reclaiming something he has.

I guess this is 'I got here first; suck it.' attitude. Obviously I will not rush for anyone's startpos or actively try take metalspots allies are likely to claim in the near future, or anything like that though. Moreover, if asked, I usually share whatever was asked, within reason.

Reason I do this is that every second there is an uncapped metalspot, it's potential being wasted. Wasted potential is also bad teamplay.

Agreed.

Still who says you cant own corpses?

I do. The first to reclaim the corpses 'owns' them. Why? It could be the enemy, therefore it's in the best intrests of everyone to reclaim every corpse asap.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a very selfish player (hopefully, can't really judge that myself). Just asking for more metal or making a marker announcing you need those corpses there should prevent any confusions. If there are no such claims, the metal is there for anyone to grab.

Agreed.

Yes, talking to the host might work, if he can spare the time to listen and if it's not an autohost, but there is something to be said for robust retaliation: it deters future attempts in that game, and over multiple games people will learn that interference generally results in internecine warfare that costs a team the game. If the cost of a poor or misguided player is one ally not contributing fully to the game, it will never be rational to interfere with that player if it could mean he retaliates (as well he might, against hostile action) against allies, since the cost of this would be greater than simply letting him alone and advising him strongly against his course of action.

Absolutely agreed. I so disagree with Saktoth's attitude of [even if a crime has been committed, let it go or you'll further ruin the game for everyone]. Why should you be the final person to get screwed by a teammate? That makes it okay for that person to do it to you again and again in the future. No, it is not okay. Pause the game, place a label indicating this a-hole is attacking his teammate, and if everyone else is too complacent to care or they just unpause and ignore you, they are implicitly saying it's okay to attack a teammate. Retaliate and retaliate hard or you'll be the pathetic loser.

[Saktoth]

Car, that mentality is why he attacked you in the first place. You slighted him, probably unintentionally, by 'taking his corpses' or 'taking his mexes' or 'taking his geo' or 'reclaiming his geo to make a mohogeo/behe' or 'not helping him' or 'airlifting his units', which can all be done in the firm spirit of teamplay rather than out of a selfish desire to sacrifice his position to benefit yours.

The point is, unless they are griefers in which case your response is the one they want, people will disagree with you about where the line is, maybe that makes them jerks but that disagreement over where their 'sovereignty' ends and yours begins is what leads to these situations.

However, you also seem to agree that the two problems I identified first are uniquely bad slights; they represent nothing less than a hostile act against an ally's base or units.

I think comdropping your ally with the impetus to build is actually good teamplay, most of the time. Combombing with your allies com 'stealing his mexes' is generally just sacrificing his welfare for yours, though (Whether that benefits the team or not is another issue though).

it deters future attempts in that game, and over multiple games people will learn that interference generally results in internecine warfare that costs a team the game.

Have you ever done this? o_o

Im sad to say, i have. They always retaliate even more strongly. Why? Because the reason they did it in the first place was due to a 'perceived slight'. You are wrong, they are just getting revenge to 'discourage' you. So you get revenge to 'discourage them' on and on, and so, escalation, there goes the game.

If you join a game where new players are allowed, you have absolutely no right to interfere with their game play.

Rather id say i have the responsibility to do so, to teach them how to play. Not by combombing with them though, naturally. At least by instruction.

I do. The first to reclaim the corpses 'owns' them. Why? It could be the enemy, therefore it's in the best intrests of everyone to reclaim every corpse asap.

Same with mexes. Glad to know i can rush air and cap all your mexes ahead of you (and if you dont defend my mexes with LLT's ill be pissed at you for not pulling your weight).

[Regret]

In this case, the attacking of a teammate (includes capture/kidnap) I wholeheartedly disagree. This moral rule does not clog a single thing because it's so very simple, easy to follow, easy to identify, not up for interpretation (there's no mistaking it in a replay) and without it, the game would be entirely ruined. We could remove all friendly-fire damage, and cancel teammate capturing (actually that might be viable) and team-airlifting. But this would drastically change the gameplay in other ways. That is why this simple rule of conduct should be enforced. No attacking a teammate, ever. No matter what.

If I can by "attacking" my ally help/save my team, I will do it without hesitation. I will not stand by and watch as some player gets wasted without contributing anything to the team. Sure I'll give tips how to play etc. before interfering. But I'm not going to let some player ruin it for the whole team when I can do something about it.

By your reasoning, I would get punished for saving my team/winning the game. Which is retarded to say the least.

[manored]

I agree with this statement in all cases except for this one. In this case, the attacking of a teammate (includes capture/kidnap) I wholeheartedly disagree. This moral rule does not clog a single thing because it's so very simple, easy to follow, easy to identify, not up for interpretation (there's no mistaking it in a replay) and without it, the game would be entirely ruined.

Everthing is open to interpretation. What exactly is to attack someone? Im my opinion its not only to try to manipulate or destroy his units, but in any way reducing his chances of victory. If one ally uses the mexes in his area for nothing or for something that will never work (such as early game krog rush) he is attacking your team because he is preventing it from using that metal in a productive manner, thus increasing its chances of defeat.

There is no real solution for this problem I believe, because it depends much of opinion. Altough most people have a good (again, opinion) amount of tolerance to allies playing worse than they would in their place (will not fell attacked as long as the ally is trying and doesnt completly sucks) there are those who think that if the ally is not playing as good as they are or in the way they think its right they are being prejudiced.

I think we can tough minimize the problem by being as tolerant as possible regarding what is from who... its a team game after all, dont undo what your ally has done, play as if you were alone if he sucks that much or is not doing the part that common sense would give him, and press him up to do stuff if he has taken a large amount of resources, so he will learn that dividing resources means that the whole team will have their attention well-distribuited. Off course that if the ally is playing just to ruin the game (have fun anyoing others) or completly sucks (was disrespecful enough to jump in a multiplayer team match winhout any idea of how to play winhout caring for who is in here) you can quit and remember his name to not play alongside him anymore.