Sovereignty of Units, or when Dgunning allies is acceptable.

[Teutooni]

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).

Sure, I'll just ask you to give them to me saving me the trouble of building them. If you refuse to share, you better do something useful with the metal, else we lose. Expecting me to defend your mexes with what little metal I have would be silly, glad you were just joking.

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.

I'm saying that in a situation like that I would not 'retaliate' and take the mexes back. I'd use a more subtle approach to prevent the situation from escalating.

[manored]

Expecting me to defend your mexes with what little metal I have would be silly, glad you were just joking.

Sad thing is that the kind of people that take mexes in allies starting zones are the same kind of people that think that the strengh of their allies has nothing to see with how much metal they have...

[SwiftSpear]

Expecting me to defend your mexes with what little metal I have would be silly, glad you were just joking.

Sad thing is that the kind of people that take mexes in allies starting zones are the same kind of people that think that the strengh of their allies has nothing to see with how much metal they have...

Ya, I always loved that guy on my team who took half my mexes and then bitched about it when my defense line collapsed.

[CarRepairer]

Since I'm meticulous about these things I will restate:

IF you define attacking an ally as [shooting, capturing, transporting] him without permission, and draw the line there, THEN

There is no interpretation as to whether someone attacked a teammate. It is either clear that it happened or clear that it didn't.

IF you define the boundary of fairplay as: I may [capture a teammate's unit, use his commander to combomb, shoot at his unit] WHEN I deem it is necessary, such as [this will help the team, he sucks, I feel like it] THEN

There is plenty of room for slippery slope, abuse, fighting, ruined games. YES, maybe if you take the mex you'll use it better. But just because that's TRUE doesn't mean that it should be allowed, because then it's open for everyone to do it when it's NOT TRUE. If I stole five bucks from some idiot and used it better than how he was going to use it, that doesn't mean we should leave the crime of theft open to interpretation!!

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

No. By my reasoning, anyone should get punished for committing an such an act, whether or not they helped the team. Letting everyone make that decision is what's retarded.

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.

Well this conversation is not about what to do in games where the players disagree about the boundaries, it's about which boundaries are best to begin with.

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.

Then you agree with me.

[Tribulexrenamed]

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 maek clann, we R t3h b3st, and We shar3 our units like the children of a polygamous family. Sometimes I forget how much people suck. People get so pissed when I take out 2 or 3 bases with their mavericks and my transporters.
1) They were not using their mavs
2) Transporters are like dguns, one of the most powerful weapons in the game.
3) They dont know how to pleh.
4) I rock at airdrops.

Its a win win situation. I take up the slack for my allies, and Everyone gets excellent lulz that are caused by an airdrop.



An unacceptable action is keeping your commander in your base on a map like dsd. For stuff like that, when I am the one on the front, I start spamming minelayers and surround all offending allies' units (including mobile units and commanders) with mega mines. This is the ultimate offense, and the ultimate punishment.

If your commander gets picked up, its because you are not using it, and thus it is not moving, and it can be picked up. However, I pick up peoples commanders some times when they are being idiots and not listening to my ideas, which by the way, are fabulously perfect, and can only lead to victory.

If you make a mex on a spot where I put a point, Ill combomb/nuke/ubermine your base.


Surrouding allied defenses like pitbulls with mega mines makes them humorously susceptible to enemy fire, by the way. You should do the experiment on a particularly shitty game if you need some lulz.


Also, just some advice. Sumos suck against pitbulls and squads of januses coming from different directions.

[Teutooni]

IF you define attacking an ally as [shooting, capturing, transporting] him without permission, and draw the line there, THEN

There is no interpretation as to whether someone attacked a teammate. It is either clear that it happened or clear that it didn't.

That's exactly where I draw the line. There's still some room for misinterpretations in whether it was on purpose or not. Much, much less than in some honorary code many players have, however. If an ally deliberately kills my units, he should prepare for some kind of a response, usually a kick.

[KDR_11k]

For stuff like that, when I am the one on the front, I start spamming minelayers and surround all offending allies' units (including mobile units and commanders) with mega mines. This is the ultimate offense, and the ultimate punishment.

Ah, so you're the guy that got banned recently?

[Regret]

No. By my reasoning, anyone should get punished for committing an such an act, whether or not they helped the team. Letting everyone make that decision is what's retarded.

You just said that "No you wouldn't get punished for helping your team win" and then "Yes you would get punished for helping your team win". I believe you meant to say the latter.

You are free to punish anyone for anything you want in your own hosted game. But then again, who are you to say how the game should be played aside from the actual gameplay limitations?

Sure you might enforce others to obey your morals in your game, and surely you'll get from it the satisfaction of feeling "morally correct", or even doing something "good", or simply the feeling of being in control of others. And other illusions like that.

However, the truth is that it's just a game, which is meant to be won by one of the opposing teams/players. That's all there is to it. There are no morals in it. The only thing to judge your actions taken ingame is the outcome of the game, whether you won, or lost. If you wish to play politics or moral ethics, go play some other game.

(Cheating/hacking being the obvious exception to what I said)

[KDR_11k]

No, you get punished for the approach you take, not the result. You could win by vote-kicking all opposing players but you'd still get banned for it, you could win by having a smurf on the opposing team and combombing them. Car is saying that just because you might win (or not) does not mean the action was justified.

[Regret]

No, you get punished for the approach you take, not the result. You could win by vote-kicking all opposing players but you'd still get banned for it, you could win by having a smurf on the opposing team and combombing them. Car is saying that just because you might win (or not) does not mean the action was justified.

I was talking from a players perspective, a player that has his units, is on a certain team in a certain game, can't kick anyone, doesn't have a smurf on the other team, has only his units, has no cheats, no hacks, no blahblahblah, can win only by using his units.

Using my units as I see fit in order to win is always justified by me/my team winning.

[Teutooni]

Using my units as I see fit in order to win is always justified by me/my team winning.

Are you saying that if we were on the same side I could nap your com, suck it up, win the game by myself, and you'd be totally ok with it?

[Day]

only if you give him a backrub afterwards

[Regret]

Are you saying that if we were on the same side I could nap your com, suck it up, win the game by myself, and you'd be totally ok with it?

You are free to try :)

[TradeMark]

stupidest thing i ever seen was when i was playing greenfields game, and i repeated to my ally "can you make me a kbot?", but he didnt respond. then i started to capture the lab for myself to make a kbot (i would have gave it back), but he came and dgunned his own lab :D

[CarRepairer]

No. By my reasoning, anyone should get punished for committing an such an act, whether or not they helped the team. Letting everyone make that decision is what's retarded.

You just said that "No you wouldn't get punished for helping your team win" and then "Yes you would get punished for helping your team win". I believe you meant to say the latter.

You are free to punish anyone for anything you want in your own hosted game. But then again, who are you to say how the game should be played aside from the actual gameplay limitations?

Sure you might enforce others to obey your morals in your game, and surely you'll get from it the satisfaction of feeling "morally correct", or even doing something "good", or simply the feeling of being in control of others. And other illusions like that.

However, the truth is that it's just a game, which is meant to be won by one of the opposing teams/players. That's all there is to it. There are no morals in it. The only thing to judge your actions taken ingame is the outcome of the game, whether you won, or lost. If you wish to play politics or moral ethics, go play some other game.

(Cheating/hacking being the obvious exception to what I said)

You make an interesting final comment there. Why is cheating/hacking an "obvious exception" but attacking a teammate is not. I see both as equivalent as can be. Both are ways to win the game at the expense of the fun of others. If you believe winning the game is the only end and any means are necessary, why are you arguing that I should not exclude attacking teammates from those means and then you suddenly summon your own exclusion (cheating/hacking).

I will try not to restate all my previous comments in this thread but to summarize, I still disagree with the notion that it's okay to attack a teammate when you deem necessary and it's in the same level as cheating/hacking to me, as in, it's always wrong.

[lurker]

Maybe I should be more clear on my position. There are things that you can do that I think are jerkish but not attacking, and that is what I think of things like capturing a mex that really should have been yours without asking, or, again without asking, reclaiming an arm moho to make a behemoth in an attacking position.
Car, I'm confused by how you say cheating is on the same level as capturing a single ally unit, no matter what the circumstances of the capture. What if they necro'd a mex corpse at the very core of your base? You can't avoid having some fuzziness in what is right and what is wrong, the game is too complicated.

[Sleksa]

No. By my reasoning, anyone should get punished for committing an such an act, whether or not they helped the team. Letting everyone make that decision is what's retarded.

You just said that "No you wouldn't get punished for helping your team win" and then "Yes you would get punished for helping your team win". I believe you meant to say the latter.

You are free to punish anyone for anything you want in your own hosted game. But then again, who are you to say how the game should be played aside from the actual gameplay limitations?

Sure you might enforce others to obey your morals in your game, and surely you'll get from it the satisfaction of feeling "morally correct", or even doing something "good", or simply the feeling of being in control of others. And other illusions like that.

However, the truth is that it's just a game, which is meant to be won by one of the opposing teams/players. That's all there is to it. There are no morals in it. The only thing to judge your actions taken ingame is the outcome of the game, whether you won, or lost. If you wish to play politics or moral ethics, go play some other game.

(Cheating/hacking being the obvious exception to what I said)

You make an interesting final comment there. Why is cheating/hacking an "obvious exception" but attacking a teammate is not. I see both as equivalent as can be. Both are ways to win the game at the expense of the fun of others. If you believe winning the game is the only end and any means are necessary, why are you arguing that I should not exclude attacking teammates from those means and then you suddenly summon your own exclusion (cheating/hacking).

I will try not to restate all my previous comments in this thread but to summarize, I still disagree with the notion that it's okay to attack a teammate when you deem necessary and it's in the same level as cheating/hacking to me, as in, it's always wrong.

Hacking means youre using things that are not ingame (ie aimbotting)

Anything in the game engine should be allowed to do. Just imagine what OTA would've been like with your imaginary rules. No metal makers, no hawkdacing (LOL SPLOITS) no linebombing, no flash cuz flash is gay. There's no clear definition on where to draw the line, so the best thing is to say that everything in the game engine can and should be used to get a win. Just look at pro level starcraft play where people stack mutas and oneshot shit, or push probes over mineral lines.

Ofcourse you can question the starcraft community's authority and say they are all wrong and you are right, but Under what authority are your imaginary gentleman's rules better than progaming community's ?

Both are ways to win the game at the expense of the fun of others

Winning the game can take the expense of the fun for the game for some people, so by that basis you should always strive to lose to appease every player in the game, and you must also like losing . . ??

[aegis]

imho just normally ask (or at least tell) the teammate before stealing junk...

For mexes, I don't normally take them unless it is multiple, or everyone hit t2 and the ally doesn't look like they will upgrade to mohos.

If I think my ally is capable of using it for good (i.e. they are a much better player than me), I will yield units, resources, or a commander willingly.

[manored]

I think our community is small enough for us to just say anything is allowed and then not play alongside people we know (from previous experience) that mess up with our stuff or sucks too much for our taste. Now if some ally ruins the game for you, just leave, dont take revenge as maybe the team would still win if you didnt.

Also, I think that the arguments of "not letting people play the way they want" or "ruining their fun" are invalid. Its a competitive game, if your anyoing ally didnt did that to you the enemy would do, except if you stoped him first.

[[TS]Lollocide]

stupidest thing i ever seen was when i was playing greenfields game, and i repeated to my ally "can you make me a kbot?", but he didnt respond. then i started to capture the lab for myself to make a kbot (i would have gave it back), but he came and dgunned his own lab :D

The sad thing is, sometimes you actually HAVE to capture someone's lab just to get a bloody constructor, even if you spam ask them 'CAN I HAVE A T2 CON ALREADY?!' and they just don't respond.