29. If you feel that your point doesn't make sense in the forums, do not hesitate to post a meme.

The Code of Honor:
-Respect other people at all times
-Follow the rules

GTCOAL, I like your rules. But basically, it can be summed up into "don't be a dick." Unfortunately, you might not get the full WarLight experience by just using the forums. There are many nice players out there that do not use the forums. I used to go on the forums more often but then I quit, realizing that if I like the game, I might as well play it instead of worrying about something else happening on the side. I admire your willingness to try to get something changed, though.

I don't follow most of these rules but I like your effort!

forums.taleworlds.com

mount and blade warband beta 2009

Either my post talking to cade was deleted, or I'm dreaming that I posted there...

I read it Fleece.

To me I believe every action in a game should be directed towards winning. Otherwise it is game-throwing. If you full on attack the person who does not accept your surrender, this is not made to help you win. If the host has made surrenders that must be accepted, he is giving the choice to every player to keep them in the game. If you want to be able to leave a game whenever you want, join games where surrenders do not need to be accepted. One of the reasons I made this forum was to point this out to people, as most people believe it is fine to do this.

If player A has the most armies and apt.
Player B is winning and is a best player.
Player C is obviously going to lose, but is only bordering and fighting player A.

Situation 1.
Player C surrenders, A no longer needs to fight him, A wins.

Situation 2.
Player C recognises and respects the game, and understands that he must stay for the game to be fair. He does not surrender, and the better player who was player B, wins.

It not heard anymore people saying "may the best man win" in sports and games. People say Good Luck Have Fun, and end in Good Game. However if people have not had good luck, and are not having fun because they are losing, they are not going to say Good Game.

If people said MBMW(This should be a new abbreviation), then they wish that no matter what happens, the best player will win. By surrendering when you are losing and because you are losing, you are rejecting the fairness of the game and giving a player that is not as good as another the win.

Fizzer has, as everyone knows, made the game a game of strategy and skill, not a game of levels and experience. He wants the game to be as fair as possible, but people reject his dream by surrendering in these circumstances.

It is wrong, unfair and mean to surrender because you are losing.

GTCOAL, I like your rules. But basically, it can be summed up into "don't be a dick."

I agree with you, but some people have broken consciences due to continued wrong, so they need a guide to tell them the good from the bad and to fix their conscience.

Also, I stated that I did not want rules on diplomacy games, as in diplos it is legal to become PE, it just comes with punishment.

Edited 3/25/2016 03:06:21

"Rule #1: Obey All Rules" -Barney Fife

"The First Rule of Warlight is you do not talk about Warlight and the Second Rule of Warlight is YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT WARLIGHT" -Fizzer Durdin


I know other people have already jumped on rule 21 and I'm here to do that as well. If I want out of a FFA game, I want out. (And my reasons for wanting out are nobody else's business). For someone to try to keep me in a game that I don't want to be in is dickish on every level. It essentially boils down to them trying to manipulate me into doing their bidding in the game. For them to do that is within the rules and because of that, I would never blacklist a person, but I will attack them.

And for the record, you mentioned that you shouldn't change your strategy. Technically, attacking them wouldn't be changing because when you surrender, your strategy IS to exit the game. Attacking the person preventing that from happening is a logical extension of that same strategy.

Seriously, change rule 21. It makes no sense.

Who wants to play GUESS THAT ALT!! ?

It appears that this is not a popular opinion on the Warlight forums, but I strongly agree with this:

Fizzer has, as everyone knows, made the game a game of strategy and skill, not a game of levels and experience. He wants the game to be as fair as possible, but people reject his dream by surrendering in these circumstances.

It is wrong, unfair and mean to surrender because you are losing.

In a 1v1 game, you can surrender because you believe you have no chance of winning: this is fine.

In a larger game, your actions affect everyone else and change the game for everyone. Surrendering changes the conditions of battle and tends to advantage some players over others. (I've won games simply because I knew certain players were likely to quit if I hit them hard, so I did so, with predictable results.)

Given that not everyone seems to feel the same way:

Perhaps we can use the "surrenders must be accepted" setting as a sort of "flag" for games which operate under this philosophy?

That seems plenty clear, and I don't particularly see the setting having any other purpose.

In a 1v1 game, you can surrender because you believe you have no chance of winning: this is fine.

In a larger game, your actions affect everyone else and change the game for everyone. Surrendering changes the conditions of battle and tends to advantage some players over others. (I've won games simply because I knew certain players were likely to quit if I hit them hard, so I did so, with predictable results.)

Given that not everyone seems to feel the same way:

Perhaps we can use the "surrenders must be accepted" setting as a sort of "flag" for games which operate under this philosophy?

That seems plenty clear, and I don't particularly see the setting having any other purpose.

+1

I believe I included in my rules the exception that surrenders are ok in times when there are only 2 people left or playing.

It's impossible for me to just keep playing, with the knowledge that i lost, the same way i played before. It would be ideal if everyone on a ffa just plays the game till a winner is decided, but it simply won't happen. I surrender exactly at the point, when i'm certain i can't win without boot anymore.

Edited 3/25/2016 06:37:10

^

Same

I used to think in FFA everyone should play until the end, but realisticaly a winner is usually clear before then, and if a player is attacking you to the point that you have to surrender then he is either in a position to win, or is an idiot. In either case then it's a good time to leave...

I don't have a strict personal code but I tend do disagree with a couple of your points:

When people don't want to VTE in a situation that warrants that - e.g. (in team games, not FFA) somebody getting booted without even picking or somebody surrendering for shits and giggles - I will,if need be, get them mobbed and eliminated irregardless of their team and make sure VTE comes into effect. Then I will blacklist them.

(It goes without saying that surrendering for shits and giggles will also get you on my BL. Or when you suddenly have "a plane to catch" mid-game RT)

People who do not accept my surrender in RT games when defeat is clearly inevitable and consequently leave me to get booted end up on my blacklist.They are willing to try and force me to waste my time against my will and against common sense, increase my boot rate % as a teammate, and they would probably also drag out a clearly lost game against me.

(People who drag out games they clearly lost against me are, of course, blacklisted as well)


These are all very sparingly used lately - the beauty of systematically blacklisting people who do things you dislike is that with time you get to experience that behaviour less and less frequently.

In FFA, i play until elimination or until i recognise the game has a winner, usually when 1 player got more income than the rest combined.

don't listen to timi

I didn't listen to timi, but I did read what he said and agreed.