FFA Masters League
League => League Discussion => Topic started by: FML|WorpeX on May 11, 2012, 09:52:17 am
-
We had a discussion about this in another thread and I would like input from other people. At the moment, item sharing is not considered feeding since both players benefit. Here are the arguments from ebo:
I'd just love to have this as an open option for future games (perhaps starting next season). I think the implications of this are huge: imagine orc trading their tiny hall for a few staffs from NE: NE gets lusted/doctored/linked chims, Orc gets hero saves, other 2 players get PISSED THE HELL OFF, mass teaming/chaos starts. I think this would be an awesome fresh change to acknowledge and encourage (barring outright suicide feeding, which would be up to mods to identify and punish).
This makes for AWESOME games. See last season's semi where I got DK Lich MK combo. See this season's R4 game where Ugri won by using UD + HU Steam Tanks. I'm sure there are a few other games I'm forgetting, but they were all awesome.
Heres an argument against it from Kruppe:
In any strategic game, there are boundaries. You imagine any shop except UD for an undead player? You imagine other races' heroes added to your army when given the right gifts?
Anyway, this question of Ebo has a destination.
It is to weaken you, all sworn players to this league, and FML itself.
In my opinion, forbid any of this crap.
It is not good for the league.
and just to clarify, here is what I perceive as the difference between feeding and trading:
Don't think we need a vote for this, in my eyes, this isn't Feeding - its Trading. Completely different thing. Feeding is when one person gets everything, trading is when two people benefit. I don't know at this moment if it should be allowed, but for the moment, there is no rules against it nor is there any reason to say there should be. This is the item equivalent of begging for ones life in exchange for an alliance. Mutually beneficial trade.
This is a brand new topic at the moment with no rules or ideas set forth about this. Speak now if you'd like to see this banned or would like to see it become more common place! Let us know your opinions!
-
Trading is the same shit as feeding, it throws the whole creeping people did at start into trash. Its bullshit, you play with the items you buy/find at start. Trading is fraud for the 3rd guy who cant do anything against it and has to let the lame happen.
There already is a whole thread about "help ebo finding ways to cheat himself into finals". Once he was on the run he used Kruppe as victim for his evil shit plans. If we allow feeding this way its deception and i will be out of the league. Ebo should try to win with skill and not with this dirty hanky-panky shit.
-
Trading is the same shit as feeding, it throws the whole creeping people did at start into trash. Its bullshit, you play with the items you buy/find at start. Trading is fraud for the 3rd guy who cant do anything against it and has to let the lame happen.
There already is a whole thread about "help ebo finding ways to cheat himself into finals". Once he was on the run he used Kruppe as victim for his evil shit plans. If we allow feeding this way its deception and i will be out of the league. Ebo should try to win with skill and not with this dirty hanky-panky shit.
LW, explain to me how item trading is different from any type of teaming?
Case 1: I'm Ud, teaming with an Orc, I ask him for a peasant and promise not to kill him, he gives me a peon, I build up Orc, get DK Lich TC, lusted frosties and mass towers mass bats. Obs are going "omfg awesome". Anyone feel like crying Foul in this case?
Case 2: I and player X are sandwiched, we have 1 mines between us. I offer X peace and to share 20 k gold in the mind between us. I mine 10k, he mines 10, to be fair. This is feeding too?
Case 3: I and player X are both weak with low heroes. Player Z is soon going to kill us both. I ask player X to feed me Archmage water elementals so I get lvl 6 FS and can EQ harass Z. In return I feed X a few wolves so he can get lvl 6 Alchem and harass player Z.
How is item trading any different?
TEAMING is essential in FFA. If it wasn't we'd just play 1v1+1v1 like morons.
Item trading is only another form of teaming.
And how about, I ask player X to let me mine out 10k, and in return give him Orb of Corruption? Problem with this too? How does this ruin the game type, tell me LW. I really want to hear this.
It only makes games more fun and adds a strategic angle and allows for more different combinations of heroes and items.
The only reason you're even arguing is because you hate me for some irrational reason (like, you think I'm better than you, probably).
I get the "purist" opposition to these sorts of strategies, but you are missing the most important points:
FFA is not a fair gametype. This gametype is inherently unfair. Best player doesn't always win. Sometimes worst player wins, sometimes luckiest player wins. Only thing you can do is scout like crazy to figure out who's currently strongest, and team them.
Oh and LW, nice b/s accusations after I defend you time and time again.
"Once he was on the run he used Kruppe as victim for his evil shit plans. If we allow feeding this way its deception
What the... fuck? Bro, you on drugs? Or just trolling.
Lastly:
Ebo should try to win with skill and not with this dirty hanky-panky shit
Honestly? Really? You're one of the worst most blatant manippers out there, and you tell me this? GTFO and go play 1v1 if you want your "skill", son.
Mods: feel free to delete this shit, but delete LW's garbage too. He starts with b/s accusations out of nowhere, when all Worpex asked for was some neutral/rational discussion.
-
This thread is stupid, as is Worpex for creating it.
:hu: :hu: :hu: :hu: :hu: :hu:
-
Trading is the same shit as feeding, it throws the whole creeping people did at start into trash. Its bullshit, you play with the items you buy/find at start. Trading is fraud for the 3rd guy who cant do anything against it and has to let the lame happen.
Since I didn't address this:
1. If players in the game are rational, 2 strongest won't trade. 2 weakest will. Too bad for the 3rd guy, but he's the strongest. If 2 strongest do trade, that's some damn good manip. Not any different from strongest player manipping others into fighting each other.
2. How is this different from 2 people ganging up on 3rd? Want to deal with mass chippo from each side of your base? That's more fair?
FFA isn't fair, in case you haven't figured that by now.
Strongest get teamed. As simple as that.
Lol.
-
Voted yes,
if both player gain from it (or wanted to gain) it's fine (imo)
kinda like when two player says "hey want to have a few battle to get better levels?" (happened a lot of times this season, and no one complained)
What is wrong (imo) is infinite feeding (feeding summons, pillaging ancient)
or feeding to hurt someone as opposed to help you win (when you know you can't win and are just trying to screw someone over)
-
Holy hell, whats with all this backlash? Ebo raised a valid question about an action which is not described in the rules. This has nothing to do with manip or anything of that sort and everything to do if it should be allowed or not.
I would like to hear constructive arguments and not slamming ebo just because you think hes trying to cheat his way into winning.
I've removed the offensive comments from this thread, please keep this civilized. Thank you.
Also, I agree with Renaud here.
-
Voted yes,
if both player gain from it (or wanted to gain) it's fine (imo)
kinda like when two player says "hey want to have a few battle to get better levels?" (happened a lot of times this season, and no one complained)
What is wrong (imo) is infinite feeding (feeding summons, pillaging ancient)
or feeding to hurt someone as opposed to help you win (when you know you can't win and are just trying to screw someone over)
Absolutely Renaud. All those things you listed are basically "suicide feeding" and should be penalized.
And personally, if someone offered to infinite feed me in 3 way I'd refuse. This feels like a trap to get me too strong, then team me off the map. On the other hand, one off trades which would benefit both players are fine, especially if they need it to have a chance vs 3rd, strongest player.
-
Holy hell, whats with all this backlash? Ebo raised a valid question about an action which is not described in the rules. This has nothing to do with manip or anything of that sort and everything to do if it should be allowed or not.
I would like to hear constructive arguments and not slamming ebo just because you think hes trying to cheat his way into winning.
I've removed the offensive comments from this thread, please keep this civilized. Thank you.
Also, I agree with Renaud here.
Thanks Worpex. I am a troll and am known to speak boldly against others, so it's not surprising that few people with thin skin are hating on me, and I'm fine with that - it goes along with how I am, so it's all deserved. But thankfully we have a lot of intelligent and rational players who can provide some actual discussion.
-
this is very interesting
it is all about balance of power.
ebo's strategy is to have it balanced for as long as possible and give everyone as even chances of winning as possible
I FIND THIS BULLSHIT.
he is trying to revolutionize long four ways. i prefer long 3 ways. long 4 ways seem to suck more.
basically ebo is trying to keep balance for as long as possible which should if everyone does the right decisions end in 4way base race. honestly, i hate those games cos they involve massive amounts of base sitting and chatting (see most of ebos games)
one should take granted that there will be wrong decisions, even minor ones during games. thus balancing power for as long as possible is bad as eventually your strive will end in you having to be teamed and suddenly the item change, shared mine etc being bad for you
i much prefer games in which greed and ego play larger roles
it is ironic cos i am not that type of person however from the last league games i prefer those with wrecktify especially or maga or htrt. they cause awesome fights, close games and not 4 players chatting record amounts to perfectly balance power and find decisions which all benefit them.
so basically i play in this league mostly for the fun. i do play for the win cos this causes most fun :D
i am open to criticism and differing opinions and good arguments
-
Dont want to write a long chapter none will read.
I dont like it, voted no
-
Dont want to write a long chapter none will read.
I dont like it, voted no
So how does this help?
ebo's strategy is to have it balanced for as long as possible and give everyone as even chances of winning as possible
I FIND THIS BULLSHIT.
he is trying to revolutionize long four ways. i prefer long 3 ways. long 4 ways seem to suck more.
Fair enough, but
1. 4 ways are less boring than 3 ways. 3 ways = everyone is afraid to hit. 4 ways = everyone hitting everyone. See LW Maga Ghost Rain game as example. The reason many of my games are boring is because I'm not a high micro player. I'm sorry if that's boring to you. This isn't the problem with balancing or item trading though. This is a problem specifically with me as a player.
2. How is this relevant specifically to item trading, I'm not sure I follow? People already team. Maga teams. You team. Htrt teamed. Item trading is only extension of teaming, which gives some very fun options.
Oh and if you like crazy games, item trading will make them more crazy.
Imagine Maga with orc casters.
Just saying.
-
So, we do it this way now , someone has another opinion about this thing than admins and my comments get deleted, because you support ebos idea. Go on like that ...
-
So, we do it this way now , someone has another opinion about this thing than admins and my comments get deleted, because you support ebos idea. Go on like that ...
You gave no opinion, you started flaming me. The only semi-rational comment you had isn't deleted, and I addressed it as well, see above.
-
ebo has the power to delete other people comments???
your idea enhances the possibility of preteaming issue. Most likely people will agree pregame to exchange stuffs, creating a silent alliance, creating dramas and preteaming contestations.
It is a bad idea (as much as giving you moderation power is)
-
People have a bad memory, i just say Walking and DarkMessiah... can't understand why you want the game to go this way Ebo since you should know how it feels to be tricked like that (market game).
-
People have a bad memory, i just say Walking and DarkMessiah... can't understand why you want the game to go this way Ebo since you should know how it feels to be tricked like that (market game).
They preteamed (allegedly... I actually didn't care about the allegations this much, but i did care that Eshan was scum of the earth).
This isn't preteaming. If a situation in game demands teaming, I will team. And if I team by joining armies, by sharing mines, etc (all the big things), why can't I also team in this minor way of trading a few items?
-
ebo has the power to delete other people comments???
your idea enhances the possibility of preteaming issue. Most likely people will agree pregame to exchange stuffs, creating a silent alliance, creating dramas and preteaming contestations.
It is a bad idea (as much as giving you moderation power is)
I can't delete comments. Worpex did.
Ugri, you have a valid point, but the thing is: people can do this already.
How is preteaming to trade a few items worse than preteaming to gang up on someone from the start? It's not. It has barely any effect, while preteaming to gang up has a huge effect.
If someone is a cheater and wants to preteam, they have to communicate to their preteaming buddy. They run a risk of being discovered and reported (like Eshan).
And if they are not reported, this league has much bigger issues than item trading.
TLDR: Preteaming is a much bigger issue and isn't dependent on item feeding.
-
You asperger's nuts really need to learn how to express yourself in under 50,000 words.
I dont think a rule is needed on it beyond the current one that gives complete flexibility to the admins. Anyone dumb enough to trade items deserves to lose. Id love an orb of corruption but would never actually trade a staff. Saving > killing. Lul.
-
Btw, If there is a clear "you can't drop items from other players to pickup, regardless of circumstance", I'll be cool with that too. At least then I(and others who'd want to try this tactic) won't be feeling like we're missing out.
-
I'm voting no. Sure it would spice up games a bit, but that's not necessary and I dont want someone teaming me because the strongest player in the game gave them an orb or a staff to not use their brain. Basically the rule would be allowing bribes it's bad enough when weaker players get teamed out of stupidity, its even worse if weaker players get teamed for a bribe.
Sorry Ebo but I can't agree with you on this one.
-
I dont think a rule is needed on it beyond the current one that gives complete flexibility to the admins. Anyone dumb enough to trade items deserves to lose. Id love an orb of corruption but would never actually trade a staff. Saving > killing. Lul.
Wreck, the problem with the current rule is that people understand it differently. As a result, there is a huge amount of drama every time something like that happens. Just a few weeks ago F10 was crying at PBM and LW for trading units. Before that Kruppe got fed on Gold Rush. Before that, Duck gave YZ's BM a MOD.
My point is, making it this rule more clear would make more people understand how it works and thus actually use this as part of their strategy, and thus make games more fun.
And isn't making games more fun while staying within WC3's rules is the point? The reason PM was disallowed, was because many felt like it was making games less fun. There were some very rational arguments about it. So far, I have yet to hear a single rational argument against item trading though.
-
I'm voting no. Sure it would spice up games a bit, but that's not necessary and I dont want someone teaming me because the strongest player in the game gave them an orb or a staff to not use their brain. Basically the rule would be allowing bribes it's bad enough when weaker players get teamed out of stupidity, its even worse if weaker players get teamed for a bribe.
Sorry Ebo but I can't agree with you on this one.
Not sure I understand.
As you say yourself, it's bad enough when weaker players get teamed. Item trading doesn't change this. If a strong player manips weak ones to fight, too damn bad. This is how FFA ALWAYS had been, item trading has nothing to do with it.
How is your example any different from, say:
Player A (strongest with 10/10/10 and 40k banked) telling player B: "yo i'm weak, we need to team player C... here, take this gold mine that has 5k in it, then let's team him."
Player C (weakest with 5/5/5 and 1k): "wtf guys... you srs?"
This happens ALL THE TIME. Item trading has nothing to do with it. It would make it more interesting though with potential for some cool scenarios. Eg. same players:
Player A: "Yo i'm weak, let's team C"
Player B: "Ok fine but give me half of all your heroes' items first"
Player C: "wtf guys.."
Player A: "Ok, ok fine" (gives items)
Player B: "thanks! Tricked you, come on C let's team him, he has 10/10/10 and mined 50k at no upkeep"
Player C: "woot!"
To everyone arguing against the idea, can you provide very specific examples where allowed item trades would be detrimental to the game?
-
Ebo does not have moderation power, I have no idea where you got that idea from. I specifically stated in my post that I was the one to have deleted those comments. To lightweight, the comment I deleted was not an idea, it was flame towards ebo and I deleted ebo's response as well.
From what I see, most people are against the idea because they wouldn't ever do, not because its necessarily detrimental to the game. I don't know if we should make a rule to prohibit doing it or not, as it seems no one would do it anyway.
-
I don't really have a strong opinion. Everyone's points are valid to an extent. I don't think item trading is feeding... and I don't have a strong opinion on if it should be allowed or not.
However, while I don't mind players using manip to win, I do personally detest the style of manip that involves telling blatant lies constantly through the entire game, trying to confuse people into making bad decisions. I think it is in poor taste and underhanded, BUT it is a part of the game format, and a perfectly valid way of winning. Its distracting having to type every 10 seconds to defend yourself against a complete lie because if you don't you risk the other player(s) actually believing it, and it gets exhausting. Making a manipulative statement using truths to cleverly mislead people is a much more subtle and, in my opinion, effective way of manipping.
In short: I find doing some things are distasteful and frustrating, but not illegal.
-
Worpex, I think many people are against the idea but they hate having to change their tactics. They hate imagining that they might have to deal with corruption orb HU, or staff Orc or double race UD. They are used to playing the vanilla way and they like it, and they don't want to change. That's perfectly valid and I think it'd be silly to disrespect what someone likes or doesn't like.
That said, if a the rule is left as is, I would assume that few people who do want to use this as a tactic, should be able to use it and not suffer from accusations after they do it.
But THAT SAID, honestly, I'm all for having a healthy league. If this rule makes people quit (IMO drama queens, but whatever!), then I'd just go for prohibiting it.
We're too small of a community, we can't really afford to fight or break down into factions, especially over small crap like this.
P.S. redkee thanks for a good comment, I can totally relate to this, though it's the opposite for me, as you know :) I consider high micro underhanded and cheap, and top macro (manip, scouting, timing) to be the paramount skill :)
-
P.S. redkee thanks for a good comment, I can totally relate to this, though it's the opposite for me, as you know :) I consider high micro underhanded and cheap, and top macro (manip, scouting, timing) to be the paramount skill :)
Personally I think it's best to be well-rounded. Relying on one skill too much gives people ammo against you, i.e. people flame maga for being a micro-monkey and flame you for being a dirty liar. I'm happy to agree to disagree though, differences make things more interesting. Just be warned, I have devised a clever counterattack to your manip tomorrow ^_^.
-
P.S. redkee thanks for a good comment, I can totally relate to this, though it's the opposite for me, as you know :) I consider high micro underhanded and cheap, and top macro (manip, scouting, timing) to be the paramount skill :)
Personally I think it's best to be well-rounded. Relying on one skill too much gives people ammo against you, i.e. people flame maga for being a micro-monkey and flame you for being a dirty liar. I'm happy to agree to disagree though, differences make things more interesting.
I think so too. The best kind of player would know when to use insane micro and when to pretend like he's a noob. The best kind of player would know when to manip and when to play like Dase. Unfortunately most of us get used to one style of playing.
Just be warned, I have devised a clever counterattack to your manip tomorrow ^_^.
Just be warned, I have devised a cleverer counterattack to your clever counterattack to my manip tomorrow ^_^.
(i'm playing Dase-style... shhh, don't tell anyone!) /trollface
-
You don't know what my counter-attack is though, so you'll have to devise one on the spot! Hehe.
-
You don't know what my counter-attack is though, so you'll have to devise one on the spot! Hehe.
Actually it doesn't matter because Dase style = no manip at all. Owned!
Unless of course... Dase style of no manip = actually a different kind of manip... and you already have a counterattack for it...
OK, I'm scared now... Can't you stop watching me?
-
You don't know what my counter-attack is though, so you'll have to devise one on the spot! Hehe.
Actually it doesn't matter because Dase style = no manip at all. Owned!
Unless of course... Dase style of no manip = actually a different kind of manip... and you already have a counterattack for it...
OK, I'm scared now... Can't you stop watching me?
I'm outside your bedroom window.
-
You don't know what my counter-attack is though, so you'll have to devise one on the spot! Hehe.
Actually it doesn't matter because Dase style = no manip at all. Owned!
Unless of course... Dase style of no manip = actually a different kind of manip... and you already have a counterattack for it...
OK, I'm scared now... Can't you stop watching me?
I'm outside your bedroom window.
This reminds me of Twilight. In a good way.
-
From what I see, most people are against the idea because they wouldn't ever do, not because its necessarily detrimental to the game. I don't know if we should make a rule to prohibit doing it or not, as it seems no one would do it anyway.
Then read my post again.
It is VERY unlikely that two people reaching tier 3 and trading a staff for an orb will use it to fight each other. It creates a silent alliance. It creates preteaming suspicions and drama.
Dont do it.
-
From what I see, most people are against the idea because they wouldn't ever do, not because its necessarily detrimental to the game. I don't know if we should make a rule to prohibit doing it or not, as it seems no one would do it anyway.
Then read my post again.
It is VERY unlikely that two people reaching tier 3 and trading a staff for an orb will use it to fight each other. It creates a silent alliance. It creates preteaming suspicions and drama.
Dont do it.
And 2 people sharing mine spots don't create preteaming suspicions and drama? And Kruppe passing near Slythe's expo when Slythe hoarded 30k and going to hit weakest player (Darker) instead, isn't creating preteaming suspicious and drama?
Ugri, I understand your concerns, but they are real problems FML faces regardless of whether item trading is there or not.
In your example, 2 people traded items. Did they do so silently? Nope, because this would indicate that they are PMing = ban, bye bye. So they talked in chat. So other players know what's happening.
A: "I'll give you orb for staff, B, how about it?"
B: " Ok cool come here"
C: "Yo that's not cool, hey D, we have to stop fighting cause A and B are not fighting, they're trading items"
D: "Yeah let's team these nerds!"
How is this any different from:
A: "Hey B, let me have last 10k in that mine between us"
B: "Ok, ok fine."
C: "Yo that's not cool, hey D, we have to stop fighting cause A and B are not fighting, they are hoarding gold"
D: "Yeah let's team these nerds!"
The second scenario is commonplace and is accepted as part of FFA. It's not any different than the first, actually even more dangerous. 10k can buy about 200 food of army. A traded item is a small advantage.
-
I dont think the topic is about sharing mines so stop digressing.
And as for your example, if they decided to trade pre game, there isnt anything in the chat. And even if there is, it creates dumb games with people thanking the other for the nice item he gave, and uses it to kill player 3 and 4.
Dont do it
-
Ugri, I'm giving an example of mines as being a legit tactic and not any different than items.
If 2 players drop items without chat, it's obvious that they either PM or agreed befor game (aka preteam). Aka ban.
Your last point about using items to kill other players... OK, and this is not normal how? If I play HU or Orc I can easily own UD, without any bonus items. Problem?
If I'm lucky positioned and have 4 mines while you have 2, I can kill you. Problem?
FFA isn't fair. If you have to fight a stronger player, you will lose. So ask for help. He got an extra mine from his peace-friend, you get one too. He traded items, you trade too.
-
I have a relative doing like you, talking a lot and making stupid digression and metaphors to compare stuff which cannot be compared.
Mines : you can like on silverpine, share the two mines (one each) in time of peace. BUT YOU COULD AS WELL TRY TO FIGHT TO GET THE TWO
Items : you can give an items. BUT YOU CANNOT CERTAINLY FIGHT FOR IT BECAUSE YOU CANNOT GET IT UNLESS IT IS GIVEN
caps to enlight the important parts. Not the same. Dont do it.
-
Mines = gold. Gold mined out = gold you can't return.
2 people teaming = chippo from one side, mass tanks griffs blizzard from the other side. You lose 75% of your base, they back off. You can't return your base, either.
Sharing mines, attacking together, trading items comes down to one thing only, Ugri:
TEAMING.
And teaming is essential in FFA.
There are 2 types of bad teaming:
1. Preteaming = banned
2. Feeding = banned
Item trading is neither.
Do it.
-
And btw, I'm really curious who voted "no". Ati, Ugri and Lw did and they at least said something. Guys, if you voted "no", tell me why, so I can maybe persuade you.
-
Here I will go more in depth and give you the exact reason why I don't want it allowed. The funnest and most important part of FFA is being able to think, reason, and react on the fly. Meaning every single FFA is different from any other ffa, your tactics, who you team, who gets fed, who has the most gold, who tomes a player and has the best hero levels. Deciding the share a goldmine is going to be an on-the-fly decision. You never go into the game thinking man I hope DasE wants to share that goldmine with me at 38 minutes... you never go into a game thinking man Ebo is going to have 10/10/10 heroes I hope player C agrees to team him with me, even if you are the strongest player you don't go in thinking, man I need to manip this idiot into not teaming me even though I'm the strongest. All these scenarios come as it happens, decisions to be made, sometimes idiotic that results in bad teaming scenarios of course but it makes people think and play the game as it happens.
Now if you think hrmm item trading, I'm an orc player. All of a sudden you go into the game thinking I need to put myself in a scenario where I can give this human player a lightning orb in exchange for a staff. You will enter games with a mindset of who to be friendly with, and who to be aggressive with strictly for an item strategic advantage. It should not happen that way. Elf players first of all have the shittiest staff and no reason for other races to want their items, Orc Orb, Hu Staff, UD Orb. Look at how strong orc and hu heroes are now. Now imagine a BM TC SH with Hu Staff and a blademaster with +46 and an Undead orb (you hate human and orc cheese ebo and your idea is just going to make it more retarded) Aside from the imbalanced factor though I think it involves planning to make alliances and enemies before the game even starts which shouldn't happen.
The only things in FFA you should truly be able to do before the game even starts is have scenarios in mind for what to do in certain positions, on certain maps, and with certain races. Predetermining who you ally with and make enemies with based on what item you can get is bad for the game-type.
-
Louis, good post and good arguments but pre-game strategy is already race-based.
If I ever face Maga, I know he's going to play UD, I know what I will do if spawn near him. I know what I will do if I spawn near a NE player who loves to straight tech to chims and take someone out fast. I know what I will do if I spawn near a player who hates orcs.
I already plan a head on races and personalities. I know certain players hate each other and I plan to use this. I know certain players like to rush and some like to hoard.
And I'm not the only one. I'm confident that any top FML player already knows enough to plan ahead. Making decisions on the fly is for ladder. Doesnt work in pro games like FML.
P.S.
If Orc gets BM with corruption + claws + hu staffs, they'll probably get teamed off the map. It's not retarded. Nothing is retarded, except people who don't team vs strongest. Because those people lose.
-
I agree we have plans vs certain players for maps and games against them. See season 8 where I played undead 1 time the entire season and it was simply to Tier 2 tower rush DasEland or Nline on wetlands because I knew I wouldn't stand a chance against arguably 2 of the best 3 FFA orc's of all time in the late game on a map where I couldn't possibly outgold them. But that's preparing for a scenerio based on the map and my opponents. Not preparing for a scenerio based on what items I can get from a player. Let's imagine mooshupork is playing in FML we all know who he is, we have all owned him on the ladder multiple times. Suddenly if item trading is allowed I might even decide to crossmap tome mooshu into submission just for a lightning orb. I know for a fact we would all be thinking the same thing going into our games. Instead of preparing for strong players and positions we would be preparing to dominate weaker players into forfeiting items to us.
Do you think Unholydreadlord wants to be smacked around every single game and be forced to give out 3 or more orb of corruptions? Of course not.
-
I agree we have plans vs certain players for maps and games against them. See season 8 where I played undead 1 time the entire season and it was simply to Tier 2 tower rush DasEland or Nline on wetlands because I knew I wouldn't stand a chance against arguably 2 of the best 3 FFA orc's of all time in the late game on a map where I couldn't possibly outgold them. But that's preparing for a scenerio based on the map and my opponents. Not preparing for a scenerio based on what items I can get from a player. Let's imagine mooshupork is playing in FML we all know who he is, we have all owned him on the ladder multiple times. Suddenly if item trading is allowed I might even decide to crossmap tome mooshu into submission just for a lightning orb. I know for a fact we would all be thinking the same thing going into our games. Instead of preparing for strong players and positions we would be preparing to dominate weaker players into forfeiting items to us.
Do you think Unholydreadlord wants to be smacked around every single game and be forced to give out 3 or more orb of corruptions? Of course not.
Ehh, I think you're exaggerating a little bit. If item trading was openly and clearly permitted, we wouldn't see these kinda of scenarios popping up all that much. And what's so bad about them anyways?
Let's say I pop near Moosho and dominate him into letting me use his natural expo (this happens very often in many games). Is it any different? Is it any different from Maga going to tome weakest player so he can get triple 6 quickly?
And if someone did "use" the weakest player, whether for exp, gold or items.. so what do the other players do? Yep, team the tomer.
Any strat which logically makes sense can backfire. This isn't solo, this is FFA. Everything you do that you think helps you win (get items, gold, high lvl heroes) can backfire any moment.
One moment you're the king of the world, pro-toming that 60 apm noob near you
The next moment you're down a base because you got attacked by chippo from top, tanks griffs from bottom. While the 60 APM noob you tomed is non-stop harassing your expos with fs wolves/EQ/invis blademaster/3 bats (at least I think that's what Moosho goes for these days, I might be wrong)
This is madness FFA.
-
For those who remember, I personally split off of Clan Lone and (re-)formed Fury because I thought strongly that Private Chat was a legitimate tool to use in games. I still feel that way, a few years later after becoming much more of a solo player. Clearly, I believe that manipulation and teaming are parts of the game; my actions have proven that.
I think that you can donate someone an item to have another capable player in the game, which can help bring down a giant. I think that it's possible to do it in a very reasonable manner where you're clearly trying to win by creating an alliance based upon incentives.
I voted No on this, and not exactly because of ethical reasons. The problem lies in practical applications of this technique. How do we set limits on item donating? Trading? Buying and selling? Where is the line? Because trading orbs and staffs and claws and auras...this makes the game a lot more about being a merchant than anything else. And when that happens, the game grinds to a halt and the action melts away. It's fine to have long games with some lulls in the action, but we're talking about demoting fighting and placing more incentive on treaties. At some point, someone has to go and fight someone else. Someone has to be knocked out of the game. Someone has to be the last man standing, and the only way for that to happen is by the other players losing the war.
I think Ebo was right to bring up the idea of item trading in the forum, because it was never really discussed much in the past (from my memory) and it's certainly an interesting tactic. But the biggest problem that I see with this is that the game becomes prolonged as players are more focused on negotiating than they are on backstabbing and demolishing. FFA is a balance between economics and hero levels, in many respects. If it wasn't for hero levels, people would only ever fight over territory (aka gold mines) at this higher level. Item trading is a giant incentive for players to fight less and for less action to be present in games.
-
That's a good comment INS, but I think you're kinda making an issue where there isn't one.
I'm willing to bet that if item trading was explicitly allowed, games wouldn't change much at all. There would be a few where item trades happened and those games would have as much action as in the others, just more spicy.
Item trading doesn't cause boring/passive games. Players do. Some players are aggressive, others passive. This isn't going to change.
-
I don't think that I'm creating a new issue out of nothing, here; if you change the rules and boundaries of a game, it's going to affect the way that game is played. Think about how this works in sports, as an example. Right now, there's a giant clamp coming down on headshots in multiple sports, since there is a recent movement towards better understanding and dealing with head trauma. The way that American leagues have been implementing this (NFL, NHL, NBA) has mostly been through fines and suspensions (which are also a fine, since you don't get paid while you're suspended). Sure, people still get hit in the head and some guys are still going to play dirty and take those headshots--but because it's costly to do so, most people have to evolve their game and stop aiming above the neck. The new rules have directly affected the way that many players play the games now, and that's in turn going to change the way that the game is perceived on a number of important strategic levels. In Football, for example, defensive players are still capable of lighting someone up with a big hit, but because it won't likely do permanent damage, the guys on offense are more apt to try riskier moves. This is changing the way that receivers and ball carriers are making moves in plays, which fundamentally is evolving the game.
We're not dealing with anything as serious as concussions in War3 FFAs, but I think it is important to think about how legality directly affects the way that a game is played on the field, from a tactical and strategic mindset. If we allow people to trade items without any restrictions, that puts a further emphasis on shopping and item stacking and less on levels, which increases the incentive to play more at 50 upkeep and decreases the incentive to play at 80. That's going to change the way the game is played, undoubtedly. Sure, some players will still prefer aggression--or even just use aggression as a metagame call because so much hoarding is going on. But ultimately, it's going to provide a better in-game position to players who are playing more passively. If being more passive is even slightly better than it was before, people will tend toward it more.
I think that it's good we have passive players and manipulators in this game because it makes things interesting and increases the strategic depth. In theory, that's the point of item trading--to increase the depth even further. But honestly, we're talking about something that is inevitably going to become a circle jerk of orb and staff trading where one guy gets left out because he actually decided to do something proactive in the game, and everyone else has waaaaaaaayyyyy better item stacking. Honestly, even without anyone using pre-game reputations or preteaming at all, someone is going to get left out of the trading--especially if the point of the trade is for 2 people to team up against a big player. So who is going to want to be the big man on the block, if that's how it works? It's one thing if you expect to fight a few more battles because you have the hero levels and newly acquired gold mines, but if your hero items are absolutely primordial in comparison to others, you're going to lose the game just because you tomed someone. Who is going to go to 80 quickly and fight, if that's the case? Why would you do that, if you could just trade items all day at 50 food instead.
It's fine to have hoarding, manipulation, and teaming, but there still needs to be fighting in these games. There has to be a reason to go out and beat someone up, just so people actually get killed off. Otherwise, it's just not going to happen. Especially at a higher level, where the players all know well enough to do things for their own best interest...who is honestly going to play aggressively?
-
I voted No and this post sums up why.
-
INS: you're waaaaay off and exaggerating man.
I've addressed this before.
#1: In FFA, strongest doesn't always win. Just because someone doesn't have best race or best items doesn't mean they will lose. Kinda like poker with worst hand.
#2: You're blowing things out of proportions. No, there won't be circle jerks of items. This is a strategy of very limited use and very specific situations.
Maga: thanks for constructive input.
Folks, I think we're down to the basic issue here. This new rule, if implemented, would give more ammunition and potential tactics to manipping macro scrubs like me.
Micro pros like on the other hand, who prefer to play the vanilla way they have been playing for about 8 years now, with 250 apm and showing off their skills obviously oppose. Why would they want to learn to deal with a staffing orc or corruption/purge HU? It obviously goes beyond what they learned in 1v1.
Kruppe was right after all, this IS all about me! Mwahaha.
Worpex, any word on this for next season? I'll shut up as soon as mods decide that item trading is illegal and never bring up the issue again :)
-
Folks, I think we're down to the basic issue here. This new rule, if implemented, would give more ammunition and potential tactics to manipping macro scrubs like me.
Micro pros like on the other hand, who prefer to play the vanilla way they have been playing for about 8 years now, with 250 apm and showing off their skills obviously oppose. Why would they want to learn to deal with a staffing orc or corruption/purge HU? It obviously goes beyond what they learned in 1v1.
You're way out of your depth, here. Just because someone can micromanage units and hit 250+apm spikes does not mean that they are unintelligent, unskilled in any other department, or unwilling to learn new concepts. That would be like saying athletes are all morons.
I don't think you respect anybody else's opinion, so you're not going to get a lot of support in any discussion, even if you're absolutely right.
-
I voted yes, not because I agree with ebo's points but because I believe that if the league continues to add more and more restrictions, eventually we'll end up with a gametype that resembles nothing from the initial vision the admins had when starting this league. (Although I haven't been here that long, I couldn't possibly know what they intended, but I think it's safe to assume they wanted a gametype with 0 restrictions and where anything is possible, because that is the nature of the ffa mentality.)
I also think PM should be allowed back in. Despite what people think, each player has their own playstyle, and if someone decides not to use PM, item trading, decide to 2v1 a strong player, or even play an entire game without chat, then more power to them. But dissallowing a specific tool because it's "not fair" is hardly a valid justification in my eyes.
I'm probably in the very small minority here, but I believe in a non restrictive type ffa where truly anything goes. It's everyone against everyone, and if someone has to play dirty to win, then so be it. Some players choose to hoard 30k and outresource their opponents, some players choose to play 1-2 base aggression for strong heroes and win the game that way, some players depend on their micro to win, some players depend on their lying to win, hell some players even choose to appear weak by choosing extremely shitty hero combos to win. Then we have some really weird people who choose to make games exciting for observers and couldn't care less about winning.
Regardless of how people decide to play the game, the goal of ffa is to win. How they do it should be up to the player, using any and all tools at their disposal, without the restrictions of a higher power.
However, since this is Worpex's league, however he decides to run it is fine with me, I am grateful enough to be allowed to play in the league and can't be picky about every tiny little thing.
-
I respect opinions that make sense. So far the few that did make sense (yours included) were pretty flimsy and I easily countered them with examples. And as I said earlier, I realize that I'm fighting an uphill battle against my own reputation as a troll, and that's fine.
Argumentation is commonly based on precedents and parallels. I provided a ton of those explaining why item trading is at the core no different than any other form of teaming/temporary alliance and in fact is only a minor tactic comparing to overwhelming power of coordinated attacks or mine sharing.
Several people came to try and argue that item trading is WORSE than any other form of teaming, providing outworldly examples of how everything is going to be ruined... very reminiscent of real world media-induced phobias, by the way, with a lot of guessing and assuming and scaremongering and very little actual facts and logic. Go back and re-read if you don't believe me.
What I pointed out about high micro players is what all of them seem to not want to say. They know this tactic would slightly lessen their chances to win, and improve the chances of the low micro, high manip players. They don't want to admit it, and that's fine. They are part of this league and they make games more fun. At this point I'll be happy if Worpex comes back and states that item feeding is considered illegitimate just like private chat.
I'll also be happy if this rule is given a test run perhaps for a single round. If things are as bad as you scaremongers assume they will be (lol...) then at least we'll know that we tried.
What's to lose, really? We play this game for fun. We made changes for the sake of fun (banning priv chat, new league format, etc.) Some worked some didn't.
This isn't NBA or NFL. This is FFA, the most unfair and irrelevant and fun game in the world.
-
I voted yes, not because I agree with ebo's points but because I believe that if the league continues to add more and more restrictions, eventually we'll end up with a gametype that resembles nothing from the initial vision the admins had when starting this league. (Although I haven't been here that long, I couldn't possibly know what they intended, but I think it's safe to assume they wanted a gametype with 0 restrictions and where anything is possible, because that is the nature of the ffa mentality.)
I also think PM should be allowed back in. Despite what people think, each player has their own playstyle, and if someone decides not to use PM, item trading, decide to 2v1 a strong player, or even play an entire game without chat, then more power to them. But dissallowing a specific tool because it's "not fair" is hardly a valid justification in my eyes.
I'm probably in the very small minority here, but I believe in a non restrictive type ffa where truly anything goes. It's everyone against everyone, and if someone has to play dirty to win, then so be it. Some players choose to hoard 30k and outresource their opponents, some players choose to play 1-2 base aggression for strong heroes and win the game that way, some players depend on their micro to win, some players depend on their lying to win, hell some players even choose to appear weak by choosing extremely shitty hero combos to win. Then we have some really weird people who choose to make games exciting for observers and couldn't care less about winning.
Regardless of how people decide to play the game, the goal of ffa is to win. How they do it should be up to the player, using any and all tools at their disposal, without the restrictions of a higher power.
However, since this is Worpex's league, however he decides to run it is fine with me, I am grateful enough to be allowed to play in the league and can't be picky about every tiny little thing.
Thanks for the post and vote Persuade. I'm all for allowing different playstyles too though PM was getting a little overwhelming. It wasn't adding fun to the games. I was probably biggest user of PM and I still voted in favor of banning it - by the way this is a pretty good indicator of my neutrality when it comes to this league.
-
Can you please stop double posting Ebo? Just edit your other post ffs. lol
-
Can you please stop double posting Ebo? Just edit your other post ffs. lol
But.. Super Blade Master...
-
Consider this situation
P1 has 5k ~70food, no wisp and is food block (and this happens ALOT)
P2 is broke ~70food, but is scared to leave his main because he doesn't have a TP
P3 is alive and well (and he has some great base race ability, like chims or mass tp, or w/e)
P1 gives a TP to P2, allowing P2 to help him fight against P3
Is this some evil bullshit that should be considered cheating?
I think this makes perfect sense.
-
not the same
He wanted upfront to trade item race related.
Giving an item according to circumstances end game would be fine for me, in the situation you mentionned