Ethics Complaint Dept.

[froggyluv]

  Ok, this happened to me quite a few times yesterday so I felt compelled to bring it up.

Peep this:

1. A player of well reknown (pro) playing as archer takes out half your team and you work hard to avoid getting shot and finally make your way toward him. He then demands that you drop your shield and fight him man to man and snorts in disgust when you beat his (usually 2-hander) with sword and board.

Sorry, but if you've had the advantage of shooting at me from across the map the entire round, you've lost the privilege of demanding anything.

2.A master swordsman again has beaten half your team but stands alone at the end of battle and demands duels.

Again, it is a nice show of respect if the enemy teams agrees but this is never to be expected. This is Battle, not Duel server, it is supposed to be about the team win over individual prowess.

Please feel free to list and/or debate your feelings toward standard code of ethics on the Battlefield.

 

[NordArcher]

People usually ask for unshielded duels at the end, to prove themselves probably.

 

[Jock]

Yeah, some people have the "needs" to be "cool" by showing that they are good at MP.

 

[Sovereignty]

I agree. If someone doesn't want to be left alone against a swarm of enemies, he should stick with his team. If he's still alone at the end, then he should try to beat them best he can. It's not up to the enemy to give you a fighting chance, you make it yourself.

 

[GraaEminense]

I agree totally with the OP. If it isn't a duel server, you're supposed gang up on them or stab 'em in the back.

If we've got the tactical skills to be left standing with friends at the end, we shouldn't feel obliged to risk that by letting the last enemy prove his duel-skills -we've proven we're better at what matters.

If there are only two guys left standing, I don't mind duelling -but I hate to stand by, looking at my teammates going one-on-one with  the enemy's best duellist on a Battle server.

 

[MaHuD]

I almost never accept duels in battle or siege.

TDM/DM are for duels battle is for teamplay. Can't handle that? Go to a ****ing duel server.

 

[Spec]

I do accept duels at the end of battles, and sometimes offer them (though usually only if I'm not greatly outnumbered).

I'm not very good. I rarely get past a 1-1 or at best 2-1 KDR. But I want to have fun, and a duel is always a nice end of a round. Doesn't have to have anything to do with showing off. It's just playing around.

Of course, I do never expect my enemies to accept a duel, and I will never demand a duel when the enemy doesn't want it. It's just nice when it does happen, and it is more entertaining than the usual hide and seek at the end of a round.

Noone has to accept duels. If you don't want to duel me, throw a javelin in my face, I won't curse at you.

 

[Kittenhuffer]

I never accept nor ask for duels. The main reason being that I think it's boring as a spectator to witness these duels when you've died just a minute into the round and just want to respawn.

Sure, it might be interesting for the first time to look at someone defeating two or three guys in a row in one-on-one duels, but it's equally interesting, if not more, to see them beat the same people in a one-on-two or a one-on-three... and the latter is more fair to everyone in the server.

 

[doomsayer]

Well, what you forget is that sometimes a player might be totally able to avoid being gangraped by running and hiding for example.
For me the worst way a round can end is someone waiting behind a door with a raised hammer or a horsearcher circling around the enemy forever (normally, sometimes I enjoy hunting them down without beeing seen myself ).
If the player does come out to ask for a duel in such a situation I really consider it unsporting to gangrape or backstab him.
Otherwise I neither mind people dueling nor not accepting duels.

 

[duracell]

I never offer or accept duels.

 

[Helz]

For me it depends a lot on the server I'm playing on.  There are a couple now that I generally recognize and like everyone who plays there, and it's pretty common for the winning team to duel the last guy standing.  It's definitely not required though. 

As for archers demanding duels, they can suck it 
I'm not all anti archer or anything, but shooting people on the other side of the map is a hell of a lot less sporting than facing me and my shield.

I was in a game a while back where it was 2 on 1 versus an archer.  The guy takes about 6 shots at us while we're advancing, then changes over to a 2hander and demands to be dueled when we get in range.  Everyone on both sides was laughing at him. 

 

[Leto]

You ASK if you CAN have a duel, it's by no means neccesary .

Archers can have duels if they use a melee weapon, not bow's.

 

[Draygo]

Really its all about having fun.

Dueling often speeds up the end of a battle round where the enemy team doesnt know where the last player is. There are 2 options for the other team

offer duels in the center to lure him out
-or-
Run around the map for a while till you find him.

If the last enemy is a cav, and your team has no ranged weapons (all died etc) if the cav player wants to duel i will accept. Its much better than spending a minute in a half trying to down his horse to kill him.

Some players are better at group fights or gangrapes than others, often dueling them leads to a more favorable conclusion. Several times ive seen the last guy beat down 6-8 people in a gangbang. There is a style to fighting alone against a group that is rather effective especially if your group has several players that arnt as skilled as they are likely to hit allies.

I generally avoid joining in on gangbangs at the end of a battle round against infantry and dismounted cav. The chance of me getting tk'd is too high to be worth it.

As far as accepting duels from archers, it really depends on the archer. If the archer was shooting at me and then demands a duel screw it, he's dead sword and board style. If the archer is simply the last guy standing, and i'm the last guy standing (and we dont know where each other are) and he offers a duel then draws his sword without shooting sure I'll accept that. Infantry have better stats for using melee weapons anyway.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

I once killed the horse of a great horseman in a horse to horse fight. Feeling like a hero I got off my horse to engage him hand to hand on foot. He then ran past me, took my horse, and proceeded to kill two of my teammates one after the other.

That was simply awesome.

 

[JackBaldy]

If we've got the tactical skills to be left standing with friends at the end, we shouldn't feel obliged to risk that by letting the last enemy prove his duel-skills -we've proven we're better at what matters.

I disagree. It just means that you're winning. To be more politically correct, it just means that your team is winning. ...

I once killed the horse of a great horseman in a horse to horse fight. Feeling like a hero I got off my horse to engage him hand to hand on foot. He then ran past me, took my horse, and proceeded to kill two of my teammates one after the other.

That was simply awesome.

That's why you're usually supposed to kill your horse first

 

[Sushiman70]

No, that's why you'r not meant to get off of your horse in the first place

 

[JackBaldy]

But but.... he was feeling like a hero 

 

[FrisianDude]

His team didn't agree. Anyway, I think there is nothing wrong with duels at the end, but it indeed very much the winning team's choice.

 

[Ischenous]

If they ask, I might accept but only if there is say, only one left. When there.s say half the team it's jut boring. It's stupid to get mad if they don't accept, but it's also just stupid to get angry if you get asked. You just say no.

 

[Urist]

Dueling on a battle server should result in bans. There is nothing worse than a player who lets his teammates die while doing nothing, only to duel the last opponent. With that he disrespects his teammates and lowers their chance to win the round.