CrimsonShroud
Knight
Swadius said:
Ha ha, I've done that before. Thanks for the new horse!
Ethics Complaint Dept.
- Thread starter froggyluv
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Knight
Ha ha, I've done that before. Thanks for the new horse!
You missed "ignore the silly bugger and grab the MotF flag".Draygo said:
SanDiego
Knight at Arms
Golden rule of battle servers: If you see a lone hapless bugger running towards you it means he just wants a quick arrow to face to end his suffering.
Want duel? Go to duel server. When you are on battle, you must get ready for getting raped, stomped into the ground and killed. Not necessarily in this order.
Want duel? Go to duel server. When you are on battle, you must get ready for getting raped, stomped into the ground and killed. Not necessarily in this order.
I don't acknowledge duels on a battle server because they delay the dead players from getting back into the action.
FrisianDude
Archduke
Dead players schmead players.
Draygo
Sergeant
So you would rather wait a minute for the flag to spawn instead of killing him in under 30 seconds?Archonsod said:
-----------------------
Urist, who says the last person standing did nothing for his team? Sometimes i've gone around and flanked a bunch of archers, killed 3-4 of them only to find out my teams nearly all dead. Was I wrong to kill those 3-4 archers that were shooting my teammates? Its not wrong for the last man standing to ask for a duel, its also not wrong for the other team not to accept. In addition its not wrong for the last man standing to play hide and seek and 'waste' everyones time. Or the last cav player to spend a minute and a half attempting to beat 6 enemy infantry with a thrust from horseback.
I find it rare on battle servers for the last man standing to not have any kills whatsoever. Usually the last man standing is either an archer/xbow or is a player within the top 20% of his team for kills. Unless someone is intentionally hiding to grief.
Also what do you do when your team goes to fight the last man, and two of your teammates die to tk's and he kills 2 more. Do you continue to press him knowing full well that your teammates arnt careful and will likely kill you? Or do you back off let the careless members of your team go first, then after they die duel the last man?
Such blanket statements that dueling should be a kickable offense is just plain wrong. If you have a problem waiting for the next round to start go play TDM/DM/Seige - Battle is not for you.
I personally dont participate in end round gangbangs when I dont know the prowess of my allies. If its more likely ill end up dead from an ally than an enemy than I simply wait till its more likely ill kill the enemy or die by the enemy instead of die by an ally. Once its 3 on 1 or worse its really no different than 4 on 1, 5 on 1 etc. If you go 3 on 1 and all die, its likely ill die attempting to 4 on 1 and I usually calculate i have a better chance against him 1 on 1.
Ive seen 8 on 1's go the way of the last man, where if dueling was used that last man would not have beaten all 8 enemies.
Often dueling doesnt waste time anyway, usually the combatents put their shields aside making the fight much shorter. For example if you had a 2v1 situation where all participants have shields, the last man standing can definatly fight for 20 seconds or more, where in a duel its likely over in 15 seconds or less.
JackBaldy
Sergeant
Urist said:
A little extreme, no? Sometimes, I do let my teammates 'die' as you put it because I don't feel like running into a team killing chainsaw with everyone trying to cluster **** kill the last guy remaining. Especially if the last guy on the other team is camping and there's really no need for any of us to be in danger.
Mabons
I'll duel if it's 1 on 1. Other than that, no, I just don't trust people enough.
GraaEminense
Squire
If we're winning, we're most likely better at something, no? OK, sometimes it just means we're better at clicking the 'Khergit' option, but most times the winning team did a better job. It doesn't necessarily mean they're better, they just did better this time.JackBaldy said:GraaEminense said:
I disagree. It just means that you're winning. To be more politically correct, it just means that your team is winning....
I'll modify my stance somewhat: duelling is an acceptable end to a battle where the last man standing could easily force a draw by avoiding combat.
JackBaldy
Sergeant
I believe that there's too many variables to just blatantly state what you stated. It just comes off as arrogance the way you worded it, to be honest.
Besides, if someone wants to 'duel' at the end of a round in Battle mode, it could be for a large number of reasons. It's not an absolute that the only reason someone would want to duel at the end of a round in Battle mode would be because they want to prove their 'awesomeness at dueling'. Just sayin'.
The whole "we've proven we're better at what matters" statement is so flawed and comes off as egotistical. What if the last man standing had a terrible team and they all died, despite the last man standing being good at the game? So he thinks to himself, "What if I just offer a duel and hope for the best." Too many variables is the lesson of the story.
Besides, if someone wants to 'duel' at the end of a round in Battle mode, it could be for a large number of reasons. It's not an absolute that the only reason someone would want to duel at the end of a round in Battle mode would be because they want to prove their 'awesomeness at dueling'. Just sayin'.
The whole "we've proven we're better at what matters" statement is so flawed and comes off as egotistical. What if the last man standing had a terrible team and they all died, despite the last man standing being good at the game? So he thinks to himself, "What if I just offer a duel and hope for the best." Too many variables is the lesson of the story.
GraaEminense
Squire
It was meant as a bombastic statement, but arrogance works too. As for reasons, I'd normally expect it to be because it gives a better chance at winning than going up against larger numbers, regardless of awesomeness. Could be either, could possibly be something else, but without other evidence it looks like someone's looking for an escape or a chance to show off.JackBaldy said:
Note, I'm not saying I'm better than him -the last guy on the other team-, I'm saying we were better than they. His personal skills are not really important, though he's often either very good or too careful. Teamwork and tactics count for as much in Battle as personal fighting prowess -different skills, both important, and if one team can bring up many against one in the end they've done better. Staying alive, keep your friends alive, kill enemies -all equally important, and the team with the better total wins, freak luck aside.
That's why duels in a Battle strikes me as disrespectful to the rest of the teams (unless it's agreed on to avoid a draw).
Tis a Balion code of conduct to allow no quarter for duels if the remaining enemy is outnumbered at the end. It's a Battle server, not a duel server, therefore we make no apologies for it. Even if another person honors the duel, we allow them to finish and then attack in mass.
We displease some people with this philosophy, but hey, we're Mercenaries...not Knights.
We displease some people with this philosophy, but hey, we're Mercenaries...not Knights.
SockMonkeh said:
This. After an entire my entire team is steam rolled with one guy left, I don't want to wait 5 more minutes while he 1v1 duels each and every last one of them.
It's only really okay when its two guys left and they both agree to duel (as in, no shields, no throwing) anything else is either stupid (for the winning team) or selfish (for the last man standing).
Mr.X
looy said:
I'll agree to the duel, and then whip out my bow when he takes away his sheild
FrisianDude
Archduke
... that is disgusting.
It's practical.
JackBaldy
Sergeant
GraaEminense said:
You don't have to explain to me all the variables that comes into winning a SINGLE round of battle mode. I'm no stranger to them. But I also know that there's too many variables to just blatantly state what you stated. That's my opinion, and I'm sticking with it. Besides, if you take a look at how you worded your original post in this thread, you can see where I'm coming from. You know, the absolute in your wording that he must be dueling to show off his dueling skills and that 'we've proven we're better at what matters'.
All in all, in the end, I don't think it proves anything other than your team is winning a SINGLE round of battle mode. Whoop-tey-doo, want a cookie? Lol . . .
Similar threads
