Message text Odeiiii wrote:
dcr66 wrote: tlamb67 wrote: dcr66 wrote: tlamb67 wrote: Odeiiii wrote: Good day, Admirals.
I'm a new member in You Play It, signed in just two weeks ago. I like specially naval wargames, so immediately I subscribed to some WS&IM games, three of them against the same player. I lost the first two of these, but it looked like I was going to win the third one as I managed to dismast all the enemy ships. However, just when I was going to maneouvre to rake and finish them off, my opponent surrendered. It didn't amaze me, as his possibilities of eventually winning were rather scarce. However, later I realized the victory count in my profile didn't increase as it should according to the rules. I looked at the forum and learned that such "surrender bug" is fairly known, and that unfortunately the game programmers are too busy to fix it now. In that moment I thought maybe my opponent too, as me, was a new player and didn't know about the bug, but a quick look at his profile showed me he was a veteran with several hundreds of games at his back (about half of them victorious). Such behaviour shocked (and still shocks) me, as it just denied me the victory without giving him anything (for him the game would be credited as a defeat anyway), and I would like to know how it is ethically regarded in the You Play It Community: is it a 'legal' option, or on the contrary is it thought as non-fairplay, or even as plain cheating?
I will appreciate any opinion. As Derekticus said and knows more about the system then I do and unfortunately there are always unethical players, I would simply refuse to play(as possible) any games with them. Perhaps bring it to the forums so that a little public humiliation will either discourage it or at least allow other players to know who to avoid or what to expect from that particular player. It it never an easy situation to say the least. Each one of us regulars in WSIM has our own private list of preferred players and modes. I am not sure who Odeiiii is referring to but I personally do not want anybody to get publicly humiliated on the forum for that. Doing so may be considered flaming and you will face some repercussion from the webmasters. If it is a public game, then stay away from those players will not be hard. As for league games, let others join first so you can see who will be in the game. I will only surrender if my ships are crippled and I am the only player alive on my side. Then I will see whether there is any chance to win if I drag on. If I can never get my HDT to >= 0 and my opponents can shoot me, I will surrender to speed up the process. dcr66 makes an excellent point. The more "glorious" alternative to surrender is turning your ship(s) so the enemies can rake you to a quicker death. Derek, Tlamb67 and Dcr66, thank you very much for sharing your opinion. I agree you and never will use the surrendering option (at least until the bug is fixed). Anyway, I have another question about common ethics in YPI WS&IM: in wargames, even in pure tactical single scenaries, I like acting as if there were to be a tomorrow; so, if the odds are against me and my sacrifice doesn't retrieve any profit, I simply try to flee like a rat to deny my opponent a victory (or a greater one) and avoid the loss of units that hypothetically could fight another day. However, if I did so in a YPI WS&IM game (sailing away out of enemy cannon range during 5 turns) before losing any ship, would it be regarded as akin to the "opportunity surrendering" because it equally denies the victory to the side that seeks combat? I personally don't think so, as this possibility would force the advantaged side to close distances in order to avoid his opponent fleeing (as in real world); doing so he would surely have to risk to be raked, giving so his opponent some tactical advantage to compensate his inferiority and improving his possiblities to eventually win. As Sun Tzu said, if you want your enemy to accept the battle, you must give him some kind of advantage; otherwise, he simply will avoid until it better circumstances present themselves. As before, any opinion will be welcome. Odei
Odei,
You make interesting points. Here are my opinions on the matters presented: I am not against surrendering, I am only against surrendering before your opponent scores a point.
Currently, if you surrender, your points go to zero and the game ends. When games end at 0-0, then the game logic seems to give both sides a loss, which of course is ridiculous. If we are playing and I have scored a point, you may surrender at your leisure. I may not be happy about the sudden end of the game, but I will get a victory which will console me.
As far as pretending we are in an on-going greater war at sea, and not playing separate, single scenario actions; I don't see it that way, but again, everyone must play their own game. For me again, tactics are up to the individual player - some strike one ship and run, wining 10-0; while others love to play to the finish even when sticking around means that they may lose the game they had "in the bag."
The only time I despise the "run away" players is when the score is 0-0 and one player flees the encounter, because then again both players are handed a loss regardless of what had transpired prior to the game ending.
Derek |
|
|
Donate
Leagues
Gonzaga
Blue Max
Cartagena
Wooden Ships...
King Me!
VampiRing
