Ethics in 3 or more team CTF

Jefenry · Post by **Jefenry** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 3:39 pm

Say a red and a blue tank are both inside the greens base, and they are really slaughtering the greens. Wouldn't it be more to the red and blue teams advantage for them not to kill each other, but to work together?
I've been playing Missile War quite a bit lately, and I've been in this situation a few times where I'm blazing away at the enemy and a different tank shows up and kills me because I'm concentrating too much on the enemy.

Anyway, I'm just wondering what the more experienced players think about this, and if any of you have made these sort of quick alliances.

Saturos · Post by **Saturos** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 4:21 pm

Sure have we made these alliances... on the old public GU-server (bzflag0.gamesunited.de:5154) we did that all the time. Sadly these times are over... It was pretty common that two of the weaker teams didnt cap each other but went both on the strongest team, for example red&green vs. blue.
Or that the the blue and purple teams agreed that blue would take green and purple only red. You might need to know the hix-layout to fully understand that.

This all depends on one thing though... there shouldnt be too much newbies on the server. If its all veterans, alliances can work out well.

meeba · Post by **meeba** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:03 pm

Having the two teams across from eachother working together is what I like the best.

Hannibal · Post by **Hannibal** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 12:03 am

Individual, spur-of-the-moment alliances are not often made at Planet MoFo, but often they would work out extremely well for the majority of the players.
i.e..
I have High Speed, chasing a BU. Someone doesnt shoot at me, at least until the BU is dead.
Or ST and GM..CL and L..TH and GM/L/SW. Stuff to take out a camper or particularly good flag.

jack · Post by **jack** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 11:42 pm

my dad made that map and made it so you would do that. are you talking about GM war. its supposed to be hard for the pros

A Vicious Muffin · Post by **A Vicious Muffin** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 1:03 am

Actually, there is a map called missile war, and it's a lot different than tadd's gmwar.

meeba · Post by **meeba** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:33 am

I guess I'll just have to settle this by making a map so hard that the n00bs probably have a better chance at succeeding in it.

It could work!

the enemy · Post by **the enemy** » Tue Jan 16, 2007 6:22 pm

I sometimes want to set up alliances, but it can be difficult with newbies around who've only just managed to learn not to teamkill. I sometimes set up alliances with individuals.

But for team alliances it would be a lot nicer if there was a key mapping to send messages to whole teams. Although I can see such a facility being abused, you can always silence a player.

Davy Jones · Post by **Davy Jones** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 12:29 am

This might be a lil off topic...but since the discussion is here, I'd like to say

What if you can have a vote system to Team with another team...the poll would require 75% vote, the No voters or abstaining voters would be able to kill them, but with limited variables...this has a lot of issues, and lot of variables, which is why i need you guys to help me design an idea for it. maybe

kentucky girl · Post by **kentucky girl** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 3:51 pm

Davy Jones wrote:What if you can have a vote system to Team with another team...the poll would require 75% vote, the No voters or abstaining voters would be able to kill them, but with limited variables...this has a lot of issues, and lot of variables, which is why i need you guys to help me design an idea for it. maybe

I don't understand completely.
Can you please explain more?

meeba · Post by **meeba** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 4:41 pm

Davy Jones wrote:This might be a lil off topic...but since the discussion is here, I'd like to say

What if you can have a vote system to Team with another team...the poll would require 75% vote, the No voters or abstaining voters would be able to kill them, but with limited variables...this has a lot of issues, and lot of variables, which is why i need you guys to help me design an idea for it. maybe

Just use the private message functions. Talk to someone on the other team.

Sky King · Post by **Sky King** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 5:05 pm

I have mixed feelings about ad hoc alliances.

I think there is just something about 2-team CTF, there is more of a sense of team work, and more of a rivalry between teams. I have played on a few maps that have 2-team CTF plus rogues, and on a few 4 team CTF maps, and they are lacking something that only 2-team CTF provides.

In some games, like MOFO's FFA, there usually isn't much teamwork among teams, and there's a huge mix of flags in play at any given time... it would actually make sense for people to make "flag alliances"... that is, "hey, as long as we both have ST, let's leave each other alone and mop up, and once we don't, we're back to rivals again".

In 4-team CTF, informal alliances often get abused. How many times have you gone into Ducatiwannabe's Missle War, (a 4-team CTF) and seen three strong teams ganging up on the one understrength team. It happens all the time, and somehow the sportsmanship that is usually part of CTF seems to just go out the window.

It seems to me that we, as a community, often lack a "spirit of the game" philosophy where enjoying the competition and camaraderie of BZ come first. All too often, BZ becomes about crushing domination, trash talk, and winning at all costs. My point is that all too easily, these informal alliances can be used to circumvent sportsmanship and detract from the spirit of this being a game.

So the question for me really has to be: "is this a tight-alliance team game, like lasermania, or hepcat pillbox, where team alignment and loyalty are crucial to the game, or is it a lose-alliance shoot-em-up like mofo where teams are not central to the game play?" In the former case, it is unfair to have undisclosed loyalties and alliances, where in the latter case, it does not detract from the essence of the game.

And further, you have to ask, "does this informal alliance ad to the spirit of gamesmanship, and level the playing field in a way that does not dominate one player or team?" If it enables domination, it is probably bad for the game.

Wars are about winning. Games are about enjoyment, skill improvement, and recreational stress. War games are about using the recreational stress of winning or losing to enhance the enjoyment and refine one's skills. But war games aren't about winning or losing, they're about using competition to refine our play to be its best.

the enemy · Post by **the enemy** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 8:22 pm

I think the "ganging up" thing is partly because people are in general more obsessed with winning, than not losing, if you see what I mean. They feel more successful beating a weaker team, than defending against a stronger team. I see it in <M>issile war a lot.

With Missilewar, personally I tend to attack the team that attacks my team the most, but everything else being equal, I'll usually attack the strongest, because I'm like that

.