Ethics in 3 or more team CTF
Ethics in 3 or more team CTF
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.
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
- Art Master General
- Posts: 1111
- Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:48 pm
- Location: Berlin/Germany
- Contact:
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.
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.
Saturos ([phagozytose] : www.phago.de)
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.
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.
point
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
Now, an army is a team - it lives, eats, sleeps, fights as a team. This individuality stuff is a bunch of crap. - Patton
- A Vicious Muffin
- Private First Class
- Posts: 534
- Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 12:25 am
- Location: Drury Lane
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.
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
- Private First Class
- Posts: 297
- Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 4:39 am
- Location: Davy Jone's Locker
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
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
-
- Private First Class
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 5:52 pm
I don't understand completely.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
Can you please explain more?
Just use the private message functions. Talk to someone on the other team.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
- Sky King
- Private First Class
- Posts: 166
- Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:07 pm
- Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota, USA
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.
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.
Retired Army--Proud to have served
Armored Cavalry Crewman, 1981-1984 (M60A5)
Infantry Officer & Paratrooper, 1984-1986
US Army Ranger & Sniper, 1986-1989 (LRSD)
Water Cooled 8-Core Ryzen 7 2700x @ 3.7GHz | Radeon RX590 GPU | 43" 4K Monitor
Armored Cavalry Crewman, 1981-1984 (M60A5)
Infantry Officer & Paratrooper, 1984-1986
US Army Ranger & Sniper, 1986-1989 (LRSD)
Water Cooled 8-Core Ryzen 7 2700x @ 3.7GHz | Radeon RX590 GPU | 43" 4K Monitor
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 .
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 .