Dishonorable Play | Forums

[FuriaEmpirica]

so is not honorable helping your team and losing the match because of it.... this topic just illustrate how much people is salty and do not understand the idea of a TEAM BASED game, when TEAM BASED games do not favors them.

if you want 1v1, play duels. that is why that game mode exist.

[AkenoKobayashi]

Can we make a new forum rule that threads involving the philosophy of honor are considered spam?

[Alustar.exe]

I'd be in support of this.

[Kalrohk]

Even though everyone is hoping on the band wagon of attacking you, i'll say I do understand where you're coming from. The game honestly would be a lot more enjoyable if people weren't such try hards but it is what it is. You either cheese or get cheesed on.

[CandleInTheDark]

Even though everyone is hoping on the band wagon of attacking you, i'll say I do understand where you're coming from. The game honestly would be a lot more enjoyable if people weren't such try hards but it is what it is. You either cheese or get cheesed on.

It isn't about tryharding, it is about people trying to impose their made up rules on other people, how toxic this makes chat in some games, and how they then try tog et the devs, who have taken a position that it is not for them to decide how people play more than once, to make people play the way they want to play through artificial game mechanics.

It is also about people showing more 'honour' to their enemy than their ally and it is sad that they do not see the irony.

[Kalrohk]

It isn't about tryharding, it is about people trying to impose their made up rules on other people, how toxic this makes chat in some games, and how they then try tog et the devs, who have taken a position that it is not for them to decide how people play more than once, to make people play the way they want to play through artificial game mechanics.

It is also about people showing more 'honour' to their enemy than their ally and it is sad that they do not see the irony.

I was more so talking about the game in generalthat people try hard, hence attacking people instead of letting them fight it out in certain gamemodes. Personally I dont agree with 'punishing' people for doing certain things, but again, I understand where the OP is coming from.

To give an example; Lets take a street fight for instance, there is no rules, but if you kick a person in the head while they're down, a lot of people think that is is wrong, even though technically, anything goes in a street fight and there are no rules.

[ChampionRuby50g]

I was more so talking about the game in generalthat people try hard, hence attacking people instead of letting them fight it out in certain gamemodes. Personally I dont agree with 'punishing' people for doing certain things, but again, I understand where the OP is coming from.

To give an example; Lets take a street fight for instance, there is no rules, but if you kick a person in the head while they're down, a lot of people think that is is wrong, even though technically, anything goes in a street fight and there are no rules.

For the record, I do agree kicking someone while they are down is wrong, we aren’t playing a street fighter game. We are playing a war game, with armies facing off agaisnt each other that has been going on for decades. So we should use an analogy that is more relevant to the game.

In a battle, if you knock your enemy down you aren’t going to let them get back up. You’re going to kill them when they are vulnerable, even if it means driving your sword through their back. Letting your opponent stand up again is putting your chances of getting killed right up there again. No soldier would be against hamstringing an enemy from behind if they saw a man in their colours, fighting for the same goal, in trouble.

How about instead of punishing the gankers, we reward the player getting ganged up on. It would work like this:

One player gets killed by 2 opponents, and gets a 10 renown “Valiant Effort” bonus, which would increase the rate in which they get feats which would also help with combating a death ball. Then this bonus could go up to 20 renown for 3 player gank, 30 renown for 4 players. Then we could even go deeper and gauge the renown earned on how much damage you did to these players. You get killed by 2 opponents who had only their last bar of health, you got so close to killing them but got nothing. Instead now you will get this bonus. This would help with many of the frustrations felt by players.

[HeintaiJesus]

If playing dirty wouldn't be a Option everyone would be forced to Play "honorable". But (my understanding of) Honor doesn't work this way.

Purposely NOT using dirty Advantages makes you an honorable fighter.
Choosing to not throw your oponement down a cliff is (in my eyes) honorable.

Still, everyone has a different understanding of "Honor". Following this idea and not making any exeptions, this is called honor (or at least thats my idea of it).

[DFQN1]

For the record, I do agree kicking someone while they are down is wrong, we aren’t playing a street fighter game. We are playing a war game, with armies facing off agaisnt each other that has been going on for decades. So we should use an analogy that is more relevant to the game.

In a battle, if you knock your enemy down you aren’t going to let them get back up. You’re going to kill them when they are vulnerable, even if it means driving your sword through their back. Letting your opponent stand up again is putting your chances of getting killed right up there again. No soldier would be against hamstringing an enemy from behind if they saw a man in their colours, fighting for the same goal, in trouble.

How about instead of punishing the gankers, we reward the player getting ganged up on. It would work like this:

One player gets killed by 2 opponents, and gets a 10 renown “Valiant Effort” bonus, which would increase the rate in which they get feats which would also help with combating a death ball. Then this bonus could go up to 20 renown for 3 player gank, 30 renown for 4 players. Then we could even go deeper and gauge the renown earned on how much damage you did to these players. You get killed by 2 opponents who had only their last bar of health, you got so close to killing them but got nothing. Instead now you will get this bonus. This would help with many of the frustrations felt by players.

I like your idea. Maybe this bonus plus additional decreased cooldown for feats.

[CandleInTheDark]

How about instead of punishing the gankers, we reward the player getting ganged up on. It would work like this:

One player gets killed by 2 opponents, and gets a 10 renown “Valiant Effort” bonus, which would increase the rate in which they get feats which would also help with combating a death ball. Then this bonus could go up to 20 renown for 3 player gank, 30 renown for 4 players. Then we could even go deeper and gauge the renown earned on how much damage you did to these players. You get killed by 2 opponents who had only their last bar of health, you got so close to killing them but got nothing. Instead now you will get this bonus. This would help with many of the frustrations felt by players.

Yeah I wouldn't mind that at all. I'd also pair it with something like removing the individual kill and assist renown scores and having every kill mean the same but split between the people who were part of it (with the boost if the assassin lands the last hit and increases his kill chain intact). This would mean that in most cases the team would still get the renown any one player would have for that kill and it slows down the snowballing of feat unlocks without making one person a four man party eating demigod.