Thank you for your comment, once again.
Let me explain once again:
I thought that if the attacking army retreats, it can't win the battle. Knowing that Panos would go over-confident, I expected him not take proper equipment and hoped for good map for riding (no river in the middle) so we can survive till the retreat of the attackers. So it was a legit tactic assuming that retreating army can't win the battle. If the battle was to last an hour of riding we wouldn't give a fuck and nobody would come, but it was ~14 minutes so we let it be. A fact that it was Panos' battle wasn't a priority but it made watching it from the spectator's seat a comedy.
All in all, nobody would be riding a horse if me or Andswaru knew that a retreating army can still win a battle and they must be killed to prevent it. Nobody cares enough to just come and ride to annoy Panos if the battle can't be won.
The topic was about admin's decision which, as I thought before, made attackers win a battle that could be won by defenders. As we know now, it was hardly possible. Same with Panos' banpoll, so considering that the battle can be won by defenders, kicking the only defender seemed to be poll abuse, so he got kicked for it.
What makes me wonder is how many players know that a retreating army can actually win a battle :?: Have never seen a battle in EU that a retreating army would win.
100 troops will suicide after the fact that they could not catch a peasant on a horse constantly fleeing engangement. Sounds legit. Even if it's not breaking any rules it's gay as fuck and shouldn't be a possible way to win a battle.It's Panos fault that he was unable to kill that cav guy. He didn't equip himself with proper equipment. He didn't have any ranged or cav. Our strategy was better than his and btw attacking 1 guy with 70+ troops isn't gay at all, eh?....
Fuck you admin and fuck you Panos
Kiss my ass and happy strat 4 you.
"first rule of em all: common sense"
~ chadz
IIRC, delaying by simply fleeing the enemy long enough wasn't a valid "tactic" in last strat as well.Oh ye, surviving as defender is delaying? it's their job to kill that cav guy but they lacked equipment because they are shortsighted and didn't foreseee that they would need ranged or at least 1 cav guy. It's their fault that they couldn't kill him.
Wait wait wait... is this thread actually serious?What village are you talking about. No village around and another example, if we had only 1 guy and he was well armoured and the enemy didn't have weapons and therefore they wouldn't be able to hit him with anything else than fists. Would you call that delaying? Would it be fine or would you kick the armoured guy?
How about common sense? If attackers run out of ladders on siege and lose because of that - it seems perfectly fine and legit, and even realistic.
But a single pony rider protecting the village from 100 enemies by just riding away... No.
i wonder how 100 man footarmy can catch a pony? O_o why even try?
Never played strategus, but riding a sumpter horse alone, for 13 min sounds like a very weak move... Personally, i don't like running away from a fight, i rarely resort to this "tactic" even if i have a ranged weapon.^
How annoying it must be to chase a lonely sumpter horse for 13 min :D On the other hand, if there are no rules regarding this situation - I guess one have to take some ranged weapons into battle, like a hunting crossbow. I don't know how it works in Strategus, so I might sound ignorant.
and another example, if we had only 1 guy and he was well armoured and the enemy didn't have weapons and therefore they wouldn't be able to hit him with anything else than fists. Would you call that delaying? Would it be fine or would you kick the armoured guy?I wouldn't kick him, because in that situation he would kill all the attackers and win the battle.
In this case the attacker didn't have the weapon to overcome our defense which was speed and brain... Panos didn't equip himself with ranged weapons and it's his fault.Well I can kinda agree that in some conditions the defenders should be able to retreat saving some troops and equipment but also losing a fair amount. But in no way should the defenders win by delaying after their flags are captured.
Lol, why this even has to be discussed. You delayed and got kicked for it, end of story.It wasn't me and how can a defender delay when he can win. Delaying is prolonging battle when you can't win. It was a leggo tactic in this case. We used it that Panos didn't equip himself with ranged weapons, cav or any sort of teamwork...
You know, if you survived till the timer is at 0:00 you would still have to kill all attackers to win...
It wasn't me and how can a defender delay when he can win. Delaying is prolonging battle when you can't win. It was a leggo tactic in this case. We used it that Panos didn't equip himself with ranged weapons, cav or any sort of teamwork...
If the server says that the attacking army is retreating I think that the defenders win no matter what, don't theyNo, they don't. It mean only that attackers stop spawning. They still can kill defenders and win battle.
But you couldn't win this. Surviving till the end of timer is not win, you would win only if all attackers quitted battle and that is obviously delaying.I think the battle would be won by Andswaru but with 0 troops left and that'd be it.
Lol, why this even has to be discussed. You delayed and got kicked for it, end of story.In strat delaying starts when time runs up
You know, if you survived till the timer is at 0:00 you would still have to kill all attackers to win...Yes, but he were kicked before time ends.
That was a battle for fun probably to tease Panos (and it works :mrgreen:), but if an admin is making a bad decision is not good.
(-2 sumpter can't bump)
100 troops will suicide after the fact that they could not catch a peasant on a horse constantly fleeing engangement. Sounds legit. Even if it's not breaking any rules it's gay as fuck and shouldn't be a possible way to win a battle.
Wait wait wait... is this thread actually serious?
How about common sense? If attackers run out of ladders on siege and lose because of that - it seems perfectly fine and legit, and even realistic.
But a single pony rider protecting the village from 100 enemies by just riding away... No.
100 troops will suicide after the fact that they could not catch a peasant on a horse constantly fleeing engangement. Sounds legit. Even if it's not breaking any rules it's gay as fuck and shouldn't be a possible way to win a battle.
So am i to believe that the main goal of a battle is to stay alive? Not to engage the enemy? The fuck he could have bought weapons and not spend it on a horse and not decreased his troop cap. Instead Andswaru wanted to be "fast" at whereever he wanted to go ... and got caught.
For me it is not about Panos rage polling or Tea counter rage polling, but about the idear behind this game. The fuck it is not about not egaging in combat, but to prepare yourself so you can and in that sense i know who lost that encounter, if now being kicked by an admin or not.
EDIT: And then dragging out an encounter for 14 minutes ... fuck that shit. I got better things to do then to wait that the circle jerk cav runs out of luck. If we have that attitude in every fight this will become a very boring strat indeed.
We are discussing it in IRC at the moment. Should be a precedent set soon enough until we can get something more robust in place.
Well, they could just try making a circle and close in on the riderswaybacked sumper isn't the fastest horse in the world and when you have kinngrimm in your team and some other speedy guys I think that a little of teamwork could have the job done especially that they managed to hit the rider at least once.
swaybacked sumper isn't the fastest horse in the world and when you have kinngrimm in your team and some other speedy guys I think that a little of teamwork could have the job done especially that they managed to hit the rider at least once.Dont make this about me man. Andswaru came directly after the fight to me on teamspeak to point out your reasons for ban/kick poll of Panos with about 5 Nords waiting/watching in the spectators while those votings happened. I didnt call the admin who kicked the horse dude and didnt open this thread and i didnt attack Andswaru on the Strat map. And i sure as hell will not herd every fucking cav with an unorganized team not in the same teampseak only to catch 1 dude who is avoiding combat. The ruling has been made now by the devs/admins, deal with it.
Defenders win the battle by staying alive until the timer is at 0:00 without abuse of unreachable places etc. and that's what it looks like currently and it's the only requirement, isn't it?No, there's one more which you were told of several times by now. Defenders have to kill the attackers who are alive even after the timer is 00:00.
No, there's one more which you were told of several times by now. Defenders have to kill the attackers who are alive even after the timer is 00:00.WELL WE DON'T KNOW BECAUSE THE RIDER GOT KICKED BEFORE WE COULD SEE THAT.
So imagine this: battle time ended, no more spawns, both sides are alive. What's next? How on Earth could that sumpter rider kill the attackers? Or would he delay till the end of the world?
He could bore the attackers to death.On the other hand the laughter of the spectators could cure cancer :mrgreen:
WELL WE DON'T KNOW BECAUSE THE RIDER GOT KICKED BEFORE WE COULD SEE THAT.Such a shame, it would be a wonderful show...
Such a shame, it would be a wonderful show...Tbh it was planned for the rider just to ride until the army retreats at 0:00 and then he'd just leave the server. Also there was a weapon on the ground when Panos got kicked for poll-abuse but the plan was to ride till the retreat message, assuming that a retreat is a win-sign. Now at least I know it's not and it's just a message of no more spawning for the attackers. The riding would take additional ~1:30 more I guess. Don't exaggerate it going for hours, who the fuck would do that for 19 goods or whatever amount there was. The even't was mostly a nice gift for Panos.
Oh well we do know however. Either attackers would get bored after another hour or two of delaying and leave the server letting Nords win, or the defender would get kicked anyway. I'm not really sure how can you be quite serious on that matter.
Now tell me that making your enemy quit because of boredom is a good winning tactic and should be legitimate.
I still think the defender shouldn't get kicked until the battletime is actually over.Why?
^ is why NA strat battles are always more fun
exploits that EU defenders in siege would claim to be 'legit tactics' and get defensive in every battle and thread to allow them to keep doing, NA just didnt do cos it isnt fun.
No, there's one more which you were told of several times by now. Defenders have to kill the attackers who are alive even after the timer is 00:00.
So imagine this: battle time ended, no more spawns, both sides are alive. What's next? How on Earth could that sumpter rider kill the attackers? Or would he delay till the end of the world?
Just wanna point out, that theoretically he could bump them all to death given that they are wearing next to no armour.Well, theoretically he could punch them all to death without even using a horse, but what's your point?
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
as i see it, the first retarded move is the one to blame, in this case panos. retarded move gives birth to another retarded move :lol:
panos kind of forced the retardness :lol: and i bet he knows it :lol: penis! :) :)(click to show/hide)
we are all idiots :) ♥
Communist 1on1... Everyone is equal. :D
No one is this community is better than me, and I`m no better than any of you.
Communist 1on1... Everyone is equal. :D
No Panos, some people are better than others.
Why?Because it's defenders right to take part in the battle till the time is over or till he dies.
No Panos, some people are better than others.
Btw.. awesome thread. Thx for entertainment. I've would have banned the mofo for delaying after about 30 seconds.
Also BlueKnight, come on dude, lock this thread already, you embarassed yourself enough.
To clarify the rules: Not defending your flags is considered delaying the battle.
This rule is to cover our bases when it comes to people hiding, riding around and other forms of delaying a battle they can't win (the focus of a battle is to kill your opponents or get their flags).
How is it their 'right'? When a developer has come onto your thread and told you the ruling they've agreed on in regards to delaying without defending flags.
Why are you still arguing in terms of 'rules' and 'rights' when a Dev has already approved the use of a kick in that situation?
oh my god i'm actually on panos's side
yeah, running around fleeing the enemy for 15 minutes is not really in the spirit of strategus, it's gamey and abusive, don't do it again please
we have a small enough community in strat without people bending every possible rule to breaking point :rolleyes:
It was against Panos, don't tell me you wouldn't try to abuse the things against him. Those 13 minutes as a spectator were great fun for me. Forcing him to helplessly run after a swaybacked sumpter for a few good minutes is all we could do unluckily :P
You tried to troll me, you failed, and now you`re here showing us how much butthurt you are.
Guess who`s the idiot :wink:
... Panos got vote-kicked for poll-abuse. ...While his rage ban poll had been over the top, he was more in the right as it turned out, to at least kick vote the delayer, then Tea was in the right to kick vote Panos. As the turn of events hasn't started by Panos delaying, but by the dude on the horse. So if you want someone to get punished for poll abuse, there is a case to be made to do so with Tea.
...Splitting hairs we say in germany, meaning you can over-argue things. I give you that, that there was no such clear ruling before this and therefor thank you Blueknight bringing this to our attention.(no sarcasm)
It was against Panos, don't tell me you wouldn't try to abuse the things against him. ...and there we become what we despite most ... a troll?
....attackers' retreat...You brought this point up now 2 times, not though in your initial post.
While his rage ban poll had been over the top, he was more in the right as it turned out, to at least kick vote the delayer, then Tea was in the right to kick vote Panos. As the turn of events hasn't started by Panos delaying, but by the dude on the horse. So if you want someone to get punished for poll abuse, there is a case to be made to do so with Tea.Thank you for your comment, once again.
Splitting hairs we say in germany, meaning you can over-argue things. I give you that, that there was no such clear ruling before this and therefor thank you Blueknight bringing this to our attention.(no sarcasm)
and there we become what we despite most ... a troll?
You brought this point up now 2 times, not though in your initial post.
I wasn't aware during the battle of the attacker retreating while running behind the horse dude. My best guess would be that Panos was fed up, thereby "grieved/trolled" enough by the defenders actions to retreat or did it happen with the kick poll?
Not sure, but has anyone openly already admitted being the dude on the horse?
What makes me wonder is how many players know that a retreating army can actually win a battle :?: Have never seen a battle in EU that a retreating army would win.