Discussion in regards to delaying and strategus

[Arathian]

Hello, recently there has been quite a confusion in regards to what delaying is in strategus or even if there is delaying in strategus.

There seem to be 3 schools of thought on the matter:

-Both teams are supposed to fight and keep fighting throughout the battle. If you stop, that means you are delaying/griefing. Even if you intend to do stuff like set up healing tents and forward spawns you must at least try to attack a bit.

-Tactics that do take time are okey, but once combat starts it should go at reasonable pace. So, waiting until you team set up a forward base is okey but then you should start attacking.

-Finally, the "there is no delaying in a strategus battle where time is very important". Basically, if a defender managed to find a non-glitched spot and camp it for 30 minutes while he is the last man of the team and the enemy team has no means to reach him, it is the other team's damn fault.

So, which one do you think is a more correct approach? Remember, this is a discussion about rules. YOU personally might prefer attacking, but that doesn't mean that everyone should be forced to do that same necessarily. If you do think so, however, please do lay your arguements.

[Sandersson Jankins]

Hello, recently there has been quite a confusion in regards to what delaying is in strategus or even if there is delaying in strategus.

There seem to be 3 schools of thought on the matter:

-Both teams are supposed to fight and keep fighting throughout the battle. If you stop, that means you are delaying/griefing. Even if you intend to do stuff like set up healing tents and forward spawns you must at least try to attack a bit.

-Tactics that do take time are okey, but once combat starts it should go at reasonable pace. So, waiting until you team set up a forward base is okey but then you should start attacking.

-Finally, the "there is no delaying in a strategus battle where time is very important". Basically, if a defender managed to find a non-glitched spot and camp it for 30 minutes while he is the last man of the team and the enemy team has no means to reach him, it is the other team's damn fault.

So, which one do you think is a more correct approach? Remember, this is a discussion about rules. YOU personally might prefer attacking, but that doesn't mean that everyone should be forced to do that same necessarily. If you do think so, however, please do lay your arguements.

I think that the "common sense" rule is really problematic when it comes to interpreting the rules. One man's common sense is another's utter bullshit.

Anyway, I reckon that the best way to play it is that there be no such thing as delaying in a strategus battle. If someone's doing it to be a real dickhead at the very end of a battle where there's no possible gain to it, the team leader should request him/her to be kicked.

Jason the Great had a defense against us in which he spawned naked with no weapon on a horse, and attempted to kite us around for the entire match. Of course, I reckon he was doing it to be a major douche-cunt, but I asked multiple admins about it and they all claimed it was legal. Luckily, we eventually killed him with cavalry of our own, but it took like 20 minutes.

[Vovka]

goal for attack side kill all defenders or drop all flags, for defending - survive at any cost. And fuck the common sence rule 

[Zaharist]

Delaying in strat?
Was very hot topic before battle timer.

IMO it's ok now: attacker attack otherwise - they lose, defenders try to survive. Defenders are to defend (common sense. raded caravan or villagers won't rush on enemies)

[Malaclypse]

Any amount of running around before the timer runs out should never be considered delaying.

[Sparvico]

It is the attackers responsibility to drive the defender from the battlefield. This has been the general understanding of warfare, both real and virtual, since the dawn of our petty squabbles. If the attacker can not do that then they lose.

In a videogame such as this things change slightly, there are stated rules of combat, and there are certain tactics which would not work in an actual battle, but are excellent strategy here. Allowing the timer to run down by avoiding confrontation being the most obvious example.

This may seem like delaying at first blush, but it's not. When someone delays in a regular battle server it is usually because they have no hope of victory and are milking a multi. There are no multis in strat, and by avoiding confrontation with the enemy until the timer runs down you allow your team a shot at victory. The strategies vary slightly with each use but the general idea is that you are not simply running to run, but rather waiting for reinforcements to arrive. So it is not that they are delaying an inevitable defeat, but rather avoiding death as a tactic for achieving victory.

[Turboflex]

Defenders are supposed to "delay", play the clock for flags.

I still think though what happened with that naked battle fell under the common sense reasoning and the admin was correct to end it, cuz it was exploiting the exceptional bug circumstances of everyone being naked. If the attackers had weapons and horses there's no way your whole team could survive scattered for 15+ mins with no flags up.

-Finally, the "there is no delaying in a strategus battle where time is very important". Basically, if a defender managed to find a non-glitched spot and camp it for 30 minutes while he is the last man of the team and the enemy team has no means to reach him, it is the other team's damn fault.

How could the attacker not reach him? If he is camping an unreachable spot that would be against rules, just like on battle before ladders were removed there (last people have to come down from rooftops at end). There have been strat battles like this where defenders have laddered up to unreachable towers and were correctly told to come down when they were the final people.

[Canary]

Defenders are supposed to "delay", play the clock for flags.

I still think though what happened with that naked battle fell under the common sense reasoning and the admin was correct to end it, cuz it was exploiting the exceptional bug circumstances of everyone being naked. If the attackers had weapons and horses there's no way your whole team could survive scattered for 15+ mins with no flags up.

I do not understand how people can say that indiscriminately banning an entire team for delaying was common sense. No one seems to disagree that some of the defenders were fighting and were doing something and yet they got banned regardless of that. Issuing punishment in spite of lawful behavior is not common sense.

How could the attacker not reach him? If he is camping an unreachable spot that would be against rules, just like on battle before ladders were removed there (last people have to come down from rooftops at end). There have been strat battles like this where defenders have laddered up to unreachable towers and were correctly told to come down when they were the final people.

With considerations for strategus, this rule can not be upheld unconditionally. Point of fact, the type of rooftop that those people used to camp with ladders they'd broken in the past is what the entirety of the outside wall on all castles and towns are comprised of. The situation will typically come down to defenders' flags, some of which, shockingly, are in positions only reachable by ladders on a select few maps. If they've got a flag to spawn on, they can not be considered delaying. That is not to say that they're automatically delaying once their flags are lost, however. Several other considerations have to be made.

Arathian put forth a hypothetical situation where even things like flags wouldn't fall under consideration for delaying and it's entirely up to the attackers to find a way to defeat every last man standing. Personally, I feel that's a bit extreme, though I believe enforcing rules in strategus should be done using the lightest touch possible. In my opinion it's better to have a series of glitched out battles with unfortunate results than heavy-handed admin rulings that influence which side wins the fight. Admins tend to be more biased than bugs.

[MURDERTRON]

I do not understand how people can say that indiscriminately banning an entire team for delaying was common sense. No one seems to disagree that some of the defenders were fighting and were doing something and yet they got banned regardless of that. Issuing punishment in spite of lawful behavior is not common sense.

And that is why a use common sense rule does not make sense.  One man's common sense is considered insanity by others.  The Devs and Admins need to sit down and make clearly defined rules where there is little room for argument and biased.  Only then will we see consistent admin behavior.  At the rate that admins come to decisions, we might see this done some time during Strategus 6.

[Arathian]

Yeah, I generally agree with you Canary. Whatever happened in that naked fight seems really fishy.

[Haboe]

Ther is a time limit vs delaying... If attackers don't attack, its to their expense, costs them time. Therefore the only possible delaying is end round after a forced retreat imo... (or defenders camping unreachables)

[Lt_Anders]

Posting this here cause I'm to lazy to go and copy paste:
http://forum.meleegaming.com/strategus-issues/possible-serious-admin-abuse/msg750591/#msg750591

Even though it's related to that incident, it shows a good enough interest and understanding about it to get my point across.

[Artyem]

I wasn't at the battle that started this big commotion, but I know several people who were on either side.  While people say that it is legal, and completely allowed, that doesn't mean that it should always be considered a valid tactic.

The fact of the matter is that if you have four tickets left and you run around refusing to fight for fifteen minutes, it's just plain bad sportsmanship and nothing else.  I heard that the last few defenders were running around with their fists up for a good fifteen minutes or so, absolutely refusing to fight anybody for that time, and this should NOT be allowed.  Given the circumstances that neither side had weapons or armor it would be nearly impossible for one team to kill a guy with decent agility who's running around with his fists up.  It would be a different story if the attackers had weapons, since they would be able to actually hit him then, but since no one has a weapon he can be practically invincible by holding his block.


tl;dr

the admin isn't really in the wrong; the rules regarding delaying during a strategus battle are very ambiguous and punishment should be  based on the situation.  In some cases, it may be alright to delay, since the other side may have a chance to kill the delayers.  However, sometimes it is completely wrong, as the attackers may not have the chance to kill the delayers.


EDIT:

I do not understand how people can say that indiscriminately banning an entire team for delaying was common sense. No one seems to disagree that some of the defenders were fighting and were doing something and yet they got banned regardless of that. Issuing punishment in spite of lawful behavior is not common sense.

You're not looking at what they're saying in the proper context.  They're referring to the rule that was broken, not the admin's decision.  Some of the defenders were completely refusing to fight, and as I said, were apparently doing so for upwards of ten minutes, which is outright ridiculous.  Does that make the admin's decision to ban the entire enemy team alright? No, not at all, the only people who should have been punished were the people actually delaying for long periods of time.  Those who were fighting were fine, and I don't think anyone is denying that.

[Butan]

I'm of the "there is no delaying in strategus" part.



Attacking = taking a risk = having the timer against yourself = assume the consequences.

[Canary]

You're not looking at what they're saying in the proper context.  They're referring to the rule that was broken, not the admin's decision.  Some of the defenders were completely refusing to fight, and as I said, were apparently doing so for upwards of ten minutes, which is outright ridiculous.  Does that make the admin's decision to ban the entire enemy team alright? No, not at all, the only people who should have been punished were the people actually delaying for long periods of time.  Those who were fighting were fine, and I don't think anyone is denying that.

"The rule that was broken" - delaying.

  1.1) End battle, common sense rule. Feel free to troll around when the battle is over, but don't extend it too long, crpg no delaying rules applies here.

  No drawing/delaying the round on purpose (i.e. running away or camping unreachable places when you're one of the last people alive)
NOT OK: running away or avoiding confrontation (when there is nobody to shoot in range or everyone is behind cover.)

It doesn't appear that, beyond doubt, the delaying rule was broken. The battle wasn't exactly over, and there were the majority of the players alive when they started to scatter. Now, if a team does nothing but run away from their enemies they're subject to close inspection and are likely delaying, but there's still some doubt as to whether it was legitimate in the case of this defense in an open field battle where attackers had theoretically equal footing, due to a bug the defenders supposedly "exploited".

That's why the warning was issued, but it is clear that the defenders listened to and obeyed the warning, at least to an extent. It's up to them to determine to what extent their tactic calls for fighting directly with the enemy, as long as they're not breaking the rules. Here are some more pieces of information:

• There was a period of less than two minutes between the start of the defense trying to urge people to scatter and the warning the admin issued.
• During that time defense lost their flags. The warning given to them was to stop delaying get their flags back.
• At least four defenders died after the warning went up, which indicates the listened to it (corroborated by witnesses)
• The defenders made an attempt at the attacker flags during this time.
• Anyone "delaying" by then was not necessarily breaking the rules by the notion of the game mode's team-oriented nature and the fact that it has to be the last group alive to count as delaying.
• Bans started being handed out three and a half minutes after the one and only warning was issued, just over five minutes after the defenders started willfully trying to scatter. No one could've possibly been delaying "upwards of ten minutes" by that point.

Fourteen out of the eighteen players on the defending team were banned. The defense were to some degree contesting attacker spawns. Not everyone was running and avoiding combat. The battle was not over, as per delaying rules, and the "last ones alive" were the majority of the team, many of which were engaging with the enemy. I submit that once the warning was issued the defending team was not in breach of any rule by that point. It's not common sense to say a large portion of a team is breaking the rules just because the overall tactic the whole team is using is unfavorable to you.

To that end, I think I am looking at what people are saying in the proper context. They're trying to justify an admin interfering with the way a match played out and literally determining the outcome of a strat battle by saying it's common sense that if an entire team runs away it counts as delaying. Well, there's more to this scenario than merely a rule being broken. There's, you know, context.