Strategus drama Penios

[BlueKnight]

Why?

Because it's defenders right to take part in the battle till the time is over or till he dies.

Also once the enemies stop spawning it's easier to at least try 1vs8 instead of 1vs70+

[Panos_]

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.

define the word "better".

For you someone who is better than the most, can be an idio to the most and vice versa!


Also BlueKnight, come on dude, lock this thread already, you embarassed yourself enough.

[BlueKnight]

Also BlueKnight, come on dude, lock this thread already, you embarassed yourself enough.

At least now I know that "Attacking army is retreating" text doesn't mean the same thing as "Defenders won" one but more stylish. I expected the win to be assigned to Andswaru after the attacker's retreat even if the rider quit the game after 0:00. I thought that it's how it works and that he wouldn't have to kill attackers. Someone else could correct me about that before Serr and Macropus did. I thought that the rider doesn't have to do anything but to survive to win. If I knew how it works I'd tell him to get that staff that was lying on the ground when Panos got kicked for poll-abuse. Then he wouldn't have been kicked and could wait till attackers can't spawn anymore and then he could fight those few enemies.

Well, I got to know something from this topic and I hope that you did too and next time you'll get some ranged stuff or horses yourself because if Ands had a short bow and arrows as Khorin said (~50silver spent), the rider could carelessly just wait till you can't spawn anymore and then pew pew you down and the battle would be won.

Embarrassed or not, at least I spelled it properly and got to know something from the topic

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).

What if the player just came back to his flags and recover them later? I guess there isn't any time requirement when the player has to put his flags back up for it to be considered "defending". And if flags are so important to defend then why isn't there any timer counting down your time to insta loss if you have your flags down? It's all because flags allow spawning which is super-important itself for armies of above ~50 tickets. It's important for them but to the players who have already spawned all their tickets, flags mean nothing. Should it be like this or should an additional timer of the flag-recovery start ticking giving you ~a minute to recover at least 1 of your flags? Why after so many hours of strategus is it still an issue?

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?

What is your definition of defending and when are you considered defending or not defending something? Rules aren't precise enough and I wrote about it above. If it's not insta loss when your flags are down then what is the time that you have to recover them?

Also it was nowhere among the rules before that you have to defend the flags. http://forum.melee.org/strategus-general-discussion/strategus-rules/ There is something about delaying when the battle is over, not when it's still going on, so if the time was over the rider could get kicked but as I said, he was supposed to quit himself after 0:00

[Corsair831]

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 

[BlueKnight]

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 

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

On the other hand if I knew what was the win requirement nobody would probably come but I didn't know that killing the attackers was essential for defenders' victory. I thought that "The attacking army is retreating" equals win. Don't know how many times I have to type it again.

[Lt_Anders]

Ignorance is no excuse for idiocy.

[Panos_]

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

You tried to troll me, you failed, and now you`re here showing us how much butthurt you are.

Guess who`s the idiot 

[BlueKnight]

You tried to troll me, you failed, and now you`re here showing us how much butthurt you are.

Guess who`s the idiot 

Not really, I started this topic because I thought that defenders do not need to kill the attackers to win and that surviving till attackers' retreat would win the battle. This is what made me disagree with admin's decision, which in my eyes was giving you a win when the defender was about to win.

Also the rider made you start a banpoll twice and you got pollkicked from your own battle so we may argue if the "troll attempt" failed 

Well, seems that you like telling everyone that he's butthurt since you do this in every argument  I hope that you understand anything of what I'm typing to you and I hope that opposite to what my instinct says, I'm not wasting my time talking to you.

[kinngrimm]

... 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.
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?

[Thovex]

For 100k I'll tell.

[Andswaru]

90k

[Thovex]

45k

[Andswaru]

fu i cant go under that, cooties will be mad if i sell him out so cheap.

[BlueKnight]

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)
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?

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.

[Lt_Anders]

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.

If i had the choice, I'd link you to two NA battles. One in which ALL defenders were UNHIRED, but were still "there"(ie for that team) and we won even though 0 were there for the attackers per battle.(we capped flags/killed them all)

Another one between(lco?) and FCC which was literally a duel between 1 FCC merc and 2 LCO guys to win the battle.