Rage Forest 3 - Discussion

[Breakfast]

Why put obvious misclick in quotes?
Unless........you think that wasn't the case. Well......

I think "obvious misclick" was in quotation marks because it was quoting you.

 

[chacotanlines]

Next tournament should have a pond variation of +/- 1 instead of +/- 2.

 

[ltm]

Mistake was on Tatohs team, but it was super lame either way. Didn't even bother to watch the game after that.

 

[Tendo]

I join the tournament just to have some fun, if i'd have been in the same spot you can be 100% sure i'd have let them pick their obviously pick just because I want to win in fairness and it is the best way to show who's better. I've done it on more important tournaments ( to myself).

That's bad sportmanship imo, implying that the opponents were unfair and questioning whether they were better just because they followed the rules.
I mean it's great that you would have let them pick whatever they want, but imo you cannot critisize someone if he doesn't do the same to you.
We have seen similar situations being dealt the same way before, don't rly know what's different this time.

 

[Ator]

That's bad sportmanship imo, implying that the opponents were unfair and questioning whether they were better just because they followed the rules.
I mean it's great that you would have let them pick whatever they want, but imo you cannot critisize someone if he doesn't do the same to you.
We have seen similar situations being dealt the same way before, don't rly know what's different this time.

If you read the whole thread there is a guy saying that we would have done the same, and I'm giving my reasons why i'd not do it answering to that guy .
You are just implying things from what I wrote, saying that I critized them just because i'm giving my point of view. Go somewhere else to create drama.

 

[Tendo]

If you read the whole thread there is a guy saying that we would have done the same, and I'm giving my reasons why i'd not do it answering to that guy .
You are just implying things from what I wrote, saying that I critized them just because i'm giving my point of view. Go somewhere else to create drama.

Well you didn't quote that so out of context...
Also I didn't mean that you actively critisized them, but when you say that you would have done something different to "win in fairness"... I mean what do you mean with that?
Clearly you imply smth. with that.

But if you just critisized the rule itself with that and not what the other team did then I just misunderstood, then it's my mistake.

 

[amazing_knight]

when you say that you would have done something different to "win in fairness"... I mean what do you mean with that?

I think Tatoh clearly specified that he would allow the opponent team to go for the pick they originally wanted to go for, to make it a fair game. Maybe read his response again?

 

[Tendo]

I think Tatoh clearly specified that he would allow the opponent team to go for the pick they originally wanted to go for, to make it a fair game. Maybe read his response again?

But that's what I mean.
If that's to be considered "fair", then what they did is "not fair" or what?
But they just followed the rules so how can it be called not fair?
So again, if he just meant the rule to be unfair and not the players then I just misunderstood.

Hate the game/rule, not the Gamer.

 

[TheCapybara]

If you read the whole thread there is a guy saying that we would have done the same, and I'm giving my reasons why i'd not do it answering to that guy .
You are just implying things from what I wrote, saying that I critized them just because i'm giving my point of view. Go somewhere else to create drama.

That was me that said that originally, and I'm sorry for misrepresenting your position, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

More broadly, I'd prefer that these decisions are never left to the players in serious, competitive tournaments such as this one as the debates about X or Y player/team being fair/unfair are rarely productive (as we've seen here).

 

[akku]

Tatoh team disnt lose because of chinese, rather poor performance from tatoh and bad strategy overall in the last game.

......
My goodness, it's probably the 4th time I'm seeing this here.
You think they would've gone for the wack sling strategy if they didn't misclick and got Bohemians?

Yeah, you could argue they should've changed their strategy mid game based on how things were, but you'd be rattled after something like that happened to you in a decider. The fight was mentally over almost

 

[The_ChinChilla]

Welcome to RTS, missclicks will cost games.
I think having the opponent pick a civ for the rule-breaking team is justified, and in case of a 4v4, a bad civ for one player is never game deciding.
Saying having Bohemians = free win is 100% a fallacy, im sure there are a lot of counter examples.

 

[miguelzin]

Saying having Bohemians = free win is 100% a fallacy, im sure there are a lot of counter examples.

no there isnt.

 

[SuperskinnyBLS]

Saying having Bohemians = free win is 100% a fallacy, im sure there are a lot of counter examples.

Debatable, I cannot think of anything that counters Halb + Hoofnice, perhaps elite Mungaris.

 

[Dusk2Dawn]

brits longbowman and warwolf trebs, mongol mangudai, turks bbc, bbt; of course all of these, including bohemians require micro;

 

[Skittle]

Well to be honest we were kinda shocked they chose chinese, it was an obvious misclick of fedex and of course meant to be bohemians (he also played them all of our games before). And obviously this had a huge impact on the game, because everyone who has a little knowledge about the game knows we have nearly zero chance to win in post imp. Basically they only had to wall much and hold the first push. Thats why we played yolo strats like brit 1tc imp, sling and celt sneak. From capture age it is always easy to know when to attack where, but it wasnt as part of this chaos game at least for us.

Of course its our fault. There was like a 10min break before the game, we all were doing some stuff after 3-4h of playing and we discussed about mongols a lot, so it was just a unlucky missclick and a misscommunication before the start.

I wouldnt even have considered to pik a bad civ for them and so did tatoh, so please stop the argument "but they would have done the same".

For me this is (was) a fun tournament in a small community where everyone knows and respects each other. And the rule is followed in both cases, so yes giving chinese instead of bohemians is bad sportsmanship for me. If it wasnt a teamgame i would have left and give free win for sure.

But honestly I'd rather be in the team that loses with chinese than in the one that gives chinese to the opponent and wins, so i guess we are all happy and can move on.

 

[Ovenka]

You drafted Chinese, we thought you are familiar with them!

 

[archxeon]

You drafted Chinese, we thought you are familiar with them!

lol. Wasn't it the last pick?
---
Tatoh , Jordan and DauT did continue playing even when opponents lamed boar in a tournament that had a rule against it. So, I believe they would have let opponent choose the civ. At the end of the day, you can't blame the admins because they need to follow the rules. But for a community where most people know each other, it would have made sense to be more forgiving in this case.

However, there have been cases where players got lazy reading the rules or cases where a mistake like this could dramatically hurt a prepared players' chances. In that case, it's understandable. Doubt it was the case here.

 

[TheCapybara]

For me this is (was) a fun tournament in a small community where everyone knows and respects each other. And the rule is followed in both cases, so yes giving chinese instead of bohemians is bad sportsmanship for me. If it wasnt a teamgame i would have left and give free win for sure.

But honestly I'd rather be in the team that loses with chinese than in the one that gives chinese to the opponent and wins, so i guess we are all happy and can move on.

For you this may be the case (and there is nothing wrong with that). For others, it's a $10k tournament. You can't expect other people not to play that fully competitively. It's also not really justified to go calling it 'bad sportsmanship' and implying it shows a lack of respect. Blame the rules, not the players who play by them.

 

[EricDolphy]

I don't get the narrative of "rules are rules so it was fair". There's always someone who applies the rules and adapt them according to the situation. In this case it was clear for everyone that Tatoh's team meant to pick Bohemians and missclicked double Brits. Why should the other team pick the civ for them instead of having some admin with common sense making the call, since it was an obvious mistake? Giving them chinese was very cheap by the other team and the tourney organisation shouldn't allow it.

 

[Influenza]

lets be honest here, no player should even have access to the bohemians, let alone have their opponents pick it for them

 

[TheCapybara]

I don't get the narrative of "rules are rules so it was fair". There's always someone who applies the rules and adapt them according to the situation. In this case it was clear for everyone that Tatoh's team meant to pick Bohemians and missclicked double Brits. Why should the other team pick the civ for them instead of having some admin with common sense making the call, since it was an obvious mistake? Giving them chinese was very cheap by the other team and the tourney organisation shouldn't allow it.

Because what's to stop another team deciding to 'accidentally misclick' and get insight on the other team's picks (and no, I'm obviously not accusing TaToH's team of attempting to game the system)? It's an anti-cheating measure as much as anything, and, unfortunately, these tend to require fairly stringent and blanket policies.

That doesn't mean this rule is perfect - there have been several suggestions in this thread about possible improvements - but it's churlish and petty to blame the other team for playing by the rules which all players agreed to by signing up to play. I can sympathise to an extent with people thinking the rule is bad, but really dislike this narrative of blaming Team Villese for taking an entirely appropriate decision in a $10k tournament.

 

[SuperskinnyBLS]

Welcome to aoezone where the people who actually follow the rules are the bad guys.

 

[MadeByJoe]

I think this shows very well how decisions about actions for rule breaking never should be up to the other player/team. If they actually want the rules enforced they get hate for it. So rules become meaningless since the opponent has to be lenient.

That's something I really appreciate about Nili, he as an admin will call the shots, even if it means giving Daut an admin loss. Just imagine the hate one would get as a player when saying "nah, I take an AW because Daut is late, I'm not rescheduling".

 

[Tendo]

I think this shows very well how decisions about actions for rule breaking never should be up to the other player/team.

Not sure about that.
Can't remember any outrage/hate in previous similar situations.

Of course the admins could also decide that Fedex get's a random civ (out of all those he is allowed to use) but is that really a better rule since it leaves no space for goodwill? I don't know, but atleast it would be a clear rule and everyone would know exactly what they have to expect if they make a mistake.
(With that I don't mean that the current rule is unclear, but it leaves space for goodwill, which this rule wouldn't.)

 

[Snizl]

is that really a better rule since it leaves no space for goodwill?

As soon as there is money on the line, yes there shouldn't be goodwill enforced onto the players.
We don't know everyones financial situation, for some people it might make a significant difference to their life to win a tournament set. Its supposed to be competitive. Letting rule breaks slide, so you are in a worse position as a player, isn't something that should be expected from you.