| Author | Fake battle |
|---|
https://www.lordswm.com/warlog.php?warid=478497575<=-1
overclocker (https://www.lordswm.com/pl_info.php?id=4311122) just had 1 infected zombie for his whole army. I think this is a violation of rule 3.16, as I can hardly consider this as NOT an intention to losea priori.
3.16. Staged combats leading one of the parties to losing a priori will be punished for. A staged combat by definition is one where any one of the parties or party members intentionally loses to the other for any reason different from having technical problems with access to the game. Instigation to losing a combat is also forbidden. |
Sorry, corrected link:
https://www.lordswm.com/warlog.php?warid=478497575<=-1 |
I'll probably be banned for this, but don't people do that all the time when travelling? So that they don't have to risk the AFK penalty if they're not there, or suffer a long, unwinable combat. It's done on purpose for against every thief by some people.
If that's illegal, the rule should be changed. |
https://www.lordswm.com/warlog.php?warid=478181442
Fighting only with monks. I can really provide dozens of such links, please notify me, if it is really violation, because I dont know if there is a statement in rules saying how much soldiers you have to recruit when you want to travel. I am a bit surprised, because this is not a rare type of thief battle you encounter, especially on lower level. |
| sorry Kotrin but that's legal |
| it's legal |
| another loop hole in the rules i am afraid |
for Kotrin:
It all happened by accident, if this case was a violation the you must only be penalized.
And after all don't people do that all the time when travelling? So that they don't have to risk the AFK penalty if they're not there, or suffer a long, unwinnable combat. It's done on purpose for against every thief by some people. |
I don't claim this is a "contractual combat" nor that it's the first time it happens. But it's a blatant "purposeful loss" in my eyes, hence against the rules.
If having a single plague zombie as your whole army is not considered as an attempt to lose on purpose, then nothing is. |
This has nothing to do with intentional losing.
Intentional losing requires first to intentionally enter a battle ( That's not stated by the rules but its common logic for every person above 5 years old ). In these cases the traveller with 1 troop does not enter intentionally any battle. He has the right to select any number of troops in his recruiting page as long as he does not enter willingly a combat. The fact that he got ambushed is really not his problem, he did not want to fight at all most likely, let alone lose.
Blind interpretation of the rules ( = sticking to the wording of the rule more than its essence and purpose ) is avoided by any wise judge everywhere. |
Intentional losing requires first to intentionally enter a battle ( That's not stated by the rules but its common logic for every person above 5 years old ).
Following your older-than-5 logic and ignoring you weak appeal to authority fallacies, ANY kind of staged combat offense is impossible regarding ambushes since you do not count them as "combat" in the first place.
Sorry, I don't buy that. |
But doesnt it mean you forced him to battle, and he losed intentionally if you said him to do so. So you are saying something like this ?
I again say after all don't people do that all the time when travelling? So that they don't have to risk the AFK penalty if they're not there, or suffer a long, unwinnable combat. It's done on purpose for against every thief by some people. |
- after all don't people do that all the time when travelling?
Rules validity are not bound to the number of people breaking them. Countless drivers get speed tickets daily, and I have yet to see an increase in speed limit. If numbers made right, gold transfers from multi-characters would be legal now.
- So that they don't have to risk the AFK penalty if they're not there, or suffer a long, unwinnable combat.
I reject the "long, unwinnable combat" statement. Losing to a thief may take less than two minutes, and after an ambush you are immediately brought to destination - making ambush sometimes a faster way to travel than when nothing happens.
- It's done on purpose for against every thief by some people.
Thank you for using the words "on purpose". |
- It's done on purpose for against every thief by some people.
Thank you for using the words "on purpose".
Yes becouse some ppl are really afk when traveling around map and losing fast is better then -2 luck for afk.
Ur Withchunt and strict interpretation of rules wont lead to anywhere. With ur strict interpretation of rules everyone who battles against Kusika should be punished too becoz there is none who can beat him. So if u challenge him this can be only interpretated as staged battle too since winner is known long before battle. :) |
I may have a false interpretation but I think that monks are the solution the Great Masters of the game have given to this case. So I don't think there is something illegal in a travel with too few troops to win against a thief.
In fact, even with complete troops, it's very difficult to win against them for all sort of reasons :
- surabondants artefacts
- they seem to see how the troops are set up, their adversary can't
- center is the worst place particularly against shrews, efk, and sprites who play first
The only point is that with few troops against them, thieves earn less xp . Are the rules saying thieves must win all the best against other players every time? |
Ur Withchunt and strict interpretation of rules wont lead to anywhere.
Don't jump to conclusions please. And your example with Kusika is obviously wrong, of course. Case in point:
04-28-09 15:10: Antos[12] vs Kusika[13] vs Kiskoko[12]
https://www.lordswm.com/warlog.php?warid=478490774
Antos wins.
Yes becouse some ppl are really afk when traveling around map and losing fast is better then -2 luck for afk
I disagree with this one either. Waiting five consecutive turns takes more time than playing the ambush. If you are in hurry, don't take the AFK route. |
Are the rules saying thieves must win all the best against other players every time?
No, but it's not the case here. I'm not claiming that every defeat implies a staged battle because Kusika was involved / someone was not wearing full arts / someone played badly or whatever.
I'm claiming that traveling with one plague zombie in case of ambush is leading one of the parties to lose A PRIORI and should be punished for, as stated in game rule 3.16:
3.16. Staged combats leading one of the parties to losing a priori will be punished for.
(emphasis mine). Thanks for your attention. |
And no monks?
In fact I thought of traveling once without troops to see how it works with this providential help.
If monks are not enough a priori for hoping a win against thieves would you say that Admins organized the losses? Probably no, and though...not enough police to help unfortunate lonely travellers!... |
16
1st that was 2 vs 1 basicly, definitely not a duel.
I disagree with this one either. Waiting five consecutive turns takes more time than playing the ambush. If you are in hurry, don't take the AFK route.
how can u disagree with ppl going away from keyboard for prolonged time just dont get it. I had many cases of ppl who were clearly afk while i ambushed them. Even some of them hit travel then logged off. |
okay, so these are intentional losses as well?
https://www.lordswm.com/warlog.php?warid=478339657
https://www.lordswm.com/warlog.php?warid=478311408
without proper troop settlement
https://www.lordswm.com/warlog.php?warid=478063032
https://www.lordswm.com/warlog.php?warid=478029232
https://www.lordswm.com/warlog.php?warid=478010780
without 1st and 2nd tier upgrades, in 2nd and 3rd battle, sent all troops straight to death, "I think this is a violation of rule 3.16, as I can hardly consider this as NOT an intention to losea priori." |
