surrender legal tactic?

[Peja]

well we had this game: https://www.tus-wa.com/forums/leagues-complaints/%28solved%29-http-www-tus-wa-com-leagues-game-156969-22410/ some time ago.

basicly everything is already said in this topic. since d1 doesnt make tus rules and it seemed to be his personal opinion without any backup of existing rules (there never was any rule against using surrender in clanners, it has been done quite a few times and noonce cared besides hush) i want to have a clear answer for the future.

[SpideR]

I remember Deano doing that to exploit a pile in a roper clanner, in which he was sucking and being an ass to us, making it a 2vs1. Well, surrender is just an utility? It's next to skip, so it works as the same, except for the fact that the worm that surrended will not play, but it may die and even inflict grave damage.
Seems to me a rare situation when it becomes a good tactic...

[KoreanRedDragon]

It wasn't allowed in any league that I can remember. Makes a lot of sense to me that it wouldn't be, considering how profitable it would be in clanners where one teammate is a substantially better Roper player than the other.

[Peja]

was it forbidden in any league u can remember? if not its just a difference in law philosophies but not a valid point.

about the abuse from start concern dunno. cant see any advantage for single team. but dunno im not that into ropers, made an example replay so people can discuss the effects. i guess its still more profitable trying to get a good position in 2vs2 even with a weaker clanmate. you can still use him/her on top.

[Husk]

also how do u monitor if someone surrs or "lags out"

I can pull my internet cable off and telling it was a lag out

please consider allowing this tactic because atm it can be abused too easily

or do u want every game that has 1 player lagging out to be rematched?



an example: me and rox play a roper

since rox is much better roper than I am... I am doing bad and considering that without me wasting turns, rox would have better chances to win...

so I want to surr... but it's illegal and would result for a loss for TdC... so I "lag out", done easily by pulling the internet cable off, the game continues and TdC wins

[Statik]

there can be a more dangerous situation in hysteria:

2 red teams both with 1 worm vs 1 blue team with 1 worm
blue worm telecow
1 red team instantly quits
gg

[avirex]

that makes no sense statik.. nt

edit: bl avi... just re-read it..


its a good tactic.. dt has copyrights!!!


but seriously.. quits = illegal, peja is asking for a surr. it costs a turn, and it is technically a utility

[Doubletime]

Maybe something is wrong with the scheme when "surrendering " is a good tactic. This is supposed to be a competitive leauge.. I think surrender should be allowed but the schemes should be made in a way that will discourrage wormers from surrendering..

[KoreanRedDragon]

was it forbidden in any league u can remember? if not its just a difference in law philosophies but not a valid point.

No, it wasn't written in the actual league rules... but neither were a dozen other obvious ways of gaining an unfair advantage, so that's not a great argument in favour of allowing it. But if the discussion came up on the CL2K, WL or FB forums, there is no doubt in my mind that common sense would have prevailed.

an example: me and rox play a roper

since rox is much better roper than I am... I am doing bad and considering that without me wasting turns, rox would have better chances to win...

so I want to surr... but it's illegal and would result for a loss for TdC... so I "lag out", done easily by pulling the internet cable off, the game continues and TdC wins

That's easy, your opponents simply refuse RoX's offer to continue playing by himself. They're entitled to under current TUS rules already, aren't they?

[MonkeyIsland]

As FFie once put it, these stuff are categorized in the "common sense section".

Anyway, I added this line to the leagues rules, under "quitting":

Intentional Lag-outs, quittings or surrending in 2vs2 or 3vs3 games (both singles and clanners), in a way that benefits the quitting team are not allowed. In such cases, under the moderators discretion the game will be rematched or a win will be given to the opposite team.

[Rogi]

Imo, if your oponent will agree with this trick u can use this tactic,  why not? So many option there(turn order, positions, ur sd wpn, ur wpns, ur and oponents HP's), sometimes it will be be really useful to surrenger, sometimes not, depended of situation and scheme what u play.
But, before surrenger, ask ur oponent, and dont do it if he didnt answer - by default it should be not allowed.

If your partner in clanner need to go is other quastion, game should be replayed or continue if oponent agreed 2vs1


So. All depend how long our gods will change page with rules hehe..

[Rogi]

As FFie once put it, these stuff are categorized in the "common sense section".

Anyway, I added this line to the leagues rules, under "quitting":

Intentional Lag-outs, quittings or surrending in 2vs2 or 3vs3 games (both singles and clanners), in a way that benefits the quitting team are not allowed. In such cases, under the moderators discretion the game will be rematched or a win will be given to the opposite team.

oh.. didnt notice ur quote. Grate, Mr.MI ^^

[Rok]

Now you only need to spell it correctly: surrendering 

[DarkOne]

Imo, if your oponent will agree with this trick u can use this tactic,  why not?

Because if you allow that, all clanners will be 1v1 except TTRR, bungeerace and comet dodging.

[Doubletime]

Imo, if your oponent will agree with this trick u can use this tactic,  why not?

Because if you allow that, all clanners will be 1v1 except TTRR, bungeerace and comet dodging.

Exactly how will a 2v4 scenario be beneficial in elite ? The worms may very well have a much faster rotation but that advantage can easily be overcome. Simply make sure that all 4 worms can reach each other so that telecowing will not work (Or at the very least girder block and then reach) besides unlike hysteria there are only 2 teleports in Elite.

Everything should be fair in love or war..As long as you don't use dark magic in order to summon uncanny powers (Like an aimbot or other exterior program intended to manipulate the game in favor of the user) everything else is or should be fair. If a clan will benefit by having the weaker player suicide himself out of the game so the stronger player can abuse turn order then that should be allowed.

The fault really lies with the fact that such a scheme is taken seriously in the first place (Hysteria). I likewise think that glitches should be allowed unless they are too gamebreaking such as that girder kill glitch from WWP.