The discussion is not about Teaming per se! So please let us not only talk about teaming, it is about: should i let my oppo being killed or should i help?
"Can" i - from the moralls perspective - kill who saved me being last to win first!
For me that is part of strategy to take out a player first, I don't want to face later, alone.
The discussion is not about Teaming per se! So please let us not only talk about teaming, it is about: should i let my oppo being killed or should i help?
"Can" i - from the moralls perspective - kill who saved me being last to win first!
For me that is part of strategy to take out a player first, I don't want to face later, alone.
Let us say: you are under attack and will be killed, and in this case you will be last, your oppo helps you and you and your oppo killed the other 2 players, one of you will be first, will you kill your oppo or you think: i was going to be last without help, he/she should be first?
a) YES I HAVE TO SAVE MY OPP IN MOST CASES (not because it's moral, but because it's my interest in the 1st stage FFA),
b) no, I do not have to feel badly because I saved him and he killed me 3 moves later. It's Free For All. (I don't do that, but I can't oblige people to follow my own code if they respect the rules ; in some particularly violent cases I won't save them later anymore).
c) we don't have to offer a victory to someone just because he saved you earlier in the game... We play to win.
d) my side, I am usually pitiless with an opp who attacks me in the 1st stage, regardless the reason (either he is an incompetent idiot or wanted to "punish" me for an nontraditional opening...). Maybe it's emotional and unreasonable, but that's how I feel.
The discussion is not about Teaming per se! So please let us not only talk about teaming, it is about: should i let my oppo being killed or should i help?
"Can" i - from the moralls perspective - kill who saved me being last to win first!
For me that is part of strategy to take out a player first, I don't want to face later, alone.
Let us say: you are under attack and will be killed, and in this case you will be last, your oppo helps you and you and your oppo killed the other 2 players, one of you will be first, will you kill your oppo or you think: i was going to be last without help, he/she should be first?
"Unnecessary chivalry" (quotation from https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/1-15-ffa-2000-tutorial-balance-in-the-3-player-stage).
a) you play to win. You don't have to offer the game by gratefullness.
b) you don't even know why he did it: in most cases it was HIS INTEREST to save you. in the 1st stage.
The discussion is not about Teaming per se! So please let us not only talk about teaming, it is about: should i let my oppo being killed or should i help?
"Can" i - from the moralls perspective - kill who saved me being last to win first!
For me that is part of strategy to take out a player first, I don't want to face later, alone.
Let us say: you are under attack and will be killed, and in this case you will be last, your oppo helps you and you and your oppo killed the other 2 players, one of you will be first, will you kill your oppo or you think: i was going to be last without help, he/she should be first?
So, you are asking me if I will try to win, once the game gets down to 2 players, if the other player remaining helped me? Of course, I would try to win. Otherwise, what is the point of the game?
The discussion is not about Teaming per se! So please let us not only talk about teaming, it is about: should i let my oppo being killed or should i help?
"Can" i - from the moralls perspective - kill who saved me being last to win first!
For me that is part of strategy to take out a player first, I don't want to face later, alone.
Let us say: you are under attack and will be killed, and in this case you will be last, your oppo helps you and you and your oppo killed the other 2 players, one of you will be first, will you kill your oppo or you think: i was going to be last without help, he/she should be first?
"Unnecessary chivalry" (quotation from https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/1-15-ffa-2000-tutorial-balance-in-the-3-player-stage).
a) you play to win. You don't have to offer the game by gratefullness.
b) you don't even know why he did it: in most cases it was HIS INTEREST to save you. in the 1st stage.
that is exactly the point: " you play to win. You don't have to offer the game by gratefullness." is this the morals of the game or it is not a morals at all? and we dont need to have morals in games?
and it is more philosophical question than really only about 4pc game.
IMHO the morals do exist and are as follow:
a) respect the rules in full,
b) try to win,
c) if you are in the situation where you can choose who will win (and yourself can't anymore), take into account the way your opp played, and if he was loyal, make him win,
d) if you are in the situation where you are winning and can decide who will be 2nd, make your opp 2nd if he was good and loyal (typically, sometimes I do not claim, to try to make him 2nd) rather than 3rd or even worse, 4th).
The discussion is not about Teaming per se! So please let us not only talk about teaming, it is about: should i let my oppo being killed or should i help?
"Can" i - from the moralls perspective - kill who saved me being last to win first!
For me that is part of strategy to take out a player first, I don't want to face later, alone.
Let us say: you are under attack and will be killed, and in this case you will be last, your oppo helps you and you and your oppo killed the other 2 players, one of you will be first, will you kill your oppo or you think: i was going to be last without help, he/she should be first?
"Unnecessary chivalry" (quotation from https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/1-15-ffa-2000-tutorial-balance-in-the-3-player-stage).
a) you play to win. You don't have to offer the game by gratefullness.
b) you don't even know why he did it: in most cases it was HIS INTEREST to save you. in the 1st stage.
that is exactly the point: " you play to win. You don't have to offer the game by gratefullness." is this the morals of the game or it is not a morals at all? and we dont need to have morals in games?
So, you play to win, but when you find you aren't a member of a club, but the club members you tried to play with and enjoy the game, always gang up on you every time, in advance, making it a 1 vs 3 scenario, then you will realize what I am saying. If the game has evolved to the point that this isn't a problem, that is great. Let me know when you get to where it is you versus 3 titled players and they are all friends. I want to know how that turns out for you.
The discussion is not about Teaming per se! So please let us not only talk about teaming, it is about: should i let my oppo being killed or should i help?
"Can" i - from the moralls perspective - kill who saved me being last to win first!
For me that is part of strategy to take out a player first, I don't want to face later, alone.
Let us say: you are under attack and will be killed, and in this case you will be last, your oppo helps you and you and your oppo killed the other 2 players, one of you will be first, will you kill your oppo or you think: i was going to be last without help, he/she should be first?
So, you are asking me if I will try to win, once the game gets down to 2 players, if the other player remaining helped me? Of course, I would try to win. Otherwise, what is the point of the game?
yes but it is not about: the game is down to 2 players! it is you and your oppo who saved you being last.
I think if anything it is amoral not to try to win in a 1v1 situation. That is treating somebody like a small child...it is kind of rude to deprive somebody of a fun and interesting endgame situation which do not come up that often. Giving somebody the opportunity to beat you when you are playing your best is generally the most sincere thing to do in my opinion, and giving the other player a win when there is still a lot of play in a position sounds very dull, boring, and uninteresting.
You are making too big of a deal of somebody saving you, like others have noted it is also in their self interest to do so because they need you to play against the other players! It is kind of a given in many games that you have to work together with another (probably all players at some point or another) during the course of a game, and no one is going to hold it against you for trying to win the game, which is kind of the whole point of what we are doing, and hopefully you will not hold it against them.
The discussion is not about Teaming per se! So please let us not only talk about teaming, it is about: should i let my oppo being killed or should i help?
"Can" i - from the moralls perspective - kill who saved me being last to win first!
For me that is part of strategy to take out a player first, I don't want to face later, alone.
Let us say: you are under attack and will be killed, and in this case you will be last, your oppo helps you and you and your oppo killed the other 2 players, one of you will be first, will you kill your oppo or you think: i was going to be last without help, he/she should be first?
So, you are asking me if I will try to win, once the game gets down to 2 players, if the other player remaining helped me? Of course, I would try to win. Otherwise, what is the point of the game?
yes but it is not about: the game is down to 2 players! it is you and your oppo who saved you being last.
No offense, but this is significantly less of an issue of morality than what I am describing. One situation removes a chance to win at all, while the other leaves you a chance to play for a win if you choose. This is more an issue of charity vs the point of the game. It is neither immoral to try to win a game against an opponent, if it is the only one you have, or to let them win, if you feel you owe it to them. In fact, it could be argued that it is a matter of ethics though, to let them win. It can be construed as sandbagging. A player could attempt to allow them to win as close of a game as possible. If I remember right, unless they changed it, you get rewarded for performance, even though you still lost.
Christopher, I've never seen a 3 vs. 1 in games above 2500 if the players opened correctly.
Christopher, I've never seen a 3 vs. 1 in games above 2500 if the players opened correctly.
I was playing this game before anyone had an idea about what a correct opening was
Christopher, I've never seen a 3 vs. 1 in games above 2500 if the players opened correctly.
I was playing this game before anyone had an idea about what a correct opening was
Your experience is over 3 years outdated. Why do you act as if your knowledge from 2018, on a game which came to be in 2017 on this website, is relevant in 2022? Anyone who has kept up with 4pc in the past year can see that your views are quite antiquated.
Christopher, I've never seen a 3 vs. 1 in games above 2500 if the players opened correctly.
I was playing this game before anyone had an idea about what a correct opening was
Your experience is over 3 years outdated. Why do you act as if your knowledge from 2018, on a game which came to be in 2017 on this website, is relevant in 2022? Anyone who has kept up with 4pc in the past year can see that your views are quite antiquated.
huh!
how about giving us your opinion about it without attacking the others please?
Christopher, I've never seen a 3 vs. 1 in games above 2500 if the players opened correctly.
I was playing this game before anyone had an idea about what a correct opening was
Your experience is over 3 years outdated. Why do you act as if your knowledge from 2018, on a game which came to be in 2017 on this website, is relevant in 2022? Anyone who has kept up with 4pc in the past year can see that your views are quite antiquated.
They are only antiquated if those same circumstances don't arise, which I doubt they have been eradicated, so they are still pertinent and applicable. Also, once the damage is done from immorality, you simply attacking my desire to walk away, doesn't mean it wasn't wrong then or still isn't a problem now. I appreciate your concern....
if you don't like this game because of teaming, literally just stop playing FFA and switch to Teams where teaming is expected. Until you reach 2400 - 2500, you usually won't get an opposite who is ready to cooperate
You are only as good as your teammate. It was so new back then, it made little sense to do teams. If theory has developed, I would prefer not to be dead weight to a teammate, in order to avoid discrimination.
if you don't like this game because of teaming, literally just stop playing FFA and switch to Teams where teaming is expected. Until you reach 2400 - 2500, you usually won't get an opposite who is ready to cooperate
You are only as good as your teammate. It was so new back then, it made little sense to do teams. If theory has developed, I would prefer not to be dead weight to a teammate, in order to avoid discrimination.
To be honest teams has gotten better over the years. I find myself more comfortable playing with and teaching newer players who are comfortable coordinating with their teammates. I'd much rather have a teammate who has their own thoughts and wants to share those move ideas with me so we can make a good decision rather than a teammate who does absolutely no thinking of their own.
That completely makes sense. Otherwise, one is truly dead weight. You can't learn from each other if you don't share either.
Since I don't tend to prefer the live game experience to begin with, my past experience didn't help me to fall in love with the game.
Christopher, I've never seen a 3 vs. 1 in games above 2500 if the players opened correctly.
I was playing this game before anyone had an idea about what a correct opening was
Your experience is over 3 years outdated. Why do you act as if your knowledge from 2018, on a game which came to be in 2017 on this website, is relevant in 2022? Anyone who has kept up with 4pc in the past year can see that your views are quite antiquated.
huh!
how about giving us your opinion about it without attacking the others please?
I did not attack anyone. I said that Christopher_Parson's understanding of the game is outdated, which is true.
Christopher, the circumstances that you are referring to are much less common. They're not eradicated, however with better established rules & enforcement, it's very uncommon to see them (at least in games with people not brand new to the game, open games may be different, but 1600+ usually does not have prearranging issues).
As a far as "attacking your desire to walk away", I did no such thing as you did not walk away. You are here, talking on the 4pc forums, about a game you have "walked away from"
What I am attacking is your presumption that nothing has changed in the past 3 years.
The discussion is not about Teaming per se! So please let us not only talk about teaming, it is about: should i let my oppo being killed or should i help?
"Can" i - from the moralls perspective - kill who saved me being last to win first!