nemsawi, is there an implicit ethical code? i.e does your opp expect first?
Is it a game without morals?
Sort:
Jan 22, 2022
0
#43
Christopher_Parsons wrote:
If the same things happen, then it isn't true, which it is pretty much agreed upon, by the rules and the people telling me not to focus on it or to try teams, it still happens.
People telling you not to play a mode you don't like doesn't mean that everything you said was correct. Your understanding is outdated because you don't understand the current landscape of four player chess. In good games, let's say around 2600-2700+, you never see these "titled players who are all friends" all attacking you.
If you understood the present state of the game, you'd understand most serious games are played anonymously.
By your own admission, your first point if false. I still understand what is happening, even if it isn't as bad.
You don't understand what is happening. You believe that what actually only happens one in a thousand games, and never happens at the top level, is common. And in my saying that it is not completely but only mostly eradicated, you take that to mean that your belief that it affects everyday gameplay is correct.
I never said nothing has changed. Those are words you put into my mouth. I just know what hasn't changed and so do you.
You're right. I was using hyperbole and exaggerated what you said. But my point remains. Many things have changed since you last played 4pc. Most of the things you mentioned (players having a "name" or status that means they don't get attacked, titled players "claiming" their place at the top, etc.) are completely irrelevant to 99% of games. The claim about players having a "name" that gives them immunity among the community is untrue. Most times a high rated or titled player plays games with players who don't really understand the game, they will get attacked because they are perceived as a threat. As for titled players "claiming their place at the top", there's only 2 titled players in the top 20 right now. Those 2 titled players have played against each other a grand total of 4 times, all of them being anonymous games.
Jan 22, 2022
0
#44
Typewriter44 wrote:
Christopher_Parsons wrote:
If the same things happen, then it isn't true, which it is pretty much agreed upon, by the rules and the people telling me not to focus on it or to try teams, it still happens.
People telling you not to play a mode you don't like doesn't mean that everything you said was correct. Your understanding is outdated because you don't understand the current landscape of four player chess. In good games, let's say around 2600-2700+, you never see these "titled players who are all friends" all attacking you.
If you understood the present state of the game, you'd understand most serious games are played anonymously.
By your own admission, your first point if false. I still understand what is happening, even if it isn't as bad.
You don't understand what is happening. You believe that what actually only happens one in a thousand games, and never happens at the top level, is common. And in my saying that it is not completely but only mostly eradicated, you take that to mean that your belief that it affects everyday gameplay is correct.
I never said nothing has changed. Those are words you put into my mouth. I just know what hasn't changed and so do you.
You're right. I was using hyperbole and exaggerated what you said. But my point remains. Many things have changed since you last played 4pc. Most of the things you mentioned (players having a "name" or status that means they don't get attacked, titled players "claiming" their place at the top, etc.) are completely irrelevant to 99% of games. The claim about players having a "name" that gives them immunity among the community is untrue. Most times a high rated or titled player plays games with players who don't really understand the game, they will get attacked because they are perceived as a threat. As for titled players "claiming their place at the top", there's only 2 titled players in the top 20 right now. Those 2 titled players have played against each other a grand total of 4 times, all of them being anonymous games.
I don't wish to continue arguing, but at least you understand my point and I simply wanted to say that the top ratings when I was playing were like 1700 if I remember right. I think my highest rating was in the 1300-1400 range. I am sure that it would happen less now for me, but I was trying to obtain the stocks for the biggest return on my investment. I am not as interested in penny stocks.
HSCCCalebBrown hat geschrieben:
nemsawi, is there an implicit ethical code? i.e does your opp expect first?
thank you for poiting it, because the discussion is going somewhere else.
This is indeed my question, i have this question, is this the Morals, you help and get something or you help and got killed? i am not sure that is why i am asking and it is for me important to understand the human factors in this issue, do we have morals when we are playing?
What the f are morals?
First time I've heard that term on this website.
Maybe someone can explain to me?
This isn't something that actually exists is it?
Why am I asking questions on a forum of a question?
dear typewriter44, dear Christopher_Parson,
could we keep the topic eyed please?
this is leading nowhere
thanks
Jan 22, 2022
0
#48
JCrossover_14 wrote:
What the f are morals?
First time I've heard that term on this website.
Maybe someone can explain to me?
This isn't something that actually exists is it?
Why am I asking questions on a forum of a question?
moral
[ˈmôrəl]
NOUN
morals (plural noun)
-
a lesson, especially one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience."the moral of this story was that one must see the beauty in what one has"synonyms:
JCrossover_14 hat geschrieben:
What the f are morals?
First time I've heard that term on this website.
Maybe someone can explain to me?
This isn't something that actually exists is it?
Why am I asking questions on a forum of a question?
critical aspect is needed in this discussion, so you dont believe in morals in games at all? or how could we understand your comment please?
Jan 22, 2022
0
#50
nemsawi wrote:
JCrossover_14 hat geschrieben:
What the f are morals?
First time I've heard that term on this website.
Maybe someone can explain to me?
This isn't something that actually exists is it?
Why am I asking questions on a forum of a question?
critical aspect is needed in this discussion, so you dont believe in morals in games at all? or how could we understand your comment please?
If you really want a successful thread, don't discriminate against a few tangents.
@indipendenza pointed to following the game's Rules.
Morals for me in the way to interpret these Rules, and to practice them.
Christopher_Parsons hat geschrieben:
nemsawi wrote:
JCrossover_14 hat geschrieben:
What the f are morals?
First time I've heard that term on this website.
Maybe someone can explain to me?
This isn't something that actually exists is it?
Why am I asking questions on a forum of a question?
critical aspect is needed in this discussion, so you dont believe in morals in games at all? or how could we understand your comment please?
If you really want a successful thread, don't discriminate against a few tangents.
me? how did i?
Jan 22, 2022
0
#53
nemsawi wrote:
Christopher_Parsons hat geschrieben:
nemsawi wrote:
JCrossover_14 hat geschrieben:
What the f are morals?
First time I've heard that term on this website.
Maybe someone can explain to me?
This isn't something that actually exists is it?
Why am I asking questions on a forum of a question?
critical aspect is needed in this discussion, so you dont believe in morals in games at all? or how could we understand your comment please?
If you really want a successful thread, don't discriminate against a few tangents.
me? how did i?
Post #50
@christopher_parsons i don't know how it could be discrimination to tell someone to focus on the topic.
If i did, then it wasn't my intention.
Sorry.
Jan 22, 2022
0
#55
nemsawi wrote:
@christopher_parsons i don't know how it could be discrimination to tell someone to focus on the topic.
If i did, then it wasn't my intention.
Sorry.
The discrimination is in that you are trying to limit the posters from contributing to the thread, only on your terms, especially if their contributions still fit under the definition of terms in the OP.
PS edit....if it is a matter of trying to get more opinions of your specific question, I would suggest making a poll, and state your criteria, more concisely.
@christopher_parsons thanks alot, good idea "...if it is a matter of trying to get more opinions of your specific question, I would suggest making a poll, and state your criteria, more concisely."
Jan 22, 2022
0
#57
nemsawi wrote:
@christopher_parsons thanks alot, good idea "...if it is a matter of trying to get more opinions of your specific question, I would suggest making a poll, and state your criteria, more concisely."
Had you specifically mentioned the scenario where there are 2 left in a 4-player game, should you beat them if they helped you, I would've never posted at all.
Jan 22, 2022
0
#58
So the conclusion of my thoughts is
A. Does action respect the person?
B. Does it respect the game?
For the specific question, do you think the opp believes that you owe them the win?
If not, then feel free. If they do, then I believe it is a betrayal of trust, and so wouldn't. (the fact they're wrong doesn't matter in my opinion)
Jan 22, 2022
0
#59
Ferd_Jelly_Roll_Morton wrote:
I had a game where I teamed (without the chat just against one powerful opponent) and instead of claim win I gave him material so he could win.
And why did you do that?
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.
If the same things happen, then it isn't true, which it is pretty much agreed upon, by the rules and the people telling me not to focus on it or to try teams, it still happens.
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).
By your own admission, your first point if false. I still understand what is happening, even if it isn't as bad.
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.
I never said nothing has changed. Those are words you put into my mouth. I just know what hasn't changed and so do you.