Débat sur les règles

On se fait donner des leçons chez nous ! Pour des actes d'"anti jeu" de joueurs n'appartenant pas au clan !!!!!

Je rêve ?

Gentlemen i edited my above posts as

edit: Cosak read already and said on lordz anyway no need to post same on a clan forum.


Really we discussed all these on lordz anyway so there was no need to discuss again here really i couldnt stop myself after seeing the replay of our last battle but anyway no need, this is your clan forum, so sorry for my posts, i edited them.

Yes Cosak call it however you like mate also it is all up to lords to post a code of conduct, you run a poll if ok for lords you post them no harm , good luck.

Merci à Brumaire et Melet de montrer assez simplement l'absurdité de cette querelle. La volonté hardie de certains à vouloir utiliser leurs combines est en effet effarante. Il est aussi risible de voir que des joueurs incriminés se sont rapidement inscrits sur notre forum dès qu'ils ont eu vent de mes intentions chez les Lordz.

[Grognard]_Cosak a écrit:Merci à Brumaire et Melet de montrer assez simplement l'absurdité de cette querelle. La volonté hardie de certains à vouloir utiliser leurs combines est en effet effarante. Il est aussi risible de voir que des joueurs incriminés se sont rapidement inscrits sur notre forum dès qu'ils ont eu vent de mes intentions chez les Lordz.

In fact my whole purpose was to reply this below one not your lordz posts Cosak:

Marbot a écrit:Par contre, par deux fois sur mes canons nos adversaires du soir ont usé de la technique d'empilement d'unité "infanterie + cavalerie" pour toucher et mettre en déroute des canons avec 3 cavaliers alors que 47 sont bloqués 50 mètres plus loin ....  . Ça devient pénible.

And to show Marbot that we faced 4 times of these Glitches in this battle but it ran our of control lol.

Lancier a écrit:

[Grognard]_Cosak a écrit:Merci à Brumaire et Melet de montrer assez simplement l'absurdité de cette querelle. La volonté hardie de certains à vouloir utiliser leurs combines est en effet effarante. Il est aussi risible de voir que des joueurs incriminés se sont rapidement inscrits sur notre forum dès qu'ils ont eu vent de mes intentions chez les Lordz.

In fact my whole purpose was to reply this below one not your lordz posts Cosak:

Marbot a écrit:Par contre, par deux fois sur mes canons nos adversaires du soir ont usé de la technique d'empilement d'unité "infanterie + cavalerie" pour toucher et mettre en déroute des canons avec 3 cavaliers alors que 47 sont bloqués 50 mètres plus loin ....  . Ça devient pénible.

And to show Marbot that we faced 4 times of these Glitches in this battle but it ran our of control lol.

La conversation aurait dû en rester là je pense .

A se rencontrer sur le champs Lancier .

This situation is rather amusing: I am quite sure that most if not all who participated in this discussion accepts that MP games would be better without those gamy tricks. At the same time there is still (as it always was) resistance to any attempt to do smth. about it. Besides, most of the proposed rules are unspoken rules of fair play. Why not make them spoken rules? Isn’t it ironic that vanilla players entering NTW3 MP lobby for the first time ask: any rules? And the “loyal” fans of the most realistic NTW mod, say rather casually: no rules.  

To me it’s very simple: many dislike gamey tactics and understand that lordz will never be able to eliminate those. An official lordz set of recommendations/rules (house rules, if you like) should be formulated in order to underpin the mod’s mechanics and/or promote good practices, as long as all players agree. It’s better to have a uniform and by lordz formulated and optional set of house rules, then a custom set per group/clan. If it works, all win. If this will not be popular, no harm done.

As for Sigizmund, he is actually very good example of how it would work. When in HB, he knows what are the rules and btw shows enough self-control to avoid employing common all-goes practices of classic. Why so? Simply because all players involved in game are very clear about what they do not want to see in their games.

With this said, I think that tackling specific tricks makes little sense: it will be just half measure with much effort and limited impact. That is why I argued with Cosak about trying to implement more generic but as clear as possible guiding, if you like, rules to tackle multiple issues and hopefully have a more prominent positive impact on the quality of games.

[Grognard]_Cosak a écrit: hasted.

Tsk. tsk.

À cause de Marbot voilà que Seimour se sent obligé d'émerger de sa torpeur avertine.

[Grognard]_Cosak a écrit:À cause de Marbot voilà que Seimour se sent obligé d'émerger de sa torpeur avertine.

Tout pour sauver mon marechal d'un anglais archaique.

[Grognard]_Melet a écrit:

That's why we learn to know our opponents and then choose those we accept in our game .

By all means. Ultimately this is how all and any behaviour is regulated. I rarely join some lobby games, because I know that the opposing team is all from the same clan on a map they have staked out in advance and they helpfully invite someone completely useless to be on my team. The solution is simply to not join these games.

[Grognard]_Cosak a écrit:It's not about aesthetic. I hate camping even more than your tricks, but I would never think of a recommendation against it because it existed (a lot) in History. I am against the glitches you use and master because they just never occurred on a battlefield. Not because it's brilliant, but just because they just can't physically happen.

So it's the un-authenticity that is the issue right? In which case as I said, it seems a bit odd that you care when it does not affect you. It's simply your view on how historically correct one should be in the game. The same way an all cavalry army would be unhistorical.

[Grognard]_Cosak a écrit:NTW3 is far from perfect, and these nasty tricks are spoiling it.

Well, you and I have rather different views on things.

[Grognard]_Cosak a écrit:If you think I am using tricks spoiling historical accuracy and online battles, I'm open to discuss it.

You use skirmishers to tank enemy fire in order to increase the resilience of your lines. This is unhistorical as well, since a skirmisher in a line formation would not be that noticeably smaller a target than a regular fusilier.

Instant squares etc.

I do not mean that you should stop doing this, though, I do not think it ruins the game. I just accept that the game is not a perfect representation of history and that you are a good player who is playing to win.

[Grognard]_Brumaire a écrit:So, if I understand well Hekko, you would accept and applaude an NTW3 gamer that would have hacked the game and boosted its statistics...

Indeed, if I follow your thoughts, he would just use a tactics that everyone dislikes !

That kind of biased darwinism just makes me think to the traders that regarded themselves as insiders and defended a "no rule market", a few years ago. Now, many of them are crying for some regulation against high frequency trading because they consider it's unfair...

Anyway, I leave everyone with its awareness but it was my pleasure to point out some contradictions

Kindly read the link below in order to see why hacking the game does not fall into the same category as pushing through a melee or cheese-grating some artillery.

http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/what-should-be-banned

As a finance student I can tell you that the main issue with HFT is the enormous infrastructure cost of competing successfully in it, rather than any inherent unfairness. So it's a prisoners dilemma rather than a case of fairness/unfairness. Besides applying rules to HFT has issues with discreteness anyway as per the article

Hekko a écrit:So it's the un-authenticity that is the issue right? In which case as I said, it seems a bit odd that you care when it does not affect you. It's simply your view on how historically correct one should be in the game.

Your view is wrong because there is no instance, in the whole history of humanity, of events such as your mastered tricks.

By the way I can appreciate that use because NTW3 battles have been less prone to camping than before.

Hekko a écrit:The same way an all cavalry army would be unhistorical.

Really? Platov's army was made of 90% of horsemen in 1811 against the Ottomans. Did he cheat?

Hekko a écrit:You use skirmishers to tank enemy fire in order to increase the resilience of your lines.

As I said, I am open to any suggestion. I suggested four easy rules, but your suggestion is indeed meaningful.

I preferred skirmishers in v3, when they were always in deployed stance.

Hekko a écrit:

[Grognard]_Melet a écrit:

That's why we learn to know our opponents and then choose those we accept in our game .

By all means. Ultimately this is how all and any behaviour is regulated. I rarely join some lobby games, because I know that the opposing team is all from the same clan on a map they have staked out in advance and they helpfully invite someone completely useless to be on my team. The solution is simply to not join these games.

So according to you, if everyone think by this way . The battle you are talking about would never be  ?

Hekko a écrit: they helpfully invite someone completely useless to be on my team.

You are rude there . Think what ever you want but don't think for me . You re not in my mind . This is a better way to discuss , anyway you can make the answers and the questions .

Ty .