Taking out your own Partner

[Pizzetto]

Taking out your partner in a team game might be a valid strategy in some remote cases. However, I find it unacceptable that you can gain reserves this way.

 

[ghost]

i dunno, in my mind.. it's better to give them to your partner then to let the opposing team/s get those reserves...
but i agree, in remote cases.

 

[Pizzetto]

Yes, understandable that you are preventing an opponent from getting the reserves. Profiting from it though, its just not in the spirit of team games.

 

[coolname]

Perhaps there should be a question "You have been taken out by your partner. Was that part of your master plan YES/NO" (just like after diplomacy breaches)

 

[WidowMakers]

If you can gain reserves by killing an enemy, you can gain reserves by killing a friend.
it makes sense to me.

it is like money $$$$$$
No matter where you got it, it is still worth something.

 

[coolname]

Hmm, I just found out than in doubles mercenary game, you do have to kill of your partner (game #2954). Unfortunately, the partner getting killed will be me.... I think it is a bad rule.

 

[WidowMakers]

Hmm, I just found out than in doubles mercenary game, you do have to kill of your partner (game #2954). Unfortunately, the partner getting killed will be me.... I think it is a bad rule.

What do you mean you HAVE to kill your partner. If only 1 team is left in a merc game, the game should be over.

 

[ghost]

it's not a rule, it's a temporary solution to problem... eventually, it wont be such.

 

[ghost]

What do you mean you HAVE to kill your partner. If only 1 team is left in a merc game, the game should be over.

its that bug, see, the one that makes merc doubles sucketh..

 

[coolname]

OK. I guess that is the joy of beta!

 

[ghost]

OK. I guess that is the joy of beta!

indeed.

 

[AAFitz]

What do you mean you HAVE to kill your partner. If only 1 team is left in a merc game, the game should be over.

No one disagrees with this statement except the game itself.

The only winning move is not to play...

or screw over your partner and kill them

 

[ghost]

i'd make an arrangement, i'd be like: "you let me kill you now, and i'll let you kill me in a 1 vs 1 game"... or something.

 

[Badorties]

We are making some changes to mercenary doubles which will solve these issues and offer a better point distribution.

 

[zspBANNED]

i'd make an arrangement, i'd be like: "you let me kill you now, and i'll let you kill me in a 1 vs 1 game"... or something.

This opens a whole new can of worms, though. I know this is NOT CC, but the rule there makes a lot of sense.

"any gross abuse of the game is forbidden. This includes but is not limited to: throwing games or deliberately benefiting from thrown games..."

Without getting into too much detail, throwing games, even if made through a deal, goes against the spirit of the game. B/c then people are climbing in the scoreboard in ways that are deemed unfair by some, and then gray areas cloud the entire situation.

Regardless, I don't see why people would even WANT to play merc dubs...just play standard dubs!

 

[WidowMakers]

Regardless, I don't see why people would even WANT to play merc dubs...just play standard dubs!

Because merc dubs with 3 or 4 teams allows a team that ultimately loses to still gain points by killing another team.

Same reason to play singles merc. Get points even without an overall win.

 

[zspBANNED]

Pfft, orbo and I played standard dubs and kicked some major ass. I guess the not-so-skilled can stick to their merc dubs...

 

[Pizzetto]

OK, we all know Merc doubles is messed up. That is not why I made this thread. I think killing a partner in a non merc game should be frowned upon. It is not in the spirit of a team game. Perhaps there should be some sort of game point penalty. If you win, but your team is not intact, you do not get nearly as many points for the win. People may play more like a team, and actually try to prop up an ailing friend, rather then eating them.

 

[ghost]

OK, we all know Merc doubles is messed up. That is not why I made this thread. I think killing a partner in a non merc game should be frowned upon. It is not in the spirit of a team game. Perhaps there should be some sort of game point penalty. If you win, but your team is not intact, you do not get nearly as many points for the win. People may play more like a team, and actually try to prop up an ailing friend, rather then eating them.

i'm going to have to say, it's all a matter of opinion...
i think killing your partner, in a doubles game, et c.. is not really a big deal.
if you as a team, could not get ahead (the dice were incredibly cruel) in some cases, you almost have to kill your partner to avoid losing those potential troops for your 'team' and allowing another team to swipe them up.. it seems like, if you don't get those troops and attempt to win for your team, you're death is almost inevitable, otherwise.

some could say, NOT killing your teammate and keeping those reserves within your team would be like suicid'ing...

 

[Badorties]

I think a change in terminology may resolve this issue. Lets not say that you are killing your team mate. Instead we can say...

You are assimilating your team mates forces and using their reserve assets.
or
You are merging your ally's forces under your command.
or
You are reliving the allied commander of duty to steamline the war operation and accelerate the reserve and training process.

All good?