Scorched earth

[Baalz]

NTJedi said:
Consider future games against opponents...

I pretty much consider this a worse justification than "I'm a sore loser". This is no different than "I'll give you death gems in game A if you give me water gems in game B".

Reverend Zombie said:
What if the thing that brings your beaten opponent the most fun, at that point, is bringing you down with him?

Then, by definition they're a poor sport. Even in a game, not everything is justifiable by "I'm doing whatever brings me the most fun" because it's a MP game. That's why I feel sportsmanship factors in - I also feel like griefers in MP games are pretty much the scum of the earth.

sum1lost said:
I'm here to play a fun game first, win second. So, my behavior won't be to discourage them from attacking, but to encourage them to play again.

Yes, this is a good summation of my feelings, secondarily only to my own fun I feel an obligation to do whatever I reasonably can to facilitate the good time everyone is having - including whoever conquers me. That's why I don't understand the whole "I'm gonna make life as miserable as I can for whoever had the audacity to attack me in a war game, and hope they lose". Some of the people posting in this thread seem to legitimately have RP reasons for this behavior, but honestly the majority seem to be using the RP justification as a very thin excuse for poor behavior.

In response to several other posts, I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, but there is a big difference between doing whatever you can to win, and after you've decided you've lost doing whatever you can to sabotage the guy who beat you. No one, in any context, is arguing that you shouldn't do everything you can to win and fight to the bitter end. Beating that straw man up is getting a bit tired.

[Sir_Dr_D]

People are motivated to receive rewards for their efforts. Part of the fun of conqueroring another persons territory is you then get there income and infrastructure. If everyone destroyed these as they are being conquered, there would be no gain for anything anybody acomplishes in the game. With no gain, there is less fun.

So by using scorched earth, you will be ruining the fun for everyone else.

[PyroStock]

pretty much consider this a worse justification than "I'm a sore loser". This is no different than "I'll give you death gems in game A if you give me water gems in game B".

No. Scorched Earth is more akin to "I know player X has used the copy-paste of Bogus' troops. I don't think that's fair and it ruins my fun, but since it's allowed on this server I must take that into consideration." Verbally offering a gift in one game to receive a favor in another is different... "If I scorch the earth in this game to minimize player A's spoils of war will you scorch the earth in game 2 to minimize player B's spoils of war?"

That aside, I would think one would be very careful whether they wanted to use scorched earth for that reason as it could backfire... "There's that guy who used scorched earth last game... I won't trade with him... I'm going to go elephant rush him now... I will ally with player C who I know can be trusted."

Sir_Dr_D said:
People are motivated to receive rewards for their efforts. Part of the fun of conqueroring another persons territory is you then get there income and infrastructure.
So by using scorched earth, you will be ruining the fun for everyone else.

Therefore, no one should play Ermor so there is more fun. In the Dark Knight thread it was clear some felt that that tactic ruined their fun. It's all subjective what each individual finds fun.

If all the players and/or whoever runs the server tells everyone the "unacceptable tactics" (like Velusion does on his servers) and what is banned that's fine. Otherwise,

Baalz said:
I don't have a lot of patience for trying to figure out what "acceptable" tactics are - if I can do it within the context of the game then it's fair play.