Winnig IS NOT the only goal in game/match. I got warned.

I got reported and warned by suicide "intentionally".
This game in 2017-99-17:
http://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/469400?
, I suicide my commander because I was bring to game automatic when I forgot to switch from "Playing" to "Spectate" button when I joined room, since I don't play, I want to make both team balanced. So another team will get metal reclaim.

After this, I get This message :

quote: Your account has received moderator action: Don't suicide intentionally. You are free to leave the game at any time. http://zero-k.info/Battles/Detail/469400 (This is a warning)

I can not understand why even this kind of judgement is possible, I have told my intention this was "for team balance". Unfortunately, someone still reported this (Firepluk had said "reported" while in that moment) and it even works ...

Then I was curious about is there any rules in lobby I have to obey?
I went check Zero-K Code of Conduct and I think only "rules" I violated was "3. Cooperate With Your Team":
http://zero-k.info/mediawiki/index.php?title=Zero-K:Code_of_Conduct

In this not too long page of COC, I immediately see PROBLEMS, when inspecting this with my current knowledge, value, thought, I get my conclusion:

ThIS COC ONLY REFLECT IDEA of specific small portion of people who think the most important and only thing to care in game/match is to win, nothing else.
ThIS COC DO NOT REFLECT IDEA of all people how they think what a game/match should be, and and what the value of a game/match is, including purely fun, enjoying the building process like Simcity, playing with new idea, trying new tatics, trying more challenged way to win, doing exciting gambling, enjoy graphics and sounds, making friends, trolling (yes, even trolling) ...

You are basically narrow down the thinking into how specific people who only have specific idea/view of what a game/match should be think, if you follow the "rules" in COD "3. Cooperate With Your Team".
It narrow down the huge diversity of ways to play a game, and believe this is the only way we have to play a game/match. People don't follow these rules have potential to be warned or banned even their intention is good - just want to have fun, no matter for himself or bring it to others (when also respect others). As mentioned before, WINNING IS NOT THE ONLY GOAL in game/match, there should be much wider reason why people stay here and game/match together.

Now consider how a GAME MOD was createcd. It was started from some people found playing with "unnormal style" was fun, then thinking why we don't create a game mod ourselves? Then finally a new mod with differnt play style was borned, and game mod like Garry's mod, derived by Counter Strike was actually not too related to first person shooting, but still very enjoyable. If people are not allowed to think differently, there is no these mod today. Zero-K will be boring too if there is no such diverse way to win a game and only limited to use only few units or few tactics.

In another way, people consider winning is their only goal in this game/match, often don't happy/enjoiy the gaming actually, you can see this example all the time by observe many team games, spectators number in a room are more then players in many times, because gaming are probably too pressured and bring unhappy, exhausted for them. Also people tends to play with AI instead of human when there are only few people in room, many people don't like 1v1 or 2v2 they only play team games. All these happened because people don't like "losing".

And I see problem in COC "5. Abide by Moderator Actions" too:

quote: If you feel a moderator has acted unfairly, you should bring it up through the 'Contact administrators' button on your user home page ... Do not make forum threads complaining about the ...

The reason I post this thread here because, if this is a robust community, it should not eleminate different opinion, viewpoint, no matter you dislike or don't agree, instead you leave a opening space for discussion, inspection, communication to make a consense eveyone agree and confortable, this not only eliminate argument in this case, but also bring good example for others who are viewing this case and forming more friendly community in the future.
Peole don't always agree with each others but will at least respect different concepts, views, instead of making arguing the only option when seeing different stance of himself.
In a private moderation, this doesn't happened, why hide the fact and makes people can't obtain these kind of information?
I don't agree with Firepluk and I don't have to, but this doesn't mean I can't have open mind to discuss different logic and views of what a game/match should be like all the time with him, the best way to eliminate argument is by communication, not by penalty, ban, these don't solve deeper problem and will probably cause more opposition and even causing members leave such a harsh community with such narrow mind.

Since I joined Zero-K about a some time, I began to sniff out unusual atmosphere in this community, if you ask my opinion, I will tell you honestly this is a community with too many harsh people, blaming, flaming, ignoring, coldness.

This is different compare to another game community, 0.A.D , the biggest different is "coldness", people acting coldness here, they play, they leave, they don't even talk in game, is this really a community you want to form?

I think community is as important as the code itself, the code would not be too value when there is no good community using it, and I think this is the works people volunteering under are always doing too - bring more people here.

And if the main value of community think this is just few minor group of people thought, it actually eliminate the diverse opinion, gameplay, viewpoint of people in community, making only same people with that specific thinking will stay in community, others leave after frustration and go find other better place instead of Zero-K. A community which only accept one way of thinking or one way of playing, I don't see this is a good sign for a possitive community.

So the quesiton is? Is wining that important? If people don't support his team, so what? People can always create their private passworded room and invite people have same playing style they wish if they want.

Hm, good point. In a team game, the fun of the other players is definitely not worth as much as your personal fun. Seems logic. Sarkasm aside, i cannot think of any TEAM that would agree with you. How long would you be for example in a soccer-team if you don´t play how the others expect you to?
It´s very simple. The group matters, not only you. I completely respect your opinion that winning is not the only thing that matters, but if you want to play for your personal fun, why don´t you play bots or 1v1, wich i would recommend anyway.
For me, i enjoy a good fight, not neccecarily winning. If I or our team fucked up, i may resign without regret and play the next game. But if someone in my or even the enemy-team does not play with the intention of winning but just, let´s say hilariously suiciding his units, it just robs the fun for me. I cannot enjoy a win when i know our enemy has been sabotaged from within.
On a more general thing (and that is not meant to attack you, not even targeted on you specifically): I have played a lot of different things so far, and what i learned is the following: when you begin to play something DON`T assume your ideas are good. The stronger players are stronger for a reason. Usually they are stronger because they understand the game better. WAY better. I mean, yes, you could be a genious and all other people around you are dumb. Then it would make sense. But in general, this is not the case. I played Go/wéiqí on my own for half a year and got to 15kyu (roughly 700 elo). That´s how far my own intellect brought me. As soon as i got a teacher (and actually listened to his advice) i went straight to around 1900 elo. I can only encourage people to lay down their egos and listen to stronger players. It will pay out. And when you actually have a competent understanding of the game and the personal abilities it needs (like fast multitasking in 1v1), you will see that THEN it is the time for your own ideas and style.

This looks like a misunderstanding. The basic misunderstanding is that you thought you were balancing the game when in fact you were not. Because there were only five players on the enemy team (compared to your six) one player on the enemy team received two commanders. If you had simply resigned then both teams would have six commanders and five players. The game is considered balanced regardless of whether you resign. We have systems to make game balance resilient (but obviously not perfect).

Generally resigning is the best option when an issue like this occurs. Resigning maintains the balance of resources and lets the other players play out the game. Resigning is not free of problems but it is the best option if you have to leave.

quote: I can not understand why even this kind of judgement is possible, I have told my intention this was "for team balance". Unfortunately, someone still reported this (Firepluk had said "reported" while in that moment) and it even works ...

So, I've watched the game, and my response to this is that silence is not consent. If you are going to do something which your team is likely to find highly disagreeable then it is your job to make sure that they have agreed. Telling them and getting no response is insufficient. They may not have noticed. Ideally they would have told you that you were not balancing the game but they are themselves busy with playing the game.

Most of the rest of your post is about COC rule 3 and how it stifles creativity in play styles. You seem to stop talking about the game in question. Briefly, what you've said does not relate to your warning because I think it was clear that the other 10 players in the game were aiming to win. There may be a large group of people that are not covered by COC rule 3 but, if that is the case, they were underrepresented in that game. Even if the other 10 players were playing a very narrow game you should notice this and respect it.

quote: So the quesiton is? Is wining that important? If people don't support his team, so what? People can always create their private passworded room and invite people have same playing style they wish if they want.

You were in such a room, minus the password. It turns out that the winning style of play is popular enough to support a non-passworded host with few issues. We also have five types of rooms. It is generally understood that players will cooperate with their team and try to win in Team rooms. FFA, 1v1 and Coop rooms are similar. If you want to use a different play style you are best off hosting a Custom room and telling people the rules before you start.

Now, onto the general restrictiveness of the COC. Technically, the COC says you can do anything as long as your team agrees.

quote: Do not pursue all-or-nothing strategies without the consent of your team. Gambling the game on a risky move without their consent robs your teammates of their agency. You're free to try any strategy as long as you inform your team and they agree to it. The more risky, extreme, or unusual the strategy is, the more important it is to obtain your team's agreement before you start. Play as if you mean to play a full game.

That said, the COC does assume that the default goal is to win the game. In practice there is a lot of leeway for people trying out weird tactics and diverse ways to win. Have you seen games limited to only a few units or tactics? I have not. I don't see any argument for a suppression of diversity within the framework of trying to win.

If you want to play non-winning games then host a custom or passworded room. Winning is a goal by default unless otherwise stated. It is a goal because it is necessary for creating much of the gameplay of Zero-K. Both teams have to try to win for there to be any strategic interaction. I think it is generally understood that players are looking for strategy, since ZK is a strategy game. You can have fun with the strategy-free version of ZK but, in my experience, strategy games without strategy lack lasting appeal for most people. In this sense winning is an important goal but actually winning is much less important than everyone trying to win.

Note that I'm not being narrow minded with my definition of winning and strategy. You can put many restrictions on ZK while maintaining winning as a goal. Someone building a porc fortress in a corner against the AI is still trying win and so is still making strategic choices. A commander-only custom game (factories banned) still has winning as a goal.

I don't think you are in a position to comment on COC rule 5. The rule does not apply to you or to this situation. It is primarily for dealing with toxicity.

You don't have to play seriously, just make your own room as GoogleFrog said.
You also don't have to play optimally *always*. Firepluk often uses "silly" strategies, but try to keep those limited and ask for permission to be courteous.

Since we're doing sports, to make a basketball example, there's a weekly Tuesday game I stopped going to because no one is taking it seriously. I have limited time to play and I enjoy playing competitively, so this feels like a waste of time. I don't mind them enjoying that play style however.

treegb as far as I am concerned you are free to ignore this paragraph

quote: Do not pursue all-or-nothing strategies without the consent of your team. Gambling the game on a risky move without their consent robs your teammates of their agency. You're free to try any strategy as long as you inform your team and they agree to it. The more risky, extreme, or unusual the strategy is, the more important it is to obtain your team's agreement before you start. Play as if you mean to play a full game.

as long as you seriously play to win. I haven't seen strategies with the goal of winning the game leading to any penalties yet. So learn and experiment as much as you want, provided you think something is a good idea and could be a viable strategy to win the game. Just make sure it's actually aimed at winning.

quote: Winnig IS NOT the only goal in game/match.

Whinning is not only goal in game/match

quote: I will tell you honestly this is a community with too many harsh people, blaming, flaming, ignoring, coldness.

Hmm, then you need play Dota 2 with russians. Then you will know what is 'harsh community'.

Com suicide is feeding enemy and nothing more. Doesn't see how it could balance game.

I think that even if treegb was wrong and did something stupid- He's on a player host filch and it should be up to that host to decide if he wants to do something about it.

I'm opposed to ZK nanny police state trying to tell people how to behave all the time and threatening new comers who made mistakes.

Right Drone, lets see how well that worked for the main Spring server...

quote: Right Drone, lets see how well that worked for the main Spring server...

lets see.... I bet I can repeat it at any time with same results

main spring server:



lobbyserver for zerok

Again, consider "opt in" as default (join as spec).