This topic contains 65 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  Chopper 11 years, 1 month ago.

  • Author
  • #38014


    @chopper wrote:

    @boy wrote:

    we need a club…. the club moto will be:

    “We shoot resigners on site.”

    I think Willis, Noob, and Indy, and me would all be in.

    I have a club that would fit the bill, you guys should join it.

    Can I join?…. =D>

    I think everyone knows where Da’ Chop stands on this….BUT….I do have a suggestion. Instead of penalizing the resigner (although I voted fine ’em) maybe REWARD the player that wounded him. Like give them their bullet back with maybe some $$$$$….or better give them the kill.

    I too have wasted a shot (and sometimes an expensive weapon) on one of these weiners…… 🙄

    Although I still don’t get the whole “wasted an expensive weapon” bit, as, if I miss with an expensive weapon, it’s a miss nonetheless – doesn’t matter if the guy gets killed by someone else or resigns, it was still a crappy shot. If the shot was hard, I shouldn’t have used such an expensive weapon (or maybe should have used a more expensive weapon), and I will not let this sentence run on forever.

    I think the whole topic is rubbish, but I also think that Chop’s idea is the best I’ve heard. It can’t really be implemented as such, I don’t think, but maybe an assist is in order.




    While this discussion of penalizing people who use a game feature is all well and good, I believe a larger, more sinister problem is being ignored altogether.

    What say you to imposing a penalty, or penalties, on thieves? Surely, their crime is as nefarious as, if not more so than, resigning. Thieves rob kills. Thieves ruin kill ratios. Thieves cause weapons to be wasted futilely. And, worst of all, thieving is not a built in feature of the game. Thieves are going against how the game was intended to be played.

    Therefore, I propose penalties be applied to thieves of either greater than $10K, or more than a 250 point deduction from their score, or both, for we cannot have a greater crime receive a lesser punishment. And truly, thieving is a far greater crime than resigning. For to lose out to a resigner, one would have to miss the resigner TWICE, whereas a thief could steal one’s kill on the FIRST shot.

    Thieving is detrimental to game play. Thieving is cowardly. Thieving is dishonorable. What was that quote? “There is no honor among thieves.” Please note that the line is not, “There is no honor among resigners.” This clearly indicates that resigners are not the dishonorable cretins some would like to portray them as. Those same who wish to besmirch resigners likely have no compunction against thieving, and probably engage in the despicable practice quite often.

    So, hello, Pot. My name is Kettle. Might want to move out of that glass house before you start throwing stones.

    Oh, and while we’re at it, we should start discussing the imposition of penalties on misses. Missing costs kills. Missing negatively affects stats. Missing wastes weapons, both expensive and otherwise. And, as the object of Scorched it to kill other tanks, missing is not how the game is meant to be played! As missing is inarguably detrimental to game play, I’m sure it is cowardly and dishonorable as well. Penalize it! I DEMAND PENALTIES!



    LMAO Ebo 😆 😆



    yes ebo, you’re on to it now! We should legitimize resigning, cuz as it is they’re just robbers, I say.

    @Mar. ’05, I wrote:

    Section 2: THE CODE
    I shall digress further………. The Marine Corps motto echos Apollo’s feelings best, I think, when they say “Death before dishonor” this is an old-world warrior code akin to the rule of armies that marched in plain sight during battle, or also a little like the code of the salvage rights at sea. A code that says resigning is cheezy, and resigners are weak. The code by which enemies nod to each other….. Many of these codes have flaws however. The resign code is one of these. Why?, because the game was just made that way. Is it real to warfare, no not really. Is this a game with a built in resign feature that is fair to be used by all equally? YES.

    Every now and then a good code gets forgotten and warriors need to be reminded, sometimes codes or unwritten ideals like this are lost forever in favor of newer ones. Sometimes the barbarian hordes who hold nothing sacred come along and destroy the code keepers (this is what always happens, historically — too bad many of the Native Americans had a near utopian society, kill them anyway)



    I agree.
    STAND……and deliver…..



    Resigning has always been legitimate. How can you legitimize something that is already legitimate? from what I’ve observed, resigning only became an issue after stats were added to the official servers. Seems to me that getting rid of stats altogether would end most, if not all, of the conjecture on what constitutes cheating in Scorched these days.

    But sadly, I know this will never be. Despite my own increased enjoyment of the game during that extended period when stats tracking was down, Scorched is a game of, by, and for the stat whores now. So now, anything that negatively impacts stats should be called into question, whether it be a game-enabled function, a different way of determining shot parameters, or money-to-weapon maximization formulas.

    It seems my rail against thieving was not taken in the same serious manner as I delivered it. Perhaps my easy-going nature has dulled some to the possibility that I can be serious at need. But I digress… Every argument against resigning can be applied with equal force against thieving, with the additional argument of thieving not being an integral part of the game. And yet, my legitimate complaint is laughed at, mocked, belittled. Is this because those who tout their high-and-mightiness about resigning would unduly suffer from penalties against thievery? I take it then that a change that benefits stats is OK, whereas one that is detrimental should be marginalized until it goes away.

    So be it. I will not bring up thievery again, as some seem precluded to protect the practice. (Though I must say I do wonder what Marine Corps ethics has to say on the subject of stealing.) It does seem, however, that I have been drawn into the resign debate once again, and therefore, I will focus my attention where it will not be swept under the carpet so easily.

    The Marine Corps motto echos Apollo’s feelings best, I think, when they say “Death before dishonor” this is an old-world warrior code akin to the rule of armies that marched in plain sight during battle,

    I must ask if anyone here can tell me if at any time in the American Marines 200+ year history, has a force of Marines, in an engagement with enemy forces, never retreated, resupplied, reinforced, replanned, and then re-engaged the enemy? For if they have so done, then quoting them as the epitome of honor while at the same time vilifying resigning is remarkably inane and detrimental to the argument against resigning.

    Can anyone tell me which country today, if any, marches its armed forces in the open near or while engaging enemy forces? I’m willing to bet that not even one can be found which does so. And why not? Probably because, in the age of gunpowder, such a tack is tactically inferior to marching under cover.

    Anyone remember the American Revolutionary War? I’d be surprised if anyone did, really, since that was fought some 230 years ago. Of relevant note here is the way it was fought by both sides. The British fought European-style, marching in crisp lines, firing in unison, bright colors on their uniforms. The Colonists, having learned from the French and Indian War a few years prior, stayed behind cover, fired their best shots, and wore earth-toned clothing. Feel free to debate relative honor between the two forces, but it appears that the Colonists had the tactically superior fighting style. Bill Cosby said it best in his “Coin Toss” routine:

    “British call heads… it’s tails. You win, Settlers. OK, Settlers say they can wear any color clothes they want, shoot from behind the rocks, trees, and everywhere, and that your team must wear red, and march in a straight line.”

    No one calls the American soldiers of the era “dishonorable, cheating bastards”. In fact, the concept of the fighting style they employed is still in use to this day.

    Now BOY, you have some experience with the military. Would you care to point out where, in any military doctrine, Marine or otherwise, does it state, “If a unit should find itself in a situation where the only option other than death or capture is to withdraw, then that unit is to hold its ground and be wiped out by the forces of the enemy. Retreating in the face of overwhelming odds is cowardly and dishonorable.” or similar? Because, in essence, resigning is retreating in the face of overwhelming odds, pulling back from a battle that cannot be won in order to preserve resources better spent elsewhere and elsewhen.

    The resign… Is it real to warfare, no not really.

    I beg to differ, my good sir. Are you familiar with Dunkirk? Particularly in relation to the dates of and between May 26 and June 4, 1940? During that time period, 338,226 French, British, and other Allied troops retreated/withdrew/evacuated from Dunkirk, France in the face of a superior German armed force, in effect, resigning as utilized in Scorched. But I suppose those three-hundred thirty-odd thousand soldiers are dishonorable cowards for not facing the pursuing Army Group A of Germany with out-dated, ineffective weapons that would do little damage at great cost. (Never mind that some “honorable” units that did not evacuate and were captured, such as the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Norfolk Regiment, were later massacred by their captors.)

    How about the Battle of Stalingrad? The German 6th Army was surrounded in January of 1943. With no supplies of food, ammunition, or clothing, they could not fight their way out to make a retreat, and German High Command repeatedly denied the requests to surrender made by the commanding officer in the field. These “honorable” troops were reduced from 350,000 at the start of the campaign, to 90,000 at the time of the unauthorized surrender by the CO of 6th Army. Of those 90,000 who became captives, only 5,000 survived imprisonment. Denied the ability to withdraw, surrender, or otherwise yield the battlefield, only 1.4% of the fighting force caught in a battle it could not win was able to return home. But that’s the way it should be, right?

    I suppose we should all attempt to emulate Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer. Tactically inferior in all ways; numbers, troop quality, weapons, positioning, leadership, and tactics, he attacked the assembled tribes at Little Bighorn. May we all learn from his shining example that honor wins wars, irregardless of other factors.

    What? He didn’t win? Oh, he was in a strategically and tactically untenable position, which allowed the strategically and tactically superior Indians to kick his ass mightily. Man, maybe he should have retreated. I.e. resigned



    That’s a very nice read, Ebo.



    Dude…its a game.

    Resigning simply denies your opponent of the kill……….which is a weiner move. Thats it.pure and simple. Stat whores……..nah……just gamers that want some validation of skill and tactics. But you know what….I don’t give a damn…..cause if I did I’d play every nite and build some stats Baby. I’m comfortable with my abilities in this game and don’t need to rank to feel good about myself. I enjoy the banter and fellowship of playing with people that enjoy the game. THE GAME….what its all about.

    To me…..Drawing analogies between this game and the real trials of past soldiers in past battles and wars is simply wrong. Those peolpe hurt…..those people died.

    Oh……since you like history….read about Jefferson’s War. It was our first “War on Terror”. The United States Navy and Marines of the USS Philadelphia engaged,ran aground and surrendered to a murderous Dey on the Barbary Coast. The crew surrendered and were later ransomed by the US . The saga of William Eaton to support a rival brother of the Dey is a fascinating tour of the politics,diplomacy and military of those times. You’ll never look on Thomas Jefferson in the same way again.I promise.

    With this post…….I’m done commenting on the tactic of resigning. I vow that I will hammer the resigners whenever and wherever I find them.
    May the best man win. 😈



    It was a good read, in order of importance, here are my replies.
    The ultimate goal here is to essentially shush the resigners who openly mock the rest of us who take our punishment like men. (I use the word mock – and man – very loosly, dont get your pink panty in a wad)

    thievery? no, the new word for resigning will now be called ‘hobbery’

    Chopper has already explained what i feel is the most important part of my reply. This is a game, and you are taking it a bit too seriously. My meantion of the Marines and warriors and real military combat was a tongue in cheek mockery of resigning.

    Resigning as it exists in this game is nothing like real warfare where there are real consequences from resigning.. rape, death, land. Yes, sometimes you really do fight to last man in war. and YES, as I aluded, the British (I am well aware of American History) were fools to march in the open, but they faught by a code, they were men. The Americans protected their homes, the British faught for the honor of the Empire.

    (Think of the benefits if the code was upheld that dictated armies marched in plain sight?…. mandating, uniformed soldiers? That would be like……. banning terrorism!! 😯 )

    * History lesson
    The Marines never give the order to retreat. The order is called “Issue in doubt”. It means that completing the mission is in all likelyhood, impossible, and total loss is imminent. The order has only been given two times.

    and with that, I certainly hope I am done with this topic as well, good day.

    i did edit for grammar and verbage a little bit later…



    Forgot to mention……Jefferson’s war was where “The shores of Tripoli” came from in the Marine Hymn. Really, its a fascinating read…..especially how our fledgling State department handled things.



    Well it seems to me that we have heard the best arguments from both sides on this issue, from men with very few words to say 🙄 love ya guys.
    But, it seems now we must come up with a solution, is there an agreeable middlepoint that can be reached? or…….
    Is there an official vote?
    What happens now?
    Personally, I dont mind throwing a couple of resigns every so often to keep people on thier toes, or even to speed up a game, I can remember myself gettin really ticked off when I first started and it happened to me, but I got over it, learned to deal with it, even do it myself a little now.

    I suggest putting a limit of 1 resign per player for each game played, that way, you can pay that player back before the end of the game for doing it to you, yet it cant be used to the point where the same player resigns every other round and ruins it for everyone else, if anyone has a better idea in under 6 million words or less, please share 😉

    I dont think it should be completely removed< MO

    P.S.check out my new video 🙄 <—Shameless plug



    Oh yea, sorry Jinx but Hobbes will always be the resigning champ, he was throwing out resigns while you were still in diapers!!!! jk



    @direwolf wrote:

    But, it seems now we must come up with a solution, is there an agreeable middlepoint that can be reached? or…….
    Is there an official vote?
    What happens now?

    check here for that, IMO the coolest idea is to add a server option for losing interest if you resign.



    Actually, I wasn’t done arguing yet. I had a whole spiel worked out focusing entirely on honor, and recent replies gave me enough to spend a whole ‘nother post on rebuttal. I do wish to say that neither I nor any others in the pro-resign camp started the allegories between Scorched and real war. The anti-resigners have repeatedly done so, and I believe I am the first pro-resigner to answer in kind.

    But, meh, whatever. It’s probaly for the best, as I am ready to seriously piss off some people around here.

    As for what now, resigning has already been nerfed once. There is no further need to nerf it further. If any change is to be made, it should be to implement hobbes’ Random Retreat function, which allows the resigner a chance to withdraw before the shots trake effect, a partial restoration of how resigning was originally implemented.



    @ebonite² wrote:

    But, meh, whatever. It’s probaly for the best, as I am ready to seriously piss off some people around here.

    As for what now, resigning has already been nerfed once. There is no further need to nerf it further. If any change is to be made, it should be to implement hobbes’ Random Retreat function, which allows the resigner a chance to withdraw before the shots trake effect, a partial restoration of how resigning was originally implemented.

    Thats why I suggested only 1 resign per player, it is and has been a part of the game, and should stay, and yes I agree on restoring the resign before the shot option, but with only 1 resign per player, the resign function cannot and will not be over used, that is why were here right? and been here many times in the past, because people are tired of others resigning constantly, I agree it can be very annoying, but I dont think it should be removed.

    This game is not real war and should NOT be compared to real war, just because there is no resign option in real War does not mean it should be removed from the game, thinking like that leads to people coming up with ideas like what Spyrer posted about, War games not being allowed in Germany!!!! This is a game and NOT real war, lets keep it that way!!!

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 67 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.