Pooplord here and I am willing to have a productive discussion about this…
The ban occurred while nor oasis nor Budapest where in the map pool. So i am not convinced it is because of this strategy. It might be a very unconventional way to win but seeing beyond the boundaries of food, wood, gold and stone as resources and seeing time as a resources is also a strategy. This game was won in the end btw.
This game was played after “the 168 hour ban” thus it is not ban evasion as the ban was already over.
If the devs reach out to me and ask me not to do this strategy anymore I wont… Or if they tell me the reason for the multiplayer suspension is making cannon galleons on oasis. Personally I think this is silly as I am working within the convinces of the game. Budapest is also just flat out won if gotten to this stage so this certainly can not be called grieving in my opinion. Some people have a closed map and an open map account… Now I have an Oasis and non Oasis account. in a way its to find out if it is the strategy that is getting me multiplayer suspensions or not.
trying sub optimal strategies is not grieving in my opinion. I like trying odd and interesting things even if it is sub optimal allow strategies to grow into more defined strategies. It similar to an archer player trying to open scouts. If I played my strongest strat every time I would Berber vill rush every time on ranked ladder however I dont find that particularly fun. I am not throwing games just trying other things.
I think as a community we need to determine what grieving is and what is not. Is laming grieving in a 1 vs 1? in technical terms it is but even pro players do it. In addition even pro players make ships from time to time on oasis. I remember seeing Mr. Yo do it in a game.
As for me being a toxic person… I think its easy to put everything I do / say under a microscope. I am very passionate about the game and sometimes say things in the heat of the moment but only about the game itself. I never attack people personally.
Regardless dont let your memes be dreams and keep walking.
I am not agianst strategies that just need tons of times. For example playing defensive with Feitorias, which generate enough ressources, that you can defeat the opponent after serveral hours. But time is ressource outside of the game, so if you cant defeat the opponent anymore, and it is only about who dcs first, its annoying because the game is decided by factors outside of the game like who has to do something else first.
Compare it too chess: If both sides have only a king left than the game ends automatically in a draw immediately. In theory both sides could still move their kings, without threatening the other side until someone resigns to get out of this nonsense. Instead the rules end the game immediatly. AoE2 does not have this draw mechanic, but we should not try to abuse this.
So if you would protect a Feitoria and a villager with your ships it would be something different for me than if you protect nothing with it. Because in the first case you would be the favortite to win after like 10 hours, in the second case you can only win if the opponents leave because they have to do something else.
But overall you do extrem strategies, which we would not see otherwise. And this has a value imo. Its like AoE2 science. And you should not be banned imo. But be nice in chat and don’t smurf too hard pls.
This thread is about banning poop lord. He obviously has the right to say something about this.
And his comment is useful for a discussion. He says that he sees time is a ressource like wood. I think this is a bit bad mannered and results in bullshit games (like chess games with insufficient material). But it could be a good discussion. Why just talk about him when you can talk with him?
Honestly if an obnoxious cheese strategy is possible in the game then it is up to the devs to change the game so it’s no longer possible. Players have the right to try to win by any means possible within the rules of the game.
This problem would be solved instantly by just making Standard the, you know, standard, instead of Conquest. If turtling Wonder play is too strong, then make a setting with only Conquest + Relic victory, or make an 1 hour time delay before Wonders are buildable.
We have bombard cannons, villagers and monks inside the transport ship and we win by taking back land. Here is a 27 hour cannon galleon rush in which we take back land. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZKedxHlQsk&ab_channel=PoopLord to me it seems like you are quick to judge without fully understanding the strategy.
You say I am not nice in chat and that I am smurfing but what do you base this on. I play every single game to the fullest. Just because a strat doesnt fit your definition of optimal does not make it smurfing… I wonder if you had a pro analyzed my game play what Elo they would define me as.
We have bombard cannons, villagers and monks inside the transport ship and we win by taking back land. Here is a 27 hour cannon galleon rush in which we take back land. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZKedxHlQsk&ab_channel=PoopLord to me it seems like you are quick to judge without fully understanding the strategy.
I just accepted what others wrote about it, but apparently it was wrong. If you can win normally its ok imo. I kinda like to watch such crazy strategies. But it also wouldnt be good if more players would use such strategies.
You say I am not nice in chat and that I am smurfing but what do you base this on.
In you video with the 8 pop scout rush: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogJuctz0icA&ab_channel=PoopLord you say “I have 7 vils” after the opponents resigns. This basically has the effect that the opponent feels like an idiot after resigning. And that is not nice. Then someone said you say “gg easy”, I don’t know if that is true, maybe such statements by others can not be trusted. But I also said earlier in this thread that I don’t know enough about what you write in game.
The information about smurfing comes from the first post of this thread.
I’ve kept out of this intentionally but this whole post is ridiculous. The ban itself was ridiculous having seen the game that resulted in the ban. Lots of people are throwing around accusations of smurfing, ban evasion etc. people are just jumping on what someone else has said without ever watching more than 10 mins or pooplords content or spoken with him.
Smurfing: i have NEVER seen pooplord smurfing. He has alt accounts, yes, but so do a lot of people, myself included (which i used to test new builds whilst protecting my main’s elo. Ironically this is higher elo than my main). In team games, he plays with lower skilled friends and as such, his team game elo is lower. I play with friends who are 400 elo lower than me in 1v1. (Me 1500, him 1100. We often get matched against players who are much better than my friend and it often ends in a 2v1 which we then lose and my team game elo lowers.
Ban evasion: pooplord did not play mulitplayer on an alt whilst the ban was active and was very open and honest on his stream/videos about this and taking the ban on the chin. He did play games vs AI.
Griefing: strats that put the opponent in an unwinnable situation. People are pointing out that time is a resource. Yes it is. If you run out of time, resign. No one is forcing ANY player to carry on playing. Maybe don’t take 15 elo so seriously. Non-meta strats are not a bannable offense. Personally, i DO NOT like the cannon galleon strats and do consider it BM, in the same way as i consider laming to be BM. “BuT iT’s In ThE GaMe So Is A vIaBLe StRaT”
The ONLY thing i can criticise Pooplord for is the in game interactions at times. Sometimes he’s a little chatty at the start of the game in the same way as the “i meant to pick magyard” guy is. And that’s totally fine. He does however provoke/antagonise people during the oasis strat however this is usually once people start getting salty and abusive towards him and his response is usually something very tame like “EZ”. The provoking of people whilst doing a BM strat is what i do not condone. However, he isn’t “toxic”. I’ve never seen him say anything in the game anywhere near as toxic as the crap that’s being said about him here or on reddit. Calling him a c***, a-hole etc. (by well known people and tournament admins/hosts within the community as well who should really show a little more decorum and set an example). there are a lot of people in game that i encounter who are a million times more toxic - telling people to die, get cancer etc. those wishing death and cancer are the people who should be banned.
On a personal note, i have a good relationship with Pooplord. He’s genuinely a nice person to speak to, never says a nasty word about anyone (despite the vile things thrown at him here). He’s just a bit of a clown and wants to enjoy the game in the silly way he wants to play.
I think the hope here is that if the community collectively decides they don’t like this type of gameplay, then the devs should be responsive to that and make balance changes to accommodate. But at least for now the devs allow this type of gameplay, so to me it seems like fair play.
In you video with the 8 pop scout rush: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogJuctz0icA&ab_channel=PoopLord you say “I have 7 vils” after the opponents resigns. This basically has the effect that the opponent feels like an idiot after resigning. And that is not nice. Then someone said you say “gg easy”, I don’t know if that is true, maybe such statements by others can not be trusted. But I also said earlier in this thread that I don’t know enough about what you write in game.
I don’t think it’s BM to say “I have 7 vills.” It’s like saying “That was tough” or “I lost a vill to a boar earlier;” it’s just friendly in-game chat. It’s possible that the opponent may not like that he says that, but the statement is itself not rude or disrespectful, nor is it so in context, so in my view any negative feelings from the opponent are the sole responsibility of said opponent. Pooplord doesn’t have control over how the opponent chooses to respond or feel in response to his chats, so it doesn’t make sense to put the responsibility on Pooplord unless Pooplord is making statements which can reasonably be considered to be disrespectful by itself or in context. You say the opponent feels like an idiot after resigning, but I’ve seen plenty of instances where the opponent responses with good-humored incredulity.
That said, Pooplord does sometimes say “GG EZ,” which IMO is kind of rude, so I think he shouldn’t do that. But even so, I think it is quite a far cry from the “toxic” image that some try to project onto him. If you read some of these comments about him, it’s as if they are describing somebody going around swearing at players, saying mean things about their moms, or making death threats. Instead, the “toxic chat” is actually just him sometimes saying “GG EZ.”
Its like saying “You resigned for no reason, I tricked you.” An opponent is maybe tilted and resignes, an than he gets tilted even more, because resigning was unneccessary. I am just saying that it is not nice. This doesn’t mean it is toxic, just not nice.
If you watch the video you hear pooplord also say “Personally I just find this strategy profoundly fun, there is something so tilting about losing to this”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogJuctz0icA&t=469s&ab_channel=PoopLord I conclude that it is fun for pooplord to tilt his opponents. This is not forbidden, but its a bit different from my attitude. I think it is more healthy if it is about winning and if a winning startegy tilts opponents, so be it, but giving extra value for the tilt factor, is at the end one reason why such opponents want him to be banned. Again, I am against banning him. But saying something like “I have 7 vils”, has imo the purpose to tilt the opponent even more because this is fun for pooplord, and this is maybe a bit unneccessary.
I’ve been keeping out of this, as well “not my circus, not my monkeys”. But I feel like quite a bit of the friction seems to be coming from what each person thinks is “fair”.
I play in quite a few other games, and notice that what people think is and is not acceptable can vary wildly, especially in different countries or in different player circles.
So perhaps people need to chill a bit.
I’m not sure what pooplord did to get the ban, but if 27 hour long games are not against the rules, then people have legitimacy to say that that shouldn’t be ban worthy.
But on the other hand, people need to remember that there are a lot of different players out there, and taunting or tilting people is seen as much more of a red line. Because in the end, this is a two player game, and if your aim is to stop the other person from having fun, then you might need to stop and think about a bit of empathy.
Yes, because it’s essentially a prank. 8-pop scouts is a bluff strat that relies on making the opponent think they are farther behind than they actually are. There are other strats like this (e.g., super-fast Feudal bluff, no eco vill rush). I don’t think it’s unreasonable to conclude a harmless prank by revealing the prank, but it’s up to the opponent to decide whether their response will be “oh haha, you got me,” or " #### you!" or something in-between.
I do think it’s important to put this type of thing into context though. Can these strategies be tilting? Yes, but stressing out your opponent to reduce their performance is a part of the game. People do this all the time with things like sprinkling in Eagles or Woad Warriors into the opponent eco to divide their attention or getting a single massive kill with mangos or demo ships. These are sometimes called “table-flipper moments” where the cumulative stress of the moment can push an opponent to resign even if their situation is recoverable. I don’t think there’s anything wrong in playing for these moments and strategizing about them, since it’s a multiplayer game, so you are playing the players as much as you are playing the game. Valuing the “title factor” seems no different to me than valuing something like power-spikes from age up or a civ’s snowball potential. For someone who theorycrafts and invents new strats, I think it is perfectly reasonable to find it “profoundly fun” to see the strategy you created work.
But also, it would be cool if we could just let this thread sink. I don’t see any benefit to further conversation here, but it seems like the rash that nobody can stop scratching. We just had a new DLC - new civs, new campaigns…plenty of more interesting things to talk about. We’re down bad if this type of thread continues to be at the top of the forum.
Too many people did it more or less, nobody can punish all smurfers.
Multiple account is allowed and no rules says only 1 account per IP.
This is not grief if putting your opponent in an unwinnable situation is not your primary purpose, but it is against the spirit of gaming if you are not planning to win before the game start. Some strategies are called grief because they were designed to waste time instead of winning. The game will never end if both players have unlimited time.
From reading his name, do you think he is a mentally healthy person ?
I think adding wonder victory would be a good change for ranked games, with the caveat that Relic victory would need to be separated out (as it isn’t very balanced - too easy to put all the relics in a safe place in castle age, and then your opponent has to push while you have extra gold income - and this is before some civs hit their strong point). Wonders are rather expensive, take a long time to build, and come with warnings to your opponent. From gameplay in AoE4, we can observe that wonders are easier to make in team games, and AoE2 does have longer wonder timers on larger map sizes. That should mitigate the fact that wonders are easier to build in a team game (though wonder victory would likely remain easier in team games anyways).
Putting your opponent in an unwinnable situation is akin to winning.
The opponents could have won with a little extra patience, and trade.
All strategies are ok, may the best man win.
If the developers don’t like this type of gameplay, they can change the game, (Changing the effectiveness of the Spanish tech [which is just a float for cannon ball speed modifier], which already exists, will take 5 mins to change for the programmer)
I.E. When stacking step-lacers was too OP, they just nerfed step-lacers.
OR when Tatars could do 13min 3TC boom, because of their extra Feudal sheep, they changed it to only give sheep after castle age.
I also think all strategies should be okay, and I believe one team will win the game eventually no matter what, however, doing it alone and doing it with a premade team are totally different. One player grief is not hard to deal with , but all 4 players play grief are cancer,. Especially when a premade team vs 4 solo players you cannot expect all 4 solo players will stay in game and find the solution. This is not fair at least, people got enough reason to be mad.
Another thing is that there is a great chance to get reported if somebody dodge them.