Should destroying a tablet/powerup with an ally nearby be reportable?

[Jezu]

Now, the above is not considered a reportable offense. May I ask the reasoning for this one?

Say, I'm playing mid and have an empty bottle, and run towards the rune, and my teammate sprints in and quickly destroys the rune, isn't it in most cases intentionally malicious, and can have a big effect on the outcome of the game?

I've had this happen a few times, and sometimes the person griefed in a way that was reportable as well, sometimes he just kept destroying the tablets to hurt his teammate(s). In both scenarios, I feel the person should be punished, or at least warned.

(This would obviously only apply for the destruction of tablets that the enemy team had no chance of getting)

[[S2]MacroHard]

This is actually a current hot issue among the SGM team. There are several people on both sides of the debate. For now destroying a tablet is not against the rules.

Some arguments for including this with "item destruction":

• Tablets do give valuable buffs and are useful for the team
• Malicious acts to intentionally damage your team's effectiveness should be against the rules

Some arguments against including this as a suspendable action:

• Tablets are not earned and therefore have no ownership or entitlement
• Tablets respawn every two minutes and the bonus lasts for a minute or less (so the impact is generally minimal)

We're currently on the fence. Voice your opinions and tip us over to your side!

[Jezu]

I would say the impact is not generally minimal, especially during the early game, as a single tablet/rune can determine who comes out victorious in a lane.

But as MacroHard said, voice your opinions people!

[[GM]tiGa]

i think that if your ally is running towards a rune, emptying his bottle and saying that he's coming to get the rune and you chose to destroy said rune, it should be reportable. any other circumstance should be allowed (ex: regen rune spawns but no one needs it so you kill it)

but what if this were the situation : you have an oph on your team and you guys are in the enemy jungle. you chose to clear a creep camp that has a mino in it (that oph wants). by killing the neutral camp (that was available to everyone and could have benefited the enemy) instead of letting the oph control the mino (which would have benefited your team), are you griefing?


Some arguments for including this with "item destruction":

• Creeps do give valuable gold and are useful for the team
• Malicious acts to intentionally damage your team's effectiveness should be against the rules

Some arguments against including this as a suspendable action:

• Neutral creeps are not earned and therefore have no ownership or entitlement
• Creeps respawn every minute and the bonus gold is comparable to a creepwave (so the impact is generally minimal)

what about that!

[[S2]MacroHard]

^ this is an interesting analogy.

Killing the minotaur is not griefing. Creeps are a first-come-first-serve basis, and killing the minotaur helps the player who killed it by granting gold and experience. Yes, it would have been more optimal for Ophelia to use it. Fortunately we don't suspend for being selfish (inb4 building level 5 codex = ban).

In contrast, with the case of rune destruction, killing it has zero benefit.

[Jezu]

In contrast, with the case of rune destruction, killing it has zero benefit.

I was about to say this when I was reading half-way through.

But as said, the Minotaur grants benefits to the both of you, the killer and the Ophelia, and regardless of which one is more beneficial, making bad decisions is normal and totally allowed. Destroying the rune however adds no benefit to either one of you, while picking it up would. And well, why would you destroy a rune instead of picking it up if an enemy is not able to get it anyways unless you are griefing. (With the only exception of regeneration rune at max hp/mana, but even so, at least as a melee hero it's faster to just pick it up.)

Slightly off-topic, how about if an ally of yours starts to hunt down your creeps when you're Ophelia, and denies them as soon as they drop below 50% hp even though you tell him not to?

[stacks]

Here is my simple opinion:

When not to ban:
- The player only does it once/twice, maybe three

When to ban:
- The player consistently destroys the rune and it is clear that the intention is to grief another player.

The whole point of banning a player from the game, in my opinion, should be huge acts to intentionally destroy other's experiences. Destroying it once or twice, maybe even three times is not that big of a deal. If the player is intentionally destroying the item throughout the game then that is a different story.

Blizzard got it right on banning. The only things they will really ban a player for are if the player obtains an unfair advantage, sharing accounts, or using exploits/hacking. I feel like getting banned in this game is way too easy and probably is the easiest game to get banned on, so please be careful on this one.

[[S2]MacroHard]

When not to ban:
- The player only does it once/twice, maybe three

When to ban:
- The player consistently destroys the rune and it is clear that the intention is to grief another player.

This is actually pretty close to the current policy. I didn't want to mention it before because I didn't want people to destroy a tablet only twice as a form of loophole.

[Donquavius]

http://forums.heroesofnewerth.com/sh...guilty-verdict

I made a thread about this a bit ago. Good guys finish last. Typical RAP.

[[S2]MacroHard]

http://forums.heroesofnewerth.com/sh...guilty-verdict

I made a thread about this a bit ago. Good guys finish last. Typical RAP.

Your thread is precisely why the SGM team is currently debating the policy.

[[RKS]DemonRyou]

All runes can be helpful late game.

• Double Damage makes your carry do 400+ damage
• Haste lets your carry move around the battlefield
• Illusion if used with a Geometer's Bane can quickly kill creeps and buildings
• Invisibility can let your carry get behind the fight and take out squishies
• Regeneration lets anyone go in, use spells and take damage and assuming they get out alive, use regen and come back in.

If you told the person that destroyed the rune you are going to get it and there are no nearby enemies coming to take/destroy the runes for themselves and then they still destroy it, it should be bannable.

Any situation where the intent to destroy was done with good intention, such as not letting the enemy team take it should not be bannable.

Conclusion: It should be bannable to an extent and we should rely on the GMs to know when it is appropriate to ban or not.

[[Imag]Biffo]

When not to ban:
- The player only does it once/twice, maybe three

hhmmm, I don't agree. I agree more with this:

If you told the person that destroyed the rune you are going to get it and there are no nearby enemies coming to take/destroy the runes for themselves and then they still destroy it, it should be bannable.

Any situation where the intent to destroy was done with good intention, such as not letting the enemy team take it should not be bannable.

Conclusion: It should be bannable to an extent and we should rely on the GMs to know when it is appropriate to ban or not.

we have to consider that there is no reason at all, to destroy a rune, unless an enemy is coming to take it. If you want to troll someone on your team you can take the rune instead of leaving it to him. Destroying a rune is pure trolling. You're destroying an object so you teammates and even you can't get a game advantage. I don't even think it's necessary to discuss whether a rune is a game changer or not, because that's not the point. If there is no reason to destroy a rune, and you do it, you're just trolling and you deserve a ban.

We have to consider, moreover, that maybe our team player has emptied his bottle in order to get the rune... so, not only he can't take the rune, but he has also wasted charges on his bottle. You can lose mid for things like that.

[stacks]

hhmmm, I don't agree. I agree more with this:

we have to consider that there is no reason at all, to destroy a rune, unless an enemy is coming to take it. If you want to troll someone on your team you can take the rune instead of leaving it to him. Destroying a rune is pure trolling. You're destroying an object so you teammates and even you can't get a game advantage. I don't even think it's necessary to discuss whether a rune is a game changer or not, because that's not the point. If there is no reason to destroy a rune, and you do it, you're just trolling and you deserve a ban.

We have to consider, moreover, that maybe our team player has emptied his bottle in order to get the rune... so, not only he can't take the rune, but he has also wasted charges on his bottle. You can lose mid for things like that.

I disagree with the notion that every single trolling action in the game should receive a ban. What about intentionally getting last hits? What about typing crap in game (not enough to get banned)? Should those both get bans? Destroying a rune once or twice is no different.

In my experience, trolling is usually the result of someone getting trolled. Rarely (if ever) do I ever see someone actually just destroy runes for the heck of it.

This is one of the few games where trolling is bannable.

BTW, I actually destroy illusion runes sometimes. This is because I'm too lazy to actually make the illusion rune useful and I don't want the enemy team to get it.