Debauchery...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THX1912

Debauchery didn't need another win. The current leader in rankings has 5.35 points. Debauchery had 7ww and a 102% ratio. They were far above the next leader.

---

After all, our goal for the age was to accumulate 10 wars in total. The fact that we've won all of them has just been a bonus.

They might not have "needed" another win to take the crown, but according to their ages goals they did "need" another war/win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pmyraje

Well ok, when the other ~300 kingdoms all confirm the same while keeping a straight face and hastily hiding their IRC logs then I'll be astonished. I didn't mean I'll be astonished if one kingdom can popup and say all their wins were from wars without any terms.

---

You seem to be misunderstanding one huge thing. Having terms for a war is acceptable. There are merely some terms that abuse the mechanic of a war and the built in benefits of winning a war.

There used to be a time when administration did not have a hand in in-game politics and the community handled things like this. Community handling things is why Steel said that Debauchery/Strippers wont finish the age with any princes. They will all be killed off. As of right now, with EoWCF and war win benefits, there is a need to monitor these kinds of things. So just don't enter a war with the "understanding" that war would be "mutually beneficial" or with any kind of agreement that prevents the use of war mechanics, such as preventing specific ops, agreeing to not allow chaining, agreeing to not hit certain provinces. These kinds of arrangements can be made for a hostile, where you are still in the open and at risk, and not under the protection of war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverfox

After all, our goal for the age was to accumulate 10 wars in total. The fact that we've won all of them has just been a bonus.

They might not have "needed" another win to take the crown, but according to their ages goals they did "need" another war/win.

---

If you want to see it that way. I don't consider personal goals as a need. Simply a desire, which is different. You need food and water. You desire that those be tasty, but they don't have to be. But then I guess you'll tell me they didn't need the ww crown...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THX1912

If you want to see it that way. I don't consider personal goals as a need. Simply a desire, which is different. You need food and water. You desire that those be tasty, but they don't have to be. But then I guess you'll tell me they didn't need the ww crown...

---

Well if you see it from an academic point of view, those can be needs as well ;)

sinces theres many different kind of needs.. dont wanna dwell into Human Motivation Theory n shiet, but yes those can be classified as needs.. as an achievement or personal ego or whatever else

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THX1912

If you want to see it that way. I don't consider personal goals as a need. Simply a desire, which is different. You need food and water. You desire that those be tasty, but they don't have to be. But then I guess you'll tell me they didn't need the ww crown...

---

That's just semantics, monarch clearly said "our goal" which indicates it being a KD wide thing, doesn't matter if it was or wasn't however as it was sillyrabbit who was setting terms and got banned for it.

Think it's rather clear that Debauchery wanted to get as many wars as they could and saw this as a way to get another one against a weak KD so engineered a bunch of terms to sway the other KD into thinking they wouldn't lose too much.

Once you start telling KDs that you won't damage certain provs too much or start getting people to surrender long before min-time then it should be very obvious that you're not waring in the way the game is supposed to be played.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pmyraje

It was an arranged war. If it was a fake war then I guess that is the new definition of fake. Congrats to all those whose "arranged wars" were "worked out" entirely in 3rd party channels instead.

---

It was an arranged fake war, stop being obtuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bishop

It was an arranged fake war, stop being obtuse.

---

isnt that acute vocabulary :P

seriously, who is naive enough to believe in 8/8 'honest' wars - specifically when its strippers? they are pretty known for their dirty play already, and for me - theyre just living to their rightfully deserved reputation..

I support this decision. Its good to see action taken against this type of gameplay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by majigga

we also knew that we needed a war as we couldnt just sit in fort the rest of the age.

---

With your Prov numbers and record I think you could have got plenty of other KDs to war that you had a chance to beat.

I find it funny that in this warring game you can steal and you can kill but negotiating war terms where you are still killing and stealing is bannable.

I remember when top kds would 'fake war' and escape enemies by jumping into a war with an ally with no attacks/ops and that was considered a fake war. Some one pointed out the last kd to receive this kind of punishment had a player defect from their kd and the defected player would continuously attack his former kd to insinuate wars... again that sounds like a good definition of a fake war. These are good definitions of a fake war because it is based on actions not talk. Sweet talking an enemy into war is impossible to moniter fully because it can happen behind closed doors. From the way the war went it seemed to Debauchery inflicted alot of pain on Psychosis-- Out Max gaining them for 24 hours to secure the win then switching to learn attacks all while ops were being exchanged. From the honor charts Psychosis even took quite a bit of honor of Debauchery. From my eyes it looks like a legit war.. Debauchery being punished for being nice to Psychosis is a little silly isnt it. If I were a newbie to this game (like many think;p) and saw in the rules 'Fake Wars' are not allowed I doubt I would consider the Debauchery vs Psychosis a 'fake war'.

I did notice in the ED thread Bishop seemed like he had a personal dislike for Debauchery. Did this influence is decision? Not sure.. what I do think is fair is that the utopian community should be able to see which province Bishop is playing so we know he isn't being biased.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alazne

I am feeling very strange about all this. On the one hand, I am glad it happened, on the other I am sorry for Debauchery, because it looks to me that you were a truly good warring kingdom (could beat very good kds) but were silly enough to make too many mistakes thinking "everybody does this" (this is what I understand reading pmyraje), and while too many eyes were set on you.

Have you read my thread "ww and honor in good state now"? I don't know of your kingdom, but some of the kingdoms you beat have beaten mine and I've considered them very clean kingdoms. Well, do you know what a coincidence? When I was writing that thread, it seems that your kingdom from inside a war was stealing lots of gold from my kingdom in eowcf. I didn't know because after being stolen 300,000 gold I told him that I had read some people steal, he was still confident that could not happen (yes, some people are not thinking others will play dirty), and maybe that's why he didn't want me to know when he got stolen LOTS of gold.

I mean, I could be delusional thinking war kingdoms play clean, but perhaps in the end it was you who were delusional thinking they play dirty and that's the way to do things and that took you to your last little mistake (that's what it looks to me).

I don't know Bob.




More clear: my kingdom has always be defenseless in eowcf trusting others will respect their time to recover, and it has to be YOUR KINGDOM, the hero of war wins, that spoils that idea from them and steal millions. Nobody else had done it before. This is to make you see that not everybody plays dirty.

---

LOL FS STOLE 4Million gc during my EOWCF so there are always kd doing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tr3ndy

I find it funny that in this warring game you can steal and you can kill but negotiating war terms where you are still killing and stealing is bannable.

I remember when top kds would 'fake war' and escape enemies by jumping into a war with an ally with no attacks/ops and that was considered a fake war. Some one pointed out the last kd to receive this kind of punishment had a player defect from their kd and the defected player would continuously attack his former kd to insinuate wars... again that sounds like a good definition of a fake war. These are good definitions of a fake war because it is based on actions not talk. Sweet talking an enemy into war is impossible to moniter fully because it can happen behind closed doors. From the way the war went it seemed to Debauchery inflicted alot of pain on Psychosis-- Out Max gaining them for 24 hours to secure the win then switching to learn attacks all while ops were being exchanged. From the honor charts Psychosis even took quite a bit of honor of Debauchery. From my eyes it looks like a legit war.. Debauchery being punished for being nice to Psychosis is a little silly isnt it. If I were a newbie to this game (like many think;p) and saw in the rules 'Fake Wars' are not allowed I doubt I would consider the Debauchery vs Psychosis a 'fake war'.

I did notice in the ED thread Bishop seemed like he had a personal dislike for Debauchery. Did this influence is decision? Not sure.. what I do think is fair is that the utopian community should be able to see which province Bishop is playing so we know he isn't being biased.

---

Bishop doesn't play in ED.

One could also say that this definition of a fake war verifies the actions on top of the talk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THX1912

It's not being dirty, it's being intelligent. The eowcf prot is meant to add a layer of protection to compensate for your loss of defences during a war. It is not meant to be a defence on it's own. It's meant to make what little defence you have left enough to protect you until you can rebuild yourself. It's like a bunker, if you like. An empty bunker will do you no good, but put 10 men in there and they'll defend as if they were 100. And no one would call it dirty if an army decided to attack where the bunkers are empty.
However, utopians have started to rely on this eowcf to protect themselves and they let their defenses down as long as possible, using it to pump as much cash as they can. The eowcf is not supposed to be a pumping period, it's supposed to be a rebuilding period. That's why science is blocked at active, and there is no Paradice allowed.

I once stole 4 mil from a guy who had stacked 11mil, on a single 100% stealth run. I had to send all 13k thieves I owned on each op to manage that. Do you know how much thieves you lose when you fail an op and you sent 13k? A lot! And yet, on that stealth run, I lost about 500 thieves. Guess how many times I failed... (considering that with the penalities for stealing out of my own war and into someone else's my 25mod TPA metled to about 1.5-2 mod TPA).This person later claimed they had not yet had time to recruit and train enough thieves. Someone that has a strong enough econ to generate 11mil by the time they can draft and train 2TPA (shouldn't take much more than 24-36 hours in eowcf) should not be concerned about losing 4mil. Which leads me to think that he was rather about to train and their eowcf was about to end, and he had just been sitting on an empty prov to pump as much cash as he could.

Now, show me any other "non-dirty" way I could use my thieves and stealth to get 4mil and I'll give up on robbing in eowcfs. Show me who is foolish enough to sit on 11mil gc when out of war. Right now, the way people regard the eowcf protection bonuses, this is simply the most efficient thing to do, until people start using the bonuses to rebuild, like they should.

---

and i think i know who it is now LOL

If someone doesn't respect your war stance, don't respect theirs. RK their chained players next time you see them in war.