Printable View
At the very least we all now know that doing something such as this in war will ultimately get you deleted. I don't necessarily agree however it is now irrelevant as the game developers have made a decision, one that I anticipate they will stick with regardless of this thread and/or any support it has in the forums.
Tough luck Ryan, best of luck in the future mate.
Bishop, while I can understand how you came to the conclusion that this was a fake war, I cannot come to terms with the decision to delete him. He wasn't aware what he was doing was wrong, most of us have a pretty good idea what constitutes a FW and none of us would have listed this scenario. Had someone asked you to define as many types of FWs as you could, you would not have listed a 2 prov NAP in war. If it is the final decision of the devs that this will not be allowed, then you really needed to ease up on the trigger finger and find a better way to handle it. As jdorje said, this has been accepted practice for a long time, and has never been mentioned as being against the rules, specifically when FWing was outlawed. Anything beyond a suspension for this ticky-tack situation was ridiculous. Ruining 3 months of work over a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of an unclear area of a rule is really not how it should have been handled.
The first infraction was always going to be seen by the community as harsh. Sometimes tough decisions need to be made.
+1 in that regard, sets a precedence I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
What a load of crap. If it was someone trying to get away with a standard and accepted FW then yes, harsh is right. That doesn't fly here, because most people would not call this a fake war, and nobody involved was intentionally fake warring. I don't even like calling it a FW still, because it wasn't. The devs decided on the fly that this was a FW, you should have known this was an unusual scenario and used it as an opportunity to educate the players on the rules and how you guys see it, but deleting him was over the top and uncalled for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
I don't see anything unusual about it. It was remarkably easy to reach a decision on.
Based on the information I have, the bank province used to nap to grow without outside interference.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
I think Bishop has a point when he says the first punishment always seems harsh. I've seen this effect in real life too.
And let's not forget that cheaters will shout just as hard how innocent they are. The same happened when Sinners got deleted.
This thread suggests otherwise. If the most experienced and oldest players, who would NEVER risk a #2 prov to deletion over a FW, don't understand it, then you are delusional to make that comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
Cow NAPs in war have never been called a FW, and Bishop knows that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Landro
I don't believe that current leaders think it is allowed to create fake war to farm to number 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
"Cow NAPs in war have never been called a FW, and Bishop knows that. "
This isnt the case here.
That's exactly the case here. Even if it's a 2 day cow NAP, it's still a cow NAP. The war was not fake, stop saying it was. All cows farm in wars, the only difference here is that the other kingdom had a cow and they didn't trade hits. You've delved into a diplomatic area the devs have no business in IMO. Regardless, you took this stance and that's fine, but deleting was the wrong move. I don't care what bogus justification you come up with, it was the wrong move.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
And if the 2 of them had tried farming to #1-2 together buy staying in that war, I don't doubt the server would have policed it, as they do most shady diplo stuff.
2 big guys deciding to war to feed of eachothers kd = free acres...
and this people actually defend....
also, majority of the utopian community will not suffer from this, majority of playerbase will keep on playing and not be affected at all,
i do however hope that both those kds players finds some structure and keeps playing,....
Let's clear this out now, is it a fake war when 2 people make a personal NAP over a war, while rest of the both kingdoms war it out normally? (not even knowing about such a NAP)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
I ask this because this indeed was just a personal NAP between those 2, and we little guys did get a fair war because of that deal. (At least our king Astrael did the deal as it was only way to get us a war.. I really suggest mods to go read our kingdom chat and then decide if it was a correct thing to do)
If NAPs like that are illegal, then I can understand them getting punished.. thought deletion is still way too harsh for it, tbh.
I certainly get the first point about free acres, that indeed ain't that fair. But why so strict punishment, when lesser course of action would have served just as well AND kept people happy.Quote:
Originally Posted by K9orange
When it comes to Astrael, shouldn't it be taken to consideration that he only took the deal to get his kingdom a war, war that was SUPER Hard to get. To me this feels same as if an poor police officer takes a bribe money only so that his 15 child family would get food on the table. And then he was sentenced to death for it, instead of getting fired or a warning :D
I get the impression that Bishop deleted the province because he was abusing war to grow in safety. It's easy to argue that this is in violation of the spirit of the rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaine