Now why do I recognise your nick...Quote:
Originally Posted by fariz
Printable View
Now why do I recognise your nick...Quote:
Originally Posted by fariz
Oh, how wonderful it would be if cheating was decide just from how people feel! ;D
I'm coining this term .. "ryan'd" .. =) for agreeing to a mutual war in term for the kingdom by the kingdoms
The moral of the story is don't leave a paper trail. Do diplo on irc/msn/etc. At that point, its just "strategy" that you dont choose to chain the biggie.
That, or learn to bait and troll, and make the enemy say things you want like "you guys are unreasonable, EoA War"
erm...^this at all of this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Realest
To my understanding, acting a lone prov against the kd's wishes has not been actionable. If a prov want to make a deal with another prov I don't see the problem. You're just driving people away from using the in-game tools and once again giving irc kds the upperhand as far as backdoor deals go.
You say you want the game to develop and that's good, but how is two cows agreeing to a nap worse than a lone explorer killing off a whole established kd?
Well, Fake wars are against the rules right? It is a fake war for those two provs that napped eachother before entering the war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
We know this is how you do it Realest!Quote:
Originally Posted by Realest
Anyway, Bishop needs to set an example i guess.
Not everything can be policed by the server. (Even if Bishop would like to think so).
Realest "legit" war (policed by server)
Ryan not legit war (deleted by bishop)
lol
All i am saying is that everyone needs to be treated the same way.
If trollfags did not get deleted then Ryan should not have been deleted.
My personal oppinion... ;-)
You honestly cant see the difference between a war that the other kingdom refuse to surrender and fights back still and with a war that two provs decided to nap each other and for them being an actual fakewar?Quote:
All i am saying is that everyone needs to be treated the same way.
If trollfags did not get deleted then Ryan should not have been deleted.
My personal oppinion... ;-)
The cows were still attacking and could still be damaged by the other kingdom afaik, I don't see that as a fake war. The devs are interfering with cow politics and choosing war targets for people. I think this was a bad, bad move.
Nobody could hurt either cow the only threat was the other cow and that was nullified...
From what I saw it was a 2 prov NAP, not a NAP with the entire kingdom. Ops can hurt a cow badly. Regardless, how is it the devs decision that Ryan had to convert for a cow fight rather than play a support role for his kd? It was over the line to delete him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Korp
This sentence doesn't make any sense. Wars don't exist between provs. Are attackers in a fake war with the Orc they let grow?Quote:
Originally Posted by Korp
Yes, it was only a 2 prov NAP, so the biggest threat wasnt a problem they could both farm in peace and not think about what the other cow was doing. It would been simple, no nap no deletion.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
Exactly my point, there was no specific action in this whole scenario that is illegal. The war was real, the devs just didn't like the target choices by the cows, and it is not their place to dictate that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
Okey, let say 24 of your provs has naps with 24 provs in the enemy kingdom, vice versa, so in reality its only two provs that attack each other in war thats okey since there is provinces attacking each other its a war right not a fake war? Extreme example yes, but the point should be obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
I already had this conversation with Bishop. I can also make an extreme example, what if each prov NAPs the other 24 provs, and is only trading hits with one corresponding prov? All 50 provs are attacking the other kingdom. Is that a fake war? Extreme examples solve nothing. There's a reason one prov in vaca is ok, and 10 is not, for example. The bottom line is the devs decided for Ryan he should attack the other cow, that is just plain wrong.
So why shouldnt we allow 10 people go into vacation mode then? Its perfectly reasonable that 10 people could go to vacation at the same time or a whole kd for that matter. Highly unlikely but not impossible but yet its punished. Is it okey to have a war with just two provs attacking each other and then claim its a real war while you in reality are pumping up your other provs? etc.
Obviously not. Nobody in this war was sitting out, everyone was actively participating. This was not a fake war, period.Quote:
Originally Posted by Korp
Okey, everyone sends out one army against one single province whole war, in both kingdoms, lets say raze them all the time, all provinces are attacking but..
Why are you discussing irrelevant, extreme examples?
That isn't what happened. You know exactly what happened. There's two ways of looking at this:
1. grande was working on his own, for his own interest. In this case, Solo play has NEVER been actioned by the devs. If a prov wants to work against his kd, that's his decision.
2. grande was working for his kd and decided that this was the best course of action for the war. In this case, I don't have the slightest idea what the problem is. He had a strategy for coordinating the war and pursued it. How is this ANY different than two kds agreeing they won't send a dragon?
To me it seems like the devs found suspicious behavior, then investigated, found the "let the rest of the kd war and grow freely" agreement, and acted up-on it. Sure the previous everlasting war was wrong as well and it would have been good if that had been ended by some intervention. But two wrongs (not acting in that case and not acting in this case) don't make a right.
And yes, on first sight the whole "I was too big to be attacked so I got deleted" makes this deletion seem beyond ridiculous. But from what i read the deleted prov was deliberately going for the crown while making arrangements with the other kd to not suffer from the war. Isn't that what fake wars are all about?!
+1 for yadda
So any cow in a war where he grows freely should get deleted? I think not. Devs have no business choosing someone's war target.
I saw nothing stating the other kingdoms couldn't damage the cows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yadda9To5
Not the case at all and not the case in this example.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
To see how shallow your opinions are.Quote:
Why are you discussing irrelevant, extreme examples?
We do? You are so naive that you think everything in the forums is everything and thats exactly how it happend? You were born yesterday?Quote:
That isn't what happened. You know exactly what happened. There's two ways of looking at this:
Its him protecting himself from the war and any harm from it thats the problem, that is certainly a fake war within the war.Quote:
1. grande was working on his own, for his own interest. In this case, Solo play has NEVER been actioned by the devs. If a prov wants to work against his kd, that's his decision.
And we wont attack with 24 of our provs in this war is no different from not sending a dragon as well then.Quote:
2. grande was working for his kd and decided that this was the best course of action for the war. In this case, I don't have the slightest idea what the problem is. He had a strategy for coordinating the war and pursued it. How is this ANY different than two kds agreeing they won't send a dragon?
You dont seem to get it, well at least to me it seems that the crucial part in this was the NAP, if there would never existed a NAP there wouldnt been any problem at all.Quote:
So any cow in a war where he grows freely should get deleted? I think not. Devs have no business choosing someone's war target.
Bishop told me they still would have intervened even without the written NAP, but not with immediate deletion. Again, the devs deciding who Ryan can and cannot attack is way out of line.Quote:
Originally Posted by Korp
If I was a bovine player (and this is hypothetical b/c I lack the skill for such a large endeavor), I would go ahead and start asking Dev's for approval prior to initiating deals and such. Could this be a stern example for the benefit of the rest of the Utopian Herd?
The devs are completely free to decide what constitutes a real war and ask players for clarification. Whyever would you have issue with that?Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
Nope, wasn't born yesterday. But I'm only going to discuss with the information I do have. If there's something more that makes my points totally irreverent, that's fine. I have no problem admitting I was wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Korp
The NAP was only between him and the other cow. There were others who could still harm him. He could have still contributed to the war effort.Quote:
Its him protecting himself from the war and any harm from it thats the problem, that is certainly a fake war within the war.
It's very much different as your motives are now in question. Why should their two kds suffer from not being allowed to war just because the two cows want to avoid being hit. Afaik, they weren't using the war for war protection. They weren't abusing anything. They just had a simple agreement between the two obvious exceptions.Quote:
And we wont attack with 24 of our provs in this war is no different from not sending a dragon as well then.
I'm all for cracking down on fake wars and stopping game abuse, but I'm not for harming diplomacy in the game and cracking down on deal making.
http://forums.utopia-game.com/showth...a-Grande-Mucca
A sad day for utopia. Moderated and killed. Why cant the majority voice its oppinion and show support?
There is already a place to discuss this Anri, and it's this thread.
there is not a place to vote if it was right or wrong to do it ;-)
Someone should make a poll. Just would be fun to get some statistics what the players feel about this.
Id say at least 8/10 think it was wrong to delete Grande Mucca.
....
But you said and i quote "You know exactly what happened." I dont, you dont so why are you suddenly changing your story bro? We dont know exactly what happend since we just have parts of the story.Quote:
Nope, wasn't born yesterday. But I'm only going to discuss with the information I do have. If there's something more that makes my points totally irreverent, that's fine. I have no problem admitting I was wrong
If a 5 year old kid throws some small stones at you do you get hurt for reals?Quote:
The NAP was only between him and the other cow. There were others who could still harm him. He could have still contributed to the war effort.
Campaigns like you posted will not be allowed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anri
Campaigns like you posted will not be allowed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anri
The problem is Bishop is trolling. Actioning "not a real war" is what he says is doing. Yet nothing has been said as to what a "real war" is other than that a "fake war" is one where nobody hits for 48+hours. Now it's been changed to a single person doesn't hit another single person. Well, ****. I've been guilty of not hitting t/ms that are out of my range in past wars. I'm sure you have too. What is wrong with letting trolls run this game? Nothing at all, in the standpoint that the troll wants people to not play. GG Bishop.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mintie
Cute lil troll, behave now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuriho
Lol this is absurd.
Lets try this example. Whats the difference between creating an unbreakable during war and his province? Both cant be broke and can grow freely. By your actions banning his province, anytime i war a kd that manages to make an unbreakable on us, i want them deleted. Its only fair right.
Read what was already posted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuriho