The Cavalier Club: A Discussion on Fair War Practice

If I'm understanding correctly you are banning every destructive operation whilst you protect your province and/or science pump. So that is the same as excluding every province. There would be no attacks taking place during this war you are referring to...so it's obviously (IMHO) not permitted.

Divinity was allowed to have a "real" war with practically no attacks. Both kingdoms trained a bunch of defense going in so they couldn't mechanically break each other as to throw off any suspicions of excluding provinces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by octobrev

Divinity was allowed to have a "real" war with practically no attacks. Both kingdoms trained a bunch of defense going in so they couldn't mechanically break each other as to throw off any suspicions of excluding provinces.

---

I'm not getting involved in what happened in the past. It tends to take pages of posts before enough information has been shared to understand most of what actually happened and even then it's usually biased :)

Putting provs in vacay mode prior to war for a more even match is not fake warring.

Agreeing to no dragons is sort of on the edge, but for the good of Uto and being able to negotiate wars with otherwise unwilling kingdoms, seems acceptable. Agreeing to no Pk is within bounds.

Other than that, when war starts there should be no boundaries or conditions or its considered fake war, IMO.

For the usefull part of my post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris121

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by octobrev

Divinity was allowed to have a "real" war with practically no attacks. Both kingdoms trained a bunch of defense going in so they couldn't mechanically break each other as to throw off any suspicions of excluding provinces.

---

I'm not getting involved in what happened in the past. It tends to take pages of posts before enough information has been shared to understand most of what actually happened and even then it's usually biased :)

---

Looking in the past is typically a good way to gain perspective though. And even if someone wanted to call it fake,what it boiled down to was 2 kds were fighting a certain style that most wouldnt expect....and neither side using the war to do anything but war.


As for

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris121

If I'm understanding correctly you are banning every destructive operation whilst you protect your province and/or science pump. So that is the same as excluding every province. There would be no attacks taking place during this war you are referring to...so it's obviously (IMHO) not permitted.

---

when it comes to war MY EXPERIENCE is anything banned or agreed to is typically fine as long as the overall goal isn't to gain an advantage elsewhere. i.e. if i agree to a war with no hits, a pure t/m fight its fine. I can agree to a war with nothing but attacks and intell. What defines a fake war is a war meant to specifically benefit one/both kds. Its why "fake war" ends up having to have the game owners look at things. The line between having a fun, creative war and doing stuff thats sole purpose is to abuse game mechanics in a way that wasn't meant to be done is a line u have to be carefull with.




For the mod part

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zombies are people too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sweetiepie

Ha ha 'problematic communications' AOD snake oil rears its head, neither you or Diamond's Munchkin can admit 'Diamond cheated, got deleted' :)
The PR department of Alliance of Diamond working overtime. Hope you guys get paid double rations.

I don't give a FF what other players think. (Who says it is monarchs posting in here?) Players do what they want, how they want and if they get caught and are clearly going against the spirit of the rules in the Dev's opinion they get deleted. Superb, problem solved! :)

This thread is about as useful as a life buoy for a fish.

Your earlier post did make me laugh though with your reference to 'the rules' agreed for the war and the minutiae of the definition of PK in your opinion. It made me wonder if you are so set on so detailed 'rules' for a war engagement what justice you mete out to those you believe have broken them. Get your alliance to whack them, perchance? :)

---

Final warning, kiddo.

---

@zombies & Sweetiepie. try to keep it a bit less "i dont like you" guys. Critisim of AOD is fine, and Zombies invites it with the style of the thread....but one or so off comment is enough and we don't need to bicker in "strategy" or derail to far off. Thread can be pretty good if we leave out to much qqing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris121

This all sounds good, except you refer to deep chained/semi chained as "provinces that have been taken to below x% of original acres". Technically, that doesn't mean they still have to be below that size, and so it is theoretically possible (eg after a very long war) that a "Deep chained province" regrows and ends up big again and it is possible that there could be a scenario where they still nonetheless have land def and under 150 peasants (especially if the war terms say they can't be attacked..lol). I suspect you probably intend to include and additional part of the definition to make clear that if the prov in question regrows above x% then they are no longer considered deep chained/semi chained (unless/until they are back below the acres threshold), because without that you risk handicapping your war effort. From a rules perspective, even without that additional part, I think all of it is within the rules except #4 because that prohibits ALL attacks. In my view, #4 is fine if it relates to a prov that is already badly damaged (ie the aim is just not to kill them) but not fine if it ends up relating to a big prov that has ended up becoming immune from attacks due to these war terms. So in my view to make #4 permissible you need the war terms to only consider a province "deep chained" if they are still below a sensible acre threshold.

---

Thanks for the comment Chris, yes sorry it is meant to mean "provinces currently at below X% of original acres" so at the time of the attack, so if a province regrows they are no longer protected by the rules until they get taken below the acre limit again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by changeling

Thanks for the comment Chris, yes sorry it is meant to mean "provinces currently at below X% of original acres" so at the time of the attack, so if a province regrows they are no longer protected by the rules until they get taken below the acre limit again.

---

fair warning if i was a jerk thats a terrible way to define things. Especially if im attacking someone with town watch. Its easy to drop their peasants into pk range using those percentages....and your whole list of terms is just begging for you to run into a kd that tries to manipulate you. its MUCH better to do the general "no pking, give us a warning if it looks like someone is about to die" Then if you have a death and they aren't super apologetic and explain how they tried to warn/stop it you just hit into thier next war.

I've had people die in my own kd, and in the enemy kd where the agreement was no pking but it was obviously the own persons fault. i.e. they had 6-7 raw wpa so massacres happen, get low on def sit at 200 for 12 hours, hit, log out on 100 and die. Both times kds were sorry and it was forgiven. We've also had intential pk's w/out the agreement and people are just like sigh "jerk" guess i needed terms. BUUT every time i had kds try to give long lists of terms and someone accidentally messes up like 1 mass or 1 trad march the whole thing turns into a ****storm.

Also for what its worth ANY monarch that sent me a war offer with that many terms for no pk's i wouldnt war....and since this is in effect a war ethics thread let me tell you what i'd do if i were an asshole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by changeling

3. No Massacres on Semi-Chained Provs below 200 Peasants without notice pursuant to section X. No massacres on Deep-Chained Provs at all without notice pursuant to section x.

---

once war starts i would say in pursuant to section x, any prov i chain im proactively giving notice that chain=mass as soon as he releases for overpop...and i only have to do it with spare off every 15 hours lol.( i dont have 100's of generals to spare i can only spare 1 hit every 5-6 hours to remove opiing lol)
This basically requires the enemy to keep 1000 peasents which is litterally impossible to do in any real war. my current war has 14 people <1k peasants, and im massacring to keep them there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by changeling

4. No attacks on Deep-Chained Provs on land defense below 120 peasants.*This one is per my earlier post that I was asking about, I do not currently use it, but am considering it and would like to see if I can get a mod to approve, as I'm not sure if it is within the rules, but at the same time it's to address that attacks on land defense provinces do kill peasants, and in sufficient number can be used to PK.* doubt u'd get deleted for fake waring this.

---

In addition if i ever got a prov below 120 i would msg the enemy monarch saying they broke the rules and hit when i was below this #. i would say u didn't SOT after EVERY hit and the 2nd or 3rd hit of a multitap that took me below 120 was in violation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Persain

For the usefull part of my post

Looking in the past is typically a good way to gain perspective though. And even if someone wanted to call it fake,what it boiled down to was 2 kds were fighting a certain style that most wouldnt expect....and neither side using the war to do anything but war.


As for


when it comes to war MY EXPERIENCE is anything banned or agreed to is typically fine as long as the overall goal isn't to gain an advantage elsewhere. i.e. if i agree to a war with no hits, a pure t/m fight its fine. I can agree to a war with nothing but attacks and intell. What defines a fake war is a war meant to specifically benefit one/both kds. Its why "fake war" ends up having to have the game owners look at things. The line between having a fun, creative war and doing stuff thats sole purpose is to abuse game mechanics in a way that wasn't meant to be done is a line u have to be carefull with.




For the mod part

@zombies & Sweetiepie. try to keep it a bit less "i dont like you" guys. Critisim of AOD is fine, and Zombies invites it with the style of the thread....but one or so off comment is enough and we don't need to bicker in "strategy" or derail to far off. Thread can be pretty good if we leave out to much qqing.

---

Thank you Persain for your helpful response. It's good to know that the owners/mods do all this work to try and suss out intent.

So I'm guessing for example, there are some straight nos, i.e. predetermining winner of war explicitly, or explicitly shielding some provinces from the action entirely (though, using actual game tools like vacation mode is fine).

But for everything else, what matters really is the intent, and whether the KDs are attempting to gain an advantage over and beyond EOWCF (so for example, agreeing to certain restrictions i.e. limits on how low you can chain someone, limits on certain types of attacks or ops are fine - as long as equally applied, even if the intention is to minimize mutual destruction in a war while still enjoying the benefits of EOWCF (as long as the winner isn't predetermined and no single province is excluded).

However, if you see evidence that the KDs are attempting to agree to said restrictions to gain an additional advantage while protected by war, the outcome would be different.

I.e. No massacres, no AW is fine. Saying no chaining anyone below 300 acres is fine etc. exploring before a war is fine. But if those are combined with, for example both KDs doing max explores right before, then spending a two week long war with maxed out labs and guilds while only doing a bare minimum attacks on spread out targets and non-destructive ops, then it looks suspicious and actionable.


Worth discussing further I guess, would be precisely what are the purposes of the game's war and EOWCF mechanics, to be better able to understand exactly what would be considered abuse, and what would be considered an advantage elsewhere.

For example, only agreeing to a string of wars with AW banned could have a long term impact of making one KD better positioned to honor crown, thus having an advantage else where - but not necessarily taking advantage of a war/eowcf mechanic to do so since there's nothing about war/eowcf that grants additional protection from AW than otherwise you would have in normal. While it does skew the risk/reward of wars - that alone can't be the disqualifying standard if any agreements are allowed, because everything from agreed start dates to no pk rules all somewhat skew the risk/reward (as long as the ultimate risk, whether you win or lose, is still up for grabs).

A different example, I think, would be if War is used for the specific purposes of protecting your provinces from outside attacks at critical times. While on the surface, of course - this is one of the primary markers of a fake war, and the war protection mechanics are meant to protect from outside interference.

However, a common theme is OOP wars - where, whether implicit or explicit, an OOP war often has the ulterior motive of protecting a KD from being fed on by opening wave attacks. And arguably, warring right out of the gate does convey advantages beyond the game mechanic goal of protection from outside interference during a war itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Persain

fair warning if i was a jerk thats a terrible way to define things. Especially if im attacking someone with town watch. Its easy to drop their peasants into pk range using those percentages....and your whole list of terms is just begging for you to run into a kd that tries to manipulate you. its MUCH better to do the general "no pking, give us a warning if it looks like someone is about to die" Then if you have a death and they aren't super apologetic and explain how they tried to warn/stop it you just hit into thier next war.

I've had people die in my own kd, and in the enemy kd where the agreement was no pking but it was obviously the own persons fault. i.e. they had 6-7 raw wpa so massacres happen, get low on def sit at 200 for 12 hours, hit, log out on 100 and die. Both times kds were sorry and it was forgiven. We've also had intential pk's w/out the agreement and people are just like sigh "jerk" guess i needed terms. BUUT every time i had kds try to give long lists of terms and someone accidentally messes up like 1 mass or 1 trad march the whole thing turns into a ****storm.

Also for what its worth ANY monarch that sent me a war offer with that many terms for no pk's i wouldnt war....and since this is in effect a war ethics thread let me tell you what i'd do if i were an asshole.

once war starts i would say in pursuant to section x, any prov i chain im proactively giving notice that chain=mass as soon as he releases for overpop...and i only have to do it with spare off every 15 hours lol.( i dont have 100's of generals to spare i can only spare 1 hit every 5-6 hours to remove opiing lol)
This basically requires the enemy to keep 1000 peasents which is litterally impossible to do in any real war. my current war has 14 people <1k peasants, and im massacring to keep them there.

In addition if i ever got a prov below 120 i would msg the enemy monarch saying they broke the rules and hit when i was below this #. i would say u didn't SOT after EVERY hit and the 2nd or 3rd hit of a multitap that took me below 120 was in violation

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Persain

fair warning if i was a jerk thats a terrible way to define things. Especially if im attacking someone with town watch. Its easy to drop their peasants into pk range using those percentages....and your whole list of terms is just begging for you to run into a kd that tries to manipulate you. its MUCH better to do the general "no pking, give us a warning if it looks like someone is about to die" Then if you have a death and they aren't super apologetic and explain how they tried to warn/stop it you just hit into thier next war.

I've had people die in my own kd, and in the enemy kd where the agreement was no pking but it was obviously the own persons fault. i.e. they had 6-7 raw wpa so massacres happen, get low on def sit at 200 for 12 hours, hit, log out on 100 and die. Both times kds were sorry and it was forgiven. We've also had intential pk's w/out the agreement and people are just like sigh "jerk" guess i needed terms. BUUT every time i had kds try to give long lists of terms and someone accidentally messes up like 1 mass or 1 trad march the whole thing turns into a ****storm.

Also for what its worth ANY monarch that sent me a war offer with that many terms for no pk's i wouldnt war....and since this is in effect a war ethics thread let me tell you what i'd do if i were an asshole.

once war starts i would say in pursuant to section x, any prov i chain im proactively giving notice that chain=mass as soon as he releases for overpop...and i only have to do it with spare off every 15 hours lol.( i dont have 100's of generals to spare i can only spare 1 hit every 5-6 hours to remove opiing lol)
This basically requires the enemy to keep 1000 peasents which is litterally impossible to do in any real war. my current war has 14 people <1k peasants, and im massacring to keep them there.

In addition if i ever got a prov below 120 i would msg the enemy monarch saying they broke the rules and hit when i was below this #. i would say u didn't SOT after EVERY hit and the 2nd or 3rd hit of a multitap that took me below 120 was in violation

---

Thanks for the feedback Persain!

I guess you've also proven a point about why fake wars are defined so vaguely. Define it too narrowly, and because some people are jerks, they'll find a way to game the system.

There's vulnerabilities of course, and thanks for enlightening me to some more possible gaps =P
No. 4 was one I only just thought of pretty much on the spot for this thread, but glad to know it's ok if implemented. But I can see it being abused as well. It does counter the jerk move I did think of in relation to the before rules which would be to simply, drop someone to land defense, let them regrow to above the X cap, fb/kidnap/mass etc., then redrop back below X cap to overpop.

That said, why I put the general act in good faith clause =P

I think nearly everyone I've met have been great (only really encountered problems with jerks with just the generic "no PKs" once or twice) and every KD I fought with some variance of the above ruleset, we still just communicate and work it out amicably if someone did a massacre by mistake or fb the wrong target, and even when we encountered clear rule breaking, we were able to sort it out diplomatically and just respond with a single in kind pk to even the score.

I just figure, anyone who was being a jerk to game the agreements would probably have been a jerk and skirted the no PK rule anyway even if it was simpler.

But, from your comments, I think a simpler and better way would just to be say

No intentional PK, so generally no Kidnapping/Fbing anyone below 300 peasants, and if you need to do something that could potentially put someone at risk, like massacre a chained t/m or chained attacker retaining wizards, just pm me and the target first to make sure they have time to stay safe and watch out (i.e. not a 3 am message saying, next tick we will massacre you 60 times) and communicate and cooperate if we see anyone at risk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by changeling

Thank you Persain for your helpful response. It's good to know that the owners/mods do all this work to try and suss out intent.

---

Im not the owners nor bishop so i cant officially say "here are the xyz criteria you have to meet to be called a fake war. However the whole point of the game is to have fun, and if people are having fun w/out griefing anyone or effecting any "rankings" your going to be hard pressed to be determined a cheater.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by changeling

For example, only agreeing to a string of wars with AW banned could have a long term impact of making one KD better positioned to honor crown, thus having an advantage else where - but not necessarily taking advantage of a war/eowcf mechanic to do so since there's nothing about war/eowcf that grants additional protection from AW than otherwise you would have in normal.

---

AW is war/hostile only i IMAGINE that'd be fine to do, but as soon as you start getting high honor or wars start to be the main time you pump wpa expect that IF reported there will likely be consequences (like do it 1 war for fun no biggy....do it all wars in an age i bet u get deleted even if u arent ranking). Theres a huge difference between 2 kds in at 3/6 and 2/5 low war tier saying, man we've had a hard run of things how about lets do no aw this war. And 2 kds like my own and freakstyle saying...."yea yea no aw this war right" when we're both high honor and both really just want to do it to put honor on our mystics. Its again why fake wars are decided by real people looking at things.

Remember a war has to be reported before its looked at. If you agree to terms and stuff is strange enough to get a report there's a good chance you were probubly close enough to that line that if deleted you just should suck it u and try to move on. Also worth noting is that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by changeling

However, a common theme is OOP wars - where, whether implicit or explicit, an OOP war often has the ulterior motive of protecting a KD from being fed on by opening wave attacks. And arguably, warring right out of the gate does convey advantages beyond the game mechanic goal of protection from outside interference during a war itself.

---

just becuase a war is beneficial to both sides doesnt make it fake, dodging a kd, 'hiding' in war has in the past been deemed fine as long as both sides are actively waring and trying to win. You cross into the ream of fake when the sole purpose is to hide and its not a real fight but a stall or when 2 people who are clearly friends enter war with the intent to boost one of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zombies are people too

Final warning, kiddo.


-DM <3

---

Or what?
What exactly are you threatening me with?
Are you trying to mislead people into thinking you're a mod?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by changeling

I guess you've also proven a point about why fake wars are defined so vaguely. Define it too narrowly, and because some people are jerks, they'll find a way to game the system.

.

---

This.
Looks like you finally understood my point.
And now you understand why I do not care what other players do or think. Because it comes down to the devs.
Exactly as I said earlier, those who want to manipulate the rules do not like analogue, they like digital, black and white, so they can find a way round it.

What a great day full of ideas, discussions, and insights! Amazing read people! And a special appearance from our very own Strategy Moderator, @Persain! Thank you for your valid and thoughtful input! :D

Special thanks and hats off to @changeling and @Chris121; your thought provoking and insightful commentary was both a blast to read and hopefully gives newer players a good grasp of interaction and diplomacy when entering conflict.

A thanks to @sl0hnd, @octobrev, @sweetiepie @Korp and @Panthira for calling in with your opinions, comments and questions.

Got a question of your own? Post it and stick around for Late Night and tune in with me for more great discussion tomorrow on the Cavalier Club!

-DM <3


https://media.giphy.com/media/RPaB3pPH2D6FO/giphy.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Persain

Im not the owners nor bishop so i cant officially say "here are the xyz criteria you have to meet to be called a fake war. However the whole point of the game is to have fun, and if people are having fun w/out griefing anyone or effecting any "rankings" your going to be hard pressed to be determined a cheater.


AW is war/hostile only i IMAGINE that'd be fine to do, but as soon as you start getting high honor or wars start to be the main time you pump wpa expect that IF reported there will likely be consequences (like do it 1 war for fun no biggy....do it all wars in an age i bet u get deleted even if u arent ranking). Theres a huge difference between 2 kds in at 3/6 and 2/5 low war tier saying, man we've had a hard run of things how about lets do no aw this war. And 2 kds like my own and freakstyle saying...."yea yea no aw this war right" when we're both high honor and both really just want to do it to put honor on our mystics. Its again why fake wars are decided by real people looking at things.

Remember a war has to be reported before its looked at. If you agree to terms and stuff is strange enough to get a report there's a good chance you were probubly close enough to that line that if deleted you just should suck it u and try to move on. Also worth noting is that
just becuase a war is beneficial to both sides doesnt make it fake, dodging a kd, 'hiding' in war has in the past been deemed fine as long as both sides are actively waring and trying to win. You cross into the ream of fake when the sole purpose is to hide and its not a real fight but a stall or when 2 people who are clearly friends enter war with the intent to boost one of them.

---

Thanks Persain, even though you might not be able to make an official statement, it's great and reassuring to hear that these decisions are made by real people, and who have a wealth of experience actually playing the game to be able to make the judgment calls and recognize something problematic and something not. My original worry was that with recent deletions and spam, it was hard to tell from just looking from the outside whether KD to KD diplomacy would have to be curtailed, but it is useful to know that, for example, we don't have to worry about messaging around for an OOP war and pointing out it would be mutually beneficial to both the winner and loser whoever it may be, etc.

Sometimes from the outside looking in, all you see is, for example, a KD complaining in the forums about being deleted for something, but it's those soft factors that make the real difference in the decision made - and it's hard to suss it out just from after reports.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sweetiepie

This.
Looks like you finally understood my point.
And now you understand why I do not care what other players do or think. Because it comes down to the devs.
Exactly as I said earlier, those who want to manipulate the rules do not like analogue, they like digital, black and white, so they can find a way round it.

---

Thanks Sweetiepie =) You're right, it does come down to the Devs, and all of the arguing and flaming and trolling in the forums are just noise at the end of the day. In this thread, we have Persain kindly taking the time to provide lots of helpful information and feedback now (which I want to thank him for again), so we're getting some real insight into the practices and goals of the people who really set the rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by changeling

Thanks Sweetiepie =) You're right, it does come down to the Devs, and all of the arguing and flaming and trolling in the forums are just noise at the end of the day. In this thread, we have Persain kindly taking the time to provide lots of helpful information and feedback now (which I want to thank him for again), so we're getting some real insight into the practices and goals of the people who really set the rules.

---

Persain is just a moderator for strategy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korp

Persain is just a moderator for strategy.

---

Yes, he disclosed that his answers can't be taken as official final answers. That said, still provides guidance from someone who interacts with and knows the actual devs better so still valuable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by changeling

Yes, he disclosed that his answers can't be taken as official final answers. That said, still provides guidance from someone who interacts with and knows the actual devs better so still valuable.

---

He does?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zombies are people too

Guys.. I thank you for your answers >.<, you're missing the point of the thread. DO I really have to point out that it's a loaded question and just given as an example to give other posters, maybe newer ones, a template on what could be an infraction?


-DM <3

---

I'll confess I'm not reading the bulk of the discussion. I'm of the mind you steer clear of FW in much the same way Coldhearted has stated.

There have been instances where FW was baited and perhaps our expertise would best be spent in exposing advanced FW scenarios. There are some very intelligent people in this game who walk these lines as a rule. Naive players should understand that stepping away from the table is generally a better idea than stoking ones ego in the field of diplomacy.

There's too much interesting stuff to reply too so I haven't had time to put all the quotes in. But:

@Persain: I agree that the past is useful background but what I meant when I said I don't want to get involved in it is I don't trust people to post a non biased account of what happened (shown for example, by the fact that your account was almost opposite of Octobrev's).

@Changeling's point about war being used to protect yourself from external attacks - I don't think that in itself is determinative of a fake war. For example, it's perfectly fine to choose to enter into a real war with someone because if you don't you will be or expect to be waved by some other Kd.

@Everyone: There were a few comments throughout the thread that suggest people are taking the mod answers more seriously ("green" mods and "yellow" mods). I'm not sure they have any more insight on the cheating related issues than anyone else, but of course their views are welcome and helpful, particularly as players with, generally, a lot of experience in the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Persain

AW is war/hostile only i IMAGINE that'd be fine to do, but as soon as you start getting high honor or wars start to be the main time you pump wpa expect that IF reported there will likely be consequences (like do it 1 war for fun no biggy....do it all wars in an age i bet u get deleted even if u arent ranking). Theres a huge difference between 2 kds in at 3/6 and 2/5 low war tier saying, man we've had a hard run of things how about lets do no aw this war. And 2 kds like my own and freakstyle saying...."yea yea no aw this war right" when we're both high honor and both really just want to do it to put honor on our mystics. Its again why fake wars are decided by real people looking at things.

---

I don't see why it should be diffeeent for a top kd or any other kd. If 2 top Kds want to war with no AW, then providied it is stil a real war, that should be fine. And it should still be fine if one top KD decides for an entire age to agree no AW in every single war it has, provided those wars are still real.

We have to keep in mind we aren't talking to the screwballs who already did trading or play at the top. We're relating what's realistic for someone wondering in like I-Am-the-Walrus Donny, bka players who don't know.

One for instance is the theory of "precedence". Nobody in their right mind bases their diplomatic strategy on precedence. This just sets up the usual arguments of favoritism and bias. So what if there is? What are you going to do, quit? lol
Walking into a FW trap by rationalizing precedence is akin to self mutilation. It's unnecessary.

Let's do this instead. Do all your diplomacy outside of war. When you're nailing down meter consumption, or doing proactive CF you should minimize your desire for making sausage in war. If you're still trying to CF bullies with open CFs then you should stay far away from agreeing to anything in war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris121

I don't see why it should be diffeeent for a top kd or any other kd. If 2 top Kds want to war with no AW, then providied it is stil a real war, that should be fine. And it should still be fine if one top KD decides for an entire age to agree no AW in every single war it has, provided those wars are still real.

---

The difference is those "top" kds are likely to be super competitive for the age, if they both go "sure lets not aw this war, wink wink" theres effectively collusion to manipulate the game. Its that super fine line of: Did i just war freeakstyle with no aw because its the only way i had a shot at winning or is it because we both want to build mass honor on our t/m's. Thats the super fine line that the owners have to walk and i dont envy them for that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korp

He does?

---

Korp even u've interacted enough with zauper/hawk/bishop im sure to know they're reasonable enough. Somone with <200-300 posts on the forum may have no idea that the owners are just these all powerful overseers who dont really care about kd (added for clearity) politics they care about everyone having a fair shot :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Persain

The difference is those "top" kds are likely to be super competitive for the age, if they both go "sure lets not aw this war, wink wink" theres effectively collusion to manipulate the game. Its that super fine line of: Did i just war freeakstyle with no aw because its the only way i had a shot at winning or is it because we both want to build mass honor on our t/m's. Thats the super fine line that the owners have to walk and i dont envy them for that



Korp even u've interacted enough with zauper/hawk/bishop im sure to know they're reasonable enough. Somone with <200-300 posts on the forum may have no idea that the owners are just these all powerful overseers who dont really care about kds

---

Yea, sorry I came off douchey. it made sound as if you had some special connection to the devs (His post that is) And even though Bishop is a dear friend hes never reasonable!! :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Persain

The difference is those "top" kds are likely to be super competitive for the age, if they both go "sure lets not aw this war, wink wink" theres effectively collusion to manipulate the game. Its that super fine line of: Did i just war freeakstyle with no aw because its the only way i had a shot at winning or is it because we both want to build mass honor on our t/m's. Thats the super fine line that the owners have to walk and i dont envy them for that

---

I am not sure i am following your point on this. If 2 top KDs agree no AW in a genuinely real war, I don't see an issue even if their purpose is that they don't want their t/ms losing / gaining less honour. I accept that that puts them in a better position to compete with other top KDs later in the age, but I still don't see how that is against the rules. I emphasise i'm talking about a genuine war where they have just agreed not to AW rather than "hey let's make this look like a genuine war without AW". I also accept that it may be very hard for the devs to actually know what is going on, but I'm talking about the principle of what is or isn't against the rules, rather than the issues in proving what has actually happened.

There are plenty of ways in which KDs plan so that they attempt to gain a later advantage against other KDs, and they are not in themselves against the rules. And that would still be the case even if 2 KDs plan together to secure a later advantage for themselves.

Even if they, for some reason, didn't get deleted for it they would almost certainly get GBed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by octobrev

Even if they, for some reason, didn't get deleted for it they would almost certainly get GBed.

---

That may be so but it is an entirely different issue to whether it is against the rules or not.

Good Morning Utopia and welcome back to another day in Cavalier's Club, where we discuss the issues and the less absolute areas of what is considered Fair Play.

A lot of great discussion here, and here's a few highlights:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by octobrev

You're not designating any excluded provinces. You're just banning certain destructive operations like AW, propaganda, fireballs, massacres, razes, abducts, traditional marches, conquests, etc.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris121

If I'm understanding correctly you are banning every destructive operation whilst you protect your province and/or science pump. So that is the same as excluding every province. There would be no attacks taking place during this war you are referring to...so it's obviously (IMHO) not permitted.

---

Body contact is a part of Hockey, some leagues choose to disallow body contact, while this is a change to the match, and adds more infractions to penalize, you still have to play Hockey to win the match. Do you, the viewers believe this applies to Utopia? Discuss!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by octobrev

I see it's against the rules to "create a false identity for the purpose of misleading others." Does this apply to top kingdoms masquerading as ghettos early in the age to bait easy war wins?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris121

There is no rule to identify your own KD. So if they are merely not using their normal name and/or not using a theme and/or not building up their provinces fully, I don't see how that is against the rules.
If they actively seek out other ghettos to lie "hey, we are a newly formed KD. we are not active but would like a fair war to try to learn" then I would say that's illegal.

---

I have read opinions that the new mechanics of a War Win bonus has changed the way we conduct ourselves once the Protection drops. Would you agree? Have any examples that you wish to add to the discussion? Post them! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by changeling

In the scenario Sweetiepie mentioned, If two KDs are warring, but made a private agreement as to terms for the war, and other KD broke said terms, which I think there's general agreement amongst the community that breaking deals is considered bad form - is it appropriate for third parties (whether an alliance, or a friendly Kingdom, or the "Utopia Police") to impose punitive actions afterwards?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris121

The problem with that would be that deal breaks don't necessarily have to be in war. So you could have a big KD deal breaking a small KD. If that happens, it's pretty hard to meaningfully deal with it yourself without damaging your own interests even more (eg you could do your best to attack one of their provs / mess up their plans, but ultimately you will probably end up having more of your provs razed or something.

But realistically, most of the time most KDs just have to hope that the KDs they make deals with will stick to them. If not, make a note and don't trust them next time. Some players are known to be fairly trustworthy with deals, some are less so. So think about who you are dealing with :)

---

I'm sure the issue at hand has been experienced from both sides by the majority of KDs in Utopia, what are your thoughts?

and finally..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris121

@Everyone: There were a few comments throughout the thread that suggest people are taking the mod answers more seriously ("green" mods and "yellow" mods). I'm not sure they have any more insight on the cheating related issues than anyone else, but of course their views are welcome and helpful, particularly as players with, generally, a lot of experience in the game.

---

All your input, players and moderators alike, is welcome and shouldn't hold precedence over the other in spirit of the open discussion. I personally value all your contributions on the issues our players have brought up and I'm sure our viewers do to :D

Speaking of which, let's open the floor! New questions, examples, or relative input on the subjects discussed above for another day on the Cavalier Club! :D

-DM<3

Welp, if nobody else has anything let's take this red line we aren't supposed to cross and continue fashioning it into a hula hoop.

Is it alright to use an enemy kingdom's player to initiate a "real" war if they have no idea they're helping you do it? For example, my Get-That-Button-You-Needed-In-Three-Easy-Steps methodology uses only a phone number:

https://i.imgur.com/QpjbPj4.gif

Surely we are operating legally now, right?

Thank you @octobrev for bringing up a really valid topic; third party communications.

While newer KDs may stick to the ingame communications, a lot of experienced players tend to take the community onto other platforms. WhatsApp, Slack, Face Book and other platforms are currently used to keep in touch with friends, teammates and adversaries outside the realm of Utopia. While this is a great way to grow, connect and socialize with each other, can it lead to exploitation and abuse?

The Floor is Open! :D

-DM <3

I don't want DavidC spying on my inter-KD sexting.

But seriously why would you allow your comms to be seen with such different opinions on rules around war. If you consider a plan that crosses the line it could be game over.

Hi

What about this one, in regards to breaking the rules ?

Short summary:
My kd is 8:12; we're a small kd, rebuilding, with a few inactives.
5:16 starts bullying us for a few days, until we decide to fight them (for the fun of it and team building).
When they see they can't actually win this one, they decide to call for outside help in order to PK.

Since when are fake wars not allowed, but cheating in this way perfectly ok ?
I really think that this is one of the reasons why this game is dying... players doing this kind of cr*p ruin the game for everyone else.

April 3 of YR2 Mr Pink (8:12) captured 15 acres of land from This is The Lady (5:16).
April 3 of YR2 This Is The Ballistic (5:16) invaded FFA (8:12) and captured 22 acres of land.
April 3 of YR2 Hive Mind 9 (8:4) razed 15 acres of Mr Fuchsia (8:12).
April 3 of YR2 Hive Mind 9 (8:4) razed 15 acres of Mr Fuchsia (8:12).
April 3 of YR2 Hive Mind 9 (8:4) razed 12 acres of Mr Fuchsia (8:12).
April 3 of YR2 Alas, the once proud province of Mr Fuchsia has collapsed and lies in ruins.
April 3 of YR2 Hive Mind 9 (8:4) razed 30 acres of Mr Grey (8:12).
April 4 of YR2 Mr Aqua (8:12) killed 10 people within This Is The Misty (5:16).
April 4 of YR2 This Is The Wings Of Fire (5:16) razed 131 acres of Mr Atomic Tangerine (8:12).

Later edit: And we do have a reply from the dude in 8:4 saying that when a friend asks for help, he will come to his aid...

Thanks,
Alex

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elicenco

Hi

What about this one, in regards to breaking the rules ?

Short summary:
My kd is 8:12; we're a small kd, rebuilding, with a few inactives.
5:16 starts bullying us for a few days, until we decide to fight them (for the fun of it and team building).
When they see they can't actually win this one, they decide to call for outside help in order to PK.

Since when are fake wars not allowed, but cheating in this way perfectly ok ?
I really think that this is one of the reasons why this game is dying... players doing this kind of cr*p ruin the game for everyone else.

April 3 of YR2 Mr Pink (8:12) captured 15 acres of land from This is The Lady (5:16).
April 3 of YR2 This Is The Ballistic (5:16) invaded FFA (8:12) and captured 22 acres of land.
April 3 of YR2 Hive Mind 9 (8:4) razed 15 acres of Mr Fuchsia (8:12).
April 3 of YR2 Hive Mind 9 (8:4) razed 15 acres of Mr Fuchsia (8:12).
April 3 of YR2 Hive Mind 9 (8:4) razed 12 acres of Mr Fuchsia (8:12).
April 3 of YR2 Alas, the once proud province of Mr Fuchsia has collapsed and lies in ruins.
April 3 of YR2 Hive Mind 9 (8:4) razed 30 acres of Mr Grey (8:12).
April 4 of YR2 Mr Aqua (8:12) killed 10 people within This Is The Misty (5:16).
April 4 of YR2 This Is The Wings Of Fire (5:16) razed 131 acres of Mr Atomic Tangerine (8:12).

Later edit: And we do have a reply from the dude in 8:4 saying that when a friend asks for help, he will come to his aid...

Thanks,
Alex

---

With regards to the rules, the rule - in the broadest terms I believe is, don't abuse game mechanics in ways they were not intended.
However, the war mechanics were specifically designed such that it is unprofitable to attack into a war, but not impossible. So by design, hitting into wars to cause damage is actually allowed and hence not breaking the rules of the game.

That said, interesting question here. It would be possible for a KD to set up, essentially what would be a "fake war" in terms of benefit to one side, by having outside KDs interfere right?

For example, 1) Agree to a normal war with normal conditions that looks winnable, maybe even with someone substantially bigger 2) partner with an external KD and specifically plan to raze into the war from Day 1, thereby arranging it so that the result is predetermined in your favor and reap the benefits of war win (and potentially be able to farm, just by max gaining until min-time, letting an external KD do the actual fighting to win wars for you.

My guess at the answer is of course, it depends, and there would be a look to determine whether the external KD is doing so because they were aggrieved, and not planning to help the first KD, but using the same external KD for multiple wars and it'll be proof of a violation.

To eliceno: Yes, within the rules. Doesn't make it fair or right though.

There are some KDs around who will help e.g. by taking on 8.4 if what you have said is legit (not doubting you but I've learnt not to trust what anyone says about a situation like this without looking myself, and I don't have a game account atm)

Are you in Price's 'colours' kd or is the theme just a coincidence?

Changeling: the rules would allow the devs to go either way on it as it could come within the spirit of the game etc. But it doesn't really matter as players would self enforce that and just take both kds out if they do it consistantly :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by octobrev

Welp, if nobody else has anything let's take this red line we aren't supposed to cross and continue fashioning it into a hula hoop.

Is it alright to use an enemy kingdom's player to initiate a "real" war if they have no idea they're helping you do it? For example, my Get-That-Button-You-Needed-In-Three-Easy-Steps methodology uses only a phone number:

https://i.imgur.com/QpjbPj4.gif

Surely we are operating legally now, right?

---

hahahaha!! i almost fell off the couch at step 3 :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by changeling

With regards to the rules, the rule - in the broadest terms I believe is, don't abuse game mechanics in ways they were not intended.
However, the war mechanics were specifically designed such that it is unprofitable to attack into a war, but not impossible. So by design, hitting into wars to cause damage is actually allowed and hence not breaking the rules of the game.

That said, interesting question here. It would be possible for a KD to set up, essentially what would be a "fake war" in terms of benefit to one side, by having outside KDs interfere right?

For example, 1) Agree to a normal war with normal conditions that looks winnable, maybe even with someone substantially bigger 2) partner with an external KD and specifically plan to raze into the war from Day 1, thereby arranging it so that the result is predetermined in your favor and reap the benefits of war win (and potentially be able to farm, just by max gaining until min-time, letting an external KD do the actual fighting to win wars for you.

My guess at the answer is of course, it depends, and there would be a look to determine whether the external KD is doing so because they were aggrieved, and not planning to help the first KD, but using the same external KD for multiple wars and it'll be proof of a violation.

---

Actually that is allowed especially if the 2 KDs have history with the KD being GB. War protection is not full - hitting into wars hurts and you do it only if you actually have history with one of the KDs. I have been on both sides about this :).

Greeting Utopians! We're back for another episode of the Cavalier's Club! A lot of discussion and laughs abound as the issues on fair play are debated! Here's a few highlights from the previous episode.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elicenco

..When they see they can't actually win this one, they decide to call for outside help in order to PK.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by changeling

..My guess at the answer is of course, it depends, and there would be a look to determine whether the external KD is doing so because they were aggrieved, and not planning to help the first KD, but using the same external KD for multiple wars and it'll be proof of a violation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris121

.. the rules would allow the devs to go either way on it as it could come within the spirit of the game etc. But it doesn't really matter as players would self enforce that and just take both kds out if they do it consistantly(sic) :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bo To

.. that is allowed especially if the 2 KDs have history with the KD being GB. War protection is not full - hitting into wars hurts and you do it only if you actually have history with one of the KDs. I have been on both sides about this :).

---

Do grudges and bad history supersede good sportsmanship in player's eyes? Should the mechanics be altered or is this a realm where the players should be allowed to police and reap their own form of justice? Opinions? Post and discuss! :D

Grudges and history are the only reasons most of us keep playing. If I wanted to have fun and unwind, I would play minecraft alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris121

To eliceno: Yes, within the rules. Doesn't make it fair or right though.

There are some KDs around who will help e.g. by taking on 8.4 if what you have said is legit (not doubting you but I've learnt not to trust what anyone says about a situation like this without looking myself, and I don't have a game account atm)

Are you in Price's 'colours' kd or is the theme just a coincidence?

---

Yes, I am in Price's 'colours' kd. So far we've had 8:1 kill one of our provs, not just 8:4. Razes from them are still ongoing...
At least this is motivating the kd to keep fighting, haven't had a war this long in a few years (:

To clarify my response to changeling: The bit I was saying might be against the rules was the hypothetical example changeling gave of 2 Kds agreeing to raze into each others wars to help each other throughout the age. Razes into wars due to grudges is within the rules AFAIK.

Although I just looked at the rules and whilst there is a section on "fair and honorable play", the detail it gives doesn't cover this situation and i'm not sure it is clear whether not playing fairly/honorably is by itself against the rules when it doesn't come within the points listed (eg language / manipulation of bugs etc).

To eliceno: With the above in mind, if your KD genuinely didn't do anything to lead to KDs razing into your wars, you could try reporting it to the support email and asking if that is permitted by the rules / fair and honorable play and see what happens. I note that 8:4's KD name yesterday was "28 razes for hire". In any case, it isn't fun. I've warred your KD before and had no issues with your KD. Good luck.

@Zombies: The "sic" in your quote of me made me actually lol.