AMA vs sanct round 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AquaSeaFoam

This is what I keep asking him. Why oh why didn't he just cf Sanc and fight havoc 1v1 when he knew havoc was going to notice him. The answer seems to be that the pressure got to him and he didn't have your guidance to lead him to the crown. I'm sure he was under a lot of stress. What if havoc beat him 1v1? I guess in his mind, he thought the road to the crown was to not cf Sanc during post war and use that as an excuse to try and deny Havoc's right to notice him so he could use his pool and get out of range of havoc having any chance against them.

But you're right, the keys and the road to the crown was right in front of him. All he needed to do was cf Sanc and beat Havoc in a war and the crown was his. But people crack under pressure and make dumb decisions all the time. If only he had your hand on the wheel.

---

Saving for future reference...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korp

The legit excuse according to people like PS would be "They targetshared Havoc they had it coming"

---

The response to that would be to skin the rules down to the bones like Abs pros like ASF does, according to Absw stealing is not a hostile act because it doesn't add a button. By the very same logic Elits post that is the supposed targetsharing was reported and Palem said that according to the rules it was no targetsharing(because no locations were mentioned) hence Abs by ASF's logic was not targetshared since there is a rule against that and it was not broken according to mods ;)

Absalom will not win this age - AMA will, no matter how hard Absalom try to powerplay they can not win it.
And one thing I know, next age Absalom will not crown either, this I can promise you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DHaran

I've yet to see a legitimate excuse to double AMA, just walls of text. Abs wants to pretend they dictate who waves who and what hostiles are real or not, which is just entirely outrageous. There is nothing unethical about the #1 kingdom waving the #5 kingdom, even if it's true they did so just to dodge #2. The only unethical act was Havoc waving into an active hostile.

---

Dharan, The reality is that no excuse is needed to wave someone. The game mechanics entirely allow it and so do the rules. Since there is nothing in the game mechanics or rules preventing it, the question really is "Why SHOULDN'T Havoc wave them."

The answer to that is because over time the community in this game have generally decided that it's more fair to only fight after both kingdoms have had long periods of uninterupted preparation to fight. Anything else is generally considered either vulturing or doubling. Some people tend to get blinded by this terminology and the now community mindset of what has now been established as "top kingdom code of honor."

I have never tried to promote blind enforcement of such things although I have tried to promote general "fair" play. The problem with blind definitions and rules is that they become easy to manipulate and abuse. This turns what was once a player created idea of fair play into weapon to do ridiculous things to try and gain advantages that would be clearly bad without such a twisted version of these player based rules.

Obviously being in and helping lead Absalom would have given me a prime position to try and get away with stuff like dodging any kingdom who could ever want to fight me by just initiating "hostiles" with weaker kingdoms any time a stronger one was about to initiate a fight with me. I have never once done this as a leader and I've shot down such notions internally countless times both in my kingdom and in Absalom. That is not to say others in Absalom haven't tried to do such things. Many have on many occasions. Often they got 'doubled' as a result of trying it and every time I've told them to not do stupid stuff like starting a hostile to run from an oncoming fight.

These unwritten, player made rules should be in place for one reason only and that is to improve play for all. I have never agreed witht he notion that kingdoms can abuse such "rules" to block all challengers from fighting them. In the days of fake wars it could be common for kingdoms to fake war, immediately after leaving the fake war, wave a target kingdom, and as soon as the hostile/war was done go right back into fake war to repeat. When is the kingdom doing that ever exposed to be waved themselves? Many of the kingdoms doing this would make a public outcry bout dishonorable play and being 2v1'd into their war if anyone even hit them into their fake war.

This bastardization and abuse of a so called player created honor code does not benefit the game or any of the players. Instead of trying to make definitions saying "double is always bad" and "vulture is always bad" and then having kingdoms manipulate these things to ensure no one can ever touch them without doing one of those things to them, we should instead focus on general fair play and intent.

Here's a partial list of "don't" guidelines I try and play by off the top of my head that should not be taken as hard rules to look for loopholes to abuse:


1) Don't treat a kingdom in a way that you wouldn't consider fair if they did it to you.

2) Don't team up and coordinate to take down stronger enemies that you couldn't beat on your own or that might be too costly to fight on your own.

3) Don't interfere in fights that shouldn't be interfered in. Sequence of events matters and so do the options and choices made by the potential target. The legitimacy of the fight also matters. This is open to interpretation, but see rule 1).

4) Don't break deals that you make.

5) Don't do stupid things to put yourself in a bad position by relying on these or any other player based rules for protection. Play smart and assume others won't follow these "rules."

The biggest troll ASF has spoken LOL. Dude you clearly did break a deal and for that you will pay this and next ages to come!

For those who don't have 28h in a day to read all this

Summary from when Havoc waves AMA:

- When majority of posters say it was an unfair double hostile, an army of abs ppl start posting to get balance pro vs con back
- When majority is still convinced it's an unfair double hositle, ASFs posts become longer then a master thesis. Proly he tries to get a balance pro vs con based on amounts of words.
- Proteus comes with old stories about Rage beating Dreams 6 ages ago and seems to think it's relevant and a thread AMA vs Havoc
- A lot of stuff got repeated and posted again and rephrased and put into other words while saying the same over and over again

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhoenixScorpion

Being in alliance with other KD's dont mean you dictate their actions. Means you work together to ensure the best outcome for all. Sanctuary stole from MA just like MA targetshared Havoc (stealing isnt doubling or a "Hostile" action this is confirmed by Elit, Cats, and others), and also considering MA had got notice from Havoc before the stealing and was technically already Hostile, MA chose to be stupid and not negotiate CF with Sanc while also allowing Sanc to hit them for acres and not lose only GC but also troops and land. Sounds smart. We ignore others situations because we are independent KD's and being allied is secondary to making our own decisions about how to handle situations. Thats how real partnerships and friendships work, one based of the other persons ability to make decisions for themselves.

---

How exactly is powerplaying the only competition, further shredding the reputation of Abs and nearly setting future double-teams in the near future in stone a good thing for all parties?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AquaSeaFoam

Since there is nothing in the game mechanics or rules preventing it, the question really is "Why SHOULDN'T Havoc wave them."

The answer to that is because over time the community in this game have generally decided that it's more fair to only fight after both kingdoms have had long periods of uninterupted preparation to fight. Anything else is generally considered either vulturing or doubling.

---

Wrong. This had nothing to do with prep time or anything else. Regardless of the circumstances, MA and Sanctuary had a hostile and Havoc waved into it. The community frowns very big frowns for 2v1s and powerplaying.

Tread softly with this "the game mechanics allow it" garbage...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendel1

The biggest troll ASF has spoken LOL. Dude you clearly did break a deal and for that you will pay this and next ages to come!

---

Huh? What deal did I break?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palem

Wrong. This had nothing to do with prep time or anything else. Regardless of the circumstances, MA and Sanctuary had a hostile and Havoc waved into it. The community frowns very big frowns for 2v1s and powerplaying.

Tread softly with this "the game mechanics allow it" garbage...

---

Palem, I think that you misunderstood my post. It was in no way trying to say "anything the game mechanics allow should be done or even that havoc was justified since game mechanics allowed it." It was much more fundamental than that and I think it should be considered independent of this situation.

Again, don't be blinded by terminology. What specifically did Havoc do that should actually be considered unfair? I'll offer up two things. 1) they interfered in Elit's ability to carry out a 1v1 fight with Sanc. 2) they took advantage of Elit being in a weakened state by their fight with Sanc. Since Sanc was trying to cf Elit and offering ingame cf, in this situation there is no 3) Two kingdoms continued to fight one together (although in some similar situations there could be that too.)

My opinion is that 2) is generally summed up in what I said in my above post about preparation. 1) is gray in this case since Elit was given adequate warnign before he waved sanc that havoc was noticing them to fight them and they would generally be considered a more suitable match (being the #2 kd to Elit's #1) than Sanc who was not even in war range. Thus in this case, I contend that 2) was the major unfair thing that Havoc did with 1) being a lesser extent but still partially applying. One argument here is that Elit had full control to avoid the situation should he have chosen to do so, but that alone doesn't justify it.

There is no clear cut right or wrong here although certainly Havoc could have been gentlemen about it and instead given Elit the 1 week extension he demanded to explore up out of range to have any possibility of a fight. This was an option, but I don't think it's an option many of those speaking out against Havoc would have done themselves in their situation and I'm positive it's not something Elit would have done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AquaSeaFoam

Huh? What deal did I break?



Palem, I think that you misunderstood my post. It was in no way trying to say "anything the game mechanics allow should be done or even that havoc was justified since game mechanics allowed it." It was much more fundamental than that and I think it should be considered independent of this situation.

Again, don't be blinded by terminology. What specifically did Havoc do that should actually be considered unfair? I'll offer up two things. 1) they interfered in Elit's ability to carry out a 1v1 fight with Sanc. 2) they took advantage of Elit being in a weakened state by their fight with Sanc. Since Sanc was trying to cf Elit and offering ingame cf, in this situation there is no 3) Two kingdoms continued to fight one together (although in some similar situations there could be that too.)

My opinion is that 2) is generally summed up in what I said in my above post about preparation. 1) is gray in this case since Elit was given adequate warnign before he waved sanc that havoc was noticing them to fight them and they would generally be considered a more suitable match (being the #2 kd to Elit's #1) than Sanc who was not even in war range. Thus in this case, I contend that 2) was the major unfair thing that Havoc did with 1) being a lesser extent but still partially applying. One argument here is that Elit had full control to avoid the situation should he have chosen to do so, but that alone doesn't justify it.

There is no clear cut right or wrong here although certainly Havoc could have been gentlemen about it and instead given Elit the 1 week extension he demanded to explore up out of range to have any possibility of a fight. This was an option, but I don't think it's an option many of those speaking out against Havoc would have done themselves in their situation and I'm positive it's not something Elit would have done.

---

Yes there is a clear wrong, Havoc interfered in a legitimate fight between Sanct and MA That all anyone needs to know about the situation.
Had Sanct not robbed MA noone would be complaining about double and notices if Elit had still waved Sanct, then it had been Elits fault but Sanct clearly interferes in Elits pump against Havoc in a way that is obviously 2v1, then when Havoc finally waves MA you and rest of Abs come up with some absurd excuse that apparently it's not a hostile situation because sanct stopped hits for 12h. By your own claim earlier in thread that hostile is when there is a button and that kd page reads hostile then there is a hostile, well both of these things were true in MA vs Sanct. And Sanct initiated that fight not MA so you can't claim some bull**** that MA was trying to avoid Havoc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendel1

Absalom will not win this age - AMA will, no matter how hard Absalom try to powerplay they can not win it.
And one thing I know, next age Absalom will not crown either, this I can promise you!

---

Saved! I'll find you on irc EOA when you end up being wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elldallan

Yes there is a clear wrong, Havoc interfered in a legitimate fight between Sanct and MA That all anyone needs to know about the situation.
Had Sanct not robbed MA noone would be complaining about double and notices if Elit had still waved Sanct, then it had been Elits fault but Sanct clearly interferes in Elits pump against Havoc in a way that is obviously 2v1, then when Havoc finally waves MA you and rest of Abs come up with some absurd excuse that apparently it's not a hostile situation because sanct stopped hits for 12h. By your own claim earlier in thread that hostile is when there is a button and that kd page reads hostile then there is a hostile, well both of these things were true in MA vs Sanct. And Sanct initiated that fight not MA so you can't claim some bull**** that MA was trying to avoid Havoc.

---

There is a lot more too the situation than you apparently decided people need to know. I think people should know everything about the situation that they can learn before making up their mind. Also, once again, instead of being blinded by terminology, consider what the actual "unfair" things that were done without relying on catch phrases. Do you disagree with what I said were the unfair things?

Do you think it was also unfair to havoc for Elit to try and dodge their notice when they told him in advance to plan for their notice once he was out of post war? They put a lot of time and effort into preparing for the fight between the #1 and #2 kingdoms but instead they were going to be left stuck never being able to fight Elit.

As for the robbing, I think that a few reasonable people like Dharan and Palem very well might have viewed Elit in the wrong had sanc not robbed any gc. I don't think it'd have made any real difference at all to the majority of the posters here though. The plan was the same either way and it all would have unfolded exactly the same and 95% of everyone posting here would still have the same opinion. As I've said before, it's the norm for Absalom kingdoms to be robbed while trying to get ready for a war. Does this mean by your logic that Absalom kingdoms never need to fight a war they don't want since they can always avoid it by waving whoever robs their gc? Again, making hard rules rarely works and only opens things up for abuse. Do you actually disagree with the general concepts of what i said in the previous posts or do you just feel the need to repeatedly say "double hostile, all that matters!"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proteus

Saved! I'll find you on irc EOA when you end up being wrong.

---

Do I sense another $100 bet coming on?

The way the previous one ended we can all bet any time, because we know money won't be paid :). ASF please tell me what were the relations between Sanctuary and AMA ingame at the time when Havoc waved? Please use 1 word only not 500 words :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DHaran

ASF, you speak very well, but the notion that #1 waving #5 is not a real hostile is just ****ing stupid. Havoc gave a legit notice, all Sanc had to do was offer a CF and say they wanted AMA to move on. Only then would there be justification for hitting into an open button situation after a bit of time passed. What Abs did was a blatant and unjustified double hostile. Your notice doesn't dictate who other kingdoms can and can't wave for hostile.

---

Ahum so Havoc gives notice after wd from Sanc too MA and at that point nothing was going on right?
Why does Sanctuary need too offer CF because they are allies with Havoc?...Why not turn it around Elit could had made a CF aswel with Sanc knowing they got noticed from Havoc and used there eowcf period too get ready for Havoc.

Its like some of you people put it on Sanc too offer CF While its conveniant for Elite to keep that relation open....Hey guys guess what we got noticed but we rather continue with Sanc for awhile lets make new deals and we fight later on when it benefits us better.

Elite should have closed the deal with Sanc by saying look we got noticed by your allied kd so we move on with them...we can make a temporary cf and maybe fight later on in age.

Its all so simple this game...some just make it more than it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soul_Hunter

The way the previous one ended we can all bet any time, because we know money won't be paid :). ASF please tell me what were the relations between Sanctuary and AMA ingame at the time when Havoc waved? Please use 1 word only not 500 words :)

---

Why not describe the wrongs using specific descriptions rather than catch phases? Clearly you want the word hostile, which it was, but I'll instead paste another ingame message that is descriptive of their relation at the time:

April 2 of YR8 Sanctuary of Absalom () has proposed a formal ceasefire with our kingdom.