I can hardly sleep at night.
Printable View
I can hardly sleep at night.
They set the precedent. Their problem now.
The only good thing about all this is that the whole whoring tier showed their asses publicly. Whatever little respect and admiration there may have been is now gone.
on the downside this is leaving the devs in the difficult situation where they have to come up with solutions to not only the no hits wars but also possible ways to prevent these kind of situations. No one wants to play a game that doesn't have some form of fair play.
No hit wars were a consequence of the devs own changes making them a valid strategy. Devs are criminally incompetent when it comes to deciding changes, utterly ****ing hopeless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodwitch
Next age changes look promising. Lots of damages.
This thread is honestly demoralising.
Rule 1: War is a one-vs-one fight.
It really isn't that hard.
Gonna have to ask you to provide a link to that ruleQuote:
Originally Posted by Calya
It's a ****en disgrace and they should be ashamed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elit
Reminded me ofQuote:
Originally Posted by Lestat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJkHm2WtSsk
they never can... nor can they grasp war is a stance like fort, agg and normal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pillz
War kds hold war stance sacred!Quote:
Originally Posted by Pillz
After reading to page 5 of this thread, I have come to the conclusion that my many years of playing utopia (been 5 years since I played last though) will be coming to an end very shorty...
If hitting into a war just to secure a provincial crown is to be considered acceptable behaviour by the community , then sadly, I see nothing but a dismal future for the game...
It's not 'outplaying' it's actually quite ****ty playing... if anything The elfs kingdom that is constantly warring while the elf is growing, is doing the 'out playing' of Barts kingdom.
My kingdom hit into barts kingdom when they were around the 10 - 12 M mark, 3 of us tapped one of their provinces who felt having 20 DPA and almost no OPA with a 16M negative trade balance was the way to grow, he lost about 600 acres in the hits... Bart made a lot of noise with our monarch and steward and as I was one of the attackers I messaged Bart and had a fair bit a dialog with him because his demands for compensation was unreasonable..
Point was it was going to take them a lot more time and energy to retal for the acres than it was worth it when their province was at fault for essentially having inadequate defense and simply expecting not to be top fed from a lower tier kingdom. In the end I think they took back the acres of one of the attacks from two provinces but ultimately we come out in front... They where not in war not in hostile...
Funnily enough the most toxicity in war forums that I have encountered this age has been from players in the middle and lower tiers... Randoming into the top kingdoms has usually not been a problem, they bottom feed, we top feed etc :D and I have hit into a few of the top kingdoms, with only 2:2 every making any noise about it...
Seriously though, denying a provincial crown to someone who has probably worked damned hard to get it and has grown hard and during wars and cowed for his kingdom so they could benefit during those wars, through out of war hits is disgraceful behaviour at its finest...
And people seem to want to get more players in the game, toxic in game messaging and this kind of behaviour will do more to drive players away than all the positive things the devs can do...
There are some interesting metrics on how many players a single griefing player can drive away...
Food for thought I think...
It's hard to link to an implied or unwritten rule. I'll grant you that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pillz
It's also hard to mesh Fair & Honourable Play, specifically that
with an attitude to hitting into war that is undeniably selfish, cowardly and ruins the enjoyment for the victim(s). Anyone who gets hit in war, regardless of size or experience, automatically (and rightfully) gets irate that the "sanctity" of war is not being honoured. Like it or not, the entire server views it as unethical when they get hit by other kingdoms while they're in war.Quote:
The operators of the game aim to maintain the highest standards of ethics within the game. ... We rely on our users to ... provide an enjoyable gaming environment for users of all ages and backgrounds
It seems like the "honour-based" or karmic mentality of "I won't do it as I don't want it done to me" is fraying. That's not a good thing. This type of behaviour only encourages more of the same, and the more undeserving victims there are, the fewer players there'll be. That's also not a good thing.
Hitting into war is a callous and mean-spirited thing to do. If someone needs a rule to tell them not to be callous or mean-spirited there's a problem with their moral compass, not the rules of the game.
Newsflash: war is a stance. Hitting into them is just not cool. It's up to the community to enforce the rule of cool.
It's not just the war kds. Growth kds "respect" and enforce this "taboo" too (even when the hitting kd would have motives to hit in).Quote:
Originally Posted by Avenger
to give just some more recent examples a few ages ago emeriti was forced to give acres back after hitting into pandas? war, being noticed prior and forced to train up - pandas (again not sure if they were the kd) noticed someone else too and went into war with them.
cr was gb (2-3 ages ago?) for hitting into a war (wsk vs someone) that was perceived at the time as a running from the b2b.
in both cases there were mitigating circumstances for hitting in war and about same stake for doing it - crowning (or more since we're talking here only about a prov crown - bartas case) and still it was perceived, labeled and actioned as a taboo.
top kingdoms respect the stance when it benefits them and they feel they can get away with it they do not.Quote:
Originally Posted by drakon
War is simply a stance and it has been forever fine to hit into said stance. It is the communities ability/responsibility to enforce it.
You simply think the community is ok with it... people are telling you it can not be enforced since bart got a position to power play and he is. Please look around the server... tell the thread who can enforce punishment onto him?Quote:
After reading to page 5 of this thread, I have come to the conclusion that my many years of playing utopia (been 5 years since I played last though) will be coming to an end very shorty...
If hitting into a war just to secure a provincial crown is to be considered acceptable behaviour by the community , then sadly, I see nothing but a dismal future for the game...
It's not 'outplaying' it's actually quite ****ty playing... if anything The elfs kingdom that is constantly warring while the elf is growing, is doing the 'out playing' of Barts kingdom.
My kingdom hit into barts kingdom when they were around the 10 - 12 M mark, 3 of us tapped one of their provinces who felt having 20 DPA and almost no OPA with a 16M negative trade balance was the way to grow, he lost about 600 acres in the hits... Bart made a lot of noise with our monarch and steward and as I was one of the attackers I messaged Bart and had a fair bit a dialog with him because his demands for compensation was unreasonable..
Point was it was going to take them a lot more time and energy to retal for the acres than it was worth it when their province was at fault for essentially having inadequate defense and simply expecting not to be top fed from a lower tier kingdom. In the end I think they took back the acres of one of the attacks from two provinces but ultimately we come out in front... They where not in war not in hostile...
Funnily enough the most toxicity in war forums that I have encountered this age has been from players in the middle and lower tiers... Randoming into the top kingdoms has usually not been a problem, they bottom feed, we top feed etc :D and I have hit into a few of the top kingdoms, with only 2:2 every making any noise about it...
Seriously though, denying a provincial crown to someone who has probably worked damned hard to get it and has grown hard and during wars and cowed for his kingdom so they could benefit during those wars, through out of war hits is disgraceful behaviour at its finest...
And people seem to want to get more players in the game, toxic in game messaging and this kind of behaviour will do more to drive players away than all the positive things the devs can do...
There are some interesting metrics on how many players a single griefing player can drive away...
Food for thought I think...
I remembered there is one. The so called flogger who claimed he will hunt down bart this age. What a joke. In the end, flogger involved in presenting the crown to bart.hohohoQuote:
Originally Posted by Squee311
are you looking now... no one is in position to do anything so bart can freely control province crownsQuote:
Originally Posted by JusticeLeague
The problem with war being "just a stance" and hitting into it: you cannot use your meter against the interjecting into war kingdom. You don't get ops against them nor is there any way to retaliate except to hit out of war at significantly reduced gains.Quote:
Originally Posted by Squee311
That's not entirely true. Meter still builds. You can declare on them when you leave war.
The damage is usually done tho. Yes, you can declare, if your kingdom is big enough by then.
Your crown would have been just as tainted.Quote:
Originally Posted by titefuzz
Suppose you can win freely if you just CF everybody.
Honestly, be more of a drama queen you spineless windbag.
So you thinking hitting into others wars are the same as cfing kingdoms?Quote:
Originally Posted by calamity
I neither implied or condoned it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Korp
I merely pointed out the hypocrisy of this thread and the complaints thereafter.
Things I'd personally never do:
1) Hit into war
2) CF every kingdom around me
Here's my view of the top.Quote:
Originally Posted by Korp
CF everybody in range.
Bottom feed kingdoms smaller that have limited retaliation options
Complain if anybody does something that affects me
Do I think hitting into a war is ****ty....yes, but not any worse than kingdoms that hit into kingdoms 70%+ smaller than them. Both sides are doing what they consider in the best interest of their kingdom charting.
*shrug*
Tainted how?Quote:
Originally Posted by calamity
War is demonstrably not a stance. Stances are unilateral positions taken by kingdoms that can give the provinces in a kingdom additional bonuses and weaknesses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Avenger
War is a unique relationship between two kingdoms that by design excludes all other kingdoms in the game for the duration it exists. (I.e. You can't be at war with more than one kingdom at the same time).
Your description is 100% wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calya
If it was designed to exclude all other kingdoms in the game....then you wouldn't be able to attack, spell, op at all. Instead it's specifically setup so that you CAN it's just not beneficial.
I have not followed this conversation but splitting hairs, isn't war a relation? As opposed to a stance?
unfriendly, hostile and war = relations
normal, aggressive, fortified (or whatever it is now) = stances
right?
That said, no one complains about hitting into an "unfriendly". It happens all the time. Few make a huge stink (aka forum posts) about hits into a hostile, even though it is frowned upon. So, why all the drama about war?
Because hitting in to war directly benefits the target's war opponent. The war should be a measure of the two warring KDs against each other. Hitting in to that is exponentially more of a cheap move than hitting in to unfriendly or hostile.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheister
How exactly is it different? If two kingdoms are clearly hitting each other for war, a kingdom hitting them in unfriendly helps the other kingdom just as much as hitting into a war. You could probably argue that the unfriendly attack does more damage to swinging the outcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phylast
I disagree. I don't think it's wrong at all (but I wouldn't, would I?).Quote:
Originally Posted by Glimi
War is unique; Like stances it gives (mostly) advantages to a kingdom. Unlike stances, it gives exactly the same (mostly) advantages to two kingdoms, simultaneously. War is a relationship; It requires an element of consent between two kingdoms to accomplish.
It is not intended to protect you from all outside interference (due to potential abuse of the system/fake wars) but it is equally not possible to be at war with two different kingdoms at the same time.
The mechanics of the game dissuade hits into or out of war. The entire player-base feels aggrieved when a third party interferes in their war by hitting them. Those who hit into war know that the people they hit are either going to have get out of the war (likely with a loss) or else continue to suffer hits in what was a 1v1 battle; In either case, morale is knocked down and players out of the game.
If you care about Utopia as a game, any of these are solid reasons not to hit into a war.
I agree that Unfriendly seems largely ignorable at this point, and hits into Hostile are generally frowned upon but tolerated. But War and Unfriendly/Hostile are dramatically different situations. For me, the difference is that Unfriendly and Hostile situations can be unilaterally created by a kingdom. War only happens when both kingdoms essentially agree to fight each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheister
And to add to what Phylast mentioned; If someone waves you during a non-war situation, you have not-bad options; You can take the new threat to war/retaliate. You can ignore them and retaliate later (possibly with the button if you're lucky). If you're in war, you're options are not-good; Withdraw and try to rebuild to take on the newcomer. Or "suck it up" and try to fight two kingdoms at once.
If this comes across as a big whine about how unfair it is to hit into a war, that's ok. It is unfair to hit into a war. But it's also malicious. That's much, much worse for the longterm survival of the game.
War is a stance that overrides all relations.
direct from the wiki on relations.
Attacking another kingdom affects the relations between the two kingdoms.
By continually attacking, your kingdom's conflict level against said kingdom will elevate, thereby changing the relation type; first from Normal to Unfriendly, and then Hostile.
There are five relation types, each of which have various benefits and penalties.
Clearly war is a relation...
Stances as previously mentioned are a state that each kingdom can set and have a specific benefit / penalty for the kingdom setting it and other kingdom interacting with the kingdom that set the stance.
Relations require the actions of one or both kingdoms, hence one kingdom can be hostile with another while the other remains normal or unfriendly in their relationship with the attacking kingdom, when the relationship degrades ultimately it will degrade into war which over rides all other relations and neutralises any stance effects.
fairly clear IMHO.