Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 227

Thread: Rage of Absalom: Dealbreakers

  1. #76
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    637
    If the deal included no notice during eowcf, it shouldn't matter which kingdom is in that stance. Serving notice is a deal break. You cannot have a situation where Kingdom A can serve notice on Kingdom B, but Kingdom B cannot serve on A. That's retarded.

  2. #77
    Post Fiend
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    296
    Quote Originally Posted by Lead Pipe View Post
    If the deal included no notice during eowcf, it shouldn't matter which kingdom is in that stance. Serving notice is a deal break. You cannot have a situation where Kingdom A can serve notice on Kingdom B, but Kingdom B cannot serve on A. That's retarded.
    The point is, the deal did not contain such language. Inzz is arguing that the eowcf period should be considered "war" because the deal they made covered hostile/war only and did not mention eowcf period. I can see both sides of the coin, and honestly the community would benefit from duration cf's and notice deals and such being available as in game mechanisms. Put up a thread and ask what kind of variable conditions are commonly used, let a kd offer a cf and input the variables. If the other kd agrees, both kd's are locked into the agreement. The game only allows notice to be given if the proper variables are met, and no more grey areas to fight over. No more escalation when one side or the other feels like they've been wronged. And no dealbreaking.

    Heck, that would probably benefit most of the game more than it would the top kd's. The top kd's know they face serious consequences if they go too far, so generally they behave. Dealbreaking is much more common down the charts in my experience.

  3. #78
    007 licence to post Anri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    5,692
    i think the deal only said not to give notice into eowcf.. Not that you are not allowed to give notice to others while in eowcf.
    Cmon they are butthurt from warring BiO and normaly no one wants to give a notice while still in EoWcf to anyone.
    Kudos to Rage for wanting 2 wars in a row like this. Insolence should stop whining and get ready for a fight. Its about time Insolence does anything out of worth.
    I dont see a reason to why they should sitt around and freely pump and claim this is not a legit notice, cause it is legit. They should put their war-faces on and be happy they get a war Vs Rage. For most Rage use to be out of range and therefor not able to war them, maybe just retal war. Or they are in some kind of CF deal and unable therefor.

    Insolence should take this chance and show us what they got...
    #?

    #42

    #Pandas

    #Simians

    K L A
    Kaer Loche Alliance

    Real life of Anri - Utopia addict
    http://instagram.com/henke82

  4. #79
    Post Demon
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,407
    meh ... rage is just using inzzo to run away from free wave or another conflict from bio, thats all there is to it. arguin weather eowcf is included in war clause of the deal or some other semantics is useless, if it wasnt this they would pull some other shady move and cry foul play if they get touched by bio.

    just ignore their maneuvering, call it a dealbreak when they wave inzzo, 2v1 them and farm them out. Than you can argue weather it was dealbreak or not again here on forums ... essentially youll be in same position you are now regarding etics of the game but you'll be on the plus side ingame =)

  5. #80
    Post Fiend
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    296
    Quote Originally Posted by citadela01 View Post
    meh ... rage is just using inzzo to run away from free wave or another conflict from bio, thats all there is to it. arguin weather eowcf is included in war clause of the deal or some other semantics is useless, if it wasnt this they would pull some other shady move and cry foul play if they get touched by bio.

    just ignore their maneuvering, call it a dealbreak when they wave inzzo, 2v1 them and farm them out. Than you can argue weather it was dealbreak or not again here on forums ... essentially youll be in same position you are now regarding etics of the game but you'll be on the plus side ingame =)
    BiO got away with it the last time they 2v1 against Rage. And that was because they were sore losers after Rage mauled them 1v1. And then later on word leaked out that they had other kd's lined up to make it a 4v1 or 5v1 but that all but Dreams/Sonata backed out at the last minute. I think the only reason they didn't get retaliated for that is because Rage gained acres in a 2v1 fight and so it was mostly just lolworthy for everyone watching.

    If they do another 2v1, I'm fairly certain abs wouldn't restrain themselves a second time. That's the kind of thing that has sparked awar's in the past.

  6. #81
    Post Fiend
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    250
    Twisting words is for sure nothing new for Rage. Not even against people who are lead to belive they are on friendly terms after decently long co-work earlier.

    Shamefull that they need to do it that way, but then again, everything to ensure a win right?

  7. #82
    Post Fiend
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    296
    Quote Originally Posted by Scontan View Post
    Twisting words is for sure nothing new for Rage. Not even against people who are lead to belive they are on friendly terms after decently long co-work earlier.

    Shamefull that they need to do it that way, but then again, everything to ensure a win right?
    I think lots of kd's test the bounds of agreements. Every kd wants to enter conflicts with other kd's with as much advantage as they can. It's easy to point at very successful kd's or alliances because they are high profile. But it goes on all throughout the game.

  8. #83
    Strategy Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,226
    From what I understand, there was clause that said "no notice during hostile/war" on our 48h notice deal with Inzz. There was no mention of post war cf or eowcf. The clause is supposed to be an anti vulture clause designed to give kingdoms who just fought some extra time to recover. Inzz did not hostile or war anyone and does not need any extra time to recover.

    Protector posted logs from a few ages ago when ZZ (the "ZZ" in "InZZolence") gave notice to HoH while HoH was in post war from a long and rough real war with the intent to vulture them. HoH and ZZ had a "no notice in hostile/war" anti-vulture clause. This vulturing was exactly what the no notice in hostile/war deal was supposed to protect against. I felt that noticing HoH into their post war after their long destructive war was against the spirit of the agreement even though it did not specifically state "post war" as not allowed.

    ZZ disagreed with my opinion and proceeded to wave HoH as soon as they were out of their post war cf (this was also before the long post war time we get now.) ZZ was not "2v1'd" or anything else despite their vulture on HoH against the spirit of their "no vulture" agreement. In short, ZZ's specific definition of war to not include post-war won out and it became understood that post-war needed to be specified separately or you may get vultured despite what was supposed to be an anti-vulture clause.

    Now some of the same people who participated in that post-war notice and vulture are now trying to claim that a kingdom who just warred cannot give them notice even though their kingdom is just peacefully pumping away for over a week.

    Please stop being silly.

  9. #84
    Triggered Godly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,953
    I'm not so sure why everyone thinks that we're crying or don't want to fight. I'm merely trying to expose that you should make sure you cover every single possible option with Rage or most absalom kingdoms, because they are going to **** you over if they have the slightest chance. Make sure when you say 48 hours, you mention that those are earth hours and not lunar hours. Make sure when you say no hits that includes thief ops or something along those lines. Make sure that you define what a hostile is and what a war is and what an elite is and what a defense spec is. Hire a contract attorney for completeness.

    Ideally, no one would make deals with these chumps again, but I'm sure that won't happen. Have fun everyone.
    Last edited by Godly; 19-03-2012 at 23:25.
    "Godly, you do realized that you have just sealed your faith now, right?"

  10. #85
    Post Fiend
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    296
    Quote Originally Posted by Godly View Post
    I'm not so sure why everyone thinks that we're crying or don't want to fight. I'm merely trying to expose that you should make sure you cover every single possible option with Rage or most absalom kingdoms, because they are going to **** you over if they have the slightest chance. Make sure when you say 48 hours, you mention that those are earth hours and not lunar hours. Make sure when you say no hits that includes thief ops or something along those lines. Make sure that you define what a hostile is and what a war is and what an elite is and what a defense spec is. Hire a contract attorney for completeness.

    Ideally, no one would make deals with these chumps again, but I'm sure that won't happen. Have fun everyone.
    Come on Godly. That was a good troll, but seriously. You cannot honestly believe that only abs kd's look for loopholes and maximize their advantages. Heck, we've just seen in this thread an example of how ZZ abused a loophole which led to the standard practice of specifying eowcf in agreements. That wasn't specified in this agreement according to ASF, and I don't believe anyone from inzz has contested that.

    So if some of the same people who were involved with exploiting a loophole some ages back have the same loophole exploited now ... you're going to cry about how abs is terrible and corrupt and awful and everyone else is a saint? Come on. Every kd will try to find every advantage they can for conflicts. There's not a top kd going right now that hasn't done it. I'm fairly certain there hasn't been a top kingdom ever who didn't do it, but since I didn't play for every top kd ever I can't say I'm 100% sure. But only someone setting up a straw man argument or who was a few steak knives short of a set upstairs would argue that only abs kds have ever taken advantage of loopholes in diplomacy.

  11. #86
    Sir Postalot
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,132
    The humorous part is hasn't Rage put itself in a position where it's forced to give a button to avians in fortified in order to avoid BIO?

    That does not seem like an ideal situation.

  12. #87
    Sir Postalot
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,132
    Quote Originally Posted by AquaSeaFoam View Post
    From what I understand, there was clause that said "no notice during hostile/war" on our 48h notice deal with Inzz. There was no mention of post war cf or eowcf. The clause is supposed to be an anti vulture clause designed to give kingdoms who just fought some extra time to recover. Inzz did not hostile or war anyone and does not need any extra time to recover.

    Protector posted logs from a few ages ago when ZZ (the "ZZ" in "InZZolence") gave notice to HoH while HoH was in post war from a long and rough real war with the intent to vulture them. HoH and ZZ had a "no notice in hostile/war" anti-vulture clause. This vulturing was exactly what the no notice in hostile/war deal was supposed to protect against. I felt that noticing HoH into their post war after their long destructive war was against the spirit of the agreement even though it did not specifically state "post war" as not allowed.

    ZZ disagreed with my opinion and proceeded to wave HoH as soon as they were out of their post war cf (this was also before the long post war time we get now.) ZZ was not "2v1'd" or anything else despite their vulture on HoH against the spirit of their "no vulture" agreement. In short, ZZ's specific definition of war to not include post-war won out and it became understood that post-war needed to be specified separately or you may get vultured despite what was supposed to be an anti-vulture clause.

    Now some of the same people who participated in that post-war notice and vulture are now trying to claim that a kingdom who just warred cannot give them notice even though their kingdom is just peacefully pumping away for over a week.

    Please stop being silly.
    Are you planning on exiting your postwar ceasefire well prior to the notice being expired?

  13. #88
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    612
    Quote Originally Posted by UtopiaNub View Post
    Abs has basically been the reason 1v1 is considered the "correct" way to play Utopia.
    I wouldn't speak on their behalf if I were you. If Abs claims that Kingdom A waving KD B and immediately getting waved by Kingdom C is "double hostiling", then it's an incredible double standard considering they've used that tactic often. I haven't heard from them so I assume they don't agree with you.

  14. #89
    Post Fiend
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    296
    Quote Originally Posted by Meeni View Post
    I wouldn't speak on their behalf if I were you. If Abs claims that Kingdom A waving KD B and immediately getting waved by Kingdom C is "double hostiling", then it's an incredible double standard considering they've used that tactic often. I haven't heard from them so I assume they don't agree with you.
    I don't think anyone who has played for most of the game's lifespan would argue that Absalom has not been a proponent of 1v1 fighting, or that they have not enforced it as a standard.

    You can come up with exceptions to anything. There's a reason there is a saying that "the exception proves the rule".

  15. #90
    Moderator for:
    Utopia Forums
    Palem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    22,030
    Quote Originally Posted by UtopiaNub View Post
    You can come up with exceptions to anything. There's a reason there is a saying that "the exception proves the rule".
    c = universal speed limit?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •