Philosophy behind intraraze?

[brado]

how is land-dropping and warring ex nihilo lame? how is that beating on newbies or KD's out of their league. Can one of you people first explain that to me.

Please tell me how choosing to war quality kingdoms smaller is lame.

Because playing the game in the top ranks becomes so bleeding boring due to sissies like you who land drop out of range. And then u go and **** up the balance at the bottom so that two problems develop. 1- Low tier kds have more difficult time developing into mid tier kds 2- mid tier kds dont even try to develop into top tier kds

[Forensick]

Sheister, you are lame
your tactics are lame
and therefore i assume your KD is lame.

How about a deal, you war us, then you can land drop "ethically" and show us that ghetto bashing is a "fun way to play"

send me a PM, we'll set up a date. adding a "no excuses clause" we get waved by another KD we will still war, we are in a hostile going nowhere and have MS all over us, we'll still war, just out of EOWCF, we will still war. 3k acres difference b/ween our biggest and smallest, we are still there.


btw, as for how hard it is to regrow a prov.... we have gregrown a prov from 200a to 1k in an ACTIVE war, to be honest i kinda find the acre spread valuble with the the limited top/bottom feeding in war

[Sheister]

ehem. Playing in the top ranks is boring because you all have it so freaking tied up in unwritten rules and bull that whenever someone decides to try to grow into it they get nothing but a bad taste in their mouth. The only answer, if you don't want to deal with ego-maniacs who get their jollies out of playing control games with you in a dying game is..... to not waste your time with them.

[Sheister]

Sheister, you are lame
your tactics are lame
and therefore i assume your KD is lame.

whatever chief.

How about a deal, you war us, then you can land drop "ethically" and show us that ghetto bashing is a "fun way to play"

please call ex nihilo a ghetto again.

**edit**, wtf is "us" btw. I don't spend time trying to figure out who everyone is.....

send me a PM, we'll set up a date. adding a "no excuses clause" we get waved by another KD we will still war, we are in a hostile going nowhere and have MS all over us, we'll still war, just out of EOWCF, we will still war. 3k acres difference b/ween our biggest and smallest, we are still there.

with the way you put that invitation, I am so eager to spend time interacting with you........

btw, as for how hard it is to regrow a prov.... we have gregrown a prov from 200a to 1k in an ACTIVE war, to be honest i kinda find the acre spread valuble with the the limited top/bottom feeding in war

It is easy to regrow them in war, it is when the war stops that it gets hard.

**edit** read hard as slow......

[Forensick]

yawn

msg me, war us, or be quiet and go back to land dropping so you can pretend to be good

[skraz]

**** i love seeing forensick back lol

[Forensick]

Hi skraz!!!!!

[Ezzerland]

Sheister, you are lame
your tactics are lame
and therefore i assume your KD is lame.

You cannot provide a self supporting argument and therefore need to issue a challenge on behalf of your kingdom to a kingdom you appear to know nothing about (why else would you need to be making assumptions?) in an attempt to support your own opinion. You want to talk about lame?

--

I do not support land dropping myself. Bishop is correct that the game does not support it (though it used to), yet the majority of self-proclaimed warring kingdoms use this tactic. In some ways it is used to cheat their opponents, in other ways it is used to stay competitive. Now, people in here like to throw around ethics in regard to this situation but fail to provide anything more than tactical disputes. There is no given amenities to support the claim of ethics. Your tactical pursuit is unfortunately irrelevant. You can dislike one kingdoms tactic as you wish, but this dislike does not support your claim to ethics. Neither does mudslinging ('lame', 'sissies', 'boring', 'ghetto bashing', etc).

For example, I can disagree with your tactic of growing a cow because it's lame to have one province the consumes the general majority of your kd nw and impacts the nature of war in an unnatural way and blah blah blah. That does not make this tactic unethical, nor does it imbalance the game. It just makes it necessary to plan accordingly.

The 'ethical' debate of land dropping enters play in the spirit of the game. The game is designed in the spirit of competition. It's also designed to support a variety of play styles to the players. There is a continuous claim ongoing that only one style of play should be accepted, but most would agree that having a different style or different goals is acceptable. The real difference of opinion here is whether or not the land dropping affects the spirit of competition. If it does, then it is unethical, and if it does not, then it is morally acceptable.

Sheister presents the opinion that the use of the land-dropping tactic allows him to play in a furthering competitive manner, therefore making the game more enjoyable to him and allowing him to compete with more teams in a faster manner. This theory is why he is not understanding the claim of this tactic being unethical, as this appears to clearly support the spirit of competition.

This is flawed, however. Land-dropping removes the opportunity for another kingdom to enter in competition with you, as you are, where you are. This disrupts the spirit of competition in two ways:
a) Deprivation of enemy encounter
b) Bypassing the necessary steps to remain competitive

A controlled environment, playing against other kingdoms who also control their environment, feels acceptable while it's being done as it appears to apply the theory of no harm no foul. This is where Sheister would apply his relative theory of skill and activity, and how it ties into the desirable controlled environment. This is a matter of perception vs reality. No harm no foul insists that by land dropping and putting yourself in a ready status without the necessary skill and activity to do so otherwise, you have not harmed nor fouled another kingdom. It should not be hard to see how you may have deprived your enemies when you enjoy feasting on fat players yourself that are under-prepared.

Anyway, I wrote a long enough comment on this so I'mma go ahead an interrupt myself. I see very little point in this debate. It's hard to have sensible conversation with utopians.

[Forensick]

giraffe?

[Persain]

We had a difference of opinion of what was acceptable behaviour and what wasn't.

exactly, we thought 24 hours to prep meant do whatever u want to get in war shape. not anything but landrop the undead on 120 nw/acre into a reasonable size so u couldnt top feed all our honor. still big differnce between that and the kd wide landdrops that kds like strippers used to do to destroy ghettoes. Same rationel can be put to bouncewaves we truned down a kd for war because they were 25 undeads started bouncewaving our fearies and say hey when we're done bounceaving u wanna war....lol.

Still the rational is if u value honor grow and war bigger kds, or risk your honor in war. Its a good thing it got implemented since enough people agreed w/goodz.

[Sheister]

Sheister presents the opinion that the use of the land-dropping tactic allows him to play in a furthering competitive manner, therefore making the game more enjoyable to him and allowing him to compete with more teams in a faster manner. This theory is why he is not understanding the claim of this tactic being unethical, as this appears to clearly support the spirit of competition.

This is flawed, however. Land-dropping removes the opportunity for another kingdom to enter in competition with you, as you are, where you are. This disrupts the spirit of competition in two ways:
a) Deprivation of enemy encounter
b) Bypassing the necessary steps to remain competitive

you are a rock of courtesy in a sea of trolls ezzerland. (feel free to add that to your signature :D)

But:

Deprivation of enemy encounter for who? For my kingdom? For the "ehtical" gurus in this thread? From the comments of their members here, I would not care. Abs? I have been clear all along that I firmly believe ignoring them is the best way to continue enjoying the game. You also assume that I would target fat kingdoms. On the contrary, I look for the most pumped kingdoms I can, similar to me, because otherwise they won't war. I don't look for wars with fat kingdoms, kingdoms not in war build, kingdoms with rainbow builds, etc. So I am not targeting weaker kingdoms at all. The only reason to target those kingdoms is to grow, which is not at all what I am trying to do.

Bypassing steps? No, I am replacing a growth/pump time investment strategy with a "go to war faster" strategy.


____

Someone else mentioned kingdom wide land dropping. To be clear, I have NEVER don that. End of war when I have two attackers that are 200% of my nearest next province, 250% of my core and growing all our TM's up to them as well as growing up provinces from 25% of core to that would mean no warring for two or more weeks, then I seek to land drop the two provinces who, lets face it, are most likely going to get fed on out of war anyway. The only difference is here, I arrange who and when those landdrops occur to protect elites and so on. This is a choice, a strategy, and even an excercise of diplomacy. All things that people like to encourage in the game.

Other options:
1) Turn two attackers into cows. Please, like that would be allowed by the top 5....... don't even start that crap.
2) Letting randoms naturally hit into them to drop them. This disrupts hostiles and orderly entering into wars. Why on earth would I want to have to deal with that when I don't have to.

[flutterby]

Bottom line is whether it's ethical or not, it still happens. Unless Bishop sends it the way of a fake war it's not going to change.
That would be tricky because it's used to kill off unwanted provinces, what happens if the person running the provinces sees
the light and decides to stay in the kingdom? It would be a nightmare.

[Ezzerland]

yawn

msg me, war us, or be quiet and go back to land dropping so you can pretend to be good

Since you appear to be serious on this challenge. Let me know when your kingdom is big enough to bother waving.

you are a rock of courtesy in a sea of trolls ezzerland. (feel free to add that to your signature :D)

Thanks, but I have no signature for a reason.

Deprivation of enemy encounter for who? For my kingdom? For the "ehtical" gurus in this thread? From the comments of their members here, I would not care. Abs? I have been clear all along that I firmly believe ignoring them is the best way to continue enjoying the game.

Whether you care to face someone or not is not relevant. By removing land from your own players via the use of this tactic you are depriving your competition of the ability to make use of this opportunity themselves. Once again, the 'who' is not relevant.

You also assume that I would target fat kingdoms. On the contrary, I look for the most pumped kingdoms I can, similar to me, because otherwise they won't war. I don't look for wars with fat kingdoms, kingdoms not in war build, kingdoms with rainbow builds, etc. So I am not targeting weaker kingdoms at all. The only reason to target those kingdoms is to grow, which is not at all what I am trying to do.

I will ignore this part as it is not only not directed at me, but is as irrelevant as the 'who' above.

Bypassing steps? No, I am replacing a growth/pump time investment strategy with a "go to war faster" strategy.

I'm not nitpicking the choice of strategy, but yes, you are bypassing steps. You comment in an earlier post about the lack of skill or activity. By using this strategy you are shorting yourself or your players the understanding of other more ethical strategies. Learning is a necessity, even for me.

Someone else mentioned kingdom wide land dropping. To be clear, I have NEVER don that. End of war when I have two attackers that are 200% of my nearest next province, 250% of my core and growing all our TM's up to them as well as growing up provinces from 25% of core to that would mean no warring for two or more weeks, then I seek to land drop the two provinces who, lets face it, are most likely going to get fed on out of war anyway. The only difference is here, I arrange who and when those landdrops occur to protect elites and so on.

I'm going to point out a few points of discussion here. The thread originated behind the idea of intra-kd hits, and I'd argue the majority of comments in this thread were based behind that. The kind of land dropping you are discussing here uses a different technique to accomplish the same goal. There are very drastic differences between someone else hitting your players for acres to land drop them and you doing it internally. From your earlier stand-points, the majority of players can only speculate you are discussing among the topic at hand. You present yourself poorly in this regard.

The argument of ethics under this different light is changed by only one point. Your land is not being sunk into the games black hole via intra-kd hits. This tactic involves an external willing participant. Giving land to your competition is a bit of a different debate, but others are welcome to comment it.

This is a choice, a strategy, and even an excercise of diplomacy. All things that people like to encourage in the game.

Fake war is a choice, a strategy, and even an exercise of diplomacy. It's also an abuse of game mechanic and therefore unacceptable (even though it used to be a commonly accepted method of recovery in the past, due to other bad mechanics). Follow?

[Binar]

landdropping is like exploring in reverse

[Sheister]

Thanks, but I have no signature for a reason.

awww

Whether you care to face someone or not is not relevant. By removing land from your own players via the use of this tactic you are depriving your competition of the ability to make use of this opportunity themselves. Once again, the 'who' is not relevant.

the opportunity to land drop? or to farm out a province that can't be unsupported by a KD similarly able to grow? Neither one of those is something anyone should be concerned about.[/quote]

I'm not nitpicking the choice of strategy, but yes, you are bypassing steps. You comment in an earlier post about the lack of skill or activity. By using this strategy you are shorting yourself or your players the understanding of other more ethical strategies. Learning is a necessity, even for me.

again with the ethics. If they want to develop the skill and activity, it is a different questions. If they want to be casual players and not have to put in the time, there is nothing wrong with them doing other things that will not require them to develop. Freedom of choice and all that....

I'm going to point out a few points of discussion here. The thread originated behind the idea of intra-kd hits, and I'd argue the majority of comments in this thread were based behind that. The kind of land dropping you are discussing here uses a different technique to accomplish the same goal. There are very drastic differences between someone else hitting your players for acres to land drop them and you doing it internally. From your earlier stand-points, the majority of players can only speculate you are discussing among the topic at hand. You present yourself poorly in this regard.

perhaps, but this thread long turned into a land-dropping generally thread and it is clear the majority of participants in the debate hate both forms. so, i don't see much point to parsing the one from the other. Overall, people have this misguided belief that if we all just concentrate on growth this will make the top 10 more competative and that is the major basis for their complaint. what they don't realize is the number of conversations that are had when arranging diplomacy in the top when certain kingdoms say "you can have a CF, but you have to limit the growth of your humans to X amount or or or." The fact that such a statement is even offered is evidence that belies what is said about wanting more competition at the top. So people really need to stop pretending that such is anyone's true desire (other than the few who believe that they will ever have a chance to do so on a level playing field.)

Fake war is a choice, a strategy, and even an exercise of diplomacy. It's also an abuse of game mechanic and therefore unacceptable (even though it used to be a commonly accepted method of recovery in the past, due to other bad mechanics). Follow?

Apples are better than oranges.