Hostile, Notices, and top kd drama

[American Badass]

It would be nice if when you send a CF it can come with a "notes" box whereby a kingdom can enter Terms and conditions and when it gets broken you can hover over it to see what them terms were... Could also appear in your relations page and it will say what the "notes" were so there is a track record. That would be official then and no bs agreements on IRC or PMs and the whole kingdom can see them.

People should still be able to break but then again there is a clear viewing to all what the terms were originally.

To be fair in the old days CF would be written down and handed to people as a record.

[Meep]

IMO a hostile stands until either:

A) A CF is accepted or B) Relations die (If that takes 7 days, it takes 7 days)

Step 1). Trade hits evenly with friend for 2 days
Step 2). Enjoy your 10 days of hostile protection from the rest of the server
Step 3). That is a mind-numbingly idiotic definition of a hostile.

[American Badass]

- If you wave someone they have 2 options. 1) Retal you back or 2) offer a cf so the aggressor moves on.

If neither side hits for 48 hours, yes hostile is fake.

If one side stops hitting but the other is still hitting, that is still a "hostile" in my eyes and that kingdom should not get waved by another kingdom outside as that would be a "double" hostile to me. Maybe after 24 hours of no retal back the aggressor should offer a CF and until it is accepted the Hostile stands and I would assume the aggressor will carry on hitting until it is accepted. A double hostile is when 2 kingdoms have button against you so if you wave back someone that waved you, you can get oped by 2 kingdoms.

[Ezzerland]

No, it gives notice upon the end of those events. You see, giving notice is what starts the 48 hour (or whatever) clock before hits can begin. You aren't noticing them in their hostile, you're noticing them upon the end of the hostile, since notice is what starts that timer. Do you see the distinction? The purpose behind no notice into hostile/eowcf/etc/etc clauses is so that you can't wave someone immediately out of their war. Telling them that notice is effective as of the end of their war/hostile preserves that intent, while removing a silly activity requirement that you're artificially placing on the noticer.

So then we agree to disagree. Not wasting my time talking in circles.

You're right that some people hide behind things like 'game definitions' of hostiles rather than using their brains. While the community doesn't agree on what is or is not a hostile (and never will), I think that they tend to muddle through this just fine. People do what they want, and that is largely how I would expect it to be resolved anyway.

They have agreed on it in the past. They could in the future. They wont, though, because like mansoor said, the community enjoys acting like scum.

Presumably, if you notice a kingdom and they are waved by someone else, the someone else had 'dibs' to begin with because notice was already served (via the lack of a CF if nothing else). If they wave a third party, then they had dibs to that fight, as well.

Unfortunately, no one else agrees with this argument. Probably for the above reason that, again, the community enjoys acting like scum. No one here is interested in what is good for the game.

It's hard to take a thread with such a ridiculous premise seriously.

Then stay out of it. Simple, no?

[Zauper]

So then we agree to disagree. Not wasting my time talking in circles.

Yes, you're playing a semantic game and I'm not. We can agree to disagree! :P

They have agreed on it in the past. They could in the future. They wont, though, because like mansoor said, the community enjoys acting like scum.

Unfortunately, no one else agrees with this argument. Probably for the above reason that, again, the community enjoys acting like scum. No one here is interested in what is good for the game.

The community at large has never agreed on the definition of hostiles. There have been some tentative things that came out of the large alliance discussions, but those were not very solid, and not accepted by the community at large, particularly considering that there were some major players in the community who did not attend / did not agree / did not support it (which may or may not be due to them enjoying acting like scum, or not wanting to waste their time).

[mastakizzor]

my KD has vultured, and we have been vultured by others as well.. hitting through fort, into other people's hostile, and breaking CFs... these are the 3 main issues creating vultures.. just fix or enhance fortified stance, hostile stance, and CF...

increase or double the nerfs on fortified stance.. include a -100% honor and -50% troop loss on any action against/from a fortified KD as well.. (this is a fair double edge sword and its hard to abuse, ultimately it serves the purpose of rebuilding)

when 2 KDs are locked in hostility, hitting in/out of a 3rd KD would be nerfed like hitting into or out from a war..

CF offered will be automatically accepted for any KDs with 75% or less of attacking KD's networth.. means, bigger KDs cant bully the small ones.. and add in a minimum period of 4 or 7 days for Non-Aggressive Pact, during this time, no one can cancel the CF..

KDs in war are 100% protected from all other KDs.. its gonna be 1v1 till the end.. no interference..

[AquaSeaFoam]

Agreeing on a hostile definition proved to be a huge mistake and lead to most all competitive kingdoms doing lame actions left and right.

[DHaran]

This is the same reason we don't spell out game rules, it just invites people to look for ways around them. You know **** play when you see it, it doesn't need to be defined.

[Elit]

CF offered will be automatically accepted for any KDs with 75% or less of attacking KD's networth.. means, bigger KDs cant bully the small ones.. and add in a minimum period of 4 or 7 days for Non-Aggressive Pact, during this time, no one can cancel the CF..

Its very easy for abuse and smaller kd already have protection for KD nw gains till meter reach 50.
Overall i think its good when 2 kds have hostile in game they need to get some protection from hits outside but its easy for abuse too.

There is not perfect solution.

[Zauper]

increase or double the nerfs on fortified stance.. include a -100% honor and -50% troop loss on any action against/from a fortified KD as well.. (this is a fair double edge sword and its hard to abuse, ultimately it serves the purpose of rebuilding)

Fort is strong enough as is; it should probably be modified to modify raze damage as well.

when 2 KDs are locked in hostility, hitting in/out of a 3rd KD would be nerfed like hitting into or out from a war..

Do you want Bishop to monitor fake hostiles now as well? Because that would be necessary.

CF offered will be automatically accepted for any KDs with 75% or less of attacking KD's networth.. means, bigger KDs cant bully the small ones.. and add in a minimum period of 4 or 7 days for Non-Aggressive Pact, during this time, no one can cancel the CF..

This is a bad idea.

[idiocy]

The simple solution to vulturing (whole kingdoms vulturing, anyway) - Snatch News, which most kingdoms should take before any hostile wave anyway. If there isn't any paper action, or no signs of heavy t/m damage from sot, how can someone claim they're being egregiously vultured?

I don't see it as vulturing to hit someone immediately after their eowcf expiration, as long as it's not announced 12 hours before the cf ends. Kingdoms are easily able to get war-ready in the 96 hours of cf even if they got seriously battered, with the possible exception of magic provinces. Just because some kingdoms think they deserve better than what the ghetto of utopia has to deal with, doesn't mean they're entitled to it. If they want that extra period of inviolability tacked on after the cf it's reasonable, but calling hits after cf vulturing is nowhere near vulturing someone immediately after a hostile wave.

[mastakizzor]

Zauper, can i get a constructive critic rather than whatever that is you posted before..?

I'm agreeing with you Elit... truly, there is no perfect solution.. sooner or later, they will always be someone to find some new way to abuse the mechs...

[Ezzerland]

Agreeing on a hostile definition proved to be a huge mistake and lead to most all competitive kingdoms doing lame actions left and right.

Nothing different from this age, now, huh?

I really hoped there would at least be one person in the community interested in moving toward fair play. Damn I guess I really am that naive to believe anyone could be interested in sporting competition.

[Palem]

I am interested in fair play, I just think your idea of fair play isn't quite right. There's more to playing fair than everyone sitting on their hands and following some standard set of "rules". Like dharan said, I know ****ty play just like everyone else does.

[Verminator]

Just adopt the mentality of: "Nobody is going to change their ways"

That way, when someone does something sketchy to you, you won't feel the need to complain about it; instead you'll just be shrugging and saying "That's just the way they play" and dealing with it with the mechanics that the game provides you.

Complaining gets you nowhere. Public chastising gets you nowhere. Kingdoms who practice sketchy behavior are just going to keep playing that way, no matter what, because it's all they know.

Just go with the flow, find ways to deal with it. Setting guidelines on poor behavior is like setting limits on breathing. Those who feel the need to behave poorly won't stop just because you made an unenforceable rule about it, and those who feel the need to breathe are certainly going to ignore any limits you put on their ability to breathe, because, you know... it's just how they are.