Thoughts on 'Dibs' and Definition of Hostile

[tetley]

I think it is a bit unfair to say that everyone's objective is to "swindle and screw over the competition"

[Palem]

There's only one best kd. If you're not the best kd, you need to pull some tricks to beat them.

[WhenWeCollide]

This thread is adorable.

You all have one primary objective and that is to swindle and screw over your competition to beat them.

Let's say you get some good definitions set down and "rules" set in place. The first thing you're gonna start doing to digging for loopholes. Ways to get around the rules and not look like the bad guys. When push comes to shove and you're backed into a corner you're going to do whatever you think you need to do anyway.

Maybe I didn't notice it before, but ever since you quit playing your level of useful posts have vanished in favor of being (for lack of better terms) an ass... Some of us, despite your opinion, would like to get rid of all the ****play. If you don't believe it, or don't have anything constructive to add, it's easy to just stay out of it. Proteus was trying to open up real discussion on something that needs to be addressed and changed. For once, and I mean this as no offense to you Pro Pro, he seems genuine in looking for some sort of fairness in the way things are done. To suggest we only want to "swindle and screw" our competition is asinine at best. I think that most of the players in top KD's would rather win without screwing over someone.

[WhenWeCollide]

There's only one best kd. If you're not the best kd, you need to pull some tricks to beat them.

...or you can just get better. God forbid putting a little effort into getting better at something.

[KyGal]

I'm not supporting dibs, but the concept behind it is easy to understand...

What if Kingdom A gives Kingdom B the button (after a week of prep), and then Kingdom B gives Kingdom C the button, and Kingdom C declares?

Is anyone in the wrong here? Is KD B wrong for dodging? Is KD C wrong for hitting KD B? Did Kingdom A "claim" anything?

This happened like 5+ times over the last 2 ages, and several times it resulted in people hitting into war.

Is it more complicated if B + C mutually agreed to break a server-known CF to make this happen? Who is in the wrong then? (And yes this happened too.)

I don't think what Proteus and others call "dibs" is the same as what happens in your example. When I hear dibs, I think of it as, for example, CR wanted to war AMA, and so they posted the notice of notice, effectively calling dibs and telling AMA they can't war anyone else. No hits had been exchanged, cf period wasn't even expired yet, but CR was "claiming" the rights to them. That's what I think of dibs as.

[Palem]

Maybe I didn't notice it before, but ever since you quit playing your level of useful posts have vanished in favor of being (for lack of better terms) an ass... Some of us, despite your opinion, would like to get rid of all the ****play. If you don't believe it, or don't have anything constructive to add, it's easy to just stay out of it. Proteus was trying to open up real discussion on something that needs to be addressed and changed. For once, and I mean this as no offense to you Pro Pro, he seems genuine in looking for some sort of fairness in the way things are done. To suggest we only want to "swindle and screw" our competition is asinine at best. I think that most of the players in top KD's would rather win without screwing over someone.

Let me make myself clear. I'm not supporting "****play" (in a stricter sense of what's being discussed). I'm just saying you guys are reaching for an unattainable goal that basically each and every one of you is going to go against the spirit of at one point or another. There's not a person in the game that hasn't pulled some shady ****, but that doesn't mean they're some menace to the game that needs to be eradicated. Essentially what's being attacked here are things that aren't "nice" or "honorable". Is winning in a totally "honorable" way definitely the best way to go for? Yes, but the worst victory is still better than the best defeat.

Being mean, and dishonorable, and trying to swindle people is part of the game at it's very core. Utopia is not "fair". It's never been fair and it's never going to be fair. There's always going to be people that toe the line and keep pushing things farther and farther. Sometimes those people get called out and sometimes the community just looks the other way. If everybody fell into a nice neat orderly line where we all followed very clear and strict guidelines for ediquette this game would be boring as **** and I seriously doubt that any of us would still be playing if it was played in such a way.

Quick example:
Jdorje was a very clever and devious man. He did his very best to screw me over and I did the same to him in return. We had a very serious disdain for each other. I love that I didn't like this man. It drove emotion into the game. It made me care much more.

...or you can just get better. God forbid putting a little effort into getting better at something.

God forbid you think outside the box and try to get as many advantages as you can win against someone who would normally beat you. I don't think people would say that one kd getting the jump on another kd that hadn't quite trained up yet as somehow ****players, even though what they did is in no way "honorable".

[PACINO]

argee with Palem on this one. It's like football and referees. Referee's spices things up with the controversies. That's what keeps the game alive and kicking.
Human loves controversies. It sells , and even reality tv takes advantage of it.

Face it , we humans need some scapegoat to call black. We all do it at some point in time.
Cheers and happy complaining. Let the games begin :)

[Elldallan]

argee with Palem on this one. It's like football and referees. Referee's spices things up with the controversies. That's what keeps the game alive and kicking.
Human loves controversies. It sells , and even reality tv takes advantage of it.

Well and the fact that without rules and someone to enforce them every professional football player would be a cripple after a year :P

[tetley]

I think you're missing the point a bit, Palem. No one is suggesting that we all live in a magical fantasy world where we can treat each other nice all the time and still succeed in the game. But it's a spectrum. The last 2-3 ages has been a pretty ****ty environment at the top and so many people have expressed concerns about it.

Sure the game can, will, and should be played with some level of acceptable cunning/ruthlessness/strategy. These posts are just trying to push the community in a direction that is closer to the middle of the spectrum... no one is saying it should go all the way to the end.

[Palem]

"Dibs" has nothing to do with the level of ****play that's been crossing the line lately. Chartshaping has been ruining gameplay, not people trying to get into wars.

[StratOcastle]

"Dibs" has nothing to do with the level of ****play that's been crossing the line lately. Chartshaping has been ruining gameplay, not people trying to get into wars.

Dibs, and I don't like the word any more than batch(tangent), is an outside the game diplo mutation. We all know what it means, but it's only strength is in the kingdom that calls it.
In our recent case, and maybe it was baiting, this diplo backfired. Again, 15-20 spots lower on charts the action of AMA would've been unquestionably justified. I'm not in favor, just establishing that bad diplo is normal to nonexistent here.

Thus I suggest the tops simply stop wordsmithing Hostile. Hostile is mechanically hostile; that is, it is the green light to war with all the ops and sabotage goodies to push a non-diplomatic solution.

If you want diplomacy in the tops then first you must agree it is a non-mechanical system based in chivalry at best and devil dealing at worst. It should apply when a net worth gap is established say between war and whore tiers. The reason is that the charts then fade slowly into kingdoms that don't frequent forums or irc. So while diplo may apply to a group with a margin of safe net worth it won't be something the remaining top 100 are familiar with. Shinra, Roughnecks near the tops practice some quasi-diplomatic Etiquette as does Miracle Illusion(or have) in the lower tier. This I respect and makes encounters memorable. Still, you must be basically good people. In Miracle Illusions case I have deepest respect because there is no upside other than having a light shined on them here.

[StratOcastle]

To point, I can't recall our chart number, but I was with Plaidovia last age and we warred Shinra. So maybe Shinra has better clarity in this, but suffice to say inside top 30 at the time.
Nobody in Plaidovia knew who SWEA was. One guy was complaining that ABs was ruining the game, oblivious to recent age events. I spent a few moments to explain the Cartoon Networth vs Network war and who was who. To them it was maybe amusing, or just boring. So the business of diplomacy or who's who is lost on the majority. Most of my time is spent floating around the top 15- 120ish and attention to the scenery is minimal. Retired tops in the ghetto are the rare exception.

[noobium]

Some day someone is just going to realize that the game was designed with vulturing in mind, and when that happens the **** will hit the fan.

[American Badass]

@Palem, with the attitude "don't try it wont work" nothing in the human existence would ever have gone forward. Not trying is the easy way out and like many others have said your posts could be on borderline trolling.

Here is my input on the definitions:

Hostile:

I believe a proper hostile should be defined based upon NW ranges as well as what Proteus said in regards to cows. I think a kingdom should be in a "legit" hostile if both kingdoms are within war range. But I also agree with Proteus that if a Cow has army out toward another kingdom, that can be considered a hostile too as both play to avoid ops etc. For a kingdom to be hostile I also agree that one side should have the button. I think a Hostile should be considered "cleared" once a CF has been accepted. For example Kingdom A waves Kingdom B, Kingdom B declines war and sends CF back. Kingdom A can either accept right away (and can be eligible for a wave) or they can accept within 24 hours (to get troops home) and then the "hostile" is over. I say a 24 hour stamp so kingdoms can't cry "kingdom C waved us and we didn't accept the cf!!!"

Dibs:

Although I don't see what CR did as "wrong" I can see why AMA got annoyed. I can see it from both perspectives. CR wanted to let AMA know they were going to notice so AMA could prepare and not double themselves, AMA thought this was a tactic to stop them being able to fight another war they wanted to get. Both have valid arguments but for future references maybe we can only have leaders of either kingdom make the thread once Notice has been given.

How to give a notice:

I think this should be done by a simple kingdom name change too "XXX giving XXX notice" and a dragon start / cancel on the same tick. A message sent too Monarch/Steward and a thread made by the noticing kingdom. If that is not enough to make a kingdom aware then i don't know what is.

2v1:

It is crap but if 2 CF end on the same tick, they will happen. It will be hard to decide who has the right to wave who and claim a hostile. Just using the CR, AMA and pyro CF scenario as an example, it would have played out like below:

AMA notices Pyro, Havoc notices AMA (all on same tick)
AMA waves Pyro, Havoc waves AMA
AMA would claim Havoc deliberately 2v1 them, Havoc would claim AMA were trying to run

So a question is, how do we stop the above from happening so that everyone can move on and be "happy". IMO and the scenario above, I think Havoc *should* be entitled to 1 wave as the CF situation was not their fault but had they continued to hit then that should be considered a 2v1. If somehow Pyro / AMA entered war within 10 minutes and Havoc hit into that war that should NOT be ok.

I think to stop the above people need to ensure themselves that they do not have CF expiring on the same ticks with kingdoms that possibly won't want to change it later.

[Maximouse]

I think I can agree to American Badass post. Havent had time to read everything posted here, but there is 1 part I like to clarify.
This "tax" thing people keep bringing up.
Untill this age it was pretty normal if KD B gave notice to KD A, and KD A didnt want to fight KD B, KD A would start diplo talks to stop them from getting waved once notice expired. This normaly ended in KD A giving a certain amount of acres to KD B in exchange for a CF extension. Basicly, the stronger KD takes acres from the weaker KD in exchange for a longer CF.
This age, the above example is getting called "tax" and suddenly its bad? My KD (CR) is the KD accused of taxing other KD's. What we did was exactly what I discribed above. We noticed KD's when our CF's expired and engaged in diplo to see if we could make a deal both KD's would feel okay about. Why? Because to us getting the acres without having to fight for it saves resources and has value, and to the other KD, (if our demand isnt too high) it also saves them resources.
In some cases this age were we noticed KD's, the KD's we noticed asked us to wave them after a certain date or after a comming conflict. If it didnt hurt our objectives/goals, then I see no reason why we shouldnt let the KD we noticed do (wave or war) what they wanted to do.
Its all part of the diplo talks, and in the end the goal in diplo is to see if you can find a deal that both KD's feel okay about.
Why this is called "tax" now is trully beyond me. Its a game mechanic that has been used in the top for atleast 40 ages and it was never a problem.