Thoughts on 'Dibs' and Definition of Hostile

[markers]

to much to read, can someone give me a two sentence synopsis? :(

In my opinion,

dibs = retarded (anyone can hit anyone at any given time)
hostile = both kingdoms hitting back and forth with a button looming (but of course anyone can hit anyone at any given time, its just not nice if a clear hostile soon to be war action is happening)

[makeo]

Sure. Two sentence synopsis.

Dibs is retarded, as are powerplays. However, until game mechanisms allow a way to give relations without giving up a large advantage, and counterplay from smaller kingdoms is possible in a way that is balanced, players will ***** and initiatives will fail, as self interest takes over.

Ref: Every age for the last 20.

[makeo]

As an extra, the phrase "everyone starts at 400" may well be used if someone is in what they consider a good position.

[Tovarishch]

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.



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".

I completely agree with this post.
The RL implications inherent in the game i.e. deception, betrayal etc are often taken as cheating and misconduct. Show me one war that has been fought according to the regulations set out in the International Law of War.
I personally find the game incredibly enjoyable when you come across a KD that uses these methods to leverage an advantage. As Palem said, it drives emotion into the game.

I agree also that perhaps the game could implement new/improved systems to provide players with opportunities to explore these avenues.