Outside Hits into War

[pathetic sheep]

How about:
Disable the ability to hit into a war which is not your own for the first 7 days since a prov was created?

I see no problem with the ability to hit into wars. I believe there is a problem with new prov spamming for that purpose.

I do not think that really prevents the province spamming. It just means they have anticipate the desire to spam provinces one week earlier.

[Bishop]

Palem - I don't multi, but I have easy access to multiple IP addresses and it would be quite easy for me to run a multi province without my being detected. My point simply is that it's being against the rules isn't going to stop a spiteful person from wreaking havoc with it. I think that that's what Madcow is getting at.

Its nowhere near as easy as you think it is.

[goodz]

Its nowhere near as easy as you think it is.

Could you not just play 1 province from your phone (wifi disabled) and play 1 province from your home computer? Play a third from your work computer if you want!

If you have access to multiple IPs and a way to rdp into the multiple IPs easily seems like it would be hard to detect, i suppose you could delete based on login trends :p

Anywho its certainly enough of a pain that its not as common as it once was. I don't see why you would block them from hitting into war specifically. They can cause justas much trouble hitting you oow if they are going to do the work.

[trekdrop]

Squee: The option to raze into other people wars makes diplomacy harder as unreasonable people can use it as leverage :/

[Palem]

Squee: The option to raze into other people wars makes diplomacy harder as unreasonable people can use it as leverage :/

Then you squeeze unreasonable people out of the game using the same tactics.

[Youlose]

We do already have protection from outside hits in wars, quoting the guide: "-75% Gains and Effectiveness for operations to and from other Kingdoms (this fades in from war start)", and if it actually worked like that I'd say it is sufficient, however, the problem is that raze circumvents these restrictions due to the 15 acre minimum (along with being networth-independent). A province outside the war, can cause more damage than any of the provinces you are actually warring against! This to me seems more like an oversight than an intentional design decision.

[Elldallan]

We do already have protection from outside hits in wars, quoting the guide: "-75% Gains and Effectiveness for operations to and from other Kingdoms (this fades in from war start)", and if it actually worked like that I'd say it is sufficient, however, the problem is that raze circumvents these restrictions due to the 15 acre minimum (along with being networth-independent). A province outside the war, can cause more damage than any of the provinces you are actually warring against! This to me seems more like an oversight than an intentional design decision.

No I think it's been said before that it's an intentional game design and that's why the guide is worded as it is. Raze damage is not defined as gains and therefore not affected, I am usnure how it applies to massacre(which I havn't tried) which should behave the same by that logic. The other reason to use raze is of course that attacktime isn't modified by networth.

[Bishop]

Could you not just play 1 province from your phone (wifi disabled) and play 1 province from your home computer? Play a third from your work computer if you want!

If you have access to multiple IPs and a way to rdp into the multiple IPs easily seems like it would be hard to detect, i suppose you could delete based on login trends :p

Anywho its certainly enough of a pain that its not as common as it once was. I don't see why you would block them from hitting into war specifically. They can cause justas much trouble hitting you oow if they are going to do the work.

If they never ever interacted with other provs or each other we'd find it more difficult, but that never happens.

[peppie]

i feel OOW razes into wars are the equivalent of the audience throwing beerbottles at players in a soccermatch. Its team vs team, not team vs team + annoying trolls

its hard thinking of another group pvp game where outsiders can interfere as part of the design.

I suppose any ill designed system has its people justifying it because it works for them, but really: we've rejected Mehuls fundamentalism regarding trading (really? group pvp without friends?) so why not reject Mehuls design philosophy regarding war interference?

In my opinion, the moment kingdoms started getting deleted for fakewarring, OOW interference (both to and fro) shouldve ceased. No more OOW theft, no more OOW plunders, no more into-war razes. Makes everything fair and clear. Less excuses and accusations. Less nubs getting destroyed because they dont know to avoid war status.

Palem and ilk like this weird web of unspoken rules and regulations where theres a host of potential options but unless youre talkative and knowledgable you wont know which are "faux pas" and which are acceptable. Id like the obvious player consensus (i.e. keep it 1v1) to be codified into the game rules. When the rules are clear for everyone, there might be a lot less QQ and conflict.

--

that said, if new provs were prohibited from war interference for a week thatd be a good start. At the very least, it could give nubs (do they still exist?) the opportunity to get socialized into the fact that you shouldnt hit into KDs that have warstatus.

[noobium]

the problem isn't just that outsiders can interfere, but that having outsiders interfere allows razekill while 1vs1 does not, which gives too many advantages to kingdoms that can bring an ally to raze into war.
if razing into war didn't allow for razekills it would be better. it's obnoxious that a kingdom can raze 15x4 or 15x5 acres on defenseless provinces and there's jack **** that can be done about it without resorting to the same lameness. removing mingains when razing into (and out of) war would help matters.
there's nothing wrong with people hitting into war so long as -75% gains is a sufficient deterrent, but something wrong with mechanics which give unfair advantage for doing so.

[Palem]

i feel OOW razes into wars are the equivalent of the audience throwing beerbottles at players in a soccermatch. Its team vs team, not team vs team + annoying trolls

its hard thinking of another group pvp game where outsiders can interfere as part of the design.

I suppose any ill designed system has its people justifying it because it works for them, but really: we've rejected Mehuls fundamentalism regarding trading (really? group pvp without friends?) so why not reject Mehuls design philosophy regarding war interference?

In my opinion, the moment kingdoms started getting deleted for fakewarring, OOW interference (both to and fro) shouldve ceased. No more OOW theft, no more OOW plunders, no more into-war razes. Makes everything fair and clear. Less excuses and accusations. Less nubs getting destroyed because they dont know to avoid war status.

Palem and ilk like this weird web of unspoken rules and regulations where theres a host of potential options but unless youre talkative and knowledgable you wont know which are "faux pas" and which are acceptable. Id like the obvious player consensus (i.e. keep it 1v1) to be codified into the game rules. When the rules are clear for everyone, there might be a lot less QQ and conflict.

--

that said, if new provs were prohibited from war interference for a week thatd be a good start. At the very least, it could give nubs (do they still exist?) the opportunity to get socialized into the fact that you shouldnt hit into KDs that have warstatus.

1. It's not possible for the system to "work" for me, but not everyone else. I'm playing under the same rules. I'm simply willing to use it while others are hesitant.
2. "Group pvp with interference" -> Any live sporting event. The fans are supposed to get loud and rowdy and it's supposed to mess with the traveling team.
3. You want a game that thrives under conflict to have less conflict? You'll never get less QQ. Not on the internet.

[Squee311]

i feel OOW razes into wars are the equivalent of the audience throwing beerbottles at players in a soccermatch. Its team vs team, not team vs team + annoying trolls

its hard thinking of another group pvp game where outsiders can interfere as part of the design.

I suppose any ill designed system has its people justifying it because it works for them, but really: we've rejected Mehuls fundamentalism regarding trading (really? group pvp without friends?) so why not reject Mehuls design philosophy regarding war interference?

In my opinion, the moment kingdoms started getting deleted for fakewarring, OOW interference (both to and fro) shouldve ceased. No more OOW theft, no more OOW plunders, no more into-war razes. Makes everything fair and clear. Less excuses and accusations. Less nubs getting destroyed because they dont know to avoid war status.

Palem and ilk like this weird web of unspoken rules and regulations where theres a host of potential options but unless youre talkative and knowledgable you wont know which are "faux pas" and which are acceptable. Id like the obvious player consensus (i.e. keep it 1v1) to be codified into the game rules. When the rules are clear for everyone, there might be a lot less QQ and conflict.

--

that said, if new provs were prohibited from war interference for a week thatd be a good start. At the very least, it could give nubs (do they still exist?) the opportunity to get socialized into the fact that you shouldnt hit into KDs that have warstatus.

you seem to forget Peppie there is other kingdoms out there. Not just you and your war. 1v1 is the ideal but other sources are at play. Like how you handle yourself towards other kingdoms and how you handle your diplomacy. It has been mentioned multiple times you shouldn't seek a new war target without closing relations. Kingdoms need to learn that.

I do agree that the RK part is a bit outlandish since you can't use RKs within a war setting but you can be RKed from outside. Honestly old raze should be restored.

[peppie]

palem, interference with words and interference with deeds are miles apart. A raze that kills one of my guys is different from a snarky message. Why do you equate the two?

Squee, yes there are other kingdoms, as there are other sportsteams. If Barcelona plays Real Madrid, is it fine if an Arsenal player runs onto the field and kicks Barcelona's goalie in the 'nads? I hate soccer so much yet i find myself in need of a metaphor :(

let me use two other group pvp games im familiar with:

- in War Metal: Tyrant, theres faction wars (up to 50 v 50 players) where, once two groups are locked in a war, it is impossible for anyone to interfere with the battle. Factions can of course shuffle players and get "mercs" (temporary teammembers), but essentially some solo player or some other faction is unable to interfere with the war. Nobody but the participants can influence the outcome of the battle
- In League of Legends, five players fight five other players. No sixth player or other team can influence anything. Spectators of the match have a timelag so that they cant provide information that would give one side an advantage

i dont understand why this is such an alien concept. Just because youre used to a weird system doesnt mean its sensible.

[Squee311]

palem, interference with words and interference with deeds are miles apart. A raze that kills one of my guys is different from a snarky message. Why do you equate the two?

Squee, yes there are other kingdoms, as there are other sportsteams. If Barcelona plays Real Madrid, is it fine if an Arsenal player runs onto the field and kicks Barcelona's goalie in the 'nads? I hate soccer so much yet i find myself in need of a metaphor :(

let me use two other group pvp games im familiar with:

- in War Metal: Tyrant, theres faction wars (up to 50 v 50 players) where, once two groups are locked in a war, it is impossible for anyone to interfere with the battle. Factions can of course shuffle players and get "mercs" (temporary teammembers), but essentially some solo player or some other faction is unable to interfere with the war. Nobody but the participants can influence the outcome of the battle
- In League of Legends, five players fight five other players. No sixth player or other team can influence anything. Spectators of the match have a timelag so that they cant provide information that would give one side an advantage

i dont understand why this is such an alien concept. Just because youre used to a weird system doesnt mean its sensible.

you cannot compare a war game to a soccer match or basketball game. Its a war game diplomacy is a part of it. diplomacy does not exist in those. So please stop thinking its a 1v1 fight. It can be that way if both kingdoms handle their diplomacy. You have this everyone should leave us alone loo kat the game when it comes down to it the game is not designed that way.

Sorry peppie the game has never worked in such a manner and should not work in such a manner you want to create a sports team and play 1v1 go play FIFA online.

[peppie]

you cannot compare a war game to a soccer match or basketball game. Its a war game diplomacy is a part of it. diplomacy does not exist in those. So please stop thinking its a 1v1 fight. It can be that way if both kingdoms handle their diplomacy. You have this everyone should leave us alone loo kat the game when it comes down to it the game is not designed that way.

Sorry peppie the game has never worked in such a manner and should not work in such a manner you want to create a sports team and play 1v1 go play FIFA online.

youre just making things up as you go along. "It's a wargame so outsiders can mess with your team vs team fight" is the exception, not the rule. I mentioned War Metal: Tyrant, with faction wars. It has more 'war' in its title than utopia, yet team vs team battles are strictly exclusive. So you dont like my sportscomparison - fine. Thats why i add other examples. Theres diplomacy and IRC stuff with Tyrant as well, and community policing, but theres simply no ingame mechanism to interfere with someones war. Ignore that if it doesnt suit your purposes, though.

How many team pvp games can you people name that allow outside meddling in a matchup?

Happily, most of utopia agrees with me that 1 vs 1 fights are the norm. Most of utopia would not want their KDmates to interfere in someone elses war for $reasons. Most of utopia has 1v1 wars as the rule, not the exception. Argument ad populum, sure, but how many of your wars showed coordinated interference?