Regarding Jerks v Crazies

[Zauper]

...

Yeah, so you don't understand the definition of the word would.

Here's merriam webster:

—used to talk about a possible situation that has not happened or that you are imagining

—used with have to talk about something that did not happen or was not done

Here's what I had previously edited the post you were replying to to have:

e2: maybe it's that you've not a native english speaker, and so don't understand the meaning of the word would? It's a past conditional -- essentially saying that if this past thing had occurred (us hitting down confessions in what you're referrencing), that is chart shaping. But because it is conditional, it's also saying that it did not occur -- essentially, what is the consequence of an imagined situation.

Confessions hit us a few times, in Yr11, a few ticks before their CF with ED expired. Then they asked us to take land from them, enabling them to dodge ED -- chart shaping, presumably. We didn't (and the two of them worked out a deal before the CF expired anyway); we had wanted to retal the plunders for land, ED didn't want us to. We didn't. They owed us as a result, and agreed that they would make up our lost land to us.

Do you understand now? You probably owe us an apology and a thank you for not chart shaping in the honor charts, right?

[Korp]

I'm not going to pull a Chuck and start bragging about my accomplishments. That's petty and childish. Some people know who I am and have seen me around in some way, shape or form for years now. I put out the most commonly accepted definitions, and pointed out the one I side with. I never said that everyone must agree with it, but nice try at turning the argument against me. Don't be a nib Korp. Now a few questions:

Is it okay to throw 8 hits at a kingdom that hit you twice just to push the meter to Hostile then toss a couple more in for good measure just to dodge another kingdom that's got their sights set on you?

Is it okay to tag a "notice" with a kingdom nearly half your net worth to dodge a war with a kingdom that will probably win in a war against yours?

Is it okay to farm out to another kingdom just because you don't like the fact that you're being waved after refusing to accept a deal?

If all of that is okay by you, then fine. Maybe we should do a poll to see what the server actually thinks if you're that adamant that you know what's best and that your opinions are the only ones that matter.

You dont have to brag, but to bring some valdity to your claims it certainly helps if you're not a total random scrub. What you are doing is picking a situation which justify your actions towards Jerks and Tetley and go with that and claim its "community accepted" whereas you havent provided single shred for your support. (While Zauper has recieved support for his definition).

Only if you answer my previous questions.

Is it also common sense in your book to hit down at a kingdom that is 100k acres smaller than you with no posssible way to fight back? To squeeze out some measly acres in a desperate attempt to stay relevant to the crown race? Its obvious that its not a commonly accepted cause its beeing disputed.

[Squee311]

...

you failed to read that we did not hit confessions. so you need to look up the word Presumably

[MyNameIsMatija]

Zauper what you said the first time was very vague and my interpretation was understandable.
Confessions were obviously unaware of the close connection between the #1 land and #1 honor KD so that's on them.
Anway it's fine for ED to raze down but not for Confessions to dodge them?

[Zauper]

Zauper what you said the first time was very vague and my interpretation was understandable.
Confessions were obviously unaware of the close connection between the #1 land and #1 honor KD so that's on them.
Anway it's fine for ED to raze down but not for Confessions to dodge them?

I haven't edited that part of that post. It is neither vague, nor is your interpretation understandable. Unless, of course, you either don't read, or don't understand the words being used. That's why I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Land-dropping is accepted in the honor charts, Matija. You know that. If they dodge, they dodge, and that's fine too. Though they had a war deal, I think, and your kd seems to feel like you can't back out of those, so maybe it wouldn't be fine to dodge in that circumstance. That said -- that's an irrelevant question, as the two of them worked out a deal.

[citadela01]

lets not drag fs/ed baggage everywhere we go matija.
This has nothing to do with us, and landdrops are fine, we do it as well.

[flogger]

seems to me the easy solution is just have expendables and crazies farm out to BB. PM me to discuss.

[MyNameIsMatija]

I haven't edited that part of that post. It is neither vague, nor is your interpretation understandable. Unless, of course, you either don't read, or don't understand the words being used. That's why I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Land-dropping is accepted in the honor charts, Matija. You know that. If they dodge, they dodge, and that's fine too. Though they had a war deal, I think, and your kd seems to feel like you can't back out of those, so maybe it wouldn't be fine to dodge in that circumstance. That said -- that's an irrelevant question, as the two of them worked out a deal.

My interpretation is how I read it the first time, because I asked if you are helping each other to chart shape and your response was out of context if we give it the meaning that was intended.
FS didn't have a war deal with Jesters so it was fine to back out on that one right? What would ED and Expendables do without your good reputation and your silver tongue?

[Sarge]

Your reading comprehension is poor.

The phrased i used was return home. They hit with 10 armies? None of those were home yet. So the bulk of them hadn't returned home (as none of them had). Even in your attempt to re-define what I said, it falls flat -- they have 19 attackers. 19 attackers, 10 out = majority out, not in.

As for your specific questions --

1 - Trying to define it as not being a wave is silly. They were hostile. I didn't even call it a wave, I called it a hostile. Beyond that, yes, waves can take many forms, and some of them are 11 hits over a few hours.
2 - No, it would not be reasonable. As I had mentioned previously, to the extent that they knew you were coming, they knew you were coming, potentially, at some point in the nebulous future. They have no reason to sit around with their thumb up their ass and wait for you to wave them. It's not like they were in your war range and you had served them notice -- in fact, neither of those things were true. The responsibility rests on you to ensure that your hostile is fair, not on them to ensure that they're available when you decide to wave them. You'll note that this is different from cases where notice is served to someone in range -- but even in those circumstances, it is generally accepted that you don't get to wave into their conflict just because you gave them notice. The conflict is to be respected.
3 - Like I mentioned above; nice try to wordsmith, but it falls short. The kingdom they were hitting was in war range and given the button. It is a reasonable and accepted tactic to give the button over several hours rather than doing it in one tick, and it is both reasonable and accepted to do less than a full wave of all hitters to give the button.

1. Yes you did call it a wave:

It was a wave vs a kd in declare range.

2. Your math of 10/19 is flawed. Anonymous attackers can double. This means that given at least 1 attacker doubled (which happened), the majority (bulk) of troops were home (53%), unless you want to redefine "bulk."
Oxford Dictionaries Definition of Bulk: 1.3 (the bulk) The majority or greater part of something
Either we can accept that the bulk of armies out must return (so 5/8 for minimum hits for hostile relations) or we can accept that the bulk of armies must be home (10/19).
3. No wordsmith skills necessary here. Perhaps I am reading wrong, but having 8 or 9 attackers with troops out (at most) with the bulk having just returned home, returning in time to retal the same, or returning the very next tick (you argued that troops should be home so that the provinces being attacked can retal in a timely manner) with the vast majority of targeted provinces having troops home with the ability to retal immediately seems to fall squarely in your definition of what is "fair."

You think we should have waited until all troops returned home. I get it. You're crying foul because they had troops out after Jerks had a failed attempt at a hostile. The facts speak for themselves, and you even agree with it by your own words, admissions, and definitions. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing now. Perhaps I should ask a more pointed question:

When is a hostile a hostile?
1. When one side makes enough hits to give the other side the button (Hostile - None).
2. When two kingdoms are trading hits and one side has the button (Hostile - Unfriendly).
3. When two kingdoms are trading hits and one side has the button (Hostile - Hostile).
4. When one kingdom sends notice to another (None - None).
5. After one kingdom sends notice to another and one gives Hostile relations to the other (Hostile - None, Hostile - Unfriendly, Hostile - Hostile, Unfriendly - Hostile, None - Hostile).

Under what circumstances does a hostile end?
1. When one kingdom requests CF without making retaliatory hits.
2. When CF is agreed whether troops are still out or home.
3. When bulk of troops return home regardless of CF status or retaliation/lack thereof.
4. When meter drops from Hostile back to Unfriendly.
5. When meter drops back to None.

If I understand you right, you say that 1 starts the hostile and 3 ends the hostile, right? I'm of the idea that 2 starts the hostile and 1 ends the hostile. What do others think?

Quick Edit: 2 also ends a hostile if retaliatory hits were made.

[Sarge]

seems to me the easy solution is just have expendables and crazies farm out to BB. PM me to discuss.

Where's the like button? :))

[munk]

<3 Zauper

[Palem]

When you wave someone and give them button, you are hostile.

If they don't retal and offer cf, you are still hostile.

Until troops return. Waving someone with troops out waving a second kd is doubling, however you spin it. 9 hours is not 12.

No, you aren't.


See, that's not a very effective strategy to argue with.



The entire point of this community's need to define a "hostile" is our desire to not interfere in what would otherwise be a fair 1v1 fight. When one side is just hitting the other side, this isn't a "fight" or a "conflict" or anything that's worthy of being protected from outside interference.

Honestly, I don't even know why this community even bothers with it anymore. Here's how it plays out every age:

-One side is getting mad at the other side
-Other side tries to run.
-One side hits the other side
-Other side complains that they were in a hostile
-One side says 'No they weren't
-Then there's some fallout that protects whichever side has stronger friends atm.

[DM_Benjamin]

I think jpop and his small eyes have something to do with this

[Zauper]

1. Yes you did call it a wave:

Okay sure, I said it there. It is also a wave. Or maybe a ripple. Whatever you want to call it is fine, it's still hostile.

2. Your math of 10/19 is flawed. Anonymous attackers can double. This means that given at least 1 attacker doubled (which happened), the majority (bulk) of troops were home (53%), unless you want to redefine "bulk."
Oxford Dictionaries Definition of Bulk: 1.3 (the bulk) The majority or greater part of something
Either we can accept that the bulk of armies out must return (so 5/8 for minimum hits for hostile relations) or we can accept that the bulk of armies must be home (10/19).

Perhaps you need to re-do your math. 11 attacks were made by 10 hitters in EJ. I'll be waiting for your apology for not being smart enough to even look at the SN first. You can also map this by looking at NW drop across provinces to identify who the hitters were, if you're feeling sufficiently curious about figuring out the anony hits.

3. No wordsmith skills necessary here. Perhaps I am reading wrong, but having 8 or 9 attackers with troops out (at most) with the bulk having just returned home, returning in time to retal the same, or returning the very next tick (you argued that troops should be home so that the provinces being attacked can retal in a timely manner) with the vast majority of targeted provinces having troops home with the ability to retal immediately seems to fall squarely in your definition of what is "fair."

Having just returned home? Seems unlikely, given when you guys hit in vs when they hit out. Again: What is the disadvantage to waiting for troops from a hostile to return home?

You think we should have waited until all troops returned home. I get it.

Not necessarily 'all'. Probably just the ones up until CF was offered. Or closer to 70-80% than 0% of the ones who had attacked.

You're crying foul because they had troops out after Jerks had a failed attempt at a hostile. The facts speak for themselves, and you even agree with it by your own words, admissions, and definitions.

They sure do! And Jerks was hostile. According to the game definition, according to the definitions most commonly used by players -- they all line up. Jerks hit Mythos to hostile. Respecting hostile and not doubling means waiting until those troops get home.

You're just arguing for the sake of arguing now.

That sounds like me, but unfortunately, you're just wrong and I enjoy pointing that out. As I said before, if you want to admit you doubled and think it was justified, that's fine. If you want to pretend you didn't double, we can keep talking.

Perhaps I should ask a more pointed question:

When is a hostile a hostile?
1. When one side makes enough hits to give the other side the button (Hostile - None).
2. When two kingdoms are trading hits and one side has the button (Hostile - Unfriendly).
3. When two kingdoms are trading hits and one side has the button (Hostile - Hostile).
4. When one kingdom sends notice to another (None - None).
5. After one kingdom sends notice to another and one gives Hostile relations to the other (Hostile - None, Hostile - Unfriendly, Hostile - Hostile, Unfriendly - Hostile, None - Hostile).

Under what circumstances does a hostile end?
1. When one kingdom requests CF without making retaliatory hits.
2. When CF is agreed whether troops are still out or home.
3. When bulk of troops return home regardless of CF status or retaliation/lack thereof.
4. When meter drops from Hostile back to Unfriendly.
5. When meter drops back to None.

The answer, generally, is I know it when I see it.

If you want to be more specific; conflict starts when conflict starts, and when that is varies on the kingdoms in question. (i.e. for a top kingdom, conflict generally starts at cfdrop rather than when kds are hit to hostile, but for a smaller kd it generally starts at UF/hostile, or just any hits being exchanged, depending on the tier). This is generally the case for kingdoms that are able to war eachother -- it's different if you're looking outside of kds in nw-range.

The issue with trying to define what a hostile is strictly is that it creates loopholes. If a 40M kd hits a 3M kd 20 times, that's not a hostile (generally, but it could theoretically be).

Broadly, a hostile ends when the conflict is concluded and kingdoms have had the majority of mana/stealth restored and troops returned home. Do you feel like if you were to be waved, right now, it would be doubling you? Your troops are still out on jerks, but you've agreed to a CF. I look at that and I view it as doubling; there is literally no difference from a gameplay perspective to whether that CF has been agreed to ingame or not, it is purely optics.

[Zauper]

My interpretation is how I read it the first time, because I asked if you are helping each other to chart shape and your response was out of context if we give it the meaning that was intended.
FS didn't have a war deal with Jesters so it was fine to back out on that one right? What would ED and Expendables do without your good reputation and your silver tongue?

Confessions backed out and ED managed to not make a thread about it and go nuts on the forums because they calmly did diplo on IRC. Perhaps you should take a feather from their cap?

And my response was no, we didn't chart shape, had we done this other thing (i.e. the 'would scenario) that would have been chart shaping. Your lack of understanding is on you. :)