AID vs aggressive actions

[topsy's revenge]

If everybody used mechanics in the same way then there wouldn't be a divide in skill between the playerbase as everyone would just do the same thing. Most of the fun of the game is seeing new changes and seeing how to best use them, sometimes in cheesy ways. Homes weren't "intended" to be used as they are used, but it's how they are best utilized and so get used like that. Nearly anything that is unbalanced in this game is due to people using mechanics in a way that is better than "intended."

I'm also pretty positive resetting 24 hours after oop wasn't considered cheating that whole time palem. Your other examples are also mostly unrelated, as they don't exist to deter people from cheating, but to provide mechanics to fill the gulf after something was made illegal. Fake wars provided a legitimate mechanic that made the game better(while providing others that made it worse). eowcf and fort replace what's good in them so that you can remove what's bad. Similarly, invites replace something good that was taken away when trading was made illegal, so that you can remove the part that was bad. Fake warring, xlogging, and account trading were also all explicitly stated to be illegal BEFORE actioning people for it, not retrospectively.

edit: i'd also add that there are currently mechanics that in most people's eyes are far more "exploitative" but whch have been deemed perfectly legal, such as defecting, suicide, and then getting farmed by original kd. It's still not even clear here what is the legal course of action. OP sent aid and clearly can't reset after 24 hours(or else he'll be freezed out of account and all kd will lose 30% of military). If he waits 48 hours is he ok? Can he not reset for this age now?

The issue is we have a game where the central premise is that there will be so many mechanics present at a time that some people can find better ways to exploit the ages mechanics and gain advantages over the competition. Within that environment we have most things that aren't explicitly stated to be illigal "left to the community" , then a smaller subset of the exploits get made illegal in the middle of the age or are changed within the game. Then you have an even smaller subset which are actioned capriciously in a retroactive manner.

[jwuzi]

ILLEGAL*

My inner Asian was getting angry at you


illigal
The "illigal" is a hard working individaul who who works for pennies on the doller and won't ***** to you about health benefits or raises. Though the illigal is sometimes characterized as being a half-assedgang banger or a "parasite" to the United States' economy, the illigal is neither gang banger parasite. Often a common mistake between first and second generation.

[Band of Horses]

ILLEGAL*

My inner Asian was getting angry at you


illigal
The "illigal" is a hard working individaul who who works for pennies on the doller and won't ***** to you about health benefits or raises. Though the illigal is sometimes characterized as being a half-assedgang banger or a "parasite" to the United States' economy, the illigal is neither gang banger parasite. Often a common mistake between first and second generation.

in·so·lence
ˈinsələns
noun
rude and disrespectful behavior from a filthy commoner toward the supreme leader Topsy.

[Korp]

in·so·lence
ˈinsələns
noun
rude and disrespectful behavior from a filthy commoner toward the supreme leader Topsy.

Wow, much disapoint, you never reach your goal this way.

[gn28]

All that is really needed is for this rule to be enforced when you have a negative trade balance. But as long as you keep it on Zero or above, you should be allowed to move on.

This will stop any abuse.

[Palem]

If everybody used mechanics in the same way then there wouldn't be a divide in skill between the playerbase as everyone would just do the same thing. Most of the fun of the game is seeing new changes and seeing how to best use them, sometimes in cheesy ways. Homes weren't "intended" to be used as they are used, but it's how they are best utilized and so get used like that. Nearly anything that is unbalanced in this game is due to people using mechanics in a way that is better than "intended."

I'm also pretty positive resetting 24 hours after oop wasn't considered cheating that whole time palem. Your other examples are also mostly unrelated, as they don't exist to deter people from cheating, but to provide mechanics to fill the gulf after something was made illegal. Fake wars provided a legitimate mechanic that made the game better(while providing others that made it worse). eowcf and fort replace what's good in them so that you can remove what's bad. Similarly, invites replace something good that was taken away when trading was made illegal, so that you can remove the part that was bad. Fake warring, xlogging, and account trading were also all explicitly stated to be illegal BEFORE actioning people for it, not retrospectively.

edit: i'd also add that there are currently mechanics that in most people's eyes are far more "exploitative" but whch have been deemed perfectly legal, such as defecting, suicide, and then getting farmed by original kd. It's still not even clear here what is the legal course of action. OP sent aid and clearly can't reset after 24 hours(or else he'll be freezed out of account and all kd will lose 30% of military). If he waits 48 hours is he ok? Can he not reset for this age now?

The issue is we have a game where the central premise is that there will be so many mechanics present at a time that some people can find better ways to exploit the ages mechanics and gain advantages over the competition. Within that environment we have most things that aren't explicitly stated to be illigal "left to the community" , then a smaller subset of the exploits get made illegal in the middle of the age or are changed within the game. Then you have an even smaller subset which are actioned capriciously in a retroactive manner.

There's a pretty clear divide between playing with game mechanics in new and interesting ways for the sake of strategy, and paying money to be able to generate resources faster than the rest of the competition. How this is even remotely questioned by a player of your quality is just baffling.

While I'm not support, it seems fairly clear to me that the devs/support were aware of the reset issue and were uncomfortable with the way it was being used. That's why it received the nerf, in hopes that the mandatory wait would be enough of a deterrent for the obvious misuse. When it proved to not be, and a top kingdom used it to establish an unfair advantage that could rob everyone else of their preparations, it was clear they needed to step in and not only begin actioning such abuse but also remedy the situation that they created.

[Zauper]

There's a pretty clear divide between playing with game mechanics in new and interesting ways for the sake of strategy, and paying money to be able to generate resources faster than the rest of the competition. How this is even remotely questioned by a player of your quality is just baffling.

While I'm not support, it seems fairly clear to me that the devs/support were aware of the reset issue and were uncomfortable with the way it was being used. That's why it received the nerf, in hopes that the mandatory wait would be enough of a deterrent for the obvious misuse. When it proved to not be, and a top kingdom used it to establish an unfair advantage that could rob everyone else of their preparations, it was clear they needed to step in and not only begin actioning such abuse but also remedy the situation that they created.

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about provs who reset during EOW to gain honor/land?

This is a very comparable activity that has still never been actioned.

And yet, we were actioned after Bishop had first said it was ok (when Octobrev said he could abuse it to provcrown), and had allowed rampant use of it the prior age.

It's kinda silly to argue about tbh -- we were actioned, therefore it was disallowed regardless of how we feel.

[Palem]

I think resetting provinces that have been wrecked in war (and you don't actually want to switch race/pers) falls much more under the label of convenience than trying to abuse any mechanics for some advantage that can't be replicated freely and with good play.

Generally speaking those provinces could be salvaged and in a reasonably small amount of time in the hands of a good player.

[Zauper]

I think resetting provinces that have been wrecked in war (and you don't actually want to switch race/pers) falls much more under the label of convenience than trying to abuse any mechanics for some advantage that can't be replicated freely and with good play.

Generally speaking those provinces could be salvaged and in a reasonably small amount of time in the hands of a good player.

Curiosity --

What is the difference between 'I can regain honor by attacking provinces / opping provinces after we leave war' and 'I can regain gold/soldiers/runes by sitting around spending time'?

The issue with the distinction you're drawing is that provinces naturally generate gc -- and they don't naturally generate land (well, significant land) or honor (after a few days OOP). Presumably, resetting chained attackers to avoid spending pool on them absolutely would be ... '[creating] some advantage that can't be replicated freely and with good play'?

The point that Topsy makes is that reverse banking replicates the same advantage freely and with good play, and that resetting them instead allows you the convenience of not having to salvage them in a reasonably small amount of time in the hands of a good player..

[Band of Horses]

Wow, much disapoint, you never reach your goal this way.

I'm too lazy to look up the Elit quote about "real goal for age" but yeah use your imagination. I never really wanted to play frisbee with jwhozi.

[Palem]

Curiosity --

What is the difference between 'I can regain honor by attacking provinces / opping provinces after we leave war' and 'I can regain gold/soldiers/runes by sitting around spending time'?

The issue with the distinction you're drawing is that provinces naturally generate gc -- and they don't naturally generate land (well, significant land) or honor (after a few days OOP). Presumably, resetting chained attackers to avoid spending pool on them absolutely would be ... '[creating] some advantage that can't be replicated freely and with good play'?

The point that Topsy makes is that reverse banking replicates the same advantage freely and with good play, and that resetting them instead allows you the convenience of not having to salvage them in a reasonably small amount of time in the hands of a good player..

I guess I draw the line at this.

Devising a "strategy" that uses junk provinces that are ultimately better off being reset than building them back up is bad for the game. It goes against the nature of your province as being something important (which it's supposed to be, even if you're just a chain-bait/honey pot/grunt attacker). If the plan involves: "Then we'll reset X, Y, &Z" then it shouldn't be welcomed at all. That goes for top kingdoms trying to generate gc, soldiers, and runes, or honor kingdoms trying to bolster their honor numbers. Where as, if a province over the course of the war that they did their best to try fight out of ends up in a totally crappy situation, I can understand just wanting to save themselves some hassle and resetting because in that case it's not about getting land or honor back, it's about saving themselves some frustration.

I understand the game's come a long way since it's inception and you can call me old fashion all you want, but provinces were never meant to be disposable.

I never really wanted to play frisbee with jwhozi.

You fool.

[Zauper]

I guess I draw the line at this.

Devising a "strategy" that uses junk provinces that are ultimately better off being reset than building them back up is bad for the game. It goes against the nature of your province as being something important (which it's supposed to be, even if you're just a chain-bait/honey pot/grunt attacker). If the plan involves: "Then we'll reset X, Y, &Z" then it shouldn't be welcomed at all. That goes for top kingdoms trying to generate gc, soldiers, and runes, or honor kingdoms trying to bolster their honor numbers. Where as, if a province over the course of the war that they did their best to try fight out of ends up in a totally crappy situation, I can understand just wanting to save themselves some hassle and resetting because in that case it's not about getting land or honor back, it's about saving themselves some frustration.

I understand the game's come a long way since it's inception and you can call me old fashion all you want, but provinces were never meant to be disposable.

You used to have to have your province killed in order to play undead. That's probably the definition of disposable province :). Beyond that, with razekilling and fairly easy peasant killing, I'd say provinces were fairly highly disposable -- you could expect your core of 'chainbait' to be killed 2-3x an age if you warred heavily.

Issue with the line you just drew is that they are functionally the same, right? If I reset a province, and gain honor, I have both saved myself to hassle and improved my kingdom's honor ranking. So now you have to subjectively determine why the person did it in order to determine if it is appropriate or not -- which is not the way that rules should be. In addition to being impossible to do; you can't know if the order in the forums to reset (if they even use the forums) was because the person would gain honor from it, or if the monarch just didn't trust them to do it appropriately. Or what was going through someone's minds when they opted to reset. So we wind up in a situation similar to VM -- the line gets drawn in a way such that kingdoms over [rank] can't reset unless it is to change race/personality, and others can.

[StratOcastle]

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about provs who reset during EOW to gain honor/land?

This is a very comparable activity that has still never been actioned.

And yet, we were actioned after Bishop had first said it was ok (when Octobrev said he could abuse it to provcrown), and had allowed rampant use of it the prior age.

It's kinda silly to argue about tbh -- we were actioned, therefore it was disallowed regardless of how we feel.

The difference might be based in the identity of the individual province player and a drone that will be kicked out of a kingdom if they refuse to commit suicide for the Borg like whole. Respectfully.

It sets a bad example to the player base insofar as individuals making decisions vs forced agenda. This may seem odd from a meta perspective, but many players look to the top for innovative mechanics. Sometimes they forget that meta is a style and not necessarily best.

If you've read any of Panthira's saga you'd see in part the challenges of those who stand apart from the crowd. So many players are led to believe in efficient uniformity that they don't even know what alternatives, like freedom, can be even stronger than the piecemeal meta they follow.

[Palem]

Issue with the line you just drew is that they are functionally the same, right? If I reset a province, and gain honor, I have both saved myself to hassle and improved my kingdom's honor ranking. So now you have to subjectively determine why the person did it in order to determine if it is appropriate or not -- which is not the way that rules should be. In addition to being impossible to do; you can't know if the order in the forums to reset (if they even use the forums) was because the person would gain honor from it, or if the monarch just didn't trust them to do it appropriately. Or what was going through someone's minds when they opted to reset. So we wind up in a situation similar to VM -- the line gets drawn in a way such that kingdoms over [rank] can't reset unless it is to change race/personality, and others can.

You realize that intention not only plays a very real part in RL laws and punishments, but that intention is something that's more often than not pretty easily discernible ...right?

To your other points about provinces being disposable. I disagree. Yes, Utopia used to a lot more hardcore than it is with lots and lots and lots more pk'ing. That being said, with the exception of the raising dead age (which iirc, was removed after 1 age because it was incredibly stupid and gimmicky), I can't recall of any time that dying was a "goal". You could accept a pk as a bit of a badge of honor, but you always fought to keep your province kicking and give the other kingdom fits. If it did, then it was almost guaranteed to be in the honor kingdoms, which I've already said I have a bit a problem with (although back then it wasn't a paid feature to be abused so eh)

[Bishop]

Don't try and lawyer with zauper.

You can't aid away honor and its not anywhere near the same league as what you guys did. Stop being dicks, it was n't clever and sucks time away that we don't have.