Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 127

Thread: The Cavalier Club: A Discussion on Fair War Practice

  1. #61
    Forum Fanatic octobrev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    us
    Posts
    2,452
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris121 View Post
    If you "know" you will beat them, then it's a fake war as the only way you can "know" that is if the outcome is pre-determined. If however you are very confident you will win based on knowing your ability and theirs (or their state of readiness / set up etc), then yes I believe that in itself is within the rules (obviously assuming that there are no other ways in which you are breaking the rules, such as having provs in both KDs!).
    It's pretty blatantly obvious in most cases just by looking at the KD pages who will win! What if there isn't a physical player in the opposing kingdom but I have access to their intel site, plans, and orders?

    On another tangent, I see it's against the rules to "create a false identity for the purpose of misleading others." Does this apply to top kingdoms masquerading as ghettos early in the age to bait easy war wins?

  2. #62
    Post Fiend sl0hnd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    128
    I have been in several tiny ghettos where both sides have agreed to "no dragons" as neither has enough gold to send one anyway.
    So no need to start a decoy as some ploy.

    @Octo:On another tangent, I see it's against the rules to "create a false identity for the purpose of misleading others." Does this apply to top kingdoms masquerading as ghettos early in the age to bait easy war wins?

    That has happened to my KD last 3 ages. 3 BB, 2 Emereti, 1 FS this age.
    We did land on same island with them all 3 times.
    Last edited by sl0hnd; 22-11-2017 at 19:35.
    if its in the game... I like Bishop. I don't care what my Mommy says about him.

  3. #63
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by octobrev View Post
    It's pretty blatantly obvious in most cases just by looking at the KD pages who will win!
    Agreed, but in those situations I believe that is within the rules. I don't see how it could possibly be workable to have a rule that says you can only war a KD where you think you have a fair chance of losing. It's far too grey. We have war declare limits for a reason - if they are too wide such that wars are not fair, we should narrow the war declare range.

    Quote Originally Posted by octobrev View Post
    What if there isn't a physical player in the opposing kingdom but I have access to their intel site, plans, and orders?
    I think it depends on the situation. If you have a deal with a prov in their KD to give you the information, then I see it as the same as your first method.

    At the other extreme, if by luck one of their KD mates happens to defect to your KD during war and *you had no involvement or awareness etc of that going to happen*, and that player tells you their plans, maybe that's permissible.




    Quote Originally Posted by octobrev View Post
    On another tangent, I see it's against the rules to "create a false identity for the purpose of misleading others." Does this apply to top kingdoms masquerading as ghettos early in the age to bait easy war wins?
    There is no rule to identify your own KD. So if they are merely not using their normal name and/or not using a theme and/or not building up their provinces fully, I don't see how that is against the rules.

    If they actively seek out other ghettos to lie "hey, we are a newly formed KD. we are not active but would like a fair war to try to learn" then I would say that's illegal.

  4. #64
    Forum Fanatic octobrev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    us
    Posts
    2,452
    If no dragons, PKs, and AW are acceptable war terms then where does it end exactly? Could two kingdoms agree to carry out their entire war in a google doc instead of in-game as to preserve their provinces for future conflicts? Or agree to decide the war based on a game of chess while they pump sci?
    Last edited by octobrev; 22-11-2017 at 21:25.

  5. #65
    Forum Addict
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,022
    Quote Originally Posted by changeling View Post
    Thanks for the response Sweetiepie. Thank you for contributing your input into this laudable thread trying to ensure that rules are not broken in the future.

    I agree, of course, that the communication Diamonds accepted could be construed as problematic.

    That said, this thread has been useful in bringing to light that there are actually more grey areas than we would have expected. For example, there are actually monarchs that disagree with your assessment that no dragons, no AW etc. are not against the rules. So you have just provided an excellent example of why this thread is here, and how unintentional rule-breaking can occur, where we have, for example one monarch like you, who thinks it's clear that "No AW" is clearly OK and not even a grey area, while 2-3 other monarchs here have argued that "No AW" is clearly a rule break intended to set up a KD for future wars. So this demonstrates this thread's usefulness for everyone, so that, for example an innocent leader like you won't get investigated next time when you send a "NO AW" rule request to a monarch who thinks it's against the rules.
    Ha ha 'problematic communications' AOD snake oil rears its head, neither you or Diamond's Munchkin can admit 'Diamond cheated, got deleted' :)
    The PR department of Alliance of Diamond working overtime. Hope you guys get paid double rations.

    I don't give a FF what other players think. (Who says it is monarchs posting in here?) Players do what they want, how they want and if they get caught and are clearly going against the spirit of the rules in the Dev's opinion they get deleted. Superb, problem solved! :)

    This thread is about as useful as a life buoy for a fish.

    Your earlier post did make me laugh though with your reference to 'the rules' agreed for the war and the minutiae of the definition of PK in your opinion. It made me wonder if you are so set on so detailed 'rules' for a war engagement what justice you mete out to those you believe have broken them. Get your alliance to whack them, perchance? :)

  6. #66
    Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by octobrev View Post
    If no dragons, PKs, and AW are acceptable war terms then where does it end exactly? Could two kingdoms agree to carry out their entire war in a google doc instead of in-game as to preserve their provinces for future conflicts? Or agree to decide the war based on a game of chess while they pump sci?
    Yep, establishing the boundary in between allowing certain agreements that facilitate encouraging more real warring but preventing abuse, I think, is the point of this thread. So there's really two extremes. If one of your interests is the best "long-term" interests of the game, for example, on the one end, you want to allow "no PK" rules, as that is something that mitigates an aspect of the game that leads to increased numbers of people leaving the game. On the other hand, as you pointed out, taken to the other extreme gets kinda ridiculous.

  7. #67
    Forum Fanatic octobrev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    us
    Posts
    2,452
    Why is it only ok if it encourages wars? Maybe I'm more into growth and, with the recent changes made to prevent banks/cows, agreeing to terms where select provinces go unhit during war is the only way to facilitate what I desire to accomplish. I may very well leave the game if I can't get my bank off the ground...

    Perhaps it would be more ethical to push for changes to the mechanics rather than circumventing them with underhanded agreements. We could remove AW/massacre and strengthen MAP(GBP) in warstance so players don't get upset and quit, for example.
    Last edited by octobrev; 22-11-2017 at 22:17.

  8. #68
    Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by Sweetiepie View Post
    Ha ha 'problematic communications' AOD snake oil rears its head, neither you or Diamond's Munchkin can admit 'Diamond cheated, got deleted' :)
    The PR department of Alliance of Diamond working overtime. Hope you guys get paid double rations.

    I don't give a FF what other players think. (Who says it is monarchs posting in here?) Players do what they want, how they want and if they get caught and are clearly going against the spirit of the rules in the Dev's opinion they get deleted. Superb, problem solved! :)

    This thread is about as useful as a life buoy for a fish.

    Your earlier post did make me laugh though with your reference to 'the rules' agreed for the war and the minutiae of the definition of PK in your opinion. It made me wonder if you are so set on so detailed 'rules' for a war engagement what justice you mete out to those you believe have broken them. Get your alliance to whack them, perchance? :)
    Thank you for your opinion Sweetiepie.

    Everyone has a different style and opinion, but I believe the open and respectful discussion is the best path forward and the key step to building a better community. We all become better people if we are polite and respect each other's opinions and contributions, as everyone here and everyone in the Utopia community has something important they are adding.

    There'll always be certain individuals, like you, who do not care what people think, and think that players can "do what they want, how they want". However, for the broader community there are many fine people playing this game who do care about community standards and acknowledging the opinions of others, even if they may disagree.

    This thread serves that purpose, of allowing a forum for fair-minded people to debate, and demonstrate that we are a community that, on the whole, are thoughtful and respectful.

    That said, you bring up an excellent point of discussion, in a thread that seeks to invite discussion on community values and honourable play and standards.

    In the scenario Sweetiepie mentioned, If two KDs are warring, but made a private agreement as to terms for the war, and other KD broke said terms, which I think there's general agreement amongst the community that breaking deals is considered bad form - is it appropriate for third parties (whether an alliance, or a friendly Kingdom, or the "Utopia Police") to impose punitive actions afterwards?

    My personal opinion is that it is not. If two kingdoms privately agree to any terms for a war, I consider that a manner of internal dispute between those two kingdoms, and it should be resolved between them. (i.e. if an opposing KD violates a no-PK rule, an appropriate response is to PK back, but without any involvement from external forces). And external "justice" should be restricted only to a scenario involving "external" action. I.e. using an third-party to KD to intel or attack into a war, then it's justified requesting a third-party to attack that third-party, but not ok for a third party to intervene regarding an internal war dispute between two parties, even if one side engaged in actions the community considers to be bad.

    Interested to hear everyone's thoughts though on appropriate and inappropriate times for a KD to ask for external support.
    Last edited by changeling; 22-11-2017 at 22:46.

  9. #69
    Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by octobrev View Post
    Why is it only ok if it encourages wars? Maybe I'm more into growth and, with the recent changes made to prevent banks/cows, agreeing to terms where select provinces go unhit during war is the only way to facilitate what I desire to accomplish. I may very well leave the game if I can't get my bank off the ground...

    Perhaps it would be more ethical to push for changes to the mechanics rather than circumventing them with underhanded agreements. We could remove AW/massacre and strengthen MAP(GBP) in warstance so players don't get upset and quit, for example.
    Good point octobrev, I made a longer post earlier on that goes into more detail about what I think some of the rationales could be (encouraging wars is only a small factor imo, as you're right, there are plenty of growth KDs as well).

    Perhaps a better way of defining it is balancing war and growth.

    Basically, for a KD that exists and finds primary enjoyment in warring, a mechanic that, practically speaking, enforces downtime of several weeks (i.e. wizard regain time) could lead to more players leaving the game, when they're forced to just sit and wait (in their POV) for half the available game time. However, a private agreement not to AW does not change the overall balance between a warring KD and a growth KD, as the growth KD would not normally have access to AW anyway if they have normal relations.

    Banning, for example, agreements to leave some provinces alone makes perfect sense, as that gives a KD at war an advantage (growing provinces that are immune from attack) from the war protection mechanics itself, above and beyond what it would have in normal.

    And yes, I also agree that changes to mechanics is the preferred way forward, and a mechanic to allow faster WPA recover after war (with various ways to make that happen) is a frequent suggestion. Private agreements in the mean time are just a crutch while the official process makes it's way forward.

    That said, as I mentioned before I don't see no AW terms ever really, and I would not be likely to agree to such a term personally, but up there as an example of a kind of agreement KDs may make that restrict certain actions on both sides, but is useful to think about as it is not as broadly accepted as "No PK" but it is also something potentially justifiable.

  10. #70
    Enthusiast Zombies are people too's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by Sweetiepie View Post
    Diamond's Munchkin
    Final warning, kiddo.



    Great High-Altitude Discussion from all our contributors! Please feel free to jump into the conversation anytime and keep the discussion going! :D

    Stay tuned for more hot topics here! live on the Cavalier Club!

    -DM <3
    The House of Eargasms has moved to Discord! Come Join the fun!!!

    #UTOPIA-FM
    https://discord.gg/EnJgSC5

    !Ask A Monarch!

    http://forums.utopia-game.com/showth...!Ask-A-Monarch!

  11. #71
    Dear Friend Korp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    8,565
    This is a public forum open for anyone to post in and voice their opinion if they dont align to what you want to discuss tough luck but thats a risk you just have to take.

  12. #72
    Enthusiast Zombies are people too's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by Korp View Post
    This is a public forum open for anyone to post in and voice their opinion if they dont align to what you want to discuss tough luck but thats a risk you just have to take.
    I totally agree! Not sure what name calling has to do with the discussion, is considered a form of harassment, and can be reported. I hope we can all be respectful to each other here, especially with soo much great input and conversation going on! Anything pertaining to all your questions and topics, please feel free to post! :D

    -DM <3
    Last edited by Zombies are people too; 22-11-2017 at 22:48.
    The House of Eargasms has moved to Discord! Come Join the fun!!!

    #UTOPIA-FM
    https://discord.gg/EnJgSC5

    !Ask A Monarch!

    http://forums.utopia-game.com/showth...!Ask-A-Monarch!

  13. #73
    Forum Fanatic octobrev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    us
    Posts
    2,452
    Quote Originally Posted by changeling View Post
    Perhaps a better way of defining it is balancing war and growth.

    Basically, for a KD that exists and finds primary enjoyment in warring, a mechanic that, practically speaking, enforces downtime of several weeks (i.e. wizard regain time) could lead to more players leaving the game, when they're forced to just sit and wait (in their POV) for half the available game time. However, a private agreement not to AW does not change the overall balance between a warring KD and a growth KD, as the growth KD would not normally have access to AW anyway if they have normal relations.
    A kingdom in normal relations isn't exposed to AW but it also isn't getting a war win bonus while it's doing it. A kingdom that is setting such terms is gaining access subsidies that were implemented to compensate kingdoms for the risks associated with warstance while, at the same time, removing or reducing the risks.

    Quote Originally Posted by changeling View Post
    And yes, I also agree that changes to mechanics is the preferred way forward, and a mechanic to allow faster WPA recover after war (with various ways to make that happen) is a frequent suggestion. Private agreements in the mean time are just a crutch while the official process makes it's way forward.
    I won't fight you on this point! We sometimes have to force things to work until the developers get around to making changes that benefit us. I'm only using friends to provide buttons from ghettos until paradise stops taking pool acres. Otherwise, where the land gonna come from?

  14. #74
    Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by octobrev View Post
    A kingdom in normal relations isn't exposed to AW but it also isn't getting a war win bonus while it's doing it. A kingdom that is setting such terms is gaining access subsidies that were implemented to compensate kingdoms for the risks associated with warstance while, at the same time, removing or reducing the risks.



    I won't fight you on this point! We sometimes have to force things to work until the developers get around to making changes that benefit us. I'm only using friends to provide buttons from ghettos until paradise stops taking pool acres. Otherwise, where the land gonna come from?
    Yep, I agree about the skewing of risk/reward balance problem - I made a longer post discussing this further back (no. 49 on page 4).

  15. #75
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by octobrev View Post
    If no dragons, PKs, and AW are acceptable war terms then where does it end exactly? Could two kingdoms agree to carry out their entire war in a google doc instead of in-game as to preserve their provinces for future conflicts? Or agree to decide the war based on a game of chess while they pump sci?
    Of course not because then they wouldn't be attacking/doing anything to each other which is one of the very obvious examples of a fake war. I appreciate you are trying to come up with an extreme to prompt discussion, but those examples are so extreme that if you step back they are obviously against the rules :)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •