Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 127

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

  1. #76
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    626
    Quote Originally Posted by changeling View Post
    I have found in the past that agreeing to a "No Intentional PK" rule, without further elaboration, can tend to lead to disagreements about what PK actually is. While we all recognize that FB and Kidnaps on a deep-chained province with low peasants is the characteristic hallmark of intentional PK, there are other situations where the line is not clear - i.e. massacring a chained T/M to remove opping power, or noting when exactly is peasants too low.

    The following are designed to minimize risk of PKing, while balancing against legitimate war needs that increase the risk of PKing even if not intended to, and to provide a framework whereby that can be done safely.

    (I normally assign actual acre numbers to the following based on average numbers, not use percentages. So if we start off with a KD of mostly 1000 acre provinces, I use "250 acres" instead of 25%, but I give percentages in this post to better convey the overall meaning).

    1. Define "Semi-Chained Provs" as provinces that have been taken to below 25% of original acres, define "Deep-Chained Provs" as provinces that have been taken to below 10% of original acres.

    2. No Kidnaps or Fireballs on either Semi-Chained Provs or Deep-Chained Provs below 500 peasants.

    3. No Massacres on Semi-Chained Provs below 200 Peasants without notice pursuant to section X. No massacres on Deep-Chained Provs at all without notice pursuant to section x.

    4. No attacks on Deep-Chained Provs on land defense below 120 peasants.*This one is per my earlier post that I was asking about, I do not currently use it, but am considering it and would like to see if I can get a mod to approve, as I'm not sure if it is within the rules, but at the same time it's to address that attacks on land defense provinces do kill peasants, and in sufficient number can be used to PK.*

    5. For the bans on actions in sections 2, 3, and 4, the burden is on the attacking party to obtain up to date SoTs and intel to ensure that the peasant levels and acreage are high enough to meet the requirements for whichever action the attacking party is intending.

    6. To accommodate massacres on Semi-Chained Provs or Deep-Chained Provs when necessary to remove opping potential, the following notice provision can be used. If a Kingdom wishes to massacre a Semi-Chained or Deep-Chained Prov, that kingdom can give a "12-hour notice" whereby, a message should be sent to the province, the opposing monarch, and posted in the war forum, stating that at X time, set to no earlier than 12 hours from the time of the message, they intend to massacre X province, and to release 1k peasants by then. This notice will be deemed continuing such that X is expected to consider himself a massacre target, and continuously maintain the 1k peasant number whenever lengthy periods of inactivity are expected. But, if there is a 15-hour gap with no new massacres, the notice will be deemed expired, and a new 12-hour notice will have to be issued to resume massacring. Once the 12-hour notice is sent, the massacring Kingdom will no longer have the burden of checking SoTs before massacring to check peasants levels, and the burden to check on and maintain appropriate peasant levels will be shifted to province X. Note, this rule is not intended to allow PKing after giving notice, but to shift the burden of intel-checking and allow for a reasonable presumption.

    7. Both Monarchs also agree to work together and communicate and to hold themselves to a duty to act in good faith. I.e. even if 12-hour notice is given, but you notice someone forgot to release enough and is down to 20 peasants, even though you may have given notice, please do the right thing and shoot the prov a warning and temporarily pause massacreing. That said, if a province is continuously abusing the rules, i.e. given notice, but hovering himself at 199 peasants in the hopes that massacres can be avoided, please still communicate with the opposing monarch, and the opposing monarch should keep in mind that while this provision seeks to ensure communication stays open during a war and monarchs cooperate to make sure everyone fights a clean, fair war, a province given notice is open to massacres, and will not be considered a rule-break if he gets killed - so the risk of keeping low peasants to try and avoid massacres is on that province.
    This all sounds good, except you refer to deep chained/semi chained as "provinces that have been taken to below x% of original acres". Technically, that doesn't mean they still have to be below that size, and so it is theoretically possible (eg after a very long war) that a "Deep chained province" regrows and ends up big again and it is possible that there could be a scenario where they still nonetheless have land def and under 150 peasants (especially if the war terms say they can't be attacked..lol). I suspect you probably intend to include and additional part of the definition to make clear that if the prov in question regrows above x% then they are no longer considered deep chained/semi chained (unless/until they are back below the acres threshold), because without that you risk handicapping your war effort. From a rules perspective, even without that additional part, I think all of it is within the rules except #4 because that prohibits ALL attacks. In my view, #4 is fine if it relates to a prov that is already badly damaged (ie the aim is just not to kill them) but not fine if it ends up relating to a big prov that has ended up becoming immune from attacks due to these war terms. So in my view to make #4 permissible you need the war terms to only consider a province "deep chained" if they are still below a sensible acre threshold.

  2. #77
    Forum Fanatic octobrev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    us
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris121 View Post
    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 :)
    Is it against the rules? The outcome of the war is far definitely not predetermined in this case. Which is more than I can say for most of the "real" wars that take place.
    theHERETICS - Brute Force - Sonata - Dreams - The Pulsing Trollfags - The Expendables
    Visit my home for banned, neglected, and otherwise disenfranchised players on Discord!

  3. #78
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    626
    Quote Originally Posted by changeling View Post
    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.
    The problem with that would be that deal breaks don't necessarily have to be in war. So you could have a big KD deal breaking a small KD. If that happens, it's pretty hard to meaningfully deal with it yourself without damaging your own interests even more (eg you could do your best to attack one of their provs / mess up their plans, but ultimately you will probably end up having more of your provs razed or something.

    But realistically, most of the time most KDs just have to hope that the KDs they make deals with will stick to them. If not, make a note and don't trust them next time. Some players are known to be fairly trustworthy with deals, some are less so. So think about who you are dealing with :)

  4. #79
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    626
    Quote Originally Posted by octobrev View Post
    Is it against the rules? The outcome of the war is far definitely not predetermined in this case. Which is more than I can say for most of the "real" wars that take place.
    I'm fairly confident the devs would say that is against the rules, yes (but obviously i have no more knowledge on it than anyone else).

    Being pre-determined isn't the only way a war is a fake war and/or against the rules. For example, agreeing to exclude certain provinces from the war is also against the rules. So agreeing to exclude the entirety of both KDs from the war must surely be against the rules too.

  5. #80
    Forum Fanatic octobrev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    us
    Posts
    2,564
    You're not designating any excluded provinces. You're just banning certain destructive operations like AW, propaganda, fireballs, massacres, razes, abducts, traditional marches, conquests, etc.
    theHERETICS - Brute Force - Sonata - Dreams - The Pulsing Trollfags - The Expendables
    Visit my home for banned, neglected, and otherwise disenfranchised players on Discord!

  6. #81
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    626
    If I'm understanding correctly you are banning every destructive operation whilst you protect your province and/or science pump. So that is the same as excluding every province. There would be no attacks taking place during this war you are referring to...so it's obviously (IMHO) not permitted.

  7. #82
    Forum Fanatic octobrev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    us
    Posts
    2,564
    Divinity was allowed to have a "real" war with practically no attacks. Both kingdoms trained a bunch of defense going in so they couldn't mechanically break each other as to throw off any suspicions of excluding provinces.
    theHERETICS - Brute Force - Sonata - Dreams - The Pulsing Trollfags - The Expendables
    Visit my home for banned, neglected, and otherwise disenfranchised players on Discord!

  8. #83
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    626
    Quote Originally Posted by octobrev View Post
    Divinity was allowed to have a "real" war with practically no attacks. Both kingdoms trained a bunch of defense going in so they couldn't mechanically break each other as to throw off any suspicions of excluding provinces.
    I'm not getting involved in what happened in the past. It tends to take pages of posts before enough information has been shared to understand most of what actually happened and even then it's usually biased :)

  9. #84
    Postaholic
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    928
    Putting provs in vacay mode prior to war for a more even match is not fake warring.

    Agreeing to no dragons is sort of on the edge, but for the good of Uto and being able to negotiate wars with otherwise unwilling kingdoms, seems acceptable. Agreeing to no Pk is within bounds.

    Other than that, when war starts there should be no boundaries or conditions or its considered fake war, IMO.

  10. #85
    Strategy Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,155
    For the usefull part of my post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris121 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by octobrev View Post
    Divinity was allowed to have a "real" war with practically no attacks. Both kingdoms trained a bunch of defense going in so they couldn't mechanically break each other as to throw off any suspicions of excluding provinces.
    I'm not getting involved in what happened in the past. It tends to take pages of posts before enough information has been shared to understand most of what actually happened and even then it's usually biased :)
    Looking in the past is typically a good way to gain perspective though. And even if someone wanted to call it fake,what it boiled down to was 2 kds were fighting a certain style that most wouldnt expect....and neither side using the war to do anything but war.


    As for
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris121 View Post
    If I'm understanding correctly you are banning every destructive operation whilst you protect your province and/or science pump. So that is the same as excluding every province. There would be no attacks taking place during this war you are referring to...so it's obviously (IMHO) not permitted.
    when it comes to war MY EXPERIENCE is anything banned or agreed to is typically fine as long as the overall goal isn't to gain an advantage elsewhere. i.e. if i agree to a war with no hits, a pure t/m fight its fine. I can agree to a war with nothing but attacks and intell. What defines a fake war is a war meant to specifically benefit one/both kds. Its why "fake war" ends up having to have the game owners look at things. The line between having a fun, creative war and doing stuff thats sole purpose is to abuse game mechanics in a way that wasn't meant to be done is a line u have to be carefull with.




    For the mod part

    Quote Originally Posted by Zombies are people too View Post
    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? :)
    Final warning, kiddo.
    @zombies & Sweetiepie. try to keep it a bit less "i dont like you" guys. Critisim of AOD is fine, and Zombies invites it with the style of the thread....but one or so off comment is enough and we don't need to bicker in "strategy" or derail to far off. Thread can be pretty good if we leave out to much qqing.
    Last edited by Persain; 23-11-2017 at 02:36.

  11. #86
    Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris121 View Post
    This all sounds good, except you refer to deep chained/semi chained as "provinces that have been taken to below x% of original acres". Technically, that doesn't mean they still have to be below that size, and so it is theoretically possible (eg after a very long war) that a "Deep chained province" regrows and ends up big again and it is possible that there could be a scenario where they still nonetheless have land def and under 150 peasants (especially if the war terms say they can't be attacked..lol). I suspect you probably intend to include and additional part of the definition to make clear that if the prov in question regrows above x% then they are no longer considered deep chained/semi chained (unless/until they are back below the acres threshold), because without that you risk handicapping your war effort. From a rules perspective, even without that additional part, I think all of it is within the rules except #4 because that prohibits ALL attacks. In my view, #4 is fine if it relates to a prov that is already badly damaged (ie the aim is just not to kill them) but not fine if it ends up relating to a big prov that has ended up becoming immune from attacks due to these war terms. So in my view to make #4 permissible you need the war terms to only consider a province "deep chained" if they are still below a sensible acre threshold.
    Thanks for the comment Chris, yes sorry it is meant to mean "provinces currently at below X% of original acres" so at the time of the attack, so if a province regrows they are no longer protected by the rules until they get taken below the acre limit again.

  12. #87
    Strategy Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,155
    Quote Originally Posted by changeling View Post
    Thanks for the comment Chris, yes sorry it is meant to mean "provinces currently at below X% of original acres" so at the time of the attack, so if a province regrows they are no longer protected by the rules until they get taken below the acre limit again.
    fair warning if i was a jerk thats a terrible way to define things. Especially if im attacking someone with town watch. Its easy to drop their peasants into pk range using those percentages....and your whole list of terms is just begging for you to run into a kd that tries to manipulate you. its MUCH better to do the general "no pking, give us a warning if it looks like someone is about to die" Then if you have a death and they aren't super apologetic and explain how they tried to warn/stop it you just hit into thier next war.

    I've had people die in my own kd, and in the enemy kd where the agreement was no pking but it was obviously the own persons fault. i.e. they had 6-7 raw wpa so massacres happen, get low on def sit at 200 for 12 hours, hit, log out on 100 and die. Both times kds were sorry and it was forgiven. We've also had intential pk's w/out the agreement and people are just like sigh "jerk" guess i needed terms. BUUT every time i had kds try to give long lists of terms and someone accidentally messes up like 1 mass or 1 trad march the whole thing turns into a ****storm.

    Also for what its worth ANY monarch that sent me a war offer with that many terms for no pk's i wouldnt war....and since this is in effect a war ethics thread let me tell you what i'd do if i were an asshole.

    Quote Originally Posted by changeling View Post
    3. No Massacres on Semi-Chained Provs below 200 Peasants without notice pursuant to section X. No massacres on Deep-Chained Provs at all without notice pursuant to section x.
    once war starts i would say in pursuant to section x, any prov i chain im proactively giving notice that chain=mass as soon as he releases for overpop...and i only have to do it with spare off every 15 hours lol.( i dont have 100's of generals to spare i can only spare 1 hit every 5-6 hours to remove opiing lol)
    This basically requires the enemy to keep 1000 peasents which is litterally impossible to do in any real war. my current war has 14 people <1k peasants, and im massacring to keep them there.
    Quote Originally Posted by changeling View Post
    4. No attacks on Deep-Chained Provs on land defense below 120 peasants.*This one is per my earlier post that I was asking about, I do not currently use it, but am considering it and would like to see if I can get a mod to approve, as I'm not sure if it is within the rules, but at the same time it's to address that attacks on land defense provinces do kill peasants, and in sufficient number can be used to PK.* doubt u'd get deleted for fake waring this.
    In addition if i ever got a prov below 120 i would msg the enemy monarch saying they broke the rules and hit when i was below this #. i would say u didn't SOT after EVERY hit and the 2nd or 3rd hit of a multitap that took me below 120 was in violation
    Last edited by Persain; 23-11-2017 at 03:33.

  13. #88
    Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by Persain View Post
    For the usefull part of my post

    Looking in the past is typically a good way to gain perspective though. And even if someone wanted to call it fake,what it boiled down to was 2 kds were fighting a certain style that most wouldnt expect....and neither side using the war to do anything but war.


    As for


    when it comes to war MY EXPERIENCE is anything banned or agreed to is typically fine as long as the overall goal isn't to gain an advantage elsewhere. i.e. if i agree to a war with no hits, a pure t/m fight its fine. I can agree to a war with nothing but attacks and intell. What defines a fake war is a war meant to specifically benefit one/both kds. Its why "fake war" ends up having to have the game owners look at things. The line between having a fun, creative war and doing stuff thats sole purpose is to abuse game mechanics in a way that wasn't meant to be done is a line u have to be carefull with.




    For the mod part

    @zombies & Sweetiepie. try to keep it a bit less "i dont like you" guys. Critisim of AOD is fine, and Zombies invites it with the style of the thread....but one or so off comment is enough and we don't need to bicker in "strategy" or derail to far off. Thread can be pretty good if we leave out to much qqing.
    Thank you Persain for your helpful response. It's good to know that the owners/mods do all this work to try and suss out intent.

    So I'm guessing for example, there are some straight nos, i.e. predetermining winner of war explicitly, or explicitly shielding some provinces from the action entirely (though, using actual game tools like vacation mode is fine).

    But for everything else, what matters really is the intent, and whether the KDs are attempting to gain an advantage over and beyond EOWCF (so for example, agreeing to certain restrictions i.e. limits on how low you can chain someone, limits on certain types of attacks or ops are fine - as long as equally applied, even if the intention is to minimize mutual destruction in a war while still enjoying the benefits of EOWCF (as long as the winner isn't predetermined and no single province is excluded).

    However, if you see evidence that the KDs are attempting to agree to said restrictions to gain an additional advantage while protected by war, the outcome would be different.

    I.e. No massacres, no AW is fine. Saying no chaining anyone below 300 acres is fine etc. exploring before a war is fine. But if those are combined with, for example both KDs doing max explores right before, then spending a two week long war with maxed out labs and guilds while only doing a bare minimum attacks on spread out targets and non-destructive ops, then it looks suspicious and actionable.


    Worth discussing further I guess, would be precisely what are the purposes of the game's war and EOWCF mechanics, to be better able to understand exactly what would be considered abuse, and what would be considered an advantage elsewhere.

    For example, only agreeing to a string of wars with AW banned could have a long term impact of making one KD better positioned to honor crown, thus having an advantage else where - but not necessarily taking advantage of a war/eowcf mechanic to do so since there's nothing about war/eowcf that grants additional protection from AW than otherwise you would have in normal. While it does skew the risk/reward of wars - that alone can't be the disqualifying standard if any agreements are allowed, because everything from agreed start dates to no pk rules all somewhat skew the risk/reward (as long as the ultimate risk, whether you win or lose, is still up for grabs).

    A different example, I think, would be if War is used for the specific purposes of protecting your provinces from outside attacks at critical times. While on the surface, of course - this is one of the primary markers of a fake war, and the war protection mechanics are meant to protect from outside interference.

    However, a common theme is OOP wars - where, whether implicit or explicit, an OOP war often has the ulterior motive of protecting a KD from being fed on by opening wave attacks. And arguably, warring right out of the gate does convey advantages beyond the game mechanic goal of protection from outside interference during a war itself.

  14. #89
    Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by Persain View Post
    fair warning if i was a jerk thats a terrible way to define things. Especially if im attacking someone with town watch. Its easy to drop their peasants into pk range using those percentages....and your whole list of terms is just begging for you to run into a kd that tries to manipulate you. its MUCH better to do the general "no pking, give us a warning if it looks like someone is about to die" Then if you have a death and they aren't super apologetic and explain how they tried to warn/stop it you just hit into thier next war.

    I've had people die in my own kd, and in the enemy kd where the agreement was no pking but it was obviously the own persons fault. i.e. they had 6-7 raw wpa so massacres happen, get low on def sit at 200 for 12 hours, hit, log out on 100 and die. Both times kds were sorry and it was forgiven. We've also had intential pk's w/out the agreement and people are just like sigh "jerk" guess i needed terms. BUUT every time i had kds try to give long lists of terms and someone accidentally messes up like 1 mass or 1 trad march the whole thing turns into a ****storm.

    Also for what its worth ANY monarch that sent me a war offer with that many terms for no pk's i wouldnt war....and since this is in effect a war ethics thread let me tell you what i'd do if i were an asshole.

    once war starts i would say in pursuant to section x, any prov i chain im proactively giving notice that chain=mass as soon as he releases for overpop...and i only have to do it with spare off every 15 hours lol.( i dont have 100's of generals to spare i can only spare 1 hit every 5-6 hours to remove opiing lol)
    This basically requires the enemy to keep 1000 peasents which is litterally impossible to do in any real war. my current war has 14 people <1k peasants, and im massacring to keep them there.

    In addition if i ever got a prov below 120 i would msg the enemy monarch saying they broke the rules and hit when i was below this #. i would say u didn't SOT after EVERY hit and the 2nd or 3rd hit of a multitap that took me below 120 was in violation
    Quote Originally Posted by Persain View Post
    fair warning if i was a jerk thats a terrible way to define things. Especially if im attacking someone with town watch. Its easy to drop their peasants into pk range using those percentages....and your whole list of terms is just begging for you to run into a kd that tries to manipulate you. its MUCH better to do the general "no pking, give us a warning if it looks like someone is about to die" Then if you have a death and they aren't super apologetic and explain how they tried to warn/stop it you just hit into thier next war.

    I've had people die in my own kd, and in the enemy kd where the agreement was no pking but it was obviously the own persons fault. i.e. they had 6-7 raw wpa so massacres happen, get low on def sit at 200 for 12 hours, hit, log out on 100 and die. Both times kds were sorry and it was forgiven. We've also had intential pk's w/out the agreement and people are just like sigh "jerk" guess i needed terms. BUUT every time i had kds try to give long lists of terms and someone accidentally messes up like 1 mass or 1 trad march the whole thing turns into a ****storm.

    Also for what its worth ANY monarch that sent me a war offer with that many terms for no pk's i wouldnt war....and since this is in effect a war ethics thread let me tell you what i'd do if i were an asshole.

    once war starts i would say in pursuant to section x, any prov i chain im proactively giving notice that chain=mass as soon as he releases for overpop...and i only have to do it with spare off every 15 hours lol.( i dont have 100's of generals to spare i can only spare 1 hit every 5-6 hours to remove opiing lol)
    This basically requires the enemy to keep 1000 peasents which is litterally impossible to do in any real war. my current war has 14 people <1k peasants, and im massacring to keep them there.

    In addition if i ever got a prov below 120 i would msg the enemy monarch saying they broke the rules and hit when i was below this #. i would say u didn't SOT after EVERY hit and the 2nd or 3rd hit of a multitap that took me below 120 was in violation
    Thanks for the feedback Persain!

    I guess you've also proven a point about why fake wars are defined so vaguely. Define it too narrowly, and because some people are jerks, they'll find a way to game the system.

    There's vulnerabilities of course, and thanks for enlightening me to some more possible gaps =P
    No. 4 was one I only just thought of pretty much on the spot for this thread, but glad to know it's ok if implemented. But I can see it being abused as well. It does counter the jerk move I did think of in relation to the before rules which would be to simply, drop someone to land defense, let them regrow to above the X cap, fb/kidnap/mass etc., then redrop back below X cap to overpop.

    That said, why I put the general act in good faith clause =P

    I think nearly everyone I've met have been great (only really encountered problems with jerks with just the generic "no PKs" once or twice) and every KD I fought with some variance of the above ruleset, we still just communicate and work it out amicably if someone did a massacre by mistake or fb the wrong target, and even when we encountered clear rule breaking, we were able to sort it out diplomatically and just respond with a single in kind pk to even the score.

    I just figure, anyone who was being a jerk to game the agreements would probably have been a jerk and skirted the no PK rule anyway even if it was simpler.

    But, from your comments, I think a simpler and better way would just to be say

    No intentional PK, so generally no Kidnapping/Fbing anyone below 300 peasants, and if you need to do something that could potentially put someone at risk, like massacre a chained t/m or chained attacker retaining wizards, just pm me and the target first to make sure they have time to stay safe and watch out (i.e. not a 3 am message saying, next tick we will massacre you 60 times) and communicate and cooperate if we see anyone at risk.

  15. #90
    Strategy Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,155
    Quote Originally Posted by changeling View Post
    Thank you Persain for your helpful response. It's good to know that the owners/mods do all this work to try and suss out intent.
    Im not the owners nor bishop so i cant officially say "here are the xyz criteria you have to meet to be called a fake war. However the whole point of the game is to have fun, and if people are having fun w/out griefing anyone or effecting any "rankings" your going to be hard pressed to be determined a cheater.


    Quote Originally Posted by changeling View Post
    For example, only agreeing to a string of wars with AW banned could have a long term impact of making one KD better positioned to honor crown, thus having an advantage else where - but not necessarily taking advantage of a war/eowcf mechanic to do so since there's nothing about war/eowcf that grants additional protection from AW than otherwise you would have in normal.
    AW is war/hostile only i IMAGINE that'd be fine to do, but as soon as you start getting high honor or wars start to be the main time you pump wpa expect that IF reported there will likely be consequences (like do it 1 war for fun no biggy....do it all wars in an age i bet u get deleted even if u arent ranking). Theres a huge difference between 2 kds in at 3/6 and 2/5 low war tier saying, man we've had a hard run of things how about lets do no aw this war. And 2 kds like my own and freakstyle saying...."yea yea no aw this war right" when we're both high honor and both really just want to do it to put honor on our mystics. Its again why fake wars are decided by real people looking at things.

    Remember a war has to be reported before its looked at. If you agree to terms and stuff is strange enough to get a report there's a good chance you were probubly close enough to that line that if deleted you just should suck it u and try to move on. Also worth noting is that
    Quote Originally Posted by changeling View Post
    However, a common theme is OOP wars - where, whether implicit or explicit, an OOP war often has the ulterior motive of protecting a KD from being fed on by opening wave attacks. And arguably, warring right out of the gate does convey advantages beyond the game mechanic goal of protection from outside interference during a war itself.
    just becuase a war is beneficial to both sides doesnt make it fake, dodging a kd, 'hiding' in war has in the past been deemed fine as long as both sides are actively waring and trying to win. You cross into the ream of fake when the sole purpose is to hide and its not a real fight but a stall or when 2 people who are clearly friends enter war with the intent to boost one of them.

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
  •