Debauchery...

[anti-fun]

According to like-minded peoples, seems like "If the game allows something....why not do it..?" So if Debauchery in war and THE GAME allows other KD to hit in.. Why not do it? *eats popcorn*

Well cause in this game its always better to have a friend than an enemy,sure you can waste your remaining time in your age razing Deb but if you do that you got no moral grounds to stand on anymore,When abs cow got 0 tpa and got stolen so much gc,did they try to rk everyone who stole them?.I only believe an eye for an eye,i believe everyone knows that rking a province/or in war is the lowest and degraded form of action in utopia a kingdom can do compared to stealing since gc can be regained bk through pillages/stealing but rking wipes out a progress of a whole province of that age which is anti-fun.Like their monarch of deb already said what goes around, comes around.

[DHaran]

Robbing gc would not deter Debauchery from continuing their ways. They need to be taught properly what happens when you mess with kingdoms in war status.

[anti-fun]

Robbing gc would not deter Debauchery from continuing their ways. They need to be taught properly what happens when you mess with kingdoms in war status.

Why do you assume that?,are you in Deb?,like i said dont forget a kingdom got 25 members,Sillyrabbit is just 1 person only,do you even know what are they talking about internally? From your message you seem to think that only deb is stealing gc in eowcf whereas more famous kingdoms are doing it compared to the glorified ghetto basher.

[Andr3w]

Well cause in this game its always better to have a friend than an enemy,sure you can waste your remaining time in your age razing Deb but if you do that you got no moral grounds to stand on anymore,When abs cow got 0 tpa and got stolen so much gc,did they try to rk everyone who stole them?.I only believe an eye for an eye,i believe everyone knows that rking a province/or in war is the lowest and degraded form of action in utopia a kingdom can do compared to stealing since gc can be regained bk through pillages/stealing but rking wipes out a progress of a whole province of that age which is anti-fun.Like their monarch of deb already said what goes around, comes around.

Thinking of Abs cow incident, did that happen on eowcf/warring or normal period (Fort/Agg/Normal)? Anyone in Abs can verify this?



I guess its coming around to Deb now then according to their monarch?

Well regarding reason for RK, seems like people were given the choice by SillyRabbit...

Until the mods change how EoWcf works (they could easily change game to just allow espionage ops and not sabotage ops, like when you have a CF in place), we will continue taking candy from a baby. Those who get upset can either learn to train thieves, war us, or raze us.

A) Train thieves
B) War
C) Raze


So I guess some KD chose (C) then, and its leading to (B)? He asked people to do it and why complain now..?

In this situation you are taking advantage of a (temporarily) weaker opponent, that is good. You are doing so at such a time that most players agree you should not, this could potentially be bad. The other kingdom can indeed train TPA and protect themselves. That costs a lot of GC though and gimps their income, pop growth, berecovery etc. A more effective way to save GC long term is to raze kill any kingdom that ops into eowcf. The aggressor in this case is sacrificing short term gain for long term success - its a very short sighted strategy.

Robbing gc would not deter Debauchery from continuing their ways. They need to be taught properly what happens when you mess with kingdoms in war status.

[anti-fun]

I guess its coming around to Deb now then according to their monarch?

Well regarding reason for RK, seems like people were given the choice by SillyRabbit...



A) Train thieves
B) War
C) Raze


So I guess some KD chose (C) then, and its leading to (B)? He asked people to do it and why complain now..?

Sure you can choose the douche choice but remember 1 thing this game is forever, everyone starts on equal footing each age,Deb already lost their WW crown and by rking them you are giving them a very good reason to do the same thing as you guys did in future ages because they got all the reason to. An eye for an eye i guess just dont be surprised when 1 or more of your provinces is dead during war time in future ages.

[Andr3w]

Sure you can choose the douche choice but remember 1 thing this game is forever, everyone starts on equal footing each age,Deb already lost their WW crown and by rking them you are giving them a very good reason to do the same thing as you guys did in future ages because they got all the reason to. An eye for an eye i guess just dont be surprised when 1 or more of your provinces is dead during war time in future ages.

Forever, lol doubt it. Exaggeration.. Ooo.. So its a proclamation by anti-fun (not sure if his is Deb, guessing he is) that they will level up from stealing in eowcf to hitting into active wars...? o.O Then when it comes back around..your KD wars will be 1vXXX amount of KDs?

You stole from eowcf (Which seems smart to you, but is also the douche choice from other people's point of view).. you knew its coming dont you..? Dont understand why you are so mad though..?

[flutterby]

Sure you can choose the douche choice

Hello Pot.. meet Kettle.

[anti-fun]

Forever, lol doubt it. Exaggeration.. Ooo.. So its a proclamation by anti-fun (not sure if his is Deb, guessing he is) that they will level up from stealing in eowcf to hitting into active wars...? o.O Then when it comes back around..your KD wars will be 1vXXX amount of KDs?

Dont understand why you are so mad though..? You stole from eowcf and you knew its coming dont you..?

Nah i dont bother to steal into eowcf cause its lame,i play for myself and for fun. Did not know my reply sounds mad to you,i think you guys feel that anyone opposing rking= you are in Deb.Anyway cheers and all the best man.

[Alazne]

Feint is from Bob i dont see any reason why they will lie to you guys to help us

Us?

[Kestrel038]

Wow.. what a long rant on all sides for something that A... is not even mentioned in the "rules" that I am able to find. (So if someone could show me where "fake wars" are deemed illegal that would be appreciated).. and B... is something that pretty much EVERY player in the history of Utopia has partaken in..

Fake wars are a problem if and when they are used to affect crown wins I will accept, but FWs have been part of the game for many MANY years now.. and have been used by the top kingdoms as often as they are/were used by the ghetto type kingdoms.

so I have two points to make... firstly..if FW is SUCH a major problem, then why not introduce game mechanics to prevet them or to penalise any kingdoms taking part..

And secondly.. Lay out a CLEAR set of rules regarding what does and does not constitute a fake war. I feel that Bishops interpretation of a "mid-war CF/Agreement" is flawed and I shall explain why. Imagine a scenario in a real war situation (i.e. not a game, but an ACTUAL medieval war).. Invader A attacks Defender B.. lays siege to their City/Castle/Land.. After a short time, Defender B realises that the armies of Invader A will overwhelm them. Defender B is then faced with a decision.. to either "fight to the last" until every one of his people is dead and the Invaders take everything they have.... or alternatively.. to speak to the enemy leader under a flag of truce.. and try to negotiate and end to the war that minimises further loss of life/land. It would not be unusual for such a leader to offer to withdraw from certain lands in exchange for mercy/leniency.. nor would it be unreasonable for Defender B to request a ceasefire for a length of time to allow them to evacuate the civilian population etc.. There may even be an agreement that Defender B got to keep certain land in return for non-opposition for the remainder of the war or in the future.

So simply put.. whilst a "fake war" would never have occurred in any military conflict in history.. an agreement between two warring parties part way through a war could and would.. and indeed DID happen many times in history. If you are going to claim that this is a "war-game" then you MUST base all decisions on how such an event would have played out within the environment the game is set in.

Also, I do feel that as this is now a commercial game.. that any administrative/judgement functions within the game should be carried out by a paid employee rather than a player of the game. After all.. what would happen if Bishops kingdom ended up in a war where they agreed part way through on a mutually beneficial ending to the war. Would Bishop delete his own kingdoms war wins?? would he delete his own monarch??

sorry Bishop, but as much as I agree with you that pre-arranged fake wars are wrong.. I also feel that no person who actually plays the game can be truly impartial. I also know of no other gaming model where this is the norm. Almost all MMO games do not allow their administrative staff to actually play the game on any server where they have administrative/God level access. Whilst I am not suggesting for one minute that 99% of accusations leveled at you are legitimate.. I DO feel that you could negate that 99% of accusations by withdrawing from the game and making yourself TRULY impartial. As long as anybody with the ability to directly "punish" kingdoms/provinces is allowed to play with those provinces, then you DO invite accusations of impartiality.

Every single type of "public competition" from game shows to lottery operations to subscription based games are forced to appoint "independent adjudicators". As long as you are in the game.. you will be accused of bias.. and if you cannot/will not help to develop either clear rulesets.. or game mechanics to avoid the kind of play that is causing the problem, then i do not feel you can claim any righteousness in ANY decision of this kind.

But the leader of any kingdom is likely to.. and indeed SHOULD do everything in their power to preserve their kingdom.. and to protect the players who elected them and trusted them to lead.. and THAT is quite clearly stated in the Utopian Wiki regarding the choice of a monarch.. ergo.. mid-war CF's.. negotiated agreements between monarchs for less aggressive ends to wars etc are not only acceptable, but are in fact advocated by the game rules and the utopian code of conduct. Until those rules and that code is modified to clarify the whole "fake war" situation, then ANY judgement surrounding such a situation IS.. and rightly SHOULD be.. open to criticism by the playerbase..

[Andr3w]

I predict 1st answer by mod is that this is a game, not real life :P

anyway, I think I read somewhere along the line by the monarch of Defender B (Psychosis), mentioned in his post that its pre-arranged to be only a 24h-max gain marathon..then till the leftover time till min-time withdraw are not mentioned..(been awhile since I read, but it should be something like that)

if you were to infer that to your 'medieval war' situation, which king/leader/monarch in the right mind will decide "Ok, lets have war for 1 day, fight all you want and after that, we'll give up"..? Coup de tat will happen and that king will already be dead..Dont think anyone will war with the mindset to lose it in the first place? or in Psychosis's situation, it was to avoid to being farmed by other KDs..dont think those situations suit real life situation as well (you decide to fight a war with another country just to avoid getting attacked by various other countries? lol) :P Im guessing real life war, there will be more chance of joining either side of the war to help out, instead of staying out of it like this game..lol..is there any 'mutually benefitting war' in real life? xD

The 1 who removed the WW is the developer who does not play the game, not bishop.the developer rarely (or doesnt) even appear in forum and game since he doesnt play. if we do not have mods, who will take care of it..? and I think the forum mods are not being paid to be one..its voluntary..why should some1 who ISNT getting paid, bother to check in on a game he does NOT play and care of whats happening in there n etc..? I definitely would not, i may check forum 1x in 2-3 weeks maybe if i dont play or forgets about the game totally, but that way the game itself will just crumble slowly..

regarding the mechanics to decide fake war, dont think its possible..does it mean if theres no hits from either side in 6h or more = fake war and auto delete KD or something..? that wont work, what happen to those KD who have wave times? :P or to those who DOES want to fake it, they can simply just send 1 general 1 soldier to bounce on some1 every 5h or so to keep the timer reset n etc :p doubt theres anyway to stop fake wars..loopholes that cant be covered will be there..

[Sheister]

Sure you can choose the douche choice but remember 1 thing this game is forever, everyone starts on equal footing each age,Deb already lost their WW crown and by rking them you are giving them a very good reason to do the same thing as you guys did in future ages because they got all the reason to. An eye for an eye i guess just dont be surprised when 1 or more of your provinces is dead during war time in future ages.

ehem. Pardon me, but HTF would that be eye for an eye. We are not razing you in war. Don't be a moron. We are razing you out in the open. like men. Stop being a whining little child. If you actually raze into one of our wars, as opposed to raze us in the open, oh its on like donkey kong then. Right now, I am only half heartedly doing things to you. If you were truly to be truly TRULY mega f*&ckers, then I would have to give you the archangels treatment. It took them 4 ages, but now they never interact with us anymore.....period.

[Bishop]

Wow.. what a long rant on all sides for something that A... is not even mentioned in the "rules" that I am able to find. (So if someone could show me where "fake wars" are deemed illegal that would be appreciated).. and B... is something that pretty much EVERY player in the history of Utopia has partaken in..

Fake wars are a problem if and when they are used to affect crown wins I will accept, but FWs have been part of the game for many MANY years now.. and have been used by the top kingdoms as often as they are/were used by the ghetto type kingdoms.

so I have two points to make... firstly..if FW is SUCH a major problem, then why not introduce game mechanics to prevet them or to penalise any kingdoms taking part..

And secondly.. Lay out a CLEAR set of rules regarding what does and does not constitute a fake war. I feel that Bishops interpretation of a "mid-war CF/Agreement" is flawed and I shall explain why. Imagine a scenario in a real war situation (i.e. not a game, but an ACTUAL medieval war).. Invader A attacks Defender B.. lays siege to their City/Castle/Land.. After a short time, Defender B realises that the armies of Invader A will overwhelm them. Defender B is then faced with a decision.. to either "fight to the last" until every one of his people is dead and the Invaders take everything they have.... or alternatively.. to speak to the enemy leader under a flag of truce.. and try to negotiate and end to the war that minimises further loss of life/land. It would not be unusual for such a leader to offer to withdraw from certain lands in exchange for mercy/leniency.. nor would it be unreasonable for Defender B to request a ceasefire for a length of time to allow them to evacuate the civilian population etc.. There may even be an agreement that Defender B got to keep certain land in return for non-opposition for the remainder of the war or in the future.

So simply put.. whilst a "fake war" would never have occurred in any military conflict in history.. an agreement between two warring parties part way through a war could and would.. and indeed DID happen many times in history. If you are going to claim that this is a "war-game" then you MUST base all decisions on how such an event would have played out within the environment the game is set in.

Also, I do feel that as this is now a commercial game.. that any administrative/judgement functions within the game should be carried out by a paid employee rather than a player of the game. After all.. what would happen if Bishops kingdom ended up in a war where they agreed part way through on a mutually beneficial ending to the war. Would Bishop delete his own kingdoms war wins?? would he delete his own monarch??

sorry Bishop, but as much as I agree with you that pre-arranged fake wars are wrong.. I also feel that no person who actually plays the game can be truly impartial. I also know of no other gaming model where this is the norm. Almost all MMO games do not allow their administrative staff to actually play the game on any server where they have administrative/God level access. Whilst I am not suggesting for one minute that 99% of accusations leveled at you are legitimate.. I DO feel that you could negate that 99% of accusations by withdrawing from the game and making yourself TRULY impartial. As long as anybody with the ability to directly "punish" kingdoms/provinces is allowed to play with those provinces, then you DO invite accusations of impartiality.

Every single type of "public competition" from game shows to lottery operations to subscription based games are forced to appoint "independent adjudicators". As long as you are in the game.. you will be accused of bias.. and if you cannot/will not help to develop either clear rulesets.. or game mechanics to avoid the kind of play that is causing the problem, then i do not feel you can claim any righteousness in ANY decision of this kind.

But the leader of any kingdom is likely to.. and indeed SHOULD do everything in their power to preserve their kingdom.. and to protect the players who elected them and trusted them to lead.. and THAT is quite clearly stated in the Utopian Wiki regarding the choice of a monarch.. ergo.. mid-war CF's.. negotiated agreements between monarchs for less aggressive ends to wars etc are not only acceptable, but are in fact advocated by the game rules and the utopian code of conduct. Until those rules and that code is modified to clarify the whole "fake war" situation, then ANY judgement surrounding such a situation IS.. and rightly SHOULD be.. open to criticism by the playerbase..

Fake war is a rule violation, end of discussion.

This decision was verified by an independent developer. If you'd like to call my impartiality into discussion you should first talk to the kingdom mates i have deleted and suspended.

[Betatester]

I think everyone is fine with the ruling that fake war is a violation. I believe that many of us are still waiting for a clear definition of what a fake war is though.

[Betatester]

This is what I read in the guide, in the definitions section... it doesn't seem to apply

FW Fake War. When allied or friendly kingdoms enter a war to pump or escape from external circumstances. No ops or hits are traded between the kingdoms. On occasions when hits have been traded, the Utopian community have reacted badly.