CR vs AMA

[I_am_Spartacus]

Luckily Calle is very good with math and game mechanics. One of the best players in the game.

[Realest]

Its not nice to troll your kd mates :P

[scitzo]

Since there is still the desire to run off topic in other threads, Let me explain to some people here how this thread is not a deal break. I've explained 4 million other things in this thread and the other big one about FPA that have gone ignored (like Hypocrisy), so what's one more?

The open of this thread explains a kingdoms intent to notice when they have the ability to. It explicitly says:

You can argue til you are blue in the face that this is a deal break, but they DID NOT serve notice. What I am saying is fact, and cannot be disputed. The rest beyond this can.

The argument that may be discussed is the "dibs" part of this, where CR felt it acceptable to say "So please don't make other plans", and later went on to say "We will hit you no this date". However, with it being near impossible for AMA to engage another kingdom prior to CR waving on the exact date that they claimed they would, this is NO different than AMA saying that they were going to notice Pyro on JAN01YR9 and hit Pyro on the same date CR said they would wave. The ONLY reason AMA thought this was lame is because AMA did not want to be a willing participant in this conflict. I will further this to say that AMA believed that meant that if they waved Pyro, CR would clearly 2v1 (which was also heavily indicated by some CR players). The reality is that the only way AMA could have waved Pyro is if they changed their deal. Otherwise there would have been NO ACTIVE HOSTILE for CR to hit into and it WOULD NOT have been a 2v1.

AMA had EVERY RIGHT to be upset with CR's attitude. IMO, that is the ONLY reason AMA deal broke, despite the gazillion spins they threw on this. You're free to disagree, but that is, again, my opinion.

Seems legit.
+1

[Band of Horses]

He grew up to be quite the baller

[Ezzerland]

I think i have OCD, among other things.

From suffer severe case Elitish. ;)

To say Pyro having button and ops on AMA and CR hitting them before Pyro CF's isnt a 2 vs 1 is absurd.

You wanna try and explain how you think that AMA could have given Pyro a button before CR could have hit without AMA changing their deal? There would have been no button present on Pyro's side when CR started hitting. In fact, it would be luck of the draw on who could click refresh faster on which kingdom managed to hit another first.

[SillyRabbit]

From suffer severe case Elitish. ;)

You wanna try and explain how you think that AMA could have given Pyro a button before CR could have hit without AMA changing their deal? There would have been no button present on Pyro's side when CR started hitting. In fact, it would be luck of the draw on who could click refresh faster on which kingdom managed to hit another first.

How would that work though? In the other thread that Proteus started, it was agreed that a hostile is only a hostile if a button is given. Not 2 hits, not 7 hits, but a button. So you got AMA rushing to hit Pyro, meanwhile CR is hitting AMA. If AMA hits Pyro 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, even 7 times before CR does, but CR manages to hit AMA 8 times before AMA lands the 8th hit on Pyro, who is hostile to who? By Proteus' definition, CR would have established a hostile with AMA first. But you can bet that Pyro won't sit idly by while they get whacked 7 times, even if AMA chooses to then fight CR.

Obviously letting the situation get to this point is going to cause problems, because everyone will feel justified in their own actions. Why can't we see the kds use diplo to avoid this scenario? AMA has their right to schedule multiple CFs to end at the same date, but why can't they go ahead and re-negotiate one of the CFs to either be extended or broken early to avoid a double hostile scenario. I personally believe that as long as AMA and Pyro were both willing, they could have decided to end the CF a day, or even 1 tick early, and establish a hostile with each other. In the past Elit told me that once a CF deal is set, it cannot be renegotiated because it will affect the entire top. I don't know whether he truly believes this is the only way, or if he just said that to justify hitting into the Debauch/Pew war that we broke CF early to have.

[Ezzerland]

How would that work though? In the other thread that Proteus started, it was agreed that a hostile is only a hostile if a button is given. Not 2 hits, not 7 hits, but a button. So you got AMA rushing to hit Pyro, meanwhile CR is hitting AMA. If AMA hits Pyro 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, even 7 times before CR does, but CR manages to hit AMA 8 times before AMA lands the 8th hit on Pyro, who is hostile to who? By Proteus' definition, CR would have established a hostile with AMA first. But you can bet that Pyro won't sit idly by while they get whacked 7 times, even if AMA chooses to then fight CR.

It actually doesn't matter who gets the button first. AMA in this case would be placing themselves in a double hostile if they chose to hostile Pyro because there would be no way (without breaking their deal early with Pyro) to get hostile before CR could start hitting. Notice, I am not saying that AMA cannot get hostile with pyro first nor that CR wouldn't make hits into that hostile, only that CR could start hits before AMA could get hostile.

Obviously letting the situation get to this point is going to cause problems, because everyone will feel justified in their own actions. Why can't we see the kds use diplo to avoid this scenario? AMA has their right to schedule multiple CFs to end at the same date, but why can't they go ahead and re-negotiate one of the CFs to either be extended or broken early to avoid a double hostile scenario. I personally believe that as long as AMA and Pyro were both willing, they could have decided to end the CF a day, or even 1 tick early, and establish a hostile with each other. In the past Elit told me that once a CF deal is set, it cannot be renegotiated because it will affect the entire top. I don't know whether he truly believes this is the only way, or if he just said that to justify hitting into the Debauch/Pew war that we broke CF early to have.

No one is saying that they cannot have CF's that end at the same date. The problem is that when you don't want to war one of those kingdoms, and they want to war you, you need to make a deal with them in order to extend. When you want someone to extend and they don't want to, you get conflicting opinions on what the deal should be. CR thought the deal should include them getting acres, since they wanted to fight AMA anyway. AMA thought the deal should be that they just agree to war CR after they war Pyro (presuming they win), and otherwise give nothing.

This is an equally sticky situation, when two sides don't agree, and one is in a position of power over the other. The exchange comes down to "Give us what we want, or fight". The reason this is such a problem is because people feel entitled. Entitlement works in more than one direction. AMA feels entitled to their war with Pyro, while CR feels entitled to a conflict with AMA.

Entitlement is the very reason people view renegotiating a CF deal to end early lame in the face of another opponent noticing you. In your example, if you had renegotiated your CF with pew the week before and started your conflict then, and AMA had not already noticed you, then there would have been a "none the wiser" situation, where no one would have cared. However, when you renegotiate the ceasefire in order to dodge an incoming conflict you could otherwise not avoid, you have effectively cheated your opponent out of their time and effort, for their already clearly stated intentions. This is worsened when you do not inform your challenger of your intentions and/or do not renegotiate with them in a satisfying or appeasing manner.

The primary reason this is so increasingly frustrating is because Utopia is not a game you can set down, or pause. That means everyone is on a time limit, always. When you feel you are cheated out of your time, your limit has diminished, and you are now behind schedule comparatively to what you could have otherwise been.

[Elit]

I dont agree hostile is 8 hits. Practice in top showed top KDs can play with button for 1-5 days keep button on 4-6 points and still have very legit hostile. You cant give 100% correct definition about hostile, its depend from kds involved too.

SillyRabbit, situation you refer your KD had CF not expired for over 1 week so re-negotiate CF for run from kd where you had only 1 incoming hostile is not very legit. About our Situation its was possible in theory but cant work. If some one make forum post and say: we will give notice jan1 and hit april 1 better trust him he will hit. Its why he made this post so he can justify it.

[Band of Horses]

If we just go by meter points and all must respect button, what stops fake hostiles? Retal war begins, terms are agreed on for CF deal but kds don't activate in game CF for a couple days.

Anarchy is best practice, just look at twitchplayspokemon.

[Elit]

If we just go by meter points and all must respect button, what stops fake hostiles? Retal war begins, terms are agreed on for CF deal but kds don't activate in game CF for a couple days.

Anarchy is best practice, just look at twitchplayspokemon.

Its why there is no perfect definition for all situations. If you set "clear rules" you set clear way for cheat too. ABS proved it in past. Any rules can be manipulated and abused for get "legit" advantage. Its more or less depend from every kd personal view how to play. You cant force it.

[Band of Horses]

Its why there is no perfect definition for all situations. If you set "clear rules" you set clear way for cheat too. ABS proved it in past. Any rules can be manipulated and abused for get "legit" advantage. Its more or less depend from every kd personal view how to play. You cant force it.

I can honestly say that I prefer the old days of no in game CF where people used to fake war.

But yes you are 100% right, where there are rules there are ways to abuse them. This is why I support anarchy.

[tetley]

But yes you are 100% right, where there are rules there are ways to abuse them. This is why I support anarchy.

So you don't mind getting gangbanged then? :P

[Band of Horses]

So you don't mind getting gangbanged then? :P

I don't mind. Happens all the time, but sometimes you get to be the gang. Those that gangbang eventually get to be the bangie too. In anarchy a natural order comes about. In the ghettos (where I play currently) those that are whoring don't care about your tag, whether you are hostile, ect. I have no idea how many times I have been in a hostile being UB to them and then have a whore kd hit into hostile to take acres from me making me breakable. Your order only goes for those at the top, maybe you should adopt the rules the rest of the game plays under. In the end a natural order comes about in anarchy. Embrace it.

[Band of Horses]

Side note: I know you are playing low this age so maybe you understand this more than some of those "Toppers"

[tetley]

I thought you were in AMA, I thought elit said somewhere you were sitting JSS' prov.
Now I'm just confused

Jerks isn't in the top this age anyways :(