Printable View
Waving a KD out of declare range, like Pyromaniacs did when they waved Legacy and Simians had a scheduled wave on them is pretty meh. If its within the declare range it should be okey?Quote:
Originally Posted by munk
I dont know the answers either but at least there is a debatte about it now
Another thing i want to raise as a concern about is if kd A) cant fight KD B) how many waves or how much of thier land are they entitled to take?
I feel the demands for unlimited waves and all of this is really bad for the game also. There is a problem with this.
Two times my KD has given pewpew wars because they demanded unlimited waves on us, because obviously there was not an option to run and there is just not a chance we sitt there and take such demands. (It acctually resulted in 4 wars we did not want because we could not win them). We knew damn well we were not in a position to win the wars when they targeted us but we knew we could come out from a war with minimal losses. But the warbonus does not seem to be enough, nor does the option to get free land waves to be enough either. It costed us our entire last age when pewpew waved us while we were #1 honor. We could have given 2 free waves and been done with it, since we were not in the position to fight them. But its just was not enough. This is why earlier this age we gave them the exact same treatment they gave us and forced them to agree that this kind of play is not okey. I can take a wave or two but when demands reach unlimited acres etc its just getting very silly. This might not seem like a problem when you can FSU back etc if you feel like it, but if you play honor, you lose a ****load of honor each hit/wave you take. The free waves itself was 5k+ honor per wave as if that was not enough. I can see a clear abuse here. But again, its game mechanics problem also that honor is now easier obtained then it was before OOW.
I just feel there must be some rules here because ok, 2 waves is pretty ok after all, but 3 waves, unlimted waves?
Not okey!
Well I agree with what you said, I just think it's a fair warning and a reasonable courtesy to extend. Most people here agree that sending notice doesn't give you the right to call dibs, much less to 2v1 somebody or to hit into war, so that would still be the case obviously. It's just that I think that notifying the noticing part would be a very reasonable courtesy to extend, it doesn't change anything and it doesn't cost the noticed party anything but it does give the notice sender the option to pull out early and avoid committing considerable resources for nothing(some resources would obviously already have been expended by starting draft and probably switching in arms) but a lot of the expendure could be prevented and the notice could be restored to it's original state.Quote:
Originally Posted by munk
If the #1 notices the #2 or vice versa and the noticed part have a way out(and intend to take it) then the notice sender is going to be left standing with their hands empty one way or another, but this gives them the chance to limit expenditure and continue pumping. Yes who gets to war who is an important part and this won't change that, if they tell you that they'll be otherwise occupied with X you can still push ahead and put pressure on them and if they're free when notice ends you can still wave them, this just gives you the option to pull out, restore notice and continue pumping with considerably less resources expended in case you're willing to take that offer.
The specific case I had in mind was when SWEA hit into debaucherys war claiming the justification that just because they had expended resources it gave them the right to take acres regardless of what debauchery was up to. They probably would have done this regardless but to a sensible kingdom this could have given them the chance to back off peacefully, thus avoiding ****play.
If you don't retal at all then I'd say they're fair game once a cf has been offered and 12-24h has passed, however if you do retal to the point where you've given relations then I think it is only fair to say that it has to be resolved by diplomacy or when the relations you've given decays below the relations threshold. Of course this only matters if there's a third party willing to engage with the ones hitting, otherwise it's pretty much a moot point and they can keep hitting until you're either all green, they loose interest or someone else engages them(which is fair assuming there's an open cf offer).Quote:
Originally Posted by Anri
Yes honor is completely broken, it should be fixed but until it is there isn't really any good solution, if they can force infinite waves on you they can and might do that until someone else steps in.
There perhaps should be a definition of progression:
Notice, I guess is simply letting any given kingdom know a CF has expired.
1- Challenge: any relations above normal on meter.
2- Prelude: Pew2 example/dragon/cow hits
3- Hostile: which means actual mechanic hostile by meter.
* My naive concept of diplo is that it is in play until the button is pushed. Diplo in war is avoided: possible FW.*
- Dibs or tax Should be near miss diplo in that once a kingdom is ensured of violence it logically has the choice to cower and fold for tax and absorb attacks. In kingdom interest this should be considered broken diplo and the reaction can be construed self defense. This isn't my opinion of current events, but based in say Battle of The Ardennes 1940. -
It depends on the situation and outcome needs to be reasonable for both kds. For instance this age when we waved simians it did not go to war but you did hit over 100pts on meter which is very hostile, after that you wanted to stop hits and say hostile is over because both didnt agree to a deal and have soemone else wave ama because you claim simians is no longer hostile. The problem with this is you hit for over 100 pts, did a lot of damage and did not resolve the conflict diplomatically. When a kingdom waves an opponent and the two fight, it has to end in diplomacy, you cant just drop a fight and say "ok whoever wants them can go them them, we're done." Hostiles that dont go to war always need to be resolves diplomatically with relations reset otherwise there is potential to 2v1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anri
If you think about it, the kd who waves you and sees it is not going to war needs to reset relations with real diplo (not ingame cf) because they can be vultured oow without eow protection and because its not fair to retal war someone for a few days, make a lot of damage, and the say on one side that hostile is over and some other kd goes in for the kill. Stuff like that needs to be resolved diplomatically otherwise it is also a form of ****play as it sets up the kd you cf to for a 2v1.
If a 3rd party kd has interest in the matter they need to arbitrate and come to the table with terms and be willing to give the kd who waved for war some time rather than just waving them immediately when the kd who doesnt want war send ingame cf because you cant unilaterally decide hostile is over, ending hostile is mutual decision both kds have to accept and no 3rd party can dictate when you should cf or action it.
3rd parties can have influence by bargaining, "if you stop waving and cf this kd, we are willing to leave you alone for 2-4days so you can recover from oow hostile that did not go to war."
The deal must incentivize both parties, the kd who waved and did not get war does not want to be vultured right away oow and will try to force war and the kd who got waved doesnt want war/wants hits to stop.
Thats so entirely different to what i wrote about pew2 demanding unlimited waves.
But there is a problem with decay. Because decay moves to slow imo.
To answer your post Proteus. I think its more defined in length of time. 24h is two waves etc. If a CF has been sent and hits stopped there is still a limit to how long time and how many waves you can spend on a kd and still keep it legit. Over my 56 ages i can only mention one time we did more then 2 free waves on a kd that stopped fighting back. The one time we broke this rule was this age when we did unlimted waves card back on pew, unless we had forced some land deal. In 24h you can pull three waves out counting from first attack. There just should be some courtesy among kds. Dont abuse the situation and all should be fine. I think anything beyond 3 free waves should be reason enough to call in help if the other kd refuse to take a cf.
Agreed, in my opinion meter could be made to work in a similar manner to how gb protection does, whenever you make a hit a portion of the meter your opponent has agaisnt you is erased(this should not be able to move meter past relation boundaries such as hostile -> unfriendly or unfriendly -> none) This would also have the added benefit of making retalwars at least somewhat plausible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anri
I think that part of the problem here is the utter impossibility of actually retalwarring somebody, if retalwars were a feasible option then there would eventually come a point when both sides were willing to drop it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anri
If you're not resisting then go fort and eventually your opponent will get -75% gains at which point they'll be inclined to move on. Unless the conflict is due to a grudge and then I think that there's nothing you can do until they feel they've resolved their grudge whether that be 25 green as you so eloquently put it in the "fairplay" thread or some other goal such as player X being removed from the kingdom. Grudges usually exist for a reason and once they feel they've had their vengeance they'll go away.
My 2 cents...
Most top KD's will only hit 7 times, to claim a hostile because they don't want to give hostile ops until it goes to war. The problem with setting a legit hostile at 8 hits is, you get KD A waving KD B with 7 hits, then stopping to see if they retal, etc. So KD C, 3 hrs later says "That's not a legit hostile, so let's wave"... So with that in mind, I think 7 hits should be considered a hostile. IF KD B doesn't want to war, they can settle it without more hits. Hitting into fort is tricky, because it does put you at a disadvantage. But I think all KD's do it, time it so they have several more days of fort before they get waved. But if you don't hit into the fort, then you can't claim hostile.
There in comes the tax... (And I keep forgetting to give Kudos to Anri, tax is the perfect word for what happens. :D ).
You can't stop a KD from forcing you to give up X amounts of waves/hits/acres in exchange for a cf, except to risk dropping chart positions yourself by raze retalling. Personally, that would be my option. IF I ran a kd, I'd raze retal absolutely everyone who thought I was free food... I may never win an age, but I'd show you that I won't lay down for anyone.
If a big kd makes 7+ hits on a smaller kd that is not in declare range, that should not be considered a hostile, because you know it will not lead to war. The downside to that is, the smaller kd will be open for a kd in range to wave the next hour, after they've already taken a wave or more from a big kd out of range. The bigger kd should not be allowed any time, because they initiated on a kd that they knew could never war them. So they can't hide behind that wave.
So that leads to...
How long to allow a kd to decide to retal, or to negotiate a cf? Personally I'd give them 24 hrs to reach an agreement, or to retal and both go hostile. Some KD's will abuse ops for a day or more, while they convert builds, train up, and prepare for war, without retalling to give ops on themselves.
If a KD waves another, and a cf is reached, then you should allow, again, 12-24 hrs before the hostile is declared over. To allow the KD's to get armies home, train what they lost and prepare for another enemy.
As for dibs... It should absolutely not be allowed. If a KD gets noticed at the same time they send notice, you have the situation where some call it a double hostile. If A waves B, at the exact time B is waving C, neither is in the wrong really. But once A sees that B has given C the button and they haven't retalled A, they need to stand down and let B and C fight it out. Even if you "gave dibs" and told B you were coming for them you still have to stand down once you see B chose another partner to dance with.
A strategic move I've seen by several kd's is to give notice, and then do nothing. It causes the other kd to train up and stop any pump they are doing. It's strategy, not wrong. And they may do so in order to end a notice cf they have so they can engage them in the future.
Notice resets is a good idea and has been done by some in the past. So make it a part of your cf agreement. At the rate we're going, a cf will require a full typed page of text. :D
*No notice in hostile/war/eowcf
*Notice can not be given if notice has already been sent to/from another kd
*Notice must be sent to all 25 provs
*If either kd goes to war, notice is reset
i think all kd's deserve to run away from wars if they would like too. If a kd cannot get war , you have to ask themselves what put them into that position in the first place. ( super pumped ? or much better Nw ratio ? so many war wins ? )
be a little less pumped , and war someone bigger , and you will get your war. Dibs are called because the kd wants to war someone which they know they can beat.
If you're at the top of the chart let someone climb up and beat the **** out of them. Then you get your war.
Or simply , if you're the top kd , don't war at all.
This is becoming a very good discussion, and I would like to thank Proteus for bringing it up. There are a few things I would like to comment on, so I didn't quote any particular person.
First, dibs is ridiculous. It is an unfair tactic in order to force an opponent into war. I think it is a direct result of notices, which when used properly is a good thing. I think tweaking how you do diplomacy (not going with a notice at all) is better for business all around. It forces more clear diplomacy, imo, and would result in less of this "dibs" thing. I have some other solutions too, but those can be talked about via pm if anyone wants.
Second, this whole "tax" thing. I know a lot of people don't like it, but to be honest I think if used in a way that is beneficial to both KD's it is more than fair. For example, if KD A waves KD B, but KD B isn't ready for war and wants a CF, then KD A (imo) has some right to ask them for hits in exchange for said CF. Now, where it gets stupid is when KD's ask for "unlimited hits" or "25%" of acres or other nonsense. I think a respectable amount at most is 2 free waves. If you want to negotiate less, that is fine...but anything more then that (barring a KD being untruthful/deal breaking/etc) is over doing it. You could also set it at a number of acres, or a percentage of total land size. I think those are more determined upon situations though.
Third, there really does need to be an agreed upon definition of hostile. I will let others figure out what they want to call it, but to me hostilities can't be one sided. Saying that, though, it is rather bad play to hit into a KD who just waved another KD (sometimes that happens unknowingly...but most of the time it doesn't). Should there be an agreed upon hit limit? Time frame? I dunno the answer to that, but I do know that if there was some definition that even MOST could agree on it would cut down on some of the problems.
A couple of other quick things I want to comment on. The meter should decay quicker if someone wants to pull out of hostilities, as Anri mentioned above. If you are waving a KD out of range for declaring, I think it shouldn't be considered a hostile unless they move the meter with attacks back. If you are doing diplomacy of some sort with a smaller/newer KD (this obviously falls on LS), explain to them how things normally work. Help them through it, and don't leave open holes in diplomacy just because they don't know what to look for. The more we educate those on the game (whether it is mechanics or unwritten rules), the better off the game will be.
I am sure I am leaving something out, but I am tired of typing...
I'm not supporting dibs, but the concept behind it is easy to understand...
What if Kingdom A gives Kingdom B the button (after a week of prep), and then Kingdom B gives Kingdom C the button, and Kingdom C declares?
Is anyone in the wrong here? Is KD B wrong for dodging? Is KD C wrong for hitting KD B? Did Kingdom A "claim" anything?
This happened like 5+ times over the last 2 ages, and several times it resulted in people hitting into war.
Is it more complicated if B + C mutually agreed to break a server-known CF to make this happen? Who is in the wrong then? (And yes this happened too.)
This thread is adorable.
You all have one primary objective and that is to swindle and screw over your competition to beat them.
Let's say you get some good definitions set down and "rules" set in place. The first thing you're gonna start doing to digging for loopholes. Ways to get around the rules and not look like the bad guys. When push comes to shove and you're backed into a corner you're going to do whatever you think you need to do anyway.
Not everyone in the game is a douchebag at heart Palem
I wouldn't call doing everything you can to win being a douchebag.
Things like farming out and actively ruining the experience for everyone else just for spite, those are douchey