Folle is multiing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korp

You do realize that War is a state where two kds are involved. Outside interference isnt part of the war.

---

Wut?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palem

Wut?

---

You claiming Folle being part of the war cause he hit into the war isnt true since he isnt in either CR or Panda, hes just a outsider interfering into their war. Also you seem to be under the impression that any amount of kds can be in war when in fact there is only possibility for 2 kingdoms to be in war with eachother.

No. Only two kingdoms can be in the war stance with each other. More than two kingdoms can be at war with each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palem

No. Only two kingdoms can be in the war stance with each other. More than two kingdoms can be at war with each other.

---

No, that would be a conflict not war. Making up things to support your own decisions is cute. :)

Palem had ghetto mentality. Not even worth arguing with her about rules of engagement.

Godly says, after having been in such a 'conflict' many times in the past.

war compared to conflict is like murder to killing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korp

No, that would be a conflict not war. Making up things to support your own decisions is cute. :)

---

They're not called Alliance conflicts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palem

They're not called Alliance conflicts.

---

oh so Folle is in alliance thats in "war" against CR alliance? Its getting more and more interesting..

So you're conceding that more than 2 kingdoms can at war with each other?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korp

oh so Folle is in alliance thats in "war" against CR alliance? Its getting more and more interesting..

---

Confirmed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palem

So you're conceding that more than 2 kingdoms can at war with each other?

---

No, im just trying to figure out what "alliance" wars has to do with this case.

Since I did bring in ~15 retirees to raze CR, you could argue its my province alliance vs CR?

More important is, what do we call ourselves...

TUPAC - The United Provinces Against CR?

Both Tupac and I got razekilled!!

First Godly decides its ok for his kd to attack into wars. Next he calls people multies just because they have more friends than he does.

/me hands Godly a lollipop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korp

No, im just trying to figure out what "alliance" wars has to do with this case.

---

Because it's a very clear case of how more than 2 kingdoms can be at war with each other without being in the war stance.

And you expect me to believe that 15 retirees have the coordination to have identical provinces and attack sequentially, each with a gap of time between attacks. You'd think that they'd all attack at the same time, but it was pretty much 1 guy makes razes, logs off, 1 minute later it's another guy. You've already lied about not hitting us prior to going to war... your credibility is worthless just like you.

It doesn't matter anyways. Now that we're out of war we're just gonna raze off all of your provs and you're going to go back to being irrelevant.

In other words, go back to your moms basement and plot your next scheme.

Edit: Btw who are your retirees? I'm sure they won't mind being named since you're doing "good work" and all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palem

Because it's a very clear case of how more than 2 kingdoms can be at war with each other without being in the war stance.

---

Thats not true though, I realize you probably never experinced actual alliance wars but it would still be 2 kingdoms warring eachother while eachothers allies helping them out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Godly

And you expect me to believe that 15 retirees have the coordination to have identical provinces and attack sequentially, each with a gap of time between attacks. You'd think that they'd all attack at the same time, but it was pretty much 1 guy makes razes, logs off, 1 minute later it's another guy. You've already lied about not hitting us prior to going to war... your credibility is worthless just like you.

It doesn't matter anyways. Now that we're out of war we're just gonna raze off all of your provs and you're going to go back to being irrelevant.

In other words, go back to your moms basement and plot your next scheme.

Edit: Btw who are your retirees? I'm sure they won't mind being named since you're doing "good work" and all?

---

You need another lollipop ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Folle

You need another lollipop ?

---

You dont need to mention them all, just a few would be fine as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korp

Thats not true though, I realize you probably never experinced actual alliance wars but it would still be 2 kingdoms warring eachother while eachothers allies helping them out.

---

The outside help is part of the war and it's 1 side vs the other side. Just because it's focused on one or two particular wars doesn't mean it's any less of Kd A and Kd B vs Kd C and Kd D. Those two groups of kingdoms are at war with each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palem

The outside help is part of the war and it's 1 side vs the other side. Just because it's focused on one or two particular wars doesn't mean it's any less of Kd A and Kd B vs Kd C and Kd D. Those two groups of kingdoms are at war with each other.

---

How can Kingdom B and D be at war with each other when they aren't attackin? How can CR be at war with Folle when they were only attacking Pandas? If what Folle did was just partake in the war why is that behaviour frowned upon?

It's frowned upon because the community generally thinks that wars should be 1v1. If wars aren't even capable of being something that's not 1v1, then why does the distinction even exist? That's right....because they are capable of being something other than 1v1.

They hadn't hit Folle...yet. That doesn't mean they weren't fighting against him. He was trying to kill their guys, and they were trying to keep their guys alive. Now that their focus isn't required to be exclisvely on Pandas, they will begin hitting Folle, as Godly has said. You're just being daft if you think a war begins as soon as war is declared.

I have to agree with Korp here, the game defines "war" as a stance between 2 kingdoms, each getting certain benefits and drawbacks, such as protection from outside hits and an eowcf period after someone pushes the withdraw button. The game has no such built in definition when it comes to outside parties, so even though they may be coordinating with a kingdom inside the war itself, it cannot be considered an "Alliance War" in the technical sense simply because there is no game mechanic that allows those kingdoms to be within the same war stance as the 2 initial kingdoms. I imagine the term "Alliance War" is simply a slang term to refer to multi-way conflicts, but would not be considered the technical term for such an event, which is what you all are after I believe. "Alliance Conflict" would definitely be more appropriate.

So war didn't exist until stances were introduced?

lolk

When the game mechanics define a term already, you cant make up your own technical definitions based on opinion if you want to have an intelligent discussion, each term has to be clearly defined. What was considered war before the war stance was introduced is irrelevant, once the mechanics of the game clearly define something, all opinions on what that particular thing is are irrelevant, because the ultimate referee of any game are the mechanics they are based on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palem

It's frowned upon because the community generally thinks that wars should be 1v1. If wars aren't even capable of being something that's not 1v1, then why does the distinction even exist? That's right....because they are capable of being something other than 1v1.

They hadn't hit Folle...yet. That doesn't mean they weren't fighting against him. He was trying to kill their guys, and they were trying to keep their guys alive. Now that their focus isn't required to be exclisvely on Pandas, they will begin hitting Folle, as Godly has said. You're just being daft if you think a war begins as soon as war is declared.

---

So i am at war with everyone i attack then? We are at war with everyone that attack us? There is nothing that defines war actually, everything can be war! That province that hit me like yr 1, we are still in war with eachother. I been in 24/7 war since the age started, holy ****.

You realize how stupid this sounds? Its rather useless argument you are going for since war is already defined in the game. You can argue all you want, you are still wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wiliest

When the game mechanics define a term already, you cant make up your own technical definitions based on opinion if you want to have an intelligent discussion, each term has to be clearly defined. What was considered war before the war stance was introduced is irrelevant, once the mechanics of the game clearly define something, all opinions on what that particular thing is are irrelevant, because the ultimate referee of any game are the mechanics they are based on.

---

The thing you're missing is that the mechanics aren't at odds with what I'm saying. Wars do not lock out the rest of utopia. It's built to encourage 1v1 play, but doesn't eliminate others from engaging if that's what they want to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korp

So i am at war with everyone i attack then? We are at war with everyone that attack us? There is nothing that defines war actually, everything can be war! That province that hit me like yr 1, we are still in war with eachother. I been in 24/7 war since the age started, holy ****.

You realize how stupid this sounds? Its rather useless argument you are going for since war is already defined in the game. You can argue all you want, you are still wrong.

---

War is an escalation of conflict. Or to get all philosophical, war is what happens when diplomacy fails.

But if you want to push me, sure. There's a sense in which you're at war with everyone in utopia. It's your kingdom vs everyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korp

You seem to forget I brought up the example and if I would have meant manslaughter I would have specified that. Besides, this conversation about defining if killing someone is against the law or not. Which it totally is in both cases.



If you read my first post then you would realize i specifically used the word "Kill". EIther way both are against the law, doesnt matter if its is known or not more people than yourself.

---

Not so fast Korp, sure it is in sweden but not here. There are circumstances where it is legally ok to kill someone. http://www.azdps.gov/services/concea..._ccw_legal.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palem

The thing you're missing is that the mechanics aren't at odds with what I'm saying. Wars do not lock out the rest of utopia. It's built to encourage 1v1 play, but doesn't eliminate others from engaging if that's what they want to do.



War is an escalation of conflict. Or to get all philosophical, war is what happens when diplomacy fails.

But if you want to push me, sure. There's a sense in which you're at war with everyone in utopia. It's your kingdom vs everyone else.

---

Your confusing "war" in the traditional sense, with "war" as it is defined in the game. Wars do indeed lock out the rest of utopia, they are 1v1 as you say. There is no warring system in place for multiple kingdoms, you cant have 3v3, 2v2, 1v3, etc. wars in utopia, there is no game mechanic for that. Hitting into wars only hurts your kingdom in the long term because its a huge loss of time, you have no protections against other kingdoms who can wave you with no gains penalties, and more often than not you create a longterm enemy for yourself. Diplomacy has nothing to do with the act of "warring".

War is just a stance in the game, the game is not about warring other kingdoms, its about hoarding the most resources in the quickest and most efficient manner possible. That's why all of these diplomacy strategies have developed, the players have figured out it is much smarter to take resources from other weaker kingdoms for "free" while avoiding the true competition for as long as possible, or until they gain a superior position. Its why kingdoms hide their identities at the beginning of an age, hoping to trick a much weaker kingdom into warring them, so they can gain that kingdom's resources, in addition to all the benefits of the warring stance. These "Alliance Wars" stem from the diplomacy strategies, which were created by the playerbase to avoid wars all together. Utopian kingdoms are therefore less like true historical kingdoms of the past, or other war games of similar kind, and more akin to pirates. They take what they can, have their own set of goals, diplomacy standards that they constantly try to engineer in their own favor, and if you don't know the rules they live by, you will get ****ed. These multi-kingdom conflicts are more akin to drive-by lootings/pillaging than all-out multi-way war, in any sense. Sometimes it just gets a bit ugly when blood debts are owed and carried out.

Williest @ best post of the age.

Arrr!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wiliest

Your confusing "war" in the traditional sense, with "war" as it is defined in the game. Wars do indeed lock out the rest of utopia, they are 1v1 as you say. There is no warring system in place for multiple kingdoms, you cant have 3v3, 2v2, 1v3, etc. wars in utopia, there is no game mechanic for that. Hitting into wars only hurts your kingdom in the long term because its a huge loss of time, you have no protections against other kingdoms who can wave you with no gains penalties, and more often than not you create a longterm enemy for yourself. Diplomacy has nothing to do with the act of "warring".

War is just a stance in the game, the game is not about warring other kingdoms, its about hoarding the most resources in the quickest and most efficient manner possible. That's why all of these diplomacy strategies have developed, the players have figured out it is much smarter to take resources from other weaker kingdoms for "free" while avoiding the true competition for as long as possible, or until they gain a superior position. Its why kingdoms hide their identities at the beginning of an age, hoping to trick a much weaker kingdom into warring them, so they can gain that kingdom's resources, in addition to all the benefits of the warring stance. These "Alliance Wars" stem from the diplomacy strategies, which were created by the playerbase to avoid wars all together. Utopian kingdoms are therefore less like true historical kingdoms of the past, or other war games of similar kind, and more akin to pirates. They take what they can, have their own set of goals, diplomacy standards that they constantly try to engineer in their own favor, and if you don't know the rules they live by, you will get ****ed. These multi-kingdom conflicts are more akin to drive-by lootings/pillaging than all-out multi-way war, in any sense. Sometimes it just gets a bit ugly when blood debts are owed and carried out.

---

There is no mechanic for notices. Do those not exist either? The fact that the words "Diplomacy has nothing to do with warring" was followed by a full paragraph explaining how kingdoms use diplomacy to advance themselves in the game by avoiding war is just too much for my tired little brain to even respond to.

You guys are either trolling, or you're being seriously dense. I can't decide which it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palem

There is no mechanic for notices. Do those not exist either? The fact that the words "Diplomacy has nothing to do with warring" was followed by a full paragraph explaining how kingdoms use diplomacy to advance themselves in the game by avoiding war is just too much for my tired little brain to even respond to.

You guys are either trolling, or you're being seriously dense. I can't decide which it is.

---

Personal attack please ban yourself.

You argue out of a peraonal opinion and apply it like the absolute truth. While we argue out of what's possible within the game mechanics. Who is the one that is actually dense in this case? Probably you who argue emotion based.

Loons show me the specific paragraph which specify killing is okey and not defined in other way, ie self defence etc.

1. There are plenty of instances in which kingdoms have banded together and fought together against 1 or more common opponents.
2. These conflicts have often escalated into wars.
3. The game mechanics, while encouraging the traditional 1v1 war, does allow for kingdoms to act into and out of war.

So which part is personal opinion? Those all look like objective facts to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palem

1. There are plenty of instances in which kingdoms have banded together and fought together against 1 or more common opponents.
2. These conflicts have often escalated into wars.
3. The game mechanics, while encouraging the traditional 1v1 war, does allow for kingdoms to act into and out of war.

So which part is personal opinion? Those all look like objective facts to me.

---

1. Doesnt mean that each of them are in war, they arent protected by war status, they arent considered off limits either for being "in war" They are just helping their ally that is in war. Hence not part of the War, part of the conflict.
2. With 2 kingdoms yes, not all kingdoms, see point 1.
3. Doesnt mean they are part of the war.

Every part is a personal opinion. :) Since its based on your personal view on what is considered a war not the what the game consider is a war.

I didn't say anything about a war in 1 and yet it's exclusively what you talked about

As far as 2

Quote:

---

noun
noun: war; plural noun: wars

1.
a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.

---

Is the google definition of a war my opinion as well?

3. Yes it does. If half of your kingdom gets killed from people razing into your war and you're forced to surrender that's a victory for everyone that was trying to get you to surrender. When you have 2 or more kingdoms talking and coordinating with each other to organize their hits focused on a 1 war, they're all part of the war.

Also, is it Folles "friends" thats been hit by deletions recently?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palem

I didn't say anything about a war in 1 and yet it's exclusively what you talked about

As far as 2


Is the google definition of a war my opinion as well?

3. Yes it does. If half of your kingdom gets killed from people razing into your war and you're forced to surrender that's a victory for everyone that was trying to get you to surrender. When you have 2 or more kingdoms talking and coordinating with each other to organize their hits focused on a 1 war, they're all part of the war.

---

2. Better call the police when someone gets raped in Utopia as well Palem!

3. They are part of the conflict not the war.

So when a kingdom is forced to surrender from their war because of outside hits it's....what? Happenstance? Bad Luck? Voodoo?


Things that have an impact on the result of a war are part of the war. To suggest anything otherwise is just being daft.

Palem can you please change the topic of this thread?

This is a personal attack on me, accusing me of cheating. I havent had a province deleted in ~20 ages. I already reported this thread, nothing happened.

thanks.

As said part of the conflict Palem not the war. Would they be part of the war they would be in war which they aren't.

Folle not getting deleted isnt the same thing as not cheating. :(