Outside Hits into War

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peppie

youre just making things up as you go along. "It's a wargame so outsiders can mess with your team vs team fight" is the exception, not the rule. I mentioned War Metal: Tyrant, with faction wars. It has more 'war' in its title than utopia, yet team vs team battles are strictly exclusive. So you dont like my sportscomparison - fine. Thats why i add other examples. Theres diplomacy and IRC stuff with Tyrant as well, and community policing, but theres simply no ingame mechanism to interfere with someones war. Ignore that if it doesnt suit your purposes, though.

How many team pvp games can you people name that allow outside meddling in a matchup?

Happily, most of utopia agrees with me that 1 vs 1 fights are the norm. Most of utopia would not want their KDmates to interfere in someone elses war for $reasons. Most of utopia has 1v1 wars as the rule, not the exception. Argument ad populum, sure, but how many of your wars showed coordinated interference?

---

What you fail to see and have always failed to see is this game is not solely based on warring. Never has been. You cant rely on that 1 v1 and that is the beauty of utopia. Always has been.

230+ kingdoms play until they put in mechanics that lock out hostiles and wars plan that hits can and will happen especially if you or your kingdom does actions and they are not handled diplomatically.

Seriously the 3-4 forum outrages over hits into war could have been easily handled via diplomatic measures. Each kingdom that it happened to has since learned that. Use your words and stop thinking action don't have reactions.

why cure with diplomacy what you can prevent with sensible mechanics? Also, we are talking about hits into war, so this particular discussion is by definition about warring.

Using your logic, we can remove the -75% gains thing entirely, people should just talk to each other and convince each other not to interfere with their wars.

As for your argument, no. In the case of Araqiel, no amount of words thrown at him wouldve dissuaded him from razing into that war. So your assumption is flat out wrong.

I wonder what would happen if right now 20-30 of us would decide to spend each day of the next age creating new accounts and randomly destroying wars all across the server. We wouldn't be doing anything illegal according to the rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bukharistan

I wonder what would happen if right now 20-30 of us would decide to spend each day of the next age creating new accounts and randomly destroying wars all across the server. We wouldn't be doing anything illegal according to the rules.

---

The game would likely respond in some way. Probably have everyone CF each other until they were ready to open relations.

Or people would just leave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bishop

If they never ever interacted with other provs or each other we'd find it more difficult, but that never happens.

---

do you IP ban for like a month, or just kill the account?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peppie

i feel OOW razes into wars are the equivalent of the audience throwing beerbottles at players in a soccermatch. Its team vs team, not team vs team + annoying trolls

its hard thinking of another group pvp game where outsiders can interfere as part of the design.

I suppose any ill designed system has its people justifying it because it works for them, but really: we've rejected Mehuls fundamentalism regarding trading (really? group pvp without friends?) so why not reject Mehuls design philosophy regarding war interference?

In my opinion, the moment kingdoms started getting deleted for fakewarring, OOW interference (both to and fro) shouldve ceased. No more OOW theft, no more OOW plunders, no more into-war razes. Makes everything fair and clear. Less excuses and accusations. Less nubs getting destroyed because they dont know to avoid war status.

Palem and ilk like this weird web of unspoken rules and regulations where theres a host of potential options but unless youre talkative and knowledgable you wont know which are "faux pas" and which are acceptable. Id like the obvious player consensus (i.e. keep it 1v1) to be codified into the game rules. When the rules are clear for everyone, there might be a lot less QQ and conflict.

--

that said, if new provs were prohibited from war interference for a week thatd be a good start. At the very least, it could give nubs (do they still exist?) the opportunity to get socialized into the fact that you shouldnt hit into KDs that have warstatus.

---

Starcraft we used to for kicks make like a 3v3 match, but have 4 friends in the game and one dude would screw over his allies. this was quite hilarious for the reactions. Although really sad if the 4 of us lost which happened sometimes becuase we messed around a lot :P

Only real fix for people razing/interfering would be to make it so you can only interact with other kingdoms when in war, so all interactions are 1v1. Then you would have people arranging farm wars constantly though.

Way easier fix goodz:

1. As said, only be able to raze 7 in war days after creating account. Then at least the damage is being limited.
2. Adjust the minimum of 15 acres to 5.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peppie

why cure with diplomacy what you can prevent with sensible mechanics? Also, we are talking about hits into war, so this particular discussion is by definition about warring.

Using your logic, we can remove the -75% gains thing entirely, people should just talk to each other and convince each other not to interfere with their wars.

As for your argument, no. In the case of Araqiel, no amount of words thrown at him wouldve dissuaded him from razing into that war. So your assumption is flat out wrong.

---

Or you could of taken Palem seriously when he levied his original threat and did diplomacy before any of this happened and then... wait for it.... your war and the war and spartans vs FWB would of never been razed into to begin with. But hey what i said about diplomacy and how you handle yourself doesn't mater.

You got cocky didn't think it would be done once it got done you cried on the forums and one of your players got enraged and quit your kingdom to seek his own version of revenge. Palem thought it would be safe to join up with FWB again and was wrong but of the people involved Palem isn't spreading a Hissy fit about it.

Learn to handle yourself you been running FREE for what 40+ ages you should know all this by now.

There is absolutely 0 reason to change how razes work. Over making other changes in the game which make way more sense.

why do you bring that up :|

Im not talking about Palem/FREE/Nightmare, im talking about Araq. And its not just about him, its about ANYONE who for ANY reason decides to be a COMPLETE ass that cannot be reasoned with, and the only real protection is to CF all of the <19 prov KDs on the server. Diplomacy just isnt the panacea you make it out to be, especially not on the interwebs. This is the domain of trolls. Good luck with your diplomacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peppie

why do you bring that up :|

Im not talking about Palem/FREE/Nightmare, im talking about Araq. And its not just about him, its about ANYONE who for ANY reason decides to be a COMPLETE ass that cannot be reasoned with, and the only real protection is to CF all of the <19 prov KDs on the server. Diplomacy just isnt the panacea you make it out to be, especially not on the interwebs. This is the domain of trolls. Good luck with your diplomacy.

---

because the entire situation doesnt happen if you used diplomacy. My entire point you seem to just ignore.

the cats out of the bag man. Any observer of that whole fiasco has drawn the obvious conclusion that if you want to grief, endlessly making avian warriors and killing off chained Undead with 6k ghouls and 500k sci does significant, quasi-permanent damage and is nearly unstoppable. Why do you have this iron confidence that these razes end with Araqiel?

Ive made peace with Palem, and i dont worry about him. But i do worry about the gameruining potential of this glaring loophole. If you dont see the problem, tell Araqiel where you play, and see if after the first 50 razes you can use your precious diplomacy to make him stop. Thats my entire point that you seem to just ignore. (And youve already successfully ignored my previous point about another group pvp strat game that makes matches exclusive).

Squee, I am going to ask you again as you seem to have missed/ignored it the last time around.

How are you exactly going to diplomacy with someone who obviously is not interested in diplomacy or is just a complete idiot? Peppie and Bukhy are absolutely right that at this point, if players want to be complete jackasses, they can just create Avian/Warriors till end of days. It does not even matter if you kill them, 24 hrs they are back and since they reside in ghetto's, there is absolutely no responsibility for players that just wish to screw other up.

Since a big crowd seems to see these razing lunatics as "honorable, courageous freedom fighters" maybe I should do just that next age as we are likely to disband anyways. Me and a pack of trolls from the KD will just raze into every war that does not tag up "trekdop's lapdogs" and pay hommage to my little flopper. How is diplomacy going to solve this if me and my gang decide to act like a bunch of whiny 10 year olds?

I understand that razing in wars did have its fair share of uses in the past, e.g. Sinners razing into a war after one of the KD's did a bunch of hits right before war start into them or when a bunch of KD's razed into Evil Dragons as they were in a staged honor farm war with Playboys. I would not even be so opposed to raze in war being available if it wasn't so extremely easy to just destroy the entire game with a bunch of retired players creating Avians all over the place.

Solutions like "New provinces/accounts cannot raze into wars etc." are good solutions that address this loophole while still even allowing the TerricK vs. Spartans **** possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peppie

the cats out of the bag man. Any observer of that whole fiasco has drawn the obvious conclusion that if you want to grief, endlessly making avian warriors and killing off chained Undead with 6k ghouls and 500k sci does significant, quasi-permanent damage and is nearly unstoppable. Why do you have this iron confidence that these razes end with Araqiel?

Ive made peace with Palem, and i dont worry about him. But i do worry about the gameruining potential of this glaring loophole. If you dont see the problem, tell Araqiel where you play, and see if after the first 50 razes you can use your precious diplomacy to make him stop. Thats my entire point that you seem to just ignore. (And youve already successfully ignored my previous point about another group pvp strat game that makes matches exclusive).

---

People like to make their lives difficult. Banning all war interactions both from in > out and out > in would:

- Developers: Less reason for people to multi
- War kingdoms: Less griefing, no accusations of oow plunders, oow thievery, etc.
- Growth kingdoms: Lessens the burden of diplomacy.

I've never understood the diplo argument. Who can be assed to argue on IRC over virtual acres, for hours on end? Seemingly not a huge number of people as all of the top kds have quit already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Araqiel

I've never understood the diplo argument. Who can be assed to argue on IRC over virtual acres, for hours on end? Seemingly not a huge number of people as all of the top kds have quit already.

---

Not only that but what is the point of doing diplomacy if someone is completely unreasonable. And stating that KD's that get razed into their wars should've done more diplomacy is like stating 9/11 would've not happened (assuming it was not a false flag but for the sake of argument, let's say it is not) if the Western world would've just given in to the demands of extremist fundamentalists.