Printable View
U stoled us without much harm done, we razed one of u without much harm done... thats the reason our relations remained open and friendlly towards eachother. If u wanna push it more, its ur own decision...Quote:
Originally Posted by Swagger
As for ur kd thinking ways to "teach us".. better use ur time and think of getting better and prep for ur wars without stealing outside... use ur minds in a proggresive way not destructive :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart of Sparta
Trolol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike^
You actually helped his province really, hes a healthy orc now. But that's not really the point I'm making. My point is a top kd such as yourself dropping your fragile testicles into the hands of an unpredictable ghetto is questionable. But I won't tell you how to run your kd!Quote:
Originally Posted by cRs
Of course you need to have a plan. If said KD refused to CF even after the RKs, we'd have made sure to razekill all their Paladins before they got OOW.
Remake all raze killed provinces into elf paladins! Utopia whack-a-mole!
Did you leave your ghetto or did your ghetto grow bart? We were supposed to war.
You're welcome to grow and war me Swagger. I'm also fine dropping land. We just grew to relax some :)
No issue here. I remember Bart being in 8:19 last age and I chanced upon one of his kd's provs with Munk. Got lazy, didn't check kd page, got the SoT and went on a mini gold spree. Realised to my horror later that not only was it big, it was Bart.
Sent a message, we talked nice. EoA CF done.
Another point to make is that even though his aims may not be the most logical for many of us, it does not make them wrong. IIRC, Mehul once said that Utopia was built not only for the warring kingdoms but those who wanted to play a boring whoring game. So, if my aim in the game is to finish at exactly rank 41 in nw and rank 45 in land every age, it may be odd, it may be eccentric, it may be stupid but it's certainly not wrong.
well... still my problem is that I can't equilibrate war
we was pk outside we can't do faster like this
5:1 it's bad
our developer must reconsider that
atleast you must give us a chance
let raze be like oow in war
atleast we can try after
that oow pk was not ok we can't do faster like this in war with this rules
This. You treat me with respect I treat you with respect :)Quote:
Originally Posted by emerix
i said a number that took the prov to 5 ppa and i had to use 15% homes to get there given the current timing of the ages honor/science. If you entered last war on those numbers you had 24.2 pop/acre non peasants. You are above what MOST war kds hit and very much are the exception unless you are going into war with 40%+ homes which is stupid given your tpa/wpa and the timing of the age. i.e. either your build is terrible and you ran an insane amount of homes or you are training WAY deeper than any kd you are waring.Quote:
Originally Posted by stealth4785
How do i know this?
the last time i wared your kd was age 69 (our war #3) and we beat u min time in a landslide. The numbers i suggested of 10 8 2 2 are the numbers i'd want on a pure attacker in my kd and my kd is the type of kd you lose to.Quote:
Originally Posted by stealth4785
It all gets back to stealing though. If you think war kds need to have a real war build and be drafted to <2 ppa on pure attackers you are also the kinda player that probably steals gc from top kds. And well this thread shows u what top kds think of that and the repercussions. Funniest thing is you dont need to be drafted that deep to win in the war tier...22v24 pop/acre in non peasants isnt a huge difference(can easily be evened out with a small difference in land) but u go to the top tier and -3 ppa v 4 ppa is a 7 military per acre difference, is HUGE and war determining(especially when u cant simply "be bigger" to account for a lower draft rate).
Yes, we warred you, an NM-based KD with a poorly wizard pumped kingdom - granted that was our mistake twice - once to war a KD compromised of magic and two not pumping effectively. The result is the same, we lost, you won.Quote:
Originally Posted by Persain
And I went into war at 15% homes.
This got 14 more pages than needed.
It's a thread about me, what u expect? The devs should be paying me for all the coverage I create and the extra income they get from it.
Please come back when you get 100+ pages. Scrub.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart of Sparta
thread TL;DR: Make stupid targeting choices be prepared to face the consequences
=( there is that....Quote:
Originally Posted by KrakenDomes
@Palem
"Quote Originally Posted by Meep View Post
The aggressor does not get to tell the person they robbed what response is and isn't acceptable.
At some point they do.
If a guy tries to mug you and you beat the piss out of him, yea, he had that coming and there's no right to complain about anything.
If a guy tries to mug you, and you beat him to death on the street, grab his ID, find his home, break in, tie up his wife, round up his children and starts brutally torturing the children to death in front of the mother and then after all the children are dead he takes the wife and as he's raping her he cuts off her head with a steak knife he found in the kitchen and then sets the severed head on a spike in the now destroyed families lawn....yea I'd say that the person being mugged crossed a line and wronged the mugger."
I'm sorry to disappoint you, dude, but what you're stating above is related only to an imaginary world that has very little to do (if any) with real world. Yes, in theory you're right, I agree - theoretically - with you. Fact is, when you ACTUALLY mug a stranger, there's 0(zero) guarantee of the way he will react. We have written laws, we have police, judges and whatnot to enforce those laws, we have common sense, we have "rules" in our communities where we live, we have good habits and parents, teachers, grandparents and friends to help us understand and live by those "rules" and good habits; we grow and learn to behave accordingly and we expect others to follow/respect same common sense rules, many not written. Still, I have to say, making an act of aggression against a stranger with the naive believing that he will respond having in mind the "rules" I've mentioned above is .... well, naive. I don't want to say stronger words, no need for them, I'm sure you understand what I'm saying here.
You attack him, he might kill you and your entire family with an ax or a machine gun; could that be filed under the category "I'd say that the person being mugged crossed a line and wronged the mugger" ? Maybe. You (and me) will say that it does, others will say that it doesn't. Not very relevant, to be honest. Why ? 'Cause neither opinion will bring back to life you and your dead kids and wife. What can you do then ? Well, put your trust in laws and common sense "rules" BUT do not forget that those won't actually do anything for you when facing an ax or a gun. Instead of hoping the person you attacked will be reasonable and won't overreact and kill you, for instance, be aware of the unknown lurking where you don't expect and try and stay away from troubles as much as you can.
Meep is 100% right : "The aggressor does not get to tell the person they robbed what response is and isn't acceptable." It may not be according to laws or "rules", but it's all around us, we simply can't ignore reality. Certain people are very different from us, their beliefs are not ours, their ways of thinking and acting could be, sometimes, impossible to imagine and anticipate. So why provoke them ? Why put us in danger ? To every action there is/could be a reaction. Be skeptical when thinking you know people, be skeptical whom you trust and be prudent/skeptical when trying to imagine the outcome of your actions. Or else, be prepared to face possibly dire consequences.
@ Foursup
"Quote Originally Posted by Folle View Post
If you HAD to fight somebody, wouldnt you rather start the fight when them in chains?
Fk NO! i would start the fight by letting him try to hit first. and not be a fkin pussy. start in chains?? grow some balls"
lol dude, I just hope you will never ever be in a life&death situation, you will most likely be blown to pieces. Not trying to be mean or anything but if you imagine that, in such desperate situation, opponents will think of "honor", "balls", "not being a pussy" and other very strange concepts when compared with SURVIVAL, well, you're delusional :)
Watch this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLKbcrC0krQ. I know it's a movie, but this scene is more than eloquent for WHAT ACTUALLY LIFE AND DEATH IS. When facing death, many people will basically do ANYTHING to survive. GL in the real world, dude.
@Illy, mystyka
lol, I had a good laugh reading all your posts. mystyka, you have no clue about this game; how do I know that ? Well, I realized it the second you wrote "honor" in relation with this game (ruled by the same cruel, ugly, unwritten laws of humankind as there are in RL). Noble figures, great characters and dependable persons are as scarce in here (and in RL, too) as a flower on top of the Himalayas. Time to grow up, girl. Stop dreaming, stop lying to yourself.
Nice post!
Still...
#l2quote
@Jacko
Just so we're clear, if you bump into me you think I'm justified to murder your family in response?
http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-conte...knicholson.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Palem
lol, that's not what I said :). I said that some will find that unreasonable, some will find it reasonable, BUT reality is that no one really knows what others might do, reasonable or not. Justified or not. You take a risky action, there could be unknown consequences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
On another note, there were cases where psychopaths killed entire families without suffering as much as a "bump into them". If you, God forbid, intentionally slap hard across the face one deranged guy like that, what do you think it will happen ? No one knows. It's impossible to predict.
PS : "an innocent bump into him" for a reasonable person would mean nothing, but could mean the equivalent of a spit in the face or slap in the face for a deranged, mentally ill person. Who can really tell what's going on in other's people minds ?
I wasn't saying that people don't do horrible things. Regardless of any motivation, some people are literally insane, others are just jerks.
My point was making your intentions of doing awful things known doesn't absolve you of any wrong doing. You aren't justified in doing horrendous things just because you let people know that beforehand.
The fact that Jeffery Dahmers exist doesn't mean people are justified to act like Jeffery Dahmer lol
I agree with both of your statements. However, I was stating something different : if you do let people beforehand that doing wrong to you will result in an pretty disgusting response and they still offend you, how will others label the offender ? Yes, they will accuse you of excessive response, but him how will he be regarded ? Crazy ? Unconscious ? Cocky ? Courageous ? I can go on and on with naming different things BUT, how will any of those labels change the outcome ? When the deed is done and time cannot be rolled back, what difference does it makes, especially in ugly, ugly endings ? You will have all arguments by your side, only it will be too late, right ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
"The fact that Jeffery Dahmers exist doesn't mean people are justified to act like Jeffery Dahmer lol" will not help you at all if, let's say, you enter a metro station, set eyes on first male that comes your way and spit him in the face. That random dude might me as worse as Jeffery Dahmer, or worst. Can you tell how will he react to your aggression ? People act as they freely want, regardless of what you think "they should do" or "shouldn't do".
http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-conte...knicholson.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Palem
In the real world, assuming you're dead and the offender is in jail, yea having the moral high ground is useless.Quote:
I can go on and on with naming different things BUT, how will any of those labels change the outcome ? When the deed is done and time cannot be rolled back, what difference does it makes, especially in ugly, ugly endings ? You will have all arguments by your side, only it will be too late, right ?
In utopia, where people not only never really die and no one forgets anything, gaining a poor reputation is as close to a death sentence as you can get.
You're right. People act according to what they think they should do. However if you deny that where these things overlap for most people is where we define what normal social protocol is and people tend to be judged by how they behave in comparison with that, then you're far more naive than you'd like to accuse me of being lolQuote:
People act as they freely want, regardless of what you think "they should do" or "shouldn't do".
http://i.imgur.com/DHjUXbn.jpgQuote:
gaining a poor reputation is as close to a death sentence as you can get.
Before we get into a big asoiaf thing, I'll just check first. You're posting that ironically right?
Possibly/probably!Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
Ok, let's not deviate too much from the reason I decided in the first place to step up and write a few words. The reason was basically this :
""Quote Originally Posted by Meep View Post
The aggressor does not get to tell the person they robbed what response is and isn't acceptable.
At some point they do.
If a guy tries to mug you and you beat the piss out of him, yea, he had that coming and there's no right to complain about anything.
If a guy tries to mug you, and you beat him to death on the street, grab his ID, find his home, break in, tie up his wife, round up his children and starts brutally torturing the children to death in front of the mother and then after all the children are dead he takes the wife and as he's raping her he cuts off her head with a steak knife he found in the kitchen and then sets the severed head on a spike in the now destroyed families lawn....yea I'd say that the person being mugged crossed a line and wronged the mugger."
If I understand correctly what you're saying above, is that if you do initiate a mild aggression against some unknown dude (in RL, nowhere above is stated that this is Uto situation, my taking is that was all about RL - I'm wrong ?) then you expect him to have a mild reaction to your aggression. An answer fit to your "crime". And that, my friend, I think is an extremely dangerous thing to assume; it is reckless (at least imo) to be confident on such assumption. That kind of thinking and behaving COULD end up with poor consequences.
I'd like to think that I'm not that naive, since I agree 100% with your statement "where these things overlap for most people is where we define what normal social protocol is and people tend to be judged by how they behave in comparison with that"
However, in that statement, "most people" will probably never be equal to "all people", hence "what normal social protocol is" will never apply to everyone. Because of that, you put yourself at risk expecting everyone to act civil, mannered, calmly, kindly etc. - in other words, to respond accordingly with your actions, good or bad, not to exaggerate, not to overreact. They won't. You simply have to be realistic and realize that, when you mug someone, there's really no way of telling how that will end. If you don't want to discover that it ended badly for you (and maybe your entire family), then don't do that aggression. If you are aware that it may go sideways, better be prepared. But, never ever tell anyone "look, it was just a small offense, really, I don't understand why that reaction !?" 'Cause that will sound silly, not knowing what this world is, not knowing what beasts some people can be.
PS : "In utopia, where people not only never really die and no one forgets anything, gaining a poor reputation is as close to a death sentence as you can get." - I think it's more than obvious that, just as in RL, some people in here doesn't give a rats a$$ about "reputation", "what others think" and things like that :)
Yeap. Dude prank-steals material in N-Korea --> deadQuote:
If I understand correctly what you're saying above, is that if you do initiate a mild aggression against some unknown dude (in RL, nowhere above is stated that this is Uto situation, my taking is that was all about RL - I'm wrong ?) then you expect him to have a mild reaction to your aggression. An answer fit to your "crime". And that, my friend, I think is an extremely dangerous thing to assume; it is reckless (at least imo) to be confident on such assumption. That kind of thinking and behaving COULD end up with poor consequences.
It's not extremely dangerous. Its the exact understanding that allows people to freely live their lives and interact with other human beings rather than cowering in fear at the minute possibility that the person you're passing on the street might be a psychopath that will stab the first person to look them in the eyes.Quote:
And that, my friend, I think is an extremely dangerous thing to assume; it is reckless (at least imo) to be confident on such assumption. That kind of thinking and behaving COULD end up with poor consequences.
Understanding that most people are normal and expecting their behavior to reflect that does not mean denying the existence of other people that are not normal.
They can put on their apathetic facade all they'd like, but the proof is in the pudding. I don't see people power playing to win wars or crowns. I don't see kingdoms abusing tactics that are pretty much 100% guarantees to win. I'm willing to bet it's not because they just aren't interested in winning.
Lol, you took my words out of the context :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
I wasn't saying that it's dangerous to "freely live their lives and interact with other human beings rather than cowering in fear at the minute possibility that the person you're passing on the street might be a psychopath", I was saying that is dangerous to mug (even mildly) some random stranger and expect him to mildly respond back.
I'm stopping here, it seems we can't reach an agreeement, which is ok, we're here to debate rather than to agree; but it bothers me to take my words and twist them.
Best of luck to 7:7 taking decisions and living with the consequences.
I wouldn't call a fairly substantial assault "mild". I'm just saying there are reasonable limits to what is an acceptable response. Now, that limit might fluctuate a bit from person to person, since we all have our own personal opinions about these things, but there's most definitely a "spot" where you cross the line of being socially acceptable.
To go back to the mugging example. A mugger expecting a pretty large range of reactions is pretty standard. They could just hand over their stuff and comply. They could try to fight you. They could go running and try to find help. They could just stand there and just start screaming their lungs out. Expecting any or all those things and things like that are reasonable.
Imo, and I'm not a mugger, so maybe I'm just being naive, it's not reasonable for a mugger to expect his victim to stop in his tracks, pull his pants down and start blasting him with ****s lol. I think everyone, with perhaps the exception of a few people, that blasting a mugger with ****s, at the very least, is an incredibly odd reaction and wouldn't be expected even in the most strenuous of situations lol
This argument is kinda senseless and a repetition of moves, simply because both parties think from different perspectives/paradigms.
Palems look at this from a moral perspective, while I look at this from a pragmatic perspective.
When he judges behavior he looks at whether he believes one "ought to" do that, and whether it's "fair", fair being defined mostly by what he was taught to be fair by the environment in which he grew up. Said environment (the West) dictates restraint in the face of divergent behavior (criminality, doing that which is forbidden by law/customs, a set of arbitrary rules written/thought up mostly by our ancestors). This gives him a "cadre" in which he can position certain deeds and what the response should be based on the intrinsic value of human beings/actors.
I on the other hand simply look at results. I have gold + people sometimes steal my gold --> due to a lack of mechanically viable ways to protect gold while also producing it, I need another way to make sure it doesn't happen. Being nice to some while making an example of others has proven to be quite a viable way. Now, obviously at one stage there might be a backlash (KDs can band together against me, people like Korp/Mike might dedicate an entire age to stealing my gold). So far however I have not estimated the probability of that happening to be high enough as to warrant becoming a factor in my calculations, ergo there is no reason to change my ways.
If the evidence however should point toward my methods being faulty, I'll have to re-assess said methods and make use of other devices. Protector/ASF for instance intrinsically act in exactly the same way that I do (they calculate odds/costs/savings) while to the world they claim they act like Palem, feigning care for morality. Given their more than successful track record I'd say that this has definitely paid its diffident. Obviously they (and the top in general) has done forum-combat mostly based on morality, accusing the other side of being like me while themselves claiming they are like Palem. Therefore the discussion has often revolved around which side is better at hiding true intentions and claim moral high ground, which in turn leads to them being able to attract more people to their cause. Of course many people have through sheer experience seen through these falsities, but it was only until a person such as I, capable of transforming these experiences into a coherent narrative that people really started to get annoyed by it. This in turn has led to community backlash, and in its slipstream mechanical changes to cater for the "silent majority", as the silent majority is and will remain the biggest source of income for the owners.
GG
Who said anything about morals? I'm pretty supportive of anyone doing different things so long as they aren't against the rules.
You can go back and read Bart. I'm not firmly against you on this. However, I think a very dangerous precedent is being set to jumping to the most extreme punishments over the most mild of offenses.
I.e. we're launching nukes because Kim Jung Un kicked a cat.
In the same post you just did it again:Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
Control+f:"morals"=no results :(
I'm not talking about morals. I'm talking about social norms. There's a difference. There is basically nothing that someone could do in utopia that I would call "morally wrong" (in terms of the actual game and in-game actions).
I cant do the things I want to do anymore
Im pretty sure this thread has derailed...
I'm pretty sure you're right.
@Palem or any other Mod: Can this thread be deleted/locked as per the request of the OP (me)?
I got the answer to my original question and the last 5 pages or so have been about completely unrelated moral/pragmatism/social norms discussions for which the only conclusion is "Let's agree to disagree"
Thank you,
Illy