Thoughts on 'Dibs' and Definition of Hostile

Wanted to get a robust discussion going on this to see what everyone's thoughts are on these issue as it has been prevalent in the past and has resulted in ****play.

(1) Dibs: claiming the exclusive right to fight someone without having established hostilities with kingdom in question
-typically used when 2 kds have a cf or notice expiring in future and the aggressor wants to establish first priority claim to target kd
-also used when kd siting conflict, war. Eowcf and has options/open relations with other kds but one kd wants to establish claim to fight this kd.

Dibs is the biggest bull**** I have seen that has been used in the last few ages. There is no such thing as a pre-notice or pre-hostile.

If you want to fight someone at end of your cf or after they exit from eow/fort you need to go and wave them and you need to be the first one to do it and establish hostile by giving button. You CANT tell another kingdom 'we are coming, dont make any other plans' or 'dont run because we will hit you regardless.' A kingdom who has cfs ending at same date or has no-cfs has the right to fight anyone they want regardless of what another kingdom wants.

Please don't give me crap about setting up cfs ending on the same date because many a time this has been used strategically or notice simply has not been given. Dibs has only become a problem in recent ages, prior to that there have been no problems although cfs have been ending on the same date for 50+ ages.

If you want to fight someone when cfs end and want to make sure its your kingdom, one thing you can try is talking to your target and potential kds they may fight and see if they can work something out. However, there is no legitimate way to "claim" someone without hitting them first.

(2) Definition of hostile
To me this one is pretty straight forward, hostile = presence of a button however there are some additional issues that apply here.

Lately i have seen stupid stuff such as dragon sent = hostile! dragon started = hostile! making a thread in forums = hostile. None of these are hostile and have never been considered.

The proper way to claim hostile is to give button. The only other time you can have hostile is when cows are having a fight, in cow fights preserving meter is important due to presence of ops. Cow fight to kick off hostile is usually a drawn out hostile and when ops are given waves will ensue. This does not mean that cows have their 'own' hostile where if a kingdom with a cow waves a kd without a cow, the cow can be hit by other cows because it has no target in said kd. This stupid excuse was brought up last age and the dumbest thing i have ever heard.

If you want to fight someone and claim them, again GIVE THEM BUTTON. Making a thread is never a hostile neither is starting/sending a dragon, that is stupid. Man up, grow a pair, after all if you want to fight someone and are pushing the initiative YOU need to be the one to hit them, so go and do it otherwise you need to stfu and not claim hostile.

Part of the issue is the severely diminished competition at the top in the past 6-10 ages.

On the CF expiration date, there were 3 kingdoms 40-50k acres ahead of the rest of the server.

Banks can't grow out of war, so in that situation the two kingdoms that war are at a huge advantage over the one that doesn't.

theres no debate here, what you said makes pure sense Proteus.

Cow fight is not a hostile, then you could never attack the biggest province in a small kd if hes army is out, they might consider it beeing in a cowfight.

Totally honestly?

I think "dibs" is, and always has been, a f*cking retarded mechanism, that jdorje invented to justify to wave Sims army out in age 54 that he didn't have the balls to do and should have.

It has effected the game since then, and it's bollox.

I'd accept 7 hits, so one off hostile due to button power, as possibly being enough, but the rest is meh.

Think it is interrelated to button on such an extent you have to do mechanism changes to consider fully.

I agree with most what proteus said.

Regading notice i think its a pretty annoying form of play that has no place in utopia same goes for dibs and taxes.
I wanted game mechanics changed to a better CF system for so many ages but they rather choose to play around with the races and the pool etc. Some really basic ingame CF system would solve most dealbreaks and a lot of ****play we have seen. Exactly how to code it etc is not up to me but if they want a better game it should have been done a long time ago. The definition of hostile is easy as well and could easy be built into the game aswell. A hostile could be shown on KD page and kds moved into a stance of hostile etc. IMO its just game mechanics that is the biggest problem most of the time. I dont have the perfect solution for the problems but i think the devs should listen more to its players regarding a few of the changes. I also feel better moderation in general of this forums is extremely important to stop multi accounts here, random trolls etc. Its time for changes or let the game itself just die out.

*******
CF system:

1) Could be done in a way where you can choose to have a 48h period you can only take intel from the moment you break the CF. Attacks/ops can only be done after 48h. You can choose ingame if you want a duration deal or not.
2) It could be done in a way you can never end a CF at the same hour to two kds at once.
3) It can be done so that once a CF is agreed to a loc and a time is made on the deal it cant be unbroken.

This is just ideas and they could be finetuned into perfection. Maybe the game utopia never wanted it to be this way, but the players done diplomacy for as long as i can remember and its a huge part of the game so why not add better systems for it ingame. I mentioned it for MANY ages and it keeps getting overlooked over and over because other stupid changes gets done before the changes that really matters.

I dont care if the orc elit is worth 7 or 8 off points or if the bloody faery got 3 gens or 5 gens etc.

(1) I never agree'd with dibs existing. It needs to go.

(2) There are some situations in which kingdoms need to be understanding of that don't fall in the scope of what you would list as a hostile.

If Kingdom A sends Kingdom B a dragon and Kingdom C waves Kingdom B the next tick, I think it's safe to assume that Kingdom C is in the wrong. Similarly if Kingdom A receives 10 razes from Kingdom B but no button is present because Kingdom B is 50% size of Kingdom A, I think it would be wrong of Kingdom C to wave Kingdom A. These are just 2 examples of situations that are possible to occur under your stipulations and not be considered **** play, or 2v1.

Edit:
We need the opinion of the truest utopian; UtopiaGirl.

Propro, how do we deal with those that run and fake war? (I am referencing those that use Fords aka ED & P2 last age)

Does fake war not = deletion now?

Anri - I agree that mechanics can help fix **** play. The same way you have an ingame cf option you can make an ingame button for "nap" where you enter an input date (i.e. 2 weeks) and send a nap request to target kd, kds monarch receives a message with duration of nap and has "accept/decline" button. If accept is clicked two kds have in-game cf for 2 weeks that cant be broken as it is a mechanic and only option you have is access to intel. This would actually prevent dealbreak during duration cf. I doubt mods would want to code something like this and take the time to do it.

You can also prevent attack and ops into war and eow with a mechanic but there is too much room for abuse. If there was -100% gains into war two kingdoms could set up a legitimate farm war and would have full protection from outside to abuse it.

Ezzerland, I personally dont consider sending dragon without making any hits a hostile. I do agree with you that there are situations that do not fit strict definition of hostile but are represents de facto hostile that need to be evaluated on a case by case basis: i.e. Cow fight without button with dragons flying for instance.

There have been many a time where I would initiate a cow fight vs. a top kd before giving button for strategic reasons.

The main reason I discuss definition of hostile as it appears to be a problem lately in conjunction with dibs, there have been cases where a kingdom wants to dibs/claim another kd without giving button. I think this is BS because again if you are the aggressor and wish to fight someone you need to give them button. For example say BB has 48h notice with Sanc and Sanc has 72h notice with Pewpew. Sanc receives notice from Bb and gives 72h notice to Pewpew on same hc. Sanc is in fort and Bb doesn't want to hit in because its disadvantageous. BB needs to give Sanc hostile within 24h after notice expires or Sanc can wave and hostile pewpew and Bb must stay out. The problem here is you have situation where you don't want to give a kd hostile and properly establish the fight but want to "claim" them as a target after their fort runs out. This is really a bull**** move. If you want to start hostile with someone and be entitled to hit them them you need to establish hostile and give button. You cant claim someone by making 2 hits and starting a dragon while you wait for them to come out of fort, that doesn't fly. Again if you are the aggressor and want to fight someone you need to man up and give them Button. You cant waste 4 days of their time without hitting.

Disclaimer: My example below uses specific kds and situations this age but is not meant to troll or attack anyone but to give accurate representation of events for analysis.


Clear example of this was AMA vs pewpew early age. While AMA was in eow pewpew made a thread saying they want to fight AMA and started a dragon. This was early age and ama had open relations with many kds and could have waved almost any kd they wanted and picked their target based on strategic reasoning and goals. However, when eow expires and ama entered into fort, pewpew made 2 hits and "claimed ama" while pewpew was still pumping. Ama was ready to fight after eow was over as we were humans with tog and prep fast but has to wait an additional 3 days to begin the fight as pewpew would not make hits but we did not feel safe hitting another kd as even though we were clearly not hostile with pewpew, we were worried theyd still hit us if we hit another kd.

This is a problem because you can effectively dibs and tie up a kd without being hostile to them and waste their time. If pewpew wanted to claim ama they should have made 8 hits and gave button. In this case if ama waved another kd and gave button pewpew was obligated to respect this real hostile because they never properly hostiled ama as 2 hits and dragon project and kd name tag "vs. Ama" is NOT hostile. We never tested pewpew to see if theyd hit into a conflict we would start with another kd but had indication that they would based on history and what was said in forums.

Again this was used to give an example of analysis and is not meant to **** talk or troll anyone.

In my opinion dibs and claiming without hostile is a joke and has to stop. If you want to fight someone and come after them you need to give button, it is only way to have your target. If a kd has many targets they can wave and you aren't willing to give button you do not have a right to claim this kd simply put.

When I lead my own kds, anytime I wanted to fight someone, I would always give button even into fort because I wanted to be assured of target. For example when fury was supposed to fight bio eoa for #1, they received notice from inso. I wanted to stop inso from interfering and served them notice same time notice was given to them by fury. Inso had a sage setup with high bpa and good tm mods on core and were pumping in fort. I let inso know that it is our intention to hit them immediately after notice expires. When notice expired inso held and did not hit fury and we hit them into fort 8x giving button. We did not make 2 hits or start dragon or tag hostile without giving button. I knew if we failed to give button that inso would hit fury so we needed to make it clear cut. Mind you it was a DISADVANTAGE to give button and one sided ops into fort but we were the aggressors and wanted to claim target so we did it anyways.

I guess one main problem is also how it can mean 'auto-loss' if you 8 hit wave into a fortified kingdom if you know what you are doing. It should 'cost' less to give button -- then people would give it easier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by munk

I guess one main problem is also how it can mean 'auto-loss' if you 8 hit wave into a fortified kingdom if you know what you are doing. It should 'cost' less to give button -- then people would give it easier.

---

Well the easy solution is to just not claim the kd sitting in fort with bull****. Accept that you do not have a claim to that kd and that they have the option to fight others if you are not willing to properly hostile them. It does not mean auto loss, just wait for them to end fort and if they aren't hostile go hit them. If they exit fort in the middle of the night to wave another kd, it's YOUR problem not theirs, no one is obligated to fight just because they receive notice. If you want reward of fighting that kd, take risk to hit them and give button. I always follow the rule if I notice someone with goal of warring them, I plan to give button...i dont expect to be given button. I may not always give it right away per strategic reasons but I always give it in the (unless we cf).

Also advanced notice in the way of "we plan to fight you when cf expires" is fine but when you add the following "dont make any other plans" or "we are coming no matter what" that is dibs and ****play. What you should say is "we are going to try to pick a fight with you" when notice expire but you need to accept other kd may have options and unless you properly hostile them, they will get away.

One of the problems with notices and "dodging" is that if the kingdom serving the notice ends up training up and changing builds they're going feel entitled to unleash all those resources somewhere and if they have no other outlet for those resources they might end up double hostileing somebody or hitting into war. Regardless of what we think of that sort of behavior it's an increasingly likely outcome because of the shrinking competition and I think we should try to take any reasonable steps to avoid it.

To that end I think it's fair to ask/require the noticed party to indicate that they have intentions to be otherwise occupied(such an indication obviously shouldn't come with a threat of punishment if they end up not being occupied when notice runs out) before minimum training time, it's a reasonable courtesy that can prevent a lot of grief and ****play and the noticing party can decide to not invest heavily into training up or they can decide to push ahead knowing that it's likely that they're going to be stood up and have to sit on their hands.

Elldallan -- what is your example is #1 kd vs #2 kd in charts. Can #2 then just say, "sorry we're going to fight another kingdom?" I think the issue here is also that for chart kingdoms -- who gets to war who is a big a factor to who wins the charts as the 'skill' of kingdoms. Further complicates things -- I don't have the answer.

I am curious what Elit thinks of this topic. I just want to see if his opinions, amongst others, have changed since the last time this was discussed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by munk

Elldallan -- what is your example is #1 kd vs #2 kd in charts. Can #2 then just say, "sorry we're going to fight another kingdom?" I think the issue here is also that for chart kingdoms -- who gets to war who is a big a factor to who wins the charts as the 'skill' of kingdoms. Further complicates things -- I don't have the answer.

---

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?

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by munk

Elldallan -- what is your example is #1 kd vs #2 kd in charts. Can #2 then just say, "sorry we're going to fight another kingdom?" I think the issue here is also that for chart kingdoms -- who gets to war who is a big a factor to who wins the charts as the 'skill' of kingdoms. Further complicates things -- I don't have the answer.

---

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.
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anri

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!

---

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).

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. -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anri

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!

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anri

But there is a problem with decay. Because decay moves to slow imo.

---

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

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.

---

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.
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

I think it is a bit unfair to say that everyone's objective is to "swindle and screw over the competition"

There's only one best kd. If you're not the best kd, you need to pull some tricks to beat them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palem

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.

---

Maybe I didn't notice it before, but ever since you quit playing your level of useful posts have vanished in favor of being (for lack of better terms) an ass... Some of us, despite your opinion, would like to get rid of all the ****play. If you don't believe it, or don't have anything constructive to add, it's easy to just stay out of it. Proteus was trying to open up real discussion on something that needs to be addressed and changed. For once, and I mean this as no offense to you Pro Pro, he seems genuine in looking for some sort of fairness in the way things are done. To suggest we only want to "swindle and screw" our competition is asinine at best. I think that most of the players in top KD's would rather win without screwing over someone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palem

There's only one best kd. If you're not the best kd, you need to pull some tricks to beat them.

---

...or you can just get better. God forbid putting a little effort into getting better at something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tetley

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.)

---

I don't think what Proteus and others call "dibs" is the same as what happens in your example. When I hear dibs, I think of it as, for example, CR wanted to war AMA, and so they posted the notice of notice, effectively calling dibs and telling AMA they can't war anyone else. No hits had been exchanged, cf period wasn't even expired yet, but CR was "claiming" the rights to them. That's what I think of dibs as.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WhenWeCollide

Maybe I didn't notice it before, but ever since you quit playing your level of useful posts have vanished in favor of being (for lack of better terms) an ass... Some of us, despite your opinion, would like to get rid of all the ****play. If you don't believe it, or don't have anything constructive to add, it's easy to just stay out of it. Proteus was trying to open up real discussion on something that needs to be addressed and changed. For once, and I mean this as no offense to you Pro Pro, he seems genuine in looking for some sort of fairness in the way things are done. To suggest we only want to "swindle and screw" our competition is asinine at best. I think that most of the players in top KD's would rather win without screwing over someone.

---

Let me make myself clear. I'm not supporting "****play" (in a stricter sense of what's being discussed). I'm just saying you guys are reaching for an unattainable goal that basically each and every one of you is going to go against the spirit of at one point or another. There's not a person in the game that hasn't pulled some shady ****, but that doesn't mean they're some menace to the game that needs to be eradicated. Essentially what's being attacked here are things that aren't "nice" or "honorable". Is winning in a totally "honorable" way definitely the best way to go for? Yes, but the worst victory is still better than the best defeat.

Being mean, and dishonorable, and trying to swindle people is part of the game at it's very core. Utopia is not "fair". It's never been fair and it's never going to be fair. There's always going to be people that toe the line and keep pushing things farther and farther. Sometimes those people get called out and sometimes the community just looks the other way. If everybody fell into a nice neat orderly line where we all followed very clear and strict guidelines for ediquette this game would be boring as **** and I seriously doubt that any of us would still be playing if it was played in such a way.

Quick example:
Jdorje was a very clever and devious man. He did his very best to screw me over and I did the same to him in return. We had a very serious disdain for each other. I love that I didn't like this man. It drove emotion into the game. It made me care much more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WhenWeCollide

...or you can just get better. God forbid putting a little effort into getting better at something.

---

God forbid you think outside the box and try to get as many advantages as you can win against someone who would normally beat you. I don't think people would say that one kd getting the jump on another kd that hadn't quite trained up yet as somehow ****players, even though what they did is in no way "honorable".

argee with Palem on this one. It's like football and referees. Referee's spices things up with the controversies. That's what keeps the game alive and kicking.
Human loves controversies. It sells , and even reality tv takes advantage of it.

Face it , we humans need some scapegoat to call black. We all do it at some point in time.
Cheers and happy complaining. Let the games begin :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PACINO

argee with Palem on this one. It's like football and referees. Referee's spices things up with the controversies. That's what keeps the game alive and kicking.
Human loves controversies. It sells , and even reality tv takes advantage of it.

---

Well and the fact that without rules and someone to enforce them every professional football player would be a cripple after a year :P

I think you're missing the point a bit, Palem. No one is suggesting that we all live in a magical fantasy world where we can treat each other nice all the time and still succeed in the game. But it's a spectrum. The last 2-3 ages has been a pretty ****ty environment at the top and so many people have expressed concerns about it.

Sure the game can, will, and should be played with some level of acceptable cunning/ruthlessness/strategy. These posts are just trying to push the community in a direction that is closer to the middle of the spectrum... no one is saying it should go all the way to the end.

"Dibs" has nothing to do with the level of ****play that's been crossing the line lately. Chartshaping has been ruining gameplay, not people trying to get into wars.