Folle is multiing

[Korp]

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.

[Palem]

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.

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.

[Loons]

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

[Wiliest]

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.

[Bart of Sparta]

Williest @ best post of the age.

Arrr!

[Palem]

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.

[Korp]

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.

[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.

[Korp]

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.

[Palem]

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

As far as 2

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.

[Korp]

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

[Korp]

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.

[Palem]

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.

[Folle]

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.

[Korp]

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. :(