I believe that only about 10% of veteran players play by a strick code of honor which I'm not going to try to define here but it is my contention that to try to play by this code in lower ranked games tends to result in frustration and even boredom because I find that even only one offender of the code of honor can cause the distruption of the entire game for up to half the players.

I propose that all games have a basic code of "no multies" and "no bug abusers" but the first person into a game que should be able to elaborate on the conditions of the game (i.e. e.g.):
a) strickly honorable code of behavior
b) free for all with defensive alliances allowed
c) down and dirty anything goes

PS:
Sorry I repeat that I don't find it fun to wait a month to play and then finish second to last because I'm the only one not breaking the code of honor and I do believe that "down and dirty" games will tend to get filled more quickly and be more fun.

TR

I'm all for Opption B, and C. I'm not a vet who plays by the "honour code"

Save,
I'll get between you
and the hecklers.
You're not alone.

TR

It seems silly to ask people to be honorable. They won't be if they aren't...

This game system allows many possible outcomes to any given Campaign. Some players will cheat and lie. Some will never do that. There is no way to enforce honorable behavior, though.

As was said in another thread, you trust those you know.

Yes Mog,
we know about all that, but this suggestion is so that the first guy to que into the game gets to check a box that designates the game as *A,B or C*;
So that anyone who ques into the game can plainly see its type and get out of it before it starts if he doesn't like it;
but those who don't mind and decide to stay can feel free to "do unto others as others will do" in a *type C* game without worry of getting themselves dirty in the forum because if anyone does cry foul, only proof of the type of game would be necessary to settle the argument.

PS:
There are a few folks who really have the nerve to try this just by starting a thread to class a game as a certain type but admittedly not everyone reads every thread in the forum so that it would be necessary to be able to formally designate the game by type.

Also I'm sorry to go over heads with this suggestion, but I do feel strongly that this great game is being stifled by our code of honor that I think is only followed by about 10% of us and even some of the most heated arguments come from that 10% IMHO.

TR

Something else needs to be said here I think. This is a game and I think references to real life character are silly to be perfectly honest.
We are playing a medieval war game and I'm sure that in reality medieval kings were ruthless and treacherous to say the least.
I've led an honest life and I really don't see the connection to my life and a game to be honest, although I agree that litter bugs probably do it in their house too.

Also I said that in all games multis and cheating by bug exploiting would still not be allowed. Nothing else is really considered cheating. This is a strategy game but it also leans toward RPG. There are heros and scoundrels and IMO if not for the scoundrels there would be no need for heros.

PS:
As the scoundrels and the heros make it up to level 61, you honorable guys can teach them to be nice or else.

TR

There is no code of honor!

As I posted in another thread req clearly states in the online manual that it is ok to gang bang or backstab.

As far as multi's playing in the same game, or bug abusers go, they should be deleted. There is no excuse for cheating.

If you choose to use such cheap tactics, I don't want to hear any whining, when I team up with half of the board to wipe you out right away in the next game!

I've been fortunate and only ran into a couple of GBers and 1 NAP breaker so far. In most cases the GBers have lost to me and my quickly formed alliances. But I hold a grudge and always look for opportunities to make them suffer, as I hate having to ask for help.

"There is no code of honor!"-Ghengis Khan yet further down the line..."and 1 NAP breaker so far." Which means that there is an unwriten code that Ghengis uses and you new people are going to be forced to play by if you play with him.

By the by, I think gangers hold this game in a death grip. If there were 80 gangers and they all joined a a 10 player game with 6 people that is over 13 games. Gang the 4 others to death then mass quit. once that game is over the 6 join a new group/game and gang those people to death. Sure there may be over 100 games, but I remeber the games taking forever to fill up, so if 6 people suddenly joined the games would seem like they are running more smoothly. Now if the 4 people who got ganged joined a 2nd game and got ganged again I'm sure they would quit rather quickly. 13 games by 4 people is well over 50 people quiting withing a month or two and currently wol doesn't bring in more than 30 per month. so within 4 months most every person under 40 would stop playing because there isn't any point to playing. so we loose 150 people of the 550 active which leaves us with 400 players 80 or so who are gangers so real players are only 300. Now in order for online game to thrive they must have lots of players other wise the same people fighting the same people will become borring.

Either way this game, and a great game it is, is being spoiled by the limited minds of the community of players.

Save you are intentionally missinterpreting what I said. I never said that I expect other players to follow a code of honor. What I said is that I do, if they use cheap tactics, they can expect that later on I will return the favor. I don't care if they lose, in future games I will have no problem using cheap tactics to quickly slaughter them.

It is my golden rule for this game. "Do unto others, as they have done unto you!"

If you make a NAP with me and keep it, or don't interfere when I am fighting another player I will treat you the same way. On the other hand if you break a NAP with me, or GB me you can expect me to attack you in other games. Even if you are already losing to another player.

Well see we got this thing also that "two wrongs don't make a right".
Of course very few pay much heed to it though, but seriously "from the outside looking in" (i.e. from the perspective of other players) an avenger may not appear any different than a scoundrel.
Do avengers take the trouble to explain to everyone their motives?

In skirm 62 we certainly felt like guardian heros until at a certain point after I had taken to the sidelines the strongest man continued to protect the weakest man only to now be viewed as a ganger by the remaining players that were three and even five times as strong as the weakest man. Anyway suppose the target of a vendetta cries foul in the forum and shows screen shots, game news and defence messages ... are we supposed to take the word of an avenger that he is "doing as was done to him" or is the avenger also prepared to prove his accusations?
It goes on and on and becomes a farce that ruins this great game.

All I advocate is that we adjust our thinking of our ideas of honorable gameplay to treat outter resources as I have said (i.e. as fair game at all times with the owner posting a guard so that if his guard or resource is attacked while he is at war, then the attack can be considered to be a gang attack).
IMO as I have said before if the outter resources are considered fair game at all times, it will create the necessary pressure on all players to cause a balance that may even give easy targets more time to not be so easy.

TR

I totally disagree TR, as you play it becomes easy to tell which players are worth having alliances with and which ones aren't. Whining about it in the forums is what makes it worse. Remember the players that have screwed you and return the favor. If they have done it to you, there will be other players who have suffered from them and support you.

When I'm warring with one player I shouldn't have to worry about another player slipping in to steal my resources, and the player I am fighting with shouldn't have to worry either. By trying to say it is ok for another player to go in and steal your resources while you are at war and not consider it GBing is BS. If you want to be cheap and steal another persons resources, while they are at war with somebody else, you should expect to get a bad reputation.

Depending on where you start, some players would wind up totally screwed because they have multiple fronts that would have to be defended, while other players only have 1 front besides where they are fighting.

I shouldn't have to waste my troops sitting be my resources, just to claim another player is GBing me. If you are taking my resources when I am fighting with somebody else, and I haven't given you permission to take them, that is a GB. It doesn't matter that your not killing my troops you are still attacking me!

You can disagree all you want, but the example I gave of a hero being viewed as a ganger by the last couple of players did happen in the last skirm 62. I've got a screen shot and game news to prove that two opponents at least three times as strong as the weakest player went against the weakest player and the guy who defended him through the entire game IMO because they decided the hero was no longer a hero.

On the other condition of the outter resources, let's get this straight ... I haven't ever poached anyone's resources while they have been at war.
However, I am proposing a change of ideas concerning honorable play and it starts with the following:

a) stop thinking of the outter resources as your resources

b) start thinking of the outter resources as being in no man's land and fair game to whoever can hold them

c) stop thinking that the outter resources can't be attacked or taken-over just because you are at war

d) start thinking that if you post a guard on an outter resource in no man's land that you have captured that if someone wants to take it over they will first have to commit an act of war by attacking your guard or else they will just be able to attack the resource building that you have claimed which is still an act of war

e) start thinking that if an act of war is committed against you while you are at war that you can treat the second attacker as a gang attacker

PS:
Again it is simply a matter of changing our thinking of how we view honor and OUR territory. It is unrealistic to view the outter resources as within OUR territory unless we do something to control that outter teritory.
Again I think this change is necessary because there are easy targets in the game providing easy kills simply because they can't play as intensively as others.

IMO when a player gains a second castle that hasn't even been stripped and has barracks loaded with undeployed troops and even expert troops sometimes, the victor has gained an overwelming advantage and this starts some players thinking that two against him is fair which IMO is really not quite so because two on one is still not balanced;
but if as I have said before, the two castle guy is minus a few of his outter resources because he didn't post a guard, then a one on one confrontation with him might be more evenly matched.

In conclusion it is simply a matter of stopping thinking like spoiled elite vets who will enforce their ideas of honor and territory to the extent that many others view their methods as questionable and instead thinking realistically for the sake of this great game which is being spoiled because there are too many of us not thinking realistically.

TR

Last Edited : Sunday, 24 July 2005 - 19:43

Let me try and clarify what I said in my last post.

Resource buildings belong to the person who's name is on them.

So if my name is on a resource building, whether it is by my castle or someplace else they are mine.

If I am at war with one player, and another player takes a resource building with my name on it. Then that is an act of war, and is Gbing. I don't care if they don't have to kill any of my troops to take it.

I perfer to use my troops in battle not leave them sitting around. Now if I am at war with one player, and another player comes into my territory and takes an unclaimed resource building, that isn't GBing. It is still cheap, but it isn't GBing.

Saying that we have to leave troops by the buildings after we claim them is just plain stupid. That is why our names are on them, so other players know who owns them.

As for a player with two castles, that would all depend on the situation. If he quickly captuered a second fully intact castle with little or no losses, then a 2v1 might be justifiable. Especially if the two have suffered losses.

The biggest things to look at are how much losses did the winning player suffer and how long did the war take.

I've been involved in a war with one player for around 2 months. Our techs are behind most of the other players in the game, and our troops are vastly outnumbered by any single player in the game. Now do you think it would be fair for two single castle players to gang up on the victor, when both of them are ahead of us in techs, upgrades, and troops?

and in case you missed it, I have all ready said there is no honor. Go to the online manual and click on combat. It clearly says that any tactic is allowed.

Being a multi and using bugs is not a tactic it is cheating!

First of all I have said myself that "multies and bug exploitation" would still not be allowed but I'm constantly having to repeat things because of the style of some individuals who say things IMO just to stay on the offensive.
Then there is the matter of going 2 on 1. I might say that believe it or not I have made some head way in this argument because "colors have been shown" (i.e. 2 on 1 in certain circumstances is not totally out of the question even though the clansmen of the person saying it swear that 2 on 1 is always gang attacking and certain elite vets consider that it is always gang attacking and I myself have decided that it is still not balanced and fair).

As for the war that has lasted two months, of course I don't think it's fair for these guys to get jumped by fresh opponents ahead on tech, but that's just about the circumstance I described in my last post where the weakest player was jumped by one fresh player after another and the hero defended him through the entire game. We seem to see only our own trials and tribulations.

Also my idea to post a guard at any outter resource that we have claimed is intended as a game gimic to cause a distinct act of war that cannot be questioned when a player is at war and also ... yes, to slow things down. Of course you would rather have your armies in battle ... So would everyone else. Realistically would a future enemy hesitate to take your outter resource just because your name is on it and just because you are at war? I'm also creating the condition of the attack because I'm not sure how the message reads. If the game message reads something like TaurusRex's woodmill was taken-over by *name of another player*, then that might be good enough to consider that an act of war has been committed;
but I honestly don't recall for sure how it is handled by the messages, and it does defeat my purpose to force a player to guard his resources.

Finally, I think we have to get off of this self-righteous idea of "cheap tactics" because NOT IF WE SAY IT ISN'T ... NOT IF WE CHANGE OUR IDEA OF HONORABLE PLAY which I have been advocating.
I have gotten the impression that 2 on 1 has been practiced where a player has made an easy kill and gained a second "fully intact castle". Well there are still many players who think that is not only cheap but gang attacking and my idea is to cause enough of a change in our way of thinking that for one thing 2 on 1 defensive alliances because a guy has two castles won't be necessary.

PS:
I'm still going to stubbornly insist that anyone who leaves an outter resource unguarded deserves to lose it and I think a distinct attack is necessary to consider that an act of war has been committed which would justify an accusation of gang attacking when the person attacked is already at war.
Sorry, like I said I think it is a necessary game gimic to get the game in balance due to the imbalance being caused by our extreme unrealistic ideas of honor.

TR

Last Edited : Sunday, 24 July 2005 - 23:25

TR as for the messages, when a player starts attacking a resource building you own, you get defend messages. When a player actually captures a building you own, it is reported in game news.

Your suggestion for leaving troops at resource buildings to be attacked, as the way to be considered gang banging handicaps several players in the game. Any player in a corner gets an advantage.

for example:
If I am in the lower swamp corner and attacking the grasslands above me, all of my secondary resources save one are safe as my troops are there. The woodmill between me and the other swamp castle would need protecting. Now the guy in the grasslands would have to leave troops by two of his outer resources and one of his inner ones do to placement, to force another player to be GBing him, thus tying up more of his resources than mine.

Trying to say that a player can't own the outer resource buildings without troops there, but they can own the ones near their castle is lame.

If you want to GB another player that is your choice. Just because they don't, or can't afford to leave troops at their resource buildings, doesn't take away from it being a GB when their resources are stolen. Their first opponent may not be a part of it, but the guy stealing the resources is a coward and deserves to be known as such.

Why players whine about the cheap tactics I don't know. Yes the game is more fun when you have players following the same code of conduct. But Req specifically states that there is no code of conduct. If you want to make an alliance and then stab your ally in the back it is your right. If the other player wishes to warn others about your cheap tactics that is their right. Although constantly whining and carping about it in the forums gets sickening. Post your warning and let it drop. That player will sooner or later get what is coming to them.

Yes I have an honor code that I follow. If you don't think a player needs 5 or 10 turns to recover after a war, then give them what you feel they do need.

This is a game, I don't usually form alliances in it. But when I make a NAP, it usually includes possibly coming to help the player if they are being GBed. But that is my personal choice, other players like to make alliances, that is their choice. If players want to GB that is their right, it is still a cheap tactic. But it is their right to use it until Req decides to do something about it.

As I have stated in another thread, Don't get mad get them worse.

Why should an established vet not GB a player that has GBed them? After all it is only being fair.

You may not like me calling such tactics cheap, but they are cheap. It doesn't mean they aren't valid, there just cheap.

Ok GK,
Now I'm telling you directly. I don't want to gang attack anyone. I don't want to do anything that we can't all agree is acceptable so please if you are going to address me directly and then make a comment like the following:
"If you want to GB another player that is your choice."-GK
I would like not to be addressed directly by you.

I don't gang attack anyone and this idea is intended to help eliminate it. Guarding resources is not lame if WE REQUIRE IT to hold our resources and draw a distinct act of war and there are several map flaws so why should this be any different to accept?

Again I have no intentions of doing anything that we can't agree is proper but IMO you just continue to make statements that are based on our present sense of honor and logic with a whole lot of self-righteous ideas thrown in for good measure.

I repeat if you can't view this as "forget the way we think of honorable play now" but instead view it as "the way we realistically should think of honor now", then please don't even bother addressing me directly because I'm not guilty of any of your ideas of cheap play or anything else dishonorable nor do I intend to be guilty of any of them and I'm getting tired of defending my motives to you for this suggestion.

PS:
I haven't ever double-teamed a guy with two castles.
Have you GK?

Your entitled to your opinion but please try to leave me out of it. I still remember how I had to be a slave driver because I was successfully self-employed along with a few other dumb ideas.

TR

PPS:
To clarify I have stated my ideas on my opinion of necessary changes in our code of honor in that thread entitled "Campaigns are not Clan Games" by BA and those opinions aren't actually part of this suggestion as I have been stating in my arguments.
I can't really make a suggestion concerning those opinions ... I can only argue them when IMO reason is given for me to state my opinion about the topic.

This suggestion is really to allow the masses to find a type of game that they can enjoy playing without bickering or having to defend honor in the forums because I'm of the opinion that only about 10% of us stick to a ridgid code of honor when we play with still heavy arguments about honorable play within that 10% IMO.
Again though I would still not indulge in these types of games unless there was a formal agreement that they are acceptable to play, but the argument that has been pursued here technically has nothing to do with this suggestion and instead relates to another topic concerning my opinion of a more realistic code of honor that would IMO cause the game to be less stifled by unrealistic ideas.

TR

TR when I used the word you in my statement "If you want to GB another player that is your choice." I did not mean you personally.

That was meant for whomever was reading the thread at the time.

You are right I have my view of honor and I'm not going to change that. In my oppinion taking a persons resources when they are at war with another player is an act of war, which makes their attack a GB. If it wasn't an act of war we wouldn't get defend messages when they took it.

TR this one is directed at you, try and pay attention to it as you seem to keep missing what I have said.

THERE IS NO HONOR IN WOL!

That is the truth. There is nothing that forces players to follow a code of conduct that is acceptable by all. The vets can whine all they want, but it wont change the fact that Req said you can use any tactics you want as long as you aren't cheating.

So no I personally would never agree to saying that my secondary resources weren't mine, unless I left troops by them. Once I capture a resource building and put my name on it, it belongs to me. If some player wants to take it when I am at war with another player, then they are knowingly commiting an act of war against me, and that player is GBing.

"when a player starts attacking a resource building you own, you get defend messages. When a player actually captures a building you own, it is reported in game news"-GK

The way I read the above is that a distinction between an attack and a take-over is made by the game messaging. In the remote corners of kingdoms where inhabitants tend to cross borders is it so absurd to think that a peaceful exchange of local administration of the land and the facilities thereon could occur?

The largest port in the world is owned by a Chinese firm in the Bahamas and even I think I read they are trying to gain control of the Pananma Canal Zone. The Philipines is in the news now. Our own American Revolution it has been said was successful because we took advantage that King George was busy with Napoleon.

The Bolsheviks successfully took advantage that the Russians had joined the alliance against the Central Powers in WWI and there was even something about some sort of Irish rebellion during one of the world wars but I forget the details on that.
The French struggled for many years to recapture an empire that crumbled when Hitler occuppied France.

PS:

That's reality and we and they got away with it. We even just recently celebrated it.

TR

Read the last paragraph of my third post in this thread, as I already covered it in there.


Yes the game does make a distinction, in the fact that it only reports losses in the game news. It reports all attacks, including the one that successfully gets the building, in the defend messages.

Last Edited : Monday, 25 July 2005 - 16:47