Multiplayer Hub Logo  
  Powered by Noble Master Games, http://www.noblemaster.com Multiplayer Dragon
  Forums Twitter Dev. Blog ⊕  
Home > Forums

MultiplayerHub.com
» Forums|New Posts
» Twitter
» Dev. Blog
» About
» Contact Us
Showcase
» Age of Conquest
» Demise of Nations
» Retro Commander

































Multiplayer Forums


Board index » Miscellaneous » Rants and Raves + Clan Talk


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Honour - Reasons to cancel an alliance?
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2013, 01:08 
Serf
Serf

Joined: 25 Oct 2012, 16:45
Posts: 4
mjt: hope its clearer now. As an observer though I agree on ur opinion. but if I am A with constraint 1, I will still cancel on C. If the constraint 2 applied, I will probably think B is a cunning person, so I will appreciate it and let it slip :kg:

fodder: let's say the reason B cover C would result B could win the game instead of A. (refer to constrain 1). So B can still expand on another player (lets say player D and E) in order to win.

And now u said "Use team tactics in team and clan games only. Not in standard games." I remember there is certain player who make defensive pact in mobile realm. So when u attack one of them, the whole "team" will attack u instead.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Honour - Reasons to cancel an alliance?
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2013, 04:43 
Serf
Serf

Joined: 08 Feb 2013, 08:50
Posts: 19
After a little sleep, my brain is working much better, lol. Hate to make excuses, but my A.D.D. makes it hard to keep up with all the "ABC" talk. So it's not you zero, it's me! But I do see much more clearly now that it does depend on the situation, as fodder even said. Me personally though, I'm not breaking my alliance no matter what the constrain. I'm more of a "you got me this game, but won't happen again" kind of player. So I still feel that no matter the situations you've given, A is wrong if he breaks his alliance. If I'm A, I'm just making note and sending a message that C can never expect alliance or aid from me again for his actions unless he corrects them.
Now something fodder said has me a little confused, even worried. In regards to playing as a "team" in free-for-all games. I understand in war making an alliance is mostly to obtain an assurance that you won't be attacked by said nation. But is it not also at times to obtain help to battle a larger nation? USA, Britain & Russia in WWII is one of a thousand such examples. When I make an alliance sometimes it's because I'm hoping or even planning to work as a team with said player. Anyone who has been an exceptional ally to me in the past can expect to receive my assistance as a "team mate" to some degree in free-for-all games. Alliance or not.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Honour - Reasons to cancel an alliance?
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2013, 05:17 
Knight
Knight
User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2012, 17:45
Posts: 1219
fascinating thread... i suppose the peeps mostest beloved tyrant should weigh in :roll:

fodder wrote:
3) One of the variations of the game type: Domination, which requires all opponents to be eliminated. Here I think you can accept an alliance but a winner isn't declared until there is one player standing. Therefore, accepting an alliance should be understand that it's only temporary. That is if the option "ally" isn't blanked out from the diplomatic selection menu.


incorrect... in Domination mode, ur allies' provs count as 100% towards ur points. it is not last player standing *unless* No Diplomacy is used in conjunction with Domination mode. if No Diplomacy is not used, then the players simply need to conquer all the neutrals and ally all remaining players to win the game. once 1 player allies/destroys all the other players and all neutrals are conquered a winner is determined. that is why Domination mode is best suited for single player, duels, team games, and No Diplomacy (if the creator wants a last player standing game)

mjt1877 wrote:
jiberjaber sends an alliance request and I accept. The very next "playable" turn he cancels. In messages, both actions show turn 23. I have taken a screen recording of it, and plan to take screen shots.

Kiev mentioned the only reason he could see this happening is that it was an accident. Meaning he meant to cancel relations to begin with, yet instead sent an alliance request.


i've done this myself... a couple times over the years. i've sent an ally request and then cancelled that player the next turn. in all instances, it was an accident - i just forgot that i asked that player for an alliance the turn before. i usually figure it out when my morale drops by 8% instead of the standard 2% for cancelling NAP. in these rare cases, i will apologize and attempt to re-offer alliance to the player i just totally confused :roll:

Shad wrote:
3 players left in the game. Me allied to one of them and fighting the other one. Same thing with my opponent. The opponent was in the same clan as my ally.

Now my ally starts sending gold to his clan mate.



mjt1877 wrote:
From my "understanding", giving support is part of the game. If this is a part you don't like, then there are several games that don't have the option.


Giving support is defo part of the game, and yes, there are many games that are created with the support option turned off. actually, most games i create i turn this option off... i prefer peeps fight on their own coin. Unfortunately, there isn't a way to tell which games support is on/off in since it isn't listed in the game description.

Some players will cancel an ally if they feel an ally is supporting their enemy/enemies. SinnerTaint was quite well known for cancelling alliances if he thought those allies were supporting his enemies. Is it dishonorable? that is for individuals to decide for themselves.

zerotaste wrote:
How about this case: (u can assume there are D, E, F, etc players)
A and B at war with bottleneck border and both ally with C. The favor seems in A, so B made agreement with C to cancel so C can take B bottleneck


mjt1877 wrote:
Now something fodder said has me a little confused, even worried. In regards to playing as a "team" in free-for-all games. I understand in war making an alliance is mostly to obtain an assurance that you won't be attacked by said nation. But is it not also at times to obtain help to battle a larger nation? USA, Britain & Russia in WWII is one of a thousand such examples. When I make an alliance sometimes it's because I'm hoping or even planning to work as a team with said player. Anyone who has been an exceptional ally to me in the past can expect to receive my assistance as a "team mate" to some degree in free-for-all games. Alliance or not.


Players making deals with each other is pretty common. Whether it's a deal to attack another player(s), swapping provs for tactical advantages or improved access to enemies, selling provs for gold or direct support, defensive pacts, loans and support, etc...

that's all part of the game... and players opinions on such matters are as varied as the individuals playing AoC. so...

The moral of the story...

Most players are going to hold you accountable for your actions... whether or not those actions are honorable is discretionary. ;)

_________________
The One True Howard

i will kill you and everyone you know... don't **** with me


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Honour - Reasons to cancel an alliance?
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2013, 07:46 
Investigator
Investigator
User avatar

Joined: 06 Jul 2008, 18:23
Posts: 3831
Location: Planet Earth, most of the time.
zerotaste, I still stand by what I said. If A and B are at war, they are at war because A or B or both started and wanted the war. If A can win by attacking someone else, then it's up to A and B to decide to ally, or CF. It's not B and C decision to make. In your example, B and look like the bad guys to me.
zerotaste wrote: wrote:
-constrain 1: A is almost win and ally others player except B
-constrain 2: A can find another neutral player to expand
-constrain 3: A vs B + C is balanced
-constrain 4: A vs B + C still favors A
what are the constraint combination to justify what A did or whatever the constrain A still considered dishonorable?

I don't think any of these constrain will make A look dishonourable.
In #1 A does nothing but play the game.
In #2 A could find someone but why? If B asks for a CF or ally it's up to A and B to resolve, not for C to get involved.
In #3 B and C are now playing like a team which make them look bad in my opinion. If A canceled C to teach him a lesson, then that might be a grey area but it was forced because B and C are playing like a team.
In #4 It's the same thing. Balanced or not, B and C should not cooperate in that manner. I consider that team tactics which is unfair to the other players (A, D, E, F, etc.) who are playing as individuals.

Quote:
And now u said "Use team tactics in team and clan games only. Not in standard games." I remember there is certain player who make defensive pact in mobile realm. So when u attack one of them, the whole "team" will attack u instead.

If player A asks player B for an alliance and B accepts. Then A goes to war with C, who is an ally, clan mate, friend, etc. of B and B then cancels A. B is dishourable. He broke his word in favor of playing team tactics. Now, if there was no verbal or official agreement between A and B. Then the friend, ally, clan mate can choose to attack A. It would be a 2vs1 which many honourable players will frown upon. I don't think they would make a big deal out of it and most likely will say stuff happens, but I don't think it will earn B and C any favors in future games as other players will begin to defend themselves by taking certain actions in future games, now that they know B and C are a team.

mjt1877 wrote: wrote:
Now something fodder said has me a little confused, even worried. In regards to playing as a "team" in free-for-all games. I understand in war making an alliance is mostly to obtain an assurance that you won't be attacked by said nation. But is it not also at times to obtain help to battle a larger nation? USA, Britain & Russia in WWII is one of a thousand such examples. When I make an alliance sometimes it's because I'm hoping or even planning to work as a team with said player. Anyone who has been an exceptional ally to me in the past can expect to receive my assistance as a "team mate" to some degree in free-for-all games. Alliance or not.

I understand standing by your friends, exceptional allies, clan mates etc. And this can be done in a number of ways without being actively dishonourable about it. What I mean by that is this. Team tactics, planned out strategies between players is an unfair advantage to all the players in a free for all game. AoC does offer team games which is where team tactics belong. Think of it like this. I sign up for a boxing match. I then show up with a gun. The guns give me an unfair advantage when the other player is expecting to box. If I wanted to use a gun, I should sign up for a gun fight and not a boxing fight.
In regards to your real life example. You have honourable and dishonourable nations in real life just like you do in a game. The main difference from real life and playing a game is in real life the stakes are higher. In a game, players come to play to have fun. Not to have someone shove a hot coal up their dark hole because they feel they need to get an advantage over the players, making a game which should be fun and enjoyable and turning it into a something that they don't want to have any part of.

KingHoward wrote: wrote:
Players making deals with each other is pretty common. Whether it's a deal to attack another player(s), swapping provs for tactical advantages or improved access to enemies, selling provs for gold or direct support, defensive pacts, loans and support, etc...

Players do make all kinds of deals or agreements in a game. One must be careful as to what kind of agreement is made. Such as selling provinces (victory points) for gold. This can easily look like a player using an alternate account to boost his rating. And even if it wasn't an alternate account. I would still call it a dishonourable act as one of the players is cheating to benefit another.

So while deals and agreements are a part of the game. There are many deals and agreement which can be consider dishonourable or cheat tactics. Such as 3 players agreeing to gang bang 1 player.

KingHoward wrote: wrote:
Some players will cancel an ally if they feel an ally is supporting their enemy/enemies. SinnerTaint was quite well known for cancelling alliances if he thought those allies were supporting his enemies. Is it dishonorable? that is for individuals to decide for themselves.

Yes, it is dishonourable. There can be no valid arguement to support his actions. SinnerTaint is a dishonourable player and will always be thought as one. When I was a newbie learning the game. I was talking to players learning the ins and outs and finding out about the other players. I was told by many players to watch out for SinnerTaint for being a crybaby who would complain over any little thing to justify why he should cancel someone so he could boost his rating higher. And sure enough over time I saw him do just that. During that time, I would say about a dozen players told me that they were going to quit playing AO because he was in it. He has most likely done more harm to the game than any player that I know of. We lost a lot of good players because of him. I for one, for the sake of AoC am glad to see him gone. He gives AoC a bad reputation.

kinghoward wrote: wrote:
incorrect... in Domination mode, ur allies' provs count as 100% towards ur points. it is not last player standing *unless* No Diplomacy is used in conjunction with Domination mode.

Yeah, I often get this one confused as how it works. I think it's because the name "domination" is very misleading as to how it works. I think of domination as 1 player whipping everyone. That's domination. If 1 player can be like Switzerland, and win the game without going to war. How is that domination?? Like I said, I often get domination games confused which is why I tend to avoid them. :/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Honour - Reasons to cancel an alliance?
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2013, 11:01 
Knight
Knight
User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2012, 17:45
Posts: 1219
KingHoward wrote: wrote:
Some players will cancel an ally if they feel an ally is supporting their enemy/enemies. SinnerTaint was quite well known for cancelling alliances if he thought those allies were supporting his enemies. Is it dishonorable? that is for individuals to decide for themselves.


fodder wrote:
Yes, it is dishonourable. There can be no valid arguement to support his actions. SinnerTaint is a dishonourable player and will always be thought as one. When I was a newbie learning the game. I was talking to players learning the ins and outs and finding out about the other players. I was told by many players to watch out for SinnerTaint for being a crybaby who would complain over any little thing to justify why he should cancel someone so he could boost his rating higher. And sure enough over time I saw him do just that. During that time, I would say about a dozen players told me that they were going to quit playing AO because he was in it. He has most likely done more harm to the game than any player that I know of. We lost a lot of good players because of him. I for one, for the sake of AoC am glad to see him gone. He gives AoC a bad reputation.


haha! how dare u?! Sinner was one of my best allies! always very honorable and trustworthy :p

like i said, it's discretionary. i don't think it's dishonorable at all to cancel an ally if u know he's funding ur enemy. or if an ally commits an act that is detrimental to the survival of ur kingdom. i'm not big on cancelling alliances, but i'm not going to idly sit by if an ally is putting the screws to me... i will take the fight to my enemies! like an honorable tyrant should! :pal:

_________________
The One True Howard

i will kill you and everyone you know... don't **** with me


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Honour - Reasons to cancel an alliance?
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2013, 13:09 
Peasant
Peasant

Joined: 13 Feb 2013, 20:33
Posts: 23
Where is the difference between fighting 2 on 1 and fighting one player who has the gold of 2 players? I don't understand that. Of course on the paper no alliance was broken, but in reality? Imagine your country (for example Australia) is attacked by New Zealand. You will win. But then your ally America starts ''emigrating'' all his troops to the New Zealand army. They fight under the New Zealand banner, but still, they are American. If I was Australian I wouldn't think of the Americans as an ally anymore in that situation

Teamwork in FFA games can get really bad. I don't think it's bad to help your allies out here and there. But have you ever played a mobile game lately? There is a team there (which I was offered to join) that consists of about 25 players. In some games 10 of 16 players are in that team. For the rest, this is nothing but really really annoying, and they don't even know about it. This is why I will stop playing mobile as soon as I have finished the ones I'm playing right now.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Honour - Reasons to cancel an alliance?
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2013, 17:48 
Serf
Serf

Joined: 08 Feb 2013, 08:50
Posts: 19
Quote:
Unfortunately, there isn't a way to tell which games support is on/off in since it isn't listed in the game description.


Most games I create I leave “Extended Actions” off, which leaves out the support function. So can't you just look for games that don't have the extended actions to know which ones don't have support?

Quote:
Team tactics, planned out strategies between players is an unfair advantage to all the players in a free for all game. AoC does offer team games which is where team tactics belong. Think of it like this. I sign up for a boxing match. I then show up with a gun. The guns give me an unfair advantage when the other player is expecting to box. If I wanted to use a gun, I should sign up for a gun fight and not a boxing fight.


You are fair, honorable, and have a deep respect for the game fodder, which is why I respect your opinion. But I still strongly disagree. First, a boxing match has rules, of which guns are not allowed. If you bring a gun to a boxing match, you are sure to be banned from boxing not to mention thrown in jail. Also, I do not find it an unfair advantage to use team tactics in a free for all. It is a free for all, meaning all players are free to make their own choices. Including who they ally with, team with, attack, etc. Nothing is stopping them from using the same tactics I am. I'll continue this point in a moment.

Quote:
In regards to your real life example. You have honourable and dishonourable nations in real life just like you do in a game. The main difference from real life and playing a game is in real life the stakes are higher. In a game, players come to play to have fun. Not to have someone shove a hot coal up their dark hole because they feel they need to get an advantage over the players, making a game which should be fun and enjoyable and turning it into a something that they don't want to have any part of.


I agree that players come to play to have fun. But what about players like me where the biggest part of the fun is the diplomatic aspect? Where “teaming” up with allies, fighting past and present enemies, learning new and old opponents -is- the fun? When I first started here, I had players “shove a hot coal up my dark hole” on many occasions. And it motivated me all the more to play again, especially against said player/s. Perhaps I'm not the norm, and I understand that. But shouldn't what I find fun still be as important as the majority? Now to be clear here, yes I agree that picking on noobs is not cool and I go out of my way to be fair with them and help them. The reason is, as I believe your basically saying, I don't want them to get discouraged and quit playing before giving the game a real chance. The best example I can think of in regards to team play is the 13th. And it was talked about in a game wall chat once upon a time. Kiev was a little ticked about being triple teamed. Some other players, AlexLon for sure, but I think Pietryka (if that's how you spell it) as well, retorted that you get what you give basically. Kiev took it more like the 13th were being dishonorable. I chimed in, saying I do not feel the 13th have ever been dishonorable to me, but that when I first started playing here, the 13th were beating the SNOT out of me. Seemed like every game I played, I was being canceled on by every 13th member and killed immediately. So when I found myself in games with them from then on, my first reaction was to attack them first, and do my best to find as many allies as I could to help in the fight as that is what they did to me. Just part of the game. Kiev himself retorted that I shouldn't hate, but that it was just good strategy basically. ;)

But the point is, I never took it personally. I even said in same chat that I had no hard feelings, but that he should indeed expect the same “good strategy” in return is all. If the game was as simple as you try to make it, I wouldn't find it near as fun for me, or any other player like me.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Honour - Reasons to cancel an alliance?
PostPosted: 14 Mar 2013, 17:51 
Serf
Serf

Joined: 08 Feb 2013, 08:50
Posts: 19
Quote:
The moral of the story...

Most players are going to hold you accountable for your actions... whether or not those actions are honorable is discretionary


Pretty much sums it all up and couldn't agree more. ;)

Still, I am enjoying the topic and glad I started it. I am learning a lot.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Honour - Reasons to cancel an alliance?
PostPosted: 15 Mar 2013, 03:44 
Knight
Knight
User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2012, 17:45
Posts: 1219
The Howard wrote:
Unfortunately, there isn't a way to tell which games support is on/off in since it isn't listed in the game description.


mjt1877 wrote:
Most games I create I leave “Extended Actions” off, which leaves out the support function. So can't you just look for games that don't have the extended actions to know which ones don't have support?


Transactions aren't part of Extended Actions. Transactions are an option in itself, and whether or not the creator has Transactions On (default) or Transactions Off doesn't display in the game description.

Extended Actions On/Off is displayed in the game description, and they are espionage and sabotage actions. :klugscheisser:

_________________
The One True Howard

i will kill you and everyone you know... don't **** with me


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Honour - Reasons to cancel an alliance?
PostPosted: 15 Mar 2013, 09:15 
Serf
Serf

Joined: 08 Feb 2013, 08:50
Posts: 19
Quote:
Transactions aren't part of Extended Actions. Transactions are an option in itself, and whether or not the creator has Transactions On (default) or Transactions Off doesn't display in the game description


Ok, I'm confused. I thought we were talking about the support option. Not transactions. The topic started based on someone earlier in this topic saying that his ally was giving gold to an enemy he was fighting. To which I said you can find plenty of games without the support option available. To which you replied you can't see if it's on or not.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Honour - Reasons to cancel an alliance?
PostPosted: 15 Mar 2013, 10:16 
Serf
Serf

Joined: 08 Feb 2013, 08:50
Posts: 19
Since I mentioned him by name, I feel it's only fair to add that jiberjaber wound up not attacking me before the game ended. So no harm, no foul.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Honour - Reasons to cancel an alliance?
PostPosted: 15 Mar 2013, 14:55 
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: 14 Dec 2011, 21:25
Posts: 458
I'm agreeing with Howie on this one, If you find out for sure an ally is funding against you, I don't see it as dishonourable to cancel on them. I can't think of any other reason it would be necessary to cancel though unless a game is completely stalemated and you jointly agree with another player to cancel.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Honour - Reasons to cancel an alliance?
PostPosted: 16 Mar 2013, 04:35 
Knight
Knight
User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2012, 17:45
Posts: 1219
some visual aids then... :partyyy:

Image

Transactions are "Support", or sending gold to another empire... and as stated, Transactions also allow players to purchase neutral territories.

Image

This is the Game Options section on the Create Game Screen... Transactions On/Off is an Option.

Image

This is the Game Info Screen... notice that all options are listed except for whether or not Transactions are On/Off

_________________
The One True Howard

i will kill you and everyone you know... don't **** with me


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Honour - Reasons to cancel an alliance?
PostPosted: 16 Mar 2013, 05:16 
Serf
Serf

Joined: 08 Feb 2013, 08:50
Posts: 19
Ok, I gotcha now. So "Transactions" also allow "Support". Now I understand :gott:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Honour - Reasons to cancel an alliance?
PostPosted: 16 Mar 2013, 08:46 
Knight
Knight
User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2012, 17:45
Posts: 1219
aye... :partyyy:

_________________
The One True Howard

i will kill you and everyone you know... don't **** with me


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Green Smilies by http://www.greensmilies.com/

Home  |  Forums  |  Twitter  |  Dev. Blog  |  About  |  Contact