PDA

View Full Version : Official Standards for Conduct in Alliance War



Blitz
3rd March 2005, 11:12 AM
This is a poll so that the GUA Community can reach an agreement on a standard for alliance warfare. If an alliance breaks the standards which are agreed on by the majority (or at least plurality) then the opposing side can cite this poll, and give evidence in the form of screenshots to show exactly how the rule was broken.

Keep this thread clean and do not drag any SC-PR Concepts here, or even mention the alliances, as this thread is about an abstract principle. If you start dragging alliances into this thread, then I will edit them out.

Notice that "Retaliation Sabotage" is not an option. There are many reasons I have not included this, and honestly I think anyone with a good head on their shoulders should be able to think of at least three of them.

Vote however you feel like voting, but post carefully. Warnings will be given to people who don't pay attention, or choose to ignore, what has been said in this post.

Denny
3rd March 2005, 11:16 AM
Hehehe. This thread is so very doomed :p

Okay, in an ideal wargame (i.e. one where your opponent will have and follow the same principles that you do), I vote for option 3. With a footnote that picking on people much weaker than you is pretty lame, in my personal opinion.

duplo_pr
3rd March 2005, 11:17 AM
I voted for option one, sabbing sucks the way it is, but its a part of the game, a part that many players like, why take that away from them?

Blitz
3rd March 2005, 11:18 AM
Hehehe. This thread is so very doomed :p

Okay, in an ideal wargame (i.e. one where your opponent will have and follow the same principles that you do), I vote for option 3. With a footnote that picking on people much weaker than you is pretty lame, in my personal opinion.
Thank you for posting without referring to any alliances. Anyone who posts and refers to alliances, specifically or implied, will be censored, and may be warned.

Hopefully people will be smart enough to read before posting, although, unfortunately, reading and writing are not as closely related as I sometimes wish.

Soul ' '
3rd March 2005, 11:19 AM
ill go for option 1 on this one. a war is something between 2 or more alliances (not metioned names eh :D ) so you choose to join an alliance, then imo you also chose to be together in the war with that alliance.

~Soul

Tcithcb
3rd March 2005, 11:19 AM
If the Kings of Chaos admins have no plans of reducing the strength of sabotage, I see no reason for armies (and alliances) to avoid this power. I may not agree with the effect it has on some peoples' attitudes toward the game and alliances, but this is a war game. We have been given a rather powerful tool for war, it should be used.

Psycho
3rd March 2005, 11:23 AM
sabbing sucks completely and should be removed

bloodpirate
3rd March 2005, 11:24 AM
Just by being in a chain/alliance you support all that chain/alliance does or you wouldn't have joined it. If that chain/alliance goes to war (sabbing is a part of war) then you must endure the consequences of war.

quicksilverchaos
3rd March 2005, 11:35 AM
i voted for option one because i know from personal experience that if u care about your officers and they're getting sabbed because of something u did/are doing then you will most likely stop. as far as alliances go, sabbing someone just b/c they're in an enemy alliance is retarded, but if you're given orders to sab them from the head of your alliance or b/c they did something to u or one of your friends...thats reasonable. but after all, it is a game so play it how u want.

drunkninja81
3rd March 2005, 11:37 AM
im pretty sure we can all guess what i voted

kgreen10
3rd March 2005, 11:41 AM
i just think it should be one on one and the best man standing wins.

Carnage
3rd March 2005, 11:41 AM
i'd say sabing should be there as somethign like a mass attack, with consequences to the sabbers army as well as the victim. would you sab someone if you had the risk of losing 10 hooks in the process? (thinking of making sabbing unviable with less than 10 spies and if they are killed you lose any weapon they carry) also making each mission cost 1 turn would limit the damage causable by one indervidual. cause lets face it something like this could happen easilly:

player x dosn't like clan b so in very little time at all he sabs their entire chain. clan b can't retaliate except for massing, which is quite ineffective, meanwhile player x continues the chain sab untill his spy rating is so low he can't continue. then he rebuilds and does it again.

At the moment one player can do far more damage to an alliacne than he can recieve back and thats unfair.

Chrono
3rd March 2005, 11:41 AM
KoC is getting way to bureaucratic..
If sabotaging shouldn't be allowed, delete it..

So yeah I voted for option 1..

phoenixphyre999
3rd March 2005, 12:02 PM
Yesterday I might have voted differently, but now I'm tired of all this quibbling. If two clans are at war, they should be allowed to sab each other all they want, though people who happen to be in an alliance's chain but aren't members of the alliance should be spared if at all possible.

However, in a battle between two INDIVIDUALS, sabbing someone's innocent officers is NOT cool. Making officers pay for the actions of their commander is extremely dishonorable.

Tcithcb
3rd March 2005, 12:03 PM
i'd say sabing should be there as somethign like a mass attack, with consequences to the sabbers army as well as the victim. would you sab someone if you had the risk of losing 10 hooks in the process? (thinking of making sabbing unviable with less than 10 spies and if they are killed you lose any weapon they carry) also making each mission cost 1 turn would limit the damage causable by one indervidual. cause lets face it something like this could happen easilly:

player x dosn't like clan b so in very little time at all he sabs their entire chain. clan b can't retaliate except for massing, which is quite ineffective, meanwhile player x continues the chain sab untill his spy rating is so low he can't continue. then he rebuilds and does it again.

At the moment one player can do far more damage to an alliacne than he can recieve back and thats unfair.
Those seem to be more suggestions for the KoC admins than alliance conduct. I would support changes as such, but that is not the situation we find ourselves in. Sab is the most powerful tool the Kings of Chaos admins have given us, why shouldn't we be allowed to use it?

dropcivic
3rd March 2005, 12:11 PM
All is fair in love and in war

Option #1

RangeMan141
3rd March 2005, 12:20 PM
How much chaos would it be in Kings of chaos without sabbing?
I voted option one, if not the small alliances wouldnt be able to do nething coz they are to small to mass the bigger ones...

~Range, TUM bsl.

TheCelticGenesis
3rd March 2005, 02:07 PM
Option one is what i think the best way, allthough i would like to see formulas changed back like in Beta or something so that mass attacks also have effect again, allthough it already is changed now but sabbing still leads by effect.
All chainmembers can be targets since it's to hard to tell who's not in the alliance and who is, also, being in their chain is supporting the hostile alliance so.

Almighty-Sephiroth
3rd March 2005, 02:24 PM
defintitly number 3, chain sabbing happened to my officers last age, it hurts

Blitz
3rd March 2005, 02:32 PM
1) All sabotage should be (including chain/alliance sabotaging) perfectly legitimate.
batar_de_lenfer, bloodpirate, Bloodpriest, Chrono, dropcivic, drunkninja81, Ktalah, legolasa, quicksilverchaos, RangeMan141, swguru, Tcithcb, TheCelticGenesis, theMatterist, Thomas, vengefuldeath87, yowke
17 44.74%
2) One should be able to sabotage individuals who have committed specific acts, and them alone.
FiT-VegnaBlitz, hprofet, Jaszon, kgreen10, kjell, MamaT, Propugnator, Psycho, _Talius
9 23.68%
3) Players must be confirmed alliance members, and not just chain members, before sabotaged
Carnage, daviegraham, Denny, Doublestix11, Efreet, FollowerOfChrist, Legendary, matjok, NeverwinterX, phoenixphyre999
10 26.32%
Abstain
blunderball, end255

(Yes, I specifically set this poll on public, as I thought it would be interesting to see what everyone voted for. Just click the numbers on the top.)

So, right now, the figures stand at

17 in favor of allowing all forms of sabotaging
27 in favor of sabotaging based on alliance membership
19 against chain sabotaging
9 against any form of alliance/chain sabotage
2 abstain

I calculated those figures based on the following:

Those who voted for option 1 would naturally also be in favor of option 3.
Both Options 2 and 3 are against pure chain sweeping.

(I wrote this poll carefully with those 3 main options in mind. I didn't include more options as this is specifically related to alliance conduct, but I had to include all 3 options as they are the main reasons...And of course I had to include an abstain.)

Still early in the poll, too early to make a call, but right now it appears that this poll is leaning in favor of allowing sabotage based on alliance membership, but not chain sabotage.

Kamikizzle
3rd March 2005, 03:06 PM
I completely disagree with one clan just demolishing another clan AND IT'S CHAIN by sabbing. If they want to get only the clan, well as was said, all is fair in love and war.

But to bring the chain members who are not part of the clan into this is just ludacris. Especially, as said before, you can sabb pretty much an unlimited number of times. I agree that sabbing should take turns.

Also, what would be nice and very helpful, would be for every clan to have a place where they keep an updated list of the people in their clan. It wouldn't even have to be on GUA, it could be on their own forums, but that would make people stand by their clan.

hungryman287
3rd March 2005, 05:31 PM
I would like to remain anonymous as to what I voted for. I agree there should be rules of conduct, even in a war game. That way it is an honerable war, and not shooting people in the back with no weapon.

Note: I set this poll on public, so the results are viewable by anyone. ~VegnaBlitz

Tcithcb
3rd March 2005, 08:34 PM
I completely disagree with one clan just demolishing another clan AND IT'S CHAIN by sabbing. If they want to get only the clan, well as was said, all is fair in love and war.

But to bring the chain members who are not part of the clan into this is just ludacris. Especially, as said before, you can sabb pretty much an unlimited number of times. I agree that sabbing should take turns.

Also, what would be nice and very helpful, would be for every clan to have a place where they keep an updated list of the people in their clan. It wouldn't even have to be on GUA, it could be on their own forums, but that would make people stand by their clan.
The fact of the matter is that any member of the chain is supplying the alliance with soldiers, hence making them stronger. If you really want to destroy an alliance, you must cut off their supply lines, i.e. ruin their chain.

ROCK LOBSTER
3rd March 2005, 10:42 PM
I wanted to abstain, i was half as sleep and clicked on #1

I abstained because i don't agree fully with any of the options


All sabotage should be (including chain/alliance sabotaging) perfectly legitimate.

i think that in some cases you can be in the same chain but not the same alliance and have troubles with a jerk..If he's looking for it, why not?

and about the last two....if there was a combination of those, that would be the option i'd pick

"Confirm that he's alliance member and not only chain, sabb him as an individual. Leave his officers/chain alone unless he keeps attacking you."

IMO if "X" player hits your officer and then in revange i go and sabb the hell out of all "X's" officers, it's very very wrong....but i believe sometimes it can be the only way to threaten him or force him to cease attacks on your members...

if you're in the same alliance and you get sabbed...well that's cr*ppy too, but that's what happens when your alliance gets too big...:shame:

if you're in the same chain and you got sabbed, :violin: talk to an important someone and convince him that you deserve a sell off...


I have the feeling i might be contradicting myself at some point, but what i'm trying to say is: if you try to solve it first with diplomacy and in a nice way but the other person doesn't cooperate, then just sabb him and do anything that's necessary to keep him away from your people... As an alliance leader i can say that it's our duty to always protect our members...even tho if they were the ones that picked on the fight...in that case you kick your member's arse tellin him to not do that again, and apologize in his name and try to solve it peacefully...

but that's the ideal cuz the truth is that there's no ethics, no standards in war...or love :p

Jedi
4th March 2005, 12:43 AM
I don't like sabbing in the first place.

Number of sabbing should be very limited to prevent innocent new players leaving the game especially those involved with warring factions against other alliances.

theMatterist
4th March 2005, 01:29 AM
i voted 1.

the minute you start creating restrictions there will be loopholes and someone will obliterate me and i can't get him back? not a chance. i want to be able to sab anyone i please - cos if i sab someone they had it coming to them... i think it's perfect the way it is.

i will say, though, there are a couple of people who abuse it and some idiots out there who just want to make the game miserable for others, but they are a minority. why ruin the game for the majority? i think the 25% armory thing is dumb, well, in the scenario of 1 BPM and ten trillion spy - cos the only people who hide behind it are abusing it.

anyway, i got sabbed my fair share last age... i learnt lessons from it. i thought i was a big cheese with 2mil attack and 50k of everything else. attacked the wrong guy and lost half my weapons... wake up call of note. eventually made friends with the guy and joined his alliance. after that i made sure i could keep out the saboteurs for the rest of the age. sometimes they still get in - just cycle a couple of weapons to minimise the damage and carry on again...

:) matt

Deth
4th March 2005, 01:34 AM
1
alliance vs alliance means basicaly chain vs chain these days and everyone one in an enemy chain is my enemy and that gives me the right to sab anyone I want.

Diaboli
6th March 2005, 04:59 PM
its a game, ill just go to page 50 and sab whoevers name I dont like for the hell of it

I dont care, its fun, I sab everyone even if ive never talked to them before, there is no 'code' of conduct, if there is its just stupid

LS and denny who dedicate their lives to this game and take it way to seriosuly may have a code, but people who play for fun, and dont treat it as a lifestyle, should do whatever they want

nanuuk
6th March 2005, 09:58 PM
Chain sabbing sucks, is cowardly, and only harms weak and new players. The strong players at the top of the chain are generally untouched by this tactic, and they are the ones that usually instigate the sabs in the first place.

maggot
9th March 2005, 11:14 AM
If people think they are so great and want to start a war than I don't think there should be mercie! Sab them all: chain+friends and who-ever you can find :p

PanthersRule
9th March 2005, 10:34 PM
i voted for option one because i think all's fair in love and war and u should be able to sab any1 we want to

Baldwin
10th March 2005, 08:15 AM
option 1, sabbing weaker players is lame, but hey in age 3 i was constantly sabbed by players ranked around #200, so i sabbed their officers, payback i would say.

HolySpirit
10th March 2005, 08:41 AM
Did you invent the wheel as well?

maggot
10th March 2005, 09:43 AM
haha now I remember this thread is usefull cuz some chain is chain sweeping us because one chain member of us sabbed someone in the other chain so they started to sab random people in ours!

He said we need to watch and that they are all sab accounts etc (but nobody has more spy then 200k could be even less lol :p)

We decided to get them back today and started from the top and slowly going down in his chain and sab every weapons we find (yes they aren't all spy account ^^ )

We do say if he decides to leave our chain alone we will do the same so I think what we are doing is fair!

JediMaster Xyra
11th March 2005, 01:29 AM
I voted option 2. If sometime interferes with my affairs, I will sabotage them and them alone. Bringing officers/alliances into it just makes things messy. If you get yourself into trouble, then you should play the ultimate role of getting yourself out of it.

Simius
11th March 2005, 03:56 AM
I voted for option 1 of course :P

I mean it's Kings of Chaos, it's not a peace game. People who join the big chains because of the recruiters, or other advantages should accept the disadvantages as well.

Beside that, there isn't a lot which weaker players can do against the top players. This is probably the reason chain sweeping exists in the first place. If you say you don't allow chain sweeping, it would mean the top players can sab the weaker players (for example if they did something to their officers), and the weaker players can do nothing back.

the saboteur
11th March 2005, 04:05 AM
Im gunna make this short and sweet.

The 1st one, no question and it... chains should stick together & therefore suffer together thru thick and thin.

Snake_Bonzai
11th March 2005, 04:45 AM
Whatever it takes to reach your goals, that's how I think about it. But that option wasn't available.

Monsuco
8th April 2005, 06:23 PM
sabbing sucks completely and should be removed
Yah. It wasn't a bad idea but it is kinda being used abusivly to do more than just bring down defence or hinder someone who is farming you.