WOA Treaty

[Devari]

Recently, I have observed frequent discussions in the WOA forums pertaining to the Game Guidelines and violations thereof. I find it interesting that so many refuse to follow them, or spend large amounts of time accusing others of rule-breaking.

I am proposing the following:

A topic, temporarily stickied in the WOA forum, discussing the WOA guidelines. The goal of this topic would be to propose and vote on various proposed sets of guidelines, with the end result of a Treaty created by all participants.

It is fairly accepted among the administration that guidelines, in the form of suggested conduct, are an important part of a non-resetting server. Guidelines pertain to suggested rules of conduct, not policy enforced through administrative actions such as disabling. I'm fairly confident this was made clear.

Back to the Treaty. I propose that we, the players of FAF, create, by consensus, a code of suggested in-game conduct for the War of the Ages server. Following resolution by the participants, the WOA server news would be changed to reflect the non-binding strongly-encouraged player-created nature of the guidelines.

Thoughts?

[Ruddertail]

Hmm, well, it depends. Are people satisfied with the current guidelines? If so, I don't really see a reason. If people think they could be better, or whish some things were different, then I'm all for attempting to create new guidelines.

[ScarTheCursed]

I have no complaints on the guidelines and I abide by them.... I don't see why its so hard to limit your attacks I mean seriously.... maybe a mentally handicaped person would be exempt from my statement but other then that I seem to think only a total errrm @ss would HAVE to attack 20/21 times a person

[ohmyjapan16]

I agree with the guidelines and everything, but there should be some kid of warfare outside clans. (I.E. PERSONAL WAR) for 1 v 1 combat to the death. Well maybe not that far, but have unlimited attacks on one person, and the rest you attack 7 times, no more.

[Ruddertail]

Well, not unlimited attacks, but as many as you can get in. It'd still be limited by the 21 attack limit, but you could keep a guy maxed all the time... I agree about that, definatly. We need a decent war policy.

[Adair]

seeing as guidlines are already being proposed and argued against, i think Devari's idea is a goodun'

[Kyrodo]

Yeah, but it shouldn't be war on whoever you want, there should be a notice to the other player whether he agrees to war or not before the war is valid... that way ya don't just war and smash whoever ya want... (clan=exception )

[Nuclear Raunch]

Devari: Sounds like an excellent idea to me.

Scar: Many players attack a lot because it is more effective to be aggressive in your landgrabbing. If a player has land I wouldn't think twice about hitting them 40 times in BFR. I'm a bit more passive this set because I'm cashing, but if I'm farming or especially indy I attack an awful lot. In fact if I was indy I would not leave anyone over 9k land when I ran. You guys are just lucky I'm a peaceful casher

Rudder: 21 hits is not enough to slow a lot of people down. In fact that's quite helpful to a mage storer because it's just enough hits to take them to their perfect mage ratio. I don't think any decent mage will complain about you hitting them to a perfect ratio For warring empires I'd suggest a higher hit limit than 21 to prevent mage storers from dominating. I know you're trying to protect other players, but if the hit limit doesn't allow anyone to do anything to hurt the enemy empire then the playerbase cannot protect each other. I'm just trying to make it harder for a player to go in there and take on the rest of the prom

[Devari]

So, we have the current guidelines as defined by the Official thread:

1. 5 - 7 attacks per warband per day is ideal for landgrabs.
2. Anything higher then 10 attacks will be considered an act of war.
3. If you are knowingly intending to start a war, message the person that you attacked.
4. If you accidentally over-hit somebody, send them a message apologising. They may still hit back 1:1.

Now, I know that a more accurate reflection of the rules in practice is:
1. 7 attacks is the advised maximum number of attacks allowed to avoid provocation of war.
2. Anything over 7 attacks is ground for a beat-down, unless it is only a few over and is promptly apologised for. You can reasonably expect a 1:1 retribution.
3. If you are knowingly intending to start a war, message the person that you attacked.

Perhaps the formal guidelines should be revised to reflect what has become in-game convention.

The problem as I see it with the original code of suggested conduct is that it failed to outline much in the way of wars, failed attacks, and hawk missions.

Specifically, are failed attacks counted under the 7-limit? What are the rules for clan wars? What are the rules for personal wars?

Personally, I suggest the following be apended:

Failed Attacks and Hawk Missions:
1. Attacks that fail to capture land, food, or cash are not counted under the limit.
2. Hawk missions performed on another warband, with the notable exception of spy, are counted as a regular attack.
3. In hawk missions, a 1:1 ratio of % damage inflicted is permitted as fair retaliation. For example, 21 shielded murders are permitted for 7 3% murders. (Roughly equal total % killed).

A war between two players shall have the following guidelines:

1. The two players should formally agree on the terms of combat. A war may be said to be mild (suggested 12 max attacks), heated (suggested 16 max attacks), or severe (suggested 21 max attacks.
2. At most, retaliation in wartime should never exceed 1.25x the number of attacks inflicted upon the retaliating party, unless previously agreed upon by the warring parties.
3. At least one of the parties involved should inform the general community of their conflict by posting the terms of engagement on either their profile or posted in the War of Ages forum.
4. If one party violates the agreed-upon terms, outside intervention on the side of the wronged party is allowed to be completely undeclared to the violating party. That is, any number of people may intervene on the side of the wronged party without declaring their intentions to anyone.
5. Outside of violations, outside intervention must be formally declared by both the intervening party and the party recieving aid.
6. Never in the course of such a personal war should the complete destruction of either party result.

Clan Wars:

1. As with personal wars, both clans must agree on certain terms of engagement. In this case, the attack limits are completely open to the interpertation of the clans, but MUST be agreed upon and documented by both clans.
2. A formal declaration of war from BOTH parties containing the terms of engagement must be made on either their clan criers or the forums.
3. As with personal war, outside intervention must be declared.


Keep in mind that these are only my suggestions. Please pick apart at will.

[Slasher]

Before we start I hope people can see what I am saying here.

Lets say it was WWI. England can't exactly go up to Germany and say "You can only kill 7 people per day". Therefore the rule of 7 attacks per person per day makes it a bit stupid and not as fun to play the game because it is sooooooo unrealistic. IMO ot should be about 15 attacks per person per day to keep it reasonably realistic.

[gondor]

*laughs* thats true well said i have been thinking about that aswell

[ScarTheCursed]

Well is squirrels and mice and otters and hares fighting for control of massive ammounts of land realistic? No its no its more along the lines of insane then real now if you want something real redwall isn't the game for you *laughs*

[The Beatles]

The rules are so complicated we should just have a free-for-all!

Just kidding...

[Ruddertail]

@Nuke: You have a point. On the other hand, how did people manage to wage war before the invention of a personal war type thing? I'm sure plenty of wars between individuals went on before FAF.

@Devari: I like that idea. Maybe a little tweaking on a few things, but over all, very good.

@Slasher: Like Scar said, this isn't real life. The UK and Germany (Or any other waring powers, for that matter) didn't have any hit limits in war, whether 7, 15, 21 or anything else. That's the difference between a war and a wargame. A war has no rules, and wargame does.

[Nuclear Raunch]

Well you're pretty much limited to 21 STD attacks, 21 landgrabs, or 21 spells. In the case of a mage storer there are no troops to STD, 21 hits gets them to perfect ratio, and it's hard if not impossible to cast spells against them, and you do little damage if you are successful. 21 shielded murders isn't going to take out enough, it leaves over 80% of his hawks intact. The other 20% he'll gain back without any trouble at all.

Basically there's not much you can go to a good mage with 21 hit limit. Unless they have to carry their cash on their empire and it is able to be sacked. That would force them to carry troops and make them vulnerable to STD attacks and sacking. Since I'm not expecting stock market to go away I'd say just raise the hit limit so we can at least take the mages to low land.