Do you believe there is such a thing as "Warlord Honor"? What values can characteristics make an honorable warlord? Do you think it is possible to be honorable but aggressive?
Remembers the old days where over 5 attacks was an act of war. Scraping land was very hard. Interested how people respond this.
Wolf Bite
I think honour has more to do with how you conduct yourself with allies than enemies. Honour and loyalty are more or less synonymous as far as I am concerned.
To give some of the newbies some insight into what wolf is talking about...
One of the very first clans (it probably was the first) in RWL was Delor Independent Forces (DI), founded by Stormclaw (his account was Sons of Delor (#3)). DI had a very extensive list of Clan Rules, emphasizing the value of "honor". The only rule I remember was that no one in the clan was allowed to attack another player more than three times in one day. Of course we were all noobs back then, so we followed this rule religiously (and still did better than most players...).
That is an extremely strict rule by today's standards, but DI was respected for their values and skill.
Sidenote: If you are curious to see what kind of messages were sent in the very first era of RWL (Oct 2002-Jan 2003), click here (http://www.redwallwarlords.com/forums/index.php?topic=3379.msg47539).
edit: some more (http://www.redwallwarlords.com/forums/index.php?topic=8795.0)
Quote from: wolf bite on March 31, 2011, 09:41:14 AM
Remembers the old days where over 5 attacks was an act of war. Scraping land was very hard. Interested how people respond this.
Wolf Bite
This. This so hard.
The guy who got me into this (Holby) told me to never attack someone over 5 times in a day as it was rude, and to never cripple someone without reason (paraphrasing).
Times change and rules change as games mature and individuals take advantage of strict adherence to certain things by simply breaking them, which starts a domino effect. Same as in the real world.
Today I don't think theres enough fresh blood or polarized vets to really define honor as it exists in RWL anymore.
Used to you had your factions and it was easily distinguishable what kind of dealings you were going to have based on the roster. If Josh and Snare were clanned, for example, shenanigans were afoot. Same for Kilk and Ereptor. Especially Ereptor. I ran BA for a while and had several bouts of fighting/fun with Juska et al.
Now it's spam crews, Sevz vs Shadow, and Redwall: An Economic Simulator. :P
---
There are no more rules, and thus an honorable warlord cannot be defined, as anything that would function as an honor code has been cast aside, and anyone that would attempt to once again impose rules is ignored or shunned for taking the game too seriously.
And I tend to disagree with the notion that interpersonal relations have anything to do with honor. Thats diplomacy.
How you treat a foe in the field is how your character - your honor - is defined.
How you treat him at the table is how your image - your dignity - is defined.
These things are seperate and cannot be intertwined as they have entirely different applications.
WOW, so wise and thoughtful.
Besides what is considered a fair attack now a days, I have then and still today follow my own set of rules.
If someone is aggressively holding emperor, no warning is needed, they should be on constant alert.
Never do anything to damage someone when all I want is land.
Never take someone lower than the average land for their rank.
When I feel unfairly attacked, I draw my sword and give them a written chance for explanation before using it.
If attacked again, or the explanation is not satisfactory (ie: "What are you going to do about it?"), I still normally send a "Grrrr" to give them a chance to pull out their shield.
If a fair one on one fight, I refuse to take any aid.
I will offer all enemies the option for a truce back to normal play.
Never take part in a kill unless the target themselves did a kill with no cause.
Those are my rules. Depending whether players are to my side or on the other side, opinion of my honor can be debated.
Wolf Bite
Quote from: wolf bite on March 31, 2011, 03:41:22 PM
... Never take part in a kill unless the target themselves did a kill with no cause.
Now in a clan war, things are different.
I wouldn't say so Kyrolin... killing a guy was at one point viewed as a very, very bad thing... even if you were at war.
It used to be a big deal whenever someone was killed. Posts on the forum, revenge runs, etc. Killing a warlord ended a war, it didn't start one.
Last turbo round, the first things that caught my eyes were 2 bodies just lying in the scores page, and there wasn't even an ego boost thread on the turbo forum.
Actually, to illustrate this I have an example;
The first time BAº was ever in a war, we were allied with woof, Blades, and a couple minor groups. It was against Juska and friends. I don't remember the alliance or the clan name...
Anyways, it was really, really close all the way through, and we were on the edge of losing.
One night about 4am I get a call. It's the police. Actually it was Wolf Bite scaring the heck out of me by pretending to be the police, but he was calling me long distance after having spoken to Holby.
Juska was dead. The war was over. We won.
That was the only kill run I have ever participated in that felt justified. They had been hitting us very, very hard and I think I was in double digits for land once, and the war had gone on FOREVER with all the intrigue and details that used to accompany clan wars here. I worked sooooo hard in getting the alliance together with TJ, who was waffling for some reason, and Volkov, who wasn't sure we'd be capable of finishing and didn't want to take a hit himself for being on the wrong side.
Anyways, back on topic, at one point, killing a guy was worth a 4am IRL phone call.
Hehe. That is cool. However, speaking as the head of the only clan I see who has a kill in reg, it actually kept the war going longer...
Yup. I am rather sure I was not part of the kill run, however a kill was big enough to start calling very long distance.
Wolf Bite
I don't think you could on account of admin wolf, but that might have come after. I think that particular example is from 2004 or early 2005.
Oh, was it? I recall the calling you part. If I was the admin then, and most likely was, it would have only been one button to nuke someone. Evil laugh
Wolf Bite
Good topic Shael.
In answer to this I guess I'll state what I respect in a player. You guys can debate whether or not it's similar to honor.
I respect players who defend their land.
I respect players who keep their word.
I respect players who can achieve upon their own merit.
I respect players who understand the weight of their actions and accept the consequences of them.
I respect players who understand the value of diplomacy.
I respect players who look up on the score list when attacking before looking down.
Agreed! I believe that is very good.
My concept of honor is kind of a mix of wolf bite and Shadow's views. Always keep your word, be loyal to people you have teamed up with. If someone betrays you, it is worthy of retribution. Accept the consequences of your actions. I myself try not to over-attack people unless I'm creating or helping to support an emp. I may attack a lot of times if someone has a lot of land, but I generally don't knock people to well below the average land.
I don't think it's fair to say this game isn't played with honour because there are now no attack limits.
I still believe RWL is a very honourable game, and it gives players the opportunity to show it on a frequent basis.
In 2003-4, Juska was a punk, Peace Alliance was obnoxious and destructive, and Wolf Snare was an annoying little kid ( :-* ). Nothing about the game was "Disney" back then.
It was all a bit lovey dovey in the very first Era, but that's understandable given the newness of the game.
Attitudes have changed somewhat, but largely they remain the same now as they were six or seven years ago.
Most players have some form of ethics, but they recognise receiving a large number of attacks isn't the end of the world.
I have always been an aggressive player, and nothing about my gameplay has changed over time. The only really solid rule I play by is never to attack another Warlord while they're online. Of course, generally not performing offensive leader missions, and kills runs, and whatever else is part of it, too. But the lines can get blurry at times.
As far as teaching others about playing honourably...
I'm more about instilling respect and fairness for fellow players. Not freaking out over attacks, not starting fights, only hitting for land.
That's what I mean when I say honour in this game.
That is the best definition of current Warlord honor yet.
I don't online unless in war, and I don't sack unless I'm an indy and low on resources. That said, if somebody leaves piles of cash undefended, I'll take it. I also capture leaders, seeing as if they aren't captured they just all die when that player uses their first turns next run.
I usually don't murder, but if soembody is trying to lock I will, especially if they don't leave shields up. :D
Yeah, shields are good!
I do not attack another Warlord while he/she is online. At least, I'm sure I haven't done it on purpose before.
I'm not sure what the average amount of land per warlord would be, but I never try to hit anyone below 10,000 acres.
When attacking, I normally just grab some land as part of my run. And Espionage if I can, to see which type of troop I should attack with.
I've (recently?) begun to look above my score to see what land I might grab, instead of below my score. Even though I may be struggling a bit.
This is a good topic, by the way.
Quote from: Quixote Katana on April 05, 2011, 08:46:29 PM
And Espionage if I can, to see which type of troop I should attack with.
That's a really good idea! No need to hide it in size 1 :P
Yeah, I do the same as Quixote, except I attack once Standard to see what they are weakest in.
Quote from: Firetooth on April 02, 2011, 05:02:50 PM
I don't online unless in war, and I don't sack unless I'm an indy and low on resources. That said, if somebody leaves piles of cash undefended, I'll take it. I also capture leaders, seeing as if they aren't captured they just all die when that player uses their first turns next run.
Agreed.
So, relevant to current events, what are your views on honor relating to clan play? It's expected that you should always be true to your clan. Are there any cases where it is acceptable to help another clan against your own clan's interests?
Quote from: The Lady Shael on April 28, 2011, 10:13:27 AM
So, relevant to current events, what are your views on honor relating to clan play? It's expected that you should always be true to your clan. Are there any cases where it is acceptable to help another clan against your own clan's interests?
I think that if people aid other clans and spy in
forced clan rounds, they should be banned for the rest of that round. The leader of the clan can't boot them, and can do nothing but watch whilst that member gains net from the storehouse and aids it away. It goes against everything these rounds stand for.
Clan betrayal is dishonorable. Clan betrayal in forced clan rounds is code abuse.
I think a ban for the rest of the round is a little excessive. Again I'll point out, leaders are free to ally other clans, so it is acceptable to team up or aid other clans. I do however agree that the point of forced clan rounds are to team up with other people that you might not normally work with. I'd call circumventing that "theme abuse" rather than code abuse, since there isn't really any way in the code to detect clan betrayal.
You could just use your omniscient powers to spy on what they've been up to.
Content: The concept of honor in this game I think has played itself out. The era of games where everyone expected to behave honorably has come and gone. Can people play by their own personal morals still? Absolutely, and I'm sure they get extra community respect for it. But I don't think there should be any sort of punishment outside of community scorn for acting in a way in a game that would be termed "dishonorable".
Quote from: The Lady Shael on April 28, 2011, 10:13:27 AM
So, relevant to current events, what are your views on honor relating to clan play? It's expected that you should always be true to your clan. Are there any cases where it is acceptable to help another clan against your own clan's interests?
DISCLAIMER:This is entirely unrelated to the current issue in turbo. Please do not connect the two. Sometimes being 'fair and honest' means making sure the megalomania inherent in some clans doesn't get out of hand. If I join a group, help them up, do my best, and then find out that I have been assigned to beatdown on a hapless entity - clan or otherwise - I will not do it. If I feel it is unnecessary and/or overkill, I will even often do an aboutface and make darn sure that target clan is fully aware of what is about to happen.
But then I don't often clan.
Usually I remain perfectly neutral and try to make sure all parties are being treated as fairly as possible in all circumstances. Information is easy enough to get, and I feel it is my job to pass it around to make sure nobody gets pummeled.
However, when clans do overstep their bounds - which I will admit are assigned arbitrarily by me, but within and beyond hard parameters - I can, have, and will act on behalf of the rest of the game to the best of my abilities.
Few people remember BAº and what it stood for. We didn't cap the game or force resets, we just held others in check to make sure everyone had a shot at competing.
This game will always need white knights. Unfortunately, they're not often organized and motivated.
Quote from: The Lady Shael on April 28, 2011, 10:13:27 AM
So, relevant to current events, what are your views on honor relating to clan play? It's expected that you should always be true to your clan. Are there any cases where it is acceptable to help another clan against your own clan's interests?
I am going to say no. At least, not that I have been in or can think of. I think, that even though every clan member is allowed to make their own decisions, if it is something that would directly affect your clan, then whatever the majority of the clan says, goes. Of course, The clan leader should be able to veto.
I don't think clan spying is dishonorable. It's simply good business. (Hehe, yes, Pirates of the Caribbean quote...)
Never kill someone for no reason
Gonna have to say, don't betray your clan without reason
Give everyone some slack when they take land
You should be honorable even if others aren't
Up up and away!!!!!
Never sack weak players
Gonna say that it is nice to be polite in PMs
Let people tell their side of the story if they sack
You should respect the vets, but still try to beat them
Down at the bottom of scores is not ideal
read the first word of every line, i dont really think i could have gone all the way
Razgriz...you just might be the awesomest newbie ever.
Quote from: The Lady Shael on April 29, 2011, 01:29:44 AM
Razgriz...you just might be the awesomest newbie ever.
Lol seconded.
Quote from: Razgriz on April 28, 2011, 11:03:57 PM
Never kill someone for no reason
Gonna have to say, don't betray your clan without reason
Give everyone some slack when they take land
You should be honorable even if others aren't
Up up and away!!!!!
Never sack weak players
Gonna say that it is nice to be polite in PMs
Let people tell their side of the story if they sack
You should respect the vets, but still try to beat them
Down at the bottom of scores is not ideal
read the first word of every line, i dont really think i could have gone all the way
Ahaha awesome.
Good job!
Wolf Bite
I have broken literally all those rules and still feel okay agreeing with it. Except the vet one because I am included in that category despite being bad now. And the PM one, I was always such a nice guy...right? RIGHT?
Razgriz for newbie envoy diplomat. As long as he changes his avatar to something not awful, played out, and unfunny.
Quote from: Kilkenne on April 29, 2011, 09:17:45 AM
As long as he changes his avatar to something not awful, played out, and unfunny.
Ponytar is the answer.
Maybe we could give an award to Razgriz.
Anyway, Kilk, what's wrong with trollfaces?
Good things, that's what they are.
No WAY you can't like them.
Even when you're feeling down.
Totally beastly.
So, change your mind about them?
Quote from: Kyrolin Zenyar on April 29, 2011, 11:15:29 AM
Maybe we could give an award to Razgriz.
Anyway, Kilk, what's wrong with trollfaces?
Good things, that's what they are.
No WAY you can't like them.
Even when you're feeling down.
Totally beastly.
So, change your mind about them?
Rick Astley>Magnets>Trollfaces ;)
The troika of terror!
NKVD troika best troika
Oh, yeah! Russia ftw!
Trolls suck
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJACFMc-Rb4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJACFMc-Rb4)[/url]
How do you guys feel about captures/sacks? Some players don't mind them as long as their not excessive, but other players see it as an act of war.
Also, how many poisons/murders would you tolerate before you would considering declaring war?
It's part of the game.
Like anything, if it's used in moderation, I don't think anyone has a right to complain.
But if someone does an excessive number of one, then there is just cause to respond in kind.
Also to clarify something;
I see sacks/caps as being the indy toolset, while murders/poisons as being the leader toolset. They do the same things - deprive the enemy of their resource of choice. That the leader toolset is broken/OP is no reason to take it any more serious than sacks/caps.
Unless the sacks are excessive, not usually cause for war. Poisons/murders I always take seriously.
In agreement with Neobaron, removing sacks or even really changing them would take a pretty powerful tool out of the indy chest. I understand that people that play leaders have in the past enjoyed total dominion where the generation of wealth and net is concerned, but to say that people that play troops shouldn't enjoy the benefits as well is pretty weak. The fact that it is grounds for war also is utterly absurd, because it's no different than murdering or poisoning one's troops. It's a pretty ridiculous double-standard that we have in this game. It's basically saying "If you don't use the same strategy as us, it's unfair for you to play" even though an indy can't win anyhow due to eventual net restriction.
I agree. I think sacks should be (I have a feeling they may already be, actually) less effective for leaders.
I do not think that sacks are cause for retal unless excessive, but I had to forbid my clan from using them because of the trouble we received. (it was only indies using sacks)
only indy CAN use sack. Leader players can do it, but they get less than a tenth of what an indy does.
Quote from: Kilkenne on May 08, 2011, 11:10:32 AM
The fact that it is grounds for war also is utterly absurd, because it's no different than murdering or poisoning one's troops. It's a pretty ridiculous double-standard that we have in this game. It's basically saying "If you don't use the same strategy as us, it's unfair for you to play" even though an indy can't win anyhow due to eventual net restriction.
I don't think there's any disagreement that murdering/poisoning is worse than sacking. I don't think you can compare the two at all. I am at war the moment another player attempts to murder or poison from me. They only exist to be destructive, not to benefit the attacker.
Sack, on the other hand, makes perfect sense. It helps the indyer, and gives leader players an incentive to mount a defense. Having said that, I don't like them much, and if I feel I'm being targeted, I will try to prevent it. It's mostly a problem if I'm getting overattacked for sack gains, not for the land itself.
Captures are fine.
Taking land is needed to run turns. People off line can't use it when they are not running turns, so why not share land.
This does not harm the player. But it seems that any act to lower the other player is not for self gain, but to lower the other player.
Even taking an indy player down to 100 land does not really harm them. But taking a leader too low does. However we hold the line at not taking a Indy player too low.
Murders and poison are the tools of Leader fighters. But using them is a cause for war. So nothing can be done to lower an indy player which is not classified as starting a war.
The problem I am trying to point out that Sack is the indy's tool to leach off the Leader player. But the leader player is not going to steal from the Indy because they don't have cash, they have armies. So it is one sided. If you can't run your indy strat without needing to Sack leader players, then learn how to do it right!
If I am plying Leader and someone sacks me to lower my resources, I feel a few murders are fair back. After all, I am just killing off armies being fed with my food.
Wolf Bite
The way I see it, if you sack someone not playing leaders, you deserve the free stuff. But sacks aren't stealing that much money and food, although it is annoying. And if the leader player is ticked off from the army, they can use the money they have to buy some soldiers, murder and kill the opposing army, and sack back the land in the process. I frequently use sacks to pay for my army. No one really gets that angry about it, unless you constantly sack them. I sack people who can afford to be sacked, which I think is a pretty good ideal.
Regardless these actions all boil down to timing.
If you just took a large land hit, And then get sacked/murdered/poisoned (and vice versa), then you response should be to a level appropriate to the actions that affected you in whichever method you play
i think it all comes down to wether you care or not what people think of you, if you go round doing it to solely annoy people then your not respected. but if you do it to your own advantage or to openly hurt another player, i think that deserves some respect as your not being sly or devious about it.