Jump to content

So, Let's Analyze


hidude45454
 Share

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Zei-Sakura Alsainn said:

After a cursory by-hand glimpse at the HoF wars page since the start of the war on June 29th, 2022, I have found a grand total of:

7, wars against Hollywood nations. I think one or two of these were within 48 hours of the blitz.

Hundreds, against Celestial, including near a hundred, maybe beyond, I don't have sheets and I'm sure as shit not counting all of these by hand, on the day of the blitz.

 

But yeah no they totally blitzed both sides! They're totally fighting both Actively! You can tell because while fighting a victorious militarized sphere outnumbering them 12:1 they're getting bored and clubbing Polaris and random micros while having full military!

 

Yeah, no. Please stop reiterating this total and complete nonsense. It is blatantly and patently false, let's not contribute to it spreading.

Edit: I understood this to mean you think Ro$e slotfilled, but you're just refuting HoF hitting both sides (And my previous quote-post reflects my temporary confusion). There is definitely an argument that HoF truly never hit HW, but that's not the point I'm trying to make and I'm not going to contest you on it. That tidbit of my prior post was a pale reflection of the greater implication within it.

I'll cut out HW from my previous post to better reflect the point.

Edited by Tartarus
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, hidude45454 said:

 

Literally no one said fishing for beige was illegal. Copy-pasting from another of my posts here:

Not really my concern. My concern is with players who aren't as interested in the game that might answer a ping to declare following orders and forgets about the game for the next 3 days. I guess in a sense that proves the point but it doesn't seem right either to punish them for inactivity. Well in any of the current cases you posted that scenario doesn't exist so it wouldn't apply to the now anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, hidude45454 said:

PS: lol at NPO getting brought up for the 23048293th time

NPO/IQ weren't the ones slot filling in NPOLT. Coalition A was, and they were doing it intentionally. Thankfully I already left that shit before they did it, but I saw them talking about it and whoever has the Coalition A server (Keegoz) could easily prove it. Does anyone remember if people got banned for that? Because they absolutely should have been.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KindaEpicMoah said:

I think the only person that's ever actually been banned for slotfilling was Elijah, and it was the stupidest slotfill as well 

shoulda been banned much sooner tbh

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, hidude45454 said:

Love ya Clown, I'm not a hypocrite and admit my beige history is pretty much the same for reasons I don't need to get into here

I’m just here to shame 

image.gif.5c88ef1f65ddc38e4364350b94efde42.gif

  • Haha 1

22:26 +Kadin: too far man

22:26 +Kadin: too far

22:26 Lordofpuns[boC]: that's the point of incest Kadin

22:26 Lordofpuns[boC]: to go farther

22:27 Bet: or father

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting developments.  I actually messaged Alex directly about 2 months ago before GWXXIIII and asked about a slot-filling tactic that would be "legal" by the letter of the rules but not the spirit of the rules.  His response was that it was punishable.  It would seem that this situation has hit a fever-pitch now.  I have posted both my hypothetical scenario that I asked him about and his response to said situation.  Granted, this hypothetical is slightly different to the situation at hand (and I was meming when I thought of it) but what I find most interesting is his response.  According to him, any tactic of war in which you are not "expressing intent to win the war" is against the rules.

image.png.7988ae200c81c1a7ff5330872655a29c.png

image.png.0f490e2975e18602c4a96d2bb170a9d2.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Horsecock said:

NPO/IQ weren't the ones slot filling in NPOLT. Coalition A was, and they were doing it intentionally. Thankfully I already left that shit before they did it, but I saw them talking about it and whoever has the Coalition A server (Keegoz) could easily prove it. Does anyone remember if people got banned for that? Because they absolutely should have been.

You're only half-right here. Some Col A members were doing that, however GoG were also doing it at the start of the great leak war, to protect the upper tiers of both Acadia and UPN; Fark, Horsemen and WTF were beating the shit out of them at that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Pablo said:

You and I have been playing long enough and understand the game well enough to know what's the true purpose of this rule Adri. The real purpose and point of this rule is what I outlined in my last post, and I think anyone that understands the game can agree on this.

You're not entirely wrong on this, but @Adrienne is fully correct.  You have to keep in mind that @Alex does not rule given the current wars or politics in hand.  If a nation is attacking another, but not taking an action, it will be considered slot filling.

Simply put, Mods will be looking at the fights as if it's just individuals doing battles, not alliances.

On the other hand, @hidude45454, this strategy some of these nations are doing is just fishing for beige time.  But I think you touched up on that with one or two of them iirc.  My question is if nations are actually rebuilding forces after they get their 5+ day beige.  Then this whole ordeal would make sense.

EDIT: Scratch that, he already addressed it.

Edited by Buorhann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Horsecock said:

NPO/IQ weren't the ones slot filling in NPOLT. Coalition A was, and they were doing it intentionally. Thankfully I already left that shit before they did it, but I saw them talking about it and whoever has the Coalition A server (Keegoz) could easily prove it. Does anyone remember if people got banned for that? Because they absolutely should have been.

We did?  I'm trying to look back on that.  I think if it did happen, it was at the toxic point of no return when the war wasn't coming to an end.  I know there were people being offered to ghost in other alliances if that was what you're referring to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Horsecock said:

NPO/IQ weren't the ones slot filling in NPOLT. Coalition A was, and they were doing it intentionally. Thankfully I already left that shit before they did it, but I saw them talking about it and whoever has the Coalition A server (Keegoz) could easily prove it. Does anyone remember if people got banned for that? Because they absolutely should have been.

Not sure if I will extensively look back through, however for context. This mostly revolves around tCW swapping sides during the war and giving out free beiges.

  • Upvote 1

[11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intent to win the war? Ok so any suicidal declares to help your own allies, even if only for one attack is also against rules? 
 

Assuming you know you can’t win? 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If baiting for beiges to drop further in score and/or rebuild military in protection is the purpose - there are ways to actually bait for it.  If you're just declaring and spamming Fortify, then that's just a waste of time and a slot fill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Zei-Sakura Alsainn said:

After a cursory by-hand glimpse at the HoF wars page since the start of the war on June 29th, 2022, I have found a grand total of:

7, wars against Hollywood nations. I think one or two of these were within 48 hours of the blitz.

Hundreds, against Celestial, including near a hundred, maybe beyond, I don't have sheets and I'm sure as shit not counting all of these by hand, on the day of the blitz.

 

But yeah no they totally blitzed both sides! They're totally fighting both Actively! You can tell because while fighting a victorious militarized sphere outnumbering them 12:1 they're getting bored and clubbing Polaris and random micros while having full military!

Not to say that they slotfilled, but this rhetoric implies they've been even close to evenly hitting both sides and therefore it's ridiculous for Ro$e to target them. This is what HC has been trying to claim.

Yeah, no. Please stop reiterating this total and complete nonsense. It is blatantly and patently false, let's not contribute to it spreading.

To be fair, If I was a pirate I would much rather go after the person that got zeroed out and is barely putting up a fight.

You guys offer far more profit and easier hits than any other alliance or sphere right now. Sure they could hit Hollywood, and some of them tried, but having a sphere of basically max militarised players actively hunting for more wars is never a good choice for a pirate, pretty much a one way ticket to being zeroed and beiged. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole issue appears to be an over-scrupulous application of a rule.  I can see how the rule may be interpreted as such, but the reasons as to 'why' are quite beyond me.  Having said that, I don't think more rules or detailed stipulations are the answer, rather the opposite in fact.  I think retaining the ability to control the outcome of wars, be it to lose or win, is important (excluding slot filling in the normal sense of course).

Laughed at this too: "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." - Sun Tzu  :lol:

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Celer Et Audax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Buorhann said:

If baiting for beiges to drop further in score and/or rebuild military in protection is the purpose - there are ways to actually bait for it.  If you're just declaring and spamming Fortify, then that's just a waste of time and a slot fill.

I'm not sure how it can be described as a slot fill though? I always understood the meaning of slot filling to be declaring wars you have no intention to fight, in order to protect an ally from further attacks, either to give them an advantage in their current wars or to allow them to rebuild. Declaring on people who are clearly not your allies in order to bait beige is not slot filling, at least not in the sense that it was always enforced before now. 

 

If that is slot filling, is the method that has often been used by losing sides in wars, i.e. declaring on nations in alliances which have nothing to do with the war, also slot filling? If not then this new interpretation of the rules is a moot point: people baiting beige can just declare on, say, tcw and just sit there waiting for it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, namukara said:

If that is slot filling, is the method that has often been used by losing sides in wars, i.e. declaring on nations in alliances which have nothing to do with the war, also slot filling?

First, you have to keep in mind that @Alex has stated multiple times in the past (Maybe even more recent, I don't know) that he has no dog in any alliance affairs.  He doesn't get mixed up in wars or politics.  When he does a rule call, it's simply based on player conduct.

Second, if you open up a battle against another nation, and literally do nothing, then yes - it's a slot fill.

 

This is why in the past when I was leading alliances, we always "encouraged" players to attack us back.  Use suicide attacks to bait it.  Use nukes or missles.

Don't just spam Fortify.  Do something.

Edited by Buorhann
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/19/2022 at 6:13 AM, Pablo said:

You lost so much time going through wars, when you could have stopped by the Game Rules and read point 4. But I will post the snippet here for your convinience.

 

This rule was created to prevent someone purposedly filling their defensive slots, and as a result, not being able to be countered when performing attacks. That's the spirit of the rule. 

The people are not attacking with the purpose of preventing other players from being able to attack the target, nor to otherwise benefit the target nation. The spirit of the rule is being twisted. 

One would think Alex and the mod team have read their own game rules, but at this point nothing surprises me, someone probably got Alex's ear and managed to convince him this was remotely coherent.

This has been happening for years, and it is in part because of the flawed war system, where the loser has no option but to resort to unconventional warfare. Now someone decided it was acceptable to weaponize moderation, taking advantage of Alex and the mod team lack of understanding of the game and how it really works. Shame on whoever is behind these sort of reports, which are honestly ill-made and abhorrent. This probably hasn't happened to the scale it has now since the NPO days, it seems like some similar minded individuals remained in the game.

So, what have we learned today?

Some people have nothing better to do with their time, and have low enough morals to resort to this type of measures.

Alex, their mod team and probably you hidude haven't read the game rules.

 

 

"Declaring war on a nation without the intention of fighting them is punishable by a nation strike" 

The rules say declaring on nations without the desire to fight is slot filling and thats what you guys are doing and this takes a slot of the nation which is attacked and it means the nation cannot be attacked by anyone and declaring war does nothing if you dont fight. So, it just reduces  war slot of the opponent and benefits the opponent.

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/19/2022 at 2:14 AM, Zevari said:

To be fair, If I was a pirate I would much rather go after the person that got zeroed out and is barely putting up a fight.

You guys offer far more profit and easier hits than any other alliance or sphere right now. Sure they could hit Hollywood, and some of them tried, but having a sphere of basically max militarised players actively hunting for more wars is never a good choice for a pirate, pretty much a one way ticket to being zeroed and beiged. 

Ah yes, but pirates are after loot and stats so attacking  zeroed out nations that give out zero loot is a losing proposition for them is it not? They are just wasting their time and effort that could be used elsewhere for better profit. You can say a lot of things about the pirates in this game but saying they are stupid is not one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Who Me said:

Ah yes, but pirates are after loot and stats so attacking  zeroed out nations that give out zero loot is a losing proposition for them is it not? They are just wasting their time and effort that could be used elsewhere for better profit. You can say a lot of things about the pirates in this game but saying they are stupid is not one of them.

That's assuming the zeroed out people are not being stupid and keeping a decent amount of loot on their nations.

Warchests and player stupidity make alliance nations very juicy targets at times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is fair enough to point towards "Declaring war on a nation without the intention of fighting theis punishable by a nation strike" and claim that just about everything brought up was slot filling, but my issue is that the rule doesn't seem consistent with that being the case every time. It's been my understanding that slot filling is based on specifically trying to make sure someone (like an ally) can't be hit and therefore gain some unfair advantage over your opponents. It just seems like when the rule states things like this: "Declaring war on your allies is generally considered war slot filling and against the rules. In cases where relationships between nations or alliances are not clear, moderators will use their best determination to decide if nations are allied and therefore war slot filling or not. One example of this type of rule-breaking behavior would be leaving your alliance to declare on someone in your alliance or a nation in an alliance allied to your alliance, and then rejoining your alliance." it's geared towards collusion to gain an advantage. It makes it sound like the first part only really applies to declaring on allies, and that moderation will try to determine whether some advantage was gained, and therefore if it was slot filling or not. At the end of the day, I'm not really advocating for any change. I really don't mind just doing a few suicide ground attacks in the future, but I think it should be understandable how you can look at the rule and come to the conclusion that what happened wasn't slot filling in the way that was specified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kamala Khan said:

Hey Hidude, thanks for making this in-depth post, it's definitely nice to be able to look at the objective facts and wars instead of having so many rumors flying around and being unsure as to what's true, it can be easy for rumors to spread like wildfire and for them to grow out of hand until they become a gross exaggeration of the truth. Thank you for gathering the stats so we can properly analyze. As one of T$'s main Milcom figures, I figured that I would have some valuable insight and analysis for this, although I will admit that I procrastinated far too much on this to the point where there is a chance that nobody reads this, or maybe nobody would have wanted to read a long post anyways from someone who's just a hivemind low gov snake. So let's talk.

The main divide here appears to be a question over what slot filling is. The definition of wars lot filling as per the rulebooks is:

Pablo already did an excellent job at addressing this but I do think this indicates that the spirit of the rule is that you cannot declare war so as to help the person you're attacking and so as to prevent them from receiving damage. For example, if we had Rose declare wars on e$ members, that would be slot filling because they are clearly in an allied relationship and are obviously declaring wars to prevent e$ from taking damage. Intent can be difficult to prove, but obviously if you're at war with a sphere, you are not declaring on them to help them. If you declare on someone with the sole purpose of beige farming, that only hurts them as they give you free time to restock and rebuild. The solution is to just have better beige discipline. If it's illegal to declare for the sole purpose of beige farming, clearly it's not very tightly enforced because lots of nations get away with it all the time and have all the time over the years and nobody has cared enough to ever report them. I've done this several times in the past, mostly to get out of being blockade cycled so that I can restock (omg T$ gov has been slot filling for years, they're such rulebreakers that they do it even before joining T$). I'd assume that nobody else ever even noticed those wars or bothered to check them out. That's a large part of why I'm in favor of just letting you declare wars on clear enemies and do whatever in them. If a random T$ member declares on a random TKR member, how many people would normally notice whatever attacks (or lack of attacks) are done? People would only notice in high profile cases involving high profile members or by random chance, in which case the rule would be enforced, but most of the time it would likely slip under the radar (as it has for years). I don't consider it fair to strike a small proportion of wars while the vast majority go unnoticed, so either the rule shouldn't be enforced this way or we'll have to start closely monitoring every single individual war during a global to make sure there's no "slot filling" going on.

A gray area comes when you attack a party not involved in the war. In that case, I'll say that it can be considered fair to have that be ruled as slot filling because that is far easier to detect and notice, especially with all of the technology the game has nowadays. That appears to have been Rose's issue in Guns n Roses for I don't believe either Arrgh or KT were officially involved in that war, although I was fairly inactive back then and was not involved in that war so I may be misremembering. It's for this reason that I can concede the current Celestial/Arrgh wars as Arrgh is not technically a combatant in this war, they've just had a few off hand raids after the first round. Hand of Fate blitzed us on blitz night and was a significant contributor to zeroing our military so I don't see how you can claim they're just innocently raiding. Arrgh's raids don't really affect a thing in terms of how the war is going. Hand of Fate's hits on blitz night did affect this war and they have, in fact, dealt more damage to Celestial than any member of Hollywood. Just because they have a bit of a different objective than Hollywood does not mean they are not at war with us. I await my downvotes from every HoF nation ever.

Ultimately, Sheepy should clarify the rule and exactly how it applies. Obviously he's not gonna monitor every war so some rule violations will get away, but it's best if the rule is clear so that there is no debate over this. I can't say I particularly care if he rules this to be a slotfill (although is it really worth having a rule that's difficult to enforce most of the time) but I would absolutely like for it to be clear and explicitly stated that this is slot filling and should not happen. I would like for the boundary to be clearly denoted so that there's not a question over what is slotfilling and what is not.

Copy-pasting this quote again so people understand this isn't just a moderator position that's occurred this war only:

1.thumb.PNG.3cae783b93298860c5b701549f253c88.PNG

Re: the debate over the meaning of the rule itself, glad cooler heads have prevailed. At the moment, this isn't something set in stone but iirc Rush plans to talk with Sheepy about it and this is what he had to say if it clarifies any intent:

image.thumb.png.de215d15341c177a51ebddfa09c70fd2.png

In either case, my thoughts on it at the moment:

1. If the rules are clarified, I think Ro$e should be allowed to appeal some of those strikes on the basis of unclear wording, although I guess whether Sheepy accepts or rejects that appeal is entirely up to how he feels the rule has held up before

2. The dev team is still working on a new set of beige rules atm that will hopefully completely prevent any sort of beige baiting from needing to happen for people to receive rebuild time, and if that's something that keeps war closer for longer and fairer for everyone I'm very happy to accept it

Finally, I respectfully disagree that we should get rid of a rule just because it's difficult to enforce. Don't get me wrong, there have been lots of cases of inconsistent moderation that have annoyed me as well, but the reason the rule is not always enforced is (pretty much to my understanding) because, like you said, obviously Sheepy and the rest of the mod team don't have the time or resources to scan through every war and police every decision made, and so the best way they can really enforce those rules is through community policing that may be more or less prominent in certain circumstances. That doesn't make it unfair because you shouldn't be rule-breaking in any case and it's not hard to avoid rule-breaking either. The most obvious example to this would probably be reporting multis, and even then we know how difficult it can be for Sheepy to take action on high-profile cases (like Alpha). So to me, it's more of a question of which interpretation of the rule is easier to enforce and less problematic in more cases, which is why I'm fine with having no attacks disallowed even in wars against opponents.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.