Dwynn Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 So we know that war slot filling is illegal. But I've also received word that certain alliances have ordered their members not to accept peace from a war even though peace was declared between the alliances involved. While I'm not certain if that's truthful or not, I thought it begged the question and discussion of when does a war become "war slot filling"? Is it only war slot filling if the war is declared and no damage at all is done? It's clear that some people are using whatever mechanics they can to lessen the damage, but I feel like this is the same as sending your own alliance mates to beige. It's shady gameplay and deserves to be looked at in the proper light. Quote He's right, I'm such a stinker. Play my exceptional game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoS Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 If the purpose of cheating has been served then it's cheating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grillick Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 You're kidding, right? You declare war on them, and they're cheating because they haven't accepted your truce offer? Ridiculous. Quote "It's hard to be a team player when you're omnipotent." - Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 You hear bad words imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chey Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 The issue here seems to be that this would be more or less impossible to enforce "motive". Unless something is a clearcut case of slot filling (wars declared without actual fighting going on at all) I think you have to let it slide. Quote Commissioner of WWF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted December 20, 2014 Administrators Share Posted December 20, 2014 You're kidding, right? You declare war on them, and they're cheating because they haven't accepted your truce offer? Ridiculous. The important thing to note is that not everyone logs in 3 times a day, and it might take some time to accept peace in a war. Even if they have logged in, who's to force them to accept peace? Perhaps two nations have negotiated some sort of "ceasefire" and are negotiating the terms of peace and can't get the talks worked out before the war expires, etc. This particular example cannot be determined war slot filling (fighting back and forth between two nations and then one offering peace and the other not accepting) due to the impossibility to moderate fairly. Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 The important thing to note is that not everyone logs in 3 times a day, and it might take some time to accept peace in a war. Even if they have logged in, who's to force them to accept peace? Perhaps two nations have negotiated some sort of "ceasefire" and are negotiating the terms of peace and can't get the talks worked out before the war expires, etc. This particular example cannot be determined war slot filling (fighting back and forth between two nations and then one offering peace and the other not accepting) due to the impossibility to moderate fairly. agreed, but FYI, if you read DEIC's announcements, you'll see they told people specifically not to accept the peace so that the slots would stay filled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stetonic Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 (edited) Not sure how you can read another alliances announcements but to advise someone not to accept someones peace offer and to just let the war time out is sound tactics .When you know a member of another alliance is going to take there place.As the defending nation it should be within your rights to not accept peace deals. Once the order came that peace had been settled between the alliances as a whole then peace was granted You may question the ethics of that advice but you cant call it cheating Edited December 20, 2014 by stetonic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 Not sure how you can read another alliances announcements but to advise someone not to accept someones peace offer and to just let the war time out is sound tactics .When you know a member of another alliance is going to take there place.As the defending nation it should be within your rights to not accept peace deals. Once the order came that peace had been settled between the alliances as a whole then peace was granted You may question the ethics of that advice but you cant call it cheating Which is precisely what I am doing, I am just stating the facts. So you know, I can't read your alliance announcements, however some of your guys did send a PM to my guys telling him about it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stetonic Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 Any message sent to members of DEIC during the war.Was based on pure tactics and not based on breaking or bending the rules set out by the moderators of the game If a nation attacks you and offers peace during an alliance war.Then tactics that are not rule breakers should always be implemented Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoS Posted December 20, 2014 Share Posted December 20, 2014 Good to know that in peace we can keep our opponents at war. Keeping a slot filled to prevent its use is what you're doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stetonic Posted December 21, 2014 Share Posted December 21, 2014 Good to know that in peace we can keep our opponents at war. Keeping a slot filled to prevent its use is what you're doing. Keeping a slot filled in this way is not against the rules.If he was a member of my alliance or a member of an allied alliance and we had not done or was not attempting to do any damage.Then yeah its slot filling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grillick Posted December 21, 2014 Share Posted December 21, 2014 Keeping a slot filled isn't even remotely the same as filling the slot. 2 Quote "It's hard to be a team player when you're omnipotent." - Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoS Posted December 21, 2014 Share Posted December 21, 2014 Keeping a slot filled isn't even remotely the same as filling the slot. I didn't say it is "slot filling" I said it's "keeping a slot filled". Such a big difference in its wording and effect that you prove my point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Posted December 21, 2014 Share Posted December 21, 2014 Simple solution. If you offer peace and they dint accept. Obviously they rejected the peace gesture. So it is fine to resume war or attacks. That will solve all arguement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted December 21, 2014 Share Posted December 21, 2014 agreed, but FYI, if you read DEIC's announcements, you'll see they told people specifically not to accept the peace so that the slots would stay filled. That's odd there is only one ingame announcement posted by us regarding peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayayay Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 agreed, but FYI, if you read DEIC's announcements, you'll see they told people specifically not to accept the peace so that the slots would stay filled. If that were the case then cancel peace and continue fighting them, Sheepy shouldn't have to make rules involving any and all in-game occurrences. The purpose of the rule is to prevent people from declaring wars in the first place, beyond that it should be handled by he community. Quote Orbis Wars | CSI: UPN | B I G O O F | PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea. On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said: This was !@#$ing gold. 10/10 possibly my favorite post on these forums yet. Sheepy said: I'm retarded, you win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 Agreed, as I say, I'm not passing judgement here, just adding information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwynn Posted December 24, 2014 Author Share Posted December 24, 2014 If that were the case then cancel peace and continue fighting them, Sheepy shouldn't have to make rules involving any and all in-game occurrences. The purpose of the rule is to prevent people from declaring wars in the first place, beyond that it should be handled by he community. You're right, but he also shouldn't have to create code to babysit nations to make sure they're trades don't go global because they forgot to hit a drop down. Yet he did that too. Either you want hand-holding, or you don't. And I didn't create the thread to ask him to make a rule, I simple thought it would be a good discussion for the community to have as well as possibly Sheepy's input. Hence why it's here in discussion and not as a suggestion. Quote He's right, I'm such a stinker. Play my exceptional game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted December 25, 2014 Share Posted December 25, 2014 Well whoever supplied this information clearly has difficulty reading English. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwynn Posted December 25, 2014 Author Share Posted December 25, 2014 Well whoever supplied this information clearly has difficulty reading English. Clearly, just like it wasn't an alliance order to embargo Kangaroo Ocean, but an alliance suggestion... The point remains that it's shitty tactics and I felt it worth discussing to see if it's something that needed to have ruling against. Since this appears not to be the case, I will simply take such tactics in stride next time. Quote He's right, I'm such a stinker. Play my exceptional game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwynn Posted December 26, 2014 Author Share Posted December 26, 2014 So from reading this thread, it appears everyone is ok with wars being left open as long as actual damage was done in the war. Fair enough. Quote He's right, I'm such a stinker. Play my exceptional game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted December 26, 2014 Share Posted December 26, 2014 So from reading this thread, it appears everyone is ok with wars being left open as long as actual damage was done in the war. Fair enough. Good to know indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoS Posted December 26, 2014 Share Posted December 26, 2014 If I'm kept at war despite offering truce I'm inclined to make up for my economic losses. We may see defender must offer truce first stipulations in the future. Not that most wars are so clear cut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 If I'm kept at war despite offering truce I'm inclined to make up for my economic losses. We may see defender must offer truce first stipulations in the future. Not that most wars are so clear cut. If you offer peace and given reasonable time for while the other player have logged on but didnt accept the truce then is fair to assume he/she isnt interested, and it would be appropriate to resume attack. simple as that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.