Hello all,
In my short time at WOL, it has become increasingly clearer to me that there are nearly as many viewpoints and attitudes about how to fairly play the game as there are players. I HAVE been on WOL long enough to know that the ''Old-timers/Veterans'' have a (GENERAL) set of rules that are in place and adheared to for the purpose of maintaining a fair fight.

While I could broach many oft-discussed topics such as what to do about gang-fighting; how to stop or prepare for those who know how to manipulate the double-turn bug, etc., I prefer to keep the eliments of my writing tighter woven around the 3 issues of
1. Diplomacy,
2. Espionage', and
3. Treachery.

First, to define each:

Diplomacy is basically defined as the art and practice of conducting negotiations with other parties.

Espionage' is defined as obtaining vital or "secret" information without the other party's permission. (Spying)

Treachery is defined as a violation of allegiance, faith or confidence. (An example is Pact-Breaking).

First up - Diplomacy:

As it pertains to WOL, Diplomacy has been and is found to be utilized throughout WOL, both within these forums as well as within the games, and is most often seen in the form of Non-Aggression Pacts or NAP's. To be clear, diplomacy is far more than the NAP within a particular campaign, or an agreement about not forcing turns in battles and duels. Diplomacy should be seen as any communication opportunity that would allow one player to develop agreeable standards of future communications with another player.

Why is this important (And particularly to new or newish players such as myself)?

To use the simplest of explanations: Proper diplomacy, particularly with older or more veteran players, has a tendancy to insure that even without an NAP you are likely to gain more courtesy and less aggression while conducting a campaign. Secondly, you are FAR more likely to be able to conduct NAP's with players if you are seen as diplomatic in your character, whereas if you are seen as un-diplomatic and non-communicative, you are more likely to be on everyone's hit list within a campaign even if you are NOT what would be seen as a dirty fighter.

Remember then - diplomacy is not ONLY about communicating, but also about HOW you carefully communicate to others to build a reputation and clear appearance of being fair-minded and willing to take others into consideration.

2nd Topic - Espionage':

As defined above, espionage' (spying) is most commonly seen as any gaining of vital or secret information without "the other" party knowing that you have done so. WOL has a tech. that you can obtain in Campaigns (and duels?) that allows you to spy on other players within that campaign, and you can tech. up to the point that you may have a higher success rate of actually spying without being caught doing so. This built in system is a fair method of obtaining information, but it is no substitute for Intel. based Espionage'.

Intel. based Espionage' is that information that you have obtained via other players in a particular game, and is most likely obtainable if you have first built a higher degree of Diplomacy. Just as a Consulate or Embassy is a launch-point for effective spying in the real world, good diplomacy is an effective lauch-point for spying in a particular Campaign.

As a brief example: If I have developed a decent communication with a particular player on WOL, I might first be able to obtain that player's location on the Campaign map by simply asking, and this player could be on the opposite side furthest away from me. During the course of the Campaign I could ask this player for information he or she has obtained concerning the size, troop-type, direction of travel and perhaps even the intended target of a 3rd player. I would, in turn, share similar information with this player.

Last Edited : Monday, 16 July 2007 - 16:15

bump

well i agree with ya about the new generation of players,,,so ive developed the thinking that im gonna take you out any way i can,,,now if i come across a vet,,he is always given the respect of back in the day when i joined,,,but for all you others,,,lol,,, ill even go so far as to dubble teaming your behinds.,,,now what do ya say,,

but also,,there is one thing for sure,,no matter who you are,,my word is my bond,,,i keep my word

I agree that diplomacy and contact with other players can be vital, however I will have to say that most players (vets and new alike) ignore diplomacy altogether. I have quite a few times messaged people about requesting their units to be moved or something similar and in the most case they do. Most dont reply to my messages though and when the boot is on the other foot and Im going about scouting I seem to run into people with shoot on sight orders and rarely if ever get messaged about staying away.

As for the Old-timers having a general set of rules in campaigns... well Ive heard of that which went along the lines of 1vs1, which I personally found fairly dumb. In campaigns you cant judge a fight to be even solely on the # of players fighting but rather on how many castles/troops types/economy the players have to see if its any fair. In one of my campaigns I attacked another player who was warring my neighbor. At the time there were only 4 of us left... my neighbor with 1 castle, the attacker with 4-5 and me with 3 I believe. I was expecting to still be defeated since the other person had a much larger economy and thus better troops than me as well and my expectations were fulfilled. Yet the person I attacked complained through multiple messages about how unfair I was... even though he still fairly easily wiped the "2vs1"... I must wonder how the fight would have looked if I waited even for the 1vs1 while his advantage grew some more.

So to sum this up, Im one of those people who firmly believe that the 1vs1 rule is quite irrelevant since the true way to gauge two player's power is through castles/military production/economy. So I wouldnt call someone with 4 castles whooping a newbie with 1 castle to be honorable just because its 1vs1...

That said my word is my bond and if I give you a nap then you have nothing to fear from me, but if I turn you down then all is fair and you better watch out if I start massing my troops lol.

Nice work Jmac love it


† Michael †

i agree with gorgon,,finally someone with a bit of sence,,an honorable player keeps his word and that has nothing to do with doubble teaming,,,right now me and a buddy are fighting one player and loseing,,and if we get the upper hand i wont feel bad about it,,

I haven't been in many games where people completely ignored me, but then I don't play too many camps, and when I do it's usually with vets . Diplomacy and intelligence is essential to winning camps because, even if you're doing "well" by your standards, if another players is doing better you'll still lose in the end. Your middle game should be about positioning yourself for the end game (the early game you can afford to be more short sighted). If that means defending a weaker player against a stronger one because it serves your interests, so be it. You need to look at the long term consequences (good and bad) of what's happening around the map and jmac does a fine job of explaining how that's done. You'd be surprised what you can get by just asking and being everyone's "friend" . That doesn't mean you go around stabbing people in the back, but what's a little spying amongst "friends" .

People complain about "rules of conduct" and this and that, but I'll tell you right now they've saved me just as much (if not more) than hindered me (and keeping from loosing is far more important to your ranking than moving from second to first). Establishing those relationships early on can pay dividends later. When a bigger player could crush you, but decides to let you finish a battle so you can have a "fair" fight, you've gained where before you would have lost (based solely on diplomacy, or perhaps you're just facing a really nice player ). Most people need some "buttering" to do those kinds of favors for you, and (again) that's what the middle game is for. Offer to help whenever you have the opportunity; the cheapest and most effective way to do this is with intelligence. As jmac says, keep the dialogue going; it's like having an alliance without the strings. If you've been talking with a player the whole game they're far more likely to want to finish things "fair" with you if they're in a position of strength...and if they're not, well then, you don't have much to worry about .

People who fail to grasp the necessity of diplomacy in campaigns typically struggle, regardless of their playing ability. If the other players don't like you, or feel neutral, you can best believe they'll take an advantage when they have it, and why not? You've given them no reason to do you any favors? Duels and battles you can tactically dominate your opponent, but when you have to juggle 10 or 20 other players there is no way of doing that by force alone. Only through diplomacy can you manipulate that many players and have things play out in a way that's advantageous for you; to be sure you need some muscle to back up your talk, but only enough to apply precise pressure (not dominate every situation). Subtlety is the key

This thread will reward those who read it.