So whats the current opinion on gang banging here in the wonderful world of war?

Is it wrong for everybody or just experienced players?

By that I mean, if newbs band up or attack simultaneously should an experienced player accept it and fight thru it? Or bully the newbs into stopping? Or hunt them down in other camps to send a message?

Feedback please. From Vets and Newbs.

Ah, since you mentioned it here, i believed it used to be something that we wanted to wipe out from this game. We did that by showing them how it felt to be teamed-up against. And apparently that guy who just started doesn't seems to be that new to me. He might be a veteran starting in another account, i don't know. What disappoints me was that the other guy who help him out is in a clan. He should had known better not to form up an alliance in a free for all game and help out that guy i was attacking especially only after i started. True, it might be in political interest, but groups like that tend to be wipe out by everyone in the map ganging-up against them. But, it doesn't quite seems to be true anymore i guess.

I hope as a newb that I'm not doing this without knowing. I have not attacked anyone, or ganged up to attack anyone, that is already being attacked by someone else. I have however, attacked a castle that is left unprotected, which I would assume is fair.

I think it should be flexible and treated on a case by case basis. Having come to WarOnline from phpDiplomacy I can say I was a bit surprised when I proposed an alliance and the other party said "I don't gang bang".

But it is no fun to be ganged up on and for that reason it should be frowned upon for 2 players to gang up on newbies, at the very least - being ganged up on in your first couple of games is the easiest way to lose a player for good.

As for newbs ganging up on experienced players, that really depends - if two players each commit roughly half their forces into a coordinated attack on a player, does that really constitute gang-banging? (After all they are only committing the same forces that one dedicated player could commit).

Whilst coordinated 2-1 gang bangs, where 2 players agree and coordinate to take out a single player are bad for the game, I think uncoordinated multi-hostilities should be treatted with more flexibility. Consider the following situation: I start adjacent to players A, B, D & E. I sign a NAP with A, B & D and make my plans to attack E. Just before I attack, E gets into a fight with F. My whole expansion strategy was designed around expanding through E. Should I really be prevented from doing so because of an event beyond my control and a hard-and-fast "No gang-bang rule"?

I think not.

I should say that I was recently on the receiving end of a 2-1. Basically the game reached the final stages with only 3 players left and the other 2 had signed a game-long NAP.

We had 3 castles each so were pretty evenly matched if we all fought each other, but because of the other's NAP I ended up fighting them both (not for want of diplomacy, I can tell you).

Needless to say I was happy enough to vote to end the game as soon as possible and settle for 3rd place. I did acquit myself quite well in my desperate "Not one step" defence. (Castles make great defensive bastions for missile troops, provided you can maintain a catapult superiority).

Lothar - attacking an unprotected castle when that guy is fighting someone else seems a bit like gang-banging. Unless that guys just didn't protect his castle even though he is not fighting is okay.

I don't think making NAPs around you gives you a reason to gang-bang another. If you are worried about that, you just don't make nap all around you. In this case, I made a NAP with only 2 guy around me, but unfortunately leaving 2 of them that I did not have NAP with, come up against me. And its quite an obvious intentional gang-up. The reason being that guy I was trying to attack admitted it and even when to the extent of taunting me. The other guy just didn't reply any of my messages but is already starting to build barracks and outpost towards my castle.

And in the last case, having a game-long NAP doesn't give the guy the reason to fight 2 on 1 against you in my opinion. That is why NAP doesn't usually work anymore at the end of the game. It's either they break it and fight a three-way war, or either one of them fight against you or the other or of course ending the game. That's what i remembered doing last time when I had the same situation.

It's a different game now Yang. Everybody seems to want to make deals, so that they don't have to fight...or at least pick who they fight. Then when their plans fail, they fall back on the excuse of, "well, I had a NAP with everyone else." NAPs are used far to freely and often now. It's a war game. Don't be afraid to get in some battles.

I hate playing politics in this game...perhaps that's why I wouldn't do well in a campaign.

Waronline used to be almost entirely about who fought best, tactically and strategically. Now it is a real estate game. Grab a lot of good real estate and hang on to it. No incentive to go out and risk it everything, just some negotiated fights...

War of Kings will have a better mix of winning conditions. Land, economy and fighting skills will blend into a score.

As for gang banging, you can't stop it entirely but you can retaliate against it when you feel abused. NAP's are ok, Alliances are not. By that I mean groups of players teaming up to beat up on individuals or smaller groups. We rarely see that here, I think. Just some kinda stinky play in campaigns sometimes.

The thing is i even offer the guy i am about to attack the chance to wipe out the guy trying to gang-bang either one of us, only to find out that he made an "alliance" with him after that. That is why i promised that I will hunt them down in every campaign next time.

It's alright though, I will fight them and hope for someone to come to rescue. :p

Thanks for jumping in my Disturbed colleague. I wasnt sure of the details of your situation.

I joined some camps recently to recall how to play them effectively and have quit 2 already. Not because of the gangbang issue per se but simply because i was getting them confused and making silly mistakes :p the price of age i assume

I did feel like i was on the recieving end in some of them tho. In one i asked a newb, uteman, if that was his intent. he said no and backed off. I thanked him and explained how to check the game news window for info on who was fighting who. But as the camps progressed the game news seemed to indicate it was happening to other players in most if not all of the camps i was in.

Then I noticed in another thread that... hmmmm, Neb maybe? had succesfully fought off multiple players so thought what the heck, ive been around, i should be able to as well. The very next day 2 players attacked me at the same time in a castle i had just taken. I didnt say anything. I crushed them both. In the process I killed two of Disturbeds troops thinking he was part of a three way attack. I apologized after he informed me he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. He then took on one of the two while i destroyed the other. Unfortuneately I think he lost. No matter Disturbed, I am moving on him myself now. And in his defense, hes new, and i dont think he meant to gangbang. I shall crush him anyways tho

I may quit one or both of the remaing camps when the team camp starts tho, and go back to camps where I know the other players either personally or by rep. I dont really care about my score, my duel score is so over inflated as to be meaningless. I should not be ranked above so many current and former players. I am not even close in skill to most of the vets here. Luckily Coop is still willing to remind me of my short comings I miss Endimion, some of my greatest duels were with him, even tho I lost them all lol! I dont even get close with Coop, and by now I KNOW what hes going to do most of the time :p

if you are posting on this thread you shouldn't be upset if you get gang banged, if you see a new player getting gang banged help him or her out the best you can.

I HATE the term gang bang as it doesn't have any real meaning except, "I don't know how to defend." I have posted in a few threads recently about this and brought it up with my clan as well. This is a war game, battles and duels are meant for one on one not camps. That is why there is a message system, a shout box and a forum. You have to coordinate, mislead and outfight your opponents in camps, otherwise it is just a duel that goes on for a longer period of time and that other people can see.

This is how i feel about it. I know there are people that disagree with me and in the future i expect to have people that will cross the map to get to me because they get upset that they lost because they didn't communicate with the other players that were playing in the camp when i did.

Obviously new players will have difficulties with some part of the game. I would never try to take advantage of someone that when i talk to asks me questions that give away that i could easily wipe them out. Which is probably why some of our sort of newer players have higher camp scores than me. Almost everyone that has been here for the past 4-5 months knows at least two individuals in particular.

Whenever i see something like, "neb vs lothar" and at the same time "mog vs lothar" i will do what i can to help lothar out. This is completely hypothetical and i am just using it as an example, I would never expect to see neb or mog do something like that. Lothar isn't really what i would consider a newbie anymore but like i said just for demonstration purposes.

Errmmm Zues, I think you mistaken me for someone else. I am not in the same campaign as you. Haha. I guess you meant someone else.

And klyph, true, i used to had that mindset too thinking that you can ally with everyone and just fight. But come to think of it, in the past, we were trying so hard to stop this and also people with multi-accounts. Try to think of this, if ganging up is okay, then you can expect plenty of multis in a game to go after one after another. Doesn't seems that fair anymore to you right? But lets just say its not multi that we are talking about. Its just 2 different persons. But if this 2 different persons do this over and over again, would you still think that's okay? The point is, we are trying(at least we used to) hard to stop this because of all these reasons. Yes, you can fight 2 vs 1, of course...provided you are not in so much a disadvantage. But otherwise...well, knowing how to defend won't save you if 2 persons attack you with double your resources.

So, I'm not a newb anymore! Yea!
Here is my two cents worth on the subject. I would say it is wrong to purposefully conspire to gang up and attach someone as a team, especially just as the camp is starting out. However, if I am exploring and see a castle completely unprotected, well thats gonna be hard to resist. If you send your entire force out to attach a neighbor and leave your castle unprotected thats not a very wise battle tactic. This is where you would make a NAP with the person behind/beside you so they won't be attacking you while you are elsewhere. Once the camp as progressed and people are fighting over eliminated or inactive players castles, then it should be anything goes. Typically if I see two people fighting, I'm gonna stay away in hopes they deplete their resources and troops. War is hell, but lets be gentlemen shall we? Fight and die with dignity and honor my friends. Ask not what Wol can do for you, but what you can do for Wol! lol Got a little carried away there.

Haha..talking about leaving your castle unprotected when you have NAPs behind your back. What if that guy let an enemy through his land to go into yours? Haha. It's not wrong, because NAP's term doesn't include that. So build an outpost far enough to watch your back.

I don't know if I wouldn't say your a newb per say but i wouldn't turn my back on you for a second and you have been playing enough that you are getting the game down pretty quick. Also you could most definitely destroy someone in their first game, getting away from the newb label maybe. Hey, your posting in the forum too, more "not newb points"

Yeah, personally I'm with Lothar. I won't deliberately make an alliance with another player to take a player out (unless that player is way ahead and has gold income roughly equal to or exceeding our combined income).

However, if you are my neighbour and haven't made a NAP with me I'm not going to leave an undefended castle or gold mine, if you have sent you army off to attack someone else. If you don't have a NAP with me it's probably you fault anyway as I usually offer most of my neighbours a NAP as soon as possible.

Two things make a difference in diplomacy:
1. Kind words and polite demeanour -> NAP
2. A large army on my border.

If you show me neither, beware.

Last Edited : Thursday, 27 August 2009 - 17:54

thats what i get for trying to think and type at 23oam :p

we were in the proving grounds together Disturbed, it was Kingman I was in the camp with

so there seems to be a range of views between...
whatever, aint so such things as GB from klyph, all the way to...
if you leave yourself open to attack while your away from home thats your bad and you should pay for it but otherwise a free for all should be fought that way. everyone for themselves.

if it is a free for all then like i said gangbanging shouldn't even be in the description of anything to do with the game. In any free for all on any game, sport or war someone always gets to be unlucky enough to have more than one opponent or have someone that is attacking the same target that they are turn their attention to you. If you want to play a game where no one has more than one opponent then it is not a free for all at all. Organized tier brackets with the ability to go out of bounds would be a better description.

In the new game there should be a "tournament mode where everyone duels each other and the winner of each duel gets to take their forces from the previous duel to the next match. It would be very close to what those who whine "gangbang" are asking for whether that is the what they really wanted or not. Those who have a problem with "gangbanging" can stay out of the free for all camps and enter tournaments or make private camps where they set up their own rules.

Requiring everyone to play by a set of unwritten rules or having everyone harass them should be absolutely unacceptable.

Haha. Klyph. Maybe next time i am next to you, you won't "whine" bout gangbanging when i attack you with all your other 3 neighbours eh. I've said it over and over again. Usually if someone "gangbang" you accidentally, they would back-off. In my case, it is outright planned and intentional which i see no place in this game. I care not to explain anymore as i wasn't even seeking for any of you guys opinion. It's not me who started this post so be it.

Lalalalalala!

Where's my Princess on this subject?

So your take Klyph is free-for-all includes any and all possabilities of combat including building coalitions to swarm under any opposition? Then letting the coalition turn on itself to determine the winner?