This one came across me few turns ago. Lets create a scenario.
There's 3 players left in the game. You and another has a nap, so he stays out of the fight between you and the third player. Once you are done to the third player, it's now left with you and the guy you had a nap with. Say, since he's now ranked third and you first while the guy you just eliminated got second. The guy ranked third obviously won't wanna vote to end. So do you think it is fair if to fight it out until the guy you had nap with gain his experience until he is ranked 2nd - overtaking the guy you just eliminated?

Obviously, that is what happen when you use this sort of ranking method and as i said, not everyone will be happy with any single system. There ought to be people that think it is not fair. But to most people it depends on how you play it, which in some cases is unfair to others. So what do you think?

Last Edited : Saturday, 31 October 2009 - 22:16

there is nothing wrong with that. the guy you were fighting could have asked you for a nap and went after the person in third and then fought you for first after he eliminated the third person.

I've always looked at naps as an agreement to not attack each other for the set amount of turns or for the entire game in some cases like yours. That means that once everyone else is gone in the game the nap would be over with and you would then be free to fight it out for first place.

I often message the person i had a nap with once this comes about and offer them the chance to vote out or to continue the game and killing each other. In the past the vote out option often worked best since you could potentially drop in the rankings due to having a lot of deaths, but now that it is beneficial to stay in the game I'd certainly want to try going up in the rankings perhaps all the way to first if i'm good enough.

Personally I think once game is down to three players, all NAPs should be ended and the "no 2v1" rule changed to compulsory world war. Peace is for wimps.

"What we gonna do tonoight Bwain?"

"Same thing we do every night Pinky. TRY TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!"

Aww, so three person agreed it is fair. Alright then.

It's only fair if all three fight each other.

I have been on the receiving end of a 2v1 gang-up at the end of game. (Both players had signed game-long NAPs with each other). I quite enjoyed it, though. (Does that make me kinky?) If the new ranking system had been in place then I would certainly have won the experience killed - being forced to fight a defensive battle against 2 enemies does concentrate the mind on getting the tactics just right (and the battles both fell on my castle - castle protection tech rocks in this situation).

In this instance, both my opponents eventually agreed to a free-for-all battle but never actually made any moves against each other. We all voted in the end, while I was still in the game.

I also have been the target of a 2v1 at the end of a camp. And I wasn't even the guy with the most castles, or in 1st place...

(Though one of those 2 also intervened earlier in the game when I was fighting another, shame on you, you know who you are)

And though I would say it would have been more fair for them to actually fight each other also, since they were claimning "who eltes can I fight". It did actually turn out pretty good for me, since the with new rules you don't loose exp for combat looses, this led to me tieing up 1st place.

I was able to fight them off for over 25 turns, demolishing 3 heavy waves from one side, and 2 from the other, before they decided to actually co-ordinate thier efforts. Continueing to outmanouver these much higher ranking camp players than myself, I then used another of the new rules to my advantage.

Since my opponents felt there was no need for honour in our game, I didn't feel cheap in disbanding all my units and going inactive before they could finally co-ordinate eliminating me

I'm sure I made them feel like fools. I definatly made one of them doubt his abilities, since he didn't even bother to fight the remainning player to move me out of a tie with him, he just quit LMAO!

it would be cool if req could implement a feature into the game... where in the last 30 turns of the game... anyone being double teamed would recieve double income... giving them a chance to fend off both enemies... could be fun and could eliminate some double teaming

I can ask a friend to attack a 1 pop spear to get the double income

As much as I don't think it's a good idea;

the game already tracks and displays how many losses each player takes, so it wouldn't be too hard to actually throw a unit loss stipulation on the idea.

good point motrok...maybe if your income amount would be based on how much experience you are gaining per turn... the more you are fighting the greater supply of gold you recieve per turn...

uh.... yeah it is called gold found when you destroy a unit

Yeah why do troops keep their gold in their pockets? They would be much better off putting it in a with-profits fund for their wife/widow/children/orphans.

i suppose it is because they took the troops watches, rings, necklaces, whatever weapons that were worth selling or reusing, etc.

no one will ever be able to stop everyone from exploiting some faults in the game as shown by the countless years of multis, gang bangs and the double turning (which i beat to death in the forum i'm sure more than anyone wanted to hear). Game design is ultimately the only thing that keeps people honest and honesty is at its root subjective anyways. Try to be reasonable and curtious during games thats about all you can do.

If your intent on teaming up on people req has provided team games for you, it even makes it easier to gang up on people since ur not zoc'ing eachother so i suggest teaming is kept there.

What would be neat to see in campaigns (i dono if this is happening) is to fight wars without extermination. Maby fight to take a castle then consolidate. I've played a few games that sorta gave me this idea, the main contributer being War in Greece for Starcraft. Keeping things tense and ellastic is a great aspect of any game though i'm not sure it could be incorperated into this game unless players make that concious decission. Anyways this is too long and i think i got into suggestion territory

-The End-Thank God-

Good point Crimson - how to keep a game interesting and not an inevitable win for the player that wins the first battle? Let's continue that discussion in Suggestion Box - thread "Add Support cost....

Last Edited : Saturday, 28 November 2009 - 17:48

The game does have some holes, but it is very very good. It is very hard to anticipate human activity and interaction, then code that into a game. Frankly, diplomacy is part of this game. GB's, double turns, and all the rest are part of the game too. You need to read your foes and act accordingly. Princess and Lothar are quite honorable, and when they make an agreement with them, I am reasonably sure they will keep it. There are others who, let's say, I am a little more cautious with.

It is part of the game. Also part of real life, I mean have any nations in history said one thing and done another (name one that hasn't ).

Awww thanks Jambur
But seriously as already said there are flaws in the game for exploiters to exploit.
As for me ,I wont break an agreement,but when making an agreement ,I will usually put in 2 conditions:
1. not to enter each others land without permission.
2. To break the agreement 10 full turn must be given and in that 10 turns number 1 rule still applies.
Cheers Angie

Well said Jambur. I have to say that diplomacy is an art. not many are masters of it. Ultimately diplomatic negotiations are aimed at mutual benefit. I have no hard and fast rules about agreements - each one is tailored to the requirements of the situation and the other party. Breaking something you have agreed upon might give you short term benefit but ultimately will work against you.

When negotiating bear in mind 8 things:
1) Negotiate from a position of strength. You are much more likely to conclude a deal the way you want it if the other party can see that not signing the deal and trying to take you on will be difficult. Consider moving some strong units where the opponent can see them (but preferably in a position that does not threaten them or it may make them less, not more amenable to the agreement) so they can see you have a strong army not too far away.

2) Give a dog a bone - Include in the deal something the other party wants. You don't have to include sweeteners from the start, but if you have difficulty concluding a deal, throw it in. A deal in place is almost always better than no deal.

3) Ask for what you want. Make what you want a requirement of the deal. For instance, if you don't want the other party's units running about on your land, make that a condition. Don't just assume that a NAP includes this. It doesn't. If there is any possibility of confusion about what constitutes "your" land and "theirs", make this clear. (E.g. The swamp is all mine, none of your units to enter it without you receiving my prior permission).

4) Don't give away more than you want to. For instance, if you think it will take 40 turns to eliminate one neighbour and then you will want to attack the other party, don't sign a "min 80 turns" NAP with them. I find a mine X turns, then 7 turns notice is sufficient - if you current hostilities conclude quickly and it looks likely that you'll take over their castle on turn 35, if you have a "min 40 turns, then 7 turns notice then you can serve notice on turn 33, have 5 turns to redeploy your forces and be fighting on schedule on turn 40. If on the other hand your opponent turns out to be a bit of a handful, the NAP will run on automatically - you don't need to renew it unless the other party gives their notice. If this happens, you may be in trouble, but at least you have 7 turns to form a defence. X depends on the circumstances.

5) As Princess states, make it clear what is and is not permissible in the notice period. I'll often sign a NAP that allows each other to build outposts within each other's territories, but also to destroy or capture any outposts that lie within your territory once notice has been served (by either party). This enables you to build your defence strategy in relative secrecy.

6) If you start next to someone with a past record of quitting or going inactive, don't sign a NAP with them, attack them. There's nothing worse than signing a long term NAP with a neighbour, sending all your army the other way to fight someone else, then find your partner quits and someone else (who you have no NAP with) waltzes in and takes their castle easily, with a strong army that has taken no losses and is poised to attack you weak side. In Camp 24517 - I attacked Commander Wu exactly because he went inactive after I signed a NAP with him in a previous campaign.

7) Get a signature on the dotted line. I'm maybe a little anal about this. "Sounds good" is not a signature in my book. "I agree" is. Don't forget that your messages are deleted automatically - if the agreement isn't trivial, keep a copy.

8) Don't break an agreement you have signed. People will remember, and the other party is likely to spread word of your treachery. If the other party is doing something you consider in breach, tell them and give them a chance to rectify the situation.

Last Edited : Sunday, 3 January 2010 - 07:34

Oh, and if you really enjoy diplomacy (and don't like randomness determining the winner), consider the game Diplomacy (one example on webdiplomacy.net/index.php )

But be warned - agreements in Diplomacy are not honoured in the same way as they are on this game. Expect backstabs, double dealing, anything in fact that might happen in real diplocmacy. Think Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and you should be on the money.

I'm thinking of hosting a no-holds barred Diplomacy style Campaign here on WoL. The basic tenet is that in the campaign, no agreement will be binding and breaking any agreement within that campaign should not affect a player's trustworthiness or honour in normal WoL campaigns. Has this been done before on WoL? Would people be interested (and available to play)?

Last Edited : Saturday, 2 January 2010 - 18:00