False Declarations? o.0

[sx4rlet]

i dont even reached 100 yet

That is because you meditate too much in that swamp town of yours

[kostika]

*grins* still havent got to lv200 in any fight skill

I didn't mean specifically in a fight skill. I meant any skill.

[desertt]

That is because you meditate too much in that swamp town of yours

just heard and interesting rumor about trykerettes and pyr baths *grin*

and its no SWAMP town a litle respect please for the lovely jungle

[haddo]

My opinion? Glad you asked (well maybe you didn't).

Trading false war declarations is wrong. It is not RP. It is stopping the purpose of war declarations which is so someone else can try to take the outpost. Your RP opportunity is in building up alliances to help you defend or help you take over OPs.

Declaring war on multiple OPs to hide the actual target is also wrong. This gets in to the nuisance / griefing that I was afraid would enter in to the OP environment. This falls in to the same category as just declaring war on an OP without any plans to seriously attack. What we'll end up with is people going around and declaring war just for the fun of wasting a guild's time. That's griefing pure and simple.

So far I've been involved in 1 outpost defense and 2 attacks. The defense succeeded, and I was 1 and 1 on the attacks. All 3 were a blast, even the loss.

End of opinion.

Haddo - Master Jeweler, Desert, Jungle.

[kashius]

Declariong war on multiple outposts with the intent of only attacking one isn't griefing, let's be serious...It's a legit tactic if not abused over and over again. If Kara's wish to take a Kami outpost in an area that is filled with Kami controlled outposts this tactic is pretty smart. Spread the defenses forces thin (if they wish to ally) so you have a better chance. If you're declaring on multiple outposts nightly just to tick people off, yea that's griefing. It's all in how the tactic is used.

-Kash-

[blaah]

Declaring war on multiple OPs to hide the actual target is also wrong. This gets in to the nuisance / griefing that I was afraid would enter in to the OP environment. This falls in to the same category as just declaring war on an OP without any plans to seriously attack.

becausel they dont allow surprice attacks, declaring war on multiple outposts can considered a valid tactic to divide enemys power to defend said outpost.

also... after first (voluntary wipe, attackers may choose to attack other outpost, where they know are no defenders.

[boinged]

Surprise tactics mean very little when the whole defending force can teleport just as easily as the attacking one All it needs is a scout at each outpost. The counter-'tactic' is for the defenders to declare war on any attacking guilds at the same time. All that's going to happen is every OP is constantly under 'attack' and only a small fraction of those are genuine. Not very immersive.

People are taking declaring war too lightly as well. I wonder if anyone attacking an outpost would have the bodocs to post here? I know the serious ones would who have stopped for a second to think of the consequences.

Personally, I don't think a guild should be able to declare war on more than one outpost at the same time. If an alliance of guilds wants to hide their true target then fair enough (if they think they're too weak to win by normal means).

[dbritt]

I think more so what Haddo was talking about was the fact that there are guilds out there that declare on each other as a protection against actual attack. THAT is not a valid tactic, it is a loophole to the way the game was meant to play. Multiple attacks, and counter attacks i agree as being viable strategy in a GvG evironment. Makes it more difficult, but not any more than the ability to pick your attack/defense times. If an attack was to switch OP's mid stream, one, why do it if you've already won 2-3 rounds and the TH is 5? Or start over at a new one when the enemy can simply scout the others with one person and show up in plenty of time to defend it.

Again, as i said, my main problem is the guilds that use mutual declarations to protect themselves from actual attack. I've heard too much crying over region about honor this, fair play that. Give me a break, it'll always be a game. You want to talk about 'honor' and 'fair play' quit using loopholes.

But thats just my opinion, even though i'm always right.

H

[sk8rss]

The redeclaration penalty is bad because its common to want to change your declaration time, and there currently is no way to do so without canceling the attack.

Quick fix here. Think before you act, make sure your declaration time is the one you want cause you're stuck with it... This is just not letting people be fickle and not think things through.

[final60]

A similar problem of false declarations and declaring war on multiple outposts had apparently cropped up on leanon, and "was deemed to be an exploit by our GMs, due to a certain group getting lucky and blocking ~13 OPs directly after they went online."

Personally I'm not sure either way on the subject of declaring on multiple OP's, but in the case on leanon, 13 OP's is a bit much..

Should a cap on the amount of OP's a guild can hold be put in? Perhaps a cap on the amount of OP's a guild can declare on at any one time?