MP BSoD (Newbie, LA, CBM 1.92) [Started!] - Page 42

Shardphoenix · #1 June 30th, 2012, 04:44 PM

Quote:

You can probably guess what that enchantment will be

Burden of Time? Because Bogarus has old mages...

parone · #2 June 30th, 2012, 06:25 PM

ohh the irony. i hung in vs shard for what buddy, 40 turns while i had absolutely no shot? and now you take one shot vs ermor, get whipped and bail? after taking shots at him that there was 'no honor' in his victory?

tsk tsk shardphoenix. you are a more skilled player than i, but not a very good sport...

Shardphoenix · #3 July 1st, 2012, 01:45 AM

Quote:

and now you take one shot vs ermor, get whipped and bail?

There are things happening, that you don`t know about.

Russian_Comrade · #4 July 1st, 2012, 01:42 PM

Sigh. Calling each other names... Relax people, it's only a game.

Well, first of all, I'm congratulating Ermor with victory, any further resistance is pretty much useless. I'll possibly strike at Ermor just for lulz, but chances for victory - especially with players quitting - are close to zero. With my modest S income it is quite impossible to destroy global enchantment spam.

The second thing - it greatly amused me that Ermor needed to break NAP act with me in such boring way. Having position that strong and initiating direct hostile actions (and casting Utterdark and dispelling my global are direct hostile actions) without any common courtesy is pretty strange, ungraceful and is not easy for me to understand. Still - that action was effective, although from now I'll have more second thoughts when I'll consider myself in engaging in any diplomatic activity with Ermor's player, and advise other players to do the same.

revenant2 · #5 July 1st, 2012, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russian_Comrade

Sigh. Calling each other names... Relax people, it's only a game.

Well, first of all, I'm congratulating Ermor with victory, any further resistance is pretty much useless. I'll possibly strike at Ermor just for lulz, but chances for victory - especially with players quitting - are close to zero. With my modest S income it is quite impossible to destroy global enchantment spam.

The second thing - it greatly amused me that Ermor needed to break NAP act with me in such boring way. Having position that strong and initiating direct hostile actions (and casting Utterdark and dispelling my global are direct hostile actions) without any common courtesy is pretty strange, ungraceful and is not easy for me to understand. Still - that action was effective, although from now I'll have more second thoughts when I'll consider myself in engaging in any diplomatic activity with Ermor's player, and advise other players to do the same.

Interesting point about the NAP. I can definitely see where you're coming from, although in the few games I've been in (three including this one), I didn't see people be especially concerned about game-winning enchants in terms of NAPs, although I'll grant you that none of them were Utterdark either.

Don't most of your troops have Darkvision and have low upkeep cost anyway? I figure UD would effect you least of anyone -- well, besides me of course

Newb question: Is there an established protocol for NAPs? I figured it included attacks, assassinations, and remote attacks, but everything else is shades of grey to me. For instance, you were sending in waves of spies against me. In one turn, I rooted out three of them in one of my provinces alone. Is that considered a violation of a NAP?

I also feel the need to remind you that I assisted you with gems, items, and even went to war with R'lyeh to protect you (even though it was strategically a bad decision for me since my troops don't fight well underwater), and split Abysia's tribute with you when I didn't need too, which was all beyond the bounds of a NAP.

Hell, at one point I even told you how powerful I was becoming and suggested that you that you might want to consider banding together with the remaining nations to stop me, or be subservient to Bone Daddy. I even gave you the option to nullify the NAP so you wouldn't have to give notice.

If that's a player that has suspect diplomatic dealings, then you have some out-of-this world expectations.

Russian_Comrade · #6 July 2nd, 2012, 03:55 AM

How amusing.

Well, thing is, I'm just trying to use "deal struck is the deal struck" approach to the Dom3 diplomacy. Meaning that I may say a lot of fuzzy and evasive things before a deal and may be dealing with other players under the table, but after the deal is struck I'll find really difficult for me to directly violate it. I may reconsider this approach after a few games, but for now I'm going to go with this method. I'm especially wary against a NAP violation, in this dog-eat-dog of Dom3 it is pretty important to maintain at least some measure of civility.

Quote:

Originally Posted by revenant2

Interesting point about the NAP. I can definitely see where you're coming from, although in the few games I've been in (three including this one), I didn't see people be especially concerned about game-winning enchants in terms of NAPs, although I'll grant you that none of them were Utterdark either.

Don't most of your troops have Darkvision and have low upkeep cost anyway? I figure UD would effect you least of anyone -- well, besides me of course

Utterdark and Burden of Time are world-attacking spells. They have a same effect as casting direct-attack spell at the every single of your provinces all of the time. Thus, casting them without notice is a direct hostile action. Thank you for considering the results of casting it by me, but well, taking somewhat less damage from the nuclear winter is still taking damage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by revenant2

Well, maybe I had to figure that I needed to help you with micromanagment by attacking some of your armies?
Newb question: Is there an established protocol for NAPs? I figured it included attacks, assassinations, and remote attacks, but everything else is shades of grey to me. For instance, you were sending in waves of spies against me. In one turn, I rooted out three of them in one of my provinces alone. Is that considered a violation of a NAP?

Casting a direct attack spell is a hostile action for me. Utterdark is a direct attack spell. Spying is not. Did my scouts attack your provinces or cut 90% of your gem supply?

Quote:

Originally Posted by revenant2

Hell, at one point I even told you how powerful I was becoming and suggested that you that you might want to consider banding together with the remaining nations to stop me, or be subservient to Bone Daddy. I even gave you the option to nullify the NAP so you wouldn't have to give notice.

You told me that 2 turns ago - with no mention of using UD (and you spoke with me about possible using BoT before that in the future so I had some stupid naive idea that I'll have some notice of you casting UD). The same time you scripted dispelling my global, by the way. I asked you last turn in reply about sudden disappearance of this global, had no answer, scipted some war preparation things. This turn I was going to send you NAP dissolval message, and I was going to attack you in three turns.

revenant2 · #7 July 2nd, 2012, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russian_Comrade

How amusing.

Well, thing is, I'm just trying to use "deal struck is the deal struck" approach to the Dom3 diplomacy. Meaning that I may say a lot of fuzzy and evasive things before a deal and may be dealing with other players under the table, but after the deal is struck I'll find really difficult for me to directly violate it. I may reconsider this approach after a few games, but for now I'm going to go with this method. I'm especially wary against a NAP violation, in this dog-eat-dog of Dom3 it is pretty important to maintain at least some measure of civility.

Quote:

Originally Posted by revenant2

Interesting point about the NAP. I can definitely see where you're coming from, although in the few games I've been in (three including this one), I didn't see people be especially concerned about game-winning enchants in terms of NAPs, although I'll grant you that none of them were Utterdark either.

Don't most of your troops have Darkvision and have low upkeep cost anyway? I figure UD would effect you least of anyone -- well, besides me of course

Utterdark and Burden of Time are world-attacking spells. They have a same effect as casting direct-attack spell at the every single of your provinces all of the time. Thus, casting them without notice is a direct hostile action. Thank you for considering the results of casting it by me, but well, taking somewhat less damage from the nuclear winter is still taking damage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by revenant2

Well, maybe I had to figure that I needed to help you with micromanagment by attacking some of your armies?
Newb question: Is there an established protocol for NAPs? I figured it included attacks, assassinations, and remote attacks, but everything else is shades of grey to me. For instance, you were sending in waves of spies against me. In one turn, I rooted out three of them in one of my provinces alone. Is that considered a violation of a NAP?

Casting a direct attack spell is a hostile action for me. Utterdark is a direct attack spell. Spying is not. Did my scouts attack your provinces or cut 90% of your gem supply?

Quote:

Originally Posted by revenant2

Hell, at one point I even told you how powerful I was becoming and suggested that you that you might want to consider banding together with the remaining nations to stop me, or be subservient to Bone Daddy. I even gave you the option to nullify the NAP so you wouldn't have to give notice.

You told me that 2 turns ago - with no mention of using UD (and you spoke with me about possible using BoT before that in the future so I had some stupid naive idea that I'll have some notice of you casting UD). The same time you scripted dispelling my global, by the way. I asked you last turn in reply about sudden disappearance of this global, had no answer, scipted some war preparation things. This turn I was going to send you NAP dissolval message, and I was going to attack you in three turns.

Spying actually is an offensive action. On the battlefield replay it shows up as an attack and the patrolling force can easily lose units due to friendly fire.

And as far as the dispelling the global goes, it's an anonymous action. And I neither confirmed nor denied that I dispelled it. As far as you're concerned it could have been cast by an AI or a dastardly plot by another player to mess with you.

Yeah I know, it might seem far-fetched since I obviously was the one to benefit from it, but then again, why would I waste a turn and astral gems for a game-ending enchantment? I used well over 500 death gems to cast Utter Dark and I guarantee you that it was going to overpower whatever was there.

And it's not like I needed those other enchants after UD anyway. My death income is over 50 without Well of Misery, I'm overflowing with units so Soul Gate doesn't really help (I don't have enough commanders for all my undead), and Strands of Arcane Power lost its effectiveness a long time ago.

parone · #8 July 1st, 2012, 07:57 PM

i don't think trying to win makes you 'shady'. shouldn't we all expect the other players to try to win. if a global gives you a huge advantage, i can't see you not casting due to a NAP.

shard-true- i don't really know what is going on. you have been nice to me, my post was probably out of line due to my rampant alchoholism. that said, it made sense to me at the time(and does right now, but hey, i'm pretty bombed)

HoleyDooley · #9 July 2nd, 2012, 03:53 AM

Grats to revenant on the win.

Re dispelling of Globals, my take on it is this regarding NAPs.

You should NOT overwrite a global with someone you have a NAP. In a game being played, I had to cancel a NAP with the warning to the player I had no intention of attacking him, he then realised it was only to cast a global that would over write his. Which I cast.

Now castying a global that will overwrite one of the 5 existing globals is fine, as you can't be sure whose will get over written.

As far as just casting dispel on a global, thats fine, as its anonymous spell, just like casting anonymous ritual spells that cause hurricanes etc.

Cheers guys and thanks for the game.

HD

Russian_Comrade · #10 July 2nd, 2012, 08:31 AM

I'll just capture the world with the legions of heavy-armored unkillable scouts. Sigh. Scouts die, that is pretty sad.

And I'm not saying that dispelling my global was a hostile action. You are totally right, I have no means to prove that it was your dispel. I'm saying that UD itself is a hostile spell.

Another funny thing: while it is impossible to prove that it was your dispel, "neither confirming or denying" accusations in the language of diplomacy means "you may think anything you want, maybe yes, maybe no" - but with some extra meaning. When one side accuses another of having a nuke, it is a good policy (translation: "LOL, come at us and check your luck - we may bluff or no, better to be our friend than our enemy"). When one side accuses another of sabotaging a power plant, it is a bad policy (translation: "Well, my bad, but I do not want to say a direct lie, and having me admitting it will be bad for me too").