Rules of Engagement

waaaaay too long to read

sorry ty not a big fan of the rune cap idea. If make a legit attack on someone and go over the max runes taken for the day/week im not giving them back sorry, if i earn them im keeping them. not to mention its way too complicated for my simple mind

so instead what i propose is a time limit before someone in the same clan can attack that player again unless that player takes runes back from the clan that attacked them

for instance lets say i hit wolfie for 10 runes she would be safe from further attacks from my clan for lets say 1 week unless she counters me and gets runes or attacks someone else in my clan and gets runes then she would be fair game again regardless of the number of runes taken

as for the amount of time this is what i have in mind (however maybe someone with more experience could come up with a better time line)

1-9 48hrs
10-19 1week
20-29 2weeks
30-39 3weeks
ect. ect.

1 week is a bit much, don't you think? I'd rather say 1-2 days, and the time frame could depend on the number of runes stolen, something like y=5x (y being the number of safe hours and x being the number of stolen runes)

I would just like the honor system to work in a simple and functional manor. 

I can agree with a 3-day cooldown, but giving the victim resources to scout again? Are you serious? That is like paying someone for their goods after robbing them.

About those honour loss attacks: at first it looks like a good idea, but when I started thinking about it, I didn't like it anymore. Let's assume you are a player like any other, not the best and not the worst. You want to attack somebody to have some action (it's a war game after all), but the only targets within your range are from stronger clans, and you are pretty sure they will take revenge on you and your clan if you pull any runes. What do you do then? Attack them to get some action but take the risk of your clan getting it's *** kicked, or save your clan and just pretend you're playing Sim City?
This is just my opinion, it's very possible that nobody else thinks that way.

Welcome to the top of the leaderboard.  Building an Outpost means you can attack everyone again.

Exactly...almost.  You're only paying for 1 rune set, even though you might have taken 40 runes.  This was suggested because we'd like to prevent players feeling overwhelmed or completely helpless.  We are trying to avoid losing any more players.  After an attack, it's possible that the attacked player is somewhat stuck for a while - especially if certain buildings are now gone.  This at least lets them get a rune scout in.

I agree

That's what happens when people start searching for game details.

That would be an aggravating factor, yes.

This is my take on the issues involved.

We are looking at ways to make the game more fair and more fun for more people using in game behavior rules that players will agree to.

In this thread, we are focusing on player behavior rather than game mechanics.

Frodo's clan has more players and more villages per player and a robust economic base.
Violent Resolution has active, aggressive players that like to fight and want to fight. The clan has chosen to remain smaller and tries to make up for this using activity and coordination as a means of staying competitive.

To fight Frodo's clan and inhibit its growth, the strategy and tactics that I envision can and will contribute to burn out and loss of player base. We would use activity and coordination to wear down the threat membership. Clearly applying this strategy is not going to work in the long term. Applying this strategy would eventually lead to our own members burning out or getting damaged beyond the ability to fight back effectively as power continues to concentrate in the hands of fewer and fewer players.

So this leaves us in need of a set of rules that we all can play by and continue enjoying the game.

Here is why I think the rune cap idea solves the problem more effectively if there are some basic good sportsmanship principles applied in how players behave towards each other.

The problem I have with various hard rules regarding tactical operations in battles between two clans at war is that it limits completely reasonable tactical tools the two clans can employ in battle.

Tactics - how a clan fights a complicated battle involving multiple villages, the decisions on who to send main attacks against, who to support, who to fake, who to pin down while a main attacker returns home, what spells to use, how to employ thieves etc is fun and has enormous effect on the success of any combat operation. Agreeing to a fixed set of rules limits tactical options available for employment.

For example a hard rule that prevents Tyranicus from attacking Wolfie because Veronica hit Wolfie yesterday for runes, eliminates Wolfie from having any fakes on her village being credible and frees her for tactical action in retaliating against threats or supporting other clan members. And no one that has had to fight her wants a free Wolfie running loose causing havoc, panic and mayhem in a pitched battle if they can help it

While it would be pushing the boundaries of good sportsmanship pretty far to hit Wolfie twice for runes in two days, completely eliminating her from the threat of attack in a pitched clan fur ball battle is not a good idea.

Now the idea that too many pitched battles in a week contributes to burn out is another problem.
And some reasonable tactics that could be employed under limited circumstances might be totally unreasonable if used again and again and again over a period of time. My point is that hard and fast rules may needlessly micromanage in game player behavior. Employing more general principles might be just as effective in promoting a game that is more fun, more fair and more crowded.

examples of bad sportsmanship:
-Attacking the same player and taking runes so often that it becomes impossible for them to recover within a few weeks. No one wants to watch 2 months of work get burned to the ground in a few days.
-Harassing attacks and spell/thief effects that keep a player in constant crisis mode for days.
-Calling people nasty names in chat or pm's
-Using foul language
-Attempting to intimidate or embarrass them publicly
-Announcing in public chat that a player's troops are not home after they made a successful and legitimate attack on your village.

(yes I am guilty of being a bad bad sport too from time to time)

Bottom line:
Is there a problem with using the golden rule? If someone or some group did to you what you plan to do to them would you want to quit playing the game?

If you would consider quitting if someone pulled off this plan against you, DON'T DO IT!

In response to this, and after a bit of discussion, we've come up with the idea that:

And:

The addition is this:
Once a player reappears in the clan logs as an attacker (clan logs are indisputable shared information) then both counters reset:
* The 3 day rune take cooldown ends (resets)
* The 24 hour targeting restriction ends (resets)

Note: the player must appear in the logs.  Marching to attack and actually making contact are two different things.  One appears in the logs, the other does not.