rules

[Shadow]

Is intentional maxxing for defense against the rules or is it not? If it isn't, I'm going to spend this round giving an active argument of why it should be ^_^

[kell]

it was thought by most to be against the rules but recent events have lead to this uncertainty.
i am very busy of late so i can't max people to show its unfairness, so go shadow go

[Firetooth]

it was thought by most to be against the rules but recent events have lead to this uncertainty.
i am very busy of late so i can't max people to show its unfairness, so go shadow go

It WAS banned but for some reason Wolf decided to claim it was never banned...

[Sharptooh]

  As far as I knew it was banned, however wolf bite seems to think differently now for some reason.... I'm also really suprised about the poll results:
http://www.redwallwarlords.com/forums/index.php?topic=9689.15
  More people actually seem to think it's not against the rules, it would be good if more people voted though.

Is intentional maxxing for defense against the rules or is it not? If it isn't, I'm going to spend this round giving an active argument of why it should be ^_^

  I might get in touch with you lol

[Shade]

I once got into a lengthy arguement with Peace about this rule after I believed it was broken by someone who stole a kill from me, he directed me to this topic: http://www.redwallwarlords.com/forums/index.php?topic=7574.0  and pointed out a loophole that allowed the enemy to do what he did. I pointed out to him that the topic talks only about land loosing attacks, which are no longer a part of the game. He told me that the same rules are also used for intentional maxing and anything that can be considered the 'one rat attack' strategy.

If thats true, then failing more than three attacks on someone in a row with no attempt to actually break them is against the rules unless you are trying to stop a kill. The fact that my claims of a rule violation were taken seriously and that a loophole was pointed out to me leads me to believe that Peace, at least, does believe it's against the rules, as if it was not, no loophole would be needed. Also, Shael disabled someone last round for doing the same. If it's not against the rules than it needs to be looked at, because quite a few people will have gotten unfair admin rulings before now if it is so.

More people actually seem to think it's not against the rules, it would be good if more people voted though.

Not so, that is apoll about whether or not Taek should get his immort taken away, most people are not going link him getting his immort taken away with Intentional Maxing being against the rules, some people are just going to think it's not worth doing anything about now that the rounds is over, you can't use that poll as a very good measurement of what people think on the subject.

[taekwondokid42]

Hmm, it's hard for me to post about this, because anything I say will have bias. But a rule will be hard to make, because what if the intention is not maxing but troop destroying?

If I am attacking someone repeatedly with all I have in an effort to lower their troops (being unable to get enough leaders), then would I be banned for maxing?

Up until now, this has not been a problem, but I see where you make a point that maxing is unfair. Especially in a no-leaders round.


So perhaps we could set up a rule that says something like:

A player is not allowed to repeatedly attack another player, if the intention is to clog land-flow.


???

And, I'm going to apologize, because I never knew that maxing was such a touchy topic.  :-[

[Shadow]

because what if the intention is not maxing but troop destroying?

you would be a complete fool to go about it like that - your own army will die long before you get through even 10% of theirs. Doesn't work.

And you can't base rules on intentions. how would you enforce it? *maxxes 5 people* my intentions weren't to clog landflow, i just wanted a smaller army. how are you going to prove otherwise?

[taekwondokid42]

Chaos...

If you have a larger army, and you chaos someone in standard attack, you should destroy millions of their troops while only losing a million or so of yours.

I've done this several times and can confirm that it has worked.

[Sharptooh]

Chaos...

If you have a larger army, and you chaos someone in standard attack, you should destroy millions of their troops while only losing a million or so of yours.

I've done this several times and can confirm that it has worked.

  Ok I get it *goes away and max chaoses a few people* I really think we should do something about this, I know this was taken out a while ago, but we could always revive that feature that actually takes away your land if you fail an attack more than three times, although there probably was a reason that was taken out... what does everyone else think?

[Shadow]

Chaos...

If you have a larger army, and you chaos someone in standard attack, you should destroy millions of their troops while only losing a million or so of yours.

I've done this several times and can confirm that it has worked.

chaos is only effective if you break them, otherwise losses happen normally to you. I am not talking about attacks that break here.