Code of Honor

[AquaLurker]

I don't think egypt should be ban, I agree that banning a faction from a game is quite silly, if egypt is to be ban, then so should rome.

[RabidGibbon]

I'll set up a seperate thread to discuss army lists/max unit rules and tourney rules as this thread seems to be going off topic. I'll call it Army Lists.

[Lord Preston]

correct it is getting off topic. i think you all have got a bit carried away

the whole point of this is to get all the like minded players together to have fun games. people in this "group" should be able to agree on rules per match, not have them dictated for every match.

when organizing a game if everyone wants 10k they can play at 10k.
if they want 20k they can have it.

if they want or dont want art, let them decide.

if someone has a problem with a match choice like money or using egypt, let them make there point, (again going back to the whole point of this) the other player should be able to resepct the player and if there point is reasonable comply.

if they can't agree on rules... play a game at one players money then a game on the other money.... if you win one each have a "decider" match with the money half way between each players original choice. i for one wouldn't have a problem with this and would look forward to "mini tournament" like that.

if someone has a real problem with playing someone elses rules there should be enough players who play the same rules for them to play.

dont limit the options just because they signed up to play nice and fair. if you do you will end up with a "10k no art, no egypt, bal armies code"

i'm not going to reply in that other topic putting limits on troops, if that is added to this code i wont go near it, if the players in the code are the type of players they're meant to be it should not be needed.

[The Hun]

i'm not going to reply in that other topic putting limits on troops, if that is added to this code i wont go near it, if the players in the code are the type of players they're meant to be it should not be needed.

I think along same lines and do not want to choose from army lists I posted reasons in other thread.

[Tomisama]

Aye, truly after me own heart

That is the way the Clan Wars Competition is set up. Basically no rules, negotiate your own with your opponent, all dependent on the honor to find a way to make it all work. For over three years now we have been holding 4v4, Clan vs. Clan contests in just such a manner.

So I sincerely believe in the idea that honorable players can manage to define their own matches.

Back to The Code it’s self. Will have a little more polished version, including some things that have been suggested, but nothing you didn’t want, up for your review shortly.

Please keep an eye out for it, and be ready to make any further suggestions. Am hoping that this (plus your additional suggestions) will be the next to the last step, which will be getting this web published and signable by this weekend.

Again, thanks!

[Nigel]

Just trying to get in another comment before you go off and write the next version.

To remain with a particular team game, even after having been defeated, as a demonstration of sportsmanship

This actually has been a point of some discussion in an earlier MTW thread. While some people see it as a sign of courtesy to stay till the end, others see it as rude to drag out a lost game unnecessarily or find it annoying to have to remain to the end.

My view of this is that it is ok to quit from a lost game if you want to as long as you say clearly (and in good spirit) that you admit your defeat "and thx, gg and cu". You may also want to check with your allies first, that it is ok with them if you leave and, of course, make sure the game wont crash for the others.

That said, I usually find it too exciting to see who wins in the end and I also enjoy the after-battle-talk so I usually do stay on. But if others are on a tight shedule and want to get on with things, that should be ok.

[RabidGibbon]

Re: Always staying to the end of a game.

I dont know about Mediveal TW MP (So called friend's had my copy since I got broadband, got to get it back ) but Rome TW does have the admit defeat button, so theres no need for people to hang around until the end, unless of course there the host, so a "Always admit defeat graciously" clause might cover this.

The real problem as I see it is people who quit when they know they have lost and leave their opponennts to finish off an AI controlled army, which is about as much fun as carving up a turkey (And the Turkeys a lot smarter), so if people agree perhaps a clause about always admitting defeat before exiting a battle might be in order.

[Craterus]

I always fight to the end just in case your opponent makes a dreadful mistake and I can capitalize on their stupidity to pull it back to a victory.

[Lord Preston]

yeah, i thought i'd lost a 2v2 today.

i was experimenting with gaul.... i lost a large chunk of my army while my ally "went for a wee"..... just my luck but instead of just leaving i stayed. my foresters did some damage and the couple of cav units i had left took out a lot of the enemy from behind.

we eventually won but i still wasn't happy about loosing so many units while my ally just sat there, i felt like "why should i bother to stay when he left me" but im glad i stayed.

[ElmarkOFear]

Hi Tomi. I didn't play enough RTW to know anything about what is considered a cheap army, or to know what unit-limits are necessary. However, I have my old MP ettiquette at the ugli site, which covers general things. Feel free to use it if you like as part of your code. Olds knows where it is and can point you to the page. I had him copy it over, before I removed the site where it was located.

The best idea would be to implement this as something, someone could sign up to participate in. A running list could be kept up-to-date with names and some contact info. such as Messenger, ICQ, hotmail etc . . That way everyone could more easily find each other to set up a game. Either that or have a private Teamspeak or Roger Wilco server for members-only and password it and keep it up 24-7. This would give everyone a place to meet first before they go into the RTW MP lobby, and would allow them to chat more easily as well. It worked well with my old Ghost Recon team. We would first log onto the Roger-Wilco server, find out what server the guys were on, and then all meet there to play. Would go a great way to solve the lack of community the lousy MP lobby forced us into.

I will be more than happy to answer any questions anyone has. You may also want to speak with Obake. He was the one who mostly ran the Shogun Honor Society after I helped him set it up.

Good luck guys

[ElmarkOFear]

BTW: One of the major team ettiquette rules for MP is: Never leave the game, unless you have lost all your units.

Fearful Ways won a lot of team battles by having the enemy chase my men off the map and fatigue-ing their armies to the point of exhaustion, and then swooping in and routng the enemy units. Even if you have just one unit, you can make the difference in the game. That unit might tie up an enemy unit that would have been able to flank your teammate, if it was free to do so. By engaging it with your lone unit, you may keep your teammates alive and win the battle.

Admittedly this tactic worked much better in STW and MTW, but the same principle still applies to RTW.

[Wishazu]

i just wanna say to lord preston and Hun, soz mateys i offered to set up a tourney for the code signee`s the rules we are deciding arnt rules that the signee`s must allways stick too. their just the rules for this 1 tourney, im sure that if this code goes ahead there will be many tourney`s and all will probably be very different :)

[Tomisama]

A major reworking, so please read carefully.
Consider each passage individually in turn, and post any changes you think should be made below (numbered for convenience only).

The Online Total War Multiplayer’s
Code of Honor
(v1.3)

In the interest of creating a game playing environment that encourages a growing multiplayer community with the highest level of skills and sportsmanship. We the undersigned do by this document declare our pledge to adopt and support the following code of conduct and practice.

On my personal honor I hereby vow;

(1.) To be courteous, respectful, patient, and kind, to all players, even if they are not in return.

(2.) To be helpful to any who would ask for my assistance, even when it is inconvenient for me.

(3.) To enter the game with a salute, and leave it with salutation, consistent with good sportsmanship.

(4.) To base my tactics and strategies on applied skill, never taking advantage of weakness in game's programming or design.

(5.) To consult with my allies, and inform my opponents before taking a specialized army composed of other than a conventional balance of unit types.

(6.) To be considerate of my allies, never leaving a team game until all of my resources are spent, and then only with their acknowledged consent.

(7.) To never quit a game if I am hosting, always making sure that the combat has reached full conclusion for all participants.

(8.) To announce my claims of victory with humility, and to admit my defeats graciously, with acknowledgements to any outstanding skillful accomplishments all around.

(9.) And finially, to strive to always be aware that our community consists of a wide diversity people from all over the world, and that my behavior should always equally be, world class!

Thanks!

[Lord Preston]

can't argue with that

wishazu i have no idea what your appolgizing for...... i must of missed something so dont worry about it

anyway its only a game, if you offered to do something for other people good for you, we can't complain about anything.

[Tomisama]

One more for the road :)

To be slow to take offence, and quick to apologize, realizing that the majority of disagreements will eventually prove to be only misunderstandings.

Will have the page up today, but please continue with any suggestions, as it wont be carved into stone yet

[Tomisama]

Sneek peek

http://www.clanwarscomp.org/code/CoH%20Page.html

Comments?

(not finnished, still a workingn version)

[Dutch_guy]

looks good what else are you thinking of including ?
adn when can we enlist

[orb-random]

well i didnt read the thread all the way through but i understand that people jsut adding the tag or singing something and still doing lame tactics could be a problem and i dont know what your prepared to do but i doubt this will ever happen as it would stop all most 100% of lamers from playing with people who knew about code of honour if used properly (yes i know it sounds to good to be true) what you could do is mod the game in a extremly tiny way so that people without this mod could not play a game with u (but if u wanted to you could play on th enormal version) allthouhg this modded version would only be allowed to people who signed that partication thing but then you would nbeed them to prove themsleves worthy of it and the idea wouldent work also people may pass it on to friends (who may lame) also it would just be a bit too much trouble i just thought i would post this as somebody else may be able to come up with a solution that makes this idea a bit more manageable.

[Wishazu]

i say we just trust each others honour etc. if we add a tag most people are not gonna have a clue what its for etc. and wont bother with it, so avoiding lame copiers should be fairly easy. i say just go on as planned we sign up etc. if we encounter any problems along the way we`ll decide what to do about it then.

[Agravain of Orkney]

I think this is an excellent job. Only one which I can see potential problems with:

[FONT=Verdana](5.) To consult with my allies, and inform my opponents before taking a specialized army composed of other than a conventional balance of unit types.
[FONT]

First, how is one to interpret "convential balance of unit types"? Convential balance for the Britons could be very different than the Parthians, who could be very different from the Greek ...... etc. Are we to inform when we are bringing elephants, artillery, chariots, pigs, warhounds, screeching women ........ nobody takes slingers so maybe they are not conventional ........ the Romans at the time believed that anyone other than Romans was not conventional Sorry, I'm not trying to be a pain, just making a point.

Second, I agree with the part about consulting with allies but what about informing opponents, especially in a tournament game? Why does announcing to your opponent before the battle: "hey, I'm bringing an army that is cav heavy and light on infantry" make you honorable? Or perhaps a better way for me to frame this is, since doing this is listed as a a rule in the Code of Honor, then if you do not do this you are being dishonorable? In the time period of the game, was it typical for the two armies to send forth messengers to the other side, informing the other side if the composition of their army was not what was typically expected?

[Imorthorn]

I have just read over the The code of honour, and it sounds llike a good idea, but i would off thought most clans where allready using some sort of code of honour to begin with, we at the lords would be glad to part of this has it can only improve the quality of the rome online community


Imorthorn

www.lordsofmidnight.tk

[Tomisama]

I think this is an excellent job. Only one which I can see potential problems with:

(5.) To consult with my allies, and inform my opponents before taking a specialized army composed of other than a conventional balance of unit types.

Thank you Sir Argavain. Yes, this one is a real stickler. It started off as:

To always play with an army reasonably balanced according to unit choices available for the particular faction chosen.

Which would probably be the best description of what is meant by conventional, and would be variable from faction to faction.

But what makes the second sentence un-universal is that some teams employ cavalry and infantry specialist armys within their team’s armies group. And some individuals “do” want to experiment with unbalanced armys. I think that there is nothing wrong in that, “if” you opponent knows that you are “not” bringing a standard line-up.

You don’t have to tell them exactly what you are bringing. The announcement can be made along with “no art, no ele, no egypt, no con” (and I will not be bringing a conventional army). “mostly cav?” “Yes.” “Ok!”

The whole objective is to avoid unwarranted accusations of “spamming”.

Hey, if you want to bring an all cav army fine! I think I know how to deal with that, but I need to know “before” we hit the field, to make the proper compensating troop selections. That would give me a “fair” chance to provide you with the “best” competition.

It is the honorable thing to do…

P.S. No they didn’t send messengers to each other, but spies and scouts would be bringing back the news on exact army composition well in advance of any actual contact. The best we can do is give each other a little warning

[[seminoles]shadow]

I think its a great idea and would love to do it

[Tomisama]

In retrospect a statement of “no con”, or “no bal” (which is probably better), meaning to alert opponents to intended balance variations, has another edge!

Stating “bal” or “balanced” would let your opponent know that you are expecting a conventional game. If they agree then you know what to expect also.

To nail down interpretations of “conventional” and “balanced”, a simple equation can be used.

The total number of a units of a particular unit type “selected” (mounted, sword, spear, range), must be directly proportional to the percentage made “available” for selection for that particular Faction.

For example the mounted units available to Romans would be 24% (no more than 5), but Parthians could bring 50% (up to 10 mounted units).

Combined with financial and unit max limits, I believe a very manageable game scenario can be built with only a few words.

We will see I guess.

If you would like to have your player name presented on the Code of Honor web page,

http://www.clanwarscomp.org/code/CoH%20Page.html

representing that you personally accept the responsibility of being bound to The Code by Oath, we can start taking Code Members now.

Simply click on the email link below. Insert CoH in the subject, and your player name as the message. That is all that is needed. Community wide announcements will be coming up, but no need to wait for all that to happen

roninwarlords@hotmail.com

[Lord Preston]

i think what is needed is just for people to say "im taking a 'typical' parthian army" i think everyone will know that means a cav heavy army.

to do a heavy cav army with rome is not a 'typical' army. if people dont understand what you mean when you say this just explain rome - cohort heavy, limited cav.

for more definitions on factions "typical army" put your mouse over the factions when selecting and it says things like "blah blah cohorts, limited cav" or "great cav, limited melee" or "phalanx units, limited ranged"

this to me defines what the units should be, even if the makers screwed up the stats and make "limited cav" for rome mean "the best cav".

this is better than any formulas that people wont do (i wont, so if i have to do them to be part of this - no thank you), it also give you "some" flexability when choose troops.

[Nigel]

This is looking pretty good, Tomi.
I also like the statement about beeing "slow to take offence, and quick to apologize". Why not include that too, if you can.

I have to say I do agree with the comments from Agavain and Lord Preston. Expressing what is a "conventional army" is a bit of a hard nut still and a formula is not going to be practical. But I am sure eventually we will come up with something.


I also like the way you have expressed the pledge on the CoH page, i.e.
"On my personal honour I hereby accept and support the following...."

Sounds better than making it a vow or an oath, for those people to whom an oath is a rather serious matter (I personally have taken only 2 vows in my life, one on the constitution of my country when I had to perform a gouvernmental duty and the other one when I got married). It is something some people may not take light-heartedly and for the sake of a computer game. Making a promise upon your honour (as a fair player) seems to fit the idea of the CoH better.

[Agravain of Orkney]

"To consult with my allies and inform opponents if taking an army other than one proportionally balanced according to the faction chosen".

Tomi,

I have been reflecting on the discussion and your previous replies to me regarding this item. Perhaps a better way to address this issue can be gotten from the following, which I posted to my m8s in our forums as I was trying to explain the reasoning behind it.

"....being honourable is to ensure that the battle will be a fair fight based upon the skill of the combatants, and not based upon who out-guesses who and can begin the fight with the best mis-matched army once the 'go' button is pressed."

Perhaps you can work with this and polish it up in a way that fits your CoH, instead of using the phrase "other than one proportionally balanced according to the faction chosen"

[Tomisama]

It has been bugging me to death for days too Agra

Everything else is pretty solid, but that one sentence (concept) is still not right.

Am going to take a long look at Lord Preston’s idea above, and see if we can use the game it’s self to help define things.

There has to be a practical way to do this, and we will find it.

Please keep the thoughts and ideas coming, it all will add up in the end

Although this is not quite finished enough to go fully public, the signatures are already coming in.

That’s the spirit!

[Wishazu]

yeah, when i can see my name on the roll of honour? :D

[RabidGibbon]

I think the key to the whole code is in Tomi Says last sentance of his last last posting (incidentally how do you quote someone?) when he says "Thats the Spirit".

Its what this code is all about and anyone who wants to sign up and then look for holes in the wording to use for there advantage has utterly missed the point.

Finally I agree with Preston that no army list/formula should be attached to the code in any way, the talk about such things was always a sideline brought up incedentally in the course of discussing what constitutes fair play, so I dont think anyone need worry about such a clause when considering whether or not to sign up.

Finally on a more frivolous note, is there going to be a uniform tag for code of honour members to attach to there name, or will it be a kind of free form thing? Or is that a completly pointless point?