Code of Honor

[Tomisama]

It has been years now since the Total War multiplayer community had an Honor Society, maybe it’s time again?

Establishing a simple code of ethics for the community, could help to some degree to make folks aware that there are some of us who expect more from the people we play with than a “spam dunk”!

In the past, the Honor Society was an exclusive club, where you had to be nominated and voted in (I never was). That is “not” what I am talking about. My vision is a very simple Code of Honor that can be signed by those who would uphold it.

It could even be taken a step further, if those electing to accept "The Code" as there own, could also signify that fact by adding a special character or letter to the end of their player name. That way Code advocates could more easily find each other online to have the quality of games that they are looking for.

The identifying “mark” (whatever it would be), would also identify those who either were not aware that there was a Code so that they could be told about it, and those who refused to adopt it.

I am thinking that it would be better to exclude the later from your games, than to have to pull the game, and waste any of the precious time it would take to do so.

Thoughts ~:handball:

[RabidGibbon]

I think thats a great idea. At least half the players I've fought against this past week have been spamming fools, and it win or lose it's starting to get me down because the game could be/should be so much better than that.
A simple way of identifying non-idiot players would be great.

[The Hun]

Unfortunately bad player could will use same identifier and so not change

[1dread1lahll]

Tomi,...not to say 'boo' to your idea, but being as we both go back to STW, we can both recall STW had its fair share of 'riff-faff', and it did not work there. The nature of RTW allows for much worse; I would not expect it to work with RTW, but good-luck.

[Dutch_guy]

would be a great system, if it works of course.
then we could actually be able to host tournament , not clan bound, which would make for exciting games and good ones to ~;)

maybe you should also bring this to attention at the Colosseum forum, get's more viewers than the Campus Martius just an idea :bow:

[ichi]

Hey Tomi *bows*

So what are you thinking of? Like a code for behvior in the lobby, or actions on the field?

Even tho some folks will probably form an anti-honor code (for every good idea there's an equal, but opposite reaction), I still think this idea might have merit.

Altho I'm not playing RTW right now, when I was I found that the behavior in terms of chat and teamwork were really poor, and so anything you put together might help.

There's a lot of good guys in Rome that I think would at least consider this.

ichi :bow:

[Tomisama]

Signatories of the Code of Honor would simply be “standing up” to be counted as holding themselves personally, to a higher standard.

Not they think that are better than anyone else, but that they support set of ethics that they believe will improve the multiplayer community.

And no, there is no way to keep out the insincere. But whatever motivation brought them, they would still get exposure to folks who are trying to make a difference. Even just that, will make a difference in them.

What would be included? All conduct in the foyer and the field, in all ways. From how you address other players, and respond to them. To the army you choose, and how you use them. The object always being to promote the highest quality gamming experience for “everyone” involved.

This idea will not solve every problem, and probably the significance will fade rather quickly, but everyone who even just reads The Code and it’s signatures, whether they personally sign or not, will be affected!

*bows*

P.S. The part about adding to your player name was an extension of the idea, not the heart of it. Just the signing alone would present the names of who you should look for when you want a game with others earnestly seeking to improve their skill, and enjoy good company.

[Wishazu]

i like this idea, im sick of egyptian desert cav spammers!!!

[sheelba]

same as wishazu said

[The_Mark]

You can count me in, if this is done.

[Tomisama]

We need a Code of Honor author or authors.

We have many capable people.

We may even end up with a hybrid mix of proposals.

Something in the nature of a short paragraph proclaiming an oath to seek to maintain the highest level of integrity in personal behavior and game ethics.

Who will present the first draft?


Edit: Hey, even if you don't have a idea for the whole thing, what do you think should should be included?

(Elmo, you out there ~:cool: )

[BeBear]

By law or by honor, ah that's the question...

[The Hun]

I wish to clarify my early post, it was not meant to be and sounded like a rant. I just worry that some would add whatever to their online name and continue spam. I am sure that we cannot 'out' the offender here on these forums and for sure they can easy change names. It is a tough idea to make Tomi but a good one I agree.
Maybe this is time for TW vets to unite.

[Tomisama]

Exactly! The vets and concerned newer players need to unite and proclaim a standard, and teach those who will listen, that there are more rewarding things possible with this game than an arcade wam bam!

And not by regulation, this is a moral issue. Really about self respect and putting the community before your self. Some general rules will follow, but generated from and for the spirit of community, which must come first (The Code).

(trying to work something up but is slow going :book: )

[Tomisama]

Proposal number one:

Code of Honor

In the interest of creating an online gamming 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.


Anything could follow?

Some examples off the top of my head:

To vow to always be courteous and respectful to all players, even if they are not in return.

To be helpful to any who would ask for our assistance, even if it is inconvenient.

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

To never intentionally take advantage of unintended weakness in the game programming.

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

To always enter the game with a salute, and leave it with salutation, to show respect for your fellow players.

To always remember that multiplayer without quality opponents, is only single player.

The last line was kind of tongue in cheek, but is really the point, though it may not be included ~;p


Comments, additions, subtractions?

Is this what you were thinking, or do you have another perposal?

:bow:

[shogun888]

Great Idea Tomi! Hope this would take off

MizuDef

[Tomisama]

Thanks Def, (and AggonyShields who liked the idea, but is unable to post here atm).

Thinking to make a web page where names can be posted of all players who would accept the oath. A quick email to sign, and will add the name for all to see.

Once finalized, will do the above and post a link on every message board throughout the Total War community to provide access for all multiplayers, no matter which game they play.

But now need more feed back on what should be included (or not).
Figure to have the page up with in a week, so please don't delay if you have an idea.

P.S. Just for an experment added _CoH to my player name to see if anyone would notice. They didn't, but no one was looking for it either. Anyway it was ver easy to do, though not sure if it is really nessisary or not?

~;)

[AquaLurker]

I would like to be a part of this chivarly community, are we going to have some sort of name list or something for this?

[Wishazu]

if this goes ahead i wouldnt mind trying to set up some kind of friendly 1v1 or 2v2 tourney for all signees, might help to get a bit of "team" spirit going :) would anyone be interested?

[Dutch_guy]

if this goes ahead i wouldnt mind trying to set up some kind of friendly 1v1 or 2v2 tourney for all signees, might help to get a bit of "team" spirit going :) would anyone be interested?

sounds good, I've always thought there was a lack of tournaments ( not clan bound ) so this would be a great idea, if the whole CoH thing will be a succes.
which it no doubt will ~D

[RabidGibbon]

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

This part of the proposed code could be the most difficult to implement, not least because peoples ideas of what is or isn't reasonable can be wildly different (One player once told me he was too good to play with balanced armies). Perhaps some sample armies could be displayed on the web page? Or a cap on the number of elite units put forwards. By Elite I am thinking of pretty much anything that takes 2 or more years to build.

Alternatively Army lists (similar to those used in tabletop wargaming) could be put forwards for each faction. Although impractical for general use maybe they could be used if this tournament ever kicks off?

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick and is the Code of Honour designed to cut out the :furious3: and make a more ~:cheers: atmosphere online rather than try to introduce balanced/historically accurate armies?

[Nigel]

I like your idea, Tomi.
I think you are off to a good start with this and if it can continue in this spirit, I will gladly sign my name to it. One key is imho, as you say, not to make it elitist or exclusive, but open to all with the view to promote good sportsmanship, chivalreous behaviour and a high standard of play.

And by high standard I dont mean you have to be an excellent player (through years of practice) but that you have an attitude that you would rather loose than win by cheap exploits.

I have a couple of thoughts on your proposed list of values.
The main one is that, like RabidGibbon said above, it is very difficult to define what is a balanced army, or if indeed that is rally always what you want. Perhaps it is better for this purpose to describe it in a negating way and say "to avoid making use of overpowered units or taking advantage of game-inherent imbalancies"

[Tomisama]

Some quick responses (or not) in the order of the posts above:

Yes, a list of names on a dedicated web page. Email in your name, and the page would be updated once or twice a week. All announcements would link the page where the names and sign up email address would be.

The 1v1 or 2v2 tourney is really a “great” idea. Would help kick this thing off right. Excellent!

If we do it right it will be a success. Am considering strategies of advertising (Org main page large graphic, signature banners, and of course post on all community forums, etc.. Have found a background for the page it’s self, and will work up the text and let you all have a look see later this week.

Rome it’s self is almost hopelessly imbalanced. I don’t think more than a general concept will accomplish anything but bickering and division. We will just have to make the best of it we can. Rules for the tourney could help set some good models, that’s true! Yes what we are selling here is spirit.

As you both mentioned the “To always play with an army reasonably balanced according to unit choices available for the particular faction chosen.” clause is arbitrary. But I believe any statement will be, to a certain extent. Even "to avoid making use of overpowered units or taking advantage of game-inherent imbalancies" (very good btw) is open to interpretation.


This is kind of on the side, but I would like to hear your opinions:

Let me ask “the question” of the hour. Around the community there is a move afoot to gain support for a 5 max of same unit limit. Of course this almost automatically rules out the use of some factions, but the promoters of the idea think it is worth the trade.

Would any of you consider this a viable option?

And if you think you would, is it too detailed a proposal for The Code?

I mean we are looking to unite the community not divide it because of something too specific.

~:cheers:

Thanks in advance!

[Wishazu]

i hate to throw a spanner in the works but i disagree with a 5 unit max, cos i play greece and the only units i have is hoplites, i dont wannab be forced to take militia hoplites, who are quite frankly rubbish when my opponents can quite often have 5 units of various types of superior infantry. as long as cav spamming isnt allowed i dont mind.

my proposal for rules
denarii - 10k per player, howeveri would be willing to go up to 12.5k.
unit limits - none on specific units, but we will have to decide what exactly constitutes cav spamming.
faction limits - no Egypt, im pretty sure most people would agree they are the most unbalanced and overpowered faction.

Faction selection - play the games over 2 rounds with 1 team attacking and 1 defending, defender gets to choose faction first. in games with multiple players on each team, everyone picks a faction in sequence going from team to team starting with defending team. i.e 1 defender picks, then 1 attacker and so on.

[RabidGibbon]

I also dont like the 5 max rule. As Wishazu points out it penalises those factions with limited unit choices, and doesn't guarantee balanced armies.

Take this example:
Legal army (Seleucids)
5 Cataphracts
5 Scythed Chariots
5 Companion Cavalry
5 Armoured Elephants

Illegal Army (Seleucids)
10 Levy Pikemen
6 Peltasts
2 Millita Cavalry
2 Companion Cavalry

I know this is an extreme example but I think it makes my point clear.

There cant be any doubt about which is the most balanced or Historically plausible, yet under 5 max its illegal. If this code is going to promote a rules system (even indirectly through using it for its tournament) I dont think it should be the 5 max rules which seem quite ill thought out to me.

As I mentioned above I think a limit on the number of elite units would be a neat solution, though we would have to classify what counts as elite.

Cav Spamming could be coutered by a cap on the number of cavalry units, perhaps with a dispensation for traditonally Cav heavy factions. However a cap on the number of elite units would make spamming more difficult for these factions. ie: no all cataphract armies.

Arrggghhhhh, I've gone off on one about fiddly little rules again when were supposed to be discussing how to make the game a more ~:grouphug: place for everyone.

I wouldn't have a problem putting my name to Tomi Says charter as it stands, despite my earleir post on the balance clause it's probably futile to argue over wording - I think people will either understand what this code is aiming to achieve or miss the point altogether.

Perhaps something could be entered about accepting defeat graciously when defeated? Im just thinking of those times when your footmen have won the battle and then have to spend half an hour chasing that 1/4 strength unit of cavalry into a corner.

[Crandaeolon]

As I mentioned above I think a limit on the number of elite units would be a neat solution, though we would have to classify what counts as elite.

How about putting a max limit on units above a certain denarii level? For example: 7 max / 750 would mean that you may have only 7 units whose base price is 750 denarii or more.

It may not be possible to nail down a good catch-all denarii level, but might still be worth investigating... :tongue2:

[Wishazu]

ok cool, i think we should get back to the matter of sorting out the code, then we can work out the rules for the tourney, maybe make it a regular thing with the winner being given a special title at the .org or something :)

[Agravain of Orkney]

I suggest keeping the focus on behavior. Things like treating others with respect, no swearing, not quitting early when you are the host, not anchoring to the red zone, no spam-blobs .... things like these make for an enjoyable game between the involved players. In a Code of Honor I would stay away from things like trying to control the composition of armies, banning units or factions, etc. These are really game balance issues. They are important to tackle but I think should be done outside the realm of an honor code.

[AquaLurker]

How about be humble? lolI find that there not really much stuff to add to the code of honor.

But let us dicuss about the rules for the balance or "historical accurate troops"(not that RTW have historical accurate troops) because this is the main reason why the Code of Honor is started. To give the games we wish to play a more tactical depth and that's include dealing with losy troops like militia hoplites.

If you guys are familiar with table top war games such as Warhammer fantasy, they have a system where certain troops are classified as core, special and rare. There is no limit to the number of core troops unit you can take unless they some kind of specialize core troops, there are limits to the amount of special troops and rare troops that you are allowed to take.

We can adopt this system for RTW Code of Honor games for those who are interested in it. It is just like the elite system as mentioned by the others previously, and I believe that this will make the game more enjoyable in a more tactical point of view. ~:)

[AquaLurker]

I suggest keeping the focus on behavior. Things like treating others with respect, no swearing, not quitting early when you are the host, not anchoring to the red zone, no spam-blobs .... things like these make for an enjoyable game between the involved players. In a Code of Honor I would stay away from things like trying to control the composition of armies, banning units or factions, etc. These are really game balance issues. They are important to tackle but I think should be done outside the realm of an honor code.

Yes behavior is really important, but what I think the people are trying to do here is to make the game more enjoyable with more tactical depth. I can be a spammer and have good manners but my opponent will not enjoy the game.

Of course I am not saying that by fielding a balance army your are allowed to be rude to your opponent lol. When it comes to manners it all comes down to the players to observe their own behaviors. Of course people with bad manners will put themself in a bad spot, people will avoid playing with them. ~:handball: ~:grouphug: No body can be responsible for your behavior and the consequences.

[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 ~D

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 :furious3: ) 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 ~D

[Tomisama]

Sneek peek :book:

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 ~D

[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

~:cheers:

[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 ~:confused:

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!

:bow:

[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?

[Wishazu]

i think a tag is a good idea, it will help code signees identify each other more easily :)

[Lord Preston]

but how would you stop people just using them without signing up?

[Wishazu]

to be fair allmost nobody is gonna know what it means and probably wont bother about it. how many times have you seen peoples wierd tags in their nicks and not given them a second glance, i allmost never remember the names of people ive just played against, unless it was a particularly glorius battle :) the like the one we just played where i saved your ass ;) ~D

[[WOT]{G}SparhawkI]

Greetings my friends
Strength & Honour to you all.
I think the Code of Honour is a great idea

i only have reservations about this talk of balanced armies & limiting choices. Are we not better & more honourable to learn how to defeat those which we find most threatening?
and thus increase our skill & enjoyment of the game without putting restrictions on the enjoyment of others.

If you are interested in more detail on my views on this see
http://p219.ezboard.com/fclanwars3540frm41.showMessage?topicID=15.topic

I seem to be somewhat of a lone voice for tolerance on this matter but none of these so-called spam armies are unbeatable, think outside the square, find enjoyment from finding ways to defeat these armies ~:)

I remain, as always, your humble servant

[WOT]{G}SparhawkI
General & Ambassador
Warriors Of Troy RTW Clan

[Wishazu]

hello mate, welcome to the .Org your point about the armies is fair but we are not really afraid of facing these armies, we just want to be able to play decent games, its so much more fun playing a thinking opponent rather than 1 who puts all his eggs in 1 basket and just rushes at you.

[Tomisama]

Getting closer?

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

[[WOT]{G}SparhawkI]

Greetings All
I had not read page 2 of this thread when I posted, i think the idea of giving your opponent some idea of the army you intend to bring while discussing rules & reaching agreement regarding this & all other rules for that particular game cover it nicely

I will be honoured to Sign up to The Code :)

[Wishazu]

Getting closer?

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

Very nice :)

[COR BIRD EMII]

i think this is a great idea. but as noticed by other players. peope will notice the tag and make their own tag with their name.
like a new clan came out already with the same tag as the COR except theirs is all lower case.. our clan is thinking about taking them over having a battle to overrun that clan and either they join us or they leave or more than likely a new clan will start after that.
buit this identifying well behaved players i think is a good idea. if it ever happens please let us at COR know about it

http://neutie.proboards7.com/index.cgi
our forum board if u al would like to chat

[Nigel]

Getting very much closer, Tomi, very nice !!!


To base my tactics and strategies on applied skill, never taking advantage of weakness in game's programming or design.
I think that statement really should cover spamming, imbalancies and other exploits without going into all the detail of what is and what is not a "conventional" army.

I wonder if the site could be made so that the individual statements are links - or perhaps show a hint if you hover the mouse over them. Then we could have some additional text explaing the idea behind the particular statement. Somethiing like : "the idea is to avoid exploits like the cav spam in RTW or the sideswipe in MTW or... also encourages to bring a variety of different units rather than relying on the overpowered ones".

Not sure if this can be done, but may be a possibility.


Ohh, and one typo, last statement:

...consists of a wide diversity of people
:clown:

[Tomisama]

Agreed Nigel,

The “conventional” phrase is has been eliminated. And thanks for the “of” ~;)

As far as putting a CoH on the end of your player name, I would say is totally optional. I think that it is a good idea, but that’s up to you. The names will be on the page for all to see, in any case.

When we actually get together for a Rally or a Contest event that is named for The Code, dawning you Code colors would probably the thing to do for sure.

A Rally? Yes, we could have Code Sunday (or whatever) Rally at some point soon, where we could all get together for an afternoon of Honorable fun, to kick things off?

We'll see.

The latest revision has a new address.

http://www.clanwarscomp.org/codeofhonor

Will get an email specificly for Code mail soon also.

Will be going public in a few days, not long now!

Keep the names coming, will try to keep the updates daily ~:)

[AquaLurker]

Please include me in the Code of Honor, my online gaming name is 'WinkyWars', it would be great to join you guys in a regular Sunday game.

[Agravain of Orkney]

I think you have nailed it Tomi. Excellent work! ~:cheers:

Plz add me to your list of signees. :bow:

[Lord Preston]

ok add me to it: MarcusP

any chance of list being alphabetical? sorry if this means more work for you but it will be easier to search for someone on the list.

i propose that to find other players in game who are part of the code of honor to simply ask "any COH members here?" most will think its a clan.

and the list will be simple to check if alphabetical.

[Nigel]

That looks great, Tomi.

I will be honoured to place the CoH blazon upon my shield and stand up for the values of the Code with my good name.

Nigel

[Wishazu]

dont make it alphabetical!!!! i`ll be right at the bottom!!!! :( :embarassed:

[AquaLurker]

lol so will I ~;)

[Lord Preston]

damn, you realised my master plan! :furious3:

[Tomisama]

Aqua and Lord P, I have put your player names up, but still will need your email addresses. If you can just shoot me a quick email, I will be able to add your addy to the CoH mailing list. The list will be the primary means of alerting Code members to future Code events.

Have decided to keep the email roninwarlords@hotmail.com for the time being, as a convenience to me. It is an account that has grandfathered extra stuff, that would have to be paid for on a new account.

Remember the web page has changed if referring folks to it.

http://www.clanwarscomp.org/codeofhonor

Thanks :charge:

[Tomisama]

Have you signed The Code?

http://www.clanwarscomp.org/cohbanner.gif

Come, stand with us!

http://www.clanwarscomp.org/codeofhonor

codemember@hotmail.com

[Wishazu]

so are we going to be using a tag or not? if so hows about something like *CoH* or >CoH< or {CoH} ???

[Tomisama]

I just added a _CoH to my player name.

I think it would go best at the end of a moniker, as not to interfere any Clan identification which is usually on the front end. Harder to find but still there ~:)

And here is another trinket, if anyone who has signed would care to use it.
Going to add it to my signature soon, but haven't got there yet.

http://www.clanwarscomp.org/coh.gif

http://www.clanwarscomp.org/coh.gif

[Wishazu]

will add it to my sig as soon as my photobucket account is working again.

[CMDR Coconut]

I like the idea too. I'm in for a try.

I can't stand cheaters and those that take advantage of flaws in software to make themselves as "gods".

The more realistic the better and that takes nobles.

[AquaLurker]

Are we becoming nobles??? I am afraid the peasanst might revolt :duel: :help: :charge: :dizzy2: :duel: ~:eek: :charge: lol

[Lord Preston]

i already am a noble :charge:

but im willing to let you rabble join me ~:cheers:

[The_Mark]

Sign me in; I'm just too lazy to send an email ;)
My email for your database: markku_alho@hotmail.com

[Wishazu]

well now, seeing as the code is finalised and we allready have about 20 signees, maybe now we can talk properly about a little tourney. it should be fun

[Tomisama]

24 as of this Monday morning (not all on the page yet).

With 2 more posting here, but who have not sent their player names in yet.

codemember@hotmail.com

That would give us 26.

But the announcement (sent in) has not hit the front page of the Org yet!

We’re really just getting started in getting the word out :charge:

[The_Mark]

Ah, sorry. My player name is The_Mark. Still too lazy to email :)

[Wishazu]

Me and Lordpreston have set up a new clan called the Vandal Horde. we are looking to recruit a couple more players so if any of you Code signees are interested come and visit our brand new forums Vandal Horde (http://s10.invisionfree.com/The_Vandal_Horde/index.php?act=idx)

[Nigel]

Are we becoming nobles??? I am afraid the peasanst might revolt :duel: :help: :charge: :dizzy2: :duel: ~:eek: :charge: lol

LOL, AquaLurker,
But true nobility is shown in your actions, not in your title.
So you may already be a noble, if you like it or not ~;)

[AquaLurker]

Cool ~:cool: ladies and gentlemen I am a lurking nobleman. ~D

[[WOT]{G}SparhawkI]

one my clan members has had trouble emailing his adherence to the code -
he is [WOT][M]GeneralAlbino
email ework@bellsouth.net
Please add him to the list
my thanks

[Wishazu]

id just like to say that all 3 of my new clan members(me included) are signees of the code, thats me, beefy and Marcusp(preston). a whole clan so far :D

[Lord Preston]

would be nice to see clans sign up to this.

then anyone who carries there tag has to abide by the code....

[Tomisama]

Over half of our current signees are Clan members ~:grouphug:
And one new start-up Clan is so far composed of all Code signers ~:cheers:
I Believe that we will see whole Clans come onboard soon.
But they will have to do it one member at a time, as this is a personal pledge.

Posted the following a few days ago on the Net. Thought you might like to see it.
Oh yes, the real number as of today is 34 ~:)


Just past 31 signers, with more coming every day.

Still waiting for a front page notice on the Org to give things a boost.

If you see a heard of players in the foyer with a CoH extension on their player names, they are not a new Clan. It’s just Code members getting together for a Code Day or special contest. The CoH is a temporary way to quickly identify each other for these special occasions.

There is no qualification for signing. This is a personal thing for each signer. No one is claiming any degree of honorability. The pledge is a goal for all of us, something we are aiming at.

Several have written that they have a problem with anger, but say they will try very hard to be worthy of The Code. And that is what The Code is all about, a personal commitment to make an effort, that’s all!

We are all believing that “It is better to light one candle, than to curse the darkness.”

Come, stand with us!

Read The Code - http://www.clanwarscomp.org/codeofhonor

Sign The Code - codemember@hotmail.com

[Voigtkampf]

For me, there will be no problem in signing this, since I had always been behaving in this manner. When I get back from work, I will send my signature. :bow:

It is done. :bow:

[ichi]

nice job Tomi

*bows*

ichi :bow:

[Tomisama]

Hi Ich!
~:)

(Another transplant post. This time from the Clan Wars message board.)

“You can have a game without rules between honorable players, who do not use weaknesses in the design of the game to unfair advantage.

But you cannot have a regulated game between dishonorable players, as they will not follow the rules anyway.

Honor (personal integrity), is truly everything when it comes fair competition. And if your competition is not fair, there is no sense in having it, as any victories are frauds, and without any genuine merit.”

45 signers as of this Sunday evening ~:cheers:

http://www.clanwarscomp.org/codeofhonor

I feel a Code Sunday coming on. Maybe May 1st we can have an online get together?
Will mail details midweek. Watch for a subject heading of “CoH Code Sunday”.

Go with Honor - Keep the Code :bow:

[Wishazu]

how about the sunday after the first? PLEASE,PLEASE,PLEASE its my girlfriends 21st on sunday so i cant miss that, and i dont wanna miss the first CoH get together

[Tomisama]

Not set in stone ~D

Was just thinking that once we pass 50 signers (this week I'm sure), it would be great to have a party.

The second Sunday would be fine too ~:cheers:

[Wishazu]

sweet :)

[AquaLurker]

Not set in stone ~D

Was just thinking that once we pass 50 signers (this week I'm sure), it would be great to have a party.

The second Sunday would be fine too ~:cheers:

huh? huh? what party? ~:confused:

[Lord Preston]

i think we need a new rule....

"inform all the spammers + stackers they are lame"

i said "no spamming" so he takes all egypt chariots..... then when i say "whats that?!? didn't you read"

he says "i know what im doing" then starts to stack them.....

i told other players why i was stopping the game then closed it, hope you dont feel this is against CoH, i dont want to play with those people and if CoH "makes" me then no thanks.

[Tomisama]

On the contrary Lord Preston. You did exactly right ~:cheers:

Stopping the game, and explaining the problem.

Well Done!

:bow:


64 signees as of this evening, and growing every day.

Go with Honor – Keep the Code :knight:

(more on the party soon Aqua)

[Lord Preston]

Go Me ~D

[Tomisama]

The following Clans all have one thing in common.

They all have at least one member who has accepted The Code.

70 signers to date.

Is your name there?

Is your Clan at least represented?

1. 7Bear7
2. Aggony
3. Chaos
4. CoR
5. Forumite
6. FotN
7. Hunter
8. Imperial_Legionaire
9. LegXGem
10. LofM
11. Maji
12. Mizu
13. NDR_Dragons
14. RBL
15. RTK
16. SC
17. Silent
18. SPID
19. THOK
20. Triumvriant
21. VH
22. Wolf
23. WOT

It only takes a minute to send in your player name.

Stand with us!