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

[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

[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

[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 )

[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 )

[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


Comments, additions, subtractions?

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

[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

[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 and make a more 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.



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 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...

[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. No body can be responsible for your behavior and the consequences.