Diplomatic Proposal Time Limits

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Diplomatic Proposal Time Limits

      The title of this thread says it all. There should be time limits to all diplomatic proposals. They should all have time limits. Though some types of proposals maybe should have shorter or longer time limits than others....whichever makes more sense.

      Or, maybe give a separate time limit button that the player could manually CHOOSE to add a time limit to their offer such that old offers automatically go away if that player so chooses. For example, maybe you want to make a proposal to someone else but you don't want them to be able to take advantage of it past a certain time (e.g., bedtime) or for some other esoteric reason.

      Of course, that option would require adding a time delay slider until offer expiry.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3

    • Diabolical wrote:

      The title of this thread says it all. There should be time limits to all diplomatic proposals. They should all have time limits. Though some types of proposals maybe should have shorter or longer time limits than others....whichever makes more sense.
      @Diabolical: I understand that this proposal grows out of a recent dispute over a right-of-way ("ROW") offer and belated acceptance. I will note a couple of points:

      1. There is no expiration on diplomatic trades, but they may be freely withdrawn by the offeror (i.e. the person making the offer), or rejected by the offeree (i.e. the person receiving the offer), at any time. Offers of diplomatic trades are not irrevocable.

      2. Any change in the active/inactive status of either party to a diplomatic trade offer will cause the offer to be automatically rejected, so that if either party goes inactive and/or is taken over by the AI, an outstanding ROW offer will be nullified.

      3. Any intervening change in the diplomatic relationship (e.g., a move from peace to active war status) will cause any contradictory diplomatic offer (e.g., an offer of mutual ROWs) to be automatically rejected.

      Control over the status of outstanding offers of diplomatic relations of various forms remains in the hands of the offeror.

      That said, if the Bytro programmers find the time to add an expiration option to the trade offer function, I certainly would not object, but it's not on my top-20 priority list of proposed changes.

    • MontanaBB wrote:

      2. Any change in the active/inactive status of either party to a diplomatic trade offer will cause the offer to be automatically rejected, so that if either party goes inactive and/or is taken over by the AI, an outstanding ROW offer will be nullified.
      I'm not sure if this is true of all cases. But inactivity won't kick in for 48.01 hours to 72.00 hours. There are reasons for wanting a short expiry even if what you say is true. In my example cited above, I mentioned that a person might want an expiration time/date to be their anticipated bedtime.

      To further clarify my example, suppose I made an offer of peace to an enemy that I hope they accept. I expect they will accept it, turn their forces around, and go in the other direction. If I should make this proposal at 3 hours before my bedtime, I would expect to see that all happen within 2 hours. If I have to wait any longer, then I'm in danger of falling asleep prematurely before I can cancel the deal to prevent my opponent from taking advantage of my offer while I'm asleep and unable to deal with their treachery.

      If I can set a 2 hour time limit on the proposed diplomatic deal, then I can safely be assured that it won't carry over beyond my ability to monitor it. Why should I have to be punished by the risk of a dishonorable act of unsportsmanship just because I have to sleep eventually? Is it not better to be able to leave a deal open only for a limited duration of my choosing?

      And, I never said that all deals would be limited. Well, they would be under the first suggestion which is default limitations as set by Bytro, but my modified (second) suggestion offered adjustable limits and those limits would necessarily be optional such that one could willfully create a non-expiring offer (or that "unlimited" status would be the default).

      MontanaBB wrote:

      3. Any intervening change in the diplomatic relationship (e.g., a move from peace to active war status) will cause any contradictory diplomatic offer (e.g., an offer of mutual ROWs) to be automatically rejected.
      Um, not sure if that's true ... now ... but I remember on more than one occasion in the past where this is flat out wrong. You can make multiple types of offers (relationship, unit trades, etc.) and they all remain available if you go to war, declare peace, etc.

      MontanaBB wrote:

      That said, if the Bytro programmers find the time to add an expiration option to the trade offer function, I certainly would not object, but it's not on my top-20 priority list of proposed changes.
      This may not be on the top 20 of your list, but it is on the top 20 of mine. Admittedly, it's not top 10. But it's in the "really nice to see it happen" list of things to do and it's not a difficult thing to achieve. How the people at Bytro would prioritize this, or even if they prioritize it at all (they may reject the proposal) is up to them. But I hope that it does get implemented.

      This wouldn't be the first time I've seen really old, non-expiring diplomatic offers being used by others for subversive gain. I admit, I've used them belatedly, myself, but only against inactive players -- and those clearly abandoning -- out of principle. I have no regard for the AI, but I do have respect for a fair playing field for all active human players.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3

    • Diabolical wrote:

      . . . suppose I made an offer of peace to an enemy that I hope they accept. I expect they will accept it, turn their forces around, and go in the other direction. If I should make this proposal at 3 hours before my bedtime, I would expect to see that all happen within 2 hours.
      No offer is accepted until it is. My free advice: don't rely on the honorable intentions of your fellow players. I have seen plenty of them behave like complete schmucks, and this is a game that presents plenty of opportunities for duplicity.

      If I may quote James Mattis, former USMC general and the current U.S. Secretary of Defense:

      "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet."

      Trust no-one until they prove themselves worthy of your trust. And I say that as someone who believes that winning a game in the company of a loyal and competent ally (or helping your ally win) is one of the best experiences that Call of War has to offer. The two sentiments are not contradictory, but a matter of common sense.

    • MontanaBB wrote:

      "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet."

      That says it all.

      As for trusting no one until they prove themselves....well, I was mistaken to think that a certain somebody had more integrity on the battlefield than I realized simply because they are well-known by others and myself. Well, I guess not THAT well-known by myself, apparently.
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3

    • MontanaBB wrote:

      don't rely on the honorable intentions of your fellow players
      This case had nothing to do with duplicity, honor or integrity. We had been at war most the game. I was getting attacked by a 3rd country and had no way to survive. I made a specific offer of collaboration with diab and his ally, which was not accepted and was met with offers that were of no benefit to me. War never ceased and we never got close to any agreement. Being at war, I took advantage of a mistake my enemy made, that is it.

    • DxC wrote:

      This case had nothing to do with duplicity, honor or integrity.
      @DxC: Please do not take my comments as being directed at you or even at the particular circumstances of your dispute with Diabolical. I do not pretend to fully understand the details.

      My comments were, however, intended generally to be a statement that players have complete control over their own diplomatic offers, by virtue of being able to freely withdraw those offers at any time, and that the player making such offers should not rely on the recipient of those offers to act upon them in a specific manner, or even act upon them at all.

    • MontanaBB wrote:

      My comments were, however, intended generally to be a statement that players have complete control over their own diplomatic offers, by virtue of being able to freely withdraw those offers at any time, and that the player making such offers should not rely on the recipient of those offers to act upon them in a specific manner, or even act upon them at all.
      Though I have a difference of opinion about all this, I really can't disagree with that. My only request is just to add an optional time condition. Nothing more.

      I'm past the anger and bitterness that brought about this idea. But the idea still has merit in it's own right and I'd like to see my insight into this be rewarded with a permanent change to how things are done. I'm an idea man. It's what I do....among other things.

      And that spark of insight can be ignited by many things....need, desire, duty, anger, honor, etc....
      It seemed like such a waste to destroy an entire battle station just to eliminate one man. But Charlie knew that it was the only way to ensure the absolute and total destruction of Quasi-duck, once and for all.

      The saying, "beating them into submission until payday", is just golden...pun intended.

      R.I.P. Snickers <3