 |
|
|
|
Tuesday, July 20, 2010 - 06:14 pm  The problem with C3 warriors is that they put forth very little energy into a country, and it takes considerably more energy and time to take it. For those of us that spend a lot of time building up an empire...it's just not fair to get harassed into spending 2-3 hours to take a 100 War Index C3 when it takes about 15-30 minutes to take a 60 War Index C3, buy 100 forts, and declare War. The 2nd problem I have with C3 warriors is that they are the aggressor and they risk nothing while the defender wastes (loses) RL time and gets nothing for it. If you are going to war at least have something to fight with AND...use it or or lose it if your gonna declare war on me. Proposed changes 1. Make inactively defended C3s easier to take (less time)...currently the War engine focuses on forts and it is all too easy to buy 100 forts in a C3. So limit the number of forts you can have in a small undeveloped country under 16 mil pop (allow 5 - 7 forts per mil population): As an Example using 6 forts per million population in a country: - 17 mil pop countries can have 100 forts (6x17= 102) - 8 mil pop countries can have 48 forts (6x8=48) - 12 mil pop countries can have 72 forts (6x12=72) The key here is "inactively defended." If someone is actively preventing you from taking their C3 by either un-painting the map and / or destroying your ground troops, then the C3 will last longer. There is nothing more wrong then wasting 3 hours blowing up a C3 with an aggressor that is not even actively defending the country. 2. Countries must have 5-10T in military assets to declare war.
| |
| Tuesday, July 20, 2010 - 06:22 pm Edit on #2...or units / garrisons installed so that the amount of military assets equals 5-10T.
| |
| Tuesday, July 20, 2010 - 08:04 pm These are good ideas, imo. They would make it more difficult to wage a war where you have nothing at stake. They would change the overall war game somewhat, but that's okay.
| |
| Tuesday, July 20, 2010 - 08:20 pm *yaaaaaaaaaaawns* Let me know when something changes I'll show you a new strategy. Its what I and others do well at this game. adapt, improvise, and succeed. Quit yer Itchin.
| |
| Tuesday, July 20, 2010 - 08:27 pm Itch itch itch --Jojo the Hun, adaptating since 2007
| |
| Tuesday, July 20, 2010 - 08:48 pm Hehe ;)
| |
| Tuesday, July 20, 2010 - 09:08 pm I'm sure you will Windy because you are an exploiter of the game...not an asset to it. Glad you admitted it though...a rare glimpse of the truth from Psycho Spin...itch, itch...
| |
| Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - 12:34 am As far as complaining about C3 warring, clearly, something needs to be changed, but be careful what you ask for. Every one that wars, still wants to use C3s, the key to what is wanted is not being able to wage "never ending war" from only C3s. Care should be given to not allowing a person to fight via C3s, and 1 secured main. As i've seen that abused, and not just by Wendy. Please don't get me wrong. It is ridiculous to allow one person to risk nothing in war, while the other has to fight to hold onto what they worked hard to gain. As Wendy already pointed out, if you based it on 50% pop being exposed, or nominal value, she'd just reduce herself to a secured main, maybe even sell down the pop in that country, just to make sure she can continue the "never ending war," Honestly, a better option, might be a "war weariness," factor. We already have one of a type, but make it more empire based. To the point that troop moral drops (and unit effectiveness.) And/or cases of continual wars with-in an empire, a country may refuse to dec a player, or possibly defect, (and dereg itself,) if the War Weariness index gets to high. I like this option, because it can be linked to a crime/law index. As employment drops, wages drop, empirical wars continue, boycotts, and empire wide loans rise, crime would also rise. With a corruption factor that would reduce income, the WI, or what ever effect... Making it more and more difficult to wage continual wars over long stretches of time. You would of course be able to build police stations to quell some of it, but just like building hospitals to maintain pops over 80... it would get much harder the higher the WW index would go. Another thing i like about this. Is that when W3C moves on giving government type specific effects... Governments like communist, or dictatorships, would be able to control war protests, with a reduced income, or welfare index. Government types like democracy, would get a small welfare index bonus (like 5 points,) but war weariness would increase faster...
| |
| Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - 12:45 am i do like limiting number of forts based on country pop. but there are ways around that... so i think thats a good step, but not enough.
| |
| Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - 02:30 am This isn't a bad idea but I think it is dancing around the easiest answer which Jojo, myself, Abe and many others have suggested...at least half of an empire's nominal value or population must be out of WP AND SECURED modes...this will solve the problem immediately and the system will work as it is intended. Allowing those who go on vacation, as well as those who are interested in only econ protection from war. I really do not see an argument against that. Even those of us who are into the war game but have an econ slave or two would be perfectly fine under this scenario. I don't dislike your idea Orbiter and it is certainly much more nuanced and more closely related to real life, but it is definitely something that will take much more time to implement and much more time to for both the players and the GM's to adjust. We all know what war protection is for, I wish we could all agree to use it for that reason and not to manipulate the system. But as always, just like personal fireworks on 4th of July, someone has to mess it up for the rest of us and require the government or in this case the GM's to intervene.
| |
| Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - 03:42 am A lump sum worth of gc will take care of any of you(you being the little whiners). WP or not, C3 or not. I'll make you spend that much to play if need be. I can and will without a worry. If I want to be a headache to you,I will be. I'll do it whatever way I have to. Cause that is what I do. Since the early days. Bring the rule changes. I do what I do with c3s to change your ways, and your thought processes. Your arrogance, or bully tactics. Its always fun to stomp people and take their stuff, while you have a bunch of players who can fight and fight a bunch of avg or mediocre opponents. It isn't always fun to fight without a reward. Again I haven't seen WB fight a fighting FED by his Choosing. We keep hearing about How on LU they wanted a 'good fed war' But lets look at the sides. ON WB side, we have Serpent, EO, Keto, Wildeyes, (backed by). On the opposite side we had BC, Alarich and Daelin. Yeah that was going to be a very good fight. It was an asset raid, as was the first run at DTA. Other than that WB has never fought a fight against a player he thought would be a challenge willingly. And don't say 3ms becuase you were brought into that war with a ready made empire. Name me one other person, capable, to fight a good fight. You didn't build shit on LU you raided inactives, from Nute, L3, and EO gave you half his empire. So here we go, in poker or any card game, you know private games (or not) you have 3 high rollers who put in 25K each, then WB comes along and the house gives him his 25K on credit. In a private game you'd get bounced becuase now you want to have a shot at taking someone else money, without really bringing any of your own. Shit doesn't work like that. Now you want the rules changed so you can continue your gang style tactics confident that you have sufficient backup. Just like EO bum rushed John and Jack, knowing he had sufficient means to ambush players that weren't warring (but had assets) and now what is the coincidence that the day EO gets his country took, cause his country got nuked to almost nothing by John L's country and my c3s(which is what EO did to John and Jacks countries that had defenses, nuked them until they went into reserve, and actually saw that they were already going into reserve before he decd_) you come on and there is spamload of like 5 threads on most forums now about c3s and wp. But lets check this fun fact out. Immediately after EO took John and Jacks Countries, he sold his best countries, and kept a few oput thinking there would be no reprisal. Guess where his second war slave is that was about to get handled, in WP. Why is it WP, and Why does Steven Ryan hold his other Country Soul Collector? Is this no different than someone waging wars with c3s and placing countries into WP? Its the same thing. As you say, I have never taken a single country from you. I am no threat to you. all your words. Last week I told EO I was going to dec him. He was so cocky he said and I aquote, 'I won't notice'. SO whats the big deal. EO got that azzz taxed with countries that weren't worth taking OR c3s, SO NOOOOW nobody wants to fight. See the bottom line and moral of the story is, its always fun taking sum1 shite, but it's never fun to lose it. Now... "something has to change" And that is about the only thing you got right so far WhiteGurl. The stomping of players by advanced players is going to stop because if need be I'll keep this up for as long as I please. Until you learn your lesson, until you cry so hard your eyes turn red, and you are doing enough crying already and I haven't even started on you. I fight c3s on LU because I was fighting a superior opponent in LDI. And regardless of what I built (proper by your standards or not) they would have took it, so I did what I could to show them not to funk with me. It worked too, we got on for a very long time. It worked with GREF the first two rounds because I was little more effective each time at bat. It'll work this time too. But don't characterize what I am doing as something IMMORAL (LoooL) by your standards becuase all I hear about is how I better keep wp on this, keep wp on that. BS, if that is the case I'll stuff these c3s down your greedy little throat. Rule changes aren't going to help anyone I am after, I understand the game works more than you and how I can F**K you in the arse if you keep bugging me any day of the week, regardless if I hold the ,military assets to outright roll over you or not. I could keep on but you are a poor excuse for a player, you're just a little B***H crying cuz you can't get your way. As usual. 10 days sissy boy I got my HOF and I'll gladly burn that half a quad of cash and all those Gc in my account and drop some good cash on this game til you get through your little peanut head not to go messing with people, much less anyone else especially me, you just got here you don't dictate ISH in this game rules changes bring em nothing changes for you. I hope they give you what you want, so I can punish your candy arse til you sound like Zeba, tap the mat "I QUIT" I got cash for dayz little boy that or any change isn't gonna make any difference for you.
| |
| Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - 03:50 am Oh and the solution is the golden rule, Treat others....... Its Universal I don't have to type it out.
| |
| Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - 03:50 am And that is the only solution.
| |
| Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - 03:53 am I see an exploit to your position WB. I could play econ via CEO and just use crap empires-ALL C3's-with no secured main. 1/2 of crap is crap. still risk nothing. I could finance my wars with a CEO and just load down C3's and raid active players. There is always a way around. perhaps when a country reaches a certain value only half that value is lost when you lose the war.
| |
| Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - 04:09 am wb, it wouldn't solve anything. I realize that your are frustrated with the situation, and want a resolution asap, but this would not fix the problem in the case of nominal value, my LU main, has a value of 131.80, atm. and thats with over 200T of military assets, mostly OA2A, PBombs, and land based cruise. enough to take down a reasonable empire. no weapons... so following that, i take over say 10 C3s, when i transfer weapons/ammo in, their value, of course increases... so now i'm able to the same thing, from one country. i mean its nothing to take 10 c3s, i do them in waves of 5 every day!!! additionally, their are good months and bad months, so waiting for a poor income month, watching the NV drop... it only limits the tactic, but not my much. not enough. infact, the best it'll do is shut her down a week. if that!!! as you said, the real problem here, is how long this has been going on... creating a system that limits over-drawn wars... would not "stop," any one from employing the tactic, but it would slow the abuse of WP over long periods of time. not to mention, in my opinion, enriching the game. along with the crime and/or war weariness index, i'd be cool to introduce espionage. the higher the WW, or crime rate, the easier it would be to spy on a country. and frankly, a war game with out spying seems to me to missing an important element. a disadvantage to the WWI would be the "cool down time," the time it takes for WW to calm to the point another war is possible... that would need some experimenting to find the happy medium, that allows active players to war allot, while limiting players that protect their assets. the truth is, anything that is done to counter a loop hole, will create another loop hole. the best course of action is to make that loop a little smaller, and doing it in a way that makes the game cooler would be the best action. in the past i've seen things, such as mass IPOing, mass loans, and other such econ loop holes get abused, and often the result of W3C's attempts at bring it back under control, results in nerfing the game. we shouldn't ask W3C to create static limits, lets ask them to expand the game... and include some real world limitations to war.
| |
| Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - 06:26 am The idea is to prevent worthless c3s from carrying on a war, where the player has no value at risk. If you load up the c3s with military they aren't worthless, and it's more of a fair fight--the defender has something to gain by winning. Unfortunately I do see a big loophole with using nominal value as the metric. You just move a lot of cash into the c3s, declare war, then move it out. It's too easy. So, two ways to go. Limit the amount of cash that can be removed from a country at war, just like you can't move out pop when a country is at war. Or, instead of using nominal value as the metric, use military value as the metric. It's more difficult to move it around. Orbiter, you have a good point, focus on the real problem. I see two real problems: wars dragging on and on, and also the non-reciprocity of attacking with worthless countries. The dragging on and on problem is a problem even with big countries in the mix. After a few days, let alone weeks, it's time to end it already. You're right that the non-reciprocity problem is not so much of a problem if it ends in a few days, the way it often does. I think both rules would help the game, and attack both problems. The "1/2 the value of your empire out of WP to attack presidents" rule, AND introducing a war weariness index.
| |
| Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - 06:45 am Yeah lets hope it is implemented faster than the space trade because at 5 - 10T in military assets per c3 WB will be bankrupt by then.
| |
| Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - 07:07 am No doubt the 'fix' will involve more than one thing. For example.... What about the WI? Why not make it so that if a target is not garrisoned, it does not contribute to the WI, or at least it's contribution is drastically reduced?
| |
| Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - 07:39 am Lol wendy. Just quick adjustment to your statement. John was the one who I was fighting. You fired less than 10 offensive shots at me - you weren't fighting me well enough to consider taking a country, so leave any credit to John. Second, my country is in war protection now, but it was out of war protection since last year. It has fought in a war less than a month ago, and it was out of war protection during this war. I no longer wish to risk it because it is deactivating from nukes and from whatever caused it to deactivate before the nukes (which is a good reason to go into war protection) - I have not launched an offensive from war protection in an unprovoked manner, nor will I maintain it for months. If I want to take a country, it will be using my own country, not a c3.
| |
| Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - 07:48 am You know what Windy, shut up. You've hijacked enough threads with your BS lies, the only one I'll address right now is the 'the FED' war, which was, and everyone involved will tell you: Myself AND Beast (EO) AND ....no one else...Wild wasn't back yet and Serpent and Keto didn't even know Beast was back in the game at the time nor was I really close with them yet vs. BC, Daelin, Alarich, Crafty, Klarina and if they chose to involve their training fed 'Free Nations' at the time, then it would have been budman and slade and I don't know how many others...10? 20? Not sure. That was 2 guys (1 of which you claim has no ability) against the largest fed with the most military on LU at the time....yeah real raid...and once we found out that they didn't want to fight we backed down, made a deal to recoup our costs and left it at that. Daelin and I are really good friends now and I don't think BC or Crafty have any hard feelings...if they do then I'm not aware of it. To those of you responding to the actual thread: Wendy is right in a sense, there is always a workaround, however it is the difficulty of using the workaround that makes a difference. First, forcing a player who resorts to these tactics/workarounds as their only form of fighting will FORCE them down to a main and nothing else, maintaining weapons in that main in order to transfer them to c3's will cause the country to make little money. That in and of itself is quite a bit of punishment to players who choose that strategy. Second, if the player has a main worth $100, then it's $100 of c3's that must be out of wp in order to dec (while we're at it the c3 value could be fixed to something MUCH more realistic), so 10 c3's all out of wp at once and the player has to take on the govt costs of said c3's and the cost of taking all 10 c3's and the time involved in taking the 10 c3's JUST to be able to declare once. At least at this point, the defending player can just dec all 10 c3's and wipe them all out at once instead of dealing with 1 dec every 2-4-6-8 hours. Once just one of those c3's has been taken then the c3'ing player must take another just to do 1 more dec, and if 2 are taken then 2. I'm more than happy to discuss further but I fear a certain someone is going to do their best to distract from this conversation. Although that someone is claiming that they don't care what the rules are...they sure are hijacking alot of threads with BS that has nothing to do with them. Anyway, I think that this idea is quite feasible, easy and makes sense and I am really interested in discussing further. Send me a msg at 'WB 001 LU HM Econ' on LU, 'RYAKER 001 Home' on FB or 'WB 001 WG LM Econ' on WG and we can set up a time in chat or I'll give you my MSN and we can discuss further. It does really seem that we've got something going here and I really would like to discuss.
| |
| Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - 04:21 pm WB has never fought a fight against a player he thought would be a challenge willingly. And don't say 3ms becuase you were brought into that war with a ready made empire. Name me one other person, capable, to fight a good fight. You didn't build shit on LU you raided inactives, from Nute, L3, and EO gave you half his empire. Are we deflecting now?
| |
| Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - 06:04 pm I think the consensus is that a couple things need to be done in order to curb the C3 warrior and why it should be done. Most are in agreement with the 1/2 empire rule in WP, but can see the loophole using either population or nominal value as the barometer. - seems the best fix is to use a combination of population and military assets, which would be the Nominal value, AND limit or stop the amount of assets, cash, and population you can transfer out during war IF YOU ARE THE AGGRESSOR. - The more I think about it...the main should be included as a country in WP. As WB points out...if you always have half or your assets on the line...the C3 aggressor can get continually weakened and lose all there assets if they wage endless wars. I really do like orbiter's suggestion of a war weariness index and think that is something for the future. An easy fix that adds realism to the game would be the fort idea...and I can't think of any loopholes around that...Orbiter? Also adding value to the C3s will work twofold...it creates reward and punishment...as Jojo points out. Wendy is indeed trying to hijack the thread, because these 3 + proposed rule changes (1/2 Empire in WP, Limited forts in C3s, increased value in warring C3s) are all realistic, reasonable requests, getting endorsement by the SC community, some are quick fixes, and would curb the C3 aggressor while giving incentive to the defender to put up with the BS.
| |
| Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - 06:14 pm To all...I would suggest we ignore any hijacking attempts...the GM will read this thread as they recognize there is a need for a change...and this is a good discussion. If need be I will pass on the info directly to the GM though.
| |
| Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - 07:22 pm sorry to be the nay sayer in all this. anyways, as far as the forts go, i'd rather not say the work around, even though i'm sure that many people already have an idea, i'd rather not clue some one in that doesn't a thought to limiting C3 wars, the war process is rather time consuming. for the casual player that can't justify logging in at all hours to defend their country... using C3 warfare as a means of retribution, seems fair. but at the same time there should be a limit to how long that can go on!!! here's a fresh idea!!! why not make it cost you Gold Coins to dec a player country!?! even like 5gc would be huge over time. For players that plan out their wars carefully, it wouldn't be that big of a deal, but for people who dec 5+ countries a day, every day, that will add up. make you more carefull... and if you are stopped, it would be a significant loss. additionally, W3C would win with the war cost!!! but with that, i think X number of wars per RL month should be free, like say 10. for every war dec per world, after 10, it'd cost you 5 gc... and this should be applied only to war decs on players, not against C3s. and perhaps on FB you'd get a few more free decs per month
| |
| Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - 07:51 pm Orbiter...not crazy about paying to War dec, but that would work to cut out frivolous decs for sure. The GM fixed other loopholes with the forts to stop people from getting more than 100, so they should be able to implement restrictions on those C3s as well...it might just need fine tuning over time.
| |
| Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - 09:06 pm I could see how a GC cost could limit the problem and if added in with a few free decs per month for free it shouldn't be too costly for most players, perhaps even a sliding scale? 1-10 dec=free, 11-20 is 5 GC each and 21+ is 10 GC with 5 GC going directly to the defender and the other 5 to W3C? I would still think that the 1/2 nominal value should be implemented along with it as a further deterrent, I know as that there are ways to work around it as there are with any rules that can be put in place, but the idea is to make the workarounds as difficult and costly as possible...actually I just thought of this: for the 1/2 perhaps only nominal value above the standard $10 value counts. So if you have $100 main it is technically $90, you must have another $90 in value outside of that out of war protection/secured? That would actually solve the problem completely...we could even go to 75% in wp/secured then. As I said Windy...shut up, your points are stupid and have nothing to do with this thread, if you want me to address them take them elsewhere.
| |
| Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - 09:06 pm Wendy is indeed trying to hijack the thread, because these 3 + proposed rule changes (1/2 Empire in WP, Limited forts in C3s, increased value in warring C3s) are all realistic, reasonable requests, getting endorsement by the SC community, some are quick fixes, and would curb the C3 aggressor while giving incentive to the defender to put up with the BS. ---------------------------------------------------- So four people make up the entirety of the SC community? LOL!
| |
| Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - 10:31 pm And MEEEEE!
| |
| Thursday, July 22, 2010 - 01:08 am Keep up the distractions Windy...4 people...not at all: Me Beast Jojo Abe Orbiter Serpent Keto EC SuperSoldier Daelin Diz BrokenAmbitions Whitedarkness CrazyEye All those for a fact and the following although they haven't commented I'm fairly certain support a change. Steven Rob Homer Budman Slade Kaymen Lolosaurus Who knows how many others from GREF Who knows how many others from WGC So far Windy the ONLY people I know who don't think there should be a change are: You (although you swear you don't care but you keep trying to distract and disrupt) Biggie (because he is fine staying in constant WP) Nix (who knows why) I'd venture to say that a whole lot of other people would be lobbying just as strongly as the rest of us if they had the pleasure of dealing with it...you're adding to the list every day...keep it up.
| |
| Thursday, July 22, 2010 - 04:11 am Me too
| |
| Thursday, July 22, 2010 - 04:58 am Well then, on with the changes. I guess you better hope it gets put in faster than space trading, and with a new world coming along, I guess I'll need to maximize my time frame, Like two years left LOL.
| |
| Thursday, July 22, 2010 - 05:03 am This may have been mentioned already, but maybe a c3 needs to have a minimum population(like 30 or more mil), or the c3(s) need to be an active country for at least 2 real months or more before they can dec another country?
| |
| Thursday, July 22, 2010 - 05:11 am I just hope at the end of the day, all these discussion(s) on WP that the GM leaves WP intact for econ only players like myself.
| |
| Thursday, July 22, 2010 - 05:27 am You know what would be real phunny, is if the incorporated all your eyedeers into this new world.
| |
| Thursday, July 22, 2010 - 06:20 am Maestro - That is a big part of this, war protection for econ players is not something that any of us want to end...at least not anyone that I'm aware of.
| |
| Thursday, July 22, 2010 - 10:40 am :o This is intense!
| |
| Thursday, July 22, 2010 - 09:11 pm WB - Thanks
| |
| Friday, July 23, 2010 - 12:06 am I hope they leave WP intact on the 4 "peaceful" worlds, for econ players. But on FB, the one war planet in this econ/war game, I think there should be no WP (except vacation and noob WP) and econ players should have to defend their countries, as the game was intended.
| |
| Friday, July 23, 2010 - 12:30 am And don't forget, no multis. No watching accounts, one account per IP etc. Until I see stuff like that happening, I'll make whatever change work for me.
| |
| Friday, July 23, 2010 - 03:04 am JoJo - Even for my one token country on FB?
| |
| Friday, July 23, 2010 - 06:55 am Just a thought. Why not instead limit war protection to only 2/3 of countries in empires with over 5 countries. Also, if they Dec with any country over their 5 country limit, they lose wp on one of the other countries. I'm particularly interested with Dubltar's opinion on this idea.
| |
| Friday, July 23, 2010 - 07:06 am I think Jojo's point is that FB is the WAR world...constant war protection kind of goes against that theme. I'm not 100% on board with that, I'd say at least a main in WP should be permitted but I'm open to that debate. The idea would be that war should be encouraged on FB, it should be somewhat of a free for all, which would be fun although I know how we all have attachment to our countries and their assets so that can be a little scary as well...
| |
| Friday, July 23, 2010 - 02:36 pm I don't think mains should be given a pass, on FB. q: Why does an econ player build a country on the war world, anyway? a: Easy WP has wussificized the world so much that FB is just seen as just another econ world, not as a war world.
| |
| Friday, July 23, 2010 - 04:02 pm wussificized...LOL Jojo!
| |
| Friday, July 23, 2010 - 06:23 pm wussificized, Took a second to decipher. Had to take it one syllable at a time. Is FB really just full with them? Them the wussie things.
| |
| Saturday, July 24, 2010 - 07:16 pm My take on War Protection In Simcountry I see everyone's points above, so here is my argument for the use and regulation of War Protection. 1. War Protection a Good Idea War protection was created to allow players to protect their countries from war, for economy players and war lords alike (and everyone in between). It was in fact necessary, from what I have experienced first hand, that without it, players could dictate who can and cannot join their world. For example, after some of my wars, my attempts to start empires in other worlds were blocked by players declaring war on me upon my arrival. Newbs were also decced these ways also. Or if a group of players did not like a player, they were able to keep that player out of their world...and this was solved by War Protection. 2. War Protection Usage Should Stay, Even in Fearless Blue War protection does its job...allows a country to be protected from war, which is why it is used. Players should have that option, that if they desire to take part in the war game, they can. If not, use war protection. I hear JoJo's argument about Fearless Blue becoming "wussificized", at which I have to disagree. I, for example, benefit greatly from the peace of mind that during my busy weeks, my game "assets" (GRRR W3!!! Revolution people!!) are protected and I can build while not under threat from already established and well militarized nations. However, even I wont remain in war protection and will join the arena of war in Fearless Blue...FB IS FUN!! War, in every world, is fun and should always be allowed. Fearless Blue, however, should receive nothing different in war protection than the other worlds, and this is why... a. Growing players, if they choose, should not be forced to participate in war. Many players these days raid inactive players, but would raid smaller players, if no war protection was allowed. Allowing larger empires to wipe out any country at will, destroys competition, jojo, despite your argument. Attacking new players or players not looking for a war will only cause them to leave Fearless Blue, some of them. b. The dynamics in the game have changed with the lack of c3 populations. Back in the day, Id agree whole heartedly with you; that there should be no war protection. But, back then, population was easily accessible, with C3's having 15-30M pop each, and you could transfer population between countries far easily, so assets were easy to come by. W3 destroyed that however, they have destroyed the fun in wars by forcing us to value our countries tremendously. If we want a good/large country, we have to buy the population, or take from those who have purchased. Should we decide to let our population grow normally...we are forced to wait ages. In the past, a new player who decided to learn could start in a 15 Mil country, attack 5 c3s, and transfer population to form a larger main. They could repeat the process to build their slaves, and should war come it would be fun or a small pain that could be easily rebuilt. In Fearless Blue, where war limits are more relaxed, players use war protection because they know that with large and very experienced players that are in the world, the threat of war or being invaded is very high. The same is in other worlds, but those worlds are more diplomatic. 3. War a player, lose your war protection! Solves C3 Wars problem As far as I see it, everyone is making the war protection issue and c3 warlords issue far too complicated. Some of you are trying to figure out a balance of 50% of the empire out of WP because you are still desiring to keep your "forcefully valued assets" (STARES AT JOZI AND W3 IN ANGER). The Simplest and easiest way to prevent C3 Warriors is this... KB, LU, GR, WG: "If you go to war with a human owned country, you lose war protection on all your states except your main." FB: "If you go to war with a human player, you lose war protection for your entire empire." Players who go to war with other players should be prepared to put their assets on the line, as they are attempting to take another's. C3 Warriors (Wendy...) would be forced to fight a real war, even if they start with C3s. They would not be allowed to save the rest of their empire. Reasons why this is good! Realistic: No country on Earth could fight a war and be allowed to keep 1-99% of it safe. The only exception in SC that should stay is the protection of the main...so people dont leave, LMAO. Poor W3. Its fair: You are the one declaring war. If you cannot protect your slaves in war, then they should be taken. You are the one declaring war...no? By the way...should another game similar to Simcountry in scope, with more of a pro-player (not pro-owner) atmosphere, and easily accessible "country assets" arise, and be cheaper to play, Simcountry will be doomed. Note this W3, your tyranny over your players cant last, and Im betting it wont...actively betting.
| |
| Sunday, July 25, 2010 - 01:27 am Some valid points Dublestar, as far as FB: I see Jojo's point and I see yours. As far as new players joining the world and being kept out, not allowed to build, etc., that simply would not be the case, the waiting period of 21 days would remain just as it does now so I don't really find that to be a good argument. I do see how it could make it very difficult for newer players, however at the same time, I'd say that new players shouldn't *start* on FB, so many find the game and see 'war world' and think that is what they want but really don't understand what they are up against until they have learned a bit. Anyway, I'm still not entirely convinced that there should be no war protection on FB, but if I had a choice between war protection the way it is now and no war protection (except for earned) on FB, I'd choose the latter. As far as why we are making new WP rule ideas so complicated: If you allow a main to remain in secured mode, then a player wanting to do c3 warfare can take as many c3's as they want while still keeping a very nice econ country in secured and still risking nothing. So, if the rule was 50% of nominal value max in WP/Secured or as I'd prefer 75% of nominal value subtracting out the $10 standard price per country, then the problem would be eliminated. Under your scenario: Player A can have a $300 main with 100 mil pop and several hundred T in assets, take 3 c3's and just fight with those, moving weapons into and out of them very easily. Under 50% nominal value scenario: Player A can have a $300 main in secured, but would then have to take 30 c3's (valued at $10x30=$300) and have all out of WP to declare war. Or, Player B could have a $100 main in secured and would then have to take 10 c3's and have all of them out of wp to declare war. Under my preferred scenario, 75% nominal value allowed to be in secured but only nominal value above the $10 standard c3 cost is considered: Player A can have a $300 secured main, subtract $10 so secured nominal value is $290. They would then have to have at least $97 in nominal value above $10 standard c3 cost(s) in order to declare war on another player. Player B can have a $100 main in secured minus $10 so secured nominal value is $90, so they would have to have at least $30 in nominal value above standard c3 cost(s) in order to declare war on another player. This would *guarantee* the player has significant assets at risk in relation to the size of their empire assets when they declare war on another player. This also has the upside of allowing players significant size econ countries to be in secured/wp while still being able to enjoy the war game with their war slaves out of WP.
| |
| Sunday, July 25, 2010 - 05:20 am Why not then take away war protection for the secured mains then if they war another player? Im for that, only included it to be diplomatic. Both scenarios above could still be abused.
| |
| Sunday, July 25, 2010 - 09:44 am or how about this, removeing wp from a ramdom country every time a player declares war...
| |
| Sunday, July 25, 2010 - 04:02 pm How about a player waging war on another player having to put up a wager equal to at least 30-50 percent of the value of the country he is declaring on. From the time of declaration no assets could be removed from both countries. Naw! That would not work, once a war is declared then player a or b would bring in more countries and the wager is all out of wack. Here is another idea. If you are big, wealthy and powerful be nice, polite, courteous and generous and your poor, undernourished, uneducated neighbors might not be influenced to gain recognition in the world by becoming terrorists or suicide bombers. And for goodness sake don't slaughter the little guys, they will come back and bite you in the butt. Right EO!
| |
| Sunday, July 25, 2010 - 09:19 pm Doublestar - How could my preferred scenario be abused? I haven't come up with anything which is why I ask. Orbiter - Interesting idea. John L - I've got another idea, make the system work as it was intended. This isn't about 'haves' and 'have-nots', the player to most recently use this tactic excessively which has sparked this debate is sitting on thousands of GC's and probably over a Quadrillion in loans and direct trading...not what I would call poor and malnourished. As far as EO goes, imagine if instead of being out of WP so that you could get your revenge, he instead attacked you with only c3's and then stayed in WP permanently with his slaves...wouldn't be nearly as much fun would it?
| |
| Sunday, July 25, 2010 - 10:24 pm ...
| |
| Sunday, July 25, 2010 - 10:59 pm Well WB, I was thinking, is 30 C3s really a big deal? Would actually be more available to the attacking person. If I were a C3 warrior and were forced to use 30 c3s, then Id use all 30 c3s to launch the attack and to annoy the person Im attacking. Would be easier also for weapons movement as I would have many more states before (since Im forced) to attack. Im a bit extreme, so maybe it would be rare? But that again depends on the person and how far they are willing to go. Removing war protection on all your states if you declare on a human owned country would be better.
| |
| Monday, July 26, 2010 - 01:25 am yawn
| |
| Monday, July 26, 2010 - 01:29 am How come C3s have Garrisons?
| |
| Monday, July 26, 2010 - 04:39 am I think guerrilla war is good for the game, for two reasons: 1. Guerrilla war is realistic. You all call it "c3 war." When I started playing it was called "suicide war." Guerrilla war has a history partly associated with suicide. During WWII the Japanese used kamikaze pilots. Today Al Queda uses suicide bombers. The game documentation doesn't say that war exclusively has to be conquer-oriented. Sneak attacks prove that the game allows non-conquer-oriented war. Sneak attacks aren't going to conquer a country, are they? Sneak attacks are military strikes that focus on destruction, not conquest. Likewise, guerrilla war is another sneaky, non-conquer-oriented war. Guerrilla war is mostly about military strikes and attrition, not conquest. Anyone who thinks guerrilla war is not realistic should check out the history of the Viet Cong and Al Queda. Their guerrilla wars lasted, or have lasted, at least a decade. If a player continues a guerrilla war real month after real month, that's realistic and not wrong. 2. Clicking is not a skill. Conventional Simcountry war has too much tedious clicking. You can conquer any country if you click enough. No defense or fed can stop you. Click a bunch of times to buy weapons, then click a bunch of times to shoot weapons. That can be thousands of clicks. Any monkey who has had less than 3 lobotomies can click thousands of times. I lost 5 lbs one weekend because I was so busy clicking thousands of times to win a war. Maybe that's the only good achievement of a big Simcountry war: losing weight. Other than that, one has to become a loser at life to be a "winner" at a big Simcountry war. By comparison, guerrilla war is smarter and fun because it requires much less clicking. At least guerrilla war adds variety, so that war isn't limited to massive clicking.
| |
| Monday, July 26, 2010 - 05:07 am First of all, Who loses 5 pounds clicking??? And second of all, I dont evan understand what your saying. It just Third, Why do they give C3's Garrisons? I dont like that.
| |
| Monday, July 26, 2010 - 05:18 am I'm speechless Vicious. Great Points you have made.
| |
| Monday, July 26, 2010 - 05:58 am Doublestar - In my preferred scenario (75% of nominal value above the standard c3 price of $10) you could take 1000 c3's and it wouldn't make a difference, there has to be assets above c3 value equal to at least 25% of what is in WP to even declare war. Vicious - I see your point and I would agree that c3 war is basically terrorist type warfare. However in relation to this game it is then 'state sponsored' terrorist warfare and just as in real life, the county being attacked would then enter that state to control the terrorists, this is not an option in the game. I think the Japanese Kamikaze example you use is what is most like this game and we all know what happened to Japan in WW2. The Viet Cong were defensive guerilla's and Al Qaeada are not state sponsored, the state that was harboring them Afghanistan, is now basically under US control. You mentioned sneak attacks, wouldn't that be the equivalent of what Al Qaeda does, sure they take credit for their attacks but they don't have to, just like in the game. The attack knocks out a city, a base, a corporation, etc. just like Al Qaeada hit the WTC. They did not however, take over 30 different countries in a week or so, transfer in nuclear weapons from their massive arsenal of nuclear weapons (kept somewhere where no one could attack) and then launch them at the US. As far as your description of conventional warfare in Simcountry, I do agree that there is far too much clicking, however you massively underestimate the strategy side of it. Saying that anyone can just buy a bunch of weapons and click a bunch of times can take a country is quite an exaggeration, I would call that the Visa warrior route which usually ends in the experienced and strategic player winning a bunch of assets. If it were the case that it was so easy, I think we'd see a lot more wars and a lot more people taking countries from people. The fact is winning a war, especially against an experienced player with a good size well defended country is VERY difficult and it involves a lot more than just clicking. It is nice to say that something should remain just because it 'adds variety', but when that something results in hours a day for weeks or months on end of wasted time simply because a player feels like it, it doesn't make much sense.
| |
| Monday, July 26, 2010 - 06:09 am MightyMouse knows everything lol, no matter who talks... Only his opinion matters. LEts all prepare to change the world for him. I hear the new World will be made of butterscotch and lollipops. The Cat and the MightyMouse will play in peace and there will be no more war protection for anyone. And real markets that can collapse too.
| |
| Monday, July 26, 2010 - 06:29 am He uses strategy better then just about ANY player (aside from me). Truly amazing really. V makes wendy look like a girl scout. mathematics eh V? I lost 10 pounds in that war and I have carpal tunnel to this very day. Good to see you back.
| |
| Monday, July 26, 2010 - 06:51 am VICIOUS,YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT.WELL SAID. BIGG E
| |
| Monday, July 26, 2010 - 06:55 am Wendy - I'm pretty sure what has been going on is an open and honest conversation about what many perceive as a problem and some do not. People have made points, shared their opinions, their ideas and I just like so many others have responded with my points, opinions and ideas. Did I tell anyone they were stupid because of their thoughts or ideas? No. Did I agree with many of the ideas but point out other arguments? Yes. That's a debate, it's how problems can be solved and is the basis for the world we live in today. I haven't noticed you paying the same amount of respect to people's ideas and opinions that are contrary to your own, it's just name calling, sarcasm and general disrespect. Your opinion is that there is not a problem, I disagree with that opinion. Does that mean that I know everything? No, it means I know my opinion and the facts and arguments I have to support it. I believe the points I made in response to Vicious' post are quite valid and I look forward to his opinion on the points I made, if you have a dispute with my points I'll read yours as well and will respond in a respectful fashion.
| |
| Monday, July 26, 2010 - 08:25 am Yes WGurl. There is a problem, you are your own biggest problem.
| |
| Monday, July 26, 2010 - 09:18 am Interesting argument Wendy, I disagree and think that perhaps you should look in the mirror when making that statement. Still, not sure what it has to do with c3 warfare or war protection rules, or with Vicious' argument or with the points you made above which I disputed. Biggie - Did you enjoy losing that 100 mil pop country to EO during the NV v 3M war, when he used nothing but c3's to take a couple hundred dollars worth of assets from you? I'm EXTREMELY surprised that you are supporting this argument that c3 warfare is appropriate considering you lost the biggest country with the most assets that I have seen lost to that exact type of warfare and were REALLY upset that you couldn't counter attack. I could pull up the forum posts but I think you'll remember. That's also the reason you've been paying for perma-wp ever since and since you are in perma-wp I guess you have lost the perspective of not being in perma-wp. Try and find a little of the perspective that you had before...you might have a completely different opinion.
| |
| Monday, July 26, 2010 - 02:55 pm c3 warfare and bankrupcy warfare are about the only way that a weaker empire can stand up to a large contingency of attackers. it's a war of attrition and in some ways levels the playing field, even though the c3 strategy is more of a nuisance than a major threat to a large empire of well ordered fed. i say keep it the way it is.
| |
| Monday, July 26, 2010 - 04:00 pm Whiteboy - WGC broadly supports the idea of a change to the game rules so that one player cannot spoil the game for the rest of us by harassing those who do not make war without good reason and simply want to enjoy playing. So you can add another 38 players to your list of those in support of the debate. Doublestar - you are right that before Secured Mains were brought in, players were driven from a planet completely. When used fairly and with justification, it was a good way of dealing with exactly the question in hand but, of course, it was abused and, though we hated it at the time, W3C were right to introduce it. I would like to thank Zeba for introducing this debate. There are some good ideas here, although I would warn against complicated solutions as they will take a long time to implement, even longer to tweak until they are right and will be easier to work around. Doublestar's idea that, if you declare war, you should not be allowed to retain any countries other than your secured main in WP, is simple and easy to implement. However, it would not prevent a C3 warrior from keeping a Secured Main and supplying C3 war countries. If the player in question wanted to build an empire, it would prevent that, but if all they wanted to do was to harrass other players and spoil their game, it would not be effective. It's also worth making it clear that this should only be for players declaring war, not those who are declared upon. Whiteboy's idea that a given proportion of your empire, based on assets, would have to be out of WP is also simple and effective, but is really geared towards players with considerable assets and I question whether it would prevent a player having a reasonably-sized secure main (worth around $30) and 9 C3s with which to war. If those two ideas can be developed, separately or in conjunction with each other, they seem the best way forward. Hugs and respect Jo
| |
| Monday, July 26, 2010 - 04:38 pm @Vicious: Harassment might be a part of real life, but who wants to voluntarily subject themselves to it in a game? There need to be checks and balances in the game, the way I see the game. If you're strong, there need to be some features that kick in to make it progressively more difficult to keep getting stronger and dominating. If you're weak, there needs to be some means you can take advantage of to defend yourself, and in the worst case a secure place you can withdraw to when all is lost. The game rules and players' environment of approval and disapproval should work along these lines. It screws up the balance when the strong take up the tools of the weak. Strong players keeping their valuables in WP and using "guerilla tactics" to fight both strong and weak...that's just wrong. To fight it you can try to make it costly. If a player doesn't care about the cost the only tool you have left is public moral disapproval. I think that may work to some extent, but the trend is more towards players thumbing their noses at that. The rules as they stand tilt towards everyone adopting that strategy: keep your valuable countries in WP, and use c3s to take inactives and to harass the big stupid players who don't use WP. Eventually they'll dry up, and all valuable countries will be in WP. Then there's no war game at all, right? That's where I see it headed. I'd prefer a change in rules.
| |
| Monday, July 26, 2010 - 05:53 pm I think this is likely the most thoughtful debate Ive read in some time on this issue. The game has change so much that its become very easy to take assets of the board, so to speak, and stash them in other parts of your universe, free from risk. I still firmly believe that players who want to badger, or more ominously, set up on another player empire (or fed of players for that matter) with the intent to take everything from you, can do so with proper planning. Even with smallish countries. Lots of time and skill coupled with a collection of large assets gained over time, mixed with a smidgen of intent, evil or disguised as something else, will produce a player who can cause harm. Place a couple of those players together and you can destabilize a world. On those occasions we have seen the GM step in and stop wars. They haven't done this to Wendy so they must not perceive her, or her tactic for that matter, as an unmanageable threat. Sadly one players "harm" is typically the other players "fun." If forced to choose a position I think I'd like to see all countries, with exception of the secured main, out of WP if you are the aggressor. this may stop many decent players from being too aggressive.... But, again, players with war as there main reason for playing, and an abundance of time, and lots of skill will find many ways to get what they want. And sometimes they want to do much more then just nuke the crap out of people. My response to wendys tactic would be to defed and isolate myself(Hopefuly to get her to attack meand not them), keep my nuke def up and do the best I could for my newer (ex at this point) fed mates who don't know how to get nuke def up quickly. Im sure you did all this. Its a tough situation. feds can be a pain sometimes;P
| |
| Monday, July 26, 2010 - 07:42 pm Barney, I thought you were the one who was inactive. Awhile back I found half a loophole in the war engine. It's not much but it helps. But you had no active CEO or country to message. If you give me your username, I can message you to the in-box on the portal. Or please, just message Vicious2010. I'm very sorry to hear that the vodka war gave you carpal tunnel.
| |
| Monday, July 26, 2010 - 08:12 pm Parsifal - I'd agree with you to an extent if that is what the tactic is being used for. Right now the tactic is being used by a player with loads of resources to declare wars of their choosing when they feel like it...not because they are being repressed or beat down...sometimes out of spite and sometimes out of dislike. This isn't a 'level the playing field' tactic as it is being used now. Jojo - Well said, that is exactly where I see things heading. The war game becoming every asset in WP, people just waiting for someone's WP to slip and then deccing with c3's...why risk your own when no one else is willing to risk their own. There needs to be some skin in the game for people to fight. Jo - Thanks for the support, I totally understand that this is a complicated issue and a solution isn't easy so I see where you're coming from with that. Barney - You make good points and you get to the heart of why I think this is such a huge problem. The fed structure is good for the game as it provides both a training structure and a social structure for new players. I don't think there are many people out there who have had success in this game that didn't receive a lot of information and assistance from a fed at one point or another in the development stages. Many feds have forums and guides for new players to teach them simple things (although they don't seem simple when you begin) like taking c3's or IPOing corps or what to set your automation at, etc. stuff that in a game like this is extremely difficult and time consuming to figure out on your own. These kinds of tactics are destroying that fed structure, players doing exactly what you said, isolating themselves to avoid risk to others. I don't know about everyone else but I think the biggest problem in this game is the lack of new players or the lack of new players who stay. Look at this forum, the people commenting, I don't think any of them have been playing for less than 2 yrs. Anyway, that's enough pontificating from me. I completely agree with you Barney, for the most part this has been a *very* thoughtful debate and big thanks to everyone for sharing...even if I disagree with you...it's always important to get perspectives other than your own otherwise you just get stuck in your own spin cycle.
| |
| Monday, July 26, 2010 - 08:22 pm WHITE BOY,I LOST BIG TIME TO BEAST'S C3'S AND I TRIED TO COAX YOU GUYS OUT OF WP BUT I NEVER PUSHED FOR A RULE CHANGE TO MAKE THE GAME SUIT WHAT I WANTED.I BELEIVE YOU WERE ALSO USING TOTAL C3 WARFARE IN THAT WAR ALTHOUGH MY PART OF THE WAR WAS CENTERED ON BOBO AND BEAST. BIGG E
| |
| Monday, July 26, 2010 - 08:33 pm There is already an existing solution to the so-called problem of guerrillas: use secure mode and/or war protection boosters. Yet year after year there are always players asking for more protective features. That's why W3C introduced:
Existing features already provide that nobody needs to spend a single minute fighting another player. No rule requires anyone to fight war, or to be exposed to attack. Therefore, the game doesn't need any change to deal with guerrilla war. I prefer that the programmers spend their very limited time finding ways to make this a much less clicking-intensive game.
| |
| Monday, July 26, 2010 - 08:54 pm Hey, no one is forced to click excessively.
| |
| Monday, July 26, 2010 - 08:56 pm Vicious - That's exactly the problem, people shouldn't have to live in WP simply so that they don't have days and months wasted fighting c3's. This isn't about additional protection, if you want to take away war protection/secured mode completely, that would be fine with myself and my fedmates, although I can see how many would not enjoy that and would take away big time the side of the game that many others enjoy playing exclusively, the econ side. The way things are working out is that it is the war side of the game that is being eliminated just as Jojo stated above, everyone in WP looking for the people whose war protection drops or for the new guys who don't realize they have to pay an extra GC everyday just for safety. The option should not be: A) Stay in WP constantly or B) Deal with c3 declarations for weeks or months on end There should be another option, make WP work the way it was supposed to. As far as making this a much less clicking-intensive game, taking 30 c3's with 100 forts in each of them in a month is pretty clicking-intensive...and a complete waste of time. You didn't respond to my comments on guerilla/terrorist warfare unfortunately, I was interested to hear your thoughts on the matter.
| |
| Monday, July 26, 2010 - 09:08 pm WP works exactly the way it's supposed to work. Nobody is required to use WP. Nobody is required to have more than a secure country. If players want more than a secure country, they have the freedom to choose whether or not to use WP for any additional country. If they choose not to use WP, they have no reason to complain about being attacked.
| |
| Monday, July 26, 2010 - 09:54 pm Vicious does raise some valid points and quite honestly I think his view may be closer to original intent of the system as it is designed. If any changes are made they need to be made in such a way that it doesn't just further entrench established forces and leave newer forces at more of a disadvantage than the current system leaves them.
| |
| Monday, July 26, 2010 - 10:33 pm It seems that many feel that limiting wp means there are less ways, or less choice to have in playing this game. But it is about having the ability to make choices. I agree that it should not be about stronger players becoming more entrenched and newer players being at a disadvantage. But what it IS about is if you do in fact want to be peaceful, then use all the WP you desire. BUT if you do desire to enter the realm of fighting, then do that as well... FIGHT. Dont cower behind WP and risk nothing. Take a stand, make a choice... do you wanna fight (severely limit WP) or be peaceful (unlimited WP for as long as you wish). This debate isnt about what peaceful players want vs aggressive players. It is about you having the choice to decide one way or the other, not both ways. If I walk up to you and punch you in the face and you start to kick my butt, I cant say "Hey, Hey, Wait my face, torso and crotch are off limits, you cant hit those, you can only attack my foot. However I am allowed to hit you in the face!!" That is unrealistic and absurd. Use WP for its intended purpose. Im sure this issue will be raised in the upcoming chat, and I am very very curious to see what the response is. Its a healthy debate to have, after all, we are all (or most of us) wanting a enjoyable game to play not just short term, but long term.
| |
| Monday, July 26, 2010 - 10:49 pm Serpent - Fully agree
| |
| Monday, July 26, 2010 - 11:43 pm Very well said Serp. Vicious - You can't disagree that the intention of war protection was to prevent players from being attacked while on vacation or on a leave from the game or are unable to fight for some reason. Directly from the game: Temporary War Protection Protection against war makes sense when you go on holiday or when you are not available to play Simcountry for another reason. You can also protect your country if you just don't feel like fighting for a moment. The intent of the feature is quite clear and makes complete sense, no one can be available to this game 24/7. Obviously when this feature was created it was not foreseen that it would be abused to protect all of your assets while continuing to conduct wars with c3's. This is a negative spillover of the feature and one that can and should be addressed. What is going on now is not like what was happening before, when you had feds like LDI, Valde, SNA, EBK, CIS, 3M, NV and on and on, feds that were dominant and with itchy trigger fingers. These were war feds each with a rich history of victory, domination and at times loss and failure. When players only choice against oppressive, large feds was to take up any tactic necessary to win, you could call that guerilla warfare but it really was a war for survival because people would be wiped out just for a disagreeing opinion. What is going on now is not a war of survival, it isn't newer forces fighting against oppressive and large federations, it is people with massive amounts of experience and assets choosing to make trouble but are not willing to accept any of the consequences of doing so and with no skin in the game there is no reason for the c3 warrior to seek a reasonable peace. The c3 warrior of today is an asset raider, not a freedom fighter, they want to raid assets without risking their own. To put it in the context of 'entrenched' vs. 'newer' forces is not appropriate...that simply is not what it is about at this point.
| |
| Monday, July 26, 2010 - 11:53 pm You contradict yourself through and Through WB.
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 12:25 am Yes, I disagree. You're only quoting a fraction of the documentation. The intent of WP is to allow each player to use war protection as long as he wants, whether short-term or "indefinitely." Therefore, there is no abuse in using WP indefinitely: "Secured mode gives one country full protection without any limitation. If needed, a player can set war protection for any other country. This is for free for an average of 10% of the time and can be extended indefinitely by the use of war protection boosters." Game News, #87 "Temporary war protection can be prolonged by the use of a war protection booster that will extend the protection for longer periods and can prevent war. It is currently possible to indefinitely prolong war protection but it will require several gold coins per (real) month." Documentation - War, #43
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 12:48 am Vicious, you make some good points. However, the features introduced by W3C, while helping in some senses, have also provided more loopholes for exploitation by exactly the type of player we are discussing here. War protection boosters: pretty useless unless one regularly rotates Secured Mains. No one needs WP in their Secured Main, and otherwise it costs - only good for VISA warriors or those who have achieved a large profit on a regular basis. Waiting period: minimal - it's no problem to wait while you build up a few assets in the C3 you intend to war with. Security Council military restrictions: simply don't work, in my experience. Secured mode: just prevents players from legitimately using their combined power to eliminate someone else who won't play fair although, as I said before, people abused it. C3 warriors are only a minor irritation for those of us with an adequate defence and a good war slave or two, but an adequate defence is difficult for those players in the halfway house - who have played long enough to build an empire but not yet managed to afford to protect it properly. Building a good defence takes a long time and slows down other aspects of the game, and it's the other aspects of the game that keep most of us interested. The problem with the game - and life - is that those who are positive, supportive and ... dare I say it ... fair, will usually lose against those who just want to take and enjoy destroying what others have built. The best way forward IMHO is to remove the existing restrictions, especially Secured Mode, and encourage players to police themselves and to protect others. Before Secured Mode was introduced, several destructive players were 'removed' by having their empires wiped out. If the player-base had taken that a step further ... united not only against players who were destroying the game for themselves and their friends, but policing the planet on behalf of ALL peaceful players, maybe W3C would not have needed to introduce Secured Mode. Perhaps we should return to that ... Hugs and respect Jo
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 01:22 am "The problem with the game - and life - is that those who are positive, supportive and ... dare I say it ... fair, will usually lose against those who just want to take and enjoy destroying what others have built. Hugs and respect Jo~" Good speech Jo, but who will police the Police?
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 01:30 am Sting?
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 01:40 am Well said and very interesting Jo. Vicious - The further quotation of the game documentation does not change the intent of all that was said before it. The *intent* of the system is clear, no matter if it's indefinite or temporary. It's to allow players who want to *avoid* war the ability to do so, the intent was not to allow players to hide assets in one country while conducting wars out of c3's. Wendy - I believe right below what you quoted from Jo she said to allow the players to police themselves, there are no police in what she is suggesting, it's a system of self policing which war protection prevents. I believe we could have both a secured place for people to be peaceful and a place for people who want to fight, the system just needs to be fixed to work as suggested but Jo's logic is inline with her suggestion. Perhaps we are making this too difficult, how about this: I think we can all agree that guerillas/terrorists do not possess nuclear weapons (I suppose it's possible that 1 has gotten out but certainly not 100's or 1000's) and certainly not the ability to launch them 30k km across the world. Nuclear weapons are highly advanced technology which require significant maintenance and infrastructure. What if the game followed real life in that way? Nuclear weapons can only be used by countries in excess of x population (maybe 25 mil?) and an excess of x ed index (maybe 110?). I can't see much of a downside to this and it's completely realistic to the world in which we live. Add to that making war protection either not allowed on FB, limited to 1 country or not possible to use when a player declares war because FB is the war world and I think we could please almost all parties. Guerilla/terrorist warfare could remain, the small can still stand up against the entrenched, etc.
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 02:00 am WB your insights are invaluable treasures. What a deficiency of the mind you highlight in my soul. Perhaps this has turned into a philosophical discussion. Let me add something meaningful to the conversation.... Perhaps, I can get some chips with my DIP. Perhaps, I could have my cake, and eat it too. Perhaps, if and when the sun sets, the sky would turn colors other than blue. Perhaps, I could buy one quick pick on the powerball game, and win too. Perhaps, you could just play the game, AND STFU already?
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 02:28 am Perhaps you can try to be an adult for a while and participate in a reasonable, open and productive dialogue. Don't know why you haven't realized this yet but I have precisely zero respect for you thus personal insults from you really make no difference to me.
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 02:52 am If that so-called intent to not attack with some countries while protecting others is so obvious and clear, why does the extensive documentation not say so anywhere? It's easy to interpret intent any way one wants. The only thing obvious and clear to me is that W3C provides features so that players can use them to their advantage.
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 03:17 am The features W3C provide are to encourage as many people as possible to keep playing the game. This is a commercial enterprise after all. They certainly don't want good players leaving just because there is no point in playing when someone else wants to destroy, for no valid reason, everything they have spent time and energy building. That's precisely why they brought-in Secured Mode and a whole load of other features that are now being exploited. Back in the day, an occasional player like flewis (anyone remember him?) got turfed out of the game by the players before he got to do any real harm. In my book, it's better to lose one antisocial player than several with potential who will give up and leave because of him. Hugs and respect Jo
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 03:32 am I don't see any documentation that requires a "valid reason" for war. Valid for whom? The aggressor? The defendant? Is the next suggestion to write a list of valid reasons for war, and code it into the war engine? Once again, secure mode and war protection can prevent anyone from losing "everything they have spent time and energy building." The flewises of the game can't attack those who use secure mode or war protection.
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 03:50 am "Back in the day, an occasional player like flewis (anyone remember him?) got turfed out of the game by the players before he got to do any real harm." Call me silly, but I HEARD flewis was banned by the gamemaster, Tom in particular, because of some graphics on his countries. At the request of several players it was removed and so was he. Something about Nazi emblems or anti Semitic Flags I also heard that was NOT a rumor. I wonder where or why one would hear these things. Nice distortion of facts Jo. If only the forums posts weren't erased.
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 03:58 am I have stayed out of this for the most part because it seems like a personal argument, albeit one that is enjoyable to read. However, I like the WB suggestion regarding nuclear weapons. There should be some basic requirements for a country to purchase nuclear weapons and use them and those seem pretty reasonable.
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 04:04 am I'm out of this discussion since there seem to be no agreement in the future. I just wanted to comment that while you have been discussing war here in the forum there have been no nuclear attacks in Golden Rainbow.
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 05:50 am Vicious - For someone who was quite a warrior at a time you seem very quick to say 'just stay in war protection permanently' to those of us who believe that a system is being exploited thus causing people to lose hours, days, weeks and months on someone's whim. How about instead the system works as *intended* and although you are disputing intent, I don't think that there is much to dispute. There was zero intention when the system was created that it would hide assets for people while they fought with c3's. Zentrino - Thanks for the support, I'm glad you like the idea. John - If people stopped participating in discussions just because it didn't seem like there would be an agreement, I don't think much would ever get done. We're a community of people, it'll be impossible for us all to agree...it's nearly impossible to get two people to agree on something sometimes. But if you have thoughts and opinions on the matter you should continue to share even if it does seem futile at times.
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 06:03 am "But if you have thoughts and opinions on the matter you should continue to share even if it does seem futile at times." Outstanding suggestion WB, I think I'll oblige you I am of only one opinion. You need more
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 07:30 am Wendy! Look! A sparkly object...like a squirrel, I swear.
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 08:38 am You're whole argument is that you can read the minds of the programmers in Blithoven. Never mind what the documentation actually says. What matters is your interpretation of their intent. Right? The documentation states repeatedly that players can use WP indefinitely. But you claim to be graced with the revelation that Blithoven doesn't want players to be selective about using WP. That mysticism is not persuasive. Some of us read the documentation as a manual. Not as poetry, tea leaves, tarot cards, entrails, or whatever esoteric revelation. That manual provides that WP is a feature that players can use to their advantage.
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 09:41 am The only mention of intent speaks directly to my point, can you find any mention of intent to support yours? Can you honestly with a straight face say that you believe the GM's thought: 'Well what we'll do is give people a way to constantly declare war on other players without risking any of their own assets, that'd be a great idea'? You can continue to say that there is no 100% clear statement of intent, but I really think there is little doubt about the intent of the system put in place. You have continually selected small pieces of my arguments to argue against while not addressing many of the main points, such as: You compared c3 warfare to real life, such as guerilla's/terrorists/kamikazes, I made an argument against the validity of that claim, no response. You made an argument about excessive clicking, I made an argument that c3 warfare is nothing more than that, excessive clicking in an...well...excessive way...and without purpose. You made an argument which stated that someone can avoid warfare by simply staying in WP/Secured mode forever, myself and others made a counter argument that the intent of the game is not for everyone to completely avoid 1 aspect of the game and focus on the other. You furthered your argument that 'guerilla warfare' is part of real life and therefore should be part of the game, I argued that guerilla warfare could be allowed but it should be realistic, i.e. guerillas/terrorists don't get nukes. You disregarded that. I made the point that the situation now isn't about the poor and needy standing up to the big and greedy oppressors and that what is really going on now is asset raiding while avoiding any repercussions of such action. You ignored that. I don't need to read people's minds, I can tell you that when a girl asks: "Do I look fat in this?" that what she means is: say I look beautiful or I'll go crazy. But I know it's true, and so do you...there was an intent behind war protection, secured mains and waiting periods. None of which were to allow people to hide assets, you arguing that point makes you seem disingenuous. What is your vested interest in this issue and why do you continue to dodge the counter-points? Because frankly I don't get it...you are one of the most well respected members of SC (take Barney's comments for example) and for some reason you are sticking your neck out on something which at face value is meaningless to you. Why are you purposely being dishonest about your understanding of the intent of the rules? Please Vicious, tell me what possible other intent there was behind war protection...because I don't see it...and I don't believe you do either. If you want to see what the game would look like if this kind of situation continues we can make that happen. I don't think it will take long for our opinion to become the consensus. I'm trying to avoid that. But, we aren't going to stand up for long if we continue to be annoyed in this way and have our time wasted. You want all of us in WP? We can show what constant c3 warfare looks like and in a much more powerful way than one player who is clueless about the war engine. As much as we are made out to be asset raiders and people that pick on the lowly, it really isn't the case at all. We are interested in fighting fights which most would expect us to lose, interested in the challenge of it all. But we can turn that around, keep our assets in WP and terrorize everyone, just as Wendy said: "Oh and the solution is the golden rule, Treat others....... Its Universal I don't have to type it out."
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 10:24 am "Poor and needy standing up to the big and greedy" hehe
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 12:28 pm I suggest you collect all your speeches and email them to the gamemaster. They're the ones you need to persuade to recode the game, not me. Just tell them: a) you don't want your enemies to be able to use war protection, b) you don't want to be attacked when you don't use war protection, and c) you don't want to be nuked when you don't deploy nuclear defense batteries. That's a synthesis of your arguments in this thread. When someone keeps telling me that the earth is flat, I don't debate him. Nor am I going to debate that the game provides war protection so that players can use it to their advantage.
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 01:47 pm Vicious, you are ignoring the main point of this thread. Whatever specific reason the Gamemasters have for introducing or not introducing this rule or that rule, they want people to keep playing the game. If people are leaving the game, because something is spoiling their enjoyment of it, that is something they need to address. The majority of people posting to this thread are trying to help them find the best way to address it. Hugs and respect Jo
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 03:03 pm Yes, the gamemasters introduced secure mode to keep players from being persecuted by warlords. War protection can be used for the same purpose. I'm not persuaded that players are leaving the game because they don't want to use war protection. Like I said before, no amount of protective features is ever enough for some people. Where does the coddling end?
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 04:47 pm So Vicious, you see this as an attempt by us at more protection--that we want protection from the C3 warriors. And you're right that there already is protection against the C3 warriors, as one can just buy war protection boosters. I see this movement's goal as the opposite, as a partial rollback of war protection. We want to take away an aspect of wp, not add to it. We actually like the war game and like having our empires at risk, as long as others are in the same boat. It's a fun game, and most of us don't mind losing stuff once in a while, though we prefer winning. A number of us would prefer that FB goes back to no WP boosters at all. One of the main things that keeps people from deccing on you is the likelihood of retaliation against their valuable countries. Obviously. So a fun part of the game is building up your potential to retaliate, along with the means to defend yourself. In fact, you get to the level (maybe you reached this point yourself once) where you realize the threat of retaliation is really the best, and against some players the only, effective means of defense. It's a complex game, fun as you learn and become aware of more of the aspects of it. Feds, allies, neutrals, shifting alliances. It's fun. Even if you're not interested in conquering others, just the defense of your own stuff is fun, and the potential for retaliation is a key part of that. The c3 war loophole takes away the possibility of retaliation in any meaningful way. If you take away the threat of retaliation, it cuts away a large part of the wargame. It's more fun to stay OUT of WP and maintain defense and the threat of retaliation, than to go into war protection. It irks us that the logical solution to having to fight wars you don't want to fight...put all of our stuff in WP...takes OTHERS out of the arena too, if we all do it. Less fun. So we see closing the c3 loophole as taking away some WP from our fellow fighters, to make the fighting fairer and the arena more inviting, not as adding to our own protection. More fun, not less fun.
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 05:01 pm Right now we have equality: everyone has the freedom to choose if and how to use secure mode or WP. If we reduce secure mode or WP for any aggressor, then that equality ends. Then small aggressors will be conquered quickly by warlords who spend months or years stockpiling weapons. This game went down that road before. Bullying from warlords with massive military stockpiles drove away many players. That's precisely why W3C introduced secure mode. Reducing secure mode or WP for small aggressors would take the game backwards to the days of the bullying military dictatorships.
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 05:48 pm I think this discussion has gotten derailed by the WP issue, which most of you agree needs some tweaking including the GM (they told me this in a e-mail). Viscous mentioned something about wanting less clicking...well that is one of my biggest problems with C3 warriors. C3s need to be limited in strength. Take a look at my first post and lets change the subject off of WP. Realistically speaking a tiny undeveloped country would not declare war on a larger country and nor would it last long in said war. Countries need to be developed and worked on before they can be strong...there should be no overnight 100 WI countries...its just not realistic. If your argument is that you want gorrila warfare or suicide warfare...fine...have it, but lets be realistic here...a 8-15 mil country is still a small weak undeveloped country that shouldn't take long to defeat...and should not be made 6 times harder to take just by ordering 100 forts with 1 click!!! An active defender will make it harder / longer to take, but that's not the strategy for some c3 warriors...lets introduce or encourage more skill in this game rather than repetitive clicking. The other suggestion of making all countries have a certain amount of military assets is also a realistic approach and what country would declare war without a large stock pile of weapons and ammo?!?
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 05:58 pm Instead, Vicious, we have single bullying players, picking on the smaller members of a fed in order to destroy the fed. They do this because the C3 warrior can't really hurt the big, well defended empires but they can hurt the medium-sized guys. The ones who are on the way to building an empire but can't yet afford full WP without pulling out their VISA card. The ones who don't yet have their growing empires fully defended. I'm not saying that any of the solutions discussed here are perfect, nor that we want to return to the days where big feds bullied small players, but you don't seem to see that there is a problem. Is that because you have never faced a C3 warrior? Or that your empire is too big and well-defended for one to bother you? Or is it because you haven't been in the position of trying to defend smaller fedmates against these tactics? Believe me, there ARE players leaving the game because of it. I can think of a couple of fairly major players, but there must be many more smaller ones that just give up and go away without saying anything, because they never got the chance to build friendships. They just joined a fed in the hope of making some and got taken back to one country for it. You have a wealth of experience in this game, Vicious. Instead of being negative, accept there is a problem and try to help us find a solution that gives newer players a chance ... Hugs and respect Jo
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 06:11 pm We don't believe you Jo, you already lied and misrepresented the truth a few posts up, I don't think anyone should be taking you or many others' "Word" for anything. I don't trust ya as far as I can throw ya. It is more likely that more of the multi's who enjoy making stories up about member accounts not being able to defend is likely the reason for anyone leaving. It must be fun to run multiple accounts but not easy to defend, especially if you are trying to be tricksy about it. And frankly, I'm all for that because multi play is against the rules anyway. And that is where I come from when I go after certain places and faces. The multi player issue is way out of control everyone sees it, it isn't even discreet anymore it is blatant and transparent. W3c should enforce a '1 account per IP rule to curb if not crush that. If not just make it so that anyone can have multi accounts. That would proly fill in KB nicely, and some $$$$ for the game. I can't wait until my husband plays, and my sister, cousins, and my great uncle too. All from my computer. YAY. <----- That is what multi accounts looks like today and frankly it is disgusting. If you wanna itch and whine and complain about sumthing there it is.
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 06:12 pm I think this discussion has gotten derailed by the WP issue, which most of you agree needs some tweaking including the GM (they told me this in a e-mail). Viscous mentioned something about wanting less clicking...well that is one of my biggest problems with C3 warriors. C3s need to be limited in strength. Take a look at my first post and lets change the subject off of WP. Realistically speaking a tiny undeveloped country would not declare war on a larger country and nor would it last long in said war. Countries need to be developed and worked on before they can be strong...there should be no overnight 100 WI countries...its just not realistic. If your argument is that you want gorrila warfare or suicide warfare...fine...have it, but lets be realistic here...a 8-15 mil country is still a small weak undeveloped country that shouldn't take long to defeat...and should not be made 6 times harder to take just by ordering 100 forts with 1 click!!! An active defender will make it harder / longer to take, but that's not the strategy for some c3 warriors...lets introduce or encourage more skill in this game rather than repetitive clicking. The other suggestion of making all countries have a certain amount of military assets is also a realistic approach and what country would declare war without a large stock pile of weapons and ammo?!?
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 06:13 pm vicious after 2 years of fighting behind secured and wp, creates an environment that unless u use it, you are at a disadvantage. wouldn't most reasonable people say enough is enough after a year of it? i really do agree with your basic thought vicious. but their is a reasonable limit, don't you think? i remember when scottie would keep all but one of his big war slaves in protection. so that he'd only have to fight with one country against the 8+(?) players that wanted to take him down. that seems like a reasonable use of wp. but that war ended. and does not continue. the concept of wp, even using it as a method for the weak to stand against the strong... but after a year... don't you think that the feature has been abused? how long must it go on? 3 years? 10 years? before it is recognized as a problem? in your last statement, your stating that the intent is to give weaker players a method of standing against larger players, but what about when larger players use it to bully the weak? and thats whats happening now. thats the intent of this thread. to stop the strong from using that tactic to bully the weak... the longer this goes, the closer we come to EVERY ONE, all the time being in secured, and wp. making the war game effectively obsolete. so that a feature meant to protect new players, and busy players, now turns off one or the main features of the game, except for c3, and inactive raiding. meaning the only way players would ever fight, is over in-actives. and probably from c3's. with out creating some sort of limit to the use of wp, and secured, while in a war of aggression .
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 06:34 pm Currently, if you get bullied by a small aggressor or large aggressor, you can use war protection. End of problem. But some of you want the game recoded so that it reduces war protection specifically for small aggressors. That weakens the small aggressors, as if they're not weak already. By weakening war protection for small aggressors, large aggressors increase their big advantage. That's a formula for a game that favors bullying by large aggressors. That bullying by large aggressors is the biggest problem in a war game. At least now, everyone has war protection against bullies as an option. But some people want to reduce war protection. Less protection from bullies encourages more bullying.
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 06:35 pm Vicious Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 03:32 am Click here to edit this post I don't see any documentation that requires a "valid reason" for war. Valid for whom? The aggressor? The defendant? Is the next suggestion to write a list of valid reasons for war, and code it into the war engine? Once again, secure mode and war protection can prevent anyone from losing "everything they have spent time and energy building." The flewises of the game can't attack those who use secure mode or war protection. Confu(Vi)cious
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 06:47 pm If you disagree with the WP suggestions, come up with another solution, Vicious ... Please accept, though, that younger empires can't always afford to buy WP all the time so, for some, WP isn't viable protection against sustained aggressive action from larger players. Especially C3 warriors who know how to make WP work in their favour. Hugs and respect Jo
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 07:11 pm Is this the argument: that this proposal would take away the ability for weaker players to retaliate against bullies in the only way they can, by harassing them?
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 07:11 pm Honestly, I applaud WB for quoting the Golden Rule. It has been said repeatedly that I ought to stay in WP 'OR ELSE" So, I stay in WP. When does that threat end? Never because I never kissed an arse in my life and I won't start now. I stay in WP becuase I will be attacked regardless of yesterday or 6 months forward. I will be attacked. So it is only right that I should use whatever means possible to make the statement 'You ought to stay in WP 'or else' apply to my enemies. There is no abuse of any feature. It is what we call karma. The most obvious truth not being repeated or acknowledged by many of the instigators is the 'Golden Rule' Had THE 'gOLDEN rULE fEATURE' been abused by the bullies of the game, we would still be in the era of "Cuddly Wars" and "War Games" where war is fun and undertaken as 'sport'. Another area of confusion and ignorance is that there is a bit too much consolidation in the game. Where players and large empires and experienced players in particular get together not for the means of mutual defense, but for mutual aggression. In the past year or so, we have seen many competing rival factions often abandon the challenges of facing off with one another where the 'sport' would be a competition or 'challenge' and instead chose to band together, and opting out for the 'taking' of medium or large single entity feds or empires. There are some variants of this case but the principle reality remains true in each instance save a few minor factors and details. The result makes the conventional use of the 'War Engine' obsolete. And innovative, and or daring players must come up with new strategies and techniques to counter this recent phenomenon of "pack rat" mutual aggression. For if an avg size player wished to challenge an established for whatever reason, the challenger would be squash-buckled at the hands of several large empires or players in the event that player showed potential to defeat said opponent. This has happened several times in recent history where large empires have gone to what they thought would be an honorable challenge, and were sideswiped. This scenario has repeated itself time and time again, countless times even in my 2+ years of game play. We have an era of too many followers and not enough leaders. We have senior leaders acting like junior leaders and hopping on the first band wagon they can catch a rid on. The game is too lopsided in favor of one group or another. On LU there was the time of LDI and Valde. One 'dark, one 'light' This is an example of how the game 'used' to be. A system of checks and balances. You had LDI a very able bodied small group of experienced players, and Valde a large group of consisting of a few 'good' players mentoring a bunch of new or avg size players. There was a very balnced yin and yang in that era. Adding to this example take, The United Confederation of Golden Rainbow. A dominant power on GR, the other large force being Allied Forces. A classic example of Yin and Yang. UC dominated towards the end before its' collapse but AF remained. Now we have the mob on LU, a large group of visible players backed even by those who are not formally in the mob. The result is an hyper aggressive federation that has temporarily 'hidden' its' nature to present this 'BS Abuse of WP' argument. On GR we have we have GREF, supposedly an economic federation. Yet when the UC was reduced to members counted on one hand, they attacked the only sizable threat they could see and this was John L. Even after peace was achieved, for a second time they suddenly and without warning, attacked me or (The UC) without provocation despite having a treaty in place. After I used a proven deterrent against them, a 'c3 war' they quickly called in reinforcements despite being the largest fed on LU and having the largest resouces and military available to them. Even, members of the mob. Currently, after EO recently lost his country, EC has turned up on GR too. I'm sure if things follow suit and continue with EO losing countries, no doubt more members of the mob, or the 'unseen alliance' will show up as well. But a very good case given the accusation of abuse here is necessary. EO comes and Takes John L's and Jack Jone's most valuable Countries, then strips them. Sells his better countries to Steven Ryan, and has nothing except the country he lost and some token c3s. But, he had an 8 country Empire when he took John L's and Jack Jones' countries. When it was over he moved them to other accounts, and has nothing at risk. Is this no different than a person taking then 'abusing' WP? No it isn't. It is in fact much worse becuase it is you guys using making the argument and throwing accusations of abuse. So rather than get caught putting WP up while crying like this on the forums, EO decides to sell his countries to people who have them in WP for him. Great argument. So in these example we can see that WB is full of shite.
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 07:13 pm I keep explaining that war protection is the solution to bullying. Yes, WP is affordable. W3C shoves lots of gold coins down our throats for levelling up. We can get hundreds of gold coins in a matter of days in any world. A small empire easily can pay for war protection for several months just by levelling up a few times. On Little Upsilon war protection costs 115 billion per game month. Folks, that is not much. Focus on the economy and you can get to that monthly income in a few weeks. Meanwhile, you can have several real months of war protection using the gold coins from level awards. You can get help too. Aid from the Security Council. CEO corps with high country resource payments. All kinds of economic tips from people like me. None of this requires recoding the war engine.
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 07:26 pm what we want is to limit the use of WP, given 2 specific criteria. The use of WP, with aggressive wars, over an extended period of time. i guess "extended period of time," could be up to interpretation. but what we are going for is to avoid an aggressor, forcing a defendor to protect hours labor, while only anting up what amounts to minutes of work... with this key point, doing this over and over again... over months, infact over years, rl years. meaning thousands of player hours being wiped out with only a few hours work... if it was an isolated event, every once and a while thing, people wouldn't like it, but let it be. as it stands, one person uses a game feature to effectively take what others have worked for, with no chance of reprisal. its like playing a chess game, that only one side is allowed to take peaces. where as a skilled chess player can win with out capturing a peace, they are at an overwhelming disadvantage. unless they use the same tactic. and if every one used the same tactic? it'd be like turning on the superbowl, to find out that they decided to play flag football that day!!! how disappointing that would be the way that WP is being abused, is like that. if this continues, we'll be playing the powder-puff version of the war game.
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 07:29 pm Glad I'm not W3C. It's pretty obvious that regardless of what they do, people from one side or another are going to be pissed. Honestly, there is a lot that I agree with from all sides. Personaly, I wish they'd start from scratch. I think the war engine is ridiculous. I agree with whoever said that there is a minimal amount of skill involved. It's about clicking a mouse repeatedly, being in a situation where you have access to play more than others. Somebody just make a new game or something.
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 07:35 pm The game is mostly a clicking marathon. Maybe clicking will qualify as an Olympic sport.
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 07:40 pm Orbiter you have the real issue twisted, the reason they want WP limited is because they feel extremely confident in the idea that they will quickly be able to roll over whomever they want without having to be stopped by WP. Meaning they will be able to take what is on the board, and instead of an immediate response or retaliation, a person will have to spend weeks to build something that is permissible to declare according the the proposed changes. That thoery of change is inherently flawed and only works to their advantage and suits their style of play. I point this out every time WB proposes something be changed because it is not 90% of the time a proposed change from an objective point of view, but a change that will only cater to his own selfish desires. The nuke thing for instance. He proposes that things be changed to work differently, becuase he manually chooses to order/activate more weapons than his populace can support. But all of a sudden, "The War Engine doesn't work the way it was intended' and no matter who tells him different, he is right, and everyone else is wrong. There is however, a "Moral"(LoooLMAO!) solution to the problem and it is "The Golden Rule". Enuff said. And to all of you who are arguing his side don't ignore this please answer this, "But a very good case given the accusation of abuse here is necessary. EO comes and Takes John L's and Jack Jone's most valuable Countries, then strips them. Sells his better countries to Steven Ryan, and has nothing except the country he lost and some token c3s. But, he had an 8 country Empire when he took John L's and Jack Jones' countries. When it was over he moved them to other accounts, and has nothing at risk. Is this no different than a person taking then 'abusing' WP? No it isn't. It is in fact much worse becuase it is you guys using making the argument and throwing accusations of abuse. So rather than get caught putting WP up while crying like this on the forums, EO decides to sell his countries to people who have them in WP for him. Great argument."
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 08:40 pm Roll over whoever we want without having to be stopped by WP? Hmmm...are we arguing that WP shouldn't exist on any world except possibly FB? Who started our war with you? You...so obviously it was us trying to roll over you. I build countries too big so my weapons daect? Hmmm...how many nukes have you landed on me? 1. How many countries have I taken from you? Can't even count. Don't turn this into...WB wants this because it's in his best interest...remember, I didn't start the thread and I am certainly not the only one commenting from this perspective. Also, don't pretend as if you don't have a vested interest in making sure that no change occurs because you want to continue to raid small and inactive members of large federations without any repercussions for your actions. That's your vested interest which is about YOU...our interest at least has the benefit of helping the game as a whole from becoming a wasteland of WP and c3's. Get your facts straight about GR, EO had stripped down to his main and 1 slave and then some c3's for painting, etc. He had 8 countries after he took John L's and Jack's countries...by himself, no Mob support there and he was planning on leaving GR completely until you provoked him and since he couldn't retaliate against you, he went after your fed, UC and the biggest and best members of it...not the smallest as you do. Also...commenting on your own argument "Great argument"...classic Wendy. Anyway, this has turned back into personal attacks back and forth and somewhat of a stalemate which is to be expected. So I'm going to leave this with the following: Those of you who support change, it's time to take the messages to the GM's if you haven't already done so, I know many of you have. I don't think we are going to convince the few detractors in this thread which is to be expected, no way we are all going to agree on something.
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 08:53 pm Ummm, I'm on GR I dont need to get anything str8. EO had 6 good countries in his empire and 2 ground c3s. Dizzy has 1 of the countries, Corporate Partner has one or more of Wilds counties he took. And The rest Steve has. The only worthy country he kept, was the one that got took. So, back to the issue at hand. Is this no different than a person taking then 'abusing' WP? NO it isn't.
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 09:26 pm "Personaly, I wish they'd start from scratch." Me2. I'm holding out some hope for the new server in October. Some.
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 10:26 pm I don't see that "stay in wp fight with c3" warfare is the provenance of weak players. The players who have used it against me are whiteboy, EO (beast), Bobo, and KissofDeath. None of them weak players. In last summer's fed fight we (3M) pushed them to the point where they all went into WP. Then they came back with c3 warfare. It was all pain no gain for us, and they took some assets. We didn't think it was really fair, but that's the way the rules were (are) set up--C3 fighting is the next step when you're defeated, even if you started the war. nix uses c3 wars, and those who have fought him have said it's very annoying and not fun. I wouldn't call nix a weak player. I guess there have been or could be weak players who have used this tactic. But then would this rule change their situation much? It's really tailored toward stronger players, not weaker ones. I'm interested in the concern about bullying by large warlords. Since we're talking game rule changes, how about some real suggestions for rule changes to protect players who want to be involved in the war game without being trampled by the more experienced players? Yes, we've heard stay in WP forever, and everyone should obey the Golden Rule. Anything in the way of suggestions for game rule changes?
| |
| Tuesday, July 27, 2010 - 11:06 pm Is this a play style issue, C3 issue or a WP issue? If its a c3 issue then its easy to get around that. Say I wanted to be bad, and I had no viable c3 strats because the GM changed the rules. Pick any rule, money in country, pop, no nukes in a 5-10mil country....etc... Simple, I have my secured main, then look around for the inevitable 20-40mil pop countries that are inactive, or managed by a new player without a clue what to do to stop an established player. I take them, then use them against a player who I don't like, for whatever reason. I could use for whatever purpose I would want. Economic attack on your corps with CMB, nuke attacks on the ill prepared, etc, etc... The point I'm trying to make is you can never, and will never get rid of hyper aggressive players who wish to make your life miserable. People will always adapt. If perceived risk of assets, by both sides, is what the GM wants, then player A can kill mediocre player B then risk player B's assets on those he/she doesn't like. When a capable "bad guy" leverages a new (innocent) players decent empire against his enemies, I'm sure more people would be angry and leave. I think this could be argued both ways for ever and ever. Each side making valid points. Best no to really care about assets?
| |
| Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - 12:12 am wendy, i don't think wb, eo (who's said very little here,) and company want to make a rule change to be able to over run players. if you see that as a result, well, i'll concede that it could happen. I'll also not speak for EO, in regards to GR, as i barely even keep up with what goes on on that planet, and EO is a big boy that can speak for himself.same with WB how ever, i do appropriate your opinion. as i agree with you on many points. there are large, unseen, multi-complex alliances. that a person who honestly just wants to enjoy fighting some one that looks like a challenge, ends up in a much larger fight than anticipated. for a new player that spends a little time researching how the war engine works, reads wild's how to thread, and wants to put it to use... then goes looking for a target, scouts them, out, and their fed, and carefully prepares to do war. then finds themselves at war with 90% of the world... its rather daunting. its happened to me and it certainly seems unfair. but the flip side of it, when a person builds friendships, of course friends are going to help each other, thats what friends do. as in real life, they are out going people who make allot of friends, powerful people, who allot of people want to make friends with, these thing naturally happen, and to expect some one to say, "no, i have to many friends already..." well, not many people say that... so the "problem," you point out, isn't anything sinister, but rather people enjoying playing a game. personally, i believe that you are an intelligent, person, with a good sense of humor, and strong sense of justice. all very good traits. however like anything, over doing something, can become a bad trait. you believe that too many power players are in the same group? well, constantly harassing them, to make them break up their club, will never solve that problem. the problem, is not players acting unfairly, but rather the result of an "end game," scenario. were the players that are playing have been playing for quite some time, and have of course gotten to know each other, with the result that they would ally with each other, or at least, choose not to confront each other. their are 2 solutions to this, 1. we need more players, which is of course, difficult, when all the power base is one sided. why would some one want to try to get into the war game, when anytime they try something, 8+ players come after them? 2. we need mentoring for new players, (contrary to what jo said, and in agreement with vicious,) a new player, with some direction, can easily build up a decent empire, safely, and quickly. to back up point number 2, my current account is less than 4 months old, and i've only payed the 12 for membership, for the first and second set of 3 months. take a look at what i've got on WG. and consider i've been their for only 2 months. it really doesn't take that long, if you know what your doing. of course, having a new account is not the same as being a new player, but my point is that it is possible. however, wendy, with all do respect, your method to level the playing field, has only isolated you. and with your constant bashing of feds, has infact chased many players away. meaning, your method to try to make things more "fair," has actually made thing more "unfair," and in fact, your use of war protection, has caused many players to rather do with out a nice feature, than deal with what you do. i really don't mean to offend you, as i do have allot of respect for you. few people in real life can be so unmoving, deal with so many insults, for so long, for what they see is right. its a good quality. however, enough is enough, your not helping the game if you want to make things fair, you'd find a way to mentor a group of players, such as DTA, teach them what you know, and help them become a force capable of taking on "the mob," do what you can to level the playing field, that would be a much more effective way to keep, WB, and EO, and such from over running people with WP.
| |
| Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - 02:55 am To be fair, Orbiter, I would bet my account that n00b stomping by an astronomical margin has driven more players 'away' that anything I can or ever will do in the game. The difference is, I do what I do to capable players who are intelligent enough to know how to avoid it. It is a matter of personal choice and pride. I don't randomly select players or any group of players to attack in hopes of driving anyone 'away'. Your rebuttal is full of invalid assumptions that take what is being displayed out of context. You repeat the nonsense of players being chased 'away' by me, but can you honestly say a sizable amount of players were driven away? Not really. And if any number was in fact driven away, the choice was simple, remove yourself from a certain aggressive fed or fight. I can't force them to leave a federation, so I certainly cannot drive anyone from the game. To repeat what you have heard as fact is irresponsible for a player and intelligence of your stature. I don't care what you or anyone here thinks of what I do. Its just a game, and I'll play it as I pay it. Case Closed. Why do you assume that I am not 'helping' the game? I pay my membership fees, and I don't bother anyone unless they are calling me to play, or messing with my friends. It's basic give and take. I guess you mean I should pay my 48 dollars a year and donate assets to a lost cause, or play to another players satisfaction. This is flawed thinking and I think you know that already. On the meat and potatoes side of the issue, if any changes are coming, I really don't care, if I want to play with you I'll play. It could cost a couple more coins, I'll just make sure it costs my opponent a little more as well.
| |
| Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - 02:56 am I've tried to avoid this conversation because I think its easy to make opinions based on what side of the fence you're looking from. Wendy, My GR wars were the product of you. I had 3 countries (2 slaves) for about a month and was sitting around with no war protection. I had been slowly selling off because GR is one of 4 worlds I play on, and normally the least fun. When you pissed me off enough that I felt like killing someone, I did just that. I purchased my old countries back and killed people who were associated with you. They were out of war protection - and they were friends/allies/whatever you want to call - with a player who was declaring war on every weakly defended country on GR. They paid the price. After that war, I sold my countries off again, but kept the same 2 slaves. John was brave enough to declare on me, and got pretty lucky that there was holes in my nuke defense. He didn't fire ONE SHOT besides nukes until my country wasn't able to even support an air wing (60 mil to 13 mil), and there really was no countering anything for me. I had one deactivation and there was no fixing it. This said, I have great respect for John, and our messages to each other have been quite civil. He sees this for what it is - a game - and he plays the game the right way. With risks come the rewards. He put his empire on the line, and with a little persistence, he was rewarded by taking a top 10 war slave (regardless of method). That country was about as valuable as Johns entire empire (8 or 9 countries) before our wars. I have not once complained about it - nor do I wish to. If you take stuff from people, be prepared to pay the price. I'm not hiding from anyone, nor have I ever. If you want to fight me, pick a time and place - or just dec me. @Jojo - yes I (and later WB and co) did use c3s against you guys after the war was mostly over, and quite devastatingly so. A large part of this was nukes on my part, and they have since made it much more difficult to build c3s of the caliber seen during that war. As far as WP rules helping bigger players play: There did not used to be war protection and the game thrived. No war protection, no secured mode. People NEEDED to join federations to survive and learn the game. There were many more players who knew what they were doing and were willing to step up to the plate for a friend. If we (Mob) really wanted to, we could raid everyone out of war protection on LU whenever we wanted. No one could stop us. This part of your argument is true. The same could be said for ANY group of powerful players (power is relative) on any planet. Whoever is the biggest ALWAYS has the advantage. The Mob wasn't always the biggest, nor will it remain the biggest for eternity. We've earned our stripes and fought anyone who has stepped up to the plate. There have been many powerful federations before us, and there will be many powerful feds after us. However, since January 1st, we've fought ONE group of players, period (DTA - their federation is named Death To All, hardly a peaceful name). They responded by building up and attacking us back. If they had any semblance of skill or notion of what they were doing, they would be formidible. However, they did not, and we took all 31 or so countries that they declared on us with. IN CONCLUSION: I am not opposed to war protection as a whole, just the ways it can be exploited. I really like the idea of no nukes new countries, or at least putting some minimal requirements for using nukes. C3s are a necessary part of the game and should remain so. They just shouldn't be something that takes a player 10 minutes to take, but have the power to ruin months worth of work with 10 nukes/clicks. There have been complaints about specific players and rules in the past, but this complaint has been around since I began simcountry. What frustrates me most about it is it pushes players away from federations and into wp. Players don't make friends, and don't help each other. If I played solo on LU, you wouldn't be talking about the Mob in oppressive terms. Same goes for any of our members. We've known each other forever and will risk our own assets to help each other. We are not saints, nor will we ever be, but if thats not the way the game should be played, then perhaps there should never have been any federations. WP or Feds - I say feds. Teach players.
| |
| Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - 03:01 am Don't lie EO, you did what you did because I wouldn't beg you not to. What the F**K do I look like? I bow to know one, certainly not some imitation internet deity. You make me sick to the nth degree, and the future will be full of LuLz for you and your mates. I will hold them to the same standard you held mine. Let's see who yells loudest when all is said and done. No rule change, twisted story, 'Eo is away from the game with Mental problems" or any other excuse will change or solve that. It is what it is. I'm currently consolidating. But I'll be swinging all your way soon enough. Cheers to change.
| |
| Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - 03:06 am Federations are in the game, because they are useful, so is WP, the argument is null and void.
| |
| Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - 03:09 am Lol wendy. Read the arguments. Players have no complaints to the format of federations. Since you've been playing the list goes on and on of players who have complained bitterly about your abuse of war protection. There are numerous threads about war protection. That is the discussion: war protection. We'll see whos laughing when the rules change  If players don't want to get attacked, then don't provoke other players, and don't sit around without friends. As I've said, we've had ONE offensive campaign in 8 months. We're hardly killing everyone. Play nice and you'll be fine.
| |
| Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - 03:30 am I welcome the rule changes. I have said that previously, I didn't just switch up my words for today's discussion. Yes I'll be laughing if the rules change. Because I am going to adjust, and apply it 10 times as much as I do now. If you cry now.... I am not complaining about federations. I am not spamming for every aspect of the game that isn't desirable in my eyes to be changed. I am not 'abusing' a feature in any way. What you are talking about has been done in the past by the same players making the argument. That is the difference in me and all you TiTs that you don't get. You do what you do, and you are 'cool'. When you don't get your way you cry about it like 2 year olds. But when something bothers me I just deal with it. I am not asking w3c to give me some advantage that would make it more attractive for me to challenge a larger or more skilled opponent. I just take what is given me, and use it as best as possible. I have over 900 levels of chess, we have only been to stage 5. I can take whatever is available and use it, and impose my will on you. Yes lets see who is laughing when the rules change lol. Whatever. I haven't even swiped a Visa yet. But I will to laugh even harder.
| |
| Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - 03:33 am Wendy the lies are getting ridiculous: "The difference is, I do what I do to capable players who are intelligent enough to know how to avoid it. It is a matter of personal choice and pride." Don't bullsh*t everyone, you pick the weakest members of feds or the weakest countries to attack. You know that is true and so does everyone else...why else would I have seen exactly 1 nuke from you in all of your issues with me? Don't pretend that you are doing anything other than asset raiding weak/inactive players or countries using 'justice' as an excuse and hoping no one notices. Keep up the threats Wendy, the difference between what EO did and what you do is that you can choose any one of us to attack...you talk sh*t and cause problems and then hide in WP, so your fed and friends got attacked. EO and I have been out of WP on every world for over a year now...funny that for some reason we get the least of your attacks even though we are the people who have done everything you swear you're seeking justice for...very odd indeed. How have we taken control of LU? Is it because we are so much better than those that came before us? Better than LDI, Valde, SNA, etc? Probably not, we just don't really have much to challenge us. Those feds all existed in a time where feds were REALLY important for defense. The reason feds are not important is WP and c3 warfare, which is why players are isolated and do just as Vicious suggested and pay their 1 GC per day. This game used to have a lot more players who were good at war, who fought real fights. Our fed is tiny by their standards, we're 6 people and have 3 billion in population...that isn't massive or overwhelming. Players before were willing to, as Jojo and Beast have noted, lose something and when they did they would learn something. Without risk there is no reward which is why you are exactly as good today as you were last year or the year before...no risk, no reward. Why don't you explain your reasoning about why the game is so much different with so many fewer players, so many fewer federations, so many fewer wars and where tiny feds like us can 'control' LU? I'd love to hear that one...I'm sure you do like it better now because in that world you actually had to do something to be someone instead of just talking about it.
| |
| Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - 04:00 am Ok... How have we gone full circle here now too? More
| |
| Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - 06:09 pm When I read threads such as this one, I cannot help but hear don't bring around a cloud to rain on my parade...
| |
| Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - 07:14 pm Did I hear cheese? Usually means "someone" just got owned and has no other response...err, but what do I know? :P
| |
| Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - 08:08 pm Don't you have some fantasy about dubletarian uptopian news fLASHES , OR SPAM OF NOTHING MEANINGFUL TO TEND TO. How is SCWN 1257.12 dot PHAIL coming along? Reporting live from nowhere inside my empty head... this is Anderson p00per for 360.
| |
| Wednesday, July 28, 2010 - 08:41 pm This was a fairly high signal to noise ratio conversation until recently. People who are trying to galvanize public opinion to help improve the game: don't get caught up in the slog of guerrilla debating tactics! No one cares who lied to who, how many countries you had when so and so nuked so and so, and etc. You guys are standing von Clausewitz on his head by making debating a continuation of war by other means. Wendy has had some good points amidst the chatter, and some of us would like to encourage more, not less, of those insights.
| |
| Thursday, July 29, 2010 - 12:25 am Too much reading now to keep up. 
|
