The problem and solution to C3 Warriors (Golden Rainbow)

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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 orderin

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 becaus

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. T

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 10

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 weake

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.

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

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

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?

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 t

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.

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

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.

The game is mostly a clicking marathon. Maybe clicking will qualify as an Olympic sport.

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

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

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.

"Personaly, I wish they'd start from scratch."

Me2.

I'm holding out some hope for the new server in October.

Some.

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.