Pwning innocent players good or bad (Little Upsilon)

what you guys think about pwning innocent players?


I think war is part of this game.If guys don't want to fight then wp up. I think the GM's need to make wp cheaper just for that. say 16 gms for 1 gc, or more. and NO to blackouts!

I think that players should be able to play ow they want, as long as it does't stop others from playing how they wish also.

But having fought a few innocent players in my time, i'd say the cheap WP is a good idea.

It's all part of the game, but cheaper WP would make it more acceptable, IMO.

No excuses then for econ players not to stay safe and protect their assets.

I am not sure why "pwning", because pwning loses much of its original meaning in this game, but to the point.

Not only its possible by the game mechanics, as far as I know W3C always claimed that war is important part of the game.

In such situation warring others is beyond good and bad, because who is to say what is good and what is bad? Someone with authority, someone with a reason, someone like "I am your God and you cannot have other Gods but me"?

I dunno if people who play this game ever played, and succeeded, any other competitive games, but I highly doubt it.

Protection from other players which can be bought with real money is not helping anything, but rather the opposite. It destroys competition.

damn Tuco, you ok?

"pwning" definately loses its original meaning in this context.


but think of it from this context. Those who currently play enjoy the fact that there are other people to play against. you scare new people away, the game becomes the same boring thing day after day. players create the game, new players ensure the game progresses; without players there is no game. without new players, the game will eventually stagnate.


When vets go and "pwn" new players (i prefer the terms "rape" and "pillage") it just gives the message that people arent welcome and sort of puts more 'worth' on players that currently play. imho n00bs aren't being given a fair chance to show that they have the potential to succeed because we are too busy marking our territory.


from another point of view, because we don't allow new players to grow , we have no real competition. the gap widens b/w vet and n00b if we continue to supress the n00bs.

getting #1 has no meaning if its the same people you compete against over and over. :P


no offense is meant, and i do understand your point of view though, jason (jasons' pov: all's fair in war)

by innocent in no way do I imply new players per say. I was thinking more of guys that want to play the econ side more.

per se.

i know.

iki plays econ. me is no innocent! huhuhu~ but i know what you mean.

Many players have to be away from their empires for extended periods of time. Attempting to pay for war protection for 3 real life weeks can be extremely expensive. Making war protection cheaper would greatly increase the amount of players who are able to be part-time players or who wish to take a short break. We all know players who have gone and come back, and keeping their empires intact is likely to keep them playing the game.

Cheapen WP!

GMs really ought to cheapen WP, at least as a way to reflect the deflation of game-cash. It used to be fairly simple to get a country to pay for its own war protection, but I am unsure now as to the feasibility.

The threat of losing players is real. However, purging the planets will free up space and give new players a chance at competing. There is very little to gain attacking a new player. By the time someone has an expanding empire with slaves worth pillaging are they really still new?

It is not just competition. The knowledge that real people are interacting adds value to an online game. If players can assume that other players are actively searching for targets then there is an incentive to build an empire that does not look like a good target. I believe that in the long run aggressive attacking will lead to higher activity and retain more players.

In many ways the best time to sack a player is right after the slaves start gaining value. He/she will not have put an unbearable amount of time into building them. Exposure to the war engine will help players build slave countries that are not worth taking.

You do not need to buy war protection. Debt and regular population sales will deter most aggressive players.

I don't care for the whole WP idea myself. I'd prefer it if the GMs would do as others have suggested and just designate a planet for econ only. I can't imagine it would be much fun, but I guess there are some that would.

There are several ways for people to avoid war in this game, if they want. Joining a powerful fed is a large deterrent. Having an actual defense as well. Really, is this game just about adding more zeros to your account, or harvesting GC to pay off the monthly fees so you can go and harvest more? If this is a simulation game (which I've heard it might be) then there should be risk involved. I don't like the idea of attacking new players (ESPECIALLY to make a point to GMs...) but people who forego an adequate defense so that they can get their FI that much higher? Come on. Same with people who have 100k MIBs and nothing else.

Anyways, I think that conflict is a healthy aspect of the game. I've seen many quiet players become active in the community because they were attacked. It gives people a reason to join a fed or make friends.

:P

BC

I figure most of you already know how this post is going to go. But just keep in mind - Jason opened the door!

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

It's all part of the game, but cheaper WP would make it more acceptable, IMO.<!-/Quote-!>

While I agree with the many supporters of cheaper war protection, I don't agree with some of the reasoning. So basically, if war protection was cheaper, you would feel more justified in attacking innocent players? Anyone see anything wrong with this? Probably not.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Joining a powerful fed is a large deterrent.<!-/Quote-!>

Ba-humbug!

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Having an actual defense as well. ... Same with people who have 100k MIBs and nothing else.<!-/Quote-!>

Yes. Could you perhaps give a more detailed account of what you consider an "actual" defense? Then I will be sure to message every new player immediately so they understand how they should play the game.

VERY good argument Kevin.

I like your idea of an econ world BC. Not sure how it would work since one of the best ways to make money is to sell weapons to the warring players but those details could be worked out. Plus it gives everyone a place to experiment on econ things without worrying about other stuff. Think of all the 0's we could harvest without weapons. We have a war world (FB although some might say LU is more of the "war world") so I think a econ world might work. Why give it a testing.

"Ba-humbug!"

Yes, I should have clarified... Joining a large fed BEFORE being declared on is a large deterrent. Who have we seen raided that are members of large, active feds?????

"Yes. Could you perhaps give a more detailed account of what you consider an "actual" defense? Then I will be sure to message every new player immediately so they understand how they should play the game."

I'm pretty sure that it was explained that this isn't about new players. I'm against raiding new players.

BC

Ok reality has just struck here.

So people declared on Kevin because he was 'dictating to people how they should play the game.' ie telling them that raiding innocents is bad.

Yet the same people are saying that people should have a certain amount / type of defence, otherwise they are fair game to be raided? That IS telling them how to play the game.

Have i gone batshit crazy or has hypocrisy become a language overnight? Both, it seems.

meh, i'll go grumble somewhere else.

p.s. Cheapen WP!

"Yet the same people are saying that people should have a certain amount / type of defence, otherwise they are fair game to be raided? That IS telling them how to play the game."

That's suggesting how to AVOID being raided. Raiders would much prefer that they continue as they are - easy targets. Far cry from what you are claiming.

By the way... I've only raided inactives. I prefer to not raid actives but I don't agree that it should be altogether discouraged.

BC

ps. I was out of town all of last week so I don't know anything about Kevin's situation.

Eliminate all forms of war protection.

Its ludicrous and only serves to give players who deserve to be defeated and run off the planet a place to hide and fight ridiculous C3 wars .

No protection=Less asshattery+ a polite SC society.

Who can argue with results?

I am not saying that it should be discouraged. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of the statement.

You are arging semantics. I could very well say that by inviting that player into Valde, Kevin was 'suggesting' how he could avoid being raided, or 'suggesting' how the raiders could go about their SC lives peacefully.

Kevin:

"Yes. Could you perhaps give a more detailed account of what you consider an "actual" defense? Then I will be sure to message every new player immediately so they understand how they should play the game."

They need 40k ints, 25k helis, at least. Then enough D batts to cover all targets with ammo.


BC:

"Yes, I should have clarified... Joining a large fed BEFORE being declared on is a large deterrent. Who have we seen raided that are members of large, active feds????? "

Please check "Ty Law" and "Ray Lewis" on LU.

but think of it from this context. Those who currently play enjoy the fact that there are other people to play against. you scare new people away, the game becomes the same boring thing day after day. players create the game, new players ensure the game progresses; without players there is no game. without new players, the game will eventually stagnate. - iki

Will stagnate? Its been stagnating for the past 6 years or so, and its not because players been scared away by other players, but rather because of poor game design and poor PR from the GM, and when game is poor, nothing, Pooh Bear society included, will elevate the game from its "fail" status. Despite it might look like it, people are not idiots who are not able to recognize success from failure. Actually they can do it very well, and anyone who play/ed other games knows this.


When vets go and "pwn" new players (i prefer the terms "rape" and "pillage") it just gives the message that people arent welcome and sort of puts more 'worth' on players that currently play. imho n00bs aren't being given a fair chance to show that they have the potential to succeed because we are too busy marking our territory. - iki

It is true everyone should be given a fair chance to compete, but it is not true that conflicts turn away players by default. The only time when this happens is if the nature of conflicts is fundamentally flawed which is the case here.

from another point of view, because we don't allow new players to grow , we have no real competition. the gap widens b/w vet and n00b if we continue to supress the n00bs. - iki

Do not take this personally iki, its more a question to the vets.

So how long you gonna have this irrational belief the game will grow and prosper? The game will change?

It seems such belief is a matter of to be willing to believe in the first place, no amount of evidence can change that.

Its a fact that actions of the GM turned away far more players then any conflicts ever. How many times we've seen players quitting because of what they viewed as incompetence or arrogance from the GM? Make your own list, because I have mine.

This is just pointless bickering anyways, because only time will tell. I said that 5 years ago, and I don't think I was proved wrong. So see you in another 5 years to repeat it once again.

Well said Tuco!

A dissenting view on making WP cheaper: if cheaper, there would be more of it. Too cheap, and one is a fool not to keep one's entire empire permanently in WP--only coming out when going to war. But who to war with when everyone is in WP? WP would become just a cost to play the game, which would be a pure econ game, no need for any weaponry whatsoever. Fun for some, but I suspect even many of the pure econ players enjoy the thrill of playing that game in a war zone.

WP has its uses, and the feature should be better tailored to those different purposes. One already gets over a full month of "vacation" WP per rl year, just for owning the country. Enough for many of us. For those who need more, maybe the accumulation rate should be greater than 1 for 10...maybe 2 for 10, 3 for 10..who cares, as long as countries are out of WP some significant portion the time.

For those with busy schedules--work, sleep, family, other hobbies, etc--blackouts would be ideal. I'd prefer to be in WP 20 hours a day. That still means 4 hours, more than I want to spend each day, when someone could war on me. 16 hours, even 8 hours a day would be a big improvement from the current 0 hours a day. For those who don't want to deal with wars during the work or school week, how about complete blackouts for 5 days of 7? I'd respect that.

With these avenues available, purchased WP should be made more expensive--a costly last resort, to be used sparingly.

What galls me to no end is seeing good strong empires, with good defenses, in WP for real-life months on end. Top 10 war rank countries, permanently in WP. Friends and foes alike (hypothetical foes, more like it)--I understand why one does it, and I don't mean any insult to those who do it, but I believe it takes away a key aspect of the game, when countries, especially in a war world, are placed beyond attack. Blackouts are the solution, and I haven't seen any strong arguments against them.

Something to consider is a vacation mode. Your empire could not be attacked and you cannot log in. That would cover people traveling, moving or hospitalized.

If "blackouts" are used it should be obvious to everyone else which hours are blocked and it should take awhile to start working. It should not be possible to change them after wars have been declared. Players should not be able to log in while blacked out.

The "econ-world" would be a horrible failure. Unless W3C designed a new economy. Most products would be selling below 70% base prices. Companies would not be able to afford factory maintenance. The only people who would have fun on the econ world are people who enjoy defeating other players in competition. New players would be hopelessly frustrated with their failed economies and many would quit. Or perhaps they might set up a country in the war worlds where their n00b economy can thrive. A few top players could spend the bonus money and keep their econ-world countries floating.

Pope Sami,
C3 wars can be fought without secure mode or war protection.

Siva,
The amount of defense should be proportional to the size of the population and the amount of cash/debt. Putting 40k interceptors in a country with 10M simpeople is a bit excessive IMO.