 |
|
|
|
Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 04:09 pm  In the past days we had some incidents with wars fought by a group of people from one account. Laguna alerted us to the problem and based on his observations, we have stopped several wars and may stop more. In principle, we do not think that we should interfere in wars. We have trusted his judgment in this case and acted. Wars are part of simcountry and players can decide to participate or refrain from fighting. The secured mode feature offers protection that in the opinion of many, already goes too far. We want war to be fair and if possible, we would like all participants to be there when fighting takes place. If anything should change in the war protection features, it should probably be directed at some limited fighting features that could involve all countries, even in secured mode, without removing the basic idea that secured mode should remain the base for long term protection of playerâs accounts against total destruction. There are some problems and possible solutions: Accounts can currently be used to wage war by two or more players, from different IP numbers that are far apart, in different cities, or countries. They can arrange fighting to continue around the clock while the defender is unable to be available and fight back. This is unfair and should obviously stop immediately. The simcountry site has all the login data from day one and we know which IP numbers are being used for every account. We are now considering this practice a multi playing. As of today, we will check accounts and will act where this is used. To start with, we will just check several accounts from time to time and if we find multiple IP numbers, we will block the account. In time, we will automate this process. Fighting a sleeping enemy is a more general problem. Wars are declared to start when the enemy is not available. Most wars can be fought and won while one of the parties is not participating. We would like to introduce âBlack outâ or âCease Fireâ periods that can be set for each country by its president. The feature will be active for wars between countries with presidents. We suggest that each country can be set to have 8 daily blackout periods of one hour each. During these periods, the country cannot attack and cannot be attacked. Wars can be declared at all time but actual fighting is not possible, unless both countries involved are not in such a blackout period. Each president will be able to set up to 8 such periods and the blackout period between any two countries with a president may be 8 to 16 hours in total. Changes to the settings will be possible during periods when the country is not involved in any war. There are some issues that may make this a little tricky. Some of these issues were raised by Laguna who previewed this possible solution yesterday. If third party units are stationed in the country and they are attacked while their owner is blacked out, these units will fight back. In fact, all defense forces, including federation support, will participate if triggered by any attack. This feature will make shared wars close to obsolete and will allow everyone to sleep or work or even both. We would like to see it active on all worlds although the length of the period may vary. There will be no Blackout periods if one of the fighting countries does not have a president. The feature is not decided upon yet. It is an idea.
| |
| Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 04:39 pm Some of us are mobile people! I log in from 3 to 4 differernt locations. If I could I would use my phone aswell, but sim is not phone friendly ;-) People log in from home/work/school/friends etc. Some care would be needed before blocking accounts because of different IP numbers.
| |
| Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 04:44 pm Three years ago, a large war on Fearless Blue erupted between TPSX and NSA. NSA won. All TPSX members, already semi-active left. It was the beginning of the end. Some months afterwards, when Doublestar was leaving, he attacked Lacerta (federation) with NSA finishing the job. All of the players NSA, TPSX and Lacerta left, expect one. Between one event and the other, many players were terrified and left. For two years and a half, Fearless Blue has been pretty much dead. If I were to make a comparison between LU and FB, I would call LU, USA and FB, Serra Leoa. It is of poor judgement and faith to repeat such event or even to allow it again. Such devastation comes from the possibilities and oversights the game has and the structure of the community. I've been discussing this with Willard for two weeks now. Before anyone even begins to shout, it was before I stepped in this... "unfortunate series of events". I've been here long enough to see how things turn. Account sharing: I can understand allowing another player to do maintenance on your account on your absent for a week or two, but even this should be formal as it is in Tribal Wars and other games. In other games, you have to make a post on the forum stating the start and end time, who are the persons involved and have it approved. Reasons against account sharing: everything from multiplaying plus some. Cease Fires: Interesting solution on a single player/country vs. single player/country, not such much when it involves others. I would rather think of another way that turns the actual time warring less devastating and important, but focus more on the actual ability to keeping the country conquered. Has nothing to do with rebels or game mechanics; it depends of players. It is, however, a complex proposal and that allows many limits on war to be lifted and opens, and formalizes the actual diplomatic side of the game. I've been writing notes for almost two years now, but as things are... it will take a long time to finish it. Khan, Do you log in with all those devices and use them simultaneously on your account? Impossible much?
| |
| Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 04:45 pm This is fine. What we mean is IP numbers that are in different cities, countries, time zones.
| |
| Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 04:49 pm OK, gotcha! I can relax now ;-)
| |
| Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 04:50 pm while i am grateful for the thought, i prefer the round the clock wars the way they are plus, as far as the black out period goes, when the black out period ends, their should be a minimum time before it starts again, to avoid people doing something like 30 minutes on, 30 minutes off... but the round the clock thing, if i have my black out period, at one point, and another has it at another point, i may have to stay up all night, or (i wouldn't,) miss a day of work to fight a war... i appreciate the thought, but i'd perfer we found another way
| |
| Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 04:59 pm not like it matters, but im strongly against the notion that attacker should not be able to choose time and place of her/his attack. if anything the war engine should be reworked.
| |
| Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 05:22 pm Tribal Wars is awful. You can't be good WITHOUT someone sitting your account while you sleep. I agree with the decision to monitor this. I don't agree with the idea of blackouts. Perhaps the old attack-turn/limits system should be re-visited... obviously with a lot of changes since 200 interceptor wings would be a pain to take down with 5-attacks per turn. EDIT: A thought about blackouts: would the blackout times be publicly viewable? It's not like knowing "this is when _____ sleeps" would be a problem since they couldn't be attacked. If both players had viewable blackout times, they would be able to find a space where both are able to fight.... But I still don't like the idea of blackouts at all. As for my own account, I emailed the GMs not too long after I started playing and informed them about my log-on habits, jumping from my house, to school, to the parent's house on occasion - which is in another city, but geographically not far and certainly in the same time zone.
| |
| Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 05:49 pm Tom I also do log into the game from Home, work and mobile. Being a tech guy, depening on what work I am doing my hope IP will show up in one geographical location. Broadband will show up from another and while "work A" shows up on one coast and "work B" shows up from another.
| |
| Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 05:52 pm Blackout periods, if implemented, should be visible and cannot be changed all the time to spread confusion. there will be many hours when both are availble. The idea is to have a higher chance that war is fought between two presidents rathen than by one against a sleeping oponent. IP numbers close by are OK. IP numbers in different time zones, or countries is a different case.
| |
| Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 08:49 pm I am currently in Houston, US, but will shortly be going to the UK and accessing my account from the UK. One day i will be accessing the account from the US and the next day it will be from the UK. I will be very unlikely to access the account from the US again. Am I at risk?
| |
| Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 08:58 pm Tom, I am currently fighting a war. Just a few minutes ago I started getting these messages in the two countries I was using: "Attack Aborted!" and "Sorry, couldn't setup a new Air Force Attack and Bombing Wing. Please try again later." when I tried making new wings. Explanation? Edit: I just tried from a third country and got the same thing. If my war is being stopped, I'd like to know so I can go have pizza.
| |
| Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 09:02 pm same here .. Aborted
| |
| Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 09:04 pm Laguna, if you are having a similar issue, I'm willing to postpone the resuming of fighting until a time where you will be available. I'm through with the semester, so we can use your timetable if you like. If not, I suppose whoever is logged in when it starts working again has the upper hand.
| |
| Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 09:06 pm It's a better message than "Can't target this unit." I will only be available in July. No joke.
| |
| Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 09:09 pm I want to be gone by july. Buy a c3 for 50 coins from you and let the decs expire? That should cover the ints, and bombers, and fighters.... We need a mediator. SAM!!!!!
| |
| Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 09:18 pm Tom, So what you are saying is that if I go on vacation or business trip somewhere I will be blocked? You know, people do have trips. Sometimes they bring laptops with them. It is easily possible, and probably somewhat if not fairly common, for an user IP address to pop up in a different timezone and still be the actual owner of the account. Yet MORE reasons not to renew.
| |
| Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 09:33 pm No, Keith. He is saying if several players log in to the same account to perpetuate war 24 hours over 24 hours, they will be blocked. The reasons are the same for multiplaying and some others. Plus, it degrades the really tactical plans of war (on any game). It separates those who can actually make decisions from those who can't. I've logged in to my account from all sorts of locations to date. I would only be worried if those same IPs would show up in someone else's account regularly. I find that coincidence unlikely, specially when IPv6 is on the way. Thanks, Wild, but I don't need compensation.
| |
| Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 09:42 pm Okay. This is crazy. It appears as though when "certain" (no not just you LG. You know I luuv ya, your the bestest  ) players make issue of things that would ordinarily be of no concern to anyone, not to mention common knowledge to most involved parties; the Game Godds are quick with a response. Often dramatic in consequence and usually players are split down the middle on if it is good/bad idea. I seriously don't even agree at all with any restrictions in part. The changes or relief provided in this discussion should be concrete and binding clear and without confusion. For Tom to say, "IP numbers close by are OK. IP numbers in different time zones, or countries is a different case." How???? If I have a friend that lives in in Germany, we are in the same fed, and we get along why can't I have him/her fight a war for me if I can't get online? That doesn't make any sense to stop it now. From what I understand it has been going on for years. IS/HAS been NO SECRET. That is how the WARLORDS LORD OVER THE LAND. Why now? Because ?? Whatever reason you could imagine doesn't make sense or apply if it didn't make sense or apply yesterday. Just throwing a reason as to why it is a problem now out in the open is all your doing throwing a reason around. But one could speculate as to why the timing of such changes, the parties involved, and the scope of the war, all make these sudden game changers a bit suspect as to the true motive of these changes. Lg I could never achieve what I hear you have on this game. I am sure you have way more assets and time in, so w3c will respect your opinion. I also think given the last two conflicts you have been in(FB and now LU), w3c has implemented navy changes, moments before my decs went active. Instead of inflicting ANY MEASURABLE damage on his country, I watched 15K nfps get creamed. ON LU now this happens and BAM BAM BAM another wacky change. Comon man I need a monent to digest the last round of changes. I hope you understand my comments LG, not personal or accusational at all. I just call it how I see it, and I know you would too. Blackouts should NOT be implemented. Secured Mode should NOT be changed. Accounts should not be blocked (IMO) for multiple ips. Gang Banb Style Warfare has been going on for as long as I have been playing and I am sure even longer. This is called strategy. You don't want me to fight a sleeping president? What should I do? I have a wonderful story as a case in point. Two tribes shadowing each other in the countryside. Each tribe waiting for the right opportunity to attack the other. After many months (4), The one tribe notices that the other tribe has setup camp and is fast asleep. The Chief says to his warriors, "they are asleep with their guard down, we will strike them when it is hardest to defend. If we succeed in an attack, casualties and collateral damage will be significantly lower on both side and we will still achieve a decisive and powerful victory!" All the warriors agreed. And they set out for the camp of the sleeping tribe. All of a sudden, while the warriors were still on their way, a bright light appeared and it was the Lizard King Jozi. He was furious. He scolded the warriors that had thought to plunder their sleeping enemies. He thundered, "How dare you conquer your enemies by using trickery, deception, and strategic planning! HOW DARE YOU. This madness will cease at ONCE." And the Lizard King Jozi Dispersed the tribes back to their native lands and ended all wars. With the news of the Lizard King's intervention into the wars of the tribes, a great lament went up before the Game God Jozi, and he heard their cry. And The Game God was moved by compassion and quickly aided his subjects... To be continued . . . And now IMO bad idea all the way around. And now that my hormone pills have worn off, I AM PISSED!!!!!! I guess what I am really trying to say is. . . Jozi the Lizard and LG, Would you both like Nukes up your arses?!?!?! LoooLz JKJKJK please don't ban me.
| |
| Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 09:50 pm It appears as though when "certain" (no not just you LG. You know I luuv ya, your the bestest ) players make issue of things that would ordinarily be of no concern to anyone, not to mention common knowledge to most involved parties; the Game Godds are quick with a response. Often dramatic in consequence and usually players are split down the middle on if it is good/bad idea. - ShcyzMattiCa no kidding
| |
| Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 09:56 pm Lol. Hormones are a hell of a drug. Fuck cocaine.
| |
| Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 10:35 pm Well I am new to the game but I figure that I will put my opinion into it also. I am a district manager for a company and travel the southeast of the united stats. From Virginia to Alabama, and on into the southern part of Florida. So by the discussion of this feed I would be banned because of using multiple I.P.'s I also log in at work, home, lap top, girlfreind's house. Basically I play a game I paid for whenever and wherever I feel like it. I payed for the membership it is mine to use. I also have the situation where my girlfreind's son is the one that introduced me to the game and as we speak I am on his computer. So am I to assume when I return home I will be banned? You can limit the login I.D. to only be valid for one session, if an attempt is made to log into the same account while it is in use, than you have an issue. You have the option to disconnect one and leave one connected. You may then put a temp lock on the account until the owner can verify his information and why and how 2 different attempts were made at the same time. As far as a black out time I would challenge the user requesting this to tell us how manay times that he has attacked a country in the absence of the president. We can program game functions in to respons to attackers in a certain way. Go for the weakest first largest first air poer etc.. It is within the ability of the owners to accomplish this. The country will already defend itself to some extent improve and expand the automated features.
| |
| Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 10:37 pm To me, it seems the whole 'blackout' idea is very similar to asking someone to play in your account if you are away. Blackouts GREATLY restrict game play. Some players only can play after work, at night in their specific time zones. If I was picking out a potential target to attack, I would try to find out when that person fought most often, and could easily change my blackout period to be when they like to fight. While this may seem unfair to some, I KNOW that this feature WOULD be used in that manner, and it would cause more problems than good. While I agree that having multiple players play from an account at once is an unfair advantage, I would like to suggest that there can only be one IP in an account at any given time. This way, there is no unfair advantage involved by having more people clicking at once, and if someone happens to be away when a war is being fought, they can have a means of defending their country through allies. As far as countries being taken while players are 'asleep,' people live in different time zones. I know of two specific instances where I have conquered countries that were not being actively defended. One would have had a good chance of holding, the other not so much, but I can understand the frustration involved. I have had the same thing happen to me. This said, I would suggest that other players take advantage of the same opportunity that is being used against them.
| |
Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 10:43 pm
Read the post. And no, it hasn't been going on for years. And no, it isn't transparent. And let me see how many people have logged in to my account: me and... oh!, me! It ought to be more than obvious why you should not share your account. No to pretty much everything else you said, Wendy. Sleeping isn't losing interest. I've read better parables. And a watch your language.
That's somewhat ironic. Brute force attack (Brute force) is also a "strategy", but it doesn't has the same reasoning as Birthday attack (Probability and observation), or the grace of Collision (Precision). You should find someone else to talk about strategy. Preferably, someone who doesn't understand tactics are constructed to take advantage of limitations/oversights/disadvantages. If that someone does understand that, he would understand that having several people is hurtful for those who actually use strategy. I'm heard because I make reason. You can try it too.
| |
| Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 11:08 pm Actually, as a point of order: "Fighting a sleeping enemy is a more general problem. Wars are declared to start when the enemy is not available. Most wars can be fought and won while one of the parties is not participating." I declare wars without any regard for what the habits of my opponent may be. The only thing *I* am concerned about is making sure that *I* will be there and have plenty of time to fight. Fighting a country that just sits there is actually rather boring.
| |
| Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 11:12 pm NO blackout's! I say only track ip's in wars.If you have no time to fight then use WP. Tom maybe make it cheaper?
| |
Wednesday, April 22, 2009 - 11:46 pm
(trying to attack his strat base from 3 different countries)
There are 13,515 wounded civilians and 133,026 persons are still evacuated.
| |
| Thursday, April 23, 2009 - 12:20 am same thing happened to me dub.
| |
| Thursday, April 23, 2009 - 02:03 am About time. It will end the practice of UC inactives rising from the dead to sneak attack when a war starts. /me stares at Dizzy. However you need to work it out Tom. Good job.
| |
| Thursday, April 23, 2009 - 02:09 am Thank You all. And LG . . . I still wub U and simcountry too.
| |
| Thursday, April 23, 2009 - 02:18 am Shyzmatica addressed a serious problem. The war engine gets modified when Laguna is in a war. Not long ago all my countries on LU were destroyed in war while the login page was inaccessible. Waging war did not become impossible. You could keep on fighting so long as you did not log out. The war declarations were not suspended. I believe it is fact that last winter Shyzmatica/Wendy was facing the same people and tactics that Laguna/John R is facing this week. There is a consistent pattern. No one needs to prove or accuse anyone at W3C of trying to make John R win. There are two problematic conflicts of interest. The first is that John R will not observe a problem if the war engine happens to meet his expectations. In that case the "bug" or "problem" is sound strategy, good gaming, and not worth reporting. Victory came from sound understanding of the game not manipulation of a bug. The second conflict of interest is W3C making the changes with the timing of the report. That assures the "bugs" or "problems" will get fixed when they are effecting Laguna or his federation. If I had assaulted Wendy I could have realistically counted on her deactivated nuclear defense staying deactivated overnight. Wendy could count on her friend watching her account and attacking my strategic airports. [Actually, anytime I do anything in this game I expect that the rules may have changed without warning.] There is also a risk that I miss understood some aspect of the game. Going to war is dangerous. The decision to not buy war protection is a gamble. Most people playing this game have to deal with the risks. Laguna should have been facing the risks when he decided to go to war. It seams to me that "good strategy" is not attacking people who are obviously friends with the game master. Avoiding attacks on people who are friends with friends of the game master is also the only prudent choice. Attacking people whose outlook on gaming differs from friends of the game master is good strategy. Since their outlook is different I can be confident that his/her concern will be dismissed. If I attack people whose style somehow looks different It will be much more likely that the war engine will not suddenly get "fixed" mid-war. It is also better to attack weird people, noobs, and inactives when friends of the gamemaster and/or his/her federation is not in a major war.
| |
| Thursday, April 23, 2009 - 02:49 am Good post, thx for your support "Psychotic Chicken", but let's not go down this road. LG is Legit, I was merely staring at the coincidences.It was meant to be funny. PLUS have you seen LG really out to get someone. I haven't yet, but I have read some posts that were like WoW don't mess with LG, to describe his anger as fierce would be an understatement. LG is a very very Kewl person. Very Patient, Kind considerate and helpful. Had it not been for Him and Dizzy helping me when I first started I don't think I would have ever took the time to figure out what to do, CORRECTLY. My real issue is that PROBLEMS (real or imagined) are taken to the GMs too often. And most likely when a player who has clear advantages doesn't get the best of the issue. We ashould have all come together to secure our own simfutures. This is BS. One day we can all be pissy with each other and getting personal or mean over what is meant to be fun. Then next we are allies against another group. How the freak does that happen. I AM BORED. I wanna fight, but to have fun. There should be no alternative. I was thinking of something a long time ago. I didn't want to say anything because I was hangin out in the cut, and had a very not so cordial relationship with my LU neighbors. What I propose is this: LU is where we play. We can play economically on LU and fund wars and empire's for fun wars on other planets. Only the true keepers of the planet can enforce such a measure. You want to fight on LU then you should be protecting LU from President's like me who get bored and want to see red screens and paper clippings ya know. This is all hogwash to most who will read, but you all know that the power is where it is. The powerful must decide to be powerful. With great power comes great responsibility. I am all for no active president wars, I understand the logic behind it on both sides, but regardless of who is right or wrong, when it has to be taken to GM, maybe the desired result is not what you will expect it to be. WAR is apart of this game. BUT SO IS POLITICS. SO Stuart Get off your arse and get some peacekeeping done. You are slacking big guy. The deal should be made by the top feds. And those who reside on LU should be made to agree or eliminated. Case close. No GM spam, no bitchin(sorry) about leaving, or whining you aren't having fun. Protect your asset base on LU for everyone and hunt elswhere. And DO NOT TELL me it won't can't work. Becasue it can and it will. I will give two examples 1. UC/AF despite conflicts on GR I haven't even given a second thought to someone declaring on me on GR or thoughts of wp. And NO I am currently NOT IN THE UC(don't let that fewl you though)or AF. Thanks to both of these powerful feds, you really aren't going to war unless you get expressed written consent from the authorities or get creamed; YOUR CHOICE. These two feds have done a great job at containing wars and conflicts from hitting uninvolved or unwilling parties. 2. If for example it just happened to be sanctioned by what his name, . . . OH Pink or sumthin like that; I would bet that if such a decree came down, Lacerta would be war free. And /me pities the fewl hahaha. You see where I am going with it. And that is just one continent. I would like to hear more about this, and willing to participate.
| |
| Thursday, April 23, 2009 - 04:08 am Blackouts/Cease Fires from the perspective of one economic-only player: The proper implementation of the blackouts would enable more players who play only the economic side of the game to participate in wars. I've been playing for about 5 months now, and while I've got a good handle on the economic side of the game, I'm extremely hesitant to even consider expanding to beyond one country by acquiring slave countries. I'm sure there are quite a few players who feel the same way. Many of us have work or school commitments that prevent us from accessing the computer for a third of a day, perhaps even more than that. Myself, I'm at work 9 hours a day, sleep for 7 hours, and have commitments on occasion that prevent me from logging on all day. If I had a bunch of war slaves, I'd be happy to duke it out with someone with a day's notice. I'd clear my engagements the best I can, log on and at a predetermined time, match wits and armies. But as it stands, someone could declare on me, fighting conveniently begins during my work hours and I'd lose the country while I'm in a meeting. In that case, having a huge army wouldn't matter too much anyway, because an experienced attacker would be able to bypass most of the automated defenses. The prospect of that happening is not attractive. But if blackouts were implemented properly, things would be different. I'd be able to set my blackout times for work hours, and manage my schedule to fight those wars if enough notice was given. Ideally, this is how things would go: Situation A: Aggressor has blackout hours 4-12 SC server time. He/She declares on Defender. Defender has blackout hours 10-18 SC server time. War begins 2 days later, from 18 SC server time to 4 the next day. Both players organize their schedules to play the game at their least inconvenient times. The defender will be able to actually organize and defend, and perhaps get some sleep. From 4-18 server time, troops from all sides in the defending country will neither move nor attack, and allied defense in the defending country is paused. Situation B: Aggressor has not elected any blackout hours. He/She declares on Defender. Defender has blackout hours 10-18 SC server time. War begins 2 days later, from 18 SC server time to 10 the next day. Defender will be able to actually organize and defend, not so much sleep. From 10-18 server time, troops from all sides in the defending country will neither move nor attack, and allied defense in the defending country is paused. Situation C: Aggressor has not elected any blackout hours. He/She declares on Defender. Defender has not elected any blackout hours. War begins 2 days later, and both countries war with only the same limitations as we have today in the game because there are no blackout hours. Situation D: Aggressor has elected blackout hours 4-12 SC server time. He/She declares on Defender. Defender has not elected any blackout hours. War begins 2 days later, from 12 server time to 4 the next day. Both players will be able to actually organize and defend. From 4-12 server time, troops from all sides WILL BE ABLE to move and attack in the defending country, which has no blackout times. IF, these scenarios are what is being proposed, I think many people who wouldn't normally build an empire, for fear of it being conquered while sleeping or working, would play a little more and actually expand. It's not about the lack of skill or inability to build a large defending army, but more about the ever looming threat of not being able to defend your country to the best of your ability when your country needs to be defended. From an economic-only or defending player's viewpoint, this feature brings a bit of fairness, peace of mind, and reduces paranoia, if nothing else. And, if a player doesn't agree with the blackout system, he/she can always attack others without blackouts without any of the blackout restrictions.
| |
| Thursday, April 23, 2009 - 04:10 am NO Blackouts! make wp cheaper!
| |
| Thursday, April 23, 2009 - 04:16 am yea, black outs are a bad idea
| |
| Thursday, April 23, 2009 - 04:20 am I'm currently sitting in WP on LU due to being really busy at Uni, do I worry about my countries being taken had I left them out? Not at all, I have faith in the majority of you that respect me enough to leave me be. but it is costing me 12 coins every 2 days to keep my countries in WP. and to Tom and everyone else at W3C my IP is not usually the same as I have remote access to computers in South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, as well as Michigan, Florida and Colorado. I do work from these computers and access them remotely from my laptop. If memory serves I still have access to a few Euro computers as well. With Regards, Dragoon
| |
| Thursday, April 23, 2009 - 04:25 am just make a progam to track IP's only during active player v. player wars. If multiple IP shows as "piloting" a single account during a war(or one IP in multiple accounts), then chances are you have active account sharing. Run those IP's against all other IP's of all players and see if you find something like the same IP of ' "barney rubble" in the barney account and also in the "sam houston" account, during war. make the player versus player war the trigger that sets off this quality assurance feature. is this possible?
| |
| Thursday, April 23, 2009 - 04:33 am Yes Barney it is possible, I helped to get it running for another game that I play but there it runs full time as wars break out 24/7 and there are hub players that are called to call other players and wake them up... I was a hub player for the US so when war broke out if i was on good terms with a nation my ass was waking everyone up
| |
| Thursday, April 23, 2009 - 05:13 am Let me make 2 assumptions. 1) Laguna is acting solely for the good of the game. He is reporting things that he believes are flaws as soon as they become apparent to him. 2) W3C is making decisions solely in the interests of making a better game. Neither the source of a suggestion nor current events on any server bias their judgment. Now let me repeat myself. There is a conflict of interest. The war engine has been and will be modified when Laguna or his allies become the victims of a "bug". Other people feel victimized and the war engine does not get modified and damage is not prevented. Declaring war on Laguna or VS poses a risk that declarations on any other federation will not. Laguna and his allies have reason to feel more secure than any other group of players. No amount of time, cash, knowledge of game mechanics, or capacity for strategic thought will give another player the same security. The only exception would occur if time, cash, or other factors led W3C to listen and trust in the same way. The assumptions may or may not be correct. It doesn't matter. The existence of a conflict of interest is obvious from the posts by Tom Willard and Laguna in this thread. Good people have conflicts of interest. Pointing out a conflict of interest should not be considered an insult.
| |
| Thursday, April 23, 2009 - 05:20 am I'm in such bad mood that I have cravings to say what I know about multi-playing in this game, but I will settle for patting Psychotic Chicken on her/his back. What s/he says its true, or at least very close to reality and every veteran player knows this. W3C always favored certain players and their opinions and it has little to do with .. reason.. and who is not able to see it is delusional. The GM has no business in players affairs, and in every game I played where the GM stepped in and sided with someone it only done more harm than good causing players to quit.
| |
| Thursday, April 23, 2009 - 06:00 am Don't question my intentions or my motivations, Sheep. I have no problem in saying what I think openly and without any sort of subverted ill-intent. This can't be said about others.
You say the war engine has changed 526 times? Possible. Because of me? Some things were, that's for certain. At my specific request? Can't remember any, but there's bound to be some. I say many things and I've participated in many chats. Regarding this thread... How has the war engine changed? In no way. Just the wars stopped. The Cease Fire idea didn't come from me. Willard messaged me and I gave my opinion. He also posted it on the forum so all could opinate. It is an old variant of a suggested solution to an old issue. I give it proper merit: works well on single players, not so much against multiple. Players who like to war should support it, because the only thrill in war is when your opponent in active. Players who don't like to war should support it, because all they wish in the end is a chance to fight back.
Yes, and I could have ordered my cabana boys to block you with units from countries that you weren't at war with and nuke your last damaged base until you were reduced out to 3mil of pop. Oh, and then I would block all war decs on my country by deccing on as many C3s as possible. To top it off, I would then screw your browser to keep you from playing. A good strategy is one that takes advantages of the player's oversights and not of the game's. Next time, Pathetic Sheep, instead of posting a text full of nothing, try to argue the ideas with arguments. Wendy, when you try to push a proposal in that direction, you need to know how it affects other existing estructures, how it can be tweaked (variables) and enhancement. You also need to know what is important and how it will affect the greater pictures, how it will effect the community. For instance, in one of my notes I question the purpose and the existence of federations. I then tried to see what X, Y, Z did in A, B, C kind of player and how relations developed, when I had in mind for players to have the most "natural" gameplay and fun (you cannot have fun in a game without fairness, for the record), in order to allow the game to have as many players as possible. Also, it doesn't kill you to speak nicely.
Those days are over. Doctor's orders. There is no reason to be annoyed, tuco. Nothing was butchered here.
| |
| Thursday, April 23, 2009 - 06:27 am I am not sure what do you mean by "nothing butchered" Laguna, but I have a reason to be annoyed. I am convinced, not through irrational belief but through evidence I have seen over the years, that what was said is pretty much how it is, and since I have irrational belief that my obligation is to the truth in the first place, I have no choice but to be annoyed. Would the game stop if someone was to nuke Wendy or perhaps nix or King Hezekiah to the ground? I think not. Willard messaged me and I gave my opinion. - Laguna So WTF is he messaging you? Because you are the voice of reason right? Gimme a break, I don't buy that. If this is not conflict of interest I do not know what is.
| |
| Thursday, April 23, 2009 - 06:44 am Didn't you read the intro on my first post? Do you think what happened on FB is advisable? Good? Enjoyable? Sane? Fun? Prideful? Rewarding? Do you? Is Wendy 20 players? Is Hezekiah another 20? Do they comprise a trend? A large opportunity for little misdeeds which grow to larger ones? Has Wendy left and Hezekiah as well? How can you compare one and the other? To type regularly now, conflict interests, from what you have showed shows up when a human being meets another human being. Can't avoid conflicts of interest then. Try to think of your paramount freedom of speech: I can say what I want that one has to care or even listen. I can say what I want, that Willard and the other engineers, who I and one else speak with, will be the ones deciding. They might decide to punish, ignore or listen to me. I'm going to use your term as I think you meant it: How can there a conflict of interests between me and a group of people who I have never spoke with? As it stands, your conflict of interests is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
| |
| Thursday, April 23, 2009 - 07:05 am Well, we are getting off-topic now. What happened on FB could be viewed as unfortunate, but - without arguing actual numbers or impact - it was only possible because of the mechanics W3C is responsible for. Adam had this "special" relationship with W3C too, and was exchanging emails with them also. No wonder, he spent 100s of dollars on the game when Cash Market was in diapers. If the game was good enough, loss of couple of players would mean nothing. The game fails to achieve the so-called self-sustainable mass, which then would be able to regenerate and/or even grow. That is why there are notions to hold on few in the name of delusional "greater good" of the game, and that is why we have this thread. Voice of reason voice of reason, but to take responsibility for the direction the game took over the years, for the fact its not able to grow and prosper like 100s or 1000s other on-line games, I do not see anywhere. What kind of voice of reason is that is beyond me. Indeed, its my belief conflict of interests - group advantage - racism cannot be avoided among humans, because it would defy the human nature. That is why neutrality or non-interference of those with powers is needed, because they are not capable of acting fair.
| |
| Thursday, April 23, 2009 - 07:09 am "If anything should change in the war protection features, it should probably be directed at some limited fighting features that could involve all countries, even in secured mode" -Willard It clearly states in the documentation that players have a choice of building a military and getting down to business, or concentrate on an economical platform, or both. Considering there are upteen wargames I have played and continue to play, this game's financial side of things really gave me something to be proud of. Take away my war protection and you might as well consider another player gone. All this wasted time should be directed towards my real finances anyway.
| |
| Thursday, April 23, 2009 - 07:12 am Yes to Blackouts, and make war protection more expensive! Do we really want the wise strategy to be to keep one's entire empire in WP until a favorable war opportunity comes up? Do we really want good game strategy to be to figure out what hours of the day an opponent sleeps and works, and declare appropriately? To the argument that you can just put your stuff in WP--wouldn't it just be a great war game if everyone did that. Offense has many advantages. I realize it's not true to life but the game would be better balanced if the aggressor had to work around the defender's real life schedule, not vice versa. Real-time player vs player wars are a great aspect of the game, and the blackouts feature would work toward encouraging them, and discouraging the blunt and game-deadening instrument of WP.
| |
| Thursday, April 23, 2009 - 07:19 am I have a hypothetical question relating to psychotic chix post that no amount of cash can buy their type of security. How much cash can us into the ballpark range? Just a question, not a personal attack on you Mr. Laguna. I just a noob anyway but one with disposable income for a possible sponsorship.
| |
| Thursday, April 23, 2009 - 08:16 am Oh my LG, I will reminds you that I Luuv ya and am glad the days of your wrath are finished(For my sake at least). Now do you see what I mean Sheep? He's not even upset! But the way he just mangles you with the Cabana Boys, and the browser thingy, nukes and whatnot, urrgh well you get me. Best be careful there. Imagine an "angry Lg" aha! "Wendy, when you try to push a proposal in that direction, you need to know how it affects other existing estructures, how it can be tweaked (variables) and enhancement. You also need to know what is important and how it will affect the greater pictures, how it will effect the community." Whoa, whoa, so lets get this st8. LG you think I didn't take into account the consequences for myself and others? WoW. I have been dying of boredom. Sim has stagnated in my opinion personally. Too much of this type of convo has been going on. Yeah its messed up but I figured in my head, this is a game. Why cry or anything like that when rules change, if I get my arse kicked warring (yes it has happened, ALOT) In the recent week or two I have been following this stuff closely. So as I scroll through the names of opponents on both sides I happen to see names I don't recognize, some I do, but the kicker was seeing friendly faces on both sides. Needless to say I almost prematurely got involved, not out of spite or ill will, but for fun and to back friends. But rather than declare when Valde did. I asked what happened. And yes I know I am like a fly on the windshield to you Quadrillionaire warlords (LooL), but I will put it out there. Out of respect for the parties on both sides I didn't get involved simply because of the names as I usually would. I know the people fighting are all more than likely Light years better than me, but that is what allies are for. Support and such. As far as the consequences of such a proposal. I have weighed them for about almost three real months now. We can go on fighting back and forth, whining about winning or losing, etc etc. Or we can agree that wars fought on LU should be in defense of economic nations. All of them. Than we can play and the community can dictate what does and does not happen on LU. That is what I was spammed continually about when I was acting like an arse for fun. Community community community, but a community works together to protect itself or at least should. This is a way for the powerful to remain powerful, and the economic nature individuals to remain economic. OR LG you and Valde could find yourself fighting wars that you "CLAIM" are for defense of active presidents.(yes righteous sarcasm) Reality check. Valde's motive in this conflict are transparently suspect in this issue. Valde does not have the Moral ground here. You guys pick and choose who or what you will defend. It is of course your own free will to do as you please. I stated a long time ago that in order to be taken seriously, you cannot say do as I say not as I do. If you can say that, then you are obviously one of my parents or another type of authority figure. But for the record, Valde has a track record of appearing to be a very fair and diplomatic fed. But I question that atm. Why now, why miles? I don't get it. Did Valde intervene on my behalf? No Why becasue I didn't deserve it. I caused it. I was an asshat. Comon I know you have something else. With all that said and no one contesting it including myself, did Valde intervene on anyone's who didn't have any fault? Did you guys intervene on Dizzy's behalf. How about General Dirt, or better yet how about Nute. Nah Nope Nada. Now not to get off topic, but this type of BS is exactly why I propose such a measure. Ahh I see now. I think its getting clear. Whomever Valde decides can raid active players is OKAY and no one else can eat. Right? Well hey big guys me my dogs are hungry. Can we eat with you? No. Well If I can't eat with you then bump yall. And thats what it is. Consequences. How the fack is L3 and WIld fighting yall? WTH? Oh those consequences again. Aha! Did anyone give thought to the consequences of ending wars YOU Declared, after shot were fired, time and preparation were lost, ammo was wasted weapons destroyed comon! Will the parties be com[pensated? Had that idea been weighed? Doubtful. Sad too. Ended on the whims of your opinion. Your opinion was to fight, you knew what was going to happen, I know you know how people fight too. Comon LG YOU even said that the game has to be fair. I think that is very fair. If you guys would have had the jump on them would this thread exist now? Doubtful, and even more sad. We as a community can decide something, and stick to it and enforce it. It protects players from aggressive wars, and it also gives others a chance to fight for a good reason. There will be those who come knocking on LU's door asking or looking for trouble and surely will find it. So nothing is lost except troublemakers and asshats. What bad could become of that? Valde wouldn't be convincing anyone that they are or were justified. Everybody would be on the same side there. This kind of cooperation can help stimulate stagnated worlds like FB, the empty WG. Lu empires protected under a common cause would encourage players to seek out new worlds and grow there as well. If this kind of community enforcement or cooperation were implemented, on all four non war worlds, then FB would be what it was meant to be, an actual war world. Other worlds will become more active, players on LU in particular, will not be subject to bullying or raiding, expand from just secured, and even stimulate LU's economy. Thats for starters. The idea should be visited and taken seriously. If constructive criticism was given, then the final draft should take into account the pro's and con's. Not just Wendy's idea. That is exactly why I kept this notion to myself. To argue if it can will or should work is a waste of time. You want to do something, get 'er done! Done "Also, it doesn't kill you to speak nicely." LG I always speak nicely to you, even when you are testing me. I count more than three times in this thread that I have reminded you that I still Wub ya. Jeez How many does it take? I may get served with papers if my hubby sees this thread. I think He'd be jealous.
| |
| Thursday, April 23, 2009 - 08:40 am And LG, the I Wub you thing, thats kinda heavy right there too. I don't Luuv the air YOU breathe. But I still Wub U. Loolz nite all. Decs in the morning.
| |
| Thursday, April 23, 2009 - 05:14 pm You may ban me now... Lets see who else has the balls to fess up.. I have indeed faught in other players accounts. I have stepped in on other worlds in others accounts when it became clear that that same strat was being used against a large fed that for whatever reason, was caught of gaurd. My goal was to quickly stablize these friends assets that took years to build. I defended their cotries against offensive threats from many accuonts likely guided by many players at the same time, removed those threats, then removed the C3's they were using to attack them with. How I became aware they were doing it was through multiple ways but mainly through a dear old friend of mine who happened to be involved(not fighting in accounts is my belief, but guiding and coaching). They admited as much on the forums as well. Im sure some other players whom are long term vets have stepped in to help defend friends. The trick is in the use. Its "wrong" in any form but I did it any way to at least halt a threat in one area. Those players on that world were surprised to see an opposing player suddenly become more effective. That player whom I helped is long gone now sadly as are a few players from that war. Large wars without any end game strats aside from complete execution of opposing players are bad wars. We should never be out to remove players from the game. This didnt appear to be the case in this war but it was in the war which I refer to above. Also, in the LDI VS war we used a nuke bug to fry many 100's of millions of VS pop, including LG's. He knew we were hitting hm with a bug but didnt get those wars stopped. You may shut my account down now if you wish, Ive admitted to multiplaying, just get "mountain home ozarka LU" back to simon.
| |
| Thursday, April 23, 2009 - 09:10 pm If Barney is banned, I will burn many many countries in your memory. Thx for being honest.
| |
| Thursday, April 23, 2009 - 09:12 pm WOOT
|
