 |
|
|
|
Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - 05:34 pm  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!
| |
| Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - 05:35 pm 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.
| |
| Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - 05:38 pm 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.
| |
| Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - 06:15 pm 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.
| |
| Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - 07:22 pm damn Tuco, you ok?
| |
| Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - 08:11 pm "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)
| |
| Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - 08:21 pm 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.
| |
| Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - 08:31 pm per se. i know. iki plays econ. me is no innocent! huhuhu~ but i know what you mean.
| |
| Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - 08:43 pm 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!
| |
| Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - 10:32 pm 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.
| |
| Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - 10:50 pm 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.
| |
| Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - 10:54 pm 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
| |
| Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - 11:26 pm I figure most of you already know how this post is going to go. But just keep in mind - Jason opened the door!
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.
Ba-humbug!
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.
| |
| Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - 11:31 pm VERY good argument Kevin. 
| |
| Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - 11:34 pm 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.
| |
| Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - 11:45 pm "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
| |
| Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 12:07 am 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!
| |
| Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 12:23 am "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.
| |
| Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 12:26 am 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?
| |
| Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 12:27 am 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.
| |
| Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 01:16 am 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.
| |
| Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 03:18 am 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.
| |
| Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 03:27 am Well said Tuco!
| |
| Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 05:30 am 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.
| |
| Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 06:33 am 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.
| |
| Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 06:59 am simcountry has entered a new era, ironically, the people that want peace, are going to have to fight for it like it or not, its here
| |
| Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 08:12 am The "econ-world" would be a horrible failure. - Psychotic Chicken If this is not utter nonsense its at best unsupported opinion. Sure, it would take some time for the market to adjust, and sure everyone would take some losses, but once situation would stabilize through reaching equilibrium, it would carry on just like before. Weapons and ammunition are just like any other products and its naive to believe the market could not work without it or any other product. Its just a matter of tuning up consumption or rather priorities of consumption. Thats like saying, wars and weapon production is essential for real world economy because without it the whole economy would collapse, never recover and no economy would be possible. Sure its possible, and it would even be more efficient, because instead of inflicting damage and destroying stuff, people and resources could concentrate on something actually useful like building water treatment facilities in Bangladesh or irrigation of Sahara or I dunno flight to Mars. Weapons and ammunition exist for attacking and defending, not because without them no economy can work. --- 7. One of the most effective means of seduction of evil is the call to battle. It is like a struggle with women that ends up in bed. 9. A. is very pompous, because he believes to be far advanced to the good, as he appears to be an increasingly attractive subject of more and more temptations coming to him from quite unknown directions. 10. The correct statement is that Great devil domiciled in him and myriad of smaller comes in order to serve the Great. - Franz Kafka, Aphorisms
| |
| Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 08:56 am the real world and simcountry are different in a variety of ways. In the real world total consumption is often limited by a resource constraint. If you eliminate consumption via arms manufacture it frees up resources for other things. The nations in the real world have to choose between weapons or effectively upgrades. The real world economy is also effected by market forces. If a price falls more of it is consumed. In simcountry prices are based on a "base value". Consumption is set per capita. Corporations have a fixed property cost.
| |
| Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 09:55 am What can I say to that? If its not glaring obvious after what I posted then .. /me shakes head Yeah whatever, it would be a horrible failure. Candidate for the voice of the reason team.
| |
| Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 06:03 pm Dub: "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." Hmm.... I can see the different arguments from each side and there may be some hypocrisy from both sides. The raiders want to enjoy the war part of the game, which the peacekeepers are trying to avert, and the innocents are trying to play the peaceful game which is interrupted by raiders. Neither side wants the other telling them how they should play. I side with the raiders opinion because of the nature of this game. War IS a part of the game, therefore risk is also a part. You can minimize the risk by joining a fed and building defense, being active in the community (without pissing people off), or eliminate it buy purchasing WP. Doing nothing but economic development and expecting everybody else to play the way you do only makes it easier for raiders to do their thing. I'm convinced that we are not going to change hearts and minds with this debate. There will still be raiding and complaining. So, I think we should encourage/suggest/advise/tell players to do one of the above in order to reduce their risk. At the same time I don't think (given the context of the game) raiders should have to stop their activity just because others don't agree with it. You may think it's hypocritical and we'll just disagree. P. Chicken: I think they could find a way to balance it without weapons and ammo.
| |
| Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 09:26 pm Yes they could. That would be a change to the economy. My impression was that all planets are using the same base values. A number of products like food and sports terminate the same way weapons do. They could also have the CCCs build large militarys and destroy each other. An alternative that might actually be fun is a server with computer controlled offense. Large marauding armies that would force players to work together and a few fleets of vikings to keep everyones guard up.
| |
| Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - 10:07 pm Actually, I think that's a great idea.
| |
| Thursday, April 30, 2009 - 06:19 pm war and econ should never be separated IMO. would lead to dead FB like worlds. What would likely happen is the econ world would evolve into a safe money making harbor for the best players while they leverage that base against other players on other world. Essentialy, you would see "smash and grabs" then movements of those nonecon world assets back to the econ world. Think of the econ world as a war chest. I would do that and have done it repeatedly on FB. If you want to tinker with pure econ then just play the CEO side. To figure out a good defense simply take your spy planes and fly over the cities, forts and O bases of the good war players and you will get an idea. The best way to avoid pulling your hair out when you lose a country is to simply not care. Its a game and is meant to be fun. If the loss of a country leads to extreme negative feeling against another person, whom is playing within the parameters of the game, then you should likely not play. Life is too short to get pissed over a game. perhaps allow a second secured country per world?
| |
| Thursday, April 30, 2009 - 06:50 pm Peaceful players should scrimmage against each other. Build up what you think is an adequate defense/offence in a country, then have a 1 on 1, and choose to "end war" instead of taking over the country. You'll learn plenty that way, and maybe even have some fun. Sure, it will be a little expensive, but if you're not willing to do that then you might as well just turn your countries over to other players right now. What the hell else are you going to spend your sim dollars on except country improvement and weapons? Country improvements only go so far before you start hurting your country with overdevelopment. That leaves weapons and ammunition. Oh... what's that? You want to buy gold coins? You only need 30 per month per world, which leaves plenty of cash left over. This game is not an investment. It is not your retirement policy. The best thing W3C could do is remove the cashout feature. Pay your $4 a month and maybe actually learn to play the game to its fullest.
| |
| Thursday, April 30, 2009 - 07:37 pm I did not know that there are wars in SimCity or Capitalism or similar games. The point stands. Who is to say who is a valid target and who isnt? ----- Playing to win Playing to win is the most important and most widely misunderstood concept in all of competitive games. [snip] Introducing... The Scrub In the world of Street Fighter competition, we have a word for players who aren't good: "scrub." Now, everyone begins as a scrub - it takes time to learn the game to get to a point where you know what you're doing. There is the mistaken notion, though, that by merely continuing to play or "learn" the game, that one can become a top player. In reality, the "scrub" has many more mental obstacles to overcome than anything actually going on during the game. The scrub has lost the game even before it starts. He's lost the game before he's chosen his character. He's lost the game even before the decision of which game is to be played has been made. His problem? He does not play to win. [snip] http://www.unstoppabledynasty.com/home.php ------- The article explains quite well what "competitive" is and hopefully it will help those who do not understand that competitive games are most popular among gamers - thus grow and prosper, simply because human nature is competitive, understand the problem better.
| |
| Friday, May 1, 2009 - 05:14 am Very nice article. Street fighter is a two player game. It always has one winner and one loser. Winning with more life left over is not winning more than someone who wins with less life left over. If you attempted a mass multi-player street fighter you might have a hard time figuring out who is the best.
| |
| Friday, May 1, 2009 - 05:50 am Dont you say? I always thought Street Fighter was MMO. Well, that changes everything then! Winner/scrub mentality or the following included. ----- Depth in Games I've talked about how the expert player is not bound by rules of "honor" or "cheapness" and simply plays to maximize his chances of winning. When he plays against other such players, "game theory" emerges. If the game is a good one, it will become deeper and deeper and more strategic. Poorly designed games will become shallower and shallower. This is the difference between an arcade game that lasts years in an arcade versus one that lasts 4 months. This is the difference between a PC game that lasts years on the shelves (Starcraft) versus one that quickly becomes boring (I won't name any names). The point is that if a game becomes "no fun" at high levels of play, then it's the game's fault, not the player's. Unfortunately, a game becoming less fun because it's poorly designed and you just losing because you're a scrub kind of look alike. You'll have to play some top players and do some soul searching to decide which is which. But if it really is the game's fault, there are plenty of other games that are excellent at a high level of play. For games that truly aren't good at a high level, the only winning move is not to play. http://www.unstoppabledynasty.com/home.php ----- If you have some kind of problem with me, or rather with what I write, I would suggest to try some therapy or at least a consultation, because it could prove to be unhealthy. However, if you live in (self)denial there is probably no help.
| |
| Friday, May 1, 2009 - 08:34 am Tournaments can have unlimited players. Chess programs will often rank players. I remember a game in arcades call "street fighter II". I assumed he was talking about a version of the same game. 7 player risk provides counters to some of his points. If it looks like you are charging to a quick victory several of your six opponents should group and knock you down a bit. I remember a real world 3-player risk with a friend who had played many table top strategy games for many years and my friend's girlfriend who had never played risk. In order to get her to agree to play we had to change the country names to stores, continents to malls, and we were moving around gift certificates instead of armies. My friend and I annihilated most of our armies in turn one. No! Used most of shopping credits in turn one. His girlfriend then bought us out of several malls including a preferred customer status at the European-Import-Center. I believe it was the shortest and most one sided games of risk I have ever witnessed.
|
