Empires and Federations (Golden Rainbow)

" 1. Empire vs Countries in different feds Status: Will be added [ top ]
Detailed Description:

As many of you know there is a major war on LU right now. This has been escalated due to the fact that many players have countries in many feds. I propose that empires must enter feds and not individual countries. This would cut down on the number of chain reactions that take place when war between two countries breaks out. Agree to change the fed membership to empires instead of countries."

How the heck will this work. Imagine a player has 25 Countries. How will he join a federation with another player? Federations are limited to 25 countries. Now if every players only had one country then there could be 25 players in one federation. The majority of players have 5-15 countries. I seriously believe that the proposal to have empires join federations and not countries was not well thoughtout and when it was accepted the GM failed to realized the problem it caused with the federation size limit.

Larger Feds have multiple branches. You can spread your countries out in the branches of the same Fed.

i agree with Zentrino. there are several ways to eliminate this problem. Each major fed has sub-feds for slaves. they also can be regional so each fed has the responsibility to protect an area. you can also disengage the war treaty feature and only enter into wars where you can help.

25 Empires per Fed, maybe?

Zentrino and ebby247, I don't think you really understand the issue here. Up to this point large fedartion had many branches. But if this change as voted on by many players and approved by the GM would not allow you to join more than one federation. Each sub-federation is trully a federation and when you joined one all of your countries would be in that one federation.

@Border, I'm sure GM would not allow 25 Empires in one federation. Imagine each empire having 5 countries, the federation would have 125 countries.

Personally I saw no problem with allowing players to have their countries in what ever federation they want. Large federation and e federation complexes are a major deterrent to war and offer their members source ofpower in conflicts. It's up to the aggressor to be careful on whom he choses to pick his fights with.

I guess they will introduce a new system for federations, where the PRESIDENT would be a member rather than having individual countries as members perhaps?!

So instead of having lots of regional feds, there would be one large federation.

Tendo, If that is the case won't declaration against one members countries be considered a declaration against all members countries? Wow! Consider the wars generated. And this change is supposed to decrease the number of war declarations....wont happen that way. I suggest they leave it alone. Why fix something that is not broken?

This is W3C we are talking about here... They have a tendency to fix things that work fine.


With Regards,
Dragoon

I say no. let ppl be in as many feds as they want.

out of curiosity, whats the point in limiting it? what is wrong with what we have?

I'm with Jason. Leave it be.

I'm not.....sorry.

I disagree with having countries with members in multiple feds.

Imagine, a player with three countries.

One in Valde
One in LDI
And one in SNA

Now, what would happen if SNA decided to attack Valde and LDI thought that the pickings were ripe and went to war with both SNA and Valde?

What would that player do?

In my opinion, you are meant to show loyalty to a fed - if you join multiple feds, you could be compromised during war or even political disputes. Not knowing what side to take, that player would either be destroyed in minutes - or be the only survivor after the war.

It dosn't happen in RL, and it shouldn't happen here. A president should join a fed and his empire follow. You should not be allowed to place countries in several different ones.

Imagine, the UK in both NATO and The Warsaw Pact in the 80's and you get how i'm thinking.....

I have no problem with a federation having multiple branches, but it should be a player - not a country joining a branch.

Staurt: Yes it does happen in rl, their are many entangling alliances in the world. The major cause WW2 escalated to the point it did because their were so many entangling alliances. Maybe not exactly the same scenario but similar...

Italy WWI for example. Was it axis or allied? Then there is Virginia in the U.S. civil war. Then there is Kansas. I still haven't figured out how its possible but I heard Kansas had three sides in the civil war.

Anyway, a game should not be programed to block treason and backstabbing. Treason should be handled with violent vendettas.

Economics is very important in Simcountry so buying off opponents and hiring mercenaries should be encouraged.

I believe social aspect is paramount to any online game. If it was not for interaction, if it was not for competition, if it was not for conflicts, if it was not for cooperation, if it was not for forming relations and communities people would be playing single player games.

In SC the social aspect is not nearly as strong as it could be for reasons not to be discussed right now. Federations, alliances, clans, teams are integral part of the social aspect and my opinion is that they are in dire need of overhaul.

Now to the point ..

Instead of what "we like and do not like" lets try to determine what is good and bad game design. Real world or historical examples have little to do with it.

Attacking another player leads to alienating her/him, and on the opposite, cooperating with another player leads to forming mutual bonds.

If we agree that this is true in principle, we will probably agree that allowing players to become members of only one Fed would hopefully create distinct factions, with their own agenda, with their own mini-communities, with their own structure and inner working.

Contrary to the initial post, even if I'm not saying it cannot happen (simply because I know nothing about the major war on LU) just its unlikely, I do believe that having players to be committed to only one Fed would promote conflicts and would promote cooperation.

Assuming features promoting conflicts and cooperation are what is called good game design, Feds, and the social aspect of SC, should be reworked with focus on these elements.

If a players is allowed to be part of SNA, Valde, and LDI, then more power to them... I don't see what the problem is.

in The Protectorate we encourage main fed members to have all slaves to be in one of our sub feds. a person cannot be in the main fed unless their main is in the main fed. no slaves are in the main fed. this should help eliminate some of the problems of multiple allegences. doesn't always happen, but if tends to make things easier to handle. sub feds are more regional in scope, therefore, more handy for possible to deal with regional conflicts. this does not mean that other sub feds won't come to the aid of another sub fed, only that again it makes for better relationships between fed members are interests are comparable.

Is W3C not forcing enough unwanted changes down our throats without players adding more?

How about we each play our own game and worry a little bit less about what the other guy is doing?

Player relationsips should be beyond game mechanics. Limitations of any kind are just that, limitations.

If an entire world's players want to be in one super fed or a player wants to have each of his countries in a different fed, who the hell the cares?

It's players choice.

Some of you control freaks should apply for work at W3C. You would fit right in.

As if we aren't forced into enough boxes already....

PS. If you a problem with any of this, I am available for trial by combat anytime. Cheers.

Hi FarmerBob.
Trigger finger getting itchy?
I'm with FarmerBob. But like JL saying, I can't see how it will work either.
Was it a public vote? And if so, who put it up?

Even if I agree that it should be left to players to decide what kind of game they want to play, it seems that some issues cannot and should not be left to players to decide. That is IF there is a goal set for the game, and in this case "natural" goal would be to grow, to evolve, to prosper - we can call it "good of the game" or good game design.

Without going into much detail and writing essays, there is no question players defend their own immediate and/or short term interests in the first place, disregarding long term benefits, and thus are often in conflict with the "good of the game". There is no question players have the power to destroy the very game they like and play. This can be observed in the so called real but also in the so called virtual world and it is well known phenomena in fields of politics or sociology.

Even if I realize it does not mean much and I noted in my previous post real world examples are not most useful as arguments, personally I do not know any game where players would be allowed, by game design, to be members of different clans, alliances, feds or teams. In similar fashion, I do not know any corporation which would allow it employees to work for competition, any sportsman/woman which would be allowed to compete for rival team or nation, nor any solider which would be allowed to fight for opposing armies.

This is not about being control freak, its not about what the few who post here would like, its about the "good of the game", good or bad game design.


Sure there are players who would like to sit in all the big Feds, being safe from anyone who would dare to attack their bellowed accumulated virtual assets, however, if that is the kind of game most here want to play, then such players should be aware that they will be stuck with a game which will stagnate not grow, not evolve, not prosper, simply because thats what bad game design does to a game.

Zdeněk Pavlovský,
You are RIGHT ON POINT. This is supposed to be an interactive game. But I have often seen federations that hardly communicate amongst their players let alone their enemies.

If players take the initiative to band together for collective security, allowing for reduced military expenditures, that is a perfectly valid strategy.

If a player seeks an aggressive wargame against any player he feels is a good target, that is a perfectly valid strategy.

If any player seeks a compromise between the two, that is perfect valid strategy.

The list of bad game design decisions in SC is long and varied. Many, if not most, were the result of players trying to force their preconceptions, successfully, on the player community.

I can't fight the powers-that-be in W3C, but I can certainly resist the bad ideas from players.

This game is already FAR too restrictive of player options as it is.

Let me clue you in, Zdenek. A player's archenemy in SC has been, and likely always will be, W3C.

This isn't a team sport unless someone wishes to play it that way. It isn't a tournament.

It's a freestyle game, where the player's are supposed to set their own goals.

STOP trying to force your own perspective on everyone else at their expense.

I give incontrovertible proof that this is a TERRIBLE idea:

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

W3Creative reaction: I agree that countries of a single empire should not be able to join multiple federations. Will be fixed.<!-/Quote-!>

When they think its a great idea....

Post Script:

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

This is supposed to be an interactive game.<!-/Quote-!>

Yeah? Says who?

How 'bout we let each player decide for himself what level of interaction he desires.

Or is that too much freedom?

I'm not forcing anything. I did not start the poll, I did not even vote in it, and personally I could care less if the game cease to exist tomorrow.

I'm trying to explain (to you) what is good and bad game design, and you are free force anything you like on anyone you like.

As I said, if people are happy with the game the way it is .. SimCity online.. then be it. If people are happy with accumulating virtual assets with little or no interaction, then be it. If people want to be in multiple Feds, then be it.

Just dont ask why the game is not growing.

i too come down on the side of personal choice as suggested by Farmer Bob and others. i only offered The Protectorate model as one way to handle large feds. it was not intended to be "the model"

Look, boys and girls.

I am not trying to do the cucaracha on anyone's cojones, but the concept is simple:

Where is the benefit of this game change to all players?

If you start a poll that forces or restricts other players's actions, please do us all a favor and DON'T!

This game has been screwed repeatedly by players who think it would be just grand if everyone was forced to play exactly the way they do.

This is just a rhetorical exercise without any proofs or evidence supporting one side or the other, and even CAPS and bold wont make an argument true.

Let's try to imagine we are game designers creating a game. Would we create a game which is fun for us to play or a game which is fun for others to play?