The problem and solution to C3 Warriors (Golden Rainbow)

WP works exactly the way it's supposed to work. Nobody is required to use WP. Nobody is required to have more than a secure country.

If players want more than a secure country, they have the freedom to choose whether or not to use WP for any additional country. If they choose not to use WP, they have no reason to complain about being attacked.

Vicious does raise some valid points and quite honestly I think his view may be closer to original intent of the system as it is designed.

If any changes are made they need to be made in such a way that it doesn't just further entrench established forces and leave newer forces at more of a disadvantage than the current system leaves them.

It seems that many feel that limiting wp means there are less ways, or less choice to have in playing this game. But it is about having the ability to make choices. I agree that it should not be about stronger players becoming more entrenched and newer players being at a disadvantage. But what it IS about is if you do in fact want to be peaceful, then use all the WP you desire. BUT if you do desire to enter the realm of fighting, then do that as well... FIGHT. Dont cower behind WP and risk nothing. Take a stand, make a choice... do you wanna fight (severely limit WP) or be peaceful (unlimited WP for as long as you wish).

This debate isnt about what peaceful players want vs aggressive players. It is about you having the choice to decide one way or the other, not both ways. If I walk up to you and punch you in the face and you start to kick my butt, I cant say "Hey, Hey, Wait my face, torso and crotch are off limits, you cant hit those, you can only attack my foot. However I am allowed to hit you in the face!!" That is unrealistic and absurd. Use WP for its intended purpose.

Im sure this issue will be raised in the upcoming chat, and I am very very curious to see what the response is. Its a healthy debate to have, after all, we are all (or most of us) wanting a enjoyable game to play not just short term, but long term.

Serpent - Fully agree

Very well said Serp.

Vicious - You can't disagree that the intention of war protection was to prevent players from being attacked while on vacation or on a leave from the game or are unable to fight for some reason. Directly from the game:

Temporary War Protection

Protection against war makes sense when you go on holiday or when you are not available to play Simcountry for another reason. You can also protect your country if you just don't feel like fighting for a moment.

The intent of the feature is quite clear and makes complete sense, no one can be available to this game 24/7. Obviously when this feature was created it was not foreseen that it would be abused to protect all of your assets while continuing to conduct wars with c3's. This is a negative spillover of the feature and one that can and should be addressed.

What is going on now is not like what was happening before, when you had feds like LDI, Valde, SNA, EBK, CIS, 3M, NV and on and on, feds that were dominant and with itchy trigger fingers. These were war feds each with a rich history of victory, domination and at times loss and failure. When players only choice against oppressive, large feds was to take up any tactic necessary to win, you could call that guerilla warfare but it really was a war for survival because people would be wiped out just for a disagreeing opinion. What is going on now is not a war of survival, it isn't newer forces fighting against oppressive and large federations, it is people with massive amounts of experience and assets choosing to make trouble but are not willing to accept any of the consequences of doing so and with no skin in the game there is no reason for the c3 warrior to seek a reasonable peace. The c3 warrior of today is an asset raider, not a freedom fighter, they want to raid assets without risking their own. To put it in the context of 'entrenched' vs. 'newer' forces is not appropriate...that simply is not what it is about at this point.

You contradict yourself through and Through WB.

Yes, I disagree. You're only quoting a fraction of the documentation. The intent of WP is to allow each player to use war protection as long as he wants, whether short-term or "indefinitely."

Therefore, there is no abuse in using WP indefinitely:

"Secured mode gives one country full protection without any limitation. If needed, a player can set war protection for any other country. This is for free for an average of 10% of the time and can be extended indefinitely by the use of war protection boosters."

Game News, #87


"Temporary war protection can be prolonged by the use of a war protection booster that will extend the protection for longer periods and can prevent war. It is currently possible to indefinitely prolong war protection but it will require several gold coins per (real) month."

Documentation - War, #43

Vicious, you make some good points. However, the features introduced by W3C, while helping in some senses, have also provided more loopholes for exploitation by exactly the type of player we are discussing here.

War protection boosters: pretty useless unless one regularly rotates Secured Mains. No one needs WP in their Secured Main, and otherwise it costs - only good for VISA warriors or those who have achieved a large profit on a regular basis.

Waiting period: minimal - it's no problem to wait while you build up a few assets in the C3 you intend to war with.

Security Council military restrictions: simply don't work, in my experience.

Secured mode: just prevents players from legitimately using their combined power to eliminate someone else who won't play fair although, as I said before, people abused it.

C3 warriors are only a minor irritation for those of us with an adequate defence and a good war slave or two, but an adequate defence is difficult for those players in the halfway house - who have played long enough to build an empire but not yet managed to afford to protect it properly. Building a good defence takes a long time and slows down other aspects of the game, and it's the other aspects of the game that keep most of us interested.

The problem with the game - and life - is that those who are positive, supportive and ... dare I say it ... fair, will usually lose against those who just want to take and enjoy destroying what others have built.

The best way forward IMHO is to remove the existing restrictions, especially Secured Mode, and encourage players to police themselves and to protect others. Before Secured Mode was introduced, several destructive players were 'removed' by having their empires wiped out. If the player-base had taken that a step further ... united not only against players who were destroying the game for themselves and their friends, but policing the planet on behalf of ALL peaceful players, maybe W3C would not have needed to introduce Secured Mode. Perhaps we should return to that ...

Hugs and respect

Jo

"The problem with the game - and life - is that those who are positive, supportive and ... dare I say it ... fair, will usually lose against those who just want to take and enjoy destroying what others have built.

Hugs and respect

Jo~"

Good speech Jo, but who will police the Police?

Sting?

Well said and very interesting Jo.

Vicious - The further quotation of the game documentation does not change the intent of all that was said before it. The *intent* of the system is clear, no matter if it's indefinite or temporary. It's to allow players who want to *avoid* war the ability to do so, the intent was not to allow players to hide assets in one country while conducting wars out of c3's.

Wendy - I believe right below what you quoted from Jo she said to allow the players to police themselves, there are no police in what she is suggesting, it's a system of self policing which war protection prevents. I believe we could have both a secured place for people to be peaceful and a place for people who want to fight, the system just needs to be fixed to work as suggested but Jo's logic is inline with her suggestion.

Perhaps we are making this too difficult, how about this: I think we can all agree that guerillas/terrorists do not possess nuclear weapons (I suppose it's possible that 1 has gotten out but certainly not 100's or 1000's) and certainly not the ability to launch them 30k km across the world. Nuclear weapons are highly advanced technology which require significant maintenance and infrastructure. What if the game followed real life in that way? Nuclear weapons can only be used by countries in excess of x population (maybe 25 mil?) and an excess of x ed index (maybe 110?). I can't see much of a downside to this and it's completely realistic to the world in which we live. Add to that making war protection either not allowed on FB, limited to 1 country or not possible to use when a player declares war because FB is the war world and I think we could please almost all parties. Guerilla/terrorist warfare could remain, the small can still stand up against the entrenched, etc.

WB your insights are invaluable treasures. What a deficiency of the mind you highlight in my soul. Perhaps this has turned into a philosophical discussion.

Let me add something meaningful to the conversation....

Perhaps, I can get some chips with my DIP.

Perhaps, I could have my cake, and eat it too.

Perhaps, if and when the sun sets, the sky would turn colors other than blue.

Perhaps, I could buy one quick pick on the powerball game, and win too.

Perhaps, you could just play the game, AND STFU already?

Perhaps you can try to be an adult for a while and participate in a reasonable, open and productive dialogue. Don't know why you haven't realized this yet but I have precisely zero respect for you thus personal insults from you really make no difference to me.

If that so-called intent to not attack with some countries while protecting others is so obvious and clear, why does the extensive documentation not say so anywhere? It's easy to interpret intent any way one wants.

The only thing obvious and clear to me is that W3C provides features so that players can use them to their advantage.

The features W3C provide are to encourage as many people as possible to keep playing the game. This is a commercial enterprise after all.

They certainly don't want good players leaving just because there is no point in playing when someone else wants to destroy, for no valid reason, everything they have spent time and energy building. That's precisely why they brought-in Secured Mode and a whole load of other features that are now being exploited.

Back in the day, an occasional player like flewis (anyone remember him?) got turfed out of the game by the players before he got to do any real harm. In my book, it's better to lose one antisocial player than several with potential who will give up and leave because of him.

Hugs and respect

Jo

I don't see any documentation that requires a "valid reason" for war.

Valid for whom? The aggressor? The defendant? Is the next suggestion to write a list of valid reasons for war, and code it into the war engine?

Once again, secure mode and war protection can prevent anyone from losing "everything they have spent time and energy building." The flewises of the game can't attack those who use secure mode or war protection.

"Back in the day, an occasional player like flewis (anyone remember him?) got turfed out of the game by the players before he got to do any real harm."

Call me silly, but I HEARD flewis was banned by the gamemaster, Tom in particular, because of some graphics on his countries. At the request of several players it was removed and so was he. Something about Nazi emblems or anti Semitic Flags

I also heard that was NOT a rumor.

I wonder where or why one would hear these things.

Nice distortion of facts Jo. If only the forums posts weren't erased.

I have stayed out of this for the most part because it seems like a personal argument, albeit one that is enjoyable to read. However, I like the WB suggestion regarding nuclear weapons. There should be some basic requirements for a country to purchase nuclear weapons and use them and those seem pretty reasonable.

I'm out of this discussion since there seem to be no agreement in the future. I just wanted to comment that while you have been discussing war here in the forum there have been no nuclear attacks in Golden Rainbow.

Vicious - For someone who was quite a warrior at a time you seem very quick to say 'just stay in war protection permanently' to those of us who believe that a system is being exploited thus causing people to lose hours, days, weeks and months on someone's whim. How about instead the system works as *intended* and although you are disputing intent, I don't think that there is much to dispute. There was zero intention when the system was created that it would hide assets for people while they fought with c3's.

Zentrino - Thanks for the support, I'm glad you like the idea.

John - If people stopped participating in discussions just because it didn't seem like there would be an agreement, I don't think much would ever get done. We're a community of people, it'll be impossible for us all to agree...it's nearly impossible to get two people to agree on something sometimes. But if you have thoughts and opinions on the matter you should continue to share even if it does seem futile at times.

"But if you have thoughts and opinions on the matter you should continue to share even if it does seem futile at times."

Outstanding suggestion WB, I think I'll oblige you

I am of only one opinion.

You need more CHEEZE!!!

Wendy! Look! A sparkly object...like a squirrel, I swear.

You're whole argument is that you can read the minds of the programmers in Blithoven. Never mind what the documentation actually says. What matters is your interpretation of their intent. Right?

The documentation states repeatedly that players can use WP indefinitely. But you claim to be graced with the revelation that Blithoven doesn't want players to be selective about using WP.

That mysticism is not persuasive.

Some of us read the documentation as a manual. Not as poetry, tea leaves, tarot cards, entrails, or whatever esoteric revelation. That manual provides that WP is a feature that players can use to their advantage.

The only mention of intent speaks directly to my point, can you find any mention of intent to support yours? Can you honestly with a straight face say that you believe the GM's thought: 'Well what we'll do is give people a way to constantly declare war on other players without risking any of their own assets, that'd be a great idea'? You can continue to say that there is no 100% clear statement of intent, but I really think there is little doubt about the intent of the system put in place.

You have continually selected small pieces of my arguments to argue against while not addressing many of the main points, such as:

You compared c3 warfare to real life, such as guerilla's/terrorists/kamikazes, I made an argument against the validity of that claim, no response.

You made an argument about excessive clicking, I made an argument that c3 warfare is nothing more than that, excessive clicking in an...well...excessive way...and without purpose.

You made an argument which stated that someone can avoid warfare by simply staying in WP/Secured mode forever, myself and others made a counter argument that the intent of the game is not for everyone to completely avoid 1 aspect of the game and focus on the other.

You furthered your argument that 'guerilla warfare' is part of real life and therefore should be part of the game, I argued that guerilla warfare could be allowed but it should be realistic, i.e. guerillas/terrorists don't get nukes. You disregarded that.

I made the point that the situation now isn't about the poor and needy standing up to the big and greedy oppressors and that what is really going on now is asset raiding while avoiding any repercussions of such action. You ignored that.

I don't need to read people's minds, I can tell you that when a girl asks: "Do I look fat in this?" that what she means is: say I look beautiful or I'll go crazy. But I know it's true, and so do you...there was an intent behind war protection, secured mains and waiting periods. None of which were to allow people to hide assets, you arguing that point makes you seem disingenuous.

What is your vested interest in this issue and why do you continue to dodge the counter-points? Because frankly I don't get it...you are one of the most well respected members of SC (take Barney's comments for example) and for some reason you are sticking your neck out on something which at face value is meaningless to you. Why are you purposely being dishonest about your understanding of the intent of the rules?

Please Vicious, tell me what possible other intent there was behind war protection...because I don't see it...and I don't believe you do either.

If you want to see what the game would look like if this kind of situation continues we can make that happen. I don't think it will take long for our opinion to become the consensus. I'm trying to avoid that. But, we aren't going to stand up for long if we continue to be annoyed in this way and have our time wasted. You want all of us in WP? We can show what constant c3 warfare looks like and in a much more powerful way than one player who is clueless about the war engine. As much as we are made out to be asset raiders and people that pick on the lowly, it really isn't the case at all. We are interested in fighting fights which most would expect us to lose, interested in the challenge of it all. But we can turn that around, keep our assets in WP and terrorize everyone, just as Wendy said:

"Oh and the solution is the golden rule,

Treat others....... Its Universal I don't have to type it out."

"Poor and needy standing up to the big and greedy"

hehe