Pwning innocent players good or bad (Little Upsilon)

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Actually, I think that's a great idea.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.