July

Laguna, why did you not tell everyone that you made up the rules? That these are the rules. Did you just recently make them up? The only "rule" of yours that is stated specifically in the official SC rules is the last one you listed about multi-accounts. It seems that your rules are selective and that obviously it is you that decides when and who broke these "rules". Obviously the GM's let you make them up as you decide to and enforce them for you.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

You can war as long as you aren't abusive.

You can war as long as you don't "change the main pages of slaves just to make fun of [people], to insult [them]."

You can war as long as for the past six months I don't only see "posts with some negative comment refering to killing them or wiping them from the game."

You can war as long as you make the "game not fun and leave the player feeling there's no point in spending money and building an empire".

As long you don't "troll, threat and spam".

As long as you don't conquer countries with the intention to sell them afterward. Extortion pisses me off the most.

Oh, and, of course, as long as you play within the rules. As long as you have only one account.<!-/Quote-!>

so,even if a war gets to start within the above rules.

How long before it gets decided it gets stopped because another rule needs to be added.


Where is the official GM rule update?

Do any of those strikes you as counter-intuitive? None of them is recent as well. And, if you can't notice, I copy and pasted those from messages I got.

You can war as long as you aren't abusive.

-war is automatically abusive. its war. this is a game with war.

You can war as long as you don't "change the main pages of slaves just to make fun of [people], to insult [them]."

-why not? where is the line that must not be crossed on this? who gets to be the judge? you don't like the insult then fight back.


You can war as long as for the past six months I don't only see "posts with some negative comment refering to killing them or wiping them from the game."

-well again just bann them from them from the forums and make sure people know why they were banned.


You can war as long as you make the "game not fun and leave the player feeling there's no point in spending money and building an empire

-fun is an opinion, there is no measuable goal or rule here

As long you don't "troll, threat and spam".

-then just kick them out of the forums. but the problem is there needs to be a set guide on what is and is not allowed if this is to happen


As long as you don't conquer countries with the intention to sell them afterward. Extortion pisses me off the most.

-are you saying we can't profit from our war? why not? they can avoid war if they want to. extortion to me would be the pay 30 GC's to end this war thing


Oh, and, of course, as long as you play within the rules. As long as you have only one account.

this one is spot on.


No offense but this is like saying there are rules in a fight. as soon as you add rules it is no longer a fight, it is boxing or whatever. these are your preferences you are forcing on us.

War is not automatically abusive.
Seeing as there have been both sides saying they had fun while warring, it indicates there wasn't abuse. It isn't automatically abusive.


Why not insult people? Is that a serious question? Or are you just going against it for the hell of it? That question does not fit here. When people sign up, they aren't signing to be insulted. That's what the SAS's forums are for.


Laws are naturally imperfect. That's why in the forum we have "netiquette". Don't tell me people don't know they should behave themselves. Judging from what has been said here, they know when they are crossing a line.

"Profit in war" does not imply extortion. Extortion has never nor will it ever be allowed here. Nor is there any reason for it to acceptable.


There are rules in a fight. There are rules on everything, stated or implied. But those aren't my rules. Not even my preferences.

i didn't say why not insult people. i said why can't we change the names to what we want. its a game, you want to change your countries name to crabs is stoopid go for it. i can change mine too or if i for some reason can't handle your name change we can war. I can see where you are coming from on this. but thee are different levels of insults. what i am getting at is there needs to be set standards. if we are to be judged i would like to know what i am judged against.

warring in this game can be fun. i wasn't clear sorry bout that. if one person wants to war but the other doesn't(and they didn't take advantage of the WP or staying in a main), then one person is abusing the other by fighting them. not saying its wrong, its just part of the game. i guess what the ? should be is when IS it okay to war? why war if there is no offense taken by either side. someone has to start a war. it just doesn't have the same zing if it is a prearranged war set up ahead of time, it would feel more like a practice war game than the real thing.

so if i see a country on FB that i want to take so i can take the weapons, cash, pop or various other goods it has, and have no intention of keeping the country, am i not allowed to do so. if i take over a country i have to keep it?

i assure you i am not just going against it for the hell of it. i am just trying find out what the boundries are and where i stand. i'm not saying i have all the answers but this whole thing stinks. i am pretty much an eco player but i chose that. i don't want to be forced to it.

Where was Wild back in February when they changed the navy rules in the middle of wars? Instead of standing up for the basic principle that the rules of a game shouldn't be changed midstream, she argued that the new rules improved the game, that players shouldn't "put all their eggs in one basket," and called those who complained "wusses".

Leaving in a huff and destroying all her assets is childish, more the actions of a "spoiled brat" than anything done by anyone she has used that term on.

Barney never would have acted the way you guys have been.

Agreed, BArney taught me "Trenascendance?"

Jojo, totally different circumstances. Everyone was impacted equally by the navy changes. Myself and others had been singled out and had special limitations put on us... such as not being able to attack.

Totally different.

If GMs are going to directly intervene with players like that then the game isn't worth anything anymore.

With the navies, I was effected as much as you or anyone else. It's not as if Navies couldn't be taken away before, and anyone who only knew one way to fight wasn't that good anyway.

Navies WERE overpowered. You are comparing apples and oranges. Due to the navy changes, a lot of different tactical options became viable, and it DID make the game more interesting and exciting. Yes, it was harder, but before all you had to do was park a fleet off a country, make sure you had enough ammo, and pound away. The fact that you still do not realize how the nerfing of navies allowed for some more depth to evolve in the war game shows you still do not truly understand the war engine... Perhaps that's why LDI had to be beaten by the GMs before it could be beaten by other players.


And destroying my assets isn't childish. First, they are simply 1's and 0's existing in an European server. Second, they are as "mine" as 1's and 0's can me. Third, putting up with another second of what has become a completely inane and insipid waste of time in order to cater to what other players think would be "proper" is even more childish. Are YOU ready to leave SC and delete your game-toys at the drop of a hat? I'm merely practicing what I preach: this game has no value over what you personally choose to assign to it. I assign it the same worth as a game of RISK, Chess, or Monopoly. In other words, it's fun and somewhat important to do well while you are playing, but once you finish playing you are finished. Your monopoly money is just paper and your RISK armies are just plastic.

Everybody quit yet...nope ok I'll check back later

LMAO

First of all -

Laguna, you are retarded. There has not been one person that has agreed with you yet on this thread.

"You can war as long as you aren't abusive."

That is retarded. War = killing people. Is that not abusive?


If the game manages too boot all of its veterans, and all of its new players don't stay, it is dead. The recent changes KILLED this game. Anyone defending the changes is also retarded.

and that about sums it up, Ares.

Ares, Laguna is not retarded. Step back and read the whole thread. Laguna has a much firmer grasp on reality than anyone else. In retrospect, everything he said is relevant and makes sense. Like others, I find it virtually impossible to understand what he is saying when he says it. He could be much more helpful if he wanted to. In this this case, at least, it is clear that he did not want to.

He personally wanted changes in the game. He figured that the best way to make those changes was for certain players to leave. Those players have left or are leaving, of their own volition. You may not like his means or his ends, but it is just wrong to call him retarded. It's usually called success.

As far as means...read him closely, I don't see that he's doing anything I would call wrong. Pinpoint it, if you can.

Those rules: he's not setting game rules, he's just stating, perhaps not clearly, what should be obvious. It's a game...of course you shouldn't be abusive to other people with whom you are playing. Just because the game involves war, that rule of normal human conduct doesn't vanish. The sim people are not real people, but we are.

I don't necessarily agree with Laguna's aims. I don't know the details of what it was that is being construed as abusive. Haven't seen anything on FB that was out of line, apart from Wild quitting and dumping Eb's stuff overboard. It looks as though the gamemasters have been horribly unclear about the matter--no surprise there.

But Laguna...although his prose is impenetrable, he is a clever guy, and you'll have to make clear to me why one shouldn't think he's not as well-intentioned as you or I.

...suck up lawl

slocketer you seem like you love the war game. You should come to Fearless Blue, you would have a blast.

Laguna is the ultimate hypocrite.

In order to stop players from attacking and killing others, he attacks and kills them, at his own motivation. He tried to do that to me in April, then after Wild joined on my side, blames her for the April event.

More clarification Jojo, Eb declared war on me WHILE in msn chat with me. He was aware of what he was getting in to.

Just because Laguna made all of the veterans leave that play actively does not make him successful. It just shows he values his opinion over that of most of the community.

Last war I fought against Laguna sparked major game changes, and my wars were stopped mid-nuking. Whether he is innocent as the rest of us or not does not matter. The GM's obviously think his view will help the game gain members, which it clearly is not, and his attempts to "save the game" have resulted in many paid players quitting the game.

As for your game changes in the middle of your war in February, those did help the game. The problem was the GM's did not give any heads up.

As far as abusive Jojo, what is wrong with it? That is what federations are for. When 3m is attacked, its members do indeed respond and rally to their fellow fed-mates' need. The severe lack of players has led to massive decreases in the amount of successful federations, and experienced players can now pick who to kill and when. The problem is not the experienced players, but just the severe lack of new faces coming into the game. W3C is on the verge of bankruptcy, and will NOT survive by booting many of its very few current members.

What is Laguna DOING wrong? Not sure, but he sure is doing nothing but being hypocritical. And if Laguna's grip on reality is "firmer" than anyone elses, perhaps this game is suited only for him and he can play by himself.

Sheesh...

Ares and Wild, you both make the point that game changes in Feb were beneficial. I agree. But why are you making that point? You're just arguing that the gm's latest new policy is justified if it ends up being beneficial to the game.

At least three very active players left the game, and others reduced their activity, specifically due to that navy fiasco. That didn't help the game. I don't think it will help the game if all you babies leave now, either.

You two of anyone should see that ANY new rule or policy spat out in the middle of a war will favor one side or the other. If I have a bat, and you have a knife, and the gm says "bats are okay, but now no knives," of course it favors me, even though the new rule applies to everyone. Same with your current situation. I don't see that they are picking on you, they're just instituting a new policy. Extremely vague, the consequences seemingly not well thought out, and very arbitary in its timing, and you're the lucky ones who get to be the test case. Again, it's the implementation that's the biggest problem, from my point of view.

Ares, what's wrong with being abusive?? The word itself implies being wrong. Warring in this game can be fun, abusive, or in between. The line is highly subjective, but one should acknowledge there is a line, and actually try to stay away from it. It's just common decency, which both of you have, and shouldn't be ashamed of. Do you mind if I mention how you halted your attack on me, in April, when I couldn't get online for a few days? And Wild, maybe it was just a case of you being distracted and not fighting full throttle, but our newer Musketteers really enjoyed fighting you in this latest war, even though they lost some countries.

So Wild, I don't truly understand the war engine, haha, maybe so, but I'm still pretty mad at you for taking away my opportunity to find out. Haven't you ever played Risk or some other game with someone who is doing well, but you think you can beat them, then they quit in the middle of the game? It ruins the game for everyone else. And it is very much childish. Did you wonder why I didn't dec on you during your romp through Eb's countries? I did leave the game, I thought for good, for a week. Was able to come back, now to see you throw your pieces off the table. Grrrrrrrr, I've been waiting a year for that rematch, now never to be.

If you don't understand how preventing a player from declaring war altogether is different than changing how a weapon in the game works, then I'm not going to try and explain it to you.

And I never got to truly fight any of your younger musketeers thanks to the GM's email.

I really need to scour this url from my memory, but I am still waiting on my secured countries and CEOs to expire.

Yes Jojo, players did leave, but to be honest, navies only support visa warrioring and they also only support players with large stashes of weapons. This was also only a partial change, as you guys STILL use almost exclusively navies. I AGREE that it was a bad move by the GM to do it in the middle of the war, but had it not been in the war, I doubt they would have left.

I agree Jojo that warring is fun and that I do have a shred of decency in me. However, EXPECTING everyone to play with those morals when there is no beneficial reason to is not realistic.

Jojo, whats the point in playing risk if you can't attack other players? This game is to be enjoyed on a personal level. No offense, but I do not play the game so YOU have fun. If you can't attack someone and they can attack you, I see no potential of fun whatsoever, and this game becomes a waste of time.

Ugh, okay, enlighten me, oh wise ones. Why is it that the gm will not let you declare wars and whatever else you can't do, while I can declare and play just fine?

jojo i think thats the point. 78^)*

What, that they don't even know why?

The gms pick "target" players to give punishment. Wild was no longer allowed to declare on even c3s.