Aug 20th 2012, 22:11:27
Hey Zahc. Just to be clear, I wasn't attempting to refute your post. I like that you're willing to put out honest ideas, even if I may disagree with one of two of them. I was just putting forth my opinion on what I believe is one of the major drivers of player loss.
I'm also not saying that what happened to THE MIGHTY CLAN [DANGER] shouldn't have happened. Bill and I knew that we were in for at least one reset of repeated deaths. We adopted our policies anyway, because it's the way we want to play. We've both been away from the game for an extended time, we didn't want to come back to a stale, "grab 5 untags or small clans 3 times each day" existence.
I guess this is where I'm coming from: I started playing this game *I think* one reset before the introduction of the alliance server. Back then, the game was brutally hard, as I believe it should be. You either had to put a lot of effort into diplomacy with the others on your server, or you put a lot of work into making sure people knew that if they messed with you, it would not end well for them. Of course, being good with basic strategies was required too, but if you skimped on the non-strategy parts of the game, you were not going to win.
The alliance server quickly became the most brutal of the servers, IMO, and that's also how it should be. I'm in no way suggesting that smaller players or alliances need more protections. They just should not have their hands tied if they choose to fight back. And this is where I think things have gone at least a little bit wrong. Ever since the beginning, changes have been made to protect the players from each other. I don't think these kinds of changes are usually helpful, *especially* when they protect those who should be able to protect themselves.
And I think "anti-suiciding" changes are the worst of them all. Because what one person calls suiciding, another calls self defense.. or revenge.. or just plain satisfaction.. doesn't matter. I'm sure a lot of players will consider what Bill and I did suiciding. We considered it a demonstration that if you push around THE MIGHTY CLAN [DANGER], you might kill us, but gain nothing in the long run. (I'll admit our effectiveness in that endeavor this time around is debateable) Both of us were members and leaders in an alliance that struggled for a long time to gain some respect. We know it's not as easy as just asking for a DNH. In that alliance, we tried diplomacy, heck we tried begging. But if most of the alliances have nothing to fear from you, you're not going to get anything but farmed. As long as new alliances have the ability to inflict some reasonable damage, there is at least the possibility of gaining that respect they need to survive.
Anyway, I'm getting longwinded again. My main point is that the players, and alliances especially, will do whatever benefits them in order to win. As the power to retaliate is reduced, the benefit of excessive farming increases, and so they will do it more. I believe it really is that simple, and that creating an atmosphere which fosters farming, negatively impacts player retention.
HA!
SAM
I'm also not saying that what happened to THE MIGHTY CLAN [DANGER] shouldn't have happened. Bill and I knew that we were in for at least one reset of repeated deaths. We adopted our policies anyway, because it's the way we want to play. We've both been away from the game for an extended time, we didn't want to come back to a stale, "grab 5 untags or small clans 3 times each day" existence.
I guess this is where I'm coming from: I started playing this game *I think* one reset before the introduction of the alliance server. Back then, the game was brutally hard, as I believe it should be. You either had to put a lot of effort into diplomacy with the others on your server, or you put a lot of work into making sure people knew that if they messed with you, it would not end well for them. Of course, being good with basic strategies was required too, but if you skimped on the non-strategy parts of the game, you were not going to win.
The alliance server quickly became the most brutal of the servers, IMO, and that's also how it should be. I'm in no way suggesting that smaller players or alliances need more protections. They just should not have their hands tied if they choose to fight back. And this is where I think things have gone at least a little bit wrong. Ever since the beginning, changes have been made to protect the players from each other. I don't think these kinds of changes are usually helpful, *especially* when they protect those who should be able to protect themselves.
And I think "anti-suiciding" changes are the worst of them all. Because what one person calls suiciding, another calls self defense.. or revenge.. or just plain satisfaction.. doesn't matter. I'm sure a lot of players will consider what Bill and I did suiciding. We considered it a demonstration that if you push around THE MIGHTY CLAN [DANGER], you might kill us, but gain nothing in the long run. (I'll admit our effectiveness in that endeavor this time around is debateable) Both of us were members and leaders in an alliance that struggled for a long time to gain some respect. We know it's not as easy as just asking for a DNH. In that alliance, we tried diplomacy, heck we tried begging. But if most of the alliances have nothing to fear from you, you're not going to get anything but farmed. As long as new alliances have the ability to inflict some reasonable damage, there is at least the possibility of gaining that respect they need to survive.
Anyway, I'm getting longwinded again. My main point is that the players, and alliances especially, will do whatever benefits them in order to win. As the power to retaliate is reduced, the benefit of excessive farming increases, and so they will do it more. I believe it really is that simple, and that creating an atmosphere which fosters farming, negatively impacts player retention.
HA!
SAM