Jan 15th 2014, 8:40:31
[quote poster=SAM_DANGER; 29364; 526488]I'VE BEEN BITING MY TONGUE ON THIS ISSUE, BUT I JUST CAN'T DO IT ANY MORE. I REALIZE WHAT I'M ABOUT TO POST MAY ALIENATE SOME PEOPLE WHOM I HAVE COME TO LIKE QUITE A BIT, BUT SOME OF THE THINGS BEING POSTED HERE ARE, IMO, JUST TERRIBLE IDEAS.
BANNING PEOPLE FOR "SUICIDING": I UNDERSTAND YOUR FRUSTRATION EN4CER, BUT I HOPE THE ADMINS NEVER SERIOUSLY CONSIDER SUCH ACTIONS. THIS IS NOT JUST A NETGAINING GAME, BUT ALSO A WAR GAME. 95% OF THE TAGS ON THIS SERVER ENGAGE IN WAR ACTIONS EVERY DAY IN ORDER TO INCREASE THEIR OWN LANDS. THE LARGE ESTABLISHED ALLIANCES ALMOST ALL "GRIEF" PEOPLE WHENEVER THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT. LOOK AT ALL THE INSTANCES OF PEOPLE MAKING 4+ ATTACKS IN A ROW ON A SINGLE PLAYER, TAGGED OR NOT, JUST BECAUSE THEY KNOW (OR RATHER, THINK) THAT HIS OR HER ALLIANCE CANNOT HIT THEM BACK. WHAT MAKES THE ACTIONS OF THE FARMER MORE NOBLE THAN THE ACTIONS OF THE "SUICIDER"?
AND WHO GETS TO DEFINE WHAT IS SUICIDING? THE MIGHTY CLAN [DANGER]! DECLARED WAR ON AN ENTIRE ALLIANCE THIS RESET, AND SOME PEOPLE CALLED IT SUICIDING. WE HAVE MADE OUR STANCE ON UNPROVOKED AGGRESSION AGAINST OUR MEMBERS AS CLEAR AS WE POSSIBLY CAN, AND WE HAVE NEVER ATTACKED ANYONE WITHOUT PROVOCATION. BUT BECAUSE OUR IDEA OF PROVOCATION IS NOT THE SAME AS SOME OTHER PEOPLE, THOSE OTHERS CALL US SUICIDERS. SO SHOULD WE ALL BE BANNED AS WELL? IN OUR EYES, THE SUICIDERS ARE THOSE WHO FAIL TO STOP THEIR MEMBERS FROM ATTACKING US, EVEN THOUGH THEY KNOW FULL WELL OUR STATED POSITIONS AND OUR HISTORY.
LIMITING SPECIAL ATTACKS ONLY TO CLANS OF 10 OR MORE PLAYERS: ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE. THIS WOULD ONLY GUARANTEE THAT ANY TAG UNDER 10 MEMBERS - INCLUDING ESTABLISHED TAGS LIKE ICN, MONSTERS AND THE MIGHTY CLAN [DANGER]! - WOULD BE FARMED EVEN MORE MERCILESSLY, AS THEY NOW HAVE *ZERO* HOPE OF EVER LAUNCHING EVEN A SLIGHTLY PAINFUL REPRISAL ON THEIR TORMENTORS. HOW ON EARTH IS A NEW ALLIANCE EVER SUPPOSED TO SUCCEED, WHEN THEY'RE GUARANTEED TO BE FARMED INTO THE GROUND AND DENIED ANY CHANCE AT ALL FOR RETRIBUTION? IF SPECIAL ATTACKS CANNOT BE USED BY SMALL TAGS OR UNTAGGED PLAYERS, THEN THE LARGER TAGS SHOULD ALSO BE PROHIBITED FROM VISITING THEIR FORM OF AGGRESSION (LAND GRABS) ON THOSE PLAYERS.
I THINK MOST PLAYERS WHO ARE "SUICIDED" ON ARE CAPABLE OF SEVERELY LIMITING THE ABILITY OF THE "SUICIDER" TO DO WHAT HE DOES, IF NOT STOP HIM ENTIRELY. HOWEVER, EVERYONE TRIES TO RUN WITH MINIMAL MILITARY IN ORDER TO KEEP EXPENSES LOW. ITS A RISK, AND IT HAS A GREAT REWARD IF THE RISK TAKER DOESN'T GET HIT. IT IS BECAUSE OF THIS THAT I BELIEVE MOST "SUICIDERS" ARE IN SOME WAYS A FORCE FOR GOOD IN THIS GAME. IF IT WEREN'T FOR THE ABILITY OF PEOPLE TO TAKE A LITTLE VENGEANCE, WE'D HAVE NOTHING BUT A BUNCH OF 70K ACRE COUNTRIES RUNNING WITH 250K OF EACH MILITARY UNIT. THE EXISTENCE OF "SUICIDERS" HELPS TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS AT LEAST *SOME* RISK IN DOING SO. WITHOUT ANY POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES AT ALL FOR HIDING ALL OF YOUR PRODUCTION ON THE MARKET UNTIL THE LAST FEW DAYS OF THE RESET, WE'D HAVE A MUCH MORE STALE GAME HERE.
I KNOW I'M IN THE SEVERE MINORITY WITH CHOOSING AN ALL EXPLORE PLAYSTYLE, BUT CONSIDER ALSO THAT EVERY TIME YOU REDUCE OR ELIMINATE THE RISKS TO THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO GAIN THEIR LAND THROUGH AGGRESSION, YOU ARE FURTHER REDUCING OR ELIMINATING THE ABILITY OF MY SMALL MINORITY TO COMPETE ON THE NETGAINING FRONT. THE RISKS INCURRED BY THE GRABBER ARE THE ONLY THING WHICH MAKES A PEACEFUL PLAYSTYLE EVEN REMOTELY POSSIBLE.
It is common knowledge that the restart changes were based off my suggestion, however in my submission to admins I never said that restarts should come back with 70% (or more) of what they had, but rather 20-30% of what they had plus 70% or more of what they had on the market. I believe preserving stock on the market does add a new element of strategy to warring. 70% of everything however is excessive and is easily exploitable. As most suiciders would not get the opportunity to stockpile in such a manner I believe my initial proposal was far more viable than what we have been presented with this set.
I THINK YOU'RE WRONG ON THE MARKET PART OF THIS ONE, SOV. DURING OUR WAR WITH LAF IN OUR INAUGURAL RESET, BILL AND I WERE RELEGATED TO FARM STATUS AS WE WERE NO LONGER VIEWED AS A THREAT. BECAUSE OF THAT, I WAS ABLE TO EASILY STOCKPILE FOOD ON THE MARKET, SELL IT JUST AFTER THE PEAK, AND USE THAT TO STEAL BILLIONS IN CASH AND FOOD FROM LAF PLAYERS. LAF WAS ABLE TO COUNTER THIS - AS THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN - BY SIMPLY KILLING MY COUNTRY AND ELMINATING THOSE ASSETS. IF I'D BEEN ABLE TO PROTECT ALL OF THAT ON THE MARKET AGAIN, I COULD HAVE EASILY REPEATED MY ACTIONS AT LEAST ONCE, IF NOT MORE TIMES. 70% IS JUST FAR TOO MUCH OF ANYTHING TO BE RETURNED TO THE DECEASED COUNTRY.
I FOR ONE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS IDEA GO AWAY OR AT LEAST BE DRASTICALLY REDUCED - EVEN THOUGH IT HAS HELPED US IN OUR WAR AGAINST TPA. IF IT IS GOING TO BE KEPT THOUGH, MAYBE THE LOST ASSETS, RATHER THAN BEING JUST VAPORIZED, SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE COUNTRY WHICH DID THE KILLING.
PERSONALLY, I LIKED THE RAMPING UP WHICH WAS PUT IN PLACE A FEW RESETS AGO. I KNOW IT RESULTED IN LONG KILL RUNS, BUT IT PROPERLY REWARDED PLAYERS FOR KEEPING REASONABLE AMOUNTS OF DEFENSE ON HAND. IF THE RAMPING UP CONCEPT WAS STILL IN PLACE, EN4CER COULD HAVE DRAMATICALLY REDUCED THE DAMAGE TO HIS COUNTRY JUST BY UPPING HIS MILITARY LEVELS SOME, WITHOUT HAVING TO KEEP THOSE LEVELS SO HIGH AS TO CRIPPLE HIS COUNTRY ECONOMICALLY.
I THINK I'M DONE WITH THIS POST NOW.. SORRY TO BE SO BRIEF AND UNDETAILED, BUT I JUST DON'T HAVE TIME FOR A LOT OF TYPING THIS EVENING. :)
HA!
SAM
HOMICIDER,
THE MIGHTY CLAN DANGER! [/quote]
The clan of Danger isnt here to grief people. There is a huge difference between suiciding and griefing. Griefers should be banned.
You made me break the quoting system :(
Originally posted by En4cer:
People suiciding is the main thing driving players away from this game atm. If this were my game and i wanted to grow the player base (as i'm sure the game developers would like too) this is the sort of thing that needs to be taken out of gameplay.... be it by deleting players and profiles and IP banning them also and reinstatement of others to where they were before it happened.
All of the above i would have in place...
I am also a huge fan of Special attacks only being allowed ingame between warring alliances through and admin declare war feature like has been suggested.... No tag = no specialised attacks function too (tag must have 10 members to be able to go to war also)
I myself am coding illiterate so i have absolutley no idea how much work those ideas are to implement.... I do like the idea of the community even being able to come up with the game fixes/tweaks by a voting system.
All of the above i would have in place...
I am also a huge fan of Special attacks only being allowed ingame between warring alliances through and admin declare war feature like has been suggested.... No tag = no specialised attacks function too (tag must have 10 members to be able to go to war also)
I myself am coding illiterate so i have absolutley no idea how much work those ideas are to implement.... I do like the idea of the community even being able to come up with the game fixes/tweaks by a voting system.
BANNING PEOPLE FOR "SUICIDING": I UNDERSTAND YOUR FRUSTRATION EN4CER, BUT I HOPE THE ADMINS NEVER SERIOUSLY CONSIDER SUCH ACTIONS. THIS IS NOT JUST A NETGAINING GAME, BUT ALSO A WAR GAME. 95% OF THE TAGS ON THIS SERVER ENGAGE IN WAR ACTIONS EVERY DAY IN ORDER TO INCREASE THEIR OWN LANDS. THE LARGE ESTABLISHED ALLIANCES ALMOST ALL "GRIEF" PEOPLE WHENEVER THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT. LOOK AT ALL THE INSTANCES OF PEOPLE MAKING 4+ ATTACKS IN A ROW ON A SINGLE PLAYER, TAGGED OR NOT, JUST BECAUSE THEY KNOW (OR RATHER, THINK) THAT HIS OR HER ALLIANCE CANNOT HIT THEM BACK. WHAT MAKES THE ACTIONS OF THE FARMER MORE NOBLE THAN THE ACTIONS OF THE "SUICIDER"?
AND WHO GETS TO DEFINE WHAT IS SUICIDING? THE MIGHTY CLAN [DANGER]! DECLARED WAR ON AN ENTIRE ALLIANCE THIS RESET, AND SOME PEOPLE CALLED IT SUICIDING. WE HAVE MADE OUR STANCE ON UNPROVOKED AGGRESSION AGAINST OUR MEMBERS AS CLEAR AS WE POSSIBLY CAN, AND WE HAVE NEVER ATTACKED ANYONE WITHOUT PROVOCATION. BUT BECAUSE OUR IDEA OF PROVOCATION IS NOT THE SAME AS SOME OTHER PEOPLE, THOSE OTHERS CALL US SUICIDERS. SO SHOULD WE ALL BE BANNED AS WELL? IN OUR EYES, THE SUICIDERS ARE THOSE WHO FAIL TO STOP THEIR MEMBERS FROM ATTACKING US, EVEN THOUGH THEY KNOW FULL WELL OUR STATED POSITIONS AND OUR HISTORY.
LIMITING SPECIAL ATTACKS ONLY TO CLANS OF 10 OR MORE PLAYERS: ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE. THIS WOULD ONLY GUARANTEE THAT ANY TAG UNDER 10 MEMBERS - INCLUDING ESTABLISHED TAGS LIKE ICN, MONSTERS AND THE MIGHTY CLAN [DANGER]! - WOULD BE FARMED EVEN MORE MERCILESSLY, AS THEY NOW HAVE *ZERO* HOPE OF EVER LAUNCHING EVEN A SLIGHTLY PAINFUL REPRISAL ON THEIR TORMENTORS. HOW ON EARTH IS A NEW ALLIANCE EVER SUPPOSED TO SUCCEED, WHEN THEY'RE GUARANTEED TO BE FARMED INTO THE GROUND AND DENIED ANY CHANCE AT ALL FOR RETRIBUTION? IF SPECIAL ATTACKS CANNOT BE USED BY SMALL TAGS OR UNTAGGED PLAYERS, THEN THE LARGER TAGS SHOULD ALSO BE PROHIBITED FROM VISITING THEIR FORM OF AGGRESSION (LAND GRABS) ON THOSE PLAYERS.
I THINK MOST PLAYERS WHO ARE "SUICIDED" ON ARE CAPABLE OF SEVERELY LIMITING THE ABILITY OF THE "SUICIDER" TO DO WHAT HE DOES, IF NOT STOP HIM ENTIRELY. HOWEVER, EVERYONE TRIES TO RUN WITH MINIMAL MILITARY IN ORDER TO KEEP EXPENSES LOW. ITS A RISK, AND IT HAS A GREAT REWARD IF THE RISK TAKER DOESN'T GET HIT. IT IS BECAUSE OF THIS THAT I BELIEVE MOST "SUICIDERS" ARE IN SOME WAYS A FORCE FOR GOOD IN THIS GAME. IF IT WEREN'T FOR THE ABILITY OF PEOPLE TO TAKE A LITTLE VENGEANCE, WE'D HAVE NOTHING BUT A BUNCH OF 70K ACRE COUNTRIES RUNNING WITH 250K OF EACH MILITARY UNIT. THE EXISTENCE OF "SUICIDERS" HELPS TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS AT LEAST *SOME* RISK IN DOING SO. WITHOUT ANY POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES AT ALL FOR HIDING ALL OF YOUR PRODUCTION ON THE MARKET UNTIL THE LAST FEW DAYS OF THE RESET, WE'D HAVE A MUCH MORE STALE GAME HERE.
I KNOW I'M IN THE SEVERE MINORITY WITH CHOOSING AN ALL EXPLORE PLAYSTYLE, BUT CONSIDER ALSO THAT EVERY TIME YOU REDUCE OR ELIMINATE THE RISKS TO THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO GAIN THEIR LAND THROUGH AGGRESSION, YOU ARE FURTHER REDUCING OR ELIMINATING THE ABILITY OF MY SMALL MINORITY TO COMPETE ON THE NETGAINING FRONT. THE RISKS INCURRED BY THE GRABBER ARE THE ONLY THING WHICH MAKES A PEACEFUL PLAYSTYLE EVEN REMOTELY POSSIBLE.
Originally posted by Sov:
It is common knowledge that the restart changes were based off my suggestion, however in my submission to admins I never said that restarts should come back with 70% (or more) of what they had, but rather 20-30% of what they had plus 70% or more of what they had on the market. I believe preserving stock on the market does add a new element of strategy to warring. 70% of everything however is excessive and is easily exploitable. As most suiciders would not get the opportunity to stockpile in such a manner I believe my initial proposal was far more viable than what we have been presented with this set.
I THINK YOU'RE WRONG ON THE MARKET PART OF THIS ONE, SOV. DURING OUR WAR WITH LAF IN OUR INAUGURAL RESET, BILL AND I WERE RELEGATED TO FARM STATUS AS WE WERE NO LONGER VIEWED AS A THREAT. BECAUSE OF THAT, I WAS ABLE TO EASILY STOCKPILE FOOD ON THE MARKET, SELL IT JUST AFTER THE PEAK, AND USE THAT TO STEAL BILLIONS IN CASH AND FOOD FROM LAF PLAYERS. LAF WAS ABLE TO COUNTER THIS - AS THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN - BY SIMPLY KILLING MY COUNTRY AND ELMINATING THOSE ASSETS. IF I'D BEEN ABLE TO PROTECT ALL OF THAT ON THE MARKET AGAIN, I COULD HAVE EASILY REPEATED MY ACTIONS AT LEAST ONCE, IF NOT MORE TIMES. 70% IS JUST FAR TOO MUCH OF ANYTHING TO BE RETURNED TO THE DECEASED COUNTRY.
I FOR ONE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS IDEA GO AWAY OR AT LEAST BE DRASTICALLY REDUCED - EVEN THOUGH IT HAS HELPED US IN OUR WAR AGAINST TPA. IF IT IS GOING TO BE KEPT THOUGH, MAYBE THE LOST ASSETS, RATHER THAN BEING JUST VAPORIZED, SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE COUNTRY WHICH DID THE KILLING.
PERSONALLY, I LIKED THE RAMPING UP WHICH WAS PUT IN PLACE A FEW RESETS AGO. I KNOW IT RESULTED IN LONG KILL RUNS, BUT IT PROPERLY REWARDED PLAYERS FOR KEEPING REASONABLE AMOUNTS OF DEFENSE ON HAND. IF THE RAMPING UP CONCEPT WAS STILL IN PLACE, EN4CER COULD HAVE DRAMATICALLY REDUCED THE DAMAGE TO HIS COUNTRY JUST BY UPPING HIS MILITARY LEVELS SOME, WITHOUT HAVING TO KEEP THOSE LEVELS SO HIGH AS TO CRIPPLE HIS COUNTRY ECONOMICALLY.
I THINK I'M DONE WITH THIS POST NOW.. SORRY TO BE SO BRIEF AND UNDETAILED, BUT I JUST DON'T HAVE TIME FOR A LOT OF TYPING THIS EVENING. :)
HA!
SAM
HOMICIDER,
THE MIGHTY CLAN DANGER! [/quote]
The clan of Danger isnt here to grief people. There is a huge difference between suiciding and griefing. Griefers should be banned.
You made me break the quoting system :(