George Clooney

Every forum has to have a Methrage. I think it's a U.N. resolution or something. Hereno is that for Orbis.

We are indeed clear on the specifics. What I'm not clear on why this treaty is even remotely controversial. Arrgh has a lot of things to worry about now that don't include a somewhat reduced menu selection.

Look on the bright side, since they won't be raiding the listed alliances, they are now freer to raid yours. Be sure to hail them each time.

NAC hereby accepts the surrender of Arrgh. o/ lasting peace between us

Sorry no, if you are trying to rationalize Arrgh aggression, whether people were talking or not, whether there was spying or not, after all the shit they've pulled over the past several months, I'm going to need more absorbent undergarments. I pretty much agree with you save the point about their MO. It still works. Nothing prevents anyone from running max mil and low infra and "living off the land". What's broken is people's willingness to put up with it from Arrgh.

I suppose it's time to break radio silence for a moment. The only time that NAC went in on a first strike prior to very recently was a brief engagement during a coalition war when members of NAC attacked Arrgh in conjunction with a VE war declaration against Arrgh. That was a very long time ago when NAC was still a VE protectorate. VE asked NAC to back off, so we did. Very other engagement was the result of an Arrgh nation(s) attacking a member(s) of NAC. Perhaps Arrgh would like to spin it another way (or perhaps you would), but reality is reality. NAC has lost a lot of infra, and even a couple of members along the way, but we're still here. NAC is currently engaged in hostilities with Arrgh per its treaty with UPN, more than one clause of which applies. I believe that someone from Arrgh said it best when they said that, "you should adapt your style to fit the conditions of the game", or words to that effect. The rule change doesn't prohibit anyone particularly from making a "living" as a raider. Please, off that topic. The last major round (and there were actually three parts if you include the PP portion) with Arrgh occurred when Arrgh attacked NAC as its wars during the 168 Day War were winding down against SK and TKP. In fact we were more or less fighting on the same side of the coalition war prior to Arrgh peacing out and then attacking NAC. You seem to have this huge conspiracy theory going on where Sheepy conspired with players to "get Arrgh", or the moment the mechanics changed we suddenly hastily assembled to plan our revenge, and it's just bullshit. Any talk of getting Arrgh under control would have been going on irrespective of game mechanics. Indeed I was pretty much resigned to taking the long view and making NAC more like Sparta, nuked up and a particularly nasty target you never profited in raiding. Again, give it a rest.

This is much appreciated. Somehow Sheepy, I don't think he works in IT.

Congrats on the promotion, Moonpie. o/ VE

Your OP is factually incorrect on a number of points, you whine for a bit, insult the admin of the game, and then finally get to the point, which is you are starting a new alliance. A few of your friends clicked the 'like' button. Of course your critics came out to make an appearance. Yeah, great thread. Here is how it really is. After the rule change people will continue to raid, some will make nice incomes from it, and a year or two from now you'll look back on this time and tell tales like people in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) used to talk about \m/ or Athens or Mushroom Kingdom about how you were gods walking the earth and the rest of us had the privilege of knowing you. But if Arrgh is no longer a thing by then, it will be 100% on Arrgh, not Sheepy, and not your critics. In the meantime, get some ointment for that butthurt.

Creating a nation to raid for a bit isn't brain surgery, and the results are universal, whatever you want to think. The hypothesis was, "the proposed changes don't severely hamper raiding". My testing proved the hypothesis correct. Obviously the much more limited number of potential targets on test means at some point I'll probably run out of targets if I choose not to raid people over and over again, but on the production server I won't run into the problem for a very long time if ever. I didn't suggest your tactics have an impact on new players, just player retention generally insofar as some of your people raid and re-raid targets. Also, your members are FAR from the only people re-raiding people. "Farming" is destructive to the game, at whatever the score level. You now have a richer neighborhood to plunder with the score increases, Smile.

Ok, then how about this. I actually went out and rolled up a nation on the Test server, engaged in what I would consider a conservative raiding schedule (1 nation or so a day), and even with the changes that Sheepy listed in the OP, I'm making millions. So assuming that the changes do make it into the Production server (and I see no reason why not), I think you'll be ok. With the understanding that there will always be people who try the game, don't like it/decide it takes too much time and leave due to no fault of anyone in particular, retention issues can be caused by a number of things, some in Sheepy's control, some not. I'd say he's done an outstanding job so far addressing the things he can control. In the realm of things outside his control and in the area of player issues, raiding the same people over and over certainly doesn't help player retention and if you are seriously concerned about player retention and the health of the game, you wouldn't engage in the practice. The trade off is that there will be more people for everyone to raid, since the raid targets are less liable to rage quit. Something to think about.

I can't fix people, I can only try to play what amounts to a really sophisticated version of Diplomacy Online (this ain't Skyrim people) and hope that others are down with that. If they aren't and they become obnoxious enough, I'll go find something else to do and they can choke on the trophy they won for killing a game. I've heard enough stories about (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) to know that the player community is its own worst enemy, and the admin there lost control of his game years ago through neglect and trusting the wrong people. The fact that he hasn't just shut it down is more a testament to the cynical exploitation of people who shell out $30 a month (and more in some cases) than anything else. Not really. That's less than a quarter of the players now playing, and that number of growing. Even if it is actually a bit less (and from the comments above, it's more), the fact is that if it comes down to a popularity contest as to whether or not the changes Sheepy has proposed actually get implemented, the 'yes' vote is far larger than the 'no' vote. It's not even close.

More like a couple hundred players hate it, the vast majority don't understand the problem or don't have an opinion (until they are raided repeatedly), and a thousand or so would rather have large alliance wars and politics that actually matter. But I guess if you want to call people who disagree with you "neutrals and cowards", that is your opinion.

This needs more bumpage.

Wouldn't it be cool if people didn't treat this part of the forums as an extension of IC politics? I'll pledge to give things on Test a try and give honest feedback, not feedback slanted to favor my alliance or any other, whatever their raiding policy.

We disagree on the definition of basic terms. I don't see is much point in arguing further. Yours is an opinion, not a statement of fact. I have a different one. There are multiple ways in theory to deal with the situation, most involve treating the game like a third world country where you pay the bandits for safe passage and move on, and that seems to be the method that most have for dealing with it. As for your final observation, this is a part of the forum where players are allowed to post suggestions and give their justifications for those suggestions. If you would rather think that some/all justifications are "complaining" and annoying to you, then you are under no obligation to read the suggestions or the justifications.

You're wrong on exploits, because your definition doesn't allow for things that are "legal" but not within the spirit of the game or the game rules. It's ok though, you'll figure it out when they come for you. Have a nice day. People are 3) not organized enough to carry it out, mainly because they are too busy watching enemies burn or hoping they aren't next (or both) to figure out that once their enemies are gone, you'll go after them next. Or delete. Given what you are doing, you have to raid constantly to avoid bill lock. I guess at this point I'm wondering what else can be done to save the players from themselves. Could be the answer is 'nothing' in which case I'm not seeing a whole lot to stick around for to be honest. Being part of a large alliance is absolutely no protection as is currently being demonstrated, so medium to small alliance are just sitting around waiting to be farmed.

I don't actually control what individual players may or may not do while they sit in front of their browser. All I can tell you is that he didn't ask my permission. Enjoy your wars, there's no one really trying to stop you.

While I believe that the player community can solve the current problem, the fact remains that the solution will disrupt the normal flow of the game. Of course every game exploit (legal or illegal) is not particularly a problem so long as it isn't affecting you at the moment or you are taking advantage of it. In fact, if you are taking advantage of it, you make speeches like this one: There are of course already limits on how people play, whether it is a limit on the number aircraft you can buy (which is an element of realism) or the range of nations you can declare war on (not realistic, but done for purposes of playability). I don't envy Sheepy's position at all. If I were him though, the latest tweak hasn't produced the results he was seeking, and if the player community is unwilling to "save itself", then further tweaks may eventually be necessary. To answer my own question from before, the difference is that the Beta and Speed rounds had nations with fewer cities and there was still a lot of nation strength adjustments being made. Maybe it's as simple as giving more weight in terms of nation strength to cities and military. Or maybe that just makes the sharks bigger and now they prey on larger fish. Whatever the case, change, whether it is introduced by the players or Sheepy, is necessary.

Qualitative data versus quantitative data, in this case interviews with actual players and observation. To quote one of them, "our guys and myself are really getting tired of spending 50 real dollars a month on coins just to watch them get blown up." Sample size isn't as large as I would like yet, but based on what I've gathered so far, I am confident in asserting that some things have to change around here or Sheepy's bottom line is going to suffer. Pity. What I don't get though is that we managed to go through an entire beta round, an entire speed round, and when we enter the 'production' environment we only made a year and a half before we started having a major issues.

You say that like you've taken a survey and didn't find anyone and the truth is you have taken no such survey and are talking out your ass. The game is growing in numbers in spite of the raiding, not because of it. That said, the current situation is player problem, not a problem that Sheepy can do too much more about without neutering the game. If players are tired of all the raiding, then those that are need to do something about beyond complaining. If nothing else, heck, last I checked, raiding alliances with full military improvements and negative incomes don't have much in the way of resource generation capability. If everyone simply used the game mechanic in trades to boycott raiders and raiding alliances, the raiders would have a more difficult time staying in business. There are also other tactics that can be employed to limit the income of raiders without firing shot, use those, be proactive.

Now that Arrgh has attacked VE and Rose, there are new players on the field. The war therefore continues. Sorry we couldn't be more help, Pref. Best of luck to you and yours.

NAC joins with TEst in hoping that someone gets Jacob a god damn bowl of cereal. Also a nice toy prize. Not the cheap cardboard ones, but the cool plastic ones that shoot paperwads and stuff. Like Prefontaine, I'd love to move on, but yeah. This again. Also, would someone tell Jacob I am not his neglectful father that was always out playing space smuggler because I didn't want to deal with my failed marriage to his mother. That is Harrison Ford. Harrison is a great guy, a lot older than me, and probably not his father either, especially given that Harrison is an actor and happily married to someone else and well, was only playing the part of a space smuggler in a movie. So Jacob, don't try to kill him for bonus Sith points or whatever, please? tl;dr: SSDD, and NAC supports TEst in their ongoing struggle with Arrgh.

They also lead in the emasculation of major alliances board, though that one is less well known and less frequented.

Thank you for your testimonial!