George Clooney
-
Posts
450 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by George Clooney
-
-
To begin with by virtue of such talks happening in a non public area (to not count what has been said on IRC in private) it's a conspiracy. Additionally you're correct, Sheepy was going after Princess Bubblegum not Arrgh.
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.
You can't really put the cat back in the bag once you've established yourself as a raiding alliance.
Arrgh had a tooth-kicking coming, but they also have a legitimate gripe about having their entire MO shifted out from under them.
My opinion, anyways. Have fun in your war, everyone.
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.
-
1
-
-
I suppose it's time to break radio silence for a moment.
Stayed out of this mostly thus far beyond my comment that I believed the changes were incorrect.
Anyway, Cobalt and NAC both went in on Arrgh some time ago. They lost, and lost big. However they at least played the game and you can respect them on that. The current coalition could have aided those two groups but for the most part didn't, waiting instead as they knew a magic rule change was inevitably coming to stack things in their favour. In the blame game ultimately the reason for Arrgh's bad position currently isn't itself, but the group who whined and moaned until Sheepy gave them what they want. However it is what it is, happened before and will likely happen again.
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.
No one has bigger tears than me, trust me folks. If I don't shed tears then there wasn't many tears shed. Where are all the tears from? Well not from the main victims of the attacks anyway, it was primarily from people who were intelligent enough to see a problem.
I will admit though I made a few loose comments here and there but I didn't commit myself to talking about it.
What big alliances? Give names. Everyone fighting Arrgh as far as I can see are alliances Arrgh has attacked for the last month or more.
Cobalt went on Arrgh during a war I recall, not exactly the best timing when half the world is burning. Not sure NAC went in on Arrgh but I could be wrong.
There may have being talk but it didn't happen.
Anyway you're utterly and completely wrong.
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.
It was obvious what the complaining for the game mechanics to be changed was for.
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.
-
1
-
-
This is much appreciated.
I disagree, moving it gradually would be tedious and likely create some problems with turns firing and whatnot. No one got a heads up about this change, if it benefits anyone more than anyone else it's sheer luck.
Somehow Sheepy, I don't think he works in IT.
-
Congrats on the promotion, Moonpie.
o/ VE
-
everybody here being rude to me are IRL conservatives in terminus est who have a long track record of internet-tough-guy-ism and absolutely terrible political opinions completely divorced from reality
except holton who is mad at me for exposing him as himself and also for other ooc disagreements we have
and dylan pascua who i don't really understand why he hates me but i've always thought he was stupid so i don't really care
oh and the guy who made his very first post on these forums a snarky remark @ me (i'm honored, really)
oh and the guy from gpa who literally had to retract his rude post because it wasn't neutral (LMAO)
point being, please don't let prefontaine and his band of merry idiots ruin an otherwise great thread
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.
-
2
-
-
When the test server was first annouced many months ago, I went and made 300m in cash and held 9 treasures. Please, don't assume that the test server is anything like the actual server we play on. The dynamics are totally different, not to mention people often get masses of resources and cash handed to them by Admin.
Those that 'try the game and don't like it' have zero bearing on me and my raids, as well as those 'super arrgh nations', to get in to our range, you'd need to be at least 3-4 months old. So once more, stop with the utter bullshit that our tactics of low score/strong military impacts on new players. It does not. It's the failing of the game from the off that causes the retention issues. It's the slow pace of the game, from starting an account to completing all you need to do in a day takes about 15 minutes, after the first day, it's 2 minutes. The game does not grab peoples attention.
It's not my responsibility to play the game for other peoples enjoyment. If they are not willing to seek the protection needed, then they deserve to be raided.
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.
-
Yes really, take Sheepys numbers as proof. Out of 35000 nations, only 4500 are still currently 'active' (which I assume means they have not been deleted from the database yet). 1962 nations have logged in at least once in the last week, I'll assume the new nations are included in the 'logged in at least once in a week' category. Which means from an 'active' player count of 4500 only 1485 returned to the game in a week. Out of 1485 only 550 bothered to log in today.
I wouldn't call that a thriving game. I would call it a game with serious retention issues. And of course the 'Yes' vote is larger, the changes only truly effect a small portion of the active, forum dwelling, player base.
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.
-
politics that actually matter like what? what should politics be over if not the game? who dislikes who in the private skype calls that 95% of the people here won't ever even know exist because they didn't play (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) 10 years ago?
some of these dumbass sycophants would probably kill their own grandmothers IRL if it meant staying on top in a browser game
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.
A thousand or so? You are overestimating the size and interest in this game!
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.
-
1
-
-
Yeah, this thread gives you all the information that you need. The neutrals and cowards love it, while the rest of us hate it.
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.
-
4
-
-
This forum is making my day today. I find it intensely amusing that you decided to use this argument against me. "they" have already "come for me". I fought against a triple attack from a raiding alliance. I ended up losing - mainly because I made a tactical/technical mistake involving when I should have rebuilt. Anyway, I am very familiar with it and I "had a nice day" while fighting.
Now, on to exploits. Your definition remains incorrect. Let me use an example: If there was a way in the game to buy and sell infra that allowed you to generate infinite income and you used it then that would be an exploit. This is differentiated from someone who brute forces an admin password - that is a hack. To use the "war" part of a game called "Politics and War" is not an exploit it is playing the game as it was meant to be played. It was coded and designed this way and the raiders are playing within both the mechanical rules and whatever nebulous "spirit" of the game that led the creator to include the name "War" in the title.
Anyway, the argument is basically over other than the shouting. Again, it is no longer just theoretically possible to stop the raiders, it has in fact been accomplished. So maybe you need to go figure out how that was done and do so yourself if you want to. Or maybe you find that the cost of doing so is outweighed by putting up with the raiders. Which is fine. You should go do that.
Coming to the game admin and complaining that life is not fair is probably the wrong answer though.
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.
-
"The normal flow of the game". Tell me more about this theory. In a player driven environment (which this is designed to be) the normal flow of the game is determined by the players. So it can only be "interrupted" by outside influence ie. random/disrupting acts of Admin. I would make an exception for this in the case of hacking/cheating. Playing in accordance with game mechanics is the opposite of an "exploit".
Again, obviously the player community is "willing to save itself" and did so just recently (you can read about it in these forums).
So no, change is not "necessary" if people decide to put up with raiders then that is their choice. It might even be the optimal choice (perspective I suppose).
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.
All some people will do is work out how to be effective within their playstyle regardless of game mechanics. Sheepy had already given us the mechanics to deal with the 'raider' playstyle, without the recent change (which didn't even come close to sorting out the 'problem'). People are either 1) not bright enough to figure it out or 2) not brave enough to implement it. Maybe even a bit of 3) not organised enough to carry it out...
Changing shit just moves the goalposts, it doesn't solve your 'problem'. Mechanics are not the problem, it's the mentality of the players that is the real issue.
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.
-
So yea lots of things changed. I got richer and am a war hugger. Meanwhile u let ur guys be this..
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.
-
Hmmm, I have not heard that. What I heard was a frustration at some changes that Sheepy made. I cannot actually quote the most colorful person because *language* but it boiled down to "Is this just going to be another game that Admin kills?" I guess we run in different circles. Regardless,any sample no matter how big is going to be self selecting in that they are available to be interviewed and are therefore not representative of the majority. So its basically a waste of time to talk about as anything meaningful in a larger sense.
"Major issues"? Really? The major issue, as you pointed out, was one for the players to fix. And while this thread was active someone came along and showed that it was an issue that could be fixed. A "major issue"would be one that the players cannot address no?
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:
It would be more fun for you and no one is stopping you and like minded people from playing the game that way. PnW is about choices and decisions. Limiting how people play, either via rules enforced or game mechanics is not the answer.
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.
-
You say that like you've taken a survey and didn't find anyone and the truth is you have taken no such survey. =)
The rest of your statement is correct though.
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.
-
Prove to me that players are getting "frustrated" and "quitting." You're taking a narrative that isn't true. Just because people say something doesn't mean it's true at all. I think we have the most nations we've ever had right now, and its been on the increase for awhile. So please, show me that it's hurting the game. If anything its making your game more active because the players they hit are inactives who come back after they see their nation getting beat down.
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.
-
1
-
-
They have their own allies and own leadership that can address the NAC situation.
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
Arrgh do lead in the raid boards it's true
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!
-
So my fault is because I do not like the infra bombing practice? Just because it's likely not going to happen to me a bad thing? See how I have (17 cities btw) and can easily sit on a nation and send them back even during the war I didn't? May make me a bad player but I am not a fan of the infra bombing tactic personally. Though against a handsome man such as yourself I could make an exception
I'd just nuke you. Slower but much more effective than missiles.
Nahh, a good raider picks their targets carefully and the more one sided the fight the better. But don't brag about how good you are at it or how merciful you are. You're pressing the 'Easy' button. As someone else said, a mechanics change and you're business model gets a whole lot less profitable. Let's see where you are in a few months.
-
1
-
-
While I love to nitpick at how you guys are going about it. I actually really like your point here.
Well, I know at least not to become inactive I suppose?
Maybe you should be nitpicking how someone with 10-13 cities, max air bases, and max aircraft at each of those bases ever actually runs into a target, active or inactive, that is able to run 5 days of air strikes against them.
-
o/ Alpha
o/ VEI like this.
Arrgh Instruments of Surrender
in Alliance Affairs
Posted
NAC hereby accepts the surrender of Arrgh.
o/ lasting peace between us