Best fix ever for low level raiders

[Wayne]

Let me put it like this then; PW would be a much more fun and interesting game if most players actively RP'd like serious national leaders, than if most players behaved like 14 year old's spewing memes.

 

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.

[George Clooney]

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.

[LordRahl2]

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:

 

 

"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).

[Wayne]

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.

Edited March 12, 2016 by Wayne

[Ayayay]

Let me put it like this then; PW would be a much more fun and interesting game if most players actively RP'd like serious national leaders, than if most players behaved like 14 year old's spewing memes.

BK has gained a Diplomatic Insult Casus Belli

[George Clooney]

"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.

[----]

Let me put it like this then; PW would be a much more fun and interesting game if most players actively RP'd like serious national leaders, than if most players behaved like 14 year old's spewing memes.

He is right. If you need silly internet humour, go elsewhere. 

[Areton Chashul]

He is right. If you need silly internet humour, go elsewhere. 

 

 

Are you calling out BK?

[----]

Are you calling out BK?

No I am not. I am merely commenting on the general replacement of political role-play with inane internet humour.

[Dan77]

No I am not. I am merely commenting on the general replacement of political role-play with inane internet humour.

 

[Ayayay]

No I am not. I am merely commenting on the general replacement of political role-play with inane internet humour.

[Wayne]

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.

 

This is where game choices come in to it.  Which is always good for the game.  Do you, as a group (alliance), forgo the economic benefits of a no Military build for the safety and benefits (not being raided, being able to help teammates/allies at a moments notice) of having a large standing army?  Do the costs of being raided and rebuilding outweigh the costs of having an army on standby?  It isn't the games problem, it's only a problem for the players and alliances that can not or will not adapt.

 

 

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.

Who do you wish to save?  The souls of the guys raiding or the save the guys being raidied from leaving the game...  neither need saving.  Most browser games in which you can attack each other are 'survial of the fittest'.  Maybe the problem is with the leaders of these 'large' alliances and how they run them?  Having a buttload of inactives (tax farming) and pretty much zero armies in the alliance will always attract people such as me.  There are numerous ways an alliance can protect themselves from raids, if leaders aren't prepared to implement changes then that is where politics come into it.  Get rid of them and install people that are prepared to minimise the temptation of raiders targeting them.

 

I'll take my old alliance Mensa as an example.  Very few raids are conducted on Mensa, this is for a various amount of reasons, but namely it's due to knowing what the outcome would be.  When I mistakenly hit Cornerstone, although lacking in substance, the reaction makes me check and think twice before raiding them.  Simple things, implemented on the alliance wide scale can go along way in protecting you and your alliance.  If you, as a leader, are not not prepared or willing to put the effort in, maybe you are not fit to lead.

[LordRahl2]

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.  

 

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.

[Spooner]

Sheepy -- if you revert the changes on the test server & let us know we can show you how it would be rather easy to defeat a raiding force using the previous strategy using an *iota* of organization.

[George Clooney]

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. 

Edited March 15, 2016 by George Clooney

[Spooner]

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.

 

Both developed and third-world countries pay for protection. You're just spouting rhetoric now mate.