Tears of Pre

[Placentica]

lol Stevey Pre.  That ego is losing air bro.

[Prefonteen]

Very good Pre! Now that we've gotten this far. All that is left for you to recall is the part where you said you would not have joined had you not been assured.

Being fair to pre:

 

The guarantee given to test was that they would receive required assistance if countered. Hence my provision of the "an attack on test will be considered an attack on tS for the duration of this conflict". This was cross-checked with various allies to ensure that there would be willing counters in such a hypothetical.

 

The rest... deductions made and/or information received during ensuing (coalition) discussions.

 

I do believe panth was talked about too. Hazy on it tho.

Edited December 27, 2016 by Partisan

[Ogaden]

Being fair to pre:

 

The guarantee given to test was that they would receive required assistance if countered. Hence my provision of the "an attack on test will be considered an attack on tS for the duration of this conflict". This was cross-checked with various allies to ensure that there would be willing counters in such a hypothetical.

 

The rest... deductions made and/or information received during ensuing (coalition) discussions.

 

I do believe panth was talked about too. Hazy on it tho.

 

Can confirm such assurances are useful to have

[Kemal Ergenekon]

I am not as concerned about the mechanical consequences of the "resolution" employed by Alex in this issue. Yes, the postponement of the new spy system did make trading the sneak attack advantage for pre-emptively killing spies completely not worth it, but I am not certain the trade would be worth it even if Alex did not intervene and alter the rules in the middle of a war. I think others might disagree, but I for one am not bothered with the extra challenge this will mean for our side. We have been winning crushing victories for too long, and it is always fresh to have the potential of a real challenge.

 

However, I am extremely unhappy with how Alex was contacted, what his reaction was, and how he "resolved" the issue.

 

(1) Pre contacted Alex in private. It is obvious that this issue affected everyone and not just Pre and pals. So why not post this in the Game Discussions forum? Or the Closed Development Discussion if you are feeling particularly shy?

 

(2) Alex listened to Pre's complaints and decided to take unilateral action without listening to the other side. Why do this if you would feel uncomfortable about being called biased? If I was a game admin, I would try to distance myself from my players, and give everyone equal attention. I would require the complaints about game mechanics to be posted in public so that the other side can also present their arguments against the change. That's common sense.

 

(3) Regardless of whether Pre's complaints had merit or not, this is yet another change of the system after the players have already taken the rules as given, and acted accordingly. Yes, it is good to change the game systems to have a better and fresh game, but there is also a need for continuity and stability. Everyone invests into the game with the expectation that things will stay more or less the same at least in the short run. If people do an operation assuming the game rules will stay as is for 5 days, and you change them in that short of a time frame, that means you are just changing the rules of the game to create winners and losers out of your player base.

 

The correct course of action here would be to acknowledge that this game mechanic was there for everyone to use, so the rules should not be changed after people have made irrecoverable investments. This is not a solitary event -- we encountered this in the treasure debacle as well -- the duration was changed after the new treasures were spawned instead of announcing it in advance.

 

Unfortunately virtually all of the recent changes have been to the disadvantage of the side that has less personal contact with Alex. So there is a legitimate concern regarding whether admin interventions are biased to favor one side over the other. We even had the unfortunate sentence in which Alex admitted that he wanted to change the current alliance structure. This is just bad administration regardless of the mechanical consequences of this latest decision.

[James II]

Being fair to pre:

 

The guarantee given to test was that they would receive required assistance if countered. Hence my provision of the "an attack on test will be considered an attack on tS for the duration of this conflict". This was cross-checked with various allies to ensure that there would be willing counters in such a hypothetical.

 

The rest... deductions made and/or information received during ensuing (coalition) discussions.

 

I do believe panth was talked about too. Hazy on it tho.

I'm not arguing that Pre was given assurances. Pre made the claim that hitting Alpha then was a risky move for TEst. I'm simply suggesting that claim is false because of what Pre said: "We wouldn't have hit you had we not been assured Pantheon would come in." 

 

I'm not arguing who gave guarantees because I don't know what guarantees he was given. I'm arguing he didn't make a risky move, and that the excerpt "We wouldn't have hit you if..." suggests he was unwilling to do anything unless TEst had it easy.

[Prefontaine]

I am not as concerned about the mechanical consequences of the "resolution" employed by Alex in this issue. Yes, the postponement of the new spy system did make trading the sneak attack advantage for pre-emptively killing spies completely not worth it, but I am not certain the trade would be worth it even if Alex did not intervene and alter the rules in the middle of a war. I think others might disagree, but I for one am not bothered with the extra challenge this will mean for our side. We have been winning crushing victories for too long, and it is always fresh to have the potential of a real challenge.

 

However, I am extremely unhappy with how Alex was contacted, what his reaction was, and how he "resolved" the issue.

 

(1) Pre contacted Alex in private. It is obvious that this issue affected everyone and not just Pre and pals. So why not post this in the Game Discussions forum? Or the Closed Development Discussion if you are feeling particularly shy?

 

(2) Alex listened to Pre's complaints and decided to take unilateral action without listening to the other side. Why do this if you would feel uncomfortable about being called biased? If I was a game admin, I would try to distance myself from my players, and give everyone equal attention. I would require the complaints about game mechanics to be posted in public so that the other side can also present their arguments against the change. That's common sense.

 

(3) Regardless of whether Pre's complaints had merit or not, this is yet another change of the system after the players have already taken the rules as given, and acted accordingly. Yes, it is good to change the game systems to have a better and fresh game, but there is also a need for continuity and stability. Everyone invests into the game with the expectation that things will stay more or less the same at least in the short run. If people do an operation assuming the game rules will stay as is for 5 days, and you change them in that short of a time frame, that means you are just changing the rules of the game to create winners and losers out of your player base.

 

The correct course of action here would be to acknowledge that this game mechanic was there for everyone to use, so the rules should not be changed after people have made irrecoverable investments. This is not a solitary event -- we encountered this in the treasure debacle as well -- the duration was changed after the new treasures were spawned instead of announcing it in advance.

 

Unfortunately virtually all of the recent changes have been to the disadvantage of the side that has less personal contact with Alex. So there is a legitimate concern regarding whether admin interventions are biased to favor one side over the other. We even had the unfortunate sentence in which Alex admitted that he wanted to change the current alliance structure. This is just bad administration regardless of the mechanical consequences of this latest decision.

Actually Alex contacted me first asking me my thoughts about the update as I usually publicly shit all over his ideas. During that is when the topic of people exploiting the rollout came up. I contacted him when someone exploited the rollout for gain. I had even reached out to TKR about it ahead of time and at which point as Sheepy said, he was flooded with messages about people asking/complaining about the spying situation. Alex listened to your side, your side had lots of voices, he just decided you were wrong. Just because he didn't think you were right doesn't mean he didn't listen.

 

If you're worried about your side not having contact with Alex, then PM him. Talk to him. I am one of the people he butts heads with the most. Him and I have been so at odds I got banned at one point. Claiming Sheepy gives me special treatment in a positive manner is laughable. To use your own argument, it's a mechanic anyone can use. No ones stopping you from talking with Sheepy.

[Ogaden]

Jesus christ this is still going on?

[Prefontaine]

Jesus christ this is still going on?

Well, the war is boring so they have to find some form of entertainment.

[Spooner]

And it sure ain't in this new war module, eyo~~~

#AlexRekt

[Spooner]

To use your own argument, it's a mechanic anyone can use.

 

I don't think that playing the admin should be considered a game mechanic.

 

I also don't think that blowing my supervisor should be a valid criteria for job advancement even thought anyone can do it.

[Prefontaine]

I don't think that playing the admin should be considered a game mechanic.

 

I also don't think that blowing my supervisor should be a valid criteria for job advancement even thought anyone can do it.

Anyone is free to put time and effort into making suggestions for the game. Anyome is free to putting time and effort into making yourself a member of the community whom speaks with moderation or the admin. It's the same argument your side is trying to use to defend your actions, it's entirely applicable here. GJ, ya done played yourselves. Edited December 28, 2016 by Prefontaine

[Spooner]

Anyone is free to put time and effort into satisfying their supervisor.

 

But in all seriousness, you see how that argument is flawed, right? Yeah -- we post in the Game Suggestions forum or whatever, and maybe our ideas are considered for longterm changes. You, however, personally contacted Alex in response to being attacked by spies. The two are completely different.

[Prefontaine]

Anyone is free to put time and effort into satisfying their supervisor.

 

But in all seriousness, you see how that argument is flawed, right? Yeah -- we post in the Game Suggestions forum or whatever, and maybe our ideas are considered for longterm changes. You, however, personally contacted Alex in response to being attacked by spies. The two are completely different.

Your side personally contact him as well. Not different at all.

[Prefontaine]

This is actually hilarious. The defense of your action is that anyone could have done it thus it's not an advantage/exploit. Guess what, anyone could have done what I did. Lets say for arguments sake your claims of me getting special treatment are correct, anyone could have cultivated whatever circumstances lead to my special treatment, so it's not an advantage/exploit. Hahahaha oh man, this is great. Thanks so much <3

 

Let's expand on this.

 

Let's say you're right in the defense of your action. Anyone could have done it which makes your action right and not an exploit. Anyone could have done what I did. Regardless of if you view it as right or wrong, by your own defense since anyone could have done i, it's fine not an exploit, not an advantage.

 

Let's say you're wrong, what you did was an exploit. My action was spawned from players exploiting and the appropriate action is to alert the admin.

 

GG. No Re. *drops mic. Leaves thread*

Edited December 28, 2016 by Prefontaine

[BeachBunny]

He'll be back...

[Ogaden]

anyone could have done submarine warfare, that didn't stop Sheepy from nerfing us 4 times

[Buorhann]

anyone could have done submarine warfare, that didn't stop Sheepy from nerfing us 4 times

 

 

And we agree.

 

EDIT:

 

To be fair, that's one of the issues I have with the changes during a war or even drastic changes.  It doesn't give time for other alliances to learn/catch up.  It's a band-aid that constantly keeps getting ripped off then reapplied.

Edited December 28, 2016 by Buorhann

[Spooner]

>Using Stefan Molyneux memes on me.

 

&#33;@#&#036;, don't even front. MENSA's ancaps will beat Lordaeron's ancaps any day of the week.

[LordRahl2]

Pre is right that anyone cound have gone crying to admin. What is not right is a) that someone who knows better did and that admin listened.

 

Expecting announced game mechanics to stay constant, at least in the short term, should not be a question -it should be a given. Alex's youth and inexperience mean it is not. You, pre, should have maintained your previous moral highgound. Instead you took the low road.

[Delyruin]

MFW I read this thread:

 

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Actually Alex contacted me first asking me my thoughts about the update as I usually publicly shit all over his ideas. During that is when the topic of people exploiting the rollout came up. I contacted him when someone exploited the rollout for gain. I had even reached out to TKR about it ahead of time and at which point as Sheepy said, he was flooded with messages about people asking/complaining about the spying situation. Alex listened to your side, your side had lots of voices, he just decided you were wrong. Just because he didn't think you were right doesn't mean he didn't listen.

 

If you're worried about your side not having contact with Alex, then PM him. Talk to him. I am one of the people he butts heads with the most. Him and I have been so at odds I got banned at one point. Claiming Sheepy gives me special treatment in a positive manner is laughable. To use your own argument, it's a mechanic anyone can use. No ones stopping you from talking with Sheepy.

 

Pre. you can be clever when you want to. Don't type stupid stuff please.

 

First of all, what our side has used is by definition not an exploit in the sense you are using. There are two different definitions of the word exploit:

 

1. to utilize, especially for profit; turn to practical account:

Example: to exploit a business opportunity.

 

2. to use selfishly for one's own ends:

Example: employers who exploit their workers.

 

The first one is to make use of an opportunity, the second is to use something in a malicious way to derive benefits illegally or unethically. When people talk of an exploit in an online game, it is stuff like acquiring free resources or having access to information they shouldn't have. What has happened is nothing of the sort. Alex announced a change. He was very clear. Everyone knew the wars could not be declared for a given time period. Everyone knew that the spy ops were unrestricted. Would it make sense to restrict spy ops? Probably. But they were not, and everyone knew this to be a fact. Given all the facts, your opposing side decided to utilize the game mechanics implied by the announcement and used it for an advantage. The advantage is not unfair, not unethical, or an "exploit" in the sense you are using. It is just using the game mechanics for advantage -- something which all of us do all the time. Are you "exploiting" planes when you build planes to destroy the tanks of your opponent? Yes, but in the first sense: you are utilizing the planes (exploit definition 1).

 

You are trying to frame this as an exploit whereas it is just the logical consequences of a particular game mechanics change announced ahead of time and which everyone is aware of. I would advise against distorting the truth to support your own narrative and alliance. That's the only unethical behavior going on here.

 

As for your pathetic suggestion about contacting Alex in private: sorry, we will continue not doing that because that is the very definition of unethical and cowardly behavior. When we have a problem, we post about it in public, because doing otherwise is exploiting (in the second, malicious sense) your personal relationship with the admin of the game for personal advantage. There is no world where any self-respecting individual would find that kosher. In the real world, there are all sorts of rules and laws just to prevent such collusive behavior and favoritism. 

[Kemal Ergenekon]

tl;dr: Pre would consider sleeping with the boss for a promotion ethical because anyone can do that. It's not an exploit.

[Keegoz]

Looking at this, seems pretty hypocritical for Mensa to go after this so hard because if memory serves me correctly. When NPO sent its bank to a small beiged nation (Which was entirely within the rules to do so from memory) they complained a lot about it and action was taken immediately against NPO. Not too different situation really, completely within the rules albeit unsportsmanlike.

 

So yeah, if that is the case cry me a river. Otherwise I'll be happy to be stand corrected.

[Beatrix]

Looking at this, seems pretty hypocritical for Mensa to go after this so hard because if memory serves me correctly. When NPO sent its bank to a small beiged nation (Which was entirely within the rules to do so from memory) they complained a lot about it and action was taken immediately against NPO. Not too different situation really, completely within the rules albeit unsportsmanlike.

 

So yeah, if that is the case cry me a river. Otherwise I'll be happy to be stand corrected.

 

You can complain about it without asking for all the money to be transferred to you. I'm not sure what happened in the NPO, but the 'complains' are mostly in the form of compensation - being able to buy all spies back, rolling back the server, extending spy changes and so on.

[Phiney]

Jesus Christ. Alex posted publicly asking for opinions and suggestions kemal. It really does seem you're being a moron on that point. In what world is that not listening to both sides. It was on like page 8 or something he made his decision. And it wasn't what pre suggested.