ghostrider
Lieutenant
Reged: 03/26/10
Posts: 522
|
arguements and discussions of the past
#163165 - 01/01/12 10:56 PM (70.173.25.223)
|
|
|
Thought i would start a thread that deals with this, so we dont threadjack any of the other ones.
Some of old nev would be great to use as a base for the new one.
There are some things that should never see the light of day again.
Cancel wars. Then all the 'pvp' people that want combat can arrange it where they can take a batt on batt anywhere in the game and not have to destroy someones empires. Yeah, im stupid into thinking people want combat instead of destroying someone elses empire.
Bring back pirates. More combat that doesnt require destroying someones empires.. not a good thing.
Theres more stuff but cannt think of it at the moment.
|
Maghetti123
Sergeant Major
Reged: 05/01/04
Posts: 203
|
Re: arguements and discussions of the past
[Re: ghostrider]
#163169 - 01/02/12 01:02 AM (184.1.118.183)
|
|
|
This is just so sad to me. You really don't want to fight other players at all. I don't want to be all "raaa kill and destroy everything!" but the game is build more than anything on the foundation of killing other empires. If you do not want empires to be killed, stop playing. Just stop.
I like destroying empires because I consider these larger military campaigns. Say I am at war with alliance X. We are in a conflict and my goal is to defeat alliance X. The only way to do that is to taken down their empires. Whether it be their production ability, their research ability, their income, or their bv, my goal is to make them unable to win. These sorts of conflicts in entirely what I live for in this game.
The flaw you are making is thinking of empires as permanent. You want to build and build and be fine. That is dumb. One of the problems in neveron today, one that makes what I want more difficult, is that rebuilding is so much harder than it used to be. I want CHEAP infra building and markets. I want wars and fighting to be less destructive. When someone comes and knocks over your lvl 7 it would be nice if it could get back to where it was before in a month or two, or whatever.
I think I have you finally figured out ghostrider. You keep assuming your opponents in these discussions are out to greedily kill everything because you yourself are trying to force the game to be less about player vs player and more about build, mine, and kill ai. You assume because you are greedily pushing this view than so must we be greedily pushing what we want. No.
What I want is a dynamic and freer nev. What does that mean? It means everyone can do the thing they want. Raider empires can raid. People who like arenas can fight in arenas. People who like to research can research. People who like to fight pirate ai can fight pirate ai. Anyone can choose to be an infra farm, a war empire, whatever they want. But people need the ABILITY to do these things. You want to be left alone and you are willing to kill the game for potentially 1000s of people because of it.
If you make recovery and building MUCH EASIER and OPEN WARFARE up then everyone gets what they want. You need to stop thinking of your empires as permanent. Empires will be killed sometime. Mine will, yours will, everyones will. So long as recovery and growth is cheap, than you can either accept that sometimes you will be attacked or you can stop playing.
|
Maghetti123
Sergeant Major
Reged: 05/01/04
Posts: 203
|
Re: arguements and discussions of the past
[Re: Maghetti123]
#163170 - 01/02/12 01:07 AM (184.1.118.183)
|
|
|
I should also add that the reason war needs opened up and pushed more and more is because neveron is an inflationary game. Things grow, we constantly have more money and resources. We need things to freaking die or the game becomes bloated. If we dump the surplus into buying new units, infra, mob costs, etc than the game is better overall. Again, you should be perfectly free to fight your silly little pirates and all the things you do, but war is necessary and a defining aspect to this game.
|
ghostrider
Lieutenant
Reged: 03/26/10
Posts: 522
|
Re: arguements and discussions of the past
[Re: Maghetti123]
#163172 - 01/02/12 02:01 AM (70.173.25.223)
|
|
|
Rebuilding has been touched elsewhere but I will restate what i said. It should be alot easier to rebuild after a war. Problem people have is with rebuilding easier, so is normal building. I dont have much of an issue with that either. I can see where limiting the amount of high end empires helps with server space and speed.
I may be assuming people are ready to greedily eat up empires, especially if they think there is dp toys involved. I have seen it happen and dont want it to return. In a way, yes, i would like to be assured that if I make a few 1k zones with dp, i will have them more then a day or two. same with dp only mechs. It seems if you arent established, dping anything is a waste. It is very possible the major buttheads that I seen are gone. Not sure, because i stayed out of chat the first 2-3 years.
Now as for potentially killing the game for 1000s. That is very true for people finding out that something with 100 times your little bv can drop on a moments notice, or worse, right after a nasty battle, is not only possible, but is happening. This also goes for a lot of the old tricks that were used.
Opening up warfare would happen if you balance things more then what they are. No walls. No tents. No worries about how bad everyone around you is gonna get screwed if you hit the wrong person. Skills need to be capped at a closer level.
Yes, killing empires you are at war with is very desirable. Killing empires because your bored and they cannt fight back is good, if you are the one doing the killing.
as for player vs player. Why do people want wars over quickly if they want pvp? killing them quickly means you want it over BEFORE anyone can respond. For some of us, we didnt have years of killing pirates to help hone our skills, or help build our forces. We started in the cannt hit this or that, but they can hit you and you have to take it enviroment.
now the example of the level 7. not everyone a stable full of waiting skilled units. Even finding buildables that you can use is a pain. Its even worse when you dont have help finding them or being funded. And alot of times, once you start the fall, the vultures continue to come until the empire is extremely screwed up.
But yes. I want to be assured that when i log in tomarrow, my empires arent completely gutted. I want to know I stand a slight chance at defeating the opponent, not just running around hoping they get bored and leave me alive.
War is needed, but so is a chance to defeat the opponent. That is where the fun is. Not having it so one sided that you may as well just make all your units stand still to get it over with.
|
Maghetti123
Sergeant Major
Reged: 05/01/04
Posts: 203
|
Re: arguements and discussions of the past
[Re: ghostrider]
#163173 - 01/02/12 02:30 AM (184.1.118.183)
|
|
|
1. Everyone agrees on making building and rebuilding easier. There are much better ways of making the game run smoother than removing high level empires. Neveron used to have way more big empires and the lag was hardly worse than it is now. Nev has other problems.
2. Eating up empires is greedy, trying to make the rules work in your favor and not the games favor is, and that isn't what people on this forum are doing.
3. New players should not donate, at least, not for the stuff the vets do. I would never advice a new player to buy their own rhino because if you don't know how to use it and your enemy does OF COURSE you're going to get killed. New players need cheap stuff. Light mechs and tanks mostly. The person I saw do this the best was my alliance member Marauder. His first empires were bad. They were a pile of random units thrown together that he used to attack and often lose. He got better and better, more refined each time. When his cheap stuff died he got a new army. Over time he got to the point where handling dp mechs was perfectly fine to do. This is what noobs should do, NOT dping 1k buildables and dp mechs, that stuff will just die. This is why we need good donation options for noobs, like income boosts, etc.
4. You mistook my words here. I said you were trying to ruin the game for 1000s by keeping war this slow grinding process, by supporting stagnation. And you do, as far as I can tell, support things that mean you don't ever get killed. Getting killed isn't so bad, especially if you do what marauder did and use units you can afford to lose. And as I already said, limiting or removing the ability for big empires to drop on small empires is a thing worth doing, not sure why you bring it up again as if I oppose this.
5. I agree on the walls and the tents, etc but you should be screwed if you hit the wrong person. That is apart of the dynamics of neveron. Some empires can freaking kill you. Some alliances can freaking kill you. It is called politics. This should not be removed it should be encouraged. No one wants to lose empires, but suck it up. We all do sometimes. Even the scary vets lose sometimes. If someone looks at a empire as a car or a home and when it is destroyed they are suddenly boned, well that isn't the way to look at it. Empires can rise and fall. Less so in current nev but it is still the case. You make building and rebuilding cheaper than there is no good reason to complain about losing a war.
6. This is just you misunderstanding. Once again, it has nothing to do with wars ending quickly. Stop saying this, no one is saying it but you. The claim is that siege warfare is boring. Do you want a huge aspect of the game to be boring? I know I don't. I want war to be more fun. All these walls and tents and cores are literally designed to make people not consider them worth the effort because it would be so boring. I guarantee you I can kill even the toughest of cored out tented annoying empires, but at a high cost on both sides, and much worse, a huge commitment of hours. I have been in multiple week long sieges of one city because it can't be broken with the hours committed by the attacker. It sucks. Remember, I want speed bumps to come back, and better options for CFs. I want people to fight actively on both sides of conflicts, but I want those fights to be enjoyable and dynamic.
7. It is very easy to have spare pilots. You have training facilities, 25cf towers, and geckos, etc. The only reason this is a problem at all is because of the skillups program. You used to have lots of pilots. And this claim that buildables are hard to find just isn't true. Maybe it is hard to find very large cities, but you can definitely find buildables. I have found so many 600+ buildables by accident, even in small empires, it isn't even funny.
8. This is the point you may be the most wrong on. Tent cities, cores, and walls favor the strong, not the weak. JackDaniels is a murder machine. It has very powerful offense, but it also has near unbeatable defenses. Because it is cored and walled it can afford to have weaker defenses focused only on stopping the limited methods of attack that can be executed against them. SP is very important to consider. If an empire ties up all its SP in mechs and snipers it will have a very powerful offense. It should be that this will give him a very weak defense, allowing weaker empires to counter attack and turn the tables against the attacker. You cannot do this to JackDaniels. The empire has no weaknesses. Your offensive wil do nothing and ultimately that empire will crack your defenses. Opening up warfare favors everyone, even the weak.
|
Katrar
Major
Reged: 09/15/02
Posts: 1314
Loc: Seattle, WA USA, Terra
|
Re: arguements and discussions of the past
[Re: ghostrider]
#163174 - 01/02/12 02:41 AM (76.28.186.150)
|
|
|
There is just no arguing with a player who wants assurances their empire will never be harmed.
Ultimately two types of people play this game. Those who rage when someone scratches the paint on their mech, and those who wipe away that single tear and climb back into a new mech or empire.
Ghostrider, that you seriously believe everyone here wants only whats best for ourselves is... offensive is the best word I can think of at the moment.
Maghetti in particular has been so eloquent in setting down the bigger picture, and there have been sooooo many specifics mentioned in dozens of threads, you obviously have "these people suck and are only out to kill noobs" blinders on.
Point blank... there is a reason there is a 0.00001 retention rate on Nev today. It's because it SUCKS. There's a reason that the retention rate was so much higher during the oh so horrible days of actual warfare, cheap warfare, easily replaced losses, lots of cheap infra, "i'm gonna get my friend" politics, and etc etc etc. Because the game was fun.
4 words that trump EVERYTHING you could say, because it is backed up by history.
The game was fun.
--------------------
HoC Gaming - Come war with us!
The HoC Archive - Neveron's definitive historical document
|
Maghetti123
Sergeant Major
Reged: 05/01/04
Posts: 203
|
Re: arguements and discussions of the past
[Re: Katrar]
#163175 - 01/02/12 02:50 AM (184.1.118.183)
|
|
|
Yeah, no one should be assured they will not die. I am entirely in support of doing thing that support the wars that do happen, happen between players. CFs, speed bumps, etc are things meant to give the defender a chance to respond. Would you feel better about dying if you got to defend yourself in the process? Maybe a little bit, but not much. I want you to be able to defend yourself, I do not want you to be assured you cannot be attacked and killed.
|
Malachi
Sergeant Major
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 369
|
Re: arguements and discussions of the past
[Re: Maghetti123]
#163176 - 01/02/12 05:38 AM (90.219.44.159)
|
|
|
Agree with Maghetti.
You should not be able to sit behind a static defence and win, a defender should always use offensive actions
|
buc
Captain
Reged: 08/12/05
Posts: 710
|
Re: arguements and discussions of the past
[Re: Malachi]
#163179 - 01/02/12 10:03 PM (49.227.187.66)
|
|
|
A few points.
1. If you DP a 1ker quickly, expect to lose it. Do whatever you can to defend it, but accept that you might not have it in the morning.
2. If you DP a mech, expect someone to try and kill it. Hope you're on when it happens.
3. Lvl 7 is a big empire. Why do you think the rule is 1 lvl 7+. It's only in todays super tower defence, walls etc that makes you even think that it's not.
3a. Rebuilding a large empire should take some time and/or some help.
Back in the days, you'd only level up when you were sure you could manage it.
|
Tigre
Lieutenant Colonel
Reged: 02/10/03
Posts: 1833
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Re: arguements and discussions of the past
[Re: buc]
#163186 - 01/03/12 12:18 PM (216.130.147.106)
|
|
|
The "end war" button shouldn't be free either. It should be here, but it shouldn't say "end war" it should say "unconditionally surrender" where if you're at 30% surrender, and when you hit the button, you're only at 10% losses, you pay 3x the normal surrender rate. Yes you can end the war without losing your stuff, but it's going to cost you. . . Otherwise it's abusable (see today's fake wars and morale/skillcheck raids).
I also agree that tents need to go, pirates will take care of those. it'll cost a forture to get all of your tents back repeatedly. Make undefended cities more likely to be hit by pirates.
Walls should go too, along with snipers. . . remember, the heyday of the game was pre-IDF too. . .
--------------------
- Tigre
Ipsa Scientia Potestas Est
- Francis Bacon
|
mattbuck
Eeyore
Reged: 02/13/04
Posts: 3285
Loc: Nottingham, UK
|
Re: arguements and discussions of the past
[Re: Tigre]
#163190 - 01/03/12 02:08 PM (95.148.187.27)
|
|
|
The solution to that is to remove the **** stupid idea that your entire empire gets skillchecks for something else killing stuff...
--------------------
Haha, you people think admins still look at these forums.
Visit the Platonian! Updated! Stuff! Things! Click!
|
ghostrider
Lieutenant
Reged: 03/26/10
Posts: 522
|
Re: arguements and discussions of the past
[Re: mattbuck]
#163191 - 01/03/12 04:26 PM (70.173.25.223)
|
|
|
It was said before, If you dont fire a shot, why do you get the skill checks that the unit(s) that killed everything get?
I like the idea of having to sacrifice something to use the cancel war button. Would like to see some options on it, as the first one is harsh, especially if you are the one that was hit.
Now for a few other things I can see.
People want to open up the game for more targets, but dont want that to be that THIER faction has opened up as targets.
People want tents gone, but I havent seen anything about getting rid of the hundreds of empty zones they own that they hide their bv in.
On top of that, they want to get rid of the only way to find out where your attacker is at, by removing the empire data page, so only those that have hours to spend looking for any targets to strike back at.
Bringing back the cost to attack each zone. For those with deep pockets this is great. You can easily destroy the empire that doesnt have deep pockets by just making them defend themselves. Soon they dont have any money to even strike back. SOOO much fun.
Mags said something about things needing to freaking die. That is true.
I do disagree with you on the concept of the game. The game isnt about having to kill an empire, it is about doing combats and having fun. Problem is the game has move from combat and fun to destroying everything. If the only pleasure you gain from playing is seeing someone elses work crushed, then I think its time to find another game.
Yes, first rule of war. Destroy the opponents will to fight. Second, deny them the ability to make war.
As for all the money and resources coming up, how about people use that to reduce the tents. Or reduce the units in the empires that are at the top of the war list?
Katrar. History is the problem plagueing neveron today. Why would someone want to come into a game to play when there is a long history of being pounded down until you either donate or leave? Bugs are probably the biggest issue when history is involved. There is alot of things that were good. sSome of them have now become the problem of the game. Being honest about it is the first step to fixing them. Tents were an issue back then, but now that everyone is doing it, the ones that started it are crying foul. Cores, as well as walls/hd only is the same thing. History has shown what works, and now that is standard.
|
mattbuck
Eeyore
Reged: 02/13/04
Posts: 3285
Loc: Nottingham, UK
|
Re: arguements and discussions of the past
[Re: ghostrider]
#163194 - 01/03/12 06:35 PM (95.148.187.27)
|
|
|
I disagree ghostrider, cancelling a war should be free: it should be possible for both sides to just walk away. This is how it used to be and it worked. One of the major reasons Nev went down the drain is because of penalties for ending wars: we have to win, ie killing 30% of the enemy at least, or we lose skillchecks. The great thing about old Nev was that that didn't happen - don't get me wrong, surrender is a good thing, but it does kill empires because that is the ONLY way to end things. 30% is a massive amount, as is 1 skill loss on every single unit in your empire.
Here's how it used to work:
I attack someone, I take a few small cities, we talk, I walk away. Simple. Usually we end up becoming friends and I offer to help rebuild in some manner. Maybe he offers me something and I give him back the cities. Whatever, it allowed diplomacy, and that was a good thing. I didn't have to go on an all-out rampage, he didn;t have to lose a third of his empire.
--------------------
Haha, you people think admins still look at these forums.
Visit the Platonian! Updated! Stuff! Things! Click!
|
Maghetti123
Sergeant Major
Reged: 05/01/04
Posts: 203
|
Re: arguements and discussions of the past
[Re: mattbuck]
#163200 - 01/03/12 11:43 PM (184.1.118.183)
|
|
|
Ugh...
1. Empire wide skillchecks need to go, and with it empire wide skillups. Both of these systems are incredibly lame and illogical.
2. I do not mind there existing multiple ways to end a war but a straight up no harm done free cancel button is still the best option. Despite you thinking everyone is out to smash noobs, I do not want to force people to have to destroy an empire, that should be optional.
3. Stop. Putting. Words. In. Peoples. Mouths. Seriously. My faction, my own empires, have all the same benefits of walling and cores and tents and static defense. Removing these things harms me massively and will take a great effort to switch over to the rules I support. Same goes for any other vet player really. I have never logged into an empire where bv is hidden in a bunch of empty zones. I a fine with something to reduce the amount of zones an empire control, but it won't actually effect anything. If you remove tent cities it would be dumb to hide all your bv, your infra would need to be defended.
4. This is just....sad. You manage to do the seemingly impossible, frame one of the best changes for noobs as a way to protect the attacker. This isn't rational. It does not take hours to find your attacker on lvl 3 maps. We know exactly how this functions, it was around for years. This absolutely helps protect noobs and weak empires, not the other way around. This is just chasing after ghosts, and not casper` either, just the breeze that looked like a ghost. If even this change comes off to you as a protection for attackers, your opinion honestly doesn't mean anything.
5. Attack costs. This one just shows you REALLY have no idea what you're talking about. Attack costs applied OUT OF WAR. Nondow attacks. The attacker takes a zone, the defender can take that zone back for FREE. Only attacking a new zone that was not owned by the defender does the defender have to pay anything. This is just being ignorant of what the idea is, and yet still holding a strong position on it.
6. Your opinion on the concept of the game doesn't matter. Neveron isn't ABOUT killing empires, that is just an ability in the game. The game isn't about research, or arenas, or war, or anything. The game is about having the ability to do all of these things and more. I personally only enjoy war if there is an objective, destroying an enemy and hate arranged bv fights because I like scouting and breaking city defenses and trapping forces, etc. But some only like to farm weak empires, and others not war at all. And everyone should have the ability to do all these things.
7. I get pleasure from a lot of things in this game, but more so than anything it is the execution of a greater war effort to destroy or defeat a rival group on neveron. I do not seek to "destroy peoples work," merely to force my enemy into surrender. And there is nothing wrong with that. People who only enjoy destroying others work are perfectly fine in neveron as are people who do not want that.
8. I don't know what you are saying here. War is the only way to spend the surplus neveron has.
9. Finally, you have no idea what you are talking about. You still think everyone is out to get you, and you discredit yourself heavily with the biased nature of your proposals. Neveron has an amazing history of complex interactions of 1000s of players. It has always had bugs and balance issues, and we should address those things, but the games history is not to be questioned by a serious person. 1000s played then, 100s play now. 1000s, 100s, 1000s, 100s, one number is bigger than the other! For all its problems players were joining in mass and staying.
|
ghostrider
Lieutenant
Reged: 03/26/10
Posts: 522
|
Re: arguements and discussions of the past
[Re: Maghetti123]
#163210 - 01/05/12 11:29 AM (70.173.25.223)
|
|
|
The issue with the empire data. How about this.
No information on cities is given to someone until AFTER they dow the empire?
I can see where people dont want that info up, cuz it gives others ideas on where to raid.
Yes, people will dow empires and log in the coords, but it isnt like they dont do that now.
Ending wars, depending on whats up, i would suggest the attacking empire be restricted from hitting the same empire for the standard nev year. Depending on the damage done to the defender, maybe giving them a no hit time period to recover. If i remember the old system didnt do that.
The spending money. That was, i havent seen people spend the money to attack the tented or walled cities to relieve the excess money supplies they have. This also goes for killing things so they can be replaced.
|
TRK
Sergeant Major
Reged: 11/05/02
Posts: 254
|
Re: arguements and discussions of the past
[Re: ghostrider]
#163212 - 01/05/12 11:48 AM (208.118.89.26)
|
|
|
The more you leave up to the game deciding the worse off we are as players. let the players decide how they want to play.
Less coding=better
More options=better
|
Maghetti123
Sergeant Major
Reged: 05/01/04
Posts: 203
|
Re: arguements and discussions of the past
[Re: TRK]
#163213 - 01/05/12 01:44 PM (184.1.118.183)
|
|
|
1. city info under that setup does nothing to protect noobs. Any decent player can poke around the map and find targets when no cities are shown. It isn't a big deal. Besides, SM will probably make it show your biggest city only to go along with his core home zones area idea. Which hides a lot of stuff too. Personally I would only apply this to factioned empires. Noob island and unfactioned empires should be hidden well as they are already had a huge disadvantage.
2. I am fine with restricting a empire from hitting the same empire for a nev year. However, I want something taken from the old restriction system that applies here. When a empire "surrenders" I want them to have the option to continue the war beyond the surrender, or to be able to drop the protection given to them, or immediately dow another empire after surrender. Sometimes the surrender and protection period is really a guaranteed death period. I also may want some rules about not applying OMT after a empire losses its pop so it has the chance to go and take new cities rather than just die.
3. Not sure what this talk about money means.
|
ghostrider
Lieutenant
Reged: 03/26/10
Posts: 522
|
Re: arguements and discussions of the past
[Re: Maghetti123]
#163216 - 01/05/12 10:33 PM (70.173.25.223)
|
|
|
An option to continue the war after the surrender? that mean you could still destroy an empire even if it surrenders, or does that mean they could still strike back and take zones back?
The protection being dropped and the immediate dow sounds like someone gonna use a farm empire to avoid actually having to having to rebuild with a lw empire. But thats my paranoid mind.
The suspension of omt was touched in another thread, but I do agree with some restrictions. Otherwise this would be highly abused, as it was before.
Things grow, we constantly have more money and resources. We need things to freaking die or the game becomes bloated.
This is something you posted earlier. I agree with this part.
I just want to make sure it isnt only the targets losing things. More then a few know the ins and outs without having the neg gunned, or dp only mechs, to wipe the floor with even some of the people that have been here awhile.
Probably need to try this at another time.
|
Maghetti123
Sergeant Major
Reged: 05/01/04
Posts: 203
|
Re: arguements and discussions of the past
[Re: ghostrider]
#163217 - 01/05/12 11:06 PM (184.1.118.183)
|
|
|
1. I mean the defending person can choose to continue the war. Back before we had the surrender system we had a restriction system. You could attack out of dow for a cost per zone, dowing meant each zone you attack was free, and combat didn't necessarily begin or end with the restriction. In fact, your dow didn't even cancel when you restricted an empire. What restriction did was simply prevent the empire that had been attacked from being attacked anymore. An aspect of the restriction system I want to take is the ability for the empire that was restricted or surrendered to keep fighting. I believe that for each zone the restricted empire takes, the empire it attacked can attack 1 or 2 zones back. This allows the defender to choose to end the fighting or continue if willing.
2. The surrendered time is supposed to be a protection for the surrendered empire, but many times it just means you can no longer fight even if able and the OMT gets you. If people can choose to war after this point by turning protection off, sort of like the old faction war protection only for a single empire, it means less harm to empires over all. If a lw empire wants to take a farms infra to avoid having to rebuild I see nothing wrong with that. Hell, I would say replacing your lost infra in any way is rebuilding. Empires in general can do this. The fact you need to rebuild all infra after you lose a war is one of the reasons war is so harsh right now.
3. OMT functions I am just unsure of. On one hand, having less OMT restrictions or none in cases like whenyou had just surrendered and lost your infra have benefits, but the question is if there is a way to do it and still prevent the mass bv empires of the past, or if we even want to prevent this. I don't know.
4. I definitely want both sides to lose stuff, but I want the defender to have to attack back and moves units around, etc just as the attacker does and not sit behind static defense all day. The attacker can't bring his whole empire to the fight, the defender can, if he has less static defense his forces are more mobile and better suited to this task.
|
ghostrider
Lieutenant
Reged: 03/26/10
Posts: 522
|
Re: arguements and discussions of the past
[Re: Maghetti123]
#163219 - 01/06/12 11:05 AM (70.173.25.223)
|
|
|
Honestly, the surrender or cancellation should be agreed upon by both empires in question. This avoids the attack, take a few zones/cities, then cancel to avoid counter attacks. Part of this thought was to avoid people handing off the cities to yet another empire before the defender has a chance to take it back. Yes they do that with dowing another empire now, but lowering the cost because the first dow is cancelled is bs.
I agree with being able to cancel the protection time, but not being able to dow until the normal restriction time is out. With the farm example, you might as well use the farm to dow your lw empire. I think this is garbage, but dont see it changing anytime in the future.
If you control more than 1 empire, these empires MAY NOT interact with each other in any financial manner that abuses current markets or bypasses money transfer rules.
Creating empires for "utility" purposes (like farming money or buying things off the market to make yours the cheapest) is illegal.
I consider using a farm empire to give a lw empire cities a major violation of these rules. You can transfer a few hundred million to billions worth of nevbucks by 'trading' cities to YOUR lw empire.
I can understand about the uncertainty of having omt waived after a loss. People will abuse it by making sure none of their bv is touched and allow their opponent to take their infra. They do it now, and use the farm empires to bring their omt under control. This was originally brought out to help empires rebuild. As with almost anything in the game, it can be abused. Most of the devastating wars, that I know of, tend to be from people that own mech heavy empires, and dont want to scrap any mechs. This is even more understandable if they have dp only mechs. That means i was in error and should not support this option. I still do support it for those that are constantly getting pounded. Maybe have it go into effect after being hit x times in y amount of time.
People are gonna sit back and let you deal with defenses especially if they know they cannt do anything against an attacker. This is why ive been pushing for the capping of skills at 0. Why even send in a perfect soldier against someone that has a unit that is even -1. 3 points on a roll is a huge difference. Let them chew on towers. It works, so it has become the normal.
Also, why would you risk what forces you have attacking someone, when they will either drop another empire they own on your forces, or have someone they know do it?
The gbs have died down alot, and thats a good thing, but they still happen, and always will. There is no changing this. It is up to the players to control themselves, and for the most part, I dont trust people to do the right thing.
Good example is raiding the tcs in order for the tech to be transferred. Seen complaints about rep and even skills, but nothing about the tech thats been handed off. This is an abuse of a bug, but not one thats been noted often. They know they are not supposed to recieve the tech for free, but still do it. Im not talking about the lower 100 rp tech, im talking the 1k+ rp techs from hitting a single tc.
|
TRK
Sergeant Major
Reged: 11/05/02
Posts: 254
|
Re: arguements and discussions of the past
[Re: ghostrider]
#163224 - 01/06/12 05:52 PM (173.181.67.112)
|
|
|
Quote:
Good example is raiding the tcs in order for the tech to be transferred. Seen complaints about rep and even skills, but nothing about the tech thats been handed off. This is an abuse of a bug, but not one thats been noted often. They know they are not supposed to recieve the tech for free, but still do it. Im not talking about the lower 100 rp tech, im talking the 1k+ rp techs from hitting a single tc.
I for one, maybe the only one, would like you to expalin this one a bit better.
WTF are you talking about?
|
KJI_3x6
Lieutenant
Reged: 09/11/06
Posts: 650
Loc: Minnesota, North Korea
|
Re: arguements and discussions of the past
[Re: TRK]
#163227 - 01/07/12 02:13 AM (75.72.8.27)
|
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Good example is raiding the tcs in order for the tech to be transferred. Seen complaints about rep and even skills, but nothing about the tech thats been handed off. This is an abuse of a bug, but not one thats been noted often. They know they are not supposed to recieve the tech for free, but still do it. Im not talking about the lower 100 rp tech, im talking the 1k+ rp techs from hitting a single tc.
I for one, maybe the only one, would like you to expalin this one a bit better.
WTF are you talking about?
even i know how this works. when you hit a city with active research, you get to basically leech the research from the city in question, so all of a sudden, you've never researched say, 50 cf buildings, so you shouldn't be bale to do 150, but you hit a city researching 150, and bang, there it is, you got it now, bypassing all of the prerequisites. i'm not sure if it is an actual bug or not, but it is stupid, it's like a country that can't even build a gas engine all of a sudden being able to make jet engines.
--------------------
My d*** rumble in the jungle; your d*** got touched by your uncle.
My d*** double feature screen; your d*** went straight to dvd.
ME > you
|
Maghetti123
Sergeant Major
Reged: 05/01/04
Posts: 203
|
Re: arguements and discussions of the past
[Re: TRK]
#163228 - 01/07/12 03:01 AM (184.1.118.183)
|
|
|
1. With the system I have in mind, each side has to dow. The attacker dows to remove attack costs, then the defender can choose to retaliate with their own dow or play defensively. Zones taken from the defender would be free to take back as well.
2. If someone has their own farm empire there is nothing wrong with them giving the lw empire infra. Remember, you can always just attack the infra farm empire that is weak to attack.
3. Again, I have no issue with a person using one of their empires to build infra or tanks or provide money for another of their empires. Why would this be an issue? Removing this ability only serves to remove empires independence. If a player wants tanks and infra, etc provided they have to rely on someone elses empire. If a person can be self sufficient then they can be independent if they want.
4. The idea that a person should have to scrap mechs because they lost infra is just stupid. It achieves one thing, making recovery after a war harder. A empire, no matter what change is made to accomplish this, be it OMT removal in general or after losing a war in some way or some other option entirely, should have the ability to lose their infra and recover. Taking another empires infra as a replacement seems quite reasonable to me. They have to take a risk to do it, and for many it is a better option than rebuilding billions in infra. Plus, as I said, give people the ability to continue wars after they have "lost" and they can always try to get their own cities back.
5. People hide behind their static defense because they can. Towers are massively overpowered, and cored empires, walling, etc make them even more so. When towers get nerfed hardcore, everyone, me included, will have to stop relying on unbreakable tower zones for defense, and will have to be much more active in a defense, which will make the game much more fun to play.
6. This tech trading stuff has existed in neveron as long as I have played. If it is a bug I wasn't aware of it and consider it effectively a feature. If it is something that needs changed so be in but it is awfully minor.
Edited by Maghetti123 (01/07/12 03:07 AM)
|
Maghetti123
Sergeant Major
Reged: 05/01/04
Posts: 203
|
Re: arguements and discussions of the past
[Re: KJI_3x6]
#163229 - 01/07/12 03:09 AM (184.1.118.183)
|
|
|
Really, why does it matter anyways? It makes sense to me now that I think about it. You attack a place where research is being done you can kidnap scientists, take the data and researchers notes, etc and get access to tech you previously never had.
|
Baroness
Newbie
Reged: 12/22/11
Posts: 3
|
Re: arguements and discussions of the past
[Re: Maghetti123]
#163230 - 01/07/12 04:17 AM (84.128.251.187)
|
|
|
But if you kidnap scientists and their notes for a mech design, you still have to research it to the end, like the owner of those TCs had to do it before! And then you are able to build the mech, but not the engine that is needed, because the engine was already researched before the mech research could start. So you need the engine, weapons, sensors, movement concepts, etc. done as well.
|
Maghetti123
Sergeant Major
Reged: 05/01/04
Posts: 203
|
Re: arguements and discussions of the past
[Re: Baroness]
#163231 - 01/07/12 04:22 AM (184.1.118.183)
|
|
|
That is a fair point, I guess I have things in mind like building high cf buildings or a weapon and not the individual parts. Either way it doesn't matter that much to me, I almost never get any benefit out of it so do with it what you will.
|
Katrar
Major
Reged: 09/15/02
Posts: 1314
Loc: Seattle, WA USA, Terra
|
Re: arguements and discussions of the past
[Re: Maghetti123]
#163232 - 01/07/12 05:14 AM (76.28.186.150)
|
|
|
ghostrider, all I read is rules rules rules rules rules rules rules rules rules rules rules rules. Would you like every decision you make in this game to be a simple yes-no flowchart? That's not fun.
--------------------
HoC Gaming - Come war with us!
The HoC Archive - Neveron's definitive historical document
|
buc
Captain
Reged: 08/12/05
Posts: 710
|
Re: arguements and discussions of the past
[Re: ghostrider]
#163233 - 01/08/12 12:58 AM (222.153.236.231)
|
|
|
Quote:
Honestly, the surrender or cancellation should be agreed upon by both empires in question. This avoids the attack, take a few zones/cities, then cancel to avoid counter attacks. Part of this thought was to avoid people handing off the cities to yet another empire before the defender has a chance to take it back. Yes they do that with dowing another empire now, but lowering the cost because the first dow is cancelled is bs.
I agree with being able to cancel the protection time, but not being able to dow until the normal restriction time is out. With the farm example, you might as well use the farm to dow your lw empire. I think this is garbage, but dont see it changing anytime in the future.
I think there needs to be clarification on how DOWs worked in the old days. DOWs were 1 way. Someone DOWs you, and they could cancel it after 3 RL days of no attacks, however the person who got DOWd could DOW in return at any stage for free if it so chose. These are the days where they could attack to get their land back / defend without needing a DOW. You may have even been able to go on the assult without your empire actually DOWing if there was an active DOW in place.
Quote:
If you control more than 1 empire, these empires MAY NOT interact with each other in any financial manner that abuses current markets or bypasses money transfer rules.
Creating empires for "utility" purposes (like farming money or buying things off the market to make yours the cheapest) is illegal.
I consider using a farm empire to give a lw empire cities a major violation of these rules. You can transfer a few hundred million to billions worth of nevbucks by 'trading' cities to YOUR lw empire.
This rule has been inactive for a long time, so quoting it is misleading. There are currently no rules in play that limit finacial interactions between empires. This was in place prior to the 5 emps rule where some people would start hundreds of empires in order to funnel money into their primary empire. It may have even been prior to the transfer caps that limit money being sent. That would need confirmation.
|
mattbuck
Eeyore
Reged: 02/13/04
Posts: 3285
Loc: Nottingham, UK
|
Re: arguements and discussions of the past
[Re: buc]
#163234 - 01/08/12 04:50 AM (95.148.186.153)
|
|
|
Definitely prior to transfer caps. I think one of the admins actually commented to me that caps meant this rule was pretty much obsolete.
Another thing about the old ways: walls were much harder to create because you could just attack through another empire that happened to get in your way. The only ones you couldn't attack were level 0s with under 10 zones, and you were explicitly banned from surrounding your empire with those.
--------------------
Haha, you people think admins still look at these forums.
Visit the Platonian! Updated! Stuff! Things! Click!
|
ghostrider
Lieutenant
Reged: 03/26/10
Posts: 522
|
Re: arguements and discussions of the past
[Re: mattbuck]
#163236 - 01/08/12 10:34 PM (70.173.25.223)
|
|
|
The idea that someone would have to lose something other then infra structure that they didnt protect is ridiculous. I mean why should the assault bv empire actually suffer because they chose not to have any defense? I mean reducing ones omt/sp requirements is counter to actually recovering. That might mean going a level. Really. I have access to a few dozen empires that are farms, so i chould be able to dow them right after I lose all my infra and tranfer 100's of millions to a few billion in infra because I dont want to ACTUALLY lose any of my bv. So how is this different from the fake wars? So things need to die, just not my stuff.
Ive got lots of money from a high level or farm empires to fund it so why would that be considered bad? Now just because YOU dont have the same thing, well, guess you are gonna have to suffer for it.
I want people to fight my way, and make it so they cannt hide behind a static defense, but yet say restrictions are what is limiting the game. Make it so only moble defense can be used, so I can scatter the defenders because ai sucks and gets cought up, making it easier for me, so I dont scratch my paint on my neg gunned mechs. Terrain sucks so we NEED them mechs to make sure the defenders have NO chance, except the horde method, or tented to hell. And force everyone to use mechs damn it. I need to feel good about killing ai, and dont get that when tanks blow up from a single point of damage.
Open warfare up and everyone gets what they want. hmm.. I can get pounded by a higher level empire when i actually start winning a conflict because the person is losing the war. I try to rebuild yet anything i need is way expensive, unless im part of the click. If im not, well too bad. How is this everyone getting what they want? This is status quo from ages ago. Abuses that have gone on so long, people are saying its REQUIRED to do so, because doing anything else means having to admit they have abused loop holes for years and would have to redo their whole line of thinking. But then it seems im the only one that has an issue with this line of thinking. Probably best thing to do is ignore me.
And no mags, this isnt a dig on you, though it sure the hell looks like it. This is a dig on a perceived thought pattern that comes from people that have been doing things a certain way, that it doesnt seem like its bad because it has gone on so long.
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
