Play Free War Battle Games Online, Multiplayer Games, Strategy Games, Top MMORPG

mfreak · **Posted:** Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:36 am

Not necessary to buy them yes, in order to do well. But 12 people without tokens, its not possible to win a competitive era with supporters against you.

WhatILacked · **Posted:** Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:48 am

That is why people buy them? It is not mandatory you can still have a great time without them.

I like to have a laugh whilst playing, obviously i like to do well but winning isn't always at the top of my mind. But for those it is then yes supporting would be a nice choice.

Seth · **Posted:** Fri Aug 26, 2011 6:00 am

gipsy wrote:

Allyn wrote:

gipsy wrote:

2. add a new feature "watcher colony". A watcher colony isn't able to build units or join into an alliance. Whenever you join a server you'll decide if you want a player or a watcher colony. This prevent spamming out of the blue.They can't get attacked and stay the full era in protection.
Colonies which are not marked as "watcher" and doesn't build units or do anything else what we can call playing get deleted after 100 ticks and should get a warning for farming.

omg, I love you. This is a pet peeve of mine, all these colonies with names like:

Just Watching of Bobaloo
Watcher in the Rye
I'm really a great player, but I'm just watching so don't blame me if I stink this round

If you're just watching, then you should have no objection to me conquering you, you shouldn't be launching spam attacks, you shouldn't be building silos for someone else to come and take, you shouldn't complain that I'm sniping you (when in fact I'm not and you really just aren't active enough to notice), and you shouldn't be taking part in major wars. I've been thinking of joining a server with the single purpose of finding as many watchers as possible and destroying all their units.

I know this isn't the point of your post, but it's just one of those things that's been bugging me.

Allyn out

Damn..what will i do now? Suddenly someone agrees with me :lol:

It is not a horrible Idea. You HAVE to remember though, there are always unintended consequences of such changes. I can see this being abused simply to take up pieces of land and keep them protected. Those who can switch IP at will could simply make huge swaths of perpetually protected watcher colonies in areas they would like to have a barrier or buffer from forces in, possibly with other regular slaves interspersed amongst them to be used as active defenders of said area.

Without being able to link the IP to the masters, this would be another form of slavery abuse that obviously, my hands would be tied by you guys to do anything against.

Not trying to throw fuel on the fire or anything. Just reminding you that things are not always cut & dry like we would idealistically expect.

I am all for working towards solutions that prevent this sort of thing, as well as unfair admin actions against it. Ultimately I have to be sensitive to what the community of this game wants from administration, and if those wants are for things to be changed, then I am obliged to help the community see it come to pass as much as I can.

Again, I apologize to all here whom I have harmed in my actions. I am not sure we will ever stand on the same side of the fence moral in this, but I am an advocate for the community in the end, and I feel it is my duty to listen to what you say, and do my best to learn from it.

I hope to ultimately use this whole scenario to better the game, although I admit that I am still in the process of trying to figure out how to do it.

Right now, what I am considering is putting together an "Elder Council" from the staff members working behind the scenes (mostly the ones who deal directly with balancing and code, and overall game design), and forcing them to actively debate the rules. Basically my notion is that in these chats, the admin suit comes off, and the community advocate suit goes on. I debate the rules on behalf of what I think the community wants (see this situation) based on things like this that come to pass (as well as possible player surveys), and see where they stand.

Ultimately, no matter what is decided by this panel, the rules need to be clearly stated in multiple places and uniformly enforced. I have come to discover that it is no more fun for me to enforce rules which are not clearly posted, anymore-so than it is for you guys to be hit by them!

Seth · **Posted:** Fri Aug 26, 2011 6:22 am

Quote:

2. The admin later wrote, for him, something nearly conciliatory. An "olive branch" he called it. A skeptic would say he's already seen donations plummet and responded, or that Michael has seen them plummet and asked him to. An optimist would say he, himself, was so moved by the passion of those he impacted as to take a step back and ACTUALLY ask himself if he may not have been perfect in the first place.

That also is positive.

Serious looks at one's own actions are difficult to inspire and awesome to behold when witnessed.

When Seth or BD makers post you the graph of spending on E4 before and after the incident, you'll understand the impact as I know they do now

No one prompted me to do this. To be honest, I have lost some sleep over this purely because I do not like having a negative impact on so many. Most often, I feel good about intervention on the grounds that the majority is behind me. In this case, at least amongst those who are responding here, it is a narrow divide. There are supporters on both sides, and they are very similar in number. This is not good enough for me personally, and if I lose the majority, I do feel as though I have done something wrong, even if I feel that my decision is morally right.

I have not checked the income level for E4 since all of this happened. Do not get me wrong, I appreciate the impact that supporters have as well as anyone else, but in the end I feel that I am an advocate for players, not an advocate for supporters. So, in light of that, whether or not the supporters leaving makes me nervous is irrelevant.

I only see that players are claiming to be leaving, and supporter or not, I have to consider this and factor it into the decision making process from this point onward.

I will attempt to make it through this without looking at supporter spending levels on E4, simply because I am, again, a community advocate, not a supporter advocate. In the end, everyone, whether they know it or not (yes, even if they complain about supporters) is a supporter advocate simply because they rely on the supporters to keep the game around to play.

This should not factor into the equation really. What is important is that administration addresses issues, and actively seeks to improve on what is done around here.

mfreak · **Posted:** Fri Aug 26, 2011 8:16 am

Fair enough Seth

I am not sure if what am gonna suggest below is agreeable, or is a complete NO-NO but I just thought I should post this.

I would push for a more open ended game, than a game that follows a pattern. There have been some arguments about game balance, but at the moment, the game seems to be a win for the side with the maximum number of units. And the taxation income, battle wreckage perks reduced, resource outposts increased dont really make a difference in balancing the game IN REALITY especially against sides like GIFT that are very skilled and the same time have lots of purchasing power. Given a mediocre side to fight, they will completely walk over them. I dont think that is balance in any way intended. What I mean is, tokens make A LOT of difference, when it comes to expansion, units built, units rebuilt etc.,I mean there have been cases when I have just boosted 1000 or 2000 reds to ion my opponent 30 times, when in reality if I didn't have those tokens I wouldn't have won. After JD lost his 40 tanks squads, a combination of help from us and tokens saw him completely built back up in about 36 ticks. Just a few examples there.

On top of this we have various rules against farming - basically for resources like outposts, or crystals or taxation, account sharing - for the purposes of not being able to be online whenever necessary etc.

Now there are lots of perceived loopholes in the game, which may nor may not be thought of and included in the rule books, but I would suggest the rule book to be AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE. For example I dont see any reason why farming as such has to be a bannable offence. Now correct me if I am wrong, and if I dont see the other side to this issue, but I personally feel, I can build and work toward helping anyone win, or anyone gain resources. If that is the role I wanna play ingame, I should be able to do it. Plus a lot of these slave colony rules etc kind of make things too complicated.

Why not make it completely open ended. Its a strategy game. You have a goal to reach, that is collect all 10 relics and defeat the enemy and win the era. And there are multiple ways ALWAYS in any field be it life, a game or wherever, to reach a particular goal. Why not give room for people that wanna outwit the opponent and catch him completely off guard? Why do we have to call it shady tactics? What is shady about a tactic? And if all players are given that opportunity, you will see lots of innovative gameplay that could actually make eras more fun.

Now Kevin in one of his earlier posts said:

1. A person with a fast computer should not be guaranteed a win - I think in a tick based game, computer or internet speed should not be taken into consideration. I mean what does BD have to do, if someone has slow internet or how is BD responsible? Simply get a faster connection is something I would suggest. Plus you cannot really change anything in mechanics for this. That would be too restrictive. I feel Spies were changed since this was one of the issues in refresh wars.

2. A person with money should not be guaranteed a win. Again cannot really be solved. There have been eras when we have had enormous odds against us and we have simply boosted our way to success.

3. Who has the most free time: This I can agree with. The game should actually call for less amounts of time spent online. Its also one of the reasons people account share. Something like ministers being able to move squads etc if implemented could counter this issue.

4. Who has the most buddies: I dont think this is a valid criteria. This is a game of alliances. Ultimately, I have seen alliances tell me - I wont attack this guy because he is a friend. Its the same as saying, I am his friend so am gonna help him by spamming you guys. But when the latter happens its called slave abuse etc. I would say, the more buddies you have you actually stand a chance of winning even today. Nothing you change ingame will ever take this away from the game. If a person wont attack someone, there is nothing you can do about it. So why not remove this as a rule altogether. I think this is where the farming, slave abuse issue comes in.

Its right when its claimed a combination of activity, planning, opportunity, and intelligence should decide rounds. But this combination never occurs these days. Almost all wins by any alliance today is a combination of activity, diplomacy, puchasing power. As long as individuals are seperate without multies I think anyone should be able to do anything ingame to help one another. Remember if this comes to fruition its there for everyone so it wont be advantageous for anyone in particular. What will happen is a strong side will face attacks from everywhere. I think that is fun.

Using loopholes: Umm, if its a bug then yes they should be clearly updated so people know what bugs are there in the game, so any misuse of those bugs can be bannable. But newly discovered loopholes should not cause bans but should be duly noted and Dev people informed.

Correct me if you feel I am wrong with clear explanations where I am going wrong and what I fail to see, and how you think this will unbalance the game. I am just for an open ended strategy game and I hope that someday, I come to see a game full of options, than restrictions and only a pattern to play with. It doesnt make it interesting. There should be ways where a guy with 20 squads can still beat a guy with 40 squads by being much more clever. I think that is game balance since balance should always tilt in favor of the weaker players and the bigger stronger ones will even it out through boosting and what not. Plus this will actually give room for some strategy.

shelton9778 · **Posted:** Thu Sep 01, 2011 4:47 am

Wow suprised this is all still going on

henry700 · **Posted:** Wed Feb 15, 2012 3:49 pm

i just skipped to the last page and god gave me power to read mfreak's enormous post but i see he's over 85% right.

The only thing i dont agree with him on is taking away Op farming things. i mean, a guy has alot of res and then a friend of his joins and the guy with alot of res builds an empire of stuff for his friend to use and his friend owns everyone in his area. that's just not fair to other people.

The rules should be yes tweaked for more freedom but before that we must think of many "What if..." situations where someone could circumvent the rules making the game (Want to be allies? Sometimes I like to pretend I am a princess riding a pony..) for other players.

Seth · **Posted:** Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:17 pm

Wow dude, that was an epic necro post! :lol:

This convo died back in August!

krazedkid101 · **Posted:** Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:29 pm

Necro Posts ftw? lol

adsads · **Joined:** Sat Feb 19, 2011 1:36 pm **Posts:** 115

haha, this thing ended in august last year, i mean who cares if they're right or not :lol:

Some Clown Locked The Topic