Reset all the land control areas

[_______________Fryli]

Sanskrit....

You damn exploiter, you are doing XP while i'm at woork or at sleep... that is so unfair! and you have no honor...! you also seems to kill uniques while i'm offline, you are a cheater...!

It's a god damn MMORPG and you are not the one telling me what to do when i'm online, even if a knew a lot of ppl in a guildt was afk/offline when i joined an attack on them i could care less, it's their freeking problem.
I was offline when we had 2 major attacks on our base in DAV, you did not see me comming here crying out how unfair that was. You did not see me ask FC for refound of ingame creds i spent on my towers wich was destroyed while i was offline. I expected this, because i cant play 24/7 and because i can accept the fact that other ppl play it while i'm offline

If the people you are playing a game fit within your definition of honor, you are in the right game. If not, you move on to another game.

Maybe you should take your own advices... seems like TNW is more anoying to you then the other ppl around.

This was just my "bunmp" to keep the tread up so i can ammuse myself...

[Canto]

(quotes from Jynne)

"Moralizing over computer games is silly...."

> Well then what does that make the rest of what we post here? even sillier I'd say.

"#2 - Introduce some way of 'resetting' a controller's suppression gas cycle 'start-time' after it's been built. This will allow guilds to tweak their controller onto the right gas cycle for them to defend once they've built a new base on the ashes of a recently conquered one. This 'gas cycle reset' could (should?) be one-time-only to prevent it from being exploited."

>I think something along these lines is what will probably come down.

[Canto]

Originally posted by Fryli
Sanskrit....
Maybe you should take your own advices... seems like TNW is more anoying to you then the other ppl around.

What is really annoying to people, I am finding out more and more as I post here, is reading well-reasoned opinions that they do not agree with.

[Kuro]

Originally posted by Sanskrit
Agree with you. It is an exploit.

However, you will never be able to prove it to the point of getting FC to take action. It is arguably a legitimate nano with legitimate uses and only a fool would admit they used it to create lag. Hey, it's a great HP/damage buff. So it will not be made illegal. It is an exploit that the victim can do nothing about. So what do you call an exploit that FC will not enforce against? I call it cheating.

That is a matter of intent versus nature. The intent in your example is to create enough lag that people are unable to respond. That intent is also quite clear in your example. That intent is, most importantly, exploitive in nature as it is using the players' lan connection and hardware capabilities against them. Things that cannot be accounted for via game mechanics.

Now before you crow triumphantly, towers are a different story altogether. They are designed to exist regardless of the online status of their owners. They respond to attack regardless of the online status of their owners. If towers were unable to respond to attack without their owners being online, what you describe would be an exploit. But their design is to exist until destroyed. Not to exist until their owner logs off. So their vulnerability is within the rules of game mechanics.

Originally posted by Sanskrit
So to manipulate org affiliations to avoid certain consequences of tower attacks doesn't seem exploitative to you? It sure does to me. Again it could never be proven or dealt with by FC. Only a fool would admit to it. Is it cheating? YES. It would be cheating to create bogus orgs to avoid the tower aggression rules in NW. Both examples 1 and 2 are exploits that are unenforceable against, in essence, cheats.

Nobody ever claimed the consequences of attacking a tower is that you must have a tower to be attacked in return. So no, it is not exploitive to participate in Land Control battle without having a tower to attack in return. Don't like it? Deal with it.

Originally posted by Sanskrit

Your definition of "cheating" and mine are totally different. IMO, cheating is perfiorming an action in a game that you know is against the rules, be they the rulebook rules or the common sense rules most of us abide by in playing games, or counter to a spirit of fair play.

And if nobody abides by your opinion of the rules, whose 'common sense' applies? Yours or the majority? People seem to be agreeing while not the most fair of tactics, it's within the rules and you are wrong to accuse people of exploiting or cheating simply because you alone call it such.

'Spirit of fair play' belongs in little league baseball, where coaches claim every kid will play, and amongst friends. You're not my friend and your accusations have automatically placed you into a category where I simply do not care what your thoughts of my actions are. The people that determine the limits of my actions against morally uptight people like you, people who have been responsbile for a lot of the changes that also affect PvM in this game with their sense of 'fair play', is determined solely by Funcom. Right now, that means I can and will eat you alive at the 1st moment of weakness you show. If in the future, Funcom changes it so that's no longer possible, I will not get my panties in a twist over it. I will not threaten to pick up my toys and go home to tell my Mommy.

But that is exactly the equivalent of what you are doing. Over a Game. Enough so, that you think your morale outrage is justified enough to come to these forums and slander people simply because they refuse to follow your morale compass in an area where game mechanics not only allow it, but have to yeild to the impossibility of preventing it.

Originally posted by Sanskrit
Your definition (and Dharin's I'd imagine) are strict rulebook definitions; e.g. "If an action isn't forbidden somewhere in written rules, doing that action isn't cheating."

The biggest problem I have with positions like yours and Dharin's is WHERE IS THAT BIG RULE BOOK with all the answers. Point me to that really comprehensive source of AO "rules." If we have no well thought out and comprehensive rule sets to rely on, we have to go with our gut to some extent.

No, the problem you're having is you're imagining rules that do not exist in this game because of the very nature of the game. Facts about this game and land control which you did not and cannot dispute. No 'rulebook' can declare attacking a persistant object in a persistant state gameworld which is open to players that span a variety of timezones and lifestyles "cheating" or "exploitive". It cannot because those 3 facts (4 if your count the fact controllers are meant to be attacked) make it impossible to schedule vulnerabilities when it's convenient to [b/everyone[/b].

Originally posted by Sanskrit
I never said that it did; what it does command is my estimation of the chracter of the people I play games with, or choose to avoid playing games with. In my view, if you would attack my tower for the express reason that I was not online, then you are not likely a worthy or fun gaming opponent. You can agree with me or not, I don't care, but the "discussion" of the issue here has strengthened my opinion.

The defensiveness that people show over this issue leads me to believe that we all know that this is wrong, yet are looking for ways to "forget" that it is and take advantage of any situation in the game to get advantage. That must be why so very few people have honestly attempted to discuss the issue without perpetual distortion of my position into a position you can easily deal with (You and Sheffy) or personal insults/attacks (Halfnelson)

You immediately relegated every that did not agree with you to the position of "Cheater" and "Exploiter". In a matter of opinon, you were dead wrong to do so. Nobody is distorting

Originally posted by Sanskrit
I believe all three of these are dishonorable and 1 and 2 are in addition, cheating. Just because you CAN do something in a game doesn't make it ok.

Accusations of dishonorable acts Dharin, Halfnelson, myself, and others all can prolly live with. Hell, I relish them some days. Accusations of cheating, something which can lead to the banning and termination of our accounts, you better damn well back up with something more solid than the opinion it violates your naive, idealistic, moralistic Code of Honor which is required to be obeyed by nobody but yourself.

Honor is a man's gift to himself - Tom Clancy

Interested to hear what your response to the "Christmas Day" example I posted to Sheffy is. You have been quiet on that one so far.

I'll attack people on New Years, Valentine's Day, Kwanza, Christmas, and every holidays in between if I'm online. I'm an Equal Opportunity Opportunist. If you're lucky, I will not attack on one of those days. But not because you may not be online. I might not attack if someone offered a good enough ingame reason for not attacking, like an Omni-Tek Approved Peace Vigil

Originally posted by Sanskrit
I agree with you, and am not seeking any kind of enforcement of my view (although I imagine FC will be making some drastic changes to the NW system with respect to gas, etc). Honor, though is a vote with your feet kind of proposition. If the people you are playing a game fit within your definition of honor, you are in the right game. If not, you move on to another game.

Exactly. So long as its allowed by Funcom and supported by the majority of the people, the onus is on you to accept it or leave. If the rules change, we'll have to adapt or move on. Since the rules cannot change the laws of Space/Time and Funcom does not want to appear the fool for attempting to enforce something that's impossible, I do not expect them to change. But if the rules did change I think people like myself, Halfnelson, Kiryat-Dharin and others could adapt far more easily than you can accomodate them as things now stand (you've already threatened to leave over it). Now which group is more likely to have fun here, or anywhere else? You, who attempts to force Honor onto everyone in a game where it fits so poorly? Or us, who really don't give a flying flip either way so long as we're enjoying ourselves and are within the guidelines/nature of the game?

Sandbox. Find one. Stay there

[Kuro]

Last post on this subject cause I'm tired of it. Jynne is more fun to annoy

Little story. Different game. Star Wars: Jedi Knight II. Anyone that played multiplayer knows it places players in a far more direct competition against another individual that AO ever can.

When released, there were 2 manuevers in JKII. How to do them was outlined in the manual. One was called 'Death From Above', shortened to 'DFA'. Essentially Strong stance, jump and strike with your saber. This caused you to land an unblockable overhead strike on your target for massive damage. The other I called "Nosejob". Essentially rush your target, use the Force to run up him like he was a wall and kick him in the face for moderate damage. Shortly, the players of JKII were howling like rabid monkeys over these manuevers on the forums. People were just as quick to toss around words like "Exploit", "Cheater" and "Dishonorable". I actually did not use these manuevers, not because I didn't know how though. I preferred a quicker stance which allowed faster strikes, parries, and ripostes. But I had them used against me many times.

Now instead of jumping around like a rabbit with its ass on fire, screaming 'foul' and slandering people that used these techniques, I fought on. I lost. I said 'GG' and 'GF' ('Good Game'/'Good Fight') that people that used them on me. I also analyzed what they did. Both were easily overcome using Force Push or Force Pull. And would cost the attacker their life when countered (Force Push on the Nar'Shadda map being especially deadly). I did not quit in disgust. I did not slander people, making personal actions in a game. And while people who took that game FAR too seriously were being frustrated constantly, often quitting or shutting down their hosts in disgust, I was deriving far more satisfaction out of the game than their Honor Code ever could allow them.

Moral of the Story:
It's only a game. Attmpting to force serious, real world concepts onto people who do not care what your beliefs are will not harm their gameplay. It will harm yours.

[p00finger]

The poopoo is taken care of. Send me a tell when you're online.

[n0life]

So your intention on buying Notum Wars was to claim so land, build some towers and gain some org benefit, then go back to doing BS missions for xp.

You have no intention on going to war.
I'm sorry if you wanted to pay 20$ for a bunch of lifetime buffs that you can't get now, because you can't get your guild organized enough to actually fight.

There are some big guilds who might want to help you and clear some land for you so that you can build your towers. This is called politics and is a big part in any war

The big guilds won't stop after they've setup their 5 bases. They will continue the war against the opposite side. They are in it for the good of their side.

What you asking is like a country without weapons getting attacked by a country with lots of weapons, then asking for help from other countries. They send weapons, but before they arrive, the defending country has lost the war. The country is occupied by enemy forces, you have the weapons hidden somewhere, so what do you do? You ask the enemy to leave?
What i advice is, you pickup those weapons and force them to leave. It ain't fair, It's war.

Now, when you finally get your copy of Notum Wars. Review the title many times, it says "war" in there somewhere. Fight it, don't whine for a timewarp!

PS. Did I say war enough?

[_____Real Kinky Ityn]

Originally posted by Sanskrit
(quotes from Jynne)

"Moralizing over computer games is silly...."

> Well then what does that make the rest of what we post here? even sillier I'd say.

"#2 - Introduce some way of 'resetting' a controller's suppression gas cycle 'start-time' after it's been built. This will allow guilds to tweak their controller onto the right gas cycle for them to defend once they've built a new base on the ashes of a recently conquered one. This 'gas cycle reset' could (should?) be one-time-only to prevent it from being exploited."

>I think something along these lines is what will probably come down.

Can't this be for the most part done? Can't you pick a nice enemy base to traget, that goes 25% when most of your guild is on, then attack it, even with the help of a few other guilds, take it and build on it once the land is again at peace? I don't understand... Or if you want to do it at your own base, can't you find an allied guild to "hold" your land for a few hours till the ideal time? I mean you don't need a calculator to do the math

[Canto]

I am also getting tired of this topic.

Originally posted by Kuroshio


If towers were unable to respond to attack without their owners being online, what you describe would be an exploit. But their design is to exist until destroyed. Not to exist until their owner logs off. So their vulnerability is within the rules of game mechanics.

Well, finally, you post a reasonable response. Granted the self-defending nature of the towers as a game mechanic is a defense that the designers intended to provide some security against wrongful "tactics". However, as players learn how to more efficiently take out bases. the strategies they formulate will overreach this game mechanic so that players planning attacks will have to decide what kind of "game" they are playing.

If they agree with me, they will be playing a game in which they seek to engage an opponent. I have no desire to factor that my opponent is not playing a game into my plan to win the game. Others will adopt a strict rulebook approach such as yours that allows any action that FC hasn't deemed an exploit. I continue to assert that a player in your camp, if they carry things in this game to the conclusion that SunTzu would approve of, will be at best easily capable of playing dishonorably, and at worst, a cheater.

I am not calling you or anyone else a cheater, and have no knowledge of you as a player. If I heard though, that you or your org was involved in a massive attack, for instance, on the eve or morning of a holiday that a majority of the playerbase recognized, my position would be that you had acted dishonorably and outside the "rules" of the game.

Originally posted by Kuroshio

Nobody ever claimed the consequences of attacking a tower is that you must have a tower to be attacked in return. So no, it is not exploitive to participate in Land Control battle without having a tower to attack in return. Don't like it? Deal with it.

To create an org for the singular purpose of circumventing the game mechanic whereby attacking orgs become vulnerable, I still maintain is exploitative. There should be a "cooling off period" between leaving and joining another org. Of course a strict "rulebook" interpretation would approve of such an action, in the same way that it would approve of a credit duplicating exploit until the actors were caught.

Originally posted by Kuroshio

And if nobody abides by your opinion of the rules, whose 'common sense' applies? Yours or the majority? People seem to be agreeing while not the most fair of tactics, it's within the rules and you are wrong to accuse people of exploiting or cheating simply because you alone call it such.

Common sense dictates that to to expressly take advantage of your opponents' absence in the game, when both sides understand that at certain times, many people will be absent from the game for similar reasons, is wrong.

Originally posted by Kuroshio

You're not my friend and your accusations have automatically placed you into a category where I simply do not care what your thoughts of my actions are.

I can live with that.

Originally posted by Kuroshio

The people that determine the limits of my actions against morally uptight people like you, people who have been responsbile for a lot of the changes that also affect PvM in this game with their sense of 'fair play', is determined solely by Funcom.

I can't quite figure out what you are accusing me of here, but think you are probably painting with an overly broad brush.

Originally posted by Kuroshio

Right now, that means I can and will eat you alive at the 1st moment of weakness you show. If in the future, Funcom changes it so that's no longer possible, I will not get my panties in a twist over it. I will not threaten to pick up my toys and go home to tell my Mommy.

I never really expected you to care whether I play this game or not.

Originally posted by Kuroshio

But that is exactly the equivalent of what you are doing. Over a Game. Enough so, that you think your morale outrage is justified enough to come to these forums and slander people simply because they refuse to follow your morale compass in an area where game mechanics not only allow it, but have to yeild to the impossibility of preventing it.

Actually, my purpose was to make people think about how they decide to play the game, as most of the rules of AO are in fact left up to the players. If one person, when presented with the argument " Let's attack X at Y time when we are certain they won't be playing the game," stops to think and decides that that is not really how they want to play, then my posts have been worthwhile.

Originally posted by Kuroshio

You immediately relegated every that did not agree with you to the position of "Cheater" and "Exploiter". In a matter of opinon, you were dead wrong to do so.

The "exploiter" part has always been bogus, I'm not going to rehash that. What I did say though was that assigning primary importance to the fact that an opponent is not online playing the game in a decision to attack is at best dishonorable, and at worst cheating. Make of it what you will.

Originally posted by Kuroshio

Accusations of cheating, something which can lead to the banning and termination of our accounts, you better damn well back up with something more solid than the opinion it violates your naive, idealistic, moralistic Code of Honor which is required to be obeyed by nobody but yourself.

You are really stretching to get to an indignant position here. I don't claim to represent FC or define what gets people banned and I never have. I don't honestly think that some FC employee would read this thread and see any direct accusations of cheating, what they would see is a long, verbose and rapidly more boring flame/discussion of game ethics between several bored people. It remains to be seen whether any of this will cause me to leave the game or even change the way I play it. most likely its just another ration of hot air on the forums.

Originally posted by Kuroshio

I might not attack if someone offered a good enough ingame reason for not attacking, like an Omni-Tek Approved Peace Vigil
.

This is actually a good idea and such a "vigil" would go a long way towards the kind of game that I enjoy playing.

Originally posted by Kuroshio


Sandbox. Find one. Stay there

Whatever ...

[boltgrinder]

Originally posted by Cz
But we're not going to turn off the game-play people paid for, and are already using.

Err..

Then why did you turn off the gameplay for MAs?
Nice going FC.

[assassimon]

Originally posted by Cappy_MoK


Err..

Then why did you turn off the gameplay for MAs?
Nice going FC.

hehe, good one Cappy

[p00finger]

Originally posted by Cappy_MoK


Err..

Then why did you turn off the gameplay for MAs?
Nice going FC.

Isn't that a checkbox in the Options menu?

[locomdenom]

So THAT'S what the -NERF_MA command line switch does!