![Reply](STYLES/Planetarion2/buttons/reply.gif) |
|
24 Oct 2006, 12:48
|
#1
|
Pedantic hypocrite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Back and to the left
Posts: 1,488
|
The case for legalizing farming
This thread is specifically addressed to PAteam. I'd appreciate constructive responses from non-PAteam members, and that the members of PAteam in charge would at least read and consider my points.
There has been a long tradition of lashing out at players who do morally(?) questionable things to gain an advantage. Given the amount of time one needs to invest to play Planetarion competitively, this is only natural. When stymied, one seeks to retribute. No one who plays at the highest level is innocent of this. From accusations leveled at Videer in round 2, to complaints about Singularity and his galaxy in round 3 and 4, whining about Xanadu bots in round 4, Legion and Fury farming in rounds 5 and 6, to excessive campaigning for closures in top galaxies in round 7. The list goes on. Most recently in my memory is the whole support planet issue.
For the creators originally and PAteam since then, arbitrating these complaints has been a struggle. It is never easy to differentiate emotional attacks and constructive arguments in these situations. I believe that given PAteam's very limited ability and inclination to publicly convince the players that restrictions are not needed (and who can blame them, the immediate reply to anything of the kind is a torrent of accusations of stupidity), they were left with a single tool. Their power over the game and community. This tool became their hammer and every problem that cropped up became a nail. Ammending the EULA and sending forth the multihunters to enforce this has become their only response. The multihunters, by the way, are a group within PAteam that are particularly afflicted with this disease. They are bound by contract to not speak with the community about open cases. They are, in a sense, limited to a much more specific kind of hammer (if this isn't stretching the metaphor a bit far.)
I think that the rule mongering to control the playing community has gone much too far. Players are now subject to arbitrary, poorly documented and haphazardly applied standards on how they should play. This limits the playing field, antagonizes honest creativity and makes Planetarion less fun.
Let me emphasize that last point: The EULA makes Planetarion less fun.
How does it make the game less fun? The support planet rule prevents people from playing casual accounts to the benefit of friends. Casual accounts have difficulties holding roids and therefore provide a supply of roids to the universe. They are inefficient sources of defense that cannot in the long term provide competitive aid. Planets that focus purely on one or more defense fleets is still bound to have weaknesses causing them to lose roids which will again prevent them from providing long term aid.
Farms provide more roids to the universe. More roids = more fun, science fact.
The complaint that these practices make the game less fun for people who do not use them is a complete foil. Those people made the game less fun for people who enjoyed farming, supporting and so on. If fun is the goal, then it is the game by design which must provide it, not the game by legislation.
I have a series of suggestions I'd make to unify the system with these goals, but at the simplest: Quit making rules to decide how we play and focus on designing the damn game.
I realize that I'm just one more voice in the crowd of whiners, but I think my points are argumentatively sound (if not necessarily presented as such in this post, I am able to defend them on grounds of reason) and present some insights which are not often publicly recognized.
Thank you,
jesterina
__________________
I always wanted to be a dancer, but I could never get the shit off my shoes
.......
|
|
|
24 Oct 2006, 14:26
|
#2
|
CRASHING BEATS 'N FANTASY
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cold Country.
Posts: 1,912
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
Farms also keep some incoming away from the newer players I think.
Totally agree with this proposal.
__________________
Ià! Ià! Munin F'tagn! - [*scendancy]
|
|
|
24 Oct 2006, 18:15
|
#3
|
PA Team
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 904
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
I'm not answering on behalf of PA Team but I just wished to clarify something you said in your post, jesterina. Multihunters is not a group within PA Team. The majority ( 4/7 ) of us are not on PA Team.
|
|
|
24 Oct 2006, 18:18
|
#4
|
Insomniac
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,583
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
with regards to "more farms = more roids; more fun "
Fun for whom? Those who get the sole benefit from those farms? It certainly isnt more fun for everyone else who find themselves in a position where it is that much harder to compete. Yes you could say that they could create their own farms to level the playing field but then its simply a situation which is equal to before with one difference - people have more ships to throw around due to more roids and consequently resources
That situation could easily be made possible without resorting to farms, by upping the res per roid
The eula is there to help protect the other players from those who would do anything to win. Its removal would accentuate a two tier system in the game where you are either part of the in-crowd with all the farms and multis , or you are part of the bashed , raped and quitting players.
|
|
|
24 Oct 2006, 18:49
|
#5
|
Pedantic hypocrite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Back and to the left
Posts: 1,488
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiery
I'm not answering on behalf of PA Team but I just wished to clarify something you said in your post, jesterina. Multihunters is not a group within PA Team. The majority ( 4/7 ) of us are not on PA Team.
|
Thank you for clarifying that. I have been led to believe that all multihunters sign the NDA and was referring primarily to this. I still think the point stands, and obviously it holds concerning others who are given power over the community without necessarily being directly part of PAteam.
A notable exception to this is, in my opinion, the forum team, whose leadership has been in place for several years and who, speaking from experience, have made many of the mistakes that I feel PAteam and the other, less experienced divisions, are making.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil^
with regards to "more farms = more roids; more fun "
Fun for whom? Those who get the sole benefit from those farms? It certainly isnt more fun for everyone else who find themselves in a position where it is that much harder to compete. Yes you could say that they could create their own farms to level the playing field but then its simply a situation which is equal to before with one difference - people have more ships to throw around due to more roids and consequently resources
That situation could easily be made possible without resorting to farms, by upping the res per roid
The eula is there to help protect the other players from those who would do anything to win. Its removal would accentuate a two tier system in the game where you are either part of the in-crowd with all the farms and multis , or you are part of the bashed , raped and quitting players.
|
I disagree completely, because you have clearly misunderstood my point. I did and do not advocate 'removing the EULA'.
In my opinion it's arrogant of PAteam to presume to legislate what is fun for me. I find great satisfaction (fun!) in outroiding farmers and outsmarting multies. The only thing that accusations prove is that people care, not that they're having more or less fun. Believe it or not, people caring about the game is a good sign.
I think the EULA's cheating clause should reflect fair equality of opportunity rather than badly formed cudgels to enforce ideals of fun. If people that aren't in an alliance aren't supposed to defend people who are in alliances, then make it impossible. The multihunters do the best they can, but they can never hope to be as fair as an unthinking hard-coded limitation.
Thank you,
jesterina
__________________
I always wanted to be a dancer, but I could never get the shit off my shoes
.......
|
|
|
24 Oct 2006, 18:54
|
#6
|
Insomniac
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,583
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
they arent legislating what is fun and what is not - merely what is fair for all when applied consistantly across every player. Thats the point of rules - Limits to what everyone may do with the game so that everyone has a fair chance.
I agree that it would be better to hard code certain elements, for instance the people not in an alliance being prevented from defending those within one. However there are things which cannot be hardcoded - such as farms and multis since the mechanisms used to prevent them can be circumvented through technological means.
Thats where the eula takes over, or rather should.
anyway we're starting to go off on a tangent by talking about the eula rather then legalising farming.
To get back on topic :
I dont think farming should be legalised. There are ways to implement the effects of farming, but temper it so that its consistantly fair for all. pateam controlled bot planets to inject roids and additional targets into the game, or increasing the resources from roids per tick, or a combination of both are more preferable to me then legalising farming is.
Last edited by Phil^; 24 Oct 2006 at 19:00.
|
|
|
24 Oct 2006, 19:29
|
#7
|
wasted
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Under the floorboards
Posts: 1,240
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil^
with regards to "more farms = more roids; more fun "
Fun for whom? Those who get the sole benefit from those farms?
|
I'm not going to take sides in this debate (I'm personally unconvinced of the merits of farming), but I do think you've made a few logical errors here.
Farming does not, generally, confer 'sole benefit' to a particular individual. No individual has sole rights to attack a farm, and of course the farmed roids benefit anyone who subsequently attacks the farmer. By making the farmer a more attractive target, it could be said that the farm has benefitted the game by providing a wider pool of good targets for others to attack. I may be stretching the point somewhat, but I think it's important to make the point that nothing is as clear-cut as you imply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil^
It certainly isnt more fun for everyone else who find themselves in a position where it is that much harder to compete. Yes you could say that they could create their own farms to level the playing field but then its simply a situation which is equal to before with one difference - people have more ships to throw around due to more roids and consequently resources
That situation could easily be made possible without resorting to farms, by upping the res per roid
|
On your first point I think you've over-simplified. You have an analysis which is very much 'us and them', with evil farmers on one side and virtuous hard workers on the other. You're ignoring the historical evidence that farmers did, in some circumstances, make the game more interesting; round 4 would have been immeasurably less fun without Singularity's galaxy, or without the farming galaxies in c10 in r6, or... well, you get my point. Again, I'm not saying that farming is necesarily good, but it's certainly not all bad.
Your point about resources per roid is utter raving insanity though ![Smile](images/smilies/smile.gif) . The 'macroeconomic' beneficial effect of farms is that they increase the number of roids in the universe, and increase the percentage of total universe resources spent on creating new roids. This adds liquidity to the roid trading market (the supply of good targets to attack). Increasing the amount of resources per roid would reduce the number of roids initiated (since we don't need so many of them to get the same number of ships) and decrease the proportion of resources spent on creating new roids (in favour of creating new ships). There are three factors which cause a Planetarion round to stagnate: the human factor (people get bored/tired), the decreasing risk/reward later in the round (you've got more to lose if your fleet dies in the last week than in the first week) and the inevitably-declining ratio of available roids to ships defending them. Your prescription would greatly speed up the process whereby planets have so many ships and so few roids that it becomes impossible to profitably attack them (without bashing).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil^
The eula is there to help protect the other players from those who would do anything to win. Its removal would accentuate a two tier system in the game where you are either part of the in-crowd with all the farms and multis , or you are part of the bashed , raped and quitting players.
|
This strikes me as being almost Planetarion's equivalent to 'class warfare', an us-and-them battle between the ever-exploitative cheaters (anyone who figures out a strategy that someone else disapproves of) and the exploited masses who would be happy in a glorious egalitarian paradise where everyone gets enjoyment from doing the same thing as everyone else. It's a game, the farms, multis and evil bastards are, to an extent, all part of the fun.
Farming does not necessarily imply multiing, btw. In round 3, I remember many galaxies where the biggest planet would farm the smaller planets (in-galaxy attacking was allowed then). This gave the big planet a tremendous incentive to encourage his or her galaxy to do well, to defend them, and to teach them how to play the game. A similar incentive effect worked for clusters too. Given that we now often lament the fact that galaxies are really collections of mercenaries, as apt to exile a newbie as to teach them how to play the game, and how cluster alliances have been pointless since at least round 5, we might consider how some of the changes in the game have led us to that situation. Sometimes well-intentioned changes have very unintended consequences, often because of a failure to appreciate the complexity of the incentives and individual decisions being made by the players.
__________________
“They were totally confused,” said the birdman, whose flying suit gives him a passing resemblance to Buzz Lightyear in Toy Story. “The authorities said that I was an unregistered aircraft and to fly, you need a licence. I told them, ‘No. To fly, you need wings’.”
|
|
|
24 Oct 2006, 20:34
|
#8
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil^
they arent legislating what is fun and what is not - merely what is fair for all when applied consistantly across every player. Thats the point of rules - Limits to what everyone may do with the game so that everyone has a fair chance.
|
Fairness as such is a fairly strange concept. Fundamentally in a wargame fairness is impossible due to the nature of war. Surely then what we should seek to provide is equality of opportunity, which the legalisation of farming would provide.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
24 Oct 2006, 21:32
|
#9
|
Bored
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: A Persistant Universe
Posts: 1,583
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
Yep the game is so much more fun when the winners are decided by who has the most friends runny dummy accounts for them.
__________________
Germania
Fury
Mercury & Solace
Conspiracy Theory, Wrath, 1up, ICD, Eclipse
|
|
|
24 Oct 2006, 21:33
|
#10
|
Insomniac
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,583
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Fairness as such is a fairly strange concept. Fundamentally in a wargame fairness is impossible due to the nature of war. Surely then what we should seek to provide is equality of opportunity, which the legalisation of farming would provide.
|
If farming is banned for all players, where is the inequality?
Legislating farming as permitted in the interests of "fairness" is a solution looking for a problem
|
|
|
24 Oct 2006, 21:51
|
#11
|
Retired
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Back Porch Bar
Posts: 2,593
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
I think that some form of official "bot planets" that were essentially farms, would be about as far as I'd take it.
Increasing the resources per roid is a bad idea, as already explained.
Perhaps lowering the initiation costs, but that would probably just mean the little guys would end up as farms :/
__________________
I'd rather be fishing.
Utterly useless since r3
|
|
|
24 Oct 2006, 22:07
|
#12
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
Quote:
Originally Posted by K-W
Yep the game is so much more fun when the winners are decided by who has the most friends runny dummy accounts for them.
|
Yeah whereas now where it's decided by something almost exactly the same it's just brilliant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil
If farming is banned for all players, where is the inequality?
Legislating farming as permitted in the interests of "fairness" is a solution looking for a problem
|
The point then is what is more fun if both are equally fair.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
24 Oct 2006, 23:02
|
#13
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 127
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
I can´t believe we´re even discussing this, lol.
Legalised farming will kill the game, as most old core players will leave. who will stay? The freaks and those who don´t mind losing. Atm there´s more or less a competitive environment. Large scale farming will kill the competition as I doubt most of the ppl will embrace this change, and those who won't will be clearly disadvantaged. Finally the game will need a new name, Farmaria maybe?
__________________
on the bench
|
|
|
24 Oct 2006, 23:26
|
#14
|
Bored
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: A Persistant Universe
Posts: 1,583
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Yeah whereas now where it's decided by something almost exactly the same it's just brilliant.
|
How so?
Quote:
The point then is what is more fun if both are equally fair.
|
With a ban on farming, nobody farms. With farming allowed only those players with the ability to setup farm planets farm. How is that equally fair?
Allowing multiing would be fair. Anyone can sign up multiple accounts. But farming without multiing turns this into a game of who can round up the most support planets. That may not be any less stupid than the reasons people win rounds now, but it is much less fitting with the idea of having a space strategy game.
__________________
Germania
Fury
Mercury & Solace
Conspiracy Theory, Wrath, 1up, ICD, Eclipse
|
|
|
25 Oct 2006, 00:33
|
#15
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain
I can´t believe we´re even discussing this, lol.
Legalised farming will kill the game, as most old core players will leave. who will stay? The freaks and those who don´t mind losing. Atm there´s more or less a competitive environment. Large scale farming will kill the competition as I doubt most of the ppl will embrace this change, and those who won't will be clearly disadvantaged. Finally the game will need a new name, Farmaria maybe?
|
Yeah all those players who signed up and played when farming was legal are sure as hell going to leave the second it's allowed again.
Quote:
Allowing multiing would be fair. Anyone can sign up multiple accounts. But farming without multiing turns this into a game of who can round up the most support planets. That may not be any less stupid than the reasons people win rounds now, but it is much less fitting with the idea of having a space strategy game.
|
I've heard people say that that would just reduce it to a question of who is willing to spend the most money. The bottom line is you cannot make a wargame fair. All you can provide is equality of opportunity. When you think about the state of affairs you're actually arguing for it seems rather contradictory. A game of who can round up the most support planets. That's what alliances are. Alliances round up people who are willing to sacrifice their planet's success for the success of their alliance. PA puts a cap on how many people can be in an alliance these days but was it really killing the game before r10? As alliances are merely a concept (what we have ingame are tags) you're not actually accomplishing anything substantially different whether you sacrifice your planet for a planet to win or for an alliance to win.
Planet and galaxy rankings are always decided by who has the most friends where and who has the most connections in the right places. To be honest it's even sillier nowadays than when it was all out in the open. The rules we have now don't even make sense anymore, I don't think anyone can actually explain what a support planet never mind prove the existence of one. And it's all a logical progression down from farming.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
25 Oct 2006, 01:15
|
#16
|
Flash in the PAN
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Birmingham, Romania
Posts: 554
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
My main worry is that the person with the most friends becomes the winner.
I also believe, though I don't have direct experience (I never had a support planet) that it is not true that these planets are particularly weak. Its often the case that they provide a def ship from another race which compliments the main player greatly.
I cannot see how farms can be made legal in any sense - and the EULA has been used to ban farming because there is no game left without it.
|
|
|
25 Oct 2006, 01:36
|
#17
|
CRASHING BEATS 'N FANTASY
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cold Country.
Posts: 1,912
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
In the end farming was just the first step of outsmarting the enemy. If we just want to ban outsmarting maybe PA Team should start IQ testing sign-ups, and only those with a less than average IQ should be allowed to play.
Seriously, is it my fault if the rest of mankind is too stupid?
__________________
Ià! Ià! Munin F'tagn! - [*scendancy]
|
|
|
25 Oct 2006, 01:40
|
#18
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shyne
My main worry is that the person with the most friends becomes the winner.
|
That's true now though and has remained true since PA started.
Quote:
I also believe, though I don't have direct experience (I never had a support planet) that it is not true that these planets are particularly weak. Its often the case that they provide a def ship from another race which compliments the main player greatly.
|
There's only one way they can be effective beyond the initial period of ticks and that's if they focus intensively on one type of ship. If they do that you get the small planets in your alliance to fleetcatch them and get a nifty amount of ships. If they're out-of-tag this becomes exceptionally easy.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
Last edited by JonnyBGood; 25 Oct 2006 at 02:10.
|
|
|
25 Oct 2006, 01:47
|
#19
|
.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,382
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
i can't see this actually ever happening to be honest with you guys
|
|
|
25 Oct 2006, 01:50
|
#20
|
Retired
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Back Porch Bar
Posts: 2,593
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heartless
In the end farming was just the first step of outsmarting the enemy
|
Indeed.
Quote:
If we just want to ban outsmarting maybe PA Team should start IQ testing sign-ups, and only those with a less than average IQ should be allowed to play.
|
A little severe, but point taken.
Perhaps more room for outsmarting opponents and creative gameplay should be added instead of an IQ test?
__________________
I'd rather be fishing.
Utterly useless since r3
|
|
|
25 Oct 2006, 02:17
|
#21
|
Bored
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: A Persistant Universe
Posts: 1,583
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
When you think about the state of affairs you're actually arguing for it seems rather contradictory. A game of who can round up the most support planets. That's what alliances are. Alliances round up people who are willing to sacrifice their planet's success for the success of their alliance.
|
Umm. No. Alliances exist because a player in an alliance can have MORE success than a player without an alliance. If being in an alliance hurt your planet, alliances wouldnt exist. The point of an alliance is that through cooperation, each indvidual has a greater chance of sucess, you do whats good for the alliance because you are a part of the alliance. A high alliance score means that the members have a high score.
Quote:
Planet and galaxy rankings are always decided by who has the most friends where and who has the most connections in the right places. To be honest it's even sillier nowadays than when it was all out in the open.
|
Yes, politics plays a huge role in the game as well it should. Politics between players who are actually playing the game is an important and vital part of planetarion. Having your friends act as a proxy so you can use more than one planet to give you an advantage isnt.
Quote:
The rules we have now don't even make sense anymore, I don't think anyone can actually explain what a support planet never mind prove the existence of one. And it's all a logical progression down from farming.
|
Which part of support planet dont you understand? It is a planet that functions to boost other planets without recieving anything in return or attempting to achieve success for itself.
A planet that does nothing but build defence ships to defend someone else, recieving no defence in return is very obviously a support planet.
A planet that allows other planets to attack them, thus hurting thier score, so that other planets can grow instead, is very obviously a support planet and a farm.
It is also completely bogus to say that banning all types of support is a logical extension of banning farming. One can certainly make a destinction between one type of support and another as has been done throughout PA history. Even now, scanners, who are very obviously support planets are allowed within the rules. Not only that but they have been coded into the game over recent rounds even as other types of support have been banned. This isnt some philosophical issue, the issue is gameplay. The designers dont think scanners stifle competition between players. They do think that farms, escort planets, defence farms, and ship farms stifle competition.
Why dont we discuss ship farming while we are at it. Should ship farming be allowed? Should only ziks be able to compete for top ranks because people are uncomfortable with the idea of rules governing gameplay?
__________________
Germania
Fury
Mercury & Solace
Conspiracy Theory, Wrath, 1up, ICD, Eclipse
|
|
|
25 Oct 2006, 02:24
|
#22
|
Bored
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: A Persistant Universe
Posts: 1,583
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heartless
In the end farming was just the first step of outsmarting the enemy. If we just want to ban outsmarting maybe PA Team should start IQ testing sign-ups, and only those with a less than average IQ should be allowed to play.
Seriously, is it my fault if the rest of mankind is too stupid?
|
Yah it takes alot of intelligence to launch a fleet at a planet who wont defend against you and iniates roids before you land. that certainly takes alot more brain power than trying to steal roids from someone who doesnt want you to take them.
__________________
Germania
Fury
Mercury & Solace
Conspiracy Theory, Wrath, 1up, ICD, Eclipse
|
|
|
25 Oct 2006, 02:31
|
#23
|
Retired
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Back Porch Bar
Posts: 2,593
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
Quote:
Originally Posted by K-W
Yah it takes alot of intelligence to launch a fleet at a planet who wont defend against you and iniates roids before you land. that certainly takes alot more brain power than trying to steal roids from someone who doesnt want you to take them.
|
I think this is an excellent point, however I think in the realm of this thread/discussion it doesn't entirely apply.
"Farming", in the sense being discussed here, seems more (to me, anyways) as a means of injecting more roids into the universe...rather than a method for winning the round (as we've seen in the past, heh).
Personally, the AI-bot planet "farms" make more sense than anything else, if we're going to go down this road at all.
__________________
I'd rather be fishing.
Utterly useless since r3
|
|
|
25 Oct 2006, 02:34
|
#24
|
Bored
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: A Persistant Universe
Posts: 1,583
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cochese
I think this is an excellent point, however I think in the realm of this thread/discussion it doesn't entirely apply.
"Farming", in the sense being discussed here, seems more (to me, anyways) as a means of injecting more roids into the universe...rather than a method for winning the round (as we've seen in the past, heh).
Personally, the AI-bot planet "farms" make more sense than anything else, if we're going to go down this road at all.
|
Where in the OP does it mention AI bot planets?
__________________
Germania
Fury
Mercury & Solace
Conspiracy Theory, Wrath, 1up, ICD, Eclipse
|
|
|
25 Oct 2006, 02:42
|
#25
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
Quote:
Originally Posted by K-W
Umm. No. Alliances exist because a player in an alliance can have MORE success than a player without an alliance. If being in an alliance hurt your planet, alliances wouldnt exist. The point of an alliance is that through cooperation, each indvidual has a greater chance of sucess, you do whats good for the alliance because you are a part of the alliance. A high alliance score means that the members have a high score.
|
Any good alliance member will sacrifice their own planet score to benefit their alliance more if it's necessary. As such they aren't playing for themselves, they're playing for the alliance. The fact they may end up with a high score is merely a side-affect.
Quote:
Yes, politics plays a huge role in the game as well it should. Politics between players who are actually playing the game is an important and vital part of planetarion. Having your friends act as a proxy so you can use more than one planet to give you an advantage isnt.
|
This happens anyways. People cherry-pick the best targets in BGs. People are prioritised in defence.
Quote:
Which part of support planet dont you understand? It is a planet that functions to boost other planets without recieving anything in return or attempting to achieve success for itself.
|
But many people don't play this game to achieve success, in terms of the highest ranking possible, for themselves.
Quote:
A planet that does nothing but build defence ships to defend someone else, recieving no defence in return is very obviously a support planet.
|
But we actually allow these if they're in-tag or in-galaxy.
Quote:
It is also completely bogus to say that banning all types of support is a logical extension of banning farming. One can certainly make a destinction between one type of support and another as has been done throughout PA history. Even now, scanners, who are very obviously support planets are allowed within the rules. Not only that but they have been coded into the game over recent rounds even as other types of support have been banned. This isnt some philosophical issue, the issue is gameplay. The designers dont think scanners stifle competition between players. They do think that farms, escort planets, defence farms, and ship farms stifle competition.
|
Historically speaking gameplay was not adversely affected by any of those issues. Competition in PA is primarily stifled by the fact that stagnation kicks in. We should be looking at measures which counteract this.
Quote:
Why dont we discuss ship farming while we are at it. Should ship farming be allowed? Should only ziks be able to compete for top ranks because people are uncomfortable with the idea of rules governing gameplay?
|
I don't think stealing should be limited to ziks.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
25 Oct 2006, 02:47
|
#26
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
Quote:
Originally Posted by K-W
Yah it takes alot of intelligence to launch a fleet at a planet who wont defend against you and iniates roids before you land. that certainly takes alot more brain power than trying to steal roids from someone who doesnt want you to take them.
|
I think you're missing the point. Compare thusly, I desire a chair.
Option a) I go outside, plant some seeds, grow my own tree with the wood I want, buy a book about chair-building, learn how to build a chair, build chair.
Option b) I go down the road and buy a chair from a furniture store.
Now while option a) is certainly more difficult and requires a lot more "brain power" (due to the fact you're learning something new) to accomplish option b) is the more intelligent option.
Quote:
Where in the OP does it mention AI bot planets?
|
It's been mentioned before in various other threads on this forum. It's not really important if we "defeat" the original point of the thread, the idea is to come up with good suggestions.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
25 Oct 2006, 03:01
|
#27
|
Bored
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: A Persistant Universe
Posts: 1,583
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
I think you're missing the point. Compare thusly, I desire a chair.
Option a) I go outside, plant some seeds, grow my own tree with the wood I want, buy a book about chair-building, learn how to build a chair, build chair.
Option b) I go down the road and buy a chair from a furniture store.
Now while option a) is certainly more difficult and requires a lot more "brain power" (due to the fact you're learning something new) to accomplish option b) is the more intelligent option.
|
But if you asked 2 people to get you a chair, first person wins, they would both just run to the store and buy you a chair, it being obviously easier than building a chair. Theres no outsmarting involved.
And thats exactly what happened with farming. People just went to farms for roids instead of trying to steal them. Personally I think a chair building competition would be much more interesting than a chair buying competition.
Quote:
It's been mentioned before in various other threads on this forum. It's not really important if we "defeat" the original point of the thread, the idea is to come up with good suggestions.
|
Of course, but farming and AI bot planets are two different things, thats all I was saying. I agree with those who have said that AI bot planets would be a better way of feeding roids into the game economy than allowing farming, since under farming only the select few planets with farms (usually the top players) get thier hands on the roids.
__________________
Germania
Fury
Mercury & Solace
Conspiracy Theory, Wrath, 1up, ICD, Eclipse
|
|
|
25 Oct 2006, 03:04
|
#28
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
Quote:
Originally Posted by K-W
But if you asked 2 people to get you a chair, first person wins, they would both just run to the store and buy you a chair, it being obviously easier than building a chair. Theres no outsmarting involved.
And thats exactly what happened with farming. People just went to farms for roids instead of trying to steal them. Personally I think a chair building competition would be much more interesting than a chair buying competition.
|
As a war game it will always be purely about who can get the roids, build the ships, win the wars though. Effort is not necessarily rewarded in the degree to which it is put in and trying to design a system to make it so that it is in a war game is contradictory.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
25 Oct 2006, 03:32
|
#29
|
Bored
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: A Persistant Universe
Posts: 1,583
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Any good alliance member will sacrifice their own planet score to benefit their alliance more if it's necessary. As such they aren't playing for themselves, they're playing for the alliance. The fact they may end up with a high score is merely a side-affect.
|
But you as a member of the alliance are the alliance. The alliance score is a direct reflection of the score of its members, when member scores go down, alliance score goes down. This is completely different than support planets where one planet gains at the others expense. Alliances dont gain score at the expense of thier members score.
And the only reason people formed alliances in the first place was for mutual benefit which remains the fundemtnal idea behind an alliance.
Quote:
This happens anyways. People cherry-pick the best targets in BGs. People are prioritised in defence.
|
But the other players still benefit. They may not get the best targets, but they still get to attack in a group reducing the ability of targets to defend. They may not get top priority defence, but they do get some defence.
Quote:
But many people don't play this game to achieve success, in terms of the highest ranking possible, for themselves.
|
There is a difference between not striving for the highest possible rank and playing a planet for the sole purpose of boosting another planets score.
Quote:
But we actually allow these if they're in-tag or in-galaxy.
|
Indeed. Like I said, the rules destinguish between different types of support planets based on how the designers think they effect gameplay. Not all support planets are against the rules, this doesnt make it any less clear what a support planet is.
I dont disagree that the rules are muddy. I do disagree that the concept of a support planet is incomprehensible.
Quote:
Historically speaking gameplay was not adversely affected by any of those issues.
|
Maybe not for you, but the part of planetarion I enjoy is the faceoff between planets. Trying to steal roids/ships from planets who dont want them taken and trying to defend my roids from planets who want to steal them. I think the person who wins should be the one who does the best job of stealing and protecting thier roids/ships, not the person who has the most farms. I also think most players would agree with me that a space strategy game where planets attack each other to try and steal roids is much more fun to play than a space strategy game where planets farm each other.
__________________
Germania
Fury
Mercury & Solace
Conspiracy Theory, Wrath, 1up, ICD, Eclipse
|
|
|
25 Oct 2006, 04:48
|
#30
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
Quote:
Originally Posted by K-W
But you as a member of the alliance are the alliance. The alliance score is a direct reflection of the score of its members, when member scores go down, alliance score goes down. This is completely different than support planets where one planet gains at the others expense. Alliances dont gain score at the expense of thier members score.
|
Alliances however may gain score overall at the expense of an individual's score.
Quote:
And the only reason people formed alliances in the first place was for mutual benefit which remains the fundemtnal idea behind an alliance.
|
As with the creation of any community it has grown well beyond that as I'm sure you are aware. The best alliances inspire loyalty and a willingness to sacrifice personal gain.
Quote:
But the other players still benefit. They may not get the best targets, but they still get to attack in a group reducing the ability of targets to defend. They may not get top priority defence, but they do get some defence.
|
That's missing the point. You said that using your friends to gain an advantage for your planet was a strike against this proposal. As this currently happens your position doesn't make sense.
Quote:
There is a difference between not striving for the highest possible rank and playing a planet for the sole purpose of boosting another planets score.
|
You're getting into murky territory here. Last round we saw the banning of situations where planets were playing for the sole purpose of lowering another planet's score. We're increasingly limiting the number of valid reasons we're allowing people to sign up to play with. Many people can no longer dedicate the time required to play fully hardcore and drift away from the game. This can allow for greater community retention.
Quote:
Indeed. Like I said, the rules destinguish between different types of support planets based on how the designers think they effect gameplay. Not all support planets are against the rules, this doesnt make it any less clear what a support planet is.
I dont disagree that the rules are muddy. I do disagree that the concept of a support planet is incomprehensible.
|
So we have a situation where it's not a case of intent, if scanners are allowed, it's a case of actions, where we have a clear history of defining mid-round what actions are newly prohibited. It's not a case where it's the sole purpose of a planet to support another, as otherwise you could launch one attack and not be a support planet. It's a case where your main purpose (unexplained as to how one can arrive at this) is to support another planet in as yet possibly undefined ways. I mean sweet Jesus what kind of a rule is that?
Quote:
Maybe not for you, but the part of planetarion I enjoy is the faceoff between planets. Trying to steal roids/ships from planets who dont want them taken and trying to defend my roids from planets who want to steal them. I think the person who wins should be the one who does the best job of stealing and protecting thier roids/ships, not the person who has the most farms. I also think most players would agree with me that a space strategy game where planets attack each other to try and steal roids is much more fun to play than a space strategy game where planets farm each other.
|
Planets still tried to steal roids off each other when farming was allowed. People still had fun when farming was allowed. I don't think I have more fun these days than when farming was allowed.
Consider one point, I start up a tag and get 79 friends intag to support my planet and get me to the #1 planet spot. Under current rules and your above expressed preferences this would be allowed. However it seems to run entirely contrary to the spirit of the support planet rule merely because these planets are in a tag with me!
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
25 Oct 2006, 06:11
|
#31
|
Bored
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: A Persistant Universe
Posts: 1,583
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Alliances however may gain score overall at the expense of an individual's score.
|
Perhaps, but you are generalizing things together. Surely you can see the difference between members of an alliance sometimes sacrificing themselves for other members and a farm planet?
Quote:
As with the creation of any community it has grown well beyond that as I'm sure you are aware. The best alliances inspire loyalty and a willingness to sacrifice personal gain.
|
The best alliances inspire loyalty by providing for thier members. An alliance that screws over its members to give other members score is not a good alliance, certainly not one of the best alliances and doesnt inspire loyalty. But again, there is a difference between sacrificing at times for people you work with and playing as a farm, you cant just generalize everything together.
Quote:
That's missing the point. You said that using your friends to gain an advantage for your planet was a strike against this proposal. As this currently happens your position doesn't make sense.
|
No that isnt what I said, that is you generalizing what I said. I am talking about a planet who exists only to benefit others, or in the case of a farm specifically a planet who feeds roids to another planet. I am not talking about using friends to gain an advantage. There are clear destinctions here that you are ignoring.
Quote:
You're getting into murky territory here. Last round we saw the banning of situations where planets were playing for the sole purpose of lowering another planet's score. We're increasingly limiting the number of valid reasons we're allowing people to sign up to play with. Many people can no longer dedicate the time required to play fully hardcore and drift away from the game. This can allow for greater community retention.
|
How am I getting into murky territory? Did i make the rules? Ive already agreed with you that the rules are murky. I think all the issues around ingame alliances are very murky, I dont think alliances should be ingame partly for that reason. I agree with the general idea behind jesters post especially rules relating to alliances, I just dont agree with lifting the ban on farming roids or ships.
Also afaik those rules had alot to do with alliance limits, which has created this weird category of alliance support planets. I do agree that these rules are silly and far too limiting. I say get rid of ingame alliances and alliance limits. My concern here is with planets farming roids or ships off other planets.
Quote:
So we have a situation where it's not a case of intent, if scanners are allowed, it's a case of actions, where we have a clear history of defining mid-round what actions are newly prohibited. It's not a case where it's the sole purpose of a planet to support another, as otherwise you could launch one attack and not be a support planet. It's a case where your main purpose (unexplained as to how one can arrive at this) is to support another planet in as yet possibly undefined ways. I mean sweet Jesus what kind of a rule is that?
|
A normal rule? You act like its some outrageous thing that rule enforcement involves judgement calls, when does rule enforcement not involve judgement callls? Things arent black and white, everything cant come down to an exact formula, but that isnt a reason not to have rules.
Quote:
Planets still tried to steal roids off each other when farming was allowed. People still had fun when farming was allowed. I don't think I have more fun these days than when farming was allowed.
|
The issue isnt whether you have more fun these days, since obviously many things have changed other than farming. And yes, people did still steal roids, but not while they were farming, and since they farmed they had tons of asteroids and huge fleets and they had an advantage when the time came to steal and protect roids. Galaxies and planets used farming to build up huge leads over non-farmers. Admittedly PA has changed alot, but I have few doubts that if farming were alllowed it wouldnt lead to much of the same thing.
I think Planetarion should be about people fighting each other and I think rankings should be decided by this and not in any way by farming. If you dont agree fine, but can you really not see that if your goal was to have a game based around attacking hostile planets and stealing things from them, farming takes away from that?
Quote:
Consider one point, I start up a tag and get 79 friends intag to support my planet and get me to the #1 planet spot. Under current rules and your above expressed preferences this would be allowed. However it seems to run entirely contrary to the spirit of the support planet rule merely because these planets are in a tag with me!
|
I said nothing of the sort. And as I said earlier in this post I dont even think ingame alliances should exist. I am not here to defend every single rule in planetarion.
And yah you are right, but how is that an argument for making farming or anything else legal. The fact that some kinds of support planets arent banned isnt an argument for making all kinds of support planets completely legal. It doesnt have to be all or nothing. We can make destinctions between different types of actions and some can be banned and some can be ok, theres nothing wrong with that, even if it involves a judgement call to enforce.
It would be great if everything could be cut and dry, and hardcoded into the game, but some things arent and some things probably cant be, this isnt a reason to not have rules about those things if in fact they effect the fun and competition in the game. And again, im not saying I agree that all the rules in PA fit this standard, but I think roid and ship farming do.
__________________
Germania
Fury
Mercury & Solace
Conspiracy Theory, Wrath, 1up, ICD, Eclipse
Last edited by K-W; 25 Oct 2006 at 06:18.
|
|
|
25 Oct 2006, 08:19
|
#32
|
Pedantic hypocrite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Back and to the left
Posts: 1,488
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
I think this long string of practically content-less replies illustrates nicely what a contested issue this is. Discussing what is fun and what is not is pointless. Everyone has their own definition and is unlikely to change it due to some brilliantly presented internet argument.
__________________
I always wanted to be a dancer, but I could never get the shit off my shoes
.......
|
|
|
25 Oct 2006, 08:30
|
#33
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,663
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
K-W you have my full support (for what it's worth :P).
Farming is good for those kids used to get cheat codes for every game they play coz they just don't have the ability or the patience to try and win fairly.
At signup have a tick box 'yes i want to farm' and put all those who select it in special galaxies where ingal attacks will be allowed, and let them sort it out between themselves.
__________________
<smith> You're 15 and full of shit.
<Furious_George> no, im 22
|
|
|
25 Oct 2006, 09:40
|
#34
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
That is the most pedantic argument I think I've ever been involved in and I'm nearly in tears rereading it.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
25 Oct 2006, 10:41
|
#35
|
Victim of Marriage
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 784
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
That is the most pedantic argument I think I've ever been involved in and I'm nearly in tears rereading it.
|
I gave up at about post 30 on reading it, as it's becoming very redundant.
Not to mention it's going off topic a lot, and I didn't find the initial argument that convincing in the first place. Stating "more roids = more fun, science fact", is in itself wrong. It's an opinion, and it may be a widely shared opinion among a majority, but that does not make it a fact. A fact is something that's proven beyond a doubt. An example would be George Bush is President of the US. That's a fact, it may not be a popular fact, but it is a fact. I think that farming should not be allowed is an opinion.
The only thing that legalization of farming will probably do is increase the number of planets, giving a false projection of the number of people who actually play the game. It might actually help attract more players even, but more than likely it will still come down to who has the most planets, and the most friends to defend there main planet.
__________________
You mean there's life outside the internet...oh man I'm screwed.
|
|
|
25 Oct 2006, 10:59
|
#36
|
Pedantic hypocrite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Back and to the left
Posts: 1,488
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt25man
I gave up at about post 30 on reading it, as it's becoming very redundant.
|
You lasted longer than me, but then I've actually had this argument with K-W
Quote:
Not to mention it's going off topic a lot, and I didn't find the initial argument that convincing in the first place. Stating "more roids = more fun, science fact", is in itself wrong. It's an opinion, and it may be a widely shared opinion among a majority, but that does not make it a fact. A fact is something that's proven beyond a doubt. An example would be George Bush is President of the US. That's a fact, it may not be a popular fact, but it is a fact. I think that farming should not be allowed is an opinion.
The only thing that legalization of farming will probably do is increase the number of planets, giving a false projection of the number of people who actually play the game. It might actually help attract more players even, but more than likely it will still come down to who has the most planets, and the most friends to defend there main planet.
|
You are, of course, correct. I was using irony when I stated that it was "science fact" that more roids would lead to more fun. In the end, Planetarion has almost always come down to who has more and more qualified friends. The only exception that comes to mind is round 16, when the winner had almost no assitance (relative to other winners) from others.
I also agree that legalization of farming will probably increase the number of planets (probably paid planets, since they are better farms).
To be honest, at this point I'm more interested in discussing the use of the EULA to control play than whether or not farming is fair, fun or will kill the game. I'd like to get past the emotions that farming in specific brings up and instead look at how PAteam and the multihunters choose to patch the rules rather than fix the fundamental flaws in the game. Because if farming isn't how PA is meant to be played, then the game, not the definition of cheating, needs to be changed.
__________________
I always wanted to be a dancer, but I could never get the shit off my shoes
.......
|
|
|
25 Oct 2006, 12:16
|
#37
|
Flash in the PAN
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Birmingham, Romania
Posts: 554
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
Why are you so focused on the EULA ? Rules are rules, and they are there to protect the game.
A game of football with no rules is just a field with 22 men stood on it.
|
|
|
25 Oct 2006, 12:29
|
#38
|
Pedantic hypocrite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Back and to the left
Posts: 1,488
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shyne
Why are you so focused on the EULA ? Rules are rules, and they are there to protect the game.
|
I answered this in my original post, see in particular the second and third paragraph.
__________________
I always wanted to be a dancer, but I could never get the shit off my shoes
.......
|
|
|
25 Oct 2006, 12:35
|
#39
|
wasted
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Under the floorboards
Posts: 1,240
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shyne
Why are you so focused on the EULA ? Rules are rules, and they are there to protect the game.
A game of football with no rules is just a field with 22 men stood on it.
|
Yes, but rules should be clear and easy to understand. They should limit the powers of the rule-enforcers just as much as they limit the actions of the players.
The problem with the EULA is that it says that PA team reserves the right to decide if certain conduct is disallowed, even if there is no specific rule against that conduct. Instead of making an objective judgement of fact (did the player break the rules?) the multihunters are forced to make a subjective judgement of morals (did the player act in a bad way?). The problem for the players is that they cannot predict what the PA team might decide is 'bad' conduct. This creates a secondary problem of people lobbying PA team to get them to consider certain hitherto ignored behaviour as 'bad' - witness the campaigns against 'support planets' as an example.
This is bad for two reasons:
1) It's bad for the players. If I'm playing a game, I want to be able to read the rules and decide my strategy based on those rules. If the rules are open to multiple interpretations, and I have no way of knowing for certain how those rules will be interpreted, then my strategic choices are limited. If I make an honest choice to pursue a strategy which has no clear rule against it, and am later punished for doing so, this is unfair.
2) It's bad for the multihunters. Instead of being neutral arbiters of the rules, multihunters are forced to make subjective judgements. This opens them to accusations of bias, and creates a situation where people will try to exercise pressure - by forum posting, IRC harassment or other means - on the multihunters in order to influence their decisions. Because the MHs cannot simply say 'the rules say this, I'm only following the rules', they have no way out of this situation.
The point is that games are games; they have rules, and these rules should be easy to understand. Some games, for example role-playing games, may rely on the human judgement of a particular individual (the DM/GM), but competitive games generally rely on strict, codified laws which are enforced equally in all situations, with only slight leeway for referees and umpires to exercise their personal judgement.
What we have now is a system of semi-codified laws, with considerable arbitrary decision-making power granted to PA team to intervene as they see fit. This isn't a rant about PA team, their personnel or their individual judgement; I just don't think that any team of volunteers should be put in such a stressful position. The game would be better with simpler rules and fewer restrictions. Let players use the tactics that they want, and see what happens. If certain tactics become problematic, then fix them in the next round, after a period of reflection. Ideally, fix them by changes to the game engine that makes these tactics less effective, rather than by banning and policing (which is always going to be a fallible process).
__________________
“They were totally confused,” said the birdman, whose flying suit gives him a passing resemblance to Buzz Lightyear in Toy Story. “The authorities said that I was an unregistered aircraft and to fly, you need a licence. I told them, ‘No. To fly, you need wings’.”
|
|
|
25 Oct 2006, 12:52
|
#40
|
Pedantic hypocrite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Back and to the left
Posts: 1,488
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
Quote:
Originally Posted by ComradeRob
What we have now is a system of semi-codified laws, with considerable arbitrary decision-making power granted to PA team to intervene as they see fit. This isn't a rant about PA team, their personnel or their individual judgement; I just don't think that any team of volunteers should be put in such a stressful position. The game would be better with simpler rules and fewer restrictions. Let players use the tactics that they want, and see what happens. If certain tactics become problematic, then fix them in the next round, after a period of reflection. Ideally, fix them by changes to the game engine that makes these tactics less effective, rather than by banning and policing (which is always going to be a fallible process).
|
A very good example of correct behavior would be round 16 and the following changes to the XP formula. I wouldn't say that the XP formula in round 17 was perfect, but would it have been better to make a rule in the EULA against playing for XP and close people who 'exploited' the loophole? Definitely not. I think the same holds for situations such as farming and to a far greater extent support planets.
__________________
I always wanted to be a dancer, but I could never get the shit off my shoes
.......
|
|
|
25 Oct 2006, 19:25
|
#41
|
Victim of Marriage
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 784
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
I don't think that there's anything wrong with having the EULA. I would push perhaps for having it slightly more detailed in some areas, but overall removing rules, or the ability to enforce them will just create even more anarchy than there already is, and lead to players who just want to play the game to have fun leaving because they're not willing to go that extra mile in seeing what they can get away with, and never seeming to accomplish anything in the game.
Even if the EULA covered every possible situation, was detailed in what was not allowed and what the consequences were or could be, there would always be someone or a group of people that wasn't happy with it because it actually makes the game fair instead of giving them that loophole they've been exploiting since Round 1.
As a side note, I always think it's interesting to see who pushes for a particular thing such as allowing farming, or support planets, becuase generally (and this is an opinion based on observation) the people who want it to be allowed are the ones doing it already, or have done it in the past.
__________________
You mean there's life outside the internet...oh man I'm screwed.
|
|
|
25 Oct 2006, 19:35
|
#42
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
There's no such thing as an unfair game if everyone follows the rules. The problem arises when you don't know what the rules prohibit.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
Last edited by JonnyBGood; 25 Oct 2006 at 21:03.
|
|
|
25 Oct 2006, 19:53
|
#43
|
Pedantic hypocrite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Back and to the left
Posts: 1,488
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt25man
I don't think that there's anything wrong with having the EULA. I would push perhaps for having it slightly more detailed in some areas, but overall removing rules, or the ability to enforce them will just create even more anarchy than there already is, and lead to players who just want to play the game to have fun leaving because they're not willing to go that extra mile in seeing what they can get away with, and never seeming to accomplish anything in the game.
Even if the EULA covered every possible situation, was detailed in what was not allowed and what the consequences were or could be, there would always be someone or a group of people that wasn't happy with it because it actually makes the game fair instead of giving them that loophole they've been exploiting since Round 1.
As a side note, I always think it's interesting to see who pushes for a particular thing such as allowing farming, or support planets, becuase generally (and this is an opinion based on observation) the people who want it to be allowed are the ones doing it already, or have done it in the past.
|
To clarify, I don't have a problem with the existence of the EULA, or even the cheating clause. What I have an issue with is the way the cheating clause has been expanded at the behest of groups with vested interests. I think you'll find that the people who complain against farming are just as commonly people who would rather not farm. Mind you, neither of these groups are absolute. Despite my stance, I've never farmed.
I'd also argue that the EULA prevents the game from being fair, since the multihunters can never hope to apply the standards universally and equally. Every case is based on partial information and human judgement. If the game system prevented 'cheating' behavior inherently, there would be no need for this flawed waste of energy. And the multihunters could instead devote their energy to the forms of cheating that the game system can not enforce, that is multying and account sharing.
__________________
I always wanted to be a dancer, but I could never get the shit off my shoes
.......
Last edited by Jester; 25 Oct 2006 at 21:12.
|
|
|
25 Oct 2006, 22:43
|
#44
|
Inactive peon
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,050
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
Just to confuse matters entirely and to generally be a pain... If farming were allowed I'd propose properly building it into the game mechanics - for example one could add the ability to transfer roids within a galaxy or within an alliance. In fact one could perhaps impose the same limits on this as are imposed on resource transfers - the idea being an alliance could choose to boost up a planet that was just heavily roided (note I realise this has real implications for so called xp farming).
A real advanatge of my crazy suggestion is that it could allow enitrly new tactics - an alliance could realisitcly decide to play fully offensivly and not bother defending - as roids gained from attaking could be transfered to thoose planets that were attacked and lost roids. It would add a whole new level of tactical and strategic options.
As well as the obvious limits I'd also perhaps propsoe that roid transfers would take time, and perhaps require the use of ships with a new mission type to support it.
Now I know I'm mad - but I'm hugely in favour of taking gaming elements and formalising them as part of the game mechanics and then hence remove the need to "cheat" and give the ability to simplify the eula.
|
|
|
26 Oct 2006, 09:48
|
#45
|
Pedantic hypocrite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Back and to the left
Posts: 1,488
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
I don't agree on the specifics you cite, but that is one much better way of dealing with it than expanding the EULA.
__________________
I always wanted to be a dancer, but I could never get the shit off my shoes
.......
|
|
|
26 Oct 2006, 10:32
|
#46
|
Victim of Marriage
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 784
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal
Just to confuse matters entirely and to generally be a pain... If farming were allowed I'd propose properly building it into the game mechanics - for example one could add the ability to transfer roids within a galaxy or within an alliance. In fact one could perhaps impose the same limits on this as are imposed on resource transfers - the idea being an alliance could choose to boost up a planet that was just heavily roided (note I realise this has real implications for so called xp farming).
A real advanatge of my crazy suggestion is that it could allow enitrly new tactics - an alliance could realisitcly decide to play fully offensivly and not bother defending - as roids gained from attaking could be transfered to thoose planets that were attacked and lost roids. It would add a whole new level of tactical and strategic options.
As well as the obvious limits I'd also perhaps propsoe that roid transfers would take time, and perhaps require the use of ships with a new mission type to support it.
Now I know I'm mad - but I'm hugely in favour of taking gaming elements and formalising them as part of the game mechanics and then hence remove the need to "cheat" and give the ability to simplify the eula.
|
This sounds like a great idea. Except you're basically just giving the bigger alliances another tool they can exploit to make the game better for them, and abuse it for all it's worth. Perhaps we should start looking at ways to make the game more balanced so that all the players can enjoy it, and succeed, and not just those in a top 10 alliance.
__________________
You mean there's life outside the internet...oh man I'm screwed.
|
|
|
26 Oct 2006, 11:05
|
#47
|
wasted
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Under the floorboards
Posts: 1,240
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt25man
This sounds like a great idea. Except you're basically just giving the bigger alliances another tool they can exploit to make the game better for them, and abuse it for all it's worth. Perhaps we should start looking at ways to make the game more balanced so that all the players can enjoy it, and succeed, and not just those in a top 10 alliance.
|
Enjoyment is not zero-sum. One person's enjoyment does not come at the expense of another's enjoyment.
You might well have some good reasons for disagreeing with Kal's suggestion, but the idea that the game needs more 'balance' is not one of them. You do not improve a game by fighting against things that would make the game more fun for some people, you do it by suggesting ways in which the game could also be made more fun for others. The game would be perfectly 'balanced' if nobody enjoyed it at all, but that wouldn't be a desirable outcome.
__________________
“They were totally confused,” said the birdman, whose flying suit gives him a passing resemblance to Buzz Lightyear in Toy Story. “The authorities said that I was an unregistered aircraft and to fly, you need a licence. I told them, ‘No. To fly, you need wings’.”
|
|
|
26 Oct 2006, 11:56
|
#48
|
Victim of Marriage
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 784
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
Quote:
Originally Posted by ComradeRob
Enjoyment is not zero-sum. One person's enjoyment does not come at the expense of another's enjoyment.
You might well have some good reasons for disagreeing with Kal's suggestion, but the idea that the game needs more 'balance' is not one of them. You do not improve a game by fighting against things that would make the game more fun for some people, you do it by suggesting ways in which the game could also be made more fun for others. The game would be perfectly 'balanced' if nobody enjoyed it at all, but that wouldn't be a desirable outcome.
|
I disagree, I think the game would be more balanced if everyone was having fun, not just those who happen to know the right people or be in the right alliance. If you re-read my post, I said make it more enjoyable for everyone, perhaps you didn't catch that part.
__________________
You mean there's life outside the internet...oh man I'm screwed.
|
|
|
26 Oct 2006, 12:15
|
#49
|
Insomniac
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,583
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
'removing' the need to cheat by turning a blind eye to it and claiming it as a feature is a bad idea imo. We might as well throw out any pretense of the game being fair to all if that slippery slope is started upon. Not everyone has questionable ethics and a willingness to win "at all costs, to hell with the consequences"
|
|
|
26 Oct 2006, 12:27
|
#50
|
Pedantic hypocrite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Back and to the left
Posts: 1,488
|
Re: The case for legalizing farming
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil^
'removing' the need to cheat by turning a blind eye to it and claiming it as a feature is a bad idea imo. We might as well throw out any pretense of the game being fair to all if that slippery slope is started upon. Not everyone has questionable ethics and a willingness to win "at all costs, to hell with the consequences"
|
The devil's advocate in me wants to say "You're right, those people are called losers." However, I don't think that is true. As you can see from my previous posts, I don't advocate simply removing the cheating clause as it currently stands. I advocate fixing the game system rather than invoking PAteam's community power. The best example here is the support planet clause. It would be trivially simple to fix the most blatant abuse (the one that caused the rule to be put in place in the first place): just place a hardcoded limit on who can defend who, but instead a crap rule was created at the behest of a bunch of whiners.
The problem is that PAteam solve game system problems by legislating and fobbing off the problem to the multihunters to solve. The solution is to fix the game, not patch it with more EULA clauses.
__________________
I always wanted to be a dancer, but I could never get the shit off my shoes
.......
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 16:06.
| |