Serious question. They only play to wreck the game for players who care enough to try.

Trolls are banned from message boards. Other games ban those that only exist to wreck other players enjoyment. Loud mouth drunks are banned from the ball park. Drunk drivers lose their license. Sex offenders are banned from schools and parks. Terrorists can't ride on planes.

The entirety of society restrict those who only exist to harm others.

Why in the world don't the leaders of this game put an end to those who only exist to destroy the enjoyment of the game itself?

You can glance at my post on the suggestions board but apparently QZ thinks that figuring out who is a griefer isnt possible despite it being completely possible. It isnt hard to see who has targeted certain groups set after set or who has simply suicided every set they ever played(Edge?). The funny thing is he protects these players while they lose people actually playing the whole game do to their crap.

Simple.

Does a suicider break game server rules?

No.

End discussion.

Summed it up perfectly.

^ bonus

some of them do

Assuming we accept your premise as fact for the sake of this discussion:

Why did the leaders of this game make recent changes to game mechanics that they believed were designed to slow down or nurf actions that were not against the rules?

brink, great post. i was wondering the same and created a similar thread a few months back - but all it did was feed the idiot trolls :(

my main contention was - if we let suiciders run free, why not just let the bots back?

Ridiculous idea.

It fed the trolls because you are probably one of the retards asking for this change while running a POS Rep with no defense and enough jets to farm some small tag into oblivion.

I've got an equally stupid idea - ban the players in large alliances farming small alliances because they're wrecking the game for them!!

err... some non-suiciders break the rules as well. should we ban non-suiciders?

edit: I am in favour of bans on repeat rule breakers though. instead of letting someone try to cheat repeatedly in different ways, just ban them from the game.

dagga - i don't run reps in 1a. what is this? 1999?

Because without suiciders then netters would run 0 defence countries and expect to get away with it. banning suiciders is a retarded idea.

erm...

netters would run 0 defense countries? try again

Perhaps he referred to people who only play to suicide? That is a different story imo.

Vic they pretty much do as it is.


i disagree locket.

So if 20 players from some clan retired and decided that they would stay around and suicide Evo and MD every set for the next year you would have no problem with that? The alliance which they came from can not be blamed for it correct? What does Evo do to avoid this? Try politics? Nope. Kill the previous alliance of the players? Nope. Only would spur them on most likely. Kill the players? It doesn't matter to them. Even killing them hurts Evo and MD's netting goals.

post

suiciders suicide in most cases because they feel wronged by that tag. Whether that was imagined or real it doesn't really matter because if you start banning suiciders then you take away all consequences for big tags bullying small tags and untags. If LAF were to farm me into the ground and then I suicided the next couple sets on them should I be banned for it? Of course not, so the question becomes how to you differentiate between suiciders with reasons and suiciders who do it just to ruin other people's fun? I don't think you can because you never know what happened to cause the suiciding. It could have been political and not in game, or something done on irc or in clan. There is just no way to keep track of all that stuff.

And? Warring tags tend to hurt netting goals too. Should war tags be banned too?

It's one of the risks of the server, and the current approach, of measured changes making it harder to suicide effectively, rather than arbitrary bannings for subjective possible future actions, is fairer to all.

If I ran the game I would ban serial suiciders. It's common sense.

war clans hurt alliances more than suiciders. gonna ban them too?

players have fun to net, to war and it seems that some have fun to suicide... so why your fun is better than another one? No rules broken = no ban. And i would like remember that EE is a war game... so get defenses and stop crying when someone topfeed or farm you. The goal of this game is to get the highest networth with tools you have in hands (army, tech, acres etc)

The game is now so boring, stupid and brainless... you can't topfeed, you can't bottomfeed, you can't even grab someone in your size cuz anyways they will retal L:L, only way to grow up is to explore all set long... and now alliances don't sign defense pacts or NAP... they sigh "grab agreement"... if you wanna grab, you should have alliances permissions.... lol thats totally ridiculous. The game is not going in the good way. I had more fun to play that game in 99 than now, even if we had bots problems.

imo, I think if bots were brought back, there would be *less* suiciders.

THE SOLUTION IS SIMPLE: VIGILANTE JUSTICE! JUST DO RANDOM KILL RUNS ON UNTAGGED COUNTRIES IMHO.

HA!

BILL

By the same logic we should ban netters from mass farming low nw countries to get land too. Limit grabs to one per day per country and each country can only be successfully grabbed once per day.
(I would think that would suck though)

tbh I think most of the problems come about through alliance imposed rules/agreements rather than the game mechanics themselves.

But martian, don't you think the "alliance imposed rules/agreements" came about precisely because of the game mechanics?

For example, L:L was invented because of topfeeding mechanics.

Clan:Country retals were invented because of the introduction of clan tags.

Reps for future production lost was invented because of the game mechanic called "stocking" and the concept of future stock, etc (stocking was invented because of the 2b cash limit mechanic, now called corruption).

Are you serious? and what are you suggest? At some point a game is a game with his rules and "mechanics". I think larges alliances have just forget the goal of this game and created a politic environment which is "who is next to impose his new rule" escalating.

it's not that hard... if you are fat, you should have defense to protect your land. If you have a big stockpill, you should have defense to protect it again. Everybody know that the best way to gain max NW is to build with as less defense as possible. Alliances exist for that... to protect you, retal for you if you can't retal, sign pacts and war if your alliance is abused.

I agree that every hit should be retalled (1:1) and you can play with the delay between hit and retal, but L:L and all those similar "politics", are against of the goal of this game.

Ban suiciders!

Also, ban two-steppers as well!

If you're going to grab alliances, make sure you have enough defense to protect you. If you can't keep them from doing L:L on you, then you didn't have enough turrets. Stop hiding behind a retal policy, and start hiding behind turrets. Either that, or stop grabbing people that can retal you.

I agree. This is good advice especially for countries that are stocking lots of cash on hand.



Good idea, we should all grab small helpless untaggeds only.

So why does L:L still stand as of today? Almost all alliances use L:L.

You failed to understand that the policies of clans today are a direct consequence of game mechanics, and politics, and meta-politics and then meta-meta-politics to turn the game mechanics into their advantage.

The admins changed the game so that restarts now start with more land and CS - so because of this game mechanic change, clans change from killing to maiming in wars and for dealing with mid/late set suiciders.

With the game mechanic change of ramping up specials, war chat leaders stopped using CMs against countries because they actually make GS or BR killing take more hits unless the CMs were used at the very end of the kill. (They are better used in pure-CM-only kills, unless everyone in the target clan has SDI, then it doesn't matter who you fling it at, just use it before they get defused.)

Everything in this game revolves around game mechanics, if L:L wasn't beneficial to both alliances (due to the ghost acre game mechanic), it might not even be widely accepted today.

And why would you claim L:L is against the goal of the game? The goal (at least, LaF's goal) is to be the best clan (hopefully triple crown), and L:L goes a long way towards that goal. You might not share this goal, but a lot of people do. And that is why there are different clans, different clans have different goals.

@xin: actually SoF didn't implement land:land just because of top feeding mechanics although I'll let helmet answer that since it was under his watch.
Also single grabs didn't used to be retalled until certain alliances decided that they ought to be.

The decision to destroy a small tag in a day has very little to do with game mechanics.

The decision to want reps has nothing to do with game mechanics, the decision on how to calculate reps does. If I ran a tag and you asked me for reps and I told you to fluff off, that has nothing to do with the game mechanics really.

the idea of pacts and coalitions has nothing to do with game mechanics really.

The strategies you use to implement your tag's policies are influenced by game mechanics, but to say that we should be changing game mechanics to completely control game behavior would make the game *very* unfun and/or result in a continuing conflict between game mechanics and people trying to find loopholes in the game mechanics or people lobying for game mechanic changes to suit their particular playing style.

Players that play soley to suicide others basically cause others to quit.


Ie; take you PP as an example, between you and KJ suiciding RD/LaF/PDM every reset for the last year. You've managed to cause a total of about 9 players to quit the game.

So for the little bit of fun you've caused 9/500 to leave the game. almost 2% in less than a year.

congrats? :)

Or you can do what LaF's techers do when they grab, and get turrets.

Yeah but that isn't any good either rockman, cause then people complain about being LGed by large countries and not being able to retal. It is evil and it hurts the game by frustrating players that get LGed by big countries.

</sarcasm>

Stupid idea is defined by this thread.

Don't want suiciders?, don't piss off people...

That prevents some suiciders. But not all of them.

Should I be banned as SoF (and probably LaF) are trying to ensure that I cannot play in the only alliance I'd join and run a country for?

Its not my fault that they cry so much when they get suicided, they are doing it to themselves.

blah blah blah, look, some alliances enjoy netting, some alliances enjoy war, some people enjoy messing up others sets. its a style of gameplay

^ says the suicider. :p

nope wouldnt have a problem with it because if 20 members are that angry the alliance must of done something to piss them off. though they could get a but more class and infiltrate EVO or MD and suicide from the inside. (we are only using evo/md as in example, dont think im endorsing people hitting you guys :P)

Ummmm

if I remmeber correctly, Imag runs 0 defense countries too as a war allaince.

So the whole netter runs 0 D countries is moot.

the problem is they shouldnt, we post MMR's and anyone running 0 defence gets taught lessons, we have no sympathy for those imag members and they know it.

There's a difference between someone retaliating for something that was done and those that play for the sole purpose of making others quit.


PP, KJ, KJ's other account, and Edge do nothing but suicide fo ratleast the past year some longer. The only thing they even try to do is get others to quit.

Monsters does the same with MMR's even though we are listed as netters

i disregard every one of servants mmrs!!shiftone!

ELIMINIATING "SUICIDERS" NOT ONLY WOULD NOT HELP THE HEALTH OF THE GAME, IT WOULD BE A DETRIMENT. I BELIEVE THIS FOR SEVERAL REASONS.

THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO FINISH A ROUND WELL IS ALREADY KNOWN BY 80% OR MORE OF THE PLAYERS, AND HAS BEEN FOR MANY YEARS: KEEP AS MUCH LAND AND AS LITTLE MILITARY AS POSSIBLE UNTIL NEAR THE END OF THE RESET. THE ONLY VARIABLES WHICH THE PLAYER CANNOT CONTROL ARE THE MARKET, AND ANGRY COMPETITORS. REMOVE THE ABILITY OF THE ANGRY COMPETITORS TO EXPLODE THINGS, AND YOU'RE LEFT WITH ONLY THE MARKET AS THE VARIABLE TO MASTER.

I FEEL AN INCREASE IN "SUICIDING" WOULD ACTUALLY LEAD TO A MORE INTERESTING GAME. NO LONGER COULD ONE SIT ON TENS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS UNTIL TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE END OF THE RESET. PLAYERS WOULD HAVE TO ACTUALLY BALANCE THE LOWER EXPENSES OF LIGHT MILITARY AGAINST THE RISK THAT THEY MAY AT ANY MOMENT BE ATTACKED VICIOUSLY. INSTEAD OF THE BEST "STOCKER" BEING THE WINNER EVERY RESET, IT MAY ONCE AGAIN BECOME THE PLAYER WHO IS BEST AT BALANCING MILITARY AND EXPENSES... OR AT ACTUALLY GROWING HIS COUNTRY IN A MORE REALISTIC AND BALANCED FASHION.

ALREADY, THANKS TO THE INCREDIBLY LARGE NUMBER OF GHOST ACRES TAKEN IN AN ATTACK, MANY PLAYERS KEEP VERY LITTLE DEFENSE BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT WORRIED ABOUT DEFENDING THEIR COUNTRY. SO WHAT IF YOU GET GRABBED? HIT BACK, AND THANKS TO GHOST ACRES, YOU AND THE ORIGINAL AGGRESSOR WILL BOTH COME OUT AHEAD. THIS IS A DYNAMIC WHICH I THINK NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED AND REDUCED OR ELIMINATED ALTOGETHER, BUT NOW I'M GETTING OFF THE SUBJECT. THE POINT IS, AS THINGS ARE NOW, WHAT REASON IS THERE TO HAVE DEFENSE AT ALL IF IT IS NOT LEGAL FOR ANOTHER PLAYER TO TRY TO DESTROY YOU?

FURTHERMORE, SMALLER COUNTRIES ARE ALREADY SO POWERLESS IN THIS GAME THAT MEMBERS OF LARGE ALLIANCES FEEL SAFE HITTING THEM TEN OR MORE TIMES IN A DAY. THE ONLY RISK FOR THE BOTTOMFEEDER IS THAT HE MAY ANGER HIS TARGET ENOUGH THAT HE DECIDES TO "SUICIDE". MAKE THE "SUICIDING" ILLEGAL, AND YOU HAVE NOW REMOVED ALL RISK FROM THE BOTTOMFEEDER.

AND FINALLY, THE POTENTIAL FOR "SUICIDING" LEADS TO MORE POLITE AND RESPECTFUL PLAY. I REMEMBER MANY MANY YEARS AGO IN THE TOURNAMENT, I USED TO SEND AN APOLOGY NOTE TO EVERY VICTIM OF MY AGGRESSION, OFTEN EVEN OFFERING AN ALLIANCE OR SOME FORM OF COMPENSATION FOR THE LAND I HAD STOLEN. IF THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY THAT THE VICTIM OF YOUR AGGRESSION MAY BUY UP A BILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF TANKS AND EXPLODE YOU WITH THEM, THEN WHAT REASON DO YOU HAVE TO NOT BE AN ARROGANT TYRANT?

ALMOST EVERY ONE OF YOU HERE COMMITS UNPROVOKED ACTS OF AGGRESSION EVERY SINGLE DAY IN ORDER TO GAIN LAND. IT IS HYPOCRISY TO SAY THAT SOMEONE WHO CHOOSES TO BE AGGRESSIVE AGAINST YOU IN A DESTRUCTIVE WAY SHOULD BE BANNED. YES, THE "SUICIDER" IS DAMAGING YOUR ABILITY TO FINISH WELL... JUST AS YOU DAMAGE THE ABILITY OF OTHERS WHENEVER YOU "LAND GRAB".

HA!

SAM
CHAMPION OF THE EUGLAF DIVISION,
THE MIGHTY CLAN [DANGER]!

Apparently we have to protect the people who are trying to get players to quit so that we can maintain the integrity of the game... yah.... that sure sounds great eh? Banning is the only option with the people you mention and if half these people had to deal with something like this they'd probably change their opinions.

Every action has the potential to cause players to quit. Anyone recall Arrow leaving as a tag because they were screwed reset after reset?

How about all the people telling Fazer to stop playing and leave already? Are they not also trying to drive players away?

Sucks to be on the receiving end, but who are you to determine when "enough is enough"? What is a proper retaliation and what "just screwing around to force others to quit"?

If they get farmed or screwed with set after set for years on end (e.g. by RD), why is it somehow not legit for them to return the favor now that the game actually has active cheat detection?